LOCAL ORDINANCES FOR WATER EFFICIENCY
Final Draft
March 31st, 1993
Prepared by The Bruce Company
For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy Analysis
EPA Contract #68-\V2-0018
Subcontract # EPA 3S3-2
Work Assignment 24
-------
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 3
INTRODUCTION 3
PLUMBING EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS 4
Establish maximum flow rates for new fixtures 6
Require replacement of existing fixtures 7
Require retrofit devices for existing fixtures 7
Require insulation for hot water pipes 8
OUTDOOR WATER EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS 8
LANDSCAPE DESIGN EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS 9
Require submission of landscape plans 9
Limit amount of turf and high water use plants 9
Limit landscape water consumption 9
Prohibit planting turf in narrow strips 10
IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS 10
Require efficient irrigation systems for new landscaping 11
Limit scheduling of irrigation 11
Require site preparation for new landscaping 11
OTHER OUTDOOR WATER USE CONTROLS 11
Prohibit "wasteful use" 11
Limit or prohibit use of potable water for decorative features 11
Limit swimming pool refilling 12
Require use of reclaimed effluent for commercial turf-related facilities 12
COOLING WATER EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS 12
Prohibit once through cooling 12
Require water conservation devices for evaporative coolers 13
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES 13
Allow development patterns that encourage water efficiency 13
Limit number of new construction and water hookup permits 14
Require builders to offset predicted increases in water demand 14
Limit development density based on water consumption 14
Require new developments to install reclaimed water distribution systems 15
Establish differential hookup fees IS
(continued on next page)
-------
STATE MODEL ORDINANCES 15
California Model Landscape Ordinance 16
Florida Model Landscape Ordinance 16
Colorado Model Ordinance 17
CASE STUDIES 17
Selection of case study cities 17
Plumbing fixture ordinance: Tampa 18
Point of sale plumbing fixture ordinance: New York City 19
Commercial plumbing retrofit ordinance: Austin 19
Plumbing retrofit ordinance: San Francisco 20
Landscape water efficiency ordinance: Ventura 21
Landscape water efficiency ordinance: Marin Municipal Water District 21
Landscape water efficiency ordinance: Sacramento County 22
Landscape water efficiency ordinance: Riverside County 22
Landscape water efficiency ordinance: San Benito County 23
Landscape water efficiency ordinance: Aurora 23
Time of day watering restriction and water waste prohibition: Tampa 24
Outdoor water use restrictions: Fresno 24
Landscape incentive program: Mesa 25
Landscape incentive program: North Marin Water District 25
Landscape incentive program: Hays 26
Offset program: Mono Bay 26
Point system: Boulder 27
Landscape point system: Indian River County 27
SELECTING, DESIGNING, IMPLEMENTING, AND ENFORCING ORDINANCES 28
Select the appropriate ordinances for your community 28
Involve others in the design phase 29
Experiment with designs that allow flexibility 29
Coordinate with existing programs to reduce enforcement costs 29
Coordinate with other jurisdictions 30
Educate affected parties about the ordinance 30
Include a credible threat of enforcement 30
Combine ordinances with other approaches 30
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
APPENDIX A - MODEL ORDINANCES
APPENDK B - LIST OF COMMUNITIES WITH WATER EFFICIENCY ORDINANCES
APPENDK C - FORMULAS FOR OFFSET REQUIREMENTS
-------
ABSTRACT
This report outlines several types of ordinances1 requiring water efficiency and discusses
the practical experience of several communities that have implemented water efficiency
ordinances. Models of several types of ordinances and a list of some communities with
ordinances are appended.
INTRODUCTION
Communities across the country, from Tampa, Florida to Seattle, Washington, have
adopted ordinances to require efficient use of water. Why do so many communities, even those
located in areas with heavy rainfall, care about water efficiency? In general, these communities
have enacted ordinances because they have discovered that increasing water efficiency is the least
expensive way - or in some cases the only way - for them to meet current and future water
supply and wastewater treatment goals.
Municipal water use generally entails significant community investments in water supply
and wastewater treatment systems. Many growing communities will eventually need to invest
in augmented water supply and wastewater treatment capacity. By requiring water efficiency in
new development and increasing water efficiency in existing development, communities can
postpone or reduce the need to augment capacity. Applying water efficiency measures is often
less expensive for communities than augmenting water supply or wastewater treatment capacity.
In other communities, water quality and environmental protection provide the motivation
for implementing ordinances. Water efficiency can protect the environment by preserving
instream flows needed to protect water quality and aquatic habitat. In some cases, water
efficiency also increases the effectiveness of existing wastewater treatment systems. In order to
reduce the strain on current wastewater treatment facilities and improve water quality, New York
City passed an ordinance prohibiting the sale or installation of inefficient plumbing products.
In some cases, local water supply may be so scarce that it is virtually impossible to
expand water supply capacity through new source development or augmentation without creating
unacceptable environmental impacts. New reservoir development is a practical impossibility in
many areas because of environmental regulations. State water resource management agencies
may prohibit new withdrawals from groundwater in coastal areas where such withdrawals could
result in salt water intrusion or areas prone to land subsidence. Surface water withdrawals may
be prohibited to protect downstream users' water rights or to preserve instream flows for
environmental reasons. In such cases, increasing water efficiency in new and existing
development is the only way to accommodate growth and protect the aquatic environment. The
cities of Lompoc, San Luis Obispo, and Morro Bay, all of which are in California, have
1 The term "ordinance" is used throughout this paper to refer
to any type of local government legislation, including bylaws and
codes.
-------
required builders to invest in water efficiency measures for existing development to offset new
demand.
Many communities around the country have recognized the cost-effectiveness of water
efficiency as an alternative to developing new sources of water supply and augmenting
wastewater treatment capacity. Local governments and utilities have enacted codes and
ordinances to require water efficiency. They have also successfully developed voluntary
programs to encourage water efficiency through education, incentives, and water rate structures.
This paper discusses several approaches communities have taken to establish local water
efficiency requirements for indoor and outdoor water use. Ordinances have been used to increase
water efficiency by establishing plumbing fixture efficiency requirements, and outdoor water
efficiency requirements, including requirements for landscape design and irrigation efficiency,
prohibition of wasteful use, and requirements for use of reclaimed water. Ordinances establishing
cooling water efficiency requirements and ordinances regulating growth and development are
also discussed. These measures can be applied to both residential and commercial development.
Sometimes, more stringent water efficiency requirements are established for commercial
properties.
Ordinances may be designed to affect only new development, in which case they will
provide long term savings at a relatively low cost, or they may be designed to affect both new
and existing development, in which case they can provide both short and long term savings, but
at a relatively high cost.
Measures that provide incentives, directly install efficient fixtures, or encourage action
to increase water efficiency without establishing requirements are not within the scope of this
paper. But a combination of programs tailored to local needs is recommended for* maximum
water savings and program effectiveness. At a minimum, an education program to explain the
need for water efficiency and methods for achieving water efficiency should be used to increase
the effectiveness of ordinances.
Each category of ordinance is discussed below. Summaries of model landscape ordinances
developed by California and Florida and model ordinances developed by Colorado are provided,
followed by case studies of communities that have implemented ordinances. The implications of
the case studies are discussed in the conclusion, which provides suggestions on general strategies
for selecting, designing, implementing, and enforcing ordinances. Sample language for several
types of ordinances, a partial list of communities with ordinances, and sample formulas for
calculating offset requirements, which are discussed below in the section on growth and
development ordinances, are attached as appendices.
PLUMBING EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS
Water efficiency requirements for new or replacement plumbing fixtures are probably the
most common type of local regulation to promote water efficiency. Because new and
-------
replacement fixtures account for a small fraction of the total stock of plumbing futures, short
term savings from this type of measure are relatively small, absent a companion program to
accelerate their adoption. However, fixture standards, which produce reliable long term savings
at very low cost, are a very cost-effective long term regulatory measure.
This type of measure has been legislated at the state level in at least seventeen states.1
The federal 1992 Energy Policy Act establishes maximum flow rates for plumbing fixtures that
apply to the sale of fixtures by manufacturers after January 1st, 1994 and contains provisions
for establishing more stringent standards in the future. The Act limits flow rates to 1.6 gallon
per flush for most types of toilets,11 gallon per minute for urinals, and 2.5 gallons per minute4
for showerheads and faucets.
Although all fixtures manufactured after 1994 must meet water efficiency standards,
inefficient fixtures manufactured before 1994 may still be available in a community. Local
requirements that match the federal standards will help ensure that all plumbing products
installed in the community, both before and after 1994, meet efficiency standards. Some local
governments may wish to set even more stringent standards, either for all fixture users or for'
a particular sector. The commercial sector can sometimes afford larger investments with longer
payback periods than the residential sector.
Local government experience with plumbing efficiency ordinances provides lessons that
apply to other types of ordinances as well. The City of Mesa's efforts to gain support for their
ordinance through and education campaign, and the cooperative, public participation approach
to designing plumbing ordinances that several cities have taken, imply general strategies that
apply to all types of ordinances.
In the past, plumbers and plumbing suppliers may have been skeptical about the quality
of service provided by efficient fixtures, but there is a growing recognition thai these devices
provide the same level of service as less efficient fixtures. Any cost differences between
conventional and efficient fixtures will be rapidly offset by water and energy savings.
2 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Washington
have state plumbing efficiency requirements. Source: National
Wildlife Federation.
3 Commercial gravity tank toilets are limited to 3.5 gallons
per flush (gpf) in 1994 and 1.6 gallons in 1997. Blowout toilets
are limited to 3.5 gpf in 1994. A 1.6 gpf limit is established for
flushometer valve toilets, but does not take effect until 1997.
* Flow is measured at 80 pounds per square inch flowing
pressure.
5
-------
In order to adopt such an ordinance, an education campaign designed to explain the need
for conservation and overcome skepticism about the effectiveness of the devices may be
necessary. In the City of Mesa, for example, the plumbers and suppliers were more resistant to
the plumbing fixture efficiency ordinance than the genera] public. Since plumbers are naturally
viewed by the public as experts on the subject of the effectiveness of plumbing fixtures, it is
particularly important to convince them that water efficiency ordinances are appropriate.
There are several possible approaches to establishing efficiency requirements for
plumbing fixtures. Some communities have applied requirements only to installation of fixtures
in new construction, while others have expanded the scope of ordinances to installations that are
pan of substantial remodeling projects, or to all replacement installations. New York City also
applies requirements to the sale of fixtures.
A few communities have taken an extra step and required early replacement or
retrofitting1 of fixtures that would otherwise remain in place. These measures increase short
term as well as long term savings. The Monterrey Peninsula Water District in California requires
replacement of existing futures when there is a change of ownership. The Monterrey Peninsula
Water District and the city of Austin also require businesses and multi-family apartments to
replace all inefficient fixtures.
Establish maximum flow rates for new fixtures
Flow requirements are most often applied to installation of fixtures in new construction
or expansion, and are sometimes applied to replacement of existing fixtures. In New York City
and the Highland Water District in New York, requirements also apply to the sale of fixtures.
Water efficient fixtures do not cost substantially more than conventional fixtures, so the
private cost of ordinances requiring efficient plumbing fixtures in new construction, expansion,
and replacement of existing fixtures is low. Ultra-low flow toilets cost slightly more than
conventional toilets, but water bill savings will typically cover the cost difference (around $40)
within five years, and sometimes within as little as one year. Public costs are also generally low,
since the requirements can usually be implemented through existing regulatory programs for
construction and expansion. Water savings from this type of measure are substantial, ranging
from 16 to 25 gallons per person per day.
This type of regulation can easily be enforced through cooperation with building and
plumbing code enforcement authorities, except when it is applied to replacement of fixtures. If
* The term "retrofitting" is used in this paper to nean
installing devices, such as aerators and flow restrictors for
faucets or displacement bags or fluidmaster valves for toilets, to
reduce water use for existing fixtures. Complete replacement of
fixtures yields more reliable long tern savings, but is more
expensive than retrofitting.
-------
the requirement is applied to replacement of fixtures, an education program, possibly coordinated
through fixture suppliers, may be sufficient to secure a high rate of voluntary compliance.
Prohibiting the sale of non-conserving fixtures reduces the need for an enforcement
program for replacement of existing fixtures. Plumbing suppliers will probably not be receptive
to this measure, but allowing a grace period to sell off current inventories may help secure
cooperation, as it did in New York City.
