United States
  Environmental Pro'
Cases in Water
            How Efficiency Programs Help Water
            Utilities Save Water and Avoid Costs
                     C J T V Of
                water cc>nser\Tat!on
                        Tampa Water Department

A  Message  from the
                  Christine Todd Whitman
                     I believe water is the biggest environmental issue we face in
                  the 21st Century in terms of both quality and quantity. In the 30
                  years since its passage, the Clean Water Act has dramatically
                  increased the number of waterways that are once again safe for
                  fishing and swimming. Despite this great progress in reducing
                  water pollution, many of the nation's waters still do not meet
                  water quality goals. I challenge you to join with me to finish the
                  business of restoring and protecting our nation's waters for pres-
                  ent and future generations.

Table of Contents
Introduction                                                       2

Summary of Conservation Case Studies                            3

Case Studies
Albuquerque, New Mexico                                                 7
Ashland, Oregon                                                      10
Gary, North Carolina                                                    12
Gallitzin, Pennsylvania                                                  15
Gilbert, Arizona                                                       17
Goleta, California                                                      19
Houston, Texas                                                        21
Irvine Ranch Water District, California                                       24
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority                                     27
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California                               29
New York City, New York                                                31
Phoenix, Arizona                                                      33
Santa Monica, California                                                 36
Seattle, Washington                                                     39
Tampa, Florida                                                        42
Wichita, Kansas                                                       44
Barrie, Ontario                                                        47

Acknowledgements                                               49
                                                          Table of Contents

   Water utilities across the United States and elsewhere in North America are saving substan-
tial amounts of water through strategic water-efficiency programs. These savings often trans-
late into capital and operating savings, which allow systems to defer or avoid significant
expenditures for water supply facilities and wastewater facilities.
   These case studies feature the efforts and achievements of 17 water systems. These systems
range in size from small to very large, and their efficiency programs incorporate a wide range
of techniques for achieving various water management goals. In every case, the results are
impressive. The following summary table provides an overview of the case studies, highlight-
ing problems addressed, approaches taken, and results achieved. In general, water conserva-
tion programs also produce many environmental benefits, including reduced energy use,
reduced wastewater discharges, and protection of aquatic habitats.
   The incidence of water conservation and water reuse programs has increased dramatically
in the last 10 years. Once associated only with the arid West, these programs have spread geo-
graphically to almost all parts of the United States. In many cities, the scope of water conserva-
tion programs has expanded to include not only residential customers, but commercial,
institutional, and industrial customers, as well. These case studies illustrate some of the tangi-
ble results achieved by water conservation programs implemented at the local level. Many of
these accomplishments have  broader relevance to other communities facing similar water
resource management and infrastructure investment issues.
   EPA used secondary data sources to compile these case studies. These sources are cited in
the "Resources" section at the end of each piece. In addition, contacts for each water system
have reviewed and approved their case study. Because the case studies come from secondary
sources, the type of information provided is not necessarily uniform or comparable, and is not
intended to provide generalized results. The terms water conservation and water efficiency are
used here in their broadest context, which includes water loss management, wastewater recla-
mation and reuse for non-potable purposes, adoption of conservation water rates, changes to
more efficient water-using equipment, and behavioral changes that reduce water use.

Summary of Conservation  Case Studies
New Mexico
North Carolina
A dry climate and increased
population growth put a strain on
Albuquerque's water supply.
Albuquerque's Long-Range Water
Conservation Strategy Resolution
consisted of new conservation-based
water rates, a public education program,
a high-efficiency plumbing program,
landscaping programs, and large-use
Albuquerque's conservation
program has successfully
slowed the groundwater
drawdown so that the level of
water demand should stay
constant until 2005. Peak
demand is down 14% from 1990.
Accelerated population growth      Ashland's 1991 water efficiency program Ashland's conservation efforts
in the 1980s and the expiration
of a critical water right created a
water supply problem.
consisted of four major components:
system leak detection and repair,
conservation-based water rates, a
showerhead replacement program, and
toilet retrofits and replacement.
With the population more than      Gary's water conservation program
doubling during the past 10        consists of eight elements: public
years and high water demand      education, landscape and irrigation
during dry, hot summers, the city's  codes, toilet flapper rebates, residential
                water resources were seriously
By the mid-1990s, the town of
Gallitzin was experiencing high
water loss, recurring leaks, low
pressure, high operational costs,
and unstable water entering the

Rapid population growth during
the 1980s put a strain on the
water supply of this Arizona town
located in an arid climate.
                                audits, conservation rate structure, new
                                homes points program, landscape
                                water budget, and a water reclamation
Gallitzin developed an accurate meter
reading and system map, and a leak
detection and repair program.
Gilbert instituted a multi-faceted water
conservation program that included
building code requirements, an
increasing-block water rate structure, a
have resulted in water savings of
approximately 395,000 gallons
per day (16% of winter usage)
as well as a reduction in
wastewater volume.
Gary's water conservation
program will reduce retail water
production by an estimated 4.6
mgd by the end of 2028, a
savings of approximately 16% in
retail water production. These
savings reduced operating costs
and have already allowed Gary to
delay two water plant expansions.

The results of the program were
dramatic. Gallitzin realized an
87% drop in unaccounted-for
water, a 59% drop in production,
and considerable financial

Gilbert has been particularly
successful reusing reclaimed
water. A new wastewater
reclamation plant was built, as
                                                metering program, public education, and well as several recharge ponds
                                                a low water-use landscaping program.   that serve as a riparian habitat for
                                                                                    a diverse number of species.

Summary of Conservation  Case Studies
City           Problem                      Approach
Goleta,         A growing California town, Goleta   Goleta established a water efficiency
                was facing the possibility of future   program that emphasized plumbing
                water shortages. Its primary water  retrofits,  including high-efficiency toilets,
                source, Lake Cachuma, was not    high-efficiency showerheads, and
                sufficient to meet its needs.        increased rates.
                                                Houston implemented a comprehensive
                                                conservation program that included an
                                                education program, plumbing retrofits,
                                                audits, leak detection and repair, an
                                                increasing-block rate structure,  and
                                                conservation planning.
                                                                     The program was highly
                                                                     successful, resulting in a 30%
                                                                     drop in district water use. Goleta
                                                                     was able to delay a wastewater
                                                                     treatment plant expansion.

                                                                     The dramatic success of pilot
                                                                     programs has led Houston to
                                                                     predict a 7.3% reduction in water
                                                                     demand by 2006 and savings of
                                                                     more than $260 million.
                Houston's groundwater sources
                have experienced increasing
                problems with land subsidence,
                saltwater intrusion, and flooding.
                These problems, along with a
                state regulation to reduce
                groundwater use, led Houston to
                explore methods for managing
                groundwater supplies.

Irvine Ranch    IRWD has experienced dramatic    IRWD's primary conservation strategy    After the first year of the new rate
Water District,
population growth, drought
conditions in the late 80s and
early 90s,  and increasing
wholesale water charges.
                                                was a new rate structure instituted in     structure, water use declined by
                                                1991. The five-tiered rate structure       19%. Between 1991 and 1997,
                                                rewards water-efficiency and identifies    the district saved an estimated
                                                when water is being wasted. The goal is  $33.2 million in avoided water
                                                to create a long-term water efficiency    purchases.
                                                ethic, while maintaining stable utility
Water District
of Southern
MWRA is a wholesale water
provider for 2.2 million people.
From 1969 to 1988, MWRA
withdrawals exceeded the safe
level of 300 mgd by more than
10% annually.
Metropolitan Water District is the
largest supplier of water for
municipal purposes in the United
States. Metropolitan recognized
the need for conservation, given
increased economic and  popula-
tion growth, drought, government
                                                MWRA began a water conservation
                                                program in 1986 that included leak
                                                detection and repair,  plumbing retrofits,
                                                a water management program, an
                                                education program, and meter
                                                Metropolitan's Conservation Credits
                                                Program provides funding for a large
                                                percentage of water conservation
                                                projects. Projects have included
                                                plumbing fixture replacement, water-
                                                efficiency surveys,  irrigation
                                                improvements, training programs, and
                regulations, water quality concerns,  conservation-related research projects.
                and planned improvement programs.
Conservation efforts reduced
average daily water demand from
336 mgd (1987) to 256 mgd (1997).
This allowed MWRA to defer a
water-supply expansion project
and reduce the capacity of the
treatment plant,  resulting in total
savings ranging from $1.39 million
per mgd to $1.91 million per mgd.

Conservation efforts have
considerably reduced the cost
estimate of Metropolitan's capital-
improvement. Water savings have
amounted to approximately
66,000 acre-feet per year, a
savings of 59 mgd.

Summary of Conservation  Case Studies
New York City,
New York
Santa Monica,

By the early 1990s, increased
demand and periods of drought
resulted in water-supply facilities
repeatedly exceeding safe yields.
Water rates more than doubled
between 1985 and 1993.
New York's conservation initiatives
included education, metering, leak
detection, water use regulation, and a
comprehensive toilet replacement
Phoenix is one of the fastest
growing communities in the United
States and suffers from low rainfall
amounts. The state legislature has
required that, after 2025,  Phoenix
and suburban communities must
not pump groundwater faster than
it can be replenished.
Leak detection and repair,
metering, and toilet replacements
were particularly successful
programs. New York reduced its
per-capita water use from 195
gallons per day in  1991 to 167
gallons per day in  1998, and
produced savings  of 20 to 40%
on water and wastewater bills.
Water conservation programs instituted   Phoenix's conservation program
in 1986 and 1998 focused on pricing
reform, residential and industrial/
commercial conservation, landscaping,
education, technical assistance,
regulations, planning and research,
and interagency coordination.
Santa Monica faced rapid          Santa Monica instituted a multifaceted
population growth, which put a     water conservation program that
strain on its water supplies. Also,   includes water-use surveys, education,
contamination was found in several landscaping measures, toilet retrofits,
wells in  1996, forcing the city to    and a loan program.
increase water purchases.
Steady population growth, dry
summers, and lack of long-term
storage capacity forced Seattle to
choose between reducing use and
developing new water sources.
Seattle's water conservation program
has included a seasonal rate structure,
plumbing fixture codes, leak reduction,
incentives for water-saving products,
and public education. Special emphasis
has been placed on commercial water
currently saves approximately 40
mgd. Phoenix estimates that the
conservation rate structure alone
saved 9 mgd.
Santa Monica was able to reduce
its water use by 14% and waste-
water flow by 21%. The toilet
retrofit program resulted in a
reduction of 1.9 mgd and net
savings of $9.5 million  from 1990
to 1995.

