system. After in-

stalling meters, the eteri

city identified Subm ed

leaks and under- Ina New York City apartment building

took a vigorous not using submeters, average daily water _

leak detection pro- “use ranged from 375 to 425 gallons per

gram (Grisham : apartment per day. An apartment building in
d Flemi * Washington, DC, that did use submetering:

ane Meming, = was found fo use from 90 to 160 gallons Per

1989). Unac- apartment per day (Rathnau, 1991)...

counted-for water .

dropped to 36 per-

cent after metering
Metering provides essential data and leak detection
on water use and can help to detect programs were
leaks. started.

Submetering. Submetering is used in units such
as apartments, condominiums, and trailer homes to
indicate water use by those individual units; the en-
tire complex of units is metered by the main sup-
plier. Submetering of water use in apartment or
business complexes makes it possible to bill tenants
for the water that they actually use rather than for a
percentage of the total water use for the complex.
Submetering makes water users more aware of how
much water they use and its cost, and tenants who

conserve water can benefit from lower water use
costs. Submetering is reported to reduce water us-
age by 20 to 40 percent (Rathnau, 1991).

Leak Detection

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

An effective way to conserve water is to de-
tect and repair leaks in municipal water systems.
Repairing leaks controls the loss of water that
water agencies have paid —
to obtain, treat, and pres-
surize. The early detec-
tion of leaks also reduces the
chances that leaks will cause ma-
jor property damage. When wa- ry 4
ter leaks from a system before it
reaches the consumer, water

How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively 33



evaporated. Water is lost from evaporative cooling
towers as the result of evaporation, drift, and blow-
down. (Blowdown is a process in which some of the
poor-quality recirculating water is discharged from
the tower in order to reduce the total dissolved sol-
ids.) Water savings associated with the use of evap-
orative cooling towers can be increased by reducing
blowdown or water discharges from cooling towers.

The use of ozone to treat cooling water
(ozonation) can result in a five-fold reduction in
blowdown when compared to traditional chemical
treatments and should be considered as an option
for increasing water savings in a cooling tower
(Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

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

The Pacific Power and Light Company’s
Wyodak Generating Station in Wyoming decided to
use dry cooling to eliminate water losses from cool-
ing-water blowdown, evaporation, and drift. The
station was equipped with the first air-cooled con-
denser in the western hemisphere. Steam from the
turbine is distributed through overhead pipes to
finned carbon steel tubes. These are grouped in rect-
angular bundles and installed in A-frame modules
above 69 circulating fans. The fans force some 45
million cubic feet per minute (ft?/min) of air through
8 million square feet of finned-tube surface, con-
densing the steam (Strauss, 1991).

The payback comes from the water savings.
Compared to about 4,000 gallons per minute (gal/
min) of makeup (replacement water) for equivalent
evaporative cooling, the technique reduces the
station’s water requirement to about 300 gal/min
(Strauss, 1991).

Rinsing

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

How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively

ivalentto
idwell, 1990).

industries have used deionized water excessively
to provide maximum assurance against contami-
nated products. The use of deionized water can be
reduced without affecting production quality by
eliminating some plenum flushes (a rinsing pro-
cedure that discharges deionized water from the
rim of a flowing bath to remove contaminants from
the sides and bottom of the bath), converting from
a continuous-flow to an intermittent-flow system,
and improving control of the use of deionized wa-
ter (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

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

29



per year. The Board estimates that the use of
low-flow fixtures might reduce water use state-
wide by 805 Mgal/d by the year 2040 (Jensen,
1991).

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

Residential Water Audit Programs

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

Residential Water Audit ee

In 1988 the Contra Costa Water District
(CCWD) In California began a residen-
tial water audit program to reduce both’ ©
Indoor and outdoor water use. In 1989, the.
year, indoor water use was reduced
by the installation of low-flow shower heads
(2.75 gpm at 80 psi} and tollet displace-
ment bags (0.7 gal). Toilet and faucet leaks: .
were also identified. Lawn sprinklers were
checked for wom or nonworking parts to
reduce outdoor water use. Auditors also.
tested and recommended changes in :
inigation use coverage, provided a recom-
manded irrigation schedule based on soit
and lawn analysis and seasonal climatic _
conditions, and distributed a brass hose |
nozzle and educational material. The audit.
resulted in an indoor water savings of 8.9
gal per home per day (when 39.6

showerheads), and an outdoor water

savings of 89.1 gal per home per day for a
total savings of 48.0 gal per home per day
(Whitcomb, 1991).

percent «|
of the showers were retrofitted with jowflow

water system operators to focus water conserva-
tion efforts (Grisham and Fleming, 1989).

Public Education

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

ficiency:
@ How water is delivered to them.
@ The costs of water service. i
4 Why water conservation is important. |
@ How they can participate in conservation

Public education is an essential component of

efforts.

a successful water conservation program. A num- | |

Public Education
) catun New Mexico, estimates that it

‘a public education program on
gonservation Saordinated ON fd

“.. 1,000 gallons of water per person pei “ |
itis estimated that if 43. percent te ef

from the Agricultural Communicators
« Education organization i “49!
1992).=

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



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

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

Water Withdrawal =
Consumption + Return
Flow

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

@ Domestic and residential uses
@ Industrial uses

@ Agricultural uses

@ Energy development uses.

Instream water uses are those
which do not require a diversion or

6

withdrawal from the surface or ground water
sources, such as:

@ Water quality and habitat improvement
@ Recreation

@ Navigation

@ Fish propagation

@ Hydroelectric power production.

National Trends in
Water Use

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

National Consumption
Patterns

Water consumption varies by water use cat-
egory, with irrigation consuming the highest per-

9
‘Table 1.

Total Freshwater and Saltwater
Withdrawals vs. Water Use

Water Withdrawals

Surtace — 327.0 Billion Gal
Ground — 80.6 Billion Gal

Total — 407.6 Billion Gal
Total Use 94 Billion Gal

0
‘Total daily offstream water use in the United States
(Solley et al., 1993).

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



New York City

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

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

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

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

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

By 1997, all residential and commercial
buildings will be metered to follow consumption
rates. To date, about two-thirds of all one- or two-
family homes and about 15 percent of apartment

48

buildings are metered. (Warren Leibold, New _
York Department of Environmental Protection,
December 29, 1994, personal communication.)

Washington, DC

High growth rates in Washington, DC, have
resulted in a need to find solutions to the resulting
increased flows to the District’s wastewater treat-
ment plant. A water conservation program has
been developed by the District of Columbia De-
partment of Public Works to reduce the rate of
flow to the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment
Plant, a regional facility servicing Washington and
its suburbs.

In a 1985 agreement, users of the Blue Plains
facility agreed to limit the flow of wastewater to
the facility to 6.5 cubic meters per second (m*/s)
or 148 Mgai/d by January 1, 1996. In 1991, the
flow to the facility was approximately 7.2 m*/s, or
163 Mgal/d. It has been determined that if flows
to the facility are not reduced to those set forth in
the agreement, an increase in the treatment capac-
ity of the facility will be necessary.

Studies conducted in the metropolitan area
indicate that as much as 1.3 to 2.6 m/s, or 30 to
60 Mgai/d, is wasted primarily because of care-
less use and defective plumbing systems in older
buildings.

Washington, DC, officials determined that the
development of a water conservation program
would be the most cost-effective way to address the
wastewater treatment problem. The water conserva-
tion program developed by the District of Colum-
bia Department of Public Works includes public
information and education, a comprehensive data-
base on water use, amendments to the plumbing
code, guidelines for retrofitting and plumbing re-
pair, and possible restructuring of water and sewer
rates. The education program informs water users
of the benefits of water conservation and includes a
media campaign, the development of a water con-
servation handbook and video, the use of coloring
books on water conservation for school children,
and plumbing clinics and training programs. The
revisions to the plumbing code require the use of
water-saving fixtures in new construction and sub-
stantial renovation projects. The water consumption

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



sprinklers to be tumed off during rain storms) and
water reuse systems, and the district is supporting a
statewide Compost Utilization Project. The
SFWMD is also a sponsoring member of the
State’s Xeriscape/Water Wise Council Steering
Committee, formed to help implement the state’s
Xeriscape Law, passed in 1991.

Through conservation partnerships formed in
1992, the SFWMD assisted the Dade, Broward,
Palm Beach, and Lee county governments in devel-
oping daytime irrigation ordinances, and it is urg-
ing other counties to adopt daytime irrigation
bans (Kirchhoff and Nicholas, 1993).

California
State of California

The State Department of Water Resources
provides general information and offers technical
assistance with water conservation practices to
all local water agencies in California.

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

Los Angeles

The Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power has implemented a comprehensive water
efficiency plan to address water use by indi-
vidual households, businesses, and industries. To
limit outdoor water use, L.A. offers a landscape

46

water management program, a water conservation
garden contest, an annual spring garden exposi-
tion, demonstration gardens, weather network
stations, a residential irrigation pilot program, a
large-turf water curtailment program, xeriscape
requirements for new construction, and produc-
tion and distribution of lawn-watering guides.

L.A. has water conservation advisory com-
mittees, business and industry bulletins and bro-
chures, a free meter loan program, a school in-
centive program, and an annual business and in-
dustry symposium offering awards for excellence
in water management. The city also coordinates
various conservation efforts with other county
and state water agencies.

L.A.’s residential program includes an ultra
low-flush toilet rebate program, home water sur-
veys, and low-interest conservation loans. The
educational agenda includes advertising, a water
awareness month, water inserts sent out with wa-
ter bills, exhibits, a speaker’s bureau, and school
education programs.

A city ordinance mandates the installation of
low-flow showerheads (3.0 gallons per minute or
less) and toilet tank displacement devices. These
fixtures are available free to residential custom-
ers; there is a charge to commercial users. The
L.A. Department of Water and Power has spent
$5 million (1990 dollars) thus far on the pur-
chase and distribution of 1.3 million
showerheads and 1.8 million toilet bags. The
program resulted in a 4 percent reduction in wa-
ter consumption between 1987 and 1990.

L.A. has also adopted a seasonal pricing
structure under which water is priced at a higher
rate during the summer months. The city hopes
to limit the annual growth in sewage flows to 7
Mgail/d and to reduce overall water consumption
by 10 percent by 1995 and 15 percent by the
year 2000 (RMI, 1991).

City of San Jose

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

Cleaner Water Through Conservation





Time-of-day pricing: Pricing that charges users
relatively higher prices during utilities’ peak use
periods (Sexton et al., 1989).

Toilet displacement device: Object placed in a
toilet tank to reduce the amount of water used per
flush; for example, weighted plastic jugs filled
with water or toilet dams that hold back a reser-
voir of water when the toilet is flushing (USEPA,
1991b).

Unit surcharge: A surcharge imposed for all
water use above a threshold level for excess con-
sumption established based on average per capita
or per-household consumption (Pearson, 1993).

Utility: Public water service provider (Habibian,
1992).

W-Index: An index of water efficiency used as a
device for evaluating residential water savings and
as a management tool to motivate water-saving
practices. The index provides a calculated numeri-
cal value for each dwelling unit, derived from the
number and kind of water-saving features present,
including indoor and outdoor water savers and
water harvesting or recycling systems (DeCook
et al., 1988).