Require replacement of existing fixtures
The Monterrey Peninsula Water Management District in California requires property
owners to replace all conventional fixtures with water efficient fixtures before selling properties.
Monterrey Peninsula and the City of Austin also require that businesses and, in Austin, multi-
family apanments, replace all inefficient fixtures.
This measure has higher private costs because affected parties are required to buy and
install new fixtures, but it has the advantage of providing short term as well as long term
savings. Water bill savings will often offset the cost of new fixtures in less than three years for
faucets and showerheads and less than six years for toilets. The City of Austin secured business
community support for their replacement requirement by educating business people about the
financial benefits of water conservation and exempting businesses from the requirements where
a two-year pay back period is not possible.
Where the requirement applies to change of ownership, the buyer, rather than the seller,
obtains these savings. Some or all of the cost of the fixtures may be added to the price of the
property, however. Realtors and people planning to buy or sell property are likely to oppose this
measure. Opposition to a requirement of this type established by the Marin Municipal Water
District was so strong that the requirement was repealed.
Require retrofit devices for existing fixtures
This is similar to the preceding measure, but property owners may install relatively
inexpensive retrofit devices, such as flow restrictors and aerators to modify showerheads and
faucets, and dual flush valves, adjustable flappers, or fluidmaster valves to modify toilets instead
of buying new fixtures.
The City of San Francisco requires retrofitting or replacement of all inefficient fixtures
in residential and commercial properties by mid-1994. The Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power requires customers to install kits that they provide for free in an attempt to obtain a
higher participation rate than traditional "give away" programs.
Retrofit devices used to limit the flow rates of fixtures can break or lose effectiveness
over time and can be removed easily, so water savings will not be as great for programs
requiring retrofit devices as they are for programs requiring more costly but more effective
-------
replacement fixtures. Complete retrofit kits can be obtained for less than $10, which will
generally be covered by water bill reductions in less than a year. The estimated useful lifetime
of toilet retrofit devices is five years.
Require insulation for hot water pipes
Builders are required to insulate hot water pipes in new construction to save energy and
reduce the amount of water wasted from running cold water out of uninsulated hot water pipes.
According to one estimate, this measure saves around two gallons per person per day. Energy
consumption is also reduced by about 5.8 therms per capita per year. While the general
population may be receptive to this measure, construction and development business interests
may resist, since the measure will impose higher construction costs • around $200 per
household.
OUTDOOR WATER EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS
Many communities have used requirements for water efficient landscape and irrigation
system design to minimize the strain on water resources created by new development. Such
measures can be applied to residential development, commercial development, and public of
private recreation areas and golf courses. Commercial developers and golf-courses may be able
and willing to make larger investments in efficiency than single family homeowners and
residential developers. Consequently, it may be appropriate to develop more stringent
requirements for these groups. Applying stringent requirements to public parks also helps secure
cooperation with ordinance requirements by setting a good example.
The potential for water use reduction through these measures is high. Outdoor water use,
which generally accounts for 30% to 60% of residential use, can be reduced by 50% or more
through efficient landscaping, irrigation and maintenance. The measures listed in the next two
sections are often used in combination, so it is difficult to attribute portions of total water use
reductions that have been achieved to the separate measures.
The recently-coined adjective "Xeriscape" (TM) is used to describe water-efficient
landscaping and irrigation design. Xeriscape landscaping involves seven basic principles: 1)
proper design, 2) soil improvement, 3) use of mulches, 4) reduction of turf areas, 5) zoning of
irrigation systems on the basis of water requirements, 6) selection of low-water demand plants,
and 7) attentive maintenance. Timing irrigation to reduce evaporation also increases water
efficiency. Adherence to these principles often reduces labor, fuel, and chemical costs as well
as water use. The measures listed below can be used to require adherence to these principles.
Initial resistance to landscaping ordinances may be high, but an aggressive education
campaign can be used to convince the public that xeriscape landscape is an attractive alternative
to conventional landscape. For suggestions on securing public acceptance of this type of
-------
measure, see Xeriscape Programs for Water Utilities by Ken Ball published by the AWWA.4
The following sections cover three categories of outdoor water use ordinance provisons:
landcape design efficiency requirements, irrigation efficiency requirements, and other outdoor
water use requirements, including prohibition of wasteful use and required use of reclaimed
water for large users. Although landscape design and irrigation requirements are treated
separately here, they are often combined in a single ordinance.
LANDSCAPE DESIGN EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS
Require submission of landscape plans.
Some communities require plans detailing water efficiency measures in landscaping for
all new development projects or new projects over a certain size. This measure reduces the risk
of property owners installing a landscape that does not comply with the local requirements. The
plans are reviewed to ensure compliance with requirements, such as those listed below, for
landscape water use efficiency. Marin Municipal Water District distributes standard forms and
checklists to make it easier for landscapes to develop plans that comply with requirements.
Limit amount of turf and high water use plants
Turf areas provide a desirable ground cover for areas for walking and playing in, but
alternative ground cover with lower water use should be planted in other areas. Turf uses much
more water than many other forms of alternative ground cover. Water for grass in residential,
parks, and commercial development often accounts for 75% to 95% of summer outdoor water
use.
Establishing limits on the percentage of new landscaped areas planted in turf, other high
water use plants, and decorative water features reduces outdoor water use. The Marin Municipal
Water District allows a maximum of 35 % of the total landscaped area to be planted in turf and
other high water use plants. This type of requirement is most easily enforced by requiring
submission and approval of landscape plans.
Limit landscape water consumption
Sacramento County's landscape ordinance establishes limits on average water
consumption per square foot for landscaped areas. The California Model Landscape Ordiance
establishes limits on total water consumption for landscaped areas. The details of their
approaches for calculating water consumption limits are discussed in the Sacramento County case
study and the section on the California Model Landscape Ordinance.
Mr. Ball's suggestions include creating demonstration
gardens, distributing public information materials, holding classes
and conferences, and sponsoring awards and contests.
-------
Establishing a total or average water consumption limit allows landscape designers greater
flexibility in choosing plant materials than limiting the percentage of lots planted in turf or other
high water use plants. However, calculating total or average water consumption is more difficult
than calculating percentage areas and requires more time for plan review.
Prohibit planting turf in narrow strips
Turf in narrow strips is seldom used for recreation and can consequently be replaced
without interfering with the function of the landscaped area. Irrigating narrow strips results in
relatively large quantities of runoff and can also reduce the effective lifetime of surfaces
receiving runoff. The North Marin and Marin Municipal Water Districts prohibit narrow turf
strips. This type of measure can be enforced through landscape plan review.
IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS
Landscape irrigation efficiency typically ranges from 50% to 80%.7 In other words, 20%
to 50% of the water applied to turf grass evaporates, percolates past the root zone, or runs off
before it can be used by plants. Careful irrigation system design, operation, and maintenance
yields significant water use reductions. Even in South Florida, where annual precipitation is
around 60 inches, irrigation is required in dry periods. Water use reductions of 30% to 80%
have been achieved even in this relatively wet climate.
Require efficient irrigation systems
The California and Florida model landscape ordinances and several cities require efficient
irrigation systems for new landscapes. Low precipitation sprinkler heads, drip irrigation systems,
systems with multiple zones corresponding to different water requirements of plant groups, and
systems with electronic controllers to control timing of irrigation and rain sensor shutoff devices
help eliminate water waste. Properly designed irrigation systems reduce or eliminate over-
watering, loss of water by passage through the root zone, and evaporation. This type of
requirement can be enforced through landscape plan review. An sample set of required
components for efficient systems is included in the model landscape and irrigation ordinance
presented in Appendix A.
This measure yields good long term results, but, because it only applies to new
development, yields relatively small short term results. It may be possible to apply this measure
to existing landscapes, particularly those in the commercial sector where the affected parties may
be able bear the cost. This would yield higher short term water use reductions albeit at a higher
cost. However, we have not discovered any cases where local governments require replacement
of existing systems other than maintenance requirements.
7 Haddaus, William 0. Water Conservation. American Water Works
Association, Denver, CO. 1987. pg. 48.
10
-------
Limit scheduling of irrigation
This measure yields both short term and long term results by requiring a behavioral
change affecting both new and existing landscapes. An agressive and continuous enforcement
program should accompanied by and education campaign may be necessary to secure public
compliance.
Irrigating early in the morning when it is relatively cool and humid instead of in the
afternoon when it is relatively hot and dry reduces evaporation losses. Tampa, Florida, and
several other cities have adopted this measure.
Some local governments have also established alternate day watering requirements.
Irrigation makes up a large part of peak summer demand in some communities. By requiring
properties on either side of the street to irrigate on different days, irrigation water demand can
be evenly spread out through the week, reducing random peaks.
Require site preparation for new landscaping.
The California and Florida model landscape ordinances and several community
ordinances require scarification of soil, addition of organic material, and mulching prior to
landscape installation. These measures help reduce evaporation and percolation of irrigation
water below the root zone of plants, increasing irrigation efficiency. This measure can be
enforced through landscape plan review.
OTHER OUTDOOR WATER USE LIMITS
Prohibit "wasteful use"
Many communities have established prohibitions on wasteful use as a short-term response
to drought-related emergencies. Finding these measures effective in reducing water use, some
communities have left them in place after drought emergencies have ended. Runoff and over-
spray from irrigation systems to impervious surface is prohibited and customers are required to
maintain their irrigation systems, repairing leaks when they occur. Outdoor hose-cleaning may
also be prohibited as part of this measure. Officials in the City of Fresno estimate that the local
water waste ordinance reduced overall demand by 10%. This type of measure requites
continuous enforcement.
Limit or prohibit use of potable water for decorative features
Some communities have established limits on the percentage of landscaped areas that are
used for lakes and fountains or prohibit the use of potable water for decorative water features
altogether. This measure will yield large reductions in communities where decorative water
features are common. In general, higher-income households and commercial properties are more
likely to have decorative water features.
11
-------
Limit swimming pool refilling
Frequent swimming pool water changes can be reduced. In Fresno, refilling is permitted
only one every three years, or when demonstrably necessary to eliminate buildup of cyanuric
acid, TDS, and calcium. This type of measure requires a new enforcement program.
Require use of reclaimed effluent for commercial turf-related facilities
Commercial turf-related facilities, such as golf courses use large amounts of water for
irrigation. Some communities have found it economically feasible to treat waste water to a level
where it can be applied as irrigation water, providing an alternative to potable water when
supplies are scarce. Commercial turf-related facilities with large irrigation water demand may
be required to use reclaimed water instead of potable water for irrigation. Reclaimed water
distribution system requirements are also discussed below in the section on growth and
development-related ordinances.
The cost of this type of measure depends on the cost of providing non-potable water,
which is extremely variable. The City of Mesa treats wastewater and uses it for aquifer
recharge. The wastewater can then be withdrawn from the aquifer by commercial turf facilities.
The total cost of providing this reclaimed water is $300 per acre foot, substantially greater than
the average cost of providing potable surface water, $45 per acre foot. But given the limited
supply of potable water, Mesa plans to require that turf facilities use the more expensive
reclaimed water. Rates have not been determined, but the price of reclaimed water will probably
be subsidized through higher rates for potable water.
COOLING WATER EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS
Prohibit once through cooling
Many large institutional, industrial, and commercial cooling systems discharge water after
it has passed through a single cycle. This measure requires recycling of a portion of the cooling
water. Phoenix, Denver, and New York city all prohibit once-through cooling.
Prohibitions on once through cooling in "existing systems might seem costsly, but they
may actually save money. The Norton Company in Worcester, MA invested $320,000 in a
cooling tower system to recycle cooling water. The towers save over 152 million gallons a year.
Assuming a water rate of $1 per thousand gallons, water bill savings would cover the cost of
this system in just over two years. This does not even include wastewater disposal charges.
Combined water and wastewater rates can reach as high as $6 per thousand gallons, in which
case a system like this one would pay for itself in under five months.
12
-------
Require water conservation devices for evaporative coolers
Reductions in water use for smaller cooling units in residential and commercial properties
are also possible. The City of Fresno, California, requires that evaporative coolers be equipped
with water conservation devices.