Per-capita water consumption
dropped by 20% in the 1990s.
The seasonal rate structure,
plumbing codes, and efficiency
improvements are particularly
credited with success.  It is
estimated that the commercial
water conservation programs will
save approximately 8 mgd.
Rapid economic and residential    Since 1989, Tampa's water conservation  Tampa's landscape evaluation
population growth along with
seasonal population growth has
put a strain on Tampa's water
program has included high efficiency
plumbing retrofits, an increasing-block
rate structure, irrigation restrictions,
landscaping measures, and public
education. Particular emphasis has been
put on efficient landscaping and irrigation.
program resulted in a 25% drop
in water use. A pilot retrofit
program achieved a 15%
reduction in water use.

Summary of Conservation  Case Studies
City           Problem                      Approach
Ten years ago, analysts
determined that the city's available
water resources would not meet
its needs beyond  the first decade
of the 21st century. Alternative
sources were not available at an
affordable price.
Wichita utilized an integrated resource
planning approach. This included
implementing water conservation,
evaluating existing water sources,
evaluating nonconventional water
resources, optimizing all available water
resources, pursuing an application for a
conjunctive water resource use permit,
evaluating the effects of using different
water resources, and communicating
with key stakeholders.
Rapid population growth put a
strain on Barrie's water and
wastewater infrastructure, forcing
the city to consider expensive new
supply options and infrastructure
Barrie's conservation plan focused on
replacing inefficient showerheads and
Analysis of resource options for
Wichita resulted in a matrix of 27
conventional and nonconventional
resource options.
Barrie was able to save an
average of 55 liters (14.5 gallons)
per person per day. The reduction
in wastewater flows enabled
Barrie to defer an expensive
capital expansion project. Water
conservation efforts saved an
estimated $17.1 million
(Canadian dollars) in net deferred
capital expenditures.
mgd = million gallons per day

Albuquerque,  New  Mexico:
Long-Range  Planning to
Address  Demand  Growth
   Albuquerque's water system produces approximately 37 billion gallons
per year and serves a population of approximately 483,000. The city receives
less than 9 inches of rain per year, and its water supply was strained severely
when its population grew by 24 percent between 1980 and 1994.
   In 1993, the United States Geological Survey reported that groundwater
levels in Albuquerque were dropping significantly. The rate of groundwater
withdrawals by the city was more than twice the amount that could be sus-
tained over time. The city planned to use surface water diverted from the
Colorado River Basin to the Rio Grande River Basin to recharge its falling
groundwater supplies, but studies of the area showed that the plan was not
feasible. In 1994, Albuquerque instead adopted a comprehensive Water
Resources Management Strategy, which included plans to make more direct
use of surface water supplies, reclaim wastewater and shallow groundwater for irrigation and
other nonpotable uses, and implement an aggressive water conservation program.

   Albuquerque adopted the Long-Range Water Conservation Strategy Resolution, which states
that "conservation can extend the city's supply at a fraction of the cost of other alternatives." The
resolution's goal is to reduce total water usage by 30 percent by 2004, a decrease of 75 gallons per
capita per day over 9 years. The water conservation program includes five components:

   •  Water Rates. The city applies a summer surcharge of 21 cents per ccf (100 cubic feet)
     when customers' use exceeds 200 percent of their winter average. In 1995, the city
     increased the rate by 8.8 cents per ccf of water consumed to fund the water conserva-
     tion program. More than half of the revenue from the surcharge is allocated to the con-
     servation program, and a large portion is returned to customers through rebates and
     other incentives. On May 1, 2001, the commodity rate increased to $1.07 per ccf ($1.43
     per 1,000 gallons) including an additional state surcharge of 2.44 cents per ccf.
   •  Public Education. Education programs consist of running public relations campaigns,
     including water usage information in water bills, and organizing cooperative programs
                                                          Albuquerque, NM

       with schools and community organizations. The city works with citizens and affected
       customers whenever new legislation or measures are developed or proposed.
       Residential Use. Albuquerque amended its Uniform Plumbing Code to require high-
       efficiency toilets (1.6 gallons or less per flush) in all new residential construction. The
       city also established rebates for high-efficiency toilets (up to $100) and efficient clothes
       washers ($100). The city offers free water audits and installation of high-efficiency
       plumbing  devices.
       Landscaping/Outdoor Water Use. In 1995, the city adopted the Water Conservation
       Landscaping and Water Waste Ordinance. The ordinance includes strict requirements
       for landscaping new developments, such as prohibiting the use of high-water-use
       grasses on more than 20 percent of the landscaped area. It also includes restrictions for
       landscaping on city properties, along with watering and irrigation regulations. Since
       1996, the city has offered tools to assist property owners in converting to Xeriscape™
       landscapes. In addition to how-to videos and guides, homeowners can choose from six
       professionally designed Xeriscape™  plans.  The Xeriscape™ Incentive Program pro-
       vides a rebate of 25 cents per square  foot of converted landscape area up to $500 ($700
       for commercial landscapes).
       Institutional, Commercial, and Industrial Water Use. The city requires all customers
       using more than 50,000 gallons per day to prepare and implement a water conservation
       plan. The city plans to adopt an ordinance to prohibit once-through cooling systems.
       The city currently runs a program to reduce water losses it can't account for and makes
       free water-use surveys available for non-residential customers.
   Albuquerque's water conservation program has successfully slowed the drawdown of the
area's groundwater supply. Estimates indicate that the water conservation programs will
decrease the level of water demand in Albuquerque until 2005. Water savings from conserva-
tion will help mitigate the rate of future demand growth.
   Specific conservation programs have met with considerable success. By the end of April
2001, rebates had been provided for more than 39,000 high-efficiency toilets. At the close of the
year, per capita water use had dropped to 205 gallons per day—a reduction of 45 gallons per
day from 1995 levels. Albuquerque found that, by 2001, its landscaping program and rate
structure had helped reduce peak water use by 14 percent from its high point in 1990.
 Number of high-efficiency toilets installed (by 2001)           39,303
 Reduction in per-capita water use (from 1995 to 2001)        45 g/c/d
 Reduction in peak demand (1990 - 2001)                     14%
 g/c/d = gallons per capita per day
Albuquerque, NM

City of Albuquerque, Water Conservation Programs 1998, 
Edward R. Osann and John E. Young, Saving Water, Saving Dollars: Efficient Plumbing Products
   and the Protection of America's Waters (Potomac Resources, Inc., Washington, DC, April 1998),
   p. 39.
   Jean Witherspoon
   Albuquerque Public Works Department
   Phone: 505 768-3633
   Fax: 505 768-3629
   E-mail: jasw@cabq.gov
                                                                        Albuquerque, NM

         Ashland,  Oregon:

         Small  Town,  Big  Savings

            Ashland, Oregon, is a small city of approximately 20,000 people. The Water Division treats
         and transports an average of 6.5 million gallons daily in the summer and 2.5 million gallons
                      daily in the winter. Annual usage is approximately 150 gallons per capita per
                      day. Ashland experienced an accelerated population growth rate in the late
                      1980s. At the same time, it faced the imminent expiration of a critical water
                      right. Initially, the city had two options available to increase water supplies.
                      The first was to create a reservoir by damming Ashland Creek at a cost of
                      approximately $11 million. The second was to lay 13 miles of pipeline to the
      CITY Of       Rogue River at a cost of approximately $7.7 million. The city decided, howev-
 TrVS H LAN L^  er' that neither option was fiscally or politically feasible. Furthermore, the
                      proposed dam site disturbed habitat for the endangered spotted owl. Ashland
         therefore decided to implement a four-point water efficiency program to address its water sup-
         ply problem.

            Ashland's water conservation program became a natural addition to the city's existing
         resource conservation strategy, which addresses energy efficiency, regional air quality, recy-
         cling, composting, and land use. In 1991, the city council adopted a water efficiency program
         with four major components: system leak detection and repair, conservation-based water rates,
         a high-efficiency showerhead replacement program, and toilet retrofits and replacement. The
         city estimated that these programs would save 500,000 gallons of water per day at a cost of
         $825,875—approximately one-twelfth the cost of the proposed dam—and would delay the
         need for additional water-supply sources until 2021.
            Implementation of the program began with a series of customer water audits, which in
         turn led to high-efficiency showerhead and toilet replacements and a $75 rebate program (later
         reduced to $60). Ashland  also instituted an inverted block rate structure to encourage water
         conservation. Recently, Ashland began offering rebates for efficient clothes washers and dish-
         washers (including an energy rebate for customers with electric water heaters).  The town pro-
         vides a free review of irrigation and landscaping, as well.

            Implementation of Ashland's Water Conservation Program began in July 1992. By 2001,
         almost 1,900 residences had received a water audit. Almost 85 percent of the audited homes
10        Ashland, OR

participated in the showerhead and/or toilet replacement programs. Ashland has been able to
reduce its water demand by 395,000 gallons per day (16 percent of winter use) and its waste-
water flow by 159,000 gallons per day An additional benefit of the program has been an esti-
mated annual savings of 514,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity, primarily due to the use of
efficient showerheads.

Summary  of Results for Ashland, OR

 Water Savings per day (by 2001)                           395,000  gal.
 Reduction in winter usage                                       16%
 Wastewater reduction per year (by 2001)                    58 million  gal.

 Cost Savings
 Estimated cost of proposed reservoir program
 Estimated cost of proposed pipeline program
 Cost of water conservation program
 Total estimated avoided costs
"A Negadam Runs Through It," Rocky Mountain Institute Newsletter. Vol. XI, No. 1 (Spring
   1995), p. 8.
"The City of Ashland Municipal Utility Comprehensive Conservation Programs," The Results
   Center. Profile #115 .
The City of Ashland, Oregon, Conservation Department,
   < www. ashland. or.us / Sectionlndex. asp ?SectionID=432>.

   Dick Wanderscheid
   Ashland Conservation Division
   Phone: 541 552-2061
   Fax: 541 552-2062
   E-mail: dick@ashland.or.us
                                                                            Ashland, OR

         Gary,   North  Carolina:
         Cost-Effective  Conservation
           The population of Gary, North Carolina—an affluent suburb just west of Raleigh—has
         more than doubled during the past 10 years, putting a strain on the city's water resources. In
         1995, Gary officials began planning to expand the city's water plant to meet increased demand.
         Two additional expansions were scheduled to occur within a 30-year time period. Gary's water
         supplies are particularly strained during its dry, hot summers, mostly because of irrigation and
         lawn watering. Most water use in Gary (approximately 75 percent) can be attributed to resi-
         dential customers, and commercial customers account for almost 21 percent of total usage.
         Analysts predict that the average daily retail water demand in Gary will grow from 8.6 million
         gallons per day (mgd) in 1998 to 26.7 mgd in 2028.

