United States
           Environmental Protection
              Office of Water
              Washington, DC 20460
EPA 841-B-95-002
April 1995
Cleaner Water Through
                                    Printed on Recycled Paper


                          EPA 841-B-95-002
                              April 1995
      Cleaner Water
Through Conservation
    United States Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
           401 M Street, SW
         Washington, DC 20460


 Acknowledgments  v

 Introduction—When More Is Better   1

 How We Use Water In These United States  5

      National Trends in Water Use 6
      National Consumption Patterns 6
      Categories of Water Use  7
             Municipal/Public Water Supply  7
             Domestic/Commercial  8
             Industrial and Mining 9
             Agricultural  10
             Thermoelectric Power Generation 10

 How Excessive  Water Use Affects Water
 Quality   13

      Developing New Water-Supply Reservoirs 14
      Overirrigating Agricultural Lands  15
      Overusing Water to Maintain Urban Landscapes  15
      Failed or Failing Onsite Disposal Systems  16
      Salinity Intrusion in Coastal Aquifers  16
      Loss/Reduction of Wetlands and Riparian Habits  17
      Reduction of Instream Flows  17

How to Conserve  Water and  Use it
Effectively   21

      Practices for Residential Users  22
           Engineering Practices  22
                 Plumbing  22
                 Landscaping  24
           Behavioral Practices  26
      Practices for Industrial/Commercial  Users  27
           Engineering Practices  27
                 Water Reuse and Recycling 27
                 Cooling Water Recirculation  28
                 Rinsing 29
                 Landscape Irrigation  30
           Behavioral Practices 30

           Contents (continued)
                            Practices for Agricultural Users  30
                                  Engineering Practices  30
                                        Irrigation  30
                                        Water Reuse and Recycling  31
                                  Behavioral Practices  32
                            Practices for System Operators  32
                                  Engineering Practices  32
                                        Metering  32
                                        Leak Detection   33
                                        Water Main Rehabilitation  34
                                        Water Reuse  34
                                        Well Capping  35
                                  Planning and Management Practices  35
                                        Pricing  35
                                        Retrofit Programs  37
                                        Residential Water Audit Programs
                                        Public Education  38
                                        Index of Water Efficiency  40
                                        Planning for Resource Protection
                                         Drought Management Planning  40

                      Regional Approaches to Efficient Water Use:
                      Tales From the Trenches  43

                            Florida  45
                                   Tampa  45
                                   South Florida Water Management District  45
                            California  46
                                   State of California  46
                                   Los Angeles  46
                                   City of San Jose 46
                                   CityofLompoc 47
                            Connecticut  47
                            New York  48
                            Washington, DC   48
                            Stillaguamish Tribe in Arlington, Washington  49
                            Texas  49
                            Oregon 50
                            Arizona  50
                            Looking Ahead  51

                      Glossary   53

                      References   57

   lis document was developed by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW), As-
sessment and Watershed Protection Division, Nonpoint Source Control Branch.
Technical support was provided under USEPA contract number 68-C3-0303
with Tetra Tech, Inc. The project was directed by Dr. Chris Zabawa of USEPA
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Urban Sources Section. Cynthia Dyballa and
Rodges Ankrah of USEPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation provided
critical technical input and direction during the early phases of the project. The
following people provided valuable assistance in the review of the document:
      Rod Frederick
      Dov Weitman
      Steve Dressing
      Joan Warren
      Marilyn Ginsberg
      Steve Clark
      David Rathke
      John Flowers
      Bill Swietlik
      Jocelyn Woodman
                        OWOW Nonpoint Source Control Branch
                        OWOW Nonpoint Source Control Branch
                        OWOW Nonpoint Source Control Branch
                        OWOW Policy and Communications Staff
                        Office of Drinking Water and Ground Water
                        Office of Drinking Water and Ground Water
                        USEPA Region 8
                        Office of Wastewater Management
                        Office of Wastewater Management
                        Office of Pollution Prevention
      Julie Winters-Lynch   Office of Pollution Prevention
Dr. John Hochheimer directed the project for Tetra Tech and was assisted by
Shannon Cauley, Chelie Billingsley, Jana Suchy, Sam Pett, and George
Townsend. Martha Martin provided editorial support, and Robert Johnson,
Kelly Gathers, and Nathan Heam provided production and graphics support.


When   More  Is
J    recognition of diffuse, or nonpoint source, pollution as a major con-
    butor to declining water quality has spawned another approach to
    iprovmg our water resources: better water quality tlirough greater
  water quantity.
     This document explains the relationship be-    Conserving Water
  tween the quantity of water and its quality and dis-  can actual!*,
   cusses how developing water-use efficiency pro-   '   """""J7
      grams can help states and local communities   Improve water
       achieve cleaner water through conserving   quality.
        water.                           --	—	
            Typically, nonpoint source (NFS) pollution originates
          from rain and melted snow flowing over the land, which is
            called runoff. As runoff contacts the land's surface, it
             picks up many pollutants in its path—sediment, oil
              and grease, road salt, fertilizers, pesticides, nutrients,

toxics, and other contaminants. Runoff can also
originate from irrigation water used in agriculture
and on landscapes. Many pollutants are picked up
by irrigation water as it runs off the land.

    Water conservation coupled with pollutant
source reduction, such as nutrient and pesticide
management, would be a particularly effective ap-
proach to reducing the adverse effects of all types
of NFS pollution. The focus of this document, how-
ever, is on the types and sources of NFS pollution
most commonly associated with urban uses of
    Other types of nonpoint pollution include
changes to the natural flow of water in stream
channels or wetlands. Changes to the  natural flow
of water in streams or wetlands result in habitat
destruction for fish and wildlife. Placing dams
across our rivers and streams can permanently al-
ter the characteristics of upstream and downstream
areas by flooding upstream habitats and drying
downstream habitats. Failures of onsite disposal
systems (septic tanks) lead to increases in nutri-
ents, harmful bacteria in oyster and clam beds, and
closures of public swimming areas. Conserving
water can help to reduce some impacts from these
other sources of nonpoint  pollution.
    Perhaps most relevant, however, besides the
intrinsic benefit of improving water quality by
addressing water quantity, are the other, economi-
cally beneficial  effects of these water quality im-
provements. Some of the NFS pollution problems
that can be reduced  by improved water conserva-
tion include:

      4 On-site disposal system failures
      4 Dried-up downstream wetlands
      4 Polluted  runoff from overirrigation of
         agricultural and urban lands
               4 Construction of additional dams
                 and reservoirs and additional
                 water and wastewater treatment
               4 Surface water withdrawals that
                 result in habitat degradation
                 both instream and on land adja-
                  cent to streams and lakes (ripar-
                  ian areas).
                  The many benefits of water use
                efficiency include cost savings  and
                pollution prevention even beyond
                nonpoint source pollution because
                many pollution prevention practices
                and  activities result in reduced water
                use,  which saves money. However,
                some pollution prevention practices
                that  do not reduce NFS pollution
                also provide a cost savings, making
                these three driving forces (water use
                efficiency, cost savings, and pollu-
                tion prevention) great companions.
                The umbrella term "water use  effi-
                ciency" actually defines a larger
                area of two subcategories: water
                conservation—finding ways to use
                less water to begin with—as distinct
                from water reuse and reclamation,
                such as "closed loop cycles" to re-

                  Cleaner Water Through Conservation

  use water in commercial and industrial settings or
  use of partially treated wastewater for lawn water-
  ing and in industrial settings.

     Implementing practices or programs outlined
  in this guide might help reduce onsite disposal
  system failures and decrease runoff of nutrients
  and soil from landscaped areas or agricultural
  fields. By reducing septic system failures and
  conserving irrigation water, we can also protect
  ground water from nitrates and salinity to pre-
  serve and safeguard our drinking water supplies.
     Similarly, saving water through improved ef-
 ficiency can lessen the need to withdraw ground
.	___^^^^__    or surface water
                             supplies for mu-
                             nicipal or indus-
                             trial demands.
                             Conserving water
                            decreases the need
                            to impound or
                            otherwise regulate
                            the natural flow  of
 Conserving water
 reduces the need to
 impound streams =
preserved free flow
 + retained value for
 habitat, tourism, and
                              to retain the value
  of stream and river systems as wildlife habitat
  and for tourism and recreation.

     In addition, building fewer and smaller new
  water projects can help prevent the destruction or
  degradation of pollutant-filtering wetlands. Effi-
  cient water use can also mean a reduction in the
  amount of energy needed to treat wastewater, re-
  sulting in less energy demand and therefore fewer
  by-products from power plants.

     The reuse of wastewater or reclaimed water is
 beneficial because it reduces the demands on avail-
 able surface and ground waters. Also, recycling pro-
 cess water can reduce industrial pollutants discharged
 into lakes, streams, rivers, and oceans. Perhaps the
 greatest immediate benefit of establishing water reuse
 programs is their contribution to delaying or eliminat-
 ing the need to expand potable water supply and
 treatment facilities. However, sometimes this reuse
 can also adversely impact waters. Highest quality wa-
 ter sources are preserved for drinking water by using
 treated wastewater for other uses (USEPA, 1990e).

    Water conservation is not a new idea in the
 United States. In fact, more than 40  states now

When More Is Better
                                                          The Snake

                                                           In someareas <>f the country, suchas
                                                           the Snake River In Idaho, water
                                                       demands are so greiat during summer
                                                       months that all incoming river water at a
                                                       water supply reservoir Is needed to
                                                       provjdefbr aie demiind,     i
                                                       Because water Is net passed through or
                                                       over dams at these supply reservoirs, one
                                                       source of tie natural supply to down-
                                                       steam areas is cut off although afl water
                                                       withdrawn from thesa heavily used riveifc
                                                      fn other areas, such as arid Arizona,
                                                      ground water withdrawals exceed recharae
                                                      and water Is therefore* mined without
                                               have some type of water conservation program.
                                               Nationwide surveys already indicate more than
                                               80 percent of water
                                                  ter conservation mea-
                                                  sure (Kranzer, 1988).
                                                  Water suppliers and
                                                  consumers can choose
                                                  from a wide variety of
                                                  available water conser-
                                                                       municipalities and
                                                                            ,    ,     _
                                                                            local and State
                                               vation practices, programs, and strategies proven
                                               capable of significantly reducing water consump-
                                               tion. These include:

                                                    4 Metering

                                                    4 Reducing water pressure
                                                    4 Imposing water use restrictions
                                                    A Enacting zoning ordinances
                                                    4 Changing price structures
                                                   * Educating the public.

      Low-flow toilets currentfy in use
  •r  througriciit Texas could reduce the
   need to build new water and wastewater
   in savings of as much as $68 mWton per
   year. Residential water and sewer bills ^
   could also be reduced by as much as $200
   million over the tong term.

   The Texas Water Development Board^
   estimates that the use of wata^efnctent
   plumbing fixtures should save a typical   ..-
   four-member household 55300 gaBons of
   water and $627 in tower water and energy
   (i.e., water heating and pumping^
 Chatiter 1
How We Use  Water
in  These  United
     fater use is usually defined and measured in terms of withdrawal or
     onsumpfion-^x which is taken and that which is used up C,
    drawal refers to water extracted from surface or ground wat^l
   with^consumption being that part of a withdrawal L is uta^ed
    and removed from the immediate water environment-wfoTer by
    evaporation, transpiration, incorporation into crops or a product or
    other consumption. Conversely, return flow is the portion of a

   Withdrawal, consumption, and return/low of water
  from surface water and ground water sources.

   withdrawal that is actually not consumed, but is
   instead returned to a surface or ground water
   source from a point of use and becomes available

   for further use.
Water Withdrawal =
Consumption + Return


       Water use can also be divided into
    offstream and instream uses. Offstream
    water use (see Table 1) involves the
    withdrawal or diversion of water from
    a surface or ground water source for

         4 Domestic and residential uses

         4 Industrial uses

         4 Agricultural uses

          4 Energy development uses.

        Instream water uses are those
     which do not require a diversion or
       withdrawal from the surface or ground water
       sources, such as:
             4 Water quality and habitat improvement

             4 Recreation
             4 Navigation
             4 Fish propagation
             4 Hydroelectric power production.

        National  Trends  in

        Water Use

            National patterns of water use indicate that the
        largest demand for water withdrawals (fresh and
        saline) is for thermoelectric generation (47 percent),
        followed by irrigation (34 percent), public supply
         (9 percent), industrial (6 percent), mining (1 per-
         cent), live-stock (1 percent), domestic (1 percent),
         and commercial uses (1 percent) (Solley et al.,
         1993) While thermoelectric generation represents
         the largest demand for fresh and saline withdraw-
         als, irrigation represents the largest demand for
         freshwater withdrawal alone (see box page 7). Ac-
         tivities that reduce the need to withdraw surface
         and ground water will lead to many of the benefi-
         cial effects of conserving water.

          National  Consumption


              Water consumption varies by water use cat-
          egory, with irrigation consuming the highest per-
           Total Freshwater and Saltwater
           Withdrawals vs. Water Use
         Water Withdrawals
      F Surface — 327.0 Billion Gal
       Ground —  80.6 Billion Gal
              — 407.6 Billion Gal
                             Total Use 94 Billion Gal
                                                  _ 300
  Table 1
            datty offstream water use in the United States

(Solley et al., 1993).

                        Cleaner Water Through Conservation

   cent (81 percent) and commer-
   cial the lowest (1 percent) (see
   figure). The difference between
   the volume of water withdrawn
   and that consumed is the return
  flow. As more good-quality wa-
   ter is available in return flows,
   more water is available for other
   beneficial uses.

      Some categories of water
  use, such as  irrigation and live-
  stock watering, consume a high
  percentage of water that is with-
  drawn from surface and ground
  water sources. Thus, less water
  is available for return flows from
  these high-consumption activi-
  ties. Other categories of use like
  thermoelectric power consume
  only a small fraction of the water
  they withdraw.

  Categories of
  Water  Use

     With several different ways
 to categorize water use in the
 United States, this chapter sepa-
 rates offstream uses into

      *  Municipal/public supply
      4  Domestic and commercial
      4  Industrial and mining

      4  Agricultural

      A Thermoelectric power.

 Water Supply

    While water withdrawals for
public use can be applied to
street cleaning, fire fighting,
municipal parks, and  public
swimming pools, keep in mind
that municipalities and private
suppliers  might also provide wa-
        Total Freshwater
       Millions of gal/day
          (% of total)
Consumptive Use
Millions of gal/day
   (% of total)
                               16%   and Mining
                                                 Not quantified
                                                 as a consump
                                    Publio Uses and   ^ve use-
                                                 Total Withdrawal

                                                 Percent Consumed
Comparison of freshwater consumptive use in the United States for 1990
by category (Solley et al., 1993).
How We Use Water in These United States

ter for other purposes—domestic/commercial, ag-
ricultural, thermoelectric power (see Table 2).

    Per capita (per person) use of public water
supplies in the United States (1990) averaged  183
gallons per day (gal/d). The average per capita
use can vary greatly between communities for any
number of reasons, including, but not limited to:

      4  Climate differences
      4  The mix of domestic, commercial, and
         industrial uses
      4  Household sizes
      4  Lot sizes
      4  Public uses
      4 Income brackets
      4 Age and condition of distribution system.

     For instance, per capita use of public water is
 about 50 percent higher in the West than the  East
 mostly due to the amount of landscape irrigation
 in the West (see map, p. 9).  However, per capita
 use can also vary greatly within a single state.
 For example, in 1985 the demand for municipal
 water in Ancho, New Mexico, totaled 54 gallons
 per capita per day (gal/cap/day) while in Tyrone,
 New Mexico, municipal demand topped off at
 423 gal/cap/day (Grisham and Fleming, 1989).
 Rural areas typically consume less water for do-
  mestic  purposes than larger towns.
      In  1990, water withdrawn nationwide for
  public  supplies totaled 38,530 million gallons per
  day (Mgal/d) (Table 2). Although this withdrawal
  rate represents a 5 percent increase over  1985
  amounts, the number of people supplied with wa-
  ter distributed through public systems also in-

  Table 2. Fate of Water in Public Water Supplies of
  the U. S., 1990.
Receiving Category
Public Use Losses
Thermoelectric Power
Volume Percentage
(Mgal/Day) of Total
creased 5 percent during that same 5-year period.
Again in 1990, surface water supplied about 61
percent of the public water supply, with ground
water supplying the other 39 percent (Solley et al.,
    Of the total water withdrawn in 1990 for
public supplies—representing 11 percent of total
U.S. offstream freshwater withdrawals—72 per-
cent went to domestic and commercial uses, 13
percent to industrial uses, and 0.2 percent to ther-
moelectric power.  The remaining 14 percent went
to public uses such as fire protection or was lost
during distribution (usually due to leaks).


     Domestic water use includes everyday uses that
 take place in residential homes, whereas com-
 mercial water uses are those which take place in
 office buildings, hotels,  restaurants, civilian and
 military institutions, public and private golf
 courses, and other nonindustrial commercial
 facilities. Combined freshwater withdrawals for do-
 mestic and commercial  use in 1990 totaled 33,600
 Mgal/d, or 10 percent of total freshwater withdraw-
 als for all offstream categories (see box page 7).
     Typical categories  of residential water use in-
  clude normal household uses such as
       4 Drinking and cooking
        4 Bathing
        4 Toilet flushing
        4 Washing clothes and dishes
        4 Watering  lawns and gardens
        4 Maintaining swimming pools

        4 Washing cars.
      When divided into indoor uses and outdoor
  uses, the amount of indoor water use remains
  fairly constant throughout the year, with the
  breakdown of typical indoor water uses depicted
  on page 9. By far the largest percentage of indoor
  water use occurs in the bathroom, with 41 per-
  cent used for toilet flushing and 33 percent for
   bathing (USEPA,  1992).
       Outdoor residential water use, however, var-
   ies greatly depending on geographic location and

                  Cleaner Water Through Conservation

  Average use per person (gal/day) of public water in the United States by USGS water region Volley et al., 1993).
  season. On an annual average basis, outdoor
  water use in the arid West and Southwest is much
  greater than that in the East or Midwest. The
  figure  on page  10 compares the national average
  for residential outdoor water use with that of
  Pennsylvania and California, with landscape
  irrigation the primary application. While average
 outdoor water use in Pennsylvania represents only
 approximately 7 percent of the total residential
 demand, in California average outdoor use climbs
 to about 44 percent of the demand.

