# DRAFT

Recommendations to Encourage Replacement of Plumbing Fixtures and Fittings 

### as Required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992

Energy Analysis Program Energy and Environment Division 

### Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Berkeley, California 94720
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy :" .

## ~ 

# t:'
- (C 

### E

## cfi~ 

## I 5'

- 

### ! (j (



# DRAFT

Recommendations to Encourage RepIo.cement of PlumbingFixtures andFittings

asRequiredby the Energy PolicyActof 1992

Energy Analysis Program Energy and Environment Division

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Berkeley, California94720 Prepared for the U.S. Department ofEnergy ! 

# ::rt:: I

# 0EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) has prepared this report for the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to meet the requirements of Section 123 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT). Section 123 requires the Secretary to issue recommendations to the States for establishing State and local incentive programs to encourage acceleration of voluntary replacement, by consumers, of existing water closets, urinals, showerheads and faucets by water-saving products that meet the standards. This report encourages the States to investigate the cost-effectiveness of voluntary replacement of aforesaid plumbing fixtures and fittings as an effective component of a water efficiency incentive program. The first section recommends five critical points to consider when developing a cost-effective water conservation program. These points provide a general structure for program development that can be utilized by water conservationists in any region of the country. Whether replacing toilets or showerheads or utilizing other water conservation programs, it is important to know what is the most cost-efficient water conservation program to implement. In order to select the program that will yield the greatest water savings for the least cost, a number of factors should be analyzed: (1) water consumption by the community, (2) the history of local water conservation programs ; (3) the program objectives and target audience; (4) the cost-effectiveness of different water conservation methods; and (5) the potential results of any instituted program. The second section details three case studies where water conservation efforts have been successful. These examples are included not because they are unique but because they are representative of many other conservation programs around the country. They are by no means the

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 ii 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

### Lawrence BerkeleyLaboratory (LBL) has prepared this report for the Secretary ofthe U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) to meet the requirements ofSection 123 ofthe Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT). Section 123 requires the Secretary to issue recommendations to the States for establishing State and 

### local incentive programs to 

### encourage acceleration ofvoluntary replacement. by consumers, ofexisting water closets, urinals, showerheads and faucets by water-saving products that meet the standards. This report encourages the States to investigate the cost-effectiveness of voluntary replacement ofaforesaid plumbing fixtures and 

### fittings as an effective component ofa water efficiency incentive program. The 

### first section recommends five critical points to consider when developing a cost-effective water conservation program. These points provide a general structure for program development that
can be utilized by water conservationists in any region ofthe country. Whether replacing toilets or showerheads orutilizing other water conservation programs, it

### is important to know whatis the most cost-efficient water conservation program to implement. In 

### order to select the program that will yield the greatest water savings for the least cost, a number of factors should be 

### analyzed: (1) 

### water consumption by the community, (2) the history oflocal water conservation programs; (3) the program objectives and target audience; (4) the cost-effectiveness ofdifferent water conservation methods; and (5) the potential results ofany instituted program. The second section details 

### three case studies where water"conservation efforts have been successful. These examples are included not because they are unique but because they are representative ofmany other conservation programs around the country. They are by no means the

DRAFT. January 27,1995 n

### only successful programs, but have been selected because they are characteristic of programs that are

well-documented, use methodology translatable to many other regions of the country, and successfully save water. The report does not provide a spreadsheet or detailed account of the exact steps to take when developing a water conservation program

. That has already been done
. The American Water Works Association (AWWA), the U

.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and others have generated accessible and thorough instruction guidebooks that take the reader step by step through the components of a water conservation program
. AWWA has excellent water conservation guides that approach program development from the perspective of the needs of conservation managers, and small and medium utilities. EPA has produced literature detailing customer incentives for water conservation. State agencies, such as Washington State Department of Ecology and Connecticut Department of Public Health, have produced guidebooks that provide blueprints for creating water conservation programs relevant to using the methods in their own states. After reviewing the critical points to consider when devising a water conservation program, those guidebooks provide the next steps for designing a program that is cost

-effective. This preliminary report focuses on applications of water closets, showerheads, and faucets. Information on urinal replacement programs and studies is still being sought.

DRAFr, January 27, 1995 only successfulprograms, but have been se1ected because they are characteristic ofprograms that are well-documented, use methodology translatable to many other regions of the country, and successfully save water. 

### 1bereport does not provide a spreadsheet ordetailed account ofthe exact steps to take when developing a water conservation program. Thathas already been done. TheAmerican WaterWorks Association (A WW A), 

### the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), and others have generated accessible and thorough instruction guidebooks that take the reader step by step through the components ofa water conservation program. A WW A has excellent water conservation guides that approach program development from the perspective ofthe needs ofconservation managers, and

sman and medium utilities. EPA has produced literature detailing customer incentives for water conservation. State agencies, such 

## as Washington State Department ofEcology and Connecticut Department ofPublic Health, have produced guidebooks thatprovideblueprints for creating water conservation programs relevant to using the methods in their own states. Afterreviewing the critical points to consider when devising a water conservation program, those guidebooks provide the next steps for designing a program that is cost-effective. This preliminary report focuses on applications ofwater closets, showerheads, and faucets. Infonnation on urinal replacement programs and studies is still being sought
.

DRAFT, January 27,1995 iii

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1 CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM ............................ 6 Calculating Water Usage ................................................ 6 Determining Past Practices ............................................... 7 Setting Program Objectives and Target Audience .............................. 7 Choosing the Most Appropriate Method
.................................... 9 Evaluating Results .................................................... 11 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 13 New York City's Rebate Program ........................................ 14 Profile of the New York City Area ................................... 14 Development of the program ...................................... 15 Program Goals ................................ ...............15 

### Choice of an Appropriate Program .................................. 16 Description of Program .......................................... 16 Program Evaluation ............................................. 17 Los Angeles Community/Utility Coalition .................................. 18 

### Profile of the East Los Angeles Area ............... ................. 18 Development of the program ...................................... 18 Program Goals ................................................. 19 Choice of an Appropriate Program
.................................. 19 Description of Program .......................................... 19 Program Evaluation .......................................:.....21 Low Cost Programs -- Portland, Connecticut .................................23 Profile of the Portland Area ........................ . .............. 23 Development of the program ...................................... 23 Program Goals ................................................. 24 Description of the Program ........................................ 24 Results of the program ......................... ................ 25 

### Appendix A ............................................................... 27

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 iv 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTNE SUMMARY
.................................................... 

### ii INTRODUCTION
.......................................................... 1

.CONSIDERATIONS FORA SUCCESSFULPROGRAM
............................ 6 CalculatingWaterUsage
................................................ 6 Detennining Past Practices
............................................... 7 Setting Program Objectives and Target Audience
.............................. 7 Choosing the Most Appropriate Method
.................................... 9 Evaluating Results
.................................................... 11 RECOMMENDATIONS
..................................................... 13 New York City's Rebate Program
........................................ 14 Profile ofthe New York City Area
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Development ofthe program ...................................... 15 Program Goals
................................................. 15 Choice ofan Appropriate Program
.................................. 16 Description ofProgram
.......................................... 16 Program Evaluation
............................................. 17 Los Angeles CommunitylUtility Coalition
.................................. 18 Profile ofthe EastLos Angeles Area
................................ 18 Development ofthe program ...................................... 18 Program Goals
................................................. 19 Choice ofan Appropriate Program
.................................. 19 Description ofProgram
.......................................... 19 Program Evaluation
.......................................**~** ..... 21 Low Cost Programs

-- Portland, Connecticut
................................·23 Profile ofthe Portland Area
....................................... 23 Development ofthe program'
...................................... 23 Program Goals
................................................. 24 Description ofthe Program
........................................ 24 Results ofthe program ............................................. 25 Appendix A . . . . . . . . . .
..................................................... 27

DRAB, January 27, 1995 IV

### INTRODUCTION

There are many ways that water
. conservation can benefit a community. The need for conservation is obvious in areas where water is in short supply
. Efficient use of water helps communities meet current supply needs in times of drought and when expanding population places increased pressure on existing supplies
. Reducing demand can also protect future water resources by drawing more slowly upon reservoirs and aquifers. Installing low-flow fixtures and fittings , thereby reducing water demand, can have additional advantages for a community . Less water passing through the system , for instance, means less water and wastewater to treat. Studies have shown that the benefits from residential retrofit programs include: "reduced energy, chemical, and other costs associated with the treatment and distribution of water; reduced energy, chemical, and other costs associated with wastewater treatment and disposal; deferred costs associated with new or expanded water supply and distribution facilities; and residential savings from reduced energy bills."' The greatest energy savings will be due to decreased hot water use. With the installation of low-flow showerheads and faucets , national hot water use reduction is estimated at 560 million gallons per day by 2010, 9% less than the level of hot water use forecasted without the standards.' This could translate into a net national energy savings of 4.3 billion

'Babcock, Thomas M., Mary Ann Dickinson , Thomas E. Pape, and David Schultz. 1993. The Water Conservation Manager ' s Guide to Residential Retrofit. American Water Works Association. p. 24. 2 Koomey, Jonathan, C. Dunham, and J.D. Lutz
. 1994
. The Effect of Efficiency Standards on Water Use and Water Heating Energy Use in the U.S.: A Detailed End-use Treatment. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. LBL-35475. May. p. 10.
DRAFT, January 27, 1995 1 

### INTRODUCTION There are many ways that water conservation can benefit a community. The need for conservation 

### is obvious in areas where water is in short supply. Efficient use of water helps communities meet current supply needs intimes ofdrought and when expanding population places increased pressure on existing supplies. Reducing demand can also protect future waterresources by drawing more slowly upon reservoirs and aquifers. Installing low-flow fixtures and fittings, thereby reducing waterdemand, can have additional advantages for a community. Less water passing through the system, for instance, means less water and wastewater to treat. Studies have shown that the benefits from residential retrofit programs include: "reduced energy, chemical, 

### and other costs associated with thetreatment and distribution of water; reduced energy, chemical, 

### and other costs associated with wastewater treatment and disposal; deferred costs associated with new or expanded water supply and distribution facilities; and residential savings from reduced energy bills."l The greatestenergy savings will 

### be due to decreased hot water use. With the installation oflow-flow showerheads and faucets, national hot water use reduction 

### is estimated at 560 million gallons per day by 2010, 9% less than the level ofhot wateruse forecasted without the standards.2

### This could translate into a netnational energy savings of4.3 billion

IBabcock, Thomas M., Mary Ann Dickinson, Thomas E. Pape, and David Schultz. 1993. 

### The Water Conservation Manager's Guide to ResidentialRetrofit. American WaterWorks Assoc:iation. p. 24.

2 Koomey, Jonathan, C. Dunham, and J.D. Lutz. 1994. 

### The Effect of Efficiency Standards on Water Use and Water Heating Energy Use in the U.S.:

### A DetailedEnd-use Treatment. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. LBL-35475. May. p. 10.
DRAFT, January 27, t 995 

### 1

### dollars per year3 if the country responds quickly to EPACT and replaces high-flow fixtures and

fittings with models that conform to the low-flow national standard. In some residential environments, faucets, showerheads and toilets account for as much as 56 percent of water usage.4 Exchanging high-flow fixtures and fittings with low-flow models. makes a considerable reduction in the water usage of those communities and could reduce the water consumption level of the nation by as much as three billion gallons per day by the year 2010, 17% less than the residential plumbing water used in 1993.5 In addition to energy cost savings for hot water, substantial consumer savings would also be seen in water bills. Background The impetus for national plumbing standard legislation arose from local activities around the country. Local efforts began in the early 1970s with the increase of oil prices. Electric and gas utilities began programs to decrease hot water usage. One of many examples of effective electric and gas programs to reduce hot water usage can be found in Osage, Iowa. 

### Osage Municipal Utilities developed an energy reduction program to delay the construction of an electrical generating plant. After implementing the energy savings program, which included the distribution of 2300 low-flow showerheads and 2000 low-flow faucet aerators to its community of 3500 residents, Osage Municipal Utilities reduced its annual growth of energy consumption from 3Energy savings = (specific heat of H2O) (OT) ( gallons/day saved) (density of H2O) 0/2 price of electricity/electrical water heater efficiency + V2 price of gas/gas water heater efficiency ) Electricity = $0.08/kWh; Gas = $0.60; 1.09 X 109 gall ons/day projected savings with new efficiency standards 

### 4Koomey, QR .t*ii, p. 10. 5Koomey, Dp. di.. p. 10.
DRAFT, January 27, 1995 2 dollars per year3 ifthe country responds quickly to EP ACT and replaces high-flow flXtureS and fittings with models that confonn to thelow-flow national standard. Insome residential environments, faucets, showerheads and toilets account for as much as 56 percent ofwater usage.4 Exchanging high-flow flXtures and fittings with low-flow models.makes a considerable reduction in the water usage of those communities and could reduce the water consumption 1evel ofthe nation by as much as three billion gallons perday by the year 2010,17% less than the residential plumbing water used in 1993.5In addition to energy cost savings for hot water, substantial consumer savings would also 

### be seen in water bills. 

### Background TIle impetus for national plumbing standard legislation arose from local activities around the country. Local efforts began in the early 1970s with the increase ofoil prices. Electric and gas utilities began programs to decrease hot water usage. One ofmany examples ofeffective electric and gas programs to reduce hot water usage can befound in Osage, Iowa. Osage Municipal Utilities developed an energy reduction program to delay the construction ofan electrical generating plant. After implementing the energy savings program, which included the distribution of2300 low-flow showerheads and 2000 low-flow faucet aerators to its community of 3500 residents, Osage Municipal Utilities reduced its annual growth of energy consumption from
3Energy savings

# =(specific heat ofH20) (aT) (gallons/day saved) (density ofH20) (Yl price ofelectricity/electrical waterheater efficiency 

### + Yl price ofgas/gas waterheater efficiency) Electricity 

### = $0.08IkWh; Gas 

### = $0.60; 1.09 X 109 gallons/day projected savings with new efficiency standards 4Koomey,.up 

### cit, p. 10. 5Koomey,.up. 

### cit
.. p. 10.
DRAFT, January 27,1995 

### 2

### 7.2% down to 3%.6

Water utilities initiated water conservation programs in the early eighties. The California drought inspired numerous water utilities to encourage consumers to conserve water in order to reduce demand on a decreasing water supply. The public was introduced to low-flow fixtures, fittings, and activities that would extend the life of the area's water. Goleta, California, is credited as one of the first communities to substitute conservation for the traditional approach of expanding supply to solve their shortage. The water utility gave rebates to customers who replaced older toilets with ultralow flush toilets. More than 35,000 low-flow showerheads were also distributed by the Goleta Water District. The utility managed to slow the annual rate of water consumption growth to their targeted 7%. Other communities in the area not participating in water conservation activities fared less well when their annual water consumption increased between 13 and 15% in the same period of time. On the state level in March of 1989, Massachusetts became the first state to require installation of 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) toilets to extend its water supply. Connecticut initiated conservation efforts to forestall expenditures for projected water supply development because of population growth. In 1989, the Connecticut legislature passed a law "requiring a statewide residential retrofit program, more efficient plumbing fixtures, and uniform water conservation planning " 7 

### As more State legislatures passed maximum flow requirements, Congress began considering maximum flow rates for the nation as a whole. By setting national maximum flow rates for
'Birdsall, Weston. Energy Efficiency -- The Osage Experience. Osage Municipal Utilities Box 207 Osage, Iowa 50461. (515) 732-3731. 7Ruzccka, Denise, Connecticut State Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Division. (Denise Ruzicka 203-566-1253)
DRAFr, January 

### 27 , 1995 

### 3 7.2% down to 3%.6 Water utilities initiated water conservation programs in the early eighties. The California drought inspired numerous water utilities to encourage consumers to conserve water in order to reduce demand on a decreasing water supply. 

### 1bepublic was 

### introduced to low-flow**fIXtureS~** fittings, and activities that would extend the life ofthe area's water. Goleta, California, 

### is credited as one of the first communities to substitute conservationfor thetraditional approach ofexpanding supplyto solve their shortage. TIle waterutility gave rebates to customers who replaced oldertoilets with ultralow flush toilets. Morethan 35,000low-flow showerheads were also distributed by the GoletaWater District. 1beutility managed to slow the annual rate ofwaterconsumption growth to their targeted 7%. Othercommunities in the area notparticipating in waterconservation activities fared less well when their annual water consumption increased between 13 and 15% inthe sameperiod oftime. On the state level in March of 1989, Massachusetts became the ftrst state to require installation of 1.6 gallons per flush (gpO toilets to extend its water supply. Connecticut initiated conservation efforts to forestall expenditures for projected water supply development because of population growth. In 1989, the Connecticut legislature passed a law "requiring a statewide residential retrofit program, more efftcient plumbing fixtures, and unifonn water conservation planning. II7
As more State 1egislatures passed maximum flow requirements, Congress began considering maximum flow rates for the nation as a whole. By setting national maximum flow rates for
6Birdsall, Weston. 

### Energy Efficiency

-- 

### The Osage Experience. OsageMunicipal Utilities Box 207 Osage, Iowa 50461. (515) 732-3731. 7Ruzicka, Denise, Connecticut State DepartmentofHealth Services, Environmental Health Division. (Denise Ruzicka 203-566-1253)
DRAFf. January 27.1995 

### 3

### showerheads, toilets, faucet aerators and urinals, national water usage is reduced as the more efficient

products gradually replace the existing stock. Additional savings are derived from wastewater flow reduction, increased sewage treatment plant capacity, delays in construction of new treatment plants, improved performance of septic tanks, and soil absorption systems." In October of 1992, the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) established the first national legislation determining maximum flow rates for showerheads, faucets, toilets and urinals in the United States. Maximum flow rates for showerheads and faucets are 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm), 1 gallon per flush (gpf) for urinals, and 1.6 gpf for toilets (excluding flushometer type and those for commercial use). To increase the water saving benefits of the lowered flow rates more quickly, Section 123 of EPACT required the Department of Energy (DOE) to issue recommendations to the States to encourage the establishment of State and local incentive programs designed to motivate people to voluntarily replace their older plumbing fixtures and fittings with newer, more efficient showerheads, toilets, faucets, and urinals.' EPACT is not specific as to what kind of incentive program to encourage since there are many kinds of successful incentive programs. Effective programs vary according to area and must take into account the age of the housing stock, the type of water supply, the environmental conditions, the rate of population and industrial growth, and the type of water supplier. The program should be customized to produce the greatest results for the least cost. States must compare water conservation

"Hearing set

for water-saving toilets

. Delaware River Basin Commission

. PR Newswire, March 8, 1989 (Jeff Featherstone 609-883-9500) 9Amrein, Diana L., 1990. Watermatters: water conservationists, plumbing industry still at odds over National Plumbing Products Efficiency Act of 1989. Contractor v37: nlp30(2), January.
DRAFT, January 27, 1995 4 

### showerheads, toilets, faucet aerators and 

### urina1s, national water usage is reduced as the more efficient products gradually replace the existing stock. Additional savings are derived from wastewater flow reduction, increased sewage treatment plant capacity, delays in construction ofnew treatment plants, imprQved perfonnance ofseptic tanks, and soil absorption systems. 8 In 

### October of 1992, the 

### Energy Policy Act (EPACT) established the fIrSt national legislation detennining maximum flow rates for showerheads, faucets, toilets and urinals in the United States. Maximum flow rates for showerheads and 

### faucets are 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm), 1 gallon per flush (gpt) for urinals, and 1.6 gpffor toilets (excluding flushometer type 

### and those for commercial use). To increase the 

### water saving benefits ofthe

### lowered flow rates more quickly, Section 123 ofEPACT required the 

### Department ofEnergy (DOE) to issue recommendations to the States to encourage the establishment ofState and 

### local incentive programs designed to motivate people to voluntarily replace their older plumbing fixtures and 

### fittings with newer, more efficient showerheads, toilets, faucets, and

EP ACf is 

### not specific as to what kind ofincentive program to encourage since there are many kinds ofsuccessful

### incentive programs. Effective programs vary according to area and must take into account the age ofthe 

### housing stock, the type 

### ofwater supply, the environmental conditions, the rate of population and industrial growth, and the type 

### of water supplier. The program should be 

### customized to produce the 

### greatest results for the 1eastcost. States must compare water conservation

8Hearing setJor water-saving toilets. 

