&EFA
Best Practices to Consider
When Evaluating Water
Conservation and Efficiency
as an Alternative for Water
Supply Expansion
December 2016
EPA-810-B-16-005

-------
For additional information, please contact:
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
www.epa.gov
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
II

-------
Contents
Contents	1
Table of Figures	3
Acknowledgements	4
Glossary	5
Executive Summary	7
Background	8
Environmental Impacts	8
Economic Impacts of Water Supply Development	11
Water-Energy Nexus	11
Water Use Trends	12
Purpose of the Water Efficiency Best Practices	14
Assistance Opportunities	16
Best Practices	17
1.	Water System Management: Supply Side and Demand Side Accounting	17
Conducting the Audit	19
Metric: Data Validity	20
Benchmark: Data Validity Score	21
Deliverable: Data Validity Score (if <71)	23
Deliverable: Data Validity Score (if 71 or greater)	23
Metric: Non-Revenue Water (NRW)	23
Benchmark: Non-Revenue Water	23
Deliverable: Non-Revenue Water	23
Resources	23
2.	Water Loss Minimization: Leak Management	24
Economic Level of Leakage	26
Metric: ILI or Op24	27
Benchmark: ILI or Op24	27
Deliverable: ILI or Op24	27
Metric: Economic Level of Leakage	27
Deliverable: Economic Level of Leakage Analysis	28
Metric: Water Loss Control Program/Plan	28
Deliverable: Water Loss Control Program/Plan	28
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
1

-------
Contents
Resources	28
3.	Metering	29
Universal metering, including sub-metering	29
Bulk metering calibration and replacement program	30
Bill all customers based, in part, on their actual metered volumetric water use	30
Source water metering	30
Metric: Universal metering, including sub-metering	31
Benchmark: Universal metering	31
Deliverable: Percentage of service connections metered	31
Deliverable: Universal Metering	31
Deliverable: Savings Potential of Metering Practices	31
Resources	31
4.	Conservation Rate Structure	32
Full Cost Pricing	32
Rate Planning and Revenue Stability Planning	33
Conservation Use Rates	33
Utility bill	36
Metric	36
Deliverables: Conservation Pricing Documents	36
Resources	37
5.	End Use Water Conservation and Efficiency Analysis	38
Water Use Profile & Customer Use	38
End Use Water Conservation and Efficiency Measures	39
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional	41
Residential	43
Outdoor/Landscape (ICI and Residential)	44
Deliverable: Water Use Profile Indicators	45
Metric: Residential Gallons Per Capita Per Day (gpcd)	46
Benchmark: Gallons Per Capita Per Day (GPCD)	46
Deliverable: Gallons Per Capita Per Day (GPCD) Calculations	46
Deliverable: Assessment of Water Savings Potential	46
Resources	47
6.	Water Conservation and Efficiency Plan	48
Deliverable: Water Conservation and Efficiency Plan	49
Resources	50
References	51
Appendix A: Deliverables Chart	56
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
2

-------
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Global evaporation from reservoirs compared to industrial and domestic use	9
Figure 2. Groundwater level change from Spring 2006 to Spring 2016, based on water level
measurements in wells	10
Figure 3. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Water Demand and Population	13
Figure 4. Growth in population and water consumption, Seattle Public Utilities	13
Figure 5. Per capita water consumption 1980-2010, Seattle Public Utilities	14
Figure 6. Water balance components	18
Figure 7. City of Asheville, NC water loss key performance indicators	19
Figure 8. Criteria used to exclude audits for implausible results	21
Figure 9. Median performance indicator values for audits passing screening criteria	21
Figure 10. Water Audit Data Validity Level/Score from the AWWA Free Water Audit Software®	22
Figure 11. AWWA Water Loss Control Committee—preliminary leakage management
target-setting guidelines	25
Figure 12. Four-pillar approach to the control of real (leakage) losses	26
Figure 13. Example of an inclining block rate structure	34
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
3

-------
Ackn owl ed gem en ts
EPA would like to acknowledge the following members of theTechnical Advisory Group for their
recommendations:
•	David Bracciano, Tampa Bay Water
•	Chris Butts, Georgia Green Industry Association
•	Steve Cavanaugh, Cavanaugh Associates
•	Andrew Chastain-Howley, Black and Veatch
•	Bill Christiansen, Alliance for Water Efficiency
•	Chuck Clarke, Cascade Water
•	Mary Ann Dickinson, Alliance for Water Efficiency
•	Al Dietemann, Seattle Public Utilities
•	Doug Evanson, San Antonio Water System
•	Karen Guz, San Antonio Water System
•	Stacey Isaac Berahzer, UNC Environmental Finance Center
•	Will Jernigan, Cavanaugh Associates
•	Peter Mayer, Demand Management Associates
•	Alice Miller-Keyes, Dobbs Foundation
•	Kathy Nguyen, Cobb County Water System
•	Brian Skeens, CH2MHill
•	CheriVogel, Consultant
EPA would like to acknowledge the following peer reviewers for their recommendations:
•	Vardry Austin, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
•	Deborah Green, Water Media Services
•	Chris Leauber, Water and Wastewater Authority of Wilson County, Tennessee
•	Reinhard Sturm, Water Systems Optimization
•	Gary B.Trachtman, Arcadis
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
4

-------
Glossary
Apparent Losses
Includes all types of inaccuracies associated with customer metering,

data archiving and billing; plus all unauthorized consumption (illegal

use).

Note: Overregistration of customer meters leads to underregistration

of Real Losses. Underregistration of customer meters leads to

overestimation of Real Losses.
Authorized Consumption
Volume of metered and/or unmetered water taken by registered

customers, the water supplier, and others who are implicitly or

explicitly authorized to do so by the water supplier; for residential,

industrial, commercial, and institutional use.

Note: Authorized Consumption may include items such as fire-fighting

and training, flushing of water mains and sewers, street cleaning,

watering of municipal gardens, public fountains, frost protection,

building water, etc. These may be billed or unbilled, metered or

unmetered.
CARL
Current Annual Real Loss (CARL) is the volume of water lost from

reported leaks, unreported leaks, background losses, and storage tank

overflows.
Conservation
Water conservation is any beneficial reduction in water use or in water

losses. Conservation should be distinguished from curtailment.
Curtailment
Mandatory reduction in water use as needed during drought or

emergency situations to achieve immediate results
Economic Level of
An ELL analysis identifies the amount of leakage that can be avoided
Leakage analysis (ELL)
through control measures whose costs are balanced against the

savings of reduced leakage.
Efficiency
Water efficiency or water use efficiency refers to the accomplishment

of a function, task, process, or result with the minimal amount of water

feasible
ILI
Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) is a performance indicator

quantifying how well a distribution system controls real losses

(leakage) at the current operating pressure. It is determined by

dividing CARL by UARL ILI is an indicator best suited for utilities with

well-validated water audit data, and has not yet been proven valid for

very small water utilities. Small systems in this case include those with

average operating pressure less than 35 psi, or where (Lm*32 + Nc)

<3,000. Lm = length of mains (in miles, including hydrant lead length)

and Nc = number of customer service connections. Those systems

should use the Real Losses performance indicator Op24.
Marginal cost of water
The cost of supplying an additional increment of water
supply

Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
5

-------
Glossary
Non-revenue Water
Op24 (Operational Real
Losses performance
indicator)
Real Losses
Revenue Water
System Input
UARL
Unbilled Authorized
Consumption
Water Losses
Water Supplied
Those components of System Input, which are not billed, or revenue
producing. Equal to Unbilled Authorized Consumption plus Apparent
Losses plus Real Losses.
Op24 is a performance indicator useful for smaller systems for which
ILI is not appropriate. If average system pressure is not available, losses
can be calculated as:
Gallons/service connection/day
or
Gallons/miles of main/day *only if service connection density is less
than 32/mile
If average system pressure is available, Op24 should be calculated as:
Gallons/service connection/day/psi
or
Gallons/miles of main/day/psi *only if service connection density is less
than 32/mile
Water that is piped into the system, but lost before making it to the
end user. These are physical losses such as breaks and leaks from water
mains and customer service connection pipes, joints, and fittings; from
leaking reservoir walls; and from reservoir or tank overflows.
Those components of System Input, which are billed and produce
revenue (also known as Billed Authorized Consumption). Equal to
Billed Metered Consumption plus Billed Unmetered Consumption.
The volume input to that part of the water supply system to which
the water balance calculation relates, allowing for known error in the
measurement of this input value. Equal to water from own sources plus
water imported.
Unavoidable Annual Real Loss (UARL) represents the theoretical
technical low limit of leakage that would exist in a system if all water
loss control efforts were exerted.
Those components of Authorized Consumption, which are not billed,
or revenue producing. Equal to Unbilled Metered Consumption plus
Unbilled Unmetered Consumption.
The difference between System Input and Authorized Consumption.
Water Losses can be considered as a total volume for the whole
system, or for partial systems such as raw water mains, transmission or
distribution systems, or individual zones.
System Input minus water exported to others.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
6

-------
Executive Summary
key function of a water utility is to ensure that it has adequate supply to provide water services
to its domestic, commercial, and industrial customers. Because population continues to grow
nationally, and at faster rates in some parts of the country, utilities often need to consider
whether it is appropriate to develop additional supplies. Such supplies may be provided by greater
withdrawals from surface water or groundwater, construction of reservoirs, or construction of desali-
nation or water reclamation facilities. Any of these types of projects carries a cost. As water utilities
consider options, it makes sense to ensure that they are effectively managing the water resources al-
ready under their control. More efficient use of water may avoid impacts to aquatic resources, provide
greater ecosystem protection, and/or free up the water saved to serve additional needs.
EPA has developed this best practices document to help water utilities and federal and state govern-
ments carry out assessments of the potential for future water conservation and efficiency savings to
avoid or minimize the need for new water supply development. The document can also be used by a
utility or a third party to conduct assessments of how the utility is managing its water resources from a
technical, financial, and managerial perspective.
The document consists of six major practices, with suggested metrics to guide evaluations of prog-
ress. No single metric is intended to serve as a stand-alone test. Instead, the combined information on
water conservation and efficiency implementation, with emphasis on planned measures, can inform
reviews of a project's purpose and need, and analysis of alternatives.
•	The first practice involves conducting a water audit. The AWWA Free Water Audit Software® avail-
able from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) is used to complete a water balance
and produce performance indicators for how well the basics of the water system are understood,
including how much of the water distributed is authorized, metered, and/or billed.
•	Next, because leakage represents the largest real losses for most systems; the second practice
focuses on assessing and addressing water loss minimization through leakage control. Metrics
focus on measures of leakage tailored to system characteristics, identifying an economic level of
loss, and measures (in place and planned) to assess and control water loss.
•	Metering of water, the third practice, allows for accurate accounting of water distributed, and can
help identify unseen sources of leakage and prioritize abatement measures. When metered usage
is communicated to customers, it also helps inform and incentivize how end uses are managed.
•	The fourth practice is an examination of water rate structure. Charges for water should reflect the
full long-range costs (i.e., forward-looking, not historical) of operating and maintaining a water
utility, as well as the scarcity and value of the resource. The rate structure should also encourage
and reward conservation and efficient use.
•	End user water conservation and efficiency analysis, the fifth practice, begins with characterizing
the system in terms of customer types and demand (e.g., single family residential, multifamily
residential, commercial, institutional, industrial). This then allows for identification of demand
drivers and demand reduction opportunities through targeted programs and incentives for end
users.
•	The final practice is a written plan which includes definitive and measurable goals for optimizing
system performance and ensuring efficient water use, with timelines for implementation.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
7

-------
Background
ater is vital. Public water supply, aquatic habitat, energy genera-
tion, agriculture, commercial and industrial uses, and recreational
opportunities all depend on water. Balancing competing uses of
surface water—instream and off-stream—and groundwater, while pro-
tecting water quality, is challenging our limited water supplies in ways that
require new solutions for responsible use.
Providing clean and reliable public water supply is a topic foremost on the
agendas of many communities across the United States and the world.
However, water supply reservoirs and withdrawals from surface water or
groundwater can also have significant negative environmental impacts
and do not address the root problem of the need to use our limited water
supply wisely.
Environmental Impacts
Reservoirs, created by damming streams and sometimes pumping water
from other surface waters, are often the first choice of water authorities
seeking to meet demand due to the apparent quick fix provided by the
ease of creating a large amount of storage. However, adverse impacts
of impoundments and withdrawals (direct or for pumped storage) are
well documented in the literature and include effects on the impounded
areas, as well as upstream and downstream reaches.1-4The United States
Geological Survey (USGS) has determined that hydrologic alteration is the
primary cause of ecological impairment in river and stream ecosystems.4
The conversion from lotic (moving water) to lentic (non-flowing water)
makes impounded areas unsuitable habitat for riverine species. Many spe-
cies, particularly migratory fish and associated species, cannot bypass the
barrier to reach habitat and spawning grounds in upstream reaches.
The physical, chemical, and biological health of the downstream reaches
may be greatly impacted due to numerous changes when releases are
managed for purposes related to reservoir use. Downstream hydrology
can be altered in ways that degrade physical stability and disrupt sediment
transport dynamics. Decreased flows may result in habitat-smothering
sedimentation; increased velocities may scour and erode stream banks.
Altering the hydrologic regime can impact water quality, eliminate natu-
ral variability, change water and food transport downstream, increase
temperature and nutrients, decrease dissolved oxygen levels, and induce
cyclical changes in cues for life cycle events of aquatic species.
Narrower ranges of flows disconnect rivers and streams from floodplains,
reducing hydration of riparian areas and limiting access to habitat for
some aquatic species. A modified rate of change in stream flows can devastate riparian species
such as cottonwoods, whose successful seedling growth depends on the rate of groundwater
recession following floodplain inundation.5 Withdrawals and impoundments reduce the volume of
water downstream, which can impact water quality, may require recalculation of National Pollutant
EPA Statement of Principles on Efficient
Water Use
1992, Reaffirmed in 2014 EPA Office ofWater
memo from Deputy Assistant Administrator Nancy
K. Stoner, Statement of Principles on Efficient Water
Use and the WaterSense Program90-91
•	In order to meet the needs of existing and fu-
ture populations and ensure that habitats and
ecosystems are protected, the nation's water
must be sustainable and renewable. Sound
water resource management, which empha-
sizes careful, efficient use ofwater, is essential
to achieve these objectives.
•	Efficient water use can have major environ-
mental, public health, and economic benefits
by helping to improve water quality, maintain
aquatic ecosystems, and protect drinking
water resources. As we face increasing risks
to ecosystems and their biological integrity,
the inextricable link between water quality
and water quantity becomes more important.
Water efficiency is one way of addressing water
quality and quantity goals.
•	The efficient use ofwater can prevent pollution
by reducing wastewater flows, recycling pro-
cess water, reclaiming wastewater, and using
less energy. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Office ofWater strongly encour-
ages all sectors, including municipal, industrial,
and agricultural, to achieve efficient water use.
•	EPA recognizes that regional, state, and local
differences exist regarding water quality,
quantity, and usage. Differences in climate,
geography, state institutions, and laws favor
a prudent approach in which water efficiency
programs are tailored for specific locales.
•	To promote efficient water use, EPA's primary
role is to provide technical assistance and
information concentrating on 1) improved
management practices, 2) better science, 3)
effective planning and coordination, 4) market
incentives, and 5) public education.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
8

-------
Background
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dischargers'permit limits, and
require Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to be redone to factor in lower
flows.
Not only do reservoirs cause disruption to the water cycle for the water-
shed and river basin, but they can also increase water loss in the basin due
to evaporation. According to some estimates, evaporative loss may even
be greater than some sectors'use (Figure 1).The cumulative impacts of
evaporative loss from the tens of thousands of smaller reservoirs is also
a concern, with one study in the Upper Oconee Basin in Georgia finding
in excess of 10 million gallons/day in additional evaporative loss due to
small impoundments alone.6 The State Climate Office of North Carolina
maintains a webpage with current and historical open water evaporation
estimates for many locations across the southeastern United States, which
may be of interest in considering system losses from reservoirs.7 The U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation is also engaged in research to improve estimates of reservoir evaporation and
is participating in piloting an Open Water Evaporation Network to both improve estimates of evapora-
tion and provide real-time information.8'9
Many aquifers throughout the country are under stress due
to increased pumping from existing wells or development of
new wells. In regions such as eastern Massachusetts10, Flori-
da, and central California, greater extraction of groundwater
in areas with insufficient recharge has resulted in diminished
water quality, dry wells, saltwater intrusion, land subsidence,
and reduced streamflow in rivers where there is a connec-
tion between groundwater and surface water.11 In 2014, as
extreme drought continued to impact the state, the Governor
of California signed a Sustainable Groundwater Management
Act which includes new requirements to manage groundwa-
ter and called for the development of groundwater manage-
ment agencies and plans in the most critically affected basins
(see http://www.water.ca.gov/cagroundwater/).12 In many
locations in the state, groundwater levels dropped more than
ten feet between 2006 and 2016 (Figure 2).13
Only taking what is needed helps minimize aquatic resource
impacts of hydrologic alteration from withdrawals, inunda-
tion from impoundment to create storage, reduced flows
when water is held back for storage, altered flow regimes,
decreases in groundwater levels, and disconnection of rivers
and streams longitudinally and from their floodplains.
Case Study:
The baseflow of the Ipswich River in northeastern
Massachusetts is highly influenced by
groundwater. All told, the watershed supports
drinking water to more than 330,000 people from
water systems that directly withdraw water from
the river or withdraw from wells that influence
river flow. When groundwater withdrawals are
high, particularly periods of high withdrawal or
drought, the river can suffer extreme low-flow
or no-flow conditions. In 2003, the state issued a
watershed action plan with several management
actions including a goal to reduce water demand
basin-wide by 15% through improvements in
water conservation.14
km* pw j*»f
300
250-
20O-
Industrial and domestic consumption:
Evaporation from *eserv<*r3
50-
J
190G tWO tB50 1960 1970 *960 19
lotrc*' y' A Sitfctorawov, flat* Mfchofaqcai feritdv (WfL fWinbvi
J LtalMl Ntftana fdKahoRa.&eartil-c - - *¦
1995 2000 2010
Figure 1: Global evaporation from reservoirs compared
to industrial and domestic use. Values for years 2000
and 2010 represent projections. Graphic prepared
by Philippe Rekacewica using data from Igor A.
Shiklomanov and UNESCO, 1999. World Water Resources:
Modern Assessment and Outlook for the 21st Century.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
9

-------
Background
Sfti I57.1M?