 Industrial and Mining

    Industrial water uses, estimated to be 8 per-
 cent of total freshwater use for all offstream cat-
 egories, include  cooling in factories and washing
 and rinsing in manufacturing processes. Some of
 the major water-use industries  include mining,
 steel, paper and associated products, and chemi-
 cals and associated products.

How We  Use Water in  These United States
       Bathroom 74% Kitchen 5%
Typical breakdown of interior water use.

Comparison of average national residential outdoor water use with that
of Pennsylvania and California (USEPA, 1992).
                        use for irrigation and livestock repre-
                        sents about 41 percent of total
                        off stream freshwater use for 1990,
                        (see figure page 7) with 40 percent
                        going to irrigation and the lone 1
                        percent to livestock uses.
                           Not only can the loss of water
                        from irrigation conveyance systems
                        be significant, but the percentage of
                        consumptive water use for agriculture
                        is high as well—an estimated 54 per-
                        cent consumption in 1985. By 1990
                        this had climbed to an estimated 56
                        percent consumption for irrigation
                        uses and 67 percent for livestock
                        uses (see figure page 7).

                         Thermoelectric Power
       Water for both industrial and mining uses
   comes from public supplies, surface sources, and
   ground water. During the 5-year span from 1985
   to 1990, industrial water use in the United States
   decreased approximately  13 percent. In the same
   period, mining water use increased about 24
   percent (Solley et al., 1993).


       Agricultural water use can be divided be-
   tween irrigation and livestock. Irri-
   gation includes all water applied to
   farm or horticultural crops; live-
   stock incorporates water used for
   livestock, dairies, feedlots, fish
    farms, and other farm needs.
        Estimated annual water use for
    irrigation remained at about the
    same level between 1985 and 1990,
    with approximately 63 percent of
    the water used for irrigation in 1990
    coming from surface water. Ap-
    proximately 60 percent of the water
    used for livestock came from
    ground water sources and the re-
    maining 40 percent from surface
    water sources. Combined water
                 This final category includes water used for the
             production of energy from fossil fuels, nuclear en-
             ergy, or geothermal energy. Most water withdrawn
             for thermoelectric power production is used for
             condenser and reactor cooling. While 1990 esti-
             mates of freshwater withdrawals remained constant
             from 1985, nearly half again as much saline water
             was also used.
                 More than 99 percent of the water used for
             thermoelectric power production comes from
Change in water use 1985-1990.
                                                                     Cleaner Water Through Conservation

  self-supplied surface water, less than 0.2
  percent from public supplies. In 1990, water
  used for thermoelectric power production
  represented close to 39 percent of total
  offstream freshwater use in the United States,
  but only about 3 percent was consumed (Solley
  et al., 1993).
    The Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic Gulf, Ohio,
and Great Lakes water resource regions use the
largest amounts of water for thermoelectric pro-
duction. The eastern United States uses about
five times more water than the West to produce
about twice as much thermoelectric power
(Solley et al., 1993).
How We Use Water in These United States


Chapter 2
How  Excessive
Water  Use  Affects
Water  Quality
 he demand for water in the United States necessitates stream and river im-
 poundments, the drilling of more and deeper wells, and water withdrawals
 » from most natural waterbodies across the country. The high demand for
 and overuse of water can contribute markedly to nonpoint source pollution
 in various forms, including:

    4 Altered instream flows due to surface withdrawals.

    4 Saltwater intrusion due to excessive withdrawals.

    4 Polluted runoff resulting from the excess of water applied for irri-
      gation and landscape maintenance that carries with it sediments,
      nutrients, salts, and other pollutants.

   Other adverse effects result from the damming of rivers to create the
 large volumes of water in reservoirs. In addition to impacts on natural

High demand for
and overuse of
water contribute
to NFS pollution.

    stream and downstream
    discussed further in the
 habitats, dams them-
 selves create several
 forms of nonpoint source
 pollution due to their ef-
 fects on physical and
 chemical water quality
 degradation both up-
. These NFS impacts are
following sections.
     Developing  New
     Water-Supply  Reservoirs
        Building dams to develop new reservoirs can
     both generate and release a multitude of nonpoint
     source pollutants both upstream and downstream
     from the dam. Therefore, to protect water quality,
     dam construction should be avoided wherever
     possible. Pollutants include not only suspended
     sediments, but also pesticides, petrochemicals,
     solid wastes, construction runoff, and concrete
     washwater. Impacts from these NFS pollutants
           Where Have All (he Salmon
            Most notably, the obstruction of f ish
            migration by dams has become Increas-
        ingly evident in the Pacific Northwest, where
        damming whole river systems has all but
        wiped out many historic runs of several
        salmon species. This has caused the
        economic base of many communities to be
        wiped out as well. An acknowledged
        contributor to the devastating decline of
        several Pacific Ocean salmon fisheries,
        dams have helped introduce tight regula-
        tions and quotas to commercial fisheries
        along the whote length of coast alt the way
        to Alaska, with 1994 bringing the first
        comptete salmon closure of both commer-
        clal and sportfishlng to the West Coast-
        Alaska yet excepted.
        Even wfth the installation of improved "fish
        ladders" at dam sites designed to increase
        the success of fish surmounting these
        formidable obstacles on their upstream
        journey to spawn, onsite underwater video
        cameras now record scant hundreds swim-
        ming by a dam where previously salmon
        filled the rivers and streams each season.
                           can cause any number of problems, including
                           changes in water temperature, dissolved oxygen
                           values, salinity, turbidity, habitat, and living re-
                           sources. Although these pollutants can cause se-
                           vere water quality problems in the immediate
                           area of construction, as  well as in downstream
                           waterbodies, reservoir construction projects lo-
                           cated directly alongside streams and rivers further
                           increase the likelihood of construction-related
                           pollutants entering waterbodies.

                              The siting of dams can lead to the loss of habitat
                           re-suiting from the inundation of wetlands, ripar-
                           ian ar-eas, and farmland in upstream areas of the im-
                           pounded waterway, or erosion of these resources in
                           downstream areas. As dams trap sediment and
                           other pollutants, changes in water quality—espe-
                           cially  in tailwaters and downstream areas—occur.
                           They include:

                                 4  Reduced sediment delivery

                                 4  Decreased dissolved oxygen

                                 4  Altered temperature regimes

                                 4  Increased levels of some pollutants, such as
                                   hydrogen sulfide, nutrients, and manganese.

                              Once streams are impounded, water demand dic-
                           tates the artificial regulation and control of stream-
                           flow. The new flow rates and volume often do not
                           reproduce natural conditions preceding the impound-
                           ment  Releases of impounded water with decreased
                           levels of dissolved oxygen, high turbidity, or altered
                           temperature can reduce downstream populations of
                                                                   Cleaner Water Through Conservation

   serving water
  '• reduce the
vdfor new
                         fish and other organisms.
                         Not only can reservoir wa-
                         ter temperatures and oxy-
                         gen content differ signifi-
                         cantly from expected sea-
                         sonal temperatures in the
                         formerly free-flowing
   stream or river, but critical minimum flows
   needed for riparian areas are often not maintained
   as well. While dams typically reduce or even
   eliminate the downstream flooding needed by
   some wetlands and riparian areas to maintain hy-
   drologic conditions, dams can also impede or
   block fish migration routes. Decreased flow in
   coastal areas can also increase saltwater intrusion
   and produce  changes in the ecosystem.

      Conserving water can improve the adequacy of
   existing surface water supplies and thus reduce the
   need for new  supply reservoirs. In this way water
   conservation can help reduce NFS pollution im-
   pacts on surface, ground, and coastal waters, as
   well as impacts on associated habitats that result
   from constructing new water supply reservoirs.

  Agricultural   Lands

      Irrigation  causes the movement of pollutants
  from land into surface or ground waters. This
  pollutant movement is affected by:

       4  The fate of both applied irrigation water
          and precipitation.

       4 The physical, chemical, and biological
         characteristics of the irrigated land.

       4 The type of irrigation system used.
       4 The crop type.

       A The farm management practices em-

      A  The management of the irrigation system.

    For example, irrigation waters transported in
 open, unlined canals can seep into adjacent soils,
 eventually carrying soluble pollutants into ground
 or surface waters. Overirrigating results in a portion
 of applied waters running off the land into surface
 waters or seeping through the soil and eventually

How Excessive Water Use Affects Water Quality
    ending up in surface or ground waters. In either
    case, the excess water can carry these pollutants:

         4 Sediment and participate organic solids.

         * Particulate-bound nutrients, chemicals, and

         4 Soluble nutrients, a portion of the applied
           pesticides, soluble metals (i.e., selenium
           and iron) and salts, and many other major
           and minor nutrients.

        *  Bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms.

      Any pollutants linked to Irrigation water—salts,
   metals, or nutrients—can concentrate in the soil,
   leachate, seepage, or runoff associated with an irri-
   gation system.

      Reducing overall water use in  irrigation leaves
   more water for natural stream flow and increases
   flow needed by marshes, wetlands, or other envi-
   ronmental uses. If the irrigation source is ground
  water, reducing overall use maintains higher ground
  water levels, which could be important for sustain-
  ing base flow in nearby streams.

     Reduced diversion of surface waters likewise
  lessens the salt or other pollutant load brought into
  the irrigation system, thereby (Uminishing the vol-
  ume of these pollutants that ultimately must be
  managed or discharged from the system. One way
  of managing these pollutants if; through the imple-
  mentation of water conservation and pesticide/nutri-
  ent best management practices (BMPs). Decreasing
  the diversion of water from streams and rivers also
  lowers the levels of return flows, runoff, and leachate
  from irrigated lands that might transport pollutants.

 Overusing  Water to
 Maintain  Urban


    The overuse of water to maintain urban land-
 scapes results  in direct and indinsct types of NFS
 pollution. Direct NFS pollution problems associated
 with water overuse for landscape maintenance in-
 clude increased nutrient and soil runoff from the
 landscaped area, as well  as other pollutants from ur-
ban and developed lands. Indirect NFS pollution
problems include increasing overaJl demand for addi-

tional development and use of water supply reser-
    Decreasing the amount of water used for land-
scape maintenance and implementing pesticide man-
agement plans can reduce the entry of these pollut-
ants into surface and ground waters.

Failed  or Failing Onsite
Disposal Systems
    Overusing water in the household can lead to
the failure of onsite sewage disposal systems
(OSDS), as well as increased addition of pollutants
associated with household water uses to surface and
ground waters (Table 3). Because many OSDS soil
absorption field failures are attributed to hydraulic
overload, reducing water use at many locations in
the average household—leaking toilets and other
fixtures, showers and baths, inefficient appliances
such as dishwashers or washing machines—will
ease hydraulic loading.

Salinity  Intrusion  in
Coastal  Aquifers
    Depleting aquifers in coastal areas can lead to
salinity intrusion—the movement of chlorides and
other minerals into the aquifer. These substances can
render ground water undrinkable or require signifi-
cant expenditures to treat the water before it can
 be drunk or otherwise used.
     Reducing the depletion
 of aquifers through water
 efficiency practices or re-
 charging the aquifers with
 reclaimed (used and treated
 to appropriate standards)
 water is an effective way to
 prevent salinity
                                                               Cleaner Water Through Conservation

  Table 3. DaUy domestic water use and pollutant loadings by sources.
  Water Use
  ., .                        Suspended        Total          Total
  Volume        BOD          Solids         Nitrogen     Phosphorus
(gal/capita)   (grams/capita)   (grams/capita)  (grams/capita)  (grams/capita)
Garbage Disposal 1.2 10.8
Toilet 16.2 17.2
Basins and Sinks 22.4 22.0
Miscellaneous 6.6 o.O
Total 46.4 50.0
Source: USEPA, 1980.
Um $«&y Water
^•B Saltwater Intrusion is a major problem for
PPF the Southwest Florida Water Manage-
ment District, where it has affected num-
erous wells atong the southwestern coast of
Florida. Pro-jecMons by the District forecast
continuing saftwater movement inland at a
rate of several inches per day. At this rate*
hundreds of wefts in coastal Hilteborough,
Manatee, and Sarasota Counties are at risk
(SFWMD.1994J. , .. - .
The results of the Water Resource Assess*
merit Project In the Eastern Tampa Bay area
15.9 0.4 0.6
27.6 8.6 1.2
13.6 1.4 2.2
o.o o.o o.o
57.1 10.4 4.0

showed that aboutlSO Mgatftf coukf be
withdrawn without causing f uither movement
of saftwater inland over the nsxt 50 years.
Withdrawals in tWs area average t7§ to 200
Mgal/d, yet more than 400 Mjjal/d is perrrriBed
. for withdrawal (SFWMD, 1994).
In Florida, where ground wateir provides 90
percent of the state's domestic water supply,
aquifer jreefcarge has been chosen as the
preferred method to decrease the danger of
salinity intrusion into ground water supplies
(York and Crook, 1990).
 Loss/Reduction  of
 Wetlands  and  Riparian
    Constructing reservoirs reduces streamflow,
 which modifies erosion and sedimentation pat-
 terns, disrupts downstream  habitats, and impacts
 (often negatively) living resources.

    Reducing the quantity of water diverted from
 streams and rivers for water supplies by imple-
 menting water use efficiency programs curbs the
 need to construct new reservoirs for water supply,
 protecting wetland and riparian habitats as well as
 their functions in NFS pollution abatement. Many
 California cities cite the protection of streams,
 wetlands, and estuaries as a major benefit of and
reason for water conservation.

How Excessive Water Use Affects Water Quality
                          Reduction of  Instream

                             Instream flow is the amount of flow required
                          to sustain stream values, including biota, wildlife,
                          and recreation. In addition to the effects on the
                          quality and quantity of wildlife habitat associated
                          with streams (Table 4), instream flows can also
                          serve many other purposes:

                              4 Stock water by diversion

                              4 Water-based recreation—swimming, raft-
                                 ing, kayaking, boating

                              4  Aesthetics

                              4  Aquifer recharge

                              4  Dilution water for effluent discharges

Table 4. Resources directly or indirectly affected by instream flows with a role in the quality and
quantity of wildlife habitat (USDOI, 1992).
         Instream Water
Water accessible and suitable for

Water of suitable depth and flow
 Water of suitable depth; expanse,
 and clarity     ,       ^     i"

 Water of suitable depth and quality

 Variation in flow (Hydroperiod)
        -     ..
       Habitat Components
 Terrestrial insects; originating tram
 aquatic larvae         t    /

              ''.'•' '* *•       s%l
 Mature ripariarr shrubs and trees
 :'•   •'     ''.•;,•••.   **   '
           •v».»X'. t I
            '.'"' *             *^"
Terrestrial insects associated with
riparian vegetation

Aquatic animal life         '
  RSparian small animal commun
  Free water needed on regular
  (e.g., dairy) basis to meet physi-
  ological needs
  Water used as travel medium (in-
  cludingfor dispersal)

  Water area assures exposure or
* provides concealment (for protec-
  tion from predators)
      Vf             **     •>     v^
  Water needed as primary resi-
   dence during some life stage

   Penodic scouring produces vegeta*
   tion-free sites suitable for feeding -
   or nesting
 I   ~   #.     Indirect

   Instream flow determines prey
   base-for terrestrial animals that eat
 & Insects       „     7  >!
   Instream flow affects vegetation
  A that serves as concealment cover
•   for individuals and  nests, and that
~ "provides shelter from weather
   Instream flow affects vegetation
   that produces insects that serve as
   prey base for animals that eat in-
   sects        ^ >**
   Instream flow determines aquatic
   ,anftnals that serve as food source^
   for seraiaquafic species
                                    ..._jea'm flow directly and Indirectly
                                    affects structure of community that
                                    supports higher food levels
                                                                      Mule deer, desert bighorn sheep,
                                                                      California and Gambel's quail,
                                                                      other 'and land" species
                                                                      River otter, beaver, water shrew,
                                                                      muskrat, marty amphibians, some
                                                                      turtles, water snakes
                                                                   >  Whooping crane, sandhill crane,
                                                                      river otter, beaver,  muskrat, water
                                                                  *>-  Frogs, some toads, some sala-
                                                                       manders, water snakes, some
                                                                   \>" turtles, mollusks
                                                                       Shorebirds, terns
  Songbiirds, reptiles, and small
  mammals residing in nparfat* zone
           •»        /    '^'
           •*• -a           < %&•
  Songbirdsfteeding or wintering in
  riparian zon*         ^*2
        „« ^^'          '   '  X
        *•*           „ rf      *^
i    ."-           *•'  amounts of this vegetation, which
                                 "'* is eaten by resident herbivores

                                    Ihstream flow affects vegetation
                                    that is eaten by resident herbivores
   Source:  USDOI. 1992
                                       • Coyote, red fox, striped skunk,
                                      *"1ong-f«uled weasel, great-homed
                                       owl, common black-hawk, aquatic
                                       ysnakes         r       •
                                                       and mammals
                                                  nvsf otter, osprey)

                                        Aquy*c and semtaquatfc horbivores
                                        and omrjlvoroufi species (larval
                                        amphibians, turtles, some water-
                                        fowl, rails)
                                        Riparian herbivores, i.e., beaver
                                                                        Cleaner Water Through Conservation

            from municipal and industrial wastewa-
            ter sources

         A  Maintaining water delivery to down-
            stream users

         A  Channel maintenance and sediment
            flushing flows.