Wafer fabrication rinse sink: Apparatus used
during manufacturing to rinse debris and contami-
nation from the circular configuration of semi-
conductor chips (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

Wastewater: Spent or used water from individual
homes, a community, a farm, or an industry that
contains dissolved or suspended matter.

Wastewater treatment plant: A facility with an
engineered system designed to remove pollutants,
such as phosphorus and nitrogen, from municipal
and industrial wastewater for discharge into sur-
face waters.

Water audit: Program involving sending trained
water auditors to participating family homes, free
of charge, to identify water conservation opportu-
nities such as repairing leaks and installing low-

flow plumbing and to recommend changes in
water use practices to reduce home water use.

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

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

Water reuse: Using wastewater or reclaimed wa-
ter from one application for another application.
The deliberate use of reclaimed water or waste-
water must be in compliance with applicable rules
for a beneficial purpose (landscape irrigation,
agricultural irrigation, aesthetic uses, ground
water recharge, industrial uses, and fire protec-
tion) (USEPA, 1991a).

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

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

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

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

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

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



i
5
:
g
z=
2
i
Z
&
g
z
i
:
i
3

WVHDOUd SSAILNSONI “IVIONVNIS

SONVLSISSY DNINNVId
ANSWSDVNVA WYNLINSIYOV

BAONVISISSY DNINNV Id

BHONVISISSV ONINNV1d

WVHDOd STOA08Y USLVM

WVHDOHd SSN3u USL

‘3Sv@ Viva 3SN U3IVM

SWVHDOUd ONINSLAW

Ulvd3u ONY NOLLOS.LAG 4V371 30H

WVHDOUd ulvd3yd GNV

swyud0ud LIany
UBIVM “WIHLSNGNINVIOYSWWOS.

SWVuY5Oud
LGN HSV IWLLNSCISSY

SWVYDOUd
Bivase SSHNN AO iors! “MO7

HELSI
pty NouauseNos IVA

LUdOuLSY

+ [>] > [> 1+ [+ 1414

SNINLONYLS 3LVE

SWVHDOUd SAYVMY
NOLLWAYSSNOO HSL.

NOIVdIV9 NOLLVAHSSNOD VIG

Nollvonda

HdVOSIHAX

JOHd

SWYHDI
ANSWEDVNVW USIVM 3d VOSONVT
SNOILOIWLSSY NOLLVOINYI

SNOILLOIULS3Y SSN HAW

SLNSW3YINOAY
SNIGWN Td MO7TS-MOT

SHONVHO 3GO9 ONIGWN Td

‘SWVUDOUd NOILVAWASNOD:
HSLVM G3d071SA30

+/+ |+ 1+ 1+ [+ [+ | +

SOUTH FL WMD

CALIFORNIA STATE
LOS ANGELES, CA
SAN JOSE, CA

NEW YORK, NY
WASHINGTON, DG
STILLAGUAMISH TRIBE
YOUR LOCATION

CONNECTICUT
PHOENIX, AZ
TUCSON, AZ

A Guide to Cleaner Water Through Conserving Water



tional development and use of water supply reser-
voirs.

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

Failed or Failing Onsite
Disposal Systems

Overusing water in the household can lead to
the failure of onsite sewage disposal systems
(OSDS), as well as increased addition of pollutants

Yv

oO

associated with household water uses to surface and
ground waters (Table 3). Because many OSDS soil
absorption field failures are attributed to hydraulic
overload, reducing water use at many locations in
the average household—leaking toilets and other
fixtures, showers and baths, inefficient appliances
such as dishwashers or washing machines—will.
ease hydraulic loading.

Salinity Intrusion in
Coastal Aquifers

Depleting aquifers in coastal areas can lead to
salinity intrusion—the movement of chlorides and
other minerals into the aquifer. These substances can
render ground water undrinkable or require signifi-
cant expenditures to treat the water before it can
be drunk or otherwise used.

Reducing the depletion
of aquifers through water
efficiency practices or re-
charging the aquifers with
reclaimed (used and treated
to appropriate standards)
water is an effective way to
prevent salinity
intrusion.

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



Leak Detection Coast to Coast.

The Califomia Department of Water
Resources (DWR) estimates that about
81 billion gallons of water leaks from

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

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

New York City has an ongoing leak detection
program. The goal is to survey all 33.6 ae
million feet of water mains with computerized
electronic leak detection equipment. As of s
_ September 1989, survey crews had examined
over 31 million feet of water mains andhad.. >
eliminated the loss of an estimated 89 Mgal/d
In leaks. The New York City Department of
Environmental Protection estimatesthat
leakage makes up nearly 10 percent of New
York City’s total water demand. Another’
benefit from leak detection is that the water
not leaked will also not infiltrate into the sewer”
ines ae increase wastewater flows (RMI,

agencies lose revenue and incur unnecessary
costs. Such costs should provide an incentive for
system operators to implement a leak detection
program.

Programs for finding and repairing leaks in
water mains and laterals (conduits) might be cost-
effective in spite of their high initial costs. Leak
detection programs have been especially impor-
tant in cities that have large, old, deteriorating
systems (RMI, 1991).

34

Water Main Rehabilitation

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

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

The condition of mains, such as corrosion
Soil conditions or type

Failure and leak records

Water quality

High/low pressure problems

Operating records, such as pump and valve
operations

eoeeee er

eo

Customer complaints
@ Meter data
@ Operating and rehabilitation costs.

Water Reuse

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

@ The identification of water reuse oppor-
tunities.

@ The determination of the minimum
water quality needed for the given use.

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



Contents

Acknowledgments v
Introduction—When More Is Better 1

How We Use Water in These United States 5

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

How Excessive Water Use Affects Water

2 Quality 13

Developing New Water-Supply Reservoirs 14
Overirrigating Agricultural Lands 15

Overusing Water to Maintain Urban Landscapes 15
Failed or Failing Onsite Disposal Systems 16
Salinity Intrusion in Coastal Aquifers 16
Loss/Reduction of Wetlands and Riparian Habits 17
Reduction of Instream Flows 17

How to Conserve Water and Use it
3 Effectively 21

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



Practices for Industrial/
Commercial Users

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

Engineering Practices
Water Reuse and Recycling

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

@ Identification of water reuse opportuni-
ties.

@ Determination of the minimum water
quality needed for the given use.

@ Identification of wastewater sources that
satisfy the water quality requirements.

@ Determination of how the water can be
transported to the new use.

Water Reuse

Water reuse has been applied at the
General Products Division facility of
IBM, located in San Jose, California,
where data storage systems are developed.
and manufactured for use with mainframe «
» computers. industrial wastewater effluent
_ the facility is treated and then reused for
cooling tower'makeup in the facility’s 17,
ton cooling tower. system (Brown and
Caldwell, 1990)... =.

© The treated industrial wastewater effluent is
.- Of higher quality than the well water that
previously used for cooling tower makeup,
's0-water discharges from the tower have
been reduced. The total reduction in fresh- .
“Water use requirements at the IBM facility:is
~ approximately-100 million gallons per year,
/ tesulting in a savings of approximately
$153,000 per year (1989 solar) Eros
ice

and Caldwell, 1990) Ns ee

The reuse of wastewater or reclaimed water
is beneficial because it reduces the demands on
available surface and ground waters (Strauss,
1991). Perhaps the greatest benefit of establish-
ing water reuse programs is their contribution in
delaying or eliminating the need to expand po-
table water supply and. treatment facilities
(USEPA, 1992).

Water recycling is the reuse of water for the
same application for which it was originally used.
Recycled water might require treatment before it
can be used again. Factors that should be consid-
ered in a water recycling program include (Brown
and Caldwell, 1990):

Outdoor water use can be reduced by watering the lawn early in the morning or late in the evening.

How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively

27



Chapter 2

How Excessive
4 Water Use Affects
Water Quality

he demand for water in the United States necessitates stream and river im-
poundments, the drilling of more and deeper wells, and water withdrawals
from most natural waterbodies across the country. The high demand for
and overuse of water can contribute markedly to nonpoint source pollution

in various forms, including:

@ Altered instream flows due to surface withdrawals.
@ Saltwater intrusion due to excessive withdrawals.

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

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

4



from municipal and industrial wastewa-
ter sources

@ Maintaining water delivery to down-
stream users

@ Channel maintenance and sediment
flushing flows.

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

Swan Flow in Idaho .

An instream flow study instituted in.’
the fall of 1989 sought to determine ©
the necessary flows to protect wintering
trumpeter swans in Henry's Fork, idaho.
The study was initiated after a severe =
fold front caused the. death paethade oe 5
trumpeters despite rapid-response at sp
to save them with water to increase flows

and open up feeding habitat... :
The study concluded that an instream

flow of 700 cubic feat per

confluence

:
i
iH
H

conditions,
requiring a release of 500 ft/s to’achieve
that flow. Moreover, those. flows would:
also address fisheries requirements,
that reach of Henry's Fe ‘

) industry—with.those of irrig ter
control, and municipal and industrial water

taking into consideration tiparian landowner's
rights and regional water law. The recommended
method of developing quantitative information is
by monitoring offstream withdrawals, return
flows, and instream flows in addition to precipi-
tation, contributing runoff, evaporation, ground
water, reservoir storage, and drought indices,

that instroarn flow ocr siderations
‘quence that i n flow:con: k
‘Such’as fishery resources received little
attention, In recent years, however, an...)
emerging environmental:

How Excessive Water Use Affects Water Quality

19


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

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

Overirrigating
Agricultural Lands

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

@ The fate of both applied irrigation water
and precipitation.

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

@ The type of irrigation system used.

4 The crop type.

¢@ The farm management Practices em-
ployed.

@ The management of the irrigation system.

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

How Excessive Water Use Affects Water Quality

ending up in surface or ground waters. In either
case, the excess water can carry these pollutants:

@ Sediment and particulate organic solids,

@ Particulate-bound nutrients, chemicals, and
“metals.

@ Soluble nutrients, a Portion of the applied
Pesticides, soluble metals (ie., selenium
and iron) and salts, and many other major
and minor nutrients.

@ Bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms.

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

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

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

Overusing Water to
Maintain Urban
Landscapes

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

15



Water Recycling

Water recycling is used at the Con-
tainer Corporation of America’s Mill in
Santa Clara, California. The mill manu-

factures paperboard from the recycled fibers
of newspapers, corrugated clippings, and
ledger paper. The mill has reduced water
use through the clarification and recycling of
fresh water in its rinsing processes. The mill
also installed a closed-loop cooling tower,
which has resulted in an additional reduction
in water use (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

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

Identification of water reuse opportunities.

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

Evaluation of water quality degradation
resulting from the use.

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

Cooling Water Recirculation

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

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

In industrial/commerical evaporative cooling
systems, water loses heat when a portion of it is

A

Industrial wastewater can sometimes be reused for
irrigation, fire protection, and other purposes.

28

system: equipment was converted toa”
closed-loop, heat exchanger. chilling

to reduce water consumption.

ing program, hay
4 Savings of §181,000 per year:
: dwell; *

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



Comparison of average national residential outdoor water use with that

of Pennsylvania and California (' USEPA, 1992).

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

Agricultural

Agricultural water use can be divided be-
tween irrigation and livestock. Irri-
gation includes all water applied to
farm or horticultural crops; live-
stock incorporates water used for
livestock, dairies, feedlots, fish
farms, and other farm needs.