           Recognizing the need to incorporate conservation into its integrated resource management,
         the Gary town council adopted a water conservation program in 1996 with the following goals:

           •  Reduce the town's average per capita water use by 20 percent by 2014 (later revised to
           •  Support the high quality of life in Gary by providing safe, reliable water service, while
              reducing per capita use of water.
           •  Conserve a limited natural resource.
           •  Reduce costs of infrastructure expansion.

           In 1999, Gary decided to have its conservation programs place a greater emphasis on meas-
         ures that could reduce peak-day demand during the high-volume summer months. The result-
         ing 10-year Water Conservation and Peak Demand Management Plan is based on a careful
         benefit/cost analysis of numerous potential conservation programs. According to the plan, any
         conservation measures undertaken by the city must meet certain criteria:

           •  A benefit/cost ratio greater than 1.0
           •  Reasonable cost
           •  Significant water savings
           •  Nonquantifiable but positive effects (community acceptance)

           Gary's water conservation program consists of eight elements:
12        Gary, NC

   Public Education. Gary runs several public education programs. The "Beat the Peak" cam-
paign is aimed at the high-demand summer months. Through this program, residents are
encouraged to gauge their sprinkler use. Another program, called "Block Leader," is a grassroots
effort to involve residents in water conservation. Gary also runs an elementary school program to
distribute educational materials in schools, offers workshops to teach water-efficient landscaping
and gardening, and distributes printed material on water conservation to the general public.
   Landscape and Irrigation Codes. The city implements water-use-restriction ordinances
limiting outdoor watering during summer peak months. The  Controlling Wasteful Uses of
Water Ordinance allows the city to regulate and control irrigation and reduce hardscape water-
ing and runoff. Commercial landscaping regulations require drought-toler-
ant plants and other water-efficient landscaping methods.
   Toilet Flapper Rebates. Customers receive rebates to replace existing flap-
pers with early closure flappers that can save up to 1.3 gallons per flush.
   Residential Audits. Residential customers are offered a 1-hour audit to
assess water use, detect leaks, and provide supplies such as low-flow
plumbing devices.
   Conservation Rate Structure. Cary has established an increasing-block
rate structure to encourage water conservation. The rate structure consists
of three tiers—a low-use, average-use, and high-use.
   New Homes Points Program. The city approves development projects
based on a point scale, giving extra points for subdivisions that  use select-
ed water-efficient measures.
   Landscape Water Budget. Large public and private irrigation users are
provided monthly water budgets that identify the appropriate watering
needs for their situation.
   Water Reclamation Facility. The city is building a water reclamation facility that will pro-
duce up to 1.58 million gallons of reclaimed water per day. The  water will be used for irriga-
tion and other nonpotable uses. Reclaimed water will be offered free of charge to
bulk-purchase customers.

   According to estimates, water conservation in Cary will reduce retail water production by
4.6 mgd (16 percent) by the end of 2028. Water conservation efforts will also help Cary reduce
operating costs and defer considerable capital expenditures. The city has delayed the two
water plant expansions, projecting that the 10-year savings from water conservation will be 1
mgd and 2 mgd by 2019.
   Gary's water reclamation facility is expected to cut peak demand in the city by 8 percent.
City ordinances restricting water use considerably decreased usage during peak demand
months. In addition, 80 percent of residential customers and 99.9 percent of commercial cus-
tomers comply with the rain sensor ordinance. City residents  have redeemed approximately
500 rebates and have purchased more than 1,000 flappers. The city also  distributed 25,000
                                                                                Gary, NC

1 1 ,762
           packets to residents to gauge amounts of irrigation, reached 19 percent of the city's customers
           through Block Leaders, and mailed water conservation brochures to all customers.
           Summary of Results for Gary, NC
                                   Water savings Water savings Unit cost of    First 5 years   Benefit/cost
                                   projected in   projected in   water saved    of costs ($)    ratio
                                   2009 (mgd)    2019 (mgd)    ($/mgd)
            Residential water audits
            Public education
            Toilet flapper rebate
            Water reclamation facility
            Landscape water budgets
            New home points program
            Landscape/irrigation codes
            Inverted-block rate structure
            Combined results
            Source: Raftelis Environmental Consulting as reported in Jennifer L. Platt and Marie Cefalo Delforge, "The
            Cost-Effectiveness of Water Conservation," American Water Works Association Journal. Vol. 93, No. 3 (March
            2001), p. 78.
            Note: Water savings estimated for the water conservation  plan do not equal the total water savings associat-
            ed with the sum of each plan element because of the "shared water savings" produced by conservation
            measures that focus on similar end uses. The decision to  construct a water reclamation facility was made
            independent of this study.

           "Gary's Bulk Reclaimed Water Project," Town of Gary
              < www. to wnofcary. org / depts /pio /b windex.htm>.
           Platt, Jennifer L. and Delforge, Marie Cefalo. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Water Conservation,"
              American Water Works Association Journal. Vol. 93, No. 3 (March 2001), pp. 73-83.
           "Town of Cary Water Conservation," Town of Cary Public Works and Utilities 
Gallitzin,   Pennsylvania:
Leak  Management
by a  Small   System
   Gallitzin is a small town in western Pennsylvania with a population of approximately 2,000.
The Gallitzin Water Authority services approximately 1,000 connections. In the mid-1990s, the
system was experiencing water losses exceeding 70 percent. In November 1994, the system was
using an average of 309,929 gallons per day. Gallitzin experienced a peak usage in February 1995
of 500,000 gallons per day. The water authority identified five major problems in the system:

   •   High water loss
   •   Recurring leaks
   •   High overall operational costs
   •   Low pressure complaints
   •   Unstable water entering the distribution system

   Based on these issues, the authority decided it needed a comprehensive
program for water leak detection and corrosion control.

   Gallitzin first developed accurate water production and distribution records using 7-day
meter readings at the plant and pump station. It then created a system map to locate leakage.
Through the use of a leak detector, the authority found approximately 95 percent of its leaks.
Outside contractors identified the remaining 5 percent. The city initiated a leak repair program
and a corrosion control program at the Water Treatment Plant. Gallitzin was one of the first sys-
tems to receive technical assistance from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection Small Water Systems Outreach Program. The training helped the authority repair dis-
tribution system leaks, replace meters, and improve customer billing. Gallitzin is also working to
improve the capacity of surface-water sources and develop a supplemental groundwater source.

   By November 1998,4 years after implementation of the program, the system delivered an aver-
age of 127,893 gallons per day to the town—down from 309,929 gallons per day in November 1994.
Unaccounted-for water dropped to only 9 percent. The financial savings from the program have been
highly beneficial. The city saved $5,000 on total annual chemical costs and $20,000 on total annual
power costs from 1994 to 1998. The significant savings help the authority keep water rates down.
                                                                 Gallitzin, PA       15

              Other beneficial impacts reported by the Gallitzin Water Authority include:

              •  Extended life expectancy of equipment
              •  Savings in purchased water costs during drought conditions
              •  Reduction in overtime costs
              •  Improvement in customer satisfaction
              •  Enhanced time utilization
          Summary of Results for Gallitzin, PA


             Connections (approximate)
             Production gallons per day
             Annual production gallons
             Water pumped from low to high tank
             Total plant production hours
             Filter backwash water (gallons
             Unaccounted-for water
             Total power cost @ $.081/kwh
             Cost per million gallons ($) *
             Total chemical cost ($)

            Source: John Brutz, "Leak Detection Helps District Cut Losses," A presentation at the Energy Efficiency
            Forum in San Diego, California (August 1999).
            * Added sodium bicarbonate treatment; other unit chemical costs remained constant or declined.

           John Brutz, "Leak Detection Helps District Cut Losses," A presentation at the Energy Efficiency
              Forum in San Diego, California (August 1999).
           "First Small Water System Outreach Effort A Success," July 12,1996. Pennsylvania Department
              of Environmental Protection press release, .

              John Brutz
              Operations Supervisor
              Gallitzin Water Authority
              Phone: 814 886-5362
              Fax: 814 886-6811
              E-mail: galitznh20@aol.com
Gallitzin, PA

                  ,  Arizona:
Preserving   Riparian   Habitat
   The town of Gilbert, Arizona, has experienced rapid population growth, increasing from
5,717 residents in 1980 to 29,188 residents in 1990, with an estimated 2001
population of 115,000. This rapid growth has strained water resources, par-
ticularly because Gilbert is located in a very arid region, receiving an annu-
al average rainfall of 7.66 inches and losing substantial amounts of water
annually to evaporation. Prior to March 1997, Gilbert was entirely depend-
ent upon groundwater. The town now relies on a combination of water
supplies, with a capacity of 27 million gallons per day (mgd) from ground-
water and 15 mgd from surface water. Surface water capacities will be
expanded to 40 mgd by the summer of 2002 following the addition  of a new water treatment
plant. Gilbert's average water demand is 28.5 mgd, with a peak demand of 41.5 mgd. Gilbert
opted to implement a comprehensive water efficiency program to help meet increased water
demand, and is recognized as the first community in Arizona to design and implement a 100-
year water plan. A key component of the plan is wastewater reclamation and recharge of
groundwater. The reuse project has created wildlife habitat and the  recharge areas are used for
recreation, education, and research.

