Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation

Transcription

1 Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Prepared for San Diego County Water Authority For submittal to: California Department of Water Resources Agreement # Prepared by: A & N Technical Services, Inc. April 2011

2 Table of Contents Table of Contents... i List of Tables... iv List of Figures... v Acknowledgements... vi Executive Summary... 1 Findings Water Savings per Site and per Acre... 4 Findings Cost Effectiveness... 4 Findings Program Design, Marketing, Eligibility & Processes... 6 Conclusions... 7 Chapter 1 Introduction... 8 Smart Landscape Grant Program... 8 Overview of Comprehensive Evaluation... 8 The Research Plan... 8 Process Evaluation Impact Evaluation Cost Effectiveness Analysis Chapter 2 Data and Methods Review Data Review and Compilation Interview Process Sample Selection Consumption Data Collection and Validation Chapter 3 Program Description Smart Landscape Grant Program Program Description Total Program Funding and Budget Program Management and Administration Marketing Operational Flow Participation Chapter 4 Process Evaluation i

3 Process Evaluation Methodology Interview Results per Stakeholder Group Implementer Interviews Member Agency Interviews Equipment Supplier Interviews Landscape Contractor Interviews Customer Interviews Chapter 5 Impact Evaluation: Actual Water Savings Approach Data and Methods Findings Chapter 6 Cost Effectiveness Analysis Identification Project Costs and Benefits Customer/Participant Water Supplier Society Water Savings Costs and Savings Summary of Project Costs and Benefits by Perspective Customer/Participant Water Supplier Society Chapter 7 Performance Relative to Smart Landscape Grant Program Goals Chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations Program Specific Recommendations Marketing Program Eligibility and Requirements Systems and Processes Overall Conclusions APPENDICES Appendix A Marketing Materials Appendix B Interview Questionnaires ii

4 Implementer Questionnaire Member Agency Questionnaire Equipment Supplier and Landscape Contractor Questionnaire Customer Questionnaire Appendix C Three Case Studies of Smart Landscape Grant Participants Appendix D A Statistical Intervention Analysis of Water Demand Specification Systematic Effects Stochastic Effects Estimation Results Estimated Smart Landscape Customer Water Demand Model iii

5 List of Tables Table ES.1.1 Sample List of Incentivized Devices... 2 Table ES.1.2 SL Grant Program Cost Effectiveness... 5 Table Reporting Requirements per DWR Contract Table 2.1 SL Grant Program Count by Customer Class within Agency Table 2.2 SL Grant Program Research Sample by Customer type (approx percent of total) Table 3.1 SL Grant Program General Results Table 3.2 SL Eligible Devices Table 3.3 SL Grant Program Overview Table 3.4 SL Grant Program Funding Table 3.5 SL Grant Program Funding Sources, Budgets, and Expenditures Table 3.6 SL Grant Program Cost Per Program Category Table 3.7 SL Grant Program Grantors and Roles Table 3.8 SL Grant Program Marketing Approach Responses Participants by Year by Marketing Method Table 3.9 Grant Program Participation Percentage and $ Table 3.10 SL Grant Program Participation by Customer Type Table 4.1 SL Grant Program Implementer Interview Results Table 4.2 SL Grant Program Implementer Comments Table 4.3 SL Grant Program Member Agency Interview Results Table 4.4 SL Grant Program Member Agency Comments Table 4.5 SL Grant Program Equipment Supplier Results Table 4.6 SL Grant Program Equipment Suppliers Comments Table 4.7 SL Grant Program Contractors and Vendors Table 4.8 SL Grant Program Landscape Results Table 4.9 SL Grant Program Customer Results Table 5.1 SL Grant Program Accounts Statistics Table 6.1 Ranges of Unit Cost of New Local Water Supply Alternatives Table 6.2 SL Grant Program Estimated Savings Table 6.3 SL Grant Program Cost Effectiveness Table 8.1 Eligibility and Requirements over Time Table C.0.1 SL Grant Program Customer Water Demand Model iv

6 List of Figures Figure ES.1 Water Waste Problems Targeted... 1 Figure ES.2 SL Grant Program Annual Participation... 3 Figure ES.3 Water Savings... 4 Figure ES.4 Cost Effectiveness... 5 Figure ES.5 Cost Effectiveness... 5 Figure ES.6 Process Evaluation Results... 6 Figure 1.1 Process and Impact Evaluation Sequence... 9 Figure 1.2 SL Grant Program Research Model Figure 2.1 Control Group and Participants Figure 2.2 SL Grant Program Percentage of Grants Awarded by Participating Agency Figure 3.1 Broken Pop up Nozzle at a Control Site Figure 3.2 SL Grant Program Requested Products Figure 3.3 SL Grant Program Product Distribution Channel Figure 3.4 SL Grant Process Flow Figure 3.5 SL Grant Program Honeywell Flow Chart Figure 3.6 SL Grant Program Annual Participation Figure 4.1 Process Evaluation Flow Figure 8.1 Urban runoff from poor irrigation at a nonparticipating site v

7 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY SMART LANDSCAPE GRANT PROGRAM ( ) [Formerly the Commercial Landscape Incentive Program (CLIP)] Acknowledgements MADE POSSIBLE BY THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY: California Department of Water Resources (Proposition 13) Baryohay Davidoff, Land and Water Use Program Manager Julie Saare-Edmonds, Office of Water Use Efficiency The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Enhanced Conservation Program) Andy Hui, Regional Supply Unit Manager Tim Schaadt, Water Resource Specialist Mike Hollis, Senior Resource Specialist United States Bureau of Reclamation, Temecula, CA (Water Conservation Field Services Grant) Bill Steele, Area Manager,. Southern California Area Office Deborah Whitney, WCFSP Coordinator SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY STAFF (WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM & WATER RESOURCES) William J. Rose, Water Conservation Program Executive Ken Weinberg, Water Resources Director Toby Roy, Water Resources Manager Carlos Michelon, Principal Water Resources Specialist Lori Swanson, Water Resources Specialist Kelly Mooney, Water Resources Specialist Michele Shumate, Water Resources Specialist Rose Smutko (ret.), Water Resources Specialist *Vickie Driver (ret.), Principal Water Resources Katherine Storms, Project Scheduler Specialist (*Project Manager ) Tim Bombardier, Senior Water Resources Specialist Jeff Stephenson, Senior Water Resources Specialist Trudy Robideau, Administrative Assistant Teresa Perez, Senior Office Assistant Kristine Wewerka, Student Intern *Mayda Z. Portillo, Senior Water Resources Specialist (*Project Manager ) PARTICIPATING WATER AUTHORITY MEMBER AGENCIES Carlsbad Municipal Water District Camp Pendleton City of Del Mar City of Escondido Fallbrook Public Utilities District Helix Water District Lakeside Water District City of Oceanside City of Poway Rainbow Municipal Water District Olivenhain Municipal Water District Otay Water District ( William Granger) Padre Dam Municipal Water District Ramona Municipal Water District Rincon Del Diablo Municipal Water District City of San Diego San Dieguito Water District Santa Fe Irrigation District Sweetwater Authority Vallecitos Water District Valley Center Municipal Water District Vista Irrigation District Yuima Municipal Water District PROGRAM CONTRACTORS Honeywell International, Program Contractor *Lorna Ross, Project Manager WSA Marketing, Marketing Consultant Wenda Alvarez, Marketing Consultant Mission Resource Conservation District, Program Service Provider Judi Mitchell, Program Service Coordinator A&N Technical Services, Program Evaluation Services Thomas W. Chesnutt, Ph. D., Dana Holt, M.Sc. vi With appreciation for contributions made to this report * Denotes project manager

8 Executive Summary This is the final report for the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Agreement number Commercial Landscape Incentive Program. This report complies with all written State reporting requirements (See Table 1.1). *** In 2004 the Water Authority, with funding from the Department of Water Resources Proposition 13, developed the Commercial Landscape Incentive Program (CLIP), now known as the Smart Landscape Grant Program (SL Grant Program). The purpose of the program was to test the effectiveness of a menu type outdoor irrigation incentive program in San Diego County. The desire by public water utilities to address outdoor irrigation efficiency was especially high during this time, because of an ongoing drought and pervasive outdoor water waste, as much as 50% of water applied 1. To maximize water savings opportunities, the program targeted large landscapes over one acre at multi family and commercial/public sites. Visual examples of the types of problems targeted by this program are illustrated in Figure ES.1 below. Figure ES.1 Water Waste Problems Targeted Excessive irrigation and overspray results in dry weather runoff. Prior to the SL Grant Program, the Water Authority focused solely on incentive programs for indoor devices (i.e. high efficiency toilets, etc.). Setting up a landscape incentive program presented many new challenges to Water Authority staff because the effectiveness of landscape incentive programs was largely untested statewide. Unlike indoor devices, irrigation systems consist of many interdependent components. In light of this, Water Authority staff developed the SL Grant Program, a menu type irrigation 1 Water Management. It Matters. Irrigation Association. Fall Church, VA: Irrigation Association. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 1 of 124

9 incentive approach in hopes of addressing the irrigation system as a whole and minimizing water waste. The Smart Landscape Grant program offered regional financial incentives for irrigation equipment retrofits to commercial, public, multifamily, industrial and institutional sites. The incentive rate was $2,500 per acre up to $5,000 for commercial, multifamily and industrial, and up to $10,000 for public sites. The incentive cap was higher for public sites due to the magnitude of their projects, landscape area and public designation. Incentives were disbursed to participants in the form of grants, by Honeywell International (the program vendor). A sample list of the types of devices incentivized via this program is provided in Table ES.1. Table ES.1.1 Sample List of Incentivized Devices Rotating Nozzles Pressure Compensating Heads Rotors Smart Controllers Check Valves Flow Sensors Rain Sensors Drip Flush Valves PVC Piping Valves Couplers Rotating Drip Smart Controllers Pictures: Courtesy of Ewing Irrigation. Honeywell International assisted the Water Authority with administration of the Smart Landscape Program starting in Their role was limited to: marketing; application review; incentive issuance; invoice quality control; and onsite verification. Honeywell played a crucial role in making the SL Grant Program a positive customer experience. A summary of the process to obtain an incentive is summarized below. Incentive funding was paid, post installation, following an installation verification site visit. Reimbursement for the purchase of eligible irrigation hardware was dependent upon successful installation and a passing inspection. Customers paid for the cost of the installation and any hardware above the incentive cap. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 2 of 124

10 Program interest was not always high. During the first two years of implementation low water rates made the pay back periods for retrofits too long and not cost effective. Program staff encouraged participants to consider other costs associated with water waste, such as water damage to infrastructure (e.g. fences; driveways; sidewalks; stucco; and other permanent fixtures) to motivate participation. In , worsening drought conditions forced many local agencies to implement restrictions on excess water use such as: limited irrigation times and days; and prohibition on run off and overspray. Agencies also raised water rates and changed their rate structures to penalize excess use. These actions resulted in higher participation rates for the SL Grant Program (Refer to Figure ES.2). Figure ES.2 SL Grant Program Annual Participation Participants SL Grant Program Annual Participation Completion Year After the Water Authority exhausted available DWR grant funding, additional grant funds from the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Metropolitan Water District were obtained to extend the program. This infusion of new money allowed the program to span from 2004 to 2009, when funding was finally exhausted. In total, $2,387,949 was issued to multi family and commercial/public (CII) sites via 474 grants ($2,500 per acre, up to $5,000 for multi family/cii sites and up to $10,000 for public sites). DWR s contribution to the referenced amount above was $1,116,082 (217 grants). 2 To assess the SL Grant Program s effectiveness, per the Water Authority s agreement with DWR, the Water Authority retained A&N Technical Services (consultant) to perform an evaluation and document results in this report 3. As part of the evaluation, the consultant conducted a process evaluation and an impact assessment as well as a cost benefit analysis for a representative sample of sites. The SL Grant Program was found to cost effectively 2 Note that the amount DWR funds expended is slightly less than the original amount authorized ($1.125 million) due potential participants dropping out after filing an application. There were matching outlays from SDCWA, MWD, and USBR that are detailed in Table 3.4 within the body of the report. 3 The results are inclusive of DWR funded and non DWR funded sites. Where necessary, results are segregated to show the results of DWR sites vs. others. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 3 of 124

11 save a significant amount of water. A summary of the findings is provided in the next section. Findings Water Savings per Site and per Acre Water savings per site were estimated from the statistical impact evaluation to be, on average, 13.7 percent or.21 AF per acre, per year Refer to Figure ES.3. These savings are in addition to water savings attributable to regional messaging, ordinances, etc. To isolate water savings attributable to this program, the consultant compared participant water use to that of a similar control group. Additional savings information by sector is provided in subsequent sections. The data shows a higher savings rate at CII sites than Multi Family sites. This disparity in the savings rates can be explained by the nature of the site types. Multi family sites tend to be more cost conscious than CII sites, therefore offering fewer savings opportunities. MF Sites (Control Group) Figure ES.3 Water Savings WATER SAVINGS PARTICIPANTS VS. CONTROL GROUP 13.7% All Sites (Participants) Multi family Sites 4 : The sample of 235 multi family accounts (representing 641 separately metered sites) that participated in the SL Grant Program saved an average 10.8 percent 5. The savings rate per acre, per year for MF sites was.13 AF or 42,360 gallons. Commercial, Industrial, Institutional (CII) Accounts: Among a smaller sample of 77 CII accounts (representing 166 separately metered sites), significant water savings of approximately 20.5 percent were obtained from participation in the Smart Landscape Grant Program 6. The savings rate for CII sites was.46 AF or 149,891 gallons per acre, per year. The total volume of water savings, including multiple family sites and commercial sites funded by DWR is estimated to be 2, acre feet over the expected lifetime. The following section assesses the cost effectiveness of this program by site type (MF versus CII sites), for all sites in the program, and for DWR funded sites. Findings Cost Effectiveness The SL Grant Program whether viewed in its entirety or only the DWR funded sites offers a cost per acre foot saved that is favorable when compared to the cost of additional water supplies imported into San Diego County (See Figure ES.4). Each acre foot of water conserved by the SL Grant Program avoids the cost of importing an additional acre foot of 4 Multi family sites refers to the common areas within a multi family complex percent to 12.4 percent is the 95 percent confidence level percent to 23.0 percent is the 95 percent confidence level Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 4 of 124

12 water. Additional water supplies imported into San Diego County currently cost over 800 dollars per acre foot (Metropolitan s 2010 Tier 2 Treated Water Rate) and are projected to increase in the future. This is a lower bound in that it does not include any water supplier costs within the county. The cost per acre foot for DWR funded sites is also very favorable relative to imported water (see Figure ES.5). Table ES.2 presents the estimated costeffectiveness of the SL Grant Program in more detail. Figure ES.4 Cost Effectiveness Figure ES.5 Cost Effectiveness Table ES.1.2 SL Grant Program Cost Effectiveness Estimated Cost Effectiveness SL Grant Program Site Type Label Value Units All Sites Lifetime Water Savings All Acre Feet net savings over a 10 Sites (MF+CII) 7, Lifetime Total Direct Regional Funding $ 2,387,949 See Table 3.5 SL Grant Program Funding Unit Cost All Sites (MF+CII) $ Nominal $ per Nominal AF All DWRfunded Sites Lifetime Water Savings DWR funded Sites (MF+CII) 2, Acre Feet net savings over a 10 Lifetime See Table 3.5 SL Grant Program Funding DWR Funds Expended $1,116,082 Unit Cost DWR funded Sites (MF+CII) $ Nominal $ per Nominal AF Note: Direct Regional Costs do not include water agency labor or overhead. Note that the table above only examines direct project costs and does not directly estimate the cost of water agency staff time to run the program. The report does document less Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 5 of 124

13 tangible benefits such as: market transformation impacts, customer satisfaction and industry perspectives. The original DWR agreement, effective in April 2004, estimated a water savings of 46 percent reduction per site. A later estimate, in a 2007 application for expanded funding, estimated achievement of a 37 percent reduction per site using irrigation efficiency factors associated with the Model Landscape Ordinance, California Assembly Bill 325. Achieved net water savings, as is often the case, was less than potential water savings but still significant as stated, on average 13.7 percent at all sites. The actual water savings benefits produced by the direct project costs made the SL Grant Program cost competitive with water resource alternatives. Inclusion of indirect project benefits would make this picture even more favorable. Findings Program Design, Marketing, Eligibility & Processes To assess the effectiveness of the Program Design, Marketing, Eligibility & Requirements, and Systems & Processes the following groups were interviewed: Program Implementers (Honeywell, Member Agencies, Water Authority and WSA Marketing Staff), Landscape Contractors, Irrigation Supply Dealers, and Program Customers. The results of the interviews are summarized in Figure ES.6 by category. Figure ES.6 Process Evaluation Results Design Conclusions Program Supported/Aided Local Market Transformation Marketing Conclusions Program Successfully Accepted by Industry & Integrated by Industry in Daily Operations Recommendations Improve Customer Targeting to Increase Cost Effectiveness Consider Supporting Water Restriction Waivers for Incentive Program Participants Reinforce Need for Better Programming of Controllers Recommendations Offer Contractors More Access to Promotional Materials to Better Sell Program Encourage On line Product Overviews and More Installation Training for Contractors Communicate Program Participation Process and Contractor Requirements Online. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 6 of 124

14 Eligibility & Requirements Conclusions Too Many Changes in Program Requirements and Eligiblity Payment Delays Too Frequent Recommendations Better Planning Up Front Necessary to Avoid Frequent Changes in Requirements and Eligibility Consider Impact on All Parties Prior to Making Changes Consider Establishing Program Phases to Accomodate Needed Eligibility Modifications Better Communicate Program Requirements Systems & Processes Conclusions Established and Administered Outstanding Financial Process and Accounting Quality Control System Offered Good Customer Service to Stakeholders Recommendations Improve Flexibility of Program Tracking Databases & Add Online Function Create Databases at Water Authority to Facilitate Program Administration and Information Retention Reduce Program Costs by Requiring Less than 100% Installation Verifications Repeated throughout the interviews, Member Agencies strongly believe that they need the Water Authority s support through regional turn key programs such as this in order to meet their GPCD requirements. The agencies have limited staff and resources and these types of programs are highly valuable and complement the Member Agencies residential programs. Conclusions The Smart Landscape Grant Program was a success for the San Diego region because it saved water, proved to be cost effective, tested a new incentive delivery method, aided market transformation in San Diego, and was highly rated by program customers. This program can be replicated, cost effectively, in other service areas. The key to success is the development of proper program design, processes & systems, and marketing. The lessons learned can be used by others to avoid similar pitfalls such as frequent changes to eligibility and requirements which may in the long run alienate program partners. The results of this study will not only serve to fulfill a DWR reporting requirement, but also help inform others on the successes and lessons learned associated with a large scale landscape incentive program. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 7 of 124