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES
Several communities, faced with severe water shortages, have taken steps to limit
development, including prohibiting all new development, limiting the amount of new
construction and distributing permits by lottery, requiring builders to offset predicted demand
from new construction by retrofitting existing buildings, requiring new developments to use
reclaimed water, and limiting density but allowing higher density development if new
construction and landscaping is water efficient. Some communities offer hookup fee rebates to
encourage water efficiency in new development. Other communities have discovered that
departing from traditional patterns of development can help encourage water efficiency by
maintaining natural open spaces instead of creating new irrigated landscape.
Allow development patterns that encourage water efficiency
Land use planning commissions often establish minimum open space requirements for
development and minimum set backs (distance of structures) from property lines. These
requirements are commonly incorporated in zoning laws and may vary by zone. Modification
of these types of regulation may encourage more water efficient landscaping.
Land use planners can allow developers to group buildings together in a smaller area
while maintaining the same total open space requirement in an common area around the group
of buildings. This practice is sometimes referred to as cluster development. The housing area
can be further centralized by allowing builders to eliminate side yards and build adjoining BOW
houses. This practice is sometimes referred to as attached housing development. By only
landscaping the area immediately around the buildings and allowing natural native vegetation,
which does not require irrigation, to grow in the rest of the required open space area, developers
can reduce irrigation water demand while preserving landscape values, observing open space
requirements, and providing natural habitat.
The preceding measures can be used to encourage greater use of natural landscape,
reducing water use while preserving the same amount of open space. Requirements for open
space can also be reduced, encouraging developers to replace landscape with additional structure
space. Zero lot line development is a technique for reducing open space requirements by
eliminating setback requirements (minimum distances between structures and lot lines) on one
side of every lot. Because setback requirements for one side of the lot are preserved, a space
is maintained between each structure. The same effect can be achieved by halving the setback
requirements on both sides. The advantage to zero lot line regulations appears to be in giving
property owners responsibility for one relatively large side yard rather than two side yards of
13
-------
half the size.
Limit number of new construction (and water hookup) permits
Growth moratoriums or limitations may be established when municipal demand
approaches supply capacity. Available construction permits may be distributed by lottery, by
evaluating the merits of various proposals, by allowing each approved development a set
percentage of planned construction, or on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Require builders to offset predicted increase in water demand
Santa Barbara, Lompoc, and Mono Bay, which is included as a case study, have required
builders to install water-efficient devices in existing buildings in order to offset predicted demand
in proposed new projects. Alternatively, the builder might be required to contribute funds for
a local program to reduce existing demand. These communities have required the ratio of
predicted water conserved through retrofitting to predicted demand to be greater than one to one
in order to leave a margin of error, ensuring that demand will not increase, or to secure net
reductions in demand. Methodologies for calculating offset requirements are presented in
Appendix C.
Limit development density based on water consumption
The County of Santa Fe, New Mexico has development density limits that are based on
predicted water supply and demand. Several years ago, county authorities decided to allow
higher density development for water efficient construction and landscaping.
Where density limits already exist, developers will be happy to have an opportunity to
exceed them in cases where the cost of the measures required to obtain an exemption exceed the
economic benefits of higher density development. This measure does not necessarily decrease
water demand or reduce growth in water demand; it allows a higher rate of population growth
while holding growth in water demand constant. Some community members may be opposed to
higher density development.
Water use reductions achieved under the three preceding measures are all dependent on
the growth rate of the community. Water use reductions can be estimated by projecting future
growth in water use with and without the ordinances. The public cost of these administering
these programs is moderate.
The political acceptability of these measures will vary greatly, depending on whether the
community is generally pro-growth or anti-growth. In most cases, construction companies will
be very strongly opposed to this type of measure. However, some citizens may be in favor of
limits to growth regardless of water demand implications. If the measures were passed, the
reluctance of construction interests to comply would not be of great concern, since non-
compliance would be very obvious and enforcement would not be difficult.
14
-------
Private costs for entities holding undeveloped property could be considered high.
Significant private costs are also involved where builders are required to offset demand increases
caused by new development by retrofitting existing buildings. These costs may be passed on to
those purchasing developed property. Case law has not conclusively determined whether or in
what circumstances this type of measure would constitute a taking.
Require new developments to install reclaimed water distribution systems
Several communities around the country have built systems to treat wastewater and
redistribute it for irrigation or cooling water use. Ordinances requiring use of reclaimed water
for irrigation are discussed in the section on outdoor water use above. Reclaimed water can also
be used for toilet flushing. The City of Altamonte Springs, California requires installation of
reclaimed water lines for all properties in new developments. The Irvine Ranch Water District
in California requires installation of dual distribution systems to supply water for toilet flushing
for all new buildings over 55 feet in areas where reclaimed water is available.
Establish differential hookup fees
Water service hookup fees are designed to cover part or all of the increase in fixed costs
for water service created by new development. Some water providers charge a fixed hookup fee
for several classes of users. Alternatively, predicted rales of water use based on the
characteristics of landscape and interior fixtures can be used as criteria for a system of fees and
rebates rewarding builders who pursue water conservation and penalizing those who do not. Fees
and rebates can be set so that the measure is revenue neutral. North Marin Water District, which
is included as a case study, offers rebates for landscape water efficiency. A sliding-scale fee
system, where hookup applicants are charged a certain fee per gallon of predicted water use,
achieves a similar effect. Monterrey, California, uses a point system to determine hook-up fees.
STATE MODEL ORDINANCES
Two states, California and Florida, have enacted legislation that requires local
governments to consider implementing measures to promote landscape water efficiency. In both
states, communities have the option of making a formal finding that ordinances are not needed.
The Florida legislation, however, requires local governments to promote xeriscape landscaping
through education and apply xeriscape principles in public projects. Both states have developed
model landscape ordinances, which are summarized below. The Colorado Water Utility Council
has developed several model ordinances, but state government does not require implementation
01 consideration of the ordinances.
California Model Landscape Ordinance
The California Model Ordinance requires landscape and irrigation plans for new public
or developer-installed landscapes over 2,500 square feet. The Ordinance includes a formula for
calculating the "maximum applied water allowance" (MAWA) for subclimates in California. The
15
-------
MAWA is approximately half the amount of water needed to irrigate 4 to 7 inch cool season
grass at an irrigation efficiency of 62.5X.1 Landscapes are required to calculate the total water
use of the projects, which must be less than the MAWA. This approach allows flexibility for
landscape designers, who can use any mix of plants as long as average water consumption is half
that of grass. The ordinance includes several requirements to ensure that the plan employs the
principles of xeriscape landscaping.
The model ordinance requires use of recycled water unless a written exemption is
provided. (Many communities may eliminate mis provision, since recycled water is not
commonly available.) The irrigation design section also requires separate meters for all projects
over 5,000 square feet, except for single-family residences.
For all new and existing landscapes, regardless of size, the ordinance establishes a
prohibition on runoff. Irrigation audits for all existing landscaped areas over one acre are
required once every five years, unless water use is demonstrated be under the MAWA calculated
for the area.
The ordinance also requires local governments to distribute educational materials on water
efficient landscaping to all new single-family home owners and promote water efficient
landscaping throughout the general community with an education program. Developments with
eight homes or more are required to have a model home with signs explaining the application
of water efficient landscaping-principles.
Communities are not required to enact the ordinance in its entirety as long as they take
action before January 1, 1993. If they do not, the model ordinance takes effect automatically
under state law. Local governments are free to remove or add provisions from the ordinance.
Florida Model Landscape Ordinance
The St. John's and South Florida Water Management Districts have cooperated to
produce a draft model ordinance, published in 1992 as part of their comprehensive water demand
management programs. Local governments are encouraged to adopt the model ordinance. The
requirements of the model ordinance apply to planned unit developments, subdivisions, and other
projects that would require site plan review under local regulations.
The provisions of the ordinance essentially require landscapers to apply xeriscape
principles. The ordinance requires appropriate plant selection and practical turf areas, but does
not establish numerical limits on water use or turf area. The ordinance specifies that plans that
incorporate the principles as required will be expedited through plan review.
6 Irrigation efficiency is the percentage of the water applied
that is taken up by plants rather than running off, percolating
past the root zone, or evaporating.
16
-------
The ordinance includes language offering licensing fee discounts for attending water-
efficient landscaping workshops. In addition, water bill discounts are offered for those who
voluntarily comply with the ordinance even though they are not covered under the ordinance.
Colorado Model Ordini
The Colorado Water Utility Council has developed a package of several model
ordinances, including a water efficient plumbing ordinance for new construction and replacement
of fixtures, water efficiency requirements for public open spaces, and local education projects
to encourage water efficiency. The package also contains a list of additional measures including
time of day limits for landscape irrigation, prohibition of potable water use in decorative water
features, hose-cleaning prohibitions, restaurants serve water only on request, prohibition of
potable water use for dust control in construction if other sources of water are available, and
leak repair requirements.
Local governments are not required to implement water conservation ordinances..
However, the state does request water conservation management plans from water suppliers
providing over 2,000 acre feet per year - about 30 state-wide - and encourages local
governments and water suppliers to consider implementing water efficiency ordinances.
Management plans are not required, but are a prerequisite for receiving funds from the Colorado
Water Conservation Board or funds from the Colorado Water and Power Authority for
conservation programs and infrastructure development.
CASE STUDIES
In order to provide an overview of strategies that contribute to the success of water
efficiency ordinances, case study interviews of representatives from several communities with
water efficiency ordinances were conducted.
Selection of case study cities
Several experts on local water conservation efforts were interviewed to identify cities
with conservation ordinances that illuminate important factors contributing to success or failure
of local efforts. A few of the cities discussed below were identified by conservation experts. The
remaining cities were selected on the basis of their responses to a solicitation for information on
local ordinances sent out by the American Water Works Association Conservation Committee.
Cities with ordinances with measures of particular interest or unusually expansive responses to
questions in the solicitation were selected for interviews. In addition to these considerations,
cities were selected on the basis of geographic diversity. The case studies provide illustrative
examples, but should not be interpreted as a comprehensive survey.
The information presented in the case examples is based on the text of the actual
ordinances and telephone interviews with one or two local experts conducted in the fall of 1992.
City officials responsible for designing ordinances were selected as interview respondents in
17
-------
order to obtain the most information from a single interview.
numbing fixture ordinance: Tampa, FL
The City of Tampa's 1990 ultra-low flow (ULF) plumbing code, which applies to
installation of new and replacement toilets, urinals, showerheads, and faucets, is deemed
particularly successful by regional experts. This success can be explained, at least in part, by
the inclusive approach the City has taken in designing ordinances and the City's outreach efforts.
The Tampa Water Department invited representatives of two key affected parties, the
Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling Contractors Association and the City Department of
Inspectional Services, to participate in designing the ordinance. The plumbing community was
opposed to the ordinance because of concerns about the performance of ulf fixtures. The City
addressed these concerns by providing documentation of the performance of water efficient
fixtures.
Once the initial design was completed, the City Council established a Water Conservation
Advisory Committee representing all interested parties, including industry, commercial business,
plumbing and building contractors and supply houses. Supply houses and contractors were
initially opposed to the ordinance because they were concerned that fixtures would not be
available in sufficient quantity. The City postponed the effective date of the ordinance for certain
fixtures in order to address this problem.
The ordinance is enforced by the City Department of Inspectional Services through their
existing plumbing permit and inspection system. Inspectional Services verifies the flow rates of
installed fixtures with the original manufacturers. The City has sent mailings to businesses and
professional associations in the plumbing contracting industry to secure voluntary compliance
and reduce enforcement costs.
Homeowners who replace their own toilets are also required by law to obtain permits
from Inspectional Services, but compliance with this requirement is probably low. According
to a staff member at the Water Department, the majority of fixture installations are associated
with growth and new construction, so efforts to. achieve a higher compliance rate in the do-it-
yourself replacement sector would not be very cost-effective.
Two additional suggestions for local governments planning to establish a plumbing
ordinance arose from this case: 1) encourage other local governments to get together and pass
identical ordinances simultaneously, thus establishing uniform requirements for all area
contractors and suppliers, and 2) incorporate fixture effectiveness and flow rate tests by
reference or establish a field testing program for fixtures.
18
-------
Point of sale plumbing fixture ordinance: New York City, NY
New York City passed a plumbing future efficiency ordinance establishing flow rate
limits that apply at the point of sale in 1989, but the ordinance did not take effect until 1992.
The ordinance was accepted in part because of the amount of time provided for affected parties
to achieve compliance. The main purpose of the ordinance is to mitigate the City's sewage
treatment and water supply problems. Recognition of the importance of these problems and the
need for a solution also contributed to public acceptance of the ordinance.