       When drought occurs, natural streamflow
   might be inadequate to maintain normal instream
   uses, necessitating additional water to supplement
   stream flow in these circumstances. Quantitative
   aids to drought management need to  be devel-
   oped, implemented, refined, and reimplemented,
         Swan Flow in Idaho

          An instream flow study instituted in
          the fait of t989 sought to determine
      trumpeter swans in Henry's Fork, Idaho.
      The study was Initiated after a severe
      cold front caused the deaths of 50 to 100
      $9*1 1 >%\•V^l>*">^»fc ^i^.^.^.**..^ u_ ._».«•
      to save them with water to Increase flows
      arri open up feeding habHat,

      The study concluded that an Jnstream
      flow of approximately 700 cubic feet per
      second (fWs), below the confluence of
      the Buffalo River, wouW be optimal for
      swans under normal winter conditions,
      requiring a release of 500 ftVs to achieve
      that flow/Moreover, those flows would
      also address fisheries requirements for
      that reach of Henry's Fork.
taking into consideration riparian landowner's
rights and regional water law. The recommended
method of developing quantitative information is
by monitoring offstream withdrawals, return
flows, and instream flows in addition to precipi-
tation, contributing runoff, evaporation, ground
water, reservoir storage, and drought indices.
       The Water Out West
                                                           The hydrologic regimes of many
       noomiu HVWS nave cieen drastically
   altered during the past 103 years. First
   water runoff and river baasftows were
   captured largely to serve mining needs
   during the early development era. later,
   flood control rose in Importance together
   with Industrial, murtcipaUind hydroetec-
   tnc power needs.

   Historically, water use in ft* West has
   nAftit HflCbaH /\rt 4>K«N **.***.-mi-..^ AI^^JL **. , .  .
  ciai use* of water requires the user to
  remove water from the stream to directly
  serve human needs, with the conse^
  such as fishery resources received little
  attention. In recent years, f towevei; an
  AtttttfYtirt/f: «&Aua*Wl*Wbt*ha**>te t *,. , ,-~ .* j-_^ ^ u .
-..,—.5,..*^ ^*iTHWMMTCntiai avr«iiotl@SS arl
recagnltfon of endangered, nattve, and
SDOrt fish HAArife hav/a ruwti»«A*t —_i_.
  -r,~.* >.»,> .lOEnjia icdvo (^uuuccKt yreaier
  interest In maintaining healthy stream and
  nver fish eomrnunWes. The challenge
  remains to balance these fishery needs—
  and the economic benefits of the fishing
  industry—wfth those of irrigation, flood
  control, and municipal and industrial water
How Excessive Water Use Affects Water Quality


Chapter 3
How  to  Conserve
Water  and  Use  It
      r ater users can be divided into two basic groups: system users
     r(such as residential users, industries, and farmers) and system op-
     erators (such as municipalities, state and local governments, and
  privately owned suppliers). These users can choose from among many
  different water use efficiency practices, which fall into two categories:

        (1) Engineering practices: practices based on modifications in
           plumbing, fixtures, or water supply operating procedures.
        (2) Behavioral practices: practices based on charging water
           use habits.

     This chapter explores a number of water use efficiency practices.
  The practices have been evaluated by many researchers, and there is a
  growing body of literature that presents the results of many studies re-
  lated to water use efficiency.

     This chapter addresses the following questions: What's the problem?
  What practices might be used to solve it? How effective are they? What
  d£ they cost? WJiere hav€ they been used successfully? Piactices for
  system users—residential, industrial/commercial, and agricultural—are
  presented5 first, followed by practices for system operators.

      Water Conservation and Use
      Efficiency Practices
        Practices for System Users
     Residential Users
       Engineering Practices
        - Plumbing
        - Landscaping
       Behavioral  Practices
     Industrial/Commercial Users
       Engineering Practices
        - Water Reuse and Recycling
        - Cooling Water Recirculation
        - Rinsing
        - Landscape Irrigation
       Behavioral  Practices
     Agricultural Users
       Engineering Practices
        - Irrigation
        - Water Reuse and Recycling
       Behavioral Practices
        - Irrigation Scheduling
       Practices for System Operators
      Engineering Practices
       - Metering
       - Leak Detection
       - Water Main Rehabilitation
       - Water Reuse
       - Well Capping
      Planning and Management Practices
       - Pricing
       - Retrofit Programs
       - Residential Water Audit Programs
       - Public Education
       - Index of Water Efficiency
       - Planning for Resource Protection
       - Drought Management Planning
Practices for
Residential  Users
    The following sections present examples of
conservation and water use efficiency practices
that can benefit residential users. Both engineer-
ing and behavioral practices  are described.
Engineering Practices

    An engineering practice for individual resi-
dential water users is the installation of indoor
plumbing fixtures that save water or the replace-
ment of existing plumbing equipment with equip-
ment that uses less water. Low-flow plumbing
fixtures and retrofit programs are permanent,
one-time conservation measures that can be
implemented automatically with little or no addi-
tional cost over their life tunes (Jensen, 1991). In
some cases, they can even save the resident
money over the long term.
    The City of Corpus Christi, for example, has
estimated that an average three-member household
can reduce its water use by 54,000 gallons annu-
ally and can lower water bills by about $60 per
year if water-efficient plumbing fixtures are used
(Jensen, 1991). Further support for this conclusion
is provided below.
 By using water-efficient plumbing, a family of three can
 reduce its water use and save $60 per year.
     Low-Flush Toilets. Residential demands ac-
 count for about three-fourths of the total urban wa-
 ter demand. Indoor use accounts for roughly 60
 percent of all residential use, and of this, toilets (at
 3.5 gallons per flush) use nearly 40 percent. Toilets,
 showers, and faucets combined represent two-thirds
 of all indoor water use. More than 4.8 billion gal-
 lons of water is flushed down toilets each day in
 the United States. The average American uses about
 9,000 gallons of water to flush 230 gallons of waste
 down the toilet per year (Jensen, 1991). In new

                Cleaner Water Through Conservation

 The gravity design is the most -widely available low-flush
 toilet. When flushing, the stored water from the tank (1)
flows into the bowl (2), where the water pushes waste into
 the trap-way (3). The 1.6-gal/flush design of the gravity
 toilet has a different flush mechanism (4), as well as steep
 bowl sides and a narrow trapway to allow the siphoned
 water to gain velocity for more effective removal of waste
 (City of Austin, n.d.).
   construction and building rehabilitation or remodel-
   ing there is a great potential to reduce water con-
   sumption by installing low-flush toilets.

       Conventional toilets use 3.5 to 5 gallons or more
   of water per flush, but low-flush toilets (see figure
   above) use only 1.6 gallons of water or less. Since
   low-flush toilets use less water, they also re-duce the
   volume of wastewater produced (Pearson, 1993).

       Effective January 1,1994, the Energy Policy Act
   of 1992 (Public Law  102-486) requires that all new
   toilets produced for home use must operate on 1.6
   gallons per flush or less (Shepard, 1993). Toilets that
   operate on 3.5 gallons per flush will continue to be
   manufactured, but their use will be allowed for only
   certain commercial applications through January 1,
   1997 (NAPHCC, 1992).
     Even in existing residences, replacement of
 conventional toilets with low-flush toilets is a
 practical and economical alternative. The effective-
 ness of low-flush toilets has been demonstrated
 in a study in the City of San Pablo, California. In
 a 30-year-old apartment building, conventional
 toilets that used about 4.5 gallons per flush were
 replaced with low-flush toilets that use approxi-
 mately  1.6 gallons per flush. The change resulted
 in a decrease in water consumption from approxi-
 mately 225 gallons per day per average household
 of 3!/2 persons to  148 gallons per day per house-
 hold—a savings of 34 percent! Although the total
 cost for replacement of the conventional toilets
 with low-flush toilets was about $250 per unit (in-
 cluding installation), the water conservation fix-
 tures saved an average of $46 per year from each
 unit's water bill. Therefore, the cost for the re-
 placement of the conventional toilet with a low-
 flush toilet could be recovered in 5.4 years.

     Toilet Displacement Devices. Plastic containers
 (such as plastic milk jugs) can be filled with water or
 pebbles and placed hi a toilet tank to reduce the
 amount of water used pear flush. By placing one to
 three such containers in the tank (making sure that
 they do not interfere with the flushing mechanisms
 or the flow of water), more than 1 gallon of water can
 be saved per flush. A toilet dam, which holds back a
 reservoir of water when the toilet is flushed, can also
 be used instead of a plastic container to save water.
 Toilet dams result in a savings of 1 to 2 gallons of
 water per flush (USEPA, 199 Ib).

    Low-Flow Showerheads.
 Showers account for about 20
 percent of total indoor water
 use. By  replacing  standard 4.5-
 gallon-per-minute showerheads
 with 2.5-gallon-per-miriute
 heads, which cost less
 than $5 each, a fam-
 ily of four can save
 20,000 gallons of
 water per year (Jensen,
 1991). Although individual
preferences determine optimal
shower flow rates, properly
designed low-flow
   How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively

Replacing standard showerheads with low-flow
showerheads can save a family of four about 20,000
gallons of water per year.
showerheads are available to provide the quality
of service found in higher-volume models.

    Whitcomb (1990) developed a model to esti-
mate water use savings resulting from the installa-
tion of low-flow showerheads in residential hous-
ing. Detailed data from 308 single-family resi-
dences involved  in a pilot program in Seattle, Wash-
ington, were analyzed. The estimated indoor water
use per person dropped 6.4 percent after low-flow
showe±eads were installed (Whitcomb, 1990).

    Faucet Aerators. Faucet aerators, which break
the flowing water into fine droplets and entrain air
while maintaining wetting effectiveness, are inex-
pensive devices that can be installed in sinks to re-
duce water use. Aerators can be easily installed and
can reduce the water use at a faucet by as much as
60 percent while still maintaining a strong flow.
More efficient kitchen and bathroom faucets that
use only 2 gallons of water per minute—unlike
standard faucets, which use 3 to 5 gallons per
minute—are also available (Jensen, 1991).

     Pressure Reduction. Because flow rate is re-
lated to pressure, the maximum water flow from a
fixture operating on a fixed setting  can be re-
duced if the water  pressure is reduced.  For ex-
ample, a reduction in pressure from 100 pounds
per square inch to 50 psi at an outlet can result in
a water flow reduction of about one-third (Brown
and Caldwell, 1984).
    Homeowners can reduce the water pressure in
a home by installing pressure-reducing valves. The
use of such valves might be one way to decrease
water consumption in homes that are served by
municipal water systems. For homes served by
wells, reducing the system pressure can save both
water and energy. Many water use fixtures in a
home, however, such as washing machines and
toilets, operate on a controlled amount of water, so
a reduction in water pressure would have little ef-
fect on water use at those locations.
    A reduction in water pressure can save water in
other ways: it can reduce the likelihood of leaking
water pipes, leaking water heaters, and dripping
faucets.  It can also help reduce dishwasher and
washing  machine noise and breakdowns hi a
plumbing system.
    A study in Denver, Colorado, illustrates the ef-
fect of water pressure on water savings. Water use
hi homes was compared among different water
pressure zones throughout the city. Elevation of a
home with respect to the elevation of a pumping
station and the proximity of the home to the pump-
ing station determine the pressure of water deliv-
ered to each home. Homes  with high water pres-
sure were compared to homes with low water pres-
sure.  An annual water savings of about 6 percent
was shown for homes that received water service at
lower pressures when compared to homes that re-
ceived water services at higher pressures.
    Gray Water Use. Domestic wastewater com-
posed of wash water from kitchen sinks and tubs,
clothes washers, and laundry tubs is called gray
water (USEPA, 1989). Gray water can be used by
homeowners for home gardening, lawn mainte-
nance, landscaping, and other innovative uses. The
City  of St. Petersburg, Florida, has implemented an
urban dual distribution system for reclaimed  water
for nonpotable uses. This system provides re-
claimed water for more than 7,000 residential
homes and businesses (USEPA, 1992).

     Lawn and landscape maintenance often requires
 large amounts of water, particularly in areas with
 low rainfall. Outdoor residential water use varies
 greatly depending on geographic location and sea-
 son.  On an annual average  basis, outdoor water use
                                                                  Cleaner Water Through Conservation

Nationally, lawn care typically accounts for 32 percent
of total residential outdoor water use.
Xeriscape landscaping can significantly reduce water
in the arid West and Southwest is much greater than
that in the East or Midwest. Nationally, lawn care
accounts for about 32 percent of the total residential
outdoor use. Other outdoor uses include washing
automobiles, maintaining swimming pools, and
cleaning sidewalks and driveways.

    Landscape Irrigation. One method of water
conservation in landscaping uses plants that need
little water, thereby saving not only water but labor
and fertilizer as well (Grisham and Fleming, 1989).
A similar method is grouping plants with similar
water needs. Scheduling lawn irrigation for specific
early morning or evening hours can reduce water
wasted due to evaporation during daylight hours.
Another water use efficiency practice that can be
applied to residential landscape irrigation is the  use
of cycle irrigation methods to improve penetration
and reduce runoff. Cycle irrigation provides the
right amount of water at the right time and place,
for optimal growth.  Other practices include the use
of low-precipitation-rate sprinklers that have better
distribution uniformity, bubbler/soaker systems,  or
drip irrigation systems (RMI, 1991).

    Xeriscape Landscapes. Careful design of
landscapes could significantly reduce water usage
nationwide. Xeriscape landscaping is an innova-
tive, comprehensive approach to landscaping for
water conservation and pollution prevention. Tra-
ditional landscapes might incorporate one or two
principles of water conservation, but xeriscape
landscaping uses all of the following: planning
and design, soil analysis, selection of suitable
plants, practical turf areas, efficient irrigation, use
of mulches, and appropriate maintenance (Welsh
et al., 1993).
    Benefits of xeriscape landscaping include re-
duced water use, decreased energy use (less
pumping and treatment required), reduced heating
and cooling costs because of carefully placed
trees, decreased storm  water and irrigation runoff,
fewer yard wastes, increased habitat for plants
and animals, and lower labor and maintenance
costs (USEPA, 1993).
    More than 40 states have initiated xeriscape
projects. Some comnrunities use contests and
demonstration gardens to promote public
awareness. El Paso Water Utilities and the
Council of El Paso Garden Clubs sponsor an
annual "Accent Sun Country" contest. The
contest spotlights homes that have water-
conserving landscapes consisting of plants and
grasses that require only a minimum of supple-
mental water and yet beautify the homes. The
winning entries are publicized, and cash prizes
are awarded. People are invited to tour the
grounds to get ideas on how they, too, can save
water, time, and money while maintaining an
attractive landscape (RMI, 1991). The offices of
the Southwest Florida Water Management District
in Tampa and Brooksville offer free xeriscape
tours every month. The tours begin with a slide
show on the principles of xeriscape and continue
with a walking tour of water-saving landscaping
(Xeriscape tours,  199!}).
How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively

  Behavioral Practices

     Behavioral practices involve changing water
 use habits so that water is used more efficiently,
 thus reducing the overall water consumption in a
 home. These practices require a change in behav-
 ior, not modifications in the existing plumbing or
 fixtures in a home. Behavioral practices for resi-
 dential water users can be applied both indoors in
                          the kitchen,  bathroom,
                          and laundry room and

                              In the kitchen, for
                          example, 10  to 20 gal-
                          lons of water a day can
                          be saved by running the
                          dishwasher only when it
                          is full. If dishes are
                          washed by hand, water
                          can be saved by filling
 the sink or a dishpan with water rather than running
 the water continuously. An open conventional fau-
 cet lets about 5 gallons of water flow every 2 min-
 utes (Florida Commission, 1990).
    Water can be saved in the bathroom by turning
                         off the faucet  while
                         brushing teeth or shav-
                         ing. Water can be saved
                         by taking short showers
                         rather than long showers
                         or baths  and turning  the
                         water off while soaping.
                         This water savings can
                         be increased even further
                         by installing low-flow
                         showerheads, as dis-
                         cussed earlier. Toilets
 should be used only to carry away sanitary waste.
    Households with lead-based solder in pipes
 that flush the first several gallons of water should
 collect this water for alternative nonpotable uses
 (e.g., plant watering).

    Water can be saved in the laundry room by ad-
justing water levels in the  washing machine to
 match the size of the load. If the washing machine
 does not have a variable load control, water can be
 saved by running the machine only when it is full.
 If washing is done by hand, the water should not be
 left running. A laundry
 tub should be filled with
 water, and the wash and
 rinse water should be re-
 used as much as possible.
     Outdoor water use
 can be reduced by water-
 ing the lawn early in the
 morning or late in the
 evening and on cooler days, when possible, to re-
 duce evaporation. Allowing the grass to grow
 slightly taller will reduce water loss by providing
 more ground shade for the roots and by prompting
 water retention in the soil. Growing plants that are
 suited to the area ("indigenous" plants) can save
 more than 50 percent of the water normally used to
 care for outdoor plants.

     As much as 150 gallons of water can be saved
 when washing a car by turning the hose off be-
 tween rinses. The car should be washed on the
 lawn if possible to reduce runoff.
     Additional savings of water can result from
 sweeping sidewalks and driveways instead of hos-
 ing them down. Washing a sidewalk or driveway
 with a hose uses about 50 gallons of water every 5
 minutes (Florida Commission, 1990). If a home
 has an outdoor pool, water can be saved by cover-
 ing the pool when it is not in use.
Water can be saved by turning off the hose between
rinses, and runoff can be reduced by washing the car
on the lawn.
                                                                  Cleaner Water Through Conservation

 Practices  for Industrial/
 Commercial  Users

    Industrial/commercial users can apply a num-
 ber of conservation and water use efficiency prac-
 tices. Some of these practices can also be applied
 by users in the other water use categories.

 Engineering Practices

 Water Reuse and  Recycling

    Water reuse is the use of wastewater or re-
 claimed water from one application such as mu-
 nicipal wastewater treatment for another applica-
 tion such as landscape watering. The reused wa-
 ter must be used for a beneficial purpose and in
 accordance with applicable rules (such as local
 ordinances governing water reuse). Some poten-
 tial applications for the reuse of wastewater or
 reclaimed water include other industrial uses,
 landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, aes-
 thetic uses such as fountains, and fire protection
 (USEPA, 1992). Factors that should be consid-
 ered in an industrial water reuse program include
 (Brown and Caldwell, 1990):

      4  Identification of water reuse opportuni-
      4  Determination of the minimum water
         quality needed for the given use.
      4  Identification of wastewater sources that
         satisfy the water quality requirements.
      4  Determination of how the water can be
         transported to the new use.
       Water Reuse

        Water reuse has been applied at the
        General Products Division facility of
      IBM, located in SJan Jose, California,
   where data storage systems are developed
   and manufactured for use with mainframe
   computers. Industrial wastewater effluent at
   the facility is treated and then reused for
   cooling tower makeup in the facility's 17,000-
   tbn cooling tower system (Brown and
  ;Caldwell,1990). ,
   The treated industrial wastewater effluent Is
   of higher quality than the well water that was
   previously used for cooling tower makeup,
   so water discharges from the tower have also
   been reduced. The total reduction in fresh-
   water use requirements at the IBM facility is
   approximately 100 million gallons per year,
   resulting in a savings of approximately
   $153,000 per year (1989 dollars)(Brown
   and Caidwell, 1990].
     The reuse of wastewater or reclaimed water
is beneficial because it reduces the demands on
available surface and ground waters (Strauss,
1991). Perhaps the greatest benefit of establish-
ing water reuse programs is their contribution in
delaying  or eliminating the need to expand po-
table water supply and. treatment facilities
(USEPA, 1992).

