United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Water Program Operations
Washington. DC 20460
tPA/430/9-79-015
August 1979
vvEPA
Water
Proceedings
National Conference on
Water Conservation &
Municipal Wastewater
Flow Reduction
November 28 & 29,1978
Chicago, Illinois
-------
EPA/430/9-79-015
August 1979
Proceedings
National Conference on
Water Conservation and Municipal Wastewater
Flow Reduction
November 28-29, 1978
Contract No. 68-03-2674
Prepared by
Enviro Control, Inc.
11300 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Facility Requirements Division
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Disclaimer
These proceedings have been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the con-
tents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products con-
stitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
Foreword
As our population increases, as our per capita consumption of water
continues to grow, and as our standards for water quality rise, costs for
treating the resultant wastewater burgeon. One partial resolution of the
problem of rapidly rising costs lies in greater attention to water conserva-
tion and water use management. Through conservation, costs for energy,
materials, land and labor can be minimized.
During the National Conference on Water Conservation and Municipal
Wastewater Flow Reduction held in Chicago on November 28 and 29, 1978, more
than 500 persons, representing a wide variety of experiences and viewpoints,
met to discuss their comon concerns about water and wastewater management
and how these concerns relate to conservation. The conference focused
mainly upon municipal and household conservation measures, with speakers
presenting papers ranging from the theoretical to the highly practical.
Topics during the two-day meeting varied from the analysis of rate structures
that encourage conservation, to discussions of household water flow control
devices.
Participants represented all levels of government, citizen action and
environmental groups, representatives of the engineering professions,
researchers based largely in universities, builders of water-handling
equipment, planners and others. Many participants expressed satisfaction
that for the first time, they had had the opportunity for extended face-to-
face comunication with persons with widely different perspectives about
what the water conservation problems are, and how they might be resolved.
This Proceedings volume provides nearly all of the papers presented
for the use of a broader audience interested in one or more aspects of
water and wastewater management in the United States today.
111
-------
Abstract
This document is a compilation of 28 papers presented at the National
Conference on Water Conservation and Municipal Wastewater Flow Reduction,
sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on November 28 and 29,
1978.
The papers are divided into six major topic areas: Federal legislative
background; regulation of the water resource; water conservation technology;
education and public participation; water and wastewater management issues;
and case studies of water resource management. Individual papers range from
economic analyses, to planning considerations, to discussions of household
water conservation devices. Also included is the text of President Carter’s
1978 Water Policy Message and an analysis of National Conference attendees
by profession.
iv
-------
Table of Contents
DISCLAIMER
FORWARD.
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PART I: PERSPECTIVE ON THE PROBLEM
Federal Water Policy
Jimmy Carter
The Water Conservation Challenge
Ronald B. Robie
Water Conservation: Prospects and Problems
Donald L. Sampler
The Need for Water Conservation: The National Viewpoint
Leo M. Eisel
Legislative Impacts, EPA and Water Conservation
Thomas C. Jorling
Water Conservation and the Environment
J. Gustave Speth
PART II: REGULATION OF THE WATER RESOURCE
Plumbing Codes and Water Use
Clarence R. Bechtel
Conservation Elements in Areawide Planning
Peter L. Wise
Conservation and the Safe Drinking Water Act
James H. McDermott
The Conservation Connection: The Clean Water Act of 1977
and EPA’s Construction Grants Program
Michael B. Cook
PART III: WATER CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY
Water Conservation Through Leak Detection
William F. H. Gros
Infiltration/Inflow
Robert R. Pfefferle
Selection of Water Conservation Devices for Installation
in New or Existing Dwellings
William E. Sharpe
11
111
iv
viii
1
12
15
22
28
33
38
45
52
63
71
75
83
V
-------
Decreasing the Household Water Demand by Design 97
R.F. Karis
The Role of Water Conservation in the Construction
Grants Program 101
Myron F. Tiemens and Philip H. Graham
PART IV: EDUCATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Guidelines for Planning a Citizen Participation Program 112
Nea Carroll Toner
Mandate and/or Marketing: Implementing Water Conservation
in the Private Sector 123
David A. DelPorto
Public Support for Water Conservation: The League Experience 139
Hester McNulty
Wise Water Use--A Program for Children 145
Kenneth L. Brewster
Development of a Water Conservation Program in the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 149
James E. Robinson and William Ashton
PART V: WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Economics and Water Conservation 151
Richard K. Schaefer
Residential Water Conservation and Community Growth. 177
David A. Wade
Water Conservation Through Wastewater Reuse 208
Kurt Wassermann
Water Conservation and Land Use Planning 226
Ronald G. Alderfer
An Equitable Rate Structure’s Relation to Conservation and
Wastewater Flow Reduction 244
Fred P. Griffith
PART VI: CASE STUDIES OF WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Water Resource Management: Mann County, California . . . 250
J. Dietrich Stroeh
Elmhurst Water Conservation Program 254
Neil R. Fulton
Water Resources Management in New York 260
William W. Home
Water and Sewer Conservation-Oriented Rate Structure . . . 271
Robert S. McGarry
vi
-------
ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPATION . . , . 284
Willis E. Sibley
ADDRESS LIST OF SPEAKERS . . 287
vii
-------
Acknowledgments
Many capable and willing persons assisted in the organization and
execution of the National Conference on Water Conservation and Municipal
Wastewater Flow Reduction, a meeting funded by the Facility Requirements
Division, Office of Water Program Operations, United States Environmental
Protection Agency through the Environmental Research Information Center (ERIC)
in Cincinnati. Invaluable assistance was rendered by ERIC contractor
Enviro Control, Inc., in the persons of Dr. Richard E. Tucker and Carol
Freysi nger.
From the inception of the idea for the conference, numerous persons
outside the Federal service provided ideas and material assistance. An
informal group of advisors who deserve credit for the success of the
conference included Kenneth Brewster and Neil Fulton of the Division of
Water Resources, Illinois Department of Transportation; Richard W. Church,
Executive Director, Plumbing Manufacturers Institute; David M. Farrell
of the Illinois Interagency Water Management/Conservation Comittee;
Shirley Hunt, Legislative Assistant for the Environment for Senator
Durenberger of Minnesota (formerly with Upper Mississippi River Basin
Comission); Denis Lussier, ERIC: and William E. Sharpe, Institute for
Research on Land and Water Resources, Pennsylvania State University.
At the time of the conference itself, Jim Kashmier of the Division of
Water Resources, Illinois Department of Transportation and his staff did
yeoman service in attending to local affairs and arrangements, creating
signs, and in many other ways Contributed to the smooth running of the
conference itself.
Dr. Willis E. Sibley, Professor of Anthropology at The Cleveland State
University, Cleveland, Ohio, served as a program analyst in the Facility
Requirements Division in 1978 under tenlis of the Intergovernmental
Personnel Act. In that capacity he had the general responsibility, under
the leadership of Michael B. Cook, Director, Facility Requirements Division,
for planning, organizing and executing the conference.
Since the conference, primary responsibility for editing and preparing
the Proceedings has fallen to Ms. Carol Freysinger of Enviro Control, Inc.,
with the continued guidance and cooperation of Willis E. Sibley, and Denis
Lussier of ERIC.
Special materials for handouts to conference attendees were prepared by
the National Association of Counties Research, Inc., and by the Clean Water
Action Project, under EPA grants.
viii
-------
Many others contributed ideas, time and effort; though not all can be
named, they are warmly and sincerely thanked.
ix
-------
-------
xi
-------
xii
-------
xiii
-------
Federal Water Policy
Jimmy Carter
President of the United States
Message to the Congress
June 6, 1978
I am today sending to Congress water policy initiatives designed to:
-- improve planning and efficient management of Federal water
resource programs to prevent waste and to permit necessary
water projects which are cost-effective, safe and environ-
mentally sound to move forward expeditiously;
-- provide a new, national emphasis on water conservation;
- - enhance Federal-State cooperation and improve State water
resources planning; and
-- increase attention to environmental quality.
None of the initiatives would impose any new federal regulatory program
for water management.
Last year, I directed the Water Resources Council, the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget and the Council on Environmental Quality, under the chairman-
ship of Secretary Cecil Andrus, to make a comprehensive review of Federal
water policy and to recomend proposed reforms.
This new water policy results from their review, the study of water
policy ordered by the Congress in Section 80 of the Water Resources Planning
Act of 1974 and our extensive consultations with members of Congress, State,
county, city and other local officials and the public.
Water is an essential resource, and over the years, the programs
of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, the Soil Conservation
Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority have helped permit a dramatiic
improvement in American agriculture, have provided irrigation water essential
to the development of the West, and have developed coninunity flood protection,
electric power, navigation and recreation throughout the Nation.
1
-------
I ordered this review of water policies and programs because of my con-
cern that while Federal water resources programs have been of great benefit
to our Nation, they are today plagued with problems and inefficiencies. In
the course of this water policy review we found that:
-- Twenty-five separate Federal agencies spend more than $10
billion per year on water resources projects and related
programs.
-- These projects often are planned without a uniform, standard
basis for estimating benefits and costs.
-- States are primarily responsible for water policy within
their boundaries, yet are not integrally involved in setting
priorities and sharing in Federal project planning and funding.
-- There is a $34 billion backlog of authorized or uncompleted
projects.
-- Some water projects are unsafe or environmentally unwise and
have caused losses of natural streams and rivers, fish and
wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.
The study also found that water conservation has not been addressed at
a national level even though we have pressing water supply problems. Of 106
watershed subregions in the country, 21 already have severe water shortages.
By the year 2000 this number could increase to 39 subregions. The Nation’s
cities are also beginning to experience water shortage problems which can only
be solved at very high cost. In some areas, precious groundwater supplies
are also being depleted at a faster rate than they are replenished. In many
cases an effective water conservation program could play a key role in
alleviating these problems.
These water policy initiatives will make the Federal government’s water
programs more efficient and responsive in meeting the Nation’s water—related
needs. They are designed to build on fundamentally sound statutes and on
the Principles and Standards which govern the planning and development of
Federal water projects, and also to enhance the role of the States, where
the primary responsibilities for water policy must lie. For the first time,
the Federal government will work with State and local governments and exert
needed national leadership in the effort to conserve water. Above all, these
policy reforms will encourage water projects which are economically and envi-
ronmentally sound and will avoid projects which are wasteful or which
benefit a few at the expense of many.
Across the Nation there is remarkable diversity in the role water plays.
Over most of the West, water is scarce and must be managed carefully--and
detailed traditions and laws have grown up to govern the use of water. In
other parts of the country, flooding is more of a problem than drought,
and in many areas, plentiful water resources have offered opportunities
for hydroelectric power and navigation. In the urban areas of our Nation,
water supply systems are the major concern--particularly where antiquated
2
-------
systems need rehabilitation in order to conserve water and assure continued
economic growth.
Everywhere, water is fundamental to environmental quality. Clean
drinking water, recreation, wildlife and beautiful natural areas depend
on protection of our water resources.
Given this diversity, Federal water policy cannot attempt to prescribe
water use patterns for the country. Nor should the Federal government
preempt the primary responsibility of the States for water management and
allocation. For those reasons, these water policy reforms will not preempt
State or local water responsibilities. Yet water policy is an important
national concern, and the Federal government has major responsibilities to
exercise leadership, to protect the environment and to develop and maintain
hydroelectric power, irrigated agriculture, flood control and navigation.
The primary focus of the proposals is on the water resources programs
of the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Soil Conservation
Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority, where annual water program
budgets total approximately $3.75 billion. These agencies perform the
Federal government’s water resource development programs. In addition, a
number of Federal agencies with water-related responsibilities will be
affected by this water policy.
I am charging Secretary Andrus with the lead responsibility to see that
these initiatives are carried out promptly and fully. With the assistance
of the Office of Management and Budget and the Council on Environmental
Quality, he will be responsible for working with the other Federal agencies,
the Congress, State and local governments and the public to assure proper
implementation of this policy and to make appropriate recommendations for
reform in the future.
SPECIFIC INITIATIVES IMPROVING FEDERAL WATER RESOURCE PROGRAMS
The Federal government has played a vital role in developing the water
resources of the United States. It is essential that Federal water programs
be updated and better coordinated if they are to continue to serve the
nation in the best way possible. The reforms I am proposing are designed to
modernize and improve the coordination of federal water programs. In addi-
tion, in a few days, I will also be sending to the Congress a Budget amend-
ment proposing funding for a number of new water project construction and
planning starts. These projects meet the criteria I am announcing today.
This is the first time the Executive Branch has proposed new water project
starts since Fiscal Year 1975, four years ago.
The actions I am taking include:
• A directive to the Water Resources Council to improve the
implementation of the Principles and Standards governing
the planning of Federal water projects. The basic planning
objectives of the Principles and Standards--national economic
3
-------
development and environmental quality--should be
retained and given equal emphasis. In addition, the
implementation of the Principles and Standards should
be improved by:
-- adding water conservation as a specific
component of both the economic and envi-
ronmental objectives;
-- requiring the explicit formulation and
consideration of a primarily nonstructural
plan as one alternative whenever structural
water projects or programs are planned;
—- instituting consistent, specific procedures for
calculating benefits and costs in compliance with
the Principles and Standards and other applicable
planning and evaluation requirements. Benefit-cost
analyses have not been uniformly applied by Federal
agencies, and in some cases benefits have been
improperly recognized, ‘double-counted° or included
when inconsistent with federal policy or sound
economic rationale. I am directing the Water
Resources Council to prepare within 12 months a
manual which ensures that benefits and costs are
calculated using the best techniques and provides
for consistent application of the Principles and
Standards and other requirements;
-- ensuring that water projects have been planned in
accordance with the Principles and Standards and
other planning requirements by creating, by Executive
Order, a project review function located in the Water
Resources Council. A professional staff will ensure
an impartial review of pre-construction project plans
for their consistency with established planning and
benefit-cost analysis procedures and applicable
requirements. They will report on compliance with
these requirements to agency heads, who will include
their report, together with the agency recomnienda-
tions, to the Office of Management and Budget.
Project reviews will be completed within 60 days,
before the Cabinet officer makes his or her Budget
request for the coming fiscal year. Responsibility
will rest with the Cabinet officer for Budget requests
to the Office of Management and Budget, but timely
independent review will be provided. This review
must be completed within the same budget cycle in
which the Cabinet Officer intends to make Budget
requests so that the process results in no delay.
4
-------
-- The manual, the Principles and Standards require-
ments and the independent review process will apply
to all authorized projects (and separable
project features) not yet under construction.
Establishment of the following criteria for setting priorities
each year among the water projects eligible for funding or
authorization, which will form the basis of my decisions on
specific water projects:
-— The manual, the Principles and economic benefits
unless there are environmental benefits which
clearly more than compensate for any economic
deficit. Net adverse environmental consequences
should be significantly outweighed by economic
benefits. Generally, projects with higher benefit!
cost ratios and fewer adverse environmental conse-
quences will be given priority within the limits of
available funds.
-- Projects should have widely distributed benefits.
-- Projects should stress water conservation and
appropriate non-structural measures.
-- Projects should have no significant safety
problems involving design, construction or
operation.
-- There should be evidence of active public support
including support by State and local officials.
-- Projects will be given expedited consideration
where State governments assume a share of costs
over and above existing cost-sharing.
-- There should be no significant international or
inter-governmental problems.
-— Where vendible outputs are involved preference
should be given to projects which provide for
greater recovery of Federal and State costs,
consistent with project purposes.
-- The project’s problem assessment, environmental
impacts, costs and benefits should be based on
up—to-date conditions (planning should not be
obsolete).
-- Projects should be in compliance with all relevant
environmental statutes.
5
-------
-— Funding for mitigation of fish and wildlife
damages should be provided concurrently and
proportionately with construction funding.
• Preparation of a legislative proposal for improving cost-
sharing for water projects. Improved cost-sharing will
allow States to participate more actively in project
decisions and will remove biases in the existing system
against non-structural flood control measures. These
changes will help assure project merit. This proposal,
based on the study required by Section 80 of P.L. 93-251,
has two parts:
—- participation of States in the financing of federal
water project construction. For project purposes
with vendible outputs (such as water supply or
hydroelectricpower), States would contribute 10%
of the costs, proportionate to and phased with
federal appropriations. Revenues would be returned
to the States proportionate to their contribution.
For project purposes without vendible outputs (such
asflood control), the State financing share would
be 5%. There would be a cap on State participation
per project per year of 1/4 of 1% of the State 1 s
general revenues so that a small State would not be
precluded from having a very large project located
in it. Where project benefits accrue to more than
one State, State contributions would be calculated ac-
cordingly, but if a benefiting State did not choose
to participate in cost-sharing, its share could be
paid by other participating States. This State cost-
sharing proposal would apply on a mandatory basis
to projects not yet authorized. However, for pro-
jects in the authorized backlog, States which volun-
tarily enter into these cost-sharing arrangements
will achieve expedited Executive Branch consideration
and priority for project funding, as long as other
project planning requirements are met. Soil Conser-
vation Service projects will be completely exempt
from this State cost-sharing proposal.
—— equalizing cost—sharing for structural and non-struc-
tural flood control alternatives. There is existing
authority for 80%-20% Federal/non-Federal cost-
sharing for non-structural flood control measures
(including in-kind contributions such as land and
easements). I will begin approving non-structural
flood control projects with this funding arrangement
and will propose that a parallel cost-sharing require-
ment (including in-kind contributions) be enacted for
structural flood control measures, which currently have
a multiplicity of cost-sharing rules.
6
-------
Another policy issue raised in Section 80 of P.L. 93-251 is that of the
appropriate discount rate for computing the present value of future estimated
economic benefits of water projects. After careful consideration of a range
of options I have decided that the currently legislated discount rate formula
is reasonable, and I am therefore recommending that no change be made in the
current formula. Nor will I recommend retrocurrently authorized projects.
WATER CONSERVATION
Managing our vital water resources depends on a balance of supply, demard
and wise use. Using water more efficiently is often cheaper and less damaging
to the environment than developing additional supplies. While increases in
supply will still be necessary, these reforms place emphasis on water
conservation and make clear that this is now a national priority.
In addition to adding the consideration of water conservation to the
Principles and Standards, the initiatives I am taking include:
• Directives to all Federal agencies with programs which affect
water supply or consumption to encourage water conservation,
including:
-- making appropriate community water conservation
measures a condition of the water supply and waste-
water treatment grant and loan programs of the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Commerce;
-- integrating water conservation requirements into
the housing assistance programs of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, the Veterans
Administration and the Department of Agriculture;
-- providing technical assistance to farmers and urban
dwellers on how to conserve water through existing
programs of the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of Interior and the Department of Housino
and Urban Development;
-- requiring development of water conservation programs
as a condition of contracts for storage or delivery
of municipal and industrial water supplies from
federal projects;
-- requiring the General Service Administration, in
consultation with affected agencies, to establish
water conservation goals and standards in Federal
buildings and facilities;
7
-------
-- encouraging water conservation in the agricultural
assistance programs of the Department of Agriculture
and the Department of Interior which affect water
consumption in water-short areas; and
-- requesting all Federal agencies to examine their
programs and policies so that they can implement
appropriate measures to increase water conservation
and re-use.
• A directive to the Secretary of the Interior to improve the
implementation of irrigation repayment and water service
contract procedures under existinq authorities of the Bureau
of Reclamation. The Secretary will:
-— require that new and renegotiated contracts include
provisions for recalculation and renegotiation of
water rates every five years. This will replace the
previous practice of 40-year contracts which often do
not reflect inflation and thus do not meet the
beneficiaries’ repayment obligations;
-- under existing authority add provisions to recover
operation and maintenance costs when existing contracts
are renegotiated, or earlier where existing contracts
have adjustment clauses;
—- more precisely calculate and implement the “ability to
pay” provision in existing law which governs recovery
of a portion of project capital costs.
• Preparation of legislation to allow States the option of
requiring higher prices for municipal and industrial water
supplies from Federal projects in order to promote conservation,
provided that State revenues in excess of Federal costs would
be returned to municipalities or other public water supply
entities for use in water conservation or rehabilitation of
water supply systems.
FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION
States must be the focal point for water resource management. The water
reforms are based on this guiding principle. Therefore, I am taking several
initiatives to strengthen Federal-State relations in the water policy area
and to develop a new, creative partnership. In addition to proposing that
States increase their roles and responsibilities in water resources develop-
ment through cost—sharing, the actions I am taking include:
• Proposing a substantial increase from $3 million to $25 million
annually in the funding of State water planning under the exist-
ing 50%-50% matching program administered by the Water
8
-------
Resources Council. State water planning would integrate
water management and implementation programs which
emphasize water conservation and which are tailored to
each State’s needs including assessment of water delivery
system rehabilitation needs and development of programs
to protect and manage ground water and instream flows.
• Preparation of legislation to provide $25 million annually in
50%-50% matching grant assistance to States to implement
water conservation technical assistance programs. These
funds could be passed through to counties and cities for
use in urban or rural water conservation programs. This
program will be administered by the Water Resources Council
in conjunction with matching grants for water resources
planning.
• Working with Governors to create a Task Force of Federal,
State, county, city and other local officials to continue
to address water-related problems. The administrative actions
and legislative proposals in this Message are designed to
initiate sound water management policy at the national level.
However, the Federal government must work closely with the
States, and with local governments as well, to continue
identifying and examining water-related problems and to help
implement the initiatives I am announcing today. This Task
Force will be a continuing guide as we implement the water
policy reforms and will ensure that the State and local role
in our Nation’s water policy is constant and meaningful.
• An instruction to Federal agencies to work promptly and expe-
ditiously to inventory and quantify Federal reserved and
Indian water rights. In several areas of the country, States
have been unable to allocate water because these rights have
not been determined. This quantification effort should focus
first on high priority areas, should involve close consultation
with the States and water users and should emphasize negotia-
tions rather than litigation wherever possible.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Water is aba ic requirement for human survival, is necessary for
economic growth arid prosperity, and is fundmental to protecting the natural
environment. Existing environmental statutes relating to water and water
projects generally are adequate, but these laws must be consistently applied
and effectively enforced to achieve their purposes. Sensitivity to environ-
mental protection must be an important aspect of all water-related planning
and management decisions. I am particularly concerned about the need to
improve the protection of instream flows and to evolve careful management of
our nation’s precious groundwater supplies, which are threatened by depletbn
and contamination.
9
-------
My initiatives ‘in this areaS include the following:
• A directive to the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal
agency heads to implement vigorously the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, the Historic Preservation Act and other
environmental statutes. Federal agencies will prepare formal
implementing procedures for the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act and other statutes where appropriate. Affected agencies
will prepare reports on compliance with environmental statutes
on a project-by-project basis for inclusion in annual submis-
sions to the Office of Management and Budget.
• A directive to agency heads requiring them to include desig-
nated funds for environmental mitigation in water project
appropriation requests to provide for concurrent and
proportionate expenditure of mitigation funds.
• Accelerated implementation of Executive Order No. 11988 on
floodplain management. This Order requires agencies to
protect floodplains and to reduce risks of flood losses by not
conducting, supporting or allowing actions in floodplains
unless there are no practicable alternatives. Agency imple-
mentation is behind schedule and must be expedited.
• A directive to the Secretaries of Army, Commerce, Housing
and Urban Development and Interior to help reduce flood
damages through acquisition of flood-prone land and
property, where consistent with primary program purposes.
• A directive to the Secretary of Agriculture to encourage
more effective soil and water conservation through water
shed programs of the Soil Conservation Service by:
- - working with the Fish and Wildlife Service
to apply fully the recently adopted stream
channel modification guidelines;
-- encouraging accelerated land treatment
measures prior to funding of structural
measures on watershed projects, and
making appropriate land treatment measures
eligible for Federal cost-sharing;
-- establishing periodic post project monitoring
to ensure implementation of land treatment and
operation and maintenance activities specified
in the work plan and to provide information
helpful in improving the design of future
projects.
10
-------
• A directive to Federal agency heads to provide increased co-
operation with States and leadership in maintaining instream
flows and protecting groundwater through joint assessment of
needs, increased assistance in the gathering and sharing of
data, appropriate design and operation of Federal water
facilities, and other means. I also call upon the
Governors and the Congress to work with Federal agencies
to protect the fish and wildlife and other values associated
with adequate instream flows. New and existing projects
should be planned and operated to protect instream flows,
consistent with State Jaw and in close consultation with
States. Where prior comitments and economic feasibility
permit, amendments to authorizing statutes should be
sought in order to provide for streamflow maintenance.
CONCLUSION
These initiatives establish the goals and framework for water policy
reform. They do so without impinging on the rights of States and by calling
for a closer partnership among the Federal, State, county, city and other
local levels of governments. I want to work with the Congress, State and
local governments and the public to implement this policy. Together we can
protect and manage our nation’s water resources putting water to use for
society’s benefit, preserving our rivers and streams for future generations
of Americans, and averting critical water shortages in the future through
adequate supply, conservation and wise planning.
ii
-------
The Water Conservation Challenge
Ronald B. Robie
Director, Department of Water Resources
The Resources Agency
State of California
In moderating today’s session, I have been asked to speak for a few
minutes and set the stage for this two-day meeting on the subject of water
conservation. Surprisingly enough, this subject, which would appear at first
blush to be as American as apple pie, is more controversial and less of an
obvious sure thing than most people realize.
The California drought of 1976-77 (which came a year after our Depart-
ment began an intensive water conservation education program and after many
local districts in California began similar efforts) showed that water users
can significantly reduce their water use in most cases without serious
lifestyle changes. However, lifestyle changes were required for drastic
reductions in use, such as those in the Mann Municipal Water District. In
compliance with a mandated cut of 57 percent, the District reduced its
daily per capita consumption for single-family dwellings by 63 percent to
an average of only 132 litres per day (35 gpd) during the 1977 drought
rationing period. This level of conservation cannot be expected in more
normal times, but our experience in California since the drought has shown
that water use reduction can continue and should continue in norn’al and
wet years.
For example, San Franciscans reduced their per capita use by approxi-
mately 28 percent during the drought. They are still approximately 22 per-
cent below predrought levels when you compare the first nine months of 1978
to the same period in 1975. These reductions included consideration of
both conservation and climate. As you probably know, in much of California,
even in wet years, we have to irrigate our lawns and plants during the
several months we get little or no rain. For the east side of San Francisco
Bay, in the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s service area, the per
capita use during the drought was a reduction of approximately 35 percent.
Today there is still a 24 percent reduction. Even in Los Angeles (which was
never hit seriously by the drought) the per capita reduction during the
drought was approximately 14 percent, and today it is 12 percent below
predrought conditions. We are working on a technique to separate changes
due to conservation from non-conservation factors such as climate. For
Los Angeles we have identified a nine percent decline in water used during
12
-------
1977 that can definitely be attributed to conservation efforts. If required
to, people can save a lot of water. If urged and motivated to do so, they
can still save quite a bit without the overwhelming public pressure of a
drought.
Well, if this is true, why isn’t water conservation occurring every-
where and why isn’t conservation a “sure thing”?
First, many state and local water administrators still argue that
“water conservation” means building dams and storing water, not reducing
use. My response is simply that conservation means both. Water is con-
served by storing it behind reservoirs for use at other tines when it is
needed. Water is also conserved and kept behind existing reservoirs or in
existing underground sources by using less so that supplies are available
for the future. These are simply two ways of meeting a single objective.
I sometimes refer to them as the old meaning and the new meaning of the
same word. Both are still valid. But all these semantic exercises mask a
deep—seated fear that if people use less water, they’ll need fewer water
projects. They feel that water conservation is in competition with the way
things have always been done; even wit:i major water conservation efforts in
the form of demand reduction we’re still going to need new dams and new
distribution systems and development of new ground water supplies. However,
the cost of these developments has escalated tremendously in the past few
years, especially in the West where good water storage sites are few and
far between, and those that are available often have environmental problems
associated with them. Stretching existing water supplies is realistic
and cost-effective.
Second, the idea of reducing demand runs counter to the general utility
philosophy of encouraging growth in water use. (How could anyone issue an
annual report to show that income, customers, and product delivered were
less than last year?) Most water managers won’t admit this is a philosophy
of water management at all. Thus, a shift now to a philosophy of discour-
aging water use, minimizing investment in capital facilities, and stretching
our finite natural resources is considered an improper role for utility
managers. Yet it is no more “social engineering” than prior efforts to
encourage use. In California the drought taught many of those utility
managers lessons that educational programs would have taken years to accom-
plish. But there is work to be done to get the great bulk of water utility
managers in America to wholeheartedly subscribe to conservation as a major
objective of their operations.
Third, for many years the Federal government has almost totally ignored
conservation as a planning objective in its water projects. However,
in a 180-degree change, President Carter, in his recent water policy, has
made it the cornerstone of his program. The President said:
Managing our vital water resources depends on a
balance of supply, demand, and wise use. Using
water more efficiently is often cheaper and less
damaging to the environment than developing
13
-------
additional supplies. While increases in supply
will still be necessary, these reforms place
emphasis on water conservation and make clear
that this is now a national priority.
ThePresident further stated that he was directing all Federal agencies with
programs which affect water supply or consumption to encourage conservation.
He specifically included
Making appropriate conuuiunity water conservation
measures a condition of the water supply and
wastewater treatment grant and loan programs
of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Agriculture and the Department
of Commerce.
The implementation of the President’s policy should be significant in placing
conservation in its appropriate place. Hopefully, the day of single-purpose
Federal water planning is a thing of the past.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a particularly crtical
role to play in this area. Much of the water conservation that has occurred
in the past in the municipal sector has come about in compliance with the
requirements of the Clean Water Act, most particularly the imposition of
pretreatment requirements and sewer service charges. This, together with
the objective of eliminating discharges, has resulted in a reduction of
waste flows and thus, water use, especially in the industrial sector. Until
recently, little has been done in terms of conservation under EPA’s
Construction Grants program, With recent additions to the Construction
Grants regulations, EPA has made conservation an integral part of its grant
program.
I would like to add one final thought about water conservation. Water
recycling is part of our overall conservation effort. In industry
particularly, reductions in water use result from recycling supplies. Present
Federal policies do not encourage reclamation, yet the reuse of wastewaters
that have been treated as a result of massive expenditures of Federal funds
provide an important part of our water supplies of the future and should
be considered hand-in-hand with any other water demand reduction efforts
and water development programs of the Soil Conservation Service, the
Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
In California we are comitted to conservation. We have been pushing
it for four years as hard as we can. Our policy is to achieve maximum
practical water conservation and the most efficient use of the waters of
our state. While there is much work to be done in the agricultural
conservation area, a subject which in most states we have just begun to
explore, there is a real challenge ahead for everyone involved in water
management to make conservation a meaningful part of our lives.
14
-------
Water Conservation: Prospects and Problems
Donald L. Sampler, P.E.
Past-President, American Society of Plumbing Engineers
Senior Vice President, Lazenby and Associates
Water and energy conservation have become popular subjects of conversa-
tion over the past few years, and rightfully so. Certainly they are subjects
that will increasingly demand our attention. The time has come when we can
no longer take for granted the natural resources that, in years gone by,
have appeared to be limitless. It is incumbent on all members of our society
to cooperate in transforming the problems of water and energy shortage into
opportunities to discover how we can most effectively utilize those most
precious resources.
This presentation will be devoted to defining the problems as seen by
the speaker, and suggesting some approaches which will hopefully contribute
to their solution. Examples will be introduced which, though based in some
instances on hypothetical situations, nonetheless serve to illustrate the
magnitude of our present wastefulness, and the potential we have to effect
meaningful conservation with a minimum of sacrifice.
Available fresh water is presently limited to that which falls in the
form of rain, ice, or snow. This water is eventually stored in natural or
manmade lakes, cisterns, or some other form of reservoir, including the
subsurface water strata and rivers. For all practical purposes, these
sources cannot be significantly increased. Desalination of sea water offers
one method of obtaining additional supplies, but the process is presently
costly, and is feasible only along the nation’s coastlines. Assuming we can
develop the most effective means to collect and store the fresh water which
falls, that we can draw from the subsurface reservoirs the greatest possible
yield, and assuming that water can be delivered to the many points of
consumption, the problems regarding the rate at which we use water are still
very real.
The first step in the solution of any problem is an accurate analysis of
the nature and extent of the problem. This step, in my judgment, has not yet
been taken. One study, however, states that there are five major areas of
water consumption, broken down as follows: electric utilities, 45 percent;
agricultural, 34 percent; industrial, 13 percent; commercial, 4 percent;
residential, 4 percent. I cannot speak for the validity of the study’s
findings, but, even allowing for a large margin of error, the greatest con-
sumption of water occurs in areas other th3n residential, or even commercial,
If this is indeed true, then it is clear that long—ranqe water and energy
conservation programs must put emphasis on the problem of the major consumers.
15
-------
It is my belief that this will be done, and hopefully, in the not-too-
distant future, even though the problems involved will be formidable. Electric
utilities, for instance, cannot stop generating electricity, but they can--and
I believe they will--reduce to the greatest possible extent both the water and
energy they consume.
Undoubtedly vast quantities of water can be saved in the agricultural
sector of our society. The amount of water, for instance, that is required
to clean agricultural products as they are processed for consumption must be
tremendous. If that water can be recycled without the expenditure of un-
reasonable cost or energy, then a giant step toward effective water and
energy conservation will have been taken. Spray irrigation also needs to be
studied closely. Some method of delivering water to the fields without
spraying it into the air, with the resulting loss by evaporation, needs to
be developed and implemented. Significant quantities of water could be
saved, particularly in very hot climates with low humidities.
The industrial segment of our society presents one of the greatest
challenges for water conservation. Too often, the water used by industry
is heavily polluted with particulate matter or chemicals or, in some cases,
both. Thermal pollution can also be a problem, but the rising cost of fuel
will undoubtedly result in more of this waste heat being recovered. Removal
of particulate matter, and especially the removal of chemicals, can be very
difficult. It can involve huge initial costs for the design and construction
of the necessary equipment, and often significant expenditures of money and
energy to maintain and operate the systems. Since the most certain of all
economic laws is that which states there is no such thing as a free lunch, we
all might as well get used to the idea that we are going to have to pay for
the water we save in this manner.
The areas where I wish to spend the most time are those of comercial
and residential usage. Although they represent a small percentage of the
total water used, these are the areas where engineers, contractors, manu-
facturers, and plumbing inspectors can make the greatest impact in the
shortest possible period of time. By diligently seeking solutions to the
problem of water conservation, and by implementing those solutions through
realistic legislation and application of new technology as it is developed,
we can lead the way in what promises to be a long and expensive endeavor.
Presently, the spotlight is on a relatively small number of water-saving
devices. The industry has done a coniitendable job of making these devices
available for a reasonable cost. These devices include flow-restricting
aerators for lavatory and sink faucets, flow controls for shower heads, flush
valves that operate with three gallons of water, urinals designed to flush
with six quarts of water, and flush tank toilets that produce an adequate
flush with three and one-half gallons of water. Although these devices may
not sound impressive when considered individually, a quick analysis of the
cumulative effect they could have, if installed, makes the significance of
their contribution to the water conservation effort apparent.
For instance, consider a 500-unit apartment housing 500, four-person
families--2,000 consumers of water packed into a single structure. For the
16
-------
purpose of evaluating the water consumption, I ll use the following assump-
tions which I believe to be reasonably accurate (these assumptions make an
allowance for some of the family members spending a part of the day away
from the apartment):
• each person uses the toilet four times a day
• each person runs the lavatory faucet for a period of two
minutes a day
• each person spends six minutes a day in the shower.
Further, consider the following statistics on fixture flow rates which
I believe are reasonably correct. The toilets currently in use in this
country consume six to 11 gallons per flush. In the interest of being con-
servative,assume an average of eight gallons per flush. The average flow
rate through a lavatory faucet, as it is normally used, is about 1-1/2
gallons per minute (gpm). Shower head flow rates vary from six to 10 gpm;
eight gpm average seems reasonable, based on my experience in checking a
number of installations. Using these figures, the water consumption for
the apartment complex would be as follows:
• toilets: 16,000 gallons per day (gpd)
• lavatories: 1,500 gpd
• shower: 24,000 gpd
The total daily consumption would be 41,500 gallons.
If the cost-conscious apartment owner could be convinced to install water-
saving devices in the complex, the water consumption would be significantly
changed: 3-1/2 gallon flush toilets would use 7,000 gpd; lavatories
equipped with 3/4 gpm aerators would use 750 gpd; the heavy-use fixture,
the shower,would consume only 9,000 gpd if equipped with a 3 gpm flow
control device. The daily total of water consumed would be reduced to
16,750 gallons. Assuming that the residents of the apartments would be home
for 50 weeks each year, the quantity of water saved would amount to
8,622,500 gallons per year.
As mentioned above, I believe these figures are fairly conservative, but
assume that the annual savings is really only 7,500,000 gallons. To better
visualize this quantity of water, think of a fish bowl the size of a foot-
ball field. The water saved by this one apartment complex would stand
approximately 22 feetabove the bottom. If water cost $1.00/i ,000 gallons--
and it costs more than that now in some places--the apartment owner would
realize an annual savings of $7,500.00. Obviously, the owner could pay
back the initial investment in water—saving devices in a short period of
time, and avoid the problem of increasing water cost for the water that
would have been used.
The methods for conserving water outlined above are primarily directed
toward new construction or renovation where the installation of devices
is used to effect the desired results. There are other ways water can be
conserved. They are easy and, best of all, they cost nothing to implement.
How many persons reading this paper leave the faucet running while brushing
your teeth? How about those men who do the same thing while shaving? I
17
-------
don’t believe I have to quote any statistics to impress upon you the vast
amount of water that could be saved if people would alter their lifestyles
a bit, saving those little bits of water where they car,. It would really
be painless, and, if we have 220 million—plus persons in this country prac-
ticing some form of personal hygiene, you can see how literally hundreds
of millions of gallons of water could be conserved each day.
There are other methods of conservation which have been tried with
varying degrees of success, and innovative thinking will, I am sure, produce
many more. I have heard, for instance, of one carwash installation in the
Midwest which stores rainwater for use in its operation. By use of a
filtering process, the water is used over and over, resulting in a sizable
water--and dollar—-savings. It seems that storage and later use of rain-
water, when it can be done without excessive cost, holds promise for many
non-potable water-consuming operations. Such water could be used for
irrigation, to cite one possibility.
Proper maintenance of existing systems is another way significant
quantities of water can be conserved. Leakage accounts for between 5 percent
and 10 percent of all residential water consumed. Most of this is due to
worn-out faucet washers and faulty toilet tank valves. A leaking faucet,
leaking at a rate of one drop per second, can waste seven gpd; a steady
drip, as much as 20 gpdAleaking toilet tank valve can waste 200 gpd, and
because the water leaks into the bowl, it is difficult to detect. Both of
these water wasters can be repaired for little cost, and performing the
required maintenance can save the owner enough to make it worthwhile.
Up to now, I have spoken primarily of water conservation, but solutions
to the problem of water usage will have a highly desirable side effect:
the conservation of energy. Practically all the water we use is pumped from
a river or lake to a reservoirwhereit is treated. From the treatment plant,
it is pumped either to an elevated tank, or directly to the consumer. Let’s
take another look at our 500-unit apartment complex.
Assume that the water serving the complex is taken from a lake, is
treated, then pumped up to the complex located at an elevation 200 feet
above the lake. Further assume that the water is delivered at 70 psig, by a
60 percent efficiency pump, at an average rate of 1/12 the total flow per
hour for a 12-hour period. The reduction of the water consumed would result
in a power savings of approximately 40 percent. There are, of course, other
energy savings involved: that required to treat the water and to treat the
effluent after the water is used; the fuel used in the vehicles required to
transport the sludge and to deliver the chemicals; the fuel saved by not
having to heat the vast quantities of shower water that would have been used
with the old style shower heads; and many others.
At this point, I will end my discussion of ways of saving water in the
immediate future. Hopefully, the things already said make it clear that
there are many ways we can each become instant conservationists. It’s
simply a matter of being motivated to do the things we know how to do today.
More importantly, what about the future?
18
-------
I believe the overall, long term problem can be best solved through a
nationwide concerted, coordinated effort in the areas of research, education,
legislation, and administration, in that order.
First, what lies ahead in the area of research? We need one comprehen-
sive research program--just one--funded by the Federal government and guided
by a reasonably small group of persons from both the private and public
sectors of our society. These persons should have the ability to first, ask
the appropriate questions, and secondly, formulate those questions into a
meaningful research program. Such questions might include the following:
• how much water is used by the various segments of our society,
and does it vary geographically?
• what is the realistic potential for reducing the usage in each
segment, and by what amounts?
• what are user habits related to plumbing fixtures? Conversely,
how much can we expect to modify user habits and reduce the
quantity of water used before we encounter technological or
psychological barriers?
• what is the best means of achieving water conservation--water
pricing, mandatory rationing, education, or some combination of
the three?
• could, or should, the parameters for water use be standardized
throughout the country, or should more extreme measures be made
to apply in those areas with the most severe problems?
• what hydraulic problems will be associated with decreasing the
flow in our existing sewers and sewage treatment systems?
• how much energy will be saved through implementation of proposed
solutions, and how will the cost of that energy saved be passed
on to the consumers?
• what are reasonable, and realizable, short term, midterm and
long term goals?
Second, how can we most effectively inform the public of the results of such
a research program, and of the proposed solutions that evolve from the
research? I suggest that if one concentrated research program is planned
and successfully completed, then one well-planned, coordinated, concentrated
educational program should be implemented simultaneously across the country,
one which has long and short term goals. Some short term goals could be
achieved by spot reminders on radio and television, spotlighting various
water-conserving measures and the money that could be saved by implementing
them. It should be done in such a way that people begin to identify the
problem and solutions with these spot reminders,in much the same way the
government has had “Smokey the Bear” keep us aware of the hazards and
destructiveness of forest fires.
Long term goals could be approached through the education of those
responsible for design and construction of buildings, perhaps through films,
seminars, etc. for architects, engineers, contractors, and developers. It’s
particularly important to reach the developers, since their money will be
used to effect conservation. They must be convinced that increased initial
19
-------
costs are justified. Also, educational programs could be introduced into
our schools, informing our children early in life of the contributions they
can make in the conservation effort.
Once we have completed our research and formulated viable proposals for
solutions, and once we have begun to educate the public of both the problem
and the solutions, then-—and only then--will we be ready to enter into a far-
reaching, long term program of preventive and corrective legislation, one
which will be both effective and acceptable to an informed public.
Third, what part will the legislative and bureaucratic process play in
the conservation effort? President Carter, in his environmental message
delivered on May 23, 1977, stated that “one of the pressing domestic issues
facing the Administration and this Congress is the establishment of a
national water resources management policy.” He directed the Water Resources
Council of the Office of Management and Budget and the Council on Environ-
mental Quality to review existing water resources policy and recommend
reforms. This basically means that the horse is already out of the barn--the
legislative and bureaucratic wheels are already turning. It is my sincere
hope that these wheels are rolling in the right direction. I don’t mean
by this statement to be critical 0 f the individuals involved; I am sure they
are sincerely striving to respond to the President’s directive. My concern
is that they will initiate too many programs and regulations before enough re-
liable data has been accumulated, resulting in programs which achi&ve minimal
success at an extremely high cost, both in dollars and in poor public
acceptance of the programs involved. Once such action is entrenched, the
task of developing a really meaningful program becomes many times more dif—
ficult. For instance, if that one research group mentioned earlier bore
fruit and produced meaningful data which could be developed into a reasonable,
workable plan of action, one of the first things to logically follow
would be the sponsoring of legislation to support those parts of the plan
requiring the force of law to make them successful. Given good information,
I am confident that our representatives have the desire and the motivation
to initiate and pass such legislation. If, at that point, there are already
regulations in effect being administered by one or more bureaus, the problem
of developing new legislation is intensified by the need to nullify those
regulations which conflict with the research group’s perception of what
should be done.
It seems that a basic decision has to be made before we become too
deeply involved in the solutions to the problem of water conservation: who
will finally be responsible for developing the program. That decision has
already been made. It is my sincere hope that some group well-represented
by both the government and the private sectors, who must live with the
programs developed, can intervene before the government goes much further;
that they can present to the Water Resources Council some alternative to the
bureaucratic solution. Far—reaching but poorly thought-out programs deve-
loped before adequate data is available can result in several giant steps
backward in the long term effort to conserve water.
r believe there is a time when the task of seeking solutions to the
problems of our society should be shared by the private sector--by those
20
-------
persons knowledgeable in the subject, who must ultimately live with and
function under the programs evolved. I believe that time is now.
Fourth, and last, what major role can our local and state administrative
authorities play in such a nationwide, coordinated effort to conserve water?
Once the facts are known and plans have been developed, and once the
legislative process has given us the necessary, but reasonable and workable,
laws to establish our goals and limits, our local administrators become the
key to the program s success. Plumbing ordinances will have to be changed
to both reflect the national effort and to consider problems unique to their
areas of jurisdiction. Flow-control and water-saving devices should be
standardized throughout the country to help manufacturers avoid the problem
of differing regulations. This is important for at least two reasons. First,
it will allow those devices to be produced at the least possible cost, and
second, it will minimize the stocking, shipping, and delivery problems that
can result in construction delays.
Our various professional, technical, and trade societies which bring us
together will each need to work closely with their own chapters, and with
other societies, to aid our administrative authorities in whatever ways
possible. Effective comunication will be a major key to the timely success
of any water conservation effort.
In conclusion, I wish to state my belief that the water conservation
problem will be transformed into an opportunity. This will happen because
people in this country have always had the ability and the determination to
forget local prejudices and to combine forces in a remarkable manner when
faced with a comon problem. The group assembled here has the opportunity
and the ability to make a major contribution to the efforts which will be
required in the coming years. It is my hope that the Federal government,
with its vast resources, will join hands with the private sector, vitally
interested in the problem, as it seeks solutions and develops programs that
will affect all of our lives for many years to come.
21
-------
The Need for Water Conservation
The National Viewpoint
Leo M. Eisel
Director
U.S. Water Resources Council
Water conservation is doing with one gallon what any fool could do with
ten.
Water conservation is, or ought to be, our first alternative rather
than our last resort.
Water conservation is here and now. It is practical,painless, popular,
profitable, and even patriotic.
Water conservation is the cornerstone of President Carter’s National
Water Policy announced in June of 1978. In his environmental message of
May 1977 he ordered a thorough review of national water policy and
indicated that any reforms proposed should have water conservation as their
cornerstone. And after 18 months of study, review, hearings, and debate,
his directive has been carried out: water conservation is the cornerstone
of National Water Policy.
The four major themes of the President’s water policy message are:
1) improved planning and management of Federal water resources
programs;
2) a new national emphasis on water conservation;
3) enhanced Federal-state cooperation; and,
4) increased attention to environmental quality.
On July 12, 1978, President Carter issued a set of 13 implementing
directives to the Federal agencies responsible for accomplishing objectives
outlined in the National Water Policy. Each Federal agency assigned a
specific task by these directives is required to seek appropriate input
from State, county, local, and nongovernmental agencies in development of
the implementation plans. Nineteen task forces are now at work implementing
the directives.
Specifically, these directives address the following subjects.
• Water Conservation and Flood Plain Management
• Environmental Quality and Water Resources Management
22
-------
• Improvements in the Planning and Evaluation of Federal Water
Resources Programs and Projects
• Enhanced Federal-State Cooperation in Water Management
• Improvements in Soil Conservation Service Programs
• Conservation Pricing of Water Supplied by Federal Projects
• Technical Assistance for Water Conservation
• Water Conservation at Federal Facilities
• Water Conservation Provisions in Loan and Grant Programs for
Water Supply and Treatment
• Agricultural Assistance Programs
• Water Conservation in Housing Assistance Programs
• Emphasis on Nonstructural Flood Protection Methods
• Federal and Indian Reserved Water Rights
Water Conservation and Flood Plain Management in Federal programs is one
of the primary implementing directives in meeting the series of water conser-
vation initiatives in the Water Policy Message. All executive departments
and agencies have been directed to identify their respective programs having
significant water use or conservation impacts, and to determine potential
administrative or legislative changes that could be made in order to
eliminate wasteful and unnecessary water use.
Improvements in the Planning and Evaluation of Federal Water Resources
Programs and Projects is another key directive which has been issued to
“achieve economic efficiency and environmental quality in water resources
management.” Specific improvements in the water projects planning and
evaluation process are called for, along with the establishment of an
independent water project review function, and formulation of specific
criteria to be used as part of the decision process on potential water
projects, and to be made public.
In the planning and review of water resources projects, the President
stated that water conservation, which makes sense both environmentally and
economically, has not been emphasized in Federal water projects and in some
cases the Federal government has created disincentives to conservation. To
help overcome this problem, the Water Resources Council (WRC)and its member
agencies have been directed to carry out a thorough evaluation of current
agency practices for making benefit and cost calculations, and to publish
a planning manual that will ensure that benefits and costs are estimated in
compliance with the Principles and Standards , which are the guidelines for
preparing and evaluating Federal water projects, and other applicable
economic evaluation requirements. In order to provide greater consideration
of water conservation and nonstructural alternatives in all projects and
programs subject to the Principles and Standards , WRC is directed to
modify the Principles and Standards to accomplish the full integration of
water conservation into project and program planning and review it as a
component of both economic development and environmental quality objectives.
This effort is now underway and a draft of the planning manual and the
Principles and Standards revisions will be published for coninent in March.
23
-------
President Carter has indicated tbat the States sbould t?e th focal point
for water resources management. To aid in accomplishing this objective,
the President has issued a directive to WRC for Enhanced Federal-State
Cooperation in Water Management by providing increased assistance to the
states to establish water conservation technical assistance programs and to
increase existing State water planning programs. Under this directive,
a $25 million program for water conservation technical assistance grants to
States will be implemented by the Water Resources Council.
A directive has also been issued regarding Conservation Pricing of
Water Supplied by Federal Projects. The Departments of Interior, Agriculture,
Energy, Army, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) have been directed
to arrange for current audits of all major Federal water supply and power
projects to “establish the financial condition, including operation and
maintenance costs, of these projects. t ’ Further, all new water supply and
power contracts shall include a provision calling for recalculation of
water rates every five years. In addition, provisions should be added to
recover operation, maintenance, and replacement costs when long term
contracts expire or earlier where existing contracts have adjustment clauses.
Another directive calls for increased Technical Assistance for Water
Conservation in water-short areas, both agricultural and urban. Consequently,
the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development
are preparing a plan for identifying and providing increased water conser-
vation technical assistance to qualifying water-short areas using existing
assistance programs.
Water Conservation at Federal Facilities also is included in the Water
Policy directives. In consultation with WRC and affected agencies, the
General Services Administration is directed to review water use at Federal
buildings and facilities under its jurisdiction, and to specify water conser-
vation measures and establish specific standards and goals for water conser-
vation at these sites in order to increase the ficiency of water use during
the period from 1979-1983.
The directive on Water Conservation Provisions in Loan and Grant
Programs for Water Supply and Treatment requires certain Federal agencies
to review those programs that provide loans and grants for urban water supply
and wastewater treatment systems, modify those programs to remove any disin-
centives to water conservation, and to require appropriate community water
conservation programs as a condition of such loans and grants. These water
conservation modifications are to apply to all loans and grant programs
awarded after September 30, 1979.
As part of the directive on Agricultural Assistance Programs in water-
short areas, the President has indicated a need to discourage overextension
and ground water depletion in such areas where Federal agricultural assist-
ance programs are operating. Consequently, the Departments of Agriculture
and Interior are instructed to develop appropriate actions to achieve this
goal. These actions are to be coordinated, wherever possible, with the
water conservation technical assistance program called for in other
directives.
24
-------
The Water Conservation in Housing Assistance Programs directive calls
for the adoption of low-cost conservation measures. Consequently, a review
will be taken of existing housing assistance programs in order to modify
those prograris where necessary to require the adoption of low-cost conser-
vation measures. All housing assistance provided after September 30, 1979
will include these water conservation modifications.
The term “water conservation” was used 17 times in the President’s
message to the Congress--and it is implied, across and throughout, many
more times.
One of our first efforts has been to develop a comon definition, or
concept, of water conservation--not too surprisingly a difficult task.
Presently, we’re using the definition in the President’s message, the basic
idea being that water conservation is primarily concerned with reducing
demand for water.
As we revise the Principles and Standards which guide Federal water
planning we will require that, in order to fully incorporate water conser-
vation, water resource planning will be based upon a systematic evaluation
of alternative management strategies--structural and nonstructural measures--
which will
1) modify the demand for water for selected purposes;
2) enhance the use of existing water development facilities; and
3) develop new supplies.
Water conservation is not to be sought as a goal in itself, but rather
one very effective tool to be used in meeting our national objectives of
insuring a safe and dependable water supply for all uses.
The concept of conservation does not exclude the development of new
water storage facilities, but it does indicate that new supply should not
always be, as it has in the past, the preferred measure for meeting our
water needs. Finally perhaps, the management of demand will precede the
management of supply.
It has been said about our government structure that local governments
have all the problems, State.governments have all the authority and the
Federal government has all the money. That certainly fits the water resources
picture quite well today, but there are some indications of change. Earlier
this fall, Congress indicated that the Federal tax bite ought to be a bit
less. Also, the President said in his successful veto of the Public Works
Appropriation Bill that we will no longer use the Federal dollar to solve
every real or imagined water problem that comes calling.
We learned, or relearned, during the Water Policy Study that the Federal
government is not the preeminent water management authority--water allocation
is controlled by State law and primary water management responsibility is at
State level. Even in the West, water from Federal reservoirs is less than
40 percent of the total. And while the annual Federal investment in water
25
-------
resources is large, with over $10 billion allocated for water quality and
water resources development, it is probably less than the local, state and
private investment in water supply faciliites.
Water conservation will not be accomplished by Federal decree. We can
urge and cajole and sometimes bribe the water users and water managers, but
there is no way that we can, or want to, mandate water conservation. Educa-
tion and incentives and practicing, I hope, what we preach will be our major
efforts.
If water conservation is to become effective, it will happen out here
in the real world, through the understanding and perseverance of people
such as are assembled here today. You are the troops in the front lines
and you are the leaders who can help us become wise water users.
The water conservation technical assistance grants program ($25 million
for State grants) is intended to help you to help each other. The oppor-
tunities for water conservation are different in different states and
different regions, and if we can set 50 States and their local water
managers to work in a general direction, the resuljing water conservation
programs will surpass by a hundredfold what any Federal bureaucrat might
think up, let alone implement.
This program will provide funds on a matching basis to all States--an
equal share to each and a variable share based on population and water use.
States will be able to use these funds for public education and information
dissemination, technical assistance and, principally in the appropriation
state, water exchanges (legal exchanges of water use rights between jurisdic-
tions in times of need). Legislation to authorize this program will be
introduced in January; we have drafted the rules and will be ready to
implement the program as soon as we have the authority. These rules quite
broadly interpret what may be included in water conservation and in technical
assistance, and will require the designated State agency to coordinate its
technical assistance program with local governments in the use of funds.
Water conservation will not solve our water problems overnight, but it
doesn’t need to. It has taken us years of overinvestment and overexpansion
to get into this box and it’s not unreasonable to expect that it will take
a few years to change our ways. Even with a now-declining or stable birth
rate, it has been said that we as a nation will build by the end of the
century additional physical plant-—homes, offices, and factories--equivalent
to that which exists today. And if each of these facilities incorporates
the water conservation devices which are now practical, our children and
our children’s children will be doing with one gallon what we used to do
with ten.
To suninarize the national viewpoint, there is no national water crisis--
and with a nationwide emphasis on water conservation, there doesn’t need
to be and won’t be. We do have severe water supply shortages in certain
local areas because we insist on moving into areas where the water is not
plentiful or accessible.
26
-------
Nationally, we have an available supply in our surface waters of 1300
billion gallons per day. From this we withdraw less than a third and we
consume less than a tenth. But there is no national plumbing system and a
surplus or a savings in one region has little use in another region far
removed. Since 1920, more than half of all Americans have become urban
dwellers and we have concentrated our homes and industry on 5 percent of
the nation’s land area. Our urban water consumption is only 6 percent of
our national total , but because this use is so concentrated, there is and
will continue to be intense competition for the existing supplies and the
limited new supply potentials. Small improvements in our efficiency of
domestic water use--and water savings of 20 to 40 percent are entirely
practical and possible--can provide that equivalent of new supply, at zero
investment. And the equivalent new supply requires no transmountain
diversion, no massive reservoir, and no Federal subsidy.
The national role in water conservation will be cooperation, not
preemption. We will eliminate the Federal incentives to waste water; we
will establish a few incentives to conserve. And we will lean heavily
upon you in the water business to carry the message to the people--to
increase water consciousness if you can--or reduce their water pressure
if you can’t. We’ll all save water either way.
27
-------
Legislative Impacts, EPA, and Water Conservation
Thomas C. Jorling
Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John Wesley Powell was one of the first American scientists to study,
appreciate, and write about the problems and opportunities related to water
in the arid and semiarid West. In his classic study, Lands of the Arid
Region of the United States , published in 1878, Powell wrote, “where agri-
culture is dependent upon an artificial supply of water, and where there is
more land than can be served by the water, value inheres in water, not in
land; the land without the water is without value.” He also predicted many
natural and human disasters--floods, droughts, crop failures, and disputes
over land and water rights--which could result from mismanagement of a scarce
resource.
Many of Powell’s predictions have been realized in the subsequent years.
The environmental implications of a finite water supply--most acute in the
Western States-—have now appeared in other parts of the country and in other
parts of the world. Water shortages have caused the latest rude awakening
from the American Dream. One more assured amenity of an unlimited, cheap
supply of fresh water can no longer be taken for granted. While the amount
of water remains relatively static, the demands for it expand exponentially.
In the Western States, competing demands include growing population
centers and expanding industrial and agricultural bases. The exploitation
and conversion of native energy resources, including coal, oil shale, and
uranium, will require vast additional amounts of water. At the same time, we
are realizing that the traditional water resource solutions--great reservoirs
and interbasin transfers of water--are either no longer economically feasible
or are politically and environmentally unacceptable.
Eastern States are also experiencing serious water shortages. Primarily,
this is a result of poor quality restricting the quantity available for com-
peting uses. Both water supply and wastewater facilities in the East are in
serious need of expansion and rehabilitation. Water development, treatment,
and heating are energy-intensive and expensive. Wastewater collection,
treatment, and disposal share the same problems.
These competing demands throughout the country and the constraints of a
finite water supply are urging us toward a carefully integrated process of
water resource management. It makes little sense to spend hundreds of
millions to clean up the effluent discharges into a river only to have the
28
-------
impact of that investment negated by increasing upstream withdrawals. Con-
versely, water resources development plans which fail to treat quality con-
siderations in the development equation are an anachronism which we can no
longer afford.
I recognize there are some dangers and limitations associated with the
land application alternative. Industrial effluents can contain heavy metals
such as cadmium and organic chemicals with phytotoxic effects. Human
pathogens and intestinal worms are often associated with untreated waste-
water. However, pretreatment, abatement of pollutants, and disinfection can
reduce many of these problems. Careful site management can prevent excessive
runoff, reduce odors, and protect human health and the biological integrity
of ground and surface water.
Congress has encouraged development of projects and technology which
reuse and recycle wastewater in both the 1972 and the 1977 Amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The decision and administrative action
to emphasize and encourage reclamation within the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency predate the 1977 amendments. On October 3, 1977, a policy
statement from EPA Administrator Costle to the Assistant Administrator and
the Regional Administrators stated that the Agency would “press vigorously
for publicly owned treatment works to utilize land treatment processes to
reclaim and recycle municipal wastewater” This policy statement reflected
the Administrator’s understanding of the original intent of Public Law 92-
500: to encourage development of wastewater management policies based on the
fundamental ecological principle that all materials should be returned to the
cycles from which they were generated. In that memorandum, he urged
particular attention to wastewater treatment processes which renovate and
reuse wastewater as well as recycle the organic matter and nutrients in a
beneficial way.
The 1977 Clean Water Act reiterated and strengthened the directive to
EPA contained in the 1972 amendments to apply conservation principles and to
preferentially consider reclamation and recycling processes and technology.
EPA is now moving ahead with water conservation initiatives on several fronts--
through training programs, regulations, research and development, special
studies, and through participation on Federal interagency task forces.
An important thrust of our efforts is to incorporate water conservation
measures into the facility plans for municipal treatment works. Following
a directive from President Carter, the Agency has assumed leadership for an
interagency review of all Federal loan and grant programs for water supply
and wastewater treatment. This is part of the implementation of the
President’s National Water Policy, aimed at making water conservation a pre-
requisite o f these Federal grant and loan programs.
The President’s directive applies to grant and loan programs adminis-
tered by the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Housing and Urban De-
velopment, as well as those of EPA. We are directed to examine possible pro-
gram modifications that would remove existing disincentives and provide new
incentives for water conservation as a condition of the grant or loans awarded
29
-------
after September 30, 1979. The work of the Interagency Task Force is already
underway. A progress report will be submitted by the end of November 1978.
EPA has been moving ahead of the Interagency Task Force on a parallel
and complementary track by incorporating water conservation requirements into
revisions of the construction grants regulations. The recent revisions to
the construction grant cost-effectiveness guidelines establish an upper limit
on the estimate of average daily per capita flows built into the project de-
sign where flows are not well documented. In many cases this should work to
limit the size of the treatment facility and encourage communities to install
water-conserving devices in the system. To reinforce this, the cost-
effectiveness guidelines require that each facility plan include an estimate
of the costs, the cost savings, and the effects of installing and implement-
ing flow reduction measures. These measures are to include public informa-
tion programs, pricing and regulatory approaches, the installation of water
meters, and the retrofitting of homes, offices, and commercial facilities
with water—conserving devices. The grantee will also be reauired to examine
local ordinances relating to building and plumbing codes to encourage in-
stallation of water—saving devices.
The Clean Water Act provided the Construction-Grants Program additional
legislative tools to encourage water conservation through application of in-
novative and alternative technologies. In adopting these provisions the Con-
ference Report expressed the disappointment of the Congress that the provisions
of the 1972 amendments to encourage alternatives that would “lead to reclaim-
ing and recycling of water and the confined and contained disposal of wastes”
had not been effectively implemented.
