Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reporting And Data Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State water board: 92% of suppliers filed reports; data quality and landscape-measurement issues complicate compliance
Summary
State Water Resources Control Board staff told a June webinar that about 92% of urban retail suppliers filed the most recent report and roughly 77% of reporting suppliers met their objectives; presenters warned that unit errors, outdated population counts and landscape-area misclassification can skew objectives and urged earlier data review and technical support.
State Water Resources Control Board staff told attendees at a June webinar that reporting for the "Making conservation a California way of life" regulation has been broadly successful so far but that several data shortcomings complicate compliance work.
"So as of early June, about 92% of suppliers submitted their reports for the most recent reporting deadline, which was this January 1st of 2026," Karina Era said during the presentation. Era added that about 77% of suppliers that submitted reports met their urban water use objective for the past fiscal year.
Scope and deadlines: staff reiterated that the regulation took effect January 1, 2025 and that annual reports reflect the prior fiscal year; the board will begin enforcing compliance with the urban water use objective in the report due January 1, 2027, Mariel Rodero, the conservation team's data lead, said.
Common data problems: presenters cataloged repeat errors that can materially change a supplier's calculated objective. Ashley Spalding, a data specialist at the state board, said many mistakes stem from simple misunderstandings of reporting requirements and unit mismatches. "A unit mismatch can drastically skew your numbers," she said and recommended careful checks of the Safer Clearinghouse values and offered staff office hours and one-on-one support.
Landscape-area measurement (LAM) concerns: Department of Water Resources staff explained that DWR provided residential LAM from 2018 (and some 2020) imagery and a provisional CI landscape dataset as starting points. Christopher Tull of the California Data Collaborative showed examples where automated classification failed to mark irrigated desert landscaping or where parcel land-use codes were missing; if similar errors repeat across a service area, suppliers could undercount landscape area and therefore understate their objective.
CI performance measures and classification work: suppliers must classify CI customers into one of 22 categories and report on high‑use customers or percentiles depending on reporting choices. Speakers said joining billing, meter and category data is often required to rank consumption and identify top users — a technically nontrivial operation for agencies without data tools.
Support and remedies: organizers pointed suppliers to pre-filled reporting forms, a compliance resource hub and tools such as a LAM Explorer, and encouraged early engagement: "start soon," Spalding said, noting that collecting and validating the data can take months. Staff provided a contact email for technical questions and suggested requesting alternative data when the provided LAM does not reflect local conditions.
Next steps: the board and partners plan follow-up webinars (a July 1 session on alternative compliance and additional sessions in August) and urged agencies to review their LAM and population inputs now and to consider applying to the technical-assistance pilot if they need help.