The City Council solicited testimony from various city agencies and representatives of
the plumbing industry. The City was particularly careful to ensure that the products required by
the ordinance would available in sufficient quantities when the ordinance took effect.
Representatives of the plumbing industry were initially concerned about drain line carry out
problems with ULF toilets. Once these groups were provided with test reports documenting
ability of 1.5 gallon per flush toilets to achieve satisfactory drain-line carry out, these groups
were fairly receptive to the proposed measures.
In order to encourage compliance with the new requirements, the City has conducted an
outreach program directed at retail plumbing supplier associations, other plumbing groups, and
the general public. The City also includes a section on plumbing futures in their training
program for multi-family building managers. A water audit program has been used to
demonstrate the benefits of 1.6 gpf toilets and convince the public of their desirability. Results
have been publicized in outreach efforts and media interviews. In addition to these efforts, the
City has set an example by using 1.6 gpf toilets in all replacements and new installations in
public buildings, including public housing, since 1991.
For the first six months following the effective date of the ordinance, the City focused
on public education and outreach efforts to secure voluntary compliance. The City is now
beginning a program of active enforcement. Preliminary results show that in general, compliance
is high, but there are exceptions. The City will notify retailers of violations and give them some
time to comply voluntarily before taking legal action.
Commercial plumbing retrofit ordinance: Austin, TX
The City of Austin developed and passed an ordinance requiring commercial buildings
to retrofit their plumbing fixtures to achieve lower flow rates as part of the city's response to
a water supply capacity problem that resulted in water rationing in the summer months.
The City's Resource Management Commission developed an initial draft which was sent
out to associations and organizations representing the groups affected by the ordinance and
relevant city offices. The City Council indicated general support for the measure. The affected
groups consequently cooperated with the Commission to develop an ordinance that would not
impose a great burden on them, rather than trying to avoid regulation entirely. The final
ordinance exempted businesses from retrofit requirements in cases where the simple payback
19
-------
period for the retrofit would be over two years. It was endorsed by most affected parties.
The City arranged publicity for the ordinance through the local media, provided training
sessions for affected building managers when the ordinance went into effect, and distributed
materials to explain the requirements and the types of technology that could be used to comply.
Vendors were invited to the training sessions to provide product information including cost. The
City also developed a spreadsheet package for estimating compliance costs and savings. Very
few businesses estimated payback periods of over two yean.
City staff developed a database of information about die approximately 6,000 target
buildings and distributed a survey to collect information on plumbing fixtures for the ordinance
as well as other information about water and electric consumption for future use. The City's
building inspectors incorporated site inspections for the retrofit ordinance into their schedule for
inspecting nearby new buildings. About 60% of the buildings covered by the ordinance were
inspected and compliance was about 80%.
The City Council's clear support of the measure coupled with the Commissions efforts
to include the affected groups in the design phase and the publicity and training efforts
contributed to the success of the ordinance.
Plumbing retrofit ordinance: San Francisco, CA
The City of San Francisco passed several separate ordinances in 1991 that require single
and multi-family residential and commercial property owners to install permanent retrofit devices
or replacement fixtures for faucets, toilets, and showerheads within three years of the effective
date of the applicable ordinance or prior to sale of the property, whichever occurs first. Toilet
dams and displacement bags are not considered permanent retrofit devices under the ordinance;
dual flush mechanisms, adjustable flappers, or fluidmaster valves are required.
Although San Francisco was in a declared drought emergency when the measure was
passed, city staff regard the measure as part of a general long-term conservation plan. They
believe that similar measures are appropriate for other communities with potential long-term
water shortages, regardless of whether or not there is an immediate crisis.
The ordinances were drafted by the Office of the City Supervisor in cooperation with the
City Attorney's Office and the San Francisco Water Department, which is part of the City's
Public Utilities Commission. With the exception of opposition from several individual realtors,
there was almost no public opposition to the ordinances. Realtors opposed the measures because
they believed they would discourage or delay changes in ownership. Many households and
businesses had already retrofitted their fixtures when the ordinances were passed.
The City Energy Department will certify compliance with change of ownership
requirements in conjunction with other routine inspections. The City provides affidavits to be
rilled out and signed by property owners to document compliance prior to the three year
20
-------
deadline.
Landscape water efficiency ordinance: Ventura, CA
Ventura County began to add water efficiency requirements to its landscape guidelines
in 1987. The guidelines are not in an ordinance, but County planners use the guidelines to decide
whether or not to approve landscape plans for developments in unincorporated areas of the
county.
The guidelines were developed and amended by the County Planning Division with the
assistance of an advisory committee composed of landscape architects and contractors, sod
growers, nurserymen, water utilities, irrigation specialists, representatives of city governments,
and other affected parties.
Without establishing specific limits, the guidelines discourage excessive use of turf and
require low-water use turf where large areas of turf are proposed. Water use classifications for
different landscape plant species are included in the guidelines to encourage the use of drought
tolerant plants. The only explicit limit in the guidelines applies to model homes, for which turf
areas are limited to 20% of the non-sloped area of the lot. Local developers have readily
cooperated with the planning staff in implementing the guidelines.
Landscape water efficiency ordinance: Marin Municipal Water District, CA
Mann Municipal Water District's first regulation addressing landscape water efficiency,
passed in 1986, was developed without substantial involvement of the regulated community.
In response to dissatisfaction with ambiguities in the ordinance, the Water District adopted a
redrafted version in August 1991 after a year of meetings with representatives of affected
groups, such as landscape architects and contractors, irrigation consultants, and developers.
The new ordinance retains the basic strategy of the first ordinance for controlling water
use: limits on the percentage of landscaped area planted in turf (25%) and other high water use
plants (10%). The ordinance also has provisions to ensure efficient irrigation and requires
submission of landscape and irrigation plans. The ordinance appb'es to new service connections
or applications for a change in character of service. Single family residences are only required
to comply with the turf limit and are exempt from other plant selection requirements and the
irrigation system requirements. However, voluntary compliance with the inapplicable
requirements is common.
Plans must be developed by state-licensed landscape architects. The Water District
distributes standard forms and checklists for standardizing landscape plan information. Plans
from an unfamiliar landscape architect are checked closely. Once an architect consistently has
demonstrated an understanding of the regulations, the Water District reviews the plans relatively
quickly. The average cost of plan review is included in the calculation of service connection
fees.
21
-------
Local jurisdictions ate asked to collect landscape plans from developers installing
landscapes and forward them to the Water District for review. The Water District is also
encouraging local jurisdictions to pass identical ordinances to reinforce the Water District's
requirements and comply with the California law requiring local governments to adopt an
ordinance or a rinding demonstrating that an ordinance is not appropriate. If local jurisdictions
pass different ordinances, conflict and confusion are likely to occur.
Landscape water efficiency ordinance: Sacramento County, CA
Sacramento County officials consulted extensively with nurserymen, turf growers,
landscape architects and contractors,
local environmental groups, the State University Extension Service's gardening expert, and local
water districts in designing their landscape water efficiency ordinance. Turf growers were
strongly opposed the ordinance and the planners of a large development fought to be exempted
from the ordinance, but were eventually included when the ordinance was passed in November
of 1990.
The ordinance establishes water use coefficients for three categories of plants, drought
tolerant (0.4), medium (1), and high (1.6). The average water use coefficient over the square
footage of the landscape area must be one or lower. The County adopted this approach instead
of the state model approach because it is simpler and easier for landscape architects and county
reviewers. At the same time, it allows more flexibility than the percentage limits on turf and
high water use plants in the Marin Municipal Water District ordinance.
The County initially encountered problems in implementing the ordinance because many
affected individuals were unaware of the requirements and submitted plans that did not comply.
Most area landscape architects, developers, and contractors have now been informed through
mass mailings coordinated through trade associations.
The County requires a final certification by a state-licensed landscape architect to ensure
that landscape contractors install the landscape in conformance with approved plans. In many
cases the final certification is not being submitted because developers do not want to pay
landscape architects to make a site visit for inspection. County staff have had to insist that the
certification is completed so that certificates of occupancy can be issued.
Landscape water efficiency ordinance: Riverside County, CA
The Riverside County Planning Department is in the process of drafting a landscape
water efficiency ordinance with the assistance of representatives from the building industry, the
green industry, realtors, environmentalists, and other concerned parties. The draft model is
similar to the California DWR model, but includes an alternative to the water budget approach.
A 'plant palette," which groups plants according to water use, is incorporated into the ordinance
by reference. Landscapers may comply with the ordinance by using plants from the various
groups in the plant palette on required fractions of the landscaped area.
22
-------
The County plans to allow compliance with regulations established by water purveyors
as an alternative to compliance with the County's ordinance, and is in the process of collecting
information on measures taken by water purveyors within the County. The County has not yet
decided whether less stringent requirements established by purveyors will be accepted as
alternatives to the County's requirements.
The County Planning Department anticipates that coordination between water purveyors
in the County's jurisdiction with different requirements will be one of the most difficult aspects
of implementing the ordinance. If possible, governments establishing ordinances should seek to
resolve multi-jurisdictional issues while designing the ordinance. A member of the planning
department staff also suggested that local governments planning to design ordinances that might
require plant water use estimates should study all the key sources of estimates prior to initiating
public hearings.
Landscape water efficiency ordinance: San Benito County, CA
In response to state legislation and drought conditions that had necessitated a moratorium
on new construction, San Benito County passed an ordinance that is almost identical to the
California state model ordinance in July, 1992. The County adopted the state model because
resource constraints precluded developing and considering alternative models.
The decision to adopt the state model ordinance with minor revisions was made by the
planning department without substantial participation of affected parties. Area developers were
primarily interested in getting the county to lift the construction moratorium and did want to
slow the process down by participating in the development of the landscape water efficiency
ordinance.
County officials plan to implement the ordinance by requiring an approved landscape plan
submitted by a certified landscape architect as a condition for new water entitlements.
Application processing fees will be established and set at a level that allows the County to
recover the cost of plan review. County building inspectors will probably inspect the final
landscaping on some projects to ensure compliance with approved plans.
Landscape water efficiency ordinance: Aurora, CO
The City of Aurora limits the amount of turf areas and requires soil preparation to
increase irrigation efficiency in new development. The turf limits are established on a sliding
scale so that smaller lots, while they are restricted to a smaller total square footage of turf, can
have a higher percentage of turf than larger lots.
The City has encountered some problems with the ordinance, which applies to developer-
installed landscape was well as home-owner installed landscape for new buildings. Developers
will often install turf in the front yard of a single family residence, using up all or most of the
turf allowance. The unwitting home buyer then often wants to put turf in the back yard but
23
-------
cannot. Meter readers for the water utility and civic "Welcome Wagon" groups distribute
information on the landscape ordinance to new homeowners. New homeowners may be angry
about the restrictions initially, but after consulting with city officials can usually be convinced
of the benefits of drought-tolerant landscaping. The ordinance allows the City to remove non-
complying landscapes at the owner's expense.
Time of day watering restriction and water waste prohibition: Tampa, FL
The City of Tampa's water department designed the City ordinance restricting time of
day for landscape irrigation and prohibiting water waste with the help of the South Florida Water
Management District, a state-authorized regional agency. Landscape companies, commercial
property owners and developers, and large property owners with poorly designed irrigation
systems were opposed to the ordinance.
The City publicized the ordinance with mass mailings and extensive press coverage.
While the City's Water Conservation manager feels that educating the public about the need for
the ordinance and the specific requirements of the ordinance has been important, she emphasizes
the need for active enforcement. The City employs four to seven "water cops" who verify citizen
complaints about neighbors' violations and issue warnings and citations. The first violation
results in a warning, the second in a $25 fine, the third in a S50 fine, and the fourth in a $200
fine. The City is considering turning off water service for those who violate the ordinance more
than four times.
Under the current ordinance, violations are a criminal offenses. The City is in the process
of decriminalizing violations, so that fines may be assessed without imposing an unnecessary
burden on the City court system, which is not consistently supportive of the Water Department's
efforts.
Outdoor water use restrictions: Fresno, CA
The City of Fresno passed its first ordinance restricting outdoor water use in 1957. This
ordinance restricted watering with an open hose, required repair of leaking irrigation systems,
and prohibited watering resulting in gutter flooding and hose-cleaning paved surfaces. The
ordinance was revised in 1989 and 1990 to restrict the time of 'day for irrigation to prevent
evaporation, establish alternate day watering schedules to reduce peak demand, prohibit
unnecessary swimming pool refilling, the use of outdoor evaporative coolers, and installation of
bluegrass lawns.