ChinHt	Incrwiw	Inertia
>10 ti ld cu >i_s rt */- 2.5 ft ^is eu an n na n
Groundwater Level Charge (ft)
«
CTM

i » 4'U4>1
Groundwater Level Change
*
Increase > 10 feet
•
Increase 10 lo > 2.5 feel

Change +1-2.5 feel
6
Decrease > 2.5 lo 10 feel
ft
Decrease >10 feet
1^1
Groundwater Basm
I	1
County Boundary
	
Major Highway

Major Canal
Figure 2. Groundwater level change from Spring 2006 to Spring 2016, based on water level
measurements in wells. Based on data from the California Dept. Water Resources Water Data Library
as of 4/26/2016. Updated 4/27/2016. Source: http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/maps_and_
reports/MAPS_CHANGE/DOTMAP_S2016-S2006.pd.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
10

-------
Background
Economic Impacts of Water Supply Development
Development of new supplies, treatment and distribution infrastructure,
and associated costs such as land acquisition and debt servicing can
be very expensive in comparison to implementing water conservation/
efficiency measures. According to a Georgia Environmental Protection
Division March 2008 paper, dams, and reservoirs can cost $4,000 per 1,000
gallons of capacity whereas water efficiency costs between $0.46 to $250
per 1,000 gallons saved or new capacity.15 The 2017 Texas State Water
Plan estimated the 2070 weight-averaged unit costs of water supplies
made available through construction of major new reservoirs at $470 per
acre-foot, compared to $373 per acre-foot for municipal conservation
strategies.16 It is important to note that, if developing a new reservoir, ac-
counting for costs associated with environmental impacts of development,
including providing compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands
and streams, should be included when comparing costs and benefits of
reservoir construction, operation, and maintenance to costs of efficiency implementation and other
alternatives.
Conversely, optimizing system management and demand can be very advantageous for water utili-
ties.17 Avoided or delayed infrastructure development projects and associated transmission, storage,
and treatment requirements can save significant capital and debt service. Reduced demand can lower
operating and maintenance costs such as pumping and chemical costs, as well as associated energy
costs. When communicated effectively to the public, economic savings and resource stewardship can
bolster confidence in system management and end-user buy-in to de-
mand management programs. Effective public engagement in managing
demand also involves end users as part of the solution to resource man-
agement.
Water-Energy Nexus
Improving water use efficiency can also reap benefits of lower energy
demand because of reduced pumping for both supply distribution and
wastewater, with associated environmental benefits. The Electric Power
Research Institute estimates energy use by public drinking water systems
to be roughly 39.2 billion kWh annually, and use by municipal waste-
water treatment systems to be 30.2 billion kWh per year, constituting a
combined 1.8% of all electricity used in the U.S..19 For municipal govern-
ments, energy usage for water and wastewater utilities can constitute a
major portion of total energy expenses. Improving water use efficiency
can reduce the need for capital investment on supply and treatment sides
(chemical use and infrastructure), as well as related energy generation in-
frastructure. Inefficient water usage also impacts air resources by increas-
ing the need for energy production. It takes energy to pump water from
source to treatment facility; to treat water that is used inefficiently at the
tap or for irrigation, or wasted as a result of leaks; as well as to pump wastewater generated from inef-
ficient water use back to a wastewater treatment plant. Energy use can be reduced by such measures
as installation of high efficiency shower heads and appliances to lower demand for heated water.
Case Study:
The baseflow of the Ipswich River in northeastern
Massachusetts is highly influenced by groundwa-
ter. All told, the watershed supports drinking water
to more than 330,000 people from water systems
that directly withdraw water from the river or with-
draw from wells that influence river flow. When
groundwater withdrawals are high, particularly pe-
riods of high withdrawal or drought, the river can
suffer extreme low-flow or no-flow conditions. In
2003, the state issued a watershed action plan with
several management actions including a goal to
reduce water demand basin-wide by 15% through
improvements in water conservation.14
Case Study:
In 2007, Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department
(WASD) received a 20-year Water Use Permit from
the South Florida Water Management District.The
permit included conditions to address an antici-
pated supply-demand gap, and required WASD
to develop alternative water supply sources and
continue improvements in water use efficiency and
water loss reduction. In 2011, WASD applied for a
permit modification based on water use reduc-
tions as a result of lower than expected population
growth, water loss reduction, successful imple-
mentation of the Department's Water Conservation
Plan, and permanent two-day-a-week landscape
irrigation restrictions by county ordinance. The
county's finished water demand had decreased
approximately 40 million gallons perday(mgd)
below what was anticipated with the first 20-year
water use permit application. Demand reduction
had eliminated the anticipated supply shortage,
which was the basis for several costly near-term
alternative water supply projects.18
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
11

-------
Background
Increasing energy use at water and wastewater utilities also has become a concern for EPA in efforts
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One of the largest sources of greenhouse gases is emissions
associated with generation of electricity from fossil fuel combustion.20 The EPA report National Water
Program 2012 Strategy: Response to Climate Change considers water conservation/efficiency to be an
important factor in its climate change goals.21 Through 2015, EPA estimates that users ofWaterSense-
labeled products have saved more than 212 billion kilowatt hours, eliminating 78 million metric tons
of greenhouse gas emissions.22
Increased energy use also impacts water quality because power plants rely on our nation's water
supply to meet their cooling needs. Forty-five percent of the 355 billion gallons of water used per day
by Americans in 2010 was for producing electricity at thermoelectric power plants, by far the largest
source of water withdrawal.23 The U.S. Geological Survey no longer accounts for evaporative losses as-
sociated with thermoelectric generation in national estimates of water use, but some estimates range
as high as 70% for some types of cooling plants.24 These are important considerations in evaluating
the positive impacts of water efficiency measures and the many indirect environmental impacts of
water supply projects. These concerns can be partially addressed by implementing water efficiency
measures which reduce water supply needs, in turn resulting in reduced energy needs.
Water Use Trends
Water withdrawals for public supply (for domestic, commercial, and industrial purposes) were approx-
imately 42,000 million gallons per day (MGD) in the 2010 assessment of water use in the United States
published by the US Geological Survey (USGS).23 Use decreased in thermoelectric power generation
and irrigation, as well as all other uses except mining and aquaculture since the previous (2005) USGS
water use assessment.25 Nationally26, per capita water use by single-family residential customers is de-
clining. However, with increasing populations, additional need may demand more from our resources
in the future, and local population, land use, and industrial shifts may concentrate demand in ways
not reflective of national trends. Efficient use can reduce withdrawal and storage needs, alleviating
these pressures on natural systems and reducing financial costs to ratepayers for developing new in-
frastructure and storage. It is important to acknowledge that use in portions of service areas may shift
as economic conditions change, such as addition of water-using appliances and fixtures. It is critical
that management of total water demand is addressed in working towards sustainably meeting water
resource needs.
Many communities have demonstrated success in reducing use even as populations grow. Conserva-
tion and efficiency programs adopted by the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District and
the state of Georgia have led to per capita demand declines of more than 30% between 2000 and
2015.27 Total water withdrawals in the 15-county District have decreased by over 10 percent despite a
20 percent increase in total population (Figure 3).28The City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, reached a point
when developers were seeking permits, but the system had no additional water capacity. These de-
velopers had to "find" water by retrofitting older homes and buildings, a process now termed capacity
buy back?7 Seattle, in particular, has achieved notable improvements in efficiency (Figure 4, Figure 5).
Between 1990 and 2010, population in Seattle's regional service area increased by 15 percent while
water demand decreased about 30 percent (50 MGD).29
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
12

-------
Background
Water Demand Forecasts
2,000
MNGWPD Wat&r Demand and Population
9,000,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
Scenario 1
-J'
200? Plan
8,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
2016 Plan Scenario 2
	i, 000,000
P opu la 11 on
2016 P'an Scenario 1
3.000.000
Wa t ermihdmvals
2,000,000
O O-l \t" -0 CO O 0-I -4* --O CO O O-l 'J" --O CO O O-l --4- -0 CO O O-I J- -O	CO	O 0-4 \±- -0 CO O O-J "J" -O CO o
CO CO « OJ ® o-. o-- O"-	C~ O O O O O r- c- r- •— r- O-l O-l O-l O-l	Cv|	CO CO O CO CO -J- J- J-	-± ICr
0-.0"-0--0--0--0--0--0-.c^c^00000000000000	0	00000000000
r—	^	r—	r—	C-4 C-J O-l C-l O-l O-l O-l O-l O-l O-l OJ O-l O-l O-l	O-l	O-l O-l O-l C--I O-l OJ 
z 
-------
Background
180
160
>> 140
(ti
5 120
a
o 100
d)
t 80
a)
a
£ 60
_o
rt 40
a
	 Total Consumption
X
Billed Consumption 	

/
Win"*" ^
1992 Drought
and Curtailment


1% Conservation
Program

	




o
00
Cl
s s
01 01
01
01
0
01
CI
01
01
3 &
01 Oi
01
o
o
o
<\]
o
o
<\]
o
o
U3
o
o
<\]
¦Ki O
O rH
o o
Figure 5. Per capita water consumption 1980-2010, Seattle Public Utilities. Source: Seattle Public
Utilities. (2011) Saving Water Partnership 2010 Annual Report & Ten Year Program Review.
Water conservation can be described as "any beneficial reduction in water use or in water losses."30
However, conservation should be differentiated from curtailment, which means mandatory reduction
in water use as needed during drought or emergency situations to achieve immediate results.17 Water
efficiency or water use efficiency refers to the accomplishment of a function, task, process, or result
with the minimal amount of water feasible. It is also an indicator of the relationships between the
amount of water needed for a specific purpose and the amount of water used, occupied, or deliv-
ered.31 Water efficiency is a tool of water conservation that reduces water demand without changing
the quality of the use. The term demand management helps distinguish this from supply-side man-
agement.
Purpose of the Water Efficiency Best Practices
This best practices document has been developed to help support assessments of the potential for
future water conservation and efficiency savings that could avoid or minimize the need for new water
supplies. It builds on a document that EPA Region 4 published in June 2010. That document, Guide-
lines on Water Efficiency Measures for Water Supply Projects in the Southeast32, provided guidance on
many of the same aspects of water efficiency as this document. Since that time, auditing tools and
guidance published by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) have become widely accepted
standards, bringing more quantitative tools into use. With auditing tools and reference values avail-
able for what constitute well-managed systems with minimal losses and efficient households, EPA
recognizes the value of more performance-based, quantitative evaluations in providing a reason-
able basis for reviews of proposed water supply projects. To assist in development of this document,
EPA consulted with members of aTechnical Advisory Group who provided their independent critical
input on current standards and methods of evaluating water conservation and efficiency. Using their
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
14

-------
Background
recommendations, EPA developed the document, which was then peer reviewed by an independent
panel.
Both EPA's Office of Water and the WaterSense program have an interest in helping communities and
water utilities make the best use of their water resources and build resilience to water shortages. A
water utility seeking a new water supply, particularly one that could involve environmental impacts,
should be able to clearly define the water supply challenge driving consideration of new supply de-
velopment, and demonstrate justifiable need. In other words, a utility should be able to demonstrate
that its existing supplies are not sufficient to address projected demand. For some utilities, accommo-
dating peak summer outdoor water use or small but high-demand segments of the user population
may be drivers. For other utilities, water lost through leaking distributions systems might constitute
significant quantities and drive interest in developing new supplies.
Auditing and review of water supply systems helps gauge whether demand and distribution are be-
ing managed effectively. Optimal system management and incentivizing efficient use helps ensure
that unnecessary impacts to aquatic resources and the environment are avoided. The best practices
that follow help to ensure systems are operating at optimal efficiency or are on track to do so, and
that projected need—the basis for predicting any future supply-demand gaps—is reasonable. Op-
portunities for system improvements (e.g., management by pressure zone, improved leak detection,
and repair or replacement of leaking infrastructure) may bean untapped "source" that can help meet
demand and avoid more expensive development of new supply and impacts to aquatic resources.
Local governments and water utilities can use these best practices to carry out a self-assessment in
order to evaluate the opportunity to minimize the need for additional capacity before consideration
of a water supply project. As AWWA says in its Water Conservation Program Operations & Maintenance
Standard, G480-13, utilities should treat conservation "as equal to other water supply options, and
where appropriate, include water made available through conservation as part of the supply portfolio
when conducting supply-and-demand forecasting analyses."33
The document sets targets and common points of reference for evaluation of feasible, cost-effective
water conservation and efficiency measures that the utility can implement in the future to optimize
existing water supplies, as it is the potential for future water savings that can avoid or minimize the
need for new water supply. The analysis of efficiency potential should have as its demand reduction
goal (performance-based savings target) the same yield (MGD) as the proposed water supply project.
If used by a state or federal agency, the document could help ensure that partners involved in review-
ing a proposed reservoir or other water supply project use consistent methods in evaluating the pur-
pose, need, and analysis of alternatives. EPA may also use these review procedures to evaluate water
demand projections for non-reservoir projects such as new or significantly increased surface water
withdrawals or groundwater supply withdrawal which are being reviewed through CWA Section 404
permitting, EPA grants, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or other EPA programs. Propos-
als for water supply expansion projects should clearly address the water supply challenge (i.e., when
and where there are water limitations) facing the utility, as the project basis when proposing projects
that may be reviewed by EPA.
For water supply projects, alternatives may include supply approaches such as expanding an exist-
ing reservoir or intake, purchase from another system, or reuse; or demand management approaches
such as instituting more comprehensive efficiency measures. Non-structural approaches to address-
ing supply needs such as efficiency measure implementation should be considered as part of needs
and alternatives analysis to evaluate opportunities to avoid or minimize impacts to aquatic resources.
These should be considered modular elements of an integrated planning approach that optimizes re-
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
15

-------
Background
source management so as to meets end users' needs as efficiently as possible, with the least environ-
mental impact practicable. If a new reservoir or withdrawal is pursued, it should be sized, configured,
and operated in accordance with efficiency-based need so as to minimize impacts.
Utilities and state agencies can also use the practices as a means to demonstrate overall capacity in
technical (e.g., sound asset management), financial (e.g., rates/revenues), and managerial (e.g., sound
planning) areas. Finally, these best practices can be used by water utilities, municipalities, counties,
and other entities involved in water resource planning to communicate to their constituents, boards,
and members about the benefits of water conservation and efficiency and to demonstrate sound
management of financial assets and resources.
Assistance Opportunities
Water efficiency and reuse programs help systems avoid, downsize, and postpone expensive infra-
structure projects such as developing new source water supplies, building new treatment capacity,
and expanding pumping and delivery infrastructure. When unneeded investments are avoided, sys-
tems have more resources for other critical needs. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
and Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) programs can be important sources of financial as-
sistance to help states and systems initiate a variety of efficiency measures and programs. The CWSRF
and DWSRF programs, which operate in every state and Puerto Rico, work like banks. Federal and state
contributions are used to capitalize the programs. These assets, in turn, are used to make low or no-
interest loans for important drinking water and water quality projects. Under the loan fund and set-
asides, state DWSRF programs can provide financial assistance to initiate a variety of water efficiency
measures and programs. With recent changes to CWSRF eligibilities made available through the 2015
Water Resources Development Act, a wide range of water efficiency, water reuse, and alternative
water projects can be funded through that program. These types of projects are eligible because they
address the ability of wastewater treatment plants to meet the environmental goals of a community
with efficiency and at minimum cost. Eligible types of borrowers differ based on the type of project.
Water audits and conservation plans that are reasonably expected to result in a capital project are also
eligible.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
16

-------
Best Practices
This document describes six best practices that water utilities can undertake to assist them in con-
sidering water efficiency as an alternative to development of new supplies. The practices are:
1.	Water System Management: Supply Side and Demand Side Accounting
2.	Water Loss Minimization: Leak Management
3.	Metering
4.	Conservation Rate Structure
5.	End Use Water Conservation and Efficiency Analysis
6.	Water Conservation and Efficiency Plan
For each section, the document describes the purpose of the practice and what information it pro-
vides. It provides a description of the approach to address the practice, with examples of how they
have been used by water utilities. Each practice suggests one or more metric that a utility can use to
assess progress. Where appropriate, a benchmark is also proposed to provide a target against which
to assess progress. Each section also identifies one or more deliverable that complements identified
metrics. The deliverable could be used by utility management or a state/federal authority as a demon-
stration of how the utility is addressing the practice. Finally, each section includes a list of resources.
1. Water System Management: Supply Side and Demand
Side Accounting
To conduct a robust assessment of the potential for optimizing water resources through improved
water efficiency, a water utility must understand how water moves through its system of pipes and
pumps from source to end user. For the purposes of these review procedures, it is important to
understand how water utilities are implementing and will implement measures to ensure optimiza-
tion of existing supplies, and to identify opportunities for saving water that can reduce the need for
additional supplies before pursuing new reservoirs or other supply development activities that would
have adverse environmental impacts.
Some of the key questions a water utility should ask itself include:
•	Where is the water going? How much water is lost between withdrawal and delivery? How much
revenue is lost? The water supply sector both in the U.S. and internationally has moved to a
standard in which all water must be accounted for in the system;"unaccounted for water"as an
industry category of water loss no longer exists.3435 It is no longer acceptable for a system to have
water moving through its pipes and not know its destination.
•	What are the drivers of demand (a particular user category? a small subset of high-use accounts
within a category? seasonal uses in some categories?)?
•	What management approaches are feasible for managing system usage and loss before reaching
diminishing returns (e.g., has the system achieved an economic level of loss?)?
To effectively manage a water system, it is important to begin by understanding the dynamics of
water inputs, outputs, demands, and supply constraints. By limiting unnecessary or wasteful source
water withdrawals, water authorities gain financial benefits through improved revenue recovery, less
wear and tear on infrastructure, fewer service disruptions, and improved system integrity.37
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
17

-------
Best Practices
System Input
Volume (corrected
for known errors)
Authorized
Consumption
Billed Authorized
Consumption
Billed Metered Consumption
(including water exported)
Billed Unmetered Consumption
Revenue Water
Unbilled
Authorized
Consumption
Unbilled Metered Consumption
Unauthorized Unmetered
Consumption
Non-Revenue Water
(NRW)
Water Losses
Apparent Losses
Unauthorized Consumption
Customer Metering Inaccuracies
Systematic Data Handling Errors
Real Losses
Leakage on Transmission and
Distribution Mains
Leakage and Overflows at Utility's
Storage Tanks
Leakage on Service Connections up
to point of Customer metering
Figure 6. Water balance components. Source: American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2006.
Water Conservation Programs — A Planning Manual (Manual of Water Supply Practices M52), 1st edition.
Denver, CO.38
Inputs, or the volume of water pumped into a water utility system (through withdrawal or purchase),
should equal the volume of water taken out of (or lost from) the distribution system. This water bal-
ance can be broken down into the categories outlined in Figure 6, with volumes for each category
determined through a top-down water audit, the recommended starting point for water utilities
compiling an initial audit.37 The top-down approach uses information from existing records, data,
and information systems to gain broad perspective on how system volumes fit into a water balance.
A bottom-up approach, by contrast, is a more detailed look into validating results (e.g., with actual
field measurements, analysis of leakage reports, billing system review, and/or meter inspections), and
can help the utility achieve more refined understanding of the system and opportunities to improve
operations and management. Bottom-up auditing can also ground truth top-down audit results by
refining real loss volume estimates.
Utilities may be particularly interested in the values that populate the two categories to the far right:
revenue water and non-revenue water (NRW). Revenue water is the volume that is billed and produc-
es revenue.37 Non-revenue water (NRW) is water that is piped, pumped, and treated, but not produc-
ing revenue for the utility. Examples include unbilled but authorized consumption (e.g., parks de-
partment irrigation); customer metering inaccuracies, data handling errors, or theft (called apparent
losses because the water is used but not on the books); and system leakage (real losses). Unbilled use
and losses cost the utility through treatment, energy for pumping, wear and tear on the system, and
wasting sources of water supply. If losses of NRW are high, why should a utility invest in a new, costly
water supply reservoir and incur the environmental impacts involved? Analysis of its water balance
(Figure 6), will enable a utility to account for all water supplied to its distribution system, and to begin
evaluating alternatives for reducing NRW to an economic level so as to preserve water resources.
Apparent losses are"nonphysical losses that occur when water is successfully delivered to a water
user but, for various reasons, is not measured or recorded accurately."37 Apparent losses are "paper"
losses: water that is used and should be paid for, but is not due to issues such as metering inaccura-
cies, unauthorized use, and data handling errors. Reducing apparent losses can increase revenues for
a utility, and may provide incentive for end users to reduce or eliminate wasteful practices.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
18

-------
Best Practices
Real losses are water that is piped into the system,
but is lost before making it to the end user. These are
physical losses such as breaks and leaks from water
mains and customer service connection pipes, joints,
and fittings; from leaking reservoir walls; and from
reservoir or tank overflows. To understand where both
real and apparent losses are occurring, the utility must
understand how water flows through the system,
beginning with system inputs.
Case Study:
Asheville Water Resources Department initiated a multi-faceted
water conservation program in 2012. Water auditing using AWWA
methods identified non-revenue water comprised primarily of real
losses, and the department committed resources to leak detection,
meter testing, zone metering, pressure reduction, and evaluating
unbilled uses. These measures have already resulted in significant
water savings, including reductions of real losses from 6 mgd in late
2012to less than 5 mgd bythe beginning of 2016 (Figure 7).
8.00
7,00
6.00
i.ao
s	9 .~ p $ $ * & * * * .~ # &
/>v ///>>V ^>y ^VV
CauQ1ya^ MimIK^ V: wd Cwpimh & Aw tutu, P-A.