The Clean Water Act provides increased financial incentives to the com-
munity to consider the alternatives to conventional wastewater treatment
systems. The inducements include an increase from 75 percent to 85 percent
in the eligible Federal share of the project costs;al o percent set-aside of
the States’ allotment to provide the increased Federal share for exclusive
use on innovative and alternative projects; a failsafe feature which protects
the community against financial liability in the event that the project fails
to operate properly and at a reasonable cost; and 100 percent Federal funding
of technical evaluations, training, and information dissemination associated
with such projects.
New and innovative technologies must be considered in the development of
each facility plan. This is no longer optional. Moreover, such projects now
enjoy a 15 percent edge over conventional treatment systems in the cost-
effectiveness analysis. I might add here that land application methods are
specifically mentioned in the definition of the terms “innovative and alter-
native.” At present, over 13 percent of the step one, two, and three con-
struction grant projects have land application components.
Another area in which EPA has the opportunity to exert some influence
upon water use is with industrial wastewater control. Section 301(i) of the
Clean Water Act establishes water conservation as one of the legitimate con-
ditions for allowing the extension or modification of a National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Section 402) for an industrial
discharge into a publicy owned treatment works not in compliance with the
30
-------
1977 deadline. This affects approximately 2400 major treatment systems and
could be applicable to thousands of industrial discharges.
Additionally, the Agency is in the process of initiating a major program
for the control and pretreatment of toxics from industrial dischargers into
municipal systems. The establishment of user fees based on volume and load-
ing have had a demonstrated effect on lowering the amount of water used by
these dischargers in the industrial process. Removal and control of toxics
in the production process will greatly expand the potential utility and
acceptability of the discharge for other purposes.
The Clean Water Act contains three additional amendments with potential
for water conservation benefits. Section 516(e) requires EPA to submit to
Congress a report with recommendations for legislation on a program to co-
ordinate water supply and wastewater control plans as a condition to grants
for construction of wastewater treatment works.
A work group has been established to study this matter and will focus on
such issues as:
• Water conservation as a potential means for accommodating growing
needs with available supplies, improving water quality, and realizing
monetary and energy savings in both water supply and wastewater
treatment
• The tradeoff between additional wastewater treatment to protect
drinking water sources or sophisticated water supply treatment
when water is withdrawn from those sources for use
• The adequacy of ground water source protection in light of
potential increases in land treatment, recharge with wastewater,
and injection as a means of disposal.
The recently-established work group has developed an extensive schedule
of informal workshops at five EPA regional offices to involve the States.
localities, public groups, industries, and others in developing the report.
These workshops will be held from mid—January to mid-February 1979, and I
encourage those of you here today to participate. Formal hearings on a pre-
liminary report will be held during the summer.
A second initiative, called for by Section 102(d) of the Clean Water
Act, is the preparation of a report to Congress on the relationship of EPA’s
water quality program and other State and Federal programs for water quantity
allocation.
The task force preparing the report will study water quality/quantity
program relationships at the Federal, State, and regional and interstate
levels. The report will identify and analyze existing technical, economic,
institutional, and legal problems and constraints. Some specific issues to
be examined from this perspective include instream flow, irrigated agricul-
ture, consumptive waste treatment technologies, and surface and ground water
interrelationships.
31
-------
The task force expects to have a final report by next spring. In the
meantime, it will work closely with groups outside EPA, including the States,
river basin comissions, and other Federal agencies. A public meeting on a
draft report is also planned for early spring.
Finally, a work group is developing an EPA policy on multi-purpose proj-
ects to guide the application of construction grants to such purposes. The
group is studying water reuse and reclamation as well as other types of
multi -purpose projects.
CONCLUSION
Through these initiatives and through additional efforts that the Inter-
agency Task Force will be developing, the Environmental Protection Agency
will insure that its programs-—and projects affected by its grants and regu-
lations--will include or seriously consider all available options to conserve
water. EPA ’s water resources management policy will encourage coordinated
consideration of the quality/quantity relationship. It will encourage multi-
ple-use projects. It will attempt to make available to the maximum number of
beneficial competing activities water of the highest quality. Reuse and re-
cycling will be the essential mechanisms encouraged by EPA.
However, it must be realized that the potential impact of the Federal
government is limited. The potential impact of all levels of government is
limited. Water conservation is most critical at the level of the individual.
In the past, most efforts to conserve resources have followed crisis: short-
ages, droughts, oil embargoes, contamination. The initial enthusiasm dissi-
pates quickly as the crisis passes. But the problem remains. The interrela-
tion of all finite natural resources must be appreciated by the individual.
Efforts must immediately be made to integrate provisions for conservation
into our individual lifestyles, so that we do not preclude other beneficial
uses in our generation and in the years ahead.
32
-------
Water Conservation and the Environment
J. Gustave Speth
Member
Council on Environmental Quality
Theodore Roosevelt was the first 20th century President to elevate pro-
tection and conservation of water resources to a level of national signifi-
cance. He wrote in his autobiography that,when he assumed the Presidency,
Our magnificent river system with its superb possibilities
for public usefulness, was dealt with by the national
government not as a unit, but as a disconnected series of
pork-barrel problems, where the only interest was in their
effect on the re-election or defeat of a congressman here
and there.
Roosevelt’s natural resource policy reflected his belief that “the
forest and water problem are perhaps the most vital internal problems of the
United States.” Roosevelt sponsored and signed the Reclamation Act of 1902,
which provided for the reclamation of vast public lands by irrigation. He
created the Inland Waterways Commission in 1907 to consider the relation of
the nation’s rivers and streams to its other resources. And in 1908
Roosevelt assembled the National Conservation Commission. This conference
of governors, congressmen, Supreme Court Justices, members of the Cabinet,
and other distinguished individuals prepared an inventory of the natural
resources of the country and wrote recommendations for their wise management.
Unfortunately, not many of their recommendations were implemented.
Following World War I, the nation’s fresh water was increasingly viewed as
an unlimited resource, to be harnessed, tapped, and diverted for agricultural,
municipal, and industrial development. Water was the source of hydroelectric
development. Conservation was defined in terms of flood control, harnessed
energy, or construction of major basin and interbasin diversions to correct
nature’s uneven geographic distribution of its hydrologic abundance. And
after World War II, Congress greatly expanded Federal funding of large multi-
purpose water development projects.
However, a number of intervening reviews of the Federal government’s
role in water resources development were increasingly critical of this
approach. The National Water Commission’s 1972 report, for example, urged
reforms in planning, cost-sharing, and coordination, and emphasized the need
for water conservation and consideration of environmental values.
33
-------
During this decade, we also began to understand the complex interrela-
tionships between the quantity of water in a particular stream, river, or
lake; its flow and hydrologic cycles; and the support and maintenance of the
associated aquatic environment. The importance of protecting ground water
reservoirs also became evident, though too often in the context of local
water shortages and environmental crises.
Responding to these changing values, President Carter in 1977 ordered a
full-scale Executive branch review of water policy at the national level.
The Water Policy Message delivered to Congress by the President on
June 6, 1978,is based upon the specific findings of this Water Policy Review,
which was conducted by the Office of Management and Budget, the Council on
Environmental Quality, and the U.S. Department of the Interior.
The review pointed out that, despite the numerous benefits that Federal
water programs have provided, their blessings are indeed mixed. Many pro-
jects have caused serious environmental, economic, and safety problems. The
review found a pressing need for comprehensive and consistent executive over-
sight and direction of the 25 Federal agencies whicji spend more than $10
billion per year on water resource projects and programs.
More specifically, the study discovered that many Federal programs in-
clude no incentives to conserve water. It also highlighted the most serious
problem areas in the country--where water needs are greatest, where water
use is excessive, and where conservation could free water for other competing
uses.
According to data gathered, a severe water shortage now exists in 21 of
106 subregions of the United States--located primarily in the Central Plains
and Southwestern States. A potentially severe shortage is projected for 18
additional regions by the year 2000, if consumption grows as projected.
Over 90 percent of the water consumed in the subregions (with identified
imbalances in water supply and demand) is used by agriculture, particularly
for irrigation. In many parts of these subregions, farmers and other water
consumers are drawing upon a fixed supply of ground water which cannot be
renewed, or can be replaced only at a high cost. Such ground water mining
is most prevalent in the Texas High Plains region and other parts of the
West. The same water is sought by energy-generating industries as well as
spreading metropolises. Phoenix, Denver, and Tucson present good illustra-
tions of the problem of ground water mining.
As a nation, one of our problems has been our steadfast refusal to
accept the limitations that nature itself has imposed on the regional dis-
tribution of this most precious of resources. Failing to accept that limita-
tion on the social, cultural, and economic development of an area, we have
not been compelled toward conservation, or even particularly wise use.
Historically, our solutions to water distribution problems have been
structural: expensive, energy-intensive, and,too frequently, environmentally
damaging. The adverse environmental implications of dams and diversions were
34
-------
only learned after years of observation. But we must now profit from our ex-
periences. For example, in-stream resources such as fisheries cannot be
sustained during critical periods of low flow and high temperatures, if im-
poundments or diversions further reduce minimum in-stream flow.
The President’s water policy addresses these problems in several ways:
changes in pricing, Federal program reform, and technical and planning
assistance. One important innovation is a set of criteria for selection of
projects for Federal funding. These criteria will encourage water projects
which are economically and environmentally sound and will avoid projects
which are wasteful or which benefit few at the expense of many. One of these
criteria is that eligible projects should stress water conservation and
appropriate nonstructural measures. The new, more stringent criteria were
put to a strong test in October 1978, as the President successfully vetoed
the Public Works Appropriation Bill. One of the reasons for the veto was
that the bill included funding for several projects which did not meet the
new criteria.
On July 12, 1978, the President issued 13 directives to the various
Federal water agencies to implement new Federal water policy objectives. For
example, a directive to the Secretary of Agriculture seeks to encourage
accelerated land treatment measures through the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) prior to funding of structural measures on watershed projects. It
also directs the SCS to make appropriate land treatment measures eligible
for Federal cost-sharing.
Eight of these directives stressed conservation of water, which, as you
know, the President has made the “cornerstone” of his water policy. Because
questions have been raised about what is included in this emphasis on water
conservation, let me address that issue.
As a participant in the preparation of the Water Policy Message and
those directives, I can assure you that “water conservation” is intended to
mean measures to reduce demand for ground and surface water withdrawals and
to improve the efficiency of agricultural, municipal, and industrial water
use. The emphasis is certainly not intended to provide justification for
increased dams and water storage. Federal support for additional water
storage, whether for flood control, hydropower, or water supplies, must be
justified in terms of the other criteria previously mentioned.
Another major element of the President’s Water Policy--environmental
protection--is advanced through directives to the Secretary of the Interior
and other Federal agency heads to apply strictly the relevant environmental
statutes, such as the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Endangered
Species Act. The message also encourages increased cooperation with States
and Federal leadership in maintaining in-stream flows and protecting ground
water. This is a sensitive point because much of the legal authority for
such measures lies with the States; however, there is an important role here
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to play in working with the
States to develop mutually acceptable standards.
35
-------
In view of the vital national importance of the various competing de-
mands on water, it is clearly unacceptable for us to continue using our
waterways as vehicles for pollutants. Such use of our water directly con-
flicts with other essential uses, including drinking water supply, recrea-
tion, and agriculture.
The thrust of our future water management efforts must be toward multi-
ple use and toward restriction of environmentally damaging activities. In
this regard, I am pleased to note that the Environmental Protection Agency
has assumed a lead role in encouraging land application through its programs.
Additionally, the Agency’s efforts in implementing the Clean Water Act of
1977 have placed it in the forefront of Federal action to direct grant and
loan programs toward fulfilling conservation objectives.
I have already described several Presidential initiatives. Others in-
clude:
• A directive to the Water Resources Council to improve implementation
of the Principles and Standards governing the planning of Federal
water projects by:
a. adding water conservation as a specific component of both
the economic and environmental objectives, and
b. requiring the explicit formulation and consideration of a
primarily nonstructural plan as one alternative whenever
structural water projects or programs are planned
• Directives to all Federal agencies with programs which affect water
supply or consumption to encourage water conservation, including:
a. making appropriate comunity water conservation measures
a condition of the water supply and wastewater treatment
grant and loan programs
b. integrating water conservation requirements into the
housing assistance programs
c. reform of pricing of water from Federal projects
d. preparation of legislation to allow States the option of
requiring higher prices for municipal and industrial water
supplies from Federal projects to promote conservation
(this option would require that State revenues in excess
of Federal costs be returned to municipalities or other
public water supply entities for use in water conservation
or rehabilitation of water supply systems).
The President’s policy thus expresses a new, national emphasis on water
conservation and increased attention to environmental quality. It seeks to
stimulate conservation and conservation initiatives in the private sector
and in other branches of the Federal government. Under the President’s
36
-------
policy, the Federal government will, for the first time, work closely with
State and local governments, exerting needed national leadership in water
conservation. Under the direction of Interior Secretary Andrus, 19 inter-
agency task forces have been established to oversee the implementation of
the water policy. These task forces are already at work, identifying
appropriate programs for water conservation and other initiatives. The task
forces have submitted work plans, and some have or will soon submit interim
reports to Secretary Andrus, the Congress, and the public.
Some of the Water Policy Implementation Task Forces are proceeding with
more dispatch than others. Unfortunately, task force representatives from
some departments and agencies have indicated reluctance to consider modifi-
cations of their own Federal programs to accomplish water policy reform.
This situation is disconcerting, and may require a reminder to some of those
involved of the tasks and timetable assigned to them, and by whom.
An important role has been defined here for citizens: to be the ad-
vocates of water conservation and improved water management. The structure
is, by design, open to public participation. Citizens can play a major role
in ensuring meaningful execution of the President’s directives. This may
require some confrontation, imaginative compromising, and,ultimately,
cooperation.
Such a process will define the path toward our goal of improved water
management. Through improved management, the waters of the United States
will be available for the many vital activities, both economic and environ-
mental, which benefit our nation, as Teddy Roosevelt sought through his
Commission’s efforts 70 years ago.
37
-------
Plumbing Codes and Water Use
Clarence A. Bechtel
Executive Director
Building Officials & Code Administrators International
Throughout history, the development of adequate water and sewage systems
has been a challenge to the growth of urban civilization. In certain parts
of Europe, one can still see the complex aqueduct systems built by the
Romans to supply their cities with potable water. Early systems for the
disposal of human wastes, however, were hardly as elaborate. Often, human
wastes were simply transported from cities in carts or buckets--or else
discharged into an open, water-filled system of ditches which led from the
city to a lake or stream.
Plumbing codes are a relatively recent phenomenon. The first plumbing
code to achieve national prominence in the United States was promulgated by
a commission appointed by President Hoover and published in 1928. It was
the culmination of work started by a subcommittee on plumbing in the United
States Department of Commerce as early as 1921. In 1928, the American
Standards Association (presently known as the American National Standards
Institute) organized a sectional committee to develop a preliminary national
plumbing code. The committee spent 14 years developing a document, and
produced its first edition in 1942.
The National Association of Master Plumbers published its first “Stand-
ard Plumbing Code” in 1938. It was revised in 1942.
In 1938, the Western Plumbing Officials (WPO) initiated the first
draft of the Uniform Plumbing Code, marking the first time that plumbing
officials developed their own code. The WPO, now known as the International
Association of Plumbing & Mechanical Contractors Organization (IAPMO), is
the only survivor of these early attempts to develop a model code.
In retrospect, the majority of plumbing technology advances have come
during the last 115 years, with much of this headway being made since World
War II. Today, we have new materials, methods, and modern, up-to-date
codes for the installation and control of our plumbing-sanitary systems.
Today we have model plumbing codes such as the Basic Plumbing Code of
BOCA;StandardPlumbing Code of the Southern Building Code Congress (SBCCI);
the Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors Code (known as the National
Standard Plumbing Code), an attempt to rewrite the A-40 Code; the Council of
American Buildling Officials’ work on a consensus plumbing code; a new
38
-------
plumbing code by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO);
and various State and local plumbing codes. These exist, along with an
abundance of Federal regulations which directly and/or indirectly affect
water conservation efforts with the pressures they place on code groups,
industry, and the manufacturer.
The model plumbing codes in this country offer the best system to keep
technology current. Since they are updated annually and are usually staffed
with competent, able persons, they provide the forum for input and open and
frank discussions of technological issues.
After enactment, the plumbing codes become a technical manual and the
manual of operations for those who adopt and enforce them.
The model plumbing code processes do allow for the introduction into
the marketplace of proprietary devices, appurtenances, and plumbing appli-
ances through their research programs. This program allows a manufacturer
to have his product evaluated against the code and then marketed with a
recommendation from the model code groups that the product meets the intent
and performance criteria of the code.
The oil embargo of 1973 brought to the American people the realization
that our natural resources are limited. A word that had until this point
found little use in modern American society suddenly became a byword:
conservation. This term soon found its way into the daily lives of every
American.
Water has always been an abundant resource, seldom conserved. Demands
are continuously increasing while pollution continues to shrink useable
supplies. For this reason, changes in our water usage habits are imperative
to avert future crises.
In many sectors of industry, government bodies have felt it necessary
to step in and establish guidelines to regulate the use of resources. The
model plumbing code is no exception. We have always have been accustomed
to dealing with regulations that dictate design, function, and installation
practices. However, regulations establishing maximum water consumption and
flow rates are very recent considerations. Today in many parts of the
country, spurred by shortages of potable water or inadequate sewage treat-
ment facilities, model plumbing codes and local authorities have initiated
water-saving regulations which specifically mandate the installation of
water-saving plumbing fixtures and fittings in all new construction and
replacement work. When these regulations were first enacted, the plumbing
manufacturers were totally unprepared. Any effort to sell the idea of
water conservation previously had been met with indifference. Until this
point, water was plentiful and utility costs for water and sewage were
nominal. For the most part, there was little to motivate either the
public or industry to become excited or concerned about water-saving. The
situation might well be compared to that of auto safety in the mid-l950’s.
There was an auto industry effort at that time to introduce safety features
on automobiles, but the idea met with either little or no acceptance. It was
39
-------
not until nearly a decade later that the clamor of consumer advocates
triggered government regulations enforcing auto safety features. And even
then, it was not until gimmicks were installed to force the use of seat
belts that they became largely accepted and used.
Today code-writing bodies face the same dilemma. A serious problem has
surfaced, and model plumbing codes and local and Federal governments are
recognizing the need to establish guidelines and regulations to achieve a
solution.
The first attempt to use water-conserving plumbing regulations as a
solution was at the Federal level through the establisiiiient of Federal
specification WW—P-541/A in 1971. This specification concerned tank-type
toilets and stipulated that a class four water conservation toilet shall
flush on less than three and one-half gallons of water. At that time,
standard toilet consumption ranged between five and seven gallons per flush;
so this figure, while not unreasonable, trimmed the allowable consumption
nearly in half. This regulation, although it affected only Federally funded
projects, accomplished two important things: first, it provided model
code groups and local municipalities with a guideline for code regulations;
second, it provided a target for plumbing fixture manufacturers.
Model plumbing code requirements pertain to three basic areas where
water-conserving appliances may be installed: at the faucet, in the toilet,
and in the shower head. These appliances are known as flow restrictors and
flow controllers.
Water-saving devices can be located at several points in the piping
system of a household such as in the cold water supply line to the house,
or in each hot and cold water line leading to each fitting or in the
discharge of the fitting (i.e., in the faucet spout or the shower head
itself). There are several advantages to installing flow controllers or
restrictors at the discharge point. Devices installed at this point can be
more readily replaced or cleaned. In addition, it is less costly to retrofit
an existing plumbing system by using devices at the discharge end than to
install devices in the pressure side of the system. Further, where code
requirements call for fittings with maximum flow rates, it is easier for
code enforcement officials to check the installation of fittings for
compliance with codes rather than to check other methods of flow control.
Finally, if flow controllers are installed separately in the hot and cold
water lines, it would be necessary to reduce the flow allowed through the
hot water line and separately through the cold water line substantially
below the total flow allowed, in order to control the maximum flow of a
mixed discharge of hot and cold water. This would, of course, mean that
when only cold water or hot water is desired, the flow in this case might
be unacceptably low. As a result, there has been a significant trend to
install the flow control device in the faucet, typically in the aerator
on the end of the spout and in the shower head, or in an adaptor unit mounted
directly upstream of the shower head.
Performance-oriented model plumbing codes require flow reduction and
control and leave the uwhere_to_put_itfl to the designers.
40
-------
In the Chicago area, Elmhurst in 1976 made a change and instituted an
excess facilities water rate to distribute the cost of excess facilities
(supply and storage capacity) to the users who were responsible for increased
summer demands. Elmhurst felt that the excess facilities rate better relates
charges for water to the cost of production as well as providing an incentive
for water conservation.
Elmhurst modified its plumbing code to require that all new plumbing
installations and replacement plumbing fixtures comply with the following
maximum standards:
• Toilet, tank-type: 35 gallons per flush
• Toilet, flush-o-meter: three gallons per flush
• Urinal, tank-type: three gallons per flush
• Urinal, flush-o-meter: three gallons per flush
• Shower head: four gallons per minute (gpm)
• Lavatory sink faucet: four gpm maximum flow, with
both hot and cold water supply fully open
Since these changes would have a long-term effect and Elmhurst had a
short-terrnwater reduction goal, a program was developed to retrofit existing
toilets and shower heads with devices that would cut consumption.
Field tests have established that conventional toilets can be retrofit-
ted with volume-reducing or flush-control devices which may reduce water
consumption by up to two and one-half gallons per flush. These devices
include such things as plastic bottles and displacement dams that can
be placed in the flush tank to reduce water volume, while maintaining the
same static head and initial velocity of water into the toilet bowl.
Retrofit in Elmhurst was done in conjunction with the public education
program. The city council passed a resolution requiring that all toilets,
where technically feasible, be retrofitted with displacement dams by
January 1, 1978.
In July, August, and September of 1977, the city delivered to each home
a set of displacement dams. Where the resident was home, an offer was made
to install the dams. Where individuals were not home, the displacement dams
were hung in a plastic bag on the door knob with a letter of introduction
from the mayor, instructions on how to install the device, plus a postage-
paid post card to request installation assistance.
The program was successful and cooperation was obtained from nearly
every resident.
In the area of residential usage studies, among the more extensive
work that has been undertaken is that of the Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission (WSSC). The multi-faceted aspect of the problem was recognized
and attacked by the landmark efforts of the WSSC when it was faced with the
twofold problem of a potential water supply shortage and a State board of
health sewer moratorium due to lack of treatment capacity in local sewage
treatment facilities.
41
-------
WSSC is a State-chartered, bi-county public utility which provides
water and sewer service for over 1.2 million individuals living in a 1,000
square-mile section of suburban Maryland--Montgomery and Prince George’s
Counties. The area gets its water from two sources: the Potomac and
Patuxent Rivers. There is little hope of expanding the area’s water supply
due to the limited natural flow available in the two rivers. The area’s
sewage facilities were found inadequate to handle existing sewage flows;
they were discharging inadequately treated sewage into local streams.
This situation is a classic case. It is rare that a comunity cannot
solve at least part of its problem by developing untapped water sources if
the problem is one of inadequate water supply, or by building additional
sewage treatment facilities if the problem is created by inadequate treat-
ment facilities. The WSSC could do neither. Some attempt at solving the
problem created by existing construction was imperative.
The result was a massive program of consumer education and experimen-
tation. Studies were made of unique water-conserving devices, a consumer
education program was implemented,and plumbing codes were revised to
incorporate water-saving fixtures in all installations. While not all of
the findings were conclusive, it became evident that a program of consumer
education is imperative and the use of water-saving plumbing fixtures and
other devices must eventually be mandatory if water-and sewer-related
problems are going to be controlled or eliminated.
The studies involved a combination of objectives. Their purpose was
primarily to observe the effectiveness of a variety of approaches to reducing
water usage within the residential areas serviced by the WSSC. A secondary
objective of the Comission’s programs was the analysis of consumer habits
with regard to the use of water in the home. The initial program, called
the Cabin John Drainage Basin Project, was begun to evaluate the effective-
ness of several coninercially available water-saving devices. The Cabin John
area was selected because it was a source of exceptionally high volumes
of waste flows. The project involved the installation of four types of
insert devices in the toilets of some 1,000 single-family homes and the
installation of 3 gpm flow controls in the showers of an additional 25 homes.
An analysis of water use for the Cabin John Drainage Basin for the
11-year period of 1965 through 1975 was conducted to determine the trend
of water use in this area before and after the Cabin John project was
initiated in the suniner of 1972. A significant decrease in water
consumption was observed in the four-year period of the conservation program,
despite numerous problems with some of the devices.
Other programs that were conducted included a bottle kit distribution
and shower flow control device distributions. All of these programs were
augmented with an intensive and comprehensive public awareness program.
The code requirements affecting toilets and shower heads initiated by
the WSSC were among the first of many to be enacted throughout the country.
42
-------
We exert a concentrated effort to produce vast amounts of quality-treat-
ed water, yet we pay insufficient attention to protecting the quality of water
after it leaves the plant. Before presenting the case for removal of cross-
connections from the public water distribution systems, a definition of terms
may be helpful. A cross-connection is defined as
any physical connection or arrangement between two
otherwise separate piping systems, one of which
contains potable water and the other, either water
of unknown or questionable safety, or steam, gas, or
other chemical whereby there may be a flow from one
system to the other, the direction of flow depending
on the pressure differential between the two systems.
This definition included both backflow and back-siphonage. Backflow can be
defined as the “flow of water, other liquids, mixtures, or substances into
distributing pipes of a potable supply of water from any unintended source
or sources,” while back—siphonage is the “flowing back of used, contaminated,
or polluted water from a plumbing fixture, vessel, or other sources into a
potable water supply pipe due to a negative pressure in such pipe.’ We now
can take a closer look at the implications of these situations.
Think about it for a minute or two. How many hoses have you seen laying
in wastewater below a fixture’s spill line when the same hose is connected
to your potable water supply line? How about the laundry tray in your home,
or your neighbor’s? Or perhaps in a bathtub on the sixth floor of an
apartment building? What about the chemical plating plant on the other side
of town, with all its submerged inlets in plating tanks? Or how about the
balicock in your toilet tank?
Many dangerous cross-connections are simply accidental, or result from
an unknowing attempt to “cut corners” in piping installations. Yet
ignorance of their potential effects on public health can have disastrous
repercussions.
It is apparent that we must provide additional protection for our
public water supply systems. Model plumbing codes have cross-connection
control requirements. States, communities, and water utilities have
developed comprehensive control programs for the elimination and prevention
of all cross-connections which state that:
• a schedule is required for inspection and reinspection of all
water utility users’ premises for possible cross-connections.
The periodic reinspections should be used to ascertian whether
or not safe air gaps or required protective devices are
installed and in working order.
• a description of methods and devices used to protect the public
water supply should be made available. These should be approved
by the local authority so charged with the responsibility.
43
-------
• all secondary water supply systems should be property identified
and marked so in-plant mistakes cannot be made. All segments of
the system should be traceable. If not, it is necessary to protect
the system at the service connection in a manner acceptable by the
local authority responsible.
• laws and ordinances with teeth in them are needed to enforce
a comprehensive cross-connection control program, with stiff
penalties for continued violations.
The side effect of proper conservatior of water is the conservation of
erie rgy.
Who uses the water which we are speaking about here today at this
conference? A report showed that electricutilities use 45 percent;
agriculture, 34 percent; industry, 13 percent; commercial use, 4 percent;
and residential, 4 percent. Certainly a policy must be set for the large
consumers of this water. Plumbing codes regulate approximately 21 percent
of the water being consumed; the balance of 79 percent is in an area where
codes have little or no effect.
It is my belief that flow control and water-saving devices should be
standardized throughout the country to help manufacturers avoid problems
of many different regulations. This would, I believe, reduce the cost of
production of these devices and secondly, would reduce stocking and
delivery confusion, and bring about a greater uniformity among model plumbing
codes.
Are we really running out of fresh water and the capacity to properly
treat sewage? Yes we are! The model plumbing codes are awaiting the
opportunity and have the ability to make a major contribution to the efforts
of water conservation and use. However, effective communication will be
a key to success of any water conservation effort.
It is a complex problem, augmented by many factors. Intelligent
planning for the future necessitates an accurate understanding of existing
usage.
It is our belief that the water-related problems we face are greater
than our country’s energy problems.
44
-------
Conservation Elements in Areawide Planning
Peter L. Wise
Chief, Program Development Branch
Water Planning Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
As Chief of the Program Development Branch of the Water Planning Divi-
sion at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1 am pleased to have the
opportunity to speak on the role of water conservation in the 1Jater Quality
Management (WQM) program. During the past few years the importance and the
complexity of the relationship between water quality and water quantity has
becorie increasingly apparent. We are becoming more aware that water quality
and water quantity cannot be managed each in a vacuum without regard to their
inherent interrelationships. In considering water quality/quantity relation-
ships, water conservation emergesas a significant concern. Water conserva-
tion can ensure that water of sufficient quantity and quality is available
for beneficial uses such as irrigation, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation,
and drinking. Because these uses depend on sufficient quantities of water
of sufficient quality, water conservation should be addressed by both water
quality and water resource agencies.
The WQM program can play a major role in the water conservation effort.
WQM provides the framework for solving a yariety of water pollution problems
on a coordinated and comprehensive basis. EPA allows State and areawide
planning agencies considerable flexibility in identifying their priorities
for water pollution control. WQM planning agencies deciding that water
shortages may be impairing water quality may perform a detailed assessment
of the interrelationships of water quality and quantity and then develop
solutions through WQM plans. In the future, EPA will be actively encouraging
planning agencies in water-short areas to address water conservation in their
WQM programs. There is little doubt that water conservation planning ani
implementation, when linked with the improvement of water quality, is
eligible for EPA grants under Sections 208 and 106 of the Clean Water Act.
To step back a bit, it seems necessary to explain more fully the roles
that EPA and, specifically, WQM can expect to play in addressing water
conservation. EPA is mandated by the Clean Water Act to protect the quality
of the nation’s waters. There is little mention of water quantity in the
Act. One of the few places that quantity is mentioned in the Act is
Section 101 (g):
It is the policy of Congress that the
authority of each State to allocate quantities
45
-------
of water within its jurisdiction shall not be
superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired by
this Act. It is the further policy of Congress
that nothing in this Act shall be construed to
supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of
water which have been established by any State.
Federal agencies shall cooperate with State
and local agencies to develop comprehensive
solutions to prevent, reduce and eliminate
pollution in concert with programs for managing
water resources.
This provides a direct legal basis for analysis of the relationship of
quantity to quality. On the other hand, a significant but less direct autho-
rity for action is provided by Sections 106 and 208 of the Clean Water Act.
If water quantity affects water quality and consequently the attainment and
maintenance of water quality standards, water conservation activity by WQII
planning agencies is legally justified.
The relationship of water quality and quantity.is significant for both
surface and ground water. The maintenance of adequate instream flows is
important to facilitate the attainment and maintenance of water quality
standards which provide for a variety of beneficial uses such as recreation
and fish and wildlife habitat. Excessive ground water withdrawals often
can lead directly to the water quality problems of land subsidence (which
can permanently damage the aquifer) and saline intrusion.
There are many situations where water quality and water quantity are
closely related. In these instances, any attempt to address water quality
affects water quantity and vice versa. Some water quality protection prac-
tices positively affect quantity. For example, management practices to
protect agricultural soil erosion for water quality purposes, also, in most
cases, conserve water.
In Wyoming, a project of the Star Valley Soil and Water Conservation
District replacing canal diversion surface irrigation systems with pipe
diversion sprinkler systems has resulted in both quality and quantity
improvements. Reduction of both erosion and leaching of crop nutrients
has improved water quality. At the same time, significant water has been
conserved. According to a September 1978 report titled “Irrigation Water
Use and Management prepared by an EPA, Agriculture, and Interior Task
Force on Irrigation Efficiencies, the piping has improved conveyance
efficiency from 60 percent to 100 percent, and the sprinklers have improved
irrigation efficiency from 15 percent to 65 percent. Because of these
water savings, instream flows have been increased and can now be maintained
in segments of the stream that were previously dry during part of the year.
Another example of irrigation improvements is the Wellton-Mohawk
Irrigation District project in Arizona. Again, according to the Task
Force report, similar onfarm irrigation improvement techniques are
anticipated to
46
-------
increase average onfarm irrigation efficiency
in the district from 56 to an estimated 72
percent and reduce drainage flow by an estimated
78,000 acre-feet per year, and eliminate salt
loading of 500,000 tons of salt per year. With
implementation, a salt balance will be obtained
in the Wellton- Mohawk by about 1990 and the
irrigation district will not be adding to the
salt load of the Colorado River.
Inadequate or mismanaged water resources can often adversely affect water
quality. Lower flows can lead to increased concentrations of pollutants,
which can lead to violations of water quality standards. An example of
mismanagement of water quantity adversely affecting quality can be seen in
coastal areas where ground water is drafted beyond the safe yield of the
aquifer, causing salt water intrusion into the fresh water aquifer. In
these cases, improved management of the ground water supply would solve
the salinity problem. Another example demonstrating this interrelationship
would be a stream where a minimum instream flow cannot be maintained due
to overappropriation of the water. Overappropriation can result in at
least three quality-related problems which may result in violation of water
quality standards:
• reduced flows lessening the dilution (by increasing
concentrations)of pollutants from point and nonpoint
sources
• increased water temperatures occurring as a result
of reduced flows and decreased depths
• reduced flows possibly resulting in increased salinity.
Another related issue is the inadequate quantity of a designated quality
of water to satisfy a beneficial use. Specific beneficial uses such as
irrigated agriculture, drinking water, and industrial cooling water may have
different water quality requirements. Although there may exist a sufficient
supply of water, the necessary quantity of a specified quality of water may
not be available. Examples of this situation include major Eastern rivers
such as the lower Mississippi or the Potomac, where drinking water has been
designated as a beneficial use. In these situations, the quality is
insufficient, although the quantity is plentiful. Other examples are those
portions of the Great Lakes with an insufficient supply of water of
sufficient quality to support fishery habitat.
An extreme case for purposes of this discussion would be an inadequate
or decreasing supply of water to support any beneficial uses. Such a
situation could occur where an area is supplied by a sole source aquifer
which is being gradually but permanently depleted. The Ogalala formation
serving the Texas High Plains is an example. In such a case, the depletion
of a water supply without appropriate management can eventually preclude
all beneficial uses.
47
-------
Through the kinds of interrelationships just discussed, EPA derives its
basis for action. The vehicle for action becomes the next issue. President
Carter’s water conservation directive of July 1978 to EPA and other Federal
agencies requires that disincentives to conservation be removed and
incentives be included in grant and loan programs. At EPA much of this
effort has been focused on the Construction Grants program for wastewater
treatment facilities. EPA also has defined a need for a more comprehensive,
coordinating approach to address water quality/water quantity interrelation-
ships. The Water Quality Management program has logically become one
vehicle for this coordinating approach.
The WQM program is an umbrella program coordinating water pollution
abatement activities funded under several sections of the Clean Water Act.
Under it, States and areawide planning agencies designated by governors
receive grants from EPA for the development of water quality management
plans to abate water pollution in order to achieve the goals of the Clean
Water Act. Among those goals is water suitable for swinI11ing , fishing, and
protection of wildlife by 1983, where attainable. Participating agencies
receive grants (up to 75 percent under Section 208) to conduct water
quality assessments; identify water quality and source control problems
and priorities; and to determine effective point and nonpoint source controls
to be implemented by designated State, areawide, and local agencies. Plans
must provide for the development of institutional processes, including fiscal
and management structures, to make and implement coordinated State and
areawide water quality management decisions. At a minimum, award of waste-
water treatment plant construction grants and issuance of discharge permits
must be consistent with approved WQM plans.
To be effective, this program must comprehensively address all aspects
of water quality issues, including conjunctive surface and ground water
management and the interrelationships between water resources and water
quality.
Beginning with promulgation of the revised WQM regulations in January
1979, consideration of water resource and quality interrelationships and
water conservation will be explicitly recognized as part of the WQM process.
These issues are in fact already being addressed in several WQM plans in
water-short areas. One of the seven elements of the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) plan funded by Section 208 is a regional water conserva-
tion, reuse, and supply study. The approach of ABAG is to inspect the
area’s total water supply for the purpose of making. the most efficient use
of its waters.
Even before the President announced his new national water resources
policy and issued a water conservation directive to EPA, the WQM program,
in developing revised regulations, was encouraging the consideration of
water conservation. Inreponse to the Presidential directive, we are
giving more thought to the issue and are examining several alternate
regulatory approaches.
48
-------
The first option is to proceed with our proposed regulations as pre-
sently written. Water conservation needs must be considered in determining
municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities needs for a
20-year period [ 40 CFR 35.1519-6(d)]. Thus, a planning agency is given the
authority to incorporate water conservation needs into portions of its
plan influencing the construction of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
or the treatment of industrial pollutants. In the case of the POTWs, a plan
could determine the degree to which a water shortage must reduce the
capacity of any future facilities. In the case of industrial waste treat-
ment, a plan could require the inclusion of specific water-conserving
conditions in National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
Or a plan could influence industrial dischargers through methods other than
the permit system, such as through water metering and pricing practices.
A second option is to emphasize water conservation further by including
water conservation in the problem assessment section of the regulations and
by adding a new water conservation program area, which all plans must even-
tually address. An advantage of this approach is that EPA would be clearly
encouraging the consideration of water conservation in all aspects of the
WQM program, including the control of nonpoint source pollution. In the
case of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for agriculture and silviculture,
BMPs already have the effect of conserving water by increasing infiltration
into the water table. However, much could be done in developing BMPs for
irrigated agriculture where, in many cases, much more water is consumed
than is necessary for crop production.
A third option is to emphasize water conservation even more strongly
than other program areas addressed by WQM. (The second option places water
conservation at a level of importance equal to other program areas such as
urban storm water and residual waste control.) This emphasis could be
achieved by requiring WQM problem assessments to examine the need for water
conservation within a specified period of time to improve water quality.
The requirement could be structured through a certification process. A
detailed water conservation problem assessment and subsequent plan element
are not required if the planning agency certifies that a water conservation
problem does not exist and is not likely to develop within the time frame
of the plan. Thus, even if a planning agency is able to make such a
certification, the agency has been required to focus, at least briefly, on
the.issue of water conservation.
Regardless of the extent to which water conservation will be required
by the regulations, the WQM program is committed to issuing guidance on
water conservation to State and areawide planning agencies. The guidance
will begin by demonstrating the importance of examining water conservation
by explaining how water quantity affects water quality. Next, the guidance
will outline the steps of the problem assessment by which planning agencies
can determine whether water quality is impaired by any water shortages. The
following analytical step could be the development of a “water quality/quan-
tity budget” for such water-short areas. The “budget” would analyze thedemand
49
-------
for water of various qualities as well as the availability of alternative
water sources. Such an analysis would further focus the attention of the
planning agencies on problems that a water conservation plan might address.
Guidance on the content of a water conservation plan will point out
a number of opportunities available to planning agencies to conserve water.
One way is to ensure that any P01W construction is responsive to water
conservation needs. In developing its annual priority list for POTW projects,
the State must consider the construction grant needs and priorities set forth
in certified WQM plans. The determination by planning agencies of the needs
and priorities for POTW construction should reflect any water conservation
needs for the planning area. Another action available to planning
agencies is to propose water-conserving NPDES permit conditions for indus-
tries and POTWs as part of the WQM plan. Once a plan containing such
proposed permit conditions is approved, Section 208(e) of the Clean Water
Act requires those conditions to be incorporated in NPDES permits. A third
major opportunity for water conservation initiative by planning agencies
is in the development of BMPs for the control of agriculturally and silvi-
culturally related nonpoint sources of pollution. Although BMP5 developed
in the past have had a positive water conservation effect, more work can
be done in this area, particularly with regard to irrigated agriculture.
Besides explaining to planning agencies how to conduct a water conser-
vation problem assessment and what might be included in a water conservation
plan, our guidance will stress some further technical and institutional
aspects of developing and implementing water conservation programs.. We will
furnish planning agencies with information on the costs and benefits of
such initiatives as the imposition of water metering, alternate water
pricing schedules, water conveyance system rehabilitation to reduce losses,
design criteria to minimize new losses, and fixture and appliance standards
for new structures and retrofitting. In the institutional area- we will
stress the importance of coordination between the planning agencies and
the State water resource agencies. For the water conservation initiatives
to be successful, it is essential in many cases for the planning agencies
to have the full cooperation of the water resource agencies. Finally,
our guidance can help planning agencies by providing them with case histories
describing previous efforts at planning for and implementing water conser-
vation.
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to how the State/EPA
Agreement, a relatively new management concept at EPA, will influence the
role of water conservation in the WQM program.
The WQM program will be part of EPA ’s recent efforts to integrate the
planning, implementing, and managing of environmental problems at the
regional and State levels through the mechanism of the State/EPA Agreement.
In Fiscal Year 1980 water supply, solid waste, and water pollution control
programs will be integrated. The purpose is to coordinate environmental
planning and management, rather than attempting to solve interrelated
environmental problems separately on a program-by-program basis.
50
-------
Each State and corresponding EPA Region will negotiate a State/EPA
Agreement to include statements of environmental problems and objectives
based on State problem assessments and strategies. Work programs will be
identified and implemented based on prioritization of needs, responsibilities,
and allocation of funds.
Certainly water shortage is one problem area which should be assessed
by each State. Whether or not it becomes a high or low priority will depend
upon each State’s assessment of all the environmental problems falling under
the Agreement. In many Western States, for example, water quantity poses
a greater problem than in areas of relative water abundance. This high
priority would be reflected in State/EPA Agreements for such States. If
the quantity of water is identified as a priority under the Agreement, then
the State will have a means by which to coordinate and integrate the programs
pertaining to, and the sources of funding available for, the planning and
management of water conservation.
51
-------
Conservation and the Sate Drinking Water Act
James H. McDermott, P.E.
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Drinking Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (P.L. 93-523)
The story of P.L. 93-523 begins with the National Community Water Supply
Study of 1969-70 which indicated that, while most Americans receive drinking
water of adequate quality, many do not. The study was conducted at a time
when parameters of concern were inorganic chemicals and bacteria. Quality
deficiencies were shown to be related to major deficiencies in State super-
visory programs, inadequate local monitoring, poorly trained operators, and
antiquated treatment and distribution facilities evidencing potential
sanitary defects.
The study scope included:
• the State of Veni ont plus eight Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (SMSA)
• eighteen million people
• initially 450 systems based on a 1963 Inventory of Public Water
Supply Systems
• sanitary surveys; i.e., field inspections of all systems within
each SMSA
• complete chemical and bacterial analyses for all constituents
then included in 1962 U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standards.
The results of the study include the following eye-opening results:
• 85 percent of the systems were analyzing insufficient numbers of
bacterial samples
• 69 percent of the systems did not even analyze one-half of the
recommended bacterial samples
• 79 percent were not inspected by the county or State in the year
prior to the study
• 450 expected systems grew to 969 systems
• 50 percent of the operators could not remember ever being inspected
by the State or county inspectors
• 77 percent of the operators were not trained in bacteriology
• 46 percent of the operators were not trained in chemistry
• 56 percent of the physical plants evidenced inadequate disinfection
capacity or inadequate clarification capacity
52
-------
• 36 percent of 2600 samples exceeded recommended maximum contaminant
levels.
The above results explain the bottom line:
• bacteria: 9 percent exceeded recommended maximum contaminant
levels
• chemical: 30 percent exceeded recommended maximum contaminant
levels.
Moreover, a limited sampling showed that 11 percent of 90 systems exceed-
ed a broad, semi-qualitative index of synthetic chemical pollution.
During the early 1970’s, Congress became interested in drinking water
quality. At the same time, years of research culminated in the introduction
of new analytical procedures with which to begin to identify and quantify
specific volatile organic compounds. By 1975, the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency’s National Organics Reconnaissance Survey confirmed the
forecasts of knowledgeable professionals: trace concentrations of potentially
toxic organic chemicals were identified in many surface sources and in
occasional ground water sources. In addition, numerous synthetic organic
chemicals, including potential carcinogens, were found in “finished” muni-
cipal drinking water systems. This survey also demonstrated, on a national
scale, that the addition of the chemical disinfectant chlorine during the
treatment process leads to the formation of the carcinogen chloroform.
The National Community Water Supply Study and organic chemical studies
led to the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), P.L. 93-523, on
December 17, 1974. The Act provides a statutory base for national drinking
water standards, both maximum contaminant levels (MCL’s) and treatment
regulations, public notification when the regulations are violated, and
additional financial resources to States for water supply regulatory
programs. The Act also provides for a program to protect ground water
aquifers now being used or with potential for use as a source of drinking
water.
Other authorities provided by the Act and particularly relevant to the
conservation of water supplies and wastewater flows include research, develop-
ment (including reuse demonstration), technical assistance, and training.
Moreover, recent amendments call for a study of the adequacy of current and
future water supplies, a study which is being conducted in concert with a
provision of the Clean Water Act, Section 516(e) of P.L. 95-217, which is
aimed at encouraging coordinated water supply and wastewater planning at the
local level.
THE INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
To rectify the deficiencies identified by the Community Water Supply
Study and in support of the principle that the community water treatment
system provides a last line of defense for community health, the National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (IPDWR’s) were promulgated on
December 24, 1975 and July 9, 1976 and became effective on June 24, 1977.
53
-------
These regulations were based on the Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standards of 1962, as revised by an ad hoc committee in 1972 and with the
advice of the statutory National Drinking Water Advisory Council. The
regulations specify MCL’s and monitoring requirements for microbiological
contaminants (coliform bacteria), 10 inorganic chemicals, six organic
chemicals (pesticides), radionuclides,and turbidity. Secondary drinking
water regulations were proposed by EPA on March 31, 1977.
The primary regulations are devoted to constituents affecting the health
of consumers, while secondary regulations include those constituents which
consider the aesthetic qualities of drinking water. The primary regulations
are applicable to all public water systems which regularly serve 15 service
connections or 25 people and are enforceable by States which have accepted
primacy. In the absence of state primary enforcement, however, EPA is
required to enforce the IPOW Regulations. Secondary regulations, which will
be promulgated this fall, are not federally enforceable and are intended
only as guidelines for the States.
To be included in the regulations as an MCL, a parameter must be
susceptible to simple analysis at the operating level. This recognizes
that the Act intends that monitoring will be routinely accomplished by the
local water system rather than by the State or EPA. Where routine monitoring
is not possible, EPA has authority to issue treatment regulations.
STATE PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY
Consistent with the letter and the spirit of the law, the House Report,
and EPA’s implementation philosophy, “One Step at a Time,” States are
moving towards primacy.
Once a State establishes that it can mount and implement an effective
program to supervise all public systems within the State, including enforce-
ment under State law, the Act provides that a State gains primary enforcement
authority and is eligible for a state program grant.
Since April of 1977, 40 States have sought and secured legislative
change at the state level and updated their regulations to a point where
they are equivalent to or more stringent than the Federal IPDW Regulations.
An additional five States have adopted the needed legislative authority
and are revising their regulations and preparing their primacy application.
Most of the 13 other States and territories are moving toward primacy.
Thus, with but a few notable exceptions (Oregon, Indiana, and Pennsylvania)
both the primacy States and those making substantial progress towards
primacy shared $20.4 million in program grants last year, and consistent with
President Carter’s budget, will receive $26 million in Fiscal Year 1979.
By comparison with 1975, when we estimated that the States were applying
$16 million and employing 700 people to supervise the nation’s 40,000
comunity systems, we now estimate that state programs will grow to $42
million and 1,200 people in the near future. Thus, the legal, institutional,
and technical capacity to address the numerous deficiencies categorized by
54
-------
the National Community Water Supply Study, in an era when bacteria and
inorganic chemicals were the primary cause for concern, is largely in
place. The capacity to provide surveillance, technical assistance, and
training is improving. Moreover, the ability of the States to enforce
drinking water regulations has been substantially improved.
THE NEXT STEP
“One Step At A Time” also means that we must move forward to address
yet additional threats to the over 200 million drinking water users. EPA’s
multifaceted approach will continue to tighten up on sources of pollution
(witness the recent reestablishment in the final minutes of the 95th Congress
of Section 311 of P.L. 95-217), make an effort to tighten up on industrial
pretreatment, and to prevent potential pollution of the nation’s ground
water aquifers. Moreover, EPA is now moving to explicitly address synthetic
organic chemicals in drinking water.
On February 9, 1978, EPA acknowledged the synthetic organic chemical
threat in drinking water and published a proposal in the Federal Register to
further amend the IPDW Regulations. In addition to chloroform, which has
been declared a carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute and is formed
primarily in drinking water systems employing chlorination, the preamble to
the February 9, 1978 statement calls attention to the fact that over 700
specific synthetic compounds have been identified in drinking water systems,
including 22 chemicals which are known or potential carcinogens according
to the June, 1977 report of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). More-
over, since the NAS report, two additional chemicals have been added to the
ever-growing list of known and potential carcinogens. The list is likely
to grow from year to year.
The proposed amendments to the IPDW Regulations consist of two parts:
• An MCL for total trihalomethanes (THM) including chloroform
is proposed. The proposal would require all communities with
populations between 10,000 and 75,000 to begin monitoring
within six months of promulgation and to report results to
either the State or EPA, whichever has primacy. Cities of 75,000
or more, which account for over 52 percent of the national
population, would be required to begin monitoring within three
months and meet the FICL of 100 parts per billion (ppb) within
18 months.
Neglecting the 60 systems that purchase water from larger
systems and 18 systems that do not chlorinate, EPA estimates
that 312 systems will be impacted by these regulations. Most
of the impacted systems do not exceed the MCL or will change
the disinfection point or otherwise “tune-up” the treatment
process to meet the proposed MCL. For such systems, the cost
impact will be negligible.
On the other hand, it is estimated that 43 cities now exceed
the MCL by a substantial margin and may find it necessary to
modify existing treatment trains to add absorbents. The total
55
-------
cost of the THM proposal is $268 to $335 million, with continuing
operation and maintenance costs estimated at $30 to $38 million
per year.
The February 9 proposal provides for treatment with granular
activated carbon (GAG) or equivalent for all systems with
populations of over 75,000 that are vulnerable to synthetic
organic chemical pollution.
Here the burden of proof will be on the systems. In those
instances where a sanitary survey and chemical monitoring
document little upstream threat, either the primacy states
or EPA will issue a variance to the treatment requirement.
However, it is estimated that about 50 systems will find it
necessary to install GAC within 3-1/2 years after promulgation
at an estimated cost of between $348 and $496 million. Operation
and maintenance will account for $32 to $48 million, and annual
revenue requirements will be $67 to $98 million.
In terms of cost for the individual family, a group of three
residing in a community of 75,000 to 100,000 will have to spend
$18.50 to $26.10 more each year for its water bill. An equivalent
family in a comunity of 100,000 to one million people will have
to pay $11.90 to $17.00 additional each year, and a family of
three residing in a district serving more than one million will
incur a bill increase of $7.00 to $12.70 each year.
These proposals respond to provisions of the SDWA as addressed by the
House of Representatives Report of July 10,1974, which was upheld by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ( EDF vs Train) . The
court noted that waiting for risks to be fully evaluated would be contrary
to the intent of the Act.
The House Report, page 10 states:
Primary regulations must specify contaminants which
in the judgement of the Administrator may have an ad-
verse effect on the health of persons when found in
drinking water. The words used by the Comittee
were carefully chosen. Because of the essentially
preventive purpose of the legislation, the vast number
of contaminants which may need to be regulated, and
the limited amount of knowledge presently available
on the health of various contaminants in drinking water.
the Committee did not intend to require conclusive proof
that any contaminant will cause adverse health effects
as a condition for regulation of a suspected contaminant.
Rather, all that is required is that the Administrator
make a reasoned and plausible judgement that a contaminant
need not have the adverse effect directly in order for the
Administrator to regulate it as a primary contaminant. If
it is a precursor to a contaminant which may have such effect
or if it may contribute to such effect, the contaminant
should be controlled under primary conditions.
56
-------
The proposed regulations have generated considerable public comment
and new information. In order to present new information, and to encourage
continuing public conunent on the proposed regulations, a Supplemental Notice
on the regulations was published in the Federal Register on July 6, 1978. At
that time the comment period was extended an additional month, until
September 1, 1978.
The comment period is now closed. Approximately 595 comments have
been received. In addition, the testimony of several hundred individuals
was recorded during the eight public hearings on the proposed regulations.
EPA is now evaluating all comments, testimony, and information which has
become available and anticipates final promulgation in the spring of 1979.
AND YET ANOTHER STEP
Waiting in the wings is yet another proposed regulation to address the
pollution of the nation’s ground water aquifers. In addition to the broad
environmental concern relative to such pollution, ground water currently
serves as a source of supply for one-half of the nation’s population. Con-
sistent with the SDWA, a regulation to control potential pollution of
drinking water aquifers was proposed last year. Numerous public comments
have been critically reviewed and additional legal and economic analyses
are now nearing completion.
As part of a revised approach to the control of ground water pollution,
a strategy is being developed to integrate a host of legislative authorities
which are available to regulate the control of waste disposal practices and
to regulate the control of specific substances.
Authorities for the control of waste disposal practices include prin-
cipally Section 1421 of the SDWA to regulate the injection of fluids into
wells for disposal, extraction, storage or recharge, and Section 4004 of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (P.L. 94-580) to regulate the
surface disposal of solid wastes.
Pits, ponds, and lagoons, a. major category of waste disposal practices,
is the subject of a $5 million study to be performed by the States. The
States are being asked to:
• inventory these practices
• assess the threat
• identify existing State efforts
• identify a Federal role supportive of State
control efforts.
In view of a number of legal issues, a final decision on federal regu-
latory strategy for this category, or perhaps additional legislation to
address problems, will be made after the States complete the assessment,
57
-------
In the meantime, regulations to control injection practices now
subject to the SDWA were printed in the fall of 1978. Solid waste disposal
practices are the subject of regulations proposed on February 6, 1978, with
final promulgation expected in the immediate future.
Other vehicles for controlling or potentially controlling “practices”
include Sections 208,303 (comprehensive water quality plans) and 516 (e)
of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) and Section 1424 (e) (the sole
source aquifer provision) of the SDWA.
The control of substances will involve an equally potent array of
existing legislative authority in cases where a specific substance has been
deemed harmful to human health or the environment. Here EPA has been
provided with authority to mandate control of production, sale, use, and
disposal for chemicals of concern. Authorities relevant to ground water
protection include:
• the Toxic Substances Control Act (P.1. 94-469) to regulate
the introduction of new chemicals into commerce
• The Resource Conservation and Control Act and
the Clean Water Act to control hazardous substances
which might be applied to the ground or to the
subsurface.
CONSERVATION
From the earliest days of this nation, water has been a major deter-
minant in the initial location and eventual growth of our original settle-
ments and milltowns which now number about 40,000 coniiiunities. Commercial
centers sprang up on our coastlines and along our major rivers due to ease
of transportation as well as a readily available source of water supply for
industry, agriculture, and coninunity uses.
As the 1800’s were drawing to a close, major metropolitan centers evolved,
dams were built, and water was transported over ever-increasing distances
through aqueducts to meet the seemingly ever-increasing demands of towns,
which became cities, which are now major metropolitan areas (e.g., Boston,
New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles).
During this period, few appeared to be concerned with the quality of
water supply. What was important was the assurance of quantities sufficient
to meet the growth model of the city, town, and nation.
The thought that there will always be more wateravailable to meet
“supply requirements” through larger and larger water supply systems and
larger and larger waste collection and treatment systems has been seriously
questioned only within the last decade. And within the last several years
an amalgamation of environmental interests has forcefully established that
the nation now needs to seek a new model wherein conservation becomes the
ethic wherever technically and economically possible.
58
-------
The though that there will always be more water available when needed
is one explanation for the fact that the 40-page SDWA included the word
“quantity” in only one instance. Paradoxically, this reference expresses
concern for the individual homeowner or farmstead user who is dependent
upon his own well or cistern for a source of drinking water.
And yet, it should be clearly recognized that the SDWA is one of the
most basic conservation statutes available at the Federallevel. First and
foremost the Act is focused on protecting the health and welfare of that
singularly important species--Homo sapiens. Second, the Act provided the
first viable means to begin to protect the quality of the nation’s tremen-
dous quantitative ground water resources which currently quench the thirst
of half the nation’s population--with infrequent water treatment required
to meet the IPDW Regulations. On these two bases, the SDWA is a major
conservation statute with research, development, training, and technical
assistance authorities available once new national policy directions are
establ ished.
Most of EPA’s response to the conservation ethic, as articulated by
President Carter and by the Clean.Water Act, are presented elsewhere in this
conference. One effort, authorized by a recent amendment (Section 1442
(c)) to the SDWA and an EPA decision to launch this study on a fully
integrated basis with a new provision, Section 516 •(e) of the Clean Water
Act, is described below.
EPA’s INTEGRATED WATER SUPPLY-WASTEWATER TREATMENT STUDY
In drafting, debating, and enacting the 1977 legislation in both safe
drinking water and water pollution control, Congress strongly indicated its
concern for availability of sufficient water supplies and for facilitating
coordination between water supply and water pollution control activities.
The resultsof these concerns were two specific requirements for EPA reports
to Congress.
• The SDWA states that:
Not later than eighteen months after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator
shall submit a report to Congress on the present
and projected future availability of an adequate
and dependable supply of safe drinking water to
meet present and projected future need. Such
report shall include an analysis of the future
demand for drinking water and other competing
uses of water, the availability and use of methods
to conserve water or reduce demand, the adequacy
of present measures to assure adequate and depend-
able supplies of safe drinking water, and the
problems (financial, legal, or other) which need
to be resolved in order to assure the availability
of such supplies for the future. Existing information
59
-------
and data compiled by the National Water Commission
and others shall be utilized to the extent possible.
• The Clean Water Act states that:
The Administrator, in cooperation with the states,
including water pollution control agencies, and other
water pollution control planning agencies, and water
supply and water resources agencies of the states and
the United States shall submit to Congress, within
two years of the date of enactment of this Section, a
report with recommendations for legislation on a
program to require coordination between water supply
and wastewater control plans as a condition to grants
for construction of treatment works under this Act.
No such report shall be submitted except after
opportunity for public hearings on such proposed
report.
The purpose of the proposed “Water Supply-Wastewater Treatment Coordi-
nation Study” is to provide a report which:
• will be submitted to Congress in satisfaction of the above two
reporting requirements
• responds to the congressional concerns indicated by the above
language, specifically that:
a) present and future availability of an adequate and
dependable supply of safe drinking water be assured
in light of other growing demands for water use and
possible inadequacies of existing mechanisms for
managing both the quantity and quality aspects of
the water resource
b) opportunities to achieve savings through coordination
of water supply and water pollution control programs
be captured, in particular as they involve Federal
grants for constructing wastewater treatment plants
• describes potential administrative and legislative policies to addr s
problems and opportunities identified
• provides a synthesis of available data and other information which is
useful for evaluating potential policies and deciding which ones to
adopt.
• reconi ends policies to the extent justified by available data.
Examples of important issues which the study is to consider and on which
recommendations may be made are:
60
-------
• conservation of water as a potential means for
a) accomodating growing needs with available supplies
b) improving water quality
c) realizing significant monetary and energy savings
in both water supply and wastewater treatment
• the tradeoff between requiring additional wastewater treatment
to protect drinking water sources such as major rivers, or
requiring sophisticated water supply treatment when water is
taken from those sources for drinking use
• reuse of water in terms of
a) its potential for satisfying nonpotable water supply
needs and thus releasing other waters for drinking use
b) its economic and energy advantages as a source of needed
increases in supply
c) crucial bottlenecks which must be resolved if reuse
is to be accepted
• the adequacy with which ground water sources of drinking water are
protected, especially in light of potential increases in
a) land treatment
b) recharge with wastewater
c) injection as a means for disposal.
Studies regarding the above and other issues must be carefully related
to imbalances between estimated future water uses and available supplies
under various degrees of drought, emerging technologies and changes (e.g.,
land treatment of wastewater, and increasing emergency and chemical costs),
and the practical opportunities for coordination which exist or can be
created within water quality and water supply planning.
CONCLUSION
A positive momentum has been established since the SDWA became law.
Basic Federal drinking water quality regulations have been issued
governing the bacterial and chemical content of drinking water. Further,
substantial progress has been achieved at the State level in establishing
the legal and institutional capacity to address deficiencies identified in
past studies when the principal concerns were bacterial and inorganic
chemicals in the nation’s drinking water.
61
-------
A new phase has begun. Proposals to control synthetic organic chemicals
in particular and to prevent ground water pollution in general are now moving
forward.
The future role of the SDWA relative to evolving a national conservation
program is now under development. Contributing to the formulation process
will be recomendations developed through a report to Congress responding to
Section 1442 (c) of the SDWA and Section 516 (e) of the Clean Water Act.
Collectively, the basic regulations, the new regulatory proposals, and
the ultimate recommendations issuing from recently initiated studies will
hasten this nation towards the goal of a safe and adequate supply of
drinking water for all Americans on contemporary criteria involving economic
and technological feasibility.
62
-------
The Conservation Connection:
The Clean Water Act of 1977 and EPA’s
Construction Grants Program
Michael B. Cook
Director, Facility Requirements Division
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Here in Chicago, near Lake Michigan,many would find it hard to believe
anyone could worry about running out of water. Water has been periodically
short in this region, however, due to droughts, and future scarcity of high
quality water is not unlikely even here. Much of this northern Illinois area
draws its potable water from a single, slowly recharging aquifer, which is
being pumped much faster than it is being refilled. In addition, current
orders of the Supreme Court strictly limit withdrawals from Lake Michigan for
use in this area. And those same Court orders also make reference to the re-
quirement that conservation programs be in place in communities wishing newly
to acquire rights to Lake Michigan water. Elsewhere in this conference pro-
gram, you will be hearing about a conservation proaram in Elmhurst, Illinois,
which now draws its vital water supply from the heavily burdened Galesville
sandstone aquifer which flows beneath us here.
