DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN - PROBABILITY OF DROUGHT OR OTHER SHORTAGE

An exact blueprint for coping with a meteorological drought cannot be prepared because the characteristics of the years surrounding the drought cannot be foreseen. Mapping out a supply insufficiency response plan is easier and benefits from the existing Water Services Department Emergency Response Plan.

This plan does benefit from the knowledge gained through research, preparation and experience in the implementation of the City of Phoenix Water Conservation Plan (1986 and 1998) and the development of City of Phoenix Water Resources Plan (1987, 1990, 1995, 2000). It also draws upon drought experience from California, Washington, Texas, and other states and regions.

Although the probability of serious drought impacts in Phoenix is low, the likelihood of water shortages in Phoenix during drought is high. Those probabilities change depending on differences in and the extent of the resource being tapped -- the Salt/Verde River system, or the Colorado River system. Generally, the further in the future we look, the greater the potential for a drought. Shortages will impact those living within the original Salt River Project area differently than those living "off project." Planning for drought, therefore, is wise. Additionally, it is prudent to consider emergency demand reduction measures for an unforeseen event, such as a temporary failure of pumping or transmission facilities or contamination of major sources of supply, which would have impacts similar to drought.

To prevent extensive drought damage, reliable levels of water supplies and appropriate demand management measures are needed so that the City of Phoenix will always have enough water. To date, Phoenix depends upon continued availability of groundwater to provide a reserve supply to cover surface water shortages.

Drought Management Authority
The Drought Management Plan provides standards for determining that drought conditions exist, what level of drought exists, when drought moves to higher or lower levels of severity, what measures are called for at each level, and when a drought has ended. Authority for this plan and for its enforcement is in the City Code, Chapter 37, Section 37-125 through 37-132 as revised. The code also defines increasing stages of drought severity for comparable emergency supply insufficiency incidents.

Resource conditions and drought trigger stages are defined by hydrologic parameters monitored by the Water Services Department in cooperation with the Salt River Project (SRP) and the Central Arizona Project (CAP.) Joint monitoring notwithstanding, only the Water Services Director may declare a drought, the stage of drought, and the level of response for the City of Phoenix water service area. For emergency supply insufficiencies, the Water Services Department alone monitors the appropriate level of supply and stages of response.

Water Resource Planning
Water demand management planning and conservation program implementations have been important for Phoenix in meeting growth expectations and to comply with the 1980 Arizona Groundwater Management Act. That act requires a diminished reliance on groundwater. Demand management activities are often categorized as either long-term or emergency and are arranged in five groups: education, leak detection and repair, metering, pricing, and regulation. Phoenix has continuing programs in all five areas.

In 1980, the Phoenix Uniform Building Code was amended to require low water use toilets, showerheads and other fixtures in new development, consistent with the best available technology. A new Plumbing Code, approved in 1990, made flow and use rates even more restrictive.

In 1982, Phoenix established the Water Conservation Office to begin public awareness programs. At the same time, the city implemented a water pricing strategy to encourage conservation.

Both water resource planning and water conservation program elements are described in greater detail in the Water Resources Plan (2000) and Water Conservation Plan (1998) and will not be discussed further here.

Demand Reduction and Public Information During Drought
Promotion of demand reduction actions to cope with emergency water shortages is usually well received. The public's willingness to cooperate under these circumstances was clearly demonstrated in California during the 1976-77 drought and again in 1988. Public perception that there is a need for extraordinary measures that may entail personal costs and/or inconveniences, and an understanding of the effectiveness of the prescribed actions, is essential in gaining public support.

Successful drought public information programs in California, Washington, Massachusetts, and Texas have confirmed the viability of educational approaches to drought.

A public information program must be targeted at five basic audiences: influential decision-makers; government service providers; commercial and industrial managers; news media; and private individuals. In addition, all special sub-sets of these audiences must be recognized, e.g., ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic groups, age groups, and disabled or other special communities. Of utmost importance is that the message must be credible, consistent, and easily available.

This drought management plan recognizes that the water situation during a drought is unpredictable and may change from week to week. Even if precipitation increases, the effect on the available water supply is not immediate. Credibility and believability will be crucial to voluntary public cooperation with changing circumstances.

It is important that the public be made aware as early as possible of the impact of the drought on water system costs. Reduced use will obviously reduce revenue. There may be additional costs incurred for purchasing water, for demand reduction programs, purchasing emergency pumps, pipes, and other equipment, increased water quality testing, ordinance enforcement, and other drought related activities.