15 Chapter 1 Introduction In 2007 the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority) finalized its strategic plan for Water Conservation. The strategic plan Blueprint for Water Conservation FY focused on the principles of planning, innovation, and quantification. From 2004 to 2007 the Water Authority obtained over $1.5 million in grant awards for some of its outdoor landscape programs listed in the Blueprint. Many of the programs funded by these grants were considered first of a kind, and because of this nature the Water Authority determined an impact evaluation process assessment and cost benefit analysis was important to determine the success of these first of a kind programs. The Smart Landscape Grant Program was one of these programs. Smart Landscape Grant Program The Smart Landscape Grant Program was designed to provide incentives to commercial, multi family, industrial and institutional sites. The goal of the program was to encourage sites to upgrade their irrigation systems to eliminate water waste and reduce overall use for participating sites. This program was funded by the Water Authority, Member Agencies, Department of Water Resources (DWR), United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). Overview of Comprehensive Evaluation The key steps in this evaluation included: Research Plan Process Evaluation Impact Evaluation Cost effectiveness Evaluation Generation of Reports This research plan documents a process evaluation and an impact evaluation conducted in parallel. There are additional prospective planning and design questions and project reports. The Research Plan The evaluation process began with a parallel process for both the evaluation and impact analyses. The sequence of steps for the plan is in Figure 1.1. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 8 of 124

16 Figure 1.1 Process and Impact Evaluation Sequence Process Evaluation Assess program flows and processes for: Design logic Customer service Data tracking & reporting abilities Check generation Security Stakeholder satisfaction Customer satisfaction Evaluate program production vs. goal: Review planning documents Review program reporting Conduct Interviews with all stakeholder groups: Implementing organizations Member Agencies Equipment suppliers/dealers Landscape contractors Customers Impact Evaluation Create sampling plan: Evaluate water use for 90% of program participants Evaluate water use for control group Assess impact of variables on water savings based upon: Facility type Agency continues next page Participation sequence Weather Income/census Contractor Device Time Marketing Varying program rules Determine program cost & cost effectiveness Identify water savings & assess performance for: Participants Non participants Identify net impact of program Future Planning/Design: ID lessons learned Recommendations for future replication Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 9 of 124

17 The research plan is designed to meet the reporting requirements set forth in the DWR contract: Table Reporting Requirements per DWR Contract Reporting Requirements per DWR Contract DWR Reporting Requirement Refer to Describe the project process. Also describe what Chapter 4 Process Evaluation did/did not work and what you would do Chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations differently. Provide a general description of project results. Chapter 3 Program Description Provide project results as they relate to water Chapter 5 Impact Evaluation: Actual Water savings (if applicable). Savings Are there other environmental benefits that will Chapter 6 Cost Effectiveness Analysis occur as a result of the project? Describe any/all CALFED benefits achieved as a Chapter 6 Cost Effectiveness Analysis result of the project. What is the post project implementation plan?... What monitoring techniques/methods will be used after the project to measure savings? According to the contract, monitoring occurs for a total of 5 years. The report should address this. Describe the cost of the project. Did they occur as anticipated? If possible, please provide photos of the project (work done, employees in the field, employees working with the public, ET controller installation, etc ). Provide in digital or slide format. Do you have anything we can quote about the project (e.g. any benefits it provides to the community, etc ) Chapter 1 Introduction: Research Plan Chapter 5 Impact Evaluation: Actual Water Savings The project CD contains water consumption records for 5 operational years inclusive of all program participants. Chapter 6 Cost Effectiveness Analysis The project CD contains digital photographs of the project Chapter 4 Process Evaluation Chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations Process Evaluation A process evaluation of the SL Grant Program began by documenting how the program was implemented. It identified the procedures undertaken and the decisions made in developing the program. It also assessed the delivery experience from all stakeholders perspectives. The information was used to ascertain the reasons for successful or unsuccessful performance and provide information for potential improvements. The process evaluation combined data generated by program implementers (process flows and procedures, progress reports and customer application data) with structured Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 10 of 124

18 interviews of implementers, landscape industry stakeholders, other water agency staff, grantor staff, participants and other stakeholders. 7 Impact Evaluation The impact evaluation sought to develop sound empirical answers to the following questions: 1. Was the change in water use at one site attributable to participation in the Smart Landscape programs? 2. How do the program benefits compare to the program costs? 3. What explains the variation in observed water saving, over time and across different types of landscape sites, contractors, weather zones, and agencies? The consultant analyzed the available consumption data which included mean of three and a half years of pre participation data and all years of post participation data to statistically estimate the change in water consumption of the different groups. This formed the basis for defensible and credible estimates of the net water savings attributable to the smart irrigation equipment and efficient landscape practices. Using historical account level water use records and multiple climatic measures, the water use analysis developed climate adjusted estimates of water savings using panel data (time series cross section) regression methods. A comparable control group of nonparticipants was developed to permit an assessment of net conservation. Cost Effectiveness Analysis A cost effectiveness analysis was conducted in accordance with CUWCC standards, as documented in Guidelines to Conduct Cost Effectiveness Analyses of Best Management for Urban Water Conservation Programs, Pekelney et al. These Guidelines provide a four step process for conducting Cost Effectiveness Analyses from multiple perspectives: 1. Identify Costs and Benefits 2. Measure and Value Costs and Benefits 3. Discount Costs and Benefits 4. Analyze Uncertainty 7 The process evaluation was conducted for the Smart Landscape Grant Program, the Mini Audit Program, and the WBIC Incentive Program concurrently. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 11 of 124

19 The identification of cost and benefits in Step 1 sought to name all relevant costs and benefits. By qualitatively describing the costs and benefits, even difficult to quantify costs and benefits do not disappear from the analysis. The next step sought to measure and value the costs and benefits. Benefits were determined first by measuring water savings, which are quantified by comparing water consumption both with and without conservation devices or activities. Then, when conducting cost benefit analysis, water savings are valued in dollar terms. The dollar value of water savings were determined by assessing factors such as the avoided costs of water supply, the avoided costs of wastewater treatment, and any environmental benefits. Step 3 uses the concept of time value of money to discount streams of benefits into a form comparable to the upfront costs of conservation programs. Step 4 tests for the sensitivity of results to uncertainty in any of the analytic parameters. The Cost effectiveness Analysis distinguished different perspectives of analysis: Customer/Participant, Water Supplier (the Water Authority and its Member Agencies), and Societal Benefits Figure 1.2, on the next page, is a visual depiction of the comprehensive evaluation research model Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 12 of 124

20 Figure 1.2 SL Grant Program Research Model RESEARCH MODEL-Smart Landscape Program Comprehensive Evaluation Friday, July 16, 2010 ALL PARTICIPANTS BY PROGRAM Facility Type Mini Audits Weather Based Irrigation Controller Program (WBIC) ALL SITES Process Evaluate process/flow and experience of participants SAMPLING PLAN Water Use (Participants & Non Participants) Evaluate water use for 90% of program participants and a control group Agency Program Participation Sequence Weather Program Cost Assess cost-effectiveness Water Savings Identify water savings and assess performance relative to MAWA Future Planning/ Design Identify lessons learned and recommendations for future replication Reports Complete reports and database SL Grant Program Evaluate all participant applications and determine sequence of participation LEGEND Task 2- Process and Impact Evaluation Task 3- Planning/Design, Report Writing & Database Varying Program Rules Outreach Campaigns Income/ Census Landscape Contractor Device Time Assess impact of variables on water savings Participants Non Participants Compare water savings between participants and non participants to identify net impact of program DELIVERABLES 7/16/2010 Research Plan Process Evaluation Impact Evaluation Planning and Design Database Reports (7) Created by MZP Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 13 of 124

21 Chapter 2 Data and Methods Review Data Review and Compilation The project team conducted a review of data and documentation generated by the SL Grant Program including: Data of customer information with grant amounts Records of applications and receipts with hardware and devices documented Documentation of the original program theory Detailed program description including: target market, marketing and outreach methods, geographical coverage, implementing organization, market stakeholders, water use efficiency measures addressed, delivery mechanisms, tracking system, grant and other incentive funding requirements Program budget broken down by administration, marketing, product costs, installation costs, incentive costs, and verification if available Flow charts of program processes from customer outreach through reporting and grant invoicing Detailed procedures of program processes including administrative requirements. Sample applications Sample outreach materials Progress reports and invoices The database constructed by the implementing vendor contained customer identifiers for 474 successfully completed SL Grant Program applications (including all funding sources) with estimated acreage, customer characteristics, and grant payment timing and amounts. Each unique account number 8 in the program transaction database was assigned a unique identification number for this project. In this way additional identifying information did not need to be retained in subsequent analyses. The hardcopy records were also examined for additional site information such as the use of recycled water on site (11 sites) and site information to aid in identifying specific meters from the water consumption records. The exact water meter that measures water consumption associated with each retrofit site could then be better matched to retailer customer billing records. 8 There were 470 unique account numbers amongst 474 successfully completed Grant applications because 4 sites used two applications to complete needed efficiency improvements. Customer phasing of efficiency improvements reflects the ongoing learning process that occurs in implementing water use efficiency. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 14 of 124

22 Interview Process The project team conducted structured interviews with Smart Landscape Grant Program implementers and participants to document program functioning: original design, evolution over time, and current status. The focused interviews targeted key groups: 1. Water agency staff and vendors responsible for program implementation to document the original program theory, program processes and procedures, program outcome, and to identify factors impacting the outcome, barriers to success, strengths, and areas for improvement. 2. Member agency staff to determine views of the program outcome, factors impacting the outcome, barriers to success, strengths, and areas for improvement as well as how the program fits into the agency s program portfolio and overall goals and objectives. 3. Participants to ascertain their views of the delivery experience, how they heard about the program, why they chose to participate, their views on whether the water use efficiency measures delivered the water savings as expected, and areas for improvement. This would be incorporated with the results of the existing customer satisfaction questionnaires. 4. Key landscape industry stakeholders (distributors, landscape contractors) to ascertain how the program fits into their business model, and again identify factors impacting the outcome, barriers to success, strengths, and areas for improvement. Sample Selection The Smart Landscape Grant Program was implemented in different parts of the Water Authority s service area at different time periods. This data collection targeted participants and potential participants within the Water Authority s participating Member Agencies. The wide definition of both participants and potential participants is important for two reasons: 1) a control group was selected from the sample of nonparticipating customers, and 2) non participating customers form the basis for estimates of future conservation potential (Refer to Figure 2.1). Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 15 of 124

23 Figure 2.1 Control Group and Participants Control Group Participant Group SL Grant Program Savings Each implementation phase used somewhat different methods and procedures for recording program implementation data. The lack of a comprehensive and easily accessible program tracking data system was a shortcoming that is further addressed in the recommendations of this report (See Chapter 8.) The data assessment subtask sought to first create a sketch of available program databases, their fields, and some indication of the likely internal validity of these records. Sampling strata (categories) were then developed to control for the areas of interest, namely: 1. Calendar time period this is important for two reasons. First, implementation methods have varied over time. Second, the threats to validity also vary over time (due to, for example, to weather and ongoing conservation). 2. Different retail agencies some participants are likely to have better followthrough than others are. This variation in savings will not be the primary focus of any program specific evaluation. This variation in savings can be critical, however, for addressing how future programs can be improved. 3. Type of landscape site some sites may demonstrate greater potential for costeffective savings than others. A total of 474 sites, within 20 member agencies service areas, received grant incentives from all funding sources. The participants within each of the agencies were made up of CII Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 16 of 124

24 and multi family types. Table 2.1 is a breakdown of SL Grant Program participation by customer type for each member agency with participants in the program. Table 2.1 SL Grant Program Count by Customer Class within Agency Smart Landscape Grant Program Agency Participation Agency Commercial Industrial Institutional Multi Family Agency Total Carlsbad Del Mar Escondido Fallbrook Helix Oceanside Olivenhain Otay Padre Dam Poway Rainbow 2 2 Ramona Rincon San Diego, City of San Dieguito Santa Fe Sweetwater Vallecitos Valley Center Vista Grand Total Figure 2.2 provides a breakdown of the participating member agencies by percentage of the number of grants awarded. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 17 of 124

25 Figure 2.2 SL Grant Program Percentage of Grants Awarded by Participating Agency Sweetwater 1% Santa Fe 2% Smart Landscape Grant Program: Percentage by Agency Vallecitos 4% Valley Center 1% Vista 4% Carlsbad 6% Del Mar Escondido 1% 3% Fallbrook 1% San Dieguito 2% Helix 7% San Diego, City of 39% Padre Dam 8% Oceanside 7% Otay 6% Olivenhain 4% Rincon 2% Rainbow 0% Ramona 1% Poway 2% To determine which agencies to focus on for requesting participant water consumption data and control data the project team selected those agencies that had the highest percentage of grants awarded, while also taking into account the need to include multiple weather zones and the varied socio economics of the customer base. This selected group of agencies account for 82% of the SL Grant Program grants awarded. Table 2.2 below provides the number of SL Grant Program grants awarded by customer type for each retail agency from whom consumption data was received. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 18 of 124

26 Table 2.2 SL Grant Program Research Sample by Customer type (approx percent of total) Smart Landscape Grant Program Sample Agency Commercial Industrial Institutional Multi Family Agency Total Carlsbad Escondido Helix Oceanside Olivenhain Otay San Diego, City of Santa Fe Vallecitos Vis ta Grand Total Consumption Data Collection and Validation The SL Grant Program was implemented in different parts of the Water Authority s service area over a multi year time period. The sample selected above was chosen to represent the variety of the service area. Data requests to the agencies were facilitated by initial phones calls followed up by s detailing the structure of consumption data needed for the statistical impact analysis. Participant account numbers, names and addresses were provided to each of the selected agencies with the requests. Several agency site visits were conducted to provide assistance in the compilation of water consumption billing histories. Depending on the billing system, sometimes hand matching by customer name and address was required to obtain all accounts that received the SL Grant Program funded improvements (The original PTD database only recorded a single account number associated with each application). All meters associated with each account number were obtained and matched to the application data. The consumption data was subject to additional statistical quality control, as documented in Chapter 5 Impact Evaluation. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 19 of 124

27 Chapter 3 Program Description Smart Landscape Grant Program Program Description The goal of the Smart Landscape Grant Program was to reduce water demand by improving the efficiency of landscape irrigation. The SL Grant Program was designed to assist commercial, multi family, industrial and institutional public property owners with the hardware changes required to improve irrigation efficiency. Figure 3.1 Broken Pop up Nozzle at a Control Site The program created a link between the landscape audit, irrigation hardware incentives and a site water budget. Note that each Member Agency individually addressed site water budgets where possible. Table 3.1 is a brief overview of the SL Grant Program results. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 20 of 124

28 Table 3.1 SL Grant Program General Results Program Facts SL Grant Program Number of Customers DWR Number of Acres Served DWR 2,555 1,325.2 Original Grant Estimated Lifetime Water Savings 13,320 acre feet Estimated Lifetime Water Savings based Upon the Impact Analysis 7,989 acre feet Total Dollars Spent over Program $2,387,949 Life DWR $1,116,082 Program Time Frame The Water Authority provided financial incentive grants for irrigation system upgrades to a variety of customer types including: owners of commercial, industrial, and institutional properties, Home Owner Associations common area sites, and multi family properties. The SL Grant Program applications typically requested funding for products such as smart irrigation controllers, pressure regulators, heads, check valves, flow sensors, pipes and other materials (Refer to Table 3.2 and Figure 3.2). Table 3.2 SL Eligible Devices List of SL Grant Program Eligible Devices Weather Based Irrigation Controller Rain Sensor Weather Monitor Check Valve Low precipitation Nozzles Pressure Regulators Drip Soil Moisture Sensor Micro Spray Flow Sensor Pressure Compensating Heads Flush Valve Nozzles Lines/Wiring Rotor Piping Controller Box Filter Spray Head Valves Elbows/Tees Coupling Adapters Swing Joint Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 21 of 124

29 Figure 3.2 SL Grant Program Requested Products Equipment Incentivized: Definitions A. Rain Gauge A rain gauge gathers and measures the amount of liquid precipitation over a set period of time. When used with a controller, it will turn the controller off, typically for hours following a rain event. B. Smart Controller Smart controllers automatically adjust the frequency and duration of irrigation events in response to changing weather and/or site conditions. A properly programmed smart controller requires initial site specific set up and will make irrigation schedule adjustments, including run times and required cycles, throughout the irrigation season without human intervention. SL Grant Program grant amounts were: $2,500 per acre (up to $5,000 for commercial and multi family sites) Up to $10,000 for public facilities C. Pressure Regulated Sprinkler Heads Pressure regulation devices in heads limits water pressure, under both flow and no flow conditions. Use of this device, can prevent popping of irrigation heads and balance distribution uniformity. D. Check Valve A check valve provides positive closure that effectively prevents the flow of material in the opposite direction of normal flow during operation of the irrigation system. E. Multi Stream/Multi Trajectory Rotary Nozzle A rotary nozzle is a device that emits water at rate of approximately.4.6 inches per hour and may contain adjustable arcs and radii. Benefits of installation include reduced run off, improved distribution uniformity, and improved performance at lower pressures. Incentive funding was paid, post installation, following an installation verification site visit. Reimbursement for the purchase of eligible irrigation hardware was dependent upon successful installation and a passing inspection. Customers paid for the cost of the installation and any hardware above the incentive cap. The inspection process for 100% inspections began with participant notification of the vendor (Honeywell) of the project s completion and submission of all related receipts. Honeywell reviewed the documentation for accuracy and for consistency with the original application authorized at the onset. Following this review Honeywell dispatched their inspectors to the site to ensure the items on the receipt matched the documentation and were indeed installed. Inspectors recorded the results and noted deviations, if any. If the inspector was unable to F. Drip Drip irrigation is a low pressure and low volume irrigation system, wherein water is applied to the soil surface as drops or small streams through emitters. The emission rate is based on gallons per hour instead of inches per Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 22 of 124