Estimated annual water use for
irrigation remained at about the
same level between 1985 and 1990,
with approximately 63 percent of
the water used for irrigation in 1990
coming from surface water. Ap-
proximately 60 percent of the water
used for livestock came from
ground water sources and the re-
maining 40 percent from surface
water sources. Combined water

10

use for irrigation and livestock repre-
sents about 41 percent of total
offstream freshwater use for 1990,
(see figure page 7) with 40 percent
going to irrigation and the lone 1
percent to livestock uses.

Not only can the loss of water
from irrigation conveyance systems
be significant, but the percentage of
consumptive water use for agriculture
is high as well—an estimated 54 per-
cent consumption in 1985. By 1990
this had climbed to an estimated 56
percent consumption for irrigation
uses and 67 percent for livestock
uses (see figure page 7).

Thermoelectric Power
Generation

This final category includes water used for the
production of energy from fossil fuels, nuclear en-
ergy, or geothermal energy. Most water withdrawn
for thermoelectric power production is used for
condenser and reactor cooling. While 1990 esti-
mates of freshwater withdrawals remained constant
from 1985, nearly half again as much saline water
was also used.

More than 99 percent of the water used for
thermoelectric power production comes from

Change in water use 1985-1990.

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



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

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

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

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

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

Gray water: Domestic wastewater composed of
washwater from kitchen sinks, bathroom sinks and
tubs, clothes washers, and laundry tubs (USEPA,
1989).

Ground water recharge: The use of reclaimed
wastewater, by surface spreading or direct injec-
tion, to prevent saltwater intrusion into freshwater
aquifers, to store the reclaimed water for future
use, to control or prevent ground subsidence, and
to augment nonpotable or potable ground water
aquifers (USEPA, 1991a).

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

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

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

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

Irrigation field practices: Techniques that keep
water in the field, more efficiently distribute water
across the field, or encourage the retention of soil
moisture (Kromm and White, 1990).

54

Irrigation management strategies: Strategies to
monitor soil and water conditions and collect in-
formation that helps in making decisions about
scheduling application or improving the efficiency
of the irrigation system (Kromm and White,
1990).

Irrigation scheduling: Careful choice of irriga-
tion application rates and timing to help irrigators
maintain yields with less water (Bosch and Ross,
1990).

Irrigation system modification: An addition to
or an alteration of an existing irrigation system or
the adoption of a new one (Kromm and White,
1990).

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

Leak detection: Systematic method of using lis-
tening equipment to survey the distribution sys-
tem, identify leak sounds, and pinpoint the exact
locations of hidden underground leaks (RMI,
1991).

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

Low-flow showerhead: A showerhead that re-

quires 2.5 gallons of water per minute or less, as
compared to the 4.5 gallons of water required by
most older standard showerheads (Jensen, 1991).

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

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

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

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



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

Water conservation coupled with pollutant
source reduction, such as nutrient and pesticide
management, would be a particularly effective ap-
proach to reducing the adverse effects of all types
of NPS pollution. The focus of this document, how-
ever, is on the types and sources of NPS pollution
most commonly associated with urban uses of
water.

Other types of nonpoint pollution include
changes to the natural flow of water in stream
channels or wetlands. Changes to the natural flow
of water in streams or wetlands result in habitat
destruction for fish and wildlife. Placing dams
across our rivers and streams can permanently al-
ter the characteristics of upstream and downstream

areas by flooding upstream habitats and drying
downstream habitats. Failures of onsite disposal
systems (septic tanks) lead to increases in nutri-
ents, harmful bacteria in oyster and clam beds, and
closures of public swimming areas. Conserving
water can help to reduce some impacts from these
other sources of nonpoint pollution.

Perhaps most relevant, however, besides the
intrinsic benefit of improving water quality by
addressing water quantity, are the other, economi-
cally beneficial effects of these water quality im-
provements. Some of the NPS pollution problems
that can be reduced by improved water conserva-
tion include:

@ On-site disposal system failures
@ Dried-up downstream wetlands

@ Polluted runoff from overirrigation of
agricultural and urban lands

@ Construction of additional dams

and reservoirs and additional
water and wastewater treatment
facilities

@ Surface water withdrawals that
result in habitat degradation
both instream and on land adja-
cent to streams and lakes (ripar-
ian areas).

The many benefits of water use
efficiency include cost savings and
pollution prevention even beyond
nonpoint source pollution because
many pollution prevention practices
and activities result in reduced water
use, which saves money. However,
some pollution prevention practices
that do not reduce NPS pollution
also provide a cost savings, making
these three driving forces (water use
efficiency, cost savings, and pollu-
tion prevention) great companions.
‘The umbrella term “water use effi-
ciency” actually defines a larger
area of two subcategories: water
conservation—finding ways to use
Jess water to begin with—as distinct
from water reuse and reclamation,
such as “closed loop cycles” to re-

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



Nationally, lawn care typically accounts for 32 percent
of total residential outdoor water use.

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

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

Xeriscape Landscapes. Careful design of
landscapes could significantly reduce water usage
nationwide. Xeriscape landscaping is an innova-
tive, comprehensive approach to landscaping for
water conservation and pollution prevention. Tra-
ditional landscapes might incorporate one or two
principles of water conservation, but xeriscape
landscaping uses all of the following: planning
and design, soil analysis, selection of suitable

How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively

Xeriscape landscaping can significantly reduce water
usage.

plants, practical turf areas, efficient irrigation, use
of mulches, and appropriate maintenance (Welsh
et al., 1993).

Benefits of xeriscape landscaping include re-
duced water use, decreased energy use (less
pumping and treatment required), reduced heating
and cooling costs because of carefully placed
trees, decreased storm water and irrigation runoff,
fewer yard wastes, increased habitat for plants
and animals, and lower labor and maintenance
costs (USEPA, 1993).

More than 40 states have initiated xeriscape
projects. Some communities use contests and
demonstration gardens to promote public
awareness. El Paso Water Utilities and the
Council of E] Paso Garden Clubs sponsor an
annual “Accent Sun Country” contest. The
contest spotlights homes that have water-
conserving landscapes consisting of plants and
grasses that require only a minimum of supple-
mental water and yet beautify the homes. The
winning entries are publicized, and cash prizes
are awarded. People are invited to tour the
grounds to get ideas on how they, too, can save
water, time, and money while maintaining an
attractive landscape (RMI, 1991). The offices of
the Southwest Florida Water Management District
in Tampa and Brooksville offer free xeriscape
tours every month. The tours begin with a slide
show on the principles of xeriscape and continue
with a walking tour of water-saving landscaping
(Xeriscape tours, 1993).

25



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

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

Vickers, A., and E. J. Markus. 1992. Creating
economic incentives for conservation. Journal
of the American Water Works Association
84(10):42-45.

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

Watkins, Keith, California State Department
of Water Resources, Office of Water Conser-

References

vation, personal communication, February 9,
1994,

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

Whitcomb, J. B. 1991. Water reductions from
residential audits. Water Resources Bulletin
27(5):761-767.

Wichelns, D., and D. Cone. 1992. Tiered pricing
motivates Californians to conserve water. Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation March-April
1992:139-144.

Xeriscape tours now available at two district of-
fices. 1993. Water Management Monthly 2(4).

York, D.W., and J. Crook. 1990. Florida’s reuse
Program paves the way. In Municipal wastewater
reuse, ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, pp. 67-74. Washington, DC.
EPA 430/09-91-022.

61



Water Conservation and Use
Efficiency Practices

Practices for System Users

Residential Users
Engineering Practices
- Plumbing
- Landscaping
Behavioral Practices

Industria/Commercial Users
Engineering Practices
- Water Reuse and Recycling
- Cooling Water Recirculation
- Rinsing
- Landscape Irrigation
Behavioral Practices

Engineering Practices

- Irrigation

- Water Reuse and Recycling
Behavioral Practices

- Irrigation Scheduling

tection
Water Main Rehabilitation
- Water Reuse
- Well Capping
Planning and Management Practices
- Pricing
- Retrofit Programs
~ Residential Water Audit Programs
~ Public Education
- Index of Water Efficiency
~ Planning for Resource Protection
~ Drought Management Planning

Practices for
Residential Users

The following sections present examples of
conservation and water use efficiency practices
that can benefit residential users. Both engineer-
ing and behavioral practices are described.

22

| Practices for System Operators | .

Engineering Practices
Plumbing

An engineering practice for individual resi-
dential water users is the installation of indoor
plumbing fixtures that save water or the replace-
ment of existing plumbing equipment with equip-
ment that uses less water. Low-flow plumbing
fixtures and retrofit programs are permanent,
one-time conservation measures that can be
implemented automatically with little or no addi-
tional cost over their life times (Jensen, 1991). In
some cases, they can even save the resident
money over the long term.

The City of Corpus Christi, for example, has
estimated that an average three-member household
can reduce its water use by 54,000 gallons annu-
ally and can lower water bills by about $60 per
year if water-efficient plumbing fixtures are used
(Jensen, 1991). Further support for this conclusion
is provided below.

By using water-efficient plumbing, a family of three can
reduce its water use and save $60 per year.

Low-Flush Toilets. Residential demands ac-
count for about three-fourths of the total urban wa-
ter demand. Indoor use accounts for roughly 60
percent of all residential use, and of this, toilets (at
3.5 gallons per flush) use nearly 40 percent. Toilets,
showers, and faucets combined represent two-thirds
of all indoor water use. More than 4.8 billion gal-
Jons of water is flushed down toilets each day in
the United States. The average American uses about
9,000 gallons of water to flush 230 gallons of waste
down the toilet per year (Jensen, 1991). In new

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



Acknowledgments

This document was developed by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW), As-
sessment and Watershed Protection Division, Nonpoint Source Control Branch.
Technical support was provided under USEPA contract number 68-C3-0303
with Tetra Tech, Inc. The project was directed by Dr. Chris Zabawa of USEPA
Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Urban Sources Section. Cynthia Dyballa and
Rodges Ankrah of USEPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation provided
critical technical input and direction during the early phases of the project. The
following people provided valuable assistance in the review of the document:

Rod Frederick OWOW Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Dov Weitman OWOW Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Steve Dressing OWOW Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Joan Warren OWOW Policy and Communications Staff
Marilyn Ginsberg Office of Drinking Water and Ground Water
Steve Clark Office of Drinking Water and Ground Water
David Rathke USEPA Region 8

John Flowers Office of Wastewater Management

Bill Swietlik Office of Wastewater Management

Jocelyn Woodman Office of Pollution Prevention
Julie Winters-Lynch Office of Pollution Prevention

Dr. John Hochheimer directed the project for Tetra Tech and was assisted by
Shannon Cauley, Chelie Billingsley, Jana Suchy, Sam Pett, and George
Townsend. Martha Martin provided editorial support, and Robert Johnson,
Kelly Gathers, and Nathan Hear provided production and graphics support.