   Gilbert has implemented a multifaceted approach to water conservation. First, building
code  requirements exist for all new construction and include requirements for efficient plumb-
ing devices and the use of recycled water. Next, an increasing-block water rate structure  was
instituted, consisting of the following:
 Monthly Consumption' (Gallons)  Cost per-1,000 gallons.
 0 to 20,000                       $0.85
 20,000 to 30,000                   1.10
 30,000+                         1.25
   All water use in Gilbert—residential, commercial, and industrial—is metered, and Gilbert set a
goal of 100 percent reuse of reclaimed water. The town also sponsors several public-education
programs and requires using pre-approved low water-use plant materials for all landscaping in
street right-of-way. Gilbert also is developing additional conservation measures, such as water-use
audits, free conservation kits, Xeriscape™ brochures and other outdoor water saving information;
a homeowners water conservation education program; and a new school education program.
                                                                       Gilbert, AZ        17

             Gilbert's conservation efforts are considered a success, particularly its efforts to reuse and
          recharge all its reclaimed water. Gilbert receives credits from the state where the effects of
          recharge are measurable. Water reclamation has helped the city meet groundwater manage-
          ment goals and has provided an additional resource for meeting water demand. In 1986,
          Gilbert built a 5.5 mgd waste water reclamation plant, allowing the city to store recharge water
                                  for future use. In 1989, the town developed a 40-acre recharge site
                                  with six recharge ponds. In 1993, it expanded the site to 75 acres
                                  and 12 recharge ponds.
                                      By 2001, the system served 20 customers via 25 miles of
                                  reclaimed water distribution pipeline and recharged more than 5
                                  billion gallons of water. As an incentive, the cost of the reclaimed
                    "'FVtttillll  water is $0.03 per 1,000 gallons. An added benefit of the reuse proj-
                                  ect has been the development of a shoreline habitat for diverse
                                  plant species and a variety of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians,
          and insects that provides educational and recreational opportunities for local residents. In
          October 1999, Gilbert completed a 130-acre project with 7 percolation basins averaging 9 acres
          each that recharge up to 4 mgd of tertiary-treated effluent from the wastewater reclamation
          plant, as well as surface water from the Colorado River and from Salt River Project's system.

          Summary of Results for Gilbert, AZ
           Amount of water recharged             5 billion gallons
           Number of recharge ponds            12
           Number of reclaimed water customers    20

          "Gilbert, Arizona," Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology,
          Gilbert, Arizona, Home Page, .

             Kathy Rail
             Gilbert Water Conservation
             Phone: 480 503-6892
             Fax: 480 503-6892
             E-mail: kathyr@ci.gilbert.az.us
Gilbert, AZ

        leta,  Califc
Avoid inc               tages
and  Plant  Expansion
   The Goleta, California, Water District serves approximately 75,000
customers spanning an area of about 29,000 acres. Goleta's water supply
comes primarily from Lake Cachuma (9,300 acre-feet per year) and the
state Water Project (4,500 acre-feet per year). The district can also pro-
duce approximately 2,000 acre-feet per year from groundwater wells. In
1972, analysts predicted future water shortages in Goleta, so the district
began seeking additional water sources and established a water efficien-
cy program.

   Goleta's water efficiency program cost approximately $1.5 million
and emphasized plumbing retrofits, including the installation of high-
efficiency toilets (1.6 gallons per flush) and showerheads. The program also included free
onsite  water surveys, public education, and changes in metering and rate structure. A manda-
tory rationing plan was imposed on May 1, 1989 to reduce use by 15 percent.

   Between 1987 and 1991, Goleta issued 15,000 rebates for high-efficiency toilets and installed
35,000 low-flow showerheads. Between 1983 and 1991, 2,000 new high-efficiency toilets were
installed in new construction and remodels. Onsite surveys and public education efforts
helped consumers improve outdoor water efficiency, and increased water rates provided extra
incentive for consumers to reduce water use. The conservation and rationing programs, as well
as the  rate increases, contributed to a 50-percent drop in per capita residential water use in 1
year—between May 1989 and April 1990. Total district water use fell from 125 to 90 gallons per
capita  per  day—twice the original target of 15 percent. The water-efficiency program also
reduced sewage flow from 6.7 million gallons per day (mgd) to 4 mgd. As a  result, Goleta
Sanitary was able to delay a multimillion-dollar treatment plant expansion.
                                                                    Goleta, CA        19

          Summary of Results for Goleta, CA
           Number of toilet rebates (1987-1991)                                     15,000
           Number of toilets installed in new construction and remodels (1983-1991)         2,000

           Reduction in per-capita residential water use                                 50%

           Reduction in wastewater flow                                     2.7 mgd (40%)
           mgd= million gallons day

          Goleta Water District, Home Page, .
          "Residential Indoor Water Efficiency: Goleta, CA," Center for Renewable Energy and
             Sustainable Technology, .

             Marlee Franzen
             Goleta Water District
             Phone: 805 964-6761
             Fax: 805 964-4042
             Email: mfranzen@goletawater.com
Goleta, CA

             ton, Texas:
Reducing  Capital  Costs
and  Achieving   Benefits
   The Houston Department of Public Works and Engineering serves a popula-
tion of 1.7 million and provides water service to more than 553,000 retail con-
nections. The city also sells wholesale water to 16 other communities. Houston
receives an average of 50 inches of rain per year and has sufficient water sup-
plies to meet demand through 2030, but 43 percent of Houston's water comes
from groundwater sources that are threatened by increasing instances of land
subsidence, saltwater intrusion, and flooding. In some areas, the land has actu-
ally subsided, or sunk, 10 feet. Conversion to surface sources or expanded use
of surface water will require costly construction of water treatment plants and
transmission mains. In addition, Houston is required by state regulations to reduce groundwa-
ter use 20 percent by 2030. These factors have led Houston to explore methods for managing
its groundwater supplies.

   Houston implemented water conservation programs to help reduce city expenditures and
capital investments. In 1993, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission also
required Houston to implement a conservation plan to meet state requirements. The conserva-
tion program has four elements:
   •  Education program
   •  In-house program
   •  Contract customers program
   •  Conservation planning program
   The education program consists primarily of outreach initiatives, as well as effi-
ciency retrofits for older structures. The in-house program includes city irrigation
audits, leak detection and repair for city pools and fountains, and analysis of city
departments' water use. The contract customers program eliminated unnecessary
requirements, required billing based on actual water use, and added penalties for
excessive water usage during peak-demand periods.
   The conservation planning program began in 1994 when Houston was awarded
a grant from the Texas Water Development Board that financed a conservation
planning study. The study examined the costs and benefits of more than 200 con-
                                                                Houston, TX

          servation measures. The conservation plan adopted by the city council in 1998 expanded exist-
          ing educational and other programs to include residential water audits, appliance labeling,
          commercial indoor audits, cooling tower audits, public indoor and exterior audits, pool and
          fountain audits and standards, an unaccounted-for water program, increased public education,
          and a "water-wise and energy-efficiency program."
              Houston also uses an increasing-block rate structure with two tiers for single-family resi-
          dents. A minimum charge covers a base amount of water. Consumption between 5,000 and
          12,000 gallons per month is billed an additional $2.36 per 1,000 gallons and consumption
          greater than 12,000 gallons per month is billed an additional $4.30 per 1,000 gallons.
             Since the program's inception, Houston has distributed 10,000 "WaterWise and Energy
          Efficient" conservation kits with high-efficiency showerheads and faucet aerators to area fifth-
                                         graders as part of a comprehensive education program, the
                                         majority of which were installed in homes. In addition, a
                                         pilot program at a 60-unit low-income housing develop-
                                         ment in Houston replaced 5 gallons-per-flush toilets with
                                         1.6 gallons-per-flush toilets, fixed leaks, and installed aera-
                                         tors. At a total cost of $22,000, shared between the utility
                                         and the housing authority, the program reduced water  con-
                                         sumption by 72 percent, or  1 million gallons per month.
                                         Water and wastewater bills dropped from $8,644 to $1,810
                                         per month. These dramatic  results have led the Houston
                                         Housing Authority to develop plans to retrofit more than
                                         3,000 additional housing units.
             The Houston City Council approved a new conservation plan on September 2,1998 that
          includes a forecast of the savings from implementing the recommended water conservation
          measures. The plan predicts that implementation will reduce water demand by 7.3 percent by
          2006. Including savings from continued use of efficient plumbing products in new construction
          and renovation, the overall demand forecast for 2006  will be cut by 17.2 percent.
Houston, TX

Summary of Results for Houston, TX
 Pilot Retrofit Program at 60-Unit Housing Development
 Fixture costs paid by water utility
 Fixture costs paid by housing authority
 Labor costs paid by housing authority
 Total cost of program
 Savings in water and wastewater bills from low-income pilot program
             $6,834 per month
 Activities and Water Savings
 Conservation kits distributed
 Conservation kits installed
 Average water savings from conservation kits
 Water savings from low-income pilot program (above)
 Predicted cut in water demand from conservation plan
 Total predicted cut in water demand
 Cost Savings
 Predicted benefit cost ratio of conservation plan
 Predicted savings from conservation plan
            18% per household
72% (1 million gallons per month)
             7.3% (year 2006)
            17.2% (year 2006)
                     3.7 to 1
                  $262 million
Daniel B. Bishop and Jack A. Weber, Impacts of Demand Reduction on Water Utilities (Denver:
   American Water Works Association, 1996), pp. 48-49.
City of Houston Water Conservation Branch Web page, .
Edward R. Osann and John E. Young, Saving Water, Saving Dollars: Efficient Plumbing Products
   and the Protection of America's Waters (Potomac Resources, Inc., Washington, DC, April 1998),
   pp. 31-32.
   Pat Truesdale
   Houston Department of Public Works and Engineering
   Phone: 713 837-0423
   Fax: 713 837-0425
   E-mail: ptruesda@pwe.ci.houston.tx.us
                                                                                Houston, TX

        Irvine  Ranch  Water District,
        California:  Reducing
        Purchased Water  Costs
        Through  Rates
           Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) in California provides water service, sewage collection,
        and water reclamation for the city of Irvine and portions of surrounding communities. The dis-
                    trict serves a population of approximately 150,000 in a 77,950-acre service area
                    containing 59,646 domestic and reclaimed water connections. IRWD delivered
                    a total of 22.8 billion gallons of water between 1996 and 1997. The area has
                    experienced considerable growth and development during recent decades.
                    The district's service population grew by more than 75 percent in the 1980s
                    and is projected to grow by 20 percent every 10 years. Population growth,
                    drought conditions in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and increasing wholesale
                    water charges led IRWD to choose conservation as one approach to meet the
                    growing demand for water. The district is now a recognized leader in water
                    reclamation and conservation programs.