Figure 7. City of Asheville, NC water loss key performance indicators. Source: City of Asheville, NC and
Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A. 2016.
Conducting the Audit
To create a baseline for supply-side accounting (including system water loss), a utility should conduct
standardized top-down audits (12 months of data) annually. The AWWA and the International Water
Association (IWA) have created a standardized water audit methodology, now available as a tool that
will assist utilities in completing the water balance: the AWWA Free Water Audit Software0.39This
methodology standardizes the process for determining the fate of water brought into the system and
should replace historical methods that included calculations of"unaccounted-for water." It has been
successfully incorporated into regulations in several states including Georgia, California,Tennessee,
and Texas. The software allows the user to enter either known (measured) or approximated values
related to the water balance. It also involves inputs such as length of mains, service connections,
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
19

-------
Best Practices
operating pressure, and cost data. Results produced include several performance indicators (described
below) that can be used for planning purposes by the utility. For guidance on using the free software
and comprehensive auditing procedures, AWWA has published Water Audits and Loss Control Programs
(Manual of Water Supply Practices M36)?1
Prior to seeking a new source of water supply, a water utility should have five years'worth of auditing
data. Five years of data is needed to establish trends in performance indicators, and the utility should
continue completing water audits annually with a goal of achieving a high level of data validity and
improving audit results over time. The outputs of the audits (e.g., Data Validity Score, Non-Revenue
Water, Infrastructure Leakage Index - described below) should then be used to develop and submit
a water loss control or leak management plan to control water loss to an economically feasible level
(explained in the section Water Loss Minimization: Leak Management). Due to the uniqueness and com-
plexity of each utility's water system, it is important to analyze the various benchmarks and thresh-
olds together. No single benchmark or metric tells the whole story, and with tools to achieve more
informed system accounting on hand, we are much better able to responsibly manage public water
resources. As the Alliance for Water Efficiency highlights in their 2014 guidance on rate-setting:
In the past, demand forecasts have tended to overestimate demand as they have relied on
historical consumption patterns and simple assumptions. Methods have improved over time to
capture the trend of declining water demand and incorporate variables that impact demand,
such as weather and climate change, new legislation, penetration of more efficient technology,
efficiency programs, and demographic changes.40
Metric: Data Validity
If evaluating a potential water supply project, utilities should have five years of data from the AWWA
Free Water Audit Software®. The Data Validity Score is the component of the water audit output that
describes the accuracy of the water utility data. The score accounts for how much of the data used
relies upon estimates and/or default values rather than values specific to the utility. The reliability of
the audit is only as good as the data entered into the software. Data will never be perfect, but should
improve and should meet or surpass the following threshold if the utility is seeking to develop new
water supplies.
It is also recommended that water audits be reviewed by someone trained in assessing reliability of
data validity scores. As stated in the Georgia Water System Audits and Water Loss Control Manual (ver-
sion 2.0, March 2016):
The process of validation confirms the integrity of the component water consumption and
loss values in the water audit. The validation of all performance indicators and values used in
the determination of these indicators is of utmost importance. Data of low validity will lead to
inaccurate performance indicator values and poor guidance for the water utility. No matter how
sound the auditing process, poor data gives an inaccurate picture of the water system and its
performance.
A Water Research Foundation (WRF) project designed to assess adoption of AWWA water audit meth-
odology found that in 21.1% of audits, self-reported data included implausible results.41 The authors
then used filters to screen out those implausible results (Figure 8) and found that the excluded audits
had self-reported Data Validity Scores four points higher than those that passed the filtering criteria
(77.1 vs 73.1). In other words, utilities with implausible audit results also tended to assess their data
validity higher that utilities with realistic audit data. The authors noted that the Georgia and Tennessee
datasets had the fewest audits excluded for implausible data, and that those regions also have more
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
20

-------
Best Practices
training for audit reviews. The Georgia audits
had been through Level 1 ("desktop review")
validation by third-party reviewers. These results
speak to the need for independent review of
audit results so as to confirm the reliability of the
results.
The same WRF project also published median
performance indicator values (Figure 9) for au-
dits from five regions using AWWA audit meth-
odology (using most recent audit year data, and
only audits that passed filtering tests as above).
For systems wishing to gauge performance
against a larger dataset, these median values
may provide useful perspective.

METRIC
CRITERIA FOR EXCLUSION

Infrastructure Leakage Index
<1.0
.o
>20.0
Qj
£
Real Losses
< 0 (negative) - iflLI does not apply
§
cost of Non-Revenue Water
> 100% of system operating costs

incomplete audit
key fields not filled out
is
G
Customer Retail Unit Cost
morethan 2 orders of magnitude off of
the regional median
C
MS
Variable Production Cost
morethan 2 orders of magnitude off of
the regional median
Figure 8. Criteria used to exclude audits for implausible results.
Source: Sturm R, Gasner K, Andrews L. Water Audits in the United
States: A Review of Water Losses and Data Validity. Denver, CO; 2015.

PERFORMANCE
INDICATOR
MEDIAN
AVERAGE
UNIT
n
FILTERS
financial
customer retail
unit cost
$4.67
$8.33
$ /1,000 gallons
1,545
passes customer retail unit cost check
variable
production cost
$950.00
$2,085.28
$ / million
gallons
1,489
passes variable production cost check
NWRas%of
operating cost
7.8%
10.2%
% of operating
cost
630
passes both cost checks
passes volumetric validity checks
does not come from Texas (operating cost not
reported)
operational
Apparent Losses
5.73
14.88
gallons/serv
conn / day
1,290
passes volumetric validity checks
Real Losses (serv
conn)
39.88
51.81
gallons/serv
conn / day
812
passes volumetric validity check
service connection density > 32 conn / mile of main
Retail Losses
(mains)
785.54
1,132.42
gallons/mile of
main / day
478
passes volumetric validity checks
service connection density < 32 conn / mile of main
Real Losses
(pressure)
0.59
0.79
gallons/serv
conn /day/ PSI
812
passes volumetric validity checks
service connection density > 32 conn / mile of main
ILI
2.48
3.12
(dimensionless)
644
passes basic volumetric validity checks
UARL calculation applies - (32xLm) + Nc> 3,000
data validity score
73.1
71.7
points out of
100
679
passes basic volumetric validity checks
does not come from Texas
Figure 9. Median performance indicator values for audits passing screening criteria. Source: Sturm
R, Gasner K, Andrews L. Water Audits in the United States: A Review of Water Losses and Data Validity.
Denver, CO; 2015
Benchmark: Data Validity Score
As explained in the water audit software (under the tab Loss Control Planning), Data Validity Scores can
be divided into five levels.39 A low Data Validity Score (50 or lower) means the data is less reliable and
data input improvements should be the primary focus for the utility. As data collection and reliability
improve, the score will improve. Figure 10 suggests areas for improvement based on a utility's data
validity score.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
21

-------
Best Practices
Water Loss Control Planning Guide

Water Audit Data Validity Level / Score
Functional
Focus Area
Level 1 (0-25)
Level II (26-50)
Level III (51-70)
Level IV (71-90)
Level V (91-100)
Audit Data Collection
Launch auditing and loss
control team; address
production metering
deficiencies
Analyze business process for
customer metering and billing
functions and water supply
operations. Identify data gaps.
Establish/revise policies and
procedures for data collection
Refine data collection
practices and establish as
routine business process
Annual water audit is a reliable
gauge of year-to-year water
efficiency standing
Short-term loss
control
Research information on leak
detection programs. Begin
flowcharting analysis of
customer billing system
Conduct loss assessment
investigations on a sample
portion of the system:
customer meter testing, leak
survey, unauthorized
consumption, etc.
Establish ongoing
mechanisms for customer
meter accuracy testing, active
leakage control and
infrastructure monitoring
Refine, enhance or expand
ongoing programs based
upon economicjustification
Stay abreast of improvements
in metering, meter reading,
billing, leakage management
and infrastructure
rehabilitation
Long-term loss control

Begin to assess long-term
needs requiring large
expenditure: customer meter
replacement, water main
replacement program, new
customer billing system or
Automatic Meter Reading
(AMR) system.
Begin to assemble economic
business case for long-term
needs based upon improved
data becoming available
through the water audit
process.
Conduct detailed planning,
budgeting and launch of
comprehensive improvements
for metering, billing or
infrastructure management
Continue incremental
improvements in short-term
and long-term loss control
interventions
Target-setting


Establish long-term apparent
and real loss reduction goals
(+10 year horizon)
Establish mid-range (5 year
horizon) apparent and real
loss reduction goals
Evaluate and refine loss
control goals on a yearly basis
Benchmarking


Preliminary Comparisons -
can begin to rely upon the
Infrastructure Leakage Index
(ILI)for performance
comparisons for real losses
(see below table)
Performance Benchmarking -
I LI is meaningful in comparing
real loss standing
Identify Best Practices/ Best in
class - the ILI is very reliable
as a real loss performance
indicator for best in class
service
For validity scores of 50 or below, the shaded blocks should not be focus areas until better data validity is achieved.
Figure 10. Water Audit Data Validity Level/Score from the AWWA Free Water Audit Software®
A Data Validity Score of 51 is the minimum level of data validity that a
utility can achieve in order to be considered able to begin long-term wa-
ter loss control goal-setting. Because target-setting and benchmarking
for a dynamic water loss control program are still preliminary at this level,
utilities with an AWWA audit Data Validity Score of 70 or less should focus
on data improvement before expending capital resources on significant
infrastructure projects such as expansion of supply, line replacement, real
loss detection and repair, or large scale meter change-out.
A Data Validity Score of at least 71 falls within the range for Level IV. A
utility scoring within Level IV should be able to conduct long-term water
loss control planning and benchmarking using the software performance
indicators, and those indicators can be used to gauge system perfor-
mance as part of a review of need and alternatives for proposed planning
for the system.
The states ofTennessee and Texas, and the Califor-
nia Urban Water Conservation Council42 use Data
Validity Score thresholds of at least 65 for regula-
tory and/or utility management purposes. For
instance, the threshold Data Validity Score required
by the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury
Utility Management Review Board increased on
January 1,2015 from greater than 65 to greater
than 70 for a utility to avoid being referred for fur-
ther review. That threshold will increase to a score
of greater than 75 on January 1,2017, and again
to greater than 80 on January 1,20194S In Texas,
utilities with Data Validity Scores below 70 must
implement a plan to identify where data collection
can be improved.44
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
22

-------
Best Practices
Deliverable: Data Validity Score (if <71)
If data validity is less than the threshold score (71), the utility should submit a strategy outlining any
improvements planned or underway with a timeline to achieve or surpass the Data Validity Score
threshold. Utilities should show a defensible, progressive effort to improve their water audit Data
Validity Score over time.
Deliverable: Data Validity Score (if 71 or greater)
If data validity is at or greater than the threshold score (71), the utility should present other aspects of
system evaluation, submitting other deliverables described in these guidelines.
Metric: Non-Revenue Water (NRW)
Reduction in NRW over time is a good indicator of effective water system management. The indicator
is comprised of unbilled authorized consumption, apparent losses, and real losses. Because it repre-
sents water pumped, treated, and distributed but not billed, the financial value is also readily calcu-
lated and may represent a significant opportunity to the utility and ratepayers.
Benchmark: Non-Revenue Water
A utility should be able to show an improving trend in NRW over a five-year period, demonstrating a
reduction in NRW as an annual volume in millions of gallons.
Deliverable: Non-Revenue Water
The utility should report non-revenue water as an annual volume in millions of gallons for at least the
five previous years. This is an output of the AWWA water audit process. Plans to reduce NRW should be
captured in a water conservation and efficiency plan (see Section 6), with annual targets in line with
water loss control strategies.
Resources
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2016. Water Audits and Loss Control Programs (Manual of
Water Supply Practices M36), 4th edition. Denver, CO.
American Water Works Association. (2014). AWWA Free Water Audit Software®. Available from http://
www.awwa.org/resources-tools/water-knowledge/water-loss-control.aspx
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Georgia Water System Audits and Water Loss Control Manual,
Version 2.0. Atlanta, Georgia; 2016.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Water Audits and Water Loss Control for Public Water
Systems. (EPA 816-F-13-002). Washington, DC.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
23

-------
Best Practices
2. Water Loss Minimization: Leak Management
This section addresses leaks from a utility's treatment and distribution system and infrastructure.
Leaks on the end user side of the system are treated separately below, in 5. End Use Water Conserva-
tion and Efficiency Analysis.
Leakage represents the largest real losses for most systems; thus, this section focuses on assessing
and addressing loss minimization through leakage control. Tank overflows are also a form of real loss,
but are much more visible and readily managed. Leakage may result from a range of conditions, in-
cluding material weaknesses and physical stresses, operational problems such as excessive pressure or
rapid changes in pressure, corrosion, seasonal stresses, leaks at connections and fittings, and acciden-
tal or deliberate damage. With most of the country's underground water infrastructure constructed 50
or more years ago, the effects of aging infrastructure are seen annually in approximately 240,000 main
breaks, leakage of 1.7 trillion gallons of treated drinking water, at the related loss of approximately
$2.6 billion.45 Leakage should be managed proactively and cost-effectively to keep it at economi-
cally low levels, and for effective stewardship of a shared and increasingly scarce resource. EPA's 2010
document Control and Mitigation of Drinking Water Losses in Distribution Systems includes details on
techniques for leak detection and strategies for intervention when issues are identified.35
Fundamental to assessing loss and calculating performance indicators are the metrics CARL and UARL,
as described by AWWA:
Current Annual Real Loss (CARL) is the volume of water lost from reported leaks, unreported
leaks, background losses, and storage tank overflows.
Unavoidable Annual Real Loss (UARL) represents the theoretical technical low limit of leakage
that would exist in a system if all water loss control efforts were exerted. Note that UARL has not
yet been sufficiently proven valid as a performance indicator for small systems. For small systems
such as these, AWWA recommends using the Op24 performance indicator in assessing real loss.37
Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) or Op 24 (real loss per service connection per day or real loss per
mile of main, depending on connection density) are the metrics to use to gauge real loss; abatement
of real losses can be evaluated through analysis of five-year trends in these performance indicators.
ILI, determined by dividing CARL by UARL, indicates a utility's operational management of real losses
in that it is a ratio of the actual real losses experienced by the utility to the lowest technically feasible
level of loss for that system. ILI will fall in the ranges shown in Figure 11 with values closer to 1.0 indi-
cating that the utility has brought real losses close to the theoretical technical low limit of leakage.
Op24 can be used as a performance indicator for small systems (those with average operating pres-
sure less than 35 psi, or (Lm*32 + Nc) <3,000 where Lm = length of mains (in miles, including hydrant
lead length) and Nc = number of customer service connections).)37 for which the audit output does
not calculate the ILI. Op24 does not have a normalized target range. ILI and Op24 can fluctuate annu-
ally, and should be reviewed in concert with the utility's Data Validity Score.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
24

-------
Best Practices
Guidelines for Use of the Level Infrastructure Leakage Index as a Preliminary Leakage Target-setting
Tool (in lieu of having a determination of the system-specific economic level of leakage)
Target ILI
Range
Water Resources
Considerations
Operational
Considerations
Financial Considerations
1.0-3.0
Available resources are greatly
limited and are very difficult
and/or environmentally un-
sound to develop.
Operating with system leakage
above this level would require
expansion of existing infra-
structure and/or additional
water resources to meet the
demand.
Water resources are costly to
develop or purchase. Ability to
increase revenues via water rates
is greatly limited due to regulation
or low ratepayer affordability.
3.0-5.0
Water resources are believed to
be sufficient to meet long-term
needs, but demand manage-
ment interventions (leakage
management, water conserva-
tion) are included in the long-
term planning.
Existing water supply infra-
structure capability is sufficient
to meet long-term demand
as long as reasonable leakage
management controls are in
place.
Water resources can be devel-
oped or purchased at reasonable
expense. Periodic water rate
increases can be feasibly effected
and are tolerated by the customer
population.
5.0-8.0
Water resources are plentiful,
reliable, and easily extracted.
Superior reliability, capac-
ity, and integrity of the water
supply infrastructure make it
relatively immune to supply
shortages.
Cost to purchase or obtain/treat
water is low, as are rates charged
to customers.
Greater than 8.0
While operational and financial considerations may allow a long-term ILI greater than 8.0, such a level
of leakage is not an effective utilization of water as a resource. Setting a target level greater than 8.0—
other than as an incremental goal to a smaller long-term target—is discouraged.
Less than 1.0
In theory, an ILI value less than 1.0 is not possible for most systems*. If the calculated ILI is just under
1.0, excellent leakage control is indicated. If the water utility is consistently applying comprehensive
leakage management controls, this ILI value validates the program's effectiveness. However, if strict
leakage management controls are not in place, the low ILI value might be attributed to error in a
portion of the water audit data, which is causing the real losses to be understated. If the calculated ILI
value is less than 1.0 and only cursory leakage management controls are used, the low ILI value should
be considered preliminary until it is validated by field measurements utilizing the bottom-up approach.
*An ILI value less than 1.0 can be achieved in small, stand-alone systems of less than 3,000 service connections, and in flexible pipe (such as
plastic) systems with high N1 values at pressures less than 40 psi.
Figure 11. AWWA Water Loss Control Committee—preliminary leakage management target-setting
guidelines. Source: American Water Works Association (AWWA). Water Audits and Loss Control Programs
(Manual of Water Supply Practices M36), 4th Edition. Denver, CO; 2016.
Like any of the water auditing benchmarks, ILI and Op24 are utility-specific performance indicators,
with an important factor being the ability to show an improving trend over a five-year period, or
to provide appropriate justification about why that trend cannot be shown. However, it may not be
realistically feasible for a utility to try to achieve an ILI very close to 1.0, nor cost-effective, particularly
if resources would be better directed to more cost-effective conservation and efficiency measures. To
help determine a meaningful level of effort in addressing leakage, a utility should seek to identify an
achievable level of loss control balanced against the cost of supplying water to end users.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
25