Expected Conservation Behavior During a Drought
A significant drought study done for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in 1988 noted that fostering water conservation during drought consists of two important tasks: 1) convincing the consumers they should conserve water; and, 2) providing citizens with information on how to save water. Because of the behavioral dimension of water conservation, an effective drought response plan must rely on what is known about the decision-making process of individuals, especially as it relates to the theories of attitude change, persuasion, and communication.

Survey research conducted during previous droughts consistently reports that there are at least five predictable attitudes that are associated with the consumer's water use reduction behavior during drought.

These social behavior expectations are consistent with a report issued by the City of Seattle Water Department in 1987. Seattle focus group members cited more specific successes or problems based on their recent drought experiences, however, their comments and analysis reflect the same social behavior expectations. For example:

Businesses were also worried about the financial impact due to the information on landscape irrigation being given to the public and the possibility of having another summer drought. These same commercial customers were looking for straight, consistent messages from the Water Department and would have supported earlier actions if warranted. There was a general willingness from the businesses to work with the Department in a productive partnership to promote conservation with their customers.

Demand Management Options
The successful drought management techniques used by other regulatory agencies have included the following:

Public education for voluntary reduction;
Technical assistance to business and industry;
Leak detection and repair;
Residential plumbing retrofit;
Municipal use restrictions;
Outdoor use restrictions and bans;
Meter accuracy;
Pricing policies;
Moratorium on new water connections;
Physical rationing and mandatory reductions;
Voluntary shutdown of large water users;
Mandatory shutdown of large water users;
Valve restrictions or pressure reduction;
Institutional mechanisms.

Public Education for Voluntary Reduction
The goal of a good public education program is to generate an appropriate level of public awareness that results in the desired participation. Perception of reliability and honesty are two vital characteristics of a responsible public education program. To do otherwise would create confusion, threaten credibility, and could sabotage future programs.

The City of Phoenix has created and administered a credible water conservation public education program since 1982 and every effort has been made to avoid "scare" messages. The messages used in Phoenix programs have always been appropriate to the current water supply and demand situation. They stressed long-term management solutions, general awareness of water issues, and the recognition that Phoenix is a desert city with a desert's limited supply of water.

Technical Assistance to Business/Industry
In an effort to maintain the economy and preserve jobs, technical assistance would be offered in all but the most preliminary stage of drought onset where conservation measures are voluntary. This assistance would address all non-residential uses of water in the manufacturing or business process, and make recommendations on methods to reduce consumption while leaving the business in a competitive posture, able to survive drought with a minimum of hardship.

Leak Detection and Repair
The Phoenix Water Services Department has a program for repairing leaks and
replacing worn elements of the water distribution system. The resources devoted to this effort are based on the relative value of the water saved. During a drought, as water becomes more precious, greater focus would be placed on leak detection and repair.

Upon official declaration of drought, a more responsive and comprehensive leak detection and repair program would be created, expanding this effort. The first priority would be repair of known leaks. Second, leak detection and repair crews would be systematically sent into the parts of the water service area most susceptible to leaks to aggressively locate and repair leaks.

It is essential that the City assume an aggressive leak detection and repair program because of the potential water loss. Even more important is the perception about leaks since it impacts the public's willingness to reduce water use on their end.

Residential Plumbing Retrofit
Once citizens are convinced of the need to save water, residential retrofit is one of the most practical and effective approaches in providing them with "how-to" information on altering their water use habits. At the same time, it provides them with the technology to save water with the least impact on their lifestyle. The greatest water savings can be achieved by combining the use of conservation devices with behavioral changes since these two actions tend to reinforce each other.

For Phoenix, however, retrofitting will have limited impact. During the past 12 years, more than 200,000 Phoenix water customers have voluntarily retrofitted showers, faucet aerators, and toilets to save water. The large number of homes built since implementation of restrictive plumbing codes also cannot benefit by device retrofitting. There is little that can be done to further reduce use by these water-using devices.
Future programs must focus on in-home leak repair, and complete replacement of toilets, and promotion of other water-using appliances such as water efficient washing machines. A program to persuade the public to routinely check toilets for leakage might be worth pursuing, even as often as every three months. Incentives for installation of water efficient washing machines and other appliances might also be appropriate during drought.