Further arguments for conservation, even ir 1 the face of apparently
plentiful potable water, stem from rapidly increasing costs for energy to
pump, purify, and circulate water (and resultant wastewater), greater costs
of systems to purify, store, and distribute potable water; and the expendi-
ture required to re—collect, treat, and transport growing amounts of waste-
water. Hence, Chicago is a good place to discuss water conservation,
despite the appearance of abundance in water supply here. It is, of course,
the focus of the entire conference: the protection of a valuable and finite
resource
Federal concern with water began in 1948 in a modest fashion, when the
Congress passed legislation to protect water quality. The Construction Granl3
Program, designed to assist communities to deal with wastewater problems,
began in a small way in 1956. A major shift and increase in emphasis came in
1972, with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (PL 92-500). The
FWPCA of 1972 made the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the national
guardian of the country’s surface and ground waters. It also greatly
expanded the Construction Grants Program. Under the program, the government
funds 75 percent or more of eligible costs of community treatment plants,
with the corru iunity paying the remaining 25 percent, or slightly less in some
cases.
63
-------
As many of you are aware, this program is the largest public construction
program in the country. EPA has obligated some $19 billion in grants since
1972 and expects to obligate upwards of an additional $25 billion this year
and in the next four fiscal years.
In December 1977, about a year ago, the Congress passed the Clean Water
Act (PL 95-217), which comprised amendments to the 1972 legislation (PL 92-
500), and put a new emphasis on conservation. Among the new provisions are
requirements that communities requesting Federal grants for wastewater treat-
ment works must show that conservation measures have been examined for cost-
effectiveness in resolving wastewater problems. In addition, new emphasis is
placed upon encouragement of new technologies to complement and in some cases
supplant conventional treatment methods. Greater emphasis is placed on support
of small systems for areas in which conventional gravity sewers and associated
treatment works are excessively expensive.
The passage of the Clean Water Act was followed in June 1978 by additional
Administration initiatives. In June 1978, President Carter called for a new
policy on water. The new water policy establishes conservation as a corner-
stone of Federal water policy, along with a call for generally better manage-
ment practices for our water resources. In July 1978, the President directed
EPA to head a new task force to review the several grant and loan programs
involving water resources administered by various government agencies. The
President wants to put an end to practices offering disincentives to conser-
vation of water and wants to add, where possible, requirements that comuni-
ties have conservation programs as conditions for obtaining grants or loans.
New conditions are to be applied to projects initiated after September 30,
1979--that is, all projects beginning with fiscal year 1980 (FY 1980). The
Construction Grants Program essentially fulfilled the President’s new requests
on its own in creating operating rules for the program under the Clean Water
Act of 1977--new operating regulations which went into effect on September 27,
1978. The task force examining conservation possibilities is to report its
findings early in 1979.
The President is expected to make a major statement on rural water and
sewer policies early in December 1978. Small comunities with dispersed pop-
ulations often can use small treatment systems which are cheaper and do not
make as heavy use of water and other resources. They are often excellEnt
alternatives to big centralized systems. The President’s statement will
reflect in part the work of a six-agency task force appointed in June 1978 to
address rural water and sewer problems. EPA is a member of this task force.
The group will, in effect, deliver the Construction Grants Program to rural
America. It will do this by helping rural comunities to identify their own
needs, and by telling them about programs that can help them. Surely every-
one knows of small towns where the government is comprised of a part-time
mayor and a part-time clerk. EPA is preparing a manual that explains programs
in simple terifis. The first draft is to be ready soon. We are also cutting
down on red tape and shortening project review times.
These new initiatives, taken together, represent a major departure from
previous policies on water supply and pollution control. The earlier policies
emphasized provision of whatever facilities were necessary to meet demand for
64
-------
water and wastewater treatment. They emphasized the role of the engineer and
the construction contractor and assumed that all resource requirements could
be met if only we looked far enough ahead and designed carefully. The new
initiatives assume that resources are inadequate to meet undisciplined needs
in the future. Continual provision of clear water for a balance of uses re-
quires careful marshalling of resources through demand reduction as well as
increased supply and treatment. The skills of the social scientist and
public affairs specialist must supplement those of the engineer and contractor
to achieve this reduction.
An important element of the 1972 and 1977 Water Pollution Control Acts
is their emphasis on communicating with the public and including the public
in planning as much as possible. The 1977 Act stated that EPA should con-
duct a national information and educational program on water conservation
and flow reduction. This conference is part of that program. Other items
are also in progress.
In addition, we will distribute 200,000 copies of a waterwheel device
which also will help householders to find ways to save water. The device
can be hung in the kitchen and referred to conveniently.
A plan is being completed for purchase and distribution of 200 copies of
a prize-winning cartoon film on water conservation suitable for showing in
schools, community meetings, or other community affairs. Distribution will be
without cost to the viewers.
Participants in this conference have a draft copy of a Directory of
Water Conservation Programs in Government . We want your input on this
document so we can consider your comments for the final publication. We
hope this document will also have wide circulation. In addition, it is
E PA published its revised regulations and accompanying cost-effective-
ness guidelines on September 27, 1978. Any community that obtains a grant
after September 30, 1978 (the end of Fiscal Year 1978), to help it build
a wastewater treatment plant or wastewater conveyance will be required to
follow the new regulations and guidelines. As you can see, things are
happening--and this conference is one example.
During 1979 we will put out a half million copies
tion booklet. The booklet will be distributed through
bution system, and additional copies will be available
quarters in Washington. The pamphlet gives tips on how
home--from not running the faucet for rinsing dishes to
toilets for general waste disposal in addition to their
of a water conserva-
a supermarket distri-
through EPA head-
to save water in the
reducing use of
designed uses.
A grant is under way to produce 100
will show conservation as an alternative
valued water resources and undisciplined
processing facilities for both water and
munity groups will assist in critiquing
in final form. The tape is designed to
community groups, or in 16mm form where
copies of a color videotape that
to continuing wasteful use of our
continued growth of very expensive
wastewater treatment. Local com-
the videotape before it is produced
be used in public broadcasting, by
appropriate.
65
-------
expected that we will publish and distribute selected papers from earlier
conferences on how to shop efficiently and effectively for a sewage treat-
ment system.
Through cooperative efforts of the EPA environmental laboratory in Ada,
Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State University, a slide/tape presentation is being
prepared on the topic of land treatment of wastes, including sludge and
effluent.
An additional information directive of the 1977 Clean Water Act was its
call for a national clearinghouse to collect and distribute information on
new and alternative ways to treat waste besides the use of conventional
central systems. EPA has set up such a clearinghouse in Cincinnati through
the Environmental Research Information Center (ERIC).
The 1972 Water Pollution Control Act requires that communities receiving
grants give their citizens a greater say in facility planning and in how user
charges are determined. EPA expects to issue new regulations on citizen
participation in early 1979, which will substantially increase citizen input
into the whole planning process, from the selection of alternative modes of
wastewater treatment to be examined to the final proposals for Federal
support.
The overall thrust of the Clean Water Act of 1977 and the President’s
new policy initiatives is that clean water is a valuable comodity that needs
to be protected for future use. The new EPA regulations and cost-effective-
ness guidelines published in September 1978 reflect this. They stress flow
reduction, reuse, recycling, and alternative and innovative technology.
The emphasis on demand reduction appears mainly in the guidelines. Their
overall aim is to save resources, including water, energy, materials, and
money.
A prime goal is to ensure that communities plan treatment systems that
are only as big as they need and that are cost-effective now, while still
allowing for a reasonable growth rate. The extra capacity in a treatment
system which is incorporated for future growth is called reserve capacity.
There are numerous cases in which communities have overbuilt their systems.
In the extreme, cases exist where the cost of the wastewater treatment
system exceeds the entire assessed value of the community which it is
designed to serve
The guidelines require that projections of reserve capacity consider
the amount of water that will be saved by flow reduction measures. The
population figures used in such projections must be based on those of the
U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. These numbers,
which are further desegregated at the State level, are intended to prevent
a comunity from saddling itself with a huge plant it cannot pay for because
the expected growth (or hoped-for growth) did not occur. These projections
are often controversial, of course, since most towns appear to believe they
will grow more than total State and national population growth estimates
would support--if all the separate town or comunity estimates were added
together at any point in time.
66
-------
Besides their emphasis on flow reduction in determining reserve capacity,
the guidelines demand that communities consider water conservation in other
ways. The facility plan must include a cost-effectiveness analysis for a
20-year period that shows savings in water and costs that could result from
water conservation measures. These measures include:
• A community information program on water conservatiOn
• Cost evaluations of the water pricing system
• Installation of water meters
• Fitting existing homes and commerical facilities with water-saving
devices such as plastic toilet dams and low-flow showerheads
• Ordinance changes in plumbing and building codes that encourage
installing such devices in future buildings or encourage water-
conserving design specifications.
Preliminary EPA studies show that potential savings for an existing
household that installs water-saving devices run to $54 a year in water
and energy costs. These water-saving devices include 3˝ gallon/flush
toilets, low-flow showerheads, aerated kitchen and lavatory faucets, and
water-saving automatic clothes washers and dishwashers. Our figures assume
a constant cost for water and energy; expected increases in both water
charges and energy costs would strengthen the case for household conserva-
tion programs.
The studies show that a new house designed for maximum water conserva-
tion might save about $96 a year. There is a potential national savings
of $27.7 billion during the period 1978 to 1990 from water conservation--
savings in water supply facilities, treatment facilities, sewers, and energy.
Ideally, a savings of 14.6 trillion gallons of potable water is possible
during the same years (1978 to 1990), and accrued savings on household
energy--gas, oil, and electricity--come to 3 to 4 percent.
One large university saved $100,000 in water, sewerage, and energy bills
in a single year by installing low—flow showerheads costing about $15,000.
In terms of energy and water savings, the showerhead installation may be
the most cost-effective single device available.
The 1977 Clean Water Act and EPA guidelines encourage water conservation
by their stress on what we call innovative and alternative technologies. A
community that seeks grant funds after September 30, l978,must show it
considered using technology other than conventional, central treatment systems
in finding solutions to its pollution problems.
An “alternative” technology is one that has been used and has proved it-
self, but which is different from conventional gravity sewer and treatment
systems. An “innovative” technology is one that has not been used in the
67
-------
way the community proposes to employ it and, hence, may not have proven
itself completely. The administration of these features of the law is
complex and difficult, since a process may be innovative in one time and
place and not in another.
Alternative systems could include land treatment; reuse; recycling;
energy recovery; septic tanks with soil absorption fields; septic tanks
with add-ons, including mound systems; aerobic units; low-water or no-water
toilets; and vacuum and pressure sewers.
These alternative systems can often be much cheaper and just as
effective for small communities when they are properly installed and
maintained. Grant provisions provide for adequacy in maintenance of
non—traditional systems.
EPA guidelines for alternative systems offer special benefits for their
installation and use:
• They can cost up to 15 percent more than the most cost-effective
conventional system and still be grant-eligible
• Federal shares may equal 85 percent rather than 75 percent of
total eligible costs
• A rural State must set aside 4 percent of its allotment for systems
that are to be installed in towns of 3,500 population or less
• There is also a two-percent set aside in a State’s allotment to
pay the extra cost for increasing innovative and alternative project
grants from 75 to 85 percent.
The guidelines also address conservation in their requirements for bett
industrial wastewater control. Industries using municipŕlsewers are required
to pay user fees based upon volume of wastewater and pollutant loading.
These fees should discourage industrial users from carelessly discharging
and using large volumes of water.
EPA is giving major emphasis to a program calling for pretreatment of
toxic substances by industries that discharge into municipal wastewater
treatment systems. Often, an industrial firm can better handle a specific
toxic material than can a general municipal wastewater treatment system.
Further, the costs for pretreatment should encourage water reuse, recycling,
and generally reduced potable water inputs, with obvious benefits to
municipal wastewater treatment systems.
EPA is working continuously on effluent guidelines, which specify allow-
able pollution levels for discharged industrial wastewater. Some industries
are trying to revise their manufacturing processes so they can reuse water,
thereby reducing discharge amounts. The effluent guidelines and user
charge systems are intended to encourage such in-process changes.
68
-------
The Clean Water A t of 1977 and EPA operating regulations for the Act
dealing with user fees indirectly encourage conservation of water. All users
of systems receiving grant funds must pay charges in proportion to their
use of the sewer system. Residential users must be notified of their total
sewer service charges, making such costs more visible and raising the
consciousness of citizens to the importance of wastewater treatment problems
in their own communities.
A number of problems arise, however, when the Construction Grants
Program is used as a vehicle for conservation. The municipal sewage agency
is that agency subject to EPA regulations concerning grant eligibility and
Federal support. That agency does not always have the authority to bring
about potable water flow reduction. The regulations issued in late 1978
take account of this situation and do not require action unless those who
have the authority agree to them. Quite aside from technological problems
involved in pollution abatement programs, this situation provides an example
of institutional problems which are riOt easily solved by engineering
techniques. Rather, water and wastewater managers, along with citizens, must
work to bring about changes in the values and behavior of persons involved
at various stages in the processes associated with providing potable water
and properly treating and disposing of wastewater.
A second problem which emerges is that water demand reduction does
involve changes in people’s habits——providing additional need for and
justification of increased public participation in the operation of the
Construction Grants Program. In the longer run, conservation practices will
succeed only with an informed public’s participation and consent.
A third problem for water conservation programming is the uncertainty
that at times is associated with flow reduction. With its dependence upon
active human participation, flow reduction might be achieved for a period,
then lost. A facility minimally designed with flow reduction in mind might
be insufficient if flow reduction goals are not achieved over the long run.
Where such a situation occurs, EPA will have to take a flexible stance with
communities that acted in good faith and assumed that their system would be
adequate. It should also be noted that such possibilities underline the
necessity for community conviction about conserving water resources on the
one hand, and the desirability of passive flow reduction measures (e.g., low-
flow showerheads and toilets) on the other.
Long-term financing may provide further problems difficult to resolve.
A coniminity might find it has to increase rates to defray debt retir.ement
costs, even though less water is being used,and conservation goals themselves
are being met. Such results may place local political leadership in jeopardy.
The total long-term costs to the consumer will decrease (demand reduction may
reduce future capital outlay needs), but unit costs will go up. This is a
complex set of relationships difficult to explain and understand.
A balanced view of the pros and cons of conservation must also take
into account the possibility of treatment works malfunctions as a result of
lowered water demand. Deposits may accumulate in sewer pipes as a result
69
-------
of reduced flow. When flow reduction exceeds about 30 percent of design
flow, wastewater treatment plans may fail to meet design expectations for
effluent quality. We do, however, have some experience in these issues which
suggests that fears of malfunction may be more imaginary than real in most
cases.
In 1977, in five California utility districts where a drought-driven
major conservation program was in effect, we found flow reductions ranging
from 25 to 60 percent below normal pre-drought levels. Wastewater treatment
plants could handle as much as a 30 percent reduction in flow without
serious adverse effects on efficiency. And a happy finding was that the
drought did not result in reduced employment or seriously delayed
development activity. Encouraging results have been reported from other
coniiiunities as well.
Elmhurst, Illinois, a community I referred to at the beginning of this
presentation, has had excellent citizen cooperation in its conservation
program designed to reduce overpumping of its declining aquifer water
resource. Near Washington, D.C., communities served by the Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) have achieved remarkable control over
previously burgeoning water supply demands through conservation programs
pioneered since the early 1970’s. .The WSSC effort stemmed initially from
lack of wastewater treatment facilities,which resulted in economically
costly sewer hookup moratoria. When drought hit the area in the mid-l970’s,
conservation programs and a conservation ethic were already well established.
A common ingredient of successful programs of conservation appears to
be a user charge system with increasing cost per unit of water as water
consumption increases. This is in strong contrast to the rather traditional
and widespread pricing system for water; namely, a reduced unit cost as
demand increases.
Over the long haul, successful programs of water conservation are likely
to be seen as functions of a broader public commitment to a new conservation
ethic, which will in turn involve a shift from emphasis on heavy resource use
to emphasis upon resource conservation. Heavy resource use is generally
characteristic of American economic and cultural history, and the necessary
shift to a new way of thinking may be expected to take time and to involve
some pain. Water savings will, ultimately, be seen as part of the greater,
broader set of changes in cultural attitudes and behaviors just noted. With
care for our environment and with determination, we can make significant
transformations in our use of environmental resources without seriously alter-
ing fundamentally prized aspects of American life.
70
-------
Water Conservation Through Leak Detection
William F. H. Gros
Executive Vice President
The Pitometer Associates
Because of the drought that was widespread throughout the United States
during 1977, there have probably been more articles written and speeches
given in the last year and a half about water conservation than during the
previous decade. Although the main thrust of water conservation programs
has been to save water, it must be kept in mind that the Federal government’s
interest in water conservation is also due to a desire to save energy by
reducing pumping costs.
WHEN A LEAK DETECTION SURVEY IS NEEDED
Before consideration can be given to a leak detection survey as a cost-
effective means of conserving water, it must first be determined whether
there is enough water loss in the system to warrant a survey. Distribution
system losses in a metered system are usually referred to as “unaccounted-for’
water and may be defined as the difference between the water produced, or
purchased, which enters the distribution system during a given period, and
the amount of water delivered to the system. Quite often too much concern
is shown over the fact that there is an overlap between billing periods and
the period used to determine the amount of water delivered to the system.
If the period used for comparison is long enough, such as a year, then the
resulting unaccounted—for percentage will be indicative of the severity of
system losses. In addition, a running twelve-month record can be kept of
the unaccounted-for percentage by adding pumpage and billings for the current
month and dropping the first month from the list. The percentage will vary
somewhat with seasonal changes, but the current percentage can still be
compared with the percentage for the same time the previous year. Also,
any upward trend in percentage can be observed as it develops and steps can
be taken to determine the causes before the losses are detected by an
annual audit. In fact, an annual accounting procedure may not detect a
significant increase in unaccounted-for water until almost a year and a
half after the cause for the increase has developed.
Usually, in smaller water systems with average daily consumption up to
ten million gallons per day (mgd), it is difficult to economically conduct a
thorough survey of the system for leaks if the unaccounted-for percentage
is 15 percent or less. In larger systems, the unaccounted-for percentage may
be less, but it may be economically feasible to set up a leak survey program
just because of the fact that losing 10 percent of a high average daily
consumption represents a considerable amount of water. However,
71
-------
there are a number of factors, in addition to average daily consumption,
that must be taken into account before a decision can be made as to whether
or not a loss of 10 percent to 15 percent or less is really acceptable. One
of the major factors is the amount of water sold to industry. For example,
consider a water system that has an average daily consumption of 10 mgd with
a 10 percent (1.0 mgd) loss and has 5 mgd of the total supplied to industry
through several dozen well-maintained meters. If it is assumed that the
industrial consumption is accurately metered because of an existing meter
rehabilitation program, then the 1.0 mgd in loss is actually contained in
the remaining 5.0 mgd in consumption. The unaccounted-for percentage then
becomes 20 percent instead of 10 percent.
Another factor to be taken into consideration is the accuracy of the
master meters which measure the water delivered to the distribution system.
All the statistical data that is used to determine the unaccounted-for
percentage is dependent on the accuracy of this group of meters. Although
master meters have been found to be over-registering by as much as 20 per-
cent on some occasions, the tendency is towards under-registration. If
the master meters are under-registering, the resulting low unaccounted-for
percentage could lull a conn’nunity into a feeling of false security, which
could result in excessive losses. If the true percentage were known it
might become economically feasible to consider a comprehensive leak
detection survey.
The temptation should be resisted to overestimate the amount of water
used for fires, unmetered municipal services, and main breaks. Studies
conducted by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) have shown that in
most cases these factors only account for one or two percent of the average
daily consumption.
During a drought or a program of mandatory consumer conservation, it
may be necessary to inaugurate a leak detection program even if the
unaccounted-for percentage is relatively low, so that the utility cannot be
accused of wasting water while others are having to conserve water. There-
fore, in determining when a leak survey might be beneficial, a careful
analysis should be made of circumstances and of all the factors that
contribute to water losses, using the unaccounted-for percentage as a
guideline rather than a number with a fixed cutoff point.
TYPES OF SURVEYS
There are two types of leak detection surveys available to cornunities:
the listening survey and the water loss survey.
The listening survey, as the name implies, is conducted by listening
on valves and hydrants with sound-intensifying equipment in hopes of detect-
ing sound that will lead to the location of underground leakage. The
listening survey can be conducted by a water utility using its own
personnel. Unfortunately, in smaller water systems this type of survey
cannot guarantee that the problem will be solved, since the cause of the
unaccounted-for water will still be undetermined if little or no leakage
is located. In large systems it is difficult to set up a continuing
72
-------
program that is the most cost-effective at all times. In both smaller and
larger systems it is impossible by sound alone to quantify the leaks so that
the largest leaks can be repaired first.
The water loss survey is a combination engineering and accounting
approach to an unaccounted-for problem and requires the use of a firm that
specializes in solving water loss problems. Flow measurements are utilized
to help determine how water is being used in the system and to determine
which areas have the greatest leakage potential. The primary and recording
devices of the master meters are tested for accuracy, industrial meters are
tested for accuracy, pump efficiencies are checked, and leaks are quantified
and pinpointed for repair. An analysis of all the data that are obtained
will help determine how water is being lost in the system and will define
the problem so that cost-effective measurescan be taken.
Generally, if a utility has an unaccounted-for loss between 10 percent
and 15 percent, a comprehensive water loss survey would result in measures
reducing this loss by 10 percent to 30 percent. If the unaccounted-for loss
is in the 15 percent to 25 percent range, a reduction in loss of 30 percent
to 50 percent might be expected. If the loss is in the 25 percent to 50
percent range, it is probable that the reduction would be 50 percent to
60 percent.
I NSTRUMENTS
There are two basic types of instruments that are used in leak detection
work: the perfect instrument type such as the aquaphone and the geophone,
and the more sophisticated type which contains tubes or transistors and
batteries. A perfect instrument is defined as one that does not have any
moving parts, will not function improperly, and will continue to perform
satisfactorily with a minimum of maintenance.
The aquaphone looks something like an old-style telephone receiver and
is reliable and easy to use. It is utilized primarily for checking services
for leaks and for preliminary sounding on valves and hydrants. All water-
works maintenance trucks should have an aquaphone as standard equipment.
A geophone looks something like a doctor’s stethoscope. It is rugged,
easy to use, and is excellent for preliminary sounding and for pinpointing
leaks. It has the distinct advantage of being more sensitive than the
aquaphone and less sensitive than the electronic locator.
Electronic locators come in many shapes and sizes. They are more
sensitive, but delicate, and require special handling when transporting and
using. They are also more expensive to purchase and to repair.
There are no magic leak-locating instruments or secret procedures to
be found anywhere that will be of assistance in finding leaks. Rather, the
individual charged with the responsibility of locating leaks must depend on
hard work, patience, common sense, and skill gained through experience.
73
-------
SUMMARY
When it is considered that a leak detection survey can be implemented
quickly, it becomes apparent that such a survey, if needed, is a practical
and economical approach to water conservation. En many cities where it is
necessary to reduce water consumption, the leak survey would be conducted
in conjunction with other water conservation programs.
Distribution system losses are a luxury that no water utility can
afford. Water passing through meters and not being registered is revenue
lost at retail prices. Water lost through underground leakage wastes energy
and valuable chemicals which are in short supply, as well as purification
and wastewater plant capacity, pumpage capacity, and main capacity. In the
future, proper water management, including some type of water conservation
program, will have to be a fundamental part of waterworks operation in
most comunities.
74
-------
Infi ltrationllnf low
Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E.
PSG/American Consulting Services, Inc.
Alixist everyone is familiar with the term infiltration/inflow and how
it fits into the topic of municipal wastewater flow reduction. But how is
it related to water conservation?
Infiltration is, of course, water that seeps into sewer systems through
mains and house services, manhole walls and the like as a result of ground
water encroachment. Inflow is rainfall and surface runoff entering these
systems through direct connections such as catch basins, area drains, yard
drains, and roof leaders. This unwanted water is getting into the sewer
system and is using capacity that would otherwise be utilized for the
transportation of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater.
Sewer system design does take into consideration extra capacity for
some unwanted waters of infiltration and inflow. However, the degree to
which these waters enter sewer systems most often exceeds the amount allowed
by the systems. The first sewer systems were most often combined, designed
to take both the sewage and surface runoff waters into one conduit, and
transport them to an outfall and eventually into some body of water. These
combined systems were usually provided with overflows at various points along
their routes so that the surges in the flow as a result of high-intensity
rainfall runoff entering the system would be able to be relieved without
causing system backup and subsequent flooding of basements and streets.
With the advent of sewage treatment and construction of sewage treat-
ment plants, combined systems were diverted to these facilities,and subsequent
system additions were of a separated nature. The separated systems directed
the wastewater to the treatment facilities via sanitary sewers, and the
stormwater runoff was directed to the nearest water course via storm sewers.
Thus, in the separated sanitary systems, there was very little extra capacity
for extraneous waters of infiltration and inflow. As a result, when waters
of infiltration and inflow entered the separated sanitary systems, and used
capacity that otherwise had been provided for the transportation of normal
wastewater flow, they caused the systems to L e stressed. Many times systems
became overloaded.
System overloading causes basement flooding, overtopping of manholes,
and bypassing from sanitary to storm sewers through ubootlegI connections,
perhaps, which djrectstorniwater runoff toward the nearest receiving body of
water. Such an occurrence, of course, results in the pollution of these
water courses.
75
-------
The tie, then, between a discussion on infiltration/inflow and the
conservation of water becomes clear. When domestic water supplies are drawn
from these same water courses, the extensive treatment necessary to make
these waters potable becomes a difficult or even impossible task. This
paper will discuss past, present, and future perspectives on the subject of
infiltration and inflow.
Let’s take a look at the recent history of sewer systems. Books have
been written about the origin of sewer systems, going back centuries to the
Romans. However, in this country, we are concerned mostly with the last
100 years. There are systems older than that, but in most major cities in
this country, the oldest systems go back about a century. There is not a
great deal of sewer footage that old, but in many cases some of the more
critical footage in a comunity lies in its older systems. Allow me to
clarify that. Cities, of course, build out from a core and because of that
fact, the older systems are in that core, which usually is the more highly
developed area. The extent of development makes the systems less accessible
for maintenance than, perhaps, some of the newer systems in outlying parts
of cities. As a result of that inaccessibility, systems have been neglected
in many cases and have deteriorated. Let’s face it, sewer system maintenance
is not usually at the top of the list of priorities for a city’s allocation
of funds.
Now let’s look at the design practices, the construction practices, and
the materials of construction as they have developed for sewer systems over
the years. First of all, it is anybody’s guess as to what procedures were
used in designing the 100 year-old systems, 50 year-old systems, or for
that matter, present-day systems. Have good practices been used? Let’s hope
that they were. Secondly, the systems were designed by any number of different
people, both engineers and non-engineers. We are dealing with a human factor
that acknowledges that perhaps good designs were used, but on the other
hand,, whatever was convenient to expedite design and construction may have
been utilized.
Now, how about construction practices? Those of you who are familiar
with sewer construction know that unless there is good inspection on compe-
titively bid projects, there is the potential for the projects to be subject
to less-than-ideal construction practices, especially on a job that is
difficult or one where a contractor might be behind schedule. These situa-
tions have existed over the years. Also, many different, additions to a
system may have been done by many different people. Looking at that “patch-
work quilt” of circumstances leads one to wonder what must be underground.
Those of us in the business of investigating old systems know what is under-
ground. Some of the things we find are atrocious, not because of deterior-
ation due to the age of the systems, but because of practices undertaken at
the time of construction and from all the factors of design, materials,and
construction.
As for materials of construction, early sewer systems were built of
concrete and vitrified clay pipe, both of which are still used. However,
improvements have been realized; materials such as ABS and PVC are now being
used. But perhaps the biggest improvement has been in the methods of joining
76
-------
pipe. The gasket materials, going back to oakum, mortar, jute, and bituiiastic
material, are now being replaced by slip-on gaskets and chemical weld joints.
Earlier 1 mentioned the different types of systems. The first systems
installed were combined, handling domestic, commercial, and industrial waste
along with the stormwater runoff. Again, there have been different philoso-
phies with regard to how these pipes should be installed, expecially with
reference to the use of, or the lack of, gasket material. In some cases,
pipes were installed without gaskets to allow them to act as “french drains”
to keep the water table down. At first, it may be argued that since the
pipes are supposed to be carrying runoff, they may as well take seepage
infiltration and keep the ground water table down. What happens, however,
is the phenomenon of exfiltration,or leakage of wastewater from the sewer
pipes into the surrounding soil. Many of the systems have been exfiltrating
for a number of years, leading one to speculate on the condition of the
ground ter in the vicinity of these systems.
Because sewage treatment plants now accept all or most of the flow from
these combined systems, all of the extraneous water entering becomes some-
thing that requires treatment. There is a large problem in removing all of
the direct inflow connections to combined sewers. When they have been in
the ground for up to 100 years the number of connections made to these
systems is phenomenal and, for the most part, unknown. Also, where the
combined systems have been separated and what was once a combined sewer is
now the sanitary sewer, the lack of jointing materials (in addition to the
other problems with the oldcombined system) becomes a matter of concern.
With sewage treatment plants on the ends of all these combined systems,
the subsequent sewer construction was of the nature of separated systems.
Once again, factors of design, materials, and construction are involved.
A myriad of situations exist in the separated sewer systems. One clear
water source which poses a removal problem is footing drain tile connected
to separated sanitary systems. These tiles are placed around a foundation
of a home to keep the water table down and to prevent the basement floor
from buckling and leaking. This water is often directed to the house
service, directly or “bootlegged’ through sump pumps. The Federal Housing
Administration required the installation of footing drain tile for a number
of years, and the recommended place to connect them was to the house service.
Now, new construction practice provides for the footing tile to be connected
to sumps and to be pumped to some place other than the sanitary sewer system.
However, hundreds of thousands of pre-existing homes have footing tile dis-
charging to the sanitary sewer system.
Another clear water source occurs where separated storm sewer systems
that were constructed to handle surface runoff are in proximity to the sani-
tary system. The sanitary system is usually deeper in the ground than the
storm system, which results in the storm sewer mains crossing over the sani-
tary sewer mains and house services. As I mentioned before construction of
storm sewers quite often is done without the use of jointing materials, and
exfiltration occurs during periods of rainfall when these lines are trans-
porting surface runoff. Exfiltration water will flow from the storm sewer
mains and into the sanitary sewer mains and house services at any point where
77
-------
the sanitary systems are capable of taking on water. Experience has shown
that this inflow problem is one of the most serious occurring in sanitary
sewer systems.
Sewage treatment plants and the subsequent receiving bodies of water are
being affected as a result of the sewer systems’ susceptibility to taking
on extraneous clear water of infiltration and inflow. As more of this water
enters the systems, wastewater treatment plant capacities will have to be
expanded, increasing capital costs as well as operation and maintenance costs.
Another factor to consider is the very large surges of flow experienced
during periods of rainfall and sno iielt runoff into these systems as a
result of inflow. This increases the risk of health hazards caused by
basement backup, manhole overtopping, overflowing and bypassing to storm
sewers and subsequently, discharge to receiving bodies of water. The
problem has been recognized for years; however, until the advent of Public
Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
there was little importance placed on removing the clear waters of infiltra—
tion and inflow from the sewer systems. Prior to P.L. 92-500, no recognition
or addressing of the infiltration/inflow problem was necessary, except in a
very peripheral manner, to obtain federal monies for the construction of
sewage treatment plants. Under P.L. 92-500, the recognition of infiltration!
inflow problems was addressed by requiring sewer system studies to identify
the effects of infiltration/inflow.
An infiltration/inflow analysis is required to identify the problem and
to make a decision as to whether there is a possibly excessive infiltration!
inflow problem in a sewer system, or if it is nonexcessive. If the problem
is possibly excessive, then a further in-depth study, known as a sewer
system evaluation survey, is required. It is interesting to look at how
these studies, or the guildelines for these studies., were developed. The
history of how these programs evolved merits a brief discussion.
Going back to sewer system design prior to the early 1960’s, we see a
provision in design for an infiltration allowance. Only the word infiltra-
tion, not inflow, was used at this point. Infiltration included any
extraneous water, whether it be seepage ground water infiltration or rain
water.
During the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, the technique of televising
sewer systems was developed. The reason was that municipalities had never
been able to really look at their systems as they would like to. The only
inspection technique available up to that time was visual lamping; most
often, 50 feet was about the distance one could see effectively into a
small diameter sewer line from a manhole, and the average distance between
manholes is 250 to 300 feet. Street cave-ins and things of this nature
are a comon occurrence and are often the result of structural failure of
the sewer system, causing the backfill and overburden to pull down into
the system. This,in turn, causes cavitation beneath the street surface,
with a resulting collapse of the pavement. The municipalities recognized
sewer televising as a tool to investigate systems for structural integrity
before placing new pavements over them. Along the way, however, while
cameras were in the lines,many other situations were noted, including
78
-------
infiltration. And, from time to time, when televising was done during
heavy rainfalls, the marked increase in flow was noted. A line that was
flowing about a tenth of its capacity suddenly filled with water, inundating
the television camera. As a result of situations like these, questions of
“why” were raised which spurred the development of new technology. Hence,
rainfall simulation was born.
Presently, rainfall simulation takes several forms. A major form is
dye-water flooding of adjacent and crossing storm sewers. One of the
largest contributors of clear water of inflow are the storm sewers that lie
adjacent to the sanitary sewer systems. Over the years, “bootleg” connec-
tions--cross-connections--between storm and sanitary sewers have been made to
relieve the sanitary sewer systems that become overloaded, thus preventing
basement backup and manhole overtopping. These kinds of cross-connections
are, of course, very large sources of inflow when the storm sewer system
takes on surface runoff water. The water then passes from the storm sewer
to the sanitary sewer and defeats the purpose of the cross-connection, which
is to relieve the sanitary sewer system. However, there is a more insidious
form of storm water inflow which is a result of exfiltration from the storm
sewer system via the joints, with this leakage permeating the soil in the
vicinity and eventually migrating to the sanitary sewer mains and house
services, which are ususally at a lower elevation.
It is surprising how long it has taken engineers to realize that this is
a major source of inflow. I can cite my own example when, working as a city
engineer in a municipality in Wisconsin, I first heard of storm sewer flood-
ing. I did not believe it was necessary. The company who performed
televising services for the municipality at that time (in the mid-1960’s)
always flooded the adjacent storm sewers prior to televising. It took
actual onsite evidence for me to realize that this was a large source of
inflow. I had thought, like so many other engineers, that exfiltration from
the storm sewer system was not a problem, much less the infiltration of
that water into the sanitary sewers. This method is now an accepted tech-
nique for determining sources of inflow: dye is inserted into the water put
into the storm sewer system and a subsequent check is done to see if the
dye shows up in the adjacent sanitary sewer. With this evidence, then, those
sections of the sanitary sewer where dye shows up are recommended for
televising. Then, at the time of televising, the storm sewers are reflooded,
this time without the dye, to allow the camera to spot exactly where the
waters are inflowing into the sanitary sewer system.
So, the problems in the sewer system as they concern infiltration and
inflow were recognized for what they were, almost accidentally, with the
advent of sewer system televising for structural purposes. The various
techniques for sewer investigation started to develop at that point, and one
of the first phases was called physical survey. This is a process where
the manholes are descended and the lines illuminated to get an idea of the
amount of cleaning that is necessary in the sewers prior to televising. This
technique was developed and refined so that it also helped to identify areas
of infiltration and sources of inflow. The television camera could now be
used in a more intelligent and restrictive way, rather than in haphazardly
looking for the clear water sources. As these techniques evolved, studies
79
-------
were performed to identify sources of infiltration and inflow and the flow
readings at the sewage treatment plants during various dry and wet weather
periods were compared, along with water consumption to quantify, in total,
the infiltration/inflow problem. With this quantification, then,a target
was established when looking for the various clear water sources. One knew
how much clear water was getting to the treatment plant but did not know the
origin of this water. So, the investigative phases were the tool by which
the sources, in total, would equal what was determined as the overall problem.
As more studies were undertaken, it was realized how much of a problem clear
water in sewer systems really was. Also, the amount of this water getting to
the treatment plant most often was only part of the problem because of
overflows and bypasses in the system, causing a mixture of clear water and
sewage to exit at these points.
When P.L. 92-500 was in its formative stages, the Federal government
recognized that it would not be efficient to construct treatment plants
to handle the large wet weather flows that were occurring. Rather, a
program was needed to identify and prevent at least some of the extraneous
water from getting into sewer systems.
As part of P.L. 92-500, then, the government initiated a requirement that
each sewer system tributary to a Federally-funded project such as a waste-
water treatment plant or interceptor sewer undergo an infiltration/inflow
analysis to determine if the infiltration/inflow from that system was
possibly excessive or nonexcessive. The infiltration/inflow analysis was
intended as more of a “desk-top study that investigates flows exiting the
system and attempts to determine whether it would be cheaper to transport and
treat them, or whether a reduction of the clear water would be the most
economical alternative. If the latter is true, then a sewer system
evaluation survey must be performed.
As with any new program, there have been problems. The Federal
government has been criticized for including the sewer system investigation
requfrement in the law. Some people maintain that while the intent is
laudable, the application is impractical. Others disagree with the intent
of the law, feeling that facilites can be constructed in all cases to
handle these flows. Whatever the various opinions, one must look at how the
program has progressed since 1972.
At the outset of the program, no one really knew what was necessary to
meet the infiltration/inflow analysis stipulation. As a result, there were
a lot of “cut-and-try procedures. Guidelines were written at the time;
however, they were usually not specific enough to enable people to perform
the task required to the satisfaction of the people formulating the
guidelines. Also, individual interpretation played a large role in comple-
ting infiltration/inflow analysis.
The people who first started the program in the Federal government were
as much in the dark as the people trying to perform the work. Along the way,
from the consultant point of view, it has been difficult to deal with the
changing government personnel. Also, the practicality of the specific
requirements for an infiltration/inflow analysis, or for that matter, sewer
80
-------
system evaluation survey, is always in question. The more experience that
one obtains in these areas, the more one learns that adjustments to
requirements are necessary. This, then, results in the need for change.
The Federal government has come out with various Program Requirements
Memoranda that update, revise and change procedures. Thes Memoranda are also
subject to individual interpretation. Hence, a wide variety of approaches
have developed to solving the problems of infiltration/inflow.
But, let’s look at the subject from a different point of view. Suppose
there was no requirement for addressing the clear water of infiltration/
inflow in the sewer system prior to constructing facilities to treat the flows.
It is not too difficult to imagine what would have happened. Tremendous
overdesign to accommodate the clear water would have taken place. The
awareness created by the requirement for infiltration/inflow has had a very
stimulating effect on the population. Municipal people are now more aware
of some of the problems which occur in their sewer systems. The general
public is more aware of these problems through their participation in
government programs. Environmentalists and others also see that addressing
of these problems can benefit the things of nature. Unless a serious problem
like infiltration/inflow is brought to our attention by such laws and made
one of our concerns, we tend to ignore it and put it aside.
Well , where are we now with the concerns of infiltration/inflow? Most
systems have addressed the problem through infiltration/inflow analysis.
We are in the midst of performing sewer system evaluation surveys on those
systems deemed possibly excessive by the analyses. Some surveys have been
completed, others are in various stages of completion. Consequently, there
have not been very many projects that have reached step three, or the
rehabilitation phase, as yet. One thing has become abundantly clear,
though: infiltration, per se, is not cost-effective to eliminate from a
sewer system in most cases. Techniques for infiltration elimination are
usually rather expensive for the amount of infiltration eliminated. Some
projects have proceeded into the rehabilitation phase where extensive work
has been done to eliminate infiltration and, in fact, the problem has not
been eliminated at all. It is only moved around.
Inflow seems to be the much larger concern and there are several
reasons for that. First of all, it has a very large immediate impact on
a sewer system. Inflow-related flows are generally the most problematical,
since they cause basement backups, manhole overtopping, and sewer over-
flowing and bypassing. Inflow sources are relatively inexpensive to
eliminate for the amount of water that is removed from the system.
Another situation that has been a problem is combined sewer systems.
Until just recently, little has been done with combined sewers. Most of
the bigger cities have not begun the sewer system evaluation survey phase,
and these are generally the cities that have at least some combined sewers
in their systems. The Federal government has issued Program Requirements
Memoranda addressing the problem of combined sewers. It seems that sewer
separation is the recommended procedure; however, most often, it is not
the most cost-effective alternative, and other solutions to the problem
become apparent, such as flow equalization and storage.
81
-------
Since all bypassing must cease, and since there are large quantities of
surface water that must be handled, the practicality of some of the recom-
mended methods of rehabilitation in sewer systems has proved to be inadequate
to eliminate bypassing. But, these problems must be addressed. We can’t
ignore the problem or take a negative attitude because the intent of the
program is certainly right, and the results will depend upon how well we
apply ourselves to alleviating this problem.
What lies ahead for us with regard to elimination of bypassing, the
tightening up of systems? What must be done in the future?
The first thing that must be done, and is being done, is that systems
installed henceforth will be constructed under rigid infiltration/inflow
specifications and inspection procedures. This is a difficult thing to
achieve, but we must strive for that goal. The disallowance of clear water
connections to sanitary systems must be enforced and some of the practices
prevalent in the past with regard to connections must be stopped. Once a
sewer system has been investigated and the necessary rehabilitation
measures taken, it is incumbent upon the owner to be vigilant in checking to
see that minimal flows are maintained. A continual program of flow monitor-
ing, in some form, must be initiated along with improved maintenance procedures
for keeping the system tight and at full capacity. Eventually, older systems
will be corrected, at least to some degree, and later, of course, many of
the older systems will be replaced.
As bypassing is eliminated and all of the flows are handled in the
system and transported to the treatment facility, and as the facilities
themselves are upgraded to accomplish a higher degree of wastewater treat-
ment, the receiving waters in this country will become less polluted and
easier to treat for human consumption.
Perhaps the original balance of nature will never be restored, but with
the available technology, we will certainly to able to handle our human
problems as they are concerned with the water supplies of this country.
82
-------
Selection of Water Conservation Devices for Installation
in New or Existing Dwellings
William E. Sharpe
Institute for Research on Land
and Water Resources
The Pennsylvania State University
INTRODUCTION
One of the most difficult decisions for utility managers interested in
water conservation has been the selection of the best fixtures, fittings,
and devices to recommend to their customers. In the early days of such
programs the choice was not so difficult because there were very few water
conservation fixtures and devices available. However, the choice is
considerably more difficult today because there are many more water-saving
products on the market. Many of these products look and function similarly,
making the choice between them even more difficult. Second, many water
conservation devices have not been rigorously tested by standard methods
to allow the decisionmaker the opportunity for a clear judgment as to their
relative merits. For example, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development has only recently retained a consultant to develop a suitable
standard for testing water-saving toilets.
These tests for product reliability are still not enough. The decision-
maker also wants to know what he can expect in the way of savings in water,
energy, and wasteflows both from individuals and in the aggregate for his
conriunity. This information is only now beginning to become available,
and,because of differences in measurement methods, individual water use,
device distribution methods, and a whole host of other variables, this
data must be interpreted carefully.
Until now, the utility manager has been compelled to test and demonstrate
water conservation devices in selected homes within the community prior
to recommending their widespread use. Such efforts are often limited by
inadequate monitoring and nonstandard evaluations. These independent tests
are duplicative and delay conservation program implementation, but they have
(The work of the author has been supported in part by Federal funds
provided by the Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and
Technology, as authorized under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964
and in part by funds provided by the Pennsylvania State University.)
83
-------
been required because of a lack of good performance data for many water
conservation devices and fixtures.
Although by no means complete, there is now some information available
on the performance of water conservation devices. This information should
help the utility manager choose the water conservation devices and fittings
that are most suitable for his particular situation. This discussion will
be confined to devices used in the home. The growing family of devices
available to manage outdoor residential water use is not within the scope
of this paper.
Toilet Devices
In the residential setting, the largest user of water inside the home is
the flush toilet. Data on the amount of water used by flush toilets vary,
but a generally accepted average is five gal/flush. Because of its relatively
high water use, the toilet has received a lot of attention from those inter-
ested in water conservation. A varied assortment of devices has been
developed to modify the toilet to use less water,and new toilets are being
marketed that use less water. Most residential water conservation programs
have encouraged the use of devices to modify existing toilets and mandated
the use of water-saving toilets (3.5 gal/flush) in new or replacement
construction.
The choice of devices for use in existing toilet installations has been
especially difficult for utility managers. Available devices include dams,
partitions or inserts to wall off a portion of the toilet tank, displacement
devices such as plastic bottles or bags to displace water in the toilet tank,
and an assortment of devices to modify the flush mechanism for a two-cycle
flush mode. Most programs involving mass distribution of water conservation
devices have relied on either dams or displacement devices. Mass distribution
of two-cycle devices has not occurred.
The relative merits of one type of toilet modification device versus
another have only recently received attention. For the purposes of this paper
an attempt has been made to give additional insight into questions concerning
toilet device selection. The three major types of devices--darin ing,
displacement, and flush mechanism modification-- are compared on the basis of
water use reduction efficiency, cost, installation problems, and performance
under conditions of actual use.
Water Reduction Efficiency
Table 1 sumarizes the water use reduction efficiency of 10 toilet
dams. The data presented is taken from tests conducted by the California
Department of Water Resources.
Averages from Table 1 show a savings for the plastic dams tested of
1.56 gallons or 29.8 percent of total water use/flush. The averages for
two one-quart displacement bottles reported in this same study are 0.65
gallon or 12 percent of toilet water use/flush.
84
-------
TABLE 1. WATER REDUCTION EFFICIENCIES OF TEN TOILET DAMS
Average volume
of water sayed Average flush
Device per flush* water saved
( gal.) ( % )
1 1.42 27
2 1.43 27
3 1.34 26
4 1.34 26
5 1.59 30
6 1.73 33
7 1.73 33
8 1.53 29
9 1.61 31
10 1.89 36
* Average of three flushes in each of three common toilets by procedure
outlined in ANSI A112.19.2-1973. All test toilets with flapper valve.
85
-------
The California Department of Water Resources study also evaluated the
flushing efficiencies of various flush mechanism devices. This evaluation
is suninarized in Table 2.
Those flush-mechanism devices not accomodating a two-cycle flush mode
had an average savings of 2.10 gallons or 40 percent of average toilet flush
water use. Those accomodating a two-cycle flush mode showed an average
savings of 2.60 gallons or 51 percent on the liquid cycle and 1.26 gallons
or 24 percent on the solid cycle.
Tests recently conducted at the Pennsylvania State University compared
the water reduction efficiency of plastic bottle displacement devices and
toilet dams. The major difference between these tests and the California
tests is that three bottles were used having a total capacity of approxi-
mately 1.25 gallons instead of the two one-quart bottles utilized in the
California test. The result of these comparisons is given in Table 3.
The data from the California study of water reduction efficiency are
compared in Table 4.
The data presented in Tables 3 and 4 show that maximum water reduction
efficiencies occur with two-cycle flush mechanism devices. Other flush
mechanism modifications were a close second. Toilet dams were rated third
by the tests, followed very closely by the bottle configuration used in
the Penn State study.
It should be pointed out that these comparisons are simply for water
reduction efficiency only. No attempt was made to simulate actual conditions
by introducing solid material into the toilet bowl; consequently, these
results may not be valid under conditions of actual use where solids
clearance from the toilet bowl and other potential problems may be a factor.
Similar tests conducted by Consumer Reports’staff lead to the conclusion
that plastic bottles or a homemade flush mechanism device were about as
effective as any of the toilet devices that they tested.
INSTALLATION PROBLEMS
The relative difficulty of installing toilet insert devices is a variable
and highly subjective factor. Mechanical operations of this type may be
difficult for some and not for others, depending upon aptitude and interest.
In addition, the installation instructions may not be well written,or it may
not be clear which toilets accept a particular device and which do not. The
California Department of Water Resources used a subjective numerical scale in
an attempt to compare the relative installation difficulties of various toilet
devices. In sumary, the California results, using several variables related
to installation problems, rank plastic bottles, toilet dams, flush mechanism
modifications, and dual-cycle flush mechanism modifications respectively in
order of increasing difficulty of installation. However, there are specific
devices in each of these categories that do not fit this overall ranking. As
a general rule, plastic bottles are the easiest to install of all types
of toilet devices.
86
-------
TABLE 2. WATER REDUCTION EFFICIENCIES OF FLUSHING MECHANISM
MODIFYING DEVICES
Average volume
of water saved Average flush
Device Cycle per flush* water saved
_____ ( gal.) ( % )
1 2.14 41
2 liquid 2.95 57
solid 2.40 46
3 1.90 36
4 1.96 37
5 liquid 2.26 44
solid 1.37 26
6 liquid 2.58 53
solid 0.00
7 2.86 54
8 2.04 39
9 2.17 42
10 1.88 35
11 1.82 35
* Average of three flushes in each of three common toilets by procedure
outlined in ANSI A112.19.2-1973. All test toilets with flapper valve.
87
-------
TABLE 3. WATER REDUCTION EFFICIENCY OF TOILET DAMS
AND 1.25-GALLON PLASTIC BOTTLES
Average volume
Device of water saved Average flush
per flush* water saved
( gal.) ( % )
Test #1
Dams 1.11 33.5
Bottles 0.95 28.9
Test #2
Dams 1.47 31.7
Bottles 1.24 26.7
* Tests were conducted on toilets in actual use under varying conditions
of water pressure. Values reported are valid for this comparison only.
Based on an average of three flushes in three different toilets at three
different locations, for three different toilet dams.
88
-------
TABLE 4. WATER REDUCTION EFFICIENCIES OF TOILET WATER
CONSERVATION DEVICES
(CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES PROGRAM)
Average volume Range of
Device of water saved Average flush flush water
per flush water saved saved
( gal.) ( %) ( % )
Dams 1.56 30 26-36
Bottles (0.5 gallons) 0.65 12 0
Plastic bags 0.91 17 13-26
Flush mechanism with
two cycle* 2.27 43 37-54
Flush mechanism with-
out two cycle 2.10 40 35-54
* Weighted average based on three liquid flushes for every solids flush.
89
-------
COSTS
Cost comparisons between the types of toilet devices available show that
plastic bottles are by far the cheapest, followed in order by toilet dams and
flush mechanism modification devices. Prices for all devices vary from less
than a dollar up to $10.00, with the majority selling for less than $5.00.
Although as a group, flush mechanism devices cost more, many of these
devices are less expensive than toilet dams. Plastic bottles are available
at a fraction of the cost of other devices.
PERFORHANCE
Very little information is available on the performance of toilet dams
and flush mechanism devices. In the California study an attempt was made to
determine the importance of various attributes in relation to the toilet
devices under consideration. Those attributes describing the performance of
the device over the long term were judged to be more important than others
related to attributes such as cost, amount of water saved, and ease of
installation. Intuitively, it would seem clear that the American public
would be unwilling to accept any toilet modification that impaired the
normally reliable day-to--day functioning of the toilet. Consequently, given
the low cost and ease of installation of most toilet devices, the durability
and maintenance requirement of any device is probably a paramount criterion
in judging the overall suitability of a particular device for a retrofit
program.
As has already been pointed out, laboratory tests of water reduction
efficiency are in no way indicative of how well the device will hold up
under continued use or how well the toilet will function with the device in
place. There is still very little information available on the long term
performance of flush mechanism devices; however, some experience has been
gained from the use of toilet dams in mass retrofit programs. Sharpe and
Fletcher (1977) reported on the first such program in the United States
conducted in 1972 by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Conimisssion (WSSC).
This study showed that four years after installation 42,50, and 92 percent
of the three devices evaluated were no longer in service. The devices used
in this study were not of the single—panel type, but the experiences of
several water conservation program managers indicate that similar problems
also exist with single—panel devices.
it would appear from the information presented that plastic bottles are
the most suitable device from mass retrofit water conservation programs.
Plastic bottles are less expensive, more durable, and easier to install than
toilet dams. They can be adjusted by either removing bottles or reducing
their sized Data reported by Sharpe and Fletcher showed that 100 percent
of those receiving bottles in the WSSC program still had them installed four
years later, although the size of the sample surveyed is quite small. Flush
mechanism devices have not been evaluated sufficiently under conditions of
actual use to allow a judgment as to their effectiveness as a water conser-
vation tool. However, the reported savings from bench scale tests of flush
mechanism devices with a dual flush mode appear to warrant further investiga-
tion into their use for mass retrofit programs.
90
-------
WATER-SAVING TOILETS
Several States and many local jurisdictions have passed laws and code
changes requiring 3.5 gallons/flush water-saving toilets. Requirements
for water-saving toilets were first adopted by the Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission in 1973. Sharpe and Fletcher evaluated this program
and concluded that there were no substantial problems with this approach
to water conservation. Minor problems were reported with adequate flushing
of solid materials from the toilet bowls in some installations; however,
these problems reportedly have been or are being corrected by the plumbing
fixture industry. Requirements for water-saving toilets were well accepted
by both the installers and users of plumbing fixtures.
In California, where water-saving toilets have been required in new
construction since January 1, 1978, early indications are that the program
is progressing well and producing the desired results.
However, recent tests by Consumer Reports have indicated that most water-
saving toilets are not as good as conventional models. The Consumer Reports ’
test procedures are not well defined nor is their language precise in
describing test results. Consumer Reports did recommend two toilets as
being as good as conventional models and superior to the others that they
tested.
The findings of Consumer Reports bear out those of Sharpe and Grear in
that both indicated differences in the performance of water-saving models
currently on the market. Problems with water-saving toilets in actual use
would seem to be less than bench scale tests indicate. Surveys conducted in
the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission service area by Sharpe and
Fletcher indicate that 79 percent of the installers and 82 percent of the
users favored code requirements for water-saving toilets, with only eight
percent of the latter indicating they did not favor such requirements.
Requirements for water-saving toilets in new and replacement construc-
tion should be considered as an integral part of every water conservation
program.
SHOWER DEVICES
Reportedly, the second largest use of water in the home is for bathing
and showering. Most authors report bathing and showering to account for
approximately 30 percent of household water use.
Water conservation programs involving the retrofit of shower flow
controls and restrictors in existing dwellings have been conducted at
numerous locations around the country. In almost all cases the sponsoring
utility has purchased the devices and distributed them at no cost to its
customers. Because of the large aggregate cost of the devices, most
utilities have selected shower flow restrictors of low unit cost for mass
distribution. One notable exception is Hamilton Township, New Jersey.
Most of the restrictors used have been designed to limit flows to a
91
-------
maximum of 3.0 gallons/minute (gpm) at a water pressure of approximately
50 pounds/square inch (psi).
Limited physical testing of shower flow devices has been undertaken by
several agencies with extensive recent tests by the California Department of
Water Resources. Additional test results involving subjective evaluations by
a selected group of shower users have also appeared in Consumer_Reports.
Additional work as yet unpublished is under way at the P nn ylvania Státe
University.
Most of these testing programs have placed heavy emphasis on the flow
rate characteristics of the shower device at either a single water pressure
or at several water pressures simulating the range of service pressures
experienced in water supply systems. Additional criteria such as ease of
cleaning, type of construction, appearance of the device,and cost have also
been applied to the shower device selection process. In some cases a
subjective evaluation of the quality of the shower has also been made
by soliciting the opinions of users.
Flow rate comparisons are of limited value in judging the suitability
of shower devices because they bear little relation to the quality of
shower received by users. In general, the device that most closely approxi-
mates the selected flow rate (usually three gpm) for the water pressures
used in the test is judged best. However, if the shower is as satisfactory
at 1.5 gpm and 30 psi as it is at 2.5 gpm and 80 psi,the difference in flow
rate matters little to the user. In fact,such a difference may be desirable
in that it does allow for some variation in water flow to accornodate the
preferences of different users. Such variation may be obtained by the user
by opening cold and hot water valves wider to allow for greater water flow.
Another criterion that has been used to judge shower devices is that of
spray adjustment. Some evaluators have felt that the showerhead should
be adjustable from needle to gentle spray with the device in place and that
both of these sprays should be satisfactory. Whether or not an adjustable
spray is really important to the average user is a matter of conjecture.
Cost is a criterion used to judge shower devices that has often been
misapplied. Certainly, devices that meet all other established criteria
should be differentiated on the basis of cost, but all too often cost is
weighted too heavily in comparison with other criteria. The result has
been selection of cheaper devices that involve greater risk of poor user
acceptance or devices that are not effective conservers of water. Device
costs are only one factor in the cost decision. Distribution costs, costs
of discarded or unused devices, and the cost savings resulting from the use
of the device must also be considered. In the long run it may be more
economical to select a device with a much higher initial cost.
Determining the maximum flow rate of the shower devices to be selected
is also an area of potential difficulty. National codes have suggested
maximums of 3.0 gpm. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
standard is 2.75 + .25 gpm, which is essentially a 3.0 gpm standard. Most of
the really inexpensive devices are engineered to limit flows to three gpm at
92
-------
a pressure of approximately 50 psi. With most cheap restrictors maximum
flow rates below three gpm would cause a higher risk of producing an un-
acceptable shower, especially at lower water pressures. Unfortunately,
maximum savings of water cannot be achieved at flow rates around three
gpm, apd savings resulting from the use of such devices may be disappointingly
modest. Devices are available that give an acceptable shower at two gpm with a
much greater actual savings of water; consequently, the two gpm device
should be given much stronger consideration than it has in the past,
irrespective of the higher costs of some of these devices.
The most important criteria for selecting a shower device are user
acceptability, amount of water saved, durability, compatibility with existing
installation, and, lastly, cost. The two gpm all-metal showerhead with the
necessary ball joint adapters meets these criteria. Follow-up surveys of
user acceptance of mass distributed shower devices show a user installation
rate of 40 percent for a less costly plastic showerhead with built-in
restrictor and 65 percent for a two gpm showerhead.
Code requirements for water-saving showerheads in new construction should
specify a maximum flow rate of 2.75 gpm as per ANSI A112.18.l- 1978 until
more information becomes available on user acceptance of two gpm devices.
AUTOMATIC WASHING MACHINES
Water for laundering is usually the third leading user of water in the
home. Up to 40 percent of this water can be saved by selecting a front-
loading automatic washer that allows for wash cycle adjustments based on load
size and other factors. In new homes or when replacing an old automatic
washer, a water-saving model should be selected.
FAUCET DEVICES
Water used at utility, lavatory, and kitchen sinks does not account for
a high percentage of total household use, but modifications to faucets at
these locations is still warranted. Most mass retrofit programs have ignored
this area because of the relatively low potential savings. Flow rates from
faucets other than the tub filler should be limited to a maximum of one gpm.
Most recent code revisions stipulate maximums of 2.5 gpm. If shutoff valves
are provided for the hot and cold water service lines to the fixture, they
may be partially closed to allow a flow of one gpm from the hot and cold
water faucets. Adjustment can be made by timing the filling rate of a vessel
of known volume. If a single, center—set faucet is in use, the cold and hot
water lines should be set to deliver a maximum flow of 0.5 gpm. However,
if the kitchen sink is used frequently for washing dishes, such a low
maximum flow rate may be undersirable.
Various inexpensive and easily installed faucet aerator-flow control
devices are available to fit threaded spouts. Care should be exercised
in the purchase of such devices because faucet thread sizes and diameters
vary considerably. These devices are easily installed.
93
-------
LEAK DETECTION TABLETS
Leak detection tablets have often been included in mass water-saving
device distribution programs. The tablets are used to determine whether or
not toilets are leaking water from the tank into the bowl at a rate not
noticeable to the homeowner. Limited available data indicate that 14 percent
of toilets in service may be leaking. The California Department of Water
Resources tested a number of these tablets as a part of their water conser-
vation program. The formulations of the tablets were reviewed by a toxi-
cologist to ascertain potential hazards to children, and all but one of
those reviewed were found to be safe. The tablets vary in cost,and some
difference in their rate of dissolution was noted. The reader is referred
to Appendix H of the California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 191
for the test results.
PRESSURE-REDUCING VALVES AND SPRAY TAPS
Pressure-reducing valves have been required in new construction by the
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission since 1973. These devices are
placed in the main supply line to houses where water pressure exceeds 60 psi.
Their function is to reduce service pressures to the 50 to 60 psi range.
Little is known about the savings attributable to such devices, but they
are recommended in new construction to reduce water use, pipe hammer, and
frequency of fixture maintenance.
Spray taps were first researched in England in the 1950’s. Their use
has not been widespread in this country despite the significant water and
energy savings reported by this earlier work. Some commercially available
spray taps limit flows to 0.75 gpm and have built-in mixing valves. These
units are only recommended in new or replacement construction. They are
more costly than conventional hardware,but they enable cost reductions in
otherplumbing system components, and reported savings over the long term
easily pay back the higher initial cost. The use of spray taps should be
encouraged in all institutional type lavatory installations. The reader is
referred to Walker Crosweller and Co., Ltd., for more information on spray
taps.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Retrofit Programs
For programs involving the mass distribution of water conservation
devices the following are recommended:
• Weighted plastic bottles having a total capacity of 1.25 +
0.25 gallons. In some toilets the maximum bottle capacity
may be limited to 0.5 gallon. The suggested bottle confi-
guration is two 0.25-gallon bottles and one 1.0-gallon
bottle, reduced to 0.75 gallon capacity for each toilet in
the dwelling.
94
-------
• Showerhead producing a flow rate of approximately 2.0 gpm
at or near 50 psi service pressure with the required ball
joint adaptors,if necessary
• Dye tablets of nontoxic formulation and easily dissolved
• Information explaining the installation of all devices and
other water-saving suggestions for the home.
Newf it Programs
For programs involving the regulation of new or replacement construction,
the following is recommended:
• An ordinance or code change requiring water-saving toilets
(3.5 gallons! flush) at a specified pressure in all new or
replacement construction where tank-type toilets are to be
used
• Water-saving showerheads designed to operate with a maximum
flow rate of 2.75 ÷ .25 gpm (ANSI Al12.18.l-1978).
95
-------
SOURCES CONSULTED
California, Department of Water Resources. AB380-A Pilot Water Conservation
Program . Bulleting 191, Appendices G and H. Sacramento, California:
California Department of Water Resources, 1978.
Paul 4. Cheetham. Mann Municipal Water District, Corte Madera, California.