-------
Best Practices
Losses fie* with pressure
Unavoidable Annual
Real Losses
4TM* rvfottneavaluevaitMi rth (Ntuuif]
Economic Level of Leakage
An Economic Level of Leakage (ELL) analy-
sis should be used in developing a leakage
management program (or water loss control
plan) by helping identify what loss control
measures can realize a benefit relative to
their costs. An ELL analysis identifies the
amount of leakage that can be avoided
through control measures whose costs are
balanced against the savings of reduced
leakage (see Figure 12).'SS1 To determine an
ELL, a utility should start with a review of
the water audit results and its performance
indicators (such as Op 24 and Infrastructure
Leakage Index, explained above and in the
AWWA M36 Manual (see"County Water
Company"example in Chapter 7)).37 Water r.	r ...	, . .. ^ £	. ,,
... T , , , .	. ... Figure 12. Four-pillar approach to the control of real (leakage) losses,
utilities calculate their costs associated with Source; Amerjcan Water Works Association (AWWA) WaterAudits and
water loss using only direct, short-term costs, j_QSS Qon^roj Programs (Manual of Water Supply Practices M36), 4th Edition.
such as chemicals for treatment and power Denver CO; 2016
for distribution. For a water system seeking
EconomteaUy Recoverable
Annual Real Losimjs
Current Annual Real Losses
Economic Level of Real Losses
expansion of water supply, the calculation of the Economic Level of Leakage (ELL) should be com-
pared to costs that would be associated with expansion of water supply infrastructure (reservoirs,
treatment plants, pumping equipment, compensatory mitigation, etc.).37 Determining an ELL is ben-
eficial as an iterative process, performed periodically to reflect current conditions.
Utilities should conduct a component analysis of real loss to identify the various forms of leakage
(reported, unreported, background, hidden), and conduct an evaluation to determine the cost effec-
tiveness of options to improve control of those losses. The free Real Loss Component Analysis Model is
an Excel®-based spreadsheet tool that supports this type of analysis. The Water Research Foundation
project 4372a report, Real Loss Component Analysis: A Tool for Economic Water Loss Control provides
detailed information on use of the Model, and provides two case studies.46 The companion Water
Distribution System Failure Data Collection: Instructions and Data Field Names and Definitions supports
collection of data used for real loss component analysis.47
To maintain leakage at economically low levels (the amount of leakage that can be feasibly reduced
from an economic perspective), a utility should implement a leakage management plan and/or
water loss control program addressing each of the four pillars described by AWWA: active leakage
control, optimized leak repair activities, pressure management, and system rehabilitation and renewal
(Figure 12). A sample leakage management plan can be found in the AWWA M36 Manual (pp. 236-239
and Appendix B).37 Ultimately, the program should incorporate the best approach for the given utility,
and support reporting on loss control metrics. Water savings through leak abatement should be incor-
porated into projections for future water supply needs for the utility.
Pressure management is an important part of controlling leakage, and influences how metrics such as
ILi are calculated. Care should betaken when comparing metrics across years if average pressure (for
a system or zone) changes across time, as this may skew the appearance and comparability of calcu-
lated metrics. Particularly for systems with varied topography, pressures needed for one area may be
excessive in others. Controls that that allow for management of pressure by distinct zones can help
abate wear on infrastructure and reduce leakage.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
26

-------
Best Practices
Various methods can be used to optimize capital investment in proac-
tive leakage management (as opposed to reactive leak detection and
repair). Defining District Metered Areas (DMAs) is one approach that
sets up the analysis of flows during minimum hour periods (night flow
analysis) to distinguish legitimate customer consumption from leak-
age occurring in the DMA.35 Once DMAs are established with discrete
metered zones, they can also serve as early-warning systems for new
leakage. AWWA's M36 provides detailed consideration of using DMAs for
isolation and measurement of flows in leak detection.37
Metric: ILI or Op24
If a water utility has not achieved a water audit Data Validity Score of 71
or greater, then the utility should work on improving its Data Validity
Score in order to have greater confidence in the data on which to base
water resource planning, non-revenue water management interven-
tions, and financial decisions. If a water utility has achieved a Data Valid-
ity Score of 71 or greater, then:
Benchmark: ILI or Op24
Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) of 1.0 to 3.0 or declining trend in Op24
may indicate effective leakage controls, but a utility's score will depend
upon system characteristics such as average pressure. For a smaller sys-
tem, Op24 should show a declining trend over a five-year period. Indica-
tors of system leakage should be considered in concert with economic
level of leakage control analysis.
Deliverable: ILI or Op24
A utility whose water audit Data Validity Score is equal to or exceeds 71,
and whose ILI exceeds 3.0, should focus on its loss reduction strategy,
or provide an economic level of leakage analysis demonstrating that
an ILI greater than 3.0 is justified for the utility. If the utility is small and
the water audit output does not calculate the ILI, then Op 24 should be
used. The utility should show a declining trend in Op24 over a five-year
period. The utility should document regular maintenance activities and
planned interventions in the form of a leakage management plan or
water loss control program.
Metric: Economic Level of Leakage
If a water utility has not achieved a water audit Data Validity Score of 71
or greater, then the utility should work on improving its Data Validity
Score in order to have greater confidence in the data on which to base
water resource planning, non-revenue water management interven-
tions, and financial decisions. If a water utility has achieved a Data Valid-
ity Score of 71 or greater, then:
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion	27
Case Studies:
The Macon Water Authority (MWA) used existing water
system data (after completing an AWWA water loss
audit) to launch pilot DMAs to address leak manage-
ment in a fast, cost-effective way.48 Results of the pilot
estimated recoverable real loss for two zones at 621
million gallons per year, with an annual cost impact
of approximately $645,000. One ofthe most notable
aspects of this pilot, however, was that MWA was able
to initiate a new, proactive leakage management tool
(i.e., DMAs) without any capital investment; all ofthe
data was already available through their water audit
process, and the system had pressure zoning capa-
bilities incorporated. One particular note about the
effectiveness of DMAs is that a DMA "may reveal that a
given zone has high levels of leakage, but low levels of
recoverable leakage, which is helpful in the planning
of leak detection activities."48
The Water & Wastewater Authority of Wilson County,
Tennessee purchases 100% of its potable water sup-
ply from outside sources." The Authority uses the
AWWA Free Water Audit Software" annually, and has
been focused in recent years on controlling leaks to
an economically low level. Using DMAs, the Author-
ity monitors minimum night flows on its four largest
DMAs, and then has used the field data to seek out the
locations of suspected leaks. In one such effort, a leak
flowing into an underground sinkhole was identified
and repaired, bringing real loss in that DMA down
from 1.6 gpm/mile to 0.3 gpm/mile. This represents
avoided losses of 34 million gallons per year. Audit
results have shown decreases in the ILI (from 1.24
in FY08/09to 1.11 in FY09/10)and in the real losses
(from 645.59 gallons/mile/day in FY 08/09 to 575.49
gallons/mile/day in FY09/10). Although it faces many
ofthe challenges faced by small, rural systems (e.g.,
limited personnel and financial resources, piping in
unpaved areas, long distances between sounding
locations, low connection density), the success of this
program demonstrates that approaches tailored to
the individual utility can realize significant water loss
control benefits.®
In 2007, the South Florida Water Management District
granted Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department
(WASD) a 20-year Water Use Permit with conditions
requiring implementation of a water loss reduction
plan. WASD has deployed loggers, improved acoustic
detection implementation, and in 2014 alone proac-
tively found and repaired 1,240 water leaks. WASD's
program is expected to realize water savings of 14.25
mgd by 2017.18

-------
Best Practices
Deliverable: Economic Level of Leakage Analysis
The utility should provide Economic Level of Leakage (ELL) analyses conducted regularly (e.g., annu-
ally) for the most recent five years so as to document movement relative to achieving an economic
level of leakage. In the calculation of ELL for a water system seeking expansion of water supply, the
costs of real losses should be compared to costs for expansion of water supply infrastructure (reser-
voirs, treatment plants, pumping equipment, compensatory mitigation, etc.), to help gauge whether
controlling losses is a more cost-effective means of securing water supply. Summary outputs of a
component analysis of real loss should be provided, along with conclusions identifying cost-effective
real loss control measures.
Metric: Water Loss Control Program/Plan
For a sample leak management plan, see AWWA's M36, pages 236-239 and Appendix B.37
Deliverable: Water Loss Control Program/Plan
The utility should establish and actively administer a water loss control program that addresses
improvements in data validity, active real loss detection and reduction, and revenue recovery through
apparent loss control. The plans should address how much of the system is surveyed for leaks, how of-
ten, and with what methods. Through the implementation of its water loss control program, the utility
should be able to document how much water can be saved through leakage management, adjusting
its water demand projections accordingly.
Resources
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2016. Water Audits and Loss Control Programs (Manual of
Water Supply Practices M36), 4th edition. Denver, CO.
American Waterworks Association Research Foundation & US Environmental Protection Agency. 2007.
Leakage Management Technologies.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2016. Georgia Water System Audits and Water Loss Control
Manual, Version 2.0. Atlanta, Georgia.
Sturm R, Gasner K, Wilson T, Preston S, Dickinson MA. 2013. Real Loss Component Analysis: A Tool for
Economic Water Loss Control. Denver, CO.
Water Research Foundation. 2013. WaterRF 4372: Real Loss Component Analysis: A Tool for Economic
Water Loss Control - software. Available from http://www.waterrf.org/Pages/Projects.aspx?PID=4372.
Water Research Foundation. 2013. Water Distribution System Failure Data Collection: Instructions and
Data Field Names and Definitions.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Control and Mitigation of Drinking Water Losses in Distribu-
tion Systems. EPA document # EPA 816-R-10-019. Washington, DC.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
28

-------
Best Practices
3. Metering
Meters measure the volume of water passing through pipes along the way from withdrawal to dis-
tribution and delivery. Increasingly, meters can also provide real-time accounting of the timing and
patterns of use. Such detailed information can help identify unseen sources of leakage and prioritize
abatement measures. Utilities providing customers treated wastewater (reclaimed water) for irriga-
tion or other uses, either at no cost or as billed water, should meter this water, as well. A water utility
should assess the potential (future) water use reductions/water savings from the following metering-
related policies and programs, and adjust future water demand projections to account for the lower
water use expected of billed metered customers.
Universal metering, including sub-metering
Metering all water use in the system, also known as universal metering, provides critical data for water
system management and planning purposes. Universal metering of both public and private accounts
is a water industry best practice.33 In addition, these data provide important information about water
end use that supports more targeted water conservation and efficiency programs and policies. The
benefits of universal metering are many, and include a better understanding of system operations,
the ability to identify system losses more accurately, the ability to target conservation and efficiency
incentives to customers, and awareness on the part of the customer regarding their level of consump-
tion, providing a first step toward eliminating wasteful uses of water.
Some utilities bill multifamily, industrial, and commercial buildings a fixed water rate, which does not
encourage conservation because it lacks any linkage to degree of use. Multifamily residential build-
ings may also bill individual units a flat rate even if the main account is billed based on volumetric use,
eliminating an incentive for efficiency on the part of the end users. The water utility should work to
ensure water meters are installed on all houses, and on individual commercial, industrial, and insti-
tutional facilities so water users can measure, monitor, and directly pay for their use. This should be
required for all new construction, and via retrofit wherever possible, with triggers such as establish-
ment of new accounts or property sales. Without metering, customers lack incentive and information
for managing their water use.
Authorities should also encourage sub-metering on each unit of multi-family residential buildings.
EPA recognizes that stakeholders have in the past had concerns about whether apartment complexes
or similar residential communities receiving water from a public water system (PWS) through a master
meter and reselling it to residents qualify as PWSs. A December 16,2003, EPA memorandum entitled
"Applicability of the Safe Drinking Water Act to Submetered Properties" describes the agency's posi-
tion on the value of submetering:
The purpose of this memorandum is to announce EPA's revised policy concerning the applicabil-
ity of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to submetered properties. Submetering, as applied
in this policy, means a billing process by which a property owner (or association of property
owners, in the case of co-ops or condominiums) bills tenants based on metered total water use;
the property owner is then responsible for payment of a water bill from a public water system.
Under the revised policy, a property owner will not be subject to SDWA regulations solely as a
result of taking the administrative act of submetering and billing. Property owners must receive
all of their water from a regulated public water system to qualify under the terms of this policy
revision for submetered properties.
.. .Throughout the country, submetering of apartment buildings has been found to be an ef-
fective but little-used tool to support water conservation. Water conservation is an integral part
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
29

-------
Best Practices
of watershed protection, particularly in arid and drought-stricken areas. In addition to helping
reduce the risk of water shortages, water conservation also provides other important benefits.
Water conservation helps insure in-stream flows, thereby providing protection for ecosystems,
which can become out of balance when demands stress water resources. Water conservation
also helps reduce stress on water supply and wastewater infrastructure.49
Sub-metering ultimately provides the end user with data about their water consumption and, if
coupled with pricing that is based on actual metered use, can provide an incentive (i.e., price signal)
to the customer to eliminate wasteful practices. Sub-metering has been shown in one study to reduce
water use by 15 percent over flat-rate billing.50 A utility should adjust future water demand projections
to account for the lower water use expected by institution of sub-metering.
Bulk metering calibration and replacement program
A utility should consider having a large meter calibration and replacement program to ensure that
meters are the right type and right size for their respective purposes. Meters that are mismatched to
current uses (e.g., are matched to service line but not purpose, or are held over from a time when they
served a site with significantly different use) may not register flows correctly. Industrial, commercial,
and other large sized residential meters used in many such settings do not register low flows well and
therefore can result in unmetered/under-reported water use and undetected leaks. This can result in
lost revenue when water used is not measured or, therefore, billed, and also fails to send correct use
and pricing signals to customers.
Bill all customers based, in part, on their actual metered volumetric water use
Along with universal metering, the water utility should ensure that all customers are billed, at least in
part, based on their actual water use. No customers should be billed a flat charge of any kind as the to-
tal form of billing. Rather, charges should correspond to use. This is not to say that the entire water bill
should correspond to consumption; portions of the bill can be used to recoup fixed costs in its system
through a fixed base charge. Another form of charge that can be scaled to both help systems recover
the cost of new infrastructure associated with growth, and to influence incorporation of water-saving
features in new development is water connection charges matched to anticipated demand (e.g., lot
size, landscape type, efficiency of fixtures).51 For more detail on rate-setting, see the section below on
conservation rate structures and related references.
Source water metering
Utilities should implement metering not only of end users, but also of all water sources including
groundwater, surface water, water purchases, and/or reclaimed water.33 It is critical to meter water
sources to know how much water is running through the utility's pipes, pumps, and plants. Source
water data is required for the AWWA water audit and provides a starting point for determining how
much water is moving through the system.
Source water meters should be flow-verified by accuracy tests and calibrated routinely (dependent
on type of meter). Utilities should report on both the flow-verification and calibration routines and be
able to share a table of basic information about the measuring device: type, identification number,
frequency of reading, type of recording register, unit of measure (and conversion factor, if necessary),
multiplier, date of installation, size of pipe or conduit, frequency of flow verification and calibra-
tion, and dates of last flow verification and calibration.37 The fourth edition of AWWA's M36 includes
detailed information on validating meter data in Appendix A, "Validating Production Flowmeter Data
and Annual Water Supplied Volume."37
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
30

-------
Best Practices
Metric: Universal metering, including sub-metering
Benchmark: Universal metering
All water users and sources (100%) are metered. The water utility should ensure water meters are
installed on all accounts, both public and private, and bill (at least in part) based on metered use.
Deliverable: Percentage of service connections metered
The utility should report the percentage of all service connections that are metered.
Deliverable: Universal Metering
As in the AWWA Free Water Audit Software® output, the utility should report total authorized con-
sumption (gallons per day) and a breakdown as follows: 1. Billed metered, 2. Billed unmetered,
3. Unbilled metered, and 4. Unbilled unmetered.
Deliverable: Savings Potential of Metering Practices
The utility should submit an assessment of the savings potential from the following metering-related
practices and adjust water demand projections to account for shifts in water use expected from any
changes in comprehensiveness of metering and meter management:
•	Universal metering
•	Sub-metering
•	Bulk metering calibration and replacement program
•	Billing of all customers based, in part, on their actual metered volumetric water use
•	Source water metering
Resources
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2016. Water Audits and Loss Control Programs (Manual of
Water Supply Practices M36), 4th Edition. Denver, CO.
Satterfield Z, Bhardwaj V. 2004. Tech Brief—Water Meters. Morgantown, West Virginia.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
31

-------
Best Practices
4. Conservation Rate Structure
Rates should be structured such that they reflect the full long-range costs (i.e., forward-looking,
not historical) of operating and maintaining a water utility, as well as the scarcity and value of the
resource, while also encouraging and rewarding conservation and efficient use. According to the Alli-
ance for Water Efficiency:
The major shortcoming of ratemaking based solely on historical costs (rather than future costs)
is the risk of underpricing the water, which can lead to overconsumption and further increase
stresses on system capacity. From a practical perspective, using historical data to forecast the
future encourages utilities to overinvest in capacity while providing little incentive to deploy ex-
isting resources more efficiently through rate design and other load management techniques.40
Balancing pricing of water to incentivize efficiency while at the same time covering a water utility's
bottom line takes careful consideration.52 There are no one-size-fits-all solutions, and any solutions
identified should be reviewed regularly to adjust to new information and trends. Too often, water utili-
ties provide water at a cost that neither recaptures the true cost of that water and related services, nor
reflects the scarcity and value of the resource.
Given the significant potential for water savings through conservation rate structures, it is important
that water utilities estimate the potential demand reductions from pricing water for efficiency before
pursuing a reservoir or building an intake, treatment plant, or transmission system. To ensure that the
rate structure continues to reflect current and projected conditions, support financial stability, and
incentivize conservation and efficiency, it should undergo periodic evaluation (e.g., annual). Water
utilities (or associated wastewater utilities) providing customers treated wastewater (reclaimed water)
for irrigation or other uses should factor in availability of supply, and along with full metering, con-
sider rates that are tiered or otherwise maintain incentives for efficient use.
When a utility is considering the need for capacity expansion, and the unit cost of conservation imple-
mentation would be lower, the costs of conservation program implementation can be incorporated
into rate-setting, particularly for marginal cost pricing and higher use blocks (if used).53
Full Cost Pricing
As stated by the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) in their 2014 document Building Better Water Rates
for an Uncertain World, "Over the last two decades the cost of providing water has increased at a rate
greater than the rate of general inflation."40 Water rates which reflect the full cost of service can help
utilities capture the actual costs of operating water systems, bring in revenue, and provide seasonal
and long-range stability for utility operations. Costs can include personnel and non-personnel opera-
tions and maintenance, debt service on capital investments, depreciation (equipment replacement),
and price escalation (future construction). A flat service fee can be used to cover utility fixed costs
such as long-term pipe maintenance and replacement. These costs of operating and maintaining the
delivery system are common to all users, and having these fully funded helps prevent losses through
deteriorating system conditions, benefitting all users. This component does not send a price signal to
encourage conservation, however, and some utilities may opt for a completely consumption-based
pricing structure provided it does completely support effective operations and maintenance. Variable
costs such as energy for pumping and chemicals for treatment will change with volume of water sup-
plied, but should also be accounted for and recovered fully.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
32