     Water recycling is the reuse  of water for the
same application for which it was originally used.
Recycled water might require treatment before it
can be used again. Factors that should be consid-
ered in a  water recycling program include  (Brown
and Caldwell, 1990):
Outdoor water use can be reduced by watering the lawn early in the morning or late in the evening.

How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively

     Water Recycling

       Water recycling Is used at the Con-
       tainer Corporation of America's Mill in
     Santa Clara, California. The mill manu-
  factures paperboard from the recycled fibers
  of newspapers, corrugated clippings, and
  ledger paper. The mill has reduced water
  use through the clarification and recycling of
  fresh water in its rinsing processes. The mill
  also installed a closed-loop cooling tower,
  which has resulted in an additional reduction
  in water use (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

  The water conservation and use efficiency
  practices implemented at the Container
  Corporation of America mill have resulted in
  an estimated savings of approximately
  720,000 gallons per day when compared to
  its 1980 water use rates. These water
  reductions amount to approximately 250
  million gallons per year and save the
  company approximately $348,200 per year
   (1989 dollars)(Brown and Catdweli, 1990).
     4  Identification of water reuse opportunities.

     4  Evaluation of the minimum water qual-
        ity needed for a particular use.

     4  Evaluation of water quality degradation
        resulting from the use.

     4  Determination of the treatment steps, if
        any, that might be required to prepare
        the water for recycling.
Cooling Water Recirculation

     The use of water for cooling in industrial
applications represents one of the largest water
uses in the United States. Water is typically used
to cool heat-generating equipment or to condense
gases in a thermodynamic cycle. The most water-
intensive cooling method used in industrial appli-
cations is once-through cooling, in which water
contacts and lowers the temperature of a heat
source and then is discharged.

     Recycling water with a recirculating cooling
system can greatly reduce water use by using the
same water to perform several cooling operations.
The water savings are sufficiently substantial to
result in overall cost savings to  the industry (see
box). Three cooling water conservation ap-
proaches that can be used to reduce water use are
evaporative cooling, ozonation,  and air heat ex-
change (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

     In industrial/commerical  evaporative cooling
systems, water loses heat when a portion of it is
Industrial wastewater can sometimes be reused for
irrigation, fire protection, and other purposes.
       Recirculating Cooling Water

        International Microelectronic Products,
        located in North San Jose, California,
       manufactures integrated circuits. Water
    is used to coot equipment in the manufactur-
    ing process. Equipment cooling at the
    facility was previous^ accomplished wfth  .;„
    one-time use of fresh water. The cooling „
    system equipment was converted to a  ;, >
    closed-loop, heat exchanger chilling system
    to reduce water consumption.      „    „ '

    The conversion from a one-time freshwater
    cooling system to a closed-loop cooling "
    system with circulating chilled water has ,  '"
    resulted In an estimated water savings of  :,
    from 5,000 to 7,000 gallons per day at the
    facility,      .                    :„  ."-

    Combined water conservation  practices at;
    International Microelectronic Products,
    including reduced use of deionized water;;
    reuse of reverse osmosis reject water, ' \
    conversion to a closed-loop cooling system,
    and implementation of a water use monitor-
    ing program, have resulted in an estimated
    savings of $181,000 per year (1989 dollars),
    (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).      ~ -~~,/^
                                                                Cleaner Water Through Conservation

  evaporated. Water is lost from evaporative cooling
  towers as the result of evaporation, drift, and blow-
  down. (Blowdown is a process in which some of the
  poor-quality recirculating water is discharged from
  the tower in order to reduce the total dissolved sol-
  ids.) Water savings associated with the use of evap-
  orative cooling towers can be increased by reducing
  blowdown or water discharges from cooling towers.
     The use of ozone to treat cooling water
  (ozonation) can result in a five-fold reduction in
  blowdown when compared to traditional chemical
  treatments and should be considered as an option
  for increasing water savings in a cooling  tower
  (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

     Air heat exchange works on the same principle
  as a car's radiator. In an air heat exchanger, a fan
  blows air past finned tubes carrying the recirculating
  cooling water. Air heat exchangers involve no water
  loss, but they can be relatively expensive when
  compared with cooling towers (Brown and
  Caldwell,  1990).

     The Pacific Power and Light Company's
 Wyodak Generating Station in Wyoming decided to
 use dry cooling to eliminate water losses from cool-
 ing-water blowdown, evaporation, and drift. The
 station was equipped with the first air-cooled con-
 denser in the western hemisphere. Steam from the
 turbine is distributed through overhead pipes to
 finned carbon steel tubes. These are grouped in rect-
 angular bundles and installed in A-frame modules
 above 69 circulating fans. The fans force some 45
 million cubic feet per minute (ftVmin) of air through
 8 million square feet of finned-tube surface, con-
 densing the steam (Strauss, 1991).
    The payback comes from the water savings.
 Compared  to about 4,000  gallons per minute (gal/
 min) of makeup (replacement water) for equivalent
 evaporative cooling, the technique reduces the
 station's water requirement to about 300 gal/min
 (Strauss, 1991).


    Another common use of water by industry is
 the application of deionized water for removing
 contaminants from products and equipment. Deion-
 ized water contains no ions (such as salts), which
 tend to corrode or deposit onto metals. Historically,

How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively
        Rinsing Modifications
         Advanced Micro Devices is a semicon-
         ductor manufacturer in Sunnyvale and
     Santa Clara, California, targe volumes of
     ultra-pure deiontzeo! water are required to
     rinse contaminants from wafers. The
     modification of rin»> sinks to more efficiently
     use water and a reduction in rinse water
     rejection rates have resulted in reduced   ,
     defonized water use at the facility (Brown
     and Caldwell, 1990}*       »   ,*   -      -

     The modification of wafer fabrication rinse     ']
     sinks at Advanced Micro Devices has reduced
     deionized water use from approxKnatelv    : -
   , 280 to 300 gal/min to 180 to 200 gattnln. The
     water use reduction at the facility represents a
     savings of from 80 to 120 gal/min, which fs    f
     equivalent to 115,000 to 173,000 gal/d
     Reduction of the reverse osmosis rinse water
     rejection rate resulted in a water savings of
     about 20 gal/min, which is equivalent to about
     29,000 gal/d (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).
     Modification of the sinks in the wafer       °
     fabrication facility at Advanced Micro     f\-
    •Devices, when combined with capital costs,
     has resulted Jn a savings of approximately
     $81,300 per year (1989 dollars) (Brown and
    :Caldwell,1990).     ,  >• .   •     V'*. "$
 industries have used deionized water excessively
 to provide maximum assurance against contami-
 nated products. The use of deionized water can be
 reduced without affecting production quality by
 eliminating some plenum flushes (a rinsing pro-
 cedure that discharges deionized water from the
 rim of a flowing bath to remove contaminants from
 the sides and bottom of (he bath), converting from
 a continuous-flow to an intermittent-flow system,
 and improving control of the use of deionized wa-
 ter (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

    Deionized water can be  recycled after its first
 use, but the treatment foir recycling can include
 many of the processes required to produce deion-
 ized water from municipal water. The reuse of
 once-used deionized water for a different applica-
tion should also be considered by industry, where
applicable, because deionized water is often more

pure after its initial use than municipal water
(Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

Landscape Irrigation

    Another way that industrial/commercial facili-
ties can reduce water use is through the implemen-
tation of efficient landscape irrigation practices.
There are several general ways that water can be
more efficiently used for landscape irrigation, in-
cluding the design of landscapes for low mainte-
nance and low water requirements (refer to the pre-
vious section on xeriscape landscaping), the use of
water-efficient irrigation equipment such as drip
systems or deep root systems, the proper mainte-
nance of irrigation equipment to ensure that it is
working properly, the distribution of irrigation
equipment to make sure that water is dispensed
evenly over areas where it is needed, and the
scheduling of irrigation to ensure maximum water
use (Brown and Caldwell, 1990). For additional in-
formation on efficient water use for irrigation, refer
to the practices for residential users and agricultural
users in this chapter.

 Behavioral Practices

     Behavioral practices involve modifying water
 use habits to achieve more efficient use of water,
 thus reducing overall water consumption by an
 industrial/commercial facility. Changes hi behav-
 ior can save water without modifying the existing
 equipment at a facility.
     Monitoring the amount of water used by an in-
 dustrial/commercial facility can provide baseline
 information on quantities of overall company water
 use, the seasonal and hourly patterns of water use,
 and the quantities and quality of water use hi indi-
 vidual processes. Baseline information on water use
 can be used to set company goals and to develop
 specific water use efficiency measures. Monitoring
 can make employees more aware of water use rates
 and makes it easier to measure the results of con-
 servation efforts. The use of meters on individual
 pieces of water-using equipment can provide direct
 information on the efficiency of water use. Records
 of meter readings can be used to identify changes
 in water use rates and possible problems in a sys-
 tem (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).
     Behavioral Changes Save Food
      Processor Water and Money
      Gangi Brothers Packing Company is a
     tomato processing and canning plant in
 Santa Clara, California. Gangi Brothers has
 implemented several successful water
 conservation practices at its cannery,
 including tM monitoring of operations to
 control water use and to Identify areas
 where water could be saved.  Monitoring of
 water use at the facility has been used to
 establish reasonable water use practices,
 to notify employees of the proper practices,
 and to monitor and enforce proper water
 use practices (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).
 Over a 5-year period the combined conser-
 vation practices at the packing company
 have resulted in a significant  reduction  61
 water use.  In 1983 Gangi Brothers used
 approximately 148 billion gallons of water
 during the canning season. By 1989 water
 use at the facility had dropped to 56.8
  billion gallons, resulting in assayings of
  91.4 billion gallons per season (Brown and
  Caldwell, 1990).
  Combined estimated capital and operating
  costs for water conservation at Gang!
 „ Brothers are approximately $89,500 per
  year. The estimated savings from tower  ,
  sewer and water costs is $130,000 per year,
 ~ so the net savings resulting from the imple-
  mentation of water conservation practices at
  the cannery is approximately $40,500 per
  year (1990 dollars) (Brown and Caldwell,
  19901.	..	_
    Many of the practices described hi the section
for residential users can also be applied by commer-
cial users. These include low-flow fixtures, water-
efficient landscaping, and water reuse and recycling
(e.g., using recycled wash water for pre-rinse).

Practices for Agricultural

Engineering Practices

    Water-saving irrigation practices fall into three
categories: field practices, management strategies,

               Cleaner Water Through Conservation

 and system modifications. Field practices are
 techniques that keep water in the field, distribute
 water more efficiently across the field, or encourage
 the retention of soil moisture. Examples of these
 practices include the chiseling of extremely com-
 pacted soils, furrow diking to prevent runoff, and
 leveling of the land to distribute water more evenly.
 Typically, field practices are not very costly.

    Management strategies involve monitoring
 soil and water conditions and collecting informa-
 tion on water use and efficiency. The information
 helps in making decisions about scheduling appli-
 cations or improving the efficiency of the irriga-
 tion system. The methods include measuring rain-
 fall, determining soil moisture, checking pumping
 plant efficiency, and scheduling irrigation.

    System modifications require making changes
 to an existing irrigation system or replacing an ex-
 isting system with a new one. Because system
 modifications require the purchase of equipment,
 they are usually more expensive than field practices
 and management strategies. Typical system modifi-
 cations include adding drop tubes to a center pivot
 system, retrofitting a well with a smaller pump, in-
 stalling surge irrigation, or constructing a tailwater
 recovery system (Kromm and White, 1990).

 Water Reuse and Recycling

    Agricultural irrigation represents approxi-
 mately 40 percent of the total water demand na-
 tionwide. Given that high demand, significant
       Agricultural Water Reuse
         An example of an agricultural applica-
         tion of water reuse Is at a farm outside
        Tallahassee, Florida. The Tallahassee,
   Florida, agricultural rouse system is a coop-
   erative operation fr> vvhlch the city owns and •
   maintains the irrigaticfi system on a farm
   leased to a commercial enterprise. Re-
   claimed water from tie city's secondary
   wastewater treatment pfent has been used for
  i spray irrigation since ^ 966. After receiving
   secondary treatment, reclaimed water is
   pumped approximately 8,5 miles (13.7 ten) *",
   from tie Thomas P, Smith wastewater reno-
   vation plant in Tallaheissee to the spray flekt
  ,and is then distributed by 13 center-pivot irri-
   gation units. Permitted application rates at the
   site are 3.16 inches per week for a total ca-
   pacity of 21,5 MgaKf. The major crops pro-
   duced at the spray field include com, soy-
   beans, coastal Bermuda grass, and rye
  ; (USEPA, 1992).

   Studies of the system in 1971 showed that ft
 : was successful in producing crop&foragricul^
  : tural  use and that the soi£ was effective at
   removing suspended soBds, biochemical
 -.- oxygen demand, baderia, nitrogen, and
  ^phosphorus from the reclaimed water. The
 \ Southeast Spray Field has been expanded
   twice since  1980 and now has a total area of
  1 approximately 1,750 acres (USEPA, 1992).
Agricultural irrigation represents about 40 percent of
the total freshwater withdrawals (Solley et al, 1993).

How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively
water conservation benefits could result from
irrigating with reused or recycled water.
    Water reuse is the use of wastewater or re-
claimed water from one application for another ap-
plication. Reused water must be used for a benefi-
cial purpose and in accordance with applicable
rules (USEPA, 1991a). Water recycling is the reuse
of water for the same application for which it was
originally intended.

    Factors that should be considered in an agricul-
tural water reuse program include:
      A  The identification of water reuse opportu-
      A  Determination of the minimum water
         quality needed for the given use.
      A  Identification of wastewater sources that
         satisfy the water quality requirements.


     6  Determination of how the water can be
        transported to the new use (Brown and
        Caldwell, 1990).

   Water reuse for irrigation is already in wide-
spread use in rural areas and is also applicable in
areas where agricultural sites are near urban areas
and can easily be integrated with urban reuse ap-
plications (USEPA, 1992).

Behavioral Practices

    Behavioral practices involve changing water
use habits to achieve more efficient use of water.
Behavioral practices for agricultural water users
can be applied to irrigation application rates and
timing. Changes in water use behavior can be
implemented without modifying existing equip-
    For example, better irrigation scheduling can
result in a reduction in the amount of water that is
required to irrigate a crop effectively. The careful
choice of irrigation application rates and timing
can help fanners to maintain yields with less
water.  In making scheduling decisions, irrigators
should consider
     4 The uncertainty of rainfall and crop water
     A The limited water storage capacity of many
         irrigated soils.
     4  The limited pumping capacity of irrigation
     4  Rising pumping costs as a result of higher
         energy prices.
    Local NRCS-Conservation Districts and Co-
operative Extension Service offices can play an
important role in promoting better irrigation
scheduling. Accurate information on crop water
use requires information on solar radiation and
other weather variables that can be collected by
local weather stations. An additional method that
can be used to improve irrigation scheduling and
might result in high returns is the use of equip-
ment such as resistance blocks, tensiometers, and
neutron probes to monitor soil moisture condi-
tions to help hi determining when water should
be applied (Bosch and Ross, 1990).
Better irrigation scheduling can result in water savings.

Practices for System

Engineering Practices

   Metering. The measurement of water use
with a meter provides essential data for charging
fees based on actual customer use. Billing cus-
tomers based on their actual water use has been
found to contribute directly to water conserva-
tion. Meters also aid in detecting leaks through-
out a water system. In 1977, for example, Bos-
ton, Massachusetts, could not account for the use
of 50 percent of the water in its municipal water
               Cleaner Water Through Conservation

Metering provides essential data
on water use and can help to detect
system. After in-
stalling meters, the
city identified
leaks and under-
took a vigorous
leak detection pro-
gram (Grisham
and Fleming,
1989). Unac-
counted-for water
dropped to 36 per-
cent after metering
and leak detection
programs were
       Submetering. Submetering is used in units such
    as apartments, condominiums, and trailer homes to
    indicate water use by those individual units; the en-
    tire complex of units is metered by the main sup-
    plier. Submetering of water use in apartment or
    business complexes makes it possible to bill tenants
    for the water that they actually use rather than for a
    percentage of the total water use for the complex.
    Submetering makes water users more aware of how
    much water they use and its cost, and tenants who
          Metering in Denver

           According to the Denver Water Depart-
           ment, meter installation costs are about
          $250 (1989 dollars) for interior meters
       and about $500 for exterior meters
       (Grisham and Fleming, 1989). The Denver
       Water Department is implementing a
       metering program, which is part of a pack-
       age of practices being used as an alterna-
       tive to constructing a new reservoir. The  ,
       water department will install more than
       87,000 meters. Predicted total costs are
       around $20 mitiion. The program fs ex-v,,Y
       peeled to reduce water use by over 3.6
       billion gallons per year by 1999. The cost of
       supplying this amount of water through
       reservoir construction (estimated at $0.0023
       per gallon) would be more than $8,4 million
       per year (USEPA, 1990d). Thus, the ben-
       efits from reduced water supply needs
       created by this project wiO cover the costs in
       less than 3 years once the program begins
       to achieve its full effect
                                                            In a New York; City apartment building
                                                            not using submeters, average daily water
                                                           use ranged from 375 to 425 gallons per
                                                        apartment per day. An apartment building in
                                                        Washington; DC, that did use Submetering
                                                        was found to use from 90 to 160 gallons per
                                                        apartment per day (Rathnau, 1991).
                     conserve water can benefit from lower water use
                     costs. Submetering is reported to reduce water us-
                     age by 20 to 40 percent (Rathnau,  1991).