30 reconcile the receipts to items observed, Honeywell short paid the participant only for the items verified. All participants were required to participate in an inspection in order to obtain their incentive. Note: The program structure changed significantly in July 2006 as a result of an amendment to the DWR agreement. The amendment increased the incentive cap from $2,500 to $5,000 for commercial sites; included deficit irrigation sites; and eliminated the requirement for customers to provide documentation of matching funding. Table 3.3 SL Grant Program Overview OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM Smart Landscape Grant Program Program Offer Grants for irrigation hardware upgrades for CII, multi family, Home Owner Association common areas and public sector customers. Incentive Level Up to $2,500 per site ( ) Up to $5,000 per acre ( ) Up to $10,000 per acre for public sector sites ( ) Grant amount based upon reimbursable costs for hardware and size of irrigated area (not to exceed reimbursable costs) Program Eligibility (post July 2006) Equipment Manufacturers Roles Equipment Supplier Roles Landscape Contractor Eligibility & Roles One acre or more of irrigated landscape Dedicated irrigation meter Not designed for sites served by recycled or well water Hardware only reimbursement up to incentive cap Produce SWAT approved models Train contractors on their specific products Supply list of qualified installation contractors Promote program Sell water use efficiency irrigation equipment Train contractors Promote program Required to have C 27 license (unless in house staff) Required as of July 2006, smart controller manufacturer certification Sell program to customers Customer Roles Request participation, complete application Implement the program using landscape contractor Ensure work completed matches that authorized Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 23 of 124

31 OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM Smart Landscape Grant Program Coordinate inspection with inspection vendor Target Market/Customers Inefficient irrigators Multi family, Home Owner Associations common areas, CII and public sector sites Marketing Results 62% of Participants from Landscape Contractors 15% from Equipment Suppliers or Manufacturer Reps 10% Referrals, Seminars, Property Managers, Previous Participants 9% Water Authority, Agencies or Website 4% Bill Inserts, Direct Mail, , TV Eligible Measures SWAT approved Smart Controllers Irrigation Heads Flow Interruption Sensors Lines/Wires Pressure Regulators Valves Pressure Compensating Heads Manifolds Booster Pumps Pipes Check Valves Other Installation Verification Payment 100% installation verification inspections Honeywell generated check to customers after verification inspection and fund issuance from the Water Authority. Quality Control Isolated roles for individuals with access to data system Data systems checks and parameters Requirement for multiple staff to review application Separate individual generates check On site verification of installed measures Water Authority reviews project documentation See Honeywell s process depicted graphically in Figure 3.3 SL Grant Program Honeywell Flow Chart Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 24 of 124

32 OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM Smart Landscape Grant Program Customer Service Required rigorous and continued support from program staff to complete grant applications, verify installations, and resolve changes in program eligibility with customers. Overall customers ranked program 4.25 out of 5, with 5 being highest. Total Program Funding and Budget The focus of this report is on DWR funded SL Grant sites. To fully understand the program and its market transforming effects as it continued to evolve, latter grant funding will also be documented. The SL Grant Program was funded under three grants listed in Table 3.4 below as well as funding from the Water Authority and its Member Agencies. Table 3.4 SL Grant Program Funding California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Agreement No Agreement No. ECP Assistance Agreement No. 07FG March 2004 June 2009 September 2007 October 2009 October 2008 October 2009 DWR led the funding with a 2003 grant using Proposition 13 funds with actual contributions of $1,116,082 or 47% of the total contribution. 9 In 2007, as DWR funds neared exhaustion, USBR supplemented program funding, followed by an MWD ECP Grant in 2008 and Water Authority Operating Funds. Table 3.5 displays the fund sources, original budgets and actual expenditures. As shown in Table 3.5, the Water Authority maximized outside funding to provide additional incentives to San Diego customers. 9 Note that the amount DWR funds expended is slightly less than the original amount authorized ($1.125 million) due potential participants dropping out after filing an application. There were matching outlays from SDCWA, MWD, and USBR that are detailed in Table 3.4 within the body of the report. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 25 of 124

33 Table 3.5 SL Grant Program Funding Sources, Budgets, and Expenditures Funding Organization Original Budget Actual Expenditures Percent Contribution Funding Agency DWR $1,125,000 $1,116,082 47% MWD $500,000 $500,000 21% USBR $298,701 $298,701 12% Water Authority & Member Agencies (budget reflects initial $1,327,500 $473,166 20% requirement for customer match) Total $3,251,201 $2,387,949 Note that the Water Authority s and its Member Agencies original budget reflects an initial requirement for a customer match. This requirement was eliminated by DWR per Amendment 1. Table 3.6 depicts the proportion of cost per program category: incentives, administration and installation verification inspections. The majority of program funds, 87%, went for grant incentives with 13% spent on administration. per Table 3.6 SL Grant Program Cost Per Program Category Program Cost Category Percent of Expenditures Grant Incentives 87% Administration 6% Installation Verification Inspections 7% In March 2010 the Department of Finance, Office of State Audits and Evaluations completed an audit of Agreement # (Prop 13) SL Grant Program. The final report noted that the San Diego County Water Authority s (SDCWA) expenditures were in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and grant requirements with two exceptions. In addition, SDCWA met the matching funds requirement. The report pointed to areas for improvement: Water Authority should develop and implement procedures to ensure the accounting transactions posted to the general ledger for each grant are accurate. In addition, expenditures claimed for reimbursement should be reconciled with the general ledger prior to submitting claims to the DWR Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 26 of 124

34 Staff made the recommended changes to its operating procedures and constituted a Grants Review Committee to enhance grant management practices. Program Management and Administration There were nine stakeholder groups involved in the delivery of the program. Some provided funding and oversight while other parties were directly responsible for elements of the operations. Table 3.7 depicts each group and their roles under the program. Table 3.7 SL Grant Program Grantors and Roles Organization Program Roles Grantors: Department of Water Resources United States Bureau of Reclamation Metropolitan Water District Provided funding as dictated by the corresponding SL Grant Program proposal. Assesses successful delivery of SL Grant Program objectives. San Diego County Water Authority Provided funding and program administration. Ensured quality control Invoiced funding agencies Member Agencies Performed local marketing Conducted field inspections (City of San Diego and Helix Water District) Honeywell Inc. Provided turn key management of program including: customer eligibility and enrollment, payment approval and processing, data tracking and reporting, installation verifications and customer service. WSA Marketing Provided all marketing and outreach activities (subcontractor to Honeywell International). Manufacturers Supplied water efficient products Educated contractors about product functionality and installation. Equipment Suppliers Promoted the program to their customers. Hosted contractor trainings. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 27 of 124

35 Organization Program Roles Sold product to participating contractors and customers. Landscape Contractors Promoted program to their customers. Installed product at customer sites. Customers: Commercial & Multi family Property Owners & Managers Home Owner Associations Public Sector Customers Marketing Voluntarily agreed to participate in program. Paid for product installation and any costs above the incentive limit. Responsible for maintenance of landscape and equipment. Marketing for the SL Grant Program was primarily achieved by utilizing landscape contractors to promote the program to their customers. Understanding the product distribution channel, WSA Marketing and the program team designed a marketing strategy to enlist equipment suppliers and landscape contractors to promote the SL Grant Program. Figure 3.3 provides a sample distribution channel. Figure 3.3 SL Grant Program Product Distribution Channel Manufacturers Sell Product to Suppliers Suppliers Sell Product to Contractors Contractors Sell Product and Services to Property Management Companies or Customers Property Management Companies Promote Upgrade Project to Customers Customers Decide Which Measures to Implement Property owners, property managers and landscape contractors typically purchase needed products from their equipment supplier and rely on them for information about new equipment and technologies. Understanding that the supplier is a critical link to the customer, WSA s first task was to identify area equipment suppliers and enlist them in the program. Contact was made through a number of outreach methods including , phone calls, professional organizations and more. Once enlisted, WSA staff then conducted training for the suppliers management, administrative and sales staff. This training included program processes, guidelines, and incentivized technologies. WSA also provided guidance with in store promotions. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 28 of 124

36 WSA conducted direct outreach and training for landscape contractors. Through phone calls, supplier workshops, and in person meetings, WSA promoted the program to landscape contractors. The business benefits of participation were explained to each contractor as well as details of participation. In addition, WSA worked with smart controller manufactures (for the most frequently reimbursed smart controllers) to coordinate supplier and landscape contractor training specifically for the products sold by the equipment supplier. Upon successful completion of this product training the contractor was certified to install this particular product line. These contractors were then placed on the program s list of eligible contractors. Another component of the marketing included outreach at industry trade shows and workshops for Home Owner Associations. Marketing materials advertising the landscape conservation programs, including the SL Grant Program, are included in Appendix B Marketing Materials. And lastly, Member Agencies conducted additional outreach. Detailed information regarding locations and dates of supplier, contractor outreach and property owner/manager and Home Owner Association outreach can be found in Honeywell s Smart Landscape Final Report Fiscal Years provided as an attachment. Copies of program collateral marketing materials are also provided as attachments. Table 3.8 compares the type of marketing outreach and the percent of participation attributed to each marketing method by year. Note how landscape contractors grew to become the driving force behind program participation as the program evolved. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 29 of 124

37 Table 3.8 SL Grant Program Marketing Approach Responses Participants by Year by Marketing Method Smart Landscape Grant Program Participants by Year and Type of Marketing Approaches Type of Marketing & Outreach Year of Participation Total Percent of Participants Landscape Contractors % Smart Controller Manufacturer s Representatives Seminars, Property Managers, Previous Participant % 39 9% Water Website Authority % Bill Inserts, Direct mail, , TV % Total Operational Flow The process for SL Grant Program took several months from initial customer interest to check issuance. A customer was enrolled for the SL Grant Program once their application was complete and verified for eligibility. The program staff spent an average of two to four weeks obtaining additional information to complete the grant application prior to enrollment. The average number of days from the date the application was complete, through inspection, invoicing, check issuance was six months. Approximately 15% of the completed applications took more than six months. Of these, nine took more than one year to complete. The long delays were attributable to funding issues, program eligibility changes, and to increased scope of needed irrigation upgrades due to improved understanding of on site conditions. A general SL Grant Program Process flow is depicted in Figure 3.4 below: Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 30 of 124

38 Figure 3.4 SL Grant Process Flow Customer completes application and site information worksheet. Customer faxes /mails application and supporting documents to San Diego Smart Landscape Program. Honeywell reviews application and, if complete, notifies applicant of approval. If not complete Honeywell contacts customer for missing information. Customer completes installation of hardware upgrades within sixty days of approval notification. Customer notifies Honeywell that installation is complete and ready for inspection. Appointment for inspection is set. 6 Customer sends final receipts of hardware costs to Honeywell. 7 Program administrator requests funds from the Water Authority. 8 The Water Authority pays Honeywell. 9 Honeywell makes payment to customer. The staff time spent for an average application through completion was 5 7 hours. In addition, approximately 15 hours per month were spent on the phone with customers requesting information about the SL Grant Program. The program averaged four grants completed per month. Below is the comprehensive task list associated with completing a grant application. 1. Initial phone call with end use customer (Community Association, property manager) explaining SL Grant Program, eligibility, process, etc. 2. Initial phone call with customer s landscape contractor explaining SL Grant Program, eligibility, process, etc. 3. Send customer and/or landscape contractor package of materials with explanation of program and site s eligibility. 4. Review of submitted application and supporting documents. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 31 of 124

39 5. Follow up with customer/contractor for missing and/or incomplete information. 6. Contact water agencies to verify water account number and service address. 7. Re allocate funding in funding management screens in Honeywell BBCS data system. 8. Enroll customer in program by entering site specific information into database. 9. Forward application and supporting documents to Water Authority to coordinate approval (initially in the program only). 10. Notify customer/contractor of SL Grant Program approval by phone, , and if requested, by letter. 11. Follow up with customer/contractor on status of irrigation upgrades. 12. Approve requests for SL Grant Program extension and as needed, coordinate approval with Water Authority for extension. 13. Quality check receipts for hardware. 14. Follow up with customer/contractor if receipts lack sufficient detail (i.e. labor not separate from hardware.) 15. Random verifications for MSRP of hardware. 16. Assign inspection work order to subcontractor. 17. Forward receipts, customer authorization, and site map to subcontractor with Google Earth link. 18. Follow up with subcontractor on status of scheduled site visit. 19. Quality check of inspection results. 20. Enter inspection results into database 21. Secondary quality check of completed enrollment by Program Manager. 22. Generate invoice and backup reports for completed SL Grant Program customer. 23. Secondary quality check of invoice and backup reports by Program Manager. 24. Check request completed and approval for check coordinated with Program Manager, Fiscal Manager, and District Manager. 25. Print check after approvals received. 26. Check signed by Program Manager. 27. Cover letter customized for the customer on Water Authority letterhead. 28. Cover letter and check mailed to customer. 29. Follow up with customer if check is not cashed. Research status of check with Bank of America. A visual depiction of the SL Grant Program application process is depicted in Figure 3.5. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 32 of 124

40 Figure 3.5 SL Grant Program Honeywell Flow Chart

41 Participation During the five year implementation period, 823 applications were received and 474 customers completed installations and were awarded grant funds. The new devices covered an average of 5.4 acres per customer which yields a total new device retrofit area of 2,555 acres. Figure 3.6 below shows participation over the five year implementation. Participation took a sharp increase up in 2007 and continue to increase as a result of a multitude of factors such as: increased awareness about conservation (20 Gallon Challenge); more generous incentives; and rising water rates. Figure 3.6 SL Grant Program Annual Participation Participants SL Grant Program Annual Participation Completion Year Home Owner Associations received just fewer than 70% of SL Grant Program incentives. Home Owner Associations were most likely motivated to participate because of the dominance of water utility costs and landscape maintenance in their operating expenses. Table 3.9 provides a breakdown of the percentage and participation dollars by customer type. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 34 of 124

42 Table 3.9 Grant Program Participation Percentage (Dollars) SL Grant Program Amounts for Irrigation Improvements by Customer Types Customer Type Participation Percent Multi family (Community Assoc.) 69 % Commercial (business/ office complexes) 14 % Institutional (schools) 12 % Industrial (including distribution centers) 5 % Total 100 % Table 3.9 displays the distribution of participants by water agency and by customer type. The six water agencies with the highest participation results (starting with the highest) were: the City of San Diego, Padre Dam, Oceanside, Helix, and, tied for sixth, Carlsbad and Otay. These water agencies are highlighted in yellow in the chart below. Home Owner Associations were, by far, the highest responding customer segment for all water agencies territories with 325 customers out of the program total of 470 unique customer accounts. This data is highlighted in gray in Table 3.10 which details the numbers for Multiple Family and Home Owner Associations by Agency. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 35 of 124

43 Water Agency Table 3.10 SL Grant Program Participation by Customer Type SL Grant Program Customer Type Commercial Industrial Institutional Multi Family & Home Owner Associations Grand Total Carlsbad Del Mar Escondido Fallbrook Helix Oceanside Olivenhain Otay Padre Dam Poway Rainbow 2 2 Ramona Rincon San Diego, City of San Dieguito Santa Fe Sweetwater Vallecitos Valley Center Vista Grand Total *Data highlighted in YELLOW denotes water agencies with highest participation levels **Data highlighted in GRAY denotes highest responding customer type Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 36 of 124

44 Chapter 4 Process Evaluation Process Evaluation Methodology A process evaluation for a conservation program can be segmented into four sequential steps. Figure 4.1 illustrates this process. Figure 4.1 Process Evaluation Flow Overview of Process Evaluation Flow STEP ONE Analyze Program Data, Work Documents & Plans Strategic Plan Goals Customer Service Marketing Quality Control Final Report Production #s Grant Funding Budget vs. Actual STEP TWO Conduct Stakeholder Interviews Water Authority Honeywell WSA Marketing Member Agencies Equipment Suppliers Landscape Contractors Customers STEP THREE Draw Conclusions Goal Attainment Quality of Process & Controls Customer Service Level Marketing Effectiveness Stakeholders Performance Product & Service Quality STEP FOUR Construct Recommendations & Issue Report Document Program Results Provide recommendations for improvement Publish Process Evaluation Report The process evaluation for the SL Grant Program began by reviewing the original goals and plans for the program as shown in Step One of Figure 4.1. We examined strategic plans and other planning documents to identify the programs original goals. Once the intentions of the program were understood, we began a comparison between the original intent and actual performance for each program element. Data sources used in Step One included: Original grants proposals, vendor RFPs and contracts. Customer information database. Progress and Final Reports from program implementers containing program descriptions including; target market, marketing and outreach methods, geographical coverage, market stakeholders, water use efficiency measures, delivery mechanisms, customer service and quality control procedures, tracking systems, grant and incentive funding requirements. Program budgets broken down by administration, incentive and verification costs Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 37 of 124