### Delaware River Basin Commission. PRNewswire, March 8, 1989 (JeffFeatherstone 609-883-95(0)

9

### Amrein, Diana L., 

### 1990. Water matters: water conservationists,plumhing industry still atodds overNational Plumbing Products EfficiencyActof

### 1989. Contractorv37: nlp30(2), January. DRAFT, January 27,1995 

### 4programs to determine which is most cost-effective for them. What may be appropriate for one part

of the country, may be counter productive for another. The information included in this report is in no way inclusive of the amount of quality literature that exists. In an effort to assist people with information regarding water conservation, the American Water Works Association with a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, established an information distribution service called WaterWiser -- The Water Efficiency Clearing House. Available to the public via a toll-free number, WaterWiser provides assistance with planning, implementing and evaluating water efficiency programs and activities. 10



### 10WaterWiser, 6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-9913, 800-559-9855.
DRAFT, January 27, 1995 5 programs to detennine which is most cost-effectivefor them. Whatmay

### be appropriate for onepart ofthe country, may be counterproductive for another. The information included in this report is in no way inclusive of the amount of quality literatUre that exists. Inaneffort to assistpeople with information regarding waterconservation, the American WaterWorks Association with a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, established an information distribution service calledWaterWiser

-- The WaterEfficiency Clearing House. Available to the public 

### via a toll-free number, WaterWiser provides assistance with planning. implementing and evaluating water efficiency programs and activities. 10

lOWaterWiser, 6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-9913,800-559-9855.
DRAFT, January 27,1995 5CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM

Calculating Water Usage 

### Water demand projections should be broken into major categories of water use. Those categories could be residential, commercial, industrial, or agricultural. When seeking to reduce residential water consumption, a residential retrofit program should be considered. "Me following factors that affect residential water use should be taken into account when projecting demand: number and type of households; family size; income; lot size; current conservation practices; price of water and wastewater service; climate; regulations or plumbing codes that require water efficient fixtures in new construction; landscape ordinances; and population and housing growth in the service area."" Differentiating between indoor and outdoor water use is important. In 1991, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) contracted with Stevens Institute of Technology to undertake a residential end-use study. Twenty-five homes were chosen and toilet and showerhead connections were metered. From that study, EBMUD learned what water savings could be expected from ULF toilets and what the consumers' acceptance of the 1.6 gpf units would be. The results of that study along with other research contributed to the EBMUD program that is currently (1994-95) offering water customers a $50 rebate for the purchase and installation of an ultra-low flush (ULF) toilet. Another end-use study produced different results for a different region , showing that in some areas reducing indoor residential water consumption may not be as significant as reducing outdoor residential water consumption. In Tampa, Florida, in a study funded by the Southwest Florida Water "Babcock, Thomas; Mary Ann Dickinson; Thomas Pape; David Schultz, eds. 1993. The Water Conservation Manager's Guide to Residential Retrofit. American Water Works Association. pp. 3-4.
DRAFT, January 27,1995 6 

### CONSIDERATIONS FOR A 

### SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM**Calculatin~** WaterUsage Water demand projections should be broken into major categories of water use. Those categories could be residential, commercial, industrial, or agricultural. When seeking to reduce residential water consumption, a residential retrofit program should beconsidered. "Thefollowing factors that affect residential water use should be taken into account when, projecting demand: number and type ofhouseholds; family size; income; lot size; current conservation practices; price ofwater and wastewater service; climate; regulations orplumbing codes that require waterefficient fixtures in new construction; 

### landscape ordinances; and population and housing growth in the service

area. nll Differentiating between indoor and outdoor water use is important. In 1991, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) contracted with Stevens Institute of Technology to undertake a residential end-use study. Twenty-five homes werechosen and toilet and showerhead cormections were metered. From that study, EBMUD learned what water savings could beexpected from ULFtoilets and what the consumers' acceptance ofthe 1.6 gpfunits would be. The results ofthat study along with other research contributed to the EBMUD program thatis currently (1994-95) offering water customers a $50 rebate for the purchase and installation of an ultra-low flush (ULF) toilet. Another end-use studyproduced differentresults for a differentregion, showing that in some
areas reducing indoorresidential water consumption may notbe as significant as reducing outdoor residential water consumption. InTampa, Florida, in a study funded by the SouthwestFloridaWater
llBabcock, Thomas; Mary Ann Dickinson; Thomas Pape; David Schultz, eds. 1993. The 

### Water Conservation Manager's Guide to 

### ResidentialRetrofit. American WaterWorks Association. pp. 3-4.
DRAFT, January 27, 1995 

### 6Management District, a water audit indicated that outdoor water use accounted for 50-60% of

residential water use. In a Dade County potential water conservation and supply options study, estimated savings from installation of ultra-low volume fittings and fixtures in Dade and Monroe Counties was approximately 7.6 million gallons per day. A modified irrigation schedule and installation of rainfall sensor switches were estimated to reduce water consumption by 30 to 40 million gallons per day. Determining Past Practices 

### By checking the plumbing codes, it can be determined what fixture and fitting standards were required in new construction. Targeting older housing yields greater water savings than retrofitting homes that were constructed when plumbing standards were more stringent. By metering water usage, EBMUD determined that pre-retrofit flush volume was 4.0 gallons per flush and 1.8 gallons per flush post-retrofit -- producing a water savings of 5.3 gallons per person per day. (The average number of flushes per person per day increased from 3.2 to 3.7 after the retrofit.) EBMUD also discovered that penetration of low-flow showerheads was greater than they had anticipated. Twenty-one of the 31 original showerheads were rated less than or equal to 2.5 gpm. Replacing showerheads became less of a priority for the utility. Setting Program Objectives and Target Audience Programs are not wholly transferrable from one area to another. Developing objectives for a water efficiency program requires understanding the water service area. In Evaluating Urban Water Conservation Programs: A Procedures Manual, a number of questions are suggested to help the

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 7 Management District, a water audit indicated that outdoor water use accounted for 50-60% of residential water use. In a Dade County potential water conservation and supply options study, estimated savings from installation ofultra-low volume fittings and fixtures in Dade and Monroe Counties was approximately 7.6 million gallons per day. A modified irrigation schedule and installation of rainfall sensor switches were estimated to reduce water consumption by 30 to 40 million gallons perday.**Determinin~** Past practices Bychecking the plumbing codes, it can be detemmed what fIXture and fitting standards were 

### required in new construction. Targeting olderhousing yields greater water savings than retrofitting homes that were constructed when plumbing $tandards were more stringent. Bymetering water usage, EBMUD determined that pre-retrofit flush volume was 4.0 gallons per flush 

### and 1.8 gallons per flush post-retrofit

-- producing a water savings of5.3 gallons perperson per day. (The average number of flushes per person per day increased from 3.2 to 3.7 after the retrofit.) EBMUD also discovered that penetration oflow-flow showerheads was greater than they had anticipated. Twenty-one ofthe 31 original showerheads were rated less than orequal to 2.5 gpm. Replacing showerheads became less ofa priority for the utility. Setting program Objectives and Target Audience Programs are not wholly transferrable from one area to another. Developing objectives for

a water efficiency program 

### requires understanding the water service area. In

### Evaluating Urban Water Conservation Programs:A Procedures Manual, a number ofquestions are suggested tohelp the

DR.AFT, January 27,1995 7reader set water conservation program objectives:



### "(1) Is there a short

-term (e.g., drought

-related, source contamination, or other emergency condition) or long-term (e.g., inadequacy of long

-term supplies or storage capacity) water supply problem? (2) Is there a distribution system problem (e.g., excessive sewer flows, water/wastewater treatment plant capacities)? (3) Is the problem localized (e.g. capacity problems of a single water or wastewater treatment plant) or systemwide? (4) Is the problem a seasonal issue (e.g., summer demands, maximum daily demands , or average annual demands)?"" 

### The target audience can be defined on the basis of the following characteristics: type and age of housing, household income, water usage, water use type, geographic location, meter size.13

12Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. (PMCL) 1993. Evaluating Urban Water Conservation Programs: A Procedures Manual. American Water Works Association. p. 67. 'PPMCL, ,Qp cit, p. 82. DRAFT, January 27, 1995 8 reader setwaterconservation program objectives: "(1) Is there a short-term (e.g., drought-reiated, source contamination, orother em.ergency condition) or long-term (e.g., inadequacy oflong-term supplies or storage capacity) water supply problem? (2) 

### Is there a distribution system problem (e.g., excessive sewer flows, water/wastewater
treatmentplantcapacities)? (3) 

### Is the problem localized (e.g. capacity problems ofa single water or wastewater treatment plant) or systemwide? (4) 

### Is the problem a seasonalissue (e.g., summerdemands, maximum dailydemands, or average annual demands)?"12 The target audience can bedefined onthe basis ofthe following characteristics: type and age ofhousing, household income, water usage, water use type, geographic location, meter size.13

12Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. (PMCL) 1993. 

### Evaluating Urban Water Conservation Programs: A Procedures Manual. AmericanWaterWorks Association. p. 67. 13PMCL, Q.P.cit, p. 82.
DRAFT, January 27,1995 

### 8Choosing the Most Appropriate Method

A water conservation program should be reflective of an area's needs in order to be successful. In the table below, water conservation methods are categorized under type of water user. For residential retrofits, information regarding market penetration for the potential retrofit 

### products is important to have. Replacing showerheads when the area's consumers have already purchased low-flow showerheads is not cost-effective. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) calculated the market penetration for the plumbing products.

Device Consumption Savings

(gallons per capita daily) Estimated Market Penetration Estimated Overall Savings (gpcd) Ultra-low flush toilets 16.0 5% 0.8 . Low-flow showerheads 7.2 15% 1.1 Low-flow faucets 0.5 15% 0.1 Retrofit kits for showerheads and toilets 6.5 35% 2.3

Leak detection programs 6.0 15% 0 914

14Chansler, James M. and Victor J. Pujals.1993. Conserv `93 Conference Proceedings. American Water Works Association. December. p. 1383.
DRAFT, January 27, 1995 9 Choosing the Most Appropriate Method A water conservation program should be reflective of an area's needs in order to be successful Inthe table below, water conservation methods are categorized undertype ofwateruser. For residential retrofits, infonnation regarding market penetration for the potential retrofit products is important to have. Replacing showerheads when the area's consumers have already purchased low-flow showerbeads is not cost-effective. The American Water Works Association (A WW A) calculated the market penetration for 

### the plumbingproducts.

Device Consumption Savings EstimatedMarket Estimated Overall Savings (gallons per capita daily) Penetration (gpcd) Ultra-low flush toilets 16.0 5% 0.8 Low-flow showerheads 7.2 15% 1.1 Low-flow faucets 0.5 15% 0.1

Retrofit kits for 6.5 35% 2.3 showerheads and toilets Leak detection programs 6.0 15% 0.9 14

14Chansler, James M. and Victor 

### 1. Pujals. 1993. Conserv '93 Conference Proceedings. American WaterWorks Association. December. p. 1383.
DRAFT, January 27,1995 9TYPICAL LONG-TERM WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES BY WATER USE TYPE 

### Area of Application Conservation Method General Public information In-school education Metering Pressure reduction Pricing policies (1) Uniform commodity rates (2) Increasing block rate (3) Seasonal rates Leak detection and repair System rehabilitation Interior residential use

Power generation

Industrial use

Landscape irrigation/design Low-flow showerheads Shower-flow restrictors Toilet-tank inserts Pipe insulation Faucet aerators Water-efficient appliances Ultra-low-flush toilets Recirculation of cooling water Reuse of treated wastewater In-system treatment 

### Recirculation of cooling water Reuse of cooling and process water Reuse of treated wastewater Efficient landscape irrigation Low-water-using fixtures Process modification Efficient landscape design Low-water-use plant material Scheduled irrigation Efficient irrigation systems Tensiometers 

### Reduction or limitation of high water use plant materials such as turf Source: Maddaus, W.O. 1987. Water Conservation
. American Water Works Association. Denver, CO.

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 10 

### TYPICAL LONG·TERM WATER CONSERV AnONMEASURES BY WATER USE TYPE Area ofApplication General

Interior residential use

Power generation

Industrial use

Landscape irrigation/design 

### Conservation Method Public infonnation In-school education Metering Pressure reduction Pricing policies (1) Unifonn commodityrates (2) Increasing blockrate (3) Seasonal rates 

### Leak detection and repair System rehabilitation Low-flow showerheads Shower-flow restrictors Toilet-tankinserts Pipe insulation Faucet aerators Water-efficient appliances Ultra-low-flush toilets Recirculation ofcooling water Reuse oftreated wastewater In-system treatment Recirculation ofcooling water Reuse ofcooling and process water Reuse oftreated wastewater Efficientlandscape irrigation Low-water-using fixtures Process modification Efficient landscape design Low-water-use plant material Scheduled**irrigati~n** Efficientirrigation systems Tensiometers
. Reduction orlimitation ofhigh wateruse plant materials such as turf Source: Maddaus, W.O. 1987. Water Conservation. American WaterWorks Association. Denver, CO.

DRAFT. January 27. 1995 

### 10Evaluating Results

Evaluating the program will show whether or not the program has accomplished its objectives. Data is key to a thorough evaluation. Data should be collected throughout the course of the program, as well as the beginning and the end
. Evaluations of pilot studies can contribute to the success of a larger program
. Initial assumptions about program elements can be confirmed or amended on the basis of pilot study results, as shown by the EBMUD study. How much water was actually saved by the water conservation program is a key element for evaluation
. Additional aspects for evaluation are the extent of program penetration, energy savings, and customer satisfaction. (1) Data Collection on the utility level. Utilities gather information on total usage levels. For accurate baseline figures, many water utilities suggest collecting customer consumption information for at least two years prior to the beginning of the program
. Drought years are not accurate reflections of consumption ; therefore, gathering baseline figures may require going back more than two years if drought has been a factor in the area. Weather information for the same time period should be compiled
. Socioeconomic information assists targeting the consumer base for future
programs. (2) Data Collection on the consumer level. A bottom

-up approach to consumer data collection is important when focussing programs on specific end-use products. Water usage separated by household and then averaged over all households with different appliances "provides no guidance as to what impact different conservation measures might have on that usage."" The EBMUD study monitored the toilet flush rates by time in order to catch double flushing . Showerhead flow rates were monitored together with temperature and pressure variables. 

### 15Koomey, Qg sit, p. 1.

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 11 Eyaluating Results Evaluating the program

### will show whether ornot the program 

### has accomplished its objectives. Data 

### is key to a thorough evaluation. Data should be collected throughout the course ofthe program,
as well as the beginning and the end. Evaluations ofpilot studies can contribute to the success ofa larger program. Initial assumptions about program elements can be confirmed or amended on the 

### basis ofpilot study results, as shown by the EBMUD study. How much waterwas actually saved by the water conservation program

### is akeye1ement for evaluation. Additional aspects for evaluation are the extent ofprogram penetration, energy savings, and customer satisfaction. (1) Data Collection on the utility level. Utilities gather information on total usage levels. For accurate baseline figures, many water utilities suggest collecting customerconsumption information for at least two years prior to the beginning of the program. Drought years are not accurate reflections ofconsumption; therefore, gathering baseline figures may require going back more than two years ifdrought has been a factor in the area. Weather information for the same time period should be compiled. Socioeconomic information assists targeting the consumer base for future programs. (2) Data Collection on the consumer level. A bottom-up approach to consumer data collection is important when**~ocussing** programs on specific end-use products. Water usage separated by household and then averaged over all households with different appliances "provides no guidance as to what impact different conservation measures might have on that usage."lS The EBMUD study monitored the toilet flush rates by 

### time in oriler to catch doub1e flushing. Showerhead flow rates were monitored together with temperature and pressure variables.

15K • 

### 1 oomey, .up gt, p. . DRAFT, January 27,1995 11The evaluation will disclose whether or not the program has met its stated goals. An

evaluation of a pilot study can determine how a larger program can be cost-effective. What will work in the varied regions of this country can be determined by calculating water usage, determining past water conservation practices of the area, setting program objectives and target audience, and choosing the most appropriate method.

DRAFT, January 27 ,1995 12 The evaluation will disclose whether or not the program has met its stated goals. 

### An evaluation ofa pilot study can detenninehow a larger program can be cost-effective. Whatwill work in the varied regions ofthis country can be determined bycalculating waterusage, determining past water conservation practices of the area, setting program objectives and target audience, and choosing the most appropriate method.

DRAFT. January 27.1995 

### 12

### RECOMMENDATIONS

In the following section , three different programs are described : a rebate program in New York City; an East Los Angeles community/utility coalition effort; and a low-cost retrofit program in Portland, Connecticut

. The incentive used in New York to replace toilets took the form of a $240 rebate to the building owner, funded by the New York City Water Board. The two water utilities in Los Angeles funded a rebate program in the neighborhood of East Los Angeles , which paid a subcontractor $ 110 per toilet

. The subcontractor purchased toilets and administer all aspects of the program. The subcontractor paid an East Los Angeles neighborhood organization $25 to assist in the publicity and installation of the toilets. Portland Water Supply Division used water conservation education as an incentive to enlist retrofit kit delivery volunteers. The Connecticut water utility paid for the cost of the retrofit kits. The methodology used in each city resulted in successful initiatives for plumbing product replacement. The cities used as examples are representative of many other successful and creative programs from all parts of the United States. These programs highlight different techniques for replacing plumbing fixtures and fittings and are well documented, enabling water conservation efforts to be duplicated by parties in other regions. It is recommended that states, after determining from the previous section that they would benefit from a similar water conservation program, study these three initiatives and consider implementing comparable programs to achieve water conservation goals in their areas. New York City is included as an example because of the water supply shortage it faces, its high volume of residential indoor water use, and the careful way it constructed its toilet rebate program. Water savings from the water conservation program to date are estimated between 29 - 68 gallons per participating household per day.

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 13 

### RECOMMENDATIONS In the following section, three different programs are described: a rebate program in New York City; an EastLos Angeles community/utility coalition effort; and a low-costretrofitprogram in Portland, Connecticut. 

### TIle incentive used in New York to replace toilets took theform ofa $240 rebate to the buikling owner, funded by the New YorkCityWaterBoard. The two waterutilities in Los Angeles funded a rebate program in the neighborhood of East Los Angeles, which paid a subcontractor $110 per toilet The subcontractorpurchased toilets and administer 

### all aspects ofthe program. The subcontractor paid an East Los Angeles neighborhood organization $25 to assist in the publicity and installation of the toilets. Portland Water Supply Division used water conservation education as an incentive to enlist retrofitkit delivery volunteers. The Connecticut waterutility paid for the cost ofthe retrofit kits. The methodology used in each city resulted in successful initiatives for plumbing product replacement. The cities used as examples are representative of many other successful and creative programs from all parts of the United States. These programs highlight different techniques for replacing plumbing fixtures and fittings and are well documented, enabling
water conservation efforts to be duplicated by parties in other regions. Itis recommended that states, after determining from the previous section that theywould benefit from a similarwater conservation program, study these three initiatives and consider implementing comparable programs to achieve
water conservation goals in their areas. New York City is included as an example because ofthe water supply shortage 

### itfaces, its high volume of residential indoor water use, and the careful way it constructed its toilet rebate program. Water savings from the waterconservation program to date are estimated between 29

- 68 gallons perparticipating household perday.

DRAFT. January 27.1995 

### 13The Los Angeles water conservation program was initiated due to drought decreased water

supplies. The public utility paid, on a per toilet basis, community organizations to replace toilets, showerheads, and faucet aerators in low-income neighborhoods. Water savings were estimated at 58 gallons per household per day. Portland, Connecticut, is included as an example of a low budget plumbing retrofit program. Costs were kept to a minimum through a water conservation education program that resulted in community volunteers delivering showerheads, displacement bags, and faucet aerators. The program saved an estimated at 11.6-18.3 gallons per household per day and reduced the number of new wells the city needed to drill from seven to two. New York City's Rebate Program16 1. Profile of the New York City Area The majority of New York City's population of 7,323,000 live in multi-family buildings that average 50 years in age. Water is supplied by a public utility from upstate reservoirs. The supply system is gravity driven; no pumping is needed to move the water downstate. For more than a decade, drought conditions have persisted for New York City. "A combination of system demands that exceed the safe yield and erratic precipitation patterns have caused four drought periods on the New York City system since 1980."17 Unless New York City is able to reduce its demand for water, it will have to spend billions to expand the water supply and
"For more information contact, Warren Liebold, Director of Conservation, Bureau of Water and Energy Conservation, Department of Environmental Protection. 59-17 Junction Boulevard, Elmhurst, New York, 11373-5107 (718) 595-6656 17Nechamen, William S. 1993. New York State Policy: In Accordance with Local Needs and Conditions Proceedings of Conserv '93. American Water Works Association. December. pp. 975-982.
DRAFT, January 27, 1995 

### 14 TheLos Ange1es water conservation program was initiated due to droughtdecreased water supplies. The public utility paid, on a per toilet basis, community organizations to replace toilets, showerheads, and faucet aerators inlow-income neighborhoods. Water savings were estimated at 58 gallons perhousehold perday. Portland, Connecticut, 

### is included as an example ofa lowbudget plumbing retrofit program. Costs were kept to a 

### minimum through a water conservation education program that resulted in communityvolunteers delivering showerheads, displacementbags, and faucet aerators. Theprogram saved an 

### estimated at 11.6-18.3 gallons perhousehold perday and reduced the number ofnew wells the city needed to drill from seven to two. 

### New York City's 

### Rebate Program16 1. Profile ofthe New York City Area The majority ofNew York City's population of7,323,000 live in multi-familybuildings that average 50 years in age. Water is supplied by a public utility from upstate reservoirs. The supply system is gravity driven; no pumping 

### is needed to move the waterdownstate. Por more than a decade, drought conditions have persisted for New York City. "A combination of system demands that exceed the safe yield and erratic precipitation patterns have caused four drought periods on the New York City system since 1980."17 Unless New York City 

### is able to reduce its demand for water, it will have to spend billions to expand the water supply and

16Por more information contact, Wmen Liebold, Director ofConservation, Bureau of Water and Energy Conservation, Department ofEnvironmental Protection. 59-17 Junction Boulevard, Elmhurst, New York, 1l373-5107 (718) 595-6656 17Nechamen, William S. 1993. New York State Policy: In Accordance with LocalNeeds and Conditions Proceedings ofConserv '93. American WaterWorks Association. December. pp. 975-982.
DRAfT, January 27,1995 14wastewater treatment infrastructure
. An average apartment uses approximately 335 gallons per day.