Most of the measures were established by the City Council or the Planning Department
with little input from the community. The limits on swimming pool refilling were substantially
revised after initial enactment to reflect various previously unrecognized situations where
swimming pool refilling is necessary. In general, there was very little political opposition to the
measures in the ordinance because the community was well aware of the water shortage and the
need for mitigating actions.
24
-------
The City implements the ordinance by issuing a wanting for the first violation and
charging a fee for subsequent violations identified through citizen complaints. The fee is included
in the violator's water utility bill. Second-time violators may attend a water awareness class in
lieu of paying the fee. If there is a fifth violation, the city can require a lawn water use audit,
a landscape evaluation, and any other measures necessary to achieve compliance with the
ordinance. The cost of the required actions is charged to the violator's bill from the City's water
utility. The City's enforcement program is very active; 15,000 warnings and fees were issued
in 1990 in this city of approximately 410,000 people. One violator was required to spend
$21,000 for a water audit and required improvements in the irrigation system for an apartment
complex with several acres of landscape.
DaveTodd, Fresno's Water Conservation Coordinator, feels that community involvement
in the ordinance design process is important. Community involvement is particularly important
in cases where the city depends on citizen complaints for enforcement. The water shortage
emergency in 1989 required the City to take rapid action and precluded extensive community
involvement, but earlier planning and increased citizen involvement might have resulted in a
greater "buy-in" from the community and greater reductions in water waste.
Landscape incentive program: Mesa, AZ
The City of Mesa Arizona has offered partial (up to 23 %) water development fee rebates
for installation of water efficient landscaping since 1984. Because the rebate only applies to fees
paid in 1984 or later, almost all applications are related to new, rather than retrofit, landscaping.
The City is considering opening the program to retrofit landscaping as well.
In order to qualify for the rebate, applicants must limit turf grass to 50% or less of the
total landscaped area. Inspections are made after landscape installation to determine eligibility.
Since 1984, the City has rebated over $1.1 million to 2,200 customers, primarily for
homeowner-installed landscape for single family residences. A preliminary study comparing 105
new conserving landscapes with 130 new non-conserving landscapes reveals a 25% reduction
in winter water use.
The City has not encountered any major problems with the rebate program. A City staff
member believes that it would have been very difficult to overcome political opposition to a
mandatory measure with similar requirements, and believes that the voluntary approach yields
similar results while maintaining good public relations for the city government.
Landscape Incentive program: North Marin Water District, CA
In 1989, North Marin Water District began offering a partial rebate on hookup fees for
developers who agreed to limit turf to the lesser of 400 square feet or 20% of the total
landscaped area for single unit buildings and 200 square feet per apartment for multi-unit
buildings. The rebate was initially set at $190 for single unit buildings and $95 per unit for
multi-unit buildings. Completed landscapes are inspected by Water District staff before rebates
25
-------
are issued.
In the second and third years of the program, more than 95% of new development
qualified for the credits. This success prompted the Water District to expand eligibility to
provide rebates for retrofit of existing landscape. The District is currently offering $35 per 100
square feet of landscaped area planted in xeriscape type landscape with no required minimum.
Maximum rebates are set at $200 for detached single unit and duplex buildings, $150 for
attached buildings with up to four units, and $100 for buildings with five or more units.
Landscape incentive program: Hays, KS
The City of Hays, Kansas, started a landscape rebate program in 1991 as part of a
response to a drought emergency. The rebate is administered by the Parks Department, which
offers 25% cost-share for landscape materials up to $500. In order to qualify, property owners
must limit cool season turf grass, which has relatively high water use requirements, to 40% or
less of the landscaped area. Warm season grasses, such as bermuda grass and buffalo grass, are
not limited. Rebate applicants must also mulch around accent plants. Rebate applicants are asked
to submit plans for approval prior to beginning projects. After installation is completed, a park
department employee conducts a drive-by inspection to confirm compliance with the approved
plan.
The rebate program was developed by the park director, the county extension agent, area
landscapes and nurseries, the city manager, and the city beautification committee. Participation
has been high. In. 1992, seventeen rebates were awarded. The city has set a good example by
replacing cool season turf grass in their parks with warm season turf grass. The city also uses
reclaimed effluent to water their municipal golf course.
Offset program: Morro Bay, CA
In 1977, the California Coastal Commission imposed a building moratorium on the City
of Mono Bay because further water withdrawals of groundwater would likely result in saltwater
intrusion. In 1982, the Coastal Commission approved a plan by the City to allow new
construction provided that the associated water demand would be offset by developers funding
City projects to repair leaking water mains. In 1985, the City, with approval of the Coastal
Commission, allowed builders to offset new demand by retrofitting fixtures in existing buildings.
Initially, builders were required to retrofit to yield a predicted demand reduction of twice
the amount of the predicted increase in demand from new buildings. Studies of 1985 and 1986
retrofit projects conducted in 1987 revealed that the ratio of retrofit savings to new demand was
only 0.86:1, far short of the 2:1 target. In 1988, savings were once again calculated at less than
1:1. Consequently, in 1989, the formula for estimating savings from retrofit projects was
revised: savings estimates were cut roughly in half. At the same time, the required savings ratio
was revised from 2:1 to 1.5:1. Under the current system, 11 to 20 residences, depending on
existing plumbing, must be retrofitted before a single new home can be built. The total cost for
26
-------
such retrofits would be roughly $4,000 to $8,000.
New construction was suspended entirely at the end of 1989 in response to a continuing
drought emergency. In the four years that the offset program operated, about 2,000 of the
approximately 5,000 homes in Morro Bay were retrofitted, enabling the construction of 200 new
single-family residences, 50 multi-family residences, and several commercial buildings.
Point system: Boulder, CO
Hie City of Boulder uses a point system to encourage water and energy efficiency in new
development. Potential builders are required to earn twenty "resource conservation option
points" assigned to a list of options in order to get a building permit. For example, use of
aerators and flow reducing showerheads earns one point and insulation 25 % or more above R-19
for walls earns two points.
The measure was established by the City Council in the early 1980's and was intended
primarily to reduce fossil fuel use, with water conservation as a secondary goal. Builders,
realtors, and other interested parties in the community participated actively in the design of the
ordinance, which was widely supported in this liberal, environmentally-conscious university
community. Many home buyers were already demanding energy-efficient homes and many of
the measures listed in the ordinance were already widely practiced.
The point values for the options are loosely based on total estimated energy savings for
each option, with some consideration of the capital requirements of the option and the payback
period. Options requiring large capital investment and having long payback periods, such as use
of photovoltaic cells, are given extra points to encourage the use of emerging technologies that
are not yet fully cost-effective.
City inspectors check to make sure the options in the building permit application are in
place prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy. The City has not experienced any difficulties
with implementing the ordinance. The ordinance will probably be revised to include more
stringent standards sometime in the next year.
Landscape Point System: Indian River County, FL
Indian River County passed and ordinance regulating landscape installation in multi-lot
developments in 1990. The regulations require developers to accumulate a certain number of
points from a list of options which include moisture controllers for irrigation systems, separate
irrigation zones, use of drought tolerant plants and trees, reduced turf use, and use of native
plants.
The regulations were developed with the cooperation of professional groups and
individual businesses representing developers, landscape architects, horticulturalists, and
irrigation specialists. The design group took ideas from other ordinances, including the South
27
-------
Florida Water Management District's model ordinance, the Boca Raton ordinance, which also
uses a point system, and a model of buffer requirements developed by the Florida Department
of Community Affairs.
The ordinance passed without political opposition and there have been no problems in
enforcing and implementing it. The head of the County Planning Division highly recommends
using a flexible approach like the point system to give developers a range of alternatives for
meeting community goals.
SELECTING, DESIGNING, IMPLEMENTING, AND ENFORCING ORDINANCES
The experience of the case study communities illuminates some important points to
consider in selecting, designing, implementing, and enforcing ordinances.
Select appropriate ordinances for your community
A variety of considerations, such as the ratio of indoor to outdoor use, average age of
plumbing fixtures, the ratio of residential to commercial demand, the level of concern with water
efficiency in the residential and commercial sectors, residential and commercial growth rates,
and the short term and long term needs that provide motivation for water efficiency ordinances,
should be taken into account in selecting ordinances.
Where short term water supply and wastewater treatment capacity are adequate and
ordinances are motivated mostly by long term concerns, ordinances that only affect water use
in new development may be most appropriate. These ordinances generally have relatively low
public and private costs and provide effective long term savings. Low private costs contribute
to public acceptability, which may be particularly important in communities where there is no
short term crisis to create concern about water efficiency. Because new development accounts
for a small portion of current period demand, however these ordinances would not be sufficient
for a community with a short term problem.
Where short term water supply or wastewater treatment capacity is a problem, ordinances
affecting existing as well as new development may be necessary. For example, plumbing fixture,
landscape, and irrigation requirements for new construction may not be sufficient to correct short
term supply problems. Behavioral changes enforced through time of day watering restrictions
and water waste prohibitions and near-term replacment of existing plumbing fixtures may be
necessary.
Because these ordinances require either changes in behavior or replacement of existing
equipment (where replacement might otherwise be uneccessary) they impose relatively high
public and private cost, and are thus less acceptable to the public than ordinances that affect only
new development. However, public resistance to these more costly measures can be overcome
by increasing awareness of the immediate need for water efficiency.
28
-------
Involve others in the design phase
Providing an opportunity for all affected groups to participate gives the local government
an opportunity to respond to criticisms of regulatory strategies, incorporate the valid criticisms
of affected parties, and encourage the affected parties to feel that they are pan of a cooperative
voluntary process rather than an adversarial regulatory process. .Ordinances developed in
consultation with affected parties are likely to be easier to implement and enforce.
For example, in designing a landscape ordinance, a local government might solicit the
participation of representatives of local developers and building contractors, landscape architects,
nurseries, irrigation specialists, and turf growers. Officials should anticipate the response of the
regulated community to proposed measures and be prepared to answer questions about
effectiveness of measures, private costs and benefits, and the public need for measures.
It is also important to involve other parts of local government and water and wastewater
utilities that may be involved in enforcement of the ordinance or have some interest in the
outcome. For instance, if the planning department is designing a plumbing ordinance, they
should include the local water department or public works department and the building inspectors
office.
Communities that have taken this approach have usually arrived at an ordinance that is
acceptable to most, if not all, affected parties and have been able to pass their ordinances with
relatively little political opposition. Communities that have taken this approach have also found
that voluntary cooperation with ordinances is high and need for enforcement is relatively low.
Communities that have failed to include affected parties in ordinance design have sometimes
found that their requirements were misunderstood or were not the most effective approach
possible, and have met with greater reluctance to comply with requirements.
Experiment with designs that allow flexibility
Several communities have cited innovative performance standards, such as point systems
or systems based on average water use, rather than rigid requirements for specific design
techniques or technologies, as important in securing cooperation and maintaining good public
relations. Allowing developers or landscapes to choose between several options for achieving
water efficiency leaves flexibility for aesthetic design considerations and cost-effective attainment
of goals.
Coordinate with existing programs to reduce enforcement costs
Enforcement of new water efficiency requirements can often be combined with existing
enforcement programs in local government. Plumbing requirements can almost always be
incorporated into existing plumbing and building code inspections with the cooperation of the
appropriate department of local government. For example, one city used the water department's
billing system to assess fines for non-compliance with outdoor water use restrictions.
29
-------
Coordinate with other jurisdictions
Neighboring local government entities or water districts may also be interested in
implementing water efficiency ordinances. Area businesses, such as landscape contractors and
plumbing fixtures suppliers, may serve clients in several jurisdictions. Coordinating with
neighboring local governments to establish identical, or at least similar requirements, will make
it easier for affected parties to understand and comply with requirements.
Educate affected parties about the ordinance
Once the local government and the representatives of affected parties agree on the
substance of the ordinance, the requirements must be transmitted to the affected parties. The
group representatives that participated in ordinance design can be helpful in getting the word out.
The government should make sure to include an explanation of the need for the measure, the
endorsement of group representatives when available, and an explanation of enforcement
provisions.