45 Flow charts of program processes from customer outreach through reporting and invoicing Sample applications Sample marketing materials Customer satisfaction results Progress and Final Reports documenting actual program participation and other results. This process evaluation also assessed the delivery experience from the viewpoint of the stakeholders. This review process was accomplished through stakeholder interviews. The interviews identified issues impacting process and procedures, program outcomes as well as the barriers to success, strengths, and areas for improvement. The interviewees for this evaluation included five key groups: 1. The Program Implementers the Water Authority, Honeywell and WSA Marketing. 2. Participating Member Agencies 3. Participating Equipment Suppliers 4. Participating Contractors 5. Participating Customers The interviews showed whether program staff delivered as originally planned and if the program offer fit well into suppliers and contractors business model and whether they were pleased with their participation in the program. Customer interviews provide the final perspective on customer service and the programs value to them. All five stakeholder groups were asked to provide feedback on needed program improvements. The interviews shed light on the experiences from many different vantages, giving a 360 degree view of the operation with all its strengths and weaknesses detailed by the participants. In Step Three, the combined results delivered through the initial steps, provided the information with which to establish how well the program delivered services and achieved the desired outcomes. Results were documented and included in the report. Next, for Step Four, program results were examined and the evaluation looked to identify areas that could be improved. The evaluation looked to identify ways to: Reduce costs and cost efficiencies Increase production Increase participant/stakeholder satisfaction Increase water savings volume and persistence Expedite market transformation Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 38 of 124

46 Introduce product innovations Improve program cost effectiveness Identify best intervention methods (rebates, vouchers, etc.) Determine optimal locations to inject incentives in the program service delivery chain Interview Results per Stakeholder Group Assessment of the delivery experience required the gathering of comprehensive feedback from all the participating parties to ascertain, from each stakeholder s perspective, the areas of success and shortfalls achieved over the term of each program. This information is helpful in understanding how well the program design aligned with the stakeholders and participants expectations and needs. Each party had its own reasons for participation and, therefore, a unique definition of what constituted success. The Water Authority, was interested in testing a new landscape incentive program, meeting grant obligations and reducing water waste. Customers, on the other hand, may have cared little about grant obligations or testing new methods but were deeply concerned with water savings and the continued beauty of their landscape. Due to the widely varied perspectives, separate questionnaires were created for each stakeholder group. Telephone interviews were conducted with a statistically relevant number of contacts from each group. The results of the interviews are summarized in this section of the document. Comprehensive interviews, taking hours per interviewee, were conducted with the following stakeholders: Number of Organizations Interviewed Implementing Organizations 3 (100 % of total) Member Agencies 7 ( 35 % of total) Equipment Suppliers/Dealers 9 ( 14 % of total) The following stakeholder groups are less willing to provide large blocks of time for interviews therefore, a more succinct set of questions, utilizing a 1 to 5 rating system, was designed. The questionnaires required approximately minutes and were conducted for: Landscape Contractors 13(15 % of total) Participating Customers 20 (4% of total) Number of Organizations Interviewed Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 39 of 124

47 Implementer Interviews The implementing organizations were: The Water Authority Honeywell WSA Marketing Understandably, comments from the interviewees tended to be directed towards their specific areas of expertise; WSA Marketing s feedback was for the most part on marketing efforts; Honeywell commented mostly on operational issues and the Water Authority s remarks were heavily weighted towards program design and cost effectiveness of measures. All the program implementers were generally pleased with the program delivery and mentioned that the programs were a good fit with the other programs being offered; both locally and regionally. There was agreement that the major problem was the large number of changes in the program requirements over the course of the program. This caused a burden on the operations and required a great deal of manual processing in order to ensure that the new rules were implemented properly. There was also much dissatisfaction with the Honeywell BBCS database/data system and the system s inflexibility in producing sufficient and timely reporting. This issue, in combination with the multiple program changes, caused frustration on the part of the implementers, contractors, equipment suppliers, and customers throughout the lifespan of the program. Everyone agreed that there needed to be more comprehensive pre planning and establishment of program requirements prior to the program s start date. Once established, program rules should not be changed until there is a clear break in a phase of the program. All interviewees believed that the payment process was far too long. It was noted that with better planning in the future and undeviating program requirements, the approval and payment steps would be greatly streamlined resulting in a reasonable turn around time for payments. There were positive observations about the market advancement for water use efficiency products and services as a result of the program. Implementers believed that the program aided national efforts by the Irrigation Association in accelerating the purchase of water use efficiency landscape measures and fostered new technologies leading to a greater pool of equipment suppliers selling Water Use Efficiency (WUE) products in the San Diego region. As a result of the Program and other national efforts, landscape contractors now Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 40 of 124

48 promote WUE programs and incorporate WUE measures into their business model. Customers also have a better understanding of the value of landscape WUE. Most individuals felt that the SL Grant Program (and the other landscape programs) required some redesigning if offered in the future. The Water Authority commented on the need to make design changes that better ensured water savings. One idea was for the redesigned program to require that the site first be audited, with a Distribution Uniformity test performed, and have a water budget established for the site. The next step would be to fix problems with the irrigation system and conduct a second Distribution Uniformity test to verify that the system is applying water properly. The final step would then be installation of a smart controller. Only half of those interviewed believed that the SL Grant Program incentive was adequate. However, all of the individuals thought grants were equitable across customer classes and Member Agencies (1 entity did not answer). All the implementers thought that the marketing for the SL Grant Program was adequate. The total budget and admin budget were deemed sufficient by those who answered this question. Half the group thought that the marketing budget was not adequate to properly promote the program. Table 4.1 provides the interview results and Table 4.2 is a compilation of the Implementer comments. The Implementer interview form is included in Appendix C Interview Questionnaires. Table 4.1 SL Grant Program Implementer Interview Results Question Marketing Efforts Effective Yes, No or Don t Know Ease of Participation Customer Friendly or Burdensome Inventive Level Too High, Just Right, or Too Low Targeted Technology Yes, No or Don t Know Delivery Method Yes, No or Don t Know Smart Landscape Grant All thought it was effective. Thought it was burdensome or fluctuated over time. 50% thought it was just right. 50% thought it was the right technology, the others did not answer. 50% thought it was the most effective way to move irrigation system upgrades. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 41 of 124

49 Question Timeline to Pay Acceptable or Too Long Program Eligibility & Requirements Too Lenient, Appropriate or Too Stringent Helps Meet Regulatory Compliance Yes, No or Don t Know Equity Amongst Customer Classes Yes, No or Don t Know Equity Amongst Member Agencies Yes, No or Don t Know Sufficient Total Budget Yes, No or Don t Know Sufficient Admin Budget Yes, No or Don t Know Sufficient Marketing Budget Yes, No or Don t Know Fits with Local & Regional Goals Yes, No or Don t Know Easy for Member Agency to Implement 1 5, 5 Being Easiest Value of Program Yes, No or Don t Know Smart Landscape Grant 100% thought it was too long. 50% thought they were appropriate. Interviewees thought it helped meet regulatory requirements or didn t know. All thought it was equitable amongst customers. All thought it equitable or didn t know. All thought it was sufficient. All thought it was sufficient. 50% thought it was sufficient. 50% thought it was too low. All thought it fit with goals Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 42 of 124

50 Table 4.2 SL Grant Program Implementer Comments Comprehensive Interview Summary Comments Implementers General Comments The SL Grant Program criterion was too open ended. The SL Grant Program should not have allowed conventional equipment (i.e. pipes and valves). Water Authority personnel wanted to be able to stop program and rework (rather than change eligibility and requirements on the fly). The program wasn t designed to allow for adaptive management. Water Authority felt that the rolling timeframe did not allow them to incorporate lessons learned. Customers were unaware that programs were ending and were upset. The Water Authority was short on staffing. The programs should have required audits and distribution uniformity score as a requirement to get a smart controller. The SL Grant Program should have a payment designed around savings. The optimal program should flow sequentially through the following steps: Audit Water Budget Apply for Grant to Upgrade Irrigation System Smart Controller Installation with Distribution Uniformity Requirement Programs should be designed to ensure minimum savings yield per acre. The programs should not provide 100% subsidy levels. Programs need to have a better water savings measurement and this can be accomplished by linking a meter to the controller to measure flow. Offer the programs in time intervals in lieu of providing continuous coverage. Make it easier for agencies to market locally. Program Successes By exhausting program funding, the goals were met. There was a high volume of installations. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 43 of 124

51 Comprehensive Interview Summary Comments Implementers The programs accelerated the purchase of water use efficiency landscape measures and fostered new technologies. There are now a large number of equipment suppliers selling WUE products as a result of the programs. Many more landscape contractors are promoting WUE programs and incorporating WUE measures into their businesses. Customers have gained a better understanding of the value of landscape WUE. Mandatory smart controller training and certification of landscape contractors was created, resulting in heightened prestige and marketing opportunities for certified contractors. Marketing was effective based upon tight budget. Customer service was good (high customer satisfaction) Challenges Smart controllers incentivized under the grant may have been overridden or circumvented to comply with mandatory watering restrictions At times, customers had to wait too long to receive incentives It was difficult to get any reporting and data requests (submitted to Honeywell) fulfilled and this was an ongoing issue. Improvements Stakeholders and implementers need to be in the same room and more time is needed for planning. Data requirements need to be identified up front. Eligibility requirements should be clear prior to program start date. When a change occurs, do not make it retroactive. A logical process needs to be developed for making and communicating all changes. More flexibility should be written into the administrator contract in order to more readily adjust to changing program needs. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 44 of 124

52 Comprehensive Interview Summary Comments Implementers Improve online services including marketing materials. Perhaps program materials could be available online for the contractors (e.g. logo requests). Other useful online information needed: savings calculator, program forms, enrollment and processing pages. Educate the customer on the value of doing an audit as the first step. Faster processing time, also format the grant in the traditional manner where partial funding is provided up front. Provide more technical assistance, pay for performance incentives, and follow up for customers. Scale grant incentives based upon project size. Commit to maximum payment timeline of no more than 45 days. Design the program forms with better flow and logic. Provide timely updates to website. Suppliers should be able to market product discounts, should they so choose. Contractors should not be required to disclose their pricing and mark up to program implementers. Marketing vendor should be given the access and responsibility to work with manufacturers. Allow for participation from smaller sites. Provide better point of purchase materials. Member Agency Interviews The Member Agencies interviewed were: City of San Diego, Otay Water District, San Dieguito Water District, City of Poway, Carlsbad MWD, and Santa Fe Irrigation District. The Member Agencies were overall pleased with the programs. In their opinion, there was a significant advancement in the market perception for water use efficiency, in general, and also for the various products available for installation. One interviewee stated that there was now a three way conversation between the water agency, the contractors and the customers about WUE equipment. Additionally, the list of WUE products and qualified installing contractors grew expansively over the course of the program and with that, a greater market acceptance for landscape efficiency. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 45 of 124

53 The agencies did state, however, that there was still a ways to go before there would be a permanent shift over to water efficient products for both the contractor and the customer. It is the perception of the agencies that the contractor and customer still consider low cost products first, and water efficient products are an afterthought. Repeated throughout the interviews, Member Agencies strongly believe that they need the Water Authority s support through regional turn key programs such as this in order to meet their GPCD requirements. The agencies have limited staff and resources and these types of programs are highly valuable and complement the Member Agencies residential programs. There was an array of opinions among the agencies about the optimal program design for irrigation system equipment programs. Some interviewees felt that programs should prevent installation of smart controllers until the irrigation system was made efficient. Some individuals believed that incentives should not be paid for irrigation system equipment that was not directly a water saving device, such as pipes and valves. Among the many comments about the design of the SL Grant Program, most interviewees found the incentives to be a the correct level but some thought the program was confusing for the customer and others stated that the program should be redesigned to provide the customer with a portion of the money up front. Several of the Member Agencies remarked that the turn around time for payments was far too long and the data systems did not provide the agencies with the reporting that they desired. A few of the agencies stated they did not have customer participation data necessary to evaluate the program s performance in their territory. Table 4.3 illustrates the Member Agency interview results, and Table 4.4 is a compilation of the Member Agency comments. The member agency interview form is included in Appendix C Interview Questionnaires. Note: Smart Controllers were among the top items selected by participants in the SL Grant Program; hence the high frequency of references to Smart Controllers. Table 4.3 SL Grant Program Member Agency Interview Results Question Marketing Efforts Effective Yes, No or Don t Know Ease of Participation Smart Landscape Grant Program 75% stated yes effective. 50% thought it was burdensome. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 46 of 124

54 Question Customer Friendly or Burdensome Inventive Level Too High, Just Right, or Too Low Targeted Technology Yes, No or Don t Know Delivery Method Yes, No or Don t Know Timeline to Pay Acceptable or Too Long Program Eligibility & Requirements Too Lenient, Appropriate or Too Stringent Helps Meet Regulatory Compliance Yes, No or Don t Know Equity Amongst Customer Classes Yes, No or Don t Know Equity Amongst Member Agencies Yes, No or Don t Know Sufficient Total Budget Yes, No or Don t Know Smart Landscape Grant Program All thought it was just right. 50% thought it was the right technology. 75% thought it was most effective way to move irrigation system upgrades. 63% thought it was too long. 75% thought they were appropriate. All thought it helped meet regulatory requirements. 50% thought it was equitable. All thought it was equitable. All thought it was sufficient or didn t know. Sufficient Admin Budget Yes, No or Don t Know No one knew the breakdown of the budget. Sufficient Marketing Budget Yes, No or Don t Know No one knew the breakdown of the budget. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 47 of 124

55 Question Fits with Local & Regional Goals Yes, No or Don t Know Easy for Member Agency to Implement 1 5, 5 Being Easiest Honeywell Admin 1 5, 5 Being Highest Water Authority Admin 1 5, 5 Being Highest Water Authority Customer Service 1 5, 5 Being Highest Smart Landscape Grant Program All thought it fit into goals. 3.9 (Fairly Easy) 4.1 (%) 4.6 (%) 4.2 (%) Table 4.4 SL Grant Program Member Agency Comments Comprehensive Interview Summary Comments Member Agencies General Comments Interviewees liked the program design. Felt that give a way of smart controllers did not work in prior programs and this was a better approach. Program was a good fit since agencies were looking to landscape for savings. Smart controllers not top users, irrigation efficiency or landscape conversion should be target. Targeting Home Owner Associations is important and the program effectively pursued these opportunities. The agencies felt that they had high quality single family programs and this provided a corresponding offer for commercial customers. Interviewee noted that a change in management at customer sites provided a loss of ownership for smart controllers, hence likely loss of water savings. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 48 of 124

56 Comprehensive Interview Summary Comments Member Agencies Program Successes At the beginning of the program there were very few smart controllers from which to choose; now there is a long list of viable products. Controllers have evolved over the past five years and are better designs. Contractors now understand the smart controller technology. Contractors are offering smart controllers and other WUE equipment and are talking to their customers more seriously about these options; although they are still a long way from being the first choice. There is now a 3 way conversation created with water agencies, contractors and customers about WUE equipment and this was a huge achievement. Customers appreciated the incentives. Challenges When sites received inspection, many smart controllers found to not be functioning; either on manual setting due to watering restrictions or no signal. Budget dollars were used for non water savings devices. The payment timeline was far too long. Several stakeholders are under the misconception that smart controllers are the water efficiency solution and not simply a component of the overall solution. WUE technologies are still not the primary promotion for contractors. Although strides were made in educating stakeholders about WUE, there is still a ways to go. The website was not used or promoted. Professional installations and better training would improve smart controller functionality and therefore water savings. Interviewee was not sure if right customers were being targeted. The frequent start/stop occurrences were challenging. Needed better communication in general from the Water Authority. Water rates are driving changes. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 49 of 124

57 Comprehensive Interview Summary Comments Member Agencies Home Owner Association workshops were valuable. Marketing was skewed to North County Home Owner Associations. Want them in the South as well. Home Owner Associations take a long time to make decisions and implement projects. First come, first serve may not have been completely equitable amongst agencies but overall was fair. Pre approval was a reasonable requirement, inspections ensured the savings. Implementers cannot assume that the contractor will make a site fully water efficient on their own. Therefore there is a need for additional checks such as pre approvals, inspections, and audits. The program does not provide equity for all customer classes but interviewee wonders how to successfully address single family. There were data transfer issues regarding the coordination of field inspections for the two agencies that performed their own inspections and the administrative vendor. The problems caused delays and increased work for the both the administrator and the two agencies. Improvements Interviewee thought that perhaps the various Water Authority program offerings should evolve into one common program. The program would have a menu of devices. Customer would be required to demonstrate inefficiencies (therefore potential water savings) through distribution uniformity test. If less than 50% efficiency, customer would be eligible. Grants should be pro rated based upon size. SL Grant Program customer used money for non water savings devices, not sure they were always cost effective. Without the incentives customer would not have done the project. SL Grant Program should be a true grant and give money upfront and in a timely manner. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 50 of 124

58 Comprehensive Interview Summary Comments Member Agencies SL Grant Program incentive amount should be revisited and potentially adjusted. Grants were confusing to customers and required a lot of hand holding. Expand eligible products for incentives. Programs should include soil moisture sensing technologies, soil amendments, plants and other technologies such as Solar Sync. Add smaller sites. Equipment Supplier Interviews Suppliers were a part of the SL Grant Program selling SWAT approved Smart controllers, pressure regulators, heads, check valves, flow sensors, pipes and other water efficient products to the participating contractors and customers. The suppliers originally heard about the program from WSA Marketing and were contacted through any of a number of ways including letters, s, phone contacts, trade associations and meetings. Of the participating supplier group, 75% are currently in a trade organization. They all stated that they stock a full spectrum of WUE devices including smart controllers, high efficiency nozzles, and low precipitation equipment. However, not one of the suppliers interviewed sells plantings. The suppliers had their own favorites, in regards to the smart controllers. Their product bias was widely varied. Several suppliers felt that water savings was impacted, positively or negatively, by the selection of the installing contractor and also by the model choice of the smart controller. This meant that they believed there to be a range in the capabilities of the participating contractors and the quality/functionality of the various controllers. Most stated (66%) that they typically received the majority of their program and product information from their corporate office and next from s. Suppliers (71%) said that is the preferred method of program communication for them. Table 4.5 illustrates the Equipment Supplier interview results, and Table 4.6 is a compilation of their comments. The Equipment Supplier interview form is included in Appendix C Interview Questionnaires. Note: Smart Controllers were among the top items selected by participants in the SL Grant Program; hence the high frequency of references to Smart Controllers. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 51 of 124