                     Leak Detection

                         One way to detect leaks is to use listening
                     equipment to survey the distribution system,
                     identify leak sounds, and pinpoint the exact loca-
                     tions of hidden underground leaks. As mentioned
                     in the previous section, metering can also be used
                     to help detect leaks in  a system.

                         An effective way to conserve water is to de-
                     tect and repair leaks in municipal water systems.
                     Repairing leaks controls the loss of water that
                     water agencies have paid
                     to obtain, treat, and pres-
                     surize. The early detec-
                     tion of leaks also reduces the
                     chances that leaks will cause ma-
                     jor property damage. ''iVhen wa-
                     ter leaks from a system before it
                     reaches the consumer, water
   How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively

      Leak Detection Coast to Coast

       The California Department of Water
       Resources (DWR) estimates that about
      81 billion gallons of water leaks from
   municipal systems in California each year, in
   DWR's experience with local water agencies,
   leak detection projects have been found to be
   cost-effective. Leaking water can be con-
   trolled at a cost averaging less than $153
   (1992 dollars) per million gallons—a cost
   usually less than what a water agency pays
   for the water (California Department of Water
   Resources, 1992).

   In 1988, as the result of conducting leak
   detection surveys, the Boston Water and
   Sewer Commission discovered and repaired
   888 leaks that were wasting an estimated
   11.55 Mgal/d. By 1989,819 miles of Boston's
   1182 miles of water distribution system had
   been surveyed. These surveys resulted in
   the detection of 444 leaks, 427 of which had
   been repaired by January 1990, saving an
   additional 7.16 Mgal/d (RMI, 1991).

   New York CRy has an ongoing leak detection
   program. The goal Is to survey all 33.6
   million feet of water mains with computerized
   electronic leak detection equipment. As of
   September 1989, survey crews had examined
   over 31 million feet of water mains and bad
   eliminated the loss of an estimated 89 Mgal/d
   hi leaks. The New York City Department of
   Environmental Protection estimates that
   leakage makes up nearly 10 percent of New
   York City's total water demand. Another    "^
   benefit from leak detection is that the water
   not leaked will also not infiltrate into the sewer
   fines and increase wastewater flows (RMI,
agencies lose revenue and incur unnecessary
costs. Such costs should provide an incentive for
system operators to implement a leak detection
    Programs for finding and repairing leaks in
water mains and laterals (conduits) might be cost-
effective in spite of their high initial costs. Leak
detection programs have been especially impor-
tant in cities that have large, old, deteriorating
systems (RMI, 1991).
Water Main Rehabilitation

    A water utility can improve the management
and rehabilitation of a water distribution network
by using a distribution system database. Using
the database can help to lower maintenance costs
and can result in more efficient use of the water
resource. The database can help the utility man-
ager to set priorities and efficiently allocate reha-
bilitation funds  (Habibian, 1992). A comprehen-
sive database should include information on the

      4 The characteristics of the system's compo-
        nents,  such as size, age, and material

      4 The condition of mains, such as corrosion

      4 Soil conditions or type

      4 Failure and leak records

      4 Water  quality

      4 High/low pressure problems

      4 Operating records, such as pump and valve

      4 Customer complaints

      4 Meter data

      4 Operating and rehabilitation costs.

Water Reuse

    Another practice that should be considered by
water system operators who operate publicly
owned treatment works is the reuse of treated
wastewater. As discussed earlier, water reuse is the
use of wastewater or reclaimed water from one ap-
plication for another application. Some potential
applications for water reuse include landscape irri-
gation, agricultural irrigation, aesthetic uses such as
fountains, industrial uses, and fire protection
(USEPA, 1991a). These factors should be consid-
ered in a water reuse program:

      4 The identification of water reuse oppor-

      4 The determination of the minimum
        water  quality needed for the given use.
                Cleaner Water Through Conservation

      Water Reuse

       Since 1970, Aurora, Colorado, has
       reused reclaimed domestic wastewater
      to irrigate the Aurora Hills Golf Course.
   Aurora uses an average of 100 million
   gallons per year of reclaimed wastewater
   pumped from the Sand Creek Wastewater
   Reclamation Facility to an onsight
   nonpotabie water reservoir. In 1980, four
   city parks requiring an additional 50 million
   gallons of irrigation water per year were
   added to the reclaimed water system. In
   1980, costs of the water reuse system,
   including debt service for the original
   filtration complex and transmission line but
   excluding irrigation pumping costs, aver-
   aged $0.43/1,000 gallons (1980 dollars)
   compared with $0.78/1,000 gallons for
   traditionally supplied water (USEPA, 1991 a).
     4 The identification of wastewater sources
        that satisfy the water quality requirements.

     4 The determination of how the water can
        be transported to the new use (Brown
        and Caldwell, 1990).

Well Capping

    Well capping is the capping of abandoned
artesian wells whose rusted casings spill water in a
constant flow into drainage ditches. In Seminole
County, Florida, state hydrologists estimate that
1,500 abandoned artesian wells are discharging
54 Mgal/d. To put that in perspective, utilities in
Seminole County pump less than 40 Mgal/d. The
cost to  plug such wells is about $750 (1990 dollars)
per well. The state legisla-
ture has required that all
such wells be capped be-
ginning in 1993 (Florida
Commission, 1990).
   Abandoned wells in
     Seminole County,
         Florida, are
 discharging 54 Mgal/d.
How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively
Planning and Management

    In addition to engineering practices, system
operators can use several other practices to con-
serve water or improve water use efficiency.


    Information and education promoting conser-
vation do not appear to be effective by themselves
in achieving a conservation goal without at the
same time imposing significant price increases to
provide a financial incentive to conserve water
(Martin and Kulakowsski, 1991). Customers  use
less water when they have to pay more for it and
use more when they know they can afford it. How-
ever, most people consider water to be a "free
good" and are not willing to pay higher prices that
reflect the true costs associated with the  water de-
livered to their homes. Rate structures have  the
advantage of avoiding the costs of overt regula-
tion, restrictions, and [policing while retaining a
greater degree of individual freedom of choice for
water customers.
    Overall charges for water service increased at
an average compound, rate of 7 percent  per year
during the  1980s—nearly double the rate of infla-
tion (Russet and Woodcock,  1992). There is con-
Customers use less water when they have to pay more for it.


corn over "price gouging" due to increased water
rates (Collinge, 1992). Some pricing has been ob-
jected to on the grounds that it can lead to a sub-
stantial excess of revenues over costs—an excess
that might be inequitable and, in some states, un-
constitutional (Collinge, 1992).
    Water utility managers must establish and de-
sign water rates that meet revenue requirements
and are fair and equitable to all customer classes in
the water system. This task involves the follow-
ing procedures:
      4  Determination of the water utility's total
         annual revenue requirements for the pe-
         riod for which the rates are to be in effect.
      A  Determination of service costs by alloca-
         tion of the total annual revenue require-
         ments to the basic water system cost com-
         ponents and distribution of these costs to
         the various customer classes in accor-
         dance with their service requirements.
      A  Design of water rates to recover the cost
         of service from each class of customer
         (Mui et al., 1991).
    Several price rate structuring alternatives are
available for water system  operators.
    Increasing Block Rate, or Tiered, Pricing.
Increasing block rate, or tiered, pricing reduces
water use by increasing per-unit charges for water
as the amount used increases. For example, the
first volume of water (block) used is charged a base
rate, the second block is charged the base rate plus
a surcharge, and the third block is charged the base
rate plus  a higher surcharge. It is necessary to in-
crease real prices significantly to overcome the ef-
fects of conservation (Martin and Kulakowski,


     Tiered pricing
  discourages water use.
Decreasing block rate
 pricing encourages
     water use.
    For example, as the cost of water increased in
Tucson, Arizona, residents used 33 percent less wa-
ter between 1974 and 1980. A 10 percent increase
in water rates provided about 3 percent more rev-
enue while triggering a 7 percent reduction in use
(Billings and Day, 1989). Using seasonal increasing
block rate pricing during summer and winter
months, to encourage year-round conservation, re-
sulted hi estimated water savings for the single-
family residential class in Tucson of an average
2.23 Mgal/d during 1983-1986 (Cuthbert, 1989).
    Decreasing Block Rate Pricing. Decreasing
block rate prices reflect per-unit costs of produc-
tion and delivery that go down as customers con-
sume more water.
    The monthly water use records of 101 custom-
ers were measured in a study of municipal water
use hi the city of Denton, Texas. Summer water
use records from 1976 to  1980 during a decreasing
block rate period were compared to summer use
records from 1981 to 1985 during an increasing
block rate period. It was found that the decreasing
block rate scenario encouraged greater water use,
whereas the increasing block rate scenario resulted
in a reaction to the price increase and a correspond-
ing decrease in water use (Nieswiadomy and
Molina, 1989).
    Time-of-Day Pricing. Time-of-day pricing
charges users relatively higher prices during a
utility's peak use periods. Because customers are
sensitive to price increases, these charges curtail
demand. Time-of-day pricing can cut generating
capacity and reduce  reliance on expensive sec-
ondary fuel sources (Sexton et al., 1989).
    Water Surcharges. A water surcharge imposes
a higher rate on excessive water use.  The customer
pays more money per gallon for water use that is
considered higher-than-average.
    Surcharges include unit surcharges, winter/
summer ratios, and alternative seasonal rates. The
unit surcharge method establishes a threshold level
for excess consumption based on average daily per
capita or per-household consumption. A surcharge
is imposed for all water use above that threshold
level. For the winter/summer ratio, metered water
use during the winter period is compared to  con-
sumption during the corresponding summer  period,
and a higher rate or surcharge is imposed for water
                Cleaner Water Through Conservation

 Surcharges include winter/summer ratios and
 alternative seasonal rates.
consumption above the average winter use. Typi-
cally, an increase in usage of 14-20 percent occurs
during the summer. Under an alternative seasonal
rate structure, all water used during the summer or
peak season is billed at a higher rate than that used
during the other seasons. The increased rate is ap-
plied to all customers at all water-use levels
(Schlette and Kemp, 1991).

Retrofit Programs

    Retrofit programs are another tool system
operators can use to promote water use efficiency
practices. Retrofitting involves the replacement of
existing plumbing  equipment with equipment that
uses less water. The most successful water-saving
fixtures are those which operate in the same man-
ner as the fixtures they are replacing—for ex-
ample, toilet tank inserts, shower flow restrictors,
and low-flow showerheads. (For more informa-
tion, refer to the practices for residential users.)
As discussed previously, retrofit programs are
permanent, one-time conservation measures that
can be implemented with little or no additional
cost over their lifetimes (Jensen, 1991).

    A retrofit program can involve the use of
education programs to let users know  which
fixtures are best, where to get them, and how to
install them. System operators can also purchase
water-efficient fixtures and resell them at cost to
 the users, but the most successful retrofit pro-
 grams have been those in which the system
 operator purchases, distributes, and installs the
 fixtures (AWWA, n.d.).

    Retrofit programs have been shown to be
 cost-effective and useful in conserving water in
 many cases. An apartment building in New En-
 gland with 151 units  was retrofitted with low-
 flow showerheads and faucet aerators at a cost of
 $1,074. As a result of the retrofit  1,725,000 gal-
 lons of water, $8,590 for energy, and $980 for
 water were saved hi 1 year (AWWA, n.d.). In an-
 other retrofit program, the Lower  Colorado River
 Authority installed low-flow showerheads and
 toilet dams in an apartment complex and public
 housing program in Marble Falls,  Texas. Indoor
 per capita water use was reduced by 21 percent
 (from 81 to 64 gal/cap/day) hi the apartment com-
 plex and was reduced 11 percent (from  102 to 91
 gal/cap/day) in the public housing program
 (Jensen,  1991).

    Current use of low-flow toilets throughout
 Texas could reduce the need to build new water
 and wastewater treatment plants by 15 percent,
 resulting in a savings of as much as $3.4 billion
 during the next 50 years. Residential water and
 sewer bills could also be reduced by as much as
 $200 million over the long term. The Texas Water
 Development Board estimates that the use of wa-
 ter-efficient plumbing fixtures should save a typi-
 cal four-member household 55,800 gallons of wa-
 ter and $627 in reduced water and energy costs
   81 gal
   per capita
   per day
64 gal per
capita per day
The installation of low-flow showerheads and toilet dams in
a Texas apartment complex reduced per capita water use by
21 percent.
How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively

per year. The Board estimates that the use of
low-flow fixtures might reduce water use state-
wide by 805 Mgal/d by the year 2040 (Jensen,

    Retrofit programs can be combined with wa-
ter audit programs (discussed below) to further
improve potential water savings.

Residential Water Audit Programs

    Residential water audit programs involve
sending trained water auditors to participating
family homes, free of charge, to encourage water
conservation efforts. Auditors visit participating
homes to identify water conservation opportuni-
ties, such as repairing leaks and low-flow plumb-
ing, and to recommend changes in water use
practices to reduce home water use. The audit
programs try to stretch existing water supplies by
getting water users to use water more efficiently
(Whitcomb, 1990). The largest percentage of in-
door use comes from bathing and toilet flushing.
Therefore,  the bathroom is an ideal place for
       Residential Water Audit

        In 1988 the Contra Costa Water District
        (CCWD) In California began a residen-
       tial water audit program to reduce both
     Indoor and outdoor water use. In 1989, the
     study year, Indoor water use was reduced
     by the installation of tow-flow shower heads
     (2,75 gpm at 80 psi) and toilet displace'
     ment bags (0.7 gal). Toilet and faucet leaks
     were also identified. Lawn sprinklers were
     checked for worn or nonworking parts to
     reduce outdoor water use. Auditors also
     tested and recommended changes in
     irrigation use coverage, provided a recom-
     mended irrigation schedule based on soil
     and lawn analysis and seasonal climatic
     conditions, and distributed a brass hose
     nozzle and educational  material.  The audit
     resulted in an indoor water savings of 8.9
     gal per home per day (when 39.5 percent
     of the showers were retrofitted with low-flow
     showerheads), and an outdoor water
     savings of 39.1 gal per home per day for a
     total savings of 48.0 gal per home per day
     (Whftcomb, 1991).
water system operators to focus water conserva-
tion efforts (Grisham and Fleming, 1989).

Public Education

   Public education programs can be used to in-
form the public about the basics of water use ef-

      4 How water is delivered to them.

      4 The costs of water service.

      4 Why water conservation is important.

      4 How they can participate in conservation

   Public education is an essential component of
a successful water conservation program. A num-
       Public Education
        Gallup, New Mexico, estimates that its
        water conservation program has
   reduced fts per capita water use from 160, to
   150 gal/cap/day. In 1983, Gallup and several
   other New Mexico communities participated
   in a public education program on water
   conservation coordinated by the governor's
   office and funded by ACTION, the federal
   volunteer service agency, and the U.S.
   Department of Energy. Grants were given to
   local governments to develop water conser-
   vation programs. About 42,500 water conser-
   vation kits containing brochures and water-
   saving devices were distributed. The Gallup
   project was estimated to have cost $1 per
   1,000 gallons of water per person per year.
   It is estimated that if 43 percent of the flow
   „ restrictors distributed were installed, about
   167 million gallons of water a year, or nearly
   2 percent of the state's total 1985 urban and
   rural water withdrawals, are being saved.
   (Grisham and Fleming, 1989).     ,."--',

   The Department of 4-H/Youth, through,
   Indiana's Purdue University Cooperative
   extension Service, has produced a board
   game to educate children ages 9 to 12
   about water trivia. To the Last Drop" won &
   national award for educational materials
   from the Agricultural Communicators in
   Education organization in 1992 (Purdue
   University, 1992).   -.
               Cleaner Water Through Conservation

 her of tools can be used to educate the public:
 bill inserts, feature articles and announcements
 in the news media, workshops, booklets, posters
 and bumper stickers, and the distribution of
 water-saving devices. Public school education is
 also an important means for instilling water con-
 servation awareness (Grisham and Fleming,

    Another way to provide public information
 and education, as well as to collect real-world
       Water Wiser
        The Water Efficiency Clearinghouse is
        a unique information source created to
       assist water professionals and other
   interested parties in locating current, com-
   prehensive information on water efficiency
   topics. Water Wiser is a cooperative project
   between EPA and the American Water Works
   Association. The clearinghouse is designed
   to be the preeminent information resource for
   those who want to make sure our limited
   water resources are used wisely and effi-
   ciently. Water Wiser has an array of informa-
   tion services available to help plan, imple-
   ment, and evaluate water efficiency pro-
   grams and activities. Information services
   available include referrals, annotated bfoliog-
   raphies, literature searches, information
   packets, and fact sheets.  Water Wiser can
   also be contacted by Internet For access
   information, or to request any of the services
   listed above, call 1-800-559-9855 (AWWA,

         WAVE (Water/Uliances for Voluntary    ,
         Efficiency) is a nonregulatory water-
        efficiency partnershipccreated and sup-^
   \ ported by U.S. EPA. itsgoal is to encourage
    U.S. hotels, motels, inns, or other lodging
    businesses to reduce water consumption while
   •J increasing efficiency, profitability, and compete
   ; tfveness. Partnership is voluntary and mem-,.
    bers benefit from water and energy dost
   k savings;enhanced pubitcimage; and the
    opportunity to improve operational effective-"
    ness. EPA provides partners with marketing,
    technical, and public-recognition support
    services. Partners agree to endorse WAVE'S
    concepts, survey water-use devices, appoint a
    WAVE implementation manager, Install up- "
    grades, design water-efficient facilities, and   :
    provide progress reports and program data to
    EPA. For more information, please contact:
    WAVE Program Director, U.S. EPA, 401 M    :
    Street, SW, Mall Stop 4204, Washington, DC
   20460. Phone (202) 260-7288; fax (202) 260*
 data on water conservation and use efficiency, is
 through the use of demonstration projects. In Tuc-
 son, Arizona, the Casa del Agua, a single-family
 home, has been used to demonstrate and study
 water conservation and reuse techniques and tech-
 nologies.  In 1985, the University of Arizona de-
 signed and retrofitted the Casa del Agua with wa-
 ter-conserving fixtures,  a rainwater harvesting sys-
 tem, gray water reuse and storage systems, and
 drought-tolerant plants.  Measurements of water
 use and water quality at the Casa del Agua have
 provided a useful collection of data for evaluating
 the possible benefits of conservation techniques
 and technologies in a residential home (Karpiscak
 et aL, 1991).