Municipal Use Restrictions
One drought condition priority will be the evaluation of all city, county, state, and federal government water use in the service area. It is necessary to pursue an aggressive and publicly visible municipal use restriction program to convince the public that the impacts of drought are being handled equitably within the public sector. The city must visibly lead by example.

There is no faster way to undermine the effectiveness of a water demand reduction program than to allow flagrant and visible water waste in public facilities. The public sector strategy for controlling municipal use is to at least follow restrictions requested of consumers. The amount of municipal water use is relatively small, about five percent of total citywide use. Restrictions are not expected to produce a large volume of savings. However, it is essential that steps be taken to establish the city as a leader in the drought effort, not merely a regulator of others' use of water.
Major water-using departments, divisions, and functions will be encouraged and assisted in developing drought responses based on this plan.

Outdoor Water Use Restrictions
Outdoor water-use is a significant portion of everyday consumption in Phoenix. Water consumption increases as much as 40 to 60 percent from March through October due to seasonal heat and cooling needs, and to a prolonged growing season in the desert environment. Drought certainly would have much more severe impact during these months, making restrictions and outright bans on outdoor water use of great impact.

Effective restrictions include time-of-day watering and odd/even lawn watering restrictions based on house numbering, or a combination of the two. In some California communities complete bans on all outdoor water use have been implemented. The potential loss of costly landscaping, and the impact to quality-of-life make complete bans an extreme measure.

Outdoor use restrictions help to reduce peak demand in the water treatment system, and improve water service pressure on maximum need days. The negative side of outdoor water use restrictions is that effectiveness diminishes over time, and enforcement is difficult and expensive. Peer pressure and citizen reports can help with enforcement, however, this can also have a negative "rat on your neighbor" effect.

In spite of enforcement difficulties, outdoor water use restrictions must be considered because of their potential benefits for early implementation and the water savings that can be derived. Implementation would require the commitment of resources to monitor violators and enforce restrictions. An appeal process also is necessary.

Other outdoor water restrictions or bans include washing down sidewalks, driveways or other hard surfaces, washing vehicles, limitations imposed on swimming pools and water features. All of these have appropriate implementation stages, most often because of the need to demonstrate that action is being taken against non-essential water use, and to avoid the illusion that there is water available to waste.

Enforcement of outdoor restrictions is an obvious gesture toward establishing credibility over equitable water use in the community. Phoenix presently encourages irrigation during the evening or early morning hours to reduce evaporation loss from watering in the heat of the day. It also results in less watering due, in part, to the inconvenience of having to water either very early or very late in the day. Automatic irrigation controllers, however, have diluted this saving somewhat, since it is not necessary to be present when the irrigation is running. In fact, it has contributed to problems, since an automated system may malfunction for some time, wasting water for days until it is spotted and repaired.

During drought, consumers are more impressed with the severity of the situation when outdoor restrictions are imposed, and studies have shown a spillover effect in reduced indoor water use.

Meter Accuracy
Aging meters tend to err in the direction of recording less than the full volume that is passing through them. For this reason, the city has a meter replacement program designed to gradually replace old meters. During a drought, it is imperative that all meters are registering water use accurately so that customers will receive an accurate price signal, and know they are paying the full cost of service. In early drought stages, monitoring meter accuracy more intensively and repairing or replacing them more rapidly is projected to have a positive impact on billing, proper application of any relevant drought surcharges, and in review and evaluation of hardship or special situation accounts.

By Drought Stage Two, or earlier, an aggressive theft prevention program should be in the field to assist in maintaining full metering of fire hydrant use, and to evaluate appropriate field or construction water use. Again, nothing undercuts city credibility faster than the perception that special classes of users -- in this case developers -- are getting preferential treatment.

Pricing Policies
An important concern created by a drought situation is the negative impact on revenues as a result of successful demand reduction. Such reductions are a natural result of successful demand management, balanced in the normal situation by offsetting reductions in costs. In the case of drought, however, such drops in revenue come at a time when operational expenses tend to increase. The establishment of financial systems to allow for fines, surcharges, or other measures to support programs such as extensive public education and the acquisition or development of new water supplies is required. It is important, however, that such surcharges not be regarded as general water revenue, but as a resource for drought response. Chapter 37, section 37-131 of the Phoenix drought ordinance (revised December 13, 2000) defines such surcharge, fee, and penalty income, and governs how such funds can be used.

Charges for water consumption have significant influence on the amount of water consumed. The Phoenix Water Services Department operates as an enterprise fund, neither receiving general fund support nor transferring surpluses to the city's general fund. Water rates are set primarily to produce revenue that only covers costs.