Personal communication, 1978
Thomas Horn. Division of Water Pollution Control, Hamilton, New Jersey.
Personal communication, 1978.
W.E. Sharpe and P.W. Fletcher. The Impact of Water Saving Device Instal-
lation Programs on Resource Conservation . Research Publication 98.
University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University, 1977.
W.E. Sharpe and M.J. Grear. “An Evaluation of the Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission’s Plumbing Code Requirements for Water Saving
Toilets.” Plumbing Engineer , November-December 1978, pp. 20,26.
Walker Crosweller and Co., Ltd. Designing for Unataps: A Technical Guide to
Hot and Cold Water Systems . Gloucestershire, U.K.: Walker Crosweller
and Co., Ltd., 1975.
“Water: Time to Start Saving?” Consumer Reports , May 1978, pp. 294-302.
96
-------
Decreasing the Household
Water Demand by Design
R.F. Karis
Product Manager, Water Systems
In -Sink-Erator Division
Emerson Electric Co.
During the past decade I have observed both government and industry
“tampering” with probably themost”sacred cow” in America...our automobile.
This’ ow”has been put on a diet, lost 1,500 plus pounds in the process, had
its design streamlined by new materials and innovative ideas, and is start-
ing to achieve respectful mileage with the demise of the huge 400 cubic-
inch engine. The peculiar thing is that there has been little, if any
effect, on the consumer’s daily life. Most of us have adjusted to 55 mph
speed limits, the smell of catalytic converters, and have accepted these
changes as a fact of life. Why? The answer is simple.. .the energy shortage
facing us now and in the future.
We all face a similar shortage of water, which in some cities is creep-
ing very close to the supply capacity. It’s time again to conserve, because
we don’t have a choice.
It’s also time to tamper with the antiquated water distribution systems
that predominate in our homes. Instead of targeting this discussion around
the three most common water-using appliances—-the dishwasher, clothes washer,
and garbage disposer--I would like to concentrate on the water wasters .
None of the above three fits into that category.
The comon faucet is probably the most used water waster in the home.
When it’s used, it’s typically either off or full on. Full on can mean up to
five gallons per minute (gpm) of water that is used to brush teeth, wash
hands, or shave. If it’s warm water the user is after, the water is run un-
til the cold water clears the pipes and hot water finally arrives at the
faucet from a distant hot water heater. Heated water wasted in this manner
has been estimated at eight gallons per capita per day. That figures out to
almost two billion gallons per day, plus the $10 million to heat this wasted
water. Our bad habits also cause us to leave the faucet on while shaving,
brushing our teeth, or doing the dishes.
Let me suggest three possible solutions to this problem:
A. locate the water heater in close proximity to the faucet
B. restrict the flow to a reasonable amount
97
-------
C. provide better and more convenient faucet controls that are
forgiving of our bad habits.
SOLUTION A
Locating the water heater next to the faucet is what I call “point-of-
use water heating. A small tank between ˝ and 1˝ gallons is more than
sufficient for most vanities and provides instant hot water without the
waste inherent in long distribution lines. “Point-of-use” water heating,
although relatively new to this country, has long been used in Europe and
other less energy- and water—fortunate countries.
SOLUTION B
Restricting the water flow to a reasonable amount is fortunately being
accomplished now with the use of flow restrictors that limit faucet flow to
a 2.75 gpm maximum. Although that is an admirable step in the right
direction, hardware exists today that can provide excellent spray patterns
and flows of as little as ˝ gpm.
SOLUTION C
Providing better and more convenient faucet controls is not new, but
these controls are not widely used beyond certain industrial/commercial
applications. A combination of a thermostatic valve, to automatically mix
the hot and cold water, and a foot- or proximity-operated faucet would be a
big step towards reducing wasted water by allowing the user a convenient
method to turn the faucet on or off without interrupting what he is doing
with his hands.
The largest water wasters are the bathtub and shower. A tub requires
an average of 36 gallons per use while a shower averages about 20 gallons
per use. I believe the day is fast approaching when the bathtub will be a
luxury few of us will want, simply because of water and energy costs. The
shower, however, can be configured to provide all of the comfort and clean-
liness we desire with a minimum of water and energy usage.
One such shower I have used and tested has a total flow rate of ˝ gpm.
It is a complete shower system in that it contains its own one-gallon water
heater, with water maintained at 190°F, a thermostatic mixing valve, and a
source of high-velocity air. The air and warm water from the thermostatic
valve are mixed in a special head to provide an even flow pattern for the
bather. The bathing temperature is pre-set by the user, and a simple on-off
control activates the water and air.
The average water use by a group of test subjects using this shower was
under 1-1/3 gallons of water. The use of showers such as this could easily
effect an 80 percent to 90 percent saving in both the energy and water
98
-------
normally required for bathing and reduce the overall household use of water
by at least 25 percent.
It is fairly reasonable to assume that,if we can shower from a one-
gallon tank, we could also easily utilize it as a wash basin. I’m confident
you will all see bathrooms of the future with this configuration.
While the water used for cooking is a small fraction of the total daily
usage, we have found that the simple use of a small “point-of-use” heater
in the kitchen can reduce both the energy and water consumption for these
duties by 35 percent or more. The small heating system heats ˝ gallon of
water to 190°F and maintains it at this temperature. The user need not
run the hot water pipes until hot water appears, which is the largest single
waste in the kitchen. Instant hot water is available for the preparation of
any number of foods, and only the water needed is used without any waste.
There are also other systems that can provide reasonable amounts of hot
water to all of these locations without the necessity of even a small
storage tank. Figure 1 shows such a system. The water heater is an in-
stantaneous in-line type that heats the water as it flows. Power is con-
sumed only when the water is flowing. Each water user could have its own
small unit or share one with another user. These heaters have fairly large
instantaneous power draws, but overall efficiencies.that approach 98 percent.
They also serve to reduce wasted water since hot water is available immedi-
ate 1 y.
A review of my discussion so far will show that in none of my examples
is there a hot water line originating from a central water heater.
I am convinced that future domestic water systems will consist of
single cold-water distribution lines, pressure-regulated, with each water
user or appliance having its own hot water source. The water users will be
restricted in flow, but provide ample water for their purposes; they will
forgive and compensate for our bad habits, and they will still provide us
with the best living conditions in the world. The technology and hardware
to accomplish all of this exist today; only the commitment is needed.
99
-------
Water
temperature
controls
Figure 1. Kitchen Water Heating System.
I
Water
temperature
control
\
Solid-state
water heater
(clothes washer)
water heater
kitchen sink)
Solid-state
water heater
(for dishwasher)
100
-------
The Role of Water Conservation in
the Construction Grants Program
Myron F. Tiemens
Chief, Policy and Guidance Branch
and
Philip H. Graham
Environmental Engineer, Facility Requirements Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
INTRODUCTION
A little over a year ago, water was in critically short supply in
California and several other areas; future shortages are likely to occur in
these areas and others. To illustrate the dimensions of our problem: as a
nation, we are using approximately 400 billion gallons of water/day ( gpd).,
and that figure is expected to double by the end of the century. Drinking
water demand is projected to increase from 30 billion to 50 billion gpd.
Mother Nature cannot always be relied upon to meet these needs. For a two- or
three-year period prior to 1977, drought was suffered in the Midwest,
California, and some previously unafflicted areas of the nation, including
the Great Lakes region and all or parts of the States of Michigan, Indiana,
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. In the mid-l960’s, severe, prolonged
drought was experienced throughout the Northeastern United States.
The water supply shortages and increasingly high costs of providing
new water supplies and wastewater treatment have forced the Administration to
reconsider national programs impacting water resources, their policy
implications, and potentials for enhancement and protection of water supplies.
In his 1977 environmental message, President Carter directed that a
study be undertaken leading to a comprehensive reform of water resources
policy with water conservation as the policy’s cornerstone. In June of
1978 the President sent to Congress water policy initiatives designed to:
• Improve planning and efficient management of Federal water
resource programs to prevent waste and to permit necessary
water projects which are cost-effective, safe, and environ-
mentally sound to move forward expeditiously
• Place a new national emphasis on water conservation
• Enhance Federal/State cooperation and improve State water
resources planning
101
-------
• Increase attention to environmental quality.
On July 12, 1978, the President directed EPA and the Departments of
Agriculture, Comerce, and Housing and Urban Development to:
• Review agency grant and loan programs for municipal water supply and
wastewater treatment systems and modify those programs to remove any
disincentives to water conservation
• Require appropriate comunity water conservation programs as a
condition of such loans and grants
• Apply water conservation modifications to all loans and grants
awarded after September 30, 1979.
Congress also acted to encourage water conservation. Section 21 of the
1977 Clean Water Act requires that EPA, in approving the amount of reserve
capacity for a treatment works, take into account efforts to reduce the
flow of sewage and unnecessary water consumption.
Acting under the authority of the new Clean Water Act, EPA did not await
the President’s directive but took imediate initiatives to incorporate water
conservation in revising its Construction Grants Program regulations. The
benefits from conservation in alleviating the shortages and producing addi-
tional monetary as well as energy resource savings outside of the Construction
Grants Program were not overlooked during the development of the cost-effect-
iveness guidelines. EPA recently published these guidelines as part of the
construction grants regulation package.
GUIDELINES
The cost-effectiveness guidelines require evaluation of flow reduction
measures as part of the cost-effectiveness analyses presented in facility
plans and provision for a practicable, cost-effective flow reduction program.
The flow reduction guidelines apply,and the facility plan must address flow
reduction alternatives unless the average daily base flow from the area is
less than 70 gallons per capita per day (gpcd),or the current population of
the applicant municipality is under 10,000, or the area is exempted by the
Regional Administrator of EPA for having an effective existing flow reduction
program. Public education,pricing, and regulatory approaches must be
considered. Based upon analysis of the data reported in the 1976 Needs
Survey, the guidelines will apply to about 1,200 treatment facilities serving
a 1978 population of 88 million persons and about 7,500 smaller facilities
serving a 1978 population of 20 million persons will be exempted.
The guidelines require a cost—effectiveness evaluation of water pricing
charges, water meters, retrofit of plastic toilet dams and low-flow shower
heads in existing homes, and changes in laws, ordinances, or plumbing codes
to require installation of water-saving devices in future dwellings. Such
an evaluation encompasses all costs of the proposed flow-reduction program,
including administrative costs and the prospective energy and water supply
102
-------
savings, as well as those savings attributable to wastewater management. The
grantee is expected to develop a recommended flow-reduction program, featurim
a public information program, plus cost-effective measur for which the
grantee has implementation authority or for which he can obtain cooperation
from an entity with such authority. Finally, the grantee must take into
account in the design of the treatment works the flow reduction estimated for
the recommended program.
POTENTIAL HOUSEHOLD SAVINGS
Potential savings of money, water,and energy may be realized for typical
households from the installationof cost-effective water-saving devices.
These water conservation savings cover two household groups: retrofitted
households and new households. The following calculations assume an average
of three and one-half persons per household in each group.
The hypothetical retrofitted household has three toilets with five-gallcn
tanks, each fitted with a set of 1.5-gallon displacement dams, and two
showers, each with a fine spray shower head. The calculation of hot water
heating energy requirements assumes that shower usage requires 50 percent of
the water heated to a temperature of 145°F, with the remaining 50 percent
remaining at an average water supply temperature of 60°F.
Table 1 shows that the total household water use of 210 gpd would be
reduced to 161.2 gpd, representing a water use reduction of 48.8 gpd. Of
this water savings, less water for toilet flushing accounts for 25.2 gpd
and reduced shower water for 23.6 gpd. The energy reduction corresponding
to the 11.8 gpd decrease of hot shower water approximates 8400 BTLJ/day,
before consideration of hot water heater service efficiency. After con-
sidering service efficiencies for water heaters (gas,0.5; oil, 0.45; electric,
0.8), the nationwide mix of hot water heaters (gas, 60 percent; oil, six
percent; electric, 31 percent; no heater, three percent), and the heat losses
in electricity production, the heat energy saved per household averages
21,400 BTU/day.
Assuming, after deducting the small costs of the conservation devices,
a water charge of $1/1000 gallons and sewer charge of $1/1000 gallons,
the annual household water and sewer charges would be reduced from $153/year
to $122/year, representing a savings of $31/year. It is important to note,
however, that this calculation assumes that water and sewer charges remain
constant. If a large number of households within a community decided to
conserve water, prices would likely increase, because of the need to
recover the relatively large proportion of fixed costs for water and
sewerage services.
The monetary savings derived from energy savings reflects assumed natural
gas, oil, and electricity prices of $O.236/therm, $0.45/gallons, and $0.375/
kilowatt hour, respectively. Based upon these energy prices, shower head
flow restrictors will save the average household $23/year.
103
-------
TABLE 1.
*
POTENTIAL RETROFIT SAVINGS IN A TYPICAL SUBURBAN HOUSEHOLD
-
* (60 gpcd x 3.5 persons 210 gpd)
** Assumed seven-year life and 6-3/8% interest.
ANALYSIS
1. Annual savings = water charge savings + sewerage charge savings - device cost.
2. Water supply charges + sewerage charges are assumed = $2.O0/l,000 gal. -
3. Annual savings per household = $2.O0/1,000 gal x 48.8 gal/day x 365 days/year - 4.34 = $31.28.
Functions
and
fixtures
Percent
of total
water use
Device
Percent
savings
from
device
Water use
without
device,
gallons
per day
Water use
with
device,
gallons
per day
Incre-
mental
cost of
device
Annual
cost of
device**
In-house
energy
savings
Toilets
(5 gal.)
Bathing
(1/4 bathtub,
3/4 shower)
Laundry
Culinary and
nil scell aneous
TOTALS
40%
30%
20%
10%
100%
displace-
ment dams
fine
spray
shower
heads
none
none
20%
50% of
shower
only
0%
0%
84
63
42
21
210
58.8
39.4
42.0
21.0
161.2
3 @ $4.00
each
2 @ $6.00
each
---
---
$24.00
$2.18
$2.16
---
--—
$4.34
no
yes
---
---
-------
The fo11owi jg tabulation summarizes potential annual resource and
cost savings per household from retrofit of water-saving devices:
Resource Savings Annual Cost Savings
Water/Sewer 48.8 gpd $31
Energy 21,400 BTU/day $23
TOTAL $54
New households could be equipped with 3.5 gallon/flush toilets instead
of five gallon/flush toilets, fine-spray shower heads, aerated kitchen and
lavatory faucets, and water-conserving automatic clothes washers and
automatic dishwashers.
Table 2 shows a total household water use reduction of 74.2 gpd for the
new householdequipp d with water-saving devices. The energy saved by the
new household, based on the reduction in use of 22.8 gpd of hot water,
amounts to 16,700 BTU/day, before consideration of hot water service eff i-
ciency. After consideration of service efficiencies, the national mix
of hot water heaters, and the heat losses incurred in electricity production,
the heat energy saved averages 40,700 BTU/day.
The total monetary costs for water/sewer for new households would be
reduced from $153/year to $101/year, representing a savings of about $52/
year. The monetary savings from the household energy reduction of 40,700
BTU/day averages $44/year. Potential annual resource and cost savings per
household are:
Resource Savings Annual Cost Savings
Water/Sewer 74.2 gpd $52
Energy 40,700 BTU/day $44
TOTAL $96
POTENTIAL NATIONWIDE SAVINGS
The following analyses develop estimates of the potential savings of
water and related water management costs, including those for water supply
and wastewater treatment, attainable from an aggressive nationwide water
conservation program. The estimated savings include the reduction of
household energy use and related costs resulting directly from water
conservation measures.
105
-------
TABLE 2. POTENTIAL SAVINGS FROM DEVICES INSTALLED IN A NEW SUBURBAN HOUSEHOLD*
C:,
* (60 gpcd x 3.5 persons = 210 gpd)
** Assumed seven-year life and 6.38% interest..
Functions
and
fixtures
Percent
of total
water use
Device
Percent
savings
from
device
Water use
without
device,
gallons
per day
Water use
with
device,
gallons
per day
Incre-
mental
cost of
device
Annual
cost of
device**
In-house
energy
savings
Toilets
( 5 gal.)
40%
3.5-gal.
flush
tank
30%
84.0
58.8
0
0
no
Bathing
(1/4 bathtub,
3/4 shower)
30%
fine
spray
shower
heads
50% of
shower
only
63.0
39.4
0
0
yes
Automatic
clothes wash-
er
17%
(35 gall
load)
18-gall
load
washer
50%
35.7
18.0
0
0
yes
Kitchen and lay-
atory faucets
7%
spray on
lavatory
faucets
20%
14.7
11.8
$10.00
$1.82
yes
Automatic dish-
washer
6%
(12 gall
load)
7.5 gall
load
38%
12.6
7.8
0
0
yes
TOTALS
100%
210.0
135.8
$10.00
$1.82
ANALYSIS: Annual savings per household = $2.OO/1,000 gal. x 74.2 gal/day x 365 days/year - $1.82 = $52 ,35
-------
Potential Water Management Savings
Applying the previously derived household retrofit savings of 48.8 gpdf
household (23 percent of household use) to the average wastewater flow of
63 gallons/capita for residential and commercial purposes gives an average
flow reduction of 14.5 gpcd. The nationwide flow reduction through retrofit,
based upon the estimated 1978 population of 144 million persons served by
wastewater treatment facilities, therefore approximates two billion gpd.
Water-saving devices and appliances installed in new homes and commercial
establishments, saving 22.3 gpcd for a population growth increment of 88
million persons between 1978 and 1990, could save an additional two billion
gpd by 1990. Accordingly, potential water savings through retrofitting and
new home installation could total four billion gpd by 1990, compared with
the total present wastewater flow of 25 billion gpd.
The estimated nationwide savings in capital costs for water supply
facilities reflect only the foregone capital costs of new or expanding supply
facilities including pumping, storage, and water treatment. Application
of these costs, roughly estimated at $0.60/million gpd, to the total
water savings of four billion gpd by 1990 results in a total capital cost
saving for water supply facilities on the order of $2.4 billion in 1978 dollars.
The 1976 Needs Survey estimate for wastewater treatment costs totals
about $34.2 billion in 1976 dollars. Since the construction cost equivalent
of funds obligated since that time approximates $6.8 billion, the remaining
need is about $27.4 billion in 1976 dollars or $31.1 billion in 1978 dollars.
This analysis assumes that flow reduction will reduce costs of only the
preliminary treatment, pumping, primary settling, chlorination, and effluent
outfall facilities in a typical activated sludge treatment plant because
the sizing and costs of other units depend primarily on pollutant loadings
rather than flows. About 25 percent of the $31.1 billion treatment plant
estimate is assumed to be for plant expansion or upgrading not involving
substantial changes of the flow-dependent facilities listed above. Thus,
only 75 percent of $31.1 billion, or $23.2 billion, would be affected by
water conservation. The 1976 Needs Survey indicates that $18.8 billion of
the $23.3 billion estimate would be attributable to the backlog of existing
needs,and the remainder ($4.5 billion) represents reserve capacity for the
growth projected to the year 1990.
Based upon 1976 Needs Survey data, average flows used for treatment plant
design are:
Industrial flow 19 gpcd
Nonexcessive infiltration/inflow 24 gpcd*
Commercial plus seasonal peak flow 13 gpcd
Residential flow 50 gpcd
Treatment plant design flow TOTAL 106 gpcd
Excessive infiltration/inflow (I/I) 24 gpcd
Flow before I/I removal 130 gpcd
* Assumed to be one-half of total existing infiltration/inflow of 48 gpcd.
107
-------
Applying the 14.5 gpcd retrofit flow reduction to the backlog estimate
of $18.8 billion and relating the 22.3 gpcd figure to the reserve capacity
estimate of $4.5 billion, the composite flow reduction can be calculated as:
( $18.8 billion x 14.5 gpcd) + ($4.5 billion x 22.3 gpcd ) 16.0 gpcd
$23.3 billion
The composite flow reduction of 16.0 gpcd corresponds to a treatment
plant design flow reduction of 15 percent.
Based upon EPA research into construction costs for municipal waste-
water treatment facilities, the construction cost estimate for the various
unit processes and components in a typical 10 mgd activated sludge plant
totals $13.96 million in 1977 dollars, of which $2.88 million represents
the estimated cost total for preliminary treatment, influent pumping,
sedimentation, and chlorination. Using an economy of scale factor Cx) of
0.9, the design flow reduction of 15 percent would reduce the $2.88 million
cost figure by 13.6 percent. The economy of scale factor (x) appears in
the familiar cost equation, C = KQX, where C is capital cost and Q represents
flow. Of the $13.96 million cost for the typical plant, ,l.73 million is
for the effluent outfall. Using an economy of scale factor of 0.4 for the
pipe, the 15 percent design flow reduction would produce a 6.3 percent
outfall cost reduction. The composite cost reduction for the plant is:
( $2.88 million x 13.6%) + ($1.73 million x 6.3% ) = 3.59%
$13.96 million
Multiplying the 3.59 percent reduction in treatment plant costs by the $23.3
billion estimate for treatment facilities affected by water conservation
gives a potential cost reduction due to water conservation of about $836
million for wastewater treatment facilities needed by 1990. This is 2.7
percent of the total need of $31.1 billion in 1978 dollars for treatment
facilities, both affected and unaffected by conservation measures.
Dr. Wen Huang, in an unpublished paper, has calculated pipe (interceptor
and collection system) cost reductions attributable to water conservation
based upon pipe size and unit price data collected during the 1976 Needs
Survey. Based upon an assumed 30 percent reduction in domestic flow, he
found that the pipe design flow reduction would be 22.2 percent. He counted
savings only where the 22.2 percent flow capacity reduction was found suf-
ficient to permit use of the next smaller available pipe size. No cost
savings were counted for all proposed eight-inch collector pipes, as this
was assumed to be a minimum size. Or. Ruang estimated cost savings for
interceptors and collectors at $1.27 billion in 1978 dollars. The design
capacity reduction based on the potential flow reductions calculated herein
is 18.7 percent. Adjusting Dr. Huang’s estimate accordingly gives a pipe
cost savings of $1.05 billion.
In sumary, the potential capital cost savings for wastewater treatment
works and pipes attributable to water conservation measures follows:
108
-------
Capital Cost Savings
( billions of 1918 dollars )
Treatment facilities 0.8
Pipes 1.0
TOTAL 1.8
Energy Savings
The nationwide energy savings are based on the 1978 resident population
of 144 million persons who are served by wastewater treatment plants and who
achieve a retrofit savings of 21,400 BTU/household/day and upon an average
household size of 3.5 persons. These retrofit household savings translate
to a heat energy savings of 0.9 x 1012 BTU/day. Water conservation in new
households is based on the increase in resident population served by waste-
water treatment plants who achieve a household heat energy savings of
40,700 BTU/day and upon the same average household size of 3.5 persons.
By 1990, the energy savings are increased by 1.0 x l&2 BTU/day to
potentially 1.9 x 1012 BTU/day. Based upon the incremental cost of fuels
reported earlier, the potential accrued savings by 1990 due to energy
conservation are $19.5 billion.
Summary of Natural Resource and Cost Savings
The estimated potential water, energy, and cost savings accruing between
theyears 1978 and 1990 based on the nationwide water conservation program
described herein are:
Resource Savings Cost Savings
(billions of 1978 dollars)
Water/Sewer 14.6 trillion gal 4.2
Gas 3 trillion ft 3
Oil 60 million bbl 19.5
Electric 296 billion kwhr
Total Cost Savings 1978 — 1990 23.7
OTHER EFFECTS OF WATER CONSERVATION
In November of 1977, a team from the Facility Requirements Branch of
EPA visited five utility districts in California to learn firsthand about
major water conservation programs and their effects. They found that the
recent drought had no discernable effect on employment or local development.
Conservation programs reduced water consumption and wastewater flows drama-
tically, thereby permitting development to proceed and business to operate.
109
-------
Wastewater flow reckictions ranging from 25 percent to over 60 percent were
achieved.
The team found that substantial flow reductions on the order of 30
percent could be achieved without any reduction in the efficiency of treat-
ment facilities or any significant problems in sewage conveyance. Larger
reductions did create problems, particularly with sewage becoming septic
before it reached the treatment plant. This required the addition of
chlorine or hydrogen peroxide for odor control. Of most importance, the
team reported that where flow reductions were less than 30 percent, increased
recirculation of wastewater could compensate for plant influent reduction
and increase the retention time in the activated sludge units. rncreased
plant efficiency resulted as reflected in the reduced mass emissions of BOD
and suspended solids.
CONCLUS I ON
If viewed from the narrow context of wastewater treatment alone, the
treatment works cost savings attainable from water conservation are limited.
From broader water management and resource conservation perspectives, however,
the resource savings, monetary cost reductions, and other benefits are real
and of significant proportions. Not to be overlooked, the increased treatment
plant efficiency attainable from water conservation will reduce mass
emissions of pollutants and, as a result, enhance water quality.
110
-------
SOURCES CONSULTED
Cahill, Harold P. “Report on Water Conservation Programs in California and
Denver to EPA Water Division Directors,” (letter), 24 January 1978.
Graham, P.H., et al. Energy Balance for the Metropolitan Washington Area
for 1973 . Washington, D.C.: Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, June 1975.
Muller, John George. “Energy Conservation Through Use of Water Conservation
Devices.” Speech delivered at the Plumbing Manufacturers’ Institute
Spring meeting, 7 June 1978.
Ne nan, D.K., and Day, D. The American Energy Consumer . Cambridge, Mass.:
Ballinger Publishing Company, 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guide-
lines.” Federal Register 43, 27 September 1978, 44087.
_____________________________________ Office of Water Program Operations.
1976 Needs Survey . EPA 430/9-76-012. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1977.
____________________________________ Office of Water Program Operations.
Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-
1977. EPA 430/9-77-013. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, January 1978.
111
-------
Guidelines for Planning a Citizen Participation Program
Nea Carroll Toner
Toner and Associates, Inc.
Planners and decisionmakers in cities, towns, and regions throughout
the country have been struggling to find positive ways to incorporate
citizen participation into their plans and decisions, and in many cases they
have become discouraged when citizen participation brings more pain than
progress. Perhaps this reaction stems from the fact that citizen partici-
pation has too often been the tail wagging the donkey.
Almost all public decisions in a city or region that set policy for
water quality, water conservation, or wastewater management are preceded by
a lengthy and complex planning process during which professionals explore
the problems, gather technical information, analyze the information, develop
alternative strategies, and finally recommend a favored plan.
If citizen participation is to be a genuine part of the planning and
decisiomiaking process, then it must be regarded as seriously as the technical
or scientific elements of planning. This requires a conscious effort to
prepare a “citizen participation work program” with its own set of tasks,
activities, schedule, budget, staffing, and evaluation procedures.
There are no specific guidelines for determining how much citizen par-
ticipation should be sought on any particular issue. Obviously a complex
issue involving a diverse population with competing uses of land, water
resources, and financial resources has a significant potential for creating
conflict. This situation requires a larger investment in participatory plan-
ning than would a fairly simple issue with little potential for conflict.
The size, geographical spread, and characteristics of the population, the
complexity of the issue, and the resources available are all important con-
siderations in designing citizen participation programs.
The first steps in planning an effective citizen participation program
are to clarify the parameters of the planning or decisionmaking process,
determine when communication with citizens should and can occur, set object-
ives for the program, and develop an understanding of the critical issues
and concerns the public expects to see addressed. Once the planning team
has developed a basic awareness of the issues and the people to be involved,
those people managing the community involvement program can select the
coninunication methods and activities that will be most productive in reaching
people of all points of view in each community. However, if there
112
-------
is confusion or disagreement among the team with regard to the fundamentals,
the program may eventually fail.
The followingguidelines may be helpful to planning and designing a
citizen participation program tailored to a specific problem situation.
• Analyze the planning process for important steps and decisions
• Develop a community profile and description of issues and
concerns
• Clarify information needs
• Select appropriate communication and involvement methods
• Determine a process for documenting and using public input
These guidelines provide a framework for preparing a work program which will
assure that each method of providing information and generating citizen
participation wil 1 lbe success ully implemented and that adequate staff and
budget have been allocated’ for the program. A detailed list of tasks requiral
to implement each method should be developed along with a schedule for
activities planned to fit within the time requirements of the entire
planning and decisionmaking process. The role of each member of the planning
team should be made clear prior to initiating the program. Many agencies
assign one staff member to manage the entire program to assure consistency
and coordination.
Procedures for evaluating the program should be determined to monitor
the effectiveness of each activity as it is initiated. Since it may be
impossible to foresee all the needs for communication and interaction with
the public that may be required during the process, a certain amount of
flexibility in the program is necessary in order to respond to problems as
they arise.
Guideline 1: Analyze the planning process for important steps and decisions
• Review the planning or design process
• Determine critical points for public interaction
• Agree on objectives for the citizen participation
p rogram
In order for citizen participation to be integrated into each step of
the decisionmaking process, the agency team members responsible for the
citizen participation program should become familiar with all elements of
the plan or study, review with one another the timing of each phase of the
planning process, and determine when certain information from the public
should be available for use in the process. This is also the appropriate
time to develop a team agreement on the goals and objectives of the citizen
113
-------
participation program. A high level of commitment to the objectives of the
program is necessary from both staff members and agency managers and
administrators.
Guideline 2: Develop a community profile and description of issues and
concerns
• Develop an informational profile of all affected/interested
communities and groups
• Identify major issues and concerns of each community and
group
Before selecting the methods to use and allocating staff time and other
resources to the effort, the agency team needs to develop an initial amount
of information about the affected public and the level of concern and
interest the public has in the issue under consideration. The first step is
to develop a list of the groups and individuals with whom the agency may
wish to communicate during the process. This should include lists of all
affected neighborhoods and neighborhood associations, local governmental
bodies and the elected and appointed officials of these jurisdictions, all
boards, co iii issions and committees that may have an interest in the issue,
and all interested groups and organizations -- civic, special interest,
business, industry, and labor. This information also provides the beginning
of a mailing list.
Demographic and social information should be gathered to understand
characteristics of each segment of the public and to assess how best to
communicate with and involve each segment or group.
It is useful at this time to conduct brief interviews with a selection
of community leaders and residents to assess the amount of interest in the
issue and identify the related issues and concerns that may need to be
addressed during the process. This information should be shared with the
agency team and used to plan each phase of the citizen participation program.
Guideline 3: Clarify information needs
• Identify information about the issue needed by affected!
interested communities and groups
• Identify information needed by the agency team from the
public
From the information gathered through this preliminary field work, the
agency team can outline the type and amount of information that the public
will need to be provided with during the process and identify what kind of
information the team requires from the public in order to clarify the
problem, develop alternatives, and make a final decision. A team discussion
of information needs will help each technical expert on the team determine
what data may be useful to provide to the public, and how the agency can
present the technical information in a clear, concise, and relevant manner
114
-------
to the people who will receive it. Enough information should be provided
to the public so that citizens can understand •the issues, alternatives, and
impacts and can make informed judgements. This team discussion will also
clarify how the information received from the public will be used.
Guideline 4: Select appropriate communication and involvement methods
• Select methods for providing information to the public
• Select methods for public participation in each phase
of the process
With the information developed in the above three steps, the agency team
is now prepared to outline a citizen participation program and select the
communication and involvement methods that are appropriate to each phase of
the planning or decisionmaking process. A range of methods should be
considered, including public meetings and workshops, surveys, small group
meetings, personal interviews and discussions, directly mailed interviews or
brochures, use of the mass media, and the formation of citizen advisory
committees and task forces. Several of these methods can be used at the
same time to ensure broad communication and involvement.
Guideline 5: Determine a process for documenting and using public input
• Clarify the use of public input at each phase of planning
and decisionmaking
• Determine method and timing for reporting public input
to planners and decisionmakers
The agency team should agree on the methods for documenting the infor-
mation received from the public, reporting the information, and evaluating
its significance. The values, goals, concerns, and opinions expressed by
the citizens at each phase in the planning process should be carefully
recorded and communicated by the agency team to the decisionmakers. This
documented information should also be available to the public.
These guidelines and the work program developed from them will assure
that the information generated by the community will be used in the problem-
solving process along with technical and scientific information, to:
• Define and clarify the problem from all points of view
• Develop ideas for alternatives
• Evaluate alternatives
• Select a final plan of action
The success of a citizen participation program should be measured
against the objectives of the program and the individual methods used to
achieve these objectives.
The tables included in this section suggest a set of six objectives for
citizen participation that are appropriate to most planning and decision-
making processes, and methods that can be used to achieve these objectives.
The amount of time, energy, and resources devoted to achieving each
115
-------
objective must be based on each
questions and criteria that can
ives. Some of the criteria for
information while other criteria
such as professional and citizen
different situation. The tables also suggest
be used to evaluate the methods and object-
evaluation can be based on quantifiable
must be based on more subjective data,
judgement.
These tables are not meant to be all-inclusive. Criteria for evaluating
citizen participation are in their infancy. An overall measurement of success
is whether planners and decisionmakers have enough information about public
attitudes and priorities to provide reasonable assurance that final plans,
programs, or policies are politically feasible, economically desirable,
and socially acceptable.
This approach, along with information about state programs for citizen
participation, can be found in the recently published “Techniques of Public
Involvement,” as part of The State Planning Series , published by the
Council of State Planning Agencies.
116
-------
IDENTIFY THE PUBLIC
Objective:
Identify the public to be involved in the planning and decision-
making process, including all neighborhoods, local jurisdictions,
groups, and organizations.
Map study area
METHODS
Analyze existing community data:
Demographic
Political
Social
Economic
List names and addresses of
interested groups, organizations,
leaders, and officials.
Talk to local citizens, leaders,
and officials.
QUESTIONS FOR EVALUATION
Can the agency identify the spe-
cific geographic areas as well as
special interest groups and organ-
izations that comprise the public
to be involved?
Can the agency identify groups
within the general public who
were not notified or offered an
opportunity to participate?
SUGGESTED CRITERIA
FOR EVALUATION
Documented list of groups, organ-
izations, individuals, and
households notified in some man-
ner during the involvement
process.
Number and content of complaints
made by groups or individuals
not notified or involved in the
program.
Profile of demographic, social,
and organizational character-
istics of the general public com-
pared with a profile of partici-
pants in the program (workshop
attendees, survey respondents,
committee members, etc.).
How representative
public or range of
were the groups and
who participated in
of the general
viewpoints
individuals
the process?
Staff judgment.
-------
PROVIDE INFORMATION
Objective: Provide the public with adequate and continuous information through-
out the decisionmaking process about the problem or need and the
effects of alternative solutions.
SUGGESTED CRITERIA
METHODS QUESTIONS FOR EVALUATION FOR EVALUATION
Media: How many people were reached Media readership or viewership
Television through the media? statistics.
Newspapers
Radio Was the content of the media Selective sample to determine
information relevant, concise, response to media or direct
Printed material-- mailed or and understandable? mail.
handed out:
Newsletters How many groups, individuals, Mailing lists used.
Brochures or households received the printed
Reports material? Comments from individuals and
Notices/Fliers groups on the mailing list.
Was the content of the printed
Presentations at: material relevant, concise, and Written questionnaire and oral
Public meetings understandable? feedback from audience.
Public workshops
Briefings How many people attended the work- Evaluation by citizen advisory
Small group meetings shops, briefings, and meetings? committee.
Public hearings
What was the response of people to Staff judgment.
Displays: the presentations?
Posters
Information Centers How much confusion, lack of infor-
mation, or misconception of the
issues seems to exist after dis-
semination of information among
different groups or individuals?
-------
RECEIVE INPUT
METHODS
Meetings:
Public meetings
Public workshops
Briefings
Small group meetings
Public hearings
Personal interviews and
discussions with:
Local officials
Citizen leaders
Residents
Groups
Surveys and questionnaires
Citizen advisory committees
conii issions, task forces
• defining the problem or need
• providing information
• developing alternatives
• evaluating alternatives
QUESTIONS FOR EVALUATION
Was the notification method for meetings
adequate to encourage broad attendance by
the target public?
Did the meeting process produce clear and
appropriate feedback from all participants?
Was the timing and location of meetings
appropriate to the needs of the target
publics?
Were survey respondent samples appropriate
and statistically significant?
Were questionnaries clear and unbiased?
Did the surveys or interviews seek infor-
mation from the public that was useful to
the process?
Was the membership of advisory committees
and task forces well balanced? Were the
objectives clearly defined and useful?
Was there opportunity for citizen input
in each phase of the process?
Did the staff and decisionmakers have
adequate information to understand the
concerns and opinions of citizens from all
points of view and all geographic areas?
SUGGESTED CRITERIA
FOR EVALUATION
Analysis of meeting participants
through use of registration
cards:
Where they live
What groups they represent
Documented results of meetings:
Group discussions, question-
naires, comment sheets,
transcri pts
Meeting evaluation by
participants
Staff analysis of survey sample
selection, methodology, and
results
Comparison of demographic data
from survey, meetings, and
general public
Analysis of how the results of
each method were used in planning
process
General evaluation by citizen
advisory committee
Staff judgment
Objective: Provide the public with appropriate forums for input Into all phases
of the planning and decisionmaking process Including opportunity to
be involved in:
-------
DOCUMENT, EVALUATE, AND USE INPUT
Objective: Provide c iiplete reporting of public input in
a manner that is useful to the planning process
and also assures that the information received
is given due consideration by agency administrators
and public officals.
SUGGESTED CRITERIA
METHODS ESTIONS FOR EVALUATION FOR EVAIJJATION
Written reports of public Does the report indicate the results Review of documentation format by
meetings, workshops, surveys, of group discussions, Individual agency staff, officials, or citizen
questionnaires, and other involve- questionnaires, and oral coninents? advisory committee
ment methods
Are the results tabulated and reported Comment.s on use of results by staff
In a format that can be analyzed and and decisionniakers
used in the planning process?
Staff judgment on the relevance
Does the form of documentation help of results to the planning process
the planners and decisionmakers and decisions to be made
understand the diversity of opinion
Audiovisual documentation and which publics represent certain Evaluation of use of results by a
Slides attitudes and opinions? citizen advisory committee
Videotape
Film Are all appropriate agency staff mem-
bers and officials provided with copies?
Are copies available to citizen parti-
cipants and the general public?
-------
METHODS
Report results in local media
Report update of results during
public meetings and hearings
Report update of results at each
meeting of advisory comittees
and task force
Mail special report to program
participants
Mail special report to selected
lists of public officials, leaders,
groups, organizations, and
individuals
REPORT RESULTS
Objective: Provide a method for reporting the results
of the comunity involvement process to the
public.
QUESTIONS FOR EVALUATION
Was there a process for reporting
results after each phase and for
each method used?
Were citizens aware of how these
results were used in planning and
decis ionma king?
How many groups or individuals
felt that their input was not
reported?
N.)
I —
SUGGESTED CRITERIA
FOR EVALUATION
Feedback from citizen coniiiittees
or task forces
Feedback from selected sample of
citizens receiving the report
Feedback at meetings and hearings
Number ‘nd content of cociplaints
from groups or individuals
Staff judgment
-------
PROGRAM, BUDGET AND STAFFING
Objective: Provide a budget and program manage-
ment and staffing to ensure that the
objectives of the program can be met.
SUGGESTED CRITERIA
METHODS QUESTIONS FOR EVALUATION FOR EVALUATION
Prepare a plan for the public
involvement program including:
Objectives Were the objectives appropriate to Staff evaluation of results of
meet the needs of the planning citizen involvement program
process?
Methods Were the methods for involving the Feedback from advisory coiumittees
public appropriate to the issue and and program participants
couiiiunlcation needs and styles of
the agency and publics?
Task Descriptions Were all tasks necessary to imple- identification of tasks not antici-
ment the program anticipated and pated or budgeted
budgeted?
Time Flow Diagram Was adequate time scheduled to plan,
implement, and document the program?
Budget by Tasks Was the budget equal to the level Identification of program elements
of effort desired? eliminated due to lack of time,
budget, or staff resources
Staffing Requirements Was staff adequate to be able to im-
plement all tasks, in terms of numbers
and professional competency?
-------
Mandate and/or Marketing:
Implementing Water Conservation in the Private Sector
David A. DelPorto
President
ECOS, Inc.
I NTRODUCT ION
In examining our present approach to comunity water management, we note
that overall, it is an extrapolation of our past policies. It relies on the
rapid expansion of centralized high technologies geared to increase the supply
of water and speed up the delivery process.
Are we not compelled to ask the following questions:
Is this what we want to do?
Can we do it with the tools we have?
Are there other tools available?
How can we best use all that there are?
Underlying our contemporary social and cultural consciousness is the
belief that big is best and that the complexity of modern life automatically
means complex organization. For some reason, the idea of “small” raises
horrendous images of a return to a primitive dark age. But we cannot afford
such a dismissal of possible, simpler solutions if and when they are appro-
priate to managing limited natural resources.
Estimates for achieving the nation’s water quality goals have been put
as high as $800 billion. Our confidence in assuming we have the national
wealth to cope with such capital comitment may be entirely misplaced to
begin with, without introducing the notion that what we are buying may be
inadequate, inefficient, and harmful to future generations.
The current philosophy of building and maintaining large, centralized
water supply systems and treatment mechanisms seems to be directly tied to
social values; i.e., the more water we use, the cleaner we are; the cleaner
we are, the better we are. It has been said that developing and Third World
countries are so entrenched in the desire for social status of the Western
variety that, in the arid deserts of the Arabian Peninsula, people will buy
flush toilets even though they do not have the water supply to flush them.
What is the cost of this “public convenience,” water?
123
-------
In the United States, we have long grown used to measuring all things
in dollars. Recently, the Swedes have been experimenting with methods of
“energy accountancy.” The equations of this concept measure the value and
justification of a product, method, system, or policy by how much energy
it consumes.
In this report, it is contended that the link between energy and water
is not only correct in ecological and scientific senses (as in the first
and second laws of physics), but, also, that there is a direct comparison
and link between the two resources in determining future national, State,
and local policies.
WATER: RESOURCE OR COMMODITY
Water, so long treated as a free commodity, can no longer be taken
for granted. Even the most current State and Federal policies and manage-
ment methods evaluate water resources as if the price of water is equal to
zero. We know that this is not the case.
In determining the true cost of water, we must look to the time in the
not-so-distant future when, due to depletion and contamination, ground and
surface waters are no longer readily available to us. A recent report by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1978) states that
Half of the population of the United States is served
by ground water.. . the use of ground water is increasing at
a rate of 25 percent per decade. . . removing the source of
contamination does not clean up the aquifer once contaminated.
The contamination of an aquifer can rule out its usefulness
as a drinking water source for decades and possibly centuries.
The future costs associated with delivering water from alternative sources
must be calculated today. We must look to its price, with price being
defined as: “cost” plus “rent, t ’ where “rent” is the extra charge a seller
can exact because of profit, convenient delivery, high quality, political
connections, monopoly, or other factors beyond the technical costs of
production. We know water will become much more expensive, no matter what
we do. Therefore, we must view water as we would any scarce commodity
and economize in its use.
I maintain that the social, political, and economic problems which
beset our current direction are so crucial that there is sufficient reason
to seek new approaches to the problem. We must, therefore, seek a direc-
tion which can carefully and rationally reshape our prevailing patterns
of water use. It is worth noting that wasteful consumption has been a
measure of social disintegration throughout history.
THE BOSTON TEA PARTY REVISITED
In late June 1978, the Boston Water and Sewer Commission, after a year
of deliberation, announced that due to new capital and operating and
maintenance costs, the rate charged for use of the sewer system would be
124
-------
tripled. Because of delays arising from painful deliberation, the new
rate is retroactively effective from the beginning of 1978. Further, two-
thirds of that increase will be capital charges for renovation and new plant
construction. Will the already heavily taxed citizens take lightly the
prospect of an ever-increasing rate structure? In the light of increasing
public outcry over a taxation system with fewer perceived benefits (i.e., the
California Proposition 13 tax revolt), the high subsidy costs of water
carriage waste management methods should be clearly revealed.
It should be noted that the soft path, or conservation approach, does
not aim at being an oppositional force in competition with existing structures.
Its purpose is to use limited resources efficiently; to devolve the systems;
and to counter our overreliance on vulnerable network systems. Originally,
highly centralized organization came about through having at our disposal
large amounts of inexpensive resources. Circumstances have changed and so
must we.
Now there is need for a prompt coninitment to decentralization and
innovative and alternative technologies; a dedication to efficient use of
water; rapid development of a program which seeks to match water resources
in scale and in quantity to the end-uses needed. This is not a radical
approach which would have us do away with the old and bring in the new.
On the contrary, it recognizes the value of these present systems and seeks
to utilize them efficiently.
Today we have heard of many ways to solve these problems, but if we
have already judged some of these technical fixes as being desirable and if
savings resulting from such systems could, in fact, reduce or eliminate the
need of new capital investment for additional water supply, then why, as
Pogo said, do we stand here, confronted by insurmountable opportunities?
Perhaps we need to identify more completely the social, political,
institutional, and economic barriers that currently inhibit any change in
the status quo.
The task is to refocus the public and private sectors to seek profit
(economic and social) from the opportunities in appropriate alternatives.
In fact, the soft path is more in keeping with traditional American
values such as thrift, self—reliance, home cooking, neighborliness, and
craftsmanship. Therefore, official recognition of the conservation approach
will only reinforce deeper convictions.
SUPPLY AND DEMAND
We know that the supply problem stems from the proliferation of various
uses of water. Human demands for water resources compete among one another
for the same water: irrigation, public drinking supply, sewage disposal,
power generation, recreation, and so forth. We have to analyze basic water
requirements in terms of demands, both human and environmental, which are
either consumptive or nonconsumptive. That is to say, consumptive purposes
such as drinking, irrigation, industrial processing, or evaporative cooling
versus nonconsumptive uses such as recreation or hydropower generation.
125
-------
We can see that a variety of problems immediately arises when we ask:
what quality of water should be delivered for any one end-use?
Generally speaking, the water companies take the position that they
should deliver the highest quality of water to all users and thereby
eliminate any conflict over demand for uncontaminated supplies. But,
there is no need whatsoever to deliver potable drinking water for agricultural
irrigation. Nor, is the need for high quality drinking water for waste
assimilation, thermal-electric power cooling, hydroelectric power industrial
processing, and many other uses.
A QUESTION OF SEMANTICS
Throughout the U.S., the meaning of “water use” is a rather subtle one,
requiring examination. “Use” is often defined as the amount of water which
is delivered by supply systems or otherwise withdrawn from available
resources through private wells and surface water supply.
The interlinking of supply and demand and using the two words
synonymously is one of the major failings of water policy today. Focusing
primarily on water that must be supplied rather than on that which is
regularly consumed by the public begs many questions relating to end-use
efficiency and water resource management. This reintroduces a basic tenet
of the logic behind this paper; i.e., the differentiation between a hard
and soft path approach.
THE HARD AND SOFT PATHS OF WATER MANAGEMENT
The hard path of water resource management calls for developing
increasingly larger amounts of supply through inter-basin transfer, major
stream flow diversions, etc., to meet increasing demand. This notion
arises from the perspective of historically entrenched interests who
comprise the supply end, such as the centralized water and sewer commissions
who are responsible for delivering water’supply and related trade and
professional groups, such as the American Water Works Association. This
particular hard path approach presupposes a continued expansion of water
resources, water demand, and consumption. But key indicators tell a
different story.
We see that in the industrial sector, water usage is actually turning
down. Nonetheless, statisticians continue to report an increase in water
demand on an annual basis where, in fact, this may no longer be the case.
Further, it need not be the case. By combining energy conservation and
water conservation, the demand for water should be reduced because of the
consumer’s desire to spend less of his financial resources heating water
that goes down the drain.
THE ECONOMICS OF HOT WATER: A MARKETING OPPORTUNITY FOR WATER CONSERVATION
We should consider the present-day facts of hot water economics. By
linking the energy and water issues, we can increase public awareness of
126
-------
water as an economic resource, and the consumer is willing to reduce overall
demand by conservation and more careful assessment of end-use requirements.
Flow reduction brings the management of water and energy resources
together in a team effort which serves both objectives exceedingly well.
This combination provides a unique opportunity not only to recover the
costs directly associated with fresh water supply and wastewater treatment
but at the same time reduce the demand for fossil fuel.
The search for alternatives to an increasing dependence on imported
petroleum products leads us to develop new energy technologies. We are
becoming more familiar with the wor& “payback;” i.e., the rate of time
in which an initial investment is returned in dollars saved by reduced fuel
demand. Solar heating systems return their initial investments in eight
to 12 years; insulating a house, three to five years.
Increasingly, consultants in their search for more cost-effective ways
of plugging energy leaks are discovering that energy and water conservation
are so intimately entwined that any reduction in the usage of water will
automatically result in the reduction of energy usage. If less water is
used, less pumping is required to transport the water, so less energy is
consumed. If less hot water is used, less fuel is required to heat the
water.
The average American is, for the most part, unaware of the economic
cost of water. Federal subsidies and previous water supply policies
give the appearance that water is, for all practical purposes, free. Few of
us are familiar with the recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data
which indicate that the true capital costs for water supply and wastewater
treatment can be as high as $10/1 ,000 gallons (and that is without a
resource depletion allowance, as is the case for fossil fuels). But, even
so, $10/i ,000 gallons means little to someone earning a week’s pay because
that figure is buried in his tax rate. However, if that wage earner has
an electric hot water heater, it costs him $12/1 ,000 gallons to heat his
water. All that money is spilling into the sewer day after day, and the
cost is coming directly out of his pocket, not Uncle Sam’s. Tell him such
facts, and, the next thing you know, he has a bucket measuring the flow
rate of his showerhead to find out how many dollars he loses per minute while
his teenage son spends a half hour in the shower relaxing after a hockey
game. Because that’s his hard-earned money. Suddenly, water is an economic
commodity which he will conserve because that cost has become very real to
him. The very same awareness in a college president, hotel owner, or State
housing authority translates into thousands, thenmillions of dollars saved
annually.
These savings are the prime motivation for water conservation in the
private sector today. When installing low-flow showerheads and low-flow
faucet fixtures, the payback on investment is so rapid that often, for
a hotel or a university, the fixtures are paid for in fuel savings before
the purchase funds are given over to the supplier.
127
-------
For a Federal water management program that works through State and
local government, this means spearheading a local program where much of
the cost is recovered by future energy savings coupled with reduced water
supply and treatment costs. The entire conservation program could be
self-funded, and moreover, become a profit center for the community which
could itself market the vendable products and services where appropriate.
The benefits of such a program are especially pronounced in the North-
east, where heating fuel costs are higher than in other parts of the
country. In addition, costs for water supply and treatment are also higher,
due to extensive industrial and municipal pollution.
Communities who undertake such water conservation programs may well
have all the civic, social, and educational resources necessary to do the
job, with minimal need for State or Federal assistance, thus fostering
greater self-sufficiency.
ENGINEERING ECONOMICS AND DESIGN: A NEW APPRAISAL
Let us assume we can decrease the water consumption in a building and
examine how this affects the energy demand.
When water demand is decreased, the diameter of the piping is decreased.
Smaller size piping requires less insulation bulk. Diminished piping and
insulation use up less materials, thus less energy is consumed in their
procurement and manufacturing. Decreased water demand will result in smaller
pumps that require less energy. Less material will be required for their
construction also. Less hot water demand requires less fuel, smaller
heaters, and, again, smaller piping and amounts of insulation. Heat loss will
decrease from the resulting reduced surface areas. Water conservation in
all buildings will decrease the demand on municipal supply systems, creating
energy savings in pumping and water treatment. Decreased water demand will
result in less sewage flowing to the sewage treatment plant, again resulting
in considerable energy savings.
All of this necessitates a reexamination of design criteria as applied
by the plumbing and engineering professions. These criteria need to be
defined by the facts of modern life: conservation of materials. orevention
of water supply pollution, and energy conservation.
The basis for practically all our plumbing design criteria was estab-
lished more than fifty years ago by research at the National Bureau of Stan-
dards. We are still designing systems based upon half-century-old criteria.
Major improvements in the design and manufacture of fixtures, faucets, valves,
equipment, and materials have occurred in the last decade. Yet the majority
of these improvements seem to be completely ignored in our calculations
and designs,despite the potential impact of the most commonplace appliances.
According to a recent journal ( Energy and Buildings , 1977),
The technologies which control how energy is used in
buildings are essential elements of those buildings. . . the
architect must recognize, seek out, and even develop if
128
-------
necessary those technologies which will permit his building
to deliver human benefits at minimum human cost. Above all,
he must avoid dismissing a technology, approach, or piece of
hardware because it appears on the surface to be too simple
or insignificant. We tend to be enthralled by highly sophisticated
technology, being so impressed by its cleverness that we fail to
appreciate how small is its net efficiency.
Showerheads have been designed which produce an intense fine
spray while sharply restricting the quantity of water. One will
save approximately 100 liters (26 gallons) of water during an
eight-minute shower. If the incoming water temperature is 45°C
(113°F), the use of this showerhead will save 3.7 kilowatt-hours
(kwh) per shower when compared to a conventional showerhead. A
1,000 megawatt generating plant will produce approximately 5.0 x
1O 9 kWh per year. This is roughly the equivalent to the total
amount of energy which would be saved if 3.7 million of the water--
saving showerheads were installed in dwelling units having electric
hot-water heating. The cost of a 1,000 megawatt generating plant
(nuclear) is now in excess of $1 billion. In other words, $37
million invested in showerheads would make the nuclear plant
unnecessary. These represent capital costs only. In addition,
of course, the operating expenses to produce a savings from the
showerhead are zero as compared with the operating expenses
required to produce the output from the new generating plant.
CONSERVATION VS. GROWTH: CATCH-22
The main component in any demand equation is the rate at which total use
of water is expected to increase. Here we have perhaps the most important
aspect of all.
For utility companies, the projection of demand (and therefore, revenue)
is a key factor in determining the quality of the investment security and
debt instruments that these institutions use to finance expansion, operation,
maintenance, and replacement capital costs. Therefore, if projections
should turn down, this may indicate that there are defections from the utili1 ’
networks. The utilities’ cash flow would sustain damage, as would State
and municipal budgets dependent on those utility tax revenues. All of this
is very unsettling to the Wall Street community, where investment risk is
calculated on the certainty of future revenues divided by the costs incurred
to generate them. If projected utility or municipal revenues turn down, the
ratings of the securities are also downgraded. The capital base is reduced
because investors move their funds to other, more secure investments,and
a negative spiral of disintermediation begins. Soon the financing utility
finds it impossible to continue without massive intervention from State
and Federal government. Now, we can see the catch-22 of the capital markets
where growth (here, in the form of increased water demand) is needed to
sustain the investment base. If conservation is practiced, the utilities
will be forced to increase prices to support sagging profits.
129
-------
NEW CRITERIA FOR ANALYZING NEW TRENDS
A soft path approach to allocation of water asks the questions:
Who is going to require water?
How much of it is going to be required?
What quality of water is to be provided?
For what purpose will it be used?
And, most importantly, for how long will it be required?
Once these parameters are fully explored, we must tackle the additional
problems created by both political and social issues. These more subjective
factors are more difficult to quantify within any allocation process.
Not all uses require potable water; much could be drawn from recycle.
Normal conservation measures could save considerably and, by eliminating
such systems as the flush toilet, we will find that the average per capita
consumption of household water is, in fact, quite low.
We need to undertake an inventory of the end-uses of water in all
categories--agricultural, industrial, domestic, recreational.
Armed with this new data, building and plumbing codes should be revised.
For example, most present building codes still design for 100 gallons!
capita/day (gpcd). However, the national average stands at only 60 gpcd,
thereby overdesigning by 40 percent.
BAN THE FLUSH
Given that agricultural and industrial users withdraw water from rivers
and return it, albeit degraded, nearby, we can see that the impact of flush
toilets on water consumption is massively disruptive. (Consumption
technically meaning water not returned to its source.) Simply, flush toilets
account for 40 to 50 percent of household water use. However we look at it,
the flush system unnecessarily uses a significant percentage of the water
in this country that is withdrawn and not returned to its source. Addition-
ally, the system neglects the reuse value of human waste, converting it
instead to polluting effluent. Senator Robert Stafford of Vermont has
stated the problem well (McLelland, 1978):
We are only now beginning to feel the increasing problems
of water supply. The current water shortages in California,
Florida, and other parts of the country are the first graphic
indicators of a major national water resources problem. Current
domestic water usage in the United States approximates 9.5 trillion
gallons per year. Of that amount, 3.5 trillion gallons are used
for the sole purpose of flushing toilets, with the average family
of four using more than 50,000 gallons per year for that purpose...
130
-------
• . .The conventional collection and treatment system which
has been the single dominant concept for public sanitation in
this country for more than 125 years is not an economically
feasible solution for n 1 any parts of rural America...
.We must not forget.. .that there are still nearly sixty
million Americans not provided with basic sanitation services...
fundamental to the public health.. .the high cost of sanitation
facilities in our rural areas is aggravated because we have
attempted to use the same methods that have proven effective
in the urban setting, and apply them to the very different
problems of rural sanitation...
In numerous cases, costs of $8,000 to $10,000 and even
$12,000 per connection for conventional facilities have caused
many coninunities to place heavy financial burdens on residents.
Monthly service charges of $20 and $25 per month are not uncommon.
Other coniiiunities have simply abandoned plans for public sani-
tation... It is estimated that there are between 15 and 20 million
septic tanks handling the more rural unserved areas. A great
many of these devices were installed in areas where they cannot
function properly, and many areas have not been adequately
maintained.
California State Architect Sim Vanderryn has speculated how future
archaeologists might interpret the flush toilet system.
By early in the 20th century, urban earthlings had devised a
highly ingenious food production system whereby algae were culti-
vated in large centralized farmlands and piped directly into a
ceramic food receptacle in each home.
Is this any more absurd than our practice of mixing one part of excreta
with one hundred parts of precious clean water?
SPECIFIC INADEQUACIES OF THE FLUSH TOILET SYSTEM
The flush toilet system causes problems in the following areas:
• Pollution of the land needed for disposal of septage and sludge:
• Pollution of water used to transport the excreta
• Disruption of the natural water cycle through consumption of
of large quantities of water not returned to source.
• Large direct and hidden costs in the designing, construction,
maintenance of the elaborate toilet system, involving every-
thing from pumping fresh water from the ground to monitoring
the effluent from a sewage plant
131
-------
• Large amounts of energy are required for construction, operation,
and maintenance.
These are the major areas of impact, although there are ripple effects
into many other areas, such as medical problems for those who drink contami-
nated water or alterations to marine ecology due to decreasing salinity and
the introduction of toxic substances.
Costs of having a flush toilet include:
• The cost of buying and installing the toilet itself and
the plumbing required within the house
• The cost of water and the installation and maintenance
of an independent water pumping, treatment, and delivery
system
• The cost of connecting to a sewer line or the installation
and maintenance of a septic tank system
• Sewer use charges
• Waste treatment costs
• Costs incurred through final disposal of residual substances.
Considering only direct costs, the composting system compares favorably.
APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE FUTURES
The massive effort resulting from the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is basically a
remedial program. What do we aim for afterwards?
When all comunities have adopted appropriate wastewater treatment
systems, conservation programs, decentralized management techniques, and
appropriate technologies, what then?
All building codes and regulations must be revised to discourage the
further mortgaging of our water and energy resources. We must further the
development of passive building systems.
These are design principles which are quite similar to biological
strategies found in natural living systems. Rather than seeking outside
or additional energy sources, a building would rely on the design to ‘ t accept”
the wealth of incoming solar energy and rainwater and manage it more eff 1-
ciently so that supplemental sources are not required.
132
-------
As the inflationary costs of meeting our basic needs of food, water,
shelter, and warmth spiral higher and higher, it will be necessary to turn
our attention to the design of greenhouse “bio-shelter ’ systems. Within
these dwellings food could be grown continuously, regardless of the season;
warmth provided naturally at no additional cost, and water and nutrients
cycled appropriately, thereby eliminating pollution.
By integrating human waste and water recycling into such systems, we
return nutrients and vital liquids to locally productive use. The use of
greywater for aquaculture within the bioshelter itself offers far-reaching
benefits.
Such opportunities for local ecosystem control of water pollution need
to be thoroughly investigated. Every wrong step taken in handling water
resources today, a step which might seem to be economically justified for
the present situation, can result in significant future losses.
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Programs should be developed for building and construction which would,
over a period of time, phase out water/energy intensive structures and
replace them with water/energy recycling structures.
To achieve this, we need to evaluate and inventory buildings which are
consumers” and determine how long, at what cost, and what benefits would
accrue by replacing them with appropriate buildings. It is folly to spend
billions of dollars in a remedial program only to continue the pattern into
the future.
In evaluating present and future research, it is important to look at
the cost of upgrading water supply and wastewater treatment systems that
are currently at the margin and that are also failing by virtue ‘of age. It
is also crucial to analyze whether it makes more sense to invest billions
of dollars in renovation or to begin a steady investment of money into an
alternative course on a soft path.
Assuming the average lifetime of centralized water supply and wastewater
treatment systems is 40 to 50 years, then those plants built today will not
need replacement until 2020 or 2030.
Rather than extend cormiunity dependence on centralized systems at greater
and greater costs, we should be seeking a path that would allow for the
eventual phase-out of those systems. A planned decentralization at the pre-
sent time could complete about 50 percent of the phase-out process by about
the year 2020.
OBSTACLES TO CHANGE
In the past, we have observed the tendency among engineers, State
regulatory agencies, and others to continue to do things a cer
because that is the way things have always been one.
133
-------
We recognize that often a multiplicity of a proaches is the best solu-
tion. A tendency toward single-minded design (i.e., all septic tanks in
a county) or a regional concept based on ueconomy of scale” costs the tax
payers hundreds of millions of dollars and valuable land resources. The
nagging tendency of people to continue to do things a certain way, regardless
of whether there are new and more innovative approaches, prevents new concepts
from being given adequate consideration.
Ultraconservatism is absolutely the most important reason why we have
been unable to sell new, integrated regional concepts.
We continue to concern ourselves with the high cost of water disposal
systems. These high costs are caused by inflation in construction costs
since 1972. They are also caused by unworkable design guides used by State
regulatory agencies.
Ultraconservatism on the part of consulting engineers is a major factor.
