Sutter Creek – The Amador Water Agency looked at the costs of implementing required “Best Management Practices” for water conservation policy on Thursday, and discussed a consultant’s presentation on some of the aspects. AWA Finance Manager Mike Lee introduced Leslie Dumas of RMC Water & Engineering, who has been working as the agency’s conservation coordinator since July. Lee said the board still needs to present its water conservation policy and draft conservation plan to the public, at a date to be determined. Dumas talked about draft programs, along with financial figures. Lee said the “spreadsheet represents our preliminary estimates regarding the water conservation program structure, costs, and efforts to date.” Among the top water savers was “residential plumbing retrofits,” which would cost an estimated $10,850 the first year. Dumas said it could include an educational aspect – a separate Best Management Practice – that would “give presentations to fifth grade classes” at all schools in the county. She said each fifth grader could take home a “low-flow shower head.” She said the goal would be to retrofit homes with efficient fixtures. The program was projected to cost $14,000 a year for 4 years, and would aim at upgrading 75 percent of homes. Another practice, “system water audits, leak detection and repair,” could cost $20,000 a year, but also cost an estimated $100,000 in the second year. Dumas said the ballooned costs would be from the possibility of having to excavate for, and repair, suspected leaks. Interim General Manager Gene Mancebo said such costs in might qualify for grant funding. Another best practice requires having meters for all customers. The board heard that the agency still has 158 customers paying flat rates. Those include 127 residential customers with or without meters; 2 commercial customers; and 29 raw water customers still served by the ditch system, 11 of which have meters. Updating all meters would cost $31,000. Another Best Management Practice discussed was a “large landscape rebate program.” Director Debbie Dunn asked if the number of large irrigation accounts, 192, was a “hard number,” and also whether there was a definition or number related to the term “large.” Dumas said there is no defining number for a “large irrigation customer,” and the number 192 was not a real count of such customers. Dunn said the number should be lower, and Lee said the number was already lowered. Dunn said she thought it should be more like 50 large irrigation accounts. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.