The amount can vary, however, between 40

-2000 gallons per day.18 2. Development of the program In order to delay or avoid expanding its water and water treatment infrastructure, New York City joined a statewide water efficiency effort
. In New York State, water systems that have populations greater than 5,000 must develop conservation programs that include metering all connections within five years, water supply auditing, and replacement of plumbing fixtures. New York City is one of the last cities in the country to install meters
. With meter installation, billing will be based on consumption and will encourage water conservation . "(M)ull-family buildings will be the primary users of the rebate program in New York City as they are being hit the hardest by increased water and sewer charges and the transition to metering in high-consumption buildings."19 In New York City's transition to metering, almost half ofthe multi

-family buildings experience annual water and sewer charges of $300 or more per apartment. 3. Program Goals 'The goal of the three-year, $270 million program is to reduce citywide water use by about 90 million gallons per day or 7% of the city total water consumption."20 As an alternative to constructing another water treatment plant, New York City chose to reduce its water demand by replacing up to 1.5 million toilets in the next three years.
'8National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors (NAPHCC) Educational Foundation. 1994. DraftRecommendationsfor EPA CT, Section 123
. November. p. 7. 

### 19NAPHCC, Qp. sit., p.7. 20Levin, Sondra. 1994. Flush of Success: Bronx First to Get New Water-Saving Toilets Bronx Press Review. April. p. 5.
DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 15 

### wastewater treatment infrastructure. An average apartment uses approximately 335 gallons perday. The amount can vary, however, between 40-2000 gallons perday.18 2. 

### Deyelopment ofthe**pro~ram** 

### In orderto delay or avoid expanding its 

### water and water treatment infrastructure, New York City joined 

### a statewide water efficiency effort. In New York State, water systems that have populations greater than 5,000 

### must develop conservation programs that include metering all connections within five years, water supply auditing, and replacement ofplumbing fixtures. New York City 

### is one ofthe 

### last cities in the countryto install meters. With meter installation, billing will be 

### based on consumption and 

### will 

### encourage water conservation. n(M)ulti-family buildings will be 

### the primary users ofthe rebate program in New York City as 

### they are 

### being hit the hardest by increased water and 

### sewer charges and the 

### transition to metering in high-consumption buildings. II19 

### In New York City's transition'to metering, almost half

### ofthe multi-family buildings experience annual water and sewer charges of$300 ormore per apartment. 3. 

### Program Goals 'The

### goal ofthe three-year, $270 million program is 

### to reduce citywide water use by about 90 

### million gallons per day or 7% 

### of the city total water consumption.,,20 As an 

### alternative to constructing another water treatment plant, New York City chose to reduce its water demand by replacing up to 1.5 

### million toilets in the next three 

### years.
18National Association ofPlumbing:Heating-Cooling Contractors (NAPHCC) Educational Foundation. 1994. DraftRecommendationsfor EPACT, Section 

### 123. November. p. 7.**l~APHCC,** .QP• 

### .cit" p. 7. 2OUvin, Sondra. 1994. Flush of Success: Bronx First to Get New Water-Saving Toilets 

### Bronx Press Review. ApriL p. 5. DRAFT, January 27,1995 

### 154. Choice of an Appropriate Program

Eighty percent of the existing toilets have a flush rate of 5
.0 gpf. Initial metering tests performed in tenement buildings showed that total water consumption dropped by 50% after replacing the 5

.0 gpf toilets with 1
.6 gpf toilets. New York City chose a toilet rebate program to save
water, reduce excess flow to sewage treatment plants, provide rate relief for consumers , and adopt the least-cost solution. 

### "In 1989 , New York City 's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Housing Preservation and Development -- along with the Plumbing Foundation in the City of New York undertook a demonstration program in city-owned buildings . Three similar apartment buildings in Manhattan were metered to measure water usage , but only one building had water efficient fixtures (low-flow toilets, low-flow showerheads, low-flow-restricting faucet aerators ) installed. Later, four additional buildings in the Bronx were added as nonconserving "control" buildings. Since monitoring began in February 1989, water usage in the retrofitted buildings consistently has been 40% lower than in the control buildings."" 5. Description ofProgram (a). Rebate Level DEP offers $240 for first bathroom in dwelling unit and $150 for each additional unit. For non-residential units, DEP offers $ 150 per toilet
. At least 70% of the toilets in a multi-family or commercial building must be replaced to qualify for the rebate. Building owners must go through an application process before qualifying for a rebate
. Installation of the toilet must be done by a licensed plumber. 

### 21NAPHCC, Dp. sit. P. 12.
DRAFT, January 27, 1495 16 4. Choice of

### an Appropriate Proiram Eighty percent of the existing toilets have a flush rate of 5.0 gpf. Initial metering tests performed 

### in tenement buildings showed that total water consumption dropped by 50% after replacing 

### the 5.0 gpftoilets with 1.6 gpftoilets. NewYorkCity chose a toiletrebateprogram to save water, reduce excess flow 

### to sewagetreatmentplants, provide rate relieffor consumers, and adopt the least-cost solution. "In 1989, New York City'S Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

### and Housing Preservation and Development

-- along with the Plumbing Foundation 

### in the City ofNew York

-- undertook a demonstration program 

### in city-owned buildings. Three similar apartment buildings 

### in Manhattan were metered to measure waterusage, butonly one building had water efficient fixtures (low-flow toilets, low-flow showerheads, low-flow-restricting faucet aerators) installed Later, four additional buildings in the Bronx were added as nonconserving "control" buildings. Since monitoring began in February 1989, waterusage 

### inthe retrofitted buildings consistently has been40% lowerthan in the control buildings.

### 1121 5. Descriptjon ofProgram (a). Rebate Leyel DEP offers $240 for first bathroom 

### in dwelling unit and $150 for each additional unit. For non-residential units, DEP offers $150 per toilet. At least 70% of the toilets in a multi-family or commercial building must bereplaced to qualify for the rebate. Building owners must go through an application process before qualifying for a rebate. Installation ofthe toilet mustbe doneby a licensed plumber. 

### 21NAPHCC,.Qll. 

### cit. p. 12.
DRAFT, January 27,1995 16

### (b). Outreach

The Bureau of Water and Energy Conservation, part of the Department of Environmental Protection, hired a contractor to process the applications, perform the inspections (guaranteeing that the plumbing products are correctly installed), issue rebate checks to budding owners, design program materials, and do press work. The media campaign consists of mailings, radio public service announcements, newspaper ads, and slide shows. DEP employs two full time staff people to oversee the progress of the program. In October of 1993, the DEP kicked-off the borough-wide rebate program in Jacob Javits Convention Center. Plumbers, building owners, housing associations and manufacturers attended. Packets and briefings are regularly provided to plumbers, manufacturers, building owners, and co-op boards. (c). Budget Funding for the DEP administered project is provided by New York City Water Board from receipts from water and sewer customers. The majority of the project funds are allocated for rebates. Fifteen million dollars have been paid out to date and DEP has $250 million available for rebates. The contracting company is paid on a unit basis. If one million toilets are replaced, the contractor could receive up to $12 million. Press work and printing costs have reached $2 million. 6. Program Evaluation DEP monitored buildings for water consumption rates before the rebate so a comparison can be made after the program has ended. As of the beginning of 1995, 85,000 toilets have been replaced. DEP has paid 65-66,000 rebates. Water savings are estimated between 2.45 - 5.8 million gallons per day. Consumer reaction to the low-flow toilets will be gauged by a survey.

DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 17 (b). 

### Outreach The Bureau ofWater and Energy Conservation, part ofthe Department ofEnvironmental Protection, hired 

### acontractorto process the applications, perform the inspections (guaranteeing that the plumbing products are correctly 

### instaI1ed), issuerebate checks to building owners, design program materials, and do press work. The media campaign consists of mailings, radio public service announcements, newspaper ads, 

### and slide shows. DEP employs two full time staffpeople to oversee the progress ofthe program. In October of 1993, the DEP kicked-offthe borough-wide rebate program in 

### .Jacob Javits Convention Center. Plumbers, building owners, housing associations and manufacturers attended. Packets and 

### briefings are regularly provided to 

### plumbers, manufacturers, building owners, and co-op boards. (c).
. Budget Funding for the 

### DEP administered project is provided by New York CityWater Board from receipts from water and sewer customers. 1be

### majority ofthe project funds are allocated for rebates. Fifteen million dollars have been paid out to date and 

### DEP has 

### $250 million available for rebates. The contracting company is paid on a unit basis. If

### one million toilets are replaced, the contractorcould receive up to $12 million. Press work and printing costs have reached $2 million. 6.**Pto~ram** 

### Eyaluation DEP monitored buildings for water consumption rates before the rebate so a comparison can be made after the 

### program has 

### ended. As 

### ofthe beginning of 1995,85,000 toilets have been replaced. DEP has 

### paid 65-66,000 rebates. Water savings are estimated between 2.45

- 5.8 million gallons per day. Consumer reaction to the low-flow toilets will be 

### gauged by a survey.

DRAFT, January 27. 1995 

### 17Los Angeles Community! U ill . Coalition22

1. Profile of the East Los Angeles Area East Los Angeles occupies an area of 10 square miles with approximately 100,000 residents, living in single family homes. Since the early 1980s , drought conditions have prevailed in southern California and an increasing population reduces an already low water supply. The water supplier is Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), a municipal utility. It buys its water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and sells to retail customers. Both of those organizations work together on water efficient practices. Continuing drought conditions prompted LADWP to continue its water conservation efforts. Because the California communities of Goleta and Santa Monica both experienced reduced residential water consumption with the installation of ultra-low flush toilets, LADWP, with the support of MWD planned an extensive city-wide toilet rebate program. Low flow showerheads had already been distributed in the area as a result of a 1988 Los Angeles city ordinance requiring LADWP to replace showerheads and install toilet displacement bags. MWD studies had shown that toilet replacement could yield significant water savings. MWD's support included sharing half the financial costs of the program. 2. Development of the program

### Participants in the LADWP toilet replacement program presented proofs of purchase of ultralow flush toilets (ULFT) in order to receive rebates of $110. Low-income residents could not afford the purchase of the toilet and therefore could not participate in the program. Working through the

22For more information contact Matt Puffer, Metropolitan Water District, 350 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90054
DRAFT, January 27, 1995 18 Los Angeles Community/Utility Coalition22 1. Profile ofthe EastLos Angeles Area East Los Angeles occupies an area of 10 square miles with approximately 100,000residents, living in single family homes. Since the early 1980s, droughtconditions have prevailed in southern California and an increasing population reduces an already low water supply. The water supplieris Los Ange1es Department ofWater and Power (LADWP), a municipal utility. Itbuys its water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and sells to retail customers. Both of those organizations work together on waterefficient practices. Continuing drought conditions prompted LADWP to continue its water conservation efforts. Because the Californiacommunities ofGoleta 

### and Santa Monicabothexperienced reduced residential
water consumption with the installation ofultra-low flush toilets, LADWP, with the support of

### MWD planned an extensive city-wide toilet rebate program. Low flow showerheads had already been distributed in the area 

### as a result ofa 1988 Los Angeles city ordinance requiring LADWP to replace showerheads and install toilet displacement bags. MWD studies had shown thattoiletreplacement could 

### yield significant water savings. MWD's support included sharing halfthefmancial costs ofthe program. 

### 2. Deyelopment oftheprogram Participants in the LADWP toilet replacement program presented proofs ofpurchase ofultralow flush toilets (ULFf) in order to receive rebates of$110. Low-income residents could not afford the purchase ofthe toilet and therefore could not participate in theprogram. Working through the

22For more information contact Matt Puffer, Metropolitan WaterDistrict, 350 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90054
DRAFT, January 27,1995 18

### Mothers of East L.A. (MELASI), a community-based organization, LADWP and MWD provided

the ultra-low flush toilets to the low-income area of East Los Angeles. An incentive of $25 per toilet installation was paid to MELASI. 3. Program Goals The goal of the one year city-wide program was to distribute and install 7500 ultra-low flush toilets as an alternative to continued mandatory rationing. In East Los Angeles, the goal was to retrofit 1000 toilets in a ten-week time frame. 4. Choice of an Appropriate Program LADWP wanted a program that would yield high water savings and would require little supervision from the utility. The consumer "would select, buy, and install an approved ULFT, and provide the necessary documentation; then LADWP would provide a rebate.s23 A low flush toilet replacement needs no conscious water saving action from the user. Water conservation is built into the mechanism. 5. Description of Program The rebate program was customized for the East Los Angers area. In order to maintain a low supervisory role and reach into neighborhoods that were not participating in the toilet rebate program, LADWP and MWD agreed to channel funds designated for rebates to a subcontractor who would work with MELASI. The community-based organization had a respected reputation within the East L.A. community. MELASI proposed to work together with LADWP and MWD to promote water conservation. From money generated from the utilities, MELASI would fund community projects it 23Fiske, Gary S. and Ronnie Ann Weiner, Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. 1994. Customer Incentives For Water Conservation: A Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 230-R-94-001. February. p. 7-3.

DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 19 

### Mothers ofEast L.A. (MELASI), a community-based organization, LADWP and 

### MWD provided the 

### ultra-low flush toilets to the 

### low-income area 

### ofEastLos Angeles. An incentive of$25 pertoilet installation was paid to MELASI. 

### 3. Program 

### Goals The 

### goal ofthe 

### one year 

### city-wide program was to distribute and install 7500 ultra-low flush toilets as 

### an alternative to continued mandatory rationing. In East Los Angeles, the goal was to retrofit 1000 toilets in a ten-week time frame. 4. Choice ofan Appropriate Program LADWP wanted a program that would yield high water savings and would require little supervision from the utility. The consumer "would select, buy, and install an approved 

### ULFf, and provide the necessary documentation; then LADWP would provide a rebate.,,23 A low flush toilet replacement needs no conscious water saving action from the 

### user. Waterconservation is built into the mechanism. 5. Description ofProgram The

### rebate program was customized for the 

### East Los Ange1es 

### area. In order to maintain a low supervisoryrole and 

### reach into neighborhoods that were not participating in the toilet rebate program, LADWP and MWD 

### agreed to channel funds 

### designated for rebates to a subcontractor who would work with MELASI. The

### community-based organization had a respected reputation within the East L.A 

### community. MELASI proposed to work together with LADWP and MWD to 

### promote water conservation. From money generated from the utilities, MELASI would fund community projects it 23Fiske, Gary 

### S. and Ronnie Ann Weiner, Barakat 

### & Chamberlin, Inc. 1994. Customer Incentives For Water Conservation: A Guide. 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 230-R-94-001. February. p. 7-3.
. DRAFT, JaDUary 27,1995 

### 19would otherwise be unable to do.

(a). Rebate Level LADWP and MWD shared the program costs , paying a subcontractor a total of $110 per toilet which included the purchase and distribution of a toilet and administration of all other aspects of the neighborhood program
. The subcontractor paid MELASI $25 per toilet to publicize the program in East Los Angeles and assist with toilet installations. (b). Outreach MELASI walked door

-to-door in the East L.A. section of Los Angeles explaining the toilet rebate program
. The community organization provided services that included : bilingual installation instructions, instructional videos, tool kits, and back

-up installation assistance. MELASI distributed the toilets from a central location to those residents who provided their water bill and photo identification. The old toilet was returned to the central depot for recycling
. MELASI employed eight previously unemployed residents to publicize the program in the neighborhood and assist with the installations when necessary.

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 20 would otherwise be unable to do. (a). Rebate 

### Level LADWP and MWD shared the program costs, paying a subcontractor a total of $110 per toilet which included the purchase and distribution ofa toilet and administration ofall other aspects of the neighborhood program. The subcontractor paid MELASI $25 per toilet to publicize the program in East Los Angeles and assist with toilet installations. (b). Outreach MELASI wa1ked door-to-door in the EastL.A. section ofLos Angeles explaining the toilet rebate program. The community organization provided services that included: bilingual installation instructions, instructional videos, tool kits, and back-up installation assistance. MELASIdistributed the toilets from a central location to those residents who provided their water bill and photo identification. The old toilet was returned to the centraldepot for recycling. MELASIemployed eight previously unemployed residents to publicize the program in the neighborhood and assist with the installations when necessary.

DRAFT. January 27. 1995 20

### ^

(c). Budge The following table gives budget information for fiscal year 1992-1993 for the city-wide program.
Number of ULFTs installed 65,167 Rebates to customers $5,545,700 Payment to MWD for CBO Program (since June 1993) $ 86,405 Payment to the contractor (program administration ) $ 846,789 LADWP expenses (1 FTE, printing brochures, etc.) $ 80,000 Subtotal $6,558,894 Reimbursement from MWD (@ 50% /ULFT) ($2,772,850

Total $3,786,044
6. Program Evaluation After one year in operation, MELASI oversaw the installation of 8000 toilets. The city-wide program goal exceeded its target number and retrofitted 230,000 toilets during the first eighteen months. Some areas have reached a 30% saturation point.' LADWP estimates that for every retrofit toilet 29 gallons/day have been saved. This translates into 10,585 gallons/household/year. In Ultra Low Flush Toilet Programs: Evaluation of Program Outcomes and Water Savings, water savings in the East Los Angeles area were estimated at 58.6 ± 14 gallons per day. "Not only did this program replace ULF toilets in households unlikely to do so otherwise, the evidence also suggests a higher level of water saved from each replaced ULF toilet.""' The greater number of

24Fiske, ap six, p. 7-9. 25Mousseau, Cathy. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Phone contact. 26Chestnutt, Thomas W., Casey N. McSpadden, and Anil Bamezai. 1994. Ultra Low Flush Toilet Programs: Evaluation of Program Outcomes and Water Savings. Prepared for The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. November. p. viii. DRAFT, January 27,1995 21 (c). Budget The following table gives budget infonnation for 

### fiscal year 1992-1993 for the city-wide program.

Number ofULFfs installed 65,167 Rebates to customers $5,545,700 Payment to MWD for CBO Program (sinceJune 1993) $ 86,405 Payment to the contractor (program administration) $ 846,789 LADWP expenses (1 FIE, printing brochures, etc.) $ 80,000 Subtotal $6,558,894 Reimbursement from MWD (@ 50% IULFT)**($2,772,850~** Total $3,786,044



### 6. Program Eyaluation After one 

### year in operation, MELASI oversaw the installation of 8000 toilets. The city-wide program goal exceeded its target number and retrofitted 230,000 toilets during the first eighteen months. Some areas have reached a 30% saturation point.25 LADWPestimates thatfor every retrofit toilet 29 gallons/day have been saved. This translates into 10,585 gallons/householdlyear. In Ultra LowFlush ToiletPrograms: Evaluation of Program Outcomes and Water Savings,
water savings in the East Los Angeles area were estimated at 58.6 ± 14 gallons perday. "Not only did this program replace ULF toilets in households unlikely to do so otherwise, the evidence also suggests a higher level of water saved from each replaced ULF toilet."26 The greater number of

24Fiske,.o.p.cit, p. 7-9. 25Mousseau, Cathy. MetropolitanWaterDistrict ofSouthern California. Phonecontact. 26Chestnutt, Thomas W., Casey N. McSpadden, and Anil Bamezai. 1994. Ultra LowFlush Toilet Programs: Evaluation of Program Outcomes and Water Savings. Prepared for The Metropolitan Water District ofSouthern California. November. p. viii.

DRAFT. January 27,1995 21

### persons per household attributed to the higher water savings in East Los Angeles as compared with

the water savings in Los Angeles as a whole. With funds received from LADWP for their retrofit work, MELASI has financed other community programs. "One of these has been the development of a community scholarship program in East L.A., working with students from two local high schools. A child immunization program has also been established in conjunction with Community Health Foundation, with the goal of raising immunization levels from less than 20% up to 80%, for local children up to two years of age. A third program, the Youth Graffiti Abatement Program, employs high school students to continually clean up the graffiti in their community. 6427

27Hamilton, Fiona and James P. Craft, CTSI Corporation. 1993
. Dynamic Community Programmingfor Water Efficiency. Conserv `93 Conference Proceedings. American Water Works Association
. December. p. 92. DRAFr, January 27,1995 22 

### persons perhousehold attributed to the higher water savings in East Los Angeles as compared with the water savings in Los Angeles as a whole. With funds received from LADWP for their retrofit work, MELASI has fmanced other community programs. ''One 

### ofthese 

### has been the development ofa community scholarship program 

### in East L.A,

### working with students from two local high schools. A child immunization program has also been established in conjunction with Community Health Foundation, with the goal ofraising immunization 1evels from 

### Jess than 20% 

### up to 80%, for local children up to two years ofage. A third program, the 

### Youth Graffiti Abatement Program, employs high school students to 

### continually clean up the graffiti in their community. ,,27

27Hamilton, Fiona and James P. Craft, CTSI Corporation. 1993. 

### Dynamic Community Programmingfor Water Efficiency. 

### Conserv '93 Conference Proceedings. American Water Works Association. December. p. 92.

DRAFT. January 27. 1995 22Low Cost Programs -- Portland, Connecticut's

1. Profile of the Portland Area Connecticut is a water rich state with a median annual rainfall from 41.65 inches to 53.17 inches that supplies its reservoirs and ground water system
. One of Connecticut's 78 water suppliers, Portland Water Supply Division, services a community of 8400 residents . The utility has 2200 water customers who consume 272,477 gallons of water annually. In 1986, Portland began planning for the development of new water sources. A groundwater exploration program was conducted and a well field was identified that would produce 2.2 MGD from seven wells . While Portland researched alternative, less expensive solutions to increase its water supply , the State of Connecticut also sought to reduce its water demand to delay or avoid developing additional supply sources
. In 1989, the Connecticut legislature passed three bills: (l)low-flow fixtures and fittings in new construction were required; (2) utilities must conduct a residential retrofit program; and (3 ) state agencies must develop uniform water conservation planning. 2. Development of the program According to the new legislation, public water supply companies had to notify its consumers of pending water saving programs by January 15, 1991. Portland joined the state

-wide water conservation effort to reduce its water demand. 