However, it is well established that increased rates have a powerful impact on water use reduction, at least in the short run.

If the drought condition continues to the point that voluntary conservation is not sufficient, the city would be forced to use alternative means to reduce water use during the critical period. The usual response in cities all across the country has been some form of rationing. There are various rationing schemes to consider. A physical rationing option is discussed under the title Physical Rationing and Mandatory Reductions.

There are a number of price rationing schemes which are usually employed for drought pricing. Current Phoenix water pricing already includes parts of at least two of these elements -- lifeline pricing and full cost recovery. A lifeline offers a basic quantity of water -- enough to meet the most critical needs -- at a low price. Water use above that is charged at full cost, usually with higher prices for higher use in incremental blocks of consumption.

Current Phoenix rates provide for a lifeline base use for all customers of 600 cubic feet (4,488 gallons) per month from October through May, and 1000 cubic feet (7,480 gallons) from June through September as part of the base service charge.

Phoenix does not, however, use increasing block rates (higher prices for higher volume use) for use above the base quantity. Phoenix charges a per-unit cost that varies with the season and the City's seasonal water resources cost. The per-unit charge is as close to full cost recovery as possible. During a drought, an additional surcharge may be added to it as a water use disincentive and to make up for short term increases in costs.

The surcharge amount would be determined at each drought stage based on the cost of services to implement water saving programs or acquisition costs necessary to meet reasonable water delivery demands. In Stage Four, Water Crisis, the surcharge would be raised above revenue requirements specifically as a strong disincentive for use, until demand matches supply.

An important consideration of any pricing recommendation is to project as accurately as possible the social welfare impact of increased water charges. A mechanism for remediation of the possible financial damage of surcharges above lifeline use will have to be developed as a welfare safety net for very low-income citizens. Some type of financial assistance or review process will be necessary to assist qualified hardship cases. Currently, through the work of credit counselors, consumer advocates, and a low-income plumbing repair and replacement program, the Water Services Department is responsive to individual and group needs or special requirements. Drought surcharges should be set high enough to provide increased funding for these efforts, even as higher costs force more residents to seek assistance.

Moratorium on New Water Connections
Curtailing water demand by curtailing growth is a controversial option, but one that must be considered should the drought situation require extreme measures. If supply status deteriorates and existing customers become impacted, it is inequitable to expect existing customers to make painful cuts in water use while new users are being added. This is a difficult issue since new users represent economic growth, both for the Water Services Department and the city as a whole.

Physical Rationing and Mandatory Reductions
Physical rationing and mandatory reductions are aggressive drought management techniques that have been used with varying degrees of success across the country, usually as last resort measures.

National experience documents that consumer response to rationing programs is more predictable than the response to public education measures. Therefore, the most effective method of achieving significant demand reductions is by rationing the available supply. There are two standard methods for rationing, either by physically rationing the available supply by stopping delivery at an allotted use, or by assessing a drought surcharge to ration use economically. The second of these, price rationing, offers the consumer more flexibility in quality-of-life issues and has less impact on the revenue stream of the utility which has normal or higher-than-normal operational expenses during a drought.
In California, where mandatory rationing was implemented in 1977, consumers responded by reducing water use further than was requested. In fact, one of the inherent problems with a rationing system is in the inability to accurately design the program to achieve only the desired demand reduction level. Again, it must be stressed that degrees of flexibility must be built into the effective drought management plan to allow for timely adjustments at all levels of planning and implementation.

Key elements of a successful rationing program are that: (1.) the resources and the hardships are shared as equitably as possible and (2.) that customers are kept informed about the status of the shortage. However, allocation disagreements are to be expected and procedures to handle valid exceptions and variances need to be part of the rationing program.
California's experiences show clearly that a good public information program facilitates administration and enforcement of any rationing plan. Pertinent information regarding water use and supply must be published and disseminated at least weekly to continually reaffirm customer commitment.

Physical rationing programs are generally patterned after one of these basic allocation schemes: percentage reduction, seasonal allotment, fixed allotment, and specific use bans. To better demonstrate the difficulty and expense which would be created by choosing to implement physical rationing for a utility the size of Phoenix the various physical rationing schemes are defined:

A percentage reduction assigns customers a consumption reduction goal, depending on water use, as a percentage of the consumption level used in a similar billing period during a normal season.