Education programs targeted at suppliers, for instance landscape designers, plumbers, or
hardware stores, are generally more cost-effective in ensuring compliance with ordinances than
education programs targeted at consumers, because the same goals can be achieved by reaching
a smaller population. However, education programs for the general public, in addition to
explaining the need for water efficiency and explaining ordinance requirements, can include
suggestions for behavioral changes, such as taking shorter showers, producing additional
benefits. Education programs that increase overall environmental awareness will also increase
public recognition of the importance of water efficiency.
Include a credible threat of enforcement
Several communities cited their active, citizen complaint driven enforcement programs
as particularly important to the success of their ordinances. Education and public information
programs that enlist citizens as watchdogs helps provide a credible threat of enforcement at a
relatively low cost. Enforcement is particularly important for ordinances which require daily
behavioral changes from the general public, such as outdoor water use restrictions.
Incorporate ordinances with other approaches
Ordinances can help communities reach water efficiency goals, but they are only one
element of a successful approach. A mix of ordinances, education programs, incentives, and
system-wide measures like leak detection and repair, selected through coordinated least cost
planning will yield the best results.
Water and wastewater utilities should develop least cost plans and should cooperate with
local governments to develop a comprehensive approach to resource conservation. Energy
utilities should also participate in coordinated planning, since water efficiency measures can also
30
-------
reduce electricity consumption. Water and energy utilities can often increase program cost-
effectiveness by combining programs, such as efficient device giveaways or efficiency audits.
Local governments in areas with water shortages should consider how water that is saved
through efficiency will be allocated between competing interests. In some cases, it may be
prudent to limit growth or redirect conserved water to the environment, so that some of the
water provided through water efficiency is reserved to supply future needs and protect against
shortages in times of drought emergency.
By cooperating to develop a coordinated mix of ordinances, financial incentives,
information programs, and system-wide measures to promote water efficiency, local governments
and utilities can save money by reducing local infrastructure needs and stretching existing supply
to accommodate growth. At the same time, by taking these steps, local governments and utilities
help to protect the environment.
31
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank all the local government representatives who took the time to discuss their
valuable experience with me and contributed their insight to this paper.
James Fryer, Marin Municipal Water District
Denis Poggio, Marin Municipal Water District
John Nelson, North Marin Water District
Al Krause, US EPA Region V
Marcia Luarent, Mono Bay Planning Department
Gary Krutctuner, Aurora Department of Community Planning and Development
JoeUa Jacobi, Sacramento County
Kim Kinna, City of San Francisco
Caroline Luna, Riverside County
Peter Chamberlain, San Benito County Planning Department
Wendy Nero, City of Tampa
Dave Todd, City of Fresno
Elizabeth Miller, City of Mesa
Ellen Dumm, City of Aurora
Joyce Reed, North Marin Water District
John Shaver, City of Hays
Roland Deblois, Indian River County Planning Division
Wendy Nero, City of Tampa Water Conservation Manager
Steven Ostrega, Assistant Commissioner, NYC Bureau of Energy
Dominque Lueckenhoff, Region HI EPA, formerly City of Austin
Ron Allen, Ventura County Planning Division
Lou Kavouras, South Florida Water Management District
Gene Caputo, South Florida Water Management District
and the many others who have helped write this paper
...and special thanks to...
Cindy Dyballa, US EPA
Rick Harmon, American Water Works Association
...without whose guidance and assistance this paper would not have been possible.
32
-------
(3) Faucet flow rates shall not exceed 2.5 gallons per minute when both hot and cold faucets
are in full open position.
(4) Lavatory faucets in public facilities shall be equipped with automatic shut-off valves or
shall have a flow rate of 0.25 gallons per minute or less when both hot and cold faucets
are in full open position.
(5) Urinals shall not use more than 1 gallon per flush.
(6) Toilets and urinals shall not be equipped with timing devices to flush periodically
irrespective of demand.
(7) Flushometer type water closets shall adequately flush and clean fixtures and shall
discharge no more than three gallons per flush.
Section IV. Insulation of hot water pipes.
All hot water pipes in new construction shall be thermally insulated.
Section V. Exceptions.
The requirements established in Section 3 shall not apply to fixtures used for sanitary or
safety purposes in health care facilities, or to fixtures used for safety purposes in facilities where
hazardous wastes are present and where health and safety might be adversely affected by limited
flow rates. At the discretion of the [appropriate authority], exemption from the requirements
established in Section 3 may be granted in cases where the requirements would impose an
unusual hardship, create a health hazard, interfere with use by the physically challenged, or
would require replumbing, or in the instance of any other justifiable cause beyond the control
of the builder. Exemption shall be granted in writing and the cause for exemption shall be noted.
Section VI. Severability.
It is the intent of the [body enacting the ordinance] that the provisions of this ordinance
shall be severable, and, accordingly, invalidity of any part of this ordinance shall not affect the
validity of the other part.
Section VII. Effective date.
This ordinance shall become effective on [date].
RETROFIT DEVICE ORDINANCE
I. Applicability.
(A) The requirements established in the ordinance shall apply to the following facilities,
except as provided in part B below:
(1) apartment complexes with five or more rental units,
(2) commercial buildings,
(3) hotels and motels,
-------
APPENDIX A
MODEL CODES
The following model ordinances represent a synthesis of the provisions and language of
several ordinances. Each ordinances contains optional provisions ranging from minimal to
stringent requirements. The ordinances are organized so that local planners can easily remove
provisions that they feel are not necessary or appropriate for their community. For example, the
plumbing fixture efficiency standards ordinance has three separate applicability categories: new
and replacement fixtures, existing fixtures, and point of sale. Communities may take a moderate
approach addressing only the installation of new and replacement fixtures, or they may apply
requirements to existing fixtures and/or at the point of sale as well.
Model ordinances establishing requirements for plumbing efficiency, retrofit device
installation, outdoor water use, water efficient landscaping, pressure reduction, cooling system
efficiency, offsets for new construction, and car wash recycling are provided below. A "findings
of fact" section that should be included at the beginning of each ordinance is also provided.
Communities will want to tailor the findings of fact section, as well as the substantial provisions
of the codes, to their local situation.
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCES
Section I. Findings of Fact.
WHEREAS: The City Council is the trustee of the City's water supply; and
WHEREAS: Water is a valuable resource that should be wisely used; and
WHEREAS: The water supply available to the City is finite in nature and such augmentations
as are possible impose significant costs on the community, and consequently further population
and economic growth without accompanying efforts to increase the efficiency with which water
resources are used may adversely impact the City and its citizens; and
WHEREAS: Optimal treatment of wastewater is necessary for the public health and safety and
the effectiveness of wastewater treatment can be increased by reductions in the volume of flows
requiring treatment; and
WHEREAS: The health, welfare and safety require that the water resources available to the City
be utilized as efficiently as possible; and
WHEREAS: The efficiency of water use is increased by [insert the appropriate measure: i.e. use
of water efficient plumbing fixtures or eliminating wasteful use of water outdoors].
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE (APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY) AS
FOLLOWS:
-------
(4) health and fitness centers,
(5) schools, dormitories and day care centers,
(6) other institutional facilities,
(7) shopping centers and malls, and
(8) all properties where there will be a change in ownership, except when the seller and the
buyer certify that the property will be remodelled within 120'days of close of escrow and
that all fixtures not meeting the standards established in Section Q of this ordinance will
be replaced with fixtures meeting the standards established in Section n of this ordinance
upon completion of construction and the new owner will allow inspection by an
authorized agent of [the appropriate enforcement authority.]
(B) Facilities may be exempted from some or all of the requirements below at the discretion
of the [appropriate authority] provided that one or more of the following conditions
applies:
(1) A particular fixture cannol be retrofitted to achieve further water use reductions or cannot
be retrofitted without replumbing,
(2) Retrofitting a particular future would create a health or safety hazard,
(3) Retrofitting a class of futures cannot be done so as to ensure a two-year simple payback
period, as determined by the [appropriate authority].
Exemptions shall be granted in writing.
Q. Requirements.
All fixtures that do not meet the standards below shall be modified with retrofit devices
or replaced to meet the following flow requirements at a static pressure of 20 to 80 psi within
120 days of the effective date of this ordinance:
(1) tank-type toilets shall not exceed 3.5 gallons per flush,
(2) flushometer type toilets shall not exceed 3 gallons per flush,
(3) tank-type urinals shall not exceed 3 gallons per flush,
(4) flushometer type urinals shall not exceed 1 gallon per flush,
(5) showerhead flow rates shall not exceed 3 gallons per minute
(6) lavatory and kitchen faucets flow rates shall not exceed 2.75 gallons per minute.
Section m. Severability.
It is the intent of the [body enacting the ordinance] that the provisions of this ordinance
shall be severable, and, accordingly, invalidity of any pan of this ordinance shall not affect the
validity of the other part.
Section IV. Effective date.
This ordinance shall become effective on [date].
-------
OUTDOOR WATER USE ORDINANCE
Section I. Applicability.
The following requirements shall apply to all irrigation and lawn watering within the
jurisdiction of [the appropriate authority].
Section U. Requirements.
(A) Limits on time of day for irrigation.
Irrigation watering shall be limited to the hours between 12 am and 10 am to reduce
evaporation loss. The [appropriate authority] recommends that no less than 1/2" of water be
applied in a single application in order to encourage deep percolation of applied water, which
in turn encourages root development and drought tolerance.
(B) Wasteful irrigation practices prohibited.
Irrigation shall not result in excessive over-spray or runoff onto impervious surfaces,
structures, or adjacent property. Unattended lawn watering shall be prohibited except for
irrigation systems with an automatic shutoff device. Irrigation systems shall be maintained and
leaks shall be identified and repaired in a timely fashion and in no more than 30 days after
notification by the [appropriate authority] in cases where a leak is identified by the [appropriate
authority].
(C) Hose-cleaning restrictions.
A hose shall not be used to clean hard surfaces such as driveways, sidewalks, and patios
except where there is no other alternative that would adequately protect public health and safety.
Hoses used to clean vehicles must be equipped with a shutoff valve.
Section m. Exceptions.
At the discretion of the [appropriate authority], exceptions to the requirements above may
be granted where the requirements would impose an unusual hardship. Exceptions shall be
granted in writing.
Section IV. Severability.
It is the intent of the [body enacting the ordinance] that the provisions of this ordinance
shall be severable, and, accordingly, invalidity of any part of this ordinance shall not affect the
validity of the other part.
Section V. Effective date.
This ordinance shall become effective on [date].
-------
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
Section I. Applicability.
The requirements established in Part A of Section n shall apply to all new landscape,
including additions to or replacement of existing landscape. The requirements established in the
remainder of Section n shall apply to all new landscape with an area exceeding 2,500 square feet
including additions to or replacement of existing landscape where total landscaped area exceeds
2,500 square feet, The requirements established in Section n shall not be construed to require
changes to existing landscape, but shall be applied to all voluntary modifications.
Notwithstanding the provisions above, the requirements established in Section n shall not
apply to cemeteries, registered historical sites, or landscape projects that will not require any
irrigation after the first year.
The characteristics of the entire landscaped area of a lot must be considered for the
purposes of calculating areas or percentages, even when only a fraction of the lot is being
modified. In calculating areas and percentages in multiple-unit planned developments, the
landscape of the entire development shall be aggregated together and considered as a single
landscape project.
Section D. Requirements.
(A) Limits on use of turf and other high water use plant materials and decorative water
features.
Turf areas shall not exceed 25% of the total landscaped area. Exemption from this
provision foi landscapes other than those associated with single family residences may be granted
at the discretion of the [appropriate authority] if sufficient evidence is provided documenting the
functional need for additional turf for recreational purposes.
Irrigated turf and other irrigated high water use plant materials shall not be installed in
strips that are less than 10 feet wide.
Other irrigated high water use plant materials and water features (pools, fountains) shall
be limited to not more than 10% of the total landscaped area.
All other plantings shall be composed of low-water use plant materials.
(B) Landscape plan, permit, and certificate of completion.
A landscape plan shall be submitted to the [appropriate authority]. No landscape activities
may be undertaken until the plan is approved and signed and a permit has been issued by the
[appropriate authority]. Landscapes installed shall conform to approved plans. Any modifications
to landscape plans must be submitted to the [appropriate authority] for approval.
