[Scorecard] Feedback appreciated on sustainability indicator metric

[Peter Vorster]

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
Council¹s  BMP¹s.  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 ³performing² , 1/2 point for ³partial², 1/4 point
for ³not on track², 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 ³score².  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 ³not
reporting² designation is scored.

Their ³score² 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 ³challenges and solutions².

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/20081209/55856c4c/attachment.html>