-------
Best Practices
Rate Planning and Revenue Stability Planning
The balance of base charges and volumetric charges will depend on many factors such as utility size,
user profiles, and demand patterns. With informed analysis, however, rate structure and pricing can
be set to encourage efficiency and provide for revenue stability. As recognized by the Environmental
Finance Center at the University of North Carolina (EFC-UNC):
...in the long-term (with planning), sustained reductions in average and peak water use can
drive savings in capital investments. This can be achieved by recognizing decreasing demand
and delaying investments in capacity and/or treatment expansions. Additionally, by promot-
ing water efficiency, utilities may meet state regulations, act as responsible stewards of water
resources, and engage with their customers in a positive manner.54
Rates should be reviewed regularly (e.g., with annual budget review)55 and adjusted as needed to
meet both operating and long-term costs. For help with communicating to users about the need for/
benefits of rate increases or shifting rate structures, refer to the Alliance for Water Efficiency's Building
Better Water Rates for an Uncertain World.40
Conservation Use Rates
Water pricing should encourage and reward water conservation, while also ensuring that utility costs
are adequately covered. This is often accomplished with an increasing block rate system which—in
addition to the flat fee for fixed costs—includes a variable rate for volume of water consumed, with
higher rates as water consumption increases. Increasing block rates (also called inclining or tiered
block rates) can be structured with a reasonably priced first tier for water quantities that provide for
essential household needs, and increasing price signals at higher use rates that represent more dis-
cretionary use. This allows for equitable provision for basic needs and avoids burdening low-income
customers. Other rate structures, such as flat rate (not flat charge) billing, can also incentivize conser-
vation when priced appropriately.
According to the AWWA Standard G480-13, Water Conservation Program Operation and Management,
"Utilities shall use a nonpromotional water rate that provides the financial incentive for customers
to reduce water use. Nonpromotional water rate structures include inclining tier rates, marginal cost
pricing, seasonal rates, and water budget-based rates as defined in AWWA M52."33 These rates can be
combined by a utility in accordance with drivers of use. For example, an inclining block rate structure
may form the core of the structure, with seasonal rate adjustments to respond to and manage peak
demand drivers. A cost-of-service analysis separates costs into functional categories, allocates them
by function (e.g., base, maximum day), and distributes the functionalized costs to customer classes.40
A utility may also wish to consider using a mix of rate structures by customer class, e.g., increasing
block rates for residential customers according to those use patterns and others tailored to industrial,
commercial, and institutional users (see the following section for more on customer classification).56
Managing demand through pricing can also be an advantage to the utility in that revenues may
remain level or even increase if set to account for elasticity of demand.57
• Inclining block rates (also known as increasing or inclining tier rates) - Conservation pricing can
be accomplished with a tiered fee system which includes a base charge for fixed costs and a vari-
able rate for volume of water consumed. Significantly higher rates are charged as water con-
sumption increases as a way of calibrating revenue recovery to the fixed costs and variable costs,
respectively (Figure 13). A utility can set rates in the upper tiers to approximate the marginal cost
of water supply (the additional cost of supplying the next increment of water ).40'56 Structuring
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
33

-------
Best Practices
rates using cost-of-service principles means that a utility
recovers costs according to cost causation. For example,
seasonal high-volume users would pay a rate based on
costs incurred to provide storage and related costs to
supply peak demand.40 Increasing block rate structures
are generally considered conservation-oriented, but the
most effective mix of pricing signals for any given system
will depend upon its particular characteristics and driv-
ers of use.
Note: Decreasing block rates are the opposite of inclin-
ing tier rates. Rather than rates increasing as water use
increases, rates are actually discounted with bulk or
large-volume water usage. Decreasing block rates should F'9ure 13- Source: SWFWMD. Water Rates: Conserving Water
be eliminated if they still exist in any water system seek- ^Protecting Revenues. Water Rates: Conserving Water and
a- . Protecting Revenues.
ing to improve efficiency.		_	
It should be noted that although increasing block rates have been favored in many recommendations
as most likely to support conservation-oriented behaviors by end users, some simpler rate structures
(such as uniform rates) can send customers stronger conservation price
signals, as well, in fact, the 2015 study Water and Wastewater Rates and Rate
Structures in Georgia conducted by the UNC Environmental Finance Center
found that a significant minority of surveyed utilities using increasing block
rate structures had less effective conservation pricing signals than some
utilities employing aggressive uniform rates.58 Uniform rates—a consistent
amount charged per unit of water—should be distinguished from flat fees
that charge customers the same amount regardless of volume used.
It has been found that a relatively small increase in price does not signifi-
cantly affect usage, but that higher prices do affect usage, whether as a
single larger increase or aggregate of multiple smaller increases.56 For this
reason rates need to be designed so that the price is sufficient to encour-
age conservation. The utility should consider potential customer reactions
to large one-time increases, though, and may wish to consider a series of
smaller increases, and/or an outreach strategy to communicate the need
for and reasoning behind significant pricing changes. High end users in
particular tend to be influenced by rate structures with three or more tiers,
and can be effectively targeted with such a structure.38 Customers with
primarily nondiscretionary indoor use (i.e., their water use consists mainly of drinking, cooking, sanita-
tion, and cleaning already at efficient levels) may respond to higher costs by pursuing leak repair,
whereas wasteful indoor uses may be curbed more effectively through utility education programs
stressing the need for water savings and give-away/rebate programs.38
• Seasonal rates—A seasonal rate structure charges higher rates when utility costs are higher and/
or supply reliability is lower, typically in summer. For many water agencies, costs increase during
warmer months because of the need for extra capacity to serve demand for outdoor uses. Some
water agencies may also increase their reliance on more expensive sources of water to accom-
modate this demand. A seasonal rate design reflects that the resource in demand costs more to
provide in some periods than others, and signals this to users.40 Seasonal pricing can help pro-
mote outdoor water conservation as well as provide financial incentive to fix outdoor leaks. The
Alliance for Water Efficiency's Building Better Water Rates for an Uncertain World provides guidance
$•4
$3
I
I S21
5	10	IS
Thousands of Gallons Used Per Month
Case Study:
Starting in 1999, the City of Greensboro, North
Carolina began shifting from a decreasing block
rate structure to a flat rate for non-residential
customers, and total consumption by the top ten
customers shrank31%, or 429 million gallons per
year, by 2008®. The Water Resources Department
is aware through discussions with several of these
customers that they made significant changes
to deliberately reduce their water consumption.
Greensboro also changed its residential rate
structure in 2000 to an increasing tiered block rate
structure, and from 2000 to 2008, per-account
residential usage decreased over 20%. Although
difficult to discern in detail from the influence of
other conservation measures, the Greensboro Wa-
ter Resources Department attributes the change in
large part to the new rate structure.®
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
34

-------
Best Practices
for incorporating peak demands (e.g., seasonal, day, hour) into cost allocation. The AWWA further
points out how a block structure can mesh with peak demands such as seasonal outdoor use:
Because a system must be constructed to meet peak-day and peak-month water demands, sys-
tem capacity is underutilized during non-irrigation seasons. Moreover, if the system were sized
to meet the average demand or winter demand only, the resource and infrastructure demands
could be much smaller. Consequently, an increasing block rate structure may be designed to
recover the cost of constructing and maintaining extra capacity for the peak demands. Because
this capacity is underutilized, the per unit cost of water is higher than for base capacity, which
is used year round. In short, a block structure can remain consistent with, if not enhance, the
relationship of rates to costs of service.56
•	Water budget-based rates—Tailored allocations are developed for customers (individually or by
class, e.g.), and rates increase as the allocation is exceeded. Water budget-based water rates—also
known as individualized, goal-based, and customer-specific rates—are block rates where the
blocks are defined using one or more customer characteristics, and the water budget defines an
efficient level of water use.40 These characteristics could include the number of people per house-
hold, lot size, and/or the evapotranspiration requirements of a customer's landscape. Athens-
Clarke County, Georgia, for example, has water budget based rates as part of an inclining-tier
rate structure, helping to shave peak demand. The utility charges the lowest rate for use within
a "winter average" budget based on household size for residential customers, with rates increas-
ing in tiers as use exceeds the winter average by given percentages. Non-residential customers
are billed based on an "annual average" use rate, with non-residential outdoor use charged at the
highest tier rate. In the case of water budget-based rate structures, as well, communication with
customers is key. The Western Municipal Water District in southern California developed such rates
and defined each of the five rate tiers in accordance with use level: efficient indoor use, efficient
outdoor use, inefficient use (based on exceeding water budget by up to 25%), excessive use, and
unsustainable use (based on exceeding budget by over 50%). Customers have responded by
becoming more efficient, with "over-budget" use decreasing by 34% from 2012 to 2013.40
•	Drought surcharges—Water utilities may wish to consider a role for
temporary rate adjustments (e.g.,"drought surcharges") that are tied
to drought conditions and water storage levels. Although these are
more appropriately considered short-term curtailment than regu-
lar conservation and efficiency measures, they are included here as
measures utilities may wish to incorporate into rate structures. The
Alliance for Water Efficiency points out that drought pricing sends
"a higher price signal to indicate the scarcity value of water during a
drought emergency,"avoids the inevitable revenue decrease that will
accompany an effective drought-related conservation campaign with
customers, and "can avoid the political backlash that occurs when wa-
ter rates are increased after customers have heeded the call to perform
a civic duty by curtailing use."40 Surcharges on excessive water use can
also help raise awareness and incentivize changes by customers to
eliminate wasteful practices.
In determining how to charge customers for irrigation water, utilities should be aware that there
are conflicting data related to whether this incentivizes water conservation and efficiency. Some
indicate that metering irrigation separately and designating it as a separate customer class enables
the utility to target programs and shut off irrigation water when circumstances warrant it. Others
indicate that an irrigation meter has the potential to incentivize additional outdoor water use if
Case Study:
In response to Stage 3 Drought conditions, in
2007 the Birmingham (AL) Waterworks (Alabama)
instituted surcharges for customers who used
more than 8,977 gallons per month as a means
to encourage conservation, along with other
measures such as limitations on irrigation and
other uses. Demand subsequently declined from
an average of 114 million gallons per day to about
95 million gallons per day.60 In 2016, as drought
again impacted their service area, the Water Works
has implemented a 400% surcharge on residential
customers exceeding 9,000 gallons per month and
non-residential customers who exceed 110% of
their average use.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
35

-------
Best Practices
irrigation water is charged at the same rate as indoor water but does not
carry a sewer charge. This may also pose difficulty for the utility if pricing
does not reflect costs of providing this water, which is typically a peaking
demand that may involve additional storage or relying on more expensive
sources. As the Alliance for Water Efficiency states in their rate-setting
guidance,"water rates that reflect resource costs induce customers to align
consumptive choices with those costs."40
Specific charges billed to customers can be used to fund related efficiency
measure implementation. The city of Pleasanton, California, used a $0.05/
ccf surcharge on water bills for irrigation accounts to create a fund to spon-
sor irrigation equipment upgrades. Eligible equipment included low-vol-
ume spray heads, drip irrigation, and irrigation controllers. The size of the
irrigation meter was used to set the maximum amount of the rebate. The
rebate was $60 for a 5/8 in. meter, increasing to $3,000 for a 6 in. meter."38
Utility bill
Water customers will respond not only to price signals regarding their water usage, but also to
increased knowledge of their own water usage.17 Monthly utility bills, if they present information
effectively, area key outreach tool for educating customers. Water bills should show customers'us-
age in gallon increments, which are far easier for customers to understand than cubic feet or other
unfamiliar units. If a unit other than gallons is used, a readily understood conversion factor should be
presented on the bill. It should show billing on a monthly basis and include the customer's historical
data (perhaps in graph form) for comparing use from month to month and year to year. Also helpful,
in particular for high use customers, is a comparison between the customer's own use, an "average"
customer, and a "conserving" water customer. It should also provide information on rates and any sur-
charges so that customers can fully understand the price signals built into the utility's rate structure.
Shorter billing cycles (e.g., monthly rather than every two months) provide more frequent feedback
on use and reminders to customers regarding the cost of water.53
One final note: Utilities should promote understanding of how pricing provides stability, relates to
the value and cost of the resource, how infrastructure maintenance factors in, and the need to fully
cover costs of providing water. Information on how use relates to pricing and the value and cost of the
resource empowers customers to understand and direct how they fit in to the system, manage their
use, and manage their costs. Many resources are available to support these activities, such as AWE's
Building Better Water Rates for an Uncertain World: Balancing Revenue Management, Resource Efficiency,
and Fiscal Sustainability.
Metric
Demand reductions from pricing water for efficiency
Deliverables: Conservation Pricing Documents
• A recent rate structure analysis that examines conservation rate structure approaches that both
address revenue stability as well as incentivize conservation and efficiency. The rate structures
evaluation should address the water utility's water demand challenges (e.g., peak outdoor use,
outdated indoor plumbing fixtures, customer leaks).
Case Study:
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD)
saw a decrease in average consumption per
residential account for seven consecutive years,
dropping 25% from 7/1/02 to 6/30/09. Since then,
average monthly consumption per residential
account has remained nearly flat, holding steady
around 7 CCF (5,236 gallons). During that same
timeframe, the service population and number
of accounts has continued to grow. CMUD credits
the community's successful water use reduction to
several factors including customer response over
time to a CMUD water rate structure that generally
incentivizes water efficiency (such as adoption of
conservation habits such as high efficiency shower
heads and toilets).61
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
36

-------
Best Practices
•	Projection of demand reductions expected to result from pricing water for efficiency
•	Documentation of critical water demand challenges (peak summer use, indoor water leaks/out-
dated plumbing) supported by analysis of usage patterns over the course of a year
•	A copy of legally adopted rate ordinance that includes a conservation rate structure designed to
incentivize efficiency and conservation
•	Documentation of all rate changes within five years of submittal
•	A utility bill reflecting the adopted conservation rate structure
Resources
Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2014. Building Better Water Rates for an Uncertain World: Balancing Rev-
enue Management, Resource Efficiency, and Fiscal Sustainability. Chicago, IL.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2012. Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges (Manual
of Water Supply Practices Ml), sixth edition. Denver, CO.
Pacific Institute and Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2013. Need To Know: Water Rates Series.
Pacific Institute. 2013. An Overview of the 'New Normal' and Water Rate Basics.
Texas Water Development Board. 2013. Best Management Practices for Municipal Water Users.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
37

-------
Best Practices
5. End Use Water Conservation and Efficiency Analysis
In order to determine what water conservation and efficiency programs and policies will be most
effective in managing demand, a water utility needs to understand the makeup of its customer base
and conduct a thorough assessment of end use water efficiency measures. If using this practice to
determine the potential for water efficiency to avoid or minimize the need for a new reservoir or
other water supply development project, the end use efficiency measures analysis should have as its
demand reduction goal (savings) the same yield (MGD) as the proposed water supply project. Such
performance-based targets are important when trying to determine how to secure savings to offset
water supply needs and use water efficiency and conservation as a "least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative." Even if proposed water supply goals do not appear achievable through these
measures, if construction of new infrastructure can be postponed, years of debt service can be saved
by the utility. In addition, the analysis should clearly address the water supply challenge (i.e., when
and where there are water limitations) facing the utility.
Water Use Profile & Customer Use
As the AWWA advises in their manual Water Resources Planning: Manual of Water Supply Practices M50,
"An early assessment of demand reduction is appropriate, because this source may obviate the need
to develop new supplies or defer the need for a new source for a number of years." Early assessment of
demand reduction potential can also lead to reduced size and impacts of a potential supply project.
The first step in developing an end use water conservation and efficiency analysis is to gain under-
standing of a utility's customer base by developing a current water use profile for the utility's service
area and defining customer classification. The term "customer class" refers to a group of customers
(e.g., single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, wholesale)
defined by similar characteristics or patterns of water usage.31 A current water use profile establishes
a baseline for water use against which the utility can measure progress. Customer base makeup varies
among utilities, and the characteristics of water use in a given customer class (e.g., institutional) can
differ from those in other water systems depending on climate, socioeconomics, etc. Given that differ-
ent customer classes respond differently to price signals and have different usage patterns, the utility
should model different rates tailored to different customer classes.
This profile can be used for priority-setting purposes in identifying potential targets for improved con-
servation and efficiency measure implementation. In addition, the utility should document seasonal
variability in water use broken out by customer class. For residential use, the utility should determine
per capita use, both average and seasonal. The more refined the seasonal values, the more usefulness
they will have. Monthly or weekly data, for example, can show with greater specificity when shifts in
use begin, which can shed light on drivers of demand and opportunities to manage them. For non-
residential customer classes, the utility should also determine use per account, across a seasonal or
more refined time scale.
Because systems often have specific drivers of maximum demand and storage needs, understanding
these can help optimize system management and meet needs in the most effective manner. Some
systems with high residential outdoor usage may experience peak demand in summer months when
residential irrigation is highest. Others may have industrial customers with peak usage driven by
factors unrelated to season. In some cases, it may be possible to manage peak demands (e.g., with
incentives to industrial customers or for behavior change in residential customers) so as to even out
demand and reduce withdrawal and/or storage needs. Accurate information on use trends is critical
to understanding how well a system is managed and where improvement can be sought. For systems
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
38

-------
Best Practices
wishing to consider metrics for use by sector or season, alternative metrics such as those described in
AWWA's guidance report Water Conservation Measurement Metrics can provide insight.6263
The service area should be clearly defined, and population projections from an authoritative source
should be provided. The user population should be characterized by category (at least single-family
residential, multi-family residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional). For projections, the ap-
plicant should account for whether customer class makeup and use is expected to change during the
timeframe of the projected need (e.g., age distribution, household size, housing stock age, housing
turnover and retrofit vs new plumbing, customer-side losses, other sector shifts, etc.). If a significant
shift from multi-family to single-family residential accounts is expected, for example, differences
between use patterns in these two categories should be considered (e.g., outdoor use may increase).
Note: Demand rates should be calculated by category, not on a per capita basis for the system as a
whole. Other use categories (e.g., industrial) can affect total system demand, and the values are not
comparable overtime or to indicators of performance. Only residential use should be presented in
terms of per capita values.
When forecasting future demand, utilities should consider the influence of measures such as regula-
tory or voluntary plumbing product standards or code requirements for new construction as part of
the baseline. Such code-driven conservation measures may account for a significant percentage of
total water needs by 2030 nationally, but the gains realized by any given utility will depend on local
factors like the age of housing stock and local real estate market turnover.
Utilities may also wish to use customer water use indicators in demand accounting that can inform
rate-setting and conservation planning in more detail. Vickers et al.64 have identified the following
nine indicators, primarily for single-family residential customers, as helpful in refining the ability to
identify meaningful demand patterns: customer average use, rank of customer average use, per-
centile of customer average use, zero- and low-use accounts, customer baseline demand, customer
maximum demand, customer peaking ratio, customer use profile, and "hidden" irrigation accounts.
Resources spent working with the highest ranked customers or top 10% of users, for example, may
yield the greatest reductions in demand, or identify opportunities to shift drivers of peak demand for
better system management.
Utilities should consider using specific customer subgroups within catego-
ries to help effectively identify opportunities for targeted communications
and incentives to direct efforts.64 For example, if a large percentage of use
is from institutional accounts, separating out the types of institutions may
provide useful insight (e.g., older schools might benefit from plumbing
retrofit incentives). Conversely, if there are a few accounts comprising a
large volume of demand within a category, it may be more effective to
partner with the individual customers (e.g., offer free audits) to identify
opportunities for savings.
End Use Water Conservation and Efficiency Measures
Once a current water use profile and targets are developed, the utility should evaluate efficiency
measures targeted at each customer class as needed to address its water supply challenge, and focus
the most aggressive water conservation and efficiency measures on the customer classes and uses
that have the most potential for water savings. The utility should keep in mind that drivers of use may
apply fairly evenly across a customer class, or a small number of users may represent a disproportion-
ate portion of use.
Case Study:
TheTown of Cary, North Carolina, has gone beyond
profiling demand by customer class to exploring
drivers behind changes in demand. For example,
they found that despite an overall decreasing trend
in residential water use, newer homes tend to use
approximately 20 percent more water on average
than older homes. This elevated consumption is
despite having newer, more efficient water fixtures.
Outdoor use associated with inground irrigation
systems installed with newer homes was identified
as a key driver of the higher use rate.65
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
39