-------
Upon completion of landscape installation, the landscape shall be inspected by a licensed
landscape architect or contractor, certified irrigation designer, or other certified professional in
a related field, who shall determine whether the landscape conforms to the approved and signed
plan. Providing the landscape conforms to the approved plan, the licensed or certified
professional shall submit a written notice to the [appropriate authority] certifying that the
landscape has been completed and conforms to the approved plan. If the landscape does not
conform to the plan, the licensed or certified professional shall notify the property owner or an
appointed representative thereof, who shall modify the landscape to conform to the plan or
resubmit a modified plan that accurately describes the completed landscape for approval.
Landscape plans shall include:
(1) a drawing of the site indicating the type and location of ground cover and groups of
plants with similar water needs accompanied by a list of plants indicating common and
species names of plants used,
(2) a calculation of total square footage, square footage planted in turf, square footage
planted in other high water use plants, and square footage covered by decorative water
features,
(3) a drawing of the irrigation system indicating the location, coverage, and flow rates of
valves and sprinkler heads and the different zones for plants with similar water needs,
(4) irrigation schedules, which shall also be retained by the property owner or operator, for
the initial start up "watering-in" period for the plants indicating the duration of such
period and a regular irrigation schedule to be used once the new plants have taken root,
including time of day and volume of water applied in each separate zone, and separate
estimates of annual water use for the watering-in period and for the subsequent regular
irrigation period,
(5) a description of soil preparation activities undertaken to comply with part C below, and
(6) any additional information requested by the [appropriate authority] to determine
compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and other applicable ordinances.
(C) Site preparation.
Site preparations shall be suitable to encourage healthy growing conditions for low-water
use plant material including:
(1) Tilling of existing soil to a minimum depth of 6 inches, except under existing trees,
(2) Amendment of existing soil with organic material at a minimum rate of 5 cubic yards per
1,000 square feet or as otherwise recommended by soil analysis and,
(3) Mulching of non-turf areas with a minimum 2 inches of organic material.
(D) Efficient irrigation systems.
New or replacement irrigation systems shall include the following components:
(1) electric controller with multiple adjustable start and end times,
(2) automatic rain sensor shutoff device,
-------
(3) low precipitation or low trajectory sprinkler heads or drip irrigation systems for slopes
exceeding 10%,
(4) efficient layout to minimize runoff and over-spray on non-landscaped areas and adjacent
property,
(S) check valves for low-head drainage where elevation differential between heads might
cause runoff,
(6) separate valves for turf areas and for plant groupings with similar water needs.
(E) Separate metering for irrigation.
A separate meter is required for landscape irrigation for all new hookups where
landscaped areas or open space that may eventually be landscaped exceeds 2,500 square feet.
Section m. Severability.
It is the intent of the [body enacting the ordinance] that the provisions of this ordinance
shall be severable, and, accordingly, invalidity of any part of this ordinance shall not affect the
validity of the other pan.
Section IV. Effective date.
This ordinance shall become effective on [date].
PRESSURE REDUCTION ORDINANCE
I. Applicability.
The following requirement shall apply to all new water system connections and all
existing connections where there is a request for increased service connections or a change in
character of service.
n. Requirement.
Where static service pressure exceeds 80 pounds per square inch, a pressure-regulating
valve shall be installed and maintained in the consumer's piping between the meter and the first
point of water use, and set at not more than 50 psi when measured at the highest fixture in the
structure served.
m. Exceptions.
Exceptions from the requirement established in Section n may be granted at the discretion
of the director in cases where the consumer presents satisfactory evidence that high pressure is
required for a particular justifiable water use and pressure reduction would create an undue
hardship or in cases where the consumer presents satisfactory evidence that excessive pressure
has been considered in the design of all water using devices in the structure and that no water
will be wasted as a result of high pressure operation.
-------
Section IV. Effective date.
This ordinance shall become effective on [date].
REFRIGERATION AND COOLING SYSTEM WATER USE ORDINANCE
Section I. Applicability.
This ordinance shall apply to water-cooled refrigerating or cooling systems using water,
entirely or in part, as a means of condensing a refrigerant except those systems with an
aggregate total of two tons or less or a rating of two horsepowers or less.
Section n. Requirements.
Systems covered under this ordinance shall be equipped with one the following devices:
(1) cooling tower,
(2) evaporative condenser,
(3) an acceptable water recirculating device.
Section m. Effective date.
This ordinance shall become effective on [date].
ORDINANCE REQUIRING OFFSETS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
Section I. Applicability.
The requirements established in Section in of this ordinance shall apply to all new
construction and expansion or modification of existing structures for which a building permit is
required, except as provided in Section 0 of this ordinance.
Section n. Exceptions.
Exceptions to the requirements established in Section ID may be granted in writing at the
discretion of the [appropriate authority] for the following types of projects:
(1) projects which involve the demolition of an existing structure and will not result in an
increase in water use over annual water use in one of the years between 1982 and 1992
chosen to reflect typical water consumption in the structure to be demolished during a
period of normal occupancy, where these conditions are adequately demonstrated by the
permit applicant,
(2) additions or modifications to existing structures where the permit applicant adequately
demonstrates that the proposed additions will not result in an increase in water use,
(3) projects undertaken by a governmental entity,
-------
(4) affordable housing projects, as defined in [appropriate citation] - [applicable only where
the community has special provisions for construction of affordable housing]
(5) human services projects providing social or health care services to the community.
Section IE. Requirements.
No permit to build a new structure or expand or modify an existing structure shall be
issued unless the applicant has complied with the requirements of this Section, or received a
written exemption from the requirements of this Section from the [appropriate authority] under
the provisions of Section D of this ordinance. However, applications for permits to build a new
structure or expand or modify an existing structure may be reviewed for compliance with other
requirements to ensure that such applications can be approved once the requirements established
below have been fulfilled.
(A) Application for a permit for construction activities creating new water use.
The applicant shall submit a description of the proposed new structure, expansion,
or modification including a site plan, proposed use, proposed occupancy, the location and
flow rates of all water using fixtures and appliances, and the estimated annual water use
or change in existing annual water use associated with the project accompanied by a
signed statement verifying the accuracy of the information. The applicant shall provide
any additional information deemed necessary by the [appropriate authority] to verify the
estimates of annual water use. The final determination of water use for the purposes of
this Section shall be made by the [appropriate authority]. The applicant shall take
measures to reduce existing water demand by three times the predicted annual water use
as estimated by the [appropriate authority] by fulfilling the requirements of either
Subsection B or Subsection C of this Section.
(B) Fixture replacement program.
The applicant shall enter an agreement with a residential property owner to
replace plumbing fixtures on the property. All water using plumbing fixtures in the
buildings or apartment units where fixtures will be replaced to offset water to comply
with this ordinance that do not meet the standards established in the [water efficient
plumbing ordinance] must be replaced, except faucets, which may either be replaced or
equipped with flow restricting devices to meet the standards of the [water efficient
plumbing ordinance]. Notwithstanding this requirement, savings from replacement or
modification of faucets will not be counted in calculating reductions in water demand.
The applicant shall submit a fixture replacement proposal to the [appropriate
authority]. The proposal shall include a list of addresses and apartment numbers (where
appropriate) of buildings to be retrofitted, and individual descriptions of each building
or apartment unit to be retrofitted, including:
(1) current number of occupants,
(2) number of bedrooms,
-------
(3) square feet of floor space,
(4) a list of all existing water using fixtures and flow rates, and a list of proposed
replacement fixtures identifying the manufacturer, model, and flow rate,
(5) an estimate of annual water savings from toilet and showerhead replacement, calculated
using the methodology approved by the [appropriate authority] for each individual
dwelling unit,
(6) a signed agreement with the property owner, allowing the applicant to perform the
retrofit, and providing the {appropriate authority] permission to enter the retrofitted
properties for inspection purposes before and after the retrofit is performed,
(7) an agreement signed by both the property owner and the applicant relieving the
[appropriate authority] and the [city government] of liability for any damages incurred
as a result of the retrofit program, and verifying the accuracy of the information in
proposed fixture replacement proposal, and
(8) any additional information deemed necessary by the [appropriate authority] to determine
the reduction in water use that the proposed retrofit program will provide.
The [appropriate authority] will review the fixture replacement proposal and approve or
revise the estimate of water savings provided by the proposed fixture replacement program. In
the event that the [appropriate authority] determines that the proposed fixture replacement
program will not result in a reduction in water use equal to three times the projected water use
of the proposed project, the applicant will revise and resubmit the fixture replacement proposal
until the [appropriate authority] determines that the proposed fixture replacement program will
result in water use reductions equal to three times the projected water use of the proposed
project.
The [appropriate authority] shall inspect the buildings and/or units identified in the
proposal to ensure that the information in the fixture replacement proposal is accurate.
The applicant or representatives of the applicant shall replace and modify all fixtures as
described in the proposal.
The [appropriate authority] shall inspect the buildings and/or units identified in the
proposal to ensure that the replacements and modifications described in the proposal have been
performed.
(C) In-lieu Fee.
In lieu of performing a fixture replacement program as described above, the
applicant shall pay $x per gallon of predicted demand to a fund to be administered by the
[appropriate authority] for the purpose of reducing water demand by retrofitting toilets
in low-income housing, repairing leaking water mains, or by any method determined by
the [appropriate authority] to be cost-effective and reliable.
-------
CAR WASH RECYCLING ORDINANCE
Section I. Applicability.
The requirements established in Section n of this ordinance shall apply to all new car
wash facilities built in the jurisdiction of the [appropriate authority] after the effective date
established in Section m.
Section n. Requirements.
All car wash facilities covered under Section I of this ordinance shall be equipped with
water recycling facilities to recover and reuse water for the washing cycle. It is recommended
that such facilities also be equipped with water recycling facilities to recover and reuse water
for the pre-rinse cycle.
Section m. Effective date.
This ordinance shall become effective on [date].
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF COMMUNITIES WITH WATER EFFICIENCY ORDINANCES
The following list is not exhaustive, but was compiled from literature or databases on
conservation programs, or responded to a request for information on water efficiency programs
from the American Water Works Association. Sources used include: the American Water Works
Association's Local Conservation Program Database, Rocky Mountain Institute's Water
Efficiency, INCON.NET industrial water conservation network, publications of the Arizona
Municipal Water Users Association, the Colorado Utility Council's of local conservation
programs, Ken Ball's Xeriscape Programs for Water Utilitfe^, and Water Conservation by
William Maddaus.
PLUMBING AND APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS.
Pressure reduction valve for hookups with high pressure.
Mann Municipal Water District.
NEIL Planning Commission Recommendations.
Maximum flow rate for plumbing fixtures.
New construction, expansion, remodeling, and/or replacement of existing fixtures.
Aberdeen, MD.
Anne Arundel County, MD.
Arlington, TX.
Arvada, CO.
Aurora, CO.
Atlanta, GA.
Austin, TX.
Boulder, CO.'
Brunswick, MD.
Calvert County, MD.
Carefree, AZ.
Chandler, AZ.
Charles County, MD.
Cobb County, GA.
Dade County, FL.
Dallas Water Utility, TX.
Denver City and County.
The City of Boulder requires all applicants for building
permits to select and implement several options from a list of
energy and water conserving measures, each of which is assigned a
point value. A minimum of 20 points worth of options must be
implemented.
-------
El Paso, TX.
Frederick, MD.
Fort Collins, CO.
Fulton County, GA.
Gilbert, AZ.
Glendale, AZ.
Goleta, CA.
Goodyear, AZ.
Grand County, CO.
Grand Junction, CO.
Havre DeGrace, MD.
Highland Water District, NY.
Honolulu City and County, HI.
Illinois Department of Transportation, IL.
Los Angeles, CA.
Marin Municipal Water District.
MCMWD Mammoth Lake, CA.
Mesa, AZ.
Monterey Peninsula WMD, CA.
Mono Bay, CA.
New York City, NY.
North Marin Water District Novato Service Area, CA.
Palm Beach County, FL.
Petaluma, CA.
Phoenix, AZ.
Peoria, AZ.
Pima County, AZ.
Pueblo, CO.
Rockdale County, GA.
San Diego County, CA.
San Jose, CA.
Santa Fe, MM.
Santa Monica, CA.
Sarasota County, FL.
Scottsdale, AZ.
Seattle Water Department, WA.
Sebastopol City, CA.
Snowmass, CO.
South Florida Water Management District, FL.
Tampa, FL.
Tolleson, AZ.
Tempe, AZ.
Tucson, AZ.
Ventura, CA.
Virginia Beach Public Utility, VA.