           IRWD adopted a five-tiered rate structure to reward water efficiency and identify areas
        where water is being wasted. The rate structure aims to create a long-term water efficiency
        ethic while maintaining stable utility revenues. IRWD individualizes rates for each account
        based on landscape square footage, number of residents, any additional needs of individual
        customers (such as for medical uses), and daily evapotranspiration rates (the amount of water
        lost through evaporation and transpiration of turfgrass).
           Based on daily fluctuations in precipitation, each customer's rates are adjusted on each
        water bill to reflect estimated needs. When customers use more water than needed, they are
        given progressively expensive penalties. This individualized feedback alerts customers to
        excess use or leakage. Customers that correct a problem can request the removal of the penal-
        ties. Because IRWD does not depend on penalty revenues, such requests can be quickly and
        readily granted, leading to very high customer satisfaction ratings.
           The five-tiered rate structure consists of the following:
Irvine Ranch Water District, CA

Rate Tier
                        Amount and Basis
Low-volume discount
Conservation base rate
                        $0.48 per 100 cubic feet (ccf) for use of 0-40 percent of allocation
                        ($0.64 per 1,000 gallons)

                        $0.64 per ccf for use of 41 -100 percent of allocation
                        ($0.85 per 1,000 gallons)
                        $1.28 per ccf for use of 101 -150 percent of allocation
                        ($1.71 per 1,000 gallons)
                        $2.56 per ccf for use of 151-200 percent of allocation
                        ($3.42 per 1,000 gallons)
                        $5.12 per ccf for use of 201 or greater percent of allocation
                        ($6.85 per 1,000 gallons)
    In addition to the consumption charges, all customers are billed a fixed water-service fee
based on meter size, which ensures that utility revenues are permanently stable, regardless of
the level of water sales. Residential customers with usage levels approximately 10 ccf/month
are charged a flat sewer fee of $6.60 per month. Sewer fees are $0.74 per ccf ($0.99 per 1,000
gallons) for non-residential customers using more than 10 ccf per month. IRWD also imposes a
pumping surcharge that varies from $0.11 to $0.56 per ccf ($0.15 to $0.75 per 1,000 gallons) for
customers  residing in high elevations. The average total residential water bill is approximately
$20 per month.

    IRWD implemented the new rate structure in June 1991 and its impact was immediately
evident. Water use in 1991/1992 declined by 19 percent, as compared to 1990/1991. Surveys
show that customer satisfaction with the rate structure is highly favorable, reflecting 85 to 95
percent approval.
    IRWD believes that the implementation of incentive pricing, especially the individualized cus-
tomer water budget, made their other conservation programs more effective. Over the 6-year peri-
od between 1991 and 1997, IRWD spent approximately $5 million on other conservation programs
such as irrigation workshops, water audits, and fixture rebates.  During that time period, the esti-
mated savings in avoided water purchases has been $33.2 million. Savings in landscape water
totaled 61,419 acre-feet, valued at $26.5 million. Landscape water usage dropped from an average
of 4.11 acre-feet to less than 2 acre-feet per year. The residential sector showed a 12 percent reduc-
tion in use  following a major drought, because awareness of water conservation issues was still
high.  Since then, usage is, on average, 9 percent lower per household than in 1990. From 1992 to
1998,  savings totaled 15,611 acre-feet, valued at $6 million in avoided purchases. IRWD also was
able to avoid raising water rates for 5 years.
                                                                 Irvine Ranch Water District, CA

           Summary of Results for Irvine Ranch Water District, CA
            Water Savings
            Water savings (1990/91 to 1991/92)
            Landscape water impact savings (1991 to 1997)
            Residential water impact savings (1991 to 1997)
            Residential water impact savings (1991 to 1997)
                                                 61,419 acre-feet (20 billion gallons)
                                                                   12% per year
                                                  15,611 acre-feet (5 billion gallons)
            Water Cost Savings
            Conservation program (6-year period)
            Avoided water purchases (6-year period)
            Net savings in avoided water purchases (6-year period)
                                                                      $5 million
                                                                   $33.2 million
                                                                   $28.2 million
           Tom Ash, "How an Effective Rate Structure Makes Conservation Work For You," AWWA
              Conserve99 Proceedings, Monterey, CA, January 31-February 3,1999.
           Irvine Ranch Water District, "Irvine Ranch Water District Rates and Charges: Residential,"
              Irvine Ranch Water District, .
           Lessick, Dale, "IRWD's Water Budget Based Rate Structure," Irvine Ranch Water District,
              January 1999.

              Dale Lessick
              Irvine Ranch Water District
              Phone: 949 453-5325
              Fax: 949 453-0572
              E-mail: lessick@irwd.com
Irvine Ranch Water District, CA

Massachusetts Water
Resc                            >rity:
Through  Conservation
   The Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA) is a wholesale water
provider for 2.2 million people in 46 cities, towns, and municipal water districts in
Massachusetts. From 1969 to 1988, MWRA withdrawals exceeded the safe yield
level of 300 million gallons per day (mgd) by more than 10 percent annually.
Consequently, MWRA was under pressure to make plans to increase supply
capacity. One plan it developed was to divert the Connecticut River, which would
cost $120 million to $240 million (in 1983 dollars) and have an annual operation
and maintenance cost of $3 million. MWRA also developed a plan for a new
water treatment facility that complied with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The plant was origi-
nally designed with a 500 mgd demand maximum. Ultimately, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts  determined that a water conservation plan would be the best initial solution for
its supply needs, with other plans to follow as needed.

   Although adequate precipitation helped avoid a major water-supply crisis during the 20-
year period of exceeding the safe yield, MWRA began a water conservation program in 1986 to
help address the supply problem. The conservation program included the following:

   •  Vigorously detecting and repairing leaks in MWRA pipes (270 miles) and community
     pipes (6,000 miles).
   •  Retrofitting 370,000 homes with low-flow plumbing devices.
   •  Developing a water management program for area businesses, municipal buildings,
     and nonprofit organizations.
   •  Conducting extensive public information and school education programs.
   •  Changing the state plumbing code to require new toilets to use no more than 1.6 gal-
     lons of water per flush.
   •  Improving meters to help track and analyze community water use.
   •  Using conservation-minded water/sewer rate structures on the community level.
                                             Massachusetts Water Resources Authority       27

             MWRA's conservation efforts reduced average daily demand from 336 mgd in 1987 to 256
          mgd in 1997. The decrease in demand allowed for a reduction in the size of MWRA's planned
          treatment plant, as well as a 20-year deferral of the need for an additional supply source.
             The present-value cost savings of deferring the water supply expansion are estimated to be
          $75 million to $117 million, depending on the initial capital investment. The capacity of the
          treatment plant has been reduced from 500 mgd to 405 mgd—an estimated $36 million cost
          reduction. Together, the deferral of the water-supply expansion project and the reduction in the
          capacity of the treatment plant amount to a total savings of $111 million to $153 million. The
          estimated cost of the conservation program is $20 million.

          Summary  of Results for Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
           Water Savings
           Total demand reduction (1987-1997)
           Capacity reduction of planned treatment facility
                                                                      80 mgd
                                                                      95 mgd
           Capital Savings
           Present value savings of deferring supply expansion
           Present value savings of reducing treatment plant capacity
           Total savings (deferring water supply and reducing treatment plant capacity)

           mgd= million gallons per day
                                                               $75-$117 million
                                                                    $36 million
                                                               $1.39 mil./mgdto
                                                                 $1.91 mil./mgd
          Daniel B. Bishop and Jack A. Weber, Impacts of Demand Reduction on Water Utilities (Denver:
             American Water Works Association, 1996), pp. 44-45, 98-102.
          Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, .

             Stephen Estes-Smargiassi
             MWRA Water Conservation
             Phone: 617 788-4303
             Fax: 617 788-4888
             E-mail: smargias@mwra.state.ma.us
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

Metropolitan  Water  District  of
Southern   California:
Wholesale  Conservation
   The Metropolitan Water District
("Metropolitan") is the wholesale
supplier of water for Southern       ^ . ;• . ...  ^          WA TEfJ        Of
California. Metropolitan "imports"
water for its 26 member water
agencies from the Colorado River and Northern California, providing 60 percent of the water
needed by a population of more than 17 million. In recognition of increasing demands and lim-
ited supplies, Metropolitan provides significant local assistance to develop more reliable local
supplies through conservation, water recycling, and groundwater cleanup. Since its initiation
in the late 1980s, Metropolitan has spent $155 million on conservation programs alone.

   Metropolitan provides financial support for conservation programs in one of two ways—it
pays local agencies either 50 percent of the cost of the water conservation project or $154 per
acre-foot of conserved water, whichever is less. Projects are generally conducted in partnership
with Metropolitan's member agencies, which include retailers and other wholesalers. Projects
must directly or indirectly reduce the demand for potable water from Metropolitan. Examples
include education and training, research, and support for new legislative initiatives or
improved fixture efficiency standards.
   One of the largest initiatives has been toilet retrofit rebates. More than 2 million pre-1992
toilets have been replaced with new high-efficiency toilets, thanks to local water agencies
across the area. Other efforts have included water-efficiency site surveys, irrigation equipment
improvements, distributions of new high-efficiency showerheads, rebates for high-efficiency
washing machines, and research into toilet performance and leakage rates.

   As of 2001, the water savings from Metropolitan's conservation programs were estimated
to be 66,000 acre-feet per year, or 59 million gallons daily. These savings are in large part due to
the fact that residents in numerous municipalities replaced more than 2 million inefficient toi-
lets with 1.6 gallons-per-flush models. The conservation credits program also resulted in the
distribution of 3 million high-efficiency showerheads and 200,000 faucet aerators. Local offi-
                                          Metropolitan Water District of Southern California       29

          cials in different areas surveyed approximately 60,000 households for water use information,
          and performed 2,000 large landscape irrigation audits. In addition, officials conducted 1,000
          commercial water use surveys. Metropolitan's and its member agencies' efforts have made
          many customers view their water agencies as resources for finding solutions to high water use
          problems. Metropolitan is counting on conservation efforts to continue reducing demand in
          the future.

          Summary of Results for Metropolitan Water District of Southern
           Conservation Program Activities and Water Saving:
^           Number of pre-1992 toilets replaced
           Number of high-efficiency showerheads distributed
           Number of faucet aerators distributed
           Number of high-efficiency clothes washer rebates issued
           Number of residential water-use surveys conducted
           Number of large landscape irrigation audits
           Number of commercial water use surveys conducted
           Total water savings from conservation program

                                               66,000 AFY
                                                (59.1 mgd)

           AFY= acre-feet per year
          Metropolitan Water District, Southern California, 
New York  City,  New York:
Conservation  as  a  Water
                                                             www.nyc.gov/dep )
   New York City's infrastructure includes more than 6,100 miles of
water pipes and more than 6,400 miles of wastewater lines. By the mid-
1970s, increased demand resulted in water-supply facilities repeatedly
exceeding safe yields. By 1990, three of New York's wastewater treat-
ment plants were exceeding permitted flows. Water and sewer rates
more than doubled between 1985 and 1993 due to the cost of meeting
federal mandates (including the prohibition of dumping sewage sludge
into the ocean), the end of subsidies from the city's general revenue
budget to the water and sewer system, and reductions in federal fund-
ing for water pollution control projects. The city faced the need for
costly water-related infrastructure projects.
   In 1992, the city conducted an avoided-cost analysis of the available supply alternatives. It
compared current supply costs with the costs of a toilet rebate program. In the end, conserva-
tion offered the most economical option.