-------
Best Practices
Depending on the community, measures may target indoor water use, outdoor use, or both. For older
communities, outdated plumbing might provide an opportunity for significant water savings through
retrofit of toilets and other plumbing fixtures. Many studies of communities with older plumbing
found that high-volume toilets in particular drove a large portion of indoor residential use. Leaks from
"running" toilets are one of the largest sources of losses for end users. In a community with a signifi-
cant rental customer base, fixing leaks inside homes that would otherwise go unaddressed might be
a particular issue. In more affluent communities, a focus on outdoor water use and automatic irriga-
tion systems might be particularly effective. It is also important to examine how changes in weather
affect water use. For instance, drought may increase water use until restrictions are implemented. In
locations where a large portion of homes have exposed pipes and freezing events that call for letting
faucets drip to avoid pipe ruptures, authorities may wish to consider means of requiring pipe protec-
tion in new construction. At a steady rate of one drip per second, for example, each faucet sends five
gallons per day down the drain.66
As described above, the water utility should, through the development of
the water use profile, identify targets and opportunities for water savings.
The specific measures evaluated will depend on the specific user profile,
usage patterns, and water supply challenge(s) of the water utility.
An analysis of efficiency measures is often conducted using a model
designed for that purpose. There are many tools available. Most models
are Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet-based tools that vary in complexity and
specificity. All models require customization to local uses and needs as well as utility-specific data.
•	The Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) has developed a "Water Conservation Tracking Tool" that
"can evaluate the water savings, costs, and benefits of conservation and efficiency programs for
a specific water utility... Using information entered into the Tool from the utility's system, it pro-
vides a standardized methodology for water savings and benefit-cost accounting, and includes a
library of pre-defined conservation activities from which users can build conservation programs."
This model is actively being developed and has several versions tailored to higher efficiency
plumbing codes in states such as Georgia. It is available free of charge to members of AWE.
•	The Demand Side Management Least-Cost Planning Decision Support System (DSS), developed
by Bill Maddaus, and IWR-MAIN Water Demand Management Suite® (developed by CDM Smith),
are sophisticated proprietary tools. They assist the water utility in analyzing water conservation
at the end use level, provide cost-benefit analysis, and facilitate the economic analysis of active
conservation programs.
Utilities can also make use of information, programs, and products labeled
through EPA's WaterSense program. WaterSense is a voluntary program
that protects the nation's water resources by promoting a label for water-
efficient products. The program brings together utilities, governments,
manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and other stakeholders to decrease
indoor and outdoor non-agricultural water sue through the adoption of
more efficient products and practices. Whereas many may remember per-
formance challenges (e.g., the need to double flush "efficient" toilets) from
the early days of efficient water fixture development, industry has responded positively by developing
far superior products. Products carrying the WaterSense label are independently certified to not only
use at least 20 percent less water than the federal minimum, but also to meet rigorous performance
and quality criteria. Utilities can make use of WaterSense programs to promote water efficient prac-
tices and products, and may also wish to consider providing incentives for (e.g., rebates) or requiring
Case Study:
As part of the conditions of its 2007 Water Use
Permit, Miami-Dade Waterand Sewer Depart-
ment is required to report on efficiency measure
implementation on an annual basis. As ofthe
2014 Annual Report, the department had already
achieved savings of 12.3 mgd, a head of even the
2016 planned savings level.67
Did You Know?
In 2015 alone, WaterSense-labeled products
helped users save 437 billion gallons of water.
Through 2015, the program estimates that users
have saved more than 1.5 trillion gallons of water
and 212 billion kilowatt hours, eliminating 78 mil-
lion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions and
saving $32.6 billion in water and energy bills.22
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
40

-------
Best Practices
use of WaterSense-labeled products in some circumstances (e.g., by changing state plumbing code
requirements for new construction).
Some WaterSense statistics for estimated water savings when replacing older residential fixtures with
WaterSense labeled fixtures are68:
Water Saving Fixture
WaterSense Estimated Water Savings
Toilets
13,000 gallons/year for an average family
Bathroom Faucets
700 gallons/year for average family
Showerheads
2,900 gallons/year for average family
Utilities may wish to encourage the reuse of treated wastewater. Reusing treated wastewater (re-
claimed water) has been shown to reduce water withdrawals significantly in many communities.
Reclaimed water is used for evaporative chillers for commercial cooling systems, boiler makeup water
for steam heating systems, and other commercial uses. It can also be used for irrigation of golf courses,
ball fields, parks, and residential/commercial lawns and landscaping. To avoid the risk of this water
being seen as cheap or"free"from an environmental perspective, it should be metered and billed to
encourage responsible use. Otherwise, end users might actually increase uses that they would other-
wise avoid, reducing returns to the basin. When the City of Port Orange, Florida provided unmetered
reclaimed water at very low rates, that water was used liberally, to the point of threatening system
pressures as users switched to reclaimed water the 1998-2001 drought. After meters were installed
and an increasing block rate applied to reclaimed water, demand became more manageable.17
Water authorities may also wish to allow the reuse of graywater for commercial applications such as
hotels, dormitories, apartment buildings, and residential applications. Some states either have or are
developing guidelines for graywater reuse, such as the Georgia Graywater Reuse Guidelines in devel-
opment by Georgia Environmental Protection Division to permit graywater use for toilet and urinal
flushing, as well as for subsurface irrigation.69
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional
Of the 42,000 MGD of freshwater withdrawn for public supply in 2010,
about 57 percent was for domestic use. The remainder was distributed for
industrial, commercial, and other purposes; the exact breakdown was not
estimated by USGS23, but in general ICI (industrial, commercial, and institu-
tional) users may represent 20 to 40 percent of billed urban water demand
for many public water supply systems.31 ICI customer uses can be variable
and complex, and thus difficult to apply broad standards to, even for us-
ers of a similar type. Price signals may influence some users, particularly for peaking uses, but water
efficiency may not be a focus for many others. Incentivizing site- or customer-specific audits may be
the most effective means of identifying opportunities for achieving efficiency implementation with
ICI customers. In many situations, there may be considerable overlap with
residential efficiency considerations (e.g., faucets, showerheads, toilets,
and outdoor irrigation). In others, however, particular consideration of the
needs of the facility may focus on significant opportunities for water and
financial savings (e.g., healthcare, food prep). A range of WaterSense and
ENERGY STAR labeled products may be appropriate for use in ICI facilities.
Cooling systems can represent significant water use, and especially if older
single-pass systems are in use, may present opportunities for considerable
savings.3170 WaterSense has a comprehensive best management practices
guide that identifies additional opportunities for savings.
Case Study:
Milton Hospital in Milton, Massachusetts, realized
significant savings by installing a foot pedal-
operated spray rinser on a kitchen sink and saw net
benefits in less than a month. With water savings
of 370,000 gpy that also avoided sewer costs, the
$240 purchase and installation ofthe spray rinser
began saving the hospital $3,300 per year.71
Case Study:
NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Hunts-
ville, Alabama, initiated improvements to a key
cooling system in 2009, projecting water savings
of 420,808 gallons over eight months. Once imple-
mented, however, engineering and watertreat-
ment changes realized savings of 821,300 gallons
of water, in addition to 434,900 kWh of energy and
thousands of dollars in financial savings.72
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
41

-------
Best Practices
A billing system that distinguishes customers by criteria specific enough
to assess use patterns can greatly assist in reviewing drivers of demand.74
For example, rather than identify customers only by meter size, which
may include residential, commercial, and business customers in the same
category, utilities can also classify ICI customers by NAICS (North American
Industry Classification System) codes.31 A 2016 report from the Water Re-
search Foundation recommends an approach that includes the following
12-15 principal categories which can be placed into further sub-categories,
to classify ICI customers based on their review of several utility systems:
1.	Lodging
2.	Office Building
3.	School or College
4.	Health Care Facility
5.	Eating or Drinking Place
6.	Retail Store
7.	Warehouse
8.	Auto/Auto Service
9.	Religious Building
10.	Retirement or Nursing Home
11.	Manufacturing
12.	Other Commercial
13.	Other Institutional
14.	Largest Individual Users
15.	Dominant End Use
12. Other Commercial
•	Landscape only
•	Laundromat
•	Commercial or Industrial Laundry
•	Car Wash
•	Park or Recreational
•	Golf Course Area
•	Power Plant/Utility
•	Server Facility/Data Center
Case Study:
To address withdrawals from the Sparta Aquifer
that were outpacing recharge rates significantly,
officials of the City ofWest Monroe, Louisiana
turned to their largest industrial customer.The
city piloted and developed a plant for treating
wastewaterto drinking water standards primarily
to supplythe paper mill. As of 2012, the mill had
cut well withdrawals in half, displacing it with 5
mgd reclaimed water, thereby helping to stave off
saltwater intrusion into the aquifer."
Source: Information for Water Demand Analysis: Barriers and Best Practices, Presentation at WaterSmart Innovations, 2016, Lisa R. Krentzand
Jack C. Kiefer, Sr., https://www.watersmartinnovations.com/documents/sessions/2016/T-1626.pdf.
A 2016 AWWA report described the results of a survey of water utilities on their incentive programs for
ICI customers. Examples of particular approaches to consider for incentive programs include:
Industrial
•	Incentive programs targeted at high water users for industrial processes
Commercial
•	High efficiency pre-rinse spray valves (PRSV) for all restaurants and food preparation facilities
•	Retrofit incentives rebates for commercial clothes washers, high-efficiency toilets, etc.
•	'Retrofit on reconnect'requiring the upgrading of plumbing fixtures when a new customer estab-
lishes a water account
•	Conservation pricing targeting peak water use. Given that irrigation water is discretionary and
non-essential, this water should be priced at the highest tiered bracket.
Institutional
•	High efficiency pre-rinse spray valves (PRSV) for all restaurant/cafeteria facilities
• Retrofit incentives for commercial clothes washers, high-efficiency toilets, etc.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
42

-------
Best Practices
•	'Retrofit on reconnect'requiring the upgrading of plumbing fixtures when a new customer estab-
lishes a water account
•	Require sub-metering of individual units of large facilities and monthly billing based on actual
metered consumption
•	Implementation of cooling tower efficiency program
Residential
Drivers of high water use will vary among communities, and may depend upon a variety of factors
such as age of housing stock and plumbing, community norms concerning landscaping, income level,
age of appliances, and household sizes. Many studies have identified older, inefficient toilets, leaking
toilet flappers, and inefficient appliances as being responsible for large volumes of indoor residential
use.
In their 2012 paper analyzing single-family residential water demand DeOreo and Mayer found consis-
tent, significant declines in household and per capita water use between their seminal 1999 Residen-
tial End Uses of Water Study (REUWS)75 and more recent studies that looked at retrofit of older homes,
newer standard homes, and high-efficiency newer homes (built to meet WaterSense specifications
and with ENERGY STAR-certified clothes washers). Declines in indoor residential use, primarily due to
new technologies such as more efficient toilets and appliances such as clothes washers, ranged from
13.3% to 42.7% for homes with different plumbing and appliance profiles, a considerable decrease.76
The 2016 updated Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 study ("REU2016") found a decline of 22%
in average annual indoor household water use since the original REUWS.77 Homes with high efficiency
fixtures and appliances achieve indoor water demand under 40 gpcd, and DeOreo et al concluded that
average daily indoor water use is expected to reduce to 110 gallons per household per day (or 36.7
gpcd) in the coming years.77 Identifying and addressing households with larger leaks on the end user
side can also be an effective targeting strategy because they may represent a disproportionate volume
of water lost by end users.76
DeOreo and Mayer also have found that outdoor water use can contribute
significantly to demand, but that a small number of users that over-irrigate
can represent a disproportionate amount of outdoor use.77 In one study,
8% of homes fell into the highest use category for irrigation, but represent-
ed 38% of the total excess irrigation.76 Examining use patterns can help a
utility identify such inefficient use, which may also drive peak demand dur-
ing certain times of the year, and make targeted improvements in technol-
ogy or behaviors with incentives or restrictions.
Some conservation approaches include giveaways or rebates of water-
saving devices, including high efficiency showerheads and toilets, faucet
aerators, and replacement toilet flappers (warped flappers allow water
to leak). Many states, including Florida and Georgia, have held sales tax
"holidays" on WaterSense and ENERGY STAR products to encourage their
use.78 A 2004 study by the Tampa Water Department and the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA), Tampa Water Department Residential
Water Conservation Study, involved retrofitting 26 homes with such devices
and measuring use with trace flow meters.79They found that these retrofits
lowered daily water usage by an average of 92 gallons (46%) per house-
hold. According to the study, toilet leaks contribute the most to household
Case Study:
Effective conservation programs can save com-
munities significant amounts, especially when con-
sidering not only acquisition, storage, pumping,
treatment, and delivery of water for use, but also
capture, treatment, and movement of wastewa-
ter. The Town of Cary, NC, has a long-standing
conservation program that has achieved significant
savings since its inception in 1995. Consumption
data for 1996-2011 show overall per capita use
(residential and non-residential) declining by 20%,
with single family residential per capita use show-
ing the greatest decline at 24%.65These per-capita
reductions in consumption saved nearly 0.9 billion
gallons of water over that period, or nearly 160,000
gallons per day. In 2011 dollars, this resulted in
savings of approximately $55,000 peryear in
treatment and finished water pumping costs, or
approximately 1% ofthe FY2011 WaterTreatment
Plant (WTP) operations and maintenance budget.65
It also allowed Cary to delay expansion ofthe Cary/
Apex WTP by 2-3 years, with a three-year delay in
this capital investment valued at approximately
$3.5 million.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
43

-------
Best Practices
leakage. Yet another approach to supporting efficiency measure implementation is with billing-
related financing. The Bay Area Regional Energy Network in California, for example, has worked with a
number of water agencies to carry out Pay As You Save (PAYS®) programs that allow customers to pay
for water efficiency improvements through a monthly charge on their utility bill.
Utilities may also wish to consider passing ordinances to establish retrofit requirements. DeKalb
County, Georgia's "retrofit upon resale" ordinance went into effect for residential properties in 2008,
and for commercial properties (which includes apartments) in 2009, requiring that any property sold
must be certified as having high efficiency plumbing fixtures. In 2014, the State of Colorado passed a
law that requires some plumbing fixtures sold in the state to have the WaterSense label (Conn. Gen.
Stat. § 21a-86a).81
Particular approaches to consider include:
Residential - Single Family
•	Provide water efficiency audits and 'direct-install' programs targeted at high water users
•	High-efficiency toilet direct install program, giveaways, and rebates
•	Rebates for high efficiency washing machines
•	'Retrofit on reconnect'requiring the upgrading of plumbing fixtures when a new customer estab-
lishes a water account
•	*See also following section on outdoor/landscape use
•	Change plumbing codes to require WaterSense labeled products, where practicable
Residential - Multi-Family
•	Provide water efficiency audits and 'direct-install' programs targeted at high water users
•	High-efficiency toilet direct install program, giveaways, and rebates
•	Require sub-metering of individual units and monthly billing based on actual metered consump-
tion
•	*See also following section on outdoor/landscape use
•	Change plumbing codes to require WaterSense labeled products, where practicable
Outdoor/Landscape (ICI and Residential)
On average, outdoor uses (primarily turf and landscape irrigation, but also car washing, cleaning,
and swimming pools, e.g.) are estimated to constitute about 30% of residential use in the United
States.31 The outdoor use rate varies considerably by locality, however, depending upon factors such
as weather, prevalence ofinground irrigation systems, and prevalence of swimming pools in resi-
dential settings. In South Florida, for example, outdoor water use accounts for approximately half of
household water use, with approximately half of that lost to evaporation and over-watering.82 Water-
ing too often and too long is the primary source of water waste associated with landscape irrigation,
with overspray and runoff onto surfaces such as sidewalks and roadways being common problems.
Outdoor watering bans have been used effectively as short-term drought management measures.
"We knock off about three million gallons per day by going to one-day-a-week watering," says Allan
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
44

-------
Best Practices
Williams, water resources director for the City of Greensboro (North Carolina). "If we ban all outdoor
watering, we knock off about eight million gallons per day."80 However, bans are short-term responses
to water shortages and should be distinguished from long-term conservation measures.
Water utilities should consider separate metering of irrigation water,
accompanied by a pricing structure which encourages efficiency. Other
measures should be the requirement of rain and moisture sensors for
irrigation systems. Florida, for example, has required that automatic ir-
rigation systems have rain sensors since 1991 (Florida Statute 373.62).83
Because the use of native and drought-tolerant plants and more efficient
irrigation can produce significant water savings, water utilities should
develop incentives to encourage their use in the landscape. Water utilities
can work with planning and zoning departments to encourage residential
developments that have more diverse landscapes and demonstrate how
creative use of native plantings and mulching can provide attractive, low
maintenance yards that require no irrigation. The Florida Water Star and
Florida-Friendly Landscaping programs have been successful in encourag-
ing more efficient landscapes that provide multiple benefits. Utilities can
also develop programs to improve the efficiency of irrigation systems. An
example is Tampa, Florida, whose Sensible Sprinkling irrigation evaluation
program resulted in a 25 percent drop in water use, contributing to a 26 percent decrease in per capita
water use from 1989 to 2001 even as the city's water service population increased 20 percent.84
Particular approaches to consider include:
•	Outdoor water incentives: rebates for moisture/rain sensors, WaterSense labeled irrigation
controllers, irrigation audits, large water user rainwater/graywater/condensate capture retrofit
program
•	Policy: Outdoor watering schedule that allows watering only when evaporation rates are lowest;
moisture sensor requirement
•	Require irrigation professionals certified by WaterSense labeled programs for design, installation,
or auditing of outdoor irrigation systems
Deliverable: Water Use Profile Indicators
The water utility should provide the following information for the five calendar years prior to submit-
tal (see example in AWWA's M52 Manual,Table 3-2, p. 42).38
•	Clearly defined service area and customer base
•	Customer classes defined to include at a minimum: residential-single family, residential multi-
family, commercial, industrial, and institutional customer classes.
•	For residential use, separate indoor and outdoor use if possible. If not, provide estimate based on
winter demand.
•	Customer numbers and water consumption (million gallons/day) by customer class (see recom-
mended customer class breakout above)
Case Study:
The City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, generates
a water conservation budget using a water rate
surcharge, with over $1 million in revenue returned
to customers annually in the form of incentives,
including residential and commercial landscape
rebates.85 Approved landscaping projects can
receive $1.00/ft2 for converting turf to xeriscaping,
$1.50/ ft2 for replacing turf on steep slopes with
plants from an approved rainwater harvesting
plant list, and related incentives such as $25 for
purchase of rain sensors. These rebates for outdoor
measures have been increased lately as conserva-
tion planning recognized that much progress had
been achieved in indoor efficiency implementa-
tion, and greater emphasis was needed on outdoor
water use.86
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
45

-------
Best Practices
•	Seasonal variability of water use by customer class, preferably on a refined time scale such as
monthly, weekly, or daily if possible. Provide graph of each customer class's seasonal usage.
•	Average (e.g., by season) and peak (highest total water use measured on an hourly, daily, or
monthly basis as most relevant to drivers of supply constraints) use by customer class
Metric: Residential Gallons Per Capita Per Day (gpcd)
A useful indicator of efficiency of residential use, when derived appropriately, is water use in terms of
gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Simply put, residential use is single-family plus multi-family con-
sumption divided by the total population served. This metric helps determine the potential for water
conservation and efficiency in the residential customer classes as it is measuring similar water uses
and generally similar plumbing fixtures and appliances. Single-family and multi-family residential use
patterns do differ, however, often because of outdoor water use, metering, or plumbing and appliance
differences. The utility should separate single-family and multi-family consumption if at all possible
to be able to identify different use patterns that may have implications for demand management. The
utility should also separate indoor use from outdoor use if at all possible, as outdoor use is much more
variable than indoor use and its inclusion makes comparisons difficult.
It should be noted that overall system use—the total amount of water diverted and/or pumped for
potable use divided by the total population served—is only meaningful in very limited circumstances.
This measure is not helpful in terms of determining the potential for water conservation and efficien-
cy, as it is includes ICI water users that can skew the per capita measure. This measure is not helpful
for goal-setting nor is it appropriate for comparing utilities to each other because of the variations in
customer make-up.
Benchmark: Gallons Per Capita Per Day (GPCD)
There is no one recommendation for the amount of water that should be used indoors because types
of fixtures and appliances vary. However, three estimates that can be used as benchmarks of indoor
use for a conserving household are: < 45.2 gpcd31, < 44.7 gpcd75, or 36.5 gpcd87 as a target for efficient
use.
Deliverable: Gallons Per Capita Per Day (GPCD) Calculations
The water utility should provide documentation of calculations to develop residential use numbers.
Deliverable: Assessment of Water Savings Potential
The utility should submit an assessment of the savings potential from end use best management
practices (at least those described above), and adjust future water demand projections to account for
the lower water use expected of customers. Vickers (2001) provides several useful worksheets in ap-
pendices that can be helpful in guiding assessment of potential savings of ICI, residential, and outdoor
water use.31
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
46