### "A phased-in approach to the program with separate distribution and kit installation requirements depending on utility size and supply status was recommended by a state advisory board

For more information contact Denise Ruzicka , Water Supplies Section, State of Connecticut Department of Health Services, 150 Washington Street, Hartford, CT 06106
DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 23 

### Low CostProirams

-- Portland, Connecticuf8 1. Profile ofthe Portland Area Connecticut is a water rich state with a median annual rainfall from 41.65 inches to 53.17 inches 

### that supplies its reservoirs and ground water system. One ofConnecticut's 78 water suppliers, Portland Water Supply Division, 

### services a community of8400residents. The utility has 2200 water customers who consume 272,477 gallons ofwater annually. In 

### 1986, Portland began planning for the development ofnew water sources. A groundwater exploration program was conducted and a well field was identified that would produce 2.2 MGD from seven wells. While Portland researched alternative, less 

### expensive solutions to increase 

### its water supply, the State ofConnecticut also sought to reduce its water demand to delay or avoid developing additional supply sources. In 

### 1989, the Connecticut :legislaturepassed three

### bills: (1) 

### low-flow fixtures and fittings in new construction were required; (2) utilities must conduct a residential retrofit program; 

### and (3) state agencies must develop uniform water conservation planning. 2. Deyelopment ofthe proiram According to the 

### new :legislation, public water supply companies had to notify its consumers of pending water saving programs by January 15, 1991. Portland joined the state-wide water conservation effort to reduce its water demand. "A phased-in approach to the program with separate distribution and kit installation requirements depending on utility size 

### and supply status was recommended by a state advisory board

28For more information contact Denise Ruzicka, Water Supplies Section, State of Connecticut Department ofHealth Services, 150 Washington Street, Hartford, 

## cr06106
DRAFT, IBl1uary 27, 1995 

### 23

### composed of state agencies and water utility representatives
. "" Kits contained one low-flow

showerhead, two faucet aerators, leak detection tablets, and a toilet dam. Two methods for retrofit kit distribution were employed. Utilities in areas of short supply needed to distribute the kit aggressively over a two year period
. All other utilities sent cards to customers offering the retrofit kit on a request basis within a five year period. Two free kits were available per dwelling unit. 

### 3. Program Goals The Portland Water Supply Division goals were to reduce water demand and promote a water conservation ethic for a small financial cost . "(R)etrofitting was intended to be an interim measure until minimum plumbing fixture efficiency standards resulted in acceptance of water saving fixtures, and to achieve immediate water savings should drought conditions develop."" 4. Description of the Program (a) Outreach The key to keeping costs down was to emphasize customer installation. For those individuals needing assistance, utilities were asked to provide phone instruction or on-site service. "Depending on utility size, the utility either had to offer free direct installation upon request to only elderly and handicapped customers, or to any requesting customer. Only the very smallest non-priority utilities did not have to offer any direct installation.""

29Ruzicka, Denise. 1993
. Connecticut Residential Retrofit Program: Interim Program Results, Analysis of 1991 and 1992 Data
. March. p. 5. 

### 30Ruzicka, .Qp sit, p. 1. 31Ruzicka, Qp. sit., p. 5.
DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 24 composed of s,tate agencies and water utility representatives.,,29 Kits contained one low-flow showerhead, two faucet aerators, leakdetection tablets, and a toiletdam. Two methods for retrofit kit distribution were employed. Utilities in areas of short supply needed to distribute the kit aggressively over a two year period. All other utilities sent cards to customers offering the retrofit kit on a request basis within a five year'period. Two free kits were available perdwelling unit 

### 3.**Pro~ram** Goals 

### TIle Portland Water SupplyDivision goals were toreduce water 

### demand and promote a water conservation ethic for a small financial cost. "(R)etrofitting was intended to be an interim measure until minimum plumbing fixture efficiency standards resulted in acceptance ofwater saving fixtures, and to achieve unmediate water savings should drought conditions develop.,,30 4. Description ofthe Program (a) Outreach 

### The key to keeping costs down was to emphasize customer installation. Forthose individuals needing assistance, utilities were asked to provide phone instruction or on-site service. "Depending

on utility size, the utility either had to offer free direct installation upon request to only elderly and handicapped customers, or to any requesting customer. Only the very smallestnon-priority utilities did not have to offer any direct installation.,,31**2~uzicka,** Denise. 1993. 

### ConnecticutResidentialRetrofitProgram: Interim Program Results, Analysis of

### 1991 and 

### 1992 Data. March. p. 5. 3ORuzicka, .up 

### cit, p. 1. 31R . k . 5 UZIC a,.up. gt., p. . DRAFT, January 27,1995 

### 24

### For Portland's small budget, the retrofit program represented a financial burden. Looking for

ways to reduce costs of implementing the program , the utility employed the help of the local high school and the League of Women Voters for distribution of retrofit kits and publicity. As part of the school's conservation program, Portland High School students delivered 2126 retrofit kits over a period of three years

. The students also performed the telephone surveys to determine the effectiveness and acceptance of the program

. The utility developed a demonstration device called "Walter the Water Saver." This device was used in the schools to help promote understanding and awareness of water conservation. The League of Women Voters helped to get out the word on the retrofit program by co-sponsoring a poster contest. (b). Budget The Portland water utility spent a total of $12,135 on their retrofit program. The majority of the funds were spent for the retrofit kits. A total of 2126 kits were delivered. Including the costs of publicity, the kits cost the utility $5.71 per unit. 5. Results of the program The utility credits Portland's water conservation program with reducing the need for wells in the well field. "Our successful water conservation program played an instrumental role in the acquisition of that permit, which downsized the plan from seven wells to two wells and utilized the existing reservoir."32 

### For the entire Connecticut program , 62 percent of water customers sent in a kit request card and installed all or part of the kit

. Fifty per cent of the water customers receiving a retrofit kit

32Kuzminski, David. 1993. Retrofitting on a Budget. Conserv `93 Proceedings. American Water Works Association. December. p. 1646.
DRAFT, January 27, 1995 25 ForPortland's 

### small budget, 

### the retrofit program represented a fmandal burden. Looking for ways to reduce costs ofimplementing the program, the utility employed the help ofthe local high school and the League ofWomen Voters for distribution ofretrofit kits and publicity. & part of

### the school's conservation program, Portland High School students delivered 2126 retrofit kits over a period of three years. The students also performed the telephone surveys to determine the effectiveness and acceptance ofthe program. The utility developed a demonstration device called ''Walter the Water Saver." 

### This device was used 

### in the schools to help promote understanding 

### and awareness ofwater conservation. 

### 1heLeague ofWomen Voters helped to get out the word on the retrofit program by co-sponsoring a postercontest. (b). Budget 

### The Portland waterutility spent a total of$12,135 on their retrofit program. The majority of 

### the funds were spent for the retrofit kits. A total of2126 kits were delivered. Including the costs of publicity, the kits cost the utility $5.71 perunit 5. Results ofthe program The utility credits Portland's water conservation program with reducing the need for wells in the well field. "Our successful water conservation program played an instrumental role·in the acquisition ofthat permit, which downsized the plan from seven wells to two wells and utilized the existing reservoir.,,32 For

### the entire Connecticut program, 62 percent ofwater customers sent 

### in a kit request card and installed all or part of the kit. Fifty per cent of the water customers receiving a retrofit kit

32Kuzrninski, David. 

### 1993. Retrofitting on a Budget. Conserv 

### '93 Proceedings. American WaterWodes Association. December. p. 1646. DRAFr, January 27,1995 25delivered to them without the initial request card installed all or part of the kit. Water savings data

was not available for the entire program
. Estimated water savings for one of the five major water distributors in the state, Bridgeport Hydraulic Company , are reported below. "The total water savings achievable from retrofit kit devices were estimated to be 18
.3 gallons per capita per day (gcd) for pre

- 1980 households and 11.6 gcd post-1980 households based on assumptions developed by the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DOHS). These savings' estimates may be higher than those actually achieved since they presume that all kit devices are installed and do not incorporate variations in fixture use rates within a household. Based on the DOHS per capita savings' assumptions, Bridgeport Hydraulic Company's total estimated system water savings range from approximately 255, 000 to 323,100 gd for the 1991 program. These savings will increase or decrease depending on such factors as future device usage, retention, installation, and customer household size.i33

"Vickers, Amy. 1993. Achieving a High Customer Participation Rate with a Bulk Mailout Retrofit Program. Conserv '93 Conference proceedings

. American Water Works Association. December. p. 1655.
DRAFT, January 27, 1995 26 delivered to them without the initial request card installed all orpart ofthe 

### kit Water savings data

was not available for the entire program. Estimated water savings for one ofthe five major water distributors in the state, BridgeportHydraulic Company, are reported below. "The totalwater savings achievab1e from retrofit 

### kit devices were estimated to be 18.3 gallons per capita per day**(g~d)** for pre-1980 households and 11.6 gcd post-1980 households based on assumptions developed by the ConnecticutDepartment ofHealth Services (DOHS). These savings' estimates may be higher than those actually achieved since they presume that all kit devices are installed and do not incorporate variations in fIxture use rates within a household. Based on the DOHS percapita savings' assumptions,**~ridgeport** Hydraulic Company's total estimated system water savings range from approximately 255, 

### 000 to 323,100 gd for the 1991 program. These savings will increase or decrease depending on such factors as future device usage, retention, installation, and
customer household size."33

33Vickers, Amy. 1993.Achieving a High Customer Participation Rate with a BulkMaU

### outRetrofitProgram. Conserv '93 Conference proceedings. AmericanWaterWorks Association. December. p. 1655.

DRAFT. January 27.1995 26Appendix A

Table of Contents 

### Using a Water Conservation Manual and Other Resources ............................ 28 Calculating Water Usage ...................................................... 30 Audits and Leak Detection .............................................. 30 End-Use Studies .....................................................33 Demand-Side Management ............................................. 36 Choosing the most appropriate method .......................................... 38 Rate Structures ...................................................... 38 Shared Costs -- Utility Coalitions ......................................... 39 Rebates ............................................................ 41 Retrofit program for showerheads ........................................ 43 Retrofit programs for toilets ............................................. 47 Low-Income Programs ................................................ 49 Legislation Incentives .................................................. 50 Education Programs ................................................... 52

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 27 AppendixA Table of

### Contents Using a Water Conservation Manual and Other Resources
............................ 28 CalculatingWater Usage
.................................................'
.... 30 Audits and Leak Detection
.............................................. 30 End-Use Studies
..................................................... 33 Demand-Side Management
............................................. 36 Choosing the most appropriate method
.......................................... 38 Rate Structures .................................•.................... 38 Shared Costs

-- Utility Coalitions
......................................... 39 Rebates
............................................................ 41 Retrofit program for showerheads
........................................ ;43 Retrofit programs for toilets
............................................. 47 Low-Income Programs
................................................ 49 Legislation Incentives
.................................................. 50 Education Programs
................................................... 52

DRAFT, January 27,1995 

### 27

### 1. Using a Water Conservation Manual and Other Resources

The water efficiency clearing house and the five guides mentioned below are designed to assist a community or utility with the design of a water conservation program
. Entries after this section cite reports addressing specific types of programs. Customer Incentives For Water Conservation: A Guide. Fiske, Gary S . and Ronnie Ann Weiner, Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. 

### Soup: California Urban Water Agencies, California Urban Water Conservation Council and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. EPA 230-R-94-001 Contact: Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc., 1800 Harrison, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 893-7800 Abstract: As urban water conservation programs grow and mature, there is strong interest in many communities in providing incentives, monetary and other types, to stimulate further involvement of consumers. But the questions of which types of incentives to offer, and how to manage and optimize incentive programs have remained largely unanswered. This report provides solid information on a variety of water conservation incentive programs to help water agencies design and evaluate programs on a more rational, thoughtful basis. Evaluating Urban Water Conservation Programs : A Procedures Manual
. Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. 

### Source: American Water Works Association, 1993. ISBN 0-89867-676-2. Contact: Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. (PMCL), P.O. Box 1316, Carbondale, IL 62903 (618) 549-2832 Abstrac : At some time or other, virtually all water managers will find it necessary to assess their ability to meet the existing and future demands of their customers. The situations leading to this evaluation are as varied as the individual circumstances of each water provider. Whether the cause is continued growth of the service area, depletion of supplies, water quality concerns, or increased regulation, managers need a solid information base to analyze the available alternatives. This manual was prepared to assist managers in developing the information needed to analyze the role of water conservation in meeting growing demands. The Water Conservation Manager's Guide to Residential Retrofit. Babcock. Thomas M., Mary Ann Dickinson, Thomas E. Pape, and David Schultz, eds. Surce: American Water Works Association 1993 Contact: AWWA Customer Service, 6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235, (800) 926-7337 Abstract: This handbook is designed to provide water conservation administrators with an awareness of retrofit alternatives in the residential sector and the pros and cons of each alternative . Each water provider should adapt the alternatives to achieve the best retrofit management strategy for the local community.

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 28 1. Using a Water ConservationManual and OtherResources The water efficiency clearing house and the five guides mentioned below are designed to assist a community orutility with the design ofa water conservation program. Entries after this section cite reports addressing specific types ofprograms. custOmerIncentives ForWaterConservation: A Guide. Fiske, Gary S. and Ronnie AnnWeiner, Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. Source: California Urban Water Agencies, CaliforniaUrban Water Conservation Council and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. EPA 230-R-94-001 Contact: Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc., 1800 Harrison, Oakland, CA94612 (510) 893-7800 Abstract: As urban water conservation programs grow and mature, there 

### is strong interestin many communities in providing incentives, monetary and othertypes, to stimulate further involvement of consumers. But the questions ofwhich types ofincentives to offer, and how to manage and optimize incentive programs have remained largely unanswered. This report provides solid information on a variety of water conservation incentive programs to help water agencies design and evaluate programs on a more rational, thoughtful basis. Evaluating Urban Water Conservation Programs: A Procedures Manual. Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. Source: American WaterWorks Association, 1993. ISBN 0-89867-676-2. Contact: Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. (PMCL), P.O. Box 1316, Carbondale, IL 62903 (618) 549-2832 Abstract: At some time or other, virtually all water managers will find 

### it necessary to assess their ability to meet the existing and future demands of their customers. The situations leading to this evaluation are as varied as the individual circumstances ofeach water provider. Whether the cause 

### is continued growth ofthe service area, depletion ofsupplies, water quality concerns, orincreased regulation, managers need a solid information base to analyze the available alternatives. This manual was prepared to assist managers in developing the information needed to analyze the role ofwater conservation in meeting growing demands. TheWaterConservationManager's Guide

### to Residential Retrofit. Babcock. Thomas M., Mary Ann Dickinson, Thomas E. Pape, and David Schultz, eds. Source: American WaterWorks Association 1993 Contact: 

### A WWA Customer 

### Service, 

### 6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235, (800) 926-7337 Abstract: 

### This handbook 

### is designed to provide water conservation administrators with an awareness ofretrofit alternatives 

### in the residential sector and the pros and cons ofeach alternative. Each water provider should adapt the alternatives to achieve the best retrofit management strategy for the local community.

DRAFT, January 27,1995 28Water Conservation Guidebook for Small and Medium

-Sized Utilities. Pacific Northwest

Section of the American Water Works Association. 

### Source: American Water Works Association 1993 Conti: Cynthia Dietz, Conservation Program Manager, Portland Water Bureau, 1120 SW 5th Avenue, 6th floor, Portland, OR 97204, (503) 823-6133 Abst ract: This guidebook is written for the small and medium-sized water utility (1,000 to 25,000 connections) thinking about starting a water conservation program It is intended to provide a general overview of water conservation planning, and to describe the specific steps you can follow to design the best plan for your utility. The guidebook offers a "menu of possible conservation techniques and approaches from which you can choose. In this way, it can be used by utilities in all parts of the country, operating under various circumstances. Water Conservation Planning Handbook for Public Water Systems . Yelton, Tiffany and Jerry Parker, Water Resources Program 

### Source: Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington State Department of Health 1991 Contact: Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources Program, Mail Stop PV-11, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 Abstract: This Handbook is provided to assist public water systems in the development of a conservation plan.It is hoped that this Handbook will encourage public water systems to consider the creative ways conservation measures can be used to reduce new facility development costs and to correct system inefficiencies. WATERWISER. Water Efficiency Clearing House Sponsor: American Water Works Association and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contact: 666 West quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-9913, 800-559-9855 Objective: WaterWiser is developing information services that will help with planning, implementing and evaluating water efficiency programs and activities.

DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 29 Water Conservation Guidebook for Small and Medium-Sized Utilities. Pacific Northwest Section ofthe AmericanWaterWorIes Association. Source: AmericanWaterWorks Association 1993 Contact: Cynthia Dietz, Conservation Program Manager, Portland Water Bureau, 1120 SW 5th Avenue, 6th floor, Portland, OR 97204, (503) 823-6133 Abstract: This guidebook is written for the small 

### and medium-sized water utility (1,000 to 25,000 connections) thinking about starting a waterconservation program. It

### is intended to provide a general overview ofwater conservation planning, and to describe the specific steps you can follow to design the best pIan for your utility. The guidebook offers a "menu ofpossibleconservation techniques and approaches from which you can choose. 

### In this way, it can be used by utilities in all parts ofthe country, operating undervarious circumstances. Water Conservation PlanningHandbook for

### Public Water Systems. Yelton,Tiffany andJerry Parker, Water Resources Program Source: Washington StateDepartment ofEcology and Washington State Department ofHealth 1991 Contact: Washington State Department ofEcology WaterResources Program, Mail Stop PV-11, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 Abstract: This Handbook is provided to assist public water systems in the development of a conservation pIan.It 

### is hoped that 

### this Handbook

### will encourage public water systems to considerthe creative ways conservation measures can be used to reduce new facility development costs and to correct system inefficiencies. WATERWISER. WaterEfficiency Clearing House Sponsor: American WaterWorks Association and 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contact: 666 West quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-9913, 800-559-9855 Ob_t%tjye: WaterWiser is developing information services that will help withplanning, implementing and evaluating water efficiency programs and activities.

DRAFT. January 27,1995 292. Calculating Water Usage

a. Audits and Leak Detection 

### Home Water Survey Program. Long, Mariann S. Water and Power Department, Pasadena, CA. Source: Conserv 90 The National Conference and Exposition Offering Water Supply Solutions for the 1990s Phoenix, Arizona August 12-16, 1990 p 11-14, 1990 American Water Works Association Abstract: The Pasadena Water and Power Department performed interior and exterior water audits on 3200 single-family detached dwellings (homes) between 1988 and 1989. Auditors installed water conservation devices, adjusted toilets, measured the precipitation rate of the home's irrigation system, and created a custom irrigation schedule. The auditor gave each customer a report containing recommendations and projected water savings based on the recommendations . This paper describes efforts to market the program, details of administration and carrying out the program, what specific areas were covered (meter leak detection, for example ), program costs, benefits, and how the data collected in the survey will be used. The department will use the data in evaluating this program and in planning future water conservation programs. Low-flow showerheads, family strife, and cold feet. Meier, A. Source: Home Energy (USA) v 7:1. Jan-Feb 1990 p 37-38 Contact: Home Energy, 2124 Kittredge Street, No. 95, Berkeley, CA 94704, (510) 524-5405 Abstract: It is a fact that low-flow showerheads often save less energy than a simple change-in-flow calculation would indicate. The problem is that laboratory measurements are performed without confirming field studies. One must remember that people use showers, not buckets and stopwatches. Two reasonable situations are outlined, where energy savings will be less than predicted by simple calculations. Auditors must recognize these situation and make adjustments in their estimates of energy savings. The Impact of Water Conserving Fixtures on Residential Water Use Characteristics in Tampa, FL Anderson, Damann L.; Mulville-Friel, Diane; Nero, Wendy L. Ayres Associates Consulting Engineers, Tampa, FL; Tampa Water Department, Tampa, FL Source: Proceedings of Conserv 93; The New Water Agenda Las Vegas, NV; December 1993; p 611-628, American Society of Civil Engineers; American Water Resources 

### Association ; American Water Works Association Contact: Wendy Nero, Water Conservation Manager, Tampa Water Department, 306 East Jackson, Street, #5E, Tampa, FL 33602 Abstract: The objectives of the Tampa water use project were to determine the fixture specific water using characteristics of typical single family residences in Tampa and to measure the same water using characteristics after retrofitting with water conserving fixtures. An additional objective of the study was to evaluate user acceptance and changes in fixture use characteristics of the new plumbing fixtures. To accomplish these objectives, an extensive water use monitoring network was installed in a selected sample of 25 single family residences in Tampa. Monitoring included total water use, exterior water use, hot water use, shower use, toilet flushing, static pressure and drainline pressure. Measurements were made on a real time basis and data collected utilizing a computerized data

DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 30 2. CalculatingWaterUsage

a. Audits and Leak Detection Home Water Survey Program. Long, Mariann S. Water and PowerDeparunent, Pasadena, CA. Source: Conserv 90 The National Conference and Exposition OfferingWater Supply Solutions for the 1990s Phoenix, Arizona August 12-16, 1990P 11-14, 1990 AmericanWaterWorks Association Abstract: The Pasadena Water and PowerDepartmentperformed interior and exteriorwater audits on 3200single-family detached dwellings (homes) between 1988 and 1989. Auditors installed water conservation devices, 

### adjusted toilets, 

### measured the precipitation rate ofthe home's irrigation system. and created a custom irrigation schedule. The auditor gave each customer a report containing recommendations 

### and projected water savings based on the recommendations. This paperdescribes efforts to market the program, details ofadministration and carrying out the program. what specific areas were covered (meter leakdetection, for example), program costs, benefits, andhow the data col1ected in 

### the survey 

### willbeused. The department will use the data in evaluating this program and in planning future water conservation programs. Low-flow showerheads, family strife, and cold feet. Meier, A. Source: Home Energy (USA) v 7:1. Jan-Feb 1990 p 37-38 Contact: Home Energy, 2124 Kittredge Street, No. 95, Berkeley, CA94704, (510) 524-5405 Abstract: It 

### is a fact that low-flow showerheads often saveless energy than a simplechange-in-flow calculation would indicate. The problem is that laboratory measurements are performed without confirming field studies. One must remember that people use showers, not buckets and stopwatches. Two reasonable situations are outlined, where energy savings will beless than predicted by simple calculations. Auditors must recognize these situation and make adjustments in their estimates of energy savings. The ImpactofWater Conserving Fixtures on Residential Water Use Characteristicsin Tampa, FL Anderson, Damann L.; Mulville-Friel, Diane; Nero, WendyL. Ayres Associates Consulting Engineers, Tampa, FL; Tampa WaterDeparunent, Tampa, FL Source: Proceedings ofConserv 93; The New WaterAgenda 

### Las Vegas, NY; December 1993; p 611-628, American Society ofCivil Engineers; American WaterResources Association ; American Water Works Association Contact: WendyNero, WaterConservation Manager, TampaWaterDeparunent, 306 EastJackson, Street, #5E, Tampa, FL 33602 Abstract: The objectives ofthe Tampa water use project were to determine the fixture specific water using characteristics oftypical single family residences inTampa 

### and to measure the same water using characteristics after retrofitting with water conserving flXtures. An additional objective ofthe study was to evaluate user acceptance and changes in fixture use characteristics of the new plumbing fixtures. To accomplish these objectives, an extensive"water use monitoring network was installed in a selected sample of25 single family residences in Tampa. Monitoring included total wateruse, exterior wateruse, hot wateruse, shower use, toilet flushing, static pressure and drainline pressure. Measurements were made on a real time basis and data collected utilizing a computerized data

DRAFT, January 27,1995 

## 30

### acquisition system so that water use could be evaluated as a function of fixture use and time. The

major emphasis in the study was placed on water closet and shower use, as these fixtures were targeted for a potential retrofit program as part of the City of Tampa water conservation plan. Water use and fixture use were monitored for 30 days at each home prior to retrofitting the homes with low consumption showerheads and ultra-low volume (ULV) toilet fixtures. Once these water conserving fixtures were installed, the monitoring equipment was recalibrated and water use and fixture use were monitored at each home for an additional 30 days. Water Audit Encourages Residents to Reduce Consumption . Nelson, J. 0., North Marin County Water District, Novato, CA. 