   Beginning in 1985, New York implemented a series of conservation initiatives, including
education, metering (1985 to present), leak detection (1981 to present), and water use regula-
tion. For example, the city initiated computerized sonar leak detection of all city water mains
and used an advanced flow-monitoring program to help  detect leaks in large sewer mains that
lead to wastewater treatment plants operating at high capacity. The city installed magnetic
locking hydrant caps between 1992 and 1995 to discourage residents from opening hydrants in
the summer, and these are still used when appropriate.
   A program to install water meters at unmetered residences began in 1991.  The city also
began conducting a door-to-door water-efficiency survey with homeowners that included edu-
cational information, free showerheads and aerators, and a free leak inspection. New York's
program to replace water-guzzling toilets with high-efficiency toilets (1.6 gallons per flush)
was a particularly impressive example of modern water-demand management. The program
aimed to replace more than 1 million toilets over a 3-year period (1994 to 1997). Homeowners,
apartment-building owners, and commercial-property owners received rebates of $150 or $240
per toilet.
                                                              New York City, NY

             The leak-detection program saved 30 to 50 million gallons per day (mgd) in its early years
          and continued to help reduce losses. In 1996, leak detection and repair efforts saved approxi-
          mately 11 mgd. Savings from metering total more than 200 mgd at a cost of $150 million. New
          York City performed more than 200,000 homeowner inspections, resulting in the elimination of
          more than 4 mgd in leaks. The city also replaced 1.3 million inefficient toilets between March
          1994 and April 1997, saving an estimated 70 to 80 mgd. Customers realized 20 to 40 percent
          savings in total water and wastewater bills. Overall, New York's conservation efforts resulted
          in a drop in per capita water use from 195 gallons per day in 1991 to 167 gallons per day in

          Summary  of Results for New York City
           Water savings from leak detection program        30 to 50 mgd
           Water savings from meter installation                200 mgd
           Homeowner inspections                           200,000
           Water savings from homeowner inspections              4 mgd
           Number of inefficient toilets replaced                1.3 million
           Water savings from toilet replacement program      70 to 80 mgd
           mgd = million gallons per day
          Edward R. Osann and John E. Young, Saving Water, Saving Dollars: Efficient Plumbing Products
             and the Protection of America's Waters (Potomac Resources, Inc., Washington, DC, April 1998),
             pp. 37-38.
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Regional Approaches to Efficient Water Uses: Tales
             from the Trenches," Cleaner Water Through Conservation (1998), .
                                         New York City Department of Environmental Protection
                                         Web site, .

                                            Warren Liebold,
                                            Director of Conservation
                                            New York City Department of Environmental Protection
                                            Phone: 718 595-4657
                                            Fax: 718 595-4623
New York City, NY

Using   Less,                 ervinc
   The Phoenix Water Services Department provides water for
350,000 retail connections and a population of approximately 1.3 mil-
lion people in one of the fastest-growing communities in the United
States. As the sixth largest city in the United States and the 17th
largest metropolitan area, Phoenix also has the second largest land
area of all cities in the United States. Average annual rainfall in
Phoenix is 7.25 inches. Approximately 98 percent of Phoenix proper
relies entirely on surface water, and the surrounding growth areas
(consisting of an additional 1.5 million people) use a combination of
ground and surface water sources. The major source of water is a
very old agricultural reclamation project that has been devoted to
urban use. This project has helped keep water prices the lowest in the
area and lower than any other comparable city in the country. Unfortunately, the area's inex-
pensive water sources have been depleted, and new water-supply projects pose environmental
and financial problems. The state legislature has required that after 2025, Phoenix and subur-
ban communities must not pump groundwater faster than it can be replenished. Accordingly,
the city has been pressed to either look for alternative surface supplies or reduce demand. City
facilities—mostly parks—constitute the city's single largest water customer. Because of irriga-
tion and cooling uses, Phoenix summer demand is nearly twice that of winter use. Planners
determined that conservation was the best solution to the problem.

   Phoenix has maintained a water conservation program since 1982 and, in 1986, the city
approved a comprehensive water conservation program. The plan outlined five water conser-
vation programs:

   •  Water pricing reform
   •  Indoor residential water conservation
   •  Industrial and commercial water conservation
   •  Plant and turf irrigation efficiency
   •  Water-efficient landscaping
                                                                         Phoenix, AZ        33

              Residential water use amounts to 70 percent of Phoenix's water deliveries; consequently,
          residential water conservation is a high priority. Phoenix uses a rate structure that nearly reflects
          marginal costs, with three seasonal variations reflecting the city's seasonal costs. The rate
          includes a monthly service charge and a volume charge that varies by season. Under the 1986
          plan, Phoenix offered to replace old, high-flow fixtures (showerheads and faucets) in homes
          built before 1980. The program distributed educational materials, offered installation, and pro-
          vided materials and support for community organizations to facilitate implementation. In 1990,
          the city amended its plumbing code to require water-conserving fixtures (including high-effi-
          ciency toilets) in new construction and renovation. That code requires the same flow reduction
          as those required 2 years later by the federal Energy Policy Act, 42 U.S.C., Chapter 77.
              Phoenix's water conservation program provides assistance to low-income, elderly, and dis-
          abled customers. For more than 10 years, the city offered energy and water audits and plumb-
          ing retrofits through senior-citizen organizations. In another program, the city used
          high-school students to help low-income residents with audits, repairs, and replacements.
              In 1998, Phoenix developed a new water conservation plan that focuses on public educa-
          tion and public awareness, technical assistance, regulations, planning and research, and intera-
          gency coordination. This plan focuses less on structural fixes, such as plumbing retrofitting,
          and more on changing behaviors and educating the next generation of water users. Many of
          the elements  in the 1998 plan reflect a continuation or adaptation of elements in the 1986 plan.
          Other elements reflect new program initiatives in response to citizen interests and preferences.
          Most notable are mandates for school education programs, public education about conserva-
          tion techniques, and city/citizen partnerships at the neighborhood level to address conserva-
          tion needs. Phoenix was a key player in the development of the "Water—Use it Wisely"
          regional advertising and promotion campaign.

                                                   Estimates suggest that by 1987, Phoenix's conser-
                                                vation program was saving approximately 20,000
                                                acre-feet per year (18 million gallons per day (mgd)),
                                                which constitutes a 6 percent decrease in per-capita
                                                water use since  1980. From 1982 to 1987, Phoenix
                                                saved approximately 10,000 acre-feet of water per year
                                                (9 mgd) due to its conservation rate structure. A modi-
                                                fied conservation rate implemented in 1987 saved an
                                                additional 25,000 acre-feet per year (22.5 mgd).
                                                Through the voluntary residential conservation pro-
          gram, more than 170,000 homes have been retrofitted with water-saving fixtures. Through pro-
          grams for low-income, elderly, and disabled residents, the city installed approximately 1,500
          high-efficiency toilets annually. Implementation of recent  rate changes and water conservation
          measures  has boosted average annual water savings to more than 45,000 acre-feet (40 mgd).
Phoenix, AZ

Summary of Results for Phoenix, AZ
 Activities and Actual Water Savings
 Water savings from conservation programs (1982-1987)

 Current savings from conservation program
 Number of homes retrofitted with water saving devices
 Number of high-efficiency toilets distributed through
 low-income, elderly, and disabled program
 mgd = million gallons  per day
20,000 acre-feet/year (18 mgd)
            (6% per capita)
45,000 acre-feet/year (40 mgd)
             1,500 per year
Daniel B. Bishop and Jack A. Weber, Impacts of Demand Reduction on Water Utilities (Denver:
   American Water Works Association, 1996), pp. 48-50.
Edward R. Osann and John E. Young, Saving Water, Saving Dollars: Efficient Plumbing Products
   and the Protection of America's Waters (Potomac Resources, Inc., Washington, DC, April 1998),
   p. 39.
Phoenix Water Services Department, Water Conservation Plan 1998,

   Thomas M. Babcock
   Phoenix Water Conservation Office
   Phone: 602 261-8377
   Fax: 602 534-4849
   E-mail: tbabcock@ci.phoenix.az.us
                                                                              Phoenix, AZ

         Santa  Monica,  California:

         Conservation  in  a

         Sustainable  City

                      Like many Southern California cities, Santa Monica has faced rapid urban
                   development and increased strain on water supplies. Residential customers con-
                   sume approximately 68 percent of the water, while commercial and industrial
                   customers consume 32 percent. The city draws water from local groundwater
                   wells and imports water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
                   California (MWD). Prior to 1996, the groundwater aquifers provided approxi-
                   mately 65 percent of total supplies. In 1996, the city found methyl tertiary-butyl
Ci if o'l              ether (MTBE) contaminants in several wells, forcing Santa Monica to increase
Sa n t U  MOB lea"  purchases to approximately 78 percent of total supplies. The city has four reser-
                   voirs with a total capacity of 40 million gallons for storing imported water. In
         2002,15 percent of supplies came from local groundwater and 85 percent from MWD.
           In 1992, Santa Monica's city council initiated a Sustainable City Program. The program pro-
         vides the city with a coordinated, proactive approach to implementing existing and planned
         environmental programs. The program consists of five major policy areas: (1) community and
         economic development, (2) transportation, (3) pollution prevention, (4) public-health protec-
         tion, and (5) resource conservation. Resource conservation encompasses the city's programs in
         water, energy, recycling, and waste management.