Fixed percentage reductions were widely implemented during the 1977 California drought. The fixed percentage system was easier to coordinate because water allocations were determined based on the previous years' bills. However, this method was widely perceived as inequitable because it had the effect of penalizing prior water conservation efforts while rewarding those who had previously used large quantities of water and did not engage in conservation practices. Also, this program did not distinguish between indoor and outdoor use.

Fixed allotment rationing establishes a customer's water consumption goal on a per-unit basis, such as per-capita or per-connection, calculated from an estimate of essential uses. A per-connection allotment is easier to implement, but may introduce unfair allocations where a wide range of users are covered by a single customer classification or where many people reside at a single residence.

Also, per household rationing does not adequately distinguish between families with large outdoor water use requirements and those with none. Surveys show customers generally prefer to determine their own water use priorities.

The seasonal allotment is similar, except that the consumption reduction goal is varied by the time of year.

Specific use bans are a rationing alternative; however, they do not increase or change the billing calculations. Instead they are imposed primarily through public education and enforcement. Specific use bans, such as lawn watering only every third day, prohibition on swimming pool filling, and prohibition on use of water features can be effective. Bans generate awareness and prioritizing of water use and they establish a sense of equity in the community.

Voluntary Shutdown by Large Water Users
The electric utility industry has been piloting procedures at some of the nation's largest power suppliers to meet critical peak load demands by working out agreements with major users to shut down and get off the power grid voluntarily during peak hours or days. The utility "buys" this additional capacity back from the customer, thus freeing many megawatts of power for other needs. For most utilities, this capacity buyback is less expensive than meeting peaking needs on the spot market.

During severe drought, a similar approach may be considered, where the city would "buy back" water from a customer who shuts down or moves demand to off peak time or reduced demand days to ease pressure on the system.

Under normal conditions, the cost of producing and delivering water is too low to create a significant economic stimulus to shut down and give up short-term use of water. During a drought, this might be a less costly approach to delivering water for critical needs, using a surcharge to pay for the higher cost of water from this source.

Mandatory Shutdown of Large Volume Users
Mandatory shutdown of large water users would be a drastic action, only done under the most extreme supply crisis. Long-term drought with long term shutdown of large industrial water users is potentially fatal to the local economy, as it would encourage manufacturers, and those who sell to those manufacturers to permanently relocate. This plan does not recommend considering mandatory large user shutdowns.

Valve Restrictions or Pressure Reduction
In some countries, most notably England in the early 1980's, an extreme drought situation resulted in the water supply operation shutting down for certain periods of the day. This causes extreme risk of inadequate fire protection and is not an appropriate option to meet the goals and objectives of the Phoenix Drought Management Plan.

Pressure reduction on municipal water distribution systems also can create increased risk of inadequate fire protection. The installation of pressure reducers in individual consumer services would accomplish the objective while not interfering with hydrant pressure.

Flow restricting valves are another consideration. Attached at the meter, such valves will slow the flow, and thus the water use. This would make it easier to maintain adequate system pressure during times of shortage, but would not be popular with most consumers.

Flow restriction may be a valid measure during extreme shortages or to limit inappropriate water use by those who repeatedly violate mandatory restrictions or consistently fail to achieve mandatory use reduction goals.

Institutional Mechanisms
Institutional mechanism such as ordinances and codes can be appropriate management tools for extended droughts. City staff would monitor compliance with such code changes, and compliance with the code would result in increased water savings and would help stretch a limited supply.

Water Use Reduction Guidelines
The question of when water use reduction adjustments become necessary is not a simple one to answer. Demand reduction may be necessitated by a number of factors impacting on the City's water resources. As deficiencies in supply increase, a comprehensive monitoring of available supplies, the modeling of demands, and the availability of emergency water supplies determine the response trigger points at which information campaigns or regulation would be implemented to alleviate the shortage and to govern the delivery of the available resources.

The response stages are based, in most instances, on the ability of Phoenix, Salt River Project, Central Arizona Water Conservation District, and other agencies to foresee points at which water availability would be effected. Curtailment of available water could be regional, citywide, or very localized to specific geographical sections within the city's water service area.

The authority necessary for the Water Services Department to declare a drought or other water use reduction condition and implement the appropriate stage of response is included in Drought Management section of the City Code: Article X of Chapter 37, Sections 37-125 through 37-132 as amended.


Discover Phoenix	Residents	Businesses	City Government	Employment	Youth & Seniors	e-Services	Home

Probability of Drought or Other Shortage