-------
Best Practices
Resources
Alliance for Water Efficiency. July 2011. Water Conservation Tracking Tool, version 2.0. Available to
members from: http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/Tracking-Tool.aspx
American Water Works Association. 2016. National Survey of Commercial, Industrial and Institutional
Water Efficiency Programs.
Ontario Water Works Association. 2008. Ontario Outdoor Water Use Reduction Manual.
University of North Carolina Environmental Finance Center. 2009. Residential Irrigation: An exploration
through the lens of five NC communities.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. WaterSense at Work: Best Management Practices for Com-
mercial and Institutional Buildings. Washi ngton, DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Water Efficiency for Public Water Systems. Office of Water;
Washington, DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. July 2013. Water-Smart Landscapes: Water Efficient Landscapes
Start with WaterSense. EPA Document # EPA 832-K-12-2002. Washington, DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA WaterSense website for commercial and institutional users
of water, http://www.epa.gov/watersense/commercial/
US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA WaterSense website for residential outdoor uses of water.
http://www.epa.gov/watersense/outdoor/
Vickers, A. 2001. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation (p. 446). Amherst, MA: WaterPlow Press.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
47

-------
Best Practices
6. Water Conservation and Efficiency Plan
A well designed conservation and efficiency plan sets the stage for successful implementation of
measures to avoid water loss and to manage demand for effective water resource management. Craft-
ing such a plan and integrating it into infrastructure planning helps ensure that a utility is optimizing
existing operations before considering development of additional resources for predicted needs. A
utility may wish to hire or designated an interested staff member as a water conservation coordinator.
In addition to implementing a water conservation program, such a coordinator could seek fund-
ing opportunities and help communicate to end users and stakeholders about the program. Again,
AWWA says of water conservation in integrated resources planning that utilities should "treat conser-
vation as equal to other water supply options, and where appropriate, include water made available
through conservation as part of the supply portfolio when conducting supply-and-demand forecast-
ing analyses."33
Water utilities should have a written plan which includes definitive and measurable goals for optimiz-
ing system performance and ensuring efficient water use, with timelines for implementation. The plan
can be incorporated in an existing document such as a water use plan or environmental management
system, or can be separate. It can also include a process through which benefits and costs are evalu-
ated. Planning documents should recognize effects of efficiency and conservation measures already
implemented, and forecast the effects of planned measures88. Strategies for calculating savings can
be found in resources such as AWWA's M52 manual38 for larger utilities, and Green (2010)17 for utilities
with fewer than 100,000 customers.
The plan should describe at a minimum how the utility is addressing these guidelines. Additional
guidance on effective planning and measures to consider is available from other sources such as Amy
Vickers' Handbook of Water Use and Conservation (2001 )31, AWWA's Water Conservation Programs -A
Planning Manual (aka M52 Manual, 2006), and EPA's 1998 Water Conservation Plan Guidelines88. The
process for developing the plan is laid out in nearly identical steps in all three documents:
Handbook of Water Use and
Conservation (Vickers 2001)
M52 Water Conservation
Programs—A Planning Manual
(AWWA 2006)
Water Conservation Plan
Guidelines (EPA 1992)
(Intermediate and Advanced)
1.	Review detailed demand forecast
2.	Review existing water system
profile and descriptions of planned
facilities
3.	Evaluate the effectiveness of exist-
ing conservation measures
4.	Define conservation potential
5.	Identify conservation measures
6.	Determine feasible measures
7.	Perform benefit-cost evaluations
8.	Select and package conservation
measures
9.	Combine overall estimated savings
10.	Optimize demand forecasts
1.	Identify conservation goals
2.	Develop a water use profile and
forecast
3.	Evaluate planned facilities
4.	Identify and evaluate conservation
measures
5.	Identify and assess conservation
incentives
6.	Analyze benefits and costs
7.	Select conservation measures and
incentives
8.	Prepare and implement the con-
servation plan
9.	Integrate conservation and supply
plans, modify forecasts
10.	Monitor, evaluate, and revise
program as needed
Specify conservation planning
goals
Develop a water system profile
Prepare a demand forecast
Describe planned facilities
Identify water conservation mea
sures
Analyze benefits and costs
Select conservation measures
Integrate resources and modify
forecasts
Present implementation and
evaluation strategy
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
48

-------
Best Practices
Particularly when considering developing new supply or
storage such as a reservoir or source, a water utility can
use the water conservation planning process to identify
the water conservation and efficiency programs, policies
and incentives that will yield a target amount of water
savings. The water utility should use the projected res-
ervoir or source yield (MGD) as the goal for the water con-
servation and efficiency plan and seek to optimize water
savings. When determining benefits and costs as part of
the screening process, the water utility should take into
consideration the costs avoided by not building the water
supply reservoir and the associated water infrastructure,
such as drinking water and waste water treatment plants,
etc., as well as any compensatory mitigation that would
be required for impacts to wetlands and streams.
Utilities should also recognize the interrelationships
between water, wastewater, stormwater, and energy
when planning and evaluating infrastructure needs and
solutions, using close collaboration among all related de-
partments and organizations. The cost benefits of water
conservation are even greater when the wastewater cost
benefits are also considered. A gallon of water conserved
is a gallon of wastewater not collected, treated, and
disposed of, with energy savings from both water and
wastewater processes. An Integrated Resource Manage-
ment approach to infrastructure needs and solutions
often provides greater benefits at lower costs.
EPA recommends that water utilities involve stakeholders
in the development of efficiency and conservation pro-
grams and develop public outreach and education pro-
grams as part of their water efficiency and conservation
plans, programs, and policies. Even though savings from
an education program may be difficult to calculate, they
have been demonstrated to promote adoption of indoor
residential efficiency measures in particular, providing
measurable decreases in use. Utilities should incorporate
educational information about the source of their water,
the value of water, the cost of their water services and
the rate structure, customers'own water use patterns,
and smart, simple water efficiency solutions. Educational
initiatives should be directed at both children and adults.
Opportunities for significant water savings can be overlooked without stakeholders at the table.
Involving water users encourages buy-in and higher rates of efficiency measure implementation.17
Water utilities can partner with EPA's WaterSense program (epa.gov/watersense) to gain access to
materials to help them engage with consumers to drive water efficiency in their service area.
Case Studies:
Comprehensive analysis and planning can result in big returns. Facing
limits on supply that could be drawn from the Edwards Aquifer, as well
as increasing population, the San Antonio Water System (SAWS) was
confronting the possibility of having to buy additional water rights from
an adjacent aquifer. Between the early 1980's through the2000's, SAWS
set out strategies and goals for implementing conservation measures
across multiple sectors. By 2007, SAWS had reduced per-capita water
use by 49 percent, meeting their water use reduction goal seven years
early. Investments of $4.8 million/year realized $7.4 million in avoided
water purchase and infrastructure costs.89
Westminster, CO has long invested in efficiency programs, but water
rates have risen nevertheless. When asked by customers about the rea-
son for increasing rates, the City examined investments, rates, programs,
and costs from 1980 to 2010. They found that although rates had neces-
sarily gone up due to increasing costs of operating and maintaining sys-
tems over three decades, they had in fact avoided significantly higher
costs that would have been incurred without conservation. Without
the 21% reduction in per capita demand realized through conservation
programs, rate structures, and plumbing code improvements, Westmin-
ster would have needed to develop additional supply and treatment,
as well as wastewater management. Securing the resource, operations,
infrastructure, and maintenance would have cost hundreds of millions
of dollars passed onto customers in the form of 80% higher tap fees
and 91% higher rates.90
On December 17,2015, the New York State Public Service Commission
directed Suez (formerly United Water) to abandon the construction of
a proposed $130 million, 7.5 mgd desalination plant, saying that it was
no longer needed.91 The Rockland County Task Force on Water Resources
Management, working with The Rockland Water Coalition, Rockland
County officials, Suez, and EPA's WaterSense program, identified
conservation approaches and supply alternatives to ensure a safe, cost-
effective, long-term water supply for Rockland County.The Environmen-
tal Committee of Rockland County Legislature unanimously approved a
resolution to amend the County Procurement Policy to require County
facilities to use WaterSense labeled fixtures when available and compat-
ible with existing infrastructure. Rockland County is also establishing
a comprehensive water policy that includes water conservation, leak
detection, and incremental new sources of supply.92 Existing conserva-
tion measures, which include customer education, discounts on water-
saving devices, and a summer/winter water rate structure, will continue.
Several additional measures are also being proposed, such as helping
municipal authorities develop conservation-oriented local ordinances,
conducting water audits, and implementing a rebate program for cus-
tomers who install water-saving appliances and irrigation tools.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
49

-------
Best Practices
Deliverable: Water Conservation and Efficiency Plan
The water utility should incorporate all of the analysis, measures, programs,
policies, and savings above into a comprehensive water conservation and
efficiency plan. Any opportunities identified through auditing or review of
the elements of these guidelines (e.g., universal metering or rate structure
adjustments) should be addressed. Any plans to reduce NRW (e.g., through
more robust leak detection strategies) should be captured, with annual
targets inline with water loss control strategies. The plan should identify
funding streams for any measures with associated costs, ideally on a time-
frame consistent with budgeting or planning cycles (e.g., five years). The
water utility should evaluate and document a wide range of robust water
efficiency measures and programs with the potential to secure significant
water savings. Earlier actions may address the greatest opportunities or needs for implementing ef-
ficiency strategies (e.g., addressing outdoor use with irrigation incentives or requirements, or rebates
forWaterSense products in high-use environments). The utility should select a combination of mea-
sures that will deliver the goal amount of water with the highest benefit-cost ratio.
Resources
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2006. Water Conservation Programs—A Planning Manual
(Manual of Water Supply Practices M52). (1st ed.). Denver, CO. 149 pp.
Green, Deborah. 2010. Water Conservation for Small- and Medium-Sized Utilities. Denver, CO: American
Waterworks Association (AWWA). 167 pp.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Water Conservation Plan Guidelines. EPA document # EPA-
832-D-98-001. Washington, DC. 220 pp.
Vickers, A. 2001. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation. Amherst, MA: WaterPlow Press. 446 pp.
Did You Know?
Thermoelectric power use accounted for 45
percent of total 2010 U.S. water withdrawals, or
161,000 MGD (million gallons per day), with 99
percent coming from surface waters.25Thermo-
electric power is the primary water use category in
all southeastern states except Mississippi, where
irrigation is the largest use category. Resource au-
thorities may wish to consider energy conservation
measures and incentives in comprehensive plan-
ning to reduce overall stresses on and competition
forwater resources.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative forWater Supply Expansion
50

-------
References
1.	Bunn SE, Arthington AH. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for
aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manage. 2002;30(4):492-507.
2.	Richter BD, Braun DP, Mendelson MA, Master LL. Threats to Imperiled Freshwater Fauna. Conserv
Biol. 1997;11 (5):1081 -1093. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96236.x.
3.	Freeman M, Marcinek P. Fish assemblage responses to water withdrawals and water supply reser-
voirs in piedmont streams. Environ Manage. 2006;38(3):435-450.
4.	Carlisle DM, Wolock DM, Meador MR. Alteration of streamflow magnitudes and potential ecologi-
cal consequences: a multiregional assessment. FrontEcolEnviron. 2011;9(5):264-270.
5.	PoffNL, Allan JD, Bain MB, et al. The natural flow regime: A paradigm for river conservation and
restoration. Bioscience. 1997;47(11):769-784.
6.	Ignatius A. Cumulative effects of small reservoir construction: land cover change, evaporation, and
water quality in the Georgia Piedmont, USA. 2015. doi:10.1017/CB09781107415324.004.
7.	State Climate Office of North Carolina. FA056 Penman-Monteith Open Water Evaporation Esti-
mates. http://climate.ncsu.edu/openwaterevap. Accessed March 15,2016.
8.	Spears M, Huntington J, Gangpadhyay S. Improving Reservoir Evaporation Estimates.; 2016.
9.	US Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Water Resources, Desert Research Institute.
Open Water Evaporation Network, https://owen.dri.edu/. Accessed October 24,2016.
10.	Eggleston JR, Carlson CS, Fairchild GM, Zarriello PJ. Simulation of Groundwater and Surface-Water
Interaction and Effects of Pumping in a Complex Glacial-Sediment Aquifer, East Central Massachu-
setts. Reston, Virginia; 2012.
11.	US Geological Survey (USGS). Ground-Water Depletion Across the Nation.; 2003.
12.	State of California. Sustainable Groundwater Management website. 2016. http://www.water.
ca.gov/cagroundwater/. Accessed November 28,2016.
13.	California Department of Water Resources. Groundwater Level Change - Spring 2006 to Spring
2016.2016. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/maps_and_reports/MAPS_CHANGE/DOT-
MAP_S2016-S2006.pdf. Accessed October 24,2016.
14.	Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Ipswich River Watershed Action Plan. Boston, MA; 2003.
15.	Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Georgia Water Use and Conservation Profiles (Techni-
cal Memorandum). 20
16.	Texas Water Development Board. Texas 2017State Water Plan. Austin, TX; 2016.
17.	Green D. Water Conservation for Small- and Medium-Sized Utilities. Denver, CO: American Water
Works Association (AWWA); 2010.
18.	Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department. 2014 Annual Water Loss Reduction Plan: Implementa-
tion Status Report. Miami, Florida; 2015.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
51

-------
References
19.	Electric Power Research Institute, Water Research Foundation. Electricity Use and Management in
the Municipal Water Supply and Wastewater Industries. Palo Alto, California; 2013.
20.	US Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2012. Washington, DC; 2014.
21.	US Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Program 2012 Strategy: Response to Climate
Change. Washington, DC; 2012.
22.	US Environmental Protection Agency. WaterSense Accomplishments2015. Washington, DC; 2016.
23.	Maupin MA, Kenny JF, Hutson SS, Lovelace JK, Barber NL, Linsey KS. Estimated Use of Water in the
United States in 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1405. Reston, Virginia; 2014.
24.	Fanning JL,TrentVP. Water Use in Georgia by County for 2005; and Water-Use Trends, 1980-2005: U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5002.; 2009.
25.	Kenny JF, Barber NL, Hutson SS, Linsey KS, Lovelace JK, Maupin MA. Estimated Use of Water in the
United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344.; 2009.
26.	Rockaway TD, Coomes PA, Rivard J, Kornstein B. Residential water use trends in North America. J
A]NWA. 2011 ;103(2):76-89.
27.	Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District. Metro Atlanta : Responsible and Efficient
Stewards of Our Water Resources. 2016.
28.	Turner JH. State of Georgia's Water Supply Request.
29.	Water Supply Forum. 2012 Regional Water Supply Update. Serving Snohomish, King & Pierce Coun-
ties; 2012.
30.	American Public Works Association. Special Report No. 48: Planning and Evaluating Water Conserva-
tion Measures. Chicago, IL; 1981.
31.	Vickers A. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation. Amherst, MA: WaterPlow Press; 2001.
32.	US Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Guidelines on
Water Efficiency Measures for Water Supply Projects in the Southeast. Atlanta, Georgia; 2010.
33.	American Water Works Association (AWWA). AWWA Standard G480-13 (First Edition): Water Conser-
vation Program Operation and Management. Denver, CO; 2013.
34.	American Water Works Association (AWWA). Water Loss Control Terms Defined.; 2012.
35.	US Environmental Protection Agency. Control and Mitigation of Drinking Water Losses in Distribu-
tion Systems. Washington, DC; 2010.
36.	American Water Works Association (AWWA). Water Audits and Loss Control Programs (Manual of
Water Supply Practices M36), 3rd Edition. Denver, CO; 2009.
37.	American Water Works Association (AWWA). Water Audits and Loss Control Programs (Manual of
Water Supply Practices M36), 4th Edition. Denver, CO; 2016.
38.	American Water Works Association (AWWA). Water Conservation Programs — A Planning Manual
(Manual of Water Supply Practices M52), 1st Edition. Denver, CO; 2006.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
52

-------
References
39.
American Water Works Association. AWWA Free Water Audit Software (c). 2014.

40.
Alliance for Water Efficiency. Building Better Water Rates for an Uncertain World: Balancing Revenue
Management, Resource Efficiency, and FiscalSustainability. Chicago, IL; 2014.

41.
Sturm R, Gasner K, Andrews L. Water Audits in the United States: A Review of Water Losses and Data
Validity. Denver, CO; 2015.

42.
California Urban Water Conservation Council. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban
Water Conservation in California.; 2010.

43.
State ofTennessee Water and Wastewater Financing Board. 2072 Annual Report. Nashville, TN;
2012.

44.
Texas Water Development Board. Best Management Practices for Municipal Water Users.; 2013.

45.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Aging Water Infrastructure: Addressing the Challenge through
Innovation.; 2007.

46.
Sturm R, Gasner K, Wilson T, Preston S, Dickinson MA. Real Loss Component Analysis: A Tool for
Economic Water Loss Control. Denver, CO; 2013.

47.
Water Research Foundation. Water Distribution System Failure Data Collection: Instructions and
Data Field Names and Definitions. 2013.

48.
Jernigan W. Just add water: Leveraging existing water system data to launch pilot district metered
areas for advanced leakage management. J. 2073;Spring 201:60-67.

49.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Memorandum: Applicability of the Safe Drinking Water Actto
Submetered Properties (Water Supply Guidance #171). Washington, DC; 2003.

50.
Mayer PW,Towler E, Deoreo WB, et al. National Multiple Family Submetering and Allocation Billing
Program Study.; 2004.

51.
Nuding A, Leurig S, Hughes J. Water Connection Charges: A Tool for Encouraging Water-Efficient
Growth.; 2015.

52.
Borisova T, Unel B, Rawls C. Conservation Pricing for Residential Water Supply. Gainesville, Florida;
2009.

53.
Green D, Yingling J. Increase Conservation & Maintain Revenues: Mission (Not) Impossible. Florida
WaterResour J. 2007;(August):32-35.

54.
Tiger M, BerahzerS. Working Water Efficiency into the Utility Business Model.; 2010.

55.
North Carolina State Water Infrastructure Commission (SWIC). SWIC-Recommended Guidance for
North Carolina Utilities Attempting to Support Water Conservation in the Long-Term through Rate
Structure Design and Billing Practices.; 2010.

56.
American Waterworks Association (AWWA). Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges (Manual of
Water Supply Practices Ml), Sixth Edition. Denver, CO; 2012.