59 Table 4.5 SL Grant Program Equipment Supplier Results Question How did you hear about the program? Are you aware of other water use efficiency programs? Have you participated in other water use efficiency programs? How do you like to receive information? Was the participation process easy and straightforward? How would you rank the program eligibility and requirements? Response 100% stated from program staff. 100% stated yes. 100% stated yes. Most stated . 88% stated the process was not easy. 63% stated Too Stringent. How would you rank the participation process? 3.3 How would you rank the customer service? 4.5 Why did your customer (landscape contractors) participate? How would you rate the amount of the incentives? Too Low, Just Right or Too High How would you rate the payment timeline? What s an acceptable payment timeline? How would you rate the performance of the new water efficient product? Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good or Excellent How would you rate the ease of use of the new water efficiency products? Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good or Excellent Does your staff have sufficient training regarding water efficiency products? If you had it to do all over, would you participate in the program again? 75% stated to Increase Revenues. 100% thought they were Just Right. Most thought it was unacceptable. Average stated 60 days. Smart controllers = 56% stated Good Smart controllers = 44% stated Good 67% stated they had sufficient training. 100% stated yes. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 52 of 124

60 Question Overall how would you rate the program, 1 5, 5 being highest Response 3.8 (Moderately High) Table 4.6 SL Grant Program Equipment Suppliers Comments Comprehensive Interview Comment Summary Equipment Suppliers General Comments The suppliers liked the nozzles the best of all the products because they work well, are simple to retrofit, and have an incentive that covers about 50% of the purchase price. Most offered the program because they wanted to offer a better service to their customers (landscape contractors) or because their customers demanded it. Many did state that since the new rebate formats (Save A Buck and SoCalWater$mart) with lower incentive levels were introduced they have seen reduced sales of WUE devices. Most thought a Rebate was the best format program (this may be in reference to the internal issues with vouchers vs. rebates. This answer directly contradicts their views of increased sales and how sales have decreased since the program ended and MWD s standard rebate programs have been implemented). If the Water Authority is going to redesign the program, they should get landscape contractors direct feedback. They felt that both the installation contractor and selected controller made an impact on water savings and plant health. There was a definite bias for each equipment supplier as to what they thought was the best controller and this varied greatly by supplier. Program Successes All felt the incentives were just right. All stated an increase in business because of the program. Many did not show an actual increase in overall revenue (probably due to the economy) but saw increased sales of WUE equipment. One comment; James was really good. Mayda was always there. Without those two I would have quit the program. 78% attended training and thought it was sufficient. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 53 of 124

61 Comprehensive Interview Comment Summary Equipment Suppliers 67% stated their staff had sufficient product training, but no one requested additional product training. Most stated that the products were good quality. Rated customer service as 4.4 out of 5. Rated the participation process 3.3 out of 5. 71% stated their customers participated to increase revenue. 78% stated the collateral materials were helpful. Challenges Persistent message from suppliers that changes were frustrating and occurred too many times. This effect may have been compounded by eligibility changes for the WBIC voucher program. It seemed like it {program requirements} changed right when they had to pay you. However, 66% thought the process was basically easy. 50% thought the requirements were too stringent and not clearly communicated. Photocopy of water bill should have been allowed. Administratively, it was a burden to track each job to ensure incentive payment. 55% rated the performance of smart controllers as Good, 44% ranked them as Very Good or Excellent. 44% rated the ease of use/installation of smart controllers as Good. They stated that the incentives covered from 60 80% of the product costs. Ranked overall program 3.8 out of 5. Improvements The current active rebate programs, post SL Grant Program, have a much easier paperwork process and suppliers want programs with an easy process and much less administrative burden. Design future programs with online eligibility requirements (specifically recycled and well water). Provide more and online communication and program materials. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 54 of 124

62 Landscape Contractor Interviews In this section, information is summarized from interviews with participating landscape contractors who undertook projects utilizing the SL Grant Program. Landscape contractors participating in these programs ranged from large national corporations to small, single proprietor businesses. Please note that the six top contractors in the SL Grant Program (accounting for 42% of the grant projects) were interviewed for this report as well as several others. Contractors involved in these programs overwhelmingly learned of the programs from their equipment suppliers. Several are directly involved in regional water conservation initiatives or committees and served as program proponents as well. They generally chose to participate in the program because it provided an effective mechanism to engage customers in water conservation efforts that would save the customer money. Many stated that it was simply the right thing to do for their customers and the industry. Just over half the respondents indicated that they are members of professional trade associations (the most common being the California Landscape Contractors Association, as well as California Irrigation Association, and Building Owners and Managers) and have also participated in other water agency based efficiency programs such as SoCalWater$mart and Save A Buck. The contractors stated that nearly all of them offer numerous landscape water efficiency measures (such as smart controllers, high efficiency nozzles, low water use plants, etc.) as a normal course of their business. Approximately half the respondents found that the Water Authority s programs resulted in a modest increase in their business volume. They also indicated that their customers generally were motivated by the expectation that they would save water and money. The respondents estimated that the grants typically covered about 50% of the cost of the grantfunded projects, although several found that 100% of the project was grant funded. Additionally, most respondents found that they received a normal volume of customer complaints regarding stressed or unhealthy landscaping after the installation of the new equipment. Complaints are common after landscape projects, as some plantings rarely achieve 100% survival, and new irrigation systems must be tuned to a site s characteristics. Contractors generally found the incentive amounts in the SL Grant Program to be sufficient and the customer eligibility standards appropriate. There were several requests to scale the value of the grant to the size of the property to be upgraded. About half of the respondents found the grant reimbursement checks to arrive within an acceptable period of time (within days), while the other half indicated that the checks arrived too slowly (over 60 days). This is important, as many contractors agreed with their customers that they would be paid when the reimbursement check was received. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 55 of 124

63 Perhaps the greatest focus for discussion and/or improvement was on the smart controllers. There was not consistent agreement among contractors whether the controllers functioned well, were sufficiently compatible with other irrigation equipment, or if they caused unnecessary urban runoff and irrigation restriction violations. Interestingly, some contractors were very pleased with the technology while others had very negative perceptions of controllers. Nearly all contractors were willing to participate in future project case study opportunities, and perhaps most importantly, they overwhelmingly indicated that they would be eager to participate in future programs such as these. Table 4.7 is a list of the participating Landscape Contractors and Vendors. Table 4.7 SL Grant Program Contractors and Vendors List of Participating Landscape Contractors and Vendors Artistic Maintenance Landgraphics Artistic View Landscape Landscapes USA Bemus Landscape Inc. MGM Landscape Inc. Benchmark Landscape Morrow Landscape Blue Skies Landscape N.N. Jaeschke Inc Brickman Group Namvars Landscape Calsense Sales Rep. Nissho of California Caudillos Landscape Pacific Green Landscape Coast Landscaping Pacific Properties Services Del Mar Landscape Pacwest Land Care Del Sol Landscape Ponderosa Landscape Empire Landscape Pota Landscaping Esquire Landscape Rancho Del Oro Landscape Green Horizons Landscape Tierra Verde Resources Inc Green Valley Landscape Total Landscape Creations Greenbrier Lawn & Tree Treebeard Landscape Heaviland Enterprises TruGreen Landcare Holmes Landscape Co. Valley Crest Landscape Horizon Verdescape HydroEarth Viridian Consulting Group HydroPoint Western Gardens Landscaping HydroScape Western Landscape Maintenance J. Vitale Landscape Weststar Landscape Services LaBahns Landscaping Table 4.8 is the summary of the landscape contractor s responses to questions with quantitative responses. In all cases, 1 is the least favorable response, and 5 the most favorable. The Landscape Contractor interview form is included in Appendix C Interview Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 56 of 124

64 Questionnaires. Note: Smart Controllers were among the top items selected by participants in the SL Grant Program; hence the high frequency of references to Smart Controllers. Table 4.8 SL Grant Program Landscape Results Summary Landscape Contractors Question How would you rank the participation process? How helpful were the program collateral materials in promoting the program? How you would rate the performance of the new products? How would you rate the ease of use/installation of the new products? What was your customer feedback regarding their program participation experience? How would you rank the level of customer service? How was your experience with the program field staff? If you received program training (either technical or administrative), was it helpful? Overall, how would you rate this program? Average Comments Response 3.3 (%) Some contractors found the documentation requirements confusing and requirements changed mid program. 4.1 Many contractors had not seen the materials. Controllers 2.9 Numerous contractors found manufacturers defects in controllers. All other Please see Key Recommendations for equipment further explanation. 4.9 Controller 3.8 Some found the controllers to require too All other much maintenance to function properly. equipment Some customers were confused by the documentation requirements and desired less paperwork. 4 None. 4.1 Most respondents had very good experiences with the field staff. 4.1 Many received training from product vendors and manufacturers. Grant 4.2 % Most rated the programs highly or very highly. Customer Interviews For purposes of this report, customers were primarily Home Owners Associations, the property management companies that represent them, and other commercial customers. Additionally, numerous property owners, municipal and school district customers were interviewed. Customers largely learned about the programs from their landscape Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 57 of 124

65 contractors, although media, direct mail and billing inserts were also cited as initial sources of information. Across all customer types, there was an emphasis on and internet as the most desirable mechanism to notify customers of program opportunities. Interestingly, only a small percentage of participants in these programs have participated in any other water efficiency programs. Customers were typically motivated to participate in the programs in order to save water and money. Despite this, very few participants indicated that they knew whether their participation has achieved either goal. Approximately 2/3 of the respondents indicated that the availability of the grants and incentives was a deciding factor in implementing their water efficiency projects, and most often covered about one half the cost of the project. In nearly all cases with Home Owner Associations, they either directly pay the water bill or audit the bill after it is paid by their property manager. Overall, customers interviewed were unanimous in their support for the program and would participate again if given the opportunity. Table 4.9 provides the explanations of the customer s responses to questions with quantitative responses. In all cases, 1 is the least favorable response, and 5 the most favorable. The Customer Interview form is included in Appendix C Interview Questionnaires. Table 4.9 SL Grant Program Customer Results Summary Customer Participants Question Was the participation process easy to understand and straightforward? How would you rate the performance of your new water efficient equipment? How would you rate the ease of use of the new water efficient equipment? Did you receive helpful information or training on how to operate your new equipment? Overall, are you happy with your new landscape irrigation equipment? Did you receive your incentive check as quickly as you expected? Average Comments Response 4.3 (%) The majority of customers found the process easy. 4.2 None. 4 None. 4.3 Very few customers recall receiving any training. 4.7 Although unfamiliar with its operation, most customers are very happy with their equipment. 4.3 There was tremendous variation in how quickly customers expected to receive their check (30 days to 3 months). How would you rate this program 4.25 Very few customers recall any contact Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 58 of 124

66 Summary Customer Participants Question customer service? How would you rate your experience with this programs field staff? Average Comments Response with program customer service representatives. 4.7 Field staff were very well regarded by customers. In addition to the questionnaire, many contractors and customers added their own comments and provided very helpful insight into their experience with the programs: Develop databases of contractors and property managers and use that to market programs directly via . Allow for online completion and submittal of program application and documentation. Allow contractors to complete application for their customers. Allow smaller parcels to participate in the SL Grant Program. Develop an online water savings calculator for customers to evaluate the performance of their new equipment. Be consistent in the program offerings and do not change the requirements midprogram. Smart controllers can operate contrary to water restriction ordinances. This can penalize customers who may be found in violation after investing in upgrades to their irrigation system. There is generally a high level of awareness of drought conditions, water restrictions and the importance of water conservation among program participants. In spite of conservation awareness, the water efficiency programs must be aggressively marketed. To give a better feel for the participating customers and their experience with the Smart Landscape Grant program, follow up field visits were conducted. Appendix C provides three follow up case studies of three sites that participated in the Smart Landscape grant program, documenting the customer type, types of equipment retrofitted, the landscape area measurement, and water consumption histories. Note that actual water savings are measured using statistical methods in the next chapter. Water savings per site could not be separated into individual product performance or service received. Similarly, participants were able to request pressure regulation devices, but neither the Water Authority not its contractor performed pre inspection pressure measurement as it was not the focus of this grant. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 59 of 124

67 Chapter 5 Impact Evaluation: Actual Water Savings The purpose of this chapter is a statistical analysis of water savings among customers who participated in the Smart Landscape Grant Program administered by the San Diego County Water Authority. This Chapter documents a careful statistical analysis of historical water consumption data to derive estimates of the net water savings from participation in this program. Approach Historical water consumption records (from 2005 to early 2010) for a sample of participants and for a sample of nonparticipating customers were examined statistically. The hypothesis was that installation of new irrigation technology or better management of equipment would reduce the observed water consumption of customers participating in this program. (The null hypothesis is that installation of new irrigation technology or better management of equipment has zero effect on the observed water consumption of customers participating in this program.) Since observed water consumption can also change due to weather and vary by customer and/or site characteristics, it is important to statistically control for weather and customer/site heterogeneity. This study empirically estimates the water savings that resulted from professional installation of water efficient irrigation equipment. Since installation of Smart Controllers, low precipitation nozzles, pressure regulators, etc. requires the voluntary agreement of the customer to participate, this sample of customers can be termed self selected. While this analysis does quantitatively estimate the reduction of participant s water consumption, one may not directly extrapolate this finding to non participants. This is because self selected participant can differ from customers that decided not to participate. The explanatory variables in these models include: Deterministic functions of calendar time, including o The seasonal shape of demand, low in the winter and high in the summer Weather conditions o measures of air temperature o measures of precipitation, contemporaneous and lagged Customer specific historical water consumption records Intervention measures of the date of participation and the type of customer site Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 60 of 124

68 Data and Methods Consumption records were compiled from the member agency customer billing system for customers in the study areas. Billing histories were obtained from meter reads between at least January 2005 and December It is important to note that a meter read on August 1 will largely represent water consumption in July in a system with monthly meter reads. A meter read on August 1 in a system reading meters bimonthly will represent consumption in June and July. Since the number of days contained in a meter read can vary, the analysis converts customer water consumption to average daily value in a meter read period. In this way, consumption reads can be standardized across varying lengths of meter read periods. Table 5.1 presents descriptive statistics on the sample. A stratified random control group was developed for these accounts. In this application, stratified refers to the category or type of customer: accounts were stratified by customer type (Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, Multiple Family) and randomly selected. In this way, the statistical model can separately estimate the water savings effects for each group. The pre participation mean water use of participants in the SL Grant Program was compared to the random control group: participants were found to have preparticipation mean water use that was almost twice as great as the mean water use of the control group. In keeping with the program design targeting large landscapes, the SL Grant Program appeared to have successfully encouraged participation of higher than average water users. Table 5.1 SL Grant Program Accounts Statistics Smart Landscape Grant Program Accounts Descriptive Statistics Smart Landscape Grant Participants Commercial, Indus., Multi Family Institutional Non Participants Random Control Group Number of Usable Accounts ,567 Number of Consumption Meters ,018 Meter reads in Sample 31,480 5, ,025 PreSL Grant, Mean Use (gpd) 3,759 6,144 2,389 Mean Acres per Participating Account Not Known Total Acres of Irrigated Area 2, Not Known Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 61 of 124

69 The first major issue with using meter read consumption data is the level and magnitude of noise in the data meter reads do not generally coincide with discrete calendar months and some meter reads are estimated reads rather than actual reads. The second major issue is that records of metered water consumption can also embed non ignorable meter mis measurement (bad meter reads). To keep either type of data inconsistencies from corrupting statistical estimates of model parameters, this modeling effort employed a sophisticated range of outlier detection methods and models. These are described in Appendix C A Statistical Intervention Analysis of Water Demand. Daily weather measurements daily precipitation, maximum air temperature, and evapotranspiration were collected from the NOAA San Diego WSO weather station (CoopID ) located in San Diego county. The daily weather histories were collected as far back as were available (January 1, 1927) to provide the best possible estimates for normal weather through the year. Thus we have at least 78 observations upon which to judge what normal rainfall and temperature for January 1 st of any given year. Rolling monthly and bimonthly averages of rainfall and temperature were created to exactly match to meter read dates for all customer water consumption histories. More information on the exact construction of weather measures for use in the statistical models can also be found in Appendix C. Robust regression techniques were used to detect which observations are potentially data quality errors. This methodology determines the relative level of inconsistency of each observation with a given model form. A measure is constructed to depict the level of inconsistency between zero and one; this measure is then used as a weight in subsequent regressions. Less consistent observations are down weighted. Other model based outlier diagnostics were also employed to screen the data for any egregious data quality issues. Interviews with conservation staff and site visits were conducted to track down and confirm data quality issues. Findings More information on the statistical modeling specification and estimation are provided in Appendix C A Statistical Intervention Analysis of Water Demand at the end of this report. The empirically measured water savings of this analysis can be summarized: Water savings per site were estimated from the statistical impact evaluation to be, on average, 13.7 percent or.21 AF per acre, per year Refer to Figure ES.2. These savings are in addition to water savings attributable to regional messaging, ordinances, etc. To isolate water savings attributable to this program, the consultant compared participant water use to that of a similar control group. Additional savings information by sector is provided in subsequent sections. The data shows a higher savings rate at CII sites than Multi Family sites. This disparity in the savings rates can be explained by the nature of the site types. Participating CII sites had higher levels of pre existing applied water use. Many of the Multi family interventions were less intensive than the CII sites, therefore offering fewer Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 62 of 124

70 savings opportunities. Multi family Sites 10 : The sample of 235 multi family accounts (representing 641 separately metered sites) that participated in the SL Grant Program saved an average 10.8 percent 11. The savings rate per acre, per year for MF sites was.13 AF or 42,360 gallons. Commercial, Industrial, Institutional (CII) Accounts: Among a smaller sample of 77 CII accounts (representing 166 separately metered sites), significant water savings of approximately 20.5 percent were obtained from participation in the Smart Landscape Grant Program 12. The savings rate per acre, per year for CII sites was.46 AF or 149,891 gallons. The following chapter assesses the cost effectiveness of this program by site type (MF versus CII sites), for all sites in the program, and for DWR funded sites. 10 Multi family sites refers to the common areas within a multi family complex percent to 12.4 percent is the 95 percent confidence level percent to 23.0 percent is the 95 percent confidence level Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 63 of 124