    A study of water demand in the United States
 using American Water Works Association (AWWA)
 data indicated that water users are more sensitive to
 a change in price in the South and the West than in
 the other regions of the country. Public education
 appears to have reduced water usage in the West.
 A heightened awareness of water's scarcity might
 make educational programs more effective in the
West man  in the rest of the country (Nieswiadomy,
How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively

index of Water Efficiency

    An index of water efficiency, or "W-Index,"
can be used as a device to evaluate residential
water savings and as a way to motivate water
users to adopt water-saving practices. A W-Index
can serve as a measure of the effectiveness of
water efficiency features in a home. The index
provides a calculated numerical value for each
dwelling unit, which is derived from the number
and kind of water-saving features present, includ-
ing indoor and outdoor water savers and water
harvesting or recycling systems. Architects, build-
ers, appraisers, homeowners, water suppliers, or
water management agencies can use the W-Index
as a basis for evaluating the water-saving capabil-
ity of any particular single- or multi-family
dwelling unit (DeCook et al., 1988).
    Typically, an overall W-Index rating of W-50
would be considered fair, W-80 good, and W-110
excellent, based on a specific set of community
water conservation goals (DeCook et al., 1988).
The W-Index has been applied to the Casa del
Agua, the Tucson, Arizona, water conservation
demonstration home discussed in the preceding
section. The Casa del Agua received a  value of
W-139. The index was applied to about 30 other
homes in the Tucson area, with resulting values
ranging from W-75 to  W-100.

Planning for Resource Protection

    Monitoring and managing land use  and waste
disposal practices around water supply sources can
potentially reduce the need for new water supply
development and keep water treatment costs to a
minimum (Gollnitz, 1988). Adverse effects on a
water supply source can be lessened through land
use controls such as land preservation, nonregula-
tory and regulatory watershed programs, environ-
mental assessment requirements, and zoning
(Gollnitz, 1988). The protection of a water source
by a utility can range from simple sanitary surveys
of a watershed to the development and implemen-
tation of complex land use controls.
    Water supply source protection should play an
important role in the overall management of a
municipal water utility. Contamination of a water
source can result from point and nonpoint sources
of pollution such as chemical spills, waste dis-
charges, or the improper use and runoff of insecti-
cides  and herbicides.  The  contamination of a water
supply source can result in the need to develop ex-
pensive treatment systems or to find new sources
for water supply.

Drought Management Planning

    When less rain falls than usual, there is less
water to maintain normal soil moisture, stream
flows, and reservoir levels and to recharge  ground
water. Falling levels  of
surface waters create
unattractive areas of
exposed shoreline and
reduce the capacity of
surface waters to dilute
and carry municipal
and industrial wastewa-
ter. Water quality often
decreases as water
quantity decreases, ad-
versely affecting fish and wildlife habitats. In ad-
dition, dry conditions make trees more prone to
insect damage and disease and increase the poten-
tial for grass and forest fires (TVA, n.d.).
    A drought management plan should address a
range of issues, from political and technical matters
to public involvement. Managing a resource essen-
tial to people's welfare during disaster and dealing
with the associated emotional, economic, and
physical consequences makes drought management
a very challenging task.
                Cleaner Water Through Conservation

        General Drought Management Components
     t. Define the available resources: Water
       may be available from several sources
       to meet demands in time of drought.

     2. Define the demand: The quantity,     :
       quality, and location requirements of all
       users must be defined.       ,  ,

     3. Describe possible shortfalls in supply:
       Managing the resources to best accom-
       modate the shortfall in meeting demand
       under a given drought event calls for
       sound preparation.

     4. Describe the management measures
       for potential events: Define the adopted
       measures necessary tn response to
       projected shortfalls  for various drought
     ,  events. -         c    ."-„",
 5. User and public involvement: it has been
   repeatedly proven that the success of
   drought managemeitt depends most on
   the understanding and support of the
 , users and the public.   :.        »T,,

 6. Securing legislation agreements, rules,
   and procedures: Any water management
   under conditions of shortage usually calls
 , for new authority, rules, and procedures;
   for example, new legislation and specific
   legal agreements.

 7. Drought managemejnt event plan: Any
 , drought requires a specific set of
   management actions tailored to the
,   specific event and a mechanism to
   forecast event dates, (Frederiksen,
- ;1992).             ^ "  -.7  - •      -  r
How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively



 Approaches to
 Efficient  Water
 Uses:  Tales From
 the  Trenches
his chapter presents a sampling of programs throughout the Nation that use
| one or more water conservation and use efficiency practices. Table 5 pre-
h. sents a summary of the practices used in each example program. It also
provides a row to use in evaluating the water use efficiency program in
your area.

It is important to note that the information in the table and in the ex-
   amples is provided to illustrate the water savings that can be
    achieved by using a conservation and use efficiency practice or
    j combining a mixture of practices. Many other practices and pro-

IN3W30VNVW ivannnoiuov
	 J.N3W30VNVW TViaiSnaNI
wvuaoud 3sn3u uaivM
3sva viva ssn HSJVM
Noiiogigq >iv3i MBISAS ivdioiNnw
aaxvM nviuisnaNinvioa3Wwoo
uanv uaivM nviiNsaissu
SN01101U1S3U NOIJLVOiaai
ONISininid MOld-MOl
U31VM Q3dO13A3a





























































                                                      A Guide to Cleaner Water Through Conserving Water

grams could be cited as well (such as the State of
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, and the
City of Denver, Colorado; City of Austin, Texas;
Portland, Oregon; and the Metropolitan Water Dis-
trict of Southern California)  Also note that the in-
formation presented is dated material obtained
from published reports and might have  changed
since the date of original publication.



    Since 1989, Tampa's water efficiency program
has included code changes, revised rate structures,
retrofit, promotion of xeriscape landscaping, and
education. Within the first 9 months, consumption
was reduced from 84.6 million gallons to 72.5
million gallons during the dry months of March
through June, a 15-18 percent reduction in
demand. The average reduction for the year was
7 percent.

    Tampa has adopted an increasing-block rate
structure, irrigation restrictions, landscape codes,
and ultra-low-volume plumbing requirements.
Voluntary xeriscape programs advocate  corporate
sions and
irrigation and land-
scape design for new

    In December 1989, wa-
ter-saving kits were delivered
to about 10,000 Tampa
homes. The kits included two     ^^
toilet tank dams, two low-flow showerheads, two
lavatory faucet aerators, some Teflon tape, a pam-
phlet on finding and fixing leaks with a general
"water-saving tips" card, an installation instruc-
tion folder (with a letter from the mayor encour-
aging participation, and instructions in both Spanish
and English), a window display card, and leak de-
tection dye tablets. These materials were packed in
a clear plastic bag and hung on the doorknobs of
residences. Ninety-four percent of homeowners
receiving the kits installed the devices. The kits
were estimated to save 7-10 gallons of water per
person per day. Tampa estimates that when all the
homes in Tampa are similarly retrofitted, more than
2.1 million gallons of water per day will be saved.
    Educational efforts in Tampa focus on schools.
A number of contests have been conducted. Win-
ning poster and limerick entries are compiled into a
water conservation calendar, which is then distrib-
uted to the general public.
    Additional efforts in Tampa include a pilot
awareness campaign, an expanded retrofit program,
toilet-replacement incentive projects including a
rebate program, implementation of water checkups
for large residential water users, and enhanced in-
school curriculum-based education (RMI, 1991).

South Florida Water Management

    In 1992, the South Florida Water  Management
District (SFWMD, which includes Palm Beach,
Dade County, Florida) joined the St. Johns River
Water Management District (in northeast Florida)
and Southwest Florida Water Management District
(Tampa, Sarasota, etc.) in sponsoring a statewide
mass-media conservation campaign that urges resi-
dents to conserve water and use it wisely. The
campaign features public service spots that urge
residents to use xeriscaping and offers other water-
saving tips. Educational brochures and how-to
guides, an informative video on how to xeriscape a
typical Florida yard, and a quarterly newsletter
were all produced to support this educational effort.
    The SFWMD's Six-Point Conservation Policy
appeals to local governments to adopt conservation
measures. The policy advocates the adoption of
local xeriscape ordinances, leak detection pro-
grams, ordinances that encourage the residential
and business use of low-volume plumbing, rate
structures that reward conservation and reduced
use, comprehensive public education programs,
and daytime irrigation bans.
    In other programs, the SFWMD offers techni-
cal assistance to cities arid counties in implementing
rain switch ordinances (which require  automatic
Regional Approaches to Efficient Water Use: Tales From the Trenches

sprinklers to be turned off during rain storms) and
water reuse systems, and the district is supporting a
statewide Compost Utilization Project. The
SFWMD is also a sponsoring member of the
state's Xeriscape/Water Wise Council Steering
Committee, formed to help implement the state's
Xeriscape Law, passed in 1991.
    Through conservation partnerships formed  in
1992, the SFWMD assisted  the Dade, Broward,
Palm Beach, and Lee county governments in devel-
oping daytime irrigation ordinances, and it is urg-
ing other counties to adopt daytime irrigation
bans (Kirchhoff and Nicholas, 1993).

State of California

    The State Department of Water Resources
provides general information and offers technical
assistance with water conservation practices to
all local water agencies in California.
    Agricultural irrigation is the largest water use
problem in California, and the Department fo-
cuses on agricultural as well as urban water use
efficiency programs. The urban program includes
the following practices: leak detection, water-ef-
ficient landscaping, conservation information,
public education, urban water management plan-
ning assistance, industrial water conservation
planning, and water recycling. The agricultural
program includes the following practices: drain-
age reduction, mobile laboratory program for on-
farm irrigation system evaluations, the California
Irrigation Management Information System
(CIMIS), and agricultural water management
planning assistance (Keith Watkins, California
State Department of Water Resources, Office of
Water Conservation, February 9, 1994, personal
 Los Angeles

    The Los Angeles Department of Water and
 Power has implemented a comprehensive water
 efficiency plan to address water use by indi-
 vidual households, businesses, and industries. To
 limit outdoor water use, L.A. offers a landscape
water management program, a water conservation
garden contest, an annual spring garden exposi-
tion, demonstration gardens, weather network
stations, a residential irrigation pilot program, a
large-turf water curtailment program, xeriscape
requirements for new construction, and produc-
tion and distribution of lawn-watering  guides.

    L.A. has water conservation advisory com-
mittees, business and industry bulletins and bro-
chures, a free meter loan program, a school in-
centive program, and an annual business and in-
dustry symposium offering awards for excellence
in water management. The city also coordinates
various conservation efforts with other county
and state water agencies.
    L.A.'s residential program includes an ultra
low-flush toilet rebate program, home  water sur-
veys, and low-interest conservation loans.  The
educational  agenda includes advertising, a water
awareness month, water inserts sent out with wa-
ter bills, exhibits, a speaker's bureau, and school
education programs.
    A city ordinance mandates the installation of
low-flow showerheads (3.0 gallons per minute or
less) and toilet tank displacement devices. These
fixtures are  available free to residential custom-
ers; there is a charge to commercial users. The
L.A. Department of Water and Power has spent
$5 million (1990 dollars) thus far on the pur-
chase  and distribution of 1.3 million
showerheads and 1.8 million toilet bags. The
program resulted in a 4 percent reduction in wa-
ter consumption between 1987 and  1990.
    L.A. has also adopted a seasonal pricing
structure under which water is priced at a higher
rate during the  summer months. The city hopes
to limit the  annual growth in sewage flows to 7
Mgal/d and to reduce overall water consumption
by 10 percent by 1995 and 15 percent by the
year 2000 (RMI, 1991).

 City of San Jose

    In 1986, the City of San Jose Office of Envi-
ronmental Management (OEM) set a  10-year goal
of reducing the City's wastewater flow by 10 per-
cent, a reduction of 12 Mgal/d. The implementation
of plumbing codes and retrofit programs each re-
                Cleaner Water Through Conservation

                    duced flows by more than
                    25,000 gpd in 1991. OEM
                   has an active commercial/in-
                   dustrial flow reduction program
                  that includes technical assis-
                  tance, integrated energy and wa-
                    ter audits, a financial incen-
                     tives program, I.D.E.A.S.
                        (Innovative Design and
                         Energy Analysis Service
                           program) standards
                             for new commercial
                             and industrial
                             building, and do-it-
                             yourself audit
                            guides (JMM Con-
                            sulting, 1991).

 City ofLompoc

    In January 1990, the City of Lompoc, Califor-
 nia, declared a water shortage and initiated a volun-
 tary conservation program. The program achieved a
 14.4 percent cumulative reduction for 1990.

    The Lompoc city staff conducts a public infor-
 mation  program consisting of conservation bro-
 chures,  displays, the use of local communica-
 tions  media, and classes dealing with water-saving
 irrigation methods and drought-tolerant planting
 methods. The city provides water conservation
 kits (free to low-income households and $5.00 to
 all other residents), which include two low-flow
 shower-heads, two toilet tank dams, two toilet
 leak detection tablets, two faucet aerators, and an
 installation brochure. The annual  operating cost
 of Lompoc's program is about $120,000 (1990

    The 1990 Lompoc City Ordinance
 1312(90) declares a water shortage in the city and
 establishes  various restrictions and prohibitions on
 the use  of water, including the following: turf wa-
 tering between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00
 p.m., the use of potable water for washing hard
 surface  areas such as driveways and sidewalks,
 allowing water to flow from plumbing breaks or
 leaks  for more than 8 hours, washing vehicles
 with hoses  that do not have a positive shut-off
 nozzle,  and serving water to restaurant patrons
 before they request  it. In addition, the water
 shortage ordinance establishes the mandatory
 use of ultra-low-flush toilets and urinals in all
 new commercial, industrial, and public build-

    The 1990 Lompoc City Ordinance 1319(90)
 provides for the use of gray water (used water from
 clothes washers,  bathtubs, showers, and bathroom
 sinks) for irrigation of fruit trees, ground cover, and
 ornamental trees  and shrubs, but not for irrigating
 vegetable gardens and lawns or washing off hard
 surfaces. It also provides, for the use of reclaimed
 water for dust control and compaction at construc-
 tion sites, under limited conditions.

    The 1990 Lompoc City Ordinance 1334(90)
 establishes  the one-to-one "zero impact" retrofit
 condition for new development in the city. Under
 this ordinance a developsr has the option to either
 (1) carry out a retrofit program of existing housing,
 resulting in a zero projected net increase in water
 consumption resulting from the new construction or
 (2) pay an "in-lieu" fee to the city. Funds from such
 fees are then directed to the city's retrofit rebate

    The 1990 Lompoc City Ordinance 4000(90)
 sets guidelines for the city's retrofit rebate pro-
 gram. Under this program, revenues from the
 "in-lieu" fees are used to fund a city-run retrofit/
 rebate program for showerheads, kitchen and
 bathroom sinks, and toilets (NEOS Corporation,

    Since October 1, 1990, Connecticut law has
required standards for water-efficient fixtures
manufactured and sold in the state. Showerheads
must use less than 2.5 gallons per minute; urinals,
1.0 gallon per flush; faucets, 2.5 gallons per
minute; and toilets, 1.6 gallons per flush. The
state has also organized a retrofit program that re-
quires all  water distributors to give away free wa-
ter-efficiency kits. Each kit contains one low-flow
showerhead, two faucet aerators, one pair of toilet
tank dams, one package of toilet leak detection tab-
lets, and written information. The cost of the kits,
$6-$7 each, is absorbed by water users through
their rates (RMI,  1991).
Regional Approaches to Efficient Water Use: Tales From the Trenches

New  York City
   New York City's water efficiency program
is a comprehensive one. The program includes a
survey of all 33.6 million feet of water mains
with computerized sonar leak detection equip-
ment. Areas of the city that are served by waste-
water treatment plants are inspected by sonar
once every 9 months. All other areas are in-
spected once every 3 years. The New York City
Department of Housing, Preservation, and Devel-
opment and the New York City Department of
Environmental Protection test the benefits of ret-
rofitting with water-efficient fixtures on city

    New York City offers free water efficiency
surveys to homeowners. City inspectors check
for leaking plumbing, provide water conservation
tips, offer advice on retrofitting with water-effi-
cient fixtures, and distribute two free faucet aera-
tors and two free low-flow showerheads. Land-
lords are notified of leaks and given 3 days to
repair them and have the repair confirmed. New
York City  has made over 60,000 of these inspec-
tions, eliminating more than 4 Mgal/d in leaks
(RMI, 1991).

    A Toilet Rebate Program was initiated on
August 1,  1994. Residents can file an application
for a rebate if they have had a new water-con-
 serving toilet installed by a New York City li-
 censed plumbing company.

     New York City has  also installed magnetic
 locking  hydrant caps to deter people from turn-
 ing on hydrants in the summer. The new locked
 hydrants not only conserve water, but also reduce
 the amount of urban runoff going into the sewer

     Under an Advanced Flow Monitoring Pro-
 gram, New York City has installed flow monitor-
 ing devices in large sewer mams that lead to
 wastewater treatment plants operating at high ca-
 pacity. The program helps detect patterns of new
 leaks and where those leaks originated.

     By  1997, all residential and commercial
 buildings will be metered to follow consumption
 rates. To date, about two-thirds of all one- or two-
 family homes and about 15 percent of apartment
buildings are metered.  (Warren Leibold, New
York Department of Environmental Protection,
December 29, 1994, personal communication.)