57.
Olmstead SM, Stavins RN. Managing Water Demand: Price vs. Non-Price Conservation Programs.;
2007.

Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
53

-------
References
58.	Berahzer SI, Tucker D, Clegg A. Water and Wastewater Rates and Rate Structures in Georgia. Chapel
Hill, NC; 2015.
59.	City of Greensboro. 2010 Water Supply Master Plan.; 2009.
60.	Bryant JD. 13% of water customers get hit with $425,963 in drought penalties. AL.com. August 2,
2007.
61.	Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department. Strategic Operating Plan FY!5. Charlotte, NC; 2014.
62.	Dziegielewski B, Kiefer JC. Water Conservation Measurement Metrics: Guidance Report.; 2010.
63.	Dziegielewski B. Appropriate design and evaluation of water use and conservation metrics and
benchmarks. J Am Water Work Assoc. 2010;102(6):66-80.
64.	Vickers A, Tiger MW, Eskaf S. Guidance Document for Water Utilities: A Guide to Customer Water-Use
Indicators for Conservation and Financial Planning. Denver, CO; 2013.
65.	CH2M Hill. Town of Cary Water Conservation Program Evaluation and Future Considerations.; 2012.
66.	US Geological Survey (USGS). Water Drip Calculator. 2015. http://water.usgs.gov/edu/activity-drip.
html. Accessed June 16,2015.
67.	Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department. Water Conservation Plan 2014 Annual Report. Miami,
Florida; 2015.
68.	US Environmental Protection Agency. WaterSense: Calculate Your Savings, https://www3.epa.gov/
watersense/our_water/start_saving.html. Accessed July 17,2016.
69.	State of Georgia. Georgia Gray Water Recycling Systems Guidelines.; 2009.
70.	US Environmental Protection Agency. WaterSense at Work: Best Management Practices for Commer-
cial and Institutional Facilities.; 2012.
71.	Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Water Efficiency and Management for Hospitals. 1994.
http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/04water/html/bullet2.htm.
72.	Department of Energy. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Improves Cooling System Performance,
Best Management Practice Case Study # 10: Cooling Towers.; 2011.
73.	Emory T. The City of West Monroe Sparta Reuse Facility Efforts to Save the Sparta Aquifer. 2015:12-
14. http://lwrri.lsu.edu/the-city-of-west-monroe-sparta-reuse-facility-efforts-to-save-the-sparta-
aquifer/. Accessed March 9,2016.
74.	Rawls C, Borisova T, Berg S, Burkhardt J. Incentives for Residential Water Conservation: Water Price,
Revenue, and Consumer Equity in Florida. In: Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual
Meeting. Orlando, FL; 2010.
75.	Mayer PW, DeOreo WB, Opitz EM, et al. Residential End Uses of Water.; 1999.
76.	DeOreo WB, Mayer PW. Insights into declining single-family residential water demands. JAWWA.
2012;104(6):E383-E394.
77.	DeOreo WB, Mayer PW, Dziegielewski B, Kiefer JC. Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2. Denver,
CO; 2016.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
54

-------
References
78.	Sales Tax Institute. Sales Tax Holiday Chart by State. 2016. http://www.salestaxinstitute.com/re-
sources/sales-tax-holidays. Accessed March 15,2016.
79.	Tampa Water Department, United States Environmental Protection. Tampa Water Department Resi-
dential Water Conservation Study: The Impacts of High Efficiency Plumbing Fixtures in Single-Family
Homes.; 2004.
80.	Manuel J. Drought in the Southeast: Lessons for Water Management. Env Heal Perspect.
2008;116(4):A168-A171.
81.	National Conference of State Legislatures. Water-Efficient Plumbing Fixtures. 2016. http://
www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/water-efficient-plumbing-fix-
tures635433474.aspx. Accessed November 7,2016.
82.	South Florida Water Management District. Water Conservation: A Comprehensive Program for South
Florida. West Palm Beach, FL; 2008.
83.	State of Florida. Natural Resources; Conservation, Reclamation, and Use; Water Resources.; 2010.
84.	US Environmental Protection Agency. Cases in Water Conservation: Utilities Save Water and Avoid
Costs. Washington, DC; 2002.
85.	Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority. Conservation & Rebates. http://www.
abcwua.org/Save_Water_Outdoors.aspx.
86.	Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority. Water Resources Management Strategy
Implementation 2024 Water Conservation Plan Goal and Program Update.; 2013.
87.	Deoreo WB. Analysis of Water Use in New Single Family Homes. Boulder, Colorado; 2011.
88.	US Environmental Protection Agency. Water Conservation Plan Guidelines. Washington, DC; 1998.
89.	US Environmental Protection Agency. Planning for Sustainability A Handbookfor Water and Waste-
water Utilities (EPA-832-R-12-001).
90.	FeinglasS, Gray C, Mayer PW. Conservation Limits Rate Increases for a Colorado Utility. Chicago, IL;
2013.
91.	New York State Public Service Commission. PSC Directs Water Utility to Develop Conservation Plan
for Rockland County.; 2016.
92.	Rockland County (New York). Website: Task Force on Water Resources Management. http://rock-
landgov.com/departments/planning/task-force-on-water-resources-management/. Accessed
November 29,2016.
93.	US Environmental Protection Agency. Statement of Principles on Efficient Water Use. Washington,
DC; 1992.
94.	US Environmental Protection Agency. EPAOfficeof Water Statement of Principles on Efficient Water
Use and the WaterSense Program. Washington, DC; 2014.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
55

-------
Appendix A: Deliverables Chart

Category
of Water
Conservation/
Efficiency
Metric
Benchmark or
Threshold
Deliverable or Supporting Documentation
Resources & Examples
la
WATER SYSTEM
MANAGEMENT:
Supply Side &
Demand Side
Accounting


Copy of annual AWWA Water Audit in the AWWA Free
Water Audit Software© for the five preceding calen-
dar or fiscal years.
AWWA M36 Manual
AWWA Water Loss Committee
States: Georgia, Tennessee,
California Urban Water
Conservation Council,Texas
Water Development Board
lb

Data Validity
(from AWWA
Water Audit)
If Data Validity Score
is < 71 (out of 100)
Submit a strategy outlining planned improvements
with a timeline to achieve or surpass the Data Validity
Score threshold of 71
1c

Data Validity
(from AWWA
Water Audit)
If Data Validity Score
is >71
Submit a water loss management plan showing how
the utility will continue to optimize operations to
maintain and/or improve system efficiencies. Plan
should report the amount of water loss reduction
achieved within the past five years of AWWA audits
and include a determination ofthe annual volume of
water loss reduction that can be achieved over the
upcoming five years.
Id

Non-Reve-
nue Water
(from AWWA
Water Audit)
Goal: Improving
trend
From the AWWA water audit, report the last five years
of non-revenue water as an annual volume in million
gallons.

WATER SYSTEM
MANAGEMENT:
Supply Side &
Demand Side
Accounting

*Data Validity should
be 71 or greater.
If data validity is less than 71 utility is to focus on
improving data validity score. If >71, then see next
steps in 2a-2d.
AWWA M36 Manual .with
sample plan on pp. 150-154
AWWA Water Loss Committee
Leakage Management
Technologies Report (EPA and
AWWA Research Foundation)
EPA Report: Control and
Mitigation of Drinking Water
Losses in Distribution Systems
GA Water System Audits and
Water Loss Control Manual
2a

Infrastruc-
ture Leakage
Index (ILI)
Infrastructure Leak-
age Index (ILI) < 3.0.
If no ILI is generated
in the audit, use Op
24 (see below).
AWWA Water Audit output: ILI should be less than 3.0
and approaching 1.0, indicating the utility's real losses
are close to the UARL, making further reductions in
real water losses unattainable or uneconomical.
2b

Op 24
Utilities should dem-
onstrate improve-
ment in leakage
reduction over a
five year period by
showing a decreasing
trend in Op24.
AWWA Water Audit output: Utilities should report on
Op24 as appropriate for system size. Op24 is the better
indicator for small utilities (fewerthan 32 connections
per mile).
2c

Economic
Level of
Leakage
Analysis
Completion of assess-
ment for use in leak
abatement planning
ELL analysis conducted within last two years to
determine the most cost-effective leakabatement op-
portunities and the potential for cost-effective water
savings. Provide calculations that include avoided
costs for expansion of water supply infrastructure.
2d

Water Loss
Control
Program/
Plan
Utility has proactive
water loss control
program in place
Written leakage management plan for reduction of
real losses, or Economic Level of Leakage (ELL) analysis
demonstrating that an ILI of > 3.0 is justified for the
utility's water system. Summary outputs of a compo-
nent analysis of real loss, and conclusions identifying
cost-effective real loss control measures. Incorporate
water savings through leakabatement into projec-
tions for future water needs.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
56

-------
Appendix A: Deliverables Chart

Category
of Water
Conservation/
Efficiency
Metric
Benchmark or
Threshold
Deliverable or Supporting Documentation
Resources & Examples
3a
METERING
Universal
Metering of
all custom-
ers, public
and private
100% of utility
service connections
metered (public and
private) and billed
based on metered
use
The utility will report on the percentage ofall service
connections that are metered.
From AWWA Water Audit, utility will reporttotal
authorized consumption (gallons per day) and a
breakdown as follows:
•	billed metered
•	billed unmetered
•	unbilled metered
•	unbilled unmetered
The utility will provide an assessment of the potential
for water savings through implementation of:
•	Universal metering
•	Sub-metering
•	Bulk metering calibration and replacement
program
•	Billing based on actual water use
•	Source water metering
AWWA MS2 Water Conserva-
tion Programs - A Planning
Manual
National Environmental Ser-
vices Center,Tech Brief: Water
Meters, 2009.
3b

Source Water
Metering
Meter all sources
including groundwa-
ter, surface water, or
reclaimed water
Report on flow-verification and calibration routines.
Information may include: measuring device informa-
tion, including: type, identification number, frequency
of reading, type of recording register, unit of measure
(and conversion factor, if necessary), multiplier, date
of installation, size of pipe or conduit, frequency of
flow verification and calibration, and dates of last flow
verification and calibration.

4
CONSERVATION-
RATE STRUCTURE
Effective
conserva-
tion rate
structure
Rate structure in ef-
fect which addresses
revenue stability
while incentivizing
conservation and
efficiency; no flat
charges or declining-
block rate structures
in place.
•	Rate Structure Analysis:The utility should provide
a recent (less than two years old) rate structure
analysis that examines a range of rate structures
that both address the need for utility revenue
stability as well as incentivizing conservation and
efficiency.
•	Projection of demand reductions expected to
result from pricing water for efficiency
•	Documentation of water demand challenges
(peak summer use, indoor water leaks/outdated
plumbing) supported by analysis of usage pat-
terns over the course of a year.
•	A copy of legally adopted rate ordinance that
includes a rate structure designed to incentiv-
ize efficiency and conservation. Utility will also
provide documentation ofall rate changes within
five years of submittal.
•	A utility bill reflecting the adopted conservation
rate structure.
Financing Sustainable Water
initiative. Alliance for Water
Efficiency.
Principles ofWater Rates, Fees,
and Charges (Ml Manual),
AWWA, Sixth Edition
EPA Web-based Water Pricing
Resources
SWIC-Recommended Guidance
for North Carolina Utilities
Attempting to Support Water
Conservation in the Long-Term
through Rate Structure Design
and Billing Practices
Need To Know: Water Rates Se-
ries, 2013. Pacific Institute and
Alliance for Water Efficiency.
UNC EFC Rates Dashboards
and Info
"Water Rates and Conserva-
tion," David Mitchell and Tom
Chesnutt. 2009.
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
57

-------
Appendix A: Deliverables Chart

Category
of Water
Conservation/
Efficiency
Metric
Benchmark or
Threshold
Deliverable or Supporting Documentation
Resources & Examples
Sa
END USE WATER
CONSERVATION-
AND EFFICIENCY
ANALYSIS
Customer
Classes

Clearly describe service area and customer base
Provide documentation ofthe number of customers
by customer class and water consumption (million
gallons/day) by customer class. Define customer
classes to include at a minimum: residential-single
family, residential multi-family, commercial, industrial,
and institutional customer classes.
For residential use, separate indoor and outdoor use
if possible. If not, provide estimate based on winter
demand.
Document seasonal variability ofwater use by cus-
tomer class, preferably on a refined time scale such as
monthly, weekly, or daily if possible.
Graph each customer class's seasonal usage.
Document average (e.g., by season) and peak (high-
est total water use measured on an hourly, daily, or
monthly basis as most relevant to drivers of supply
constraints) use by customer class.
AWWA M52 Water Conserva-
tion Programs - A Planning
Manual
Amy Vickers, Handbook of Wa-
ter Use and Conservation, 2001
Water Conservation Planning
Tools and Models, Brian Skeens,
CH2MHill
Texas Water Development
Board's Water Conservation
Best Management Practices:
BMPs for Municipal Water
Users, February 2013
Sb

Gallons Per
Capita per
Day (G PCD)
Residential customer
class GPCD (residen-
tial use/residential
service population)
for conserving house-
holds of < 45.2 GPCD
or < 44.7 GPCD.
Provide residential GPCD values, with documenta-
tion of calculations used to develop residential GPCD
numbers. If indoor residential GPCD is higherthan the
targets, then this is an indicator of gains in efficiency
that can still be made in the indoor residential sector.
Note: Non-residential customer classes do not lend
themselves to GPCD calculations.
examples: Southern Nevada
Water Authority
Sc

Assessment
ofWater
Savings
Potential
from Imple-
mentation
of End Use
Efficiency
Measures
The utility should
submit an assess-
ment of the savings
potential from
implementation of
end use efficiency
measures,and adjust
future water demand
projections to ac-
count forthe lower
water use expected
of customers. Vickers
(2001) provides
several useful work-
sheets in appendices
that can be helpful in
guiding assessment
of potential savings
of ICI, residential, and
outdoor water use.
For each ofthe classes identified (at least those
described below in sections 5d-5i): Document the
potential (future) water use reductions/savings from
targeted conservation and efficiency measures.
Provide an assessment of how future water demand
projections would be changed by efficiency measure
implementation.
Provide an analysis to evaluate benefit-cost ofwater
conservation and efficiency measures (to be com-
pared to the benefit-cost ofthe proposed reservoir,
intake, or other supply project).
Alliance for Water Efficiency
Water Conservation Tracking
Tool
Proprietary models such as
the Decision Support System
model
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
58

-------
Appendix A: Deliverables Chart

Category
of Water
Conservation/
Efficiency
Metric
Benchmark or
Threshold
Deliverable or Supporting Documentation
Resources & Examples
Sd
Measures, policies,
programs that
should be exam-
ined as part ofthe
End Use Water
Conservation/
Efficiency Analysis
Residential-
single family
Indoor retrofit target:
Homes built before
1993.
Landscape target:
See Landscape Sec-
tion below
Utility to assess the potential water use reductions
from incentives/policies/programs including but not
limited to:
•	Provide water efficiency audits and'direct-install'
programs targeted at high water users;
•	High-efficiency toilet direct install program;
high-efficiency toilet giveaways; high-efficiency
toilet rebates;
•	Rebates for high-efficiency washing machines;
•	Require'retrofit on reconnect', requiring the
upgrading of plumbing fixtures when a customer
establishes a new account with the water pro-
vider.
DeKalb County, Georgia Ordi-
nance; Inefficient Plumbing
Fixtures Replacement Plan.
2008. Chapter 25, Article II, of
the Code of DeKalb County,
Georgia, Section 25-45 through
Section 25-60
Se

Residential
multi-family
Indoor retrofit target:
Buildings construct-
ed before 1993 and/
or with high square
footage and/or high
water use.
Landscape target
- See Landscape
section below
Utility to assess the potential water use reductions
from incentives/policies/programs including but not
limited to:
•	Provide water efficiency audits and'direct-install'
programs targeted at high water users;
•	High-efficiency toilet direct install program,
giveaways, rebates;
•	Require sub-metering of individual residential
units and monthly billing based on actual me-
tered consumption.

Sf

Commercial
Indoor retrofit target:
Buildings construct-
ed before 1993 and/
or with high square
footage and/or high
water use.
Landscape target
- See Landscape
section below
Utility to assess the potential water use reductions
from incentives/policies/programs including but not
limited to:
•	High efficiency pre-rinse spray valves (PRSV) for
all restaurants;
•	Retrofit incentives/ rebates for commercial
clothes washers, high-efficiency toilets, etc.;
•	'Retrofit on reconnect' requiring the upgrade of
plumbing fixtures when a customer establishes a
new water account;
•	Require sub-metering of individual units and
monthly billing based on actual metered con-
sumption.
WaterSense at Work: Best
Management Practices for
Commercial and Institutional
Buildings
EPA WaterSense Commercial
Resources
San Antonio Water System (TX)
Commercial Programs
Sg

Industrial
Indoor retrofit target:
Buildings construct-
ed before 1993 and/
or with high square
footage and/or high
water use.
Utility to assess the potential water use reductions
from incentives/policies/programs including but not
limited to:
• Incentive programs targeted at high water users
for industrial processes.
San Antonio Water System (TX)
Industrial Retrofit Program
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
59

-------
Appendix A: Deliverables Chart

Category
of Water
Conservation/
Efficiency
Metric
Benchmark or
Threshold
Deliverable or Supporting Documentation
Resources & Examples
Sh

Institutional
Indoor retrofit target:
buildings built before
1993 and/or with
high square footage
and/or high water
use.
Landscape target
- See Landscape
section below
Utility to assess the potential water use reductions
from incentives/policies/programs including but not
limited to:
•	High efficiency pre-rinse spray valves (PRSV) for
all restaurant/cafeteria facilities;
•	Retrofit incentives rebates for commercial clothes
washers, high-efficiency toilets, etc.;
•	'Retrofit on reconnect' requiring the upgrade of
plumbing fixtures when a new customer estab-
lishes a water account;
•	Require sub-metering of individual units and
monthly billing based on actual metered con-
sumption.
WaterSense at Work: Best
management Practices for
Commercial and Institutional
Buildings
Si

Landscape
Landscape target:
Focus on reduc-
ing the irrigation
demands, managing
peak demand
Utility to assess the potential water use reductions
from incentives/policies/programs including but not
limited to:
•	Pricing - Conservation rate structure targeting
peak water use. Given that irrigation water is dis-
cretionary and non-essential, this water should
be priced at the highest tier or bracket.
•	OutdoorWater Incentives - moisture/rain sen-
sor rebates; irrigation audits; large water user
rainwater/gray water, condensate capture retrofit
program;
•	Policy-Outdoor watering schedule that allows
watering only when evaporation rates are lowest;
moisture sensor requirement; Require certified
WaterSense irrigation professionals for installa-
tion of outdoor irrigation systems.
EPA Report: Water-Smart Land-
scapes: Water Efficient Land-
scapes Start with WaterSense
Ontario OutdoorWater Use
Reduction Manual
EPA WaterSense OutdoorWater
Resources
Georgia Water Stewardship
Act, 2010
UNC EFC Utility Brief: Residen-
tial Irrigation, 2009
6
WATER
CONSERVATION
AND EFFICIENCY
PLAN
Performance
-based goal
for water
conserva-
tion and
efficiency
Set a goal (in MGD)
for water conserva-
tion and efficiency
demand reduction
that is the same as
reservoir's proposed
yield in order to
target minimization
and/or elimination
of the need for the
proposed reservoir,
intake, or other sup-
ply project.
For more information
on developing goals
for water efficiency
and conservation
planning seethe
AWWAMS2, Chapter
2, p. IS.
Utility to identify and document opportunities for
savings such as eliminating water waste and reducing
peak water use, etc.
The water utility should incorporate all of the analysis,
measures, programs, policies, and savings above into
a comprehensive water efficiency and conservation
plan. The water utility should evaluate and document
a wide range of robust water efficiency measures
and programs with the potential to secure significant
water savings. The utility should select a combination
of measures that will deliver the goal amount of water
with the highest benefit-cost ratio.
AWWA MS2 Water Conserva-
tion Programs: A Planning
Manual
USEPA Water Conservation Plan
Guidelines, Appendix A, 1998
EPA Web page for water
conservation and efficiency
resources
Best Practices to Consider when Evaluating Water Conservation and Efficiency as an Alternative for Water Supply Expansion
60

-------
For additional information, please contact:
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
www.epa.gov

-------