71 Chapter 6 Cost Effectiveness Analysis The Cost Effectiveness Analysis uses the following steps: Identification Project Costs and Benefits by the different perspectives of customers, water suppliers, and society Water Savings quantitative summaries of water savings from the statistical impact models Cost and Savings comparison of project costs to project savings Summary of Project Costs and Benefits by Perspective Identification Project Costs and Benefits Customer/Participant Costs: Participating customers did incur additional direct costs related to the SL Grant Program intervention since the grants were limited. Customers typically incurred additional indirect costs related to any disruptions during the period of landscape retrofits or learning costs of adapting to new systems following the intervention. Benefits: Since the SL Grant Program produced water savings, participating customers benefit from reduced water bills. If the direct costs of the program to the water supplier are less than the benefits (the avoided costs of additional water supply), then non participating customers will benefit: the expected revenue requirement of the retail water supplier will be reduced over time. Water Supplier Water suppliers co funded the direct project costs and also incurred costs to design, run, and evaluate the SL Grant Program. Water suppliers chief benefit is the avoided cost of additional water supply. While there are state wide standards for estimating water utility direct avoided costs 13, an easy to understand estimate of a lower bound can also be made. A Lower Bound Estimate for the Avoided Cost of Imported Water Supply: Each acre foot of water conserved by the SL Grant Program avoids the cost of importing an additional acrefoot of water. Additional water supplies imported into San Diego County currently cost $811 per acre foot (Metropolitan s 2010 Tier 2 Treated Water Rate) and are projected to increase to $1,700 $1,800 per acre foot in This is a lower bound in that it does not include any water supplier costs within the county. 13 See Water Utility Direct Avoided Costs From Water Use Efficiency, A & N Technical Services and Gary Fiske and Associates, CUWCC and AWWARF, November Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 64 of 124

72 Estimated New Local Water Supply Costs: The SDCWA Water Supply Planning Committee estimated the following ranges of unit cost for alternative new local water supplies proposed for future development. (Table 6.1). Table 6.1 Ranges of Unit Cost of New Local Water Supply Alternatives Ranges of Unit Cost of New Local Water Supply Alternatives Recycled Water Proposed Projects $1,000 $2,439 per acre foot Groundwater Desalination Proposed Projects $769 $2,086 per acre foot Ocean Desalination Proposed Projects $1,265 $2,340 per acre foot Source: SDCWA Water Supply Planning Committee, September 15, 2010 report Though this report also documents estimated unit costs for existing local projects, existing projects tend to be somewhat cheaper. After the least cost projects have been developed, future proposed projects can cost more. The range of unit cost estimates for future proposed local water supply alternatives is reflective of the going forward costs needed for estimates of future avoided water supply costs. Society In addition to the costs and benefits listed above, the water savings produced by the SL Grant Program produce additional societal benefits: Cal Fed Benefits Water savings in San Diego County produce a benefit for the State of California by containing demand growth and reducing the need to import water from impacted areas. Stormwater Management By reducing over irrigation, SL Grant Program irrigation upgrades reduce runoff and overspray from urban landscapes into the stormwater system. Market Transformation The SL Grant Program produced additional accomplishments than those documented in a narrow cost effectiveness analysis of program participants alone. Irrigation equipment suppliers now widely carry a variety of smart controllers and high efficiency nozzles. Landscape contractors developed experience installing water use efficiency equipment upgrades and now market on this basis. These collateral improvements in the marketing and distribution of efficient landscape irrigation equipment and the know how to effectively implement these conservation measures produces water savings among non participants. Market Transformation can be thought of as having the opposite effect of free ridership, when customers are paid to do something they would have done anyway. Water Savings Table 6.2 provides the estimates of net water savings produced by the SL Grant Program. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 65 of 124

73 Estimated Savings SL Grant Program Site Type Multifamily Table 6.2 SL Grant Program Estimated Savings Label Value Units PreSL Grant, MeanUse 3,759 gallons per day per metered site meter reads in sample 31,480 Mean savings, % 10.86% Percent Mean savings, gpd gallons per day per metered site 408 MF metered sites in sample 641 Meters Estimated savings, AFY Acre Feet per Year Coverage of Sample =2273 MF irrigable acres in consumption sample / 2983 MF 76.2% acres in all SLGrants Estimated SL Grant savings Acre Feet per Year to 439 AFY 95 percent confidence interval 0.13 Acre Feet per Year per Acre CII PreSL Grant, MeanUse 6144 gallons per day per metered site meter reads in sample 5,798 Mean savings, % 20.50% Percent Mean savings, gpd 1,260 gallons per day per metered site CII metered sites in sample 166 Meters Estimated savings, AFY Acre Feet per Year Coverage of Sample =511 CII irrigable acres in consumption sample / 904 CII acres 56.5% in all SLGrants Estimated SL Grant savings Acre Feet per Year to percent confidence interval AFY 0.46 Acre Feet per Year per Acre Net Water Savings All Sites (MF+CII) Acre Feet per Year DWR Funded Sites 34.09% = DWR funded acres / 3887 All acres All sites Pre SL Grant, MeanUse 4250 gallons per day per metered site Meter reads in sample 37,278 Mean savings, % 13.73% Percent Mean savings, gpd 527 gallons per day per metered site Post SL Water Use 3,666 gallons per day Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 66 of 124

74 Metered sites in sample 807 Meters Estimated savings, Sample 527 Acre Feet per Year Estimated Annual SL Grant Acre Feet per Year savings all 799 # of metered Sites 1,134 Landscape Area 3,887 Acres Retrofit Area 2,784 Acres Annual Savings (in AF Per Irrigable Acre.21 Acre Feet per Year Annual Savings (in inches of applied 2.47 water Costs and Savings Table 6.3 presents the estimated cost effectiveness of the SL Grant Program with a 10 year lifetime. A simple nominal unit cost in nominal dollars per nominal acre foot is presented for simplicity of interpretation. Care should be taken as this nominal unit cost for conserved water cannot be used to compare to dissimilar water resource alternatives as no adjustment is made for the time value of cost and benefit streams. Note too that the direct regional project costs do not include the cost of water agency staff time to run the program. Table 6.3 SL Grant Program Cost Effectiveness Estimated Cost Effectiveness SL Grant Program Site Type Label Value Units Multifamily MF Lifetime (10 Year) Acre Feet over 10 Years Savings 3, Direct Project Costs $ 1,562,346 Grant, Admin, Inspection Unit Cost $ Nominal $ per Nominal AF CII CII Lifetime (10 Year) Acre Feet over 10 Years Savings 4, Direct Project Costs $ 825,602 Grant, Admin, Inspection Unit Cost $ Nominal $ per Nominal AF All Sites All DWRfunded Lifetime Water Savings All Sites (MF+CII) 7, Total Direct Regional Funding $ 2,387,949 Unit Cost All Sites (MF+CII) $ Lifetime Water Savings DWR funded Sites (MF+CII) 2, See Table 3.5 SL Grant Program Funding Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 67 of 124

75 Sites DWR Funds Expended $ 1,116,082 See Table 3.5 SL Grant Program Funding Unit Cost DWR funded Sites (MF+CII) $ Note: Direct Regional Costs do not include the cost of water agency staff time to run the program. Summary of Project Costs and Benefits by Perspective Customer/Participant The cost/benefit equation for participating customers was very favorable reduced water consumption between 13.7percent can reduce water bills by a higher percentage when customers are facing increasing block rate structures. The savings rate for MF sites was 10.8 and CII sites was 20.5 percent. Water Supplier By cofounding the SL Grant Program, water suppliers bought water savings that avoided the costs of importing additional water into San Diego County. At a direct unit cost of $286, the water savings from the SL Grant Program are highly competitive with the cost of other water resource alternatives facing water suppliers. Society In addition to the costs and benefits listed above, the water savings produced by the SL Grant Program produce additional societal benefits: Cal Fed Benefits Water savings in San Diego County produce a benefit for the State of California by reducing the need to import water from impacted areas. Stormwater management By reducing over irrigation, SL Grant Program landscape retrofits can reduce overspray and runoff and from urban landscapes into the stormwater system. Free Riders Free ridership occurs when participants are paid to do something that they would have done anyway. Given the limited availability of Smart Controllers and low precipitation nozzles at the beginning of the program, we believe that the level of free ridership was relatively low. Market Transformation The market transforming effects of the SL Grant Program is not captured by examination of program participants, as above. The effect of market transformation is to speed the general adoption of water efficient equipment and practices. This produces additional benefits that have not been measured by this evaluation. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 68 of 124

76 Chapter 7 Performance Relative to Smart Landscape Grant Program Goals The original DWR agreement (Agreement Number , effective April 2004) focused on Actual Water Savings. Original estimates of water savings potential (2003) corresponded to a 46 percent reduction per site or 13,320 acre feet over the life of the measures. 14 A later estimate (2007 in an application for expanded funding) estimated a 37 percent reduction per site. These accorded with an improvement in the irrigation efficiency from 0.45 to 0.71 as per AB 325. Achieved net water savings, as is often the case, were less than potential water savings but still significant almost 13.7 percent on average or 7,989 acre feet over the life of the measures. Original estimates of technical water savings potential based on simple extrapolations of potential delta changes in irrigation efficiency, though based on the best information at that time, did not yield accurate estimates of achievable water savings. The difference between technical potential and achieved potential is the reason that follow up impact evaluations are critical: to define what worked and what did not. Nonetheless, the actual water savings benefits produced by the direct project costs made the SL Grant Program favorably cost competitive with water resource alternatives. Inclusion of indirect project benefits would make this picture even more favorable. A copy of the annual monitoring data over the 5 year operational years is provided via a CD ROM. 14 The 2003 assumption of Pre Retrofit distribution uniformity (DU) was based on local DU observations obtained from field surveys. The estimated savings were derived as follows: Original Grant Estimate Pre Retrofit DU & Schedule 43,560sq.ft./acre * 48" Eto * 120% Eto * 0.8 Kc *.623"/gal / 0.5DU = 2,501,027 Post Retrofit DU & Schedule 43,560sq.ft./acre * 48" Eto *100% * 0.65 Kc *.623"/gal / DU = 1,354,723 difference 46% Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 69 of 124

77 Chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations Program-Specific Recommendations Program Design Conclusions The intent of the program was to fully utilize the budget and achieve significant water savings through installation of landscape efficiency equipment via grants. The monies were spent delivering these services and incentives as proposed. The Water Authority designed the program specifically to drive market changes by using the existing market players (manufacturers, suppliers, and contractors) and existing market structure to deliver the increased water use efficiency upgrades. There was direct and indirect evidence that the SL Grant program contributed toward this market transformation. It is important to note that there were national efforts underway by the Irrigation Association to expedite market transformation as well. The impact of the program cannot be completely isolated, however, it is safe to say that the program contributed to market transformation efforts. The increased availability of water efficiency products from manufacturers and available on the shelves of the local equipment suppliers was cited by vendors, contractors, and customers. Five years ago there were very few smart controllers available on the market and now there are dozens of models manufactured. High efficiency nozzles are now readily available in the market and are produced by several leading manufacturers. As noted by one of the member agencies, there is now a communication between market players: agencies, manufacturers, suppliers, contractors and customers. The key will be to maintain and leverage this new relationship into the future. The effective program design directly led to the installation of 474 irrigation system upgrades. Program Design Recommendations Reduce costs and increase water savings through better customer targeting. Who is wasting water? Not all customers. By installing at water efficient sites, the Water Authority drastically reduces the budget and overall success of the program. Identify the water wasters by using an effective screening process. The most logical method of customer screening is to create a water budget for the customer prior to participation. If the customer s usage is above their allotment, they could be eligible for the SL Grant Program. The Water Authority can then be confident that there will be reasonable water savings. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 70 of 124

78 Customers who are operating at or below their budgeted allotment are not cost effective candidates and should be culled from the program. These customers certainly ought to be given some type of kudos for their positive results and possibly be directed to other feasible measures to consider such as high efficiency measures. Program savings and cost effectiveness would increase by qualifying customers by prescreening them with the creation of water budgets prior to program participation. Increase water savings by improving contractor programming of the Smart Controllers. Many of the grants included smart controllers and verification inspections results revealed a significant number of programming problems attributable, most likely to the contactor. Many times the controller would be set on manual or not activated to receive a signal, dramatically reducing the opportunity for water savings at the site. In order to diminish the occurrences of these problems in the future, the contractors could be required to submit the programming hard copy to the programming administrator. By requiring the form, contractors would have to take the time to create the controller program, thereby minimizing shortcuts or overrides that previously went under the radar. Additionally, the Field Inspector would have a copy of the programming form while on site, allowing a more thorough verification of the contractors work, specifically relating to proper programming of the controller. Consider providing Water Restriction Waivers for customers with Smart Controllers. Many controller programs were overridden in order to adhere to the water use restrictions for on allotted days, therefore not operating optimally. It is recommended that the Water Authority encourage providing waivers for customers with smart controllers in recognition for customer adoption of irrigation efficiency. Marketing Program Marketing Conclusions The marketing strategies were designed and implemented by WSA Marketing. Honeywell hired this firm knowing their positive reputation within the water efficiency and business community in San Diego County. Marketing, as shown by the positive outcomes of the program, was devised and executed with a good strategy. By leveraging the contractor and their direct connection with the customer, a greater customer acceptance of high efficiency landscape equipment and smart controllers was seen. The program succeeded in gaining the support of a number of manufacturers, equipment suppliers, contractors and water customers. The marketing plan delivered participation results in a highly cost effective manner. With a modest budget, WSA Marketing recruited 17 equipment suppliers, 224 contractors, and over 1,300 program customers. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 71 of 124

79 With the first years of the program over, the easy customer hits have diminished. Future marketing campaigns will need to dig deeper to procure the pool of customers for the program. Increased customer marketing will most likely be needed, along with an increase in the marketing budget. Moving forwards, the Water Authority will be able to leverage the new relationships with equipment suppliers and contractors established throughout the region. As new programs are launched, less outreach may be required to garner participation from suppliers and contractors. The contractors commented that they would have liked easy access to program marketing materials with their company name, logo, and contact information visible on the collateral. In addition they requested automated tools including an online savings calculator. Overall, the program marketing was designed and implemented effectively. Program Marketing Recommendations Increase customer outreach as saturation rates increase. Additional support will be required to pull in customers for the program. Create more locally focused strategies and direct to customer communication. Member Agencies may need to run a current analysis of their high water use customers and initiate outreach to customers likely over irrigating and then contact these customers directly through mailings, s and other communication vehicles. Offer contractors easy access to materials and tools to better sell the program to their customers. Provide online marketing materials for the contractor to access. Allow the contractor to customize the materials by adding their company name, logo, and outreach information. The contractor could then print the sales piece or electronically request a print job. Create and online sales calculator that the contractor could use to demonstrate the project cost and savings to the customer. Provide online video product overviews and installation training for contractors to access. The videos would provide refresher training for contractors already certified for a particular smart controller or help the contractors to learn about new products on the market. Communicate the program participation process and contractor requirements on line. Provide a better way to communicate program requirements by posting videos online to show the program participation process and contractor requirements. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 72 of 124

80 Program Eligibility and Requirements Conclusions Requirements and eligibility frequently changed over the duration of the program. As is widely acknowledged, this created an enormous burden for the program administrator and stretched the payment delivery timeline well beyond a reasonable turnaround time. The problems caused by the shifting guidelines impacted administrative costs for the stakeholder who were involved day to day with the program. With these changes, there was a lot of confusion on the part of the market players about current program requirements. Eligibility requirements were not on the website or the applications. Many times changes were made after incentives were approved. The suppliers and contractors were frustrated with the frequent changes and found that they were spending an excessive amount of time reconciling. Although many of the changes improved water savings, or quality of the program, their time impact on stakeholders may have impacted overall participation and satisfaction. Other changes such as the requirement to provide dealer invoices along with the application directly reduced contractor s bottom line. Stakeholders believed that their ability to make a reasonable profit was being eroded. Table 8.1 details each eligibility and requirement, and the cause/effect of procedural changes over time. Table 8.1 Eligibility and Requirements over Time No Eligibility Category Description Change # of Changes 1 Eligible Properties: Recycled/Reclaimed Water Sites Consideration of whether properties (mostly Home Owners Associations) could use grants to fund installation of reclaimed water systems was not included in original program design. Sites using reclaimed water receive favorable rates intended to offset over time the installation costs. Therefore, grants were not allowed. Impact Participation: A few properties were advised they could participate and later told they could not. 1 2 Eligible Properties: Mixed v. Dedicated Meter Sites Starting in 2007 Honeywell was required to record meter type with member agency to focus on dedicated meter sites. Impact Increased Processing Time: Customers had to wait while their meter type was verified with their respective water agency. Impact Participation: Some customers were disqualified. 3 Grant Eligibility: Large properties with small Changed from minimum 1 acre 1 Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 73 of 124

81 No Eligibility Category Description Change Irrigated Landscape v. Total Landscape landscape areas were eligible for funding but arguably had lower water savings impact. property to minimum 1 acre irrigated. Impact Ensured Water Savings. # of Changes 4 Grant Application: Site Map A site map showing approximate landscape areas was not always available. Site map requirement revised to if available. Impact Decreased Admin.: Property owners that did not have a site map were relieved of the administrative expense. 1 5 Eligibility: Matching Grant Program launched with a requirement that properties document an equal or greater investment in irrigation efficiency. Eliminated the documentation of matching grant requirement. Impact Increased Participation: Ensured opportunity for less affluent owners. 1 6 Grant: Establishing Equipment/Device Reimbursement Amount Requiring Dealer Invoice to Contractor Name of Customer on Dealer Invoice to Contractor Contractor Invoice (to property owner) is used to establish voucher value. The amount charged the property owner for qualifying equipment up to Manufacturer s Suggested Retail Price and/or voucher limits is acceptable per the Dealer Agreement (vouchers) and Grant Application form. A copy of the Dealer Invoice to Contractor documenting the equipment s original sale to contractor was erroneously required through Fall, Procedures were then corrected. In early 2009, SDCWA modified requirements reinstituting the requirement. Impact Suppliers, Contractors: 1) Changed contractor business model by eliminating profit margin on materials. 3 2) Inconsistent policies created confusion, retraining needs and discouraged participation. 3) Administration and staff training increased to maintain and submit extra documentation. Impact Marketing/Communications: Extensive regional and targeted communications required to notify contractors, suppliers, property owners and managers of the changes. 7 Grant Application: Contractor Bid/Proposal Per the Grant Application form, Contractor bids were required and used to establish the merit of project, the Initially, the Program Office was also requiring a quote from the applicable wholesale supplier. That step was eliminated. 1 Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 74 of 124