### Source: Journal of the American Water Works Association JAWWA5, Vol. 84, No. 10, p 59-64, October 1992. 2 fig, 4 tab, 6 ref., Journal Announcement: SWR.A2604 Abstract: The North Marin (California) Water District (NMWD) conducted a free home water audit for randomly-selected customers from single-family detached homes. All were in the upper quartile of water use; i.e., residents used approximately 41% more water than was used in the average single-family home in the service area. At the time of the study, because of publicity about drought in the region, most households had reduced water consumption. For this reason, NMWD used a control group so it could isolate water saved by the audit program. The audit included an interview about patterns of water use, leak identification and repair, installation of low-flow shower heads and toilet tank displacement devices, evaluation of lawn irrigation practices and recommendation of an irrigation schedule, and distribution of free publications and promotional items. Average annual use declined significantly after the audit, approximately 16% for the sample group and 11% for the control group. The difference, or 4.6% (9,188 gal), could be attributed to the audit project. Of this amount, 7,270 gal were estimated as being saved inside the home as a result of leak repairs and newly installed low-flow shower heads and toilet displacement devices. Only 1,918 gal (less than 21%) were calculated as being saved outside the home, far less than NMWD had expected. Actual dollar saving experienced by the homeowner was calculated at $22.62 per year, including hot water saving of $13.90 per year. Actual simple payback for the homeowner, assuming the homeowner were to pay the actual cost of the audit is two years. The simple payback for the utility--considering only the saving to NMWD for energy and chemical costs--is 30 years. Water Reductions from Residential Audits. Whitcomb, John B., Brown & Caldwell Consultants, Palo Alto, CA 

### Source; Water Resource Bulletin October 1991
. v27, n5 pp. 761-67. Contact: Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc., 1800 Harrison, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 893-7800 AA multivariate regression model was applied to measure the water reductions resulting from a residential water audit program performed in Contra Costa Water District , CA, in 1989. The scheme depicts metered residential water use as a function of both conservation and other household parameters. Installation of low-flow showerheads reduced indoor water consumption by 9.7%, or by 7.8 g/d per capita. The outdoor portion of the audit reduced irrigation needs by 18.7%. However, automatic irrigation timers appear to be used inefficiently, as homes with these devices are using 50% more outdoor water than homes with manual hose-based irrigation systems.

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 31 acquisition system so that water use could be evaluated as a function offixture use 

### and time. The major emphasis in the study was placed on water closet 

### and shower use, as these fIxtures were targeted for a potential retrofit program as part ofthe City ofTampa waterconservationplan. Water 

### use and fixture 

### use weremonitored for 30

### days at eachhome prior to retrofItting thehomes with low consumption showerheads 

### and ultra-low volume (UL V) toilet fixtures. Oncethese waterconserving fixtures were installed, the monitoring equipment was recalibrated and wateruse and fixture use were monitored ateach home for an additional 30days. WaterAuditEncouragesResidentstoReduce Consumption. Nelson, J. 0., North Marin County Water District, Novato, CA. Source: Journal ofthe AmericanWaterWorks Association JAWWA5, Vol. 84, No. 10, p 59-64, October 1992.2fIg, 4 tab, 

### 6 ref., Journal Announcement: SWRA2604 Abstract: The North 

### Marin (California) WaterDistrict (NMWD) conducted a free home wateraudit for randomly-selected customers from single-family detached homes. 

### All were in the upperquartile of water use; i.e., residents used approximately 41% more water than was used in the average sing.le-family home in the service area. Atthe time ofthe study, because ofpublicity aboutdrought in the region, most households had reduced water consumption. For this reason, 

### NMWD used a control group so 

### itcould isolate water saved by the auditprogram. The audit included an interview about patterns ofwater 

### use, 1eakidentifIcation and repair, installation oflow-flow showerheads and toilet tank displacement devices, evaluation oflawn irrigation practices and recommendation ofan irrigation schedule, and distribution offree publications and promotional items. Average annual use declined signifIcantly after the audit, approximately 16% for the sample group and 11% for the control group. The difference, or4.6% (9,188 gal), could be attributed to the audit project. Ofthis amount, 7,270 gal were estimated as being saved inside 

### the home as a result ofleakrepairs and newly installed low-flow shower heads 

### and toilet displacement devices. Only 1,918 gal (less than 21%) were calculated as being saved outside the home, far less than NMWD had expected. Actual dollar saving experienced by the homeowner was calculated at $22.62 per year, including hot water saving of $13.90 per year. Actual simplepayback for the homeowner, assuming the homeownerwere to pay the actual cost of the audit 

### is two years. The simple payback for the utility--considering only the saving to NMWD for energy and chemical costs--is 30years. WaterReductions from Residential Audits. Whitcomb, John B., Brown & Caldwell Consultants, Palo Alto, CA Source: WaterResource Bulletin October 1991. v27, 

### n5 pp. 761-67. Contact: Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc., 1800 Harrison, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 893-7800 Abstract: A multivariate regression model was applied tomeasure the waterreductions resulting from a residential water audit program performed in Contra Costa Water District, CA, in 1989. The scheme depicts metered residentialwater

### use as a function ofboth conservation and otherhousehold parameters. Installation oflow-flow showerheads reduced indoor water consumption by9.7%, orby 7.8 gld per capita. The outdoor portion ofthe audit reduced irrigation needs by 18.7%. However, automatic irrigation timers appear to be 

### used inefficiently, as homes with these devices are using 50% more outdoor waterthan homes with manual hose-based irrigation systems.

DRAFf, January 27,1995 31

### b. End-Use Studies

A Laboratory and Field Evaluation of 1.6 GPF Water Closets in a Commercial Setting. Chouthai, Anand, Bhargav Vijapur and Thomas Konen. 

### Source: Stevens Institute of Technology for Denver Water Department, No. 246. August 1992. Contact: Denver Water, 1600 West 12th Avenue, Denver, CO 80254 Abstract: A field laboratory has been established at Stapleton International Airport consisting of four restrooms, two for men and two for women. Each of the 29 water closets in the facilities has been equipped with a flow switch on the supply line to indicate and record individual fixture use. A pulsed output water meter monitors the consumption of each group of fixtures. Pressure and temperature measurements complete the instrumentation. All measurements are gathered in a PC based data acquisition system where they are stored and transmitted on demand to our main laboratory on the Stevens campus for study. The report found that the ultra-low flush toilets did save water yet required significant maintenance. Development of a Water Use and Conservation Monitoring Program for the City of San Diego: Software Demonstration. Opitz, Eva M. ; Strus, Craig A. -Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd., Carbondale, IL 

### mouse: Proceedings of Conserv 93; The New Water Agenda Las Vegas, NV December 12-16, 1993 p 1229-1237, 1993 Contact: Eva Opitz, Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd., P.O. Box 1316, Carbondale, IL 62903, 618-549-2832 Abstract: The initial steps have been taken to develop a long-term monitoring program for the City of San Diego. A partnership has developed a Water Use and Conservation Data Base that could provide insights into the characteristics of the San Diego water customer population. One goal is to provide a means for water conservation planners to obtain information on utility customers. Components of the database include: water billing records; customer survey response data; aggregate water sales data by customer classes; total water deliveries to the city; weather-related parameters; and water conservation program tracking data. Reports can be generated in the following areas: water billing data; water sales by premise code; customer survey data; retrofit data; ULF toilet rebate data; customer survey with water billing data; customer survey with retrofit data; customer survey with ULF data; billing with sales data; water delivery data; weather data; and water sales with water delivery data. East Bay Municipal Utility District Water Conservation Study . Aher, Abhay, Anand Chouthai, Lalitha Chandrasekar, Wendy Corpening, Laurence Russ, and Bhargav Vijapur. duce: Stevens Institute of Technology Report No. R219 prepared for East Bay Municipal Utility District of Oakland California. 

### Cntact: Richard Bennett East Bay Municipal Utility District, 375 11th Street, Oakland, CA 94607 (510) 287-0590 Abstract: East Bay Municipal Utility District as part of its long-term water conservation program identified the need to: determine the actual savings achieved in the field by installing Ultra Low Flush water closets and low flow shower heads, investigate the impact of the ULF on the transport of waste

DRAFr, January 27 , 1995 32 b. End-Use Studies A Laboratory and Field Evaluation of 1.6 GPF Water Closets in 

### a Commercial Setting. Chouthai, Anand, BhargavVijapurand Thomas Konen. Source: Stevens Institute ofTechnology for Denver WaterDepartment, No. 246. August 1992. Contact: DenverWater, 1600West 12th Avenue,Denver. CO 80254 Abstract: A fiekllaboratory 

### has beenestablished at StapletonInternational Airport consisting offour restrooms, two for men and two for women. Each ofthe 29 waterclosets inthe facilities has been equipped with a flow switch onthe supply

### line to indicate and record individual fixture use. A pulsed output water meter monitors the consumption ofeach group offIXtures. Pressure and temperature measurements complete the instrumentation. 

### All measurements are gathered in a 

### PC based data acquisition system where they are stored and transmitted on demand to ourmain laboratory on the Stevens campus for study. 

### 1bereport found that the ultra-low flush toi1ets did save wateryetrequired significant maintenance. Development ofa Water Use and ConservationMonitoring Program for 

### the City of San Diego: 

### Software Demonstration. Opitz, Eva M. ; Strus, Craig A.-Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd., Carbondale, 

### IL Source: Proceedings ofConserv 93;The New WaterAgendaLas Vegas, NYDecember 12-16, 1993 P 1229-1237, 1993 Contact: Eva Opitz, Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd., P.O. Box 1316, Carbondale, 

### IL 62903, 618-549-2832 Abstract: The initial steps have been taken to develop a long-term monitoring program forthe City of San Diego. A partnership has developed a Water Use and Conservation Data Base that could provide insights into the characteristics ofthe San Diego watercustomerpopUlation. One goal is to provide a means -for water conservation planners to obtain information on utility customers. Components ofthe database include: waterbilling records; customer survey response data; aggregate water sales data by customer classes; total water deliveries to the city; weather-related parameters; 

### and waterconservationprogram tracking data. Reports canbe generated in the following areas: water billing data; water 

### sales bypremise code; customer survey 3ata; retrofit data; ULF toiletrebate data; customer survey with water billing data; customer survey with retrofit data; customer survey with ULF data; billing with sales data; water delivery data; weather data; and water sales with water delivery data. EastBay 

### Municipal Utility DistrictWater Conservation Study. Aber, Abhay, Anand Chouthai, Lalitha Chandrasekar, Wendy Corpening, Laurence Russ, and Bhargav Vijapur. Source: Stevens Institute ofTechnology Report No. R219 prepared for East Bay Municipal Utility District of Oakland California. Contact: Richard Bennett EastBay Municipal Utility District, 375 11th Street, Oakland, CA94607 (510) 287-0590 Abstract: East Bay Municipal Utility District as part ofits long-term water conservation program identified the 

### need to: determine the actual savings achieved in the field byinstalling UltraLow Flush water closets 

### and low flow showerheads, investigate the impact ofthe ULF on the transport ofwaste

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 32in drain lines and assess customer reactions to low flow fixtures in a single family residential setting.

The average savings achieved with ULF water closets was 5
.3 gallons per person per day. The average savings achieved by installing low flow shower heads is 1
.7 gallons per person per day. Residential Water Use Characteristics and the Potential for Conservation in Tampa , Florida. Anderson, Damann L.; Nero, Wendy L.; Konen, Thomas P.; Ayres Associates Consulting Engineers, Tampa, FL ; Tampa Water Department, Tampa, FL ; Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ Source: 1992 Conference Proceedings; American Water Works Association; Management and Regulations Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada June 18-22, 1992 p 721-729, 1992 

### Contact: Wendy Nero, Water Conservation Manager, Tampa Water Department, 306 E. Jackson Street, #5E, Tampa, FL 33602, 813-223-8665 Abstract: The City of Tampa Water Department conducted a study of residential water use characteristics to evaluate the water savings potential of specific fixtures. An extensive water use monitoring network was installed in a selected sample of 25 homes in Tampa. Monitoring included total water use, exterior water use, hot water use, shower use, toilet flushing, static pressure, and drainline pressure. Major emphasis was on toilets and showers, because these fixtures were targeted for a residential retrofit program. Tables and figures back up the discussion of the study's results. 

### Results from an Energy-Efficient Showerheads Field Study. Warwick, W.M. and S.A. Bailey. Source: Bonneville Power Administration. June 1993 Contact: Curtis Hickman, BPA, P.O. Box 3621-RPEB, Portland, OR 97208 bstract: In 1991 the Bonneville Power Administration initiated research to determine the energy savings potential of energy-efficient showerheads, including a two phase study by Pacific Northwest Laboratory. (PNL). The PNL study focused on 154 homes monitored with end-use metering equipment. In the first phase of the study, PNL recruited participants from the homes, installed energy efficient showerheads, and collected occupant and site characteristics data. The second phase of the study. is an analysis of the end-use load data to estimate energy use and savings from showerheads over a two year period. This report presents the results from the first phase field study. Water Use in Eight Central Pennsylvania Homes. Seaker, E. M.; Sharpe, W. E. Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park. Environmental Resources Research Inst. Source: Water-Use Data for Water Resources Management. Proceedings of a Symposium. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, Maryland. 1988. p 283-294, 5 tab, 36 ref. EPA Contract CR807115-01. Abstract: The water use of eight central Pennsylvania homes was intensively monitored during spring and summer 1980 as part of a study to determine the impact of water conservation devices on waste flow volumes. Key water using features and appliances, outside hose bibbs and total household water use were monitored for a 28 day period in each home. Mean daily per capita water use for toilet flushing, showering and bathing and clothes washing were higher than literature values; and mean per capita water use for all water use activities combined were higher than that for any study reporting comparable data. As expected, outdoor water use for homes without swimming pools was small relative to other uses. Assessed home value was strongly correlated with water use, but family size was not.

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 

### 33 in drain lines and assess customer reactions to low flow fixturps in a single family residential setting. The average savings achieved with ULF water closets was 5.3 gallons per person per day. The average savings achieved by installing low flow showerheads is 1.7 gallons per person per day. Residential Water

### Use Characteristics 

### and the Potential for Conservationin Tampa, Florida. Anderson, Damann L.; Nero, WendyL.; Konen, Thomas P.; Ayres Associates Consulting Engineers, Tampa, 

### FL;TampaWaterDepartment, Tampa,

### FL; Stevens Institute ofTechnology, Hoboken, NJ Source: 1992 Conference Proceedings; American Water Works Association; Management and Regulations Vancouver, British Columbia, CanadaJune 18-22, 1992 p 721-729, 1992 Contact: Wendy Nero, Water Conservation Manager, Tampa Water Department, 306 E. Jackson Street, #5E, Tampa, 

### FL 33602,813-223-8665 Abstract: The City of Tampa Water Department conducted a study of residential water use characteristics to evaluate the water savings potential ofspecific flXtures. 

### An extensive water use monitoring network was installed in a selected sample of25 homes in Tampa. Monitoring included total water use, exterior water use, hot water use, shower use, toilet flushing, static pressure, and drainline pressure. Major emphasis was on toilets and showers, because these fixtures were targeted for a residential retrofit program. Tables and figures backup the discussion ofthe study's results. Results from 

### an Energy-Efficient ShowerheadsField Study. Warwick, W.M. and S.A. Bailey. Source: Bonneville Power Administration. June 1993 Contact: Curtis Hickman, BPA, P.O. Box 3621-RPEB, Portland, OR 97208 Abstract: In 1991 the Bonneville Power Administration initiated research to determine the energy savings potential ofenergy-efficient showerheads, including a two phase study by Pacific Northwest Laboratory. (PNL). The PNL study focused on 154 homes monitored with end-use metering equipment In the first phase of the study, PNL recruited participants from the homes, installed energy efi;icient showerheads, and collected occupant and site characteristics data. The second phase of the study. is an an.alysis of the end-use load data to estimate energy 

### use and savings from showerheads over a two year period. 

### This report presents the results from the first phase field study. Water Use in Eight Central Pennsylvania Homes. Seaker, E. M.; Sharpe, W. E. Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park.. Environmental Resources Research Inst Source: Water-Use Data for Water Resources Management Proceedings ofa Symposium. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, Maryland. 1988. p 283-294, 5 tab, 36 ref. EPA Contract CR807115-01. Abstract: 

### 'The water 

### use ofeight central Pennsylvania homes was intensively monitored during spring and summer 1980 as part ofa study to determine the impact ofwater conservation devices on waste flow volumes. Key water using features and appliances, outside hose bibbs and total household water use were monitored for a 28 day period**~** each home. Mean daily per capita water use for toilet flushing, showering and bathing and clothes washing were higher than.literature values; and mean per capita water use for all water use activities combined were higher than thatfor any study reporting comparable data. As expected, outdoor water use for homes without swimming pools was small relative to other uses. Assessed home value was strongly correlated with wateruse, butfamily size was not.

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 33

### c. Demand-Side Management

Balancing Water Demands with Supplies : The Role of Management in a World of Increasing Scarcity. Frederick, K. D. 

### Source: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DC. Corp. Source Codes: 063877000, Report No.: WORLD BANK-TP-189; ISBN-0-8213-2290-7 c1993 83p Contact: Paper copy available from World Bank Publications, P.O. Box 7247-8619, Philadelphia, PA. 19170-8619. Phone: (201) 225-2165. Abstract: The paper deals with the increasingly important topic of how to balance'water demands with supplies. It examines the experience of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in influencing the behavior of water users, and draws lessons from attempts to manage demand by imposing water use regulations and employing economic incentives. The paper points out that there can be no blueprint for applying demand management practices as most countries and communities differ in their response to regulations, encouragement and incentives. Nevertheless the guiding principles described should be of considerable value to those wishing to introduce demand management techniques into their nation's water equation. Emerging Demand

-Side Era in Water Management. Vickers, A. Vickers and Associates, Boston, MA. 