           Santa Monica has instituted a multifaceted approach to water conservation, including
         numerous policies and programs. The city's policies include:

           •  No Water Waste Ordinance
           •  Plumbing code
           •  Water-conserving landscape regulations
           •  Water demand mitigation fee
           •  Wastewater mitigation for large development projects
           •  Retrofit-Up on-Sale Ordinance
           •  Water and wastewater rate structure

           Santa Monica's water conservation programs include:
36        Santa Monica, CA

    •   Residential water-use surveys
    •   Commercial and industrial water-use surveys
    •   Demonstration sustainable gardens
    •   Sustainable landscape workshops and garden tours
    •   Sustainable landscape guidelines
    •   California irrigation management information system
    •   Bay Saver Toilet Retrofit Program
    •   Water Efficiency Revolving Loan Program

    The No Water Waste Ordinance regulates through notification-education—the use of fines
for violating water use practices, such as lawn watering hours, hosing down driveways, swim-
ming pool filling, and leakage. The Retrofit-Upon-Sale Ordinance requires the installation of
water-saving plumbing devices whenever any residential or commercial property is sold or
transferred. In 1996, the city modified the fixed and variable charges in the rate structure to
encourage water conservation. Through the water use surveys, residents can receive free show-
erheads, faucet aerators, and garden-hose nozzles. The city encourages efficient irrigation and
landscaping through several programs.
    The Bay Saver Toilet Retrofit Program, at a total cost of $5.4 million, offers a $75 rebate for
individuals to purchase and install high-efficiency toilets (1.6 gallons per flush). The Water
Efficiency Revolving Loan Program provides no-interest loans to institution-
al, commercial, and residential water customers to pay for plumbing fixture
retrofits, irrigation system upgrades, and other cost-effective water efficiency
   Based on 1990 usage levels, Santa Monica established a water reduction
goal of 20 percent by 2000. In 1990, water usage amounted to 14.3 million
gallons per day (mgd). In one year, water use dropped almost 22 percent—
to 11.4 mgd. The drop could be explained primarily by emergency measures
instituted in response to a drought. When the city dropped the emergency
measures in 1992, water use rose gradually to 12.3 mgd in 1995—reflecting a
14 percent savings from the 1990 level.
   The city also established a wastewater flow reduction goal of 15 per-
cent—from 10.4 mgd in 1990 to a target of 8.8 mgd in 2000. The  city sur-
passed its goal by reducing flow to 8.2 mgd, a 21 percent reduction from
   Santa Monica replaced more than 1,200 institutional plumbing fixtures in
all city-owned or operated facilities. Between 1990 and July 1996, the Bay
Saver Toilet Retrofit Program replaced more than 41,000 residential toilets
and 1,567 commercial toilets. Estimates indicate that the program was
                                                                          Santa Monica, CA

          responsible for the permanent reduction of 1.9 mgd in water use and wastewater generation,
          as well as $9.5 million in avoided sewage treatment capacity purchases and avoided purchases
          of imported water.

          Summary of Results for Santa Monica, CA

           Water savings, 1990-1995                         2 mgd (14% decrease)
           Number of residential toilets replaced                        41,000 (53%)
           Number of commercial toilets replaced                        1,567 (10%)
           Number of city-owned plumbing fixtures replaced                     1,200
           Wastewater flow reduction, 1990-1995              2.2 mgd (21 % reduction)

           Cost Savings
           Net savings from Bay Saver Toilet Retrofit Program              $9.5 million
           mgd = million gallons per day

          City of Santa Monica Environmental Programs Division,
          "Santa Monica Sustainable City Program," Sustainable Communities network, Case Studies,
          "Sustainable City Progress Report," City of Santa Monica, Task Force of the Environment,
              December 1996.
          "Sustainable City Progress Report," City of Santa Monica, Task Force of the Environment,
              October 1999.

              Kim O'Cain
              Water Resources Specialist
              200 Santa Monica Pier, Suite K
              Santa Monica, CA 90401
              Phone: 310 458-8972 xl
              Fax: 310 260-1574
              E-mail: kim-o'cain@santa-monica. org
38        Santa Monica, CA

Seattle, WA:
Commercial  Water  Savings
   Seattle Public Utilities provides water to approximately 1.3 million people in
Seattle and surrounding areas. The Seattle area has experienced steady population
growth. Although the city is known for its rain, Seattle experiences dry summers with
water demand at its peak due to increases in watering, irrigation, and recreation use.
The Seattle area has very little carryover storage capacity from year to year and usually
depends on the slow melting snow; an unusually dry winter can lead to summer water
shortages. Adequate river flow is necessary for survival of the area's valued aquatic
life, including Puget Sound's threatened Chinook salmon. The natural environment
and the growing population compete for water resources, particularly during the dry
season. Increasing demand and limits on existing supplies have forced the develop-
ment of a dual strategy of demand reduction and cooperative supply management.
City of Seattle and
26 wholesale water
utility partners
   Seattle uses a multifaceted approach to water conservation. Strategies include an increasing
block rate structure during the peak season for residential customers, plumbing fixture codes
and regulations, operational improvements to reduce leaks and other water losses, market
transformation to encourage and support water-saving products and appliances, customer
rebates and financial incentives to encourage customers to use water-saving technology, and
public education. Seattle targets several specific programs at residential customers. The Home
Water Savers Program distributes water-efficient showerheads and provides free installation
for apartments. WashWise promotes the purchase of resource-efficient washing machines
through a mail-in cash rebate. Seattle also actively encourages water-wise gardening and land-
scaping, and the city strongly supports public education.
   Seattle places special emphasis on its Water Smart Technology (WST) Program, in particu-
lar, understanding the needs and preferences of commercial customers to help them under-
stand the benefits of conservation. The commercial program provides financial incentives,
including technical and financial assistance, for the purchase and installation of cost-effective
and water-efficient equipment, commercial toilet rebates for replacing older inefficient toilets
and urinals, free irrigation-system assessments and audits, financial assistance for upgrading
irrigation systems, and promotion of storm water and wastewater reuse.
                                                                      Seattle, WA

              By all indications, Seattle's water conservation programs are successful. In the 1990s, annu-
          al average water consumption dropped 12 percent—from 171 million gallons per day (mgd) to
          150 mgd. Per capita water consumption dropped by 20 percent. Estimates indicate that
          Seattle's water demand is approximately 30 mgd less than it would have been without conser-
          vation. Regional water consumption in 1997 was the same as in 1980. The seasonal rate struc-
          ture is credited with saving close to 5 mgd since 1990. Plumbing codes and regulations have
          saved more than 4 mgd. Improvements in system efficiency have saved approximately 13 mgd
          since 1990. The Home Water Savers Program involved 330,000 customers and saved nearly 6
              Seattle's WST Program has been a remarkable success. Estimated median water savings for
          a commercial incentive program are approximately 6,000 gallons per day. More than 150 busi-
          nesses have participated in the incentive program for total savings of approximately 1 mgd. By
          the end of 1997, 600 businesses participated in the commercial toilet-rebate program, replacing
          nearly 10,000 fixtures and saving approximately 0.8 mgd. Water efficient irrigation improve-
          ments for businesses have saved an additional 3 million gallons each year. Together, the com-
          mercial incentive programs could save Seattle approximately 8 mgd—reflecting a 20 percent
          overall reduction in commercial water use.  The average avoided cost associated with new or
          expanded supply and transmission facilities is $1.89 per one hundred cubic feet ($2.53 per
          1,000 gallons). On a per unit basis, commercial conservation programs have proved to be
          approximately twice as cost-effective as developing new supplies.

          Summary of Actual and Projected  Results for Seattle, WA
           Water Savings 1990-1998
           Water savings from seasonal rates
           Water savings from plumbing regulations
k           Water savings from system efficiency improvements
           Home Water Savers Program participants
           Water savings from Home Water Savers Program
           Water savings from commercial incentive programs
           Commercial Toilet Rebate Program participants
           Water savings from Commercial Toilet Rebate Program
           Water savings from commercial irrigation improvements (1990-1998)
                                                                             5 mgd
                                                                             4 mgd
                                                                            13 mgd
                                                                   330,000 residences
                                                                             6 mgd
                                                                             8 mgd
                                                                      600 businesses
                                                                            0.8 mgd
                                                                             3 mgd
Seattle, WA

 Cost Savings
 Conventional supply cost (avoided supply cost for all customers)       $1.89 per ccf ($2.53 per 1,000 gals)

 Cost of commercial conservation                                 $0.93 per ccf ($1.25 per 1,000 gals)

 Cost to participating customers                                  $0.36 per ccf ($0.48 per 1,000 gals)

 Additional benefits to participating customers (water-bill savings)       $0.74 per ccf ($0.99 per 1,000 gals)

 Net additional benefits (water savings less program participation costs) $0.38 per ccf ($0.51 per 1,000 gals)

 Total net benefits (avoided supply cost plus net additional benefits)     $1.42 per ccf ($1.90 per 1,000 gals)

 ccf = hundreds of cubic feet

 mgd = million gallons per day
Allan Dietemann and Philip Paschke, Program Evaluation of Commercial Conservation Financial
   Incentive Programs (Seattle Public Utilities),
Edward R. Osann and John E. Young, Saving Water, Saving Dollars: Efficient Plumbing Products
   and the Protection of America's Waters (Potomac Resources, Inc., Washington, DC, April 1998),
   pp. 44-45.
"Regional Water Conservation Accomplishments, 1990-1998," Seattle Public Utilities and
   Purveyor Partners.
Seattle Water Department, Seattle Water Department Water Supply Plan. Seattle, WA: Seattle
   Water Department, July 1992.

   Allan J. Dietemann
   Senior Technical Analyst
   Seattle Public Utilities
   Phone: 206 684-5881
   Fax: 206 684-8529
                                                                                  Seattle, WA

         Tampa,  Florida:
         Growth  and  Water
                        Florida's Tampa Bay region has experienced rapid economic and popula-
                     tion growth for many years, and the demand for water has grown even faster.
                     In the 1980s, Tampa's and Hillsborough County's population grew by 8 per-
                     cent, and water demand grew by more than 25 percent. Florida experiences
                     periodic droughts, with an average of four drought years in every 10-year
                     period. In Florida, Tampa is unique for its heavy dependence on surface water
                     supplies—75 percent of its drinking water comes from the Hillsborough River,
 Tampa Water Department which is greatly affected by periods of drought.