82 No Eligibility Category Description Change 8 List of Eligible Devices 9 List of Qualified Installers and Contractors device/equipment prices, and, thereby, the total Grant amount. Periodic update of voucher and grant eligible smart controllers were distributed to contractors, suppliers and property managers. Although installation by a C 27 contractor was a requirement from the beginning (excepting properties with in house landscape maintenance staff), manufacturer specific smart controller training was required beginning in July The revised lists were issued as new devices were approved. Sometimes the list would be distributed more than once per week. The revised lists were issued as new contractors were trained and/or new devices approved. Impact Increased Participation: Accelerated product knowledge, training and installations because the list was provided to all applicants and contractors wanted to be included. Impact Increased Administration: Honeywell was required to check license status with the State Contractor s Licensing Board. Regular (monthly) updates would be more cost effective for program management and marketing/communications. Impact Distribution Excess: Sometimes the list would be distributed more than once per week, which seemed confusing to some recipients, but was eagerly received by contractors waiting to appear on the list. # of Changes 18 per year (estimate) 18 per year (estimate) Recommendations: Eligibility and Requirements Spend a greater amount of time pre planning program requirements. It is well understood by all program stakeholders that, moving forwards, program rules and regulations must be meticulously planned and tested prior to program launch. Consider Impacts of Program Requirement Changes to All Parties. Each stakeholder has a bottom line goal, whether it is to save water as with the Water Authority, to make a reasonable profit as with the businesses involved, or to save money for the customer. As rules change there is often a downstream impact which should be evaluated prior to implementation of the change. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 75 of 124

83 Once designed, the program requirements MUST be communicated well and in advance. Once established changes should not be initiated on a retroactive basis. Customers participated based upon set rules and it is poor customer service to modify them after the fact. The program requirements should also be clearly communicated through multiple channels including: Water Authority and Member Agency websites, program forms, marketing materials, and other program materials. Consider the creation of a video clip to visually walk the supplier, contractor, and possibly the customer, through the participation requirements and program paperwork. Systems and Processes Conclusions All involved felt that the customer service was excellent. Honeywell and WSA Marketing helped many suppliers, contractors and customers navigate through the obstacles of the participation process. The heavy amount of required hand holding greatly increased the labor time per processed application. The financial process and accounting quality control systems and procedures were adequate. Honeywell s BBCS program tracking system was a stable system that functioned adequately for the program. There were a few stakeholders who commented that the tracking system was inflexible and they could not get data or reports in a timely manner. Lack of online services including: program enrollment, application status checks and other services were perceived by all parties as a required and a missing element of the program. In addition, payment tracking was extremely cumbersome for stakeholders and took a lot of time to manually reconcile. All received an installation verification inspection. This resulted in a high level of certainty regarding contractor performance but was at a high expense to the program. Recommendations Honeywell s program tracking system should be upgraded to offer more stakeholder functionality. Program suppliers, contractors and customers should be able to go online in order to: Enroll in the program and, possibly, accept scanned receipts Check the status of a submitted application Allow contractors to create basic queries such as performance by month and date range, pass fail paid applications, and payments pending Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 76 of 124

84 Access approved lists of products, participating suppliers (dealers) and certified contractors. Access an online savings calculator The program tracking system also needs to be reconfigured to allow for easy program queries such as: participants that participated in all programs; order of participation; number of incentives by distinct customer, etc. Reduce program costs by decreasing the percentage of installation verification inspections. Installation verification inspections are an important but costly component of the program. The Water Authority and member agencies should cut back on the inspection rate in order to reduce program costs. This can be accomplished by reviewing the pass/fail rates per contractor and lowering the rate of inspections for the high quality contractors to 30 50% of sites. Underperforming suppliers or contractors can still be maintained at a high percent inspection level. Overall Conclusions In additional to SL Grant program specific recommendations for improved program tracking and more cost effective inspection functions, this report also provides broader conclusions for all of the Authority s Smart Landscape programs. Figure 8.1 Urban runoff from poor Build on the Success. This evaluation documents a irrigation at a nonparticipating site successfully implemented Smart Landscape water conservation program that produced cost effective actual water savings over a multiple year period. The water suppliers in San Diego County and public agencies in California need to address how these program successes can be built upon. Follow up site visits have documented numerous examples of remaining poor irrigation practices at nonparticipating sites. Figure 8 1, to the right, provides a vivid depiction of urban runoff from poor irrigation at a nonparticipating site. Opportunities for improvement include improved customer targeting, performance based implementation, and regional support for market accelerating activities with market actors. Additional Evaluation. Additional analysis is warranted to determine how average water savings varies by type of customer and intervention type; site location (economic or climate zone factors) and landscape area. This information can shed light on exactly what drives higher levels of actual water savings. Importance of Landscape Contractors Additional program experimentation can identify program delivery methods that drive participation in landscape efficiency improvement. Landscape contractors came to drive program participation in the Smart Landscape Grant Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 77 of 124

85 Program, providing the retail customer relationships and know how to accompany efficient irrigation technology. The SL Grant Program was noted to have changed ongoing offerings of landscape contractors, speeding the adoption of efficient irrigation technologies and practices; This produces additional, and not directly measured, market transforming effects. Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 78 of 124

86 APPENDICES Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 79 of 124

87 Appendix A Marketing Materials Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 80 of 124

88 Water Efficiency Rebates for Residents The San Diego County Water Authority and its member agencies participate in SoCal Water$mart, a region-wide program operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The program offers rebates for water-efficient purchases for single-family properties. For lists of products and guidelines: Visit and look under Programs and Incentives. I N D O O R S High-Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebates* starting at $135 The SoCal Water$mart Program provides a financial incentive to encourage customers to choose a highefficiency clothes washer (HEW) instead of a standard top-loading model. HEWs use 65% less water, 55% less energy, use less detergent; clean better; and are gentler on clothes than standard clothes washers. Co-funding provided by SDG&E. Higher incentives are available in some areas. For program information and eligibility requirements, please call Single-Family High-Efficiency Toilet & Upgrade Rebates* up to $100 The SoCal Water$mart Program offers a rebate of up to $100 for high-efficiency toilets and high-efficiency toilet upgrades. New construction is eligible for a rebate of $30 for high-efficiency toilets. Higher incentives are available in some areas. For program information and eligibility requirements, please call Single-Family Rotating Nozzle Rebates up to $4/nozzle The SoCal Water$mart program offers a rebate of up to $4 per rotating nozzle for single-family properties. Rotating nozzles are a good tool for reducing runoff and water waste. For program information and eligibility requirements, please call O U T D O O R S Single-Family Smart Controller Rebates The SoCal Water$mart program offers rebates for a "smart" controller of at least $230 for all customers in the Water Authority's service area. A "smart" or weather-based irrigation controller can be an effective technology for reducing water usage outdoors. The minimum rebate amount for single-family sites less than one acre is $230. For single-family sites one acre or larger, the minimum incentive is $630 per acre. Higher incentives are available in some areas. For detailed information, please call Water Savings Performance Program (Residential Sites Over One Acre) Metropolitan Water District provides $195 per acre-foot of water saved or about $3 per 1,000 gallons saved to homes on lots over one acre within San Diego County. Incentive is based on the potential for savings over five years. For more information call Single-Family Synthetic Turf Rebates A 50 per square foot incentive is available for synthetic turf. The replacement of irrigated vegetation with synthetic turf may significantly reduce your outdoor watering needs. Higher incentives are available in some areas. For program information and eligibility requirements, please call Single-Family Landscape Surveys (part of the Water Authority Smart Landscape Program) Free residential surveys are available to single-family customers looking for help in reducing outdoor water use. Surveys are designed to identify potential leaks, recommend water conserving devices, assess irrigation efficiency, and determine the proper landscape watering schedule. To request a survey please call (800) unless you are a customer of any of the agencies listed below. Customers of these agencies should contact the number provided for their agency. City of San Diego (619) Helix Water District (619) Otay Water District (619) Rincon del Diablo MWD (760) Vallecitos Water District (760) *Also includes multi-family properties of four units or less. Effective Feb. 1, 2009

89 Most of San Diego county s water is imported from other areas. Although smart water use is important at all times, historic dry conditions in regions that supply our water make it especially important now. Call us about funding. We can help. We have $ to help you repair or upgrade your irrigation system. Smart Controllers: up to $25-per-station discounts. Grants: up to $5,000 for irrigation equipment/materials.* Artificial Turf: 50 per square foot to replace natural grass. Free Landscape Evaluation: A water agency representative will visit and review your irrigation system. You will receive a brief report including water-saving recommendations. Call (option 2, 5) We have $ for indoor water-saving devices too! Toilets: Condo and townhome owners are eligible for up to $200 per toilet point-of-purchase discount. Save up to 60% every time you flush. High-Efficiency Clothes Washers: Homeowners receive a $175 voucher for point-of-purchase discount. Call * Hardware and/or equipment must be installed by a California licensed contractor with a C-27 landscaping classification. This requirement does not apply to properties with in-house landscape maintenance staff.

90

91 Commercial, public, multi-family properties up to $ 25-per-station discounts for smart controllers New construction now qualifies! Discounts are no longer limited to the replacement of existing controllers! Suppliers and contractors may now offer this point-of-purchase discount to all commercial, multi-family and public customers. Automatically adjust watering schedules as the weather changes. Improve landscape health and appearance. Reduce runoff. Here s How Before purchasing a new controller(s), request a discount voucher. Call (option 2, 5) to determine property eligibility and voucher availability or go to to download the voucher application. Vouchers must be presented at the time of purchase. The voucher will be treated like a coupon by participating suppliers and/or contractors. Contractors may request vouchers with property owner s/manager s written authorization. Participating customers agree to an on-site installation verification. Funding is limited and vouchers are distributed on a first-come, first-served basis. Guidelines Qualifying properties must have at least 2,000 square feet of irrigated landscape. Controllers must be selected from the current list of eligible models. Maximum 48 stations per controller. Controllers must be installed by qualified C-27 licensed contractors from the list of contractors provided by manufacturers. (This requirement does not apply to properties with in-house landscape maintenance staff.) No Rebates! There are no rebates available for previously purchased commercial or new construction controllers. Voucher discounts apply only at the time of equipment purchase. Free Water Management Reports When you participate in the Smart Landscape Program, your property may receive water budget information. It s a service that helps property owners and managers control water-related expenses by comparing the amount of water used with the optimal amount needed. Offered in select areas only. Please call your water agency for availability. CALL TOLL-FREE: (option 2, 5) or go to Participating Agencies: Carlsbad Municipal Water District, City of Del Mar, City of Escondido, Fallbrook Public Utility District, Helix Water District, Lakeside Water District, City of Oceanside, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Otay Water District, Padre Dam Municipal Water District, City of Poway, Rainbow Municipal Water District, Ramona Municipal Water District, Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District, City of San Diego, San Dieguito Water District, Santa Fe Irrigation District, Sweetwater Authority, Vallecitos Water District, Valley Center Municipal Water District and Vista Irrigation District. $ > > > > over for even more

92 Do you have a list of irrigation repairs or upgrades but no budget? Here s How Applications are available: from irrigation equipment suppliers; at manage/conservation.phtml; or by calling (option 2, 5). 4 Easy Steps Submit a grant application. We ll contact you about your application within 10 days of receipt. Complete installation within 60 days of approval notification. Fax, or mail receipts. Schedule an appointment to confirm installation. Call today (option 2, 5) Guidelines Funding is limited and grants are issued on a first-come, first-served basis. Grants may not exceed $2,500 per irrigated acre. Grant funds are not available for labor, plant materials, delivery or installation. Hardware and/or equipment must be installed by a California licensed contractor with a C-27 landscaping classification. (This requirement does not apply to properties with in-house landscape maintenance staff.) FREE Water Management Reports! When you participate in the Smart Landscape Program, your property may receive water budget information. (See other side.) We offer grants up to $ 5,000 for commercial, public or multi-family properties. Public properties may receive up to $10,000. FREE irrigation evaluations A water agency representa- to tive will visit and review your % irrigation system. You will 40 receive a brief report including water-saving recommendations. Customers must have at least 1 acre of irrigated landscaping. Water agency pre-approval is required. Call for information or to schedule a survey: City of San Diego (619) Helix Water District (619) Vallecitos Water District (760) Other agencies (800) (option 2, 5) We have $ for indoor water-saving devices too! 20 Water savings potential Need more money for irrigation repairs? Try the Water Savings Performance Program, which provides $195 per acre foot of water saved. Contact: Deneice Cotton (213) or dcotton@mwdh2o.com This program is offered by the Metropolitan Water District. Artificial Turf A 50 -per-square-foot introductory incentive is available to replace natural grass. When it s gone, a 30 /SF incentive will be offered. For an application, visit manage/conservation-overview.phtml > > > > over for even more$ P.O. Box 786 El Segundo, CA It s smart business to irrigate efficiently Call toll-free: (option 2, 5) We can help

93 Water Efficiency Multi-family Rebates INDOORS Multi-family Toilet Rebates up to $200/fixture The Save-A-Buck Program from MWD offers rebates for the purchase of high-efficiency toilets for owners of multi-family properties with more than four units. For program information and eligibility requirements, please go to 20gallonchallenge.com or call Multi-family High-Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebates starting at $135 The Save-A-Buck Program from MWD provides a financial incentive to encourage customers to choose a high-efficiency clothes washer (HEW) instead of a standard top-loading model. HEWs use 65% less water, 55% less energy, and less detergent; clean better; and are gentler on clothes than standard clothes washers. Multi-family properties with more than four units are eligible. Co-funding provided by SDG&E. For program information and eligibility requirements, please go to 20gallonchallenge.com or call Multi-family Smart Landscape Grants** up to $5,000 Grants for repairs/upgrades Multi-family properties may qualify for grants of up to $2,500 per irrigated acre (maximum $5,000) to replace or upgrade hardware and equipment that will stop leaks, reduce water use, or otherwise improve irrigation efficiency. (Examples: nozzles, flow sensors, valves, pipes, soil moisture sensors, etc.) For more information please go to 20gallonchallenge.com or call O U T D O O R S Water Savings Performance Program up to $195/acre-foot saved MWD provides $195 per acre-foot of water saved or about $3 per 1,000 gallons saved to multi-family sites within San Diego County. Incentive is based on the potential for savings over five years. For more information please go to 20gallonchallenge.com or call Multi-family Smart Controller Vouchers** up to $25/station Your property may be eligible for discounts on weather-based irrigation controllers. These smart controllers can help maximize your landscape investments and reduce water-related expenses. For an application and more information please go to 20gallonchallenge.com or call Multi-Family Synthetic Turf Rebates A 50 per square foot incentive is available for synthetic turf. The replacement of irrigated vegetation with synthetic turf may significantly reduce your outdoor watering needs. Higher incentives are available in some areas. For program information and eligibility requirements, please call Do this first! Get a Large Landscape Audit** Free landscape audits are available and recommended for over-watered, multi-family sites. The audit is designed to assess the efficiency of the irrigation system, identify potential leaks, determine the proper watering schedule for the landscape based on existing plant material, and provide ideas for replanting. Audits are available to pre-approved customers. To request approval contact your local water district. To schedule an audit contact (800) unless you are a customer of the agencies listed below. Customers of the agencies listed below should contact the number provided for their agency. City of San Diego (619) Helix Water District (619) Vallecitos Water District (760) **San Diego County Water Authority Smart Landscape Program

94 Appendix B Interview Questionnaires Implementer Questionnaire Interviewee Name: Title: Number of Employees Working on Program: Address: City and Zip: Organizational Chart Provided Yes Program: WBIC Day Phone: Subcontractors: Voucher SL Grant Mini Audit Implementer Questions What was your scope of work for the contract? What division of work would you recommend for the program (between the Water Authority, Member Agencies, the implementer, the marketing or other subcontractors? Any special skill set or expertise missing from the implementer program staff? Yes No If so, what skill or expertise? Any special skill set or expertise missing from the Water Authority program staff? Yes No If so, what skill or expertise? WBIC Incentive SL Grant Mini Audits Marketing Efforts Effective Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 87 of 124

95 WBIC Incentive SL Grant Mini Audits Ease of Participation Process, 1 5, 5 being easiest Incentive Level Targeted Technology/Measure Delivery Method Effective (rebate, voucher, audit) Timeline to Pay Customers or Dealers Program Eligibility and Requirements Assists in Meeting Regulatory Compliance Equity Amongst Customer Classes Equity Amongst Agencies Too low Just right Too high Delivers Real Water Savings Long Term/Sustained Water Savings Cost Effective Water Potential in Your Service Territory Top Target Yes No Don t know Appropriate Too Long Sufficient Too Stringent BMP 20x2020 Other Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Too low Just right Too high Delivers Real Water Savings Long Term/Sustained Water Savings Cost Effective Water Potential in Your Service Territory Top Target Yes No Don t know Appropriate Too Long Sufficient Too Stringent BMP 20x2020 Other Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know NA Delivers Real Water Savings Long Term/Sustained Water Savings Cost Effective Water Potential in Your Service Territory Top Target Yes No Don t know NA Sufficient Too Stringent BMP 20x2020 Other Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Sufficient Total Budget Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Sufficient Administrative Budget Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Sufficient Marketing Budget Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 88 of 124

96 WBIC Incentive SL Grant Mini Audits Easy for Contractor to Implement (1 5, 5 being easiest) Easy for Agency to Implement (1 5, 5 being easiest) Value of Program (1 5, 5 being highest value) Program Improvements WBIC Incentive SL Grant Mini Audits Marketing Improvements Participation Process Issues/ Improvements Incentive Level (what should it be) Targeted Technology/Measure (additional or eliminated measures) Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 89 of 124