Consulting engineers are content to use outmoded wastewater design concepts
because their engineering fees are based on a percentage of construction
costs and because Federal and State regulatory agencies virtually refuse
to allow new ideas to be developed. New ideas upset the status quo and
force professionals to revise their arbitrary engineering manuals.
This is not an implication that consulting engineers as a general gro ip
are irresponsible. However, with a schedule of fees, they find that it is
hardly worth the cost and expense to oppose a staunchly entrenched bureaucracy
to find new and better ways of doing the same thing. Engineers cannot afford
to concern themselves too much with the most cost-effective design. They
must work out a design acceptable to the State regulatory agency and to the
local community so they can design the system and move to the next project.
Neither do they concern themselves seriously with the community’s repayment
ability or ability to adequately operate and maintain the facility. Compla-
cency and lack of foresight are to blame for the inability to move to more
progressive, innovative ideas in the design of facilities (McLelland, 1978).
Similar attitudes among other professional groups within the existing
water industry are equally predictable and understandable. The spokesman
for such groups must represent the interest of his colleagues. They will
hardly welcome innovations that appear to threaten their own livelihoods.
Instead, they will argue to do the work they are trained for and paid for.
THE PROBLEMS WITH MANDATE
Another pressing problem has to do with translating policy into action
at the State and local levels. Irrespective of the intent, mandate, or law
at the Federal level, political and institutional obstacles can all but
stymie any well-intended policies. As an example, after many years of
effort, Title Five of the Massachusetts Environmental Code was amended,
Article 17 approved, to allow the use of composting or dry toilets.
However, conflicting requirements of the Environmental Code, the
plumbing regulations of the Massachusetts Building Code, and the Health Code
remained. Consequently, those who wish to install and utilize a water-
134
-------
conserving toilet are still prohibited from doing so. Why? Because in that
plumbing code, a “water closet” is still specifically cited as required in
every dwelling before an occupancy permit can be issued.
Advocates of water-conserving compost toilets can expect another two
or three years before the codes are altered. Opposing their opinion will be
groups, such as plumbers’ unions, who feel themselves threatened by the
prospect of water conservation. Lobbying at the Federal level eliminated
several provisions of the Clean Water Act amendments concerning direct water
conservation requirements and penalties for noncompliance.
The crux of the matter does not lie in simply identifying programs
and policies that can impart alternative methods and technologies for commu-
nity water management. It also lies in what we must do to promote the
concepts and market them effectively, so that they are taken up and become
part of the American way of life.
In my experience, I find that the interest in water management is very
high at an academic or philosophical level. However, economics spurs
people to action. The cost of heating hot water, renovating sewage and
waste treatment tanks, installing expensive wastewater treatment systems,
rising costs in water and sewer billing--these are the issues that hold
the public’s attention.
The task is to demonstrate that water and energy conservation at the
local level and in the individual home makes economic sense. A tax struc-
ture that would “dis-incentive-ize” central systems, encouraging the
comunity and the taxpayer to decentralize, would be constructive here.
The tax revolt may be a very timely development; it may encourage people
to make the right connection at last between present archaic expectations
and future financial good.
Even though Federal and State subsidies pay 85 to 95 percent of capital
costs, the comunity still must pay for the continued operation and
maintenance costs. In the eagerness to receive subsidies, long-term
ramifications are all but forgotten. The relatively small share initially
paid by the community masks the fact that its operation and maintenance
costs will continue to be proportional to the total system.
CONCLIJS ION
The current crisis in water supply and wastewater treatment is the
result of a “blind” population who, through centralized Federal and State
management and financing methods, has had the true costs hidden from it.
The apparently inexhaustible water supply coupled with artificially
low direct costs has fostered an incredibly high per capita consumption
with subsequent requirements for more costly wastewater treatment.
135
-------
In recent years, the true costs--financial, ecological, health, and
welfare--have been revealed, and the facts are ludicrous. Billions of
dollars are being spent annually for systems which are not doing the job
and which are incurring greater costs than benefits.
While solutions have been sought on a national level, the problem has
always remained a local issue. Today, more attention needs to be paid to
the bio—geographical versus political and demographic aspects of water
supply and wastewater management. No longer are central collection and
treatment viewed as the optimum solution for wastewater management by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. With encouragement of many State
programs, water conservation has now become a major factor in the main
objectives of the Federal government.
“Dilution” is no longer the only “solution,” as the large engineering
firms have told us over the years. Now, there are viable alternatives which
can solve many of the problems. However, mere awareness of the issues
affecting the management of our water resources is not sufficient to effect
the necessary changes. The tools enabling communities to implement
appropriate alternative methods are as yet unfamiliar to the public, There-
fore, research, educational and demonstrational components are needed.
The solution of the coimiunity water management problem is multi-faceted,
requiring an integrated approach. Therefore, it must be examined in its
entirety.
Management of such an endeavor becomes problematic at the level at
which government and business traditionally respond, The benefit is
achieved when the scale is both smaller and ecologically-based.
The program that we at ECOS have developed is based on the premise that
local water conservation problems are best addressed by local coniiiunity
action. Federal or State interference in local affairs is always met with
suspicion. Therefore, we organize local civic and social groups to work
together with the local government in implementing their own programs.
These groups distribute the hardware to the end-users. As a sales force
“extraordinaire,” the credibility of the program is maintained. Because
the salesperson is a well-known member of the comunity from a trusted,
comunity-oriented non-profit organization, resistance is more readily
overcome.
ECOS provides detailed instruction and training as part of a compre-
hensive marketing support package. This is required to insure the success
of the effort. A complete water and energy economics education program is
provided with each water conservation kit. The end-user can now calculate
the dollar benefits for himself.
The Federal comitment is to provide organization and support for local
conferences which identify target coninunities and concerned citizens.
136
-------
The State supports the research and educational program at the local
level through community conservation commissions.
By harnessing the civic groups, local, State, and Federal resources,
they can all pull together and can accomplish that which they cannot do
alone: produce measurable results, not simply informed rhetoric such as this.
137
-------
END NOTES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Activities Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 . Annual Report to the President
and the Congress, Fiscal Year 1977. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1978.
Energy and Buildings , Vol. 1, no. 2, October 1977, p. 13.
Robert 1. Stafford. “A Keynote Address to the Fourth National Conference on
Individual On-Site Systems,” Individual On-Site Wastewater Systems , ed.
Nina I. McLelland. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Ann Arbor Science Publishers,
Inc., 1978, pp. 5-14.
Cecil W. Rose. “On-Site Systems: Farmers Home Administration,” Individual
On-Site Wastewater Systems , pp. 21-26.
138
-------
Public Support for Water Conservation:
The League Experience
Hester McNulty
Natural Resources Coordinator
League of Women Voters of the United States
The League of Women Voters is a volunteer citizens group with 131,000
members organized into over 1,300 local Leagues in all fifty States, the
Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. At the local,
State and national levels the League is committed to promoting an open govern-
mental system that is representative, accountable, and responsive to all
citizens.
In 1956 the League undertook a comprehensive study of water resources in
which our members across the country came to the conclusion that procedures
should be established which provide information and an opportunity for citizen
participation in policy decisions affecting the direction water resources will
take. During the twenty intervening years this firm belief in citizen in-
volvement in the decisionmaking process has been reaffirmed by our subsequent
water quality, air, solid waste, land use, and energy studies. The League is
thus committed to maximum public participation in governmental decisionmaking.
Our members at all levels of League-—local , State and national--have both
been responsible for and participated in public involvement and awareness pro-
jects and programs for many aspects of water resources planning and management,
as well as in other natural resource areas. In the last three years the
League of Women Voters Education Fund has had education and/or public par-
ticipation projects in energy conservation, coastal zone management planning,
safe drinking water, solid waste issues, and 208 water quality planning.
In these Education Fund projects we have focused on various aspects of
education, awareness and on involving both the public and elected officials
in planning and decisionmaking. These activities are distinct from our action,
which is the developing of support for measures which meet the criteria in our
positions which have been reached through member agreement. However, educa-
tion and participation are also essential components for influencing decisions
and legislation.
The League has found there are no hard-and-fast rules that will guarantee
successful public participation. However, on the basis of the League’s
experience there are fundamental elements that must be included to lay the
groundwork for a successful program.
139
-------
The first element in a successful program is to explain the problem, and
the need for planning or corrective measures, to the public in terms they can
understand and that are relevant to their lives and self-interests.
Water conservation is similar to energy conservation in that changes in
lifestyle patterns and personal attitudes must take place; citizens must be
convinced that conservation is necessary. Some of the findings from our Energy
Conservation Technology Education Program, which conducted pilot projects in
four communities to demonstrate to the public how to use energy more effic-
iently in the home, are worth noting. The project locations were Tucson,
Arizona; West Hartford, Connecticut; Northfield, Minnesota; and Wake County,
North Carolina.
Based on information collected in participant surveys, public attitudes
towards government and utilities in general were consistent at all four quite
different geographical sites. While these attitudes were in response to
energy conservation perceptions, it would appear that attitudes would be sim-
ilar for water conservation. It was found that:
• Skepticism continues to pervade citizen reaction to government;
i.e., there is an increasing distrust of politicians and government
in general. Credibility is a serious and critical factor in trying
to reach equitable solutions.
• Coupled with public skepticism and cynicism toward government is the
rip-off syndrome. Many people feel victimized by high utility bills,
insulation companies, etc.
• While it is often difficult to determine whether a citizen really
has been taken advantage of, the point is that many people believe
they are being ripped off, and that is the problem that needs to be
dealt with.
It thus behooves both governmental units and water utilities to let the
public know, from the beginning, water conservation is important to them
as individuals as well as for the general public good. Moreover, in some
cases the public has either been burned or has perceived itself as burned by
having higher utility bills after instituting energy conservation measures.
Any water conservation program must ensure that conservation will pay off to
the individual user and that he will not be penalized for conserving.
The second element is to keep the public informed from the beginning.
The public must have a role in the determination of objectives and the way
these objectives will be reached. Do not start by telling the public how
things are going to be done.
In both our 208 projects and as League members active in designated or
State 208 programs we have found that where the public has had a real voice
in the determination of objectives and how they will be achieved, the end
product has received public acceptance. But more importantly, there is also
a cornitment to implementation of the plan--architects are always enthusias-
tic about seeing their blueprints becoming a reality.
140
-------
It is not at all unusual for technical experts to state that the public
does not have the technical background to participate early on and that the
public will be brought in when there is something to react to.” This is a
sure strategy for creating public controversy rather than acceptance. Experts
often have a narrow view which is broadened by the general expertise of the
public and the result is not only a proposal that is accepted, but in many
cases is one greatly improved by citizen input.
The third element is to explain frankly and honestly all of the alter-
natives that are available. Do not predetermine courses of action. If public
support is desired, the public must have a voice in the decisionmaking process.
This is especially important when a change in rate structure is one of
the alternatives in a water conservation program. Inflation, the Proposition
13 syndrome, and the rise in consumerism have made it difficult if not impos-
sible for a public utility, such as sewer or water, to just “lay on” a new
rate structure. In some cases our local Leagues have had to pick up the
pieces when sewage treatment user charge proposals met heavy opposition
because the public had neither been involved nor educated. For instance, in
Pueblo, Colorado the League was able to defeat significant opposition and
develop support for user charges through an aggressive campaign based on facts.
In our energy conservation projects it was found that there was public
acceptance for easy-to-do conservation methods and there was also a strong
emphasis on do-it-yourself projects. There is most likely the same prevalent
attitude toward water conservation, and retrofit devices are relatively in-
expensive and simple to install. The important factor, however, is that the
public has had a voice in deciding that retrofit and other water conservation
measures are an alternative that should be implemented.
The fourth element is to form an advisory comittee from representatives
of all the identified interest sectors. This includes not only obvious allies
but those who are neutral or even antagonistic. It is also important to note
that we have found in our 208 and coastal zone involvement that elected State
and local public officials are also a public. In the last analysis they are
responsible for programs and policies and should be participants in their
development. Additionally, they can become very effective advocates for
both a program and any needed legislative changes.
The advisory committee must not be a “Mickey Mouse” operation, technical
experts must not “talk down” to citizens, and the committee must not feel
“used.” The advisory group should have a voice in the determination of objec-
tives, alternatives to be considered, the selection of the alternatives to be
implemented, and the choice of consultants if any are to be hired. It is also
advisable not to separate a group into technical and citizens committees--this
leads to citizen discontent and probable criticism of the final product. In
an instance where a 208 advisory group was not divided, citizens not only be-
came more technically proficient, but the experts were more responsive to the
citizen or public viewpoint and the final plan tended to balance public and
technical concerns.
141
-------
I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to draw in all of the major
interest sectors that will be affected by a water conservation proposal. All
too often the “public” is represented by a League member, one representative
from an environmental group, and one from the Chamber of Conmerce. Remember
the taxpayer organizations, the elderly and other fixed income persons, con-
sumer groups and special interests such as homebuilders and plumbing suppliers.
If you do not, they will surface later as the opposition.
The advisory group can become a forum for continuing discussion as a pro-
gram is developed and also act as a link to the general public. In addition,
if the program is acceptable, the group can be the basis for a coalition that
will spearhead implementation. This is extremely important if an ordinance or
legislation is an integral part of the proposal. A cautionary note: an
advisory committee does not replace the public; there should be public infor-
mation and meetings at every major decision point.
The fifth and last element is to keep an advisory committee after the
proposed conservation program is completed. As I mentioned before, implemen-
tation will need public support. Be open to modification and reevaluation of
plans as community conditions and public views change.
Thus far I have discussed the necessity for public involvement but not
how to get the public interested enough to participate. While again there
are no easy answers, we have found that successful public education and aware-
ness programs are tailored to local conditions and concerns. In our Education
Fund projects the more traditional public meetings and conferences have been
utilized, but some innovative approaches have also be developed.
In our Coastal Zone Public Education Projects, Leagues in 28 coastal
states, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico developed programs to increase
citizen understanding of coastal management plans. A number of these had
very successful boat tours of coastal and harbor areas. One of these in
Duluth, Minnesota attracted 170 persons in spite of rain and fog. The spin-
off from such an “event” is the television and newspaper coverage that reaches
thousands of local citizens.
In Hawaii the League sponsored a poster contest--open to students from
kindergarten through high school--with prizes such as seaflight tours, air
tours of the coastal zone, boat rides, and sports equipment. The posters
illustrated “What Hawaii’s Coastal Zone Means to Me.” Not only were young
students reached--which is also important for water conservation projects--
but radio, TV and newspaper coverage was excellent. The Governor of Hawaii
presented the grand prize awards which furnished further coverage.
Followup was provided by creating a traveling display of the winning
posters for exhibition at shopping malls, schools, and public hearings through-
out the State. It should also be noted that the major prizes were related to
the reason for the contest, which kept the purpose in the public mind. A
similar water conservation poster contest could offer related prizes.
142
-------
The League’s solid waste projects, which were located at ten sites across
the country to foster interest and citizen involvement in solid waste issues,
have also developed some innovative approaches. En Bloomington-Monroe County,
Indiana a costumed “Tree” became a recycling spokesperson distributing posters
at elementary schools. A “Drop of Water” could be just as effective! In
Oregon there was a bus tour called the “Wasteland Express,” and in Georgia a
publication, Georgia Road Map to RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976).
In Waltham, Massachusetts the League distributed barrels designed for
recycling and also held a “Wasteworks Trash Bash”--a flea market complete with
bands, balloons, clowns, refreshments, and money for kids who turned in bottles
and cans. There were also recycling exhibits. Again, the event was directly
tied to the purpose of the project. A “Water Conservation Fair” could also
develop public interest and awareness.
Piggy-backing an awareness of one area of conservation onto another is
another approach. In our Tucson, Arizona Energy Conservation Project there
was already an awareness of the need for water conservation and the project
stressed water as well as energy conservation. In areas where this is reversed
the energy savings of water conservation could be highlighted. The Tucson
League used another approach that we have found to be very effective: they
offered their programs to established groups rather than inviting them to
meetings. Ninety-seven groups requested the programs, which were flexibly
designed to serve the specific needs of each group.
In our Kansas 208 project the League took advantage of their State Uni-
versity’s Telenet (a two-way television hookup) so that an interested person
could go to a nearby location to take part in a meeting and question experts
that were hundreds of miles away. While distance may not be as important in
many areas, getting people to another meeting is often difficult. A meeting
on the local educational or community television station where those at home
can participate is a possible approach to developing both public interest and
citizen participation.
We also learned in our 208 projects that small meetings or one-on-one
consultations with local elected officials and community leaders can lay the
groundwork for a new, little-understood program. We also found that coopera-
tion among Federal, State, and local people was needed. In one State a person
attending a 208 meeting remarked in surprise that it was the first time he
had ever seen Federal, State and local officials on the same platform.
It is also important that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stay
in close contact with State and local officials as it draws up water conser-
vation rules or guidelines. The Federal Government is highly suspect and the
more it convinces citizens and elected officials that its job is to help
implement an extremely important program, the more successful it will be.
Both citizens and local and State officials feel they must retain some control
over their own lives.
In conclusion, the League has found that neither public participation
nor awareness of the issues can be taked on to a program in a perfunctory way.
143
-------
It cannot be an afterthought. A commitment to citizen involvement requires
time and thought and often costs money as well. If people feel it is in their
self-interest to do something, they will do it. So it is in the interest of
any water conservation program to develop broad—based public understanding
and support in order to achieve a proposal that can be implemented.
144
-------
Wise Water Use—A Program for Children
Kenneth L. Brewster
Program Manager
Division of Water Resources
Illinois Department of Transportation
The availability of water has long been a determining factor in the
development of major metropolitan areas throughout the United States and the
world. Increasing demand for large quantities of water for municipal, indus-
trial, and agricultural growth has made it necessary to consider water supply
projects far advanced from those considered by our predecessors. In many
parts of the United States, the water supply situation has become a critical
issue or is expected to be a critical issue in the very near future.
Some of the areas that have had to address the issue of inadequate water
supply are well known, such as central California, Denver. Colorado, and
the Washington, D.C. area. Cities that are expected to have a critical
water supply situation include Boston, New York, and Miami.
In northeastern Illinois, available water resources appear to meet
projected water demands to the year 2010, according to an evaluation made
by the State as a basis for allocation of Lake Michigan water to users.
However, certain assumptions about supply and demand had to be made during
the evaluation process. This process was necessary to meet the reciuirements
of a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decree, 388 U.S. 426 (1967), limitinq Illinois
to 3,200 cubic feet per second (cfs) of Lake Michigan water.
The assumptions were:
• increased water resources availability or utilization from a source
other than Lake Michigan
• reduced water use as a result of major construction projects by
the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
• Population projections and expected industrial growth.
However, since it is difficult at this time to predict whether the
population projections will hold true in the year 2010, the Department
must c rntinually review and evaluate the water demand situation with the
possibility of reducing demand in mind. With water needs becoming a
nationwide concern, Illinois must be farsighted in its planning to ensure
an adequate water supply for the future.
145
-------
After much deliberation, a strong water conservation program was deter-
mined to be the only effective way of reducing the demand on the available
water supply. The water conservation program that was developed consists
of three major components. The first component, systems management, is
associated with short term reduction in use and demand that may not be
applicable over the long term period. Systems management involves working
with the corrinunities on an individual basis to assure that the system’s
losses are not excessive, and that the system is generally metered so that
it is possible to determine exactly where and how the water is being used.
The reason for this program element is that the accountability of water
used by different municipalities varies from 90 percent accounted for to a
low value of approximately 52 percent accounted-for flow.
The second component of the water conservation program relates to
industrial water use and reuse. This is an intermediate term program that
will attempt to reduce demand from the industrial sector while at the same
time assuring the industrial users that they will be able to continue their
production at a cost which will not be prohibitive to them.
The third component of the water conservation program is the school
education program, which is to be a long term project and is not expected to
have immediate short term impacts. The main theme of the education program
is creation of a general awareness of water and how we use it, how we misuse
it, the source of local water supply, and where water goes after it has been
used in the system. Two primary objectives of the program are to emphasize
the point that water use is considerably greater than necessary, and to
stress that conservation of a finite resource is essential.
The critical issue in the development of a curriculum program is, how
does an agency such as the Illinois Department of Transportation initiate
a program that will be effective and accomplish a desired end result?
The first phase of the project was to bring together key individuals who
were familiar with the program’s objectives and the mechanism of curriculum
development and dissemination to school systems. An initial planning
session was held with staff from the Division of Water Resources, the
Illinois Department of Local Government Affairs, Illinois Office of Education,
and a professor from Northern Illinois University to discuss the development
of the program. At that meeting, it was decided that independent writers
with experience in development and implementation of curriculum programs
and materials should be contracted with to write the curriculum materials.
The Illinois Office of Education was responsible for compiling a list of
such writers and the Division of Water Resources and Department of Local
Government Affairs cosponsored a workshop to provide the necessary background
information. Although the participants at the initial planning session were
aware that a curriculum program may or may not be successful, they were in
agreement that an attempt should be made.
Subsequent to the planning session, 13 writers were invited to attend
a two-day workshop for briefing on the water conservation problem--what had
been done to date and what the Division hoped to accomplish. The workshop
was also attended by representatives from the Illinois Office of Education
and Northern Illinois University. The first morning was spent discussing
146
-------
the issue of water use and misuse in a number of areas where a water conser—
vation program might fit in with existing teaching outlines and teachers’
guides. The afternoon session was devoted to generating ideas and outlining
a reasonable program for the development of particular topics and study areas
for the teachers’ guides. On the second day, the writers attempted to put
the project into better perspective. They each then selected an area of
interest for development of a teachers’ guide. Two major items were consi-
dered in making the assignments: 1) grade level of the materials to be pre-
pared, and 2) topics to be covered, such as personal water use or leak
detection within the home. Consideration was also given to such matters as a
take-home activity sheet which would accompany the teachers’ guides, and any
experiments which might be appropriate.
The remainder of the workshop was spent discussing the various problems
associated with the development of curriculum materials and more specifically,
the dissemination of the final prodcut. The discussion brought out many
problems of curriculum material dissemination which the state agencies were
not aware of. The workshop participants agreed that during the writing of
the teachers’ guides and the subsequent review and modification period that
considerable thought would be given to finding an effective method of distri-
bution which would have some degree of assurance that the materials would
be used.
By the end of the workshop, each of the 13 writers were given an assign-
ment to write either one or two teaching guides. A draft of the teaching
guides was to be submitted to the Department within 60 days. Once the
materials were collected, they were evaluated by a committee of four,
composed again of representatives from the Illinois Division of Water
Resources, Illinois Department of Local Government Affairs, Illinois Office
of Education, and Northern Illinois University. The review was to check the
materials for format, review content, and to determine whether or not the
particular study guide would fit into the sequence of a portfolio, or
series of teaching guides. After the committee reviewed all of the materials
they were returned with the committee’s suggestions to the authors for
further development.
When the Department received the revised materials, the Division of
Water Resources staff developed a consistent format for the portfolio and
prepared specific graphics to be included in each teaching guide or module.
To date, four teaching modules are relatively complete but still must
be refined and reviewed, particularly with regard to the use of metric units
versus English units.
The Department expects to have the first completed portfolio ready for
presentation in the fall of 1979. Currently, various methods of dissemina-
tion are being evaluated. It was determined while developing the materials
that a pilot program is essential to test the actual usefulness of the
modules and to measure the success of the dissemination methods.
The pilot program will probably require personal contact with at least
three school districts. Once the school districts have been chosen, an
147
-------
in-service presentation will be made at the individual school to explain the
curriculum program as well as to select teachers to implement the program.
The teachers selected for the pilot program should have a keen interest in
the teaching of the water conservation program and also be willing to cri-
tique the materials. The Department will be strongly dependent upon feed-
back from the teachers for refinement of the modules prior to expanding
distribution.
A summary of the curriculum development program for water conservation
would be as follows: The Illinois Division of Water Resources has set a
goal for the reduction of water use in northeastern Illinois. The reason
for such a goal is to assure that all of the municipalities and industries
in northeastern Illinois will have an adequate water supply to provide for
the needs of the people for the long-term planning period. The projected
reduction in water demand that might be accomplished by this program could
be on the order of 10 percent. Although a 10 percent reduction may not
sound like a significant amount, it would be possible to supply an additional
1.5 to 2.0 million people with the reduced demand. The objectives of the
program are to promote wise water use by all the residents of northeastern
Illinois. These objectives may take as long as 25 years to accomplish;
however, the development of wise water use attitudes in school-aged children
is more likely to produce a long-reaching reduced water demand.
Realistic data pertaining to the effectiveness of the program is
expected to be available in two to three years. The Department will be
continuously reevaluating the information it receives from the schools and
the teachers in order to determine the effectiveness of the program and
what modifications, if any, will be necessary.
A sample of the curriculum materials prepared by the Illinois Division
of Water Resources is available on request from:
Kenneth L. Brewster
Illinois Department of Transportation
Division of Water Resources
300 N. State Street, Room 1010
Chicago, Illinois 60610
148
-------
Development of a Water Conservation Program in the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
(Preface to Slide-Tape Shows by James E. Robinson)
James E. Robinson and William Ashton
Department of Man-Environmental Studies
University of Waterloo
The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, formed in 1973, is the largest
metropolitan area (pop. 300,000) in Canada still able to use ground water,
which is cool and needs essentially no chlorination, as its sole source
of water supply. In Ontario, regional municipalities were created by the
provincial government to reform and strengthen county government over areas
experiencing urban growth pressures. Because the supply system for a city
was often located in adjoining rural townships, the responsibility for
water supply was transferred from the local municipalities to the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo at the inception of regional government, while
the responsibility for water demand (distribution) and price structures
remained with the local municipality. In response to increasing demand
for water, the region has continued to drill more wells in rural areas.
Recently, as a result of a perceived substantial lowering of water tables,
the farm community has become adamant that no more wells should be drilled
and that other supplies should be developed and used, especially when the
cities do not take seriously stewardship of the resource. The alternatives
considered were a large dam on the principal river in the area, with
implications for social and economic disruption and flooding of good farm-
land, and a far more expensive pipeline to Lake Erie.
A group of eight university students were not satisfied that the only
response in this situation was to increase supply. Althought the political
structure’s separation of the supply from the demand function mitigated
against their views, they concluded that such actions as attempting to
reduce demand and to change price structures, which neither level of
government felt to be its responsibility, might be less costly financially
as well as ecologically. The ideas they developed in their examination
of residential, institutional, industrial, and municipal water conservation
alternatives were sufficiently convincing that faculty members were able
to gain financial support from various agencies in the three senior levels
of government (Federal, provincial, and regional) to hire twenty students
for the summer to further investigate conservation as an alternative. When
the three city governments agreed to cooperate also, this project became
unique in commanding support from four different levels of government. As
well as doing fUrther research on the viability of water conservation, these
149
-------
students also developed water conservation education programs including
water bill stuffers, mall displays, slide-tape shows, etc. After some
of this material was shown to the regional councilors, the latter extended
their financial contribution for a followup nine—month project currently
underway, which focuses on pilot testing of a residential water conservation
program.
150
-------
Economics and Water Conservation
Richard K. Schaefer
Office of Minerals Policy and Research Analysis
U.S. Department of the Interior
INTRODUCTION
Only recently has widespread support of water conservation developed.
Prior to the early 1970’s, most water suppliers and users were interested
only in obtaining and using more water and not in water conservation. The
averaging of high-cost new water supplies with low-cost water supplies
(developed under inexpensive conditions) resulted in relatively plentiful
supplies and low total water use charges. Recently, however, a number of
reinforcing events have dramatically increased the cost of water, decreased
the availability of water, and sparked widespread interest in water conser-
vation:
• The passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which
requires relatively expensive wastewater treatment
• The oil embargo and energy crises atmosphere, which increased
awareness of conservation concepts to the point of vogue in
some areas
• Weather conditions which reduced water supplies for a number
of years in some heavily populated regions
• The very rapid escalation of costs of developing new water
supplies, together with expensive potable water treatment
requirements mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
• Alternative water resources use conflicts which have ranged
from inter-regional confrontations for limited water supplies
to widely published development-versus-preservation debates.
In the relative confusion and pressure for panaceas to mitigate the
problems caused by these various events, many individuals have turned to the
economics profession for speedy, efficient, and useable answers. Economists
with their bag of tools and theories have responded. Unfortunately, many
preferred solutions have not been widely implemented, not because they
weren’t economically efficient, but because of the difficulties of getting
consumers and utility managers to accept the dicta that higher prices were
151
-------
the only answer. In most cases, however, marginal cost pricing is just one
of a number of acceptable solutions available to achieve water conservation
goals. In any case, if water conservation measures are to achieve general
public acceptance, fairness as well as efficiency must be part of the solu-
ti on.
To achieve efficiency as well as the public acceptance necessary for
implementation, good, hard, detailed analysis of all of the factors compris-
ing and tangential to specific water resources problems will have to be
undertaken. Today’s water problems are very complex,and feasible solutions
will typically be obtained only through interdisciplinary approaches em-
phasizing water resources systems. Narrowly based engineering hardware or
economic theory approaches have been and will continue to be rejected by
water users. Basically this means that water conservation plans should in-
clude comparable data and analysis of consumers, their use patterns, the
physical and social alternatives available or that can be developed to cause
water use changes, and innovative financial options. It must be stressed
that plans should address the whole water system: water supply and waste-
water treatment are too interrelated for the water conservation plans and
decisions of one not to affect the other.
This paper will briefly discuss four important factors of an economic
but still interdisciplinary approach to water conservation:
1. Basic information needed for water resources systems
analysis
2. Cost—effectiveness concepts
3. Pricing concepts
4. Water supply-wastewater treatment interface.
INFORMATION NEEDED FOR ANALYSIS
Why Conserve?
The first question that must be answered before embarking on a water
conservation or flow reduction problem is, “Why conserve?” From an economic
viewpoint, water conservation is warranted only when total costs--present,
future, monetary, and environmental--exceed total benefits. This defini-
tion of when to conserve implies more reduced use than non-use. The state-
ment also indicates the many factors that should be investigated to deter-
mine the desirability of whether or not to conserve.
Answering the “Why conserve?”question may help indicate where and how
water conservation can be implemented. For example, the “Why conserve?”
question could lead to additional questions like, “Is there a current water
supply problem in obtaining new supplies, treating for potable use, and/or
distribution?” And if so, are the problems high cost, environmental con-
cerns, pressure maintenance, or other reasons? Asking the “Why conserve?”
152
-------
question when flow reduction seems important could raise further questions
associated with high wastewater treatment, receiving water assimilative
capacity, plant efficiency concerns, economic growth and development con-
cerns, and a myriad of environmental impacts.
In other words, conservation for only conservation’s sake is not
necessarily economically justified. Why? Because conservation usually en-
tails giving something up—-whether it be freedom of not being concerned
with water use or, most often, some monetary cost and investment. In short,
conservation is not completely free. It may be, however, the least cost
alternative; and this is one point where economic analysis is applicable. To
apply cost-effectiveness, however, demand and supply data are necessary in
that they form the primary information base.
Water Demand
Assuming that there are sufficient indications that a water conservation
program should be developed, information will be needed on the various types
of demands for water supplies and wastewater treatment. By types of demand
is meant the quantity and timing of water use and/or treatment requirements
for specified purposes. Some typical demand disaggregations include resi-
dential, industrial, municipal, and commercial, as well as leakage and in-
flow—infiltration. Depending upon the specific situation, timing can in-
clude a range from hourly through seasonal, and for some situations, even
decade variations relative to climatic cycles. Each of these categories
may need to be further divided into subcategories such as Residential :
household and outside uses; and Industrial : cooling, washing, and process-
ing.
Further disaggregations may provide additional information that could
indicate cost-effective conservation opportunities. For example, for in-
dustrial process, knowledge of both washing procedures and various pollutants
could indicate recycling opportunities; for residential consumption, house-
hold use patterns might indicate which of several conservation methods would
be most cost-effective.
Ideally, demand-use information should be developed on the basis of a
historical framework (i.e., over time) and should include prices paid by
users. Price information should include both water supply and wastewater
treatment costs.
Within categories, demand-use information should be expressed in terms
of common units such as “per capita,” “per type of processing firm unit of
output,” and so forth. The degree of accuracy that these types of informa-
tion should contain will vary with the situation. In some situations, rela-
tive magnitudes of differences may be sufficient. In other situations, it
may be possible to use information from studies in other locations that
approximate or otherwise fairly represent the study situation. For example,
Figure 1 illustrates some typical residential water demands and a range of
typical domestic demands by function. From general tables such as this it
may be possible to make and use estimates for the study situation.
153
-------
Indoor
normal range: 45-65 gal/capita/day
Outdoor (primarily lawn irrigation and auto washing)
Eastern U.S.: 10—100 gal/capita/day
Western U.S.: 100-200 gal/capita/day
Typical range of indoor residential water use by function
Function
gal/capita/day
40 50 60 70
Typical
range of
total use
Toilet
14-18
18-22
21-27
24-32
35-45%
Bathing
10-12
12—15
15-18
18-21
25-30%
Laundry
6-8
8-10
9-12
10-14
15-20%
Culinary and
Miscellaneous
6-8
8-10
9-12
10-14
15-20%
Figure 1. Typical residential water demands.
154
-------
In addition to use information, it is also advisable to obtain various
socioeconomic information such as income, traditions, institutional con-
straints (e.g., building codes), education levels, and habits. Where possi—
ble,this information should be correlated with use patterns--even if only
on an intuitive basis. Again, such information increases the possibilities
of where and how conservation plans can be implemented. Table 1 illustrates
some socioeconomic variables and typical effects that affect residential
water demands.
Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment
Although it is often assumed that the physical facilities and their
associated costs are well-known by utility managers, in many instances this
is not the case. Frequently,physical facilities are constructed with
allowances for growth (i.e., extra capacity) with the result that, over time,
some portions of a supply or wastewater treatment system will be below
capacity while other portions will be just at or over capacity. In these
situations, total plant costs and total output may be known but the details
or intricacies that are necessary for economic analysis are not available.
Furthermore, the engineering-physical and cost alternatives of system
operation information needed for thorough analysis is frequently not avail-
able. This type of information is necessary to develop a base line scenario
and economic, operational alternatives. It is from the base line that the
analysis of conservation alternatives must be made.
In analyzing conservation alternatives, indirect effects may occur that
affect the desirability of a conservation method. For example, a flow re-
duction program emphasizing reduced water quantities per toilet flush to-
gether with shower flow restrictors might trim peak hour demands sufficient-
ly that supply-pressure problems during peak water use are alleviated.
The analysis of water conservation alternatives in an economic context
also requires information on engineering design and costs associated with
incremental increases in capacity. The cost per unit of new capacity should
be compared with the cost per unit of savings due to conservation. Care
must be taken to insure that costs and values relate to similar qualitative
aspects. For example, assume that costs of a residential water conservation
program are defined on the basis of quantity of delivered water saved. If
these water conservation alternative costs are compared only to the costs of
an alternative which develops new raw water sources, there will be an under-
statement of the new development alternative costs--the correct new
supply development alternative cost must include not only costs of the new
development but also treatment to potable standards, distribution, and
treatment of the resultant wastewaters. As can be seen from the above ex-
amples, data requirements, as well as analytic capabilities, for comparative
economic analysis of conservation alternatives can be quite substantial.
155
-------
TABLE 1. RESIDENTIAL WATER DEMAND: TYPICAL SOCIOECONOMIC
VARIABLES AND EFFECTS
Use
Variable
Effect
Indoor
Income
As per capita income increases, water
use increases.
Family size
As number of persons per residence or
dwelling unit increases, per capita
water use decreases.
Age
Infants increase water use (laundry).
Teenagers increase water use (bathing).
Education and
profession
Each causes variance to some degree
(e.g., need for bathing, type of laundry -
water or dry clean, etc.).
Outdoor
Prospect of
rain
Regions with little suimier rain irrigate
more than those with more summer rain.
Regions with intermittent droughts will
irrigate at less than physically required.
Area/dwelling
unit
As irrigatable area/dwelling unit
increases, water use decreases. Decrease
is slight in the West, greater in the East.
Income
As income increases, water use increases.
Partially a function of lot size or area.
156
-------
COST—EFFECTIVENESS CONCEPTS
Cost—Effectiveness Considerations
The primary effect of water conservation alternatives is to reduce the
current demands for water supply and/or wastewater treatment. This demand
reduction thus allows future or new demands to use current capacity instead
of developing or building new capacity.
As previously stated, implementation of conservation alternatives
usually entails some costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis provides a methodo-
logy that can both rank the efficiency of conservation alternatives, as well
as indicate the most efficient alternative between conservation and new
capacity.
There are four basic water conservation methods:
1. Educational
2. Proscriptive (legal)
3. Technical-physical
4. Economic pricing
In practice, the basic four methods are frequently used in combination
to obtain reinforcing or synergistic effects.
Educational
Educational methods stress adoption of a conservation ethic by users.
Education makes users aware of the idea that water is not a free good. In
addition, educational programs can make users aware of technical methods that
can reduce their water use. Educational methods generally are used with the
other three conservation methods so that it is difficult to attribute the
savings from the awareness aspect alone. However, there is some evidence to
suggest that educational methods alone will reduce water demands by an average
of two to five percent and a maximum of 10 percent. Educational programs are
typically the most cost-effective of the four conservation methods--
especially for small percentage reductions.
Proscriptive
Proscriptive methods include the use of enforceable laws and regulations
which limit or otherwise restrict the quantity of water use. The use of laws
and regulations in a water conservation program is usually very cost-
effective--even when the costs of implementing and enforcing new regula-
tions are considered.
There are many precedents for using proscriptive water conservation
methods during drought conditions. Implemented regulations tend to vary with
157
-------
the local situation but generally limit lawn watering and excess runoff,
require recycling, and require that various water conservation devices be
used. Regulations do interfere with some personal freedoms, but in many
aspects are similar to regulations governing use of other public services
such as roads and highways. One study indicates a 10 to 15 percent water
savings based on long-term use of regulations where drought conditions are
frequent.
Proscriptive methods can be very effective to insure the use of flow re-
duction and other water conservation devices. For both new construction and
retrofit installations, there are water conservation devices and techniques
which can provide the same level of service as greater water-using devices.
For both supply and wastewater treatment there is little loss of personal
choice, a minimal cost, and substantial water conservation effectiveness.
In these cases, proscriptive methods, such as changing building codes to
require use of water conservation devices and/or techniques, are very cost-
effective.
Technical -Physical
Technical devices and techniques to reduce water use include low-flow
shower heads, water-saving toilets, va 1 ’ious ways to reduce lawn irrigation
consumption, and both industrial and residential water recycling and reuse.
For new installations, these devices and techniques frequently are comparable
in cost to more intensive water-using devices and techniques. Thus, they
may be extremely cost-effective; i.e., there are water conservation savings
at little or no additional cost. For those caseswhere water-conserving
devices or techniques require additional capital or monetary costs, it is
necessary to compare these costs to both the cost-effectiveness of other
conservation methods and to the costs of new water supplies and/or
additional wastewater treatment. A method for this type of analysis is
presented later in this section.
Cost-effective total water supply and wastewater treatment savings for
households can easily range from 20 to 30 percent. Depending on the situa-
tion, cost-effective use of water conservation devices and techniques in
industrial applications has been documented with water saving as high as
90 percent of previous demands.
Economic Pricing
Increasing the price of water services is often a reconiiiended method
to meet water conservation objectives. There is no question that a
rigorously implemented pricing policy will reduce water demands. By itself,
pricing encourages the installation and use of water-saving devices and
techniques. In essence, a raise in water prices forces awareness of water
problems and requires users to either educate themselves or pay the conse-
quences.
Pricing techniques are economically efficient in that they follow the
normal market system in allocating scarce resources. As most utility
158
-------
managers have found out,however, they can be very unpopular with customers.
Because of this unpopularity, pricing techniques have not been rigorously
implemented in many areas. Educational programs that show the inequities and
inefficiencies of a utility’s present pricing or rate structure together
with potential consumer monetary savings have helped to reduce the force of
many antieconomic pricing arguments.
Pricing methods typically require the use of water meters and, thus, may
entail substantial cost if meters are not already installed. Water demand
reductions of up to 30 percent, however, have been documented when pricing
structures have been changed from a flat rate (no meters) to an average rate
(with meters). The installation of meters may thus obviate the need for sub-
stantial new plant capacity.
Water meters, however, are not always necessary for the effective use of
pricing techniques. Even with flat rate customers, differential pricing can
be used by raising rates for those water users that don’t install water con-
servation devices or agree to various water use restrictions.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Cost-effectiveness analysis compares the costs of achieving an objective
by various methods. For water conservation, this amounts to determining the
costs of achieving a percentage reduction in demand or quantifiable water
savings. These demand reductions or water savings are in effect equivalent
to an expansion of plant capacity. Costs to achieve an objective are com-
pared both among conservation alternatives as well as between conservation
and new capacity. It is extremely important that all costs as well as all
savings be included in the calculations. It is at this time that the pre-
viously discussed data requirements are needed.
Present value analysis is used in cost-effectiveness analysis to compare
alternatives to conservation that have both different costs and effective
replacement lives. When the parameters for cost-effectiveness analysis are
given, a table which illustrates break-even or cost-effective points can be
developed. Table 2 is such a table and presents a number of fixed values
that can be easily used for cost-effectiveness determinations.
The interest rates illustrated are averages of those typically faced by
both consumers and utilities. The years are indicative of those often found
with water-saving devices, probable effective lives of various programs, and
replacement lives of supply-increasing investrients. The water cost figures
are probably low when all costs are considered but do indicate rates cur-
rently paid by consumers. The level of investments, $10, $25, and $60, can
be increased by any factor as long as the quantity saved/l,000 gallons/year
figure in the body of the table is increased by the same factor. The calcu-
lations are based on the annuity principal which returns all of the invest-
ment plus interest on the investment in equal payments over the life of the
investment.
The table indicates when it is cost-effective to make a given investment
or under what conditions an investment is warranted. It is essentially a
159
-------
TABLE 2. GALLONS OF WATER ANNUALLY SAVED BY DEVICE
IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY INVESTMENT
Interest rate
and years
Water cost
(per 1,000 gal.)
Investment
$10.00 $25.00 $60.00
Gallons of water saved*
0/
u/a
10 years
$1.00
1,359
3,397
8,152
2.00
699
1,698
4 .076
3.00
453
1,132
2,717
6%
20 years
1.00
872
2,180
5,231
2.00
436
1,090
2,616
3.00
291
727
1,744
12%
10 years
1.00
1,770
4,425
10,619
2.00
885
2,212
5,310
3.00
590
1,475
3,540
12%
20 years
1.00
1,339
3,347
8,033
2.00
669
1,673
4,016
3.00
446
1,116
2,678
*Gallons of water saved are derived by the following formula:
{r(l+r) J (1+r) -l I {I} {C} = quantity of water saved in gallons
where r = interest rate; n = number of years; I = investment in dollars;
C = cost of water.
160
-------
table of break-even points that indicates when the value of water savings
will just equal the costs——capital plus return on investment.
For example, assume a 10-year life and 12 percent interest rate. When
will a $25 water conservation device investment be cost-effective? If con-
sumer cost for water supply and wastewater treatment is 2/l,000 gallons,
then a $25 investment must save at least 2,212 gallons/year of water to be
cost-effective. Any device that saves more than the 2,212 gallons/year
actually imparts a return greater than 12 percent on the investment. Given
similar assumptions but a six percent interest rate, to be cost-effective
only 1,698 gallons/year need be saved by the device. Notice that with this
quantity of water savings the investment yield would be greater than most
bank demand savings accounts.
The effects of interest rates and the dollar-cost/l,000 gallons on the
savings break-even points can be readily seen from the table. These effects
are important for comparing the break-even points for utilities versus con-
sumers. For example, at a six percent per annum savings account rate, an in-
vestment of $10 and average $l/1,000 gallon cost to a residential consumer,
a water conservation device must save 1,359 gallons/year for the consumer to
break even; or if he has to borrow money at 12 percent interest, the device
must save 1,770 gallons/year. The cost to a consumer, it should be realized,
typically is comprised of both old and new costs; or in other words, the
older, lower costs per 1,000 gallons, and the more recently incurred higher
costs per 1,000 gallons.
The costs to a utility, on the other hand, of obtaining and/or treating
additional water will usually be much higher than the average price they
charge to consumers. If at the margin the cost to the utility is 3/l,000
gallons and the utility has a six percent borrowing cost, a device would only
have to save 453 gallons of water/year to be cost-effective--less than half
of that required for the consumer. In other words, there are instances when
it will be cost-effective for a utility to install water conservation de-
vices, whereas at the same time it would not be cost-effective for the con-
sumer to install the same devices. This dichotomous situation arises, of
course, due to the nature of average cost pricing and due to the lower
borrowing rates typically encountered by public utilities.
There are a few points to remember when using this table. The first
is that the total water costs should be used. For the consumer, this is the
price he pays for water supply, for wastewater treatment, and any energy cost
he supplies for water heating. There will be substantial differences in con-
sumer costs between water used inside the house and that used for lawn
watering and other outside uses and between heated and cold water. For water
supply utilities, the cost figures to use are those of the value of de-
livered water. If water is lost through distribution leakage, the values
should include not just that for which the lost water could be sold, but the
incremental costs of obtaining new water supplies to replace that water which
has been lost.
For wastewater treatment utilities, if water is gained through infil-
tration, the incremental costs of treating that additional wastewater should
161
-------
include all capital, operation, and maintenance costs. In regional growth
situations, the reduction of inflow is comparable to obtaining new capacity.
Thus, if a plant is at capacity and there is substantial infiltration or ex-
cess inflow (i.e., no conservation), the value or cost of the infiltration
and excess inflows is equal to the cost of new plant capacity.
It should be recognized that cost-effective determinations can be used
for expenditures other than devices. If an educational program is expected to
decrease water use by three percer t, the costs of the programPer l,0O0 llons
saved can be determined. Reference to Table 2 will then indicate if such a
program is cost-effective compared to other methods.
There are a number of water conservation devices available for residen-
tial use. Table 3 lists some of these devices, their approximate cost,
their approximate rate of water use, and the potential water savings of
regular” devices vis-I-vis water conservation devices.
By combining the information in Table 3 with typical data for water use
per capita and percent used by function (Figure 1), it is possible to cal-
culate potential water savings (Table 4). Except for the laundry savings
(washing machine) a $10 conservation retrofit program would save over 3,000
gallons/person/year of water. (This assumes one person per residence;
greater savings result at approximately the same cost with more persons per
residence). From Table 2, it can be seen that such a program would be very
cost-effective--even at water costs less than $1/1,000 gallons or interest
rates greater than 12 percent per year. While it might not be cost-
effective to purchase a new washing machine just for water conservation pur-
poses, it definitely would be cost-effective for an original or replacement
purchase (the cost effectiveness analysis would include cost of the washing
machine, energy for hot water costs, water supply costs, wastewater treat-
ment costs, interest rate, expected life of machine, and expected water
savings).
The examples in Tables 3 and 4 encompass substantial variations. The
values, however, span the normal range of water use, function, and savings.
As such, they should fairly well indicate the potential water conservation
savings and costs for most localities.
PRICING CONCEPTS
Elasticity
Pricing techniques for water conservation primarily rely on the basic
premise that as the price of a comodity increases, the quantity of the
comodity that is purchased decreases. The effect such a price change has on
quantity is called demand elasticity. Knowledge of water demand elasticities
for different uses of water is important to estimate the water savings
effects of pricing policies or rate structures relative to conservation ob-
jectives. Water demand elasticities are also useful for estimating revenue
changes under different rate structures. Most studies indicate that for a
10 percent increase in price, water demands will decrease less than 10 per-
162
-------
TABLE 3. WATER CONSERVING DEVICES: COSTS AND RELATIVE SAVINGS
Device
Cost
Water use
Potential
.
savings
Meter
With flat rate to
average cost
pricing
$150-500
+ O&M
20-30%
Toilet
Regular
Water saver
Variable flush
Displacement
Plastic bottles,
Etc.
Dams”
$60+
$60+
$5-15
$O.5O-$1O
5-6 gal/flush
3-5 gal/flush
5-6 aal/flush
2.5—3 gal/flush
4.5-5.5 gal/flush
3.5 gal/flush
30-40%
10—25%
8-10%
30-40%
Shower heads
Regular
Low flow
Inserts
$5-25
$5-25
$0.50-$1.50
3-8(15) gpm
2.3 gpm
2.3 gpm
30-75%
Washing Machines
$250-370
mean $300
38-53 gal/load
(not cost dependent)
20%
(a 10-gallon
reduction)
Faucet
Regular
Aerator
Spray tap
$5-25
$1-5
$5-25
2-12 gpm
3/4 gpm
1-2 gpm
5O% mm.
Irrigation
Hand held 5O-90%
(of plant need)
no waste
Auto sprinkler $70-150 20-50% of other
Drip irrigation $30/120 ft 2 watering or
sprinkl ing
163
-------
TABLE 4. EXAMPLES OF DEVICE SAVINGS
Function
Assume
%
total
use
Assume
Savings
Water use (gpcd)
Water use (gpcd)
flth-
out
With
Amount
saved
(annual)
With-
out
With
Amount
saved
(annual)
Toilets
40%
30%
18
12.6
5.4
(1971)
28
19.6
8.4
(3066)
Bathing
(˝ bath tub,
˝ shower)
30%
0
30%
13
6.5
4.55
11.05
1.95
(712)
21
10.5
7.35
17.85
3.15
(1150)
Laundry
15%
20%
7
5.6
1.4
(511)
11
8.8
2.2
(803)
Culinary and
miscellaneous
(˝ cooking,
etc.,
˝ washing)
15%
0
50%
7
3.5
.
(639)
5.0
4
.
2.5
(912)
Totals
100%
23%
45
34.5
10.5
(3832)
70
53.75
16.25
(5931)
The above savings can be achieved for approximately $10.00 worth of devices.
164
-------
cent, or in economic terminology water demands are generally ‘inelastic.”
For some cases, however, demands are “elastic;” that is, a 10 percent in-
crease in price will decrease water demands by more than 10 percent.
For residential water uses, elasticities generally range between -0.1
and -0.5, with an average elasticity of -0.3. For individual portions of
residential water uses, however, the elasticities may be quite different from
the average. For example, typical lawn watering elasticities are between
—0.5 and -1.2. These elasticity ranges, derived from a number of economic
studies, are important indicators of the magnitude of price increases needed
to meet conservation objectives through pricing techniques.
The use of demand elasticities to determine pricing effects can be made
fairly easy with some simplifying assumptions. For instance, Table 5 in-
dicates price increases needed to achieve water savings of 20. 25,and 30
percent, given a range of elasticities from -0.1 to -1.2 and given a range
of current water prices from $0.40 to $1. Use of the table is relatively
easy: for example, to obtain an approximate 20 percent reduction in water
use with an assumed elasticity of -0.3 and a current water price of 0.60/
1,000 gallons, the price of water would have to be raised by $0.40 to a total
of $1/1,000 gallons. For another example, assume that a 25 percent re-
duction in water use for lawns is desired in the summer months. Assuming
an elasticity of -1.2 for lawn watering and a current price for water of
$0.60/l,000 gallons, a $0.12 increase will reduce by approximately 25 percent
those summer demands due to lawn watering uses.
It is important to understand that for pricing policies to remain effec-
tive through time, the relative price of water must remain constant to other
prices. In other words, to continue to achieve reduced use objectives, the
price of water must continually increase by the rate of inflation.
It should be also recognized that socioeconomic factors such as incomes
may affect demand elasticities. For example, as incomes increase,demand
elasticities usually decrease. This means that greater price increases will
be needed to achieve given conservation objectives in higher income areas.
Finally, elasticities in the short run may be less responsive to price
changes than in the longer run. This is due to the fact that it often takes
time for water conservation devices to be installed, conservation techniques
to be learned and, for habits to change.
Rate Structures
There are four basic types of rate structures (Figure 2).
a. Flat Rates--wheie a fixed amount is charged er time period
regardless of quantity of water services used
b. Average or Uniform Rates--where a constant price per unit of
water quantity is charged and is constant regardless of the
quantity used
165
-------
TABLE 5. PRICE INCREASE NEEDED TO ACHIEVE DESIRED RELATIVE SAVINGS
GIVEN CURRENT PRICE AND ELASTICITY
Relative
savings
Demand
Current water price $11,000 gals.
0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
20%
-.1
-.3
-.5
-.7
-1.2
0.80
0.27
0.16
0.11
0.07
1.00
0.33
0.20
0.14
0.08
1.20
0.40
0.24
0.17
0.10
1.40
0.47
0.28
0.20
0.12
1.60
0.53
0.32
0.23
0.13
1.80
0.60
0.36
0.26
0.15
2.00
0.40
0.40
0.29
0.17
25%
-.1
-.3
-.5
-.7
-1.2
1.00
0.33
0.20
0.14
0.08
1.25
0.42
0.25
0.18
0.10
1.50
0.50
0.30
0.21
0.12
1.75
0.58
0.35
0.25
0.15
2.00
0.67
0.40
0.29
0.17
2.25
0.75
0.45
0.32
0.19
2.50
0.83
0.50
0.36
0.21
30%
-.1
-.3
-.5
-.7
-1.2
1.20
0.40
0.24
0.17
0.10
1.50
0.50
0.30
0.21
0.12
1.80
0.60
0.36
0.26
0.15
2.10
0.70
0.42
0.30
0.18
2.40
0.80
0.48
0.34
0.20
2.70
0.90
0.54
0.39
0.22
3.00
1.00
0.60
0.43
0.25
166
-------
C
a)
0
G)
C.)
I .-
0
Average or uniform rate
Water Quantity Water Quantity Water Quantity
Decreasing block rate
Increasing block rate
a)
E
U)
C
0
0
0
4-
4-
U,
0
C.)
a )
4-
0
I —
Water Quantity
Figure 2. Pricing Techniques.
167
Flat rate
a)
E
U)
C
0
C.)
0
4-
—
U)
0
0
a) —
4-
0
I-
4-
C
a)
a)
0
0
0
b-.
a)
E
U)
C
0
C.)
0
—
U)
0
0
(U
—
0
I-
0
Water Quantity
4-
C
a)
0.
a)
0
I-
a-
a)
E
(I)
C
0
0
0
4-
4-
C ,)
0
C)
CU
—
0
4-
C
0.
a)
C.)
0
U
Water quantity
Water Quantity
0
Water Quantity
-------
c. Decreasing Block Rates--where the price per unit of water
quantity decreases as the quantity of use increases
d. Increasing Block Rates--where the price per unit of water
quantity increases as the quantity of use increases.
Flat rates are generally calculated by dividing total operating and
capital costs for a given time period by the number of customers. This
amount is the supposed fair share of the cost for each customer. This
method does not reward any individual customer who conserves water. The
effective cost to any individual for using more water is essentially zero.
There are some comon variations: higher flat rate charges for those
customers that have larger inflow pipes and lower rate charges if a pres-
sure or flow restriction device which effectively limits the quantity of
water is placed in the entrance line.
Average rates are commonly used by many utilities. They do require the
use of water meters and the consequent expense of meter readers. Average
rates are commonly determined by dividing the total water quantity produced
by a utility into the total operating and annual capital cost to supply that
quantity. It rewards water conservation in that,if less water is used, the
total bill is reduced.
In a situation where average costs are rising, the average or uniform
rate is not necessarily equitable. This can be seen from Figure 3. Costs
per unit are at the minimum at point QMIN. As more water is demanded, the
average costs increase. With average cost pricing, the price per quantity
charged must increase from PMIN to PAC. Those individuals, however, that
conserve water may have to pay more per unit because of the large water use
of others. In the extreme, the following example is possible: Suppose all
but one customer conserves water so that total quantity for the system is
just at QMIN. The exceptional customer uses so much water that average
costs must be raised from MIN to PAC. In this extreme case, all of the
other customers are subsidizing one customer by the difference between the
two rates.
In practice, if all customers use essentially the same quantity of
water services, average rates will be relatively fair and will reward the
individual that conserves. But,if there are large quantity differences among
users, this type of rate structure is not fair.
Decreasing block rates encourage water use. This type of rate is based
on the premise that water costs--water supply or wastewater treatment--
decrease as more water is supplied and/or that it costs less to service
large users of water services than small users. It is only through detailed
cost analysis that the validity of either proposition can be determined. If
total costs are actually decreasing (environmental costs included) then water
conservation may not be necessary or even recommended. Where costs are in-
creasing, this type of rate structure obviously subsidizes the large user at
the expense of the small user. In some instances, this type of rate struc-
ture is used to encourage industry to locate in a region. The net effect of
168
-------
mc
ac
min
0 m,n mc ac
Water quantity demanded
Figure 3. Average Cost Pricing vs. Marginal Cost Pricing.
169
Demand
Marginal cost
a)
4 -
0
4-
C
a)
0.
c i )
0
Average cost
M
-------
such a policy is a water use subsidy for industry and a regressive tax on the
community.
Increasing blockrates are the most effective type of rates to achieve
water conservation-flow reduction objectives. As larger quantities of water
serviced are used, the consumer has to pay an ever-increasing amount for the
last quantity used. Conversely, as smaller quantities are used, the consum-
er’s total bill rapidly decreases.
Some common equity or fairness problems with increasing block rates are
the adverse effect on customers who cannot readily reduce their water ser-
vice use due to either large family size or due to undepreciated, expensive
capital investments. The former problem can be alleviated by making special
allowances for larger households (perhaps with annual or biannual verifica-
tions). The latter problem is more difficult to resolve, especially if in-
vestment or other action was taken with the explicit or implicit promise of
low water costs for an indeterminate period of time.
Fairness problems eventually raise such basic questions as: (a)
Are the major objectives of utilities to provide safe, potable water and en-
vironmentally sound wastewater treatment at the least cost for basic needs;
or are the objectives broader to provide low cost service over and above
basic standard of living needs? (b) Should prior residents who have “bought
into” a water system early have to pay higher costs caused by demands of
newer residents?
The concept that a utility should provide for basic needs first and
at minimum cost provides a strong argument for increasing block rate struc-
tures. At minimum water service use, rate charges are often low. If every-
one used minimum quantities, smaller systems or a reduction in size of new
systems would occur. Total costs to the comunity would be reduced, it is
realized that some efficiencies of scale might not be realized with smaller
systems-—the cost per unit of a one million gallon per day (mgp) plant is
usually higher than the cost per unit of a 10 mgd plant. But the correct
objective to minimize is not the cost per unit but the total cost to the
community. Money not spent on water services can be used for better educa-
tional facilities or even an increase in retail business sales in the com-
munity.
Under an increasing block rate structure, minimal rates are imposed for
basic water service. The effect of such a structure is that water services
consumption competes directly with other retail goods and services. The in-
creasing block rate is efficient in that it places utilities in competition
for disposal income at the high water consumption levels but allows them to
meet their public service, health, and safety functions at minimum cost to
consumers.
The question of “buying into” a system early places the utility more in
the framework of a cooperative with the early “shareholder” having a larger
share than newcomers. This concept moves from the “public service to protect
170
-------
health and safety mission under which most utilities have been chartered and
thus become moot. For water service consumption in excess of basic needs,
It may be possible to have differentiated, increasing block rates to
accurately reflect costs of this additional service.
The practice of “hook-up” charges made for new service connections also
deserves discussion. When these charges include a portion of plant capital
costs, water service rates are necessarily not as large as if capital
charges were included within the quantity charge. This concept can be seen
in Figure 4, where the prepayment lowers average fixed charges and thus
rates. Such prepaid charges, therefore, decrease incentives to conserve.
They are also unfair since consumers who have “bought capacity and then
conserve de facto transfer their paid capacity to others.
Finally, where a strict, increasing block rate structure is used to
encourage water conservation, revenues might exceed costs to the degree that
“profits” might be excessive. In these situations, a rebate could be made
to customers. If the rebate is timed properly— -like just before Christmas--
the income effect on water service will be nil, while the price effect
reduces consumption throughout the year. Figure 3 illustrates how this plan
could work. Assume that throughout the year customers were charged the
marginal cost price, MC• They would purchase QMC quantity of water. This
quantity is less than QAC the quantity of water that would be purchased
with an average cost rate structure price, AC• At QMC however, revenues
to the utility would exceed average per unit costs by the amount AM. This
amount would thus indicate the size of a potential customer rebate.
WATER SUPPLY-WASTEWATER TREATMENT INTERFACE
The objectives of water supply utilities and wastewater treatment
utilities are often diametrically opposed. The objective of many water
supply utilities is simply to meet all demands for water use at the lowest
possible price. Inexpensive, plentiful supplies of water are cited by
these utilities as being necessary to encourage immigration and local
economic development hrough new industrial and business expansion.
Besides local economic development objectives, however, in the past
many water supply utilities experienced increasing economics of sale as they
supplied more water. Given this experience, they were able to continually
lower or at least hold constant in spite of inflation the per unit cost of
water to their customers. These experiences have often led to a “more is
better” syndrome which has been reinforced by local economic development, the
expansive lawns of residential customers, verdant municipal parks and recre-
ation areas, and the luxury of not having to be concerned with water costs
or supplies.
For many water supply utilities, plentiful, low-cost water is still a
reality. Two factors, however, have interrupted complacency for some
utilities: the easiest, cheapest water supplies have been developed,and any
171
-------
Demand
Price
without
prepayment
Price with
prepayment
Quantity
without
prepayment
Quantity with
prepayment
Water quantity demanded
Figure 4. The Effect of Prepayments for Utility Service: Average Cost Pricing.
Total average costs
4-
0
4-
0.
C)
0
Without
With
I
I
172
-------
additional development will be relatively costly; and new potable water
quality standards have increased treatment costs.
For the latter factor, the additional treatment for higher quality
water will shift consumer costs upward on a per unit basis. Such an upward
shift will undoubtedly be disquieting to large water users but will pro-
bably be only a one time increase.
Water supply increases due to new demands from population and/or
business growth, on the other hand, are more likely to result in continually
increasing incremental supply and treatment costs. There is a possible ex-
ception, however, to this conclusion, which is if new supplies come in very
large increments. Once construction is completed, supplying water at the
margin may not be too expensive. In fact, extensive water use may be en-
couraged to help spread construction costs over a large base and thus reduce
the amount of unused capacity. Unfortunately, such rationalizations fre-
quently are the cause for current problems and do little but to justify “more
is better” arguments.
