The City Council voted unanimously to adopt the city's 2026 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment at its last meetingt, a state-required report projecting that Santa Monica will have more than enough water to meet demand over the coming year, even under worst-case drought conditions.
The 6-0 vote came at the council's June 9 meeting. Council member Snell made the motion to adopt the assessment, and Council member Ellis Raskin seconded it. Mayor Pro Tem Jesse Zwick was absent.
The assessment, required annually under the California Water Code, analyzes whether the city can meet water demand during a projected hot, dry year. For this report, that period runs from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027. The analysis is meant to identify potential shortages and, if necessary, trigger response actions to head them off.
By the city's projections, supply will comfortably outpace demand. Even without any conservation measures, staff estimated a 14 percent surplus — enough to place Santa Monica at the state's Standard Shortage Level 0, meaning no shortage. Factoring in the city's longstanding 20 percent conservation target, that cushion grows to a 34 percent surplus.
The higher figure shows the city does "have an abundance of water," Dinaz Kureishy, a civil engineering associate in the Water Resources Division, told the council during a presentation on the item.
To reach those numbers, staff assumed a constrained set of supplies. The assessment counts on 6,755 acre-feet of local groundwater, a worst-case figure drawn from the city's 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, plus 7,406 acre-feet from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's Tier 1 allotment. Together that totals 14,161 acre-feet of available supply for the projected year.
Against that supply, the city set demand at two levels. Unconstrained demand — water use with no conservation — was projected at 12,472 acre-feet, leaving the 14 percent surplus. Constrained demand, which reflects the city's 20 percent conservation reduction, was 9,977 acre-feet, producing the 34 percent surplus.
Despite the no-shortage finding, staff recommended that the city remain in a Stage 2 Water Shortage, which calls for a 20 percent reduction in water use compared with each customer's 2013 baseline. Santa Monica has stayed in Stage 2 since 2014 and has consistently met the 20 percent target, according to the staff report.
Staff said maintaining Stage 2 supports the city's broader water goals and helps comply with state mandates, including the 2009 Water Conservation Act, known as Senate Bill X7-7, and Executive Order B-37-16, which focuses on permanently reducing per-capita water use. Officials also framed conservation as a way to protect ratepayers, noting that lifting Stage 2 would increase demand and push the city to buy more imported water, which could raise rates.
Two council members pressed staff on whether the favorable outlook accounts for the city's pace of development. Council member Dan Hall asked staff to revisit the supply figures, seeking to confirm that the projection reflected "the water supply we need for all of the zoning and the planned building and everything."
Council member Lana Negrete sharpened the point, saying residents watching the meeting share her concern. "All development is happening," she said. "I wonder if we have the infrastructure to support it." She asked whether the assessment's figures account for the thousands of new housing units being built. "Do these numbers reflect supporting that for this next year?" she said. Negrete also praised the presentation, telling Kureishy, "You're doing amazing in this element."
Kureishy said the report is narrower than that. "This document is only taking into account for the next year, so we're not looking at long-term growth," she said, adding that it is difficult to forecast exactly how much development will occur in a single year. The one-year assessment is a state requirement rather than a city planning tool, she said, and long-term capacity for projected growth is addressed through other documents, including the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
Staff also recommended that the council adopt a finding that the assessment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under the act's "common sense" exemption, on the basis that the report cannot have a significant effect on the environment.
Staff reported no immediate financial impact from the action and said they would return to the council if budget actions become necessary. The assessment was prepared by the Public Works Department's Water Resources Division and was presented to the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment on Feb. 23.