97 WBIC Incentive SL Grant Mini Audits Delivery Method Changes Customer Payment Timeline (how long should it be) Program Eligibility and Requirements Changes Meeting Regulatory Compliance (how could it better address compliance) Equity Amongst Customer Classes (classes added or Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 90 of 124

98 WBIC Incentive SL Grant Mini Audits eliminated) Equity Amongst Agencies (how to better address equity) Biggest Success Biggest Failure Total Budget (recommended budget level or percent of overall budget) Recommended Admin Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 91 of 124

99 WBIC Incentive SL Grant Mini Audits & Marketing Budget and Pricing Structure Is the program web site user friendly from a member agency perspective? Yes No From a customer perspective? Yes No From a landscape contractor perspective? Yes No From an equipment supplier perspective? Yes No Program web site improvement recommendations.. What common complaints have you seen from customers? What common complaints have you seen from landscape contractors? Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 92 of 124

100 What common complaints have you seen form equipment suppliers/dealers? What common complaints have you seen from Member Agencies? Audit Program How would you rate the value of the audit report, 1 5, 5 being highest? Have you observed customers changing their water use habits as a result of the audit program? Yes No Who is driving that change? Property Owner Property manager Landscape service provider HOA Other? If other, who? What changes are you seeing being made? Interviewee Name: Title: Number of Participating Customers WBIC Voucher: SL Grant: Mini Audit: Address: City and Zip: % of Total Participants WBIC Voucher: SL Grant: Mini Audit: Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 93 of 124

101 Water Agency:: Day Phone: Program: Special Program WBIC Voucher Requirements: Yes SL No Grant Mini Audit cy Questionnaire M e m be r Ag en Water Agency Questions Why does your agency participate in the program? What benefits does this program provide to the local community you serve? WBIC Incentive SL Grant Mini Audits Marketing Efforts Effective Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Participation Process Customer Friendly Burdensome Customer Friendly Burdensome Customer Friendly Burdensome Incentive Level Too low Just right Too high Too low Just right Too high NA Targeted Delivers Real Delivers Real Delivers Real Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 94 of 124

102 WBIC Incentive SL Grant Mini Audits Technology/Measure Delivery Method Effective (rebate, voucher, audit) Timeline to Pay Customers or Dealers Program Eligibility and Requirements Assists in Meeting Regulatory Compliance Equity Amongst Customer Classes Equity Amongst Agencies Water Savings Long Term/Sustained Water Savings Cost Effective Water Potential in Your Service Territory Top Target Yes No Don t know Acceptable Too Long Too Lenient Appropriate Too Stringent BMP 20x2020 Other Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Water Savings Long Term/Sustained Water Savings Cost Effective Water Potential in Your Service Territory Top Target Yes No Don t know Acceptable Too Long Too Lenient Appropriate Too Stringent BMP 20x2020 Other Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Water Savings Long Term/Sustained Water Savings Cost Effective Water Potential in Your Service Territory Top Target Yes No Don t know Too Lenient Appropriate Too Stringent BMP 20x2020 Other Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Sufficient Total Budget Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Sufficient Administrative Budget Sufficient Marketing Budget Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Fits in with Local Goals & Objectives Fits in with Regional Goals & Objectives Easy for Agency to Implement (1 5, 5 being easiest) Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 95 of 124

103 WBIC Incentive SL Grant Mini Audits Value of Program (1 5, 5 being highest value) Would you Participate if Offered Again Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know Program Improvements WBIC Incentive SL Grant Mini Audits Marketing Improvements Participation Process Issues/ Improvements Incentive Level (what should it be) Targeted Technology/Measure (additional or Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 96 of 124

104 WBIC Incentive SL Grant Mini Audits eliminated measures) Delivery Method Changes Most Effective Delivery Method Rebate Voucher Free Product Direct Installation Pay for Water Savings Financing Audits Other Rebate Voucher Free Product Direct Installation Pay for Water Savings Financing Audits Other Rebate Voucher Free Product Direct Installation Pay for Water Savings Financing Audits Other Customer / Dealers Payment Timeline (how long should it be) Program Eligibility and Requirements Changes Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 97 of 124

105 WBIC Incentive SL Grant Mini Audits Meeting Regulatory Compliance (how could it better address compliance) Equity Amongst Customer Classes (classes added or eliminated) Equity Amongst Agencies (how to better address equity) Biggest Success Biggest Failure Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 98 of 124

106 WBIC Incentive SL Grant Mini Audits Total Budget (recommended budget level or percent of overall budget) Recommended Admin and Marketing Budget Did you conduct marketing above and beyond program marketing? Yes No If so, what type of methods did you employ? How well did the program contractor (Honeywell) implement the program? 1 5, 5 being highest What improvements would you recommend for the program contractor? How well did the Water Authority administer the programs listed below? 1 5, 5 being highest WBIC Voucher SL Grant Mini Audit Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 99 of 124

107 What improvement would you recommend for the Water Authority? How would you rank the Water Authority s level of customer service for the programs listed below (in regards to Member Agencies)? 1 5, 5 being highest WBIC Voucher SL Grant Mini Audit What customer service recommendations would you recommend? WBIC Voucher: SL Grant: Mini Audit: Is the program web site user friendly from a member agency perspective? Yes No From a customer perspective? Yes No From a landscape contractor perspective? Yes No Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 100 of 124

108 From an equipment supplier perspective? Yes No Program web site improvement recommendations.. Audit Program How would you rate the value of the audit report, 1 5, 5 being highest? Did customers use the report? Yes No Have you observed that customers are changing their water use habits as a result of this program? Yes No What changes are you seeing being made? Who is driving that change? Property Owner Property manager Landscape service provider HOA Other? If other, who? Equipment Supplier and Landscape Contractor Questionnaire Interviewee Name: Contractor Equipment Supplier/Dealer Interviewee Title: Service Address: Office Phone: Water Agency: Company Name: City and Zip: Cell Phone: Other Program: WBIC Voucher SL Grant Landscape Landscape Contractors and Irrigation Equipment Suppliers/Dealers Questions How did you hear or learn about (or get involved with) the program? Program staff Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 101 of 124

109 Landscape contractor Equipment supplier/dealer Equipment manufacturer Other: Why did you choose to participate? When did you participate? Are you a member of trade and other associations? If yes, note which association(s). Irrigation Association California Landscape Contractors Association Other (please list) Yes No Are you or your staff members certified? Yes No If yes, note type of certification for the specific association(s). Irrigation Association California Landscape Contractors Association Water Sense Other: Are you aware of other water use efficiency programs? Yes No If yes, which ones? SoCalWater$mart Save A Buck SDCWA Voucher Program Other: Have you participated in other programs? Yes No Is yes, which ones? SoCalWater$mart Save A Buck SDCWA Voucher Program Other: Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 102 of 124

110 How do you typically receive new product/program information? How would you like to receive information on program like this in the future? Where do you think this program should be advertised? Was the participation process easy to understand and straightforward? If no, how could it be improved? Yes No How would you rate the program eligibility and requirements? Too lenient Appropriate Too stringent Were the program eligibility and requirements clearly communicated? Yes No Do you understand the reasons for the eligibility and requirements? Yes No How would you rank the participation process? 1 5, 5 being easiest. What was your customer feedback regarding their program participation experience? How would you rank the level of customer service? 1 5, 5 being highest What drove your customer to participate in the program? For landscape contractors Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 103 of 124

111 Good stewardship/save water and/or the environment Save money/reduce my bill Reduced maintenance Plant health Needed new equipment anyway Other: For equipment suppliers/dealers Increase revenue Customer demand Off customers additional benefits Customer needed new equipment anyway Other: How would your rate the amount of the incentives? SL Grant Too low Just right Too high WBIC Voucher Too low Just right Too high If too low or too high, what do you think it needs to be? What percentage of the product/installations did the incentive cover? How would you rate the payment timeline? Faster than I Expected Acceptable Slower than I Expected Unacceptable If slower than I expected or unacceptable, what impact did this have? What is an acceptable payment timeline? Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 104 of 124

112 How would you rank the following delivery methods? 1 8, 1 being most effective (use number only once) Rebate Voucher Free Product Direct Installation Pay for Water Savings Financing Audits Other Do you offer your customer water efficiency measures as a standard part of your business? Which ones? WBICs High Efficiency Nozzles Low Precipitation Irrigation Systems Low Water Use Plants Turf Removal Other Are there other water efficiency measures you think should be incentivized? Yes No If so, which ones? Do you know how much water use efficiency measures save? Yes No Have your customer saved water from implementing the water use efficiency measures? Yes No Don t Know If yes, how much? Can we contact you regarding case studies? Yes No Are you incentivized or penalized by your customer based on the amount of water used? Yes No How would you rate the performance of the new water efficient products? Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 105 of 124

113 WBIC Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent SL Measures Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent How would you rate the ease of use/installation of the new water efficient products? WBIC Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent SL Measures Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Has your customer seen any changes in the appearance of their landscape? Yes No If the appearance has changed, how? How do you inform your customers about the program? Did you use water savings and water bill reduction to promote water use efficiency measures? Yes No Are you aware of water and sewer costs in the San Diego County area? Aware Somewhat Aware Not Aware Have you seen an increase in your business from program participation in the following programs? WBIC Voucher Yes No SL Grants Yes No Mini Audit Yes No Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 106 of 124

114 Did you attend any of the program training sessions? If yes, which ones? One on One Workshops Lunch and Learn Seminars Other: Yes No Did you receive sufficient training regarding the program? Yes No Were the program collateral materials helpful in promoting the program? Yes No If no, what other materials or tools would be helpful in promoting water efficiency programs? Does your staff have sufficient training/information regarding water efficiency devices and how to correctly install them? WBICs Yes No High Efficiency Nozzles Yes No Low Precipitation Irrigation Systems Yes No Pressure Regulators Yes No Check Valves Yes No If no, what type of training would you like to see? How was your experience with the program field staff? 1 5, 5 being the highest If low, how would you improve that experience? Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 107 of 124

115 Are there any other improvements to the program you would recommend? If you had it to do all over, would you participate in this program again? Yes No If no, why would you not participate? Overall how would you rate this program, 1 5, 5 being highest? WBIC Voucher SL Grant Customer Questionnaire Interviewee Name: Property Owner Property Interviewee Title: Manager Business Owner Business Manager HOA Representative Single Family Residential Company Name: Type of Business: Service Address: Day Phone: Water Agency: Customer Questions How did you hear or learn about the program? Landscape contractor Equipment supplier/dealer Water agency City and Zip: Evening Phone: Program: WBIC Voucher SL Grant Mini Audit Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 108 of 124

116 Web site Bill inserts/direct mail Media (i.e. TV, radio) Referral Other: How do you typically receive new product/program information? How would you like to receive information on water use efficiency programs like these in the future? Where do you think this program should be advertised? Why did you choose to participate? Good stewardship/save water and/or the environment Save money/reduce my bill Reduced maintenance Plant health Needed new equipment anyway Other: How much water did you believe you would save from participating in the program (implementing the measures)? Who pays the water bill? Are you/they incentivized or penalized based on the amount of water used? No Yes Have you participated in other programs? Yes No If yes, which ones? SoCalWater$mart Save A Buck Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 109 of 124

117 SDCWA Voucher Program Other: Was the participation process easy to understand and straightforward? Yes No If it wasn t, how could it be improved? How would you rate the program eligibility and requirements? Too lenient Appropriate Too stringent Were the program eligibility and requirements clearly communicated? Yes No Do you understand the reasons for the eligibility and requirements? Yes No How would you rate this program s customer service? 1 5, 5 being highest If low, what improvement would you recommend? How would you rate your experience with the program field staff? 1 5, 5 being highest If low, what improvements would you recommend? For WBIC Voucher and SL Grant Customers Only How would you rate the performance of your new water efficient equipment? Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent How satisfied are you with the appearance of your landscape? Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 110 of 124

118 Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Has the appearance of your landscape changed? Yes No If the appearance has changed, how? Are you seeing water savings? If so, how much? Yes No How would you rate the ease of use of the new water efficient products? Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Were your trained on the new water efficient products? Yes No If yes, what type of training did you receive? Was the training sufficient? Yes No If no, for what elements would you like to receive more training? Was the incentive/grant the deciding factor in your decision to implement the water efficiency measures? Yes No How would you rate the amount of incentive you received? Too low Just right Too high If too low or too high, what do you think it needs to be? Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 111 of 124

119 What percentage of the product did it cover? Very little Half Almost all All Don t know How would you rate the amount of time it took to get your incentive? Faster than I Expected Acceptable Slower than I Expected Unacceptable If slower than expected or unacceptable, what impact did this make? What is an acceptable incentive timeline? For Audit Customers Only Were you present at the time of the audit? Yes No Was your landscape service provider present? Yes No Not applicable How would you rate the value of the audit, 1 5, 5 being highest? Did the auditor spend sufficient time educating you and/or your landscape service provider? Yes No Was the format of the report easy to read and useful? Yes No Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 112 of 124

120 Have you gone back to the report for additional information? Yes No Did you make water use efficiency improvements due to (after the) audit? Yes No If yes, what improvement did you make? What % of recommended improvement did you make? Very little Half Almost all All Don t know How much did you pay to make the improvements? Who performed the improvements? Was the process easy? Yes No Did you receive an incentive for those improvements? Yes No Did you participate in the SDCWA s SL Grant or WBIC Voucher programs because of the audit? Yes No Did you save water based upon the audit? Yes No If yes, how much? Have you sustained those savings? Yes No Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 113 of 124

121 If any, what type of improvements could be made to the audit or report? For all programs If you had it to do all over, would you participate in this program again? Yes No If no, why would you not participate? Overall how would you rate this program, 1 5, 5 being highest? Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 114 of 124

122 Appendix C Three Case Studies of Smart Landscape Grant Participants Smart Landscape Grant Program Evaluation Page 115 of 124

123 Case Study: Site Description: Located in Santee, this small HOA consists of one road with attached homes along each side. It has minimal landscaping between the buildings and one sizable turf area. This site is irrigated exclusively with reclaimed water. Landscape Strip Quick Facts: Vista Del Verde HOA Started Grant application 6/05 Completed (check issued) 9/05 Check amt: $1, LAM = 44,000 sq ft Padre Dam Municipal Water District Items Funded in Part with Grant Funding Item Installed # of Stations Qty of Units Total Price WBICs 84 4 $3,556 WBIC installation Supplies - - $79 Turf Consumption (HCF) Vista Del Verde Consumption by Account Number Average Consumption Before Upgrade SDCWA contacted HOA in March '08 Reclaimed Water Account Number Reclaimed Water 0 Feb 05 Jun 05 Oct 05 Feb 06 Aug 06 Project Completed Sep '05 Average Consumption After Sep '05 March'08 Oct 06 Apr 07 Dec 07 Jun 07 Apr 08 Bill Date Dec 08 Jun 08 Oct 08 Average Consumption After Sep '08 June '10 Aug 09 Feb 09 Nov 09 Apr 10 Feb 10 Lessons Learned: An early participant, the customer installed smart controllers in September The inspection report noted numerous system leaks and also recommended check valves. This example shows the limited savings that accrue from addressing only a portion of system inefficiencies. In the spring of 2008 SDCWA contacted the HOA because of observed problems with leaking sprinklers and less than desired water saving results following program involvement. As the graph shows, there was dramatic improvement in water consumption after this follow-up communication.

124 Case Study: Site Description: Located in Alpine, this moderate sized HOA consists of single family homes built on fairly steep terrain. The HOA provides landscaping along major roads, across a large steep hillside and at a community park. California Terrace HOA Quick Facts: Started Grant application 6/06 Completed (check issued) 7/07 Check amt : $4, Invoice amt: $4, LAM =303,000 sq ft METER: Dedicated Items Funded with Grant Funding Item Installed Total # Stations Qty of Units Total Price WBICs 58 2 $1,352 Weather Monitor - 1 $300 Drip - - $1,500 Valves - 10 $1,000 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 800 California Terrace Water Consumption 700 Project Completed Account Number Roadside landscaping Consumption HCF Hillside landscaping 0 Average Consumption Before Upgrade Bill Date Average Consumption After Upgrade Park landscaping Lessons Learned: This project addressed three major areas of irrigation waste: Irrigation during rain events (WBICs) leaking valves water loss due to overspray, misting or hillside drainage (all addressed through drip). This multi-pronged approach to water conservation resulted in water savings that was evident as early as 2008 when the SDCWA analyzed this site for water consumption. The 2008 analysis showed a significant water reduction in the first year of post-installation consumption as compared to the 5-year period prior to the project.

125 Case Study: Solana Beach Union School District Site Description: Located in Solana Beach and less than a half-mile from the beach, this site serves a school grounds and district office. Quick Facts: Started Grant application 1/07 Completed (check issued) 11/07 Check amt : $6, Invoice amt: $ (Rebate based on LAM) LAM =119,790 sq ft METER: Mixed Use Santa Fe Irrigation District Turf Items Funded with Grant Funding Item Installed Total # of Stations Qty of Units Total Price WBIC 16 1 $1,821 Weather Monitor - 1 $1,089 Modem, transmitters & box 1 $5, Solana Beach USD Water Consumption Project Completed Account Number Large Mature Trees Consumption (HCF) Average Consumption Before Upgrade Average Consumption After Upgrade Jun 01 Sep 01 Dec 01 Mar 02 Jun 02 Sep 02 Dec 02 Mar 03 Jun 03 Sep 03 Dec 03 Mar 04 Jun 04 Sep 04 Dec 04 Mar 05 Jun 05 Sep 05 Dec 05 Mar 06 Jun 06 Sep 06 Dec 06 Mar 07 Jun 07 Sep 07 Dec 07 Mar 08 Jun 08 Sep 08 Dec 08 Mar 09 Jun 09 Sep 09 Dec 09 Mar 10 Bill Date Strips of Landscaping Lessons Learned: The incentive re-imbursement was pro-rated based on the Landscape Area Measurement (LAM) verified by an inspector. In this case, the customer received a check that that was less than 100 % of the total invoice because the estimated area differed from the measured area. The inspector made note of the fact that the customer was not happy about the reduced rebate. The enrollment in the program did result in water savings.