Contents (continued)

Practices for Agricultural Users 30

Engineering Practices 30
Irrigation 30
Water Reuse and Recycling 31

Behavioral Practices 32

Practices for System Operators 32

Engineering Practices 32
Metering 32
Leak Detection 33
Water Main Rehabilitation 34
Water Reuse 34
Well Capping 35

Planning and Management Practices 35
Pricing 35
Retrofit Programs 37
Residential Water Audit Programs 38
Public Education 38
Index of Water Efficiency 40
Planning for Resource Protection 40
Drought Management Planning 40

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

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

Glossary 53
References 57



self-supplied surface water, less than 0.2 The Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic Gulf, Ohio,

percent from public supplies. In 1990, water and Great Lakes water resource regions use the
used for thermoelectric power production largest amounts of water for thermoelectric pro-
represented close to 39 percent of total duction. The eastern United States uses about
offstream freshwater use in the United States, five times more water than the West to produce
but only about 3 percent was consumed (Solley about twice as much thermoelectric power

et al., 1993), (Solley et al., 1993).

How We Use Water in These United States W



Introduction

When More Is
Better

he recognition of diffuse, or nonpoint source, pollution as a major con-
tributor to declining water quality has spawned another approach to

improving our water resources: better water quality through greater
water quantity.

This document explains the relationship be- Conserving water
tween the quantity of water and its quality and dis- cag actually
cusses how developing water-use efficiency pro-
grams can help states and local communities improve water

achieve cleaner water through conserving quality.
water.

Typically, nonpoint source (NPS) pollution originates
from rain and melted snow flowing over the land, which is
called runoff. As runoff contacts the land’s surface, it
Picks up many pollutants in its path—sediment, oil
and grease, road salt, fertilizers, pesticides, nutrients,



Table 3. Daily domestic water use and pollutant loadings by sources.

Volume BOD

Water Use (gal/capita)

(grams/capita)

Suspended
Solids
(grams/capita)

Total Total
Nitrogen Phosphorus
(grams/capita) (grams/capita)

Garbage Disposal 1.2 10.8
Toilet 16.2 17.2
Basins and Sinks 22.4 22.0
Miscellaneous 66 0.0

Total 46.4 50.0

15.9 0.4 0.6
27.6 8.6 1.2
13.6 1.4 2.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

57.1 10.4 4.0

Source: USEPA, 1980.

int major problem:

the Southwest Florida Water Manage-

-.. Ment District, where it has affected num
" erous. wells along the southwestem coast of

ywed that about’ 150 Mgalld could be
saltwater

Loss/Reduction of
Wetlands and Riparian
Habitats

Constructing reservoirs reduces streamflow,
which modifies erosion and sedimentation pat-
terns, disrupts downstream habitats, and impacts
(often negatively) living resources.

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

How Excessive Water Use Affects Water Quality

Reduction of instream
Flows

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

@ Stock water by diversion

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

@ Aesthetics
@ Aquifer recharge
@ Dilution water for effluent discharges



|

United States Office of Water , EPA 841-B-95-002
Environmental Protection (4503F) April 1995
Agency Washington, DC 20460

SEPA Cleaner Water Through
Conservation

&® Printed on Recycled Paper

EOE 2 OLE ee



Index of Water Efficiency

An index of water efficiency, or “W-Index,”
can be used as a device to evaluate residential
water savings and as a way to motivate water
users to adopt water-saving practices. A W-Index
can serve as a measure of the effectiveness of
water efficiency features in a home. The index
provides a calculated numerical value for each
dwelling unit, which is derived from the number
and kind of water-saving features present, includ-
ing indoor and outdoor water savers and water
harvesting or recycling systems. Architects, build-
ers, appraisers, homeowners, water suppliers, or
water management agencies can use the W-Index
as a basis for evaluating the water-saving capabil-
ity of any particular single- or multi-family
dwelling unit (DeCook et al., 1988).

Typically, an overall W-Index rating of W-50
would be considered fair, W-80 good, and W-110
excellent, based on a specific set of community
water conservation goals (DeCook et al., 1988).
The W-Index has been applied to the Casa del
Agua, the Tucson, Arizona, water conservation
demonstration home discussed in the preceding
section. The Casa del Agua received a value of
‘W-139. The index was applied to about 30 other
homes in the Tucson area, with resulting values
ranging from W-75 to W-100.

Planning for Resource Protection

Monitoring and managing land use and waste
disposal practices around water supply sources can

40

potentially reduce the need for new water supply
development and keep water treatment costs to a
minimum (Gollnitz, 1988). Adverse effects on a
water supply source can be lessened through land
use controls such as land preservation, nonregula-
tory and regulatory watershed programs, environ-
mental assessment requirements, and zoning
(Gollnitz, 1988). The protection of a water source
by a utility can range from simple sanitary surveys
of a watershed to the development and implemen-
tation of complex land use controls.

Water supply source protection should play an
important role in the overall management of a
municipal water utility. Contamination of a water
source can result from point and nonpoint sources
of pollution such as chemical spills, waste dis-
charges, or the improper use and runoff of insecti-
cides and herbicides. The contamination of a water
supply source can result in the need to develop ex-
pensive treatment systems or to find new sources
for water supply.

Drought Management Planning

When less rain falls than usual, there is less
water to maintain normal soil moisture, stream
flows, and reservoir levels and to recharge ground
water. Falling levels of
surface waters create
unattractive areas of
exposed shoreline and
reduce the capacity of
surface waters to dilute
and carry municipal
and industrial wastewa-
ter. Water quality often
decreases as water
quantity decreases, ad-
versely affecting fish and wildlife habitats. In ad-
dition, dry conditions make trees more prone to
insect damage and disease and increase the poten-
tial for grass and forest fires (TVA, n.d.).

A drought management plan should address a
range of issues, from political and technical matters
to public involvement. Managing a resource essen-
tial to people’s welfare during disaster and dealing
with the associated emotional, economic, and
physical consequences makes drought management
a very challenging task.

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



Low-flow toilets currently in usa

throughout Texas could reduce the
need to build new water and wastewater
treatment plants by 15 percent and result
in savings of as much as $68 million per
year. Residential water and sewer bills
Gould also be reduced by as much as $200
million over the long term.

The Texas Water Development Board
estimates that the use of water-

plumbing fixtures should save-a typical
four-member household 55,800 gallons of
water and $627 in lower water and energy
(Le., water heating and pumping) costs per”

year. The Board also projects that the use
of low-flow fixtures might reduce water use
statewide by 805 million gallons per day by
the year 2040 (Jensen, 1991).

This document is designed to serve as both
resource and guide for state and local officials,
particularly where water conservation is deter-
mined to be an important consideration in protect-
ing water quality. A Guide to Cleaner Water
Through Conserving Water begins with a review
of water use in the United States, showing trends
in major categories of water use. The second chap-
ter outlines a variety of nonpoint pollution impacts
resulting from excessive water use, and the third
chapter describes some of the technical and pro-
grammatic approaches available to reduce water
use and thus protect water quality. The fourth
chapter provides a number of examples of regional
programs implementing many of these approaches.
The document concludes with a glossary and ref-
erences to aid in understanding the material.

Perspective.

Even seemingly smail levels.of water

conservation-and use efficlency.have
the potential to reduce nonpoint source
pollution at the local level: oa
For instance, an example described in
Chapter 2 tells of a section of the Buffalo
River in Henry's Fork, Idaho, where a.

study. that
minimum flow of 600 cubic feet par ~
“second in

n (ffs) is necessary fo sustat
lation of swans as well

: mA flow of 500 fis is

roughly
of the. water savings from.
9 days of water-use reductions all.
toilets in the Boston ; WEFee

- And on a larger scale, if the Texas
a ‘Water Development Board meets its.
goal. of converting all plumbing —
«fixtures in the state to water-con-.”
-gerving fixtures, then this volume
. > gould be saved. n lass thant0 hours,” :

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



use water in commercial and industrial Settings or
use of partially treated wastewater for lawn water- - 2 weg
ing and in industrial settings. The Snake gos ads
Implementing practices or programs outlined In some. areas of the country, such as
in this guide might help reduce onsite disposal the Snake River in Idaho, water :
system failures and decrease runoff of nutrients qomanda are all ineoming ver ae
and soil from landscaped areas or agricultural water supply reservoir 2 needed te al
fields. By reducing septic system failures and ~_provide for the demand, sats
Conserving irrigation water, we can also Protect Spear kat cae ee "se
ground water from nitrates and salinity to pre- Because ay net Passed through or
serve and safeguard our drinking water supplies. source of ie natural sor ets: one
Similarly, saving water through improved ef- _; Stream areas Is cut off although alt water
ficiency can lessen the need to vane ground : isnot coneunea ane Noevly used vers Binns
or surface water > Tver via wastewater treatment outfall,

supplies for mu-
Conserving water nicipal or indus-

reduces the need to trial demands,

impound streams = Conserving water
P decreases the need

preserved free flow to impound or
+ retained value for otherwise regulate

the natural flow of
habitat, tourism, and streams, thus pre.
recreation. serving free flow
to retain the value
of stream and river systems as wildlife habitat
and for tourism and recreation.

tigation return flows, and industrial
)- discharges. These retui ombil

have some type of water conservation program.
In addition, building fewer and smaller new Nationwide surveys already indicate more than
water projects can help prevent the destruction or 80 percent of water

degradation of pollutant-filtering wetlands. Effi- utility customers sup- Water suppliers
cient water use can also mean a reduction in the port some form of wa-

amount of energy needed to treat wastewater, re- ter conservation mea- include
sulting in less energy demand and therefore fewer sure (Kranzer, 1988). municipalities and
by-products from power plants. Water suppliers and ° local and state

The reuse of wastewater or reclaimed water is consumers can choose
beneficial because it reduces the demands on avail- frot ma wide variety of -
able surface and ground waters. Also, recycling pro- available water conser- .
Cess water can reduce industrial pollutants discharged ation Practices, Programs, and strategies proven
into lakes, streams, rivers, and oceans. Perhaps the capable of significantly reducing water consump-
greatest immediate benefit of | establishing water reuse  “100- These include:
programs is their contribution to delaying or eliminat- @ Metering
ing the need to expand potable water supply and
treatment facilities. However, sometimes this reuse
can also adversely impact waters. Highest quality wa- @ Imposing water use restrictions
ter sources are preserved for drinking water by using
treated wastewater for other uses (USEPA, 1990e).

Water conservation is not a new idea in the @ Changing price structures
United States. In fact, more than 40 states now @ Educating the public.

governments.

@ Reducing water pressure

@ Enacting zoning ordinances

When More Is Better



Glossary

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

Air heat exchange: Cooling method, in-
volving no water loss, during which a fan
blows air past finned tubes carrying recircu-
lating cooling water (Brown and Caldwell,
1990).

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

Center pivot system: Method of agricul-
tural irrigation consisting of a single sprin-
Kler lateral with one end anchored to a fixed
pivot structure and the other end continu-
ously moving around the pivot while apply-
ing water (ASAE, 1980).

Chiseling of compacted soils: Loosening
the soil, without inverting and with a mini-
mum of mixing of the surface soil, to shatter
restrictive layers below the normal plow
depth that inhibit water and air movement or
root development (Virginia State Water Con-
trol Board, 1979).

Closed loop cooling tower: Water-conserv-
ing cooling tower system in which water
used for cooling is recycled through a pip-
ing system that cools the water; the water is
cooled as air exchanges heat with the pipes
(Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

Continuous flow system: The continuous
use, by an industry, of deionized water to
remove contaminants from products and
equipment (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

Cooling tower: Water-conserving cooling
device in which cooling water loses heat
when a portion of it is evaporated (Brown
and Caldwell, 1990).