Wastewater treatment facilities with sophisticated treatment are ex-
pensive to construct and operate--often two to three times the cost of
delivered potable water. There are sizable economies of scale in wastewater
treatment plants. Frequently, offsetting these economies however, is the
necessity to provide advanced treatment. This additional treatment becomes
necessary because the total quantity of wastes remaining after secondary
treatment exceeds the waste assimilative capacity of receiving waters.
If the quantity of wastewater can be reduced, even though waste con-
centrations increase, both construction and operation cost savings may result
(efficiencies of waste removal may even occur). These potential cost savings
resulting from reduced flows make water conservation a ubiquitous concern.
Given the above necessarily general and brief discourse on supply
utility’s and wastewater treatment utility’s objectives, it is easy to
understand why the objectives of these utilities may conflict: suppliers
want and may need to sell more water to reduce unit costs; wastewater
utilities need to avoid additional construction and desire to reduce
operation costs. Water supply conservation may be encouraged during
periodic, seasonal droughts where outside uses such as lawn watering consume
large quantities, but conservation for domestic uses may appear to be
relatively insignificant or may tend to increase per unit costs (because
of large fixed cost charges). On the other hand, outside water uses do not
affect wastewater utilities, whereas their problems are primarily from
domestic and industrial wastes.
Given typical utility financing problems, rate structures, normal water
service demands, economies of scale,and the stereotyped objectives of supply
and wastewater treatment utilities, it is of little wonder that water con-
servation goals for these utilities are frequently different and opposed.
Mutual support of water conservation goals may not be financially wise--
especially for the supply utility.
173
-------
In the drive for low, per unit water costs, many utility managers for-
get that total water use costs to the conuliunity should be minimized--not
necessarily the rate per unit of water. Public utility managers should be
aware that their responsibility to their community is to keep total cost--
supply and wastewater treatment--at a minimum. Table 6 illustrates potential
comunity dollar savings or growth capacity made available through a rather
simple conservation measure. Objectives such as potential economic develop-
ment are best achieved through explicit measures and not inefficiently
hidden in water budgets as de facto taxes.
Where separate water supply and wastewater utilities will not cooperate,
it may be necessary for the conununity welfare to combine these two functions
into one, cost-responsive agency. A less drastic measure, however, might be
to institute different water use rate structures. Well-designed rate struc-
tures for both supply and wastewater treatment can reinforce water conserva-
tion objectives while still maintaining the necessary utility financial
integrity.
Rate structures designed to be efficient, fair, conservation encourag-
ing and sufficient revenue generators might appear complicated compared to
either flat or uniform rate structures. Given the variety of structures in
use by other public utilities (e.g., telephone, natural gas, and electric)
designed to achieve similar objectives, there should be sufficient pre-
cedent and experience to allow water utilities to modernize their rates.
It is realized that each comunity has a number of special conditions
that negateattemptsto develop a ubiquitous example. A water conservation
rate structure--whether for supply or wastewater treatment or both--will
most likely contain increasing unit charges as quantity of the service or
use increases. This feature rewards those who conserve and use less plant
capacity and fully charges those who are responsible for high cost and
capacity increments. Depending on local situations, rate structures may
also include a constant, flat charge for service, seasonal differentials to
either encourage or discourage use, rebate plans which encourage conserva-
tion but still avoid excess profits, or any number of other techniques--
including proscriptive regulations.
CONCLUSION
Implementing water conservation programs requires data, analysis and
skills different from those traditionally used in water supply and waste-
water treatment agencies. The concepts of water conservation are frequently
different from the concepts and objectives under which water utilities cur-
rently operate. Because of these different concepts and the information-
skill base on which they have developed, the full advantages of water con-
servation programs are often occluded.
To realize the advantages of water conservation, it is necessary to
thoroughly analyze both the supply-service system (water supply and waste-
water treatment) as well as service demands. Only after systematic analysis
is it possible to cost-effectively assess water conservation opportunities.
174
-------
TABLE 6. POTENTIAL COMMUNITY SAVINGS FROM WATER CONSERVATION
Example: Assume
(1) A one-quart plastic bottle in toilet tank
(2) Four flushes/day/person
(3) Water cost: $0.50 supply + $0.50 wastewater treatment/
1,000 gal.
Per person
Daily
Annual
Savings
Gallons Dollars
1
365
$0.001
$0.365
Per 100,000 persons
Daily
Annual
100,000
36,500,000
$100
$36,500
Per 500,000 persons
Daily
Annual
500,000
182,500,000
$500
$182,500
Per 1,500,000 persons
Daily
Annual
1,500,000
547,500,000
$1,500
$547,000
At total per capita demand of 100 gpd, a 1% increase in population
could occur without additional water supply or wastewater treatment
capacity investment by using this conservation technique.
175
-------
There are four basic water conservation methods: educational, proscrip-
tive, technical, and economic. Each method can be cost-effectively im-
plemented singularly, but synergistic interactions are common which increase
total effectiveness. Two water conservation methods that work especially
well together are economic pricing and water conserving technical-physical
devices. Efficient and equitable rate structures create awareness of water
resource problems and encourage and make cost-effective water conservation
devices. It should be realized that large price increases may be necessary
to achieve conservation objectives if only economic pricing is used. Know-
ing the exact price-demand relationship is not always necessary--estimates
are frequently sufficient. It should be emphasized that user prepayment of
capital costs reduces per-unit water prices and thus tends to increase water
use, while at the same time it is inequitable to those that conserve water.
Water supply and wastewater treatment utilities often have different
managerial and financial objectives. Distinctions between total costs to
consumers and cost-per-unit of water services must be considered if minimum,
total-community-cost objectives are to be realized. Water conservation
programs can be designed to achieve these objectives. Cooperation between
utilities is necessary to meet these objectives. Utility cooperation in
water conservation programs is necessary for efficient, fair rate structures
that provide utility financial integrity.
176
-------
Residential Water Conservation and Community Growth
David A. Wade
Assistant Executive Officer
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission
A reliable supply of water is essential for sustaining human habitation.
Lack of a naturally occurring water supply or inability to import a supply
has historically prohibited or limited urban settlement in the arid regions
of the world. Despite truly remarkable feats of engineering in developing
and transmitting water supplies to arid locations, the directness and cer-
tainty of the link between water supply and community growth is no less im-
portant today. A balance between water supply and water demand must be main-
tained, or a community cannot grow.
Until recently, the authorities charged with maintaining this balance
have emphasized expanding the supply in response to growth-induced demand;
little effort was made to modify demand. But increasing costs of new sup-
plies, intractable water shortage crises, public resistance to developing
supplies from the remaining surface water sources, and increased public
sophistication regarding the relationship between water supply and comunity
growth have led to increased interest in influencing water demand as a means
of maintaining the balance. As rapid urbanization has come to be considered
a negative factor in the preferred lifestyle and fiscal stability of many
communities in the United States, local governments have begun seeking ways
to control the community growth process within their jurisdictions. 1 Among
the many strategies applied to this problem are the withholding of essential
urban services, notably water and sewer, as a management strategy to restrain
or direct community growth.
Water conservation techniques are one of the chief means of reducing
water demand within a community. This paper is concerned with the possible
effects of water conservation on community growth potential and, in particu-
lar, with identifying the issues of public policy and management which link
water use and land use in the urban context. The paper is addressed pri-
marily to water conservation techniques in the residential land use sector.
Most of the current literature and community experiences with water conserva-
tion techniques and community growth policies deal primarily with growth in
the residential sector. To consider the potential implications of water
conservation in industrial, agricultural, and energy production processes as
(Research leading to this work was supported in part by the California Water
Resources Center, University of California, Davis.)
177
-------
well would significantly expand and complicate this paper. However, the re-
lationships of all land uses to community growth and water demand are strong-
ly interlinked and, thus, are all considered relevant in the context of
specific issues.
The fundamental orientation of this paper is that water management
policy is intricately connected with a multitude of factors affecting com-
munity growth. Further, the purpose of management policy is to regulate
both water supply and demand through mediation of tradeoffs between costs of
supply and conservation, effectiveness of various techniques, community
development and land use options, and public attitudes. Individual household
efforts for water conservation, the water consumption characteristics of
individual development projects as determined by physical design, and the
spatial distribution of land uses within a community as determined by a
general plan or individual land use decisions are all considered, by virtue
of their cumulative effect, to be directly related to water management policy.
This paper is organized in three major sections. It begins by briefly
describing the general parameters of water supply and demand. The majority
of the paper is then given over to discussion of the key issues relating to
the management of water supply and community growth. This is followed by a
brief description of the general approaches taken thus far to correlate the
management of water and growth policy and an assessment of the effects of
water conservation on these approaches.
It is concluded that water conservation can have significant impact on
community growth. To the extent that water conservation practices alter the
demand characteristics of a community, a given supply of water will serve
more households and diminish whatever constraint to community growth may
have been imposed by limitations of water supply. However, the maximum
effectiveness of water conservation will depend on a level of sophistication
and integration of policies planning and program implementation for community
growth, land use, and water management, which is uncommon, if not unpreceden-
ted, in American planning experience.
PARAMETERS OF WATER AVAILABILITY
In the relationship of water availability to community growth, supply
and demand are affected by four key factors and two subsidiary factors. For
the purposes of this paper, these can be listed as the parameters, or deter-
minants, of water availability. These parameters are:
• Location of the water supply in relation to the potential
growth area.
• Time required to connect a growth area with the supply. This
may be the lead time for planning, design, and construction of
a major new dam or interbasin transfer aqueduct or a sequen-
tial time frame for extension of elements of the distribution
system imposed by the local government.
178
-------
• Public attitude with regard to current water consumption
habits and the willingness to change them and with regard
to the willingness to pay the cost of increasing the supply.
• Land use mix which determines the amount and quality of
water required in a community. The potential significance
of residential water conservation practices is, in part,
a function of land use mix.
There are two other factors which are relevant to water availability
but which are addressed in this paper primarily as functions of the four key
parameters. Obviously, the quantity of water available is relevant, but in
this discussion quantity is considered to be a function of location and
public attitude. To the extent that the public is willing to import water
from a distance, pay for recycling or desalinization, or any other means of
enchancing supply, then the immediately available quantity of water is
rendered less relevant. Much the same can be said of quality as a deter-
minant of availability. Quality can be improved if the public is willing to
pay or made less relevant if the public is willing to use lower quality
water for lower priority uses.
Location and time are primarily factors relating to the supply of water.
Land use is both a determinant of and determined by water demand. Public
attitude affects both the supply of water (through public policy on new
supply) and the demand for water (through consumption habits and land use
policy).
MANAGEMENT AND POLICY ISSUES
The complex interrelationships inherent in water use and land use
policies make it difficult to isolate specific issues. Virtually any ques-
tion which is raised will have at least one aspect which suggests a number
of further questions. However, certain subject areas do stand out. In this
section, these subjects will be addressed as the focal point of issues in
matters of water use and community growth policy.
One observation which may serve as a useful preface to the exposition
of these issues is that many of them bring into a single policy framework
the extreme poles of both public interest and potential for individual con-
trol. On the one hand, matters of community growth policy are often closely
and strongly felt by the residents of a coninunity, but growth is strongly
influenced by factors well beyond the community’s control. On the other
hand, matters of water supply, particularly in regard to development of major
new systems, will tend to be seen as more distant and not impinging on one’s
lifestyle. Yet the potential impact of individual actions on water manage-
rnent and policy decisions can be quite significant. The implication is that
a sophisticated approach to community growth and water use, which integrates
community attitudes with individual effort, can be highly beneficial. A
lack of understanding of the issues invilved could result in contradictory
and negative community policies and programs.
179
-------
Significance of Water Conservation
The amount of water which could be made available for further community
growth by conservation practices should be amajor issue in formulating a
water use policy. Conservation potential is determined by two key factors:
public willingness to modify personal behavior or expend funds to achieve
conservation and the water use characteristics and combination (or mix) of
various land uses in the community. The potential effects of each of these
factors and contributing variables are discussed in the following subsections.
Effects of Public Attitude on Water Demand
The attitude of the general public toward water use is a principal de-
terminant of the relationship between supply and demand and, thus, the
availability of water for community growth. Individual attitudes toward con-
sumption habits and lifestyle preferences determine household demand for
water. Public attitudes determine public policy regarding the creation of
new supplies, quality, and allocation of competing uses. In addition, public
attitudes determine land use policies which can affect both supply and demand.
In some cultures, people get by on as little as two to three gallons!
day 3 for basic needs of drinking, cooking, and personal hygiene. The water
consumption habits of people in industrialized nations often require a much
greater volume of water per person to satisfy what we consider “basic needs.”
The total per capita consumption of water (for indoor and outdoor uses) can
vary markedly between communities depending on a wide range of factors.
Climatic differences often account for the greatest variations in water con-
sumption. Consumption in the northern California coastal communities aver-
ages 153 gallons/capita,/day (gpcd) compared to an average of 410 gpcd in the
arid southeastern portion of the State. 4
Among the other factors which affect water consumption are: 5
• Density of dwelling units. Low density areas tend to have
higher water demands for landscape irrigation. Low density
also implies larger dwelling units with more people per
household. Public preference for housing type determines
density.
• Billing method. Water service billed on a fixed monthly
rate disassociates for the consumer the amount of water
used from the cost of water. There is no incentive to
save. Metering the water service, on the other hand, pro-
vides a correlation between volume used and cost. 6
In addition, the use of public sewers results in heavier water consump-
tion through heavier leakage and increased waste when taps are left running
during intermittent use. Also, the age of a community can affect consumption
because older, established landscaping may require less water than new plant-
ings.
180
-------
Even in areas markedly similar in the characteristics that affect water
consumption, the water demand per capita can be significantly different. The
community of Carmichael, a suburb of Sacramento, and the City of Novato, in
northern Mann County, are similar in terms of population, age, income and
education, land use mix and dwelling density, and climate. 7 Yet, average
water consumption in Carmichael was 1400 gallons/service connection 8 com-
pared to 950 gallons/service connection 9 in Novato during comparable
periods prior to the 1976-77 drought. The power of public attitude to affect
the rate of consumption was well-demonstrated in many locations during the
drought. In the Carmichael area, average water demand dropped by 28 percent
from 1400 gallons/service connection to 1007 gallons/service connection. 1 °
Milne, in his study of residential water conservation, 1 ’ divided resi-
dential water use into two categories: indoor use (drinking, laundry, bath-
ing, toilets, etc.) and outdoor use (irrigation, car washing, pools, etc.).
Typical consumption figures for both categories are somewhat arbitrary, but
Mime selected 70 gpcd as an average indoor use and 70 gpcd as the average
outdoor use. This total of 140 gallons/day of freshwater consumed by an in-
dividual is broken down as shown in Figure 1.
There are many devices and techniques available for reducing water re-
quirements in the individual household. Milne has grouped many of them into
functional strategies for implementing residential water conservation. 13 The
strategies are organized according to immediacy of application, cost, and
degree of sophistication. The most readily applied strategy, and the least
costly, is simply attitude and behavioral changes on the part of individuals
in their use of water. The essence of these changes is to limit use to actual
need and avoidance of wasteful habits. While Milne did not attempt to
quantify the cumulative effects of these attitudinal and behavioral changes,
it should be noted that these are the very same techniques employed during
the drought which yielded substantial savings in many cases. 14 A subsequent
study by Mime of the potential for residential greywater use produced the
estimate that household use could be reduced by 40 percent as indicated in
Figure 2.
A study of possible water conservation measures in Los Angeles (Table 1)
estimated that conservation could result in reductions as high as 23.9 per-
cent in municipal water demand by the year 2000 compared to projects based on
no conservation.l5 The estimates assume that, by 1980, regulations will be in
force for all new construction and replacements limiting flow rates for
faucets and showerheads to 3.5 gpm, reduction of line pressures, installation
of low-flush toilets, and water-conserving garden practices. In the absence
of any conservation effort, population increases alone would push water con-
sumption up by 10.3 percent, but the water conservation program actually re-
duces consump jon from present levels by 23.9 percent, for a net change of
34.2 percent. 1 °
181
-------
45%
Source: Mime, 1976, Residential Water Conservation
Figure 1. Estimated Residential Consumption in The United States.
30%
20%
5%
Variable
Variable
Variable
Indoor
consumption
70 gal.
Daily
per
capita
water
consumption
140 gal.
Variable
assumed @8 to 10%
Irrigation
& Paved areas
182
-------
00/ *
0 /0
• Indicates % of Freshwater consumed indoors
Source: Mime, 1978, Residential Water Recycling
Figure 2. Estimated Residential Consumption, Assuming Grey Water Use
and Use of 1.5 Gal./Flush Toilets.
3 gal. Toilets
Indoor
consumption
38 gal.
55%
Daily
per
capita
water
consumption
82 gal.
37%
Outdoor
consumption
44 gal.
41% Reductior
from 140 gal.
Use of grey water
& Paved acreas
183
-------
TABLE 1. REDUCTIONS IN WATER DEMAND DUE TO RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION MEASURES
(PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES FOR A CITY THE SIZE OF LOS ANGELES)
1980 1990 2000
Population 2,900,000 3,100,000 3,200,000
Projected demand (including industrial)
assuming no water conservation, gpcd
183
183
183
Interior conservation
(Low flow fixtures and appliances in
new construction, rehabilitation,
and maintenance repairs)
Exterior conservation
(Increased irrigation efficiency,
increased housing density,
increased use of native plant
materials, and reduction in system
pressure)
Other non-residential conservation
(Leak detection, industrial uses,
comercial uses, etc.)
TOTAL
-3.3%
-2.7%
-2.2%
-8.2%
-9.7%
-3.6%
-3.3%
-16.9%
-16.4%
-4.1%
-3.4%
-23.9%
Revised projected municipal demand
after water conservation, gpcd
168
153
139
Source: California Department of Water Resources, 1977, and Milne, 1978.
184
-------
Effects of Land Use Characteristics on Water Demand
The mix of land uses, including the various ranges of residential
development density, is a direct determinant of water demand. Land uses
differ significantly in the amount of water required on a per-acre basis.
Even substantially similar uses within a broad category often have differing
water demand characteristics.
Determining the potential water demand for as yet undeveloped lands in
urban land use categories is very uncertain due to the wide range of water-
consumptive activities which could occupy a given location. Estimates of
total water demand by land use category for large areas, as in Table 2, are
not useful for estimating water consumption patterns for any given land use.
They do indicate the relative magnitude of urban uses as a percent of total
water demand.
Agricultural use is by far the largest consumptive use, with urban uses
(including the categories “Self Supplied Industrial Uses” and “Public Sup-
plies”) accounting for only about 10 percent of total demand. Consumptive
uses re those which are not immediately available for reuse without treat-
ment.’ 9 If one considers all water withdrawn and delivered to initial
point of use, the allocation of water to various use categories looks quite
different, as indicated in Table 3.
Such figures for aggregate water demand by category have relevance to
land use planning when they can be translated into some standard of common
measurement, such as volume of water consumed/acre/year. Once such stan-
dards have been identified for the type of land uses likely to locate in a
given community, and the potential for conservation is identified in each
category, the plan for community development can be correlated to the avail-
ability of water.
The potential impact of residential water conservation on total water
demand is a function of the percentage of total community acreage allocated
to residential uses and the water consumption patterns of individual house-
holds. In California in 1972, individual homeowners on the average had
direct con ’ol over approximately nine percent of the water used throughout
the tate. ’ In the South Coastal region, however, which includes highly
urbanized Los Angeles and San Diego the urban water use accounted for 71.3
percent of the total water demand. 2 This percentage represents a regional
requirement of 2116 mgd of water, which is 46 percent of water required for
all urban users in the State. 23
An example of the potential for water conservation in new residential
development comes from the North Mann County Water District. Since the
early 1970’s, the district has maintained records of water consumption by
residential land use categories. Because all service connections are metered,
they were able to gather rather precise data on not only residential use, but
other uses as well. Based on this empirical data, the District formulated
a standard unit of average daily water demand/residential service connection.
This was termed an “equivalent unit” and represents an average daily demand
of 950 gallons. 24
185
-------
TABLE 2. ESTIMATED CONSUMPTIVE FRESH WATER USE IN THE U.S. BY CATEGORY, 1975
Volume consumed Percent of
Water use category (mgd) total consumed
Public supplies 6,700 5.6
Rural use 3,400 2.9
Irrigation (including conveyance
losses) 103,000 86.4
Self-supplied industrial users 6,100 5.1
Total freshwater consumed 119,200 100.0
Adapted from Murray, et al, 1975.
186
-------
TABLE 3. ESTIMATED WATER USE IN THE U.S. BY CATEGORY, 1975
Water use category
Volume
withdrawn
(mgd)
Percent of
total
withdrawn
Public supplies
29,000
8.4
(including domestic, comercial,
and industrial uses)
Rural use
4,900
1.4
(including domestic and livestock
use)
Irrigation
140,000
40.7
Self-supplied industrial uses
170,000
49.4
(including thermoelectric power
use)
Total water withdrawn
343,900
100.0
Adapted from Murray, et al, 1975.
187
-------
Again, using empirical data, the District has assigned a ratio of the
equivalent unit to each of the three dwelling types which are the dominant
land use in the urbanized portion of the District. They are as follows:
• Single family detached dwellings 1.05 equivalent units 25
• Apartments 0.45 equivalent unit
• Condominiums 0.70 equivalent unit
By measuring the remaining allocatable water in the District’s supply sources
in terms of equivalent units and by monitoring the number of equivalent units
represented in each residential project approved by the local planning
authority, the District can keep an accurate estimate of its remaining supply.
These figures for equivalent units are an established management tool for the
District and have been quite useful during periods of shortage.
Prior to the drought, but at a time when the remaining supply was very
near the net safe yield of the District’s primary supply reservoir, the
District and the local government received a proposal for a residential de-
velopment of 1400 to 1700 dwelling units. 26 Even the water demand for the
first phase of this project far exceeded the remaining supply. In order to
meet the demand for the first phase, the District formulated a set of conser-
vation measures designed to reduce water demand such that the required number
of equivalent units could be reduced by approximately 50 percent. The project
developer, faced with having only enough water for a first phase too small to
be economically feasible, chose to reduce the demand by including the District
conservation proposal in his project design. The following conservation
measures were used in that project.
• All interior plumbing in new buildings shall meet the following
requirements:
a) Toilets shall not use more than 3.5 gallons/flush
except that toilets and urinals with flush vaiues
may be installed
b) Showerheads shall contain flow control inserts, valves,
devices, or orifices that restrict flow to a maximum
of approximately 3.0 gpm,
c) Kitchen and lavatory faucets shall have aerators or
laminar flow devices together with flow control in-
serts, valves, devices, or orifices that restrict
flow to a maximum of approximately 2.0 gpm.
• All new parks, median strips, landscaped public areas, and land-
scaped areas surrounding condominiums, townhouses, apartments,
and industrial parks shall have a well-balanced automatic irriga-
tion system designed by a landscape architect or other competent
person and shall be operated by electric time controller stations
set for early morning irrigation. Landscaping covering clayey
188
-------
soils and slope areas shall be equipped with low output sprinkler
heads permitting a slow water application rate. Prior to in-
stalling the irrigation system, the landscaped area shall be
scarified and covered with a mixture of not less than four to
six inches of topsoil (preferably native topsoil) amended with
at least four cubic yards of organic material (nitrolized redwood
sawdust, rice hulls, or equivalent/i ,000 square feet and other
soil amendments in a quantity and type approved by the developer’s
landscape architect. The District Board of Directors may, on the
written request of an applicant, waive any part or all of the re-
quirements of this subsection if it finds that the area to be
landscaped is too small or does not otherwise justify the auto-
matic irrigation system or soil preparation.’ 7
Such measures are now recommended for all new residential projects. The
ratio of equivalent unit for each residential category is reduced if the
developer agrees to include these measures in the project design. As a
result of reducing the raios, the water needed for allocation to the project
is assumed to be reduced, and the District’s fee for extending new service
is reduced proportionally. The ratios are reduced as follows: 28
• Single family detached dwellings 13 percent
• Apartments 30 percent
• Condominiums 30 percent
When conservation techniques and devices are incorporated in the physi-
cal design of new development, public acceptance of water conservation
strategies is considerably enhanced. The amendment of normal approaches
to new project development through site planning, selection of plant materi-
als, dwelling unit design, and specification of water conserving devices
allows the project resident to contribute to the conuiiunity’s water conser-
vation efforts with little cost or effort on his part. Reduction of water
consumption is simply the extension of a new lifestyle in a new home. Public
attitude toward water conservation is gauged, in part, by the market accept-
ance of projects which feature conservation measures as an integral element
of the design.
Effect of Conservation on Land Use
Just as land use policy can significantly affect water demand, water
conservation can affect land use patterns. Water conservation extends the
water supply and thus allows additional growth, but conservation also has
the potential to affect the spatial distribution of new growth. 29
One possible impact of water conservation is that the efficiency and
thus, the viability of onsite, single dwelling water and sewer systems may
be improved. These systems, typically consisting of an onsite well, septic
tank, and disposal leach field, j quire a certain minimum land area to
function safely and efficiently. ’ ’ In many communities the relatively low
density, which is characteristic of this type of residential activity, is
189
-------
the preferred lifestyle. Increased demand for water quality enhancement and
projection and the apparent failure of individual systems to achieve these
objectives have resulted in many instances of requiring new sewer systems
for entire communities. 1 The sewering of a community allows for signifi-
cantly smaller lot sizes and, consequently, often results in considerable
subdivision and development activity. The community growth which follows
often strongly conflicts with the lifestyles of the original residents.
More efficient use of the onsite systems through reduced flow to dis-
posal leach fields would produce fewer failures in individual systems. The
minimum lot size necessary to support these systems might be reduced to a
certain degree, depending on local conditions, but, on the whole, the low-
density residential pattern could persist. Such a development pattern might
therefore provide a more penilanent boundary for the urbanized core aPeas
by resisting the current tendency to extend into unurbanized areas in
piecemeal and erratic fashion.
A second possible effect would occur in areas already served by public
sanitary sewer systems. In many instances, the sewage treatement provided
by these systems cannot meet the objectives of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972.32 The response to this situation in many metropolitan
areas has been to abandon these smaller systems in favor of one centralized
regional treatment facility linked to the existing systems by massive
collector networks. 33 This centralizing tendency has two major implications
for community growth:
• The development pattern for all regional growth will tend to
locate on or near the main collectors to minimize connection
costs. This will work to obviate whatever distinctive,
community-based development pattern might have existed as a
reflection of the scattered smaller sewage collection and
treatment systems.
• The centralized facility, unless developed in incremental
phases, will be sized to accommodate all the projected
growth for the combined service areas of all the smaller
systems it will replace. Consequently, at the time the
central facility is completed, any phased growth strategy
based on the capacity of smaller, decentralized facilities
is imediately rescinded by the capacity of the larger
system. Capacity of the local treatment facility will no
longer be a tool for the local planning authority to
regulate community growth. Growth management at the
community level could still be achieved by withholding
the extension of sewer service into as yet unserved areas,
but plant capacity would be a moot issue.
Water conservation could provide an alternative to aggregating small
treatment facilities into a single, centralized, regional-scale facility.
Conservation would reduce flow to the treatment facilities and could allow
some of the small facilities to remain in service longer. 34 Funds that
would be spent on completely new facilities might then be better spent on
190
-------
upgrading existing faciliftes to meet water quality standards. The benefits
of this approach include possible savings in capital outlay; community growth
would remain more direcly under the control of local residents; and communi-
tiew would be more likely to remain physically distinct.
Reduced flow in sewage pipes might also allow the existing collector
system to serve a higher density or a more diverse mix of uses in already
developed areas. New pipes to serve developing areas might be sized some-
what smaller, thereby reducing the front end costs of new land development. 35
The effect of water conservation in domestic use is not likely to affect the
minimum size of pipes for water delivery to most land use categories because
these are typical1 determined by fire protection requirements rather than
water consumption. 6
Time Frame for New Supply Projects
The time frame for developing new water supplies, from the point when
the decision is made to proceed to the point when the new supply comes
‘on-line,” can be several years--up to 12 to 15 years for some projects.
Planning for these new projects must rely on projections for future water
demand which are often highly speculative, and, as indicated above, even
projections based on very good population data can become greatly distorted
by changing consumption patterns.
In this area of uncertainty, any flexibility in the time frame for
planning and developing a new project can be very beneficial. Water conser-
vation practices can extend the available water supply and relieve pressure
to proceed with a new project which is uncertain in terms of ultimate need,
appropriate timing or funding, or possible alternatives to the project. The
flexibility afforded by water conservation could conceivably have the
following benefits:
• It might allow the sponsoring agency to forego stopgap
measures for providing an interim water supply in times of
crises when a major new facility is in the planning or
development stage. 7 Such interim measures are often quite
costly in terms of their relative utility and are often dis-
mantled or abandoned as obsolete when the new facility comes
on—line.
• It may allow the sponsoring agency to choose when it wishes
to enter the bond market for funding of a new project. The
savings in debt service expenditures over the life of a
bond can be quite significant with a fractional fluctuation
in bond interest rates for a large project.
• It may allow the sponsoring agency to wait for alternative
project proposals involving other agencies or improved
technologies.
191
-------
Water Rights/Allocation to Competing Uses
We are concerned in this paper primarily with growth in the residential
sector, but clearly the use of water for one sector must be considered in
relation to competing demands from other sectors. A recent study by the
University of California on major issues facing agriculture indicates that
water will be the most important of all resource questions in the 1980’s and
beyond. 38 As demand increases, the competition for readily available supplies
will becone quite forceful. The key issues will be renewed pressures to
develop new supplies at public expense and, more relevant to this paper,
conflict over reallocation of present water rights and the potential for
conservation in the competing sectors.
The potential for conservation in any given sector will be viewed op-
timistically by water users in competing sectors. They will see reduction
of demand in one sector as additional supply which can be made available to
another sector. But this attitude among competing users overlooks two key
factors. First, there are costs inherent in most conservation programs which
must be borne by the consumer. Second, the water conserved might best be
used by additional growth in the same sector rather than reallocation to an-
other purpose. The allocation of water to competing uses must be based on
realistic water demand estimates for the various uses, including the feasi-
bility and magnitude of conservation potential in each and the amount of
land area allocated to each use in a rationally-derived general plan.
Under current water rights law, the practice of water conservation
techniques can have a negative effect on future allocations should the pres-
ent allocation be subject to review. 39 Although the application of water
rights law varies from State to State, and even basin to basin, t most
common doctrine in the Western States is that of “appropriation’. U The
doctrine’s basic tenets are that a water right can be acquired only by
diversion of the water from the watercourse, or aquifer, and its application
to beneficial use. 41 An earlier acquired right shall have priority over
others wishing to appropriate at a later time. 42 Furthermore, an appropri-
ation right is independent of the location of the user’s land to the water
diverted, and the right can be maintained only by use.
In essence, then, a water right is based on the ability to put the
water to beneficial use on a continuing basis. Any sector which anticipated
a significant degree of growth would try to establish and maintain a large
enough claim to accommodate the new growth. But conservation practices
would ostensibly reduce demand and, thus, the justification for the current
water rights allocation. When the allocation is subject to review, either
as a provision of the initial allocation or under pressure from competing
users, the allocation may be reduced in relation to what may be perceived
as inability to use the available supply. Although such a determination may
be quite reasonable, it is not likely to be so perceived by advocates for
the community’s growth potential.
The present system of allocating water to competing users is not condu-
cive to implementing water conservaton in sectors which see continued growth
192
-------
as necessary to their continued well-being. It is not conducive precisely
because the various sectors are viewed as being competitors for a limited
resource. Water rights become the battleground for determining whose
interests shall survive. The true determinants of which uses should expand
and which stabilize or contract are much broader than the availability of a
single resource. What is required is integrated land use and economic and
resources planning for coninunity growth.
Water Quality
We have been accustomed in this country to expecting a single, rather
high standard of water quality for virtually all domestic uses. All water
used in a household is expected to be of potable quality, even though the
ultimate use of a portion of that water may be no more significant than
flushing away a spent facial tissue. But not all uses require the same level
of water quality, nor is quality measured the same way for all uses. For ex-
ample, water with nitrate levels high enough to cause publiŕ health concerns
if used for drinking can be used beneficially by most crops. Municipal uses
for drinking and bathing need higher quality standards than for washing cars
or flushing toilets; industrial uses for food processing need higher quality
standards than for power plant cooling. 43
Acceptance and application of the principal of different standards of
water for different uses can make a major contribution to extending the water
supply. Water can be used again and again as a means of reducing demand on
freshwater supplies. By conserving the supply of freshwater for priority
uses which demand high quality, the potential for further community growth
is enhanced.
The use of reclaimed water for low priority use, such as for irrigation
or industrial process cooling, has been extensively studied and applied in
a number of cases. 44 Reclaimed wastewater, however, has relatively little
potential for significantly affecting total community water demand. Exten-
sive use of reclaimed wastewater is hampered by public resistance to direct
use of reclaimed water for domestic supplies 45 although it has been used
for direct contact water recreation facilities 4 b) and by the cost of distri-
bution facilities for the reclaimed water. Collection of wastewater at point
of use, transportation to a centralized treatment facility, and redistribu-
tion to the point of use would require duplication of a very expensive infra-
structure.
The greatest objection to use of reclaimed water for secondary use is
that it represents such a tremendous waste of resource. Water which has a
very light pollutant load (such as most domestic greywater) and which would
be highly suitable for secondary uses is automatically batched with highly
polluted wastewater (such as human waste). The entire batch is immediately
reduced in quality to the lowest coninon denominator such that extensive
treatment is required before any of it can be used again. The potential
for secondary use of lightly polluted water sources is irrevocably lost by
degradation in batching with lower quality water.
193
-------
A much more suitable approach to utilization of non-freshwater sources
is sequential application in uses with descending quality requirements, or
as Mime has called it, the “cascade approach to water use. 47 The concept
simply suggests that water can be passed from one level of water quality
requirement sequentially down through lower levels of water quality need
until it has no further feasible application and can be sent on for treatment
to begin a new cycle. In a single household, this process might involve use
of a single volume of water two or three times as water from the shower might
be used again for laundry and finally for landscape irrigation or toilet
flushing. Such multiple use can reduce total household demand by 40 per-
cent 48 On a community scale similar sequential uses seem feasible, although,
outside of limited examples of irrigation, use of untreated industrial pro-
cessing wastewater (such as in canning processes), and the secondary use of
overflow from one agricultural field to another, few, if any, examples can
be cited.
The limitations to this approach to water conservation are three:
• Acceptance by the public of secondary use of water for any purpose
of which they are aware remains low. Studies have indicated, how-
ever, that use of lightly polluted water for certain limited uses
is much more acceptable than any use of reclaimed sewage. 49 Indeed,
there is evidence that during the drought years, many homeowners
developed home water reuse systems (greywater systems) which went
far beyond the recommendations and cautions of local health and
water authorities. 50
• Implementation of this approach would require modifications of ex-
isting plumbing systems to allow water to flow from one point of use
to another before entering the sanitary drainage and may include
interim storage facilities and possibly minor treatment. It would
also probably require a procedure to monitor and maintain the system
which would at least equal in complexity that which is required to
maintain conventional wastewater treatment and reclaim water dis-
tribution systems. The cost of these modifications is not likely to
be significant, and, in the absence of specific studies to analyze
potential costs, any estimates would be highly conjectural. It does
seem, however, that the costs would be substantially less than a
sewage reclamation system capable of delivering a comparable amount
of water. Furthermore, implementation could be accomplished in-
crementally in new construction or rehab of existing structures in-
dependent of the location or reclamation capability of the sewage
treatment facility. Sequential secondary use of water should be
given consideration as a cost-effective alternative strategy for en-
hancing water supply.
• The most efficient application of this approach would occur where
sequential uses are located in relation to one another such that
the need for pumping and the length of connections is minimized.
This would add yet another factor in the already complex process of
planning for spatial allocation of land uses. It would require a
sophistication in facilities and land use planning which is far
194
-------
beyond the capability of most community planning bodies. It is not
inconceivable, however, to have communities laid out, at least in
part, on the basis of water flow through the community. Such a
concept reinforces the need for stronger integration of land use,
community development, and economic planning in conjunction with
water management and allocation to complementary, as well as com-
peting uses.
Ground Water Recharge, Conjunctive Use, and Greenbelt Irrigation
In arid regions, there is a tendency to rely on ground water sources
rather than surface waters. This is due to the obvious reason that surface
water is not always available and may not be reliable, even if near at hand.
In addition, the cost of facilities to capture, store, transmit and distri-
bute water can be high in relation to the cost of ground water extraction.
As a consequence, water agencies often exceed the natural recharge rate of
the aquifers they are mining. 5 ’ Excessive drawdown of the ground water table
results in higher pumping costs, which increase sharply with each additional
foot of lift required to bring water to the surface, 52 as well as land sub-
sidence and potential permanent contamination of the aquifer from salt water
intrusion. En some instances, the ground water resource cannot accommodate
the anticipated demand for water, and surface water is either not readily
available or cannot be developed in time to augment the qround water source.
Water conservation can mitigate a problem of ground water overdraft in
two ways. First, it can reduce the immediate demand for water and free
whatever surface water may be available for ground water recharge, rather
than requiring it for augmenting the water supply. Second, it is conceivable
that water of secondary quality, such as household greywater, could be used
directly for ground water recharge rather than contributing to the wastewater
flow. 53
Use of second quality water, either reclaimed sewage or diverted grey—
water flow, for ground water recharge raises the interesting possibility of
linking water management policy and community growth policy in a very direct
and tangible manner. Ground water recharge areas could be planned as per-
manent open space to define the boundaries of urbanized areas and set them
apart, visually and functionally, from their neighboring communities. Ground
water recharge areas, as a general rule, have to prohibit any substantial
urbanization——due to the need to avoid any possible contamination of the
aquifer and the need to avoid soil compaction which could reduce percolation
of water through the soil.
Land disposal of treated wastewater has been practiced in a number of
locations for years 54 and has attracted increasing attention with the strin-
gent water quality requirements established in recent years. 55 In contrast
to the development of a single large disposal area, as might attend con-
ventional treatment and disposal methods, the proposal here is that the re-
charge or disposal areas be strategically distributed around the community
to act as planned boundaries to additional growth. Increases in community
population would be accommodated by increasing density within the community
195
-------
or within satellite communities, which are, in turn, defined by their own
greenbelt. The use of diverted secondary quality water would have two dis-
tinct advantages over the use of reclaimed sewage.
First, it is conceivable that the secondary quality water could be used
directly for irrigation and ground water recharge with little or no need for
treatment before release. Second, water which is already dispersed by
virtue of its point of source throughout the community will be more cheaply
and readily distributed to the points of use around the community than a
single point source at the regional wastewater treatment facility.
There are a number of constraints to the use of secondary quality water
directly from point of source to irrigate greenbelts as ground water recharge
areas. Perhaps most important is maintaining a monitoring program to assure
that no potential health problem is created by irrigation areas which may be
used for recreation by the general public with secondary quality water. Un-
controlled distribution of any untreated water poses a potential hazard which
must be avoided by careful monitoring of the distribution system.
Mitigation of the quality problem might involve providing interim treat-
ment or subsurface distribution, such as injection wells or drip irrigation
systems, to minimize the potential for human contact 56 The cost of these
systems, as well as the collection and transmittal system from dispersed
sources, is a major consideration which would have to be made relative to the
value of the water provided by this system and the value of the open space as
a ground water recharge area and community growth boundary.
In areas where ground water recharge is technically feasible, the multi-
purpose function of this approach provides an opportunity to establish a net-
work of open space lands which might be politically unfeasible otherwise.
The police power of the local planning authority can be combined with the
pragmatic, technical objectives of the water agency to achieve mutually
beneficial ends beyond the capacity of either acting independently.
Multi—jurisdictional Coordination
The ideal situation for integrating water policy and comunity growth
policy is for a single governing body to have authority for both policies
and for that body to have jurisdiction throughout the urbanized area. Un-
fortunately, it is all too comon for the water authority and the general
government responsible for land use planning to be separate entities. Fur-
thermore, the jurisdictions of both water authorities and general government
are often fragmented with several agencies of differing size, capability,
and 1 al responsibilities operating side by side in a single metropolitan
area. ’ The communities in these metropolitan regions, although served by
different agencies, are often indistinguishable in terms of housing type,
land usemix, socioeconomic status, geomorphic features, or delineation of
coimiunity boundaries.
196
-------
The authority, purposes, funding sources, and operational characteris-
tics of water and sewer service agencies can differ greatly in accordance
with the enabling legislation under which they were established. As a con-
sequence, policies, service levels, rate structures, operating procedures,
and relationship to the public serviced also differ greatly. Interagency
cooperation between agencies of like function is often poor and, where like
agency cooperation is poor, cooperation with the general governing agency is
often very casual, at best.
In such an organizational environment, the varying policies with regard
to community growth,water procurement and distribution, and water conserva—
tion will result in uneven, fragmented development potential within the
region. Where the agencies draw from the same water source, be it ground
water, surface water, or a combination, those agencies which encourage con-
servation would seem to be at a disadvantage. Assuming that the net marginal
cost of increased pumping is less than the cost of instituting new conserva-
tion methods, 58 those agencies not instituting water conservation programs
could, all else being equal, provide water at a lower price than those
agencies which do.
Water agencies and sewer agencies typically lack the police power to
affect land use within their jurisdiction, as do general governments with
their zoning and planning powers. Therefore, water and sewer agencies are
not in a position to influence land use and development to correspond to
their own facilities’ planning. Conversely, the local general government
may have land use control, but in instances where water or sewer service is
provided by an independent single purpose agency, they have no control over
the extension of these services.
The ultimate resolution of this problem of diffused authority would be
consolidation of the service agencies and the general government into a
single multi-purpose government. Such a consolidation should enhance co-
operation and unify community growth policies. The major drawback to multi-
purpose government is selection of an appropriate scale. The government must
be large enough to address issues of regional complexity and yet small enough
to be perceived by local residents as an integral part of community life.
This is a complex subject far beyond the scope of this paper, but for an in-
teresting discussion of a possible approach to this problem the reader is
referred to Hagman’s concept of “regionalized-decentralism.” 59
APPROACHES TO MANAGING COMMUNITY GROWTH
Manipulation of sewer and water service has become a favored tool among
local governments wishing to influence the rate, type, direction, or total
amount of urbanization. 60 Many formalized growth control policies include
at least some reference to the potential influence of water and/or sewer
controls in the community development process. The use of water and sewers
in growth-regulating strategies is effective in controlling urbanization
because the service is not ambiguous; i.e., it is either available, or it
is not. In contrast, many other urban services, such as fire, police, and
health care, may be available throughout an area, but the level of service
197
-------
can be adjusted by policy, and the service area can be expanded or contracted
without any change in actual service capacity.
Virtually every community has in effect some form of policy on community
growth. The policy may be no more than a tacit consensus of the .governing
body’s favoring or opposing additional growth. Even where a coniiiunity growth
policy has not been formalized, most jurisdictions operate land use controls
which, in other communities, have been recognized and articulated as tools
for regulating community growth. 61 Examples include land use zoning, sub-
division regulations, capital improvement programming, and water supply
decisions.
There are essentially three approaches which have been utilized by
coniiiunities to intentionally influence community growth with availability
of sewer or water service. The first is to impose a limit on total community
growth by failing to provide adequate water supply or sewage treatment ca-
pacity to acconniodate any additional population beyond a foreseeable limit.
Such a “no growth” policy might be manifest as a refusal of a governing board
or city council to authorize the construction of a new water project or treat-
ment plant facility. In other cases, such as Mann County in 1971,62 propos-
als to augment capacity have been submitted to the voters and soundly de-
feated.
The effect of conservation on a total limitation of water supply or
sewage capacity is to extend the supply or capacity so that it can accommodate
more growth. As illustrated by the example of the Pacheco Valle project,
cited above, 63 the effect of water conservation in extending water supply to
accolml1odate additional dwelling units can be quite significant.
The second approach is to permanently withhold water or sewer service in
a given area due to a specific non-development policy of the local government.
Such policies are typically based on special characteristics of the land which
render it unsuitable for development, such as periodic flooding, unstable or
overly steep slopes, or very high potential for agricultural use. 64 Water
conservation practices would have no effect on altering policy to extend
service into such areas.
The third approach, and unquestionably the most sophisticated, is to
make selective extensions of water of sewer service into certain undeveloped
areas on the basis of a predetermined time frame or the occurrence of certain
events. This approach might be called a “phased growth strategy” or “perfor-
mance-standard growth regulation.” Sewer and water service are not to be
permanently withheld from these areas, but the decision of when and where to
extend utilities is made a discretionary act of the governing body. The
criteria used to make these decisions vary with each community, but they gen-
erally take into consideration the fiscal capacity of the government to
service new development and overall efficiency of the service system. The
capital improvement program developed by many local governments to plan major
infrastructure improvements (typically streets, sewer, water, and public
buildings) 65 is a de facto community growth regulation.
198
-------
If water arid sewer service are being sequentially extended into certain
areas as a means to control community growth, water conservation would seem
to have little potential effect on the process. Conservation throughout the
system means the capacity of the entire system is increased, and, therefore
it might allow the water agency to go ahead and extend service in advance of
a predetermined schedule. Presumably, however, the policy decision to extend
service in a sequential manner is based on many other factors and not on in-
cremental additions of water to the total supply. Therefore, the increase in
total supply simply means that the ultimate extension can serve more tern—
tory, or higher density, not that the next increment of service extension
should proceed.
CONCLUSION
There is nothing new in recognizing the strong relationship between water
and sewer services and land use. Goodman and Freund, in reference to a work
published in 1962 by Stuart and Weiss, 66 stated:
.little attention has been paid to alternative policies
concerning design, location, and timing of utility systems
to guide new growth in a predetermined direction. What has
been known intuitively for some time has been substantiated
by research: that the provision of utilities often acts as
a triggering device influencing the direction and rate of
land development. 67
In the decade which has passed since these words were published, we have
begun to see the intentional integration of water policy and land use policy
as a means of directly influencing the community growth pattern.
It is clear that the relationship between water policy and land use is
fairly direct, but not always simple. A number of issues pertaining to the
particular use of water conservation techniques as a water policy tool have
been raised here; certainly there are others. It is characteristic of these
issues that they strongly overlap wfth one another and that they involve one
or more of the parameters set out above as determinants of water availability
for community growth.
The success of the programs set up in various communities to control
growth is mixed. In many cases, it is much too early to tell how they will
actually work and what effects they may have. Also, in many cases it will
be difficult to measure success because the objectives of the policies have
never been quite clear. The chief limitation to effectively linking water
policy to land use policy is the apparent failure to take the necessary com-
prehensive view of a complex and broad problem area. Einsweiler, in a study
of 11 prominent growth management systems published in 1975,68 drew the con-
clusions (among several others) that:
• Most of these systems have a problem solving orientation and give
little consideration to the side effects of system operation
199
-------
• Most of the systems tend to ignore levels of government other than
the level of the agency proposing the system, and many even tend to
ignore neighboring agencies of similar purpose
• There is relatively little research on the effects of land use con-
controls in operation. No body of knowledge or insight is being re-
corded for future use by the operating agencies themselves, and no
comparative evaluations across systems have been made
The key conclusion is that the truly unique contribution made by the
more successful management systems is the integration of control elements.
The effective combined application of water policy and land use policy
to influence comunity growth depends on four key elements.
• Adoption of a community growth policy. Foremost among the pre-
requisites is articulation and adoption of a clear, comprehensive
community growth policy. Such a policy should be comprised of a
detailed statement of opportunities and constraints for community
development, community development objectives, and a strategy for
implementing these objectives.
• The ability to monitor factors influencinq community growth. In-
formation on general trends in the community, the status of community
resources (such as the availability of land and water), the effects
of external influences, and the effects of internal community
policies is essential to making informed, rational decisions on
community policy. Of particular importance in matters of water
and land use policy are the water consumption patterns of various
land users in the comunity and the changing pattern of land use.
Assumptions about water consumption patterns need to be verified
by empirical data to avoid counterproductive policy decisions. For
example, water use for 4gricultural purposes may be higher than
water use for residential purposes on a per-acre basis. Many
American power plants, metallurgical works, and chemical facilities
in the Western States have perfected techniques for water conser-
vation while achieving competitive costs of production, so the often—
quoted industry norms for water use can no longer be offered as a
valid basis for determining water demand in developing areas.
• Ability to integrate policy and implementation. The government
agencies which influence community growth, at the very least, on
a local level must be able to coordinate policies and programs as
a single unit. Functional as well as political consideration of
governing bodies is essential to avoid fragmented and contradictory
influences on community growth.
Single purpose agencies typically have not the inclination or
resources to look beyond a narrow definition of public respon-
sibility. The effective management of community resources to
achieve community objectives, regardless of what those objectives
200
-------
might be, requires multi-service government capable of balancing
conflicting objectives into a directed policy and acting upon it.
• Innovation and flexibility in water use and land use. “Necessity
is the mother of invention.” As loftg as water and land are a re-
latively plentiful resource, the inducement to use them casually
is strong. As these resources become more dear, we can anticipate
the use of them will be marked by increasing innovation. One
possible trend will be attempts to match land use mix with avail-
able water supply. Not only residential use, but all land uses
will be evaluated in terms of potential water demand and conserva-
tion. Water use characteristics will be a significant consideration
in formulating a community general plan.
Second, the feasibility of direct use of second quality water for
low-priority uses in a sequential flow from initial point of use
to ultimate treatment and/or disposal should be explored. The
possibility of using second quality water for ground water recharge
and simultaneously for community delineating greenbelts is highly
attracti ye.
Third, the concept of sequential use water flow suggests that cer-
tain land uses might be arranged to optimize the flow of water from
one use to another. Thus, the general plan might consider not only
the total acreage of each land use category in the community, but
the spatial location of these land uses in terms of their water
requirements relative to their neighbors.
Fourth, and finally, we may see an increasingly strong link between
community-wide policy and development project design in the matter of
water use. The essence of residential water demand is the consump-
tion habits of individual households. We can anticipate that con-
servation-oriented water agencies will exert whatever inducements
or leverage is available to them to influence the design of rLew
development such that their available water supply can be observed
and extended.
201
-------
END NOTES
1. Robert H. Freilich. “Development Timing, Moratoria, and Controlling
Growth: Preliminary Report,” Management and Control of Growth , vol. 2.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute, 1975.
2. Robert C. Einsweiler et al. Urban Growth Management Systems , PAS Reports
Nos. 309, 310. Washington, D.C.: American Society of Planning Off 1-
dais, 1976.
3. L.T. Wallace. “The Economic Demand for Water in Urban Areas,” California
Water , ed. David Seckier. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California
Press, 1971, p. 31.
4. Murray A. Mime. Residential Water Conservation . California Water
Resources Center R brt No. 35. Davis, Ca.: University of California,
1976, p. 19.
5. Ibid., p. 21.
6. U.S., Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Housing
Administration. A Study of Residential Water Use . by F.P. Linaweaver,
Jr., John C. Geyer, and Jerome B. Wolff. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1967.
7. U.S., Department f Coniiierce, Bureau of the Census.
8. Sacramento Union , 26 October 1978.
9. Interview with Ray Bradbury, North Mann County Water District, 12
November 1978.
10. Sacramento Union , 26 October 1978.
11. Milne, op. cit. , p. 19.
12. Milne’s figures are somewhat low relative to the figures cited earlier
in the paper for various locations in California. But, they are
approximations which average out variation from season to season and
year to year.
13. Mime, op. cit. , p. 158.
14. Refer to the cases of Mann and Sacramento Counties (Notes 8 and 9)
which were not atypical of many areas during the drought.
202
-------
15. California, Department of Water Resources. City of Los Angeles
Reductions in Water Demand Through Mandated and Self-Imposed Conserva-
tion Measures . 10 March 1977.
16. Murray A. Milne. “Residential Water Conservation in the United States,’
Proceedings of the International Conference on Water Resources Engineer-
jj , Bangkok, Thailand. 10-13 January 1978.
17. California Department of Water Resources.
18. U.S., Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in
1975 , by Richard C. Murray and E. Bodette Reeves. Circular 765.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977, p. 20.
19. Ibid , p. 3.
20. Ibid , p. 38.
21. California, Department of Water Resources. Water Conservation in
California . Bulletin 198, May 1976, p. 14.
22. Ibid , p. 12.
23. Murray A. Milne. Residential Water Recycling . California Water
Resources Center, University of California, Davis, 1978.
24. Interview with Ray Bradbury, North Mann County Water District,
13 November 1978.
25. Ibid .
26. This project was ultimately known as Pacheco Valle. At the time of this
writing, it has gone into the second phase.
27. North Mann County Water District. Water Service Facilities Construc-
tion Agreement . Novato, California, February 1975.
28. Bradbury, 13 November 1978.
29. Johanna Hirst and Thomas Hirst. “Capital Facilities Planning as a
Growth Control Tool and a Case Study of Metropolitan Washington, D.C.,”
Management and Control of Growth , vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: The Urban
Land Institute, 1975, p. 461.
30. The feasibility of using individual septic tanks for household waste
disposal and onsite wells for domestic water supply varies according
to the soil and substrata conditions, availability and quality of
ground water, and household water consumption habits. As a general rule
of thumb, allowing for adequate spacing between wells and leach fields,
autonomous water systems using conventional technology could not be
used at a density greater than one dwelling/three to five acres.
203
-------
31. Peter Warshall. Septic Tank Practices . Bolinas, Ca.: Mesa Press, 1976,
p. 66.
32. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), U.S. Code, vol.
33, secs. 466 et seq .
33. The centralizing tendency is evidenced in many of the regional areawide
waste treatment management plans developed under Section 208 of Public
Law 92-500.
The present development of “208” wastewater management plans provides the
ideal forum for addressing the issue of centralized v. decentralized
systems. Despite the fact that the “208” legislation requires that con-
sideration be given to “alternative” methods for treatment, the basic
planning approach has focused on conventional treatment methods and
has strongly reinforced the trend toward large-scale centralized systems.
34. A number of issues regarding reduces flow in waste lines remain to be
answered. For a partial inquiry, see John Nelson, “Change in TDS (Total
Dissolved Solids) Concentration Resulting from Use of Low Flush ( 3˝ Gall
Flush) Toilets in New Residential Construction, “ North Mann’s Little
Compendium of Water Saving Ideas , Novato, Ca.: North Mann County Water
District, 1976, p. 204. Also see U.S., Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development. Renovated Wastewater as a Supple-
mentary Source for Municipal Water Supply: An Economic Evaluation , by
Robert M. Clark. Cincinnati: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
October 1976.
35. John McMahon. Property Development . San Francisco, Ca.: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1976, p. 276.
36. William I. Goodman and Eric Freund. Principles and Practice of Urban
Planning . Washington, D.C.: InternatTonal City Manager’s Association ,
I96 S, p. 233.
37. Such interim measures were comon during the 1976-77 drought in Califor-
nia. At one point, a temporary pipe was placed on the roadway deck of
the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge over San Francisco Bay to deliver water
from the East Bay to Mann County.
38. University of California, Agricultural Issues Task Force. A ricu1tura1
Policy Challenges for California in the 1980’s, Special Publication 3250 .
(Berkeley, Ca.: University of California, 1978, p. 2.
39. An example of the adjudication process for determining water rights is
given in Stephen C. Birdlebough and Alfred Wilkins, “Legal Aspects of
Conjunctive Use in California,” California Water .
40. Other ground water rights used in California are overlying rights
(similar in concept to niparian rights in requiring beneficial use and
direct physical proximity of source and point of use) and prescriptive
rights, which come into existence when appropriations of ground water
204
-------
are made to the detriment of other overlying or appropriative holders
and continue for more than five years. Although it can be preceeded by
overlying and prescriptive rights, most municipal services and water
companies supplying domestic water were established for the exercise
of appropriative rights. See Birdlebough. op. cit .
41. “Beneficial” is ill-defined in virtually all water law. In most in-
stances, it has been interpreted as economic value. See California,
Constitution , art. 14, secs. 3 and 100.
42. Rosaleen Bertolino. Water Supply: Constraints and Opportunities
San Francisco, Ca.: Sierra Club, 1977, p. 17.
43. University of California, Agricultural Issues Task Force, op.cit.,
p. 20.
44 P.H. McGauhey. “Waste Water Reclamation--Urban and Agricultural,”
California Water , op,cit., p. 161.
45. W.H. Brurold. Public Attitudes Toward Reuse of Reclaimed Water .
Berkeley, Ca.: University of California, 1972).
46. McGauhey, op.cit. , p. 167.
47. Mime (1978), op.cit .
48. Ibid .
49. Craig Withee. Segregation and Reclamation of Household Wastewater at an
Individual Residence . Boulder, Co.: University of Colorado, 1975,
p. 55.
50. “Gray Water . . .The Hazards and the Hope,” Sunset Magazine , September
1977, p. 170.
51. California Department of Water Resources. Meeting Water Demands in
Sacramento County , Bulletin 104-11. Sacramento, Ca.: California
Department of Water Resources, June 1975
52. Edwin Roberts and Robert Hagan. Energy Requirements of Alternatives in
Water Supply, Use and Conservation : A Preliminary Report, California
Water Resources Center Report No. 155. Davis, Ca.: December 1975, p. 4 .
53. Maxwell Small. Meadow/Marsh Systems as Sewage Treatment Plants . Upton,
N.Y.: Brookhaven National Laboratory, November 1975.
54. Birdlebough, op.cit. , p. 268.
55. Walter E. Westman. Problems in Implementing U.S. Water Quality Goals .
Los Angeles, Ca.: University of California, April 1976.
56. Nelson, op.cit. , p. 258.
205
-------
57. This is particularly true in metropolitan areas of California which
rapidly urbanized after World War II. In the metropolitan area of
Sacramento County, for example, there are currently 18 water agencies;
the smallest covers less than one square mile.
58. This is not necessarily the case. There are several factors which
affect the relative costs of the alternative approaches.
59. Donald G. Hagman. Public Planning and Control of Urban and Land Develop-
ment . American Casebook Series. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing
Company, 1973, P. 258.
60. Hirst, op.cit .
61. Einsweiler, op.cit .
62. Janet D . Robinson. Just a Pipe Dream? Growth Management and Utility
Policy in California . Masters thesis, Cornell University, 1978, p. 73.
63. Refer to Note 26.
64. In California, such considerations are often included in the General Plan
elements as specified in State law, California Government Code , Section
65300, et
65. California, County of Sacramento. Capital Improvement Planning: A
Proposal for Coordinated Facilities Planning for the Sacramento County
Urban Policy Area. Sacramento, Ca.: County of Sacramento Planning and
Coninunity Development Department, 1978, p. 20.
66. F. Stuart Chapin and Shirley F. Weiss, eds. Urban Growth Dynamics in a
Regional Cluster of Cities . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962.
67. Goodman and Freund, op.cit. , p. 238.
68. Einsweiler, op.cit. , p. 285.
206
-------
ADDITIONAL SOURCES CONSULTED
U.S., Energy Research and Development Administration. Energy Analysis Pro-
gram. A Water Conservation Scenario for the Residential and Industrial
Sectors in California: Potential Savings of Water and Related Energy ,
by Peter Benenson. Berkeley, Ca.: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, l977.
California, Department of Water Resources. California Water . Bulletin
201-77, February 1978.
“Central Valley Project Losing $79,000 a Day.” Los Angeles Times , 2 February
1978.
Leopold, Luna B. Water, A Primer . San Francisco, Ca.: W.H. Freeman and
Company, 1974.
Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. “Wastewater Facilities Plan,
Summary of Final Draft,” November 1977.
Mime, Lorus, and Margery Mime. Water and Life . Athenium, 1965.
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, California. “Reconnais-
sance Study, Undeveloped Water Reuse Potential in the Joint Outfall Sys-
tem,” (draft), by John D. Parkhurst, April 1976.
Ramsay, Barbara A. “Utility Extensions: Timing and Location Control.
Management and Control of Growth , vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land
Institute, 1975.
Schaenman, Philip S., and Thomas Muller. Measuring Impacts of Land Develop-
ment . Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1974.
Sharpe, W.E., and P.W. Fletcher. The Impact of Water Saving Device Instal-
lation Programs on Resource Conservation Research Publication 98.
University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University, 1977.
Stroeh, J. Dietrich. “Water Conservation.” Address given at the Governor’s
Drought Conference, Los Angeles, California, March 1977.
Winneberger, John H.T., ed. Grey Water Treatment Practice, Part II . Santa
Monica, Ca.: Monogram Industries, Inc., 1975.
Voungner, V.B. Williams, T.E. and L.T. Green. Ecological and Physiological
Implications of Greenbelt Irrigation . Davis, Ca.: University of
California Water Resources Center, 1976.
207
-------
Water Conservation Through Wastewater Reuse
Kurt L. Wassermann
Chief, Office of Water Recycling
California State Water Resources Control Board
The 1976-77 drought in California focused attention on several manage-
ment options to meet the water needs of agriculture, industry, and the cities.
These options include measures to reduce consumption, water exchanges and
transfers, conjunctive use of ground and surface waters, cloud seeding, and
water reclamation. While the drought highlighted then need for water reclama-
tion, this is by no means a water management option for drought years only,
but should be considered as an integral part of the development of
California’s water resources. The purpose of this presentation is to describe
the role that water reclamation has played and will be playing in the manage-
ment of California’s water resources and to discuss some of the constraints
to water reclamation.
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN CALIFORNIA
In 1972, California had a net water demand of 31 million acre-feet
(ac-ft) (Figure 1). (One acre-foot covers 1 acre of land 1 foot deep and is
equivalent to 326,000 gallons.) Of this demand, 2.6 million ac—ft were ob-
tained from undependable supplies, such as overdrafting of grouna water
basins and importing from areas that will not be able to export water in the
future. In 1977, the second year of the drought, the shortage was a stagger-
ing 10.8 million ac-ft and was met mainly by ground water overdraft. By the
year 2000, the California State Department of Water Resources projects the
demand will be 39.4 million ac-ft with an annual shortage of about 4.3 million
ac-ft. This projection includes water supplies from several controversial
water development projects, such as the Peripheral Canal, and several reser-
voirs in the Central Valley, including Auburn Dam. The shortage could reach
6.3 million ac-ft annually if these projects are not implemented.