### Source: Journal of the American Water Works Association JAWWA5, Vol. 83, No. 10, p 38-43, October 1991. 1 fig, 3 tab, 17 ref., Contact: Amy Vickers, Amy Vickers and Associates, Water Planning and Policy, 100 Boylston Street, #1015, Boston, MA 02116-4610 (617) 728-9112 Abstrac t: Decreasing sources of supply are resulting in a trend toward demand-side alternatives in water management and toward striking a balance between new source development and conservation. The energy conservation initiatives begun in the late 1970s in California provide a useful model for today's burgeoning water conservation drive. In August 1990, Conserv 90, the first nationwide water conservation conference of its kind, marked a major milestone in water supply management. The total estimated annual household water savings from a retrofit of conventional toilets, showerheads, and faucets ranged from 13.5 to 33.5 gallons per capita per day. Water used for irrigating grass and other plants accounts for as much as half of total urban demand. Improved irrigation practices and technologies in recent years have helped to increase the efficiency of water applied to turf and landscaping, usually reducing outdoor demand between 30 and 60 percent. Among industrial and commercial conservation measures, replacement of once-through cooling processes with recirculating systems has been shown to provide some of the largest savings and the most rapid investment payback. In the agricultural arena, the efficiency of irrigation systems averages less than 40 percent. Conservation activities include canal rehabilitation, on-farm conservation research, farmer education, and farm water measurement. Water Demand Management in Melbourne. Duncan, H.P., MMBW, Water Resources Planning Water, vol.18, no.3, p 26-28, 31, June 1991 Source: Australian Water and Wastewater Association

DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 34 

### c. Demand-Side Management BalancingWaterDemands with 

### Supplies: The Role oCManagementin a World oCIncreasing Scarcity. 

### Frederick, K. D. Source: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DC. Corp. Source Codes: 063877000, Report No.: WORLD BANK-TP-189; ISBN-0-8213-229O-7 cl99383p Contact: Paper copy available from World 

### BankPublications, P.O. Box 7247-8619, Philadelphia, PA. 19170-8619. Phone: (201) 225-2165. Abstract: The paper deals with the increasingly important topic ofhow to balance'water demands with supplies. It examines the experience of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in influencing the behavior ofwater users, and draws lessons from attempts to manage demand by imposing water use 

### regulations and employing economic incentives. The paper points out that there can be no blueprint for applying demand management practices as most countries and 

### communities differ in 

### their 

### response to regulations, encouragement and incentives. Nevertheless the guiding principles described should be 

### ofconsiderable value to those wishing to introduce demand management techniques into their nation's water equation. EmergingDemand-SideErainWaterManagement. 

### Vickers, A 

### Vickers and Associates, Boston, MA. Source: Journal ofthe American WaterWorks Association JAWWA5, 

### Vol. 83, No. 10, p 38-43, October 1991. 1

### fig, 3 tab, 17 ref., Contact: Amy Vickers, Amy Vickers and Associates, Water Planning and Policy. 100 Boylston Street, #1015, Boston, MA 02116-4610 (617) 728-9112 Abstract: Decreasing sources ofsupply are resulting in a trend toward demand-side alternatives in water management and 

### toward striking a 

### balance between new source 

### development and conservation. The 

### energy conservation initiatives begun in the late 1970s in California provide a useful model for today's burgeoning water conservation drive. In

### August 1990, 

### Conserv 90, 

### the first nationwide water conservation conference ofits kind, 

### marked a majormilestone in 

### water supply management. The total estimated 

### annual household water savings from a retrofit ofconventional toilets, showerheads, and faucets ranged from 13.5 to 33.5 gallons per capitaper day. Water used for irrigating grass and other plants accounts for as much as half 

### of total urban demand. Improved irrigation practices and technologies in 

### recent years have helped to increase the efficiency of water applied to turf and landscaping, usually reducing outdoor demand between 30 and 60 

### percent. Among industrial and commercial conservation 

### measures, replacement ofonce-through cooling processes with recirculating systems has been shown to provide some of the largest savings and the most rapid investment payback. In

### the agricultural arena, the efficiency ofirrigation systems averages less than 

### 40 percent. Conservation activities include canalrehabilitation, on-farm conservation research, fanner education, and farm water measurement. WaterDemand Managementin Melbourne. 

### Duncan, H.P., MMBW, Water Resources Planning Water, vol.18, no.3, p 26-28,31, June 1991 Source: Australian Water and Wastewater Association

DRAFT. January 27.1995 

### 34Abstract: The broad objective of a water supply authority is to match supply and demand , with a level

of service acceptable to the community
. Water demand management has now been used successfully in many Australian towns and cities, and is increasingly recognized as an effective and acceptable alternative to supply augmentation

. In Melbourne, the Board of Works introduced a demand management campaign in 1983 , at the end of a year of water restrictions
. Initially this was based on advertising, education, and appliance redesign
. In 1987, a pay-for

-use charging system for water was introduced

. A sustained reduction of 16% of pre-drought annual consumption has been achieved. Winter use has averaged 6% below the expected level
. Summer use has averaged 26% below the expected level, and peak day consumption shows a similar reduction
. The resulting deferral of headworks and distribution works has a present value of up to $75M. The demand management campaign has been highly cost effective. The cheapest water available in the future may well be the water which was wasted in the past.

DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 35 

### Abstract: The 

### broad objective ofa water supply authority is to match supply and demand, with a level ofservice acceptab1e to the 

### community. Water demand managementhas now been used successfully in many Australian towns and cities, and is 

### increasingly recognized as an effective and acceptable alternative to supply augmentation. 

### In Melbourne, the Board of Works introduced a demand management campaign in 1983, at the end ofa year ofwaterrestrictions. Initially this was based on advertising, education, and 

### appliance redesign. 

### In 1987, a pay-for-use charging system for water was introduced. A sustained reduction of 16% ofpre-drought annual consumption has 

### been achieved. Winter use has averaged 6% below the expected level. Summer use has 

### averaged 26% below the expected level, and peak day consumption shows a similar 

### reduction. The resulting deferral of headworks and distribution works has 

### a present value ofup to $75M. The demand management campaign has been highly cost effective. The cheapestwater available in

### the future may well be the water which was wasted in the past.

DRAFT, January 27,1995 

### 35

### 3. Choosing the most appropriate method

a. Rate Structures Full-Cost Water Pricing Goldstein, James, Energy Systems Research Group purse: Journal American Water Works Association, voL78, no.2, p 52-6 1, February 1986. Denver, Colorado. Contact: American Water Works Association (303-794-7711) Abstract: One essential component of a financial management policy to ensure adequate funds for operating, maintaining, and improving water utilities is appropriate water pricing , i.e., charging rates that reflect the full cost of providing water. Methods of structuring rates reviewed in this paper include declining block rates, flat or uniform rates, increasing block rates , seasonal or peak rates, rates for unmetered service, and rates for new users. Benefits of full-cost pricing and the effects of pricing on water conservation are addressed. Obstacles to implementing full-cost pricing identified include lack of metering, historical underpricing, limitations of existing accounting systems, political concerns relating to rate-setting processes, and institutional constraints. Benefits of separating expenditures and revenues of the water utility from municipality general accounts to allow funds to accrue for capital improvements and benefits of full-cost pricing are cited, with reference to the Massachusetts experience. Considerations for calculating the full cost of water include valuation of fixed assets and determination of depreciation. The importance of increased use of meters, increasing public awareness concerning the full cost of water service, and improving the rate-making process are addressed. A case study of the recent restructuring of water and sewer services in Boston, Massachusetts, by establishing a commission and through the adoption of full-cost pricing is provided as an example of how a municipality can improve financial and operational management. Marginal Cost Pricing -- Is Water Different? Boland, John J. ource: The Role of Social and Behavioral Sciences in Water Resources Planning and Ma_n_a m n , Baumann, Duane D., Haimes, Yacov Y. eds. American Society of Civil Engineers, 1988 pp. 126-137. Contact: Duane D. Baumann, Dept. of Geography, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL Abstract: "The objectives of public utility pricing are not easy, to articulate or to define, but they are generally acknowledged to include a desire for efficient allocation of community resources, equity in allocating cost shares, stable revenues adequate to operate the utility effectively and to insure continuity of service, simple and easily understood rates, and appropriate conservation of scarce resources. Among the policies required to achieve these goals is the adoption of marginal cost pricing, where all prices set by the utility reflect the marginal cost of the service offered. The central role of marginal cost pricing can be illustrated by reviewing some specific policy goals."

DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 36 3. Choosing the most appropriate method

a. Rate Structures Full·CostWaterPricing Goldstein, James, Energy Systems Research Group Source: Journal AmericanWaterWorks 

### Association, vol78, no.2, p 52-61, February 1986. Denver, Colorado. Contact: AmericanWaterWorks Association (303-794-7711) Abstract: One essential component ofa financial management policy to ensure adequate funds for operating, maintaining, and improving waterutilities 

### is appropriate waterpricing, i.e., charging rates that reflect the full cost of providing water. Methods of structuring rates reviewed in this paper include declining block rates, flat oruniform rates, increasing blockrates, seasonal or

### peak rates, rates for unrnetered service, and rates for new users. Benefits offull-cost pricing and the effects ofpricing on water conservation 

### are addressed. Obstacles to implementing full-cost pricing identified include 

### lack ofmetering, historical underpricing, limitations ofexisting accounting systems, political concerns relating to rate-setting processes, and institutional constraints. Benefits ofseparating expenditures and revenues of the water utility from municipality general accounts to allow funds to accrue for capital improvements and benefits offull-cost pricing are cited, with reference to the Massachusetts experience. Considerations for calculating the full cost ofwater include valuation offIxed assets and determination ofdepreciation. 

### The importance ofincreased 

### use ofmeters, increasing public awareness concerning the full cost ofwater service, and improving the rate-making process 

### are addressed. A case study of the recent restructuring of water and sewer services in Boston, Massachusetts, by establishing a commission and through the adoption offull-cost pricing is provided 

### as an example of how a municipality can improve financial and operational management Marginal Cost Pricing

-- 

### Is Water Different? Boland, John 

### J. Source: The Role ofSocial 

### and Behavioral Sciences in WaterResources plannin& and Mana&ement, Baumann, Duane D., 

### Hannes, YacovY. eds. American Society ofCivil Engineers, 1988 pp. 126-137. Contact: DuaneD. Baumann, Dept. ofGeography, Southern lllinois University, Carbondale, 

### IL' Abstract: "The objectives ofpublic utility pricing are not easyto articulate or to define, butthey are generally acknowledged to include a desire for efficient allocation ofcommunity resources, equity in allocating cost shares, stable revenues adequate to operate the utility effectively and to insure continuity of service, simple and easily understood rates, and appropriate conservation of scarce resources. Among the policies required to achieve these goals is the adoption ofmarginal costpricing, where all prices set by the utility reflect the marginal cost ofthe service offered. Thecentral role of marginal cost pricing can be illustrated by reviewing some specific policy goals."

DRAFT. January 27.1995 36

### b. Shared Costs -- Utility Coalitions

A Collaborative Approach to Water Conservation. DeJong, Leendert T. ; Koss, Eugene M. Bridgeport Hydraulic Company ; State of Connecticut Source: Conserv 90, The National Conference and Exposition, Offering Water Supply Solutions for the 1990s Phoenix, Arizona, August 12-16, 1990 p 899-892 Ab stract: The state of Connecticut requires water purveyors to oversee distribution of residential retrofit kits. The Bridgeport Hydraulic Company worked with several state agencies to design a water conservation program. The kits contained toilet dams, leak detection dye tablets, low flow showerhead, faucet aerators, an instruction sheet, and a customer survey. Marketing was via direct mail and telemarketing. A total of 537 customers asked for retrofit kits, with an average of 2 kits per customer. The least used item in the kit was the dye tablet, the most used was the toilet dam. Costs were $46.76 per customer, most of which were the cost of the product and shipping. In the future the BHC and a state agency will offer water conservation workshops for. teachers. Comparison study of energy savings methodologies Ecker, L.; Parti, M.; Dion M. 

### Source: Demand-side management strategies for the 90s. Proceedings, Volume 2, Corporate Source: Electric Power Research Inst., Palo Alto, CA (USA), Synergic Resources Corp., Bala-Cynwyd, PA (USA), 1989 p 46.1-46.8 Abstract: Central Maine Power Company uses both two-stage PRISM (PRInceton Scorekeeping Method) and Conditional Demand analyses to determine energy savings attributable to its energy management programs. A comparison study is presented of the results of a two -stage PRISM analysis using annual data with the results of a one-stage conditional demand analysis using monthly data. These results are then compared with the initial engineering estimates used for Central Maine Power Company's Bundle-Up program for electric water heating customers. The study uses data from a sample of participants in the Bundle-Up Program Data from participant surveys, installation records, billing records, and Company load research were used in the analysis of electricity savings attributable to the program. The program offered the following five measures: R-10 insulation wrap, temperature setting turndown, low flow shower head, two faucet aerators, and sediment removal. The preliminary engineering estimates indicated an annual electricity savings of 1,077 kilowatt-hours if all the measures are installed. Both methodologies used in this comparison study indicate savings of significantly fewer kilowatt hours than the original engineering estimates. Shared Savings Through Energy and Water Conservation: Developing a Local Conservation Plan Bourg, Joseph D. ; Nelson, Guy R., NEOS Corporation, Lafayette, California ; Western Area Power Administration, Sacramento, California 

### Source: Conserv 90 The National Conference and Exposition Offering Water Supply Solutions for the 1990s Phoenix, Arizona, August 12-16, 1990, p 829-833 Abstract: Energy and water utilities share many common goals, such as curbing customers' wasteful practices, promoting efficient use of natural resources, and ensuring that conservation strategies are understood so that a fair comparison can be made between conservation and increased supply as demand increases. The author presents a four-step methodology for developing integrated water/energy conservation plans. A north California municipality (which owns the gas, water, and

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 37 

### b. Shared Costs

-- Utility Coalitions A Collaborative Approach to Water Conservation. Dejong, Leendert T. ; Koss, Eugene M. BridgeportHydraulic Company; State ofConnecticut Source: Conserv 90, TIle 

### National Conference and Exposition, Offering Water Supply Solutions for the 1990s Phoenix, Arizona, August 12-16, 1990 p 899-892 Abstract: The state ofConnecticut requires water purveyors to oversee distribution ofresidential retrofitkits. TIle 

### Bridgeport Hydraulic Companyworked with 

### several state agencies to design a water conservation program. The kits contained toilet dams, leak 

### detection dye tablets, low flow showerhead, faucet aerators, an instruction sheet, and a customer survey. Marketing was via direct mail and 

### telemarketing. Atotal of537 customers asked for retrofitkits, with an average of2kits per customer. TIle 

### least used item in the kit was the dye tablet, the mostused was the toilet dam. Costs were $46.76 per customer, most ofwhich were the cost ofthe product and shipping. In the future the BHC and a state agency will offer water conservation workshops for.teachers. Comparison study ofenergy savings metbodologies Ecker, L.; 

### Parti, M.; Dion M. Source: Demand-side management strategies for the 

### 90s. Proceedings, Volume 2, Corporate Source: Electric Power Research Inst., Palo Alto, CA (USA), Synergic Resources Corp., Bala-Cynwyd, PA (USA), 1989 p 46.1-46.8 Abstract: Central Maine Power Company uses both two-stage PRISM (pRInceton Scorekeeping Method) and Conditional Demand analyses to determine energy savings attributable to its energy management programs. Acomparison study is 

### presented ofthe results 

### ofa two-stage PRISM analysis using annual data with the results ofa one-stage conditional demand analysis using monthly data. These results are then compared with the initial engineering estimates used for Central Maine Power Company's Bundle-Up program for electric water heating customers. The study uses data from a sample ofparticipants in the Bundle-Up Program Data from participant surveys, installation records, billing records, and 

### Company load 

### research were used 

### in the 

### analysis 

### ofelectricity savings attributable to the 

### program. The

### program offered the 

### following five measures: R-I0 insulation wrap, temperature setting turndown, low-flow shower head, 

### two faucet aerators, and 

### sedimentremoval. The preliminary engineering estimates indicated an annual electricity savings of 1,077 kilowatt-hours if all 

### the measures are installed. Both methodologies used in 

### this comparison study indicate savings of significantly fewer kilowatt hours than the original engineering estimates. Shared Savings Through 

### Energy and Water Conservation: Developing a Local 

### Conservation Plan 

### Bourg, Joseph D. ; 

### Nelson, Guy R., NEOS Corporation, Lafayette, California; Western Area Power Administration, Sacramento, California Source: Conserv 90 

### The National Conference and Exposition Offering Water Supply Solutions for the 1990s Phoenix, Arizona, August 12-16, 1990, P 

### 829-833 Abstract: Energy and 

### water utilities share many common goals, such as curbing customers' wasteful practices, promoting efficient use ofnatural resources, and ensuring that conservation strategies are understood so that a fair 

### comparison can be 

### made between conservation and increased supply as demand increases. The author presents a four-step methodology for developing integrated wa.ter/energy conservation plans. A north California municipality (which owns the gas, water, and

DRAFT. January 27.1995 

### 37

### electric utilities) was analyzed to demonstrate the benefits of integrated conservation management

programs. Five strategies were defined: low-flow showerheads, residential and commercial Xeriscaping, irrigation guides, and self-closing faucets. Most of the energy savings are due to decreased pumping and reduced energy use at water and wastewater treatment plants. Some savings accrue from the use of low-flow showerheads. Finally, because peak demand periods for water and energy often coincide, an integrated water/energy conservation program controls peak demand on the electrical grid by controlling peak demand for water. Water, Water Everywhere... Do We Really Need to Reduce Water Use in British Columbia? Stephens, K.A. ; Johnston, C.M. Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd., Consulting Engineers, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Source: Proceedings of Conserv 93; Las Vegas, NV, December 12-16, 1993, p 1319-1337 Abstract: One purpose of the following paper is to provide an overview on the forces that are beginning to fundamentally reshape the approach to water management in British Columbia. To this end, the paper focuses on three regions of the province in which water use is among the highest in North America on a per capita basis. The main purpose of the paper, however, is to underscore the need for an integrated strategy to considerably reduce total water use by eliminating wasteful water use. The three elements of this strategy are tools, incentives, and ethics. The paper answers the question Why is British Columbia water short? The author then goes on to discuss the potential of water savings in terms of universal metering, water saving devices (including toilets), and integrating tools, incentives, and ethics. Finally, case studies are offered to show how this strategy can work..

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 38

electric utilities) was analyzed to demonstrate the benefits ofintegrated conservation management programs. Five strategies were defmed: low-flow showerheads, residential 

### and commercial Xeriscaping, irrigation guides, and self-closing faucets. Most of the energy savings are due to decreased pumping 

### and reduced energy

### use atwater and wastewater treatment plants. Some savings accrue from the use oflow-flow showerheads. Finally, because peakdemand periods for water and energy often coincide, an integrated water/energy conservation program controls peakdemand on the electrical grid by controlling peak demand for water. 

### Water, Water Everywhere..•Do 

### We Really Need 

### to Reduce WaterUse inBritish 

### Columbia? Stephens, K.A. ; Johnston, C.M. KerrWood Leidal Associates Ltd., Consulting Engineers, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Source: Proceedings ofConserv 93; Las Vegas, NV, December 12-16, 1993, p 1319-1337 Abstract: One purpose of the following paper is to provide an overview on the forces that are beginning to fundamentally reshape the approach to watermanagementin British Columbia. Tothis end, the paper focuses on three regions ofthe province in which wateruseis among 

### the highest in North America on a percapita basis. The main purpose ofthe paper, however, is tounderscore the 

### need for an integrated strategy to considerably reduce total wateruse by eliminating wasteful water use. The three elements of this strategy are tools, incentives, and ethics. The paper answers the question Why is British Columbia water short? The author then goes on to discuss the potential of water savings in terms ofuniversal metering, water saving devices (including toilets), and integrating tools, incentives, and ethics. Finally, case studies are offered to show how this strategy can work
..

DRAFT. January 27.1995 

### 38

### c. Rebates

New York City toilet rebate program unveiled . (New York, New York Department of Environmental Protection approves rebates to building and home owners for low flow toilet installation) 

### Source: Gerard, Eric R., Real Estate Weekly v40 ISSUE: n12 PG: pl(2), Oct 27, 1993 Contac t: William Nechamen, Water Program Specialist II, NY State Dept. of Env. Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Room 308, Albany, NY 12233-3504, 518-457-8681 Abstract: In 1994, New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will engage in a toilet rebate program. The target community is any homeowner and apartment building or commercial building owners. A rebate of $240 for the first toilet and $150 for each additional toilet covers installation costs by licensed plumbers as required by the program. Low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators will be installed at the same time. The DEP's goal is to exchange 1.4 million toilets before the programs end. The water savings are calculated at about 120 million gallons of water each day. News of the Field

--California Drought Prompts Increase in Conservation Effort Source: Journal American Water Works Association, vol.82, no.7, p 4, July 1990, Publisher: American Water Works Association (Denver, Colorado 303-794-7711) Contact: Matt Puffer, Metropolitan Water District, 350 South Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90054 Abstract: In response to continuing drought conditions, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has launched a special $10 million rebate program designed to encourage retail water agencies to cut water use during the summer. The program is part of a major effort by Metropolitan and other Southern California agencies to reduce water consumption by 10 percent. Other drought-related actions taken by Metropolitan include agreeing to provide, when possible, water to drought-stricken portions of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, participating in a program to retrofit homes with low-flow showerheads and other water-saving hardware, and doubling the district's financial participation in local water reclamation projects. North Wales Water Authority introduces rebate program for customers who install low flush toilets. 