Cooling tower makeup: Water added to the
recirculating cooling tower water stream to
compensate for water evaporation losses
(Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

Cooling water: Water typically used to cool
heat-generating equipment or to condense
gases in a thermodynamic cycle (Brown and
Caldwell, 1990).

Cooling water blowdown: Procedure used
to reduce total dissolved solids by removing
a portion of poor-quality recirculating water
(Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

Cooling water drift: Unevaporated water
carried out of a cooling tower by the airflow;
it has the same composition as the recirculat-
ing water (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

Cooling water evaporation: Cooling water
recycling approach in which water loses heat
when a portion of it is evaporated (Brown
and Caldwell, 1990).

Decreasing block rate: Pricing that reflects
per-unit costs of production and delivery that
go down as customers consume more water
(Nieswiadomy and Molina, 1989).

Deionized water: Cornmon industrial water
used to remove contarninants from products
and equipment (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).
Drop tubes: Devices that can be added to a
center pivot system to achieve greater effi-



cem over “price gouging” due to increased water
rates (Collinge, 1992). Some pricing has been ob-
jected to on the grounds that it can lead to a sub-
stantial excess of revenues over costs—an excess
that might be inequitable and, in some states, un-
constitutional (Collinge, 1992).

Water utility managers must establish and de-
sign water rates that meet revenue requirements
and are fair and equitable to all customer classes in
the water system. This task involves the follow-
ing procedures:

© Determination of the water utility’s total
annual revenue requirements for the pe-
tiod for which the rates are to be in effect.

@ Determination of service costs by alloca-
tion of the total annual revenue require-
ments to the basic water system cost com-
ponents and distribution of these costs to
the various customer classes in accor-
dance with their service requirements.

@ Design of water rates to recover the cost
of service from each class of customer
(Mui et al., 1991).

Several price rate structuring alternatives are
available for water system operators.

Increasing Block Rate, or Tiered, Pricing.
Increasing block rate, or tiered, pricing reduces
water use by increasing per-unit charges for water
as the amount used increases. For example, the
first volume of water (block) used is charged a base
rate, the second block is charged the base rate plus
a surcharge, and the third block is charged the base
rate plus a higher surcharge. It is necessary to in-
crease real prices significantly to overcome the ef-
fects of conservation (Martin and Kulakowski,
1991).

$$$ $35
base
$$_| rate $$
base} +

rate +
base}
tate

Tiered pricing Decreasing block rate
discourages water use. pricing encourages
water use,

For example, as the cost of water increased in
Tucson, Arizona, residents used 33 percent less wa-
ter between 1974 and 1980. A 10 percent increase
in water rates provided about 3 percent more rev-
enue while triggering a 7 percent reduction in use
Gillings and Day, 1989). Using seasonal increasing
block rate pricing during summer and winter
months, to encourage year-round conservation, re-
sulted in estimated water savings for the single-
family residential class in Tucson of an average
2.23 Mgal/d during 1983-1986 (Cuthbert, 1989). oe

Decreasing Block Rate Pricing. Decreasing
block rate prices reflect per-unit costs of produc-
tion and delivery that go down as customers con-
sume more water.

The monthly water use records of 101 custom-
ers were measured in a study of municipal water
use in the city of Denton, Texas. Summer water
use records from 1976 to 1980 during a decreasing
block rate period were compared to summer use
records from 1981 to 1985 during an increasing
block rate period. It was found that the decreasing
block rate scenario encouraged greater water use,
whereas the increasing block rate scenario resulted
in a reaction to the price increase and a correspond-
ing decrease in water use (Nieswiadomy and
Molina, 1989).

Time-of-Day Pricing. Time-of-day pricing
charges users relatively higher prices during a
utility’s peak use periods. Because customers are
sensitive to price increases, these charges curtail
demand. Time-of-day pricing can cut generating
capacity and reduce reliance on expensive sec-
ondary fuel sources (Sexton et al., 1989).

Water Surcharges. A water surcharge imposes
a higher rate on excessive water use. The customer
pays more money per gallon for water use that is
considered higher-than-average.

Surcharges include unit surcharges, winter/
summer ratios, and alternative seasonal rates. The
unit surcharge method establishes a threshold level
for excess consumption based on average daily per
capita or per-household consumption. A surcharge
is imposed for all water use above that threshold
level. For the winter/summer ratio, metered water
use during the winter period is compared to con-
sumption during the corresponding summer period,
and a higher rate or surcharge is imposed for water

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



E (Pe

Replacing standard showerheads with low-flow
showerheads can save a family of four about 20,000
gallons of water per year.

showerheads are available to provide the quality
of service found in higher-volume models.

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

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

Pressure Reduction. Because flow rate is re-
lated to pressure, the maximum water flow from a
fixture operating on a fixed setting can be re-
duced if the water pressure is reduced. For ex-
ample, a reduction in pressure from 100 pounds
per square inch to 50 psi at an outlet can result in
a water flow reduction of about one-third (Brown
and Caldwell, 1984).

24

Homeowners can reduce the water pressure in
a home by installing pressure-reducing valves. The
use of such valves might be one way to decrease
water consumption in homes that are served by
municipal water systems. For homes served by
wells, reducing the system pressure can save both
water and energy. Many water use fixtures in a
home, however, such as washing machines and
toilets, operate on a controlled amount of water, so
a reduction in water pressure would have little ef-
fect on water use at those locations.

A reduction in water pressure can save water in
other ways: it can reduce the likelihood of leaking
water pipes, leaking water heaters, and dripping
faucets. It can also help reduce dishwasher and
washing machine noise and breakdowns in a
plumbing system.

A study in Denver, Colorado, illustrates the ef-
fect of water pressure on water savings. Water use
in homes was compared among different water
pressure zones throughout the city. Elevation of a
home with respect to the elevation of a pumping
station and the proximity of the home to the pump-
ing station determine the pressure of water deliv-
ered to each home. Homes with high water pres-
sure were compared to homes with low water pres-
sure. An annual water savings of about 6 percent
was shown for homes that received water service at
lower pressures when compared to homes that re-
ceived water services at higher pressures.

Gray Water Use. Domestic wastewater com-
posed of wash water from kitchen sinks and tubs,
clothes washers, and laundry tubs is called gray
water (USEPA, 1989). Gray water can be used by
homeowners for home gardening, lawn mainte-
nance, landscaping, and other innovative uses. The
City of St. Petersburg, Florida, has implemented an
urban dual distribution system for reclaimed water
for nonpotable uses. This system provides re-
claimed water for more than 7,000 residential
homes and businesses (USEPA, 1992).

Landscaping

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

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



How to Conserve Water and Use it Effectively 41



The gravity design is the most widely available low-flush
toilet. When flushing, the stored water from the tank @
Slows into the bowl (2), where the water pushes waste into
the trapway (3). The 1.6-gal/flush design of the gravity
toilet has a different flush mechanism (4), as well as steep
bowl sides and a narrow trapway to allow the siphoned
water to gain velocity for more effective removal of waste
(City of Austin, n.d).

construction and building rehabilitation or remodel-
ing there is a great potential to reduce water con-
sumption by installing low-flush toilets.

Conventional toilets use 3.5 to 5 gallons or more

of water per flush, but low-flush toilets (see figure
above) use only 1.6 gallons of water or less. Since

low-flush toilets use less water, they also re-duce the

volume of wastewater produced (Pearson, 1993).

Effective January 1, 1994, the Energy Policy Act

of 1992 (Public Law 102-486) requires that all new
toilets produced for home use must operate on 1.6

gallons per flush or less (Shepard, 1993). Toilets that

operate on 3.5 gallons per flush will continue to be
manufactured, but their use will be allowed for only
certain commercial applications through January 1,
1997 (NAPHCC, 1992).

How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively

Even in existing residences, replacement of
conventional toilets with low-flush toilets is a
practical and economical alternative. The effective-
ness of low-flush toilets has been demonstrated
in a study in the City of San Pablo, California. In
a 30-year-old apartment building, conventional
toilets that used about 4.5 gallons per flush were
replaced with low-flush toilets that use approxi-
mately 1.6 gallons per flush. The change resulted
in a decrease in water consumption from approxi-
mately 225 gallons per day per average household
of 3% persons to 148 gallons per day per house-
hold—a savings of 34 percent! Although the total
cost for replacement of the conventional toilets
with low-flush toilets was about $250 per unit (in-
cluding installation), the water conservation fix-
tures saved an average of $46 per year from each
unit’s water bill. Therefore, the cost for the re-
placement of the conventional toilet with a low-
flush toilet could be recovered in 5.4 years.

Toilet Displacement Devices. Plastic containers
(such as plastic milk jugs) can be filled with water or
pebbles and placed in a toilet tank to reduce the
amount of water used per flush. By placing one to
three such containers in the tank (making sure that
they do not interfere with the flushing mechanisms
or the flow of water), more than | gallon of water can
be saved per flush. A toilet dam, which holds back a
reservoir of water when the toilet is flushed, can also
be used instead of a plastic container to save water.
Toilet dams result in a savings of 1 to 2 gallons of
water per flush (USEPA, 1991b).

Low-Flow Showeriteads.
Showers account for about 20
percent of total indoor water
use. By replacing standard 4.5-
gallon-per-minute showerheads
with 2.5-gallon-per-minute
heads, which cost less
than $5 each, a fam-
ily of four can save
approximately
20,000 gallons of
water per year (Jensen,

1991). Although individual
preferences determine optimal
shower flow rates, properly
designed low-flow



Sexton, R. J:, T. A. Sexton, J. J. Wann, and C. L.
Kling. 1989. The conservation and welfare
effects of information in a time-of-day pricing
experiment. Land Economics 65(3):272-279.

Shepard, A. C. 1993, September 2. The new toi-
lets—Water-saving models are now the law, but
can they get the job done? The Washington Post,
Washington Home Section, p. 14.

Simon, B., and D. Anderson. 1990. Water auc-
tions as an allocation mechanism in Victoria, Aus-
tralia. Water Resources Bulletin 26(3):387-395.

Smith, R. T., and R. Vaughan. 1988. Irrigation
district: Obstacles to water marketing Journal of
the American Water Works Association
80(3):10,102.

Solley, W. B., R. R. Pierce, and H. A. Perlman.

1993. Estimated use of water in the United States
in 1990. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1081.

Strauss, S. D. 1991. Water management for reuse/
recycle. Power 135(5):13-23.

SFWMD. 1994. Water resources in jeopardy: An
explanation of the Southern Water Use Caution
Area in the Southwest Florida Water Management

District. South Florida Water Management Dis-
trict, West Palm Beach, FL.

Texas Water Development Board. 1986. A
homeowner's guide to water use and water con-
servation, Texas Water Development Board,
Austin, TX.

Trembly, T. L., and G. A. Gould. 1987. Opportu-
nities to protect instream flows in Colorado and
Wyoming. Biological report 87(10). U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.

TVA. n.d. Drought. The Tennessee Valley Author-
ity, Drought Management Task Force.

USDOI. 1992. An implementation plan for
instream flows—Draft. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1980. Design manual—Onsite wastewa-
ter treatment and disposal systems. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Wash-
ington, DC. (in revision).

USEPA. 1989. Glossary of environmental terms
and acronyms list. EPA 19K-1002. U.S. Environ-

60

mental Protection Agency, Office of Communica-
tions and Public Affairs, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1990a. Final determination of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Water pursuant to section 404(c)
of the Clean Water Act concerning the proposed
Big River water supply impoundment Kent
County, Rhode Island. March 1, 1990.