Californians produced about 3.1 million ac ft—of treated wastewater in
1975. This is likely to increase to 4.7 million ac—ft by the year 2000. All
of this is not reclaimable because the high content of salts or other con-
stituents make reclamation uneconomical. But by the year 2000 about 2.5
million ac—ft could be reclaimed in areas that now discharge into marine or
estuarine water. Reclaiming this wastewater could significantly reduce the
statewide water shortage.
208
-------
42.6
I I Available water supply
1 1 Annual water demand
(All figures in millions of acre ft/yr) 36 9
360
354 351
31 0
24 6
1972 1977 1990 2000 2020
Figure 1. Water Supply and Demand in California.
209
-------
BENEFITS OF WATER RECLAMATION
What benefits can be derived from the use of reclaimed water? To under-
stand how these benefits can be derived, one must first understand the complex
water picture in California. Two-thirds of our people live in the southern
third of the State. Two-thirds of the rainfall occurs in the northern third
of the State. And the most productive agricultural land in the nation, the
Central Valley, lies inland in the middle third. The history of water de-
velopment has seen water moved from where it is surplus in the northern and
eastern mountains to the Central Valley and the populated plains and coastal
areas of the south.
Using reclaimed water in California can:
• create new water supply. Water-short areas have resolved their water
needs by moving surplus supplies from naturally water-rich areas.
California is reaching the point where surface water surpluses are
more difficult to identify, more expensive to transport to areas of
need, and are subject to environmental considerations as to their
availability.
In the metropolitan Los Angeles-Orange County area of southern
California, 1.1 million ac-ft/yr are discharged to municipal sewers
for conveyance to a treatment or reclamation plant. Approximately
500,000 ac-ft/yr are considered economically reclaimable by reason of
location and quality. Of the 500,000 ac-ft/yr considered reclaim-
able, some 50,000 ac-ft/yr, or 10 percent, are now being reused. An
areawide water reuse study is now under way to establish the engi-
neering and economic feasibility along with an implementation plan
for maximum practicable reuse of the remaining 450,000 ac-ft/yr.
• improve water quality. The water quality effects of reuse in
California are twofold:
a) reduce or eliminate wastewater discharges which contain the
associated heavy metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and other
chemical compounds, into surface waters, and
b) reduce freshwater imports, equal in amount to the volume of
reuse.
Along the coastal plain of southern California the ultimate effect of
reuse could be as much as a 35 percent reduction in ocean discharges
and a 25 percent reduction in freshwater imports. Some of the im-
portant benefits of reuse are indirect and are received in distant
watersheds. The indirect effects are related to reduced freshwater
diversion from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It has been esti-
mated that water reuse as a statewide program can augment Delta out-
flow during critical dry years by 25 to 50 percent and preserve or
enhance the delicate salinity balance in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta.
210
-------
• Conserve energy. The energy required for pumping imported water a-
across the Tehachapi Mountains from northern California or transport-
ing it from the Colorado River to the heavily populated southern
coastal plain is enormous. In 1975 the State Water Project alone
used enough énergy--3,865,000,000 kilowatt hours--to meet the needs
of a city of 650,000. For example, the total energy cost for deliv-
ering one ac—ft of State Water Project to the Orange County Water
District is 3300 kilowatt hours. In comparison, to reclaim one ac—ft
of secondary treated wastewater, using complete tertiary treatment,
requires 1550 kilowatt hours/ac-ft--less than half of that required
for importation.
• Help protect wild and scenic rivers. More than 25 percent (about 18
million ac—ft of the total stream runoff in California is set aside
and not available for water supply development under exisiting law
for wild and scenic rivers in the north coastal area of California.
To the extent that water reuse reduces the need to construct reser-
voirs on these river systems, the effect will be to preserve exisit-
ing streamflow regimes, wildlife habitats, and recreational values.
• Reduce water cost. New surface water reservoirs developed in Cali-
fornia will cost substantially more than previous ones. Estimates of
the economic value of large-scale reuse in southern California range
from $200 to $300/ac-ft, in terms of the capital cost of equivalent
reservoir yield and the marginal cost of delivery to southern Cali-
fornia. In Mann County, an area hard hit by the recent drought,
costs of reclaimed water, primarily for landscaping uses, are esti-
mated to be approximately $167 to $284/ac-ft for three reclamation
projects now being planned. New alternative domestiá supplies for
Mann County are estimated to cost approximately $300 to $316/ac-ft.
These examples serve to point out that in water-short areas reclaimed
water can significantly reduce the cost of a new water supply.
OFFICE OF WATER RECYCLING
In October 1977 Governor Brown created the Office of Water Recycling
(OWR) within the State Water Resources Control Board in order to accelerate
water reclamation in California. At the same time the Governor established
a five-year statewide goal to triple the use of reclaimed water by 1982 from
the present 184,000 ac-ft/yr to 600,000--an amount equivalent to two-thirds
of the water needs of the City of Los Angeles.
To accelerate and encourage water reclamation activities, OWR has de-
veloped a four-point strategy:
• Concentrate on large-volume uses of reclaimed waters such as agri-
cultural and landscape irrigation, power plant cooling, and ground
water recharge
211
-------
• Emphasize uses with fewest constrints, such as industrial uses where
public health considerations can be minimized
• Encourage reclamation through grants from the Clean Water Construc-
tion Grants program for water reclamation facilities
• Inform potential users of reclaimed water of recent scientific and
engineering developments by serving as the State’s focal point for
information exchange and public education in the area of reclamation.
WATER REUSE IN CALIFORNIA
Wastewater reclamation is not a new concept in California. As early as
1918, the State Board of Public Health adopted specific regulations for the
use of treated sewage effluents for crop irrigation. The use of reclaimed
water has steadily increased, and today 184,000 ac-ft/yr are used by industry
(2 percent), for agricultural (65 percent) and landscape irrigation (17 per-
cent), for recreational lakes (1 percent), and for ground water recharge (14
percent) (Table 1).
Presently, in the California Clean Water Construction Grants Program,
116 reclamation projects are in various stages of planning, design, and con-
struction. Twenty-one projects have been completed and are providing 130,000
ac-ft/yr of reclaimed water for a variety of uses. If all of these projects
are successfully implemented, over 500,000 ac-ft/yr of reclaimed water could
be on-line by 1982 (Table 2). As nearly two-thirds of the wastewater gener-
ated in California is produced in the heavily populated urban centers, there
is a large increase in the amount of reclaimed water planned for such
typically urban needs as landscape irrigation (Figure 2).
CONSTRAINTS ON REUSE
While the need to expand the use of reclaimed water in California is
clearly evident, there are major constraints which must be resolved before
implementing large-scale wastewater reclamation. The complex constraints to
be overcome involve economic and environmental costs, institutional restric-
tions, and social questions. Independently they pose significant questions
which must be answered. Collectively their interrelationships further com-
plicate attempts to find solutions to the questions posed.
• Economics. There are three major economic constraints to increased
water reuse in California:
a) The cost of most of the present freshwater supply is relatively
low, which is due mainly to the supplies coming from the most
easily developed sources.
b) The price of freshwater the consumer pays is highly subsidized
(a number of agencies which operate development facilities charge
customers only a fraction of the cost of water. Indeed, some re-
tail purveyors use property taxes to reduce the price charged
customers).
212
-------
TABLE 1. WATER REUSE IN 1978
Number of Acre—feet!
Type of use operations year
Agriculture 216 120,000
Landscape irrigation 104 31,000
Groundwater recharge 4 26,000
Industry 21 4,000
Recreational impoundments 13 2,000
Other 2 1,000
Total 360 184,000
TABLE 2.
GRANT PROGRAM
RECLAMATION PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 1978
Number of
Reclaimed water flow,
Current status
projects
72
acre-feet/year
292,160
Planning
Design
Construction
Construction completed
14
30
21
137
36,920
54,510
130,130
513,720
Total
213
-------
Agricultural
reuse
Industrial Groundwater
reuse recharge
and/or
saline
barrier
Figure 2. Reclamation in the Clean Water Grant Program, October 1978.
200
1
Projects in
planning
I
1
Projects in design,
construction or
completed
0
ci
—
a),-
. a)
00
a) 0
77,941
50
37,606
Landscape
irrigation
2,245
Other
reuse
214
-------
c) The cost of using reclaimed water in many cases is substantial.
While treatment of wastewater to levels required by permits can be
written off as pollution control expenditures, any additional treat-
ment and the delivery system required for reclaimed water make its
cost substantial. An added cost of using reclaimed water of a lower
quality than freshwater may be incurred in terms of yield decrements
or lower production efficiency. Since the great majority of the re-
use potential lies in replacing freshwater, reclaimed water usually
must be price-competitive as well as cost competitive with freshwater.
When all three constraints are present in a reuse situation, a
formidable barrier presents itself.
However, from the State viewpoint the total cost of reclaiming waste-
water in most cases is less than the total cost of developing new
freshwater supplies.
• Health risks. Technology is available today to treat sewage so that
it meets traditional drinking water standards with respect to micro-
biological, chemical, and physical quality. Not enough is yet known
about virus removal, the long-term carcinogenic effects of ingesting
trace organic chemicals, and the accumulative effects of heavy metals.
An overriding consideration is the reliability of present-day tech-
nology and processes to provide reclaimed water that continuously
meet accepted standards. The reliability question has been answered
to a large extent for a price, by requiring redundancies, back-ups,
and fail-safe systems in treatment plant operations. Further research
research is needed to evaluate and improve the capability and relia-
bility of treatment processes and equipment to consistently produce
a uniform quality of reclaimed water.
Because of the major potential for using reclaimed water for ground
water recharge, health criteria must be developed where reuse in-
volves recharge of ground water basins serving as domestic water
supplies. Several years ago in California, an expert consulting
panel on health aspects of wastewater reclamation was established to
guide State agencies in developing a research program to establish
criteria and to plan and implement programs for the use of reclaimed
water for ground water recharge. This research is now under way and
should provide over the next few years a foundation of information
and safeguards to allow increased wailer reuse in California without
endangering public health or degrading water quality.
The farming community has been reluctant to use reclaimed water be-
cause of concern that the marketability of crops irrigated with re-
claimed water may be reduced. Health regulations do allow the use of
highly treated wastewater for irrigation of food crops, but many
times the cost of such highly treated water is not competitive with
other irrigation water The bulk of reclaimed water used in Cali-
fornia agriculture is for irrigation of pasture, fodder, fiber, and
seed crops where health concerns are minimized and where lower levels
of water quality can be provided by less costly treatment schemes.
215
-------
• Institutional/legal constraints. In most instances the agencies that
develop, deliver, and regulate water supply are separate from those
that collect, treat, and discharge wastewater. This is true for
agencies at the local level as well as at the State and Federal
levels. At the local level this presents a constraint because it is
often difficult to bring together the wastewater treatment agency
which produces the reclaimed water and the water purveyor who is usu-
ally the logical seller of reclaimed water. The constraint presented
separation at the State and Federal levels is more subtle, but just
as significant. For California, where the quantity of the water and
the quality of the water are strongly related, such as separation
presents a definite constraint, sometimes even at the policy level.
There are laws in California that were originally instituted to pro-
tect water purveyors, but which now present a restriction on reuse of
wastewater. For instance, one law prohibits the installation of a
duplicate distribution system, required for delivering reclaimed
water, without reimbursing the original water purveyor. Another in-
stitutional constraint to reuse is the adverse financial impact on
water suppliers which may be caused by the use of reclaimed water in
the supplier’s service area. Suppliers in a certain situation can
incur a revenue deficit and/or a loss of reclamation benefits.
All of these constraints exist, because up to now there has been no
accommodation for reclaimed water in the water supply business. As
institutional and legal changes are made to bring reclaimed water in-
to the total water supply picture, these constraints will disappear.
• Water rights. California law recognizes many kinds of water rights,
but there are three basic types of water rights:
a) Riparian right: the right of a property owner to take water
from a natural stream or lake bordering that property for use on
the riparian land (a right determined solely by location of the
land with respect to water supply)
b) Ground water rights: the rights of owners of land overlying a
ground water basin to withdraw water for reasonable beneficial
use on their overlying lands (another right determined by loca-
tion of land with respect to water supply)
c) Appropriation of surface waters: the right to take surface water
and apply it to a beneficial use (a right granted according to
the “first in time, first in right” doctrine by which priority
of water use, in time of shortage, is given the user who has had
the right the longest).
Under California law it has become apparent that the sale and dis-
tribution of reclaimed water may raise water rights questions re-
garding the ownership of the resource. These problems will arise
both prior to the treatment of the water and subsequent to its dis-
charge. Prior to treatment, a wastewater treatment facility may re-
216
-------
ceive the wastewater from local sanitation districts. These districts
normally convey the water through a sewage collector system after it
has been discharged by local municipal and industrial users. These
local users receive their water from a municipal water supply system,
a private water company, or through their own diversions (Figure 3).
The water may be used on the basis of ground water rights, surface
water rights, or contract rights with the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation
or the State Water Project. It is unclear under existing law who--
the owner of the wastewater treatment facility or the water
suppliers—-may rightfully claim ownership of the treated effluent.
Parties have commonly settled such questions through private agree-
ments. In order to encourage the sale and distribution of reclaimed
wastewater, it would be desirable to concentrate the ownership of the
resource in one entity rather than in multiple entities. The
Governor’s Commission to Review California Water Rights recently
urged that the owner of the wastewater treatment plant be granted the
right to sell or distribute the reclaimed water.
The subsequent reuse of reclaimed water raises a different set of
ownership issues. Commonly, downstream users will have obtained
rights to the return flow that upstream users have discharged into
the stream. Generally, upstream dischargers must respect the rights
of downstream users to the return flow.
Two exceptions to this rule occur where the owner of a wastewater
treatment plant initially discharges treated effluent with the prior
intent of recapturing the water (i.e., a reclamation program is
planned for implementation at some future date), or, where the source
of the water is imported water, and the water is recaptured within the
plant boundaries or the boundaries of the district, the treatment
plant owner may be able to market that water to the detriment of
downstream users. Existing law now provides substantial judicial
consideration of downstream rights to return flow, thus creating a
potential problem where the treatment plant owner proposes to produce
and market reclaimed water.
• Public acceptance. Any program that considers the use of reclaimed
water must taKe into account public attitudes toward such reuse and
questions concerning protection of public health. A recent study by
William Bruvold of the University of California, Berkeley, measured
public attitudes toward 25 general uses of reclaimed water in
California (Table 3). The use of reclaimed water for drinking and
food preparation got the strongest opposition. The lowest level of
opposition was directed to irrigation of golf courses and highway
greenbelts, and road construction. The study concluded that the ex-
tent of opposition is correlated with the likelihood or extent of
close personal contact. Fifty percent of the respondents in the
study opposed the use of reclaimed water because the water was con-
sidered psychologically repugnant or lacked purity (Table 4). The
public perceives that foul-smelling, bad-tasting, dirty water is
likely to contain harmful organisms or substances and that clear
217
-------
Groundwater
Appropriative use
L Riparian use
City
0
Water
treatment
plant
Sewage
treatment
Appropriation
Figure 3. Water Rights.
0
r__ 1
I Potential
I reclamation
I site I
Contract
0
0
218
-------
TABLE 3. PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD 25 USES OF RECLAIMED WATER
Percent opposed
Category of use to use
1. Drinking water 56.4
2. Food preparation in restaurants 56.0
3. Cooking in the home 54.5
4. Preparation of canned vegetables 54.1
5. Bathing in the home 38.7
6. Swimming 23.7
7. Pumping down special wells 23.2
8. Home laundry 22.8
9. Comercial laundry 21.9
10. Irrigation of dairy pasture 14.1
11. Irrigation of vegetable crops 14.0
12. Spreading on sandy areas 13.3
13. Vineyard irrigation 12.9
14. Orchard irrigation 10.1
15. Hay or alfalfa irrigation 7.5
16. Pleasure boating 7.3
17. Commercial air conditioning 6.5
18. Electronic plant process water 4.9
19. Home toilet flushing 3.8
20. Golf course hazard lakes 3.1
21. Residential lawn irrigation 2.7
22. Irrigation of recreation parks 2.6
23. Golf course irrigation 1.6
24. Irrigation of freeway greenbelts 1.2
25. Road construction 0.8
219
-------
TABLE 4. REASONS FOR OPPOSITION TO USES OF RECLAIMED WATER
Percent stating
Reason reason
1. Psychologically repugnant 29.2
2. Lack of purity 21.5
3. Can cause disease 9.8
4. Bodily contact undesirable 8.0
5. Undesirable chemicals added 5.1
6. Taste and odor problems
7. Cost of treatment unreasonable 0.8
220
-------
water, having no odor and a good taste, is likely not to be harmful.
The goal of scientists, engineers, and health professionals in con-
trolling the use of reclaimed water is to provide a reclaimed water
of suitable perceptual quality for the intended use that is free from
unacceptable risks posed by disease-causing organisms or substances.
Thus, the key to developing public acceptance of reclaimed water is a
strong public information and education program backed by solid
scientific, engineering, and medical evidence gained through well-
publicized research and demonstrations.
• Flow reduction/reclamation conflict. Individually, flow reduction
and reclamation are proven methois to extend existing water supplies;
however, when practiced simultaneously, these measures can act to
cancel their individual advantages. Flow reduction measures can
adversely impact the water quality and quantity requirements of a
reclamation project to the extent that where stringent conservation
measures are enforced, subsequent reclamation and reuse of the water
supply is not possible.
To further explore this conflict, consider the hypothetical situation
illustrated by Figure 4. This figure shows a typical situation where
a municipality draws its water supply from a reservoir, purifies the
water, and delivers it to the various urban users.
Following consumptive uses and losses to infiltration and evapora-
tion, the remaining wastewaters are discharged to the sewer system,
undergo treatment, and are discharged to a stream, land, or the
ocean. Typically, municipal water use adds about 300 parts!
million of total dissolved solids (TDS; i.e., salts) which are not
removed during primary or secondary wastewater treatment. Generally,
water with a TDS concentration of less than 500 parts/million can
be used safely by a farmer or industrial concern, but at higher levels
certain plants may suffer as a result of salt buildup in the soil,
or scaling of pipelines can result. Generally, conservation of
domestic water results in poorer quality reclaimed water because the
pollutant load is carried by a smaller volume of water, resulting in
higher constituent concentrations. Also, the quantity of reclaimed
water available to the user is decreased. For the agricultural or
industrial user in the hypothetical situation, if the user relies
totally on reclaimed water, municipal conservation will affect the
quantity and quality of the user’s water. The user in this example
may be forced to abandon, wholly or in part, his reclaimed water
supply and replace or augment it with a quantity of the municipal
supply.
In summary, there may be cases where the implementation of flow re-
duction measures would worsen the user’s reclaimed water quality, re-
quiring significant capital costs to bring in fresh water for dilu-
tion. It is difficult to generalize about the cost or water quality
impacts resulting from flow reduction or reclamation. Either water
conservation alternative results in significant benefits. It is
221
-------
Reservoir
Water
treatment
Consumption
&
losses
I
I
Reclamation
Wastewater —
treatment
Disposal
Figure 4. The Flow Reduction/Reclamation Conflict.
Reclaimed
water
user
222
-------
therefore necessary to analyze feasibility of various water conser-
vation alternatives and select the most cost-effective program for
implementation.
INCENTIVES FOR REUSE
Why would agriculture, industry, or a municipality want to use reclaimed
water? What are the incentives? The incentives for a particular reuse
operation are dependent on local conditions; however, in general terms the
incentives fall into five categories:
• Reliability of supply. Wastewater reclamation provides a dependable
supply of water to the user year-round.
• Compatibility with water policies/legislation. The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act requires the application of the best practic-
able waste treatment technology, including reclaiming and recycling
water. Federal water policy now mandates that conservation measures
be made mandatory for facilities receiving Federal grants. At the
State level, legislation has been passed requiring the use of re-
claimed water where economically and technically feasible in lieu of
potable domestic water for landscape irrigation.
• Marketability of water. Municipalities, faced with major costs for
effluent disposal facilities, have found that selling reclaimed water
to various markets aids in offsetting the costs of wastewater treat-
ment. Also, farmers realize savings in fertilizer costs by using
nutrient-rich reclaimed water for irrigation.
• Reduced pretreatment needs. For industry, in-plant recycling and
reuse means less wastewater to be treated and discharged to the
sewer system--resulting in a savings of waste treatment costs.
• Lower sewer charges. Again, industrial recyclers realize significant
reduction in sewer charges by reducing the quantity of wastewater
discharged to municipal sewer systems.
The following case studies serve to illustrate these points for a variety
of reclaimed water producers, users, and industrial recyclers.
• Burbank Power and Light. About 10 years ago, the City of Burbank was
sending all its wastewater to the City of Los Angeles for treatment
and disposal. To reduce the cost of wastewater disposal and to con-
serve water, Burbank built a 7 mgd sewage treatment facility with
outflow from the plant going to supply the 1.2 mgd cooling water re-
quirements of the Burbank Power and Light generating station.
The cost of city-supplied water is much more expensive than reclaimed
water. City water currently sells at $135/ac-ft, and reclaimed
water at $25/ac-ft. In terms of costs for water purchase and chem-
ical treatment to control pH, scaling, hardness, and coliform, total
cost savings to the power plant amount to $6300/month.
223
-------
• Simpson Paper Company. Simpson Paper Company’s Shasta Mill near
Anderson, California, operates under some of the most stringent water
quality regulations in the United States. The regulations are tight
because the mill discharges to the Sacramento River, a highly produc-
tive fish spawning ground. Wastewater discharges resulting from a
plant expansion in 1974 could not economically be treated sufficient-
ly to meet discharge standards, so the company investigated the use
of secondary effluent for irrigating croplands.
Presently the mill produces 2.6 mgd of reclaimed water for irrigation
of 650 acres of cropland. A fully automated flood irrigation system
is used to supply the water to the land, achieving good yields of
oats, wheat, and field corn.
This land has highly permeable soil, which allows the effluent to
percolate rapidly to the riverbed. During the recent drought when
Sacramento River flows were below 5000 cubic feet/second, the
Shasta Mill was able to meet the most stringent conditions, prescribed
in its discharge permit.
• Irvine Ranch Water District. In 1972 the Irvine Ranch Water District
(IRWD) adopted a Water Resources Master Plan which provided for
maximum use of the District’s total water resources, including fresh
water supply, the collection and treatment of wastewater, and the
extensive use of reclaimed water. In assessing options for disposing
of its effluent--primary dependence on either reclamation and reuse
or ocean disposal--the District opted for the total reclamation
alternative. Two key points became evident in the analysis of the
alternatives. First, the degree of treatment had become virtually
the same for the two alternatives largely because of increasingly
stringent water quality standards for ocean disposal. Second, the
cost of the total reclamation program was $1.25 million less/year
than the ocean disposal route--mainly because IRWD could earn a
potential $4 million annually by selling reclaimed water. Presently,
IRWD supplies 5 mgd of reclaimed water for irrigation of citrus
orchards, vegetable crops, landscape irrigation in parks, conununity
greenbelts, and golf courses.
IRWD sells reclaimed water for $69.06/ac-ft, compared to the $143.75!
ac-f t charge for Colorado River water imported for domestic uses.
High in nitrogen and phosphorous, the reclaimed water is calculated
to have a fertilizer value of $30/ac-ft, which at prevailing
irrigating volumes comes to about $120/acre/yr. To the farmer this
means fertilizer cost-savings on top of the water cost-savings ob-
tained by purchasing reclaimed water at half the price of freshwater.
• Hewlett-Packard Corporation. An excellent example of in-plant water
recycling is the Santa Rosa Division of Hewlett-Packard Corporation,
which recycled 4 million gallons of water during 1977. The recycled
water is used for irrigation of plant grounds, cooling tower make-up,
224
-------
and machinery cooling. Future plans call for reclaimed water to be
used for toilet flushing for the firm’s work force of over 1400
employees.
The industrial waste treatment and recycling program saves Hewlett
Packard $30,000 yearly in reduced water and sewer charges.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, let me review the key points discussed in my presentation.
The benefits to be gained from water reuse are manyfold: creating new lower
cost water supplies, conserving energy and natural resources, and enhancing
water quality. It would be misleading to assume, however, that using re-
claimed water does not bring with it serious concerns: economic constraints,
institutional barriers and legal hassles over water rights, concerns over
health risks, and public reluctance. It has been shown that in many situa-
tions wastewater reclamation and water reuse make sense. We are proceeding
to encourage wastewater reclamation in California, but in doing so, we cannot
neglect other methods of water conservation: water-saving plumbing fixtures,
improved irrigation efficiency, and realistic water pricing. Water conserva-
tion through wastewater reuse can reduce the need for development of addition-
al water supplies and can provide significant water quality benefits. In
situations where reclamation and flow reduction measures may conflict, cost-
effectiveness of the various management options must be assessed.
225
-------
Water Conservation and Land
Use Planning
Ronald G. Alderfer, Ph.D.
Harland Bartholomew and Associates
I NTRODUCT I ON
The rate of water consumption in any given region is ultimately deter-
mined by a series of interacting decisions, ranging from the individual
household member to the State or regional agency granting water withdrawal
permits. There are, of course, many steps within this continuum, each with
varying impact on the overall consumption rate.
The purpose of this paper is to examine ways in which land use and land
use planning decisions influence water consumption and present water
conservation opportunities. Whether these decisions are made by private
landowners, by official planning agencies, or both, the potential impact
on water consumption is great. Full awareness of this impact is an essential
ingredient of any strategy for water conservation.
This paper is organized around two central questions:
• How do different land uses affect the hydrodynamics of a given
watershed?
• How can the land use planner maximize opportunities for water
conservation in the use and management of land and water
resources?
The hydrologic/ecologic context in which water consumption and water
conservation must be examined are first discussed, followed by a methodology
for gathering hydrologic and land use data. Finally, criteria are described
for evaluating data collected in terms of water conservation opportunities.
WATERSHED HYDRODYNAMICS
Our purpose here is to sumarize briefly the principal components of
watershed hydrodynamics, to identify some of the significant control points
in the dynamic system, and to determine how different land uses and land
use decisions influence these controls.
-------
For our present purpose, it is important to visualize any given water-
shed as a bounded area with numerous hydrologic inputs, a capacity for dynamic
storage, and numerous outputs. Figure 1 illustrates this generalized system
schematically.
Inf low
Depending on the position in a particular watershed, inflow through
streams, channels, rivers, etc., may account for the overwhelming share of
total hydrologic input (as in the New Orleans Metropolitan Area),or it may
account for only a very small portion (as in Rocky Mountain National Park).
Annual precipitation and watershed area upstream of the region under
consideration are the twin factors governing inflow. Engineering modifi-
cations in the watershed (dams, canals, relatively large withdrawal, etc.)
may change the pattern of flow significantly; such modifications may also
significantly change the total annual quantity of flow, particularly on
smaller and/or drier watersheds.
Any strategy to conserve water at a regional level should include a
careful assessment of total annual inflow, seasonal patterns of flow,
inflow in relation to precipitation, modifications in the watershed which
alter pattern and quantity of inflow to the region in question (including
significant land use changes as well as channel modifications), and the
probable magnitude and direction of inflow changes.
Precipitation
The importance of this input to the hydrodynamics of a watershed is
self-evident. With the possible exception of urban “rain shadows” under
recent investigation, cultural influences on precipitation are very small.
Total annual precipitation in a region is a naturally determined (though
not necessarily a constant) quantity.
Infiltration
This is one of the most critical hydrodynamic processes so far as water
conservation is concerned, in that it determines the quantity of precipi-
tation and snowmelt which enters the dynamic ground water storage component.
Infiltration is also a process over which there can be significant cultural
influence. Factors affecting the extent of infiltration include land slope,
vegetation, soil texture, soil moisture status, rate of precipitation,
depth to bedrock, and depth to water table. Land use and land surface
management have a strong influence on infiltration, as shown in the
subsequent section.
Runoff
Precipitation and snowmelt not taken into the ground by infiltration
are lost to the imediate ground surface by runoff. This water may collect
in shallow basins and percolate into the ground elsewhere in the watershed;
it may enter ponds, lakes, or reservoirs in the watershed; or it may enter
swales, streams, channels, rivers, etc.,and leave the watershed as outflow.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
(Watershed boundary) — J
Figure 1. Generalized Hydrodynamic Scheme for Watersheds.
228
-------
There is often a dynamic ground water storage reservoir (aquifer) closely
associated with the water conveyance systems. This may simply be sand and
gravel deposits lining the channel which are well-connected hydrologically
to the open channel itself.
One of the most significant hydrodynamic impacts of urban development
is an increase in runoff caused by the construction of impervious surfaces.
Runoff from urban land surfaces is generally two to five times that of
unimproved land areas (see Table 1). Site design and surface management
techniques can be altered to greatly decrease runoff, and these will be
discussed at some length in a later section of this paper.
Evapotranspi ration
Evapotranspiration is the combined loss of water vapor from land and
water surfaces (evaporation) and from plant surfaces (transpiration). While
the total quantity of water vapor lost each year from plant surfaces may be
comparable to that lost from land and water surfaces, the relationship
depends strongly on vegetation type and density, as well as physical prop-
erties and moisture content of soils.
The rate of evaporation and transpiration from any given surface is
determined by the difference in water vapor pressure between the evaporating
(or transpiring) surface and the surrounding air. This difference in
vapor pressure is generally enhanced under sunny conditions, when direct
solar radiation elevates soil and plant surface temperatures well above
air temperature, thereby increasing the vapor pressure difference. Further-
more, regions with consistently sunny climates also tend to have drier air,
thereby further increasing the vapor pressure difference between evaporating
surfaces and air.
Water Consumption
It is important to examine overall “consumption” of water within a
watershed. In many cases “consumption” simply refers to a temporary di-
version of water from surface or ground water reserves to industrial,
residential, or agricultural uses, some or all of which may be returned
to storage or conveyance systems within the watershed. In certain industrial
uses, sizable quantities may be exported from the watershed for ultimate
consumption or discharge elsewhere.
In estimating total water consumption by different land uses, it is
reasonable to assume that each person in residential areas uses 75 gallons/day
(gpd). Regionally-determined data may reveal significantly different
averages, particularly in response to water conservation programs. Indus-
trial water consumption is highly industry—specific, but Table 2 shows
ranges and estimates for selected industries. Consumption through
irrigation is too variable for generalized estimates.
22
-------
TABLE 1. TYPICAL RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR DIFFERENT LAND USE TYPES
Land use type
Business
Downtown
Nei ghborhood
Residential
Si ngl e—farnily
Multiunits, detached
Multiunits, attached
Residential suburban
Apartment
Industrial
Light
Heavy
Parks, cemeteries
Playgrounds
Railroad yard
Unimproved
Runoff coefficient
0.70-0.95
0.50-0.70
0.30-0.50
0.40-0.60
0.60-0.75
0.25-0.40
0.50-0.70
0.50-0.80
0.60-0.90
0.10-0.25
0.20-0.35
0.20-0.35
0.10-0.30
Character of surface
Pavement
Asphalt and concrete
Brick
Roofs
Lawns, sandy soil
Flat, up to 2% grade
Average, 2-7% grade
Steep, over 7%
Lawns, heavy soil
Flat, up to 2% grade
Average, 2-7% grade
Steep, over 7%
0.70-0.95
0.70-0.85
0.75-0.95
0.05-0.10
0. 10-0. 15
0.15-0.20
0. 13—0. 17
0.18-0.22
0.25-0.35
Source: Hjelmfelt and Cassidy, 1975. Hydrology for Engineers and Planners ,
page 114.
230
-------
TABLE 2. WATER CONSUMPTION BY SELECTED INDUSTRY TYPE
Process Consumption
Cannery
Green beans, gal/ton 20,000
Peaches and pears, gal/ton 5,300
Other fruits and vegetables, gal/ton 2,000-10,000
Chemical industries
Ammonia, gal/ton 37,500
Carbon dioxide, gal/ton 24,500
Gasoline, gal/1,000 gal 7,000-34,000
Lactose, gal/ton 235,000
Sulfur, gal/ton 3,000
Food and beverage industries
Beer, gal/1,000 gal 15,000
Bread, gal/ton 600-1,200
Meat packing, gal/ton live weight 5,000
Milk products, gal/ton 4,000-5,000
Whiskey, gal/1,000 gal 80,000
Pulp and paper
Pulp, gal/ton 82,000-230,000
Paper, gal/ton 47,000
Textiles
Bleaching, gal/ton cotton 72,000-96,000
Dyeing, gal/ton cotton 9,500-19,000
Source: Metcalf and Eddy, 1972. Page 32.
231
-------
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION
It is vitally important in regional strategies for water conservation to
examine the hydrodynamic system(s) in the context of natural and/or man-
modified ecosystems. The ultimate success or failure of water resource
planning is shown in the function of ecosystems of which water is a vital
part. The following paragraphs summarize the major categories of the goods,
benefits, and services of ecosystem functions.
Production of Marketable Goods
This is one of the most obvious and direct benefits of ecosystem
function. It includes all food materials, even though most of these materials
are taken from highly modified and cultivated ecosystems. This category also
includes all timber and natural fiber plants as well as nonrenewable
minerals.
Genetic Potential for Crops and Domesticated Animals
This is a less direct benefit than marketable goods, but it is vitally
important to human survival. All plants and animals used by man for food
are evolutionary products of diverse ecosystems throughout the world. While
the genetic stock of plants and animals now under domestication or cultiva-
tion is very large, it would be foolhardy to believe that no new, naturally
occurring strains are needed to satisfy the world need for food in the
face of potentially significant climate shifts in the years ahead. If
climates do change, the need for new stocks may be very large indeed.
Building of Sofis
Agricultural practices throughout the world have caused and continue
to cause very high erosion rates in many areas. Since soils are the
byproduct of natural and man-modified ecosystem events such as weathering,
organic matter accumulation, and mineralization, it is vitally important
that we not only protect existing soil reserves, but that we protect the
processes which build new soils as well. There are obvious reasons why
the protection of soils and soil building is important to natural and
man-modified ecosystems.
Mineralization of Organic Residues
This service represents a vital link in the natural recycling of
organic materials. In most instances the mineralization process also
provides an important secondary benefit to growing plants; i.e., the
intermediate breakdown products serve as soil conditioners and thereby
enhance plant growth.
Natural Purification of Surface Water and Ground Water Resources
Most waterways serve significant water purification roles, but the
waste loads they receive are usually not so high that the purification role
overshadows all other roles. Sedimentation, decomposition of organic
232
-------
residues, and reaeration of water to replace the oxygen consumed by micro-
organisms in breaking down organic wastes are common to both “natural”
and “designed” treatment. Natural purification proceeds constantly and
quietly in most streams and waterways, and its benefits are sometimes not
realized until disturbance slows the process or vastly increases the need
for purification. Natural purification also takes place in marshes, local
depressions which are periodically flooded, and other ground water recharge
areas, thereby protecting ground water quality. One of the more insidious
impacts of concentrated urbanization in a region is the vast change it
brings in the quality and quantity of ground water recharge.
Attenuation of Air Pollutants
Vegetation in natural and man-modified ecosystems traps large quantities
of air pollutants on leaves, stems, trunks, and branches. Local meteorolog-
ical conditions, together with the type and density of vegetation, determine
the effectiveness of this natural filtering function.
Modulation of the Hydrologic Cycle
Vegetation usually strongly modifies numerous processes in the
hydrologic cycle. The kinetic energy of rainfall itself is attenuated,
robbing it of force capable of loosening near-surface soil particles and
initiating erosion. Roots penetrating the soil enhance ground water infil-
tration during and after storms, reducing runoff and enhancing natural
stream recharge between rainfall events. Vegetation also prevents or
greatly reduces the parching and hardening effects of direct solar radiation
on the soil surface. Shading not only prevents excessive evaporative loss
from the soil, but it also helps keep the soil surface in a more receptive
condition so that rainfall can infiltrate the soil more effectively.
Amelioration of Near-Surface Climate Extremes
Vegetation prevents hot and dry extremes during summer and cold, de-
siccating extremes during winter. This amelioration has far-reaching effects
on continued plant growth and development and on the development and suste-
nance of wildlife habitats.
Natural Control of Pest Populations
While ecosystem dynamics are not understood well enough in most cases
to allow full understanding and control of pest populations by natural means,
there is reason to believe that this form of control will become increasingly
important in the future. Protecting large tracts of land and water which
retain natural or near-natural conditions throughout all parts of the world
may become one of the wisest investments from the standpoint of pest popu-
lation control. To ignore the service that natural systems play in this
respect and to assume that chemical and other artificial means will continue
to be adequate in the future is naive.
233
-------
Recreation and Aesthetic Enjoyment
Benefits of this sort vary greatly, of course, with vegetation, terrain,
land use history, proximity of suitable land and water areas, climatic
conditions, etc.
Study and Research
Almost any ecosystem offers some potential for ecological study and
research, but in many cases the systems in greatest demand in this regard
are those which have suffered the least disturbance from the natural
condition.
CONCEPTUAL APPROACH
Our discussion so far has dealt with the hydrologic/ecologic setting in
which water conservation measures must be identified. We are now prepared
to establish a conceptual framework for water conservation planning.
Step 1: Hydrologic Inventory
In this step all water resources within the watershed or other
study area in question are identified by type (pond, lake, canal,
aquifer, reservoir, river, marsh, etc.), by size (surface area,
volume, capacity), flow rates (inflow, outflow), turnover times
(where appropriate), hydrologic linkages, watershed area, charac-
teristics of storm frequency and intensity in the region, rates of
diversion and/or consumption (including irrigation, export, recycle,
etc.) and any plans or projects for hydrologic modifications.
Step 2: Hydrodynamic Modeling
For the present purpose, a model may be viewed simply as a
reasonably complete concept of how elements of a system interact
with each other. This does not preclude the use of computerized
simulation models or other computer-assisted models, but it is
beyond the scope of this paper to explore specific computer-assisted
modeling. (One of many reasonable simulation approaches is described
by D.G. Jamieson, 1975.)
Our task at hand is to organize the hydrologic and hydrodynamic
facts about a given watershed in such a way that major connections
are shown between water resource elements. A starting point may
be the scheme shown in Figure 1. For a particular watershed it may
be necessary to enumerate each principal inflow route, for example,
including estimated total or relative average flow rates, each major
storage element (lake, reservoir, lagoon), principal aquifers, and
so forth. The level of detail developed in the modeling process
must be consistent with the specific project objectives. For example,
investigating regionwide opportunities for water conservation may
234
-------
initially require a much more general level of organization than
a study designed to maximize recharge of a particular aquifer.
To the maximum extent possible, quantitative data should be
incorporated into the hydrodynamic modeling process. For example,
year-round estimates of water loss from a large reservoir through
evapotranspiration in relation to such losses as outflow, diversion
for irrigation, industry, and domestic consumption would generally
be useful in identifying conservation opportunities.
Whenever possible, all significant transfer in the hydrodynamic
system should be identified with respect to control parameters. For
example, diversion of water from a river or lake for irrigation or
industry is under complete manmade controls and generally well-
monitored. Outflow from either a specific water body or the
watershed itself may be under partial manmade control, or the control
may be entirely natural, depending on hydrologic factors such as
rainfall or channel gradient.
Step 3: Identification of Ecosystem Function
Having developed a fairly complete “hydrologic story,” it is
now necessary to examine the principal ecosystem function associated
with land and water areas in he watershed. Rivers and larger
streams may support a particular array of aquatic species with
recreational and wildlife benefits; they may also assimilate
partially treated wastewater discharges, recharge a set of shallow
aquifers, and supply water for (or receive return flow from)
irrigation systems. Creeks and small streams may serve slightly
different functions. Land area within the watershed will invariably
support a range of natural and man-modified ecosystem functions
including agricultural production, support of residential, commer-
cial, and industrial land uses, and recreational open space.
Step 4: Description of Land Use-Hydrologic Linkages
This step identifies land use impact on watershed hydrodynamics.
The level of detail required for analysis depends on the specific
objective. An exhaustive watershed study would show the land use or land
uses of each basin and sub-basin within a watershed. It would identify
the collection points, conveyance channels, and flow patterns for
each drainage unit together with the land uses of that unit.
The impact of land use on hydrodynamics can be staggering. One
study showed that urbanization accompanying a population density
change from 100 to 13,000 persons/square mile caused a 10-fold
increase in peak runoff rate, while the time to peak flow decreased
10-fold (Brater and Sherrill, 1975). The same study showed that
“hydrologically significant impermeable area” increased linearly from
approximately one percent at a population density of 1,000 persons!
square mile to approximately 10 percent at a density of 7,500 persons!
square mile. For a drainage area of 100 acres receiving 42 inches
235
-------
of rainfall, a change in runoff ratio from 10 percent to 50
percent leads to an increase in total annual runoff of over
456 million gallons. Such a change brings two hazards: it
increases the probability of downstream flooding, and it dimi-.
nishes ground water reserves on which stream base flow depends.
Furthermore, conveying all or major portions of this runoff
via storm sewers requires a large financial coniiiitment and
delivers runoff to receiving streams even faster than via
surface drainage.
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate a schematic approach to the
identification of land use-hydrodynamics linkages. The most
effective form for collecting and analyzing this information
may not necessarily be that shown here, but the conceptual
approach is illustrated.
Step 5: Identification of Water Conservation Opportunities
This is the ultimate step, but one which must be taken
repeatedly as development (and renewal) takes place.
The primary goal of water conservation in the present
context is to minimize ground water withdrawals while maximiz-
ing the recharge of natrual ground water reserves. Ideally,
there would be an ongoing attempt to monitor both the total
withdrawal of water from a region and the effectiveness of
recharge in relation to the total withdrawal. In some cases
monitoring the water surface elevation of a crucial surface
or ground water reserve could serve as a good indicator of this
relationship. A regional hydrodynamic model would be parti-
cularly useful in determining which resources would best
indicate the regional water balance.
a. Ground water recharge. One of the most important
steps that can be taken at a regional level is the
maintenance of flood plain areas as unpaved open
space. There are many other benefits of such a
policy, of course, but the infiltration capacity
of these areas is vital to the replenishment of
regional ground water. Depending on regional
geology, there may be significant ground water
recharge zones in areas well-removed from large
rivers. These should also be identified and
protected from uses which would decrease infiltration
capacity.
b. Stormwater management. The stormwater sewer has
become firmly entrenched in municipal engineering
practice, and indeed it offers great convenience to
those who live in and travel through built-up
areas during and after storms. This convenience
however, causes a major shift in the local hydrodynamic
-------
Runoff:
Undeveloped land 4 small
1 15 acres
3,000 acres; R = 0.10 30 million gallons capacity)
Fixe ilIw elevatio
Cropland Several grassed waterways ;
8,000 acres; R = 0.25 3 heavily silted impoundments
Single-family residential Partially served by
4,000 acres; A 0.35 storm sewer
Multi-family residential Partially served by
3,000 acres; R = 0.55 combined sewer
Commercial-Industrial Partially served by
2,000 acres; R = 0.85 storm sewer
(River)
(River)
Note: A = Runoff coefficient
Figure 2. Hypothetical Land Use — HydrodynamiC Linkages (I).
237
-------
Evapotranspi ration
Irrigation Cropl and — 4,000 acres
500 million gallons/year 5% Return flow
-4
Single-family residential Includes combined
3 million gallons/day sewer flows
Withdrawal,
treatment
Multi-family residential Includes combined
2.5 million gallons/day sewer flows
Pumpage Industrial Pre-treatment
from wells 20 million gallons/day
-I
(River)
____________ Treatment and 40 million
discharge gallons per day
Figure 3. Hypothetical Land Use — Hydrodynamic Linkages (II).
238
-------
system. In particular, it rapidly transfers what
would otherwise become ground water to the nearest
channel or stream capable of bearing the expected
flows. It may be quite possible in certain areas
to use alternatives to the storm sewer. While each
setting would require site-specific design and
engineering, options worthy of consideration include
rooftop retention, with gradual release to suitable
land areas following storms; surface reservoirs, ponds,
or tanks with similar release; subsurface structure
or cavities which either discharge slowly by gravity
or are pumped for discharge to suitable land areas;
grass-covered swales or drainage channels with either
slow natural release or controlled release; rock- or
gravel-filled ditches, wells, or other cavities which
receive runoff and gradually discharge to groundwater.
Another alternative involves the use of existing
storm sewers to collect and convey stormwater from
built-up areas and discharging flows to suitable land
areas throughout the region instead of to streams and
rivers. This could be designed either as an irrigation
system or simply as a ground water recharge system.
c. Co-siting of land uses to enhance reuse. While opportu-
nities of this sort are site-specific and usually
require unique design, regional planning agencies should
always be prepared to discuss such possibilities with water
users. Industries requiring low-quality process water
could be sited near residential stormwater outlets.
Stormwater could be used as is or treated in settling
basins and/or with swirl concentrators installed at the
storm sewer outlet.
Another opportunity exists with food processing
industries, which could be sited in the vicinity of
cropland areas requiring irrigation. The quality of
this wastewater may require little or no treatment
prior to application.
Residential areas can be sited in such a way that
cropland, pasture, or recreational open space could benefit
from stormwater collected in the built-up area. Swirl
concentrators could be used to treat the effluent if it
were collected in storm sewers; settling basins could
also be used to treat and hold water for irrigation.
Industrial activities generating large quantities
of wastewater could be sited in the vicinity of mineral
processing activities. Industrial wastewater with or
without pretreatment could be used for washing, trans-
porting, and sorting of materials.
239
-------
d. Site design. This stage of any project development
invariably presents many opportunities for water
conservation. Under ideal conditions each site
would be designed in such a way that all precioi-
tation received on the site would be absorbed or
retained there or conveyed to off-site resources
through the hydrologic linkages which existed before
development. Similarly, runoff or inflow received
by the site should be accomodated by hydrologic
linkages which existed before development. Further-
more, an ideal site design would require little or no
irrigation to support improvement and/or protective
plantings; i.e., prudent use would be made of
precipitation received on the site or available to
the site without freshwater withdrawal.
Specific elements of site design which should be
considered include the preservation (to the maximum
extent possible) of surface features which provide for
conveyance and infiltration of surface water; the use
of berms, swales, and grassed waterways to carry
surface water in directions that lie in or close to
natural contours; the use of porous pavements where
hardstands are required; the use of percolation
storage; the use of parking lot depressions with
undersized outlets for detention and slow release;
and the use of lakes and ponds with adequate over-
flow capacity to prevent excessive discharge during
and after storms. Additional information on site
design options which can be used to conserve water
is available in numerous publications [ Heaney, et al.,
(1975), Tourbier and Westmacott (1974), and Urban
Land Institute, et al., (19751].
EVALUATING THE WATER CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES
Having collected the information described in the preceding section, it
will be possible to begin what should become an ongoing process: namely,
an evaluation of water conservation opportunities. The detailed procedure
used for this evaluation will, of course, vary considerably from one region
to the next, but several basic criteria app1y. These criteria are described
below.
Conservation effectiveness
The basic questions here is simply ,”How much water will be conserved by
the proposed action?H This assumes that some baseline value of water use
is available and that a quantitative estimate of savings can be made. In
some cases the degree of accuracy of estimates may not be high, but the
best estimate should be made as well as indication of estimate accuracy.
It becomes the central argument.
240
-------
Cost of Implementation
Again, some cases may arise in which the anticipated costs of a particu-
lar strategy may be long-term, secondary costs with relatively low accuracy.
For example, the cost of excluding all further development in an aquifer
recharge area may be difficult to assess. Due regard should be given both
to primary and secondary cost factors.
Consistency with Existi Land Use Plans or Projections
Water conservation may not have been a major determining factor in
pre-existing land use planning/projection efforts in many regions. For
this reason, opportunities for land use adjustments to conserve water may
or may not be consistent with pre-existing plans. For example, siting of
food processing industries in the vicinity of cropland which requires
irrigation may conflict with planned or projected uses of agricultural land.
This conflict must be examined carefully in light of anticipated water
conservation gains.
Maintenance ReQuirements
It is expected that certain water conservation opportunities will
require ongoing maintenance. Linking industries capable of recycling process
water may increase operation and maintenance costs for both or all industries
concerned. If special treatment or holding is required, maintenance costs
may be considerable and will require careful assessment in light of pro-
curement cost and process effectiveness.
Environmental Effects
While many water conservation measures can have positive environmental
effects, there may be negative impacts as well, including secondary impacts.
Artificial ground water recharge, for example, may cause periodic high water
tables locally and alter the habitat of native plant or animal species.
Shallow aquifers may also be water-quality sensitive,and irrigation water may
require greater treatment prior to irrigation of the overlying soil than
first anticipated.
Aesthetics
In some ares the aesthetic considerations of conservation opportunities
will be highly significant. Most site design adjustments to minimize or
eliminate the need for storm sewers will require skillful design work. The
use of surface features to convey and store water presents significant
aesthetic opportunities and hazards.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Conserving water on a regional scale through prudent land use planning
requires the ongoing cooperation of landowners, hydrologists, planners,
engineers, ecologists, landscape architects, and public officials. A success-
ful strategy for conservation should have simple, widely accepted goals;
2 I
-------
a system for collecting, analyzing, and updating regional hydrodynamic
information; an ongoing procedure for assessing the impact of regional land
use on water consumption and regional hydrodynamics; an ongoing search for
ecologically sound water conservation opportunities which arise whenever land
use changes are proposed; and an ongoing procedure for analyzing the
effectiveness of actions taken to conserve water.
242
-------
SOURCES CONSULTED
Allen T. Hjemfelt, Jr., and John J. Cassidy. Hydrology for Engineers and
Planners . Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1975.
D.G. Jamieson. “The Use of a Hydrologic Simulation Model in the Control of
a Water Resource System,” pp. 89-96. In Science, Technology and
Environmental Management , edited by Richard D. Hey and Trevor D. Davies.
Lexington, Mass.: Saxon House/Lexington Books, 1975.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment, and
Disposal. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972.
Joachim Tourbier, and Richard Westmacott. Water Resources Protection
Measures in Land Development: A Handbook . Wilmington, Del: Water
Resources Center, University of Delaware, 1974.
Urban Land Institute (ULI), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). Residential Storm Water
Management . Published jointly by ULI (Washington, D.C.); ASCE
(New York); and NAHB (Washington, D.C.), 1975.
U.S., Environmental Protection Agency. Rainfall-Runoff Relations on Urban
and Rural Areas , by Ernest F. Brater and James D. Sherrill. EPA
670/2-75-046. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1975.
U.S., Environmental Protection Agency. Urban Stormwater Management Modeling
and Decision-MakinQ , by James P. Heaney, et p1 . EPA 670/2-75-022.
Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.
243
-------
An Equitable Rate Structure’s Relation to Conservation
and Wastewater Flow Reduction
Fred P. Griffith, Jr.
Assistant Engineer-Director
Fairfax County Water Authority
The Fairfax County Water Authority provides wholesale and retail water
service to approximately 640,000 persons residing in the Northern Virginia
suburbs of Washington, D.C.
In 1974, the Water Authority’s financial requirements dictated an in-
crease in revenues. Concurrent with these revenue needs it was felt that
a new public attitude regarding utility rates was evolving and required an
entirely new approach to the methodology of establishing a schedule of rates,
fees, and charges for water service. Until 1974, the descending block scale
was the standard retail billing method used. In establishing a new rate
methodology, the Authority wanted a rate structure that was equitable to all
customers, with water conservation being a secondary consideration.
Recognizing that perfect equity is not possible without individual
rates for each customer, the Authority felt that certain practical improve-
ments to traditional and historic rate schedules were possible by addressing
marginal costs on a more refined basis.
The Authority recognized the principal that economic efficiency of a
water utility is more nearly related to uniformity of use, rather than the
quantity of water used. Therefore, it was not considered fair for all
customers to pay for plant capacity that is required by a relatively few
customers who use a disproportionately greater amount of water in the sum-
mer peak-use season.
From a conservation viewpoint, the amount of land to be flooded for
water supply impoundments is determined by the seasonal high water demand and
the low flow of the tributaries into the water source. Any reduction in the
seasonal high water demand would make it possible to reduce the size of im-
poundments, thereby reducing costs and water rates. The Authority wanted to
address the aforementioned in a practical manner with its quarterly cycle
billing system without employing expensive demand meters or telephonic read-
outs.
In searching for an effective rate structure that would properly ad-
dress the matter, the Authority considered but rejected the ascending block
scale, winter-summer differential, and year-round billing charge based on
peak season quarterly use. The ascending block scale is punitive to large
244
-------
users, regardless of their efficiency, and spreads the allocation of costs
to all users, therefore minimizing the impact on the relatively few custom-
ers who create the added peak demand. This is especially true if this rate
is applied year-round rather than seasonally. The winter-summer differential
has basically the same faults in that it does not necessarily target in on
peak users, creates cash flow problems, and engenders customer dissatisfac-
tion. This schedule is more of a problem if the differential is significant,
yet,if the differential is small, the peak season impact is minimal. A
year-round billing charge based on peak season quarterly use is not practi-
cal, even though it has an economic logic and addresses the customer on an
individual basis during the peak—demand season. In a quarterly cycle
billing system in which there are various peak season months, it is not
possible to forecast the quarter in which the demand peak will occur and
fairly apply the peak quarter to all customers. This and other administra-
tive and equity problems eliminated this system of billing from considera-
tion.
The Authority is the billing agent for the sewer service charges im-
posed by the governing jurisdiction in the retail water service area. The
annual sewer charge is based on winter quarter water consumption; that is,
a customer’s sewer bill will not exceed his winter quarter bill during the
remaining three quarters of the year. Based on this billing system the
Authority investigated the use of a peak-use and/or marginal cost rate for
water.
Using very good historical records, the Authority was able to obtain
the average water consumption for the winter and summer quarters by custom-
er class (e.g., single family, townhouse, commercial, etc.).
Considered first, but rejected, was a peak-use charge for peak-season
use over and above winter quarter consumption by customer class. For ex-
ample, if the average single-family residential customer used 21,000 gallons
during the winter, then a peak-use charge would be assessed to all water used
in excess of 21,000 gallons during the two peak summer quarters for all
single-family residential customers. This method was rejected because it
was determined that a definite inequity favoring the smaller consumer over
the larger consumer existed even though the latter may utilize water more
efficiently.
With further investigation, the Authority was able to ascertain from
historical records that the average peak quarter use exceeded winter quarter
consumption by 30 percent for all customer classes. The Authority proposed
the assessment of a peak-use charge over and above the general commodity
rate for those customers whose consumption in the two summer quarters ex-
ceeded 1.3 times their winter consumption, based on the logical assumption
that those customers who consume water at a disproportionately higher rate
in the summer quarters as contrasted to the winter quarter are generally the
same customers who create the peak demands. This method was later modified
to include an allowEnce of 6,000 gallons plus winter quarter cor sumptiofl, or
1.3 times winter quarter consumption, whichever is greater. This later
modification was implemented because a disproportionate number of small
245
-------
users were affected, for obvious reasons. This modification has balanced the
application of the method between large and small users.
When the Authority hypothetically compared the peak-use schedule to the
aforementioned conservation schedule to achieve year-round water and waste-
water flow reduction, it assumed that under normal circumstances the maximum
rate that the public would tolerate would produce a reduction elasticity of
approximately five percent in total annual water sales. The year-round rate
schedule would have a resultant reduction effect of roughly six percent rela-
tive to water plant and reservoir capacity versus an anticipated 12 and seven
percent respectively for the peak-use schedule. This type of rate schedule,
as opposed to the peak-use schedule, would have a greater effect on reducing
wastewater flow but probably far less than five percent, depending upon the
infiltration ratio of the sewer system. Our winter quarter sewer billing
system addresses this conservation potential, and we have noticed a slight
winter quarter reduction.
Further, we are fortunate in that our neighbor in Maryland, the
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, has a year-round conservation rate
consisting of an ascending block scale initiated in 1977. In the future we
should be able to present meaningful comparative statistics on the equity-
oriented schedule versus the conservation-oriented schedule.
Now that the basic peak-use charge methodology had been determined, the
Authority had to establish a fair peak-use surcharge. Again using historical
data, the Authority determined that the basic facilities must be designed and
built to meet a maximum daily demand of 1.6 times the average daily demand.
Because of the hypothesis that the peak user created the need for the excess
plant capacity had been asserted, the differential in annual capital cost
between 1.3 times average daily winter consumption and 1.6 times the average
daily consumption was established for the peak-use charge. Extensive cus-
tomer sampling showed that approximately eight percent of the total amount
of retail water sold was included in the peak-use category. Without any
historical data to determine the probable effect of this surcharge on re-
ducing peak consumption (elasticity), the Authority estimated that a 50 per-
cent reduction might occur, this reducing to four percent the amount of water
sold at the peak-use rate. The charge was then determined by dividing the
annual cost of the excess retail plant capacity by four percent of the total
amount of retail water sold, as shown below.
1.6 - 1.3 x Annual Capital Cost (dollars)
1.6 = Peak Use Rate $/1,000
4% x Annual Water Sales 0,000 gallons) gallons
This resulted in a peak-use charge of $2.45/l,000 gallons. To maintain
the same total annual revenue from retail sales, a previously derived basic
commodity charge was reduced from $0.81/i ,000 gallons to $0.70/l,000 gallons.
The Authority’s peak-use charge has received acceptance among our cus-
tomers, primarily for the following reasons:
246
-------
• It economically encourages water conservation during the peak
season when water supplies are most vulnerable
• It is a fair and equitable rate
• It is not punitive
• It has an economic basis
• It affects only the one-fourth of our customers who create the
demand
• It offers individual customers the proper economic choices
• Customers that minimize winter consumption yet do not exceed
their peak period allowance can maintain a very economical
annual water and sewer cost
Since the adoption of a peak-use charge in 1974, there has been a 25
percent reduction in the number of customers exceeding the peak-use allowance.
Certain summer season water users who are directly impacted by this rate
system, such as those who have swimming pools, plant nurseries, and golf
courses, have come to accept the reasonableness of the rate schedule. These
peak season water-intensive customers realize that by interfacing their
water bills with the sewer billing they obtain an equitable rate which re-
suits in very nearly the same annual costs as compared with a fixed, year-
round water and sewer rate.
The application of the Authority’s rate system has been economically
successful relative to anticipated revenues. From the plant capacity and
conservation aspect, although it is too early to draw definite conclusions,
all indications have been encouraging. Since the summer of 1974, the
Authority has not experienced a peak-day demand of 1.6 times average
(Table 1). In 1976, the peak-day production was 1.4 times the average with
approximately the same precipitation in May and June of 1976 as in June and
July of 1974, when the peak day was 1.63 times average. To date, 4.5 per-
cent of the water sales have been at the peak-use rate,and the Authority
has experienced approximately a five percent reduction in total annual sales.
Assuming a 10 percent system loss allowance, the rates have been responsible
for reducing total annual production by 4.6 percent. This five percent sales
reduction represents a potential 12.5 percent reduction in plant size. From
a conservation viewpoint, the five percent reduction of total annual water
sales, if maintained, can safely be converted to a seven percent reduction
in peak-season reservoir requirement.
Except for the winter quarter sewer billing, the Authority’s rate sys-
tem, as predicted, has only a minor effect on the reduction of wastewater
or sewage flow. The primary area of elasticity for peak-use reduction in the
Authority’s geographical location with predominantly residential customers is
lawn irrigation, which has no effect on wastewater.
247
-------
TABLE 1. PEAK-USE CHARGE ANNUAL SUPPLY AND SALES COMPARISON
Year
Precipitation (inches)
May June July August
Average
day
demand
(mgd)
Maximum
day
demand
(mgd)
Ratio of
maximum
day to
average
day
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978*
4.78
4.37
4.71
3.57
1.73
5.13
2.11
5.40
2.15
1.21
3.28
2.79
2.63
1.26
7.16
4.54
4.05
4.28
4.41
5.77
3.54
2.13
4.81
5.85
56.22
57.62
57.45
63.87
64.19
64.78
84.0
94.2
85.3
89.6
90.5
86.2
1.49
1.63
1.48
1.40
1.40
1.33
* Through August 1978.
248
-------
In conclusion, it is suggested that water suppliersin the mid-Atlantic
States and other areas with a humid climate, high sewer infiltration problem,
and seasonal extremes not overestimate the potential of rate structures
relative to water and wastewater demand reductions. Unless a community is
ready to live with unrealistically high and probably unjustifiable water and
sewer rates, it will be working on approximately a five percent elasticity
factor for total annual demand. The Fairfax County Water Authority feels it
has utilized the rate structure that maximizes the economical and conserva-
tion potential of this elasticity by concentrating on the peak-use season.
We are satisfied the Authority has adopted the best rate system for the
geographical, climatic, educational, economical, and political conditions of
our area. If you are so satisfied, you probably have the right rate method
for your area.
249
-------
Water Resource Management: Mann County, California
J. Dietrich Stroeh
General Manager
Mann Municipal Water District
About eight or ten years ago the Mann Municipal Water District became
involved in water resource management by necessity: our water supply was
simply insufficient to meet our water demand. Successive bond issues for
the development of new water sources were placed before the voters.. .and
successively failed. It became necessary to impose a moratorium on new
water connections and it was evident that our consumers--for political,
environmental, or other reasons-—were demanding and expecting a new approach
to the development of water supplies.
Our District is both blessed and damned by its unique location. For
those of you unfamiliar with us, Mann County anchors the northerly end of
the Golden Gate Bridge. We are bounded on the east by San Francisco Bay,
on the west by the Pacific Ocean, and on the north by northern California.
We are blessed with a nearly ideal environment, one which has caused us to
become one of the major bedroom cornunities for the San Francisco metro-
politan area. Our District, which comprises most of the county, has a
population of approximately 170,000, served through some 51,000 active
service connections. This location, with its spectacular views across
San Francisco Bay is, however, physically separated from the mainland of
California, making it extremely difficult and expensive to tap the tremendous
aqueducts delivering water supplies to central and southern California.
Excepting a limited connection to the Russian River Basin, our water supplies
are all developed incounty, which resulted in Mann County being one of
the first and one of the hardest hit during the recent drought.
