Show All Answers

1. What role does the State Water Project (SWP) play in the GSP?

The Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) entered into a Water Supply Contract (Contract) with DWR on December 19, 1963. This contract provided the District with water supplies from the SWP. Subsequently, the District entered into sub-contracts with the cities of Napa, American Canyon and Calistoga. These agencies are referred to as "Member Units."

The District may request up to 29,025 acre-feet of water annually from the SWP, for use by the three cities. For 2021, the approved allocation was 5% or 1,451 acre-feet. There is a prior year carryover of 4,853 acre-feet.

The SWP applies to the sustainability of ongoing municipal water service deliveries. Surface water resources are accounted for in the water budget for the subbasin in the GSP.

2. What did the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) recommend in their Municipal Service Review (MSR) and how does that affect the GSA?

On October 5, 2020, the LAFCO adopted the Napa Countywide Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review (MSR). LAFCO is required to prepare a Countywide Water MSR by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code §56000, et seq.), which took effect on January 1, 2001. The water and wastewater service review examines services provided by public agencies whose boundaries and governance are subject to LAFCO.

The MSR reviewed the water service adequacy for each of the 14 agency providers, including distribution system integrity as defined by breaks and leaks and system water loss, and drinking water quality. Based on these indicators, it was found that all agencies in Napa provide at least minimally adequate water service.

The MSR identified various challenges to water service providers in Napa County, including:

• Lack of a regional outlook for water resources,
• A need for cohesive and comprehensive policies affecting both growth and water supply (i.e., trucked water policies),
• Lack of a single entity accounting for water supply and demand throughout the County to better leverage available resources,
• Collaboration on a case-by-case scenario,
• Some County water resources not being used to the fullest extent possible,
• A need for greater oversight of all jurisdictions providing water services in the County,
• A need for support buying on the spot market,
• Certain redundancies with several smaller systems around the County, which could be eliminated,
• A need for support of mutual water companies and small non-public water systems,
• A need for supplemental technical expertise and support, and
• A lack of economies of scale in the smaller water and wastewater systems.

One recommendation to address various challenges to water service provisions identified in the MSR is to promote regionalization of planning and solidarity of organization for water resources. Governance options include a single agency to conduct water supply management on a regional or countywide level, such as a county water agency and/or an agency to provide management and operational support to the smaller utility systems that could benefit from the consolidation of certain services (i.e., lab testing) or from fully transitioning to operations by a regional agency, such as a county water district. A county water agency, county water district, or joint powers authority would provide a means to improve efficiency of water supply management in the County, as well as continued and enhanced resource sharing.

3. Would a single county-wide water agency solve the drought?

The MSR identified several challenges to forming a countywide water agency or district, including:

• Achieving agency consensus on forming a single governance
• Maintaining local control over water service
• Agency representation within a countywide provider
• Revenue generation
• Changes to existing water rates, and
• Redefining existing agency roles.

It should also be noted that there are multiple agencies (Federal, State, and local) involved in regulating and supplying water. The LAFCO study identified 14 cities, town, and districts that provide water service. There are also over 150 community water systems, and transient and non-transient non-community water systems. This is in addition to the thousands of individual domestic and agricultural wells. These water systems and wells are not inter-connected into an integrated water supply system of pipes and canals; there is no ability to move water from where it is plentiful to where it is needed without trucking. The level of complexity and effort required to develop a plan for countywide water distribution would take many years to complete (assuming that all parties were agreeable and no outside parties litigated) and would not provide any immediate solutions for the current emergency. 

4. What steps is City of Napa taking to limit the sale of trucked water to residents in the unincorporated area?

In 2017, the City allowed 11.6 million gallons of trucked water for non-construction related uses, equivalent to 3,612 truckloads or 35.47 acre-feet. City staff estimated at that time that approximately 50% of all non-construction trucked water was for residential use.

As part of a proposal to expand water restrictions, the City of Napa is considering the following additional requirements:

• Prohibit all trucked water usage except for residential indoor domestic use;
• Limit indoor residential use to 6,000 gallons per property per month (approximately 0.15 acre-feet per year);
• Limit water for construction use to those parcels served by City water;
• Require all water haulers to sign an agreement with the City;
• Require all water haulers to be State licensed/certified potable haulers;
• Limit water haulers to 80% of the amount of water they hauled last year; and

Terminate all temporary hydrant meters beginning August 1 – contracts will be required to re-establish temporary hydrant meters after August 1.

5. Return to the Groundwater FAQ page

Groundwater FAQs