USEPA. 1990b. Final determination of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Water pursuant to section 404(c)
of the Clean Water Act concerning the Two Forks
water supply impoundments Jefferson and Dou-
glas Counties, Colorado. November 23, 1990.

USEPA. 1990c. Recommended determination to
prohibit construction of Two Forks Dam and Res-
ervoir pursuant to section 404(c) of the Clean
Water Act. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 8, Denver, CO.

USEPA. 1990d. Denver's water conservation pro-
gram. Compliance Review for 1989 pursuant to
the Foothills Consent Decree. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, Denver, CO.

USEPA. 1990e. Preventing pollution through
efficient water use. EPA 20W-0002. USS. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1991a. Municipal wastewater reuse: Se-
lected readings on water reuse. EPA/430/09-
91022. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1991b. Fact Sheet: 21 water conserva-
tion measures for everybody. EPA 570/9-91-100.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1992. Manual: Guidelines for water re-
use. EPA/625/R-92/004. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, pc.

USEPA. 1993. Xeriscape landscaping—Prevent-
ing pollution and using resources efficiently. EPA/
$40/B/93/001. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, Dc.

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

Cleaner Water Through Conservation





habitats, dams them-
selves create several
forms of nonpoint source
pollution due to their ef-
fects on physical and
chemical water quality

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

degradation both up-
stream and downstream. These NPS impacts are
discussed further in the following sections.

Developing New
Water-Supply Reservoirs

Building dams to develop new reservoirs can
both generate and release a multitude of nonpoint
source pollutants both upstream and downstream
from the dam. Therefore, to protect water quality,
dam construction should be avoided wherever
possible. Pollutants include not only suspended
sediments, but also pesticides, petrochemicals,
solid wastes, construction runoff, and concrete
washwater. Impacts from these NPS pollutants

A.

Where Have All the Salmon
Gone?

Most notably, the obstruction of fish

migration by dams has become increas-
ingly evident in the Pacific Northwest, where “-
damming whole river systems has all but
wiped out many historic runs of several
salmon species. This has caused the
economic base of many communities to be
wiped out as well. An acknowledged
contributor to the devastating decline of
saveral Pacific Ocean salmon fisheries,
dams have helped introduce tight regula~
tions and quotas to commercial fisheries:
along the whole length of coast all the way.
to Alaska, with 1994 bringing the first ©
compiete salmon closure of both commer-
cial and sporifishing to the West Coast—~
Alaska yet excepted.

Even with the installation of improved “fish
ladders” at dam sites designed to increase
the success of fish surmounting these
formidable obstacles on their upstream
Journey to spawn, onsite underwater video
cameras now record scant hundreds swim-
ming by a dam where previously salmon
filled the rivers and streams each season.

can cause any number of problems, including
changes in water temperature, dissolved oxygen
values, salinity, turbidity, habitat, and living re-
sources. Although these pollutants can cause se-
vere water quality problems in the immediate
area of construction, as well as in downstream
waterbodies, reservoir construction projects lo-
cated directly alongside streams and rivers further
increase the likelihood of construction-related
pollutants entering waterbodies.

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

@ Reduced sediment delivery
@ Decreased dissolved oxygen
@ Altered temperature regimes

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

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

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



Looking Ahead

Water is a resource that we often take for
granted. We watch the rain fall or stand on the bank
of a river and assume that our water needs will be
taken care of—that water is a “free good” readily
available to all. But a closer look reveals that it’s
not that simple. In many dry areas, water is a very
limited resource; in other areas, water is being con-
taminated by various sources of pollution.

Now that nonpoint source (NPS) pollution has
been recognized as a major contributor to declining
water quality, the search is on for ways to eliminate
or reduce this type of pollution. This document
Proposes one important approach not usually con-
sidered to reduce NPS pollution—reducing the
quantity of water used. Using less water can reduce:

@ On-site disposal system failures.

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

@ The need for additional reservoir capac-
ity and associated habitat alterations.

@ Surface water withdrawals or diversions
that result in degraded habitat and wet-
lands.

Water use efficiency has other benefits, too,
such as saving money. For example, a leak

caused by a faulty flush valve in a toilet tank can
waste as much as 10 gallons of water an hour,
costing $100 per year at $1.20/1,000 gallons.

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

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

What’s being done to conserve this precious
resource where you live? And what more can
you and others do?

Regional Approaches to Efficient Water Use: Tales From the Trenches 51



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

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

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

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

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

Crook, J., T. Asano, and M. Nellor. 1990.
Groundwater recharge with reclaimed water in
California. In Municipal wastewater reuse, ed.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, pp. 67-74, Washington, DC. EPA 430/09-
91-022.

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

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

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

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

Florida commission makes water conservation rec-
ommendations. 1990. Water Works Journal
44(6):7.

58

Frederiksen, H. D. 1992. Drought planning and
water efficiency implications in water resources
management. World Bank technical paper no.
185. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

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

Grisham, A., and W. M. Fleming. 1989. Long-
term options for municipal water conservation.
Journal of the American Water Works Association
81(3):33.

Habibian, A. 1992. Developing and utilizing data
bases for water main rehabilitation. Journal of the
American Water Works Association 84(7):75-79.

Hiss, J. M. 1993. Recommended instream flows
for the lower Dungeness River. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery
Resource Office, Olympia, WA.

In troubled waters. 1990. ZPG Reporter 22(3):12.

Jalali-Farahani, H. R., H. R. Duke, and D. F.
Heerman. 1993. Physics of surge irrigation: I.
Quantifying soil physical parameters. Transac-
tions of the ASAE, special edition: Soil and Water
36:37-44,

James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc.
1991. City of San Jose—Draft final report—Water
conservation program analysis, evaluation and
long-term planning study.

Jarrett, A. R., D. D. Fritton, and W. E. Sharpe.
1985. Renovation of failing absorption fields by
water conservation and resting. Paper no. 85-
2630. American Association of Agricultural Engi-
neers.

Jensen, R. 1991. Indoor water conservation.
Texas Water Resources 17(4).

JMM Consulting. 1991. Water conservation
analyses, evaluation, and long-range planning
study. Draft final report to City of San Jose, Cali-
fornia. James M. Montgomery Consulting Engi-
neers, Walnut Creek, CA.

Karpiscak, M. M., R. G. Brittain, C. P. Gerba, and
K. E. Foster. 1991. Demonstrating residential wa-
ter conservation and reuse in the Sonoran Desert:
Casa Del Agua and Desert House. Water Science

and Technology 24(9):323-330.

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



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

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

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

Water Reuse and Recycling

Agricultural irrigation represents approxi-
mately 40 percent of the total water demand na-
tionwide. Given that high demand, significant

Agricultural irrigation represents about 40 percent of
the total freshwater withdrawals (Solley et al., 1993).

How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively

“gation units. Permitted application rates at the
ite are 3.16 inches per week for a total ca:

pacity of 21,5 Mga/d. The major crops

duced at the spray fiald include com,
‘and rye.

water conservation benefits could result from
irrigating with reused or recycled water.

Water reuse is the use of wastewater or re-
claimed water from one application for another ap-
plication. Reused water must be used for a benefi-
cial purpose and in accordance with applicable
rules (USEPA, 1991a). Water recycling is the reuse
of water for the same application for which it was
originally intended.

Factors that should be considered in an agricul-
tural water reuse prograrn include:

@ The identification of water reuse opportu-
nities.

@ Determination of the minimum water
quality needed for the given use.

@ Identification of wastewater sources that
satisfy the water quality requirements.

31



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

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

Behavioral Practices

Behavioral practices involve changing water
use habits to achieve more efficient use of water.
Behavioral practices for agricultural water users
can be applied to irrigation application rates and
timing. Changes in water use behavior can be
implemented without modifying existing equip-
ment,

For example, better irrigation scheduling can
result in a reduction in the amount of water that is
required to irrigate a crop effectively. The careful
choice of irrigation application rates and timing
can help farmers to maintain yields with less
water. In making scheduling decisions, irrigators
should consider:

@ The uncertainty of rainfall and crop water
demand.

@ The limited water storage capacity of many
irrigated soils.

@ The limited pumping capacity of irrigation
systems.

@ Rising pumping costs as a result of higher
energy prices.

Local NRCS-Conservation Districts and Co-
operative Extension Service offices can play an
important role in promoting better irrigation
scheduling. Accurate information on crop water
use requires information on solar radiation and
other weather variables that can be collected by
local weather stations. An additional method that
can be used to improve irrigation scheduling and
might result in high returns is the use of equip-
ment such as resistance blocks, tensiometers, and
neutron probes to monitor soil moisture condi-
tions to help in determining when water should
be applied (Bosch and Ross, 1990).

32

PV yy)

A Uh

a
wy Ty CROAT ee
AARC AtR Sh, Save f MEMn
ihe NOD BNL QQ iy
val finn Sa Suen 3 AYES |

Better irrigation scheduling can result in water savings.

Practices for System
Operators

Engineering Practices
Metering

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

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



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

City of Lompoc

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

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

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

shortage ordinance establishes the mandatory
use of ultra-low-flush toilets and urinals in all
new commercial, industrial, and public build-
ings.

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

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

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

Connecticut

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

Regional Approaches to Efficient Water Use: Tales From the Trenches 47





Applicants for water supply loans are re-
quired to develop a water conservation plan and
adopt a water conservation program that can in-
clude the following: restrictions on discretionary
water use, water-saving plumbing code standards
for new construction, retrofit programs for exist-
ing structures, education programs, universal me-
tering, conservation-orientated water rate pro-
grams, drought contingency plans, and distribu-
tion system leak detection and repair. The re-
quirement for an approved water conservation
plan can be waived by the Water Development
Board if an emergency exists, if the amount of
the assistance is less than $500,000, or if the ap-
plicant can demonstrate that the plan is not nec-
essary to promote conservation or conservation
measutes.

As of 1990, the Texas Water Development
Board had approved water conservation plans for
165 political subdivisions in the state, many of
which are located in Harris, Galveston, and
Brazoria Counties. A pilot program was also set
up prior to full implementation of the Agricul-
tural Water Conservation Program. As of 1990,
the Program had distributed $8,065,000 in low-
interest loans to farmers for the purchase of wa-
ter-efficient irrigation equipment. The single
most expensive purchase was a $27,102 irriga-
tion demonstration system for the North Plains
Underground Water Conservation District
(Schoolmaster and Fries, 1990).

Oregon

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

50

for water allocation decisions (Dyballa and
Connelly, 1991).

Arizona

In Arizona, public water suppliers located in
areas where ground water withdrawals exceed re-
charge capacity are required to limit water con-
sumption to state-established maximum water use
rates. The water use rates are expressed in gallons
per capita per day. Water suppliers are required to
negotiate a water conservation plan that meets the
state’s targeted rates if they do not achieve estab-
lished rate limits (Dyballa and Connelly, 1991).

Phoenix has implemented a conservation pro-
gram to meet state-established ground water lim-
its. The elements of the program include an edu-
cation program, residential audit and retrofit pro-
grams, a mail order retrofit program, limits on turf
irrigation, low-flow plumbing standards, and land-
scape requirements for large new buildings Dyballa
and Connelly, 1991). The implementation of the
water conservation program in Phoenix has resulted
in a reduction in water use from 267 gal/cap/day in
1980 to 234 gal/cap/day in 1990.