These conditions caused us to develop what we call our Water Supply
Management Program, integrating three basic elements. The first element is
an additional incounty reservoir, now under construction and expected to be
on-line in 1979. Significantly, this reservoir was sized to reflect water
savings to be obtained through the other two elements of our program,
wastewater reclamation and conservation.
Second, two wastewater reclamation facilities are now in the advanced
planning stage. These will treat effluent to a quality acceptable for
landscape irrigation and, when placed on-line next year, this reclaimed
water will replaceu potable water now being used for such irrigation.
250
-------
The third element of our Management Program is water conservation.
Our program takes two thrusts, the first being. mechanical control of future
construction. Through State legislation and local building codes we control,
to agreatextent, future water use by designating the type of fixture or
appliance to be installed in any new construction, modification, or alter-
ation. A good example of savings to be obtained is replacement of the
standard flush toilet--which uses about five gallons of water per flush
cycle--with water-saver toilets, now available in a variety of colors,
designs, and prices, designed to use approximately 3-1/2 gallons per flush
cycle. Using available statistics on water use, we discover that this
savings alone, 1-1/2 gallons per flush, will save the average family approxi-
mately 900 gallons of water per month, or 10,000 gallons per year. You
can see that should projected growth indicate the addition of, say, 10,000
residential service connections in a comunity over some planning period,
then requiring the installation of this water-saving fixture in those 10,000
units should save approximately 300,000 gallons of water a day at the end
of the planning period. The chief point here is that water consumption of
that future population can, at least to some extent, be mechanically
controlled.
But what can we do today? This brings me to the second thrust of our
water conservation program, the retrofitting of existing consumers. At Mann
Municipal we chose to recognize retrofit devices as part of our water supply
effort and to pay for those devices out of District funds. This simply means
that we chose to furnish the devices free of charge to our consumers. We
developed a water-saving kit, then selected a highly identifiable neighbor-
hood, and distributed the kits on a door-to-door basis within that neighbor-
hood while simultaneously publicizing this effort in offering the kits to any
District consumer who requested one. It may be noted that no significant
problems arose from the door-to-door distribution, and one interesting
result is that we received approximately 70 percent participation.
We used billing inserts to furnish our consumers with information
on where devices could be obtained, together with helpful hints on repair
of leaky faucets good irrigation practice, and so on. Our key slogan was
“Save Water, Save Money.”
During our first year of drought, the winter of 1976-77, we discontinued
the door-to-door distribution, and found that it was not necessary. Many
consumers--about a 40 percent response--came to the District offices to
pick up devices. Through the cooperation of other local agencies and local
businesses, devices were made available at real estate offices, chamber of
connilerce offices, shopping center malls, fire stations, etc. We were
surprised to discover that during the first week of 1977, when the drought
was really being felt and we were initiating our first rationing programs,
we were visited daily by some 2,000 consumers to obtain these devices.
The result of this effort is sumed up in a State of California, Depart-
ment of Water Resources survey which indicates that approximately 89 percent
of our consumers obtained and used our devices. The survey further shows
that 50 percent used the low-flow showerheads that we provided, about 22
251
-------
percent used a shower flow restrictor, and an astonishing 93 percent of our
consumers used the toilet tank displacement bottles.
The state 3 s survey also determined the attitude of our consumers toward
conservation in general.
• Residential Consumers . Their attitude was positive, a coniiiunity—
spirited effort. We obtained an actual reduction in water use
of about 65 percent from normal (our goal was a 57 percent
reduction). The visible result was brown lawns throughout the
county, dirty cars and sidewalks, and neighbors turning each
other in for irrigation violations. There were neighborhood
block parties with prizes for the lowest consumption. There
were BYOW parties--meaning “bring your own water.”
• Non-Residential Consumers . Unlike our residential users, our
comercial and light-industrial consumers did not respond
so well to voluntary conservation and it required rationing
regulations, due to the drought, to gain their initial
response. I hasten to add, however, that demonstrations
of mechanical methods for conservation were very well
received, particularly when they demonstrated cost savings
to be obtained. For example, we worked with the staff of
San Quentin State Prison and reduced their consumption from
approximately 1 million gpd to approximately 300,000 gpd, a
substantial amount of water and a substantial cost
savings to the State. Many comercial users installed air-
cooled compressors for refrigeration and recycled the cooling
water used in other plant processes. Drip irrigation systems
were installed throu hout the county and nurseries began
inventorying and selling drought-resistant plants.
Generally, we discovered that the public simply does not understand very
much about the water industry: where water comes from, how it is processed,
or the magnitude of the service provided. Our rationing restrictions and
conservation helped to create an atmosphere wherein our staff was welcomed
to speak before school groups, service clubs, etc. These talks aided con-
siderably in the “public education” of the water industry, so necessary to
gain full cooperation of the public in any conservation effort. We dis-
covered one major difficulty: many, many persons believed that with less
water being used, the cost of water should go down. This simply is not
true; in fact, just the opposite happened. Our normal work continued to
be performed and, in fact, increased due to the need of “having our own
house in order” to avoid criticism. Our overtime increased dramatically
as we repaired small leaks at night or on weekends, leaks which ordinarily
would have been repaired during normal working hours. It was necessary
to add staff to our switchboard to accomodate the hundreds of questions
asked daily by our consumers relating to violations, leaks, and items of
that nature.
Certain details relating to the cost of our conservation and rationing
effort may also be of interest to you.
252
-------
• Billing Inserts . These gain a high response at a fairly low cost.
They can easily be changed for each billing cycle, gaining a
flexibility for seasonal adjustments. They cost us $.03 to $.05
each.
• Gutter Flooder . This is our name for an ordinance which prohibited
the running of water to waste. It is low in cost and almost
self-policing in that neighbors complain when they see a “gutter
flooder.” It also gives the water agency a legal means of
responding to water wasters, either through fines or terminating
water service.
• Drought-Tolerant Garden . A demonstration garden can be an effective
educational tool. The garden shows drought-tolerant plants and
a list of such plants should be available to visitors. We created
ours in cooperation with the Mann County Parks and Recreation
Department, who donated use of the land and assisted in the
selection of plants. The cost was relatively low.
• Television, Radio and Press . The cost of producing a meaningful
television release is simply prohibitive at approximately
$1,000 per minute. The radio industry did cooperate with public
service announcements, many of which were taped by our own
staff. Newspapers cooperated well, with entire pages devoted to
methods of water conservation.
• Civic Functions . We found our participation in parades, fairs,
and other civic functions of this type to be low—cost, helpful in
gaining community involvement, and useful in implementing the
conservation ethic.
• Inverse “Ascending” Water Rates . This can be an effective means
of conservation if their use is not considered to be a “penalty,”
and if the rate, through classification of users, is not prejudicial
to certain consumers.
And finally, while it is evident that our water conservation programs
were propelled by the drought and its rationing restrictions,it is interest-
ing to note that our consumers have not abandoned their conservation efforts
and our consumption, now that the drought is over, is approximately 75 per-
cent of normal. The “conservation ethic” that was developed through the
drought is now well established and I believe it imperative that we continue
a public relations program in order to maintain this ethic.
It has been my pleasure to share our experiences with you and I
sincerely hope that I have stimulated you to consider water conservation
as a vital part of your own program for total natural resource management.
253
-------
Elmhurst Water Conservation Program
Neil A. Fulton
Chief, Bureau of Resource Management
Division of Water Resources
Illinois Department of Transportation
The Elmhurst (Illinois) Water Conservation Program, which was developed
over the last three to four years, was an attempt by local government to
conserve natural resources. Elmhurst asked the questions: can per capita
water consumption be reduced? What part should a municipality play in a
water conservation program? And what are the benefits of such a program?
You might ask why I ’m describing the Elmhurst Water Conservation
Program, since as Chief of the Bureau of Resource Management of the Division
of Water Resources, Illinois Department of Transportation, my connection to
the program is not very obvious. Prior to my starting work with the State,
I spent eight years with the City of Elmhurst. The last four of these
years were as Assistant City Manager. It was during this time period that
the Water Conservation Program was developed and therefore, I am quite
familiar with the topic.
Elmhurst water conservation activities included a public information
program, rate changes to reduce usage, plumbing code amendments requiring
water-efficient appliances, control on outdoor use of water, and free
distribution of displacement dams to lessen water used in toilet flushing.
Elmhurst is a mature community of approximately 45,000 located in
eastern DuPage County, fifteen miles west of Chicago. While Elmhurst is
primarily a residential community, it serves a major hospital, a private
college, and industrial development.
Elmhurst owns and operates its own water supply and wastewater treat-
ment systems. Elmhurst’s water supply primarily comes from deep wells
drilled in the Ironton Galesville sandstone formation. Pumpage from this
sandstone formation has exceeded the rate of recharge since 1957, and the
water level in Elmhurst’s deep wells has been declining at an average rate
of fourteen feet per year since 1960.
Prior to the water conservation program, projections showed that if
these trends continued, pumpage from the aquifer would have to be signifi-
cantly reduced by 1985.
254
-------
As a result of the declining water table, Elmhurst and other communities
in DuPage County have been seeking an allocation of Lake Michigan water
since the mid 1950’s. In 1977, the Division of Water Resources of the
Illinois Department of Transportation granted Elmhurst an allocation of
Lake Michigan water. The allocation permit requires that Elmhurst utilize
a number of water conservation techniques. The United States Supreme Court
decree that controls the withdrawals from Lake Michigan by the State of
Illinois and its political subdivisions also requires that all practical
means be used to conserve water in the northeastern metropolitan regions of
Illinois.
Elmhurst’s sewage treatment plant has a dry weather hydraulic capacity
of six million gallons per day(mgd). At the start of the water conservation
program, the treatment plant was close to its hydraulic capacity. Plant
capacity would have to be increased or sewage flows decreased to allow any
new connections to the sewage collection system.
This situation, coupled with the desire to develop programs that would
conserve important natural resources and protect them for future generations,
motivated Elmhurst to develop a comprehensive water conservation program.
Elmhurst’s program had the goals of reducing water consumption by 10
to 15 percent and sewage treatment plant hydraulic loads by 8 to 10 percent.
The city’s average daily water consumption is approximately 5.3 mgd. A
10 percent reduction in this figure would daily save approximately 530,000
gallons of water and a 15 percent reduction would save approximately 795,000
gallons.
In addition to lowering average daily consumption, the water conserva-
tion program was developed to reduce the ratio of both maximum-day and
peak-hour consumption to average daily consumption. A successful water
program would make unnecessary a planned $400,000 deep well for additional
short-range supply and for peaking capacity.
Reducing flows to the sewage treatment plant by 8 percent would be
equivalent to 400,000 gallons per day (gpd) and have a population usage
equivalent of 4800 people. A successful water conservation program would
thus also allow expansion of the sewage collection system to serve new
construction.
The most important single portion of the water conservation program
may have been public education. Elmhurst’s experience has been that once
its residents are made aware of a problem, they wiTl work hard to help solve
it. The public education program included a water bill mailing insert that
explained the necessity for conservation, and a newsletter sent to all
residents that described the water supply problem, suggested methods to
conserve water, and explained the conservation program.
Local newspapers and a local radio station provided excellent coverage
of the water supply problem and water conservation program.
255
-------
This multimedia blitz made most residents aware of the water supply and
sewage treatment problems. Elmhurst’s programalso received television news
coverage from two Chicago network stations.
Until 1975, Elmhurst used a declining block rate structure for water
and sewer service; the untt charge decreased as consumption increased. The
historical basis for this type of rate structure is load spreading, and it is
most applicable in systems where the peak demand of large users occurs at
times of low demand for normal users. This structure tends to reward the
large water user.
In reviewing various water rate philosophies, Elmhurst decided that
the most equitable rate structure for a primarily residential coninunity was
a uniform unit charge, independent of consumption volume. In late 1975,
Elmhurst changed from a declining block rate to a uniform unit charge for
t ter and sewer service.
In late 1976, Elmhurst made another change and instituted an excess
facilities water rate. This rate was based upon a study of the ratio of
surmier demand to winter demand for the average user. The study found that
a small percentage of users were responsible for the high summer water de-
mands. Since a water system must be designed for peak hour and maximum
daily consumption--which occurs in the summer--as well as average daily
consumption, the water system is underused in the winter.
It seemed equitable to distribute the cost of the excess facilities
(supply and storage capacity) to the users who were responsible for increased
sumer demands. The excess facilities rate established a base consumption
for a three-month period during the winter. Water used during summer
billing periods that exceeds base consumption by 30 percent or 600 cubic
feet, whichever is larger, is charged at a higher rate. Elmhurst feels that
the excess facilities rate better relates charges for water to the cost
of production and also provides an incentive for water conservation. The
excess facilities rate is 2.67 times the base rate.
Two big users of water inside the home are flushing toilets and washing
and bathing. It has been estimated that 41 percent of residential water
consumption is utilitzed for toilet flushing and 30 percent for washing and
bathing.
The typical toilet uses approximately five to seven gallons of water
for a single flush. Newly designed water-conserving toilets use only 3.5
gallons of water. The use of water-conserving toilets represents a 30 to
40 percent reduction in water use for toilet flushing and a 12 to 16 percent
reduction in total household consumption for an average family of four.
The ordinary shower head uses approximately six to 12 gallons per
minute (gpm). Newly designed water-conserving shower heads use approximately
two to three gpm and are just as effective. This represents a 50 to 70
percent reduction in shower water consumption. The installation of a shower
head shut-off, which is a simple quarter-turn valve just upstream of the
shower head, can also reduce water used for showering. This device allows
256
-------
the water to be shut off while soaping up during a shower. The use of
low-flow shower heads and shut-offs not only conserves water, but also
conserves energy because of a reduction in hot water usage.
Elmhurst modified its plumbing code to require that all new plumbing
installations and replacement plumbing fixtures comply with the following
maximum standards:
• Toilets, tank-type: 3.5 gallons per flush
• Toilets, flush-o-meter: three gallons per flush
• Urinal, tank-type: three gallons per flush
• Urinal, flush-o-meter: three gallons per flush
• Shower heads: four gpm maximum
• Lavatory sink faucets: four gpm maximum flow with both
hot and cold water supply fully open.
Elmhurst’s plumbing code changes will have the long-term effect of
reducing total water consumption; however, because Elmhurst is a mature
community, the immediate effect would be small. Since Elmhurst had a short—
term water reduction goal, a program was developed to retrofit existing
toilets and shower heads with devices that would cut consumption. Field
tests have established that conventional toilets can be retrofitted with
volume-reducing or flush-control devices which may reduce water consumption
by up to 2.5 gallons per flush.
The flush volume is reduced by placing plastic bottles, displacement
dams, or other devices in the flush tank to displace or reduce water volume
while still maintaining the same static head and initial velocity of water
into the toilet bowl.
While not all toilets can be retrofitted with these decives, it is
estimated that an average 1.6 gallons of water can be saved per flush with
the installation of displacement dams.
To reduce shower head flow, a small orifice or flow-control device can
be placed just upstream of the head and reduce usage to two to four gpm,
depending on system pressure and orifice size.
Elmhurst decided that a retrofit program was necessary if significant
amounts of water were to be saved quickly. Retrofit was done in conjunction
with the public education program. The city council passed a resolution
requiring that all toilets, where technically feasible, be retrofitted with
displacement dams by January 1, 1978.
In July, August, and September of 1977, the city delivered to each home
a set of displacement dams. Where the resident was at home. an offer was
r ade to install the dams. Where individuals were not at home, the dis-
placement dams were hung in a plastic bag on the door knob with a letter of
introduction from the mayor, instructions on how to install the device,
plus a postage—paid post card to request installation assistance.
257
-------
In addition to the displacement dams, each residence received a set of
orifices for shower heads, and dye tablets to check for toilet flush tank
leakage. The program was successful and cooperation was obtained from
nearly every resident.
Elmhurst residents can use water for outside purposes from 8 p.m. to
8 a.m. three times a week per home. This is controlled by allowing the
homes with even street numbers to sprinkle on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday,
and the odd-numbered homes, on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. This
program was designed to regulate the peak demand for lawn sprinkling so
it will not conflict with peak demand for interior uses.
In meetings with landscape architects and others involved in maintain-
ing exterior landscaping, it was found that lawn watering was not necessary
in the Chicago metropolitan area because rain water is adequate to maintain
established lawns if they are properly fed and mowed. Residents of the
community were encouraged not to water their lawns unless they were newly
seeded or sodded. Information was provided to residents, by newsletter, on
the proper method of lawn maintenance, including application of fertilizers
and mowing techniques.
Recognizing that not all residents would be willing to stop watering
their lawns, proper techniques of watering were also described. This
included sprinkling in the morning hours, just prior to sunrise, when the
evaporation and evapotranspiration would be reduced, and also that the
watering be done slowly, deeply, and infrequently to insure adequate
penetration and reduce runoff.
The Elmhurst Water Conservation Program costs approximately $45,000
or $1 per capita. This cost includes purchase of displacement dams, and
the labor necessary for their delivery and installation, as well as the
public education program.
It is too early to determine the ultimate results of Elmhurst’s Water
Conservation Program. Some preliminary results are that peak day consump-
tion in 1977 was 30 percent less than in 1976, and 1977 average day consump-
tion was 6 percent less than 1976. Although information for 1978 is not
available, preliminary projections indicate that similar savings will occur.
Elmhurst also saved the construction cost of a peaking well estimated at
approximately $400,000.
In order to determine the success of the Elmhurst Water Conservation
Program, water use will have to be monitored over the next few years. It is
important to determine if there has been a change in the historic pattern
of increasing per capita consumption. These values have traditionally been
used for projecting future water demand; however, the goal of the Elmhurst
Porgram and our hope is that the traditional pattern can be reversed and per
capita consumption either will be held constant or reduced.
Water conservation is not a one-time program. Elmhurst is now reviewing
the possibility of a revised billing format which would involve a change
from a post card to a narrative bill. The narrative bill would allow for
258
-------
better communication with water users and bill payers. Additionally, parts
of the public education program will have to be continued so that residents
of the community will be kept aware of the need for water conservation and
methods of accomplishing conservation.
An important part of the Elmhurst Water Conservation Program was com-
mitment by community leaders to the development of a conservation ethic.
This occurred because the community leaders believed in water conservation.
I think something similar could be said for the attendees at this conference.
If you and I do not believe in water conservation and perhaps more important-
ly, conservation as a way of life, then this conference has not been a suc-
cess. If we do believe in a conservation ethic and the necessity for care-
ful management of all our natural resources with the understanding that our
resources are limited and not disposable, then at this conference we have
learned ways to put that belief in action. It is only through this type of
commitment that we will be able to sell conservation as a way of life and
see changes in national habits that are so important to the future of this
country.
259
-------
Water Resources Management in New York State
William W. Home
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Between Albany, New York, and Chicago lie numerous lakes, magnificent
rivers, and a myriad of small ponds and streams--perhaps one of the greatest
freshwater resources in the world; and yet, those who are responsible for
developtng water resources in this area of seeming plenty know that the
management of water presents one of the highest priority problems faced by
the States in the Northeast and Midwest. This is a vast area with an
appearance of plenty, but, in fact, an area where water is rarely available
at the time and place needed in sufficient quantity and quality to supply
the demand.
Water has always been a high priority to the State of New York. I
would like to briefly outline the history of the State in water resources
management, describe today’s water management needs, and then devote the
bulk of this address to a discussion of current policy interests and how we
visualize the developing legislation and subsequent programs at various levels
of government.
The State of New York gave resources through
construction of the Erie Canal, the State’s first
significant enterprise in water That canal played a
major role in the growth of the Western United States. In fact, a United
States Senate comittee reported that it did more to advance the wealth,
population, and enterprise of the Western States than all other causes
combined. This wasn’t a one-sided advantage because our industry, much of
if water-dependent, grew and prospered.
Thus, for the first hundred years following the Revolution,
State developed, supported by an abundance of water suitable for
generated.
The creation of State water management institutions did not
the end of the 19th century when New York experienced widespread
which led to creation, in 1902, of the Water Storage Conuiiission,
first agency for regulation of streams and water storage.
time, the rapid growth of New York City brought
for the development of new water supplies. These de-
years by State legislative actions supporting the
system recently estimated to be worth some l6
early attention to water
begun in 1817, which was
resources development.
New York
the demand
begin until
flooding
the State’s
At about the same
ever-expanding demands
mands were met over the
city’s development of a
billion.
260
-------
Other communities in the State managed to develop their water supply
systems with a minimum of State participation, although a Water Supply
Comission was created in 1905 to assuage the fears of small communities
that New York City would condemn land for public use without regard for the
communities’ water needs.
By 1911, State activity had been concentrated in a Conservation Com-
missionwith a broad range of water resources responsibilities. In 1926, that
Commission was supplanted by a Conservation Department which, in 1970,
evolved into the current water resources management agency, the Department of
Environmental Conservation. The Department combined the air, water
pollution control, and solid wastes programs of the Department of Health;
the forest management, fish and wildlife, conservation education, and water
resources programs of the Conservation Department; and the pesticide control
program of the Department of Agriculture and Markets. Subsequent program
and bond issue legislation has provided the sinew to make this Department
into a comprehensive environmental and resource management agency.
Water planning has kept pace with program development by providing the
policy guidance for legislation and implementation.
• In 1962, the State financed a comprehensive sewage study program to
develop area-wide sewage utility master plans for counties and
smaller service units. These studies, followed by detailed facili-
ties’ planning, have provided the basic planning for the State’s
Pure Waters Program which will expend nearly nine billion dollars
for sewage treatment facilities by the time the authorizations are
exhausted. A one billion-dollar State Pure Water Bond Act provided
construction funds for the early stages of the program.
• The State has financed water supply studies for counties. These
studies concentrated on public municipal and industrial water supply
needs and proposed systems to be constructed by local entities.
• In response to the drought of the mid-l96O’s, the State conducted
a Statewide Reconnaissance Study which identified a program of
needed action in water resources development.
• River basin plans have been completed on all rivers with the ex-
ception of the Hudson, and a Level B study is being conducted in
that basin with completion anticipated in April 1979.
• Basin water quality, Section 303(e) plans, which govern decisions
for sewage construction grants, have been completed for all basins.
• Section 208 planning, under the Water Pollution Control Amendments
of 1972, is well advanced, and our newly drafted State/EPA Agreement
has been developed to ensure the orderly integration of water quality
management planning and implementation activities.
• New York State is a signatory party to the only two Federal-Inter-
state Compacts in the Delaware River Basin and the Susquehanna River
261
-------
Basin Comissions which have regulatory functions for water and
land resource management and participates in three river basin
planning conii issions: the New England River Basins, Great Lakes
Basin, and the Ohio River Basin.
There are, of course, many other planning and program management
activities at all levels of government and in the private sector which are
incorporated into the overall water resources management scheme.
Lest this historical rendition leave you with the impression that all
is well with water resources management in New York State, let me assure you
that this is not the case. Our basic problems may be encapsulated in a few
brief statements:
• Water quality degradation from a multitude of sources
• Aging water supply systems in desperate need of costly rehabilita-
tion and construction
• Ever-increasing per capita demand for increased supply development
• Increasing functional conflict over allocation of available supplies.
And there are very difficult legal, institutional,and progranii atic
barriers which must be addressed before the people of New York can begin to
solve these basic problems:
• Poor meshing of water quality and water quantity planning and pro-
grams with each other and with land use planning
• Inability to obtain local financing and lack of a Federal program
for support of urban water supply system rehabilitation and con-
structi on
• Too many water supply agencies
• Little program consistency among Federal agencies
• Historical dependence on new supply development to the exclusion
of demand reduction
• Remaining emphasis at all levels of government on structural
solutions to problems and insufficient funding and consideration
for non-structural approaches
• Insufficient public information and participation with a resultant
overall lack of interest in water resources planning and develop-
men t
• Lack of consistent support for planning which results in the dis-
mantling of planning staffs with each wave of budget-cutting
262
-------
• Difficulty in bringing any reasonable semblance of coordination to
the multitude of overlapping and sometimes conflicting programs.
New York has a long tradition of resource protection and management,
but we still face very serious water problems which are shared by States
across the country and which will require new,flexible water policies and
programs at all levels of government, as well as a better understanding by
the people. There must be a willingness, however, to invest in and support
conservation as a companion to this development. Because our problems are
redominantlyurban in nature, the following discussions of water quality
and water supply should be viewed from the standpoint of an urban contribu-
tion to a national water policy and programmatic implementation.
WATER QUALITY
The water quality management problems which most commonly contribute to
serious water pollution and affect the largest percentage of the State’s
population occur in urban areas. The sources of these problems are known to
all of us: municipal discharges, industrial discharges, residual wastes,
combined sewer overflows, urban storm runoff, and hydraulic-hydrologic
modifications. The major categories of pollutants are also well known:
organic oxygen-demanding materials, -infectious agents, nutrients, thermal
discharges, sediments, and minerals.
Recently we have all learned about the very serious threat to the en-
vironment and to public health caused by toxic materials and other hazardous
substances. The lower Mississippi River, the Hudson River, Lake Michigan,
Lake Ontario, and the Chesapeake Bay are but five of the vitally important
national bodies of water which are seriously affected by toxic materials.
Because all of them are used either as sources of water supply or growing
areas for food products, it is crucial that our water quality management
link closely with our use and development of water supplies.
The problem of urban runoff is particularly critical in some of our
older, larger cities which have combined sewer systems. This is a major
unmet water quality need which has the potential for adversely affecting
the use of our water for drinking, agriculture, and food production.
Specific examples of water quality management problems can be cited by
all of us; New York State certainly has its share. Major sheilfishing areas
off Long Island were closed during 1977 due to coliform levels resulting
from discharge of inadequately treated sewage effluent, urban storm runoff,
combined sewer overflows, and vessel waste discharges, much of which
emanates from the New York City area. The New York Bight, once an abundant
near-shore fishing ground of some 3,000 square miles, has been described as
a “dead sea” in some parts as a result of the effects of ocean dumping and
other pollution carried into it from New York Harbor and tributary waters.
Toxic problems in the Hudson River (PCB’s) and in Lake Ontario (Mirex) have
restricted fishing in those areas. Beaches on the south shore of Long
Island were closed for more than a week during 1976 due to an influx of
23
-------
floating solids and related public health problems. Beaches near Rochester
are closed permanently because of the high coliform levels brought by com-
bined sewer overflows and urban storm runoff.
Water quality planning and programing is well advanced in New York
State and gives promise of payoff if all activities can be coordinated into
a whole. A specific water management context is now available for linking
together the challenges for water quality and water quantity. Used first
in New York State, it is an agreement between our Department of Environment-
al Conservation and the Regional Administrator of the United States En-
vironmental Protection Agency (State/EPA Agreement) to provide the context,
program, and priorities for our State water management.
This State/EPA Agreement outlines strategies covering the next 5-year
period for meeting public goals for water management in New York State. It
sets priorities and milestones for accomplishment of management objectives.
It reflects a second generation of strategies to carry forward the State’s
program. The Agreement reflects new emphasis on:
• Water management relating water supply and water quality
• A broader approach to water resource management through greater
attention to such activities as ground water management and
flow regulation
• New emphasis on protection of public water supplies
• Water conservation and reuse
• Recognition that the State Department of Environmental Conservation
is in a period of extensive program development for newer water
quality concerns related to toxic residual wastes, nonpoint sources,
multiple use, best management practices, and other non-structural
approaches
• reater attention to coordination with environmental resource pro-
tection.
Lastly, ground water is our underground reservoir. Not only must we
keep the level of ground water high, but we must also prevent its pollution.
At the present time, growth in land use activities such as deep well in-
jection of industrial wastes and pooling of contaminated water discharges
are fouling the watersheds and aquifers which are now used for public water
supplies. Public health hazards exist, and the remedies for them are often
unknown or unavailable because of the magnitude of the problem and cost of
the solutions. Pending legislation would provide the data base and manage-
ment tools necessary for New York to better manage its ground water re-
sources and bring about their integration with the surface waters of the
State. And, of course, we view the major challenge of an urban water policy
as the linking together of water quality and water supply into a single
comprehensive program.
264
-------
WATER SUPPLY
Historically, water supply has been the responsibility of local govern-
ment. In recent years, development of new supply, treatment, transmission,
and rehabilitation of aging systems has become increasingly expensive and
difficult to attain. The supplies readily obtainable within the jurisdic-
tion of communities, particularly cities, have, for the most part, been
developed. New sources are at increasingly greater distances from the
users, are across jurisdictional boundaries, and require extensive trans-
mission facilities and sophisticated treatment.
I would like to suggest that the time has come when the national in-
terest is best served by maintaining and enhancing the viability of our
urban centers through a Federal/State/local comprehensive effort to assure
the provision of sufficient dependable supplies of quality water.
Such an effort will be expensive, and we should look at the question of
equity before discussing program. While the population of the United States
has expanded by approximately 6.5 percent since 1970, New York has lost at
least 300,000 residents. This loss is fairly typical of the urban Northeast
and has occurred while some areas of the country were enjoying unprecedented
population growth and accompanying economic development gains. While New
York received only an average of one to two percent of the Federal Civic
Works budget, it has about 8.5 percent of the national population, a cor-
responding share of needs, and, to cite 1976 as an example, had a $7 billion
deficit in its overall balance of payments with the Federal government.
While our urban infrastructures deteriorate, an excess of $7 billion per year
is drained from the State through a system of detrimental Federal aid
formulas.
To emphasize this situation, which is rather typical of the older urban
States, Senator Proxmire entered into the October 5, l978,Congressional
Record a list of all States, their shares of water project constructibn
tund and their Federal tax contributions. With a few exceptions, the
States which have failed to share in the national expansion have received
practically no Federal expenditures for water projects but have provided a
lionts share of the revenue to support those projects.
Now a look at New York’s urban areas and their water supply problems.
The State has ten major urban areas (SMSA’s) which, in 1970, contained
89 percent of the population. The largest is New York City with a popula-
tion of approximately 8 million; the smallest is Poughkeepsie with a
population of 32,000.
The water resources economically and practically available to meet
future metropolitan area needs are limited. New York City has had to reach
out into the Catskill mountains, as far as 120 miles away, for reservoir
sites to store “pur&’ mountain water that is transported to the city through
a complicated reservoir-aqueduct system. Similarly, the Syracuse area is
supplied with water from Lake Ontario about 40 miles away. These distances
-------
are not great whencompared to the viaducts of California, but they show
that even in the “water rich” East, water supply is a very serious issue.
In New York State, there are 17 water supply systems serving urban areas
with populations ranging from 50,000 to 100,000. Twenty-one systems serve
populations of 100,000 to 1,000,000. The New York City system is by far the
largest, serving a population of 8,000,000. In total, there are 737 public
water supply systems in New York State serving a population of 15,000,000
people.
The comprehensive county public water supply studies referred to earlier
indicate that more than 76 percent of existing local water systems are in
need of one or more major improvements. These improvements are in the
category of source of supply, transmission, treatment, pumping, storage, and
distribution facilities. The estimated cost of these improvements is on the
order of $500 million, not including New York City.
The major water supply need in the State is in Southeastern New York,
an area encompassing eight counties and the City of New York. Previous es-
timates suggest that there could be as much as a 300 to 400 million-gallon-
per-day shortfall in this region’s water supply by the year 2000 if a drought
were to occur as serious as that of the mid-1960’s. Much more importantly,
however, there must be a major increase in the transmission system to pro-
vide adequate delivery capacity to the mid-New York City area.
Estimates for a total water supply project for the region run as high
as $3.8 billion. Absolutely essential improvements to the transmission
system will require an estimated $2.1 billion. This problem was delineated
during the Northeastern Water Supply Study recently concluded by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. It may be expected that similar urban water supply
needs will be definitively established in other areas of the country as well
when similar studies are completed.
In order to begin to address the critical needs and relationships of
urban water supply, the following elements of policy and program must re-
ceive the immediate attention of policymakers at all levels of government
in both the executive and the legislative branches.
At the Federal level we need:
1. A Support for Comprehensive Water Resources Planning and Management
• Consistency among Federal agencies with adopted water resources
plans
• Continuity of support for management programs; we ask for the
$25 million funding as requested by the President for support
of state activities in this area
• Equitable treatment of all alternative solutions, structural
and non-structural
266
-------
• A uniform criteria for planning and evaluating all Federal
projects
• Expanded water research tied closely to the planning and manage-
ment concerns of the States.
2. A Water Conservation Program
In order to bring about the necessary balance between development
and wise use, we ask for immediate implementation of the President’s
water conservation proposals with broad application as an ethic and
with specific program actions in all functional areas of water use.
3. Funding Assistance for Water Supply Faci lities
Referring back to the specific program needs of urban America,
I would like to present for your consideration the framework for a
Federal program of urban water assistance with the stated goal of
assisting urban areas to rehabilitate water supply distribution
systems in order to assure reliable water supplies which are
adequate in quantity, pressure, and quality to meet the needs of
users on an economical basis for domestic, municipal, industrial,
and other public purposes.
• Purpose: to upgrade the existing water supply distribution net-
works for the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
• Inclusions: authorizations for construction of primary and
secondary distribution systems, including pumping stations
• Eligibility
a) water conservation program in place
b) demonstrated need
c) inability to meet costs
d) to meet current requirements--not to meet growth
O Scope
a) replacement of existing lines
b) laying new lines as backup and for reliability where replace-
ment is not the most economical alternative
• Conservation
a) program leading towards universal metering
b) water-saving fixtures
‘1
-------
c) pricing policy
d) leakage control and comprehensive maintenance program
e) emergency use plan
f) educational program
• Cost Sharing
a) 75 percent Federal, 25 percent local
b) long-term Federal loans for local share.
We would view such a program as offering one-shot Federal
assistance to help recipient cities rehabilitate their water supply
systems as a part of the urban infrastructure strengthening needed
to guarantee the very viability of those cities. In order for such
a program to operate in this manner, it is essential that the con-
servation and management elements be mandated as a precondition of
participation.
We might also want to consider some form of joint dedication of
revenue from water supply, sewage disposal, and possibly solid
waste disposal to the future maintenance and development of these
functions so critical to urban life.
In New York State we are pursuing these actions:
1. Expanded Water Management Legislation
• A requirement that the Department of Environmental Conservation
make an annual report to the Governor and the legislature on the
status of water use and development in the State. The intent is
to supply current information on which responsive leadership and
legislative actions can be based. This requirement also pro-
vides a means of gathering heretofore unavailable data.
• A statewide well-drilling permit program to provide a management
tool and data gathering system for a more extensive considera-
tion of the ground waters of the State, particularly their re-
lationship to surface waters.
• A comprehensive permit system for all withdrawal, storage, or
use of significant amounts of water, including a priority for
allocation in times of shortage. In recognition of the crucial
nature of the water resources of the State to the health,
safety, and welfare of the people as well as to the development
of industry and comerce, implementation of this piece of
legislation would assure wise use and prevent unnecessary de-
pletion of water resources.
268
-------
• A requirement that all purveyors of water develop and file with
the State water shortage contingency plans. Such plans will
assist in the mitigation of negative effects on the health,
safety, and welfare of the public during shortages, assure that
a plan of action will be implementable, and minimize negative
impact on economic stability during critical periods. Such plans
are also important to the development of the acceptable risk
factors in a total water management strategy.
2. Water Management Program Expansion
The State of New York intends to provide the leadership and pro-
gram management necessary to address the major problems of water
resources management, including implementation of new State legisla-
tion and the programs called for under the President’s water policy.
3. Water Conservation Legislation
• A statewide requirement that only water-saving fixtures be used.
Although some years will be required for maximum savings to
accrue, this action offers savings of from 26 to 56 gallons per
capita per day (an estimated annual Statewide savings in the
year 2000 of 110 billion gallons).
• A requirement that all new construction and major renovation be
metered. As applied to New York City where only about 20 per-
cent of the volume is metered, it has been estimated that an
eventual savings of from 100 to 200 mgd could b realized.
• All public suppliers of water would be required to conduct a
program of leakage control including monitoring, prevention,
and repair of all significant leakage.
In addition to these basic measures now being considered, additional
water conservation measures, which may be contemplated by the State in the
future, include increased recycling of industrial waters and a pricing
policy supportive of conservation, particularly during high—use times. In
addition, the Department of Environmental Conservation is taking aggressive
measures to insure that water conservation is factored into the design of
all sewage treatment plants.
It is now up to State and local governments--in partnership with the
private sector-to build water conservation programs suitable to their areas
and levels of responsibility. We must affect positively and strongly the
Federal government’s program for implementing water conservation and the
known means to apply water conservation, to mold it into a format suitable
for use, and to broaden the knowledge of us all. Strong support for the
National Governors’ Association’s recommended conservation principle will
assist in obtaining a broadened Federal interest in fiscal and program
support for conservation.
2E9
-------
But, fundamentally it is up to the States. We must build our programs
for water conservation and management.
New York is moving to meet the current challenges of urban water supply
as a major component of an overall comprehensive water resources program. At
the same time, we recognize that other States and regions will have differing
combinations of priorities, and we firmly believe that the new national
partnership developing among the parties at interest, at all levels of
government and in the private sector, can bring regional and program equity
to the management of this critical resource.
270
-------
Water and Sewer
Conservation-Oriented Rate Structure
Robert S. McGarry
General Manager
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
In Washington these days, there is very little agreement but it does
appear that almost everyone agrees that the Nation’s capital region faces
a potentially serious water supply problem. There is no consensus on how
serious the problem is, but a typical projection for the Washington
metropolitan area is shown in Table 1.
For many reasons beyond the scope of this paper, a regional solution
to this serious problem acceptable to the Federal, State and local govern-
ments has not been developed, desnite numerous expensive Federal and local
studies of the problem since the 1966 drought.
Faced with this impending water shortage for which there is no regional
solution, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) -- one of the
three water supply agencies serving the Washington, D.C. region -- has
developed a water conservation program and interim local supply plan based
on conservation and drought management.
WSSC serves about half of the regional population, 1.2 million, living
in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties, Maryland. Figure 1 summarizes
the Commission’s services.
The Commission is unique in that it is an independent regional agency
established and governed by Maryland State laws. While working very closely
with the county governments, the authority and responsibility to plan,
finance through bond sales, construct, and operate the necessary facilities
to meet bicounty needs is clearly WSSC’s. In addition, WSSC has full
authority to set water and sewer rates to insure revenue to meet operating
and debt expenses. We also establish and enforce the plumbing codes for
the bicounty region. These strong regional authorities were very valuable
in the development of our conservation program.
WSSC developed the water conservation program for three reasons:
First, we had no choice; second, to save capital and operation expenses;
and third, our ‘public” wants such a program.
As indicated previously, the demand for water will exceed the supply
from the Potomac between 1980 and 2000 if per capita consumption and the
271
-------
TABLE 1. WASHINGTON, D.C. METROPOLITAN REGION:
POTOMAC RIVER SUPPLY VS. DEMAND
Projected Per capita Potomac River
Year population consumption Demand Flow
(millions) (gal/day) (mgd) (mgd)
1980 2.9 134 415 535
2000 3.7 141 635 535
2020 5.2 142 855 535
Water and Sewer Service for Prince George’s
and Montgomery County, Maryland
1,000 Square miles service area
1.2 Million population (250,000 customers)
130 Million gallons/day average - 210 mgd peak
2 Water treatment plants
3,416 Miles of water distribution lines
9 Sewage treatment plants
3,356 Miles of sewage collection lines
Figure 1. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
272
-------
population increase as projected. We must conserve . If per capita con-
sumption can be held constant -- or better, reduced -- reasonable population
growth can be supported for a longer period, thereby buying time for a
regional solution. Since population control is probably not feasible in the
Washington region, an increase in dependable water supply must be developed
and conservation only buys time. The Washington, D.C. region also has a
shortage of sewer capacity, and water conservation is essential to avoid
a building moratorium and allow reasonable development while additional
sewer treatment facilities are being planned and built. But perhaps the most
important reason for water conservation is the fact that the public, the
regulators, and the legislators have made it abundantly clear that any
regional solution will be blocked and eventually disapproved unless our
use of water is conservative. One of the major reasons previous regional
water supply plans have not been acceptable is the impact -- environmental
fiscal, social, and political -- of reservoirs large enough to insure
unlimited water use. Planning for unrestricted use is no longer acceptable
to our public and our regulators.
Like all other utilities, WSSC is seriously concerned by increasing
capital and operating expenses. Through reduced per capita consumption we
expect to avoid some very expensive expansion programs and lower operating
expenses, especially in our sewage treatment plants.
The third reason for conservation, because our public wants such a
program, may or may not be unique to WSSC. Every indicator of public
opinion tells us that our customers strongly support our efforts. The
uconservation ethic is strong in our jurisdiction and has been extremely
helpful in achieving our goals.
WSSC’s conservation plan has three elements:
• publicity and education
• plumbing code revisions
• conservation-oriented rate structure.
WSSC’s publicity and education program is not unique. However, it is
sincere, innovative, and absolutely relentless. Conservation is a way of
life for all our staff and our customers.
Because of our authority for the plumbing codes in the bicounty region,
it was relatively easy to change the code to require 3-1/2 gallon toilets,
3-1/2 gallon-per-minute (gpm) shower flow controls, and pressure-reducing
valves where the water pressure is greater than 60 pounds per square inch
(psi) for all new construction and renovation. Through our plumbing permit
procedures and well-trained plumbing inspectors we have vigorously enforced
the revised code. The changes have been accepted, and even endorsed, by
plumbers and builders. There have been virtually no complaints and no
problems. Our experience suggests that there is absolutely no reason for
any jurisdictions interested in conservation not to revise their plumbing
codes as we have.
-------
In January 1978 WSSC initiated the last element of our conservation pro-
gram, an increasing water and sewer rate schedule.
The rate-setting process at the WSSC is fairly basic. Rates are deter-
mined by the Commission in order to fund the expenditures approved by the
two County Councilsof the area we serve. The expenses that were approved in
the fiscal year 1978 budget were $35,232,000 for water operating and
$44,215,000 for the sewer operating fund. Based on an estimated consumption
of approximately 42 billion gallons of water, a water rate was set at 70
cents per thousand gallons and a sewer rate of 98 cents per thousand gallons
based on water billing. In addition to these basic charges, the WSSC levied
a sunuiler surcharge of 20 percent of the basic water rate for the summer
period of June, July, August, and September. A service charge for each
metered account was also assessed dependent upon size of the meter.
Miscellaneous investment revenues and service charges produced the balance.
In the sanitary district, all water consumption is metered. Meters are
read for our single-family residential customers on a quarterly basis and
our larger accounts are read monthly. Our monthly accounts, commonly
referred to as business accounts, include everything that is not a single-
family residence. This includes office buildings government, multi-family
units, industry, and other commercial operations. Table 2 is a summary of
the rates that were in effect prior to January 1978.
The new rate structure was the result of a two-year study. The keystone
of the study effort was a Citizen’s Advisory Committee on WSSC Rates and
Charges, which included citizens representing a wide variety of interests
and organizations from Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties. The
members were selected by the Commissioners from nominations received from
business and civic groups in both counties, as well as individual,
independent citizens who applied to serve on the advisory unit. The keystones
of the Citizen ’sAdvisory Committee’s recommendations were:
• customers causing increased demand should be required to pay
for extra capacity required.
• the price structure should encourage all customers to conserve.
This group, as well as the WSSC staff, had considered a wide variety of
proposals including:
a. spatial differentiation of pricing
b. seasonal pricing
c. increasing block structure
d. decreasing block structure
e. average variable cost pricing
f. flat rate sewer service charge
g. summer surcharge system
h. flat rate charges
i. excess-use charges.
274
-------
TABLE 2. WSSC 1978 RATES
Rate Billing
Water
$0.70/l,000 gal. October thru June
$O.84/1,000 gal. July thru September
(summer surcharge)
Sewer
$O.98/1,000 gal. All year
Service charge
$2.00 or $3.00 Quarterly
(single—family residential)
$1.00 to $75.00 Monthly
(business)
275
-------
The final recorriiiendation of this Committee was to adopt an increasing
rate structure for water and sewer and to eliminate the summer charge and
the meter service charge. The Coriiiiittee deferred to WSSC for commercial,
government, and industrial users.
In translating the Committee’s reconiiiendation into a rate proposal, a
review of key customer information is essential. For example, the WSSC has
a total of 230,000 accounts of which 91 percent, or 210,700, are single-
family residential customers. The single-family consumption, however,
represents only 48 percent of the total consumed water within the sanitary
district. Table 3 reflects the proposed rate structure and impact on the
number of accounts. It should be noted that the largest number of accounts
are in the 201 to 350 average-gallons-per-day range. A translation of the
rate proposal into the impact on single-family accounts can be seen in Table
4. From the rate proposal developed in response to the citizen’s group,
the smaller consumers using up to 100 gallons per day (gpd) would have
their rates cut almost in half. Mid-range customers, up to 350 gpd, would
have bills equivalent to what was then in effect. The larger consumers,
approximately 28 percent of total accounts, would have bills gradually
increasing. Year-round conservation is important. A typical consumer using
200 gpd for the year would pay approximately $23 per quarter. However,
if during the heavy demand period this account would double its consumption,
the water bill would triple to approximately $73.
While it is impossible to precisely measure public feeling, we sensed
strong support for our proposals. However, throughout the study of
increasing rates (versus constant rates), two special impacts were known,
discussed openly, and carefully considered: the impact of such a rate
structure on large commercial users of water, and the impact on large
families.
It is true that those industries which use large amounts of water
(1,000 gpd or more) for business purposes will pay at the highest rates. It
has been argued that these demands are for essential use and not due to
wasted water or non-essential summer demand. In many cases, it is not
possible thr these large water users to reduce their average daily consumptim
below 1,000 gpd to take advantage of decreasing rates.
We were aware of this impact and studied several alternatives for
comercial accounts; but, for several important reasons, we did not adopt
any commercial alternative.
We feel that the larger users, especially those with summer peaks,
should pay a higher rate to offset capital costs for expanded water and
sewer facilities. This principle applies to all -- commercial, government,
and private consumers.
WSSC operates under a code enacted by the Maryland General Assembly
that requires a uniform water and sewer rate schedule for all customers. A
special rate (s) for any class (es) of customers (conui ercial, large families,
public institutions, etc.) would not conform to the code. WSSC may support
276
-------
TABLE 3. PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RATES
Metered Average Number Proposed rates
consumption daily of (per gal.)
(gal.) consumption accounts
(gal.) Water Sewer
0-9,000 0-100 21,500 $0.40 $0.53
9,001-18,000 101-200 56,500 0.55 0.74
18,001-31,500 201-350 72,500 0.79 1.00
31,501-45,000 351-500 31,500 0.90 1.14
45,001-90,000 501-1,000 23,700 0.95 1.20
90,001 and up 1,001 and up 5,000 1.00 1.26
-------
TABLE 4. IMPACT OF RATES ON SINGLE-FAMILY USERS
Average
daily
Number of accounts
Sample
bill
consumption
(gal.)
No.
%
present rates
per quarter
Sample bill
proposed rates
per quarter
c x ,
Quarterly
consumption
(gal.)
0-100
21,500
10
$ 17.43
$ 8.37
9,000
101-200
56,000
27
32.87
23.22
18,000
201-350
72,500
35
57.02
56.38
31,500
351-500
31,500
15
80.18
91.80
45,000
501-1,000
23,700
1].
157.35
193.50
90,000
over 1,000
5,000
2
257.25
339.00
150,000
TOTAL
210,700
100%
‘I
-------
a change in the code to give us the flexibility to modify the rate structure,
if experience and further study identify alternatives that will accomplish
the same objectives of conservation and equitable cost distribution.
We have strong evidence that the previous uniform rate did not encourage
serious conservation by some of our comercial customers, whereas the new
rates should cause comercial managers to initiate conservation programs.
Also, many of our comercial customers are small consumers of water, and
they will benefit from conservation practices by lower bills. Special
rates for all commercial accounts could penalize the small comercial
customers.
In examining the problems with the application of a single increasing
rate proposal on our business customers, one problem was solved; specific-
ally, that of multi-family units or the almost 2,400 accounts that comprise
garden and high-rise apartments in suburban Maryland. These 2,400 accounts
represent a significant portion of the water consumption (almost 30 percent)
in our service area. In order to place these family units on a comparable
basis with single-family units, a system was devised to add a further
element to the billing formula which would provide a per-unit bill. Each
account was requested to certify the number of units served in the
particular complex. This figure was identified in our computer billing and
thus, before determining the rate schedule to use, the monthly consumption
was divided by the number of units to determine and bill on a per-unit basis.
Table 5 indicates actual apartment complexes and demonstrates that the same
conservation goal can be achieved. Note that the conservative apartment
building using approximately 100 gallons gpd per unit is rewarded by a
30 percent reduction in its per-unit bill (Apartment Number 2). Whereas
Apartment Number 3, the more wasteful customer, has its bill increased by
almost 12 percent. The average, well-managed apartment complex uses about
200 gpd per unit, but there are many who use over 400 gpd per unit. The
new rate structure will severely penalize wasteful patterns of consumption
by the apartment complexes with these high consumptions, and they will
either improve their management or pay for the excessive wasteful demands
on our system.
The other major problem was large families. While we have heard a
great deal of criticism from the accounts with families of six or more, the
majority of customers seem to feel, including the unanimous agreement among
the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (some with larger families) that with
minimal effort these families can reduce consumption to where they can
take advantage of the lower rates. From a citizen’s perspective, single-
family accounts, regardless of size, who use water excessively for lawn
watering, filling swiming pools, and so forth, should pay for these
luxuries. Our experience has been that many of those who have complained
are suburban families with several teenagers or young adults living in
sizable homes with two to three bathrooms, numerous cars, and large lawns,
who in fact are not practicing conservation efforts.
279
-------
TABLE 5. EXAMPLES OF UNIT BILLING FOR MULTI-FAMILY ACCOUNT
Account
Apt. #1
Apt. #2
Apt. #3
Apt. #4
Apt. #5
Apt. #6
Number
of units
525
8
244
66
272
516
Current
monthly bill
per unit
$19.68
5.79
25.06
19.83
10.34
15.73
365
104
472
366
187
228
Al ternate
monthly unit
bill per unit
$22.32
4.04
27.93
21.63
7.23
15.40
Daily
consumption
(gal ./unit)
co
Q
-------
However, to test the schedule, the WSSC did study the impact of the
proposed rate structure on low and moderate income families of varying size.
In cooperation with Montgomery County, a small sample of households with
variations of family size and income were include. Fifty-four percent
of the sample had 3 to 5 family members and 23 percent had fewer and 23
percent had more members. The results of the survey show that there was no
correlation between large families and increased bills. Three large families
(six or more members) would have received an increased bill under the proposed
rate structure and two large families would have received a decreased bill.
For one family of eleven, the new rate structure would result in a six
percent decrease over five billing periods, It was concluded that the
proposed rate structure would have a generally beneficial impact on most
of the sampled families, and with increasededucation, many of the others
could be helped to lower their water consumption and resultant bills.
Before acting on the new rate proposal, WSSC made an elaborate effort
to obtain the public’s views. Scheduled workshops, 10,000 direct mail
questionnaries, speeches, meetings, press conferences, and informal meetings
with community groups were held together with review by both County Councils.
The views of all “publics” were carefully considered; on November 16, 1977,
the Coniriission adopted the new conservation-oriented water and sewer
customer rate schedule effective January 1, 1978. Believed to be the
first rate plan of its kind ever implemented by a rn jor American water
utility, the structure (t ’ith 100 steps in 10-gallon increments) used the
basic proposal that the level of charges be determined by the customer’s
average daily consumption (ADC) during each billing period.
The range of rates on the new schedule were set at $0.36 to $1.05
per 1,000 gallons of water consumption and $0.45 to $1.31 per 1,000 gallons
of sewer use. The schedule started at a base ADC of 10 gpd with the lowest
water and sewer rates and moved up incrementally to a top ADC threshold at
1,000 gallons or more, with the highest water and sewer rates applied to
total consumption by the customer unit. Concurrently, the WSSC phased outthe
20 percent suniner surcharge and annual service charge. The new customer
rates were designed to produce the required revenue to support the Commis-
sion’s budget.
To assist the customers in understanding a very significant change in
our billing structure, our new rates were not applied until the first
bill received wholly within the calendar year 1978. Thus, our experience
with the impact is based upon cormiercial accounts with billings beginning
in February and the majority of residential accounts not receiving the
impact until the second quarter in 1978. It was anticipated that, along
with the other water conservation efforts that the Commission has practiced
over the years, and with rate structure and continued publicity, that
consumption for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1978, would be reduced by
five percent per year. This first anticipated measurement did come true.
Water consumption was down by approximately five percent from fiscal year
1977. Since the revenue loss was anticipated in setting the multi-step
rate structure, the revenue for the same period was identical to that we
budgeted within one-tenth of one percent.
-------
With the institution of the new structure, a continuing analysis of the
impact on consumption has been underway. Based on data through June,1978,
several interesting points can be made. First, commercial and governmental
accounts have shown little change in consumption patterns, with a decline
of only 0.03 percent, whereas residential customers have shown a 13.8 percent
drop. This averages to an 8 percent decrease for the June, 1978 quarter
compared to 1977 consumption.
Usage for the large comercial accounts (those using more than 20,000
gpd) was virtually the same for the two periods, 186,248,000 gpd versus
186,416,000 gpd. There have been isolated cases where large cormiercial
accounts have significantly changed their consumption, such as a film process-
ing firm which reduced its account by 35 percent, but these have been rather
rare instances. As noted, the major consumption change has been in our
single-family residential accounts. Table 6 shows the distribution of
accounts based on average daily consumption ranges for the June, 1977
quarter as opposed to the distribution for June, 1978.
The overall reduction in consumption in excess of 13 percent is borne
out by the fact that a major downward shift has occurred in each of the
single-family residential ADC classifications. Statistical analysis of the
consumption pattern for the WSSC generally recognizes that the peak demand
for water is caused principally by residential customers. Since this is the
case, it is hoped that the rate structure not only will work from an overall
conservation standpoint, but will have a material impact on the peak demands
on the system.
Based on the limited time period which has been analyzed, the conserva-
tion-oriented rate structure adopted by the WSSC has had an impact on our
residential customers. The original objectives, namely a reduction in both
the average daily consumption and the peak consumption and secondly,
passing on to those consumers with large average daily demands and larger
peak demands a more appropriate share of the capital and operating cost
associated with the higher demands, will be met if these patterns are
sustained.
The experience for comercial and government accounts has been
disappointing and without changes will just mean higher prices and taxes
passes on to the individual consumers. We will continue to monitor and
emphasize this concern. Overall, the Comission will maintain its full
coninitment to policies which encourage customer water conservation and waste
reduction, believing that sustained demand reduction is essential to the
efficient use of existing and projected water supply and wastewater
facilities.
282
-------
TABLE 6. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION
JUNE QUARTER, 1977 AND 1978
Average Number of accounts Percent
daily consumption change
(gal.) 1977 1978
0-100 20,821 25,889 + 24.3
101-200 54,577 64,213 + 17.7
201-350 70,483 69,136 - 1.9
351-500 30,989 24,758 -20.1
501-1,000 23,205 17,334 -25.1
1,001 and up 5,097 3,711 -27.1
TOTAL 205,172 205,041
TOTAL GALLONS BILLED: 5,235,090,000
283
-------
Analysis of Participation
National Conference on Water Conservation
and
Municipal Wastewater Flow Reduction
Willis E. Sibley
Cleveland State University
A prime objective in the organization and solicitation of participants
in the National Conference was to encourage persons representing different
aspects of and approaches to water conservation and wastewater flows to
gather to discuss coninon problems and concerns. The perspectives of consult-
ing engineers and environmentalists frequently are different, for example.
In the absence of opportunities to meet, awareness of others’ perspectives
and knowledge may be lacking, to the loss of all concerned.
The accompanying chart (Table 1) suggests that the objective was
substantially achieved. All levels of government were well represented,
with local-level governments having the highest participation rate--which
ought to be expected, given the number of such units dealing with water
problems. The Federal government was represented well, again as would be
expected, both because it is the prime funder of wastewater projects and
because it establishes national policy in such matters.
Citizen action groups tend to be the more “visible” representatives of
the body politic, as citizens try to interact with and influence Federal,
State, and local policies concerning conservation, water, and wastewater
matters. They were well represented. Many of these participants took pains
after the conference to note their pleasure and exhilaration at meeting
face-to-face with government representatives and consulting engineers, whom
they often find elusive targets in their attempts to influence policy and action.
It is pleasant to note the number of consulting engineering representa-
tives who attended. They critically affect the implementing of Federal,
State, and local water/wastewater policy since they tend to dominate the
field of facility design and execution. The need to acquaint them with
citizens’ needs and views is clear as well as pertinent to the growing
emphasis on citizen participation.
Trade and comercial interests probably have more influence on matters
of concern to the conference than their attendance numbers represent.
Through the activities of such groups as the Plumbing Manufacturers
Institute, they are making significant advances in designing, building, and
promoting water-saving fixtures and equipment for all levels of water
equipment construction and use, from residential to comercial installations.
In a future conference, more successful and intensive efforts to reach this
group probably are warranted and desirable.
284
-------
Regional groups involved with public planning processes and programs
also were less than optimally represented in this conference, since they pre-
sumably might be vital links to other forms of political/geographical units
with water concerns.
On the whole, however, the effort to bring together persons who will in-
fluence policy and who have divergent views seems to have succeeded. The
fact that more than 450 persons still attended the final session of the con-
ference, from a total of somewhat more than 500 at the opening session early
the previous day, is another measure of success, probably reflecting both
the quality of the program and the quality of interchange which accompanied
the formal program.
285
-------
TABLE 1. ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPATION IN NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
WATER CONSERVATION AND MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER FLOW REDUCTION,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS-NOVEMBER 28-29, 1978
Percentage
Type of Number of of b
Participant Tndividualsa Registrants
GOVERNMENT
Local 59 17.0
County 11 3.2
State 28 8.1
Federal--all EPA offices 50 14.4
Federal--non-EPA 26 7.5
Gov’t. associations 1 < 1.0
TOTAL GOVERNMENT T7 <51.2
CITIZEN ACTION
Environmental groups 39 11.2
Groups not exclusively
environmental 14 4.0
TOTAL CITIZEN ACTION 15.2
ENGINEERING
Engineering consulting 46 13.2
Engineering associations 2 < 1.0
TOTAL ENGINEERING 48 <14.2
RESEARCH
University personnel 23 6.6
Foundations, non—profit 8 2.3
TOTAL RESEARCH 31 8.9
TRADE, CCflIERCIAL
Trade & manufacturing 16 4.6
representatives
TOTAL TRADE, COMMERCIAL 16 4.6
PLANNING
Regional planning groups 11 3.2
Planning associations 1 < 1.0
TOTAL PLANNING T <4.2
OTHER
Consultant, non—engineering 1 <1.0
Media/publishing 6 1.7
Persons with unknown affiliations 2 <1.0
Union representatives 3 < 1.0
TOTAL OTHER <4.7
GRAND TOTAL 347 100.0+
Notes: a. The total of 347 represents only those with fully completed regi-
stration data. The meeting opnened with 500+ participants and
ended with 450+ persons.
b. Totals more than 100 percent because of rounding and ‘less-than-
one-percent’ categories.
286
-------
Address List of Speakers
Dr. Ronald G. Alderfer
Harland Bartholomew and Associates
7745 Carondelet
St. Louis, MO 63105
Clarence Bechtel
Executive Director
Building Officials and Code
Administrators Int’l.
17926 S. Halsted
Homewood, IL 60430
Kenneth L. Brewster
Division of Water Resources
Illinois Department of
Transportation
300 N. State
Chicago, IL
Michael B. Cook
Director
Facility Requirements Division
(wH 595)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
David A. Del Porto
President
ECOS, Inc.
21 Imrie Road
Boston, MA 02134
Leo M. Eisel
Director
Water Resources Council
2120 L Street, NW. Suite 800
Washington, DC 20037
Neil R. Fulton, Chief
Bureau of Resource Regulation
Division of Water Resources
Illinois Department of
Transportation
300 N. State Street,
Chicago, IL 60610
Robert Karls
In-Sink-Erator Corporation
3700 21st Street
Racine, WI 53406
Room 1010
Street, Room 1010
60610
Fred p. Griffith, Jr.
Assistant Engineering Director
Fairfax County Water Authority
P.O. Box 1500
Merrifield, VA 22116
William F. H. Gros
The Pitometer Associates
2 North Riverside Plaza, Room 1430
Chicago, IL 60606
William W. Home
New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
Thomas C. Jorling
Assistant Administrator for Water
and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
James H. McDermott
Associate Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Drinking
Water (WH 550)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
287
-------
Robert S. McGarry
General Manager
Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission
4017 Hamilton Street
Hyattsville, MD 20781
Ms. Hester McNulty
League of Women Voters
2160 Vassar Drive
Boulder, CO 80303
Robert R. Pfefferle
American Consulting Services, Inc.
835 North County Road 18
Minneapolis, MN 55427
Ronald B. Robie
Director
California Department of Water
Resou rces
P.O. Box 388
Sacramento, CA 95802
James E. Robinson
Department of Man-Environment
Studies
University of Waterloo
Ontario
Canada N2L 3G1
Donald L. Sampler
4498 Gingerwood Court
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
Richard K. Schaefer
Office of Minerals Policy and
Research Analysis
U.S. Department of the Interior
18th & C Streets, N.W.
Washington, DC 20240
William E. Sharpe
Institute for Research on
Land and Water Resources
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
J. Gustave Speth
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
J. Dietrich Stroeh
General Manager
Mann Municipal Water District
220 Nellen Avenue
Corte Madera, CA 94925
Myron F. Tiemens
Chief, Policy and Guidance Branch
Facility Requirements Division
(wH 595)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Nea C. Toner
Toner and Associates, Inc.
1107 South Main
Seattle, WA 98104
David A. Wade
Assistant Executive Officer
Sacramento Local Agency
Formation Comission
921 11th Street, Suite 1103
Sacramento, CA 95814
Kurt L. Wassermann
Office of Water Recycling
State of California
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95801
Peter L. Wise, Chief
Program Development Branch
Water Planning Division (WH 544)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
LU
- 659-482
------- |