Oct 18 2015

EBMUD Excessive Water Users Announced

EBMUD publishes excessive water users names.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) established an Excessive Water Use Ordinance on April 28, 2015, effective May 29, 2015.  The penalties began as of July 1, 2015 with fines for single family homes consuming more than 1,000 gallons a day. The fine is $2 for each unit or portion of a unit over 80 units (59,840 gallons of water) per billing period (about 60 days). The fines will continue until the drought emergency ends. The bills mailed beginning in September are the first bills that will include the penalties. Excessive water use is a misdemeanor in accordance with California Water Code section 377 and EBMUD has the option to take enforcement actions.

Piedmont has 51 excessive water users. The names were published to encourage water conservation by pointing them out to their neighbors as required by California Public Records Act (Section 6254.16(d) of Government Code 6250-6276.48).

The most excessive user in Piedmont consumed 4363.33 gallons per day. However, 45 of the excessive users recorded in Piedmont were under 2000 gallons per day.

Alamo had 88 excessive water users. The most excessive user in Alamo consumed 8090.87 gallons per day. Orinda had 161 excessive water users. Danville had 211 excessive water users. The most excessive user in Danville consumed 12,578.87 gallons per day. Walnut Creek had 169 excessive water users, with the highest user consuming 5747.13 gallons per day. Lafayette had more than Piedmont but less than 100 excessive water users.

The Proposed Goal was 35 gallons per person per day

Only single family homes are listed and subject to the restrictions. As of April 15, 2015, single family residential customers were expected to limit indoor water consumption to 35 gallons per person per day. This is challenging even low water use customers since the estimated daily water flow per person even with energy flow toilets, faucets and shower heads exceeds the goal without including laundry or the use of a dishwasher.

Read the complete list.

Some of the previous PCA articles on water restrictions:

Rate Increase Hearing

California Water Board Targets



4 Responses to “EBMUD Excessive Water Users Announced”

  1. There was extensive discussion at Baja Piedmont blog site. Nora Cregan at the top of the list received a $2,600 water bill from EBMUD and immediately called a plumber. The repair was $18,200 and Ms. Cregan is not an over use offender. EBMUD should use a bit more discretion before “shaming” the innocent.
    There are others in Piedmont on the list; unless they live on large estates they may also be experiencing the same unfortunate issue as Ms. Cregan.

  2. First: When and by virtue of what law did EBMUD acquire “police powers” to impose “fines” on the public? Second: Has EBMUD been tagged as an “excessive water user” for their month-long water leak along the 1600 block of Grand and Lower Grand Avenues?

  3. EBMUD’s legal authority to adopt this ordinance under the state Water Code is described at https://www.ebmud.com/customers/regulations/excessive-use-penalty/

  4. Mr. Schiller, thank you so much for your comment. I would love to have had notice earlier that I had a leak — I would have fixed it far sooner, and saved the state a lot of water and myself some humiliation. Unfortunately, EBMUD only checks meters every 60 days, and has no ability to remotely monitor spikes in water use and notify users of unusual use levels. They could save a lot of water by monitoring and notifying, but I don’t know what the economics of that process would be. Because I live on a steep hill, there was no obvious evidence of a leak, so short of checking my meter every day, I had no way of knowing I had a leak until I got my bill.

    I had some discussions with EBMUD about their release of names. I understand that under the PRA they had an obligation to release information. We had a disagreement about the manner in which they released it. EBMUD could have notified users of the release of names, but did not. They also did not have the obligation to issue a press release and have a press conference, but that is probably a quibble.

Leave a Comment