The City of Tucson has also implemented a wa-
ter conservation program that has resulted in large
reductions in peak water demand. The elements of
Tucson’s program include public information and
education, an increasing block rate price structure,
and the use of water-saving plumbing fixtures.

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEOS Corporation. 1990. Technical assistance
for the City of Lompoc: Energy savings through
water conservation: Final report. Prepared for
Western Area Power Administration, Conservation

References

& Renewable Energy Program, Sacramento Area
Office. NEOS Corporation, Lafayette, CA.

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

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

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

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

Pearson, F. H. 1993. Study documents water sav-
ings with ultra-low-flush toilets. Small Flows
7(2):8-9,11.

Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service.
1992. To the last drop. Board game 4-H 778.
Purdue University Media Distribution Center.

Rathnau, M. M. 1991. Submetering = water con-
servation. Water Engineering and Management
138(3):24-25,37.

RMI. 1991. Water efficiency: A resource for util-

ity managers, community planners, and other de-
cision makers. The Water Program, Rocky Moun-
tain Institute, Snowmass, CO.

Rosen, M. D., and R. J. Sexton. 1993. Ligation
districts and water markets: An application of co-
operative decision-making theory. Land Econom-
ics 69(1):39-53.

Russet, D. F, and C. P.N. Woodcock. 1992.
What will water rates be like in the 1990s? Jour-
nal of the American Water Works Association
84(9):68-72.

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

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

59





ber of tools can be used to educate the public:
bill inserts, feature articles and announcements
in the news media, workshops, booklets, posters
and bumper stickers, and the distribution of
water-saving devices. Public school education is
also an important means for instilling water con-
servation awareness (Grisham and Fleming,
1989),

Another way to provide public information
and education, as well as to collect real-world

_ bers benefit from water and energy cost:
© savings;.enhanced public image; and the

opportunity to-improve operational effecti
_ Ness. EPA provides partners with marketi
technical, and public-recognition support’
_ Services, Partners agree to endorse WAVE’s
concepts, survey water-use devices, appoint:
_. WAVE implementation manager, install up-
grades, design watet-efficient facilities; and

please contact:
Street, SW, Mail St 4008 Ves igen HC
rest, SW, Mail Stop 4204,
0460. Phone (202) 260-7288; fax (202) 260-
"1827 (USEPA,1994),

assist water professionals and other

- interested parties in-locating current, com-
prehensive information on ‘water efficiency
topics. Water Wiser is a cooperative project
between EPA and the American Water. Works,
Association. The. clearinghouse is designed
to.be the preeminent information resource for.

“those who want to'make sure our limited

water resources are used wisely and effi-
ciently. Water Wiser

.» also.be ‘contacted by Intemet. For access
“information, or to request any of the services.
listed abave,:call 1-800-559-9855 (AWWA, .

How to Gonserve Water and Use It Effectively

data on water conservation and use efficiency, is
through the use of demonstration projects. In Tuc-
son, Arizona, the Casa del Agua, a single-family
home, has been used to demonstrate and study
water conservation and reuse techniques and tech-
nologies. In 1985, the University of Arizona de-
signed and retrofitted the Casa del Agua with wa-
ter-conserving fixtures, a rainwater harvesting sys-
tem, gray water reuse and storage systems, and
drought-tolerant plants. Measurements of water
use and water quality at the Casa del Agua have
provided a useful collection of data for evaluating
the possible benefits of conservation techniques
and technologies in a residential home (Karpiscak
et al., 1991).

A study of water demand in the United States
using American Water Works Association (AWWA)
data indicated that water users are more sensitive to
a change in price in the South and the West than in
the other regions of the country. Public education
appears to have reduced water usage in the West.

A heightened awareness of water’s scarcity might
make educational programs more effective in the
‘West than in the rest of the country (Nieswiadomy,
1992).

39



Surcharges include winter/summer ratios and
alternative seasonal rates.

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

Retrofit Programs

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

A retrofit program can involve the use of
education programs to let users know which
fixtures are best, where to get them, and how to
install them. System operators can also purchase
water-efficient fixtures and resell them at cost to

How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively

the users, but the most successful retrofit pro-
grams have been those in which the system
operator purchases, distributes, and installs the
fixtures (AWWA, n.d.).

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

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

64 gal per
capita per day

The installation of low-flow showerheads and toilet dams in
a Texas apartment complex reduced per capita water use by

21 percent.

37





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

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

Categories of

Water Use

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

@ Municipal/public supply
@ Domestic and commercial
@ Industrial and mining

@ Agricultural

@ Thermoelectric power.

Municipal/Public
Water Supply

While water withdrawals for
public use can be applied to
street cleaning, fire fighting,
municipal parks, and public
swimming pools, keep in mind

Total Freshwater
Withdrawals
Millions of gal/day
(% of total)

137,000
(40)

5 9% Thermoelectric

HHA

Consumptive Use
Millions of gal/day
(% of total)

Irrigation

lit

Industrial

bp 16%

and Mining

= mf 900
r¥ Le o
Comm

Lt

Public Uses and

Not quantified
as a consump-
tive use,

Losses

3,000
(8%)
67%
Livestock

339,000
(100)

28%
Total

94,000
(100)

r Total Withdrawal
DW Percent Consumed

that municipalities and private

Comparison of freshwater consumptive use in the United States for 1990,
suppliers might also provide wa-

by category (Solley et al., 1 993).

How We Use Water in These United States



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

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

Stillaguamish Tribe in
Arlington, Washington

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

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

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

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

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

Texas

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

Nn

Plains

District
re ie Lubbock

San Angelo
Harris-Galveston

* District
San Antonio ;

Schoolmaster and Fries, 1990

Regional Approaches to Efficient Water Use: Tales From the Trenches 49



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

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

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

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

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

Price gouging: Excessive water rate increases
that are unfair to water customers (Collinge,
1992).

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

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

Reclaimed water: Wastewater that is treated and
reused to supplement water supplies (USEPA,
1991a).

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

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

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

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

Rinse sink: Apparatus used to remove debris and
contaminants from products and equipment
(Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

Glossary

Seasonal rate structure: Rate structure that bills
all water consumed during the summer or peak
season at a higher rate than during the other sea-
sons (Schlette and Kemp, 1991).

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

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

Source protection: Protection of a water source
by a small utility, ranging from simple sanitary
surveys of a watershed to the development and
implementation of complex land use controls, in
an effort to avoid water contamination (Golinitz,
1988).

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

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

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

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

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

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



*Sincoon

Average use per person (gal/day) of, ‘public water in the United States by USGS water region (Solley et al., 1993).

season. On an annual average basis, outdoor
water use in the arid West and Southwest is much
greater than that in the East or Midwest. The
figure on page 10 compares the national average Bathroom 74% Kitchen 5%
for residential outdoor water use with that of

Pennsylvania and California, with landscape 0 , :
irrigation the primary application. While average ii 33% é Ee
outdoor water use in Pennsylvania represents only \ \ es
approximately 7 percent of the total residential (tt : in) ran
demand, in California average outdoor use climbs NN il
to about 44 percent of the demand. \ \ 419 HAN

ry \y

Industrial and Mining

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

How We Use Water in These United States 9



EPA 841-B-95-002
April 1995

Cleaner Water
Through Conservation

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460



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

Landscape Irrigation

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

Behavioral Practices

Behavioral practices involve modifying water
use habits to achieve more efficient use of water,
thus reducing overall water consumption by an
industrial/commercial facility. Changes in behav-
ior can save water without modifying the existing
equipment at a facility.

Monitoring the amount of water used by an in-
dustrial/commercial facility can provide baseline
information on quantities of overall company water
use, the seasonal and hourly patterns of water use,
and the quantities and quality of water use in indi-
vidual processes. Baseline information on water use
can be used to set company goals and to develop
specific water use efficiency measures. Monitoring
can make employees more aware of water use rates
and makes it easier to measure the results of con-
servation efforts. The use of meters on individual
pieces of water-using equipment can provide direct
information on the efficiency of water use. Records
of meter readings can be used to identify changes
in water use rates and possible problems in a sys-
tem (Brown and Caldwell, 1990).

30

\ Behavioral Changes Save Food ©
Processor Water and Money e

Gangi Brothers Packing Company is a.
tomato and canning plant in’:
Santa Clara, Califomia. Gangi Brothers has
implemented several successful water
_ conservation ‘practices at its cannery,.
“including the:monitoring of operations
-- control water-use and to. identify areas.
where water could be saved. Monitoting
“water use. at the facility has been used to
©-@8tablish reasonable water use practices,”
- to-notify.employees:of the proper practices,
°“and to’ monitor. and enforce proper: water ©
cause practices (Brown and. Caldwell, 1990).
= Over a 5-year period. the combined conser-
_ Vation practices at the packing company ~
have resulted in.a-significant reduction: in:
water use. In.1983 Gangi Brothers used ~
: “approximately 148 billion gallons of water:
_during the. canning season. By 1989 water
“use at the ‘facility had dropped to 56.8
billion gallons, resulting. in a.savings
91.4 billion gallons per season (Brown:
Caldwell, 1990)... -~"" :

Many of the practices described in the section
for residential users can also be applied by commer-
cial users. These include low-flow fixtures, water-
efficient landscaping, and water reuse and recycling
(eg., using recycled wash water for pre-rinse).

Practices for Agricultural
Users

Engineering Practices
Irrigation

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

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



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

Resource : Linkage Examples

Instream Water Direct

Water accessible and suitable for” Free waterneededonreguiar ©. Mule deer, desert bighorn sheep,
drinking <» (e.g.,-daily) basis to meet physi- ~ Calitomia ‘and Gambel's quail,
: » ological needs

Water of suitable depth and flow _ Water used as travel medium (in .
~ cluding | for dispersal) a . muskrat, many amphibians, some
. ~sturtles, water snakes

Whoopirig crane, sandhill crane,
' provides. concealment (for ieee otter, beaver, muskrat, water
tion fr from predators) *
nats

ome toads, some sala-
water snakes, some

: hee
instream flow determines p 3 prey.»
base for terrestrial animale bet eat ©

Serves, as-concealment cover
iduais and tein mete

riparian vegetation

Aquatic animal life

‘Coyote, rad fos stipe ‘kun
ffacts structure of “cna iene ‘weasel; great-homed
supports higher food. levels, & owkc i black-hawk, aquatic

fod “eaten by wae renee

instream flow affects vegetation Riparian herbivores, iLe., beaver
that is eaten by resident herbivores . yg

Source: USDOI, 1992

18 Cleaner Water Through Conservation







8ehavioral Practices

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

the kitchen, bathroom,
Lab] and laundry room and
outdoors.

| In the kitchen, for
example, 10 to 20 gal-
lons of water a day can
be saved by running the
dishwasher only when it
is full. If dishes are
washed by hand, water

iD

YN
LN

can be saved by filling
the sink or a dishpan with water rather than running
the water continuously. An open conventional fau-
cet lets about 5 gallons of water flow every 2 min-
utes (Florida Commission, 1990).

‘Water can be saved in the bathroom by turning
off the faucet while

brushing teeth or shav-
ing. Water can be saved
by taking short showers
rather than long showers
or baths and turning the
water off while soaping.
This water savings can
be increased even further
by installing low-flow
showerheads, as dis-
cussed earlier. Toilets
should be used only to carry away sanitary waste.