Washington, DC

    High growth rates in Washington, DC, have
resulted in a need to find solutions to the resulting
increased flows to the District's wastewater treat-
ment plant. A water conservation program has
been developed by the District of Columbia De-
partment of Public Works to reduce the rate of
flow to the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment
Plant, a regional facility servicing Washington and
its suburbs.
    In a 1985 agreement, users of the Blue Plains
facility agreed to limit the flow of wastewater to
the facility to 6.5 cubic meters per second (m3/s)
or 148 Mgal/d by January 1, 1996. In 1991, the
flow to the facility was approximately 7.2 mVs, or
 163 Mgal/d. It has been determined that if flows
to the facility are not reduced to those set  forth in
the agreement, an increase in the treatment capac-
ity of the facility will be necessary.
    Studies conducted in the metropolitan area
 indicate that as much as 1.3 to 2.6 mVs, or 30 to
 60 Mgal/d, is wasted primarily because of care-
 less use and defective plumbing systems in older
    Washington, DC, officials determined that the
 development of a water conservation program
 would be the most cost-effective way to address the
 wastewater treatment problem. The water conserva-
 tion program developed by the District of Colum-
 bia Department of Public Works includes public
 information and education, a comprehensive data-
 base on water use, amendments to the plumbing
 code, guidelines for retrofitting and plumbing re-
 pair, and possible restructuring of water and sewer
 rates. The education program informs water users
 of the benefits of water conservation and  includes a
 media campaign, the development of a water con-
 servation handbook and video, the use of coloring
 books on water conservation for school children,
 and plumbing clinics and training programs. The
 revisions to the plumbing code require the use of
 water-saving fixtures in new construction and sub-
 stantial renovation projects. The water consumption

                 Cleaner Water Through Conservation

 database will provide information for comparing
 water flow to sewer flows, identifying water losses,
 and developing conservation strategies that are
 practical and effective.

     It was estimated in 1991  that the water
 conservation program for Washington, DC, would
 cost the district approximately $8 million over a 5-
 year period. The conservation program is consid-
 ered to be cost-effective, however, because wasted
 water in the Blue Plains service area is estimated
 to cost the district's water and sewer customers
 millions of dollars per year (Padmanabha, 1991).

 Stillaguamish  Tribe  in
 Arlington,  Washington

     The Stillaguamish Tribe in Arlington, Wash-
 ington, developed a water conservation program to
 help reduce problems associated with a failing
 community septic tank and drainfield  system.
 The tribal trust consists of a 30-home development
 on a 20-acre parcel of land that is serviced by five
 separate drainfield areas and two community
 drinking water wells. Within the first 5 years fol-
 lowing the construction of the development, two
 of the five drainfields servicing the project have
 had to be replaced due to failure.

    A water conservation program was devel-
 oped, with a $14,000 EPA grant, to reduce the
 community use of drinking water  from the tribe's
 system. The reduction in water use would  result
 in a reduction in the amount of water loaded into
 the septic tank drainfield system.

    In 1991, the conservation program arranged
 for the retrofitting of standard toilets with ultra-
 low-flush toilets, the installation of flow restric-
 tion devices on all faucets, and the development
 and implementation of a water conservation edu-
 cation program for the homeowners in the housing
 development. In 1992, nonfunctioning water
 meters were replaced so that individual water us-
 age could be measured and leaks within the water
 distribution system could be identified.

    The water conservation program has resulted
 in a reduction in the average community water use
 from 250,000 gallons per month to 200,000 gal-
 lons per month. In the first 9 months following

Regional Approaches to Efficient Water Use: Tales From the Trenches
 the adoption of the conservation program, water
 usage dropped approximately 35 percent per
 home, resulting in a community water savings of
 over one million gallons. Operation and mainte-
 nance costs for the two water supply wells have
 dropped as a result of the reduction in water de-
 mand, and surfacing septage in the tribe's
 drainfields has not been a problem since adoption
 of the conservation program (Eddy, 1993).


    House Bill No. 2, passed by the Texas legisla-
 ture in 1985, is a comprehensive water conserva-
 tion package designed to implement sections of
 the Texas Water Plan. Two constitutional amend-
 ments were contained hit the conservation package,
 one that increased the Water Development Fund
 by $980 million and another that created the Agri-
 cultural  Water Conservation Program. Political
 subdivisions within the state are now required to
 submit a water conservation plan to the Texas
 Water Development Board when they apply for fi-
 nancial assistance from the Water Development and
 Water Assistance Funds. Since the passage of
 House Bill No. 2, 21 new Underground Water Con-
 servation Districts have been delineated, most of
which are located near die City of San Angelo and
the City of San Antonio, which relies exclusively
on the Edwards Aquifer for its water supply.
                •K"San Angelo
                San Antonio
          Schoolmaster and Fries, 1990

    Applicants for water supply loans are re-
quired to develop a water conservation plan and
adopt a water conservation program that can in-
clude the following: restrictions on discretionary
water use, water-saving plumbing code standards
for new construction, retrofit programs for exist-
ing structures, education programs, universal me-
tering, conservation-orientated water rate pro-
grams, drought contingency  plans, and distribu-
tion system leak detection and repair. The re-
quirement for an approved water conservation
plan can be waived by the Water Development
Board if an emergency exists,  if the amount of
the assistance is less than $500,000, or if the ap-
plicant can demonstrate that the plan is not nec-
essary to promote conservation or conservation
    As of 1990, the Texas Water Development
Board had approved water conservation plans for
 165 political subdivisions in the state, many of
which are located in Harris, Galveston,  and
Brazoria Counties. A pilot program was also set
up prior to full implementation of the Agricul-
tural Water Conservation Program. As of 1990,
the Program had distributed $8,065,000 in low-
 interest loans to farmers  for the purchase of wa-
 ter-efficient irrigation equipment. The single
 most expensive purchase was  a $27,102 irriga-
 tion demonstration system for the North Plains
 Underground Water Conservation District
 (Schoolmaster and Fries, 1990).


     In December 1990, the  State of Oregon
 adopted a water conservation policy that is
 implemented through  conservation planning
 requirements for water suppliers and major water
 users, subbasin water  planning at the local level,
 and extensive state assistance and support for
 implementation. The state also passed legislation
 to facilitate water sales and the lease of con-
 served water, but the transfers are taxed for a set-
 aside of water for instream flows rather than as a
 complete reallocation to another private party. In
 1991 the state Water Resource Commission was
 also considering incorporating the requirement
 for efficiency  standards  and conservation prac-
 tices into its operating definition of beneficial use
for water allocation decisions (Dyballa and
Connelly,  1991).


    In Arizona, public water suppliers located in
areas where ground water withdrawals exceed re-
charge capacity are required to limit water con-
sumption to state-established maximum water use
rates. The water use rates are expressed hi gallons
per capita per day. Water suppliers are required to
negotiate a water conservation plan that meets the
state's targeted rates if they do not achieve estab-
lished rate limits (Dyballa and Connelly, 1991).
    Phoenix has implemented a conservation pro-
gram to meet state-established ground water lim-
its. The elements of the program include an edu-
cation program, residential audit and retrofit pro-
grams, a mail order retrofit program, limits on turf
irrigation, low-flow plumbing standards, and land-
scape requirements for large new buildings Dyballa
and Connelly, 1991). The implementation of the
water conservation program in Phoenix has resulted
in a reduction in water use from 267 gal/cap/day in
 1980 to 234 gal/cap/day in 1990.
     The City of Tucson has also implemented a wa-
ter conservation program that has resulted hi  large
 reductions hi peak water demand. The elements of
 Tucson's program include public information and
 education, an increasing block rate price structure,
 and the use of water-saving plumbing fixtures.
                                                                  Cleaner Water Through Conservation

 Looking Ahead
    Water is a resource that we often take for
 granted. We watch the rain fall or stand on the bank
 of a river and assume that our water needs will be
 taken care of—that water is a "free good" readily
 available to all. But a closer look reveals that it's
 not that simple. In many dry areas, water is a very
 limited resource; in other areas, water is being con-
 taminated by various sources of pollution.
    Now that nonpoint source (NFS) pollution has
 been recognized as a major contributor to declining
 water quality, the search is on for ways to eliminate
 or reduce this type of pollution. This document
 proposes one important approach not usually con-
 sidered to reduce NFS pollution—reducing the
 quantity of water used. Using less water can reduce:
      4  On-site disposal system failures.

      A  Polluted runoff from irrigated agricul-
         tural and urban lands.

      A  The need for additional reservoir capac-
         ity and associated habitat alterations.
      A  Surface water withdrawals or diversions
         that result in degraded habitat and wet-
    Water use efficiency has other benefits, too,
 such as saving money. For example, a leak
caused by a faulty fluish valve in a toilet tank can
waste as much as 10 gallons of water an hour,
costing $100 per year at $1.20/1,000 gallons.

    More than 40 states now have some type of
water conservation program, and more than 80
percent of water utility customers are willing to
use some form of water conservation measure.
The groundwork has aJready been laid for new
and expanded programs to encourage water use
efficiency. A number of practices, programs, and
strategies described in this document can be
implemented now. Some involve engineering
practices based on modifications of plumbing,
fixtures, or operating procedures. Others involve
behavioral changes in water use habits.  They
range from the very simple (a dam in the toilet
tank or a new hose nozzle) to the complex (the
installation of multiples submeters in an  apartment

    From coast to coast—from the tribal trust
homes of the StiUaguamish Tribe in Washington
State to the water mains beneath the City of New
York—water conservation and use efficiency
practices are saving water and reducing nonpoint
source pollution.

    What's being done  to conserve this  precious
resource where you live? And what more can
you and others do?
Regional Approaches to Efficient Water Use: Tales From the Trenches


Agricultural irrigation: Water distribution
systems and practices in agriculture (Kromm
and White, 1990).

Air heat exchange: Cooling method, in-
volving no water loss, during which a fan
blows air past finned tubes carrying recircu-
lating cooling water (Brown and Caldwell,

Block-rate pricing: Method of charging on
the basis of the volume of water used.

Center pivot system: Method of agricul-
tural irrigation consisting of a single sprin-
kler lateral with one end anchored to a fixed
pivot structure and the other end continu-
ously moving around the pivot while apply-
ing water (ASAE, 1980).
Chiseling of compacted soils: Loosening
the soil, without inverting and with a mini-
mum of mixing of the surface soil, to shatter
restrictive layers below the normal plow
depth that inhibit water and air movement or
root development (Virginia State Water Con-
trol Board, 1979).
Closed loop cooling tower: Water-conserv-
ing cooling tower system  in which water
used for cooling is recycled through a pip-
ing system that cools the water; the water is
cooled as air exchanges heat with the pipes
(Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

Continuous  flow system: The continuous
use, by an industry, of deionized water to
remove contaminants from products and
equipment (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).
Cooling tower: Water-conserving cooling
device in which cooling water loses heat
when a portion of it is evaporated (Brown
and Caldwell, 1990).
Cooling tower makeup: Water added to the
recirculating cooling tower water stream to
compensate for water evaporation losses
(Brown and Caldwell, 1990).
Cooling water: Water typically used to cool
heat-generating equipment or to condense
gases hi a thermodynamic cycle (Brown and
Caldwell, 1990).
Cooling water blowdown: Procedure used
to reduce total dissolved solids by removing
a portion of poor-quality recirculating water
(Brown and Caldwell, 1990).
Cooling water drift: Unevaporated water
carried out of a cooling tower by the airflow;
it has the same composition as the recirculat-
ing water (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).
Cooling water evaporation: Cooling water
recycling approach in which water loses heat
when a portion of it is evaporated (Brown
and Caldwell, 1990).
Decreasing block rate: Pricing that reflects
per-unit costs of production and delivery that
go down as customers consume more water
(Nieswiadomy and Molina, 1989).
Deionized water: Common industrial water
used to remove contaminants from products
and equipment (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).
Drop tubes:  Devices i:hat can be added to a
center pivot system to achieve greater effi-

 ciency in agricultural irrigation (Kromm and
 White, 1990).

 Dry cooling: Cooling-down process using steam,
 to eliminate the loss of water (Strauss, 1991).

 Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated, that
 flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or industrial

 Faucet aerator: Device that can be installed in a
 sink to reduce water use (Jensen, 1991).

 Furrow  diking: Water-saving agricultural irriga-
 tion practice in which a long, narrow groove or
 trench is made in the earth by a plow. The dike is
 usually placed at one end of the field to collect
 runoff. (Kromm and White,  1990).

 Gray water: Domestic wastewater composed of
 washwater from kitchen sinks, bathroom sinks and
 tubs, clothes washers, and laundry tubs (USEPA,

 Ground water recharge: The use of reclaimed
 wastewater, by surface spreading or direct injec-
 tion, to prevent saltwater intrusion into freshwater
 aquifers, to store the reclaimed water for future
 use, to control or prevent ground subsidence, and
 to augment nonpotable or potable ground water
 aquifers (USEPA, 199 la).

 Increasing block rate: Pricing that reduces water
 use by structuring water rates to increase per-unit
 charges as the amount used increases  (Martin and
 Kulakowski, 1991).

 Instream flow: The amount of flow required to
 sustain stream values, including fish, wildlife, and
 recreation (USDOI, 1992).

 Intermittent flow system: Alternating use, by an
 industry,  of deionized water to remove contami-
 nants from products and equipment (Brown and
 Caldwell, 1990).

 Irrigation districts: Special units of local gov-
 ernment that control the bulk of surface water sup-
 plies in the West (Smith and Vaughan, 1988).

 Irrigation field practices: Techniques that keep
 water in the field, more efficiently distribute water
 across  the field, or encourage the retention of soil
moisture  (Kromm and White, 1990).
 Irrigation management strategies: Strategies to
 monitor soil and water conditions and collect in-
 formation that helps in making decisions about
 scheduling application or improving the efficiency
 of the irrigation system (Kromm and White,

 Irrigation scheduling: Careful choice of irriga-
 tion application rates and timing to help irrigators
 maintain yields with less water (Bosch and Ross,

 Irrigation system modification: An addition to
 or an alteration of an existing irrigation system or
 the adoption of a new one (Kromm and White,

 Landscape irrigation: Water conservation
 through landscaping that uses plants that need little
 water, thereby saving labor and fertilizer as well
 as water (Grisham and Fleming,  1989).

 Leak detection: Systematic method of using lis-
 tening equipment to survey the distribution sys-
 tem, identify leak sounds, and pinpoint the exact
 locations of hidden underground leaks (RMI,

 Low-flow plumbing: Plumbing equipment that
 uses less water than was considered standard prior
 to January 1, 1994 (NAPHCC, 1992).

 Low-flow showerhead: A showerhead that re-
 quires 2.5 gallons of water per minute or less, as
 compared to the 4.5 gallons  of water required by
 most older standard showerheads (Jensen, 1991).

 Low-flush toilet: A toilet that requires 1.6 gallons
 of water per flush or less, as compared to the 3.5-5
 gallons of water required to flush most older stan-
 dard toilets (Pearson, 1993).

 Metering:  Use  of metering equipment that can
 provide essential data for charging  fees based on
 actual customer use (Brown  and Caldwell, 1990).

 Monitoring of water: Monitoring of water use
 by an industry, using metering for example, to pro-
 vide baseline information on quantities of overall
company water use, the seasonal and  hourly pat-
terns of water use, and the quantities and quality of
water use in individual processes (Brown and
Caldwell, 1990).
                                                                Cleaner Water Through Conservation

 Neutron probe: Type of probe used to monitor
 soil moisture conditions to help determine when
 water should by applied (Bosch and Ross, 1990).

 Ozonation: A new technology using a form of
 oxygen, instead of chemicals, to treat cooling
 water (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

 Peak/off-peak rates: Rates charged in accor-
 dance with the most and least popular hours of
 water use during the day (Sexton et al.,  1989).

 Plenum flushes: Rinsing procedure that dis-
 charges deionized water from the rim of  a flowing
 bath to remove contaminants from the sides and
 bottom of the bath (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

 Potable water: Water that is safe for drinking
 (USEPA, 1992).

 Price gouging: Excessive water rate increases
 that are unfair to water customers (Collinge,

 Pricing/rate structure: System used by water
 utility managers to charge customers for water
 usage (Collinge, 1992).

 Recirculating cooling water: Recycling cooling
 water to greatly reduce water use by using the
 same water to perform  several cooling operations
 (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

 Reclaimed water: Wastewater that is treated and
 reused to supplement water supplies (USEPA,

 Resistance block: Type of soil moisture probe
 used to monitor soil moisture conditions to help
 determine when water should be applied (Bosch
 and Ross, 1990).

 Retrofit: Replacement of existing equipment with
 equipment that uses less water (Jensen, 1991).

 Reverse osmosis: Common process used to pro-
 duce deionized water from municipal water
 (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

 Rinsewater: Water used to remove debris and
 contaminants from products and equipment
 (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

 Rinse sink:  Apparatus used to remove debris and
 contaminants from products and equipment
 (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).
Seasonal rate structure: Rate structure that bills
all water consumed during the summer or peak
season at a higher rate than during the other sea-
sons (Schlette and Kemp, 1991).

Secondary treatment: The second step in most
publicly owned waste treatment systems, which
removes floating and settleable solids and about
90 percent of the oxygen-demanding substances
and suspended solids, disinfection is the final
stage of secondary treatment (USEPA, 1989).

Secondary wastewater treatment plant: A facil-
ity that reduces pollutants and suspended solids
to a greater level than that achieved by a primary
treatment plant; the water goes through additional
treatment processes, producing "cleaner" waste-

Source protection:  Protection of a water source
by a small utility, ranging from simple sanitary
surveys of a watershed to the development and
implementation of complex land use controls, in
an effort to avoid water contamination (Gollnitz,

Submetering: Use of separate meters to indicate
individual water use in apartments, condomini-
ums, and trailer homes, while the entire complex
of units continues to be metered by the main sup-
plier (Rathnau, 1991).

Surge irrigation: The intermittent application of
water to irrigation pathways. This method pulses
water down the furrow and creates more uniform
irrigation (Jalali-Farahaiii et al., 1993).

Tailwater recovery system: System modification
to achieve greater efficiency in agricultural irriga-
tion by collecting runofi' for reuse in irrigation
(Kromm and White, 1990).

Tensiometer: Type of soil moisture probe used to
monitor soil moisture conditions to help deter-
mine when water should by applied (Bosch and
Ross, 1990).

Threshold level: Level established as  the average
rate of water use (Schlelte and Kemp,  1991).