Washington Suburban Sanitary District, MD.
-------
Westminster, CO.
Windsor, CA.
New construction, expansion, and replacement of existing fixtures and/or
replacement when there is a change hi ownership.
Matin Municipal Water District, CA.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, CA.
New construction, expansion, replacement of existing fixtures and at point of sale.
New York City, NY.
Insulation requirements for hot water pipes.
Marin Municipal Water District. No. 285. 1989.
Boulder, CO.10
Mandatory retrofits.
LA Department .of Water and Power.
City of Austin.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.
Require self-dosing faucets hi public lavatories.
Santa Cruz Water Department, CA.
ME IL Planning Commission Recommendations.
City of Austin, TX.
City of Glendale, AZ.
City of Tucson, AZ.
Pima County, AZ.
Require water conservation devices for new or replacement refrigeration units, evaporative
coolers, and air conditioners.
Fresno, CA.
Glendale, AZ.
Denver Water Department, CO.
Phoenix, AZ.
Nassau County, NY.
San Francisco, CA.
10 One of several options in point system.
-------
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION.
Require submission and approval of landscape plans.
California model ordinance.
Florida model landscape ordinance.
Goodyear, AZ.
Mesa, AZ.
San Diego County, CA.
Ventura County, CA.
Phoenix, AZ.
Marin Muncipal Water District, CA.
Limit fraction of total landscaped area planted in turf and other high water use plants for
new landscaping.
Aurora, CO.
Boulder, CO.11
Chandler, AZ.
Florida model landscape code.
Snowmass, CO.
Marin Municipal Water District, CA.
City of Chandler, AZ.
Fresno, CA.
Santa Fe, NM.
Phoenix, AZ.
Tucson, AZ.
Prohibit planting of turf in narrow strips that cannot be efficiently irrigated.
North Marin Water District Novato Service Area, CA.
Marin Municipal Water District, CA.
Limit time of day for irrigation to prevent evaporation and/or require alternate-day
watering to reduce peak demand.
California model ordinance.
Tampa, FL.
Fresno, CA.
Fort Collins, CO.
Nassau County, NY.
One of several options in point system.
-------
Require she preparation for new landscaping including scarification, and addition of
organic material and surface mulch to increase soil water retention and plant uptake.
Aurora, CO.
Boulder, CO."
California model ordinance.
Florida model landscape code.
North Marin Water District Novato Service Area, CA.
Matin Municipal Water District, CA.
Require efficient irrigation systems for new landscaping.
Boulder, CO."
California model ordinance.
Florida model landscape code.
North Marin Water District Novato Service Area, CA.
Marin Municipal Water District, CA.
Fresno, CA.
Tucson, AZ.
Limit or prohibit use of potable water for lakes and fountains.
City of Chandler, AZ.
City of San Francisco, CA.
Marin Municipal Water District, CA.
City of Mesa, AZ.
City of Phoenix, AZ.
Require non-potable water use for commercial turf-related faculties and/or require efficient
irrigation systems for commercial turf-related facilities.
Mesa, AZ.
Phoenix, AZ.
Scottsdale, AZ.
Require low water use plants in right of ways and medians.
Mesa, AZ.
Chandler, AZ.
Gilbert, AZ.
Goodyear, AZ.
Phoenix, AZ.
12 One of several options in point system.
13 One of several options in point system.
-------
Tempe, AZ.
Require separate metering Tor irrigation systems and decorative water features.
Phoenix, AZ.
Prohibit unattended lawn watering except with an automatic sbutofT device.
Fresno, CA.
MISCELLANEOUS WATER USE RESTRICTIONS.
Prohibit outdoor evaporative mist coolers "swamp coolers."
Fresno, CA.
Prohibit hose-cleaning of driveway, sidewalk, buildings, etc.
Fresno, CA.
Goodyear, AZ.
San Francisco, CA.
Require shutoff valve for hose-cleaning vehicles.
Fresno, CA.
Morro Bay, CA.
Palo Alto, CA.
San Francisco, CA.
Prohibit "wasteful use" including irrigation resulting in runoff to gutters and streets and
failure to repair leaks.
Fort Collins, CO.
North Marin Water District Novato Service Area, CA.
Cities of Mesa, Phoenix, and Scottsdale, AZ.
Phoenix, AZ.
Palm Springs, CA.
Palo Alto, CA.
Fresno, CA.
Glendale, AZ.
Mesa, AZ.
Morro Bay, CA.
Phoenix, AZ.
Peoria, AZ.
San Francisco, CA.
Scottsdale, AZ.
-------
Tempe. AZ.
Tucson, AZ.
Limit swimming pool refilling.
Fresno, CA.
Water then prohibition.
Gilbert, AZ.
Glendale, AZ.
Mesa, AZ.
Phoenix, AZ.
RESTRICTIONS ON COMMERCIAL USE.
All measures listed above may apply to commercial as well as residential users.
Car wash facilities must recycle grey water.
Nassau County, NY.
GROWTH RELATED CODES.
Limited number of new construction (and water hookup) permits distributed by lottery.
City of Morro Bay, CA.
Require builders to offset predicted increase in water demand by retrofitting elsewhere.
Oflsets may be counted at less than parity to actually reduce water demand or leave room
for a margin of error in predictions.
City of Lompoc, CA.
City of Mono Bay, CA.
City of Santa Barbara, CA.
Charge higher fees for new hookups that are not water efficient and offer rebates for new
hookups that are.
North Marin Water District Novato Service Area, CA.
Mesa, AZ.
Monterey, CA.
Marin Municipal Water District, CA.
-------
Higher Density allowed for low water use.
Santa Fe County, MM.
Require building permit applicants to select from several measures assigned point values.
Boulder, CO.
-------
APPENDIX C
FORMULAS FOR CALCULATING OFFSET REQUIREMENTS
Three California communities, Mono Bay, Sana Barbara, and Lompoc, have used
ordinances that require builders to offset the predicted water demand created by new construction
by installing water efficient futures in existing construction or paying a fee to a fund to be used
to reduce demand by retrofitting existing facilities or repairing leaks in the water distribution
system. Two of these communities, Mono Bay and Santa Barbara, nave provided the
methodologies used to calculate offset requirements.
The Monterrey Peninsula Water Management District also limits some types of new
construction and will not issue permits to certain types of projects unless some new source of
water supply is developed. The language of their ordinance is relatively loose, providing in a
single paragraph that permits may be issued 'based on the development of offsetting water
supplies not previously available for beneficial use...[where proposed construction].. .by reason
of the offsetting supply cause no net intensification of water demand."
The City of Mono Bay uses general estimates of water consumption for different types
of property to calculate offset requirements. City planners have estimated that a single family
home consumes 10,780 cubic feet (80,645 gallons) per year. (At 2.7 persons per household, this
amounts to about 82 gpcd.). This amount is referred to as a 'water equivalency unit.*
Consumption rates for various other types of construction, including such diverse elements as
banks and seafood processors, are estimated in cubic feet per year and converted into water
equivalency units.
By using standard estimates of water consumption, the city eliminates the private cost of
estimating water consumption associated with new construction and the public administrative
burden of reviewing such estimates. Unfortunately, using standards estimates also eliminates the
incentive to plan water efficient development that would be provided if case-by-case estimates
were used to calculate offset requirements. In the case of a single family home, many of the
possible measures that can be taken to increase water efficiency are already mandatory and water
use estimated on a case-by-case basis would probably be similar for most single-family
residences. In the case of seafood processing facilities, on the other hand, there are probably
many water efficiency measures that could be taken but are not required by city ordinances. The
incentive to conserve created by case-by-case water use estimates might result in substantial
reductions in water use. In addition to differences in efficiency, there are potential huge
differences in scale between seafood processing operations, which suggests that actual use for
this type of facility might deviate significantly from the standard estimate.
Mono Bay also provides standard estimates of reductions in consumption achieved by
retrofitting toilets, faucets, and showerheads. Oddly, the city allows replacement of existing
toilets with 3.5 gallon per flush toilets, even though toilets in new construction are limited to 1.5
gallons per flush. The formulas for calculating savings do not account for differences in the
number of people using the fixtures. The formulas for calculating savings in terms of water
equivalencies are shown below along with equivalent figures in gallons per year and gallons per
day.
-------
Pint new 3.5 gpf or less toilet =0.035 wue= 2,823 g/year « 7.7 gpd
Second new toilet in same residences 0.015 wue= 1,210 g/y « 3.3 gpd
First new showeihead with 3 gpm or tess« 0.035 wue« 2,823g/y«7.7gpd
Second new showeihead in same residence= 0.01 wue « 806 g/y « 2.2 gpd
First new lavatory (faucets) 2.75 gpm or Iess*>0.01wue«806g/ye2.2gpd
Second new lavatory in same residence=0.025 wue<=2,016 g/y « S.S gpd
New Kitchen sink with 2.75 gpm or less^o.OOS wue«403 g/y » 1.1 gpd
For fixtures with lower flow rates, the following formulas are used for the first fixture.
Savings from the second fixture are calculated according to the table above. All fixtures must
be replaced, but savings are calculated for the first and second fixtures only. In the formulas
below, D is used to represent the difference between the flow rate of the old fixture and the flow
rate of the new fixture. The formula for calculating savings expressed in water use equivalencies
is given first, followed by a formula for calculating savings expressed in gallons per year.
First new toilet - 0.035 + ( D - 1.5 ) x 0.03 - 2,823 + (D -1.5 ) x 2,419 g/y
First new showernead •= 0.035 + (D - 2 ) x 0.02 « 2,823 + ( D - 2 ) x 1,613 g/y
First new lavatory •= .01 + (D - 2.5) x 0.008 - 806 + ( D - 2.5 ) x 645 g/y
First new kitchen sink « .005 + ( D - 2.5) x 0.004 * wue, 403 + (D - 2.5 ) x 323 g/y
The estimated water savings for fixtures with lower flow rates can be calculated given
assumptions about the old and new flow rates. Assuming old toilets are 5 gpf and new toilets
are 1.5 gpf, old showerheads are 5 gpm and new showerheads are 2 gpm, and old faucets are
5 gpm and new faucets are 2 gpm yields the following water savings estimates.
First new 1.5 gpf toilet « 0.095 wue - 7,661 g/y « 21 gpd
First new 2 gpm showerhead «= 0.065 wue = 5,242 g/y « 14.4 gpd
First new 2 gpm lavatory «= 0.014 wue » 1,129 g/y = 3.1 gpd
First new 2 gpm kitchen sink «= 0.007 wue «= 365 g/y » 1.5 gpd
Estimates generated by Amy Vkkers provide an interesting comparison. Vickers
estimates replacing a 5.5 gallon toilet with a 1.5 gallon toilet saves 22 gallons per capita per
day, replacing a 3 to 5 gpm showerhead with a 2.5 gpm showerhead saves 12.S gpcd, and
replacing a 3 to 7 gpm faucet with a 2.S gpm faucet saves 13.2 gpcd. The Mono Bay ^"fato
do not take the number of people using the fixtures into account. Assuming that only one pen™
is using the fixtures, the estimates are comparable to Vickers, except for the faucet es^natrs,
which are much more conservative. If more than one person is using the futures, tbr Mono Bay
estimates are significantly more conservative.
Santa Barbara, tike Mono Bay, uses standard estimates of water consumption in n.-w
construction. Santa Barbara also uses standard estimates for water savings for retrofitting an
entire apartment, condominium, or single-family home. The estimates for sing1,s-fami'yv*>o'n«
are differentiated by lot size to account for landscape water use differences. The estimates for
residential structures are shown below. Other estimates have been made, but were oat provided
to us.
-------
Housing type Annual consumption for
new construction
Savings
for retrofit
Multi-family apartment
Condominium
Sfh tot under 10,000 sf
Sfh, 10 - 22,000 sf
Sfli, 22 • 43,560 sf
Sfh, 43,560 + sf
62,000 g/y
71,700 g/y
88,000 g/y
140,200 g/y
241,200 g/y
410,600 g/y
9,300 g/y
10,900 g/y
10,600 g/y
14,200 g/y
18,900 g/y
32,000 g/y
Community officials may find it appropriate to develop an alternative methodology for
calculating water use in new construction and water savings from retrofit programs for
communities mat intend to implement a program similar to the ones in MOTTO Bay and Santa
Barbara. The alternative methodology would take into account the current or predicted
occupancy of structures to be built or retrofitted.
------- |