            Since 1989, the Tampa Water Department has implemented several measures to reduce
         water usage, including water-conserving codes, an increasing-block rate structure, public edu-
         cation, in-school education, and other conservation projects. The city promotes water efficiency
         through water use restrictions, fines for water use violations, and plumbing and  landscaping
         codes. Outdoor irrigation is limited to one day per week and prohibited between 8 a.m. and 6
         p.m., and all new irrigation systems must have rain sensors. The city also provides homeown-
         ers with free Sensible Sprinkling irrigation evaluations and distributes free rain sensors. The
         landscape code limits the amount of irrigated turfgrass to 50 percent in new developments and
         encourages the use of Florida-friendly plants and low-volume irrigation methods.
            The city modified the plumbing code to require water-efficient plumbing fixtures in all new
         construction and renovation. Tampa's Water Department began distributing water conservation
         kits to homeowners in 1989. The kits include toilet tank dams, efficient showerheads, aerators,
         leak detection kits, and information. In 1994, the department conducted a pilot toilet rebate pro-
         gram to retrofit toilets in existing buildings with high-efficiency toilets (1.6 gallons per flush).
         The pilot program was well received, with high rates of participation and product satisfaction.
         Tampa expanded the rebate program and now offers rebates as high as $100 for replacement toi-
         lets in single family and multi-family homes, as well as for commercial customers.
42        Tampa, FL

   Tampa has experienced much success with its water conservation programs. The Sensible
Sprinkling irrigation evaluation program resulted in a 25 percent drop in water use. Estimates
indicate that the distribution of more than 100,000 conservation kits resulted in savings of 7 to
10 gallons of water per person per day.
   An evaluation of the pilot toilet rebate program revealed that household water use
decreased from an average of 258 gallons per day to 220 gallons per day—a 15 percent reduc-
tion. The city replaced 27,239 older toilets with high-efficiency toilets, accounting for 245.9 mil-
lion gallons of water saved each year. Although the city's water service population increased
20 percent from 1989 to 2001, per capita water use decreased 26 percent.
Summary of Results for Tampa, FL
 Number of Sensible Sprinkling landscape evaluations performed
 Water savings from Sensible Sprinkling landscape evaluation program

 Water savings from distribution of water-saving kits                7 to 10 gallons per day per person

 Water savings from toilet rebate program                         38 gallons per day per household
Edward R. Osann and John E. Young, Saving Water, Saving Dollars: Efficient Plumbing Products
   and the Protection of America's Waters (Potomac Resources, Inc., Washington, DC, April 1998),
   pp. 46-47.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Regional Approaches to Efficient Water Uses: Tales
   from the Trenches," Cleaner Water Through Conservation (1998),
Tampa Water Department, "Water Conservation and Education," .
   Sandra E. Anderson
   Consumer Affairs Manager
   Tampa Water Department
   306 E. Jackson St.
   Tampa, FL 33602
   Phone: 813 274-8653
   Fax: 813 274-7435
   E-mail: Sandra.Anderson@TampaGov.net
                                                                              Tampa, FL

         Wichita,  Kansas:
         Integrated  Resource  Planning
            A decade ago, analysts determined that Wichita's available water resources could not meet
         the city's needs beyond the first decade of the 21st century. Based on conventional operating
         practices, the city was fully utilizing existing water supplies and had no new supplies readily
         available. The city explored the option of drawing water from a water reservoir located 100
         miles away. Due to the high cost of transporting water, as well as social, environmental, and
         political opposition, the city chose to reevaluate its options.
            Wichita eventually opted for a more holistic approach to water management, in which
         water conservation is a significant component. In the early 1990s, the city adopted an integrat-
         ed resource planning approach. The process of developing a long-term plan encouraged the
         involvement of various stakeholders, including the community, water users, and regulatory
         agencies. Ultimately, the group investigated non-conventional water sources that do not typi-
         cally have firm yields.

            The Wichita case is noteworthy for its very long-term perspective, the number and variety
         of water resource options considered, and the emphasis on regional coordination issues. The
         case is especially useful in recognizing how regulatory institutions affect the feasibility of
         water resource options. Regulatory considerations in Wichita included water rights, source
         water protection, drinking water standards, environmental impacts, and historic preservation.
            Analysts in Wichita summarized the key elements of their "customized" integrated plan-
         ning approach as follows:

            •  Implement water conservation to help control customer demand and water use.
            •  Evaluate existing surface water and groundwater sources to determine their capacity and
               condition, methods of enhancing their productivity, and ways to protect their quality.
            •  Evaluate nonconventional water resources for meeting future water needs.
            •  Optimize all available water resources to enhance water supply.
            •  Pursue an application for conjunctive water resource use permit from state agencies.
            •  Evaluate the effects of using different water resources on water supply, delivery, and
               treatment facilities with consideration of risk and reliability.
            •  Communicate with key stakeholders including regulatory agencies, other water users,
               and the public.
44       Wichita, KS

    The comprehensive analysis of resource options for Wichita resulted in a large matrix with
a total of 27 conventional and nonconventional resource options and their key characteristics.
For each option, the analysis considered: construction costs, expected available flow (including
alternative scenarios when applicable), unit costs, general advantages and disadvantages, and
specific implementation issues related to policy or political, legal, environmental, and water
quality concerns. Analysts used a screening process to eliminate several options from further
consideration, including the "no action" option (because of adverse economic development
consequences). Then they ranked the remaining options in terms of overall desirability.
    Planners in Wichita recognized that water supply operations are growing in complexity and
that operational tradeoffs are necessary when implementing an integrated approach. The key
benefit to better planning, however, is the more effective use of the region's water resources.
Summary  of Results for Wichita, KS
 Resource Alternative
Expected     Construction
Yield (mgd)   Cost ($mil)
 Low-range water conservation
 Little Arkansas River supply to water treatment plant
 Little Arkansas River: subsurface storage
 Little Arkansas River: bank storage
 Little Arkansas River: bank storage
 Gilbert-Mosley remediated groundwater
 Cheney Reservoir: operations modifications
 Reserve Wellfield
 Reserve Wellfield (peak use only)
 Cheney overflow pipeline to water treatment plant
 Cheney overflow pipeline to water treatment plant
 Equis Beds: purchase water rights
 Milford Reservoir (existing)
 Cheney overflow: subsurface storage
 Treated wastewater reuse: local irrigation
 No action
  7 to 39
  7 to 39
 • 3
 up to 60
As available
 26 to 126
 6.2 to 175
11.5 to 164
Unit Cost   Rank
($/mil. gal.)
   77        1
46 to 219
45 to 221
41 to 207
 65 to 165
94 to 237
 Source: David R. Warren, et al., "IRP: A Case Study From Kansas," Journal American Water Works
 Association 87, no. 6 (June 1995): 57-71.
 ns = not selected as a viable alternative based on screening level cost.
 * Rankings were based on a variety of criteria, including, but not limited to, the cost criteria provided.

                                                                                   Wichita, KS

          Jeff Klein, Frank Shorney, Fred Pinkney, Rick Bair, David Warren, and Jerry Blain, "Integrated
              Resource Planning at Wichita, Kansas: Addressing Regulatory Requirements," Proceedings
              of Conserv96 (Denver, CO: American Water Works Association, 1996), pp. 417-421.
          David R. Warren, Gerald T. Blain, Frank L. Shorney, and L. Jeffrey Klein, "IRP: A Case Study
              From Kansas," Journal American Water Works Association 87, no. 6 (June 1995): pp. 57-71.
          City of Wichita Water Conservation, 
              Jerry Blain
              Water Supply Projects Administrator
              Phone: 316 268-4578
              Fax: 316 269-4514
              E-mail: blain_j@ci.wichita.ks.us
46        Wichita, KS

       rrie,  C             io:
Wastewater Capital  Deferral
   Barrie, Ontario, is located 80 miles north of Toronto on the shore of Lake Simcoe. Due to
rapid population growth, the city's groundwater supplies, managed by the Barrie Public
Utilities Commission, suffered serious capacity limitations. In 1994, the city planned a new sur-
face-water supply at a cost of approximately $27 million (Canadian dollars). Wastewater flows
began reaching capacity at the Water Pollution Control Center, forcing consideration of a $41
million addition to accommodate future growth and development.

   To help ease the water use burden, Barrie developed a conservation partnership with the
Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA) and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). The pro-
gram focused on replacing inefficient showerheads and toilets and delivering information kits
to homeowners and landlords. The city offered homeowners a $145 rebate per toilet and $8 per
showerhead; the OCWA and MOE covered materials and program administration costs. The
goal was to achieve a 50 liters per person per day (13.2 gallons per person per day) reduction
in water use for 15,000 households, which would constitute a 5.5 percent reduction in average
daily wastewater flows from the 1994 level.

   Between 1995 and 1997, a total of 10,500 households received 15,000 high-efficiency toilets
(1.6 gallons per flush), representing 60 percent of the program goal. A pre-and-post analysis of
participating households indicated an average reduction of 62 liters per person per day  (16.4
gallons per person per day)—24 percent higher than the goal of 50 liters per person per  day
(13.2 gallons per person per day). Total program savings translated to 55 liters per person per
day for the system (14.5 gallons per person per day). Based
on the total number of participating households, the con-
servation program generated water savings totaling 1,628
cubic liters per day. More than 90 percent of the program
participants were satisfied with the program and the prod-
ucts installed.
   The reduction in wastewater flows in Barrie enabled a
5-year deferral of the capital expansion project at the Water
Pollution Control Center. Water conservation efforts also
made it possible to scale back the cost of the upgrade to
                                                                    Barrie, Ontario

           $19.2 million—for a net saving of $17.1 million after accounting for the cost of the conservation
           program. The reductions in wastewater flows and the planned upgrades at the facility mean
           that no new hydraulic capacity will be needed until 2011. Barrie also will delay construction of
           a lake-based water filtration plant beyond 2020 and defer the associated cost and rate impacts.
              The conservation program also results in environmental, economic, and social benefits to
           the community.  The conservation program is credited for creating more jobs than the proposed
           capital-works program, as well as preserving individual disposable incomes due to lower
           water and energy bills.

           Summary  of Results for Barrie, Ontario

           Participating households                              10,500
           Installations of high-efficiency toilets                    15,000
           Water savings in  retrofitted homes              62 l/c/d (19 g/c/d)
           System water savings from total program       55 l/c/d (14.5 g/c/d)
           Wastewater flow  reduction             1,335 nf/day (0.35 mgd)

           Capital Savings (millions of Canadian dollars)
           Original cost of upgrade                               $41.0
           Revised cost of upgrade                               $19.2
           Savings                                            $21.8
           Cost of program                                       $4.7
           Net capital deferral                                   $17.1
           l/c/d = liters per capita per day; g/c/d/ = gallons per capita  per day;
           m3 = cubic meters; mgd = million gallons per day

           "Canadian City's Water Conservation Project Produces Multiple Benefits," Water Online
           City of Barrie, .

              Barry Thompson
              Barrie Water Conservation
              Phone: 705 739-4220 ext. 4557
              Fax: 705 739-4253
              E-mail: bthompson@city.barrie.on.ca
48         Barrie, Ontario


   EPA would like to thank the representatives of the featured municipalities for their cooper-
ation on this project.

For copies of this publication contact:
   EPA Water Resources Center (RC-4100)
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
   Washington, DC 20460

For more information regarding water efficiency, please contact:
   Water Efficiency Program (4204M)
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
   Washington, DC 20460
   < www. epa. go v / o wm /water-efficiency / index.htm>
                                                      Acknowledgements      49



United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4204M)
July 2002