Tiered pricing: Increasing block-rate pricing
(Martin and Kulakowski, 1991).

Time-of-day pricing: Pricing that charges users
relatively higher prices during utilities' peak use
periods (Sexton et al., 1989).
Toilet displacement device: Object placed in a
toilet tank to reduce the amount of water used per
flush; for example, weighted plastic jugs filled
with water or toilet dams that hold back a reser-
voir of water when the toilet is flushing (USEPA,
Unit surcharge: A surcharge imposed for all
water use above a threshold level for excess con-
sumption established based on average per capita
or per-household consumption (Pearson,  1993).

Utility: Public water service provider (Habibian,
W-Index: An index of water efficiency used as a
device for evaluating residential water savings and
as a management tool to motivate water-saving
practices. The index provides a calculated numeri-
cal value for each dwelling unit, derived from the
number and kind of water-saving features present,
including indoor and outdoor water savers and
water harvesting or recycling systems (DeCook
et al., 1988).
Wafer fabrication rinse sink: Apparatus used
during manufacturing to rinse debris and contami-
nation from the circular configuration of semi-
conductor chips (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).
Wastewater: Spent or used water from individual
homes, a community, a farm, or an industry that
contains dissolved or suspended matter.
Wastewater treatment plant: A facility with an
engineered system designed to remove pollutants,
such as phosphorus and nitrogen, from municipal
and industrial wastewater for discharge into sur-
face waters.
Water audit: Program involving sending trained
water auditors to participating family homes, free
of charge, to identify water conservation opportu-
nities such as repairing leaks and installing low-
flow plumbing and to recommend changes in
water use practices to reduce home water use.

Water conservation: Activities designed to re-
duce the demand for water, improve efficiency in
use, and reduce losses and waste  of water
(Beecher and Laubach, 1989).

Water recycling: Reuse of water for the same
application for which it was originally used
(Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

Water reuse: Using wastewater or reclaimed wa-
ter from one application for another application.
The deliberate use of reclaimed water or waste-
water must be in compliance with  applicable rules
for a beneficial purpose (landscape irrigation,
agricultural irrigation, aesthetic uses, ground
water recharge, industrial uses, and fire protec-
tion)  (USEPA, 199 la).

Water surcharge: Imposition of a higher rate on
excessive water use (Schlette and Kemp, 1991).

Water use efficiency: Employing water-saving
practices to reduce costs and to slow the depletion
of the water supply to ensure future water avail-
ability (Kromm and White, 1990).

Well capping:  Capping of abandoned artesian
wells whose rusted casings spill water in a con-
stant flow into drainage ditches (Florida commis-
sion, 1990).

Winter/summer ratio:  Comparison of metered
water use during the winter period to consumption
during the corresponding summer period. A
higher rate  or surcharge is imposed for water
consumption above the average winter use
(Schlette and Kemp, 1991).

Xeriscape landscaping: An innovative, compre-
hensive approach to pollution prevention and wa-
ter use efficiency that incorporates all of the fol-
lowing: planning and design, soil analysis, appro-
priate plant selection, practical turf areas, efficient
irrigation, use of mulches, and appropriate main-
tenance (Welsh et al., 1993).
                Cleaner Water Through Conservation

NOTE: This list includes references cited as
well as additional sources of information.

ASAE. 1980. Design and operation of farm
irrigation systems. American Society of Ag-
ricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.

AWWA. n.d. Before the well runs dry. Vol.  I.
A Handbook for designing a local water
conservation plan. American Water Works
Association, Denver, CO.

AWWA. 1994. Water Wiser: The water effi-
ciency clearinghouse. American Water
Works Association, Denver, Co.

Beecher, J. A., and  A. P. Laubach. 1989.
Compendium on water supply, drought, and
conservation. Report no. NRRI 89-15. Na-
tional Regulatory Research Institute, Colum-
bus, OH.

Billings, R. B., and W. M. Day. 1989. De-
mand management  factors in residential
water use: The southern Arizona experience.
Journal of the American Water Works Asso-
ciation 81(3):58-64.

Bohac, C. E., R. M. Shane, E.D.
Harshbarger, and H. M. Goranflo. 1986. Re-
cent progress on improving reservoir re-
leases. In Lake and reservoir management
Volume II-Proceedings of the fifth annual
conference and international symposium on
applied lake and watershed management,
November 13-16, 1985, Lake Geneva, Wis-
consin. North American Lake Management
Bosch, D. J., and B. B. Ross. 1990. Improv-
ing irrigation schedules to increase returns
and reduce water use in humid regions.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
Brown and Caldwell. 1984. Residential wa-
ter conservation projects. Summary report
produced for U. S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Office of Policy
Development and Research, Washington,
Brown and Caldwell. 1990. Case studies of
industrial water conservation in the San
Jose area. Report prepared for the City of
San Jose, CA,  and California Department of
Water Resources, Sacreimento, CA.
Brown, J. W, and W. F. Hurst. 1990. Op-
portunities for water marketing and conser-
vation in California. Water World News
6(6): 10-13.
Bush, D. B. 1988. Dealing for water in the
West: Water rights as commodities. Journal
of the American Water Works Association
California. 1991. Memorandum of under-
standing regarding urban water conserva-
tion in California. Draft.
California Department of Water Resources.
1992.  Water audit and leak detection guide-
book. State of  California Department of Wa-
ter Resources Water Conservation Office and
American Water Works Association, Califor-
nia-Nevada Section.

Carney, L., and C. Michael. 1987. Opportunities
to protect instream flows and wetland uses of
water in New Hampshire and Connecticut. Bio-
logical report 87(6). U.S. Department of the Inte-
rior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Chang, C., and R. C. Griffin. 1992. Water mar-
keting as a reallocative institution of Texas.  Water
Resources Research 28(3):879-890.

City of Austin. n.d.  Utility bill credits for ultra
low flush toilets. Environmental and Conservation
Services Department and Water and Wastewater
Utility, Austin, TX.

Collinge, R. A. 1992. Revenue neutral water con-
servation: Marginal cost pricing with discount cou-
pons.  Water Resources Research 28(3):617-622.

Coughlan, B.,  and J. A. Singleton. 1989. Oppor-
tunities to protect instream flows and wetland uses
of water in Kentucky. Biological report 89(9).
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.

Crook, J., T. Asano, and M. Nellor. 1990.
Groundwater recharge with reclaimed water in
California. In Municipal wastewater reuse, ed.
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of
Water, pp. 67-74. Washington, DC. EPA 430/09-

Cuthbert, W. R. 1989. Effectiveness of conserva-
tion-oriented water rates in Tuscon. Journal of the
American Water Works Association 81(3):65-73.

DeCook, K. J., K. E. Foster, and M. M. Karpiscak.
1988. The W-index for residential water conserva-
tion. Water Resources Bulletin 24(6): 1295- 1301.

Dyballa, C., and C. Connelly. 1991. State pro-
grams incorporating water conservation. Re-
sources, engineering, and operations for the new
decade, 1991 Annual Conference Proceedings,
American Water Works Association, June 23-27,
Philadelphia, PA.

Eddy, N. 1993. Water conservation program pro-
vides interim relief for Native American waste-
water woes. Small Flows 7(2): 15.

Florida commission makes water conservation rec-
ommendations. 1990. Water Works Journal
Frederiksen, H. D.  1992. Drought planning and
water efficiency implications in water resources
management. World Bank technical paper no.
185. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

GoUnitz, W. D. 1988. Source protection and the
small utility. Journal of the American Water
Works Association  80(8):52-57.

Grisham, A., and W. M. Fleming. 1989. Long-
term options for municipal water conservation.
Journal of the American Water Works Association
Habibian, A. 1992. Developing and utilizing data
bases for water main rehabilitation. Journal of the
American Water Works Association 84(7):75-79.

Hiss, J. M. 1993. Recommended instream flows
for the lower Dungeness River. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery
Resource Office, Olympia, WA.
In troubled waters. 1990. ZPG Reporter 22(3): 12.

Jalali-Farahani, H.  R., H. R.  Duke, and D. F.
Heerman. 1993. Physics of surge irrigation: I.
Quantifying soil physical parameters. Transac-
tions of the ASAE,  special edition: Soil and Water
James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc.
1991. City of San Jose—Draft final report—Water
conservation program analysis, evaluation and
long-term planning study.

Jarrett, A. R., D. D. Fritton, and W. E. Sharpe.
1985. Renovation of failing absorption fields by
water conservation and resting. Paper no. 85-
2630. American Association of Agricultural Engi-
Jensen, R. 1991. Indoor water conservation.
Texas Water Resources 17(4).
JMM Consulting. 1991. Water conservation
analyses, evaluation, and long-range planning
study. Draft final report to City of San Jose, Cali-
fornia. James M. Montgomery Consulting Engi-
neers, Walnut Creek, CA.

Karpiscak, M. M., R. G. Brittain, C. P. Gerba, and
K.  E. Foster. 1991. Demonstrating residential wa-
ter conservation and reuse in the Sonoran Desert:
Casa Del Agua and Desert House. Water Science
and Technology 24(9):323-330.
               Cleaner Water Through Conservation

  Kirchhoff, M., and P. Nicholas. 1993. Planning
  for the future. South Florida Water Management
  District 1992 annual report. South Florida Water
  Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.

  Kohlhoff, K. F. 1988. Urban use of Arizona's ru-
  ral groundwater. Journal of the American Water
  Works Association 80(3):47-50.

  Kranzer, B. S. 1988. Determinants of residential
  water conservation behavior: An investigation of
  socio-economic and psycho-dynamic factors.
  Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University,

  Kromm, D. E., and S. E. White. 1990. Adoption
  of water-saving practices by irrigators in the High
  Plains. Water Resources Bulletin 26(6):999-1012.

  Leibold, Warren., New York Department of Envi-
  ronmental Protection, personal communication,
  December 29, 1994.

 Linaweaver, F. P., Jr., J. C.  Geyer, and J. B. Wolfe.
  1967. A study of residential water use. Johns
 Hopkins University. Prepared for the Federal
 Housing Administration and the Department of
 Housing and Urban Development.

 Marshall, G., and G.  Batis. 1993. Preparing col-
 lection systems for water conservation. Water En-
 vironment and Technology  5(8).

 Martin, W.  E., and S. Kulakowski. 1991. Water
 price as a policy variable in managing urban wa-
 ter uses: Tuscon, Arizona Water Resources Re-
 search 27(2):157-166.

 Metzger, P. C.  1988. Protecting social values in
 western water transfers. Journal of the American
 Water Works Association 80(3):58-65.

 Mui, B. G., K. W. Richardson, and J. F.  Shannon.
 1991. What water utility managers should know
 about developing water rates. Water Engineering
 and Management 138(12): 18-20.

 NAPHCC. 1992. Low flow  plumbing products
fact sheet. National Association of Plumbing,
 Heating, and Cooling Contractors, Alexandria, VA.

 NEOS Corporation. 1990. Technical assistance
for the City ofLompoc: Energy savings through
 water conservation: Final report. Prepared for
 Western Area Power Administration, Conservation
  & Renewable Energy iProgram, Sacramento Area
  Office. NEOS Corporation, Lafayette, CA.

  Nieswiadomy, M. L., and D. J. Molina. 1989.
  Comparing residential water demand estimates un-
  der decreasing and increasing block rates using
  household data Land Economics 65(3):280-289.

  Nieswiadomy, M. L., 1992. Estimating urban
  residential water demand: Effects of price struc-
  ture, conservation, and education. Water Re-
  sources Research 28(3):609-615.

  Osann, E. R., and D. C. Campbell.  1992. Water
  resources: The Central Utah Project Completion
  Act Environment 34(2):2-3.

  Padmanabha, A.  1991. Water conservation pro-
  gram combats increased wastewater flows.  Water
 Environment and Technology 3(7): 18-22.

 Pearson, F. H. 1993. Study documents water sav-
 ings with ultra-low-flu&h toilets. Small Flows
 Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service.
 1992. To the last drop. Board game 4-H 778.
 Purdue University Media Distribution Center.

 Rathnau, M. M. 1991. Submetering = water con-
 servation. Water Engineering and Management

 RMI. 1991. Water efficiency: A resource for util-
 ity managers, community planners, and other de-
 cision makers. The Water Program, Rocky Moun-
 tain Institute,  Snowmass, CO.

 Rosen, M. D., and R. J.  Sexton. 1993. Irrigation
 districts and water markets: An application of co-
 operative decision-making theory.  Land Econom-
 ics 69(l):39-53.

 Russet, D. F.,  and C. P. N. Woodcock. 1992.
 What will water rates be like in the 1990s? Jour-
 nal of the American Wafer Works Association

 Schlette,  T. C., and D. C. Kemp. 1991. Setting
 rates to encourage water conservation. Water En-
 gineering and Management 138(5):25-29.

 Schoolmaster,  F. A., and  T. J. Fries. 1990. Imple-
 menting agricultural and urban water conservation
programs: A Texas case study. The Environmental
Professional 12:229-240.

Sexton, R. J:, T. A. Sexton, J. J. Wann, and C. L.
Kling. 1989. The conservation and welfare
effects of information in a time-of-day pricing
experiment. Land Economics 65(3):272-279.
Shepard, A. C. 1993, September 2. The new toi-
lets—Water-saving models are now the law, but
can they get the job done? The Washington Post,
Washington Home Section, p. 14.
Simon, B., and D. Anderson. 1990. Water auc-
tions as an allocation mechanism in Victoria, Aus-
tralia. Water Resources Bulletin 26(3):387-395.
Smith, R. T., and R. Vaughan. 1988. Irrigation
district: Obstacles to water marketing Journal of
the American Water Works Association
Solley, W. B., R. R. Pierce, and H. A. Perlman.
 1993. Estimated use of water in the  United States
 in 1990. U.S.  Geological Survey Circular 1081.
 Strauss, S. D. 1991. Water management for reuse/
 recycle. Power 135(5): 13-23.
 SFWMD. 1994. Water resources in jeopardy: An
 explanation of the Southern Water Use Caution
 Area in the Southwest Florida Water Management
 District. South Florida Water Management Dis-
 trict, West Palm Beach, FL.
 Texas Water Development Board. 1986. A
 homeowner's  guide to water use and water con-
 servation. Texas Water Development Board,
 Austin, TX.
 Trembly, T. L., and G. A. Gould. 1987. Opportu-
 nities to protect instream flows in Colorado and
  Wyoming. Biological report 87(10). U.S. Depart-
 ment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
 Washington, DC.
 TVA. n.d. Drought. The Tennessee  Valley Author-
  ity, Drought Management Task Force.
  USDOI. 1992. An implementation plan for
  instream flows—Draft. U.S. Department of the
  Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, DC.
  USEPA. 1980. Design manual—Onsite wastewa-
  ter treatment and disposal systems. U.S. Environ-
  mental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Wash-
  ington, DC. (in revision).
  USEPA. 1989. Glossary of environmental terms
  and acronyms list. EPA 19K-1002.  U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Communica-
tions and Public Affairs, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1990a. Final determination of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Water pursuant to section 404(c)
of the Clean Water Act concerning the proposed
Big River water supply impoundment Kent
County, Rhode Island. March 1, 1990.
USEPA. 1990b. Final determination of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Water pursuant to section 404(c)
of the Clean Water Act concerning the Two Forks
water supply impoundments Jefferson and Dou-
glas Counties, Colorado. November 23, 1990.
USEPA. 1990c. Recommended determination  to
prohibit construction of Two Forks Dam and Res-
 ervoir pursuant to section 404(c) of the Clean
 Water Act. U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency, Region 8, Denver, CO.
 USEPA. 1990d. Denver's water conservation pro-
 gram. Compliance Review for 1989 pursuant to
 the Foothills Consent Decree. U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, Region 8, Denver, CO.
 USEPA. 1990e. Preventing pollution through
 efficient water use. EPA 20W-0002. U.S. Envi-
 ronmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
 Washington, DC.
 USEPA. 1991a. Municipal wastewater reuse:  Se-
 lected readings on water reuse. EPA/430/09-
 91022. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
 Office of Water, Washington, DC.
 USEPA. 199 Ib. Fact Sheet: 21 water conserva-
 tion measures for everybody. EPA 570/9-91-100.
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
 Water, Washington, DC.
 USEPA. 1992. Manual: Guidelines for water re-
 use. EPA/625/R-92/004. U.S. Environmental Pro-
 tection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

  USEPA. 1993. Xeriscape landscaping—Prevent-
  ing pollution and using resources efficiently. EPA/
  840/B/93/001. U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

  USEPA. 1994. WAVE-Water Alliances for Volun-
  tary Efficiency. EPA/832/F-94/006. U.S. Environ-
  mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

                  Cleaner Water Through Conservation

 Vadas, R. L., Jr., and D. L. Weigmann. 1993. The
 concept of instream flow and its relevance to
 drought management in the James River basin.
 Virginia Water Resources Research Center Bulletin
 182. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Uni-
 versity, Blacksburg, VA.

 Vickers, A. 1989. New Massachusetts toilet stan-
 dard sets water conservation precedent. Journal of
 the American Water Works Association 81(3):48-51.

 Vickers, A., and E. J. Markus. 1992. Creating
 economic incentives for conservation. Journal
 of the American Water Works Association

 Virginia State Water Control Board. 1979. Best
 management practices:  Agriculture. Virginia
 State Water Control Board Planning Bulletin 316.
 Virginia State Water Control Board, Richmond,

 Watkins, Keith, California State Department
 of Water Resources, Office of Water Conser-
vation, personal communication, February 9,

Welsh, D. R, W. C. Welch, and R. L. Duble. 1993.
Landscape water conservation . . . xeriscape. Wa-
ter Management Monthly.

Whitcomb, J. B. 1991. Water reductions from
residential audits. Water Resources Bulletin

Wichelns, D., and D. Cone. 1992. Tiered pricing
motivates Californians to conserve water. Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation March-April
Xeriscape tours now available at two district of-
fices. 1993.  Water Management Monthly 2(4).
York, D.W.,  and J. Crook. 1990. Florida's reuse
program paves the way. In Municipal wastewater
reuse, ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, pp. 67-74. Washington, DC.
EPA 430/09-91-022.