Households with lead-based solder in pipes
that flush the first several gallons of water should
collect this water for alternative nonpotable uses
(e.g., plant watering).

Water can be saved in the laundry room by ad-
justing water levels in the washing machine to
match the size of the load. If the washing machine
does not have a variable load control, water can be
saved by running the machine only when it is full.
If washing is done by hand, the water should not be

26

left running. A laundry
tub should be filled with “
water, and the wash and
rinse water should be re-
used as much as possible.

Outdoor water use
can be reduced by water-
ing the lawn early in the
morning or late in the
evening and on cooler days, when possible, to re-
duce evaporation. Allowing the grass to grow
slightly taller will reduce water loss by providing
more ground shade for the roots and by promoting
water retention in the soil. Growing plants that are
suited to the area (“indigenous” plants) can save
more than 50 percent of the water normally used to
care for outdoor plants.

As much as 150 gallons of water can be saved
when washing a car by turning the hose off be-
tween rinses. The car should be washed on the
lawn if possible to reduce runoff.

Additional savings of water can result from
sweeping sidewalks and driveways instead of hos-
ing them down. Washing a sidewalk or driveway
with a hose uses about 50 gallons of water every 5
minutes (Florida Commission, 1990). If a home
has an outdoor pool, water can be saved by cover-
ing the pool when it is not in use.

Water can be saved by turning off the hose between
rinses, and runoff can be reduced by washing the car
on the lawn.

Cleaner Water Through Conservation



Water Reuse

Since 1970,Aurora, Colorado, has
reused reclaimed domestic wastewater
to irrigate the Aurora Hills Golf Course.

Aurora uses an average of 100. million
gallons per year of reclaimed wastewater
pumped from the Sand Creek Wastewater
Reclamation Facility to an onsight
nonpotable water reservoir. In1980, four
city parks requiring an additional 50 million
gallons of irrigation water per year were
added to the reclaimed water system. In. :
1980, costs of the water reuse system, —
including debt service for the original.
filtration complex and transmission line but
excluding irrigation pumping costs, aver--. _
aged $0.43/1,000 gallons (1980 dollars)
compared with $0.78/1,000 gallons for
traditionally supplied water (USEPA, 1991a)...

@ The identification of wastewater sources
that satisfy the water quality requirements.

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

Well Capping

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

Abandoned wells in
Seminole County, |,
Florida, are |’
discharging 54 Mgal/d.

How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively

Planning and Management
Practices

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

Pricing

Information and education promoting conser-
vation do not appear to be effective by themselves
in achieving a conservation goal without at the
same time imposing significant price increases to
provide a financial incentive to conserve water
(Martin and Kulakowski, 1991). Customers use
less water when they have to pay more for it and
use more when they know they can afford it. How-
ever, most people consider water to be a “free
good” and are not willing to pay higher prices that
reflect the true costs associated with the water de-
livered to their homes. Rate structures have the
advantage of avoiding the costs of overt regula-
tion, restrictions, and policing while retaining a
greater degree of individual freedom of choice for
water customers.

Overall charges for water service increased at
an average compound rate of 7 percent per year
during the 1980s—nearly double the rate of infla-
tion (Russet and Woodcock, 1992). There is con-

35



Chapter 3

How to Conserve
Water and Use It
Effectively

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

(1) Engineering practices: practices based on modifications in
plumbing, fixtures, or water supply operating procedures.

(2) Behavioral practices: practices based on changing water
use habits.

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

This chapter addresses the following questions: What’s the problem?
What practices might be used to solve it? How effective are they? What
a they cost? Where havé they been used successfully? Practices for
system users—tresidential, industrial/commercial, and agricultural—are
presented first, followed by practices for system operators.



Chapter 1

How We Use Water
in These United
States

ater use is usually defined and measured in terms of withdrawal or
consumption—that which is taken and that which is used up. With-
drawal refers to water extracted from surface or ground water sources,
with consumption being that part of a withdrawal that is ultimately used
and removed from the immediate water environment—whether by
evaporation, transpiration, incorporation into crops or a product, or
other consumption. Conversely, return flow is the portion of a



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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Bohac, C. E., R. M. Shane, E.D.
Harshbarger, and H. M. Goranflo. 1986. Re-
cent progress on improving reservoir re-
leases. In Lake and reservoir management
Volume I-Proceedings of the fifth annual
conference and international symposium on
applied lake and watershed management,
November 13-16, 1985, Lake Geneva, Wis-
consin. North American Lake Management
Society.

Bosch, D. J., and B. B. Ross. 1990. Improv-
ing irrigation schedules to increase returns
and reduce water use in humid regions.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
45(4):486-488.

Brown and Caldwell. 1984. Residential wa-
ter conservation projects. Summary report
produced for U. S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Office of Policy
Development and Research, Washington,
ve.

Brown and Caldwell. 1990. Case studies of
industrial water conservation in the San
Jose area. Report prepared for the City of
San Jose, CA, and California Department of

“Water Resources, Sacramento, CA.

Brown, J. W., and W. F. Hurst. 1990. Op-
portunities for water marketing and conser-
vation in California. Water World News
6(6):10-13.

Bush, D. B. 1988. Dealing for water in the
West: Water rights as commodities. Journal
of the American Water Works Association
80(3):30-37.

California. 1991. Memorandum of under-
standing regarding urban water conserva-
tion in California. Draft.

California Department of Water Resources.
1992. Water audit and leak detection guide-
book. State of California Department of Wa-
ter Resources Water Conservation Office and
American Water Works Association, Califor-
nia-Nevada Section.



j

Regional
Approaches to
Efficient Water
Uses: Tales From
the Trenches

his chapter presents a sampling of programs throughout the Nation that use
one or more water conservation and use efficiency practices. Table 5 pre-
sents a summary of the practices used in each example program. It also

Provides a row to use in evaluating the water use efficiency program in
your area.

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

vane

ome

Ty has

S3sia
aoe



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

Florida

Tampa

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

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

sions and
state-of-the-art
irrigation and land-
scape design for new
construction.

In December 1989, wa-
ter-saving kits were delivered
to about 10,000 Tampa
homes. The kits included two
toilet tank dams, two low-flow showerheads, two
lavatory faucet aerators, some Teflon tape, a pam-
phlet on finding and fixing leaks with a general
“water-saving tips” card, an installation instruc-
tion folder (with a letter from the mayor encour-
aging participation, and instructions in both Spanish
and English), a window display card, and leak de-
tection dye tablets. These materials were packed in

a clear plastic bag and hung on the doorknobs of
residences. Ninety-four percent of homeowners
receiving the kits installed the devices. The kits
were estimated to save 7-10 gallons of water per
person per day. Tampa estimates that when all the
homes in Tampa are similarly retrofitted, more than
2.1 million gallons of water per day will be saved.

Educational efforts in Tampa focus on schools.
A number of contests have been conducted. Win-
ning poster and limerick entries are compiled into a
water conservation calendar, which is then distrib-
uted to the general public.

Additional efforts in Tampa include a pilot
awareness campaign, an expanded retrofit program,
toilet-replacement incentive projects including a
rebate program, implementation of water checkups
for large residential water users, and enhanced in-
school curriculum-based education (RMI, 1991).

South Florida Water Management
District

In 1992, the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD, which includes Palm Beach,
Dade County, Florida) joined the St. Johns River
Water Management District (in northeast Florida)
and Southwest Florida Water Management District
(Tampa, Sarasota, etc.) in sponsoring a statewide
mass-media conservation campaign that urges resi-
dents to conserve water and use it wisely. The
campaign features public service spots that urge
residents to use xeriscaping and offers other water-
saving tips. Educational brochures and how-to
guides, an informative video on how to xeriscape a
typical Florida yard, and a quarterly newsletter
were all produced to support this educational effort.

The SFWMD’s Six-Point Conservation Policy
appeals to local governments to adopt conservation
measures. The policy advocates the adoption of
local xeriscape ordinances, leak detection pro-
grams, ordinances that encourage the residential
and business use of low-volume plumbing, rate
structures that reward conservation and reduced
use, comprehensive public education programs,
and daytime irrigation bans.

In other programs, the SFWMD offers techni-
cal assistance to cities and counties in implementing
rain switch ordinances (which require automatic

Regional Approaches to Efficient Water Use: Tales From the Trenches 45



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

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

@ Climate differences

@ The mix of domestic, commercial, and
industrial uses

@ Household sizes

@ Lot sizes

@ Public uses

@ Income brackets

@ Age and condition of distribution system.

For instance, per capita use of public water is
about 50 percent higher in the West than the East
mostly due to the amount of landscape irrigation
in the West (see map, p. 9). However, per capita
use can also vary greatly within a single state.
For example, in 1985 the demand for municipal
water in Ancho, New Mexico, totaled 54 gallons
per capita per day (gaV/cap/day) while in Tyrone,
New Mexico, municipal demand topped off at
423 gal/cap/day (Grisham and Fleming, 1989).
Rural areas typically consume less water for do-
mestic purposes than larger towns.

In 1990, water withdrawn nationwide for
public supplies totaled 38,530 million gallons per
day (Mgal/d) (Table 2). Although this withdrawal
rate represents a 5 percent increase over 1985
amounts, the number of people supplied with wa-
ter distributed through public systems also in-

‘Table 2. Fate of Water in Public Water Supplies of
the U. S., 1990.

Volume Percentage

Receiving Category (Mga/Day) _of Total

Domestic
Commercial

21,900 57

5,900 15
Public Use Losses 5,460 14
Industrial 5,190 13
Thermoelectric Power 80 <1
Total 38,530

creased 5 percent during that same 5-year period.
Again in 1990, surface water supplied about 61
percent of the public water supply, with ground
water supplying the other 39 percent (Solley et al.,
1993).

Of the total water withdrawn in 1990 for
public supplies—representing 11 percent of total
USS. offstream freshwater withdrawals—72 per-
cent went to domestic and commercial uses, 13
percent to industrial uses, and 0.2 percent to ther-
moelectric power. The remaining 14 percent went
to public uses such as fire protection or was lost
during distribution (usually due to leaks).

Domestic/Commercial

Domestic water use includes everyday uses that
take place in residential homes, whereas com-
mercial water uses are those which take place in
office buildings, hotels, restaurants, civilian and
military institutions, public and private golf
courses, and other nonindustrial commercial
facilities. Combined freshwater withdrawals for do-
mestic and commercial use in 1990 totaled 33,600
Mgal/d, or 10 percent of total freshwater withdraw-
als for all offstream categories (see box page 7).

Typical categories of residential water use in-
clude normal household uses such as

@ Drinking and cooking

@ Bathing

@ Toilet flushing

@ Washing clothes and dishes
Watering lawns and gardens
Maintaining swimming pools
@ Washing cars.

‘When divided into indoor uses and outdoor
uses, the amount of indoor water use remains
fairly constant throughout the year, with the
breakdown of typical indoor water uses depicted
on page 9. By far the largest percentage of indoor
water use occurs in the bathroom, with 41 per-
cent used for toilet flushing and 33 percent for
bathing (USEPA, 1992).

Outdoor residential water use, however, var-
ies greatly depending on geographic location and

Cleaner Water Through Conservation