### Source: PR Newswire, April 24, 1990, North Wales Water Authority, Pennsylvania Contact: Peter Lukens of North Wales Water Authority, 215-699-4836, North Wales Water Authority, Pennsylvania 

### Abstract: North Wales Watex Authocit^ ^co^cdlo^x-tilushtsail,tsa^ts lZYJcsmvti^ through a rebate program called "Operation Low Rush." The utility gave customers a rebate of$75 for each toilet installed. Ultra-Low-Flush Toilet Rebate Programs in Southern California: Lessons for Water Managers and Planners. Chestnutt, Thomas W.; Moynahan, Michael D.; Bamezai, Anil; A&N Technical Services, Inc., Santa Monica, CA ; Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, State Water Project and Conservation Division, Los Angeles, CA Source: 1992 Annual Conference Proceedings; American Water Works Association; Management and Regulations; June 18-22, 1992; p 739-746, AWWA

DRAFT, January 27

### , 1995 

### 39 c. Rebates New York City toilet rebate program unveiled. (New York, New York Department of Environmental Protection approves rebates to building and home owners for low flow toilet installation) Source: Gerard, Eric R., Real EstateWeekly v40ISSUE: nl2 PG: pl(2), Oct 27,1993 Contact: William Nechamen, WaterProgram Specialist IT, NY StateDept. ofEnv. Conservation, 50 Wolf-Road, Room 308, Albany, NY 12233-3504,518-457-8681
. Abstract: In 1994, New York City Department ofEnvironmental Protection (DEP) will engage in a toilet rebate program. TIle target communityis anyhomeowner 

### and apartmentbuilding orcommercial building owners. A rebate of $240 for the ftrst toilet and $150 for each additional toilet covers installation costs by

### licenced plumbers as required bythe program. Low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators will be installed at the same time. TheDEP's goal is to exchange 1.4 million toilets before the programs end. The water savings are calculated at about 120million gallons ofwatereach day. News ofthe Field--Califomia Drought Prompts Increasein ConservationEffort Source: Journal American Water Works Association, vo1.82, no.7, p 

### 4, July 1990, Publisher: American WaterWorks Association (Denver, Colorado 303-794-7711) Contact: Matt Puffer, Metropolitan WaterDistrict, 350 South Grand Ave.,Los Angeles, CA90054 Abstract: Inresponse to continuing drought conditions, the Metropolitan WaterDistrict ofSouthern California has launched a special $10 million rebate program designed to encourage retail water agencies to cut water use during the summer. The program is part ofa major effort by Metropolitan and other Southern California agencies to reduce water consumption by 

### 10 percent. Other drought-related actions taken by Metropolitan include agreeing to provide, when possible, water to drought-stricken portions of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, participating in a program to retrofit homes with low-flow showerheads and other water-saving hardware, and doubling the district's financial participation in local waterreclamation projects. North Wales WaterAuthority introduces rebate program for customers whoinsialilow flush toilets. Source: PR Newswire, April 24, 1990, North Wales Water Authority, Pennsylvania Contact: Peter Lukens of North Wales Water Authority, 215-699-4836, North Wales Water Authority, Pennsylvania 

### Abstract. 

### Nartn**Wa1e~ Wa~t** **t\.\ltl\.Q~~ ~t.Q~1,.<.\,«-\l..\Mh\k~~~'-ts..** **\.."t~~~~~~~** through 

### a rebate program 

### called "Operation Low

### Flush. "The 

### utilitygave customers arebate of $75 for each toiletinstalled. Ultra-Low-Flush Toilet Rebate**~** in Southern California: 

### Lessons for WaterManagers and Planners. Chestnutt, Thomas W.; Moynahan, Michael D.; Bamezai, 

### Anil; A&N Technical Services, 

### Inc., Santa Monica, CA ; Metropolitan WaterDistrict ofSouthern California, StateWater Project and Conservation Division, Los Angeles, CA Source: 1992 Annual Conference Proceedings; American WaterWorks Association; Management and Regulations; June 18-22,1992; 

### P739-746, AWWA

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 39Cwt: Matt Puffer, Metropolitan Water District, 350 South Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90054

Abst y ract: Previous attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of water conservation programs have often yielded ambiguous and unconvincing results
. The lack of empirical support for the effectiveness of water conservation programs has undermined the rationale for their need and impaired the ability of water planners to design better programs
. This paper summarizes what water managers and planners can learn from a detailed evaluation of ultra

-low-flush (ULF) toilet rebate programs in Southern California.

DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 40 Contact: Matt Puffer, Metropolitan WaterDistrict, 350 South Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA90054 Abstract: Previous attempts to evaluatethe effectiveness ofwater conservation programs have often yielded ambiguous and unconvincing results. The lack ofempirical support for the effectiveness of water conservation programs has undennined the rationale for their need and impaired the ability of water planners to design better programs. This paper summarizes whatwatermanagers and planners can learn from a detailed evaluation of ultra-low-flush (ULF) toilet rebate programs in Southern California

DRAFT, January 27,1995 40

### d. Retrofit program for showerheads

An Analysis of Seattle's Multifamily Retrofit Pilot Program Flory, Bruce E. ; Dietemann, Allan, Seattle Water Department, Seattle, WA Sum: 1992 Annual Conference Proceedings; American Water Works Association; Management and Regulations; June 18-22, 1992, p453-478 Contact: Allan Dietemann, Conservation Office, Dexter Horton Building, 11th Fl., 710 2nd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Abstract: Several years ago a set of circumstances combined to provide the Seattle Water Dept. with an excellent opportunity to statistically quantify multifamily retrofit savings. Low flow shower heads and faucet aerators were installed and toilet leaks repaired in five Seattle Housing Authority apartments. Another SHA apartment was given a complete toilet retrofit. Residents were surveyed to determine customer satisfaction. Water consumption before and after the retrofit was obtained for each apartment retrofitted, as well as for a control building. The retrofit produced definite reductions in water consumption. However, the impact of the retrofit on water consumption was highly variable from building to building. The study results indicate that a multifamily retrofit program should be highly cost effective, measured either from the point of view of the apartment owner or the water department. Almost three years of consumption data since the retrofit was completed reveal that water savings attributable to toilet repair and retrofit have persisted over time. However, showerhead and faucet aerator savings could not be documented three years after the retrofit. Does low-flow still mean low satisfaction. Katzev, R. (Reed College, Portland, OR (USA) Public Policy Research Inc., Portland, OR (USA)) 

### Source: Home Energy (United States) v 8:4. Coden: HOENE ISSN: 0896-9442; Jul-Aug 1991 p 22-24 Abstract: Are the leading low-flow showerheads less enjoyable then the standard showerheads Will people remove them like they did with flow restrictors ten years ago To answer these questions, Bonneville Power Administration hired us to investigate the reactions of individuals who were given an opportunity to install one of twelve different low-flow showerheads in their residences. This in-home methodology was selected over other alternatives because it provided a more natural, non-intrusive setting in which to determine how individuals reacted to low-flow showerheads. Field measurements of low flow showerheads . Robison, D. Source: ACEEE 1990 summer study on energy efficiency in buildings : Proceedings. Volume 1, Building equipment and appliances; American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 26 Aug - 1 Sep 1990 p. 1.185-1:187 (256 p) 

### Abet: This paper reports on a Pacific Power product placement study of low flow showerheads. The purpose of the study was to identify consumer reactions strictly to amenity and quality issues. Overall reaction was quite positive, with improvement in consumer satisfaction level. Water usage was directly measured before and after changing the showerhead. Water savings averaged 1.4 gallons per minute. This is less savings than expected - residential water pressure appears to be lower than is often assumed. The old showerheads were not delivering excessively large flow, apparently due to low residential water pressure and partially clogged orifices. Consumers were surveyed before the

DRAFF, January 27, 1995 41 

### d. Retrofit program for showerheads An Analysis ofSeattle'sMultifamily Retrofit PilotProgramFlory, Bruce E. ;Dietemann, Allan, Seattle Water Department, Seattle, W A Source: 1992 Annual ConferenceProceedings; American WaterWorks Association; Management and Regulations; June 18-22, 1992, 

### P453-478 Contact: Allan 

### Dietemann, Conservation Office, DexterHorton Building, 11th Fl., 710 2nd Avenue, Seattle, W A 98104 Abstract: Several years 

### ago a set ofcircumstances 

### combined to provide the SeattleWaterDept. with an excellent opportunity to statistically quantify multifamily retrofit savings. Low flow showerbeads and faucet aerators were installed and 

### toilet leaks repaired in five Seattle Housing Authority apartments. Another SHA apartment was given a complete toiletretrofit. Residents were surveyed to determine customer satisfaction. Water consumption before and after the retrofit was obtained for each apartment retrofitted, as well as for a control building. The retrofit produced defmite reductions in water consumption. However, the 

### impact ofthe

### retrofit on waterconsumption was highly variable from building to building. The study results indicate that a multifamily retrofit program should be highly cost effective, measured either from the point ofview ofthe apartment owner or the water department. Almost three 

### years ofconsumption data since the retrofit was completed reveal that water savings attributable to toilet repair and 

### retrofit have persisted over time. However, showerhead and faucet aerator savings could not be 

### documented three years after the retrofit. Does low-flow still meanlow satisfaction. Katzev, R. (Reed 

### College, Portland, OR (USA) Public Policy Research fuc., Portland. OR (USA)) Source: Home Energy (United States) v 8:4. Coden: HOENE ISSN: 0896-9442; Jul-Aug 1991 P 

### 22-24 Abstract: Are 

### the leading low-flow showerheads less enjoyable then the 

### standard showerheads Will 

### people remove them like they did with flow restrictors ten years ago To answer these questions. Bonneville PowerAdministration hired 

### us to investigate the reactions ofindividuals who were given an opportunity to install 

### one of twelve different low-flow showerheads in their residences. This in-home methodology was selected .over other alternatives because it provided a more natural. non-intrusive setting in which to determine how individuals reacted to 

### low-flow showerheads. Field measurements oflow Dow showerheads. Robison, 

### D. Source: ACEEE 1990 summer study on energy efficiency in buildings: Proceedings. Volume 1, 

### Buikling equipment and 

### appliances; American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 26 Aug - 1 Sep 1990 

### p. 1.185-L187 (256 p) Abstract: This 

### paperreports on a Pacific Power product placement study oflow flow showerheads. The purpose ofthe study was to identify consumer reactions strictly to 

### amenity and quality issues. Overall reaction was quite positive. with 

### improvement in consumer satisfaction level. Waterusage was directly 

### measured before and 

### after changing the showerhead. Water savings averaged 1.4 gallons per minute. This is less savings than expected

- residential water pressure appears to be

### lower than is 

### often assumed. The 

### 01d 

### showerheads were not delivering excessively large flow, apparently due to low residential water pressure and partially clogged orifices. Consumers were surveyed before the

DRAFT, January 27,1995 

### 41change and after one week with the new showerhead. They were asked questions regarding their level

of satisfaction with the old and new showerheads. In general, customers were very positive about the feel or level of quality of the new showerhead. Several customers indicated that their previous experience with energy-conserving showerheads had. been negative. The new showerhead demonstrated a significant improvement in the level of satisfaction. The value of the water savings should be considered. Assuming that showers last 10 minutes and house-holds average two showers per day, one estimates savings of over 10,000 gallons per year. At a marginal cost of $2 per 100 cu. ft., the savings to the water and sewage system are worth $27 dollars per year. This value is in addition to the energy savings. Although energy savings were not directly measured, they are estimated at about $60 per year. Programmatic cost of the showerheads and their installation is estimated at $15, proving very cost-effective. Field study of energy-eff icient showerheads. Bailey, S.A.; Warwick, W.M.; Lauhala, A.J. (Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States)); Hickman, C.H. (USDOE Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR (United States)); Dent, C.L. (Pacific Science and Technology (United States)) 

### ource: Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA Sep 1992 (15 p), PNL-SA-21094 CONF-920828--19; Order Number: DE93001550 Contact: Curtis Hickman, BPA, P.O. Box 3621-RPEB, Portland, OR 97208 Abstract: In August 1991, the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) initiated an energy-efficient showerhead performance assessment project. Approximately 98 homes are participating in this study. All are metered under the Regional End-Use Metering Program (REMP), which is operated by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) for Bonneville. Hourly pre- and post-retrofit electrical water heating consumption data will be analyzed using the REMP data archive. The goal of this study is to identify factors affecting energy savings from retrofit of energy-efficient shower heads which will be used to develop an algorithm" to credit participants in retrofit programs with savings. This algorithm must be easy to apply, credible, and adoptable to conditions which may vary among utilities in Bonneville's Pacific Northwest service area. This field data collection project was designed to collect information about site and occupant characteristics that may affect participation and performance. These data are used to verify or modify assumptions used in engineering models to project energy savings. Estimates of measure performance based on comparisons of energy use are not included in this paper because sufficient post-retrofit data is not yet available. Field data failed to confirm several critical assumptions used to project energy savings. Showerhead water flow rates and anticipated reductions from the retrofit measures were less than expected. Participation in this voluntary study was relatively low considering its risk- and cost-free design. Finally, barriers were encountered that prevented retrofits at some participating sites. The cumulative effect of all factors could reduce projected savings 70% over initial engineering estimates, if 100% participation is assumed. 

### Low Flow Showerhead Program: Analysis of Persistence, Flow Rates, Energy Savings, and Customer Satisfaction Source: Martin, J.C., Wiggins, D.C., Boutwell, B.F., Marketing Information & Planning, Evaluation & Analysis Section San Diego Gas & Electric, June 1992.

DRAFT, January 27 ,1995 42 change 

### and after one week 

### with the new showerhead. TIley were 

### asked questions regarding theirlevel ofsatisfaction with the 

### 01d and new showerheads. Ingeneral, customers were very positive aboutthe feel or level of quality of the new showerhead. Several customers indicated that their previous experience with energy-conserving showerheads had. been negative. The new showerhead demonstrated a significant improvement in the level ofsatisfaction. The value ofthe water savings shou1d 

### be considered. Assuming that showers last 10minutes and house-holds average two showers perday, oneestimates savings ofover 10,000 gallons peryear. At a marginal cost of$2 per 100cu. 

### ft., the savings to the water and sewage system are worth $27 dollars per year. 

### This value is in addition to the energy savings. Although energy savings were not directly measured, they are estimated at about $60 per year. Programmatic cost of the showerheads and their installation is estimated at $15, proving very cost-effective. Field study ofenergy-emcientsbowerheads. Bailey, S.A;Warwick,W.M.; Lauhala, AI. (pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, W A (United States»; Hickman, C.H. (USDOE Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR (United States»; Dent, C.L. (pacific Science and Technology (United States» Source: Pacific Northwest Lab., 

### Richland, WASep 1992 (15 p), PNL-SA-21094 CONF-920828--19; Order Number: DE93001550 Contact: Curtis Hickman, BPA, P.O. Box 3621-RPEB, Portland, OR97208 Abstract: In August 1991, the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) initiated an energy-efficient showerhead performance assessment project. Approximately 98 homes are participating 

### in this study. All 

### are metered under the Regional End-Use Metering Program (REMP), which is operated by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) for Bonneville. Hourly pre- and post-retrofit electrical waterheating consumption data 

### will be analyzed using the REMP data archive. 

### TIle goal of

### this study is to identifyfactors affecting energy savings from retrofit ofenergy-efficient shower 

### heads which will be used to develop an algorithm" to credit participants in retrofit programs with savings. This algorithm must 

### be easy to apply, credible, and adoptable to conditions which may vary among utilities 

### in Bonneville's Pacific Northwest service area. This field data collection project was designed to collect information about site and occupant characteristics that may affect participation and performance. These data are used to verify or modify assumptions used 

### in engineering models to project energy savings. Estimates of measure performance based on comparisons ofenergy use 

### are notincluded in this paperbecause sufficientpost-retrofit data is not yet available. Field data failed to confirm several critical assumptions used to project energy savings. Showerhead water flow rates and anticipated reductions from the retrofit measures were less than expected. Participation in this voluntary study was relatively low considering its risk- and cost-free design. Finally, barriers were encountered that prevented retrofits at some participating sites. The cumulative effect ofall factors cou1d reduce projected savings 70% over initial engineering estimates, 

### if 100% participation is assumed. Low Flow Showerhead 

### Program: Analysis orPersistence, Flow 

### Rates, Energy Savings, and Customer Satisfaction Source: 

### Martin, lC.,Wiggins, D.C., Boutwell,B.F., Marketing Information 

### & Planning, Evaluation & Analysis Section San Diego Gas & Electric, June 1992.

DRAFT. January 27.1995 42

### Contact: San Diego Gas & Electric, P.O. Box 1831, San Diego, CA 92112, (619) 696-2000

Abstract: Based on engineering estimates, 1.25 million therms were saved annually due to the combined 1990 and 1991 programs. Retention and flow rates data from this study were used to develop this energy estimate. One key assumption not addressed by this study was the percent of total household hot water used for showers (assumed to be 30%)... Program participants were most satisfied with the installers' work and the showerhead distribution method. They were least satisfied with the shower comfort and rise time
. In general, program participants were more satisfied with the 2.5 GPM LFS (low flow showerhead) with respect to shower temperature control, shower comfort, and rinse time. Low-flow showers save water - Who cares . Manclark, B. (Delta-T Inc., Eugene, OR (USA)) Source: Home Energy (United States) v 8:4. Coden: HOENE ISSN: 0896-9442 Jul-Aug 1991 p 27-29 Abstract: The retention rate of low-flow showerheads by homeowners is obviously key to their ability to conserve energy and water. Much has been written about such design features as on-off switches, atomizing or non-atomizing designs, spray width, noise level, visual appeal, and non

-clogging designs, and the effects of those factors on shower satisfaction levels. Pacific Power sought a better understanding of these issues and commissioned a product placement study of low-flow showerheads in Yakima, Wash. The study sought to assess the level of public acceptance of low-flow showerheads without reference to their water - or energy - saving abilities. While potential participants were told that Delta-T Inc. was an independent research and consulting company test-marketing a new type of showerhead, they were not informed that Pacific Power sponsored the test. They were offered $10 per household for their participation in the study. This article reports the results of the study. Persistence of Energy-Efficient Showerheads: Field Study Results 

### Source: Bailey, S.A., Warwick, W.M., Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington 99352, May 1993 Co ntact: Curtis Hickman, BPA, P.O. Box 3621-RPEB, Portland, OR 97208 Abstract: Puget Sound Power & Light (Puget Power) and the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) are collaborating on a study of the persistence of energy-efficient showerheads distributed to Puget Power customers as part of Puget Power's energy-efficient showerhead program. This persistence study includes a field study that was performed by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) in the spring of 1992. In this study, gram persistence is defined as finding at least one installed Puget Power showerhead in a home whereas measure persistence refers to the IQia1 number of energy-efficient showerheads in a home visited during the site visits. Bonneville's three main objectives for the PNL field study are 1 ) to see if the showerheads have remained in operation, 2) to compare the number of showerheads that were actually installed with the number reported in an earlier telephone survey conducted by Puget Power, and 3) to measure water flow rates through showerheads at the sample sites . Puget Power's objectives for this showerhead program are to determine initial installation rate, persistence rate, customer satisfaction with showerhead performance, reliability of the telephone survey responses to questions about

DRAFr, January 27 , 1995 43 

### Contact: San Diego Gas & 

### Electric, P.O. Box 1831, San Diego, CA 92112, (619) 696-2000 Abstract: Based on engineering estimates, 1.25 million therms were saved annually due to the combined 1990 and 1991 programs. Retention and flow rates data from this 

### study were used 

### to develop this 

### energy estimate. One 

### key assumption not addressed 

### by this 

### study was the percent oftotal household hot water used for showers (assumed to be 30%)
... Program participants were most satisfied with the installers' work and the showerhead distribution method. They were least satisfied with the shower comfort and 

### rise time. In general, program participants were more satisfied with the 2.5 GPM LFS (low flow showerhead) with respect to shower temperature control, shower comfort, and rinse 

### time. Low-flow showers save water
- Who cares. Manclark, B. (Delta-TIne., Eugene, OR (USA» Source: Home Energy (United States) v 8:4. Coden: HOENE ISSN: 0896-9442 Jul-Aug 1991 P 27-29 Abstract: The 

### retention rate oflow-flow showerheads byhomeowners is 

### obviously key 

### io their ability to conserve energy and 

### water. Much has 

### been written about such design features as on-offswitches, atomizing or non-atomizing designs, spray width, 

### noise 

### 1evel, visual appeal, 

### and non-clogging designs, and the effects of those factors on shower satisfaction levels. Pacific Power sought a better understanding ofthese 

### issues and 

### commissioned aproductplacement study oflow-flow showerheads in 

### Ya.kima. Wash. The 

### study sought to assess the 

### level ofpublic acceptance oflow-flow showerheads without reference to their water
- orenergy - saving abilities. While potential participants were told that Delta-T Inc. 

### was an independent research and consulting company test-marketing anew type of showerhead, they were not informed that Pacific Power sponsored the test. They were offered $10 

### per household for their participation in the study. This article reports the results ofthe study., Persistence ofEnergy-Efficient Showerbeads: Field Study 

### Results Source: Bailey, S.A., Warwick, W.M., Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington 99352, May 1993 Contact: Curtis Hickman, BPA, P.O. Box 3621-RPEB, Portland, OR 97208 Abstract: Puget Sound Power & 

### Light (Puget Power) and the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) are collaborating on a study of the persistence of energy-efficient showerheads distributed to Puget Power customers as part ofPugetPower's energy-efficient showerhead program. , 1bis

### persistence study includes a field 

### study that was performed by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) in the spring of 1992. In 

### this study,**pro~ram** 

### persistence is defined as finding at least one installed 

### Puget Power showerhead in ahome 

### whereas measure persistence refers to the 

### mtal number ofenergy-efficient showerheads in a home visited during the site visits. Bonneville's three main objectives for the PNL field study are 1) to see 

### if

### the showerheads have remained in 

### operation, 2) to compare the number ofshowerheads that were actually installed 

### with the number reported in an earlier telephone survey conducted by Puget Power, and 

### 3) to measure water flow rates through showerheads at the sample sites. Puget Power's objectives for this showerhead program are to determine initial installation rate, persistence rate, customer satisfaction with showerhead performance, reliability of the telephone survey responses to questions about

DRAFT, January 27,1995 

### 43

### program persistence, and customer satisfaction with Puget Power's showerhead program.

Single Family Pilot Residential, Retrofit Project for Water Conservation Source: Seattle Water Department, December 1990 Contact: Allan Dietemann, Conservation Office, Dexter Horton Building, 11th Fl., 7-10 2nd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 

### Abstract: As part of the Seattle Water Department's (SWD) 1990 Comprehensive Water Plan (COMPLAN), a study was conducted to test effective distribution methods of water-efficient showerheads, toilet displacement bags and other similar devices, document water savings achieved, and provide cost estimates for a full-scale program for the SWD service area.

DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 44 program persistence, and customer satisfaction with PugetPower's showerhead program. 

### Single Family 

### Pilot Residential, Retrofit Projectfor Water Conservation Source: Seattle WaterDepartment, December 1990 Contact: 

### Allan Dietemann, Conservation Office, DexterHorton Building, 11th

### Fl., 7-10 2nd Avenue,**Seatt1~,** W A 98104 Abstract: As part of the Seattle Water Department's (SWD) 1990 Comprehensive Water Plan (COMPLAN), a study was conducted to test effective distribution methods of water-efficient showerheads, toilet displacementbags and other similardevices, document water savings achieved, .and provide costestimates for a full-scale program for the SWD service area.

DRAFT, January 27,1995 44

### e. Retrofit programs for toilets

Critical Review of Research and Long-Term Experience With Minimum Flow Toilet Fixtures. Anderson, Damann L. ; Siegrist, Robert L; Ayres Associates, Tampa Florida; Ayres Associates, Madison, Wisconsin 

### Source: Conserv 90 The National Conference and Exposition Offering Water Supply Solutions for the 1990s; August 12-16, 1990; p 189-193; AWWA Abstrac : This paper summarizes two studies of performance of alternative and ultra-low-flow toilets. The first study, performed by the University of Wisconsin in the 1970s, was a field evaluation of several low-flow toilet systems, as well as reuse of gray water for flushing conventional toilets in single-family homes. This was a limited study: nine toilets in five homes to evaluate ultra-low-flow fixtures (0.4-1.6 gal per flush); two homes for the gray water recycling systems. The second study evaluated the performance of low-flow toilets in two residential subdivisions in Phoenix, Arizona. One subdivision used conventional 3.5 gal per flush toilets, while the other subdivision used 0.8 gal per flush toilets. Data showed, among other things that ultra-low-flow toilets clogged LESS than conventional toilets, required fewer instances of multiple flushing to clear the bowl than conventional toilets, but had to be cleaned more often. Economic and Social Benefits of Low-Consumption Toilets in the Delaware River Basin. Featherstone, Jeffrey P.; Delaware River Basin Commission, West Trenton, NJ 

### Source: 1991 Annual Conference Proceedings; American Water Works Association; Resources, Engineering and Operations for the New Decade Philadelphia, PA; June 23-27, 1991; p 763-772; AWWA Contact: Jeff Featherstone, Delaware River Basin Commission, P.O. Box 7360, West Trenton, NJ 08628 Abstract: In May of 1989, the Delaware River Basin Commission amended its water conservation performance standards for plumbing fixtures and fittings to require low-consumption toilets in new construction and renovation. This action followed considerable research on the economic and social benefits of such a requirement. This paper describes that research. Effectiveness of an Ultra-Low-Flush Toilet Program. Tarquin, Anthony J. ; Sutton, John T.; Chan, Peter; Vagwala, Srinivasa; The University of Texas at El Paso, Civil Engineering, El Paso, TX ; El Paso Water Utilities, El Paso, TX ; Parkhill, Smith, and Cooper, El Paso, TX 

### Source: Proceedings of Conserv 93; The New Water Agenda Las Vegas, NV; December 12-16, 1993; p 885-893, American Society of Civil Engineers; American Water Resources Association ; American Water Works Association Abstract: In 1991, the city of El Paso, Texas, began one of the strictest water conservation programs in the United States. In addition to a three-tier pricing system, a new plumbing code, severe restrictions on lawn watering and car and pavement washing, and requiring large water users (>10,000 GPD) to submit a water conservation plan, a project to encourage installation of ultra-low-flush toilets in existing houses was undertaken. This paper is a report on the outcome of the toilet replacement portion of the City of El Paso's water conservation program.

DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 45 e. Retrofit programs for toilets 

### Critical Review ofResearch andLong. TermExperienceWithMinimumFlow Toilet Fixtures. Anderson, DamannL. ; Segrist. Robert L.; Ayres Associates, Tampa Florida; Ayres Associates, Madison, Wisconsin Source: Conserv 

### 90 TheNational Conference and Exposition OfferingWater Supply Solutions for the 1990s; August 12-16, 1990;

### P 189-193; AWWA Abstract: This paper summarizes two studes ofperformance ofalternative and ultra-low-flow toilets. The first study, performed by the University ofWisconsin in the 1970s, was a field evaluation of several low-flow toilet systems, as well as reuse ofgray water for flushing conventional toilets 

### in single-family homes. 

### This was a limited study: nine toilets 

### in five homes to evaluate ultra-low-flow fixtures (0.4-1.6 gal per flush); two homes for the gray waterrecycling systems. The second study evaluated the performance oflow-flow toilets 

### in two residential subdivisions in Phoenix, Arizona. One subdivision 

### used conventional 3.5 galperflush toilets, while 

### the othersubdivision used 0.8 gal per flush toilets. Data showed, among other things that ultra-low-flow toilets clogged LESS than conventional toilets, 

### required fewer 

### instances ofmultiple flushing to.clearthe bowl than conventional toilets, but had to be cleaned more often. 

### Economic and Social 

### Benefits ofLow.Consumption Toilets inthe Delaware River Basin. Featherstone, Jeffrey P.; Delaware RiverBasin Commission,WestTrenton, NJ Source: 1991 Annual Conference Proceedings; American WaterWodes Association; Resources, Engineering and Operations for the New Decade Philadelphia, PA; June 23-27, 1991; P 763-772; AWW A Contact: JeffFeatherstone, Delaware RiverBasin Commission, P.O. Box7360, WestTrenton, NJ 08628 Abstract: In May of 1989, the Delaware River Basin Commission amended its water conservation perfonnance standards for plumbing fixtures and fittings to require low-consumption toilets in new construction and renovation. This action followed considerable research on the economic and social t>enefits ofsuch a requirement. This paperdescribes that research. Effectiveness 

### ofan

### Ultra·Low·Flush Toilet

### Program. Tarquin, Anthony

### J. ; Sutton, John T.; Chan, Peter; Vagwala, Srinivasa; The University ofTexas at EI Paso, Civil Engineering, EI Paso, TX ; EI Paso Water Utilities, ElPaso, TX ; Parkhill, Smith, and Cooper, El Paso, TX Source: Proceedings of Conserv 93; The New Water Agenda 

### Las Vegas, NV; December 12-16, 1993; P 885-893, American Society ofCivil Engineers; AmericanWater Resources Association; American WaterWorks Association Abstract: In 1991, the city ofEIPaso, Texas, began one ofthe strictest waterconservation programs 

### in the United States. In addition to a three-tier pricing**~ystem,** a new plumbing code, severe restrictions on lawn watering and car and pavement washing, and requiring large water users (>10,000 GPD) to submit a water conservation plan, a project to encourage installation of ultra-low-flush toilets in existing houses was undertaken. 

### This paper is a report on the outcome of the toilet replacement portion ofthe City ofEI Paso's waterconservation program.

DRAFT, January 27,1995 

### 45

### Survey of Purchaser Opinions About Ultra

-Low-Flash Toilets

. Martin, George, Los Angeles

Department of Water and Power, Los Angeles, CA Source: Proceedings of Conserv 93; The New Water Agenda Las Vegas, NV; December 12-16, 1993, p 1057-1064, American Society of Civil Engineers ; American Water Resources Association ; American Water Works Association 

### Contact: Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles, Rm 1348, 111 North Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Abstract: Like many other agencies, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (Department) began its Ultra-Low-Flush (ULF) Toilet Rebate Program with concerns about the customers' acceptance of these ULF toilets. How do customers like their new ULF toilet compared to the old toilet that was replaced? Do some brands or models work better than others? In developing the list of approved toilets should some be excluded because of inferior quality or performance? To answer these questions and assure Department management that continued expenditure of several million dollars was providing the anticipated customer satisfaction, the Department contracted with the Wirthlin Group to obtain purchaser opinions about their ULF toilets. This paper summarizes the report done by Wirthlin titled "A Survey of Purchaser Opinions About Ultra-Low-Flush Toilets." Copies of the report can be obtained by writing the Department. The report summarized the purchasers' opinions regarding ULF toilets in general as well as rating responses of the performance of twelve specific ULF toilet models that generated enough responses for statistical validation. Ultra Low Flow Water Closets. Steele, Alfred ; McCarty, Bernard J; Kauffman, George Consulting Engineer, Orlando, Florida; B. J. McCarty Assoc., N. Scituate, Massachusetts Source: American Society of Plumbing Engineers Research Foundation, Report 202, August 1990 Contact: ASPE Research Foundation, 3617 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Westlake Village, CA 91362 Abstract: This paper offers a very brief overview of research carried out by the American Society of Plumbing Engineers Research Foundation into ultra low flow toilets. Purposes of the research are listed: determine ULF functional performance and compare it to performance of 3.5 gpf units; establish a field laboratory to observe performance and user acceptance; determine transport characteristics; identify or develop mathematical transport models; and survey field sites where ULF toilets were installed to explore transport of wastes in drains and sewers.

DRAFT, January 27 ,1995 46 Survey ofPurchaser Opinions About 

### Ultra-Low-Flush Toilets. Martin, George, Los Angeles Department ofWater and Power, Los Angeles, CA Source: Proceedings ofConserv 93; The New Water Agenda Las Vegas, NV; December 12-16, 1993, P 1057-1064, American Society ofCivil Engineers; American WaterResources Association; AmericanWaterWorks Association Contact: Department ofWater and Power, City ofLos Angeles, Rm 1348, 111 North Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Abstract: Like many other agencies, the Los Angeles Department ofWater and Power (Department) began its Ultra-Low-Flush (ULF) Toilet Rebate Program with concerns about the customers' acceptance ofthese ULF toilets. How do customers like their newULFtoiletcomparedto the old toilet that was replaced? Do some brands ormodels workbetterthan others?

### In developing 

### the list ofapproved toilets should somebeexcluded because ofinferior quality orperformance?To answer these questions and assure Department management that continued expenditure'ofseveral million dollars was providing the**anticipa~** customer satisfaction, the Department contracted with the Wirthlin Group to obtain purchaser opinions about their ULF toilets. 

### This paper summarizes the report done by Wirthlin titled itA Survey ofPurchaser Opinions About Ultra-Low-Flush Toilets." Copies of the report can be obtained by writing the Department. The report summarized the purchasers' opinions regarding ULFtoilets in general as well as rating responses of

### the performance oftwelve specific ULF toilet models that generated enough responses for statistical validation. 

### Ultra LowFlow 

### WaterClosets. Steele, 

### A1fred ;McCarty, Bernard

### J; Kauffman, George Consulting Engineer, Orlando, Florida; B. 

### J. McCarty Assoc., N. Scituate, Massachusetts Source: American Society ofPlumbing Engineers Research Foundation, Report 202, August 1990 Contact: ASPE Research Foundation, 3617 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Westlake Village, CA91362 Abstract: This paper offers a very briefoverview ofresearch carried outby the American Society of Plumbing Engineers Research Foundation into ultra low flow toilets. Purposes ofthe research are listed: determine ULF functional performance and compare it to performance of 3.5 gpf units; establish a field laboratory to observe performance and user acceptance; determine transport characteristics; identify ordevelop mathematical transport models; and survey freld sites where ULF toilets were installed to explore transport ofwastes in drains and sewers.

DRAFr. January 27.1995 46

### f. Low-Income Programs

Conservation Assistance Program for Low Income Customers. Pollyea, Margaret A., Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Los Angeles, CA, December 12-16, 1993 p 1895-1898, 1993 Source: American Water Works Association Contact: Peggy Pollyea, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; Room 1348, 1111 North Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Abstract: The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power discovered through surveys that its poorer customers were more receptive to low flow showerheads than wealthier customers, although it was the wealthier customers who had taken advantage of distribution programs so far. The department changed its target customer group to low income and older customers
. Since it was already known that the department had previously been unsuccessful in reaching this group of customers, a method had to be devised to get their attention. They used the tried and true method of three contacts--in this case, mailings--and an offer of help to install the devices. This project appears to have been successful in reaching the target customer group, with over 50% of the shower heads installed. One of the inherent problems for a utility as large as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is that due to sheer numbers, almost any project undertaken will be on a large scale. Hopefully the Department's experience in implementing this project will be helpful to those planning similar types of outreach programs. Dynamic Community Programming for Water Efficiency. Craft, James P., CTSI Corporation, Irvine, CA, Proceedings of Conserv 93; The New Water Agenda Las Vegas, NV, December 12-16, 1993, p 91-94, 1993 Source: American Water Works Association 

### Contac Fiona Hamilton, CTSI Corp., 1881 Kaiser Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714 (714-253-2050) Abst,r : What happens when water agencies, municipal utilities and private companies work with the communities they service in order to develop community based.conservation programs? The Mothers of East L.A. (MELASI) ultra low flush toilet retrofit program has more than demonstrated that it can produce highly effective programs, with additional value-added benefits, which cost no more than centrally managed rebate programs.

DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 47 

### f. Low-Income Programs Conservation Assistance 

### Program for Low Income Customers. Pollyea, Margaret A.• Los Angeles Department ofWater and Power. Los Angeles. CA. December 12-16.1993 p 

### 1895-1898, 1993 Source: American WaterWorks Association Contact: Peggy Pollyea, Los Angeles Department ofWater and 

### Power; Room 1348. 1111 North Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA90012 Abstract: The Los Angeles Department ofWater and 

### Power discovered through surveys that its poorer customers were morereceptive to 

### low flow showemeads than wealthier customers, although it was the wealthier customers who had taken -advantage of distribution programs so far. The department changed its target customer group to low income and older customers. Since it was already known that the department had previously been unsuccessful in reaching 

### this group of customers, amethod had 

### to be devised 

### to get their attention. They used the tried and true method of three contacts--in this 

### case, mailings--and an offer ofhelp to install the devices. This project appears to have been successful in reaching the target customer group, with over 50% ofthe showerheads installed. 

### One ofthe 

### inherent problems for a utility as large as the Los Angeles Department ofWater and Power is that due to sheer numbers, almost any project undertaken will 

### be 

### on a large scale. Hopefully the Department's experience in implementing this 

### project

### willbehelpful to those planning similar types ofoutreach programs. Dynamic Community .Programming for WaterEfficiency. Craft, James P., CTSI Corporation. Irvine, 

### CA, Proceedings ofConserv 93; The New Water Agenda Las Vegas, NV. December 12-16, 1993, 

### P91-94, 1993 Source: American WaterWorks Association Contact: Fiona Hamilton, CTSI Corp., 1881 Kaiser Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714 (714-253-2050) Abstract: What happens when water agencies, municipal utilities and 

### private companies work with the communities they service in order to develop community based.conservation programs? The Mothers ofEast L.A 

### (MELASI) ultra low flush toiletretrofit program has more than demonstrated that it can produce highly effective programs, with additional value-added benefits, which cost no more than centrally managed rebate programs.

DRAFr. January 27.1995 

### 47

### g. Legislation Incentives

Connecticut Residential Retrofit Program Ruzicka , Denise Source: State of Connecticut Dept of Health Services, Environmental Health Division. March 1993. Contact: Denise Ruzicka State of Connecticut, Department of Health Services, 150 Washington Street, Hartford, CT 06106 Abstrac t: This report was prepared to update the Residential Water Savings Advisory Board on the current status of Connecticut's Residential Retrofit Program enacted pursuant to Public Act 89-266. This report should be viewed as a companion and continuation of Retrofitting in a Wet State (May, 1992) which briefly summarizes the legislative history and program requirements. Both reports are Connecticut's mandatory residential retrofit program. This program has generated a lot of national interest as it is the first and only statewide retrofit program. This program requires utilities to annually make available free water saving retrofit kits to all residential customers. Lessons Learned : San Diego's Retrofit Upon Resale Ordinance . Steirer, Marsi A., City of San Diego, Water Utilities Department, San Diego, CA 

### Source: Proceedings of Conserv 93; The New Water Agenda Las Vegas, NV, AWWA, December 12-16, 1993, p 895-906, 1993 Contact: Marsi Steirer, Water Conservation Supervisor, San Diego Water Utilities, 600 B Street, Suite 1210, San Diego, CA 92101-4227 Abstract: In 1990, the San Diego City Council adopted a five-year water conservation plan that consisted of eight integrated and complementary water conservation programs . This five-year conservation strategy was comprehensive in its scope, contained proven measures that would generate permanent water savings, and included the staff and financial resources necessary to accomplish such an ambitious undertaking. The development of a local ordinance requiring the installation of ultra-low flush toilets (ULFI' s) in all new construction was a provision of the conservation plan. This ordinance went into effect on May 1, 1991. During discussion of the New Construction Ordinance, the City Council requested that a similar ordinance be written that would require the installation of ultra-low flush toilets upon change of property ownership and bathroom remodeling. 

### Massachusetts Law Requires Water-Saving Fixtures urce: Mainstream (AWWA), vol.33, no.1, p 1, 10, January 1989 American Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado intact: American Water Works Association (303-794-7310) Abstract: Effective March 1, 1989 Massachusetts will become the first state to require ultra-low-flow toilets for all new construction and replacement of fixtures. Other states are following suit. Other methods of water conservation being addressed across the country include landscaping issues, reuse, and rate structures. 

### Environment conservation by way of official notice or recommendations. Ossenbuehl, F. Original Title: Umweltpflege durch behoerdliche Warnungen and Empfehlungen Source: Series/Collection Title: Recht - Technik - Wirtschaft. Vol. 44 Publisher: Heymanns,Koeln,

DRAFT, January 27, 1995 48 

### g. Legislation Incentives Connecticut Residential Retrofit ProgramRuzicka, Denise Source: State ofConnecticut Dept ofHealth 

### Services. Environmental Health Division. March 1993. Contact: Denise Ruzicka State ofConnecticut, Department ofHealth Services. 150 Washington Street. Hanford. 

## cr06106 Abstract: This 

### report was prepared to update the 

### Residential Water Savings Advisory Board on the

. . 

### current status ofConnecticut's Residential RetrofitProgram enacted pursuant to Public Act 89-266. This 

### report shoukl be viewed as a companion and continuation ofRetrofittin& in aWet State 

### (May. 1992) which briefly summarizes the legislative history and program requirements. Both reports are Connecticut's mandatory**resi~ntial** 

### retrofit program. This 

### program has generated 

### a lot ofnational interest as it is the 

### first and 

### only statewide retrofit 

### program. This 

### program requires utilities to annually make available free water saving retrofitkits to all

### residential customers. Lessons Learned: San Diego's Retrofit Upon Resale Ordinance. Steirer, Marsi A., City ofSan Diego, Water Utilities Department, San Diego, CA Source: Proceedings ofConserv 93; The New Water AgendaLas Vegas, NV, AWWA, 

### December 12-16, 1993, 

### P 895-906, 1993 Contact: Marsi Steirer, Water Conservation Supervisor, San Diego Water Utilities, 600 

### B Street, Suite 1210, San Diego, CA92101-4227 Abstract: 

### In 1990, the San Diego City Council adopted a five-year water conservation plan that consisted of eight integrated and complementary water conservation programs. This 

### five-year conservation strategy was comprehensive in its scope, contained proven measures that would generate permanent water savings, and included the staff and financial resources necessary to accomplish such an ambitious undertaking. The development of 

### a local ordinance requiring the installation of ultra-low flush toilets (ULFJ's) in all 

### new construction was a provision of the conservation plan. This 

### ordinance went into effect on May 1, 1991. During discussion ofthe New Construction Ordinance, the City Council requested that a similarordinance be written that would require the installation ofultra-low flush toilets upon change ofproperty ownership and 

### bathroom remodeling. 

### Massachusetts Law Requires Water.Saving Fixtures Source: Mainstream (AWW

### A), vo1.33, no.l, p 1, 10, January 1989 American Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado Contact: American WaterWorks Association (303-794-7310)
. Abstract: Effective March 1, 1989 Massachusetts will

### become the first state to

### require ultra-low-flow toilets for all 

### new construction and replacement offixtures. Other states are following suit. Other methods ofwaterconservation being addressed across the country include landscaping issues, reuse, and rate structures. Environment conservation by way orofficial notice orrecommendations. Ossenbuehl, F. Origmal Title: Umweltpflege durch Pehoerdliche Wamungen und Empfehlungen Source: Series/Collection Title: Recht

- Technik

- Wirtschaft Vol. 44 

### Publisher: Heymanns,Koeln,

DRAFI'. Juuary 27.1995 

### 48

### Germany, F.R. 1986 p 115

Abstrac : The book is developed from legal expertise of the German Federation of Toilet Articles and Detergents Producers and is intended to show that the increasingly used informal administrative instruments of official notice or recommendations ought to be integrated into the system of administrative law. 

### RECOs: when state and local governments mandate energy conservation. Sourc : Energy Auditor Retrofitter (United States) v 4:1. Jan-Feb 1987 p 31-39 Abstract: Several US cities and state have passed residential energy conservation ordinances (RECOs) that require investments in certain energy conservation measures before a home is sold. Attic, water heater and duct insulation, weatherstripping and low flow showerheads are among the measures which must be in place at the time of sale of residential single-family and multi-unit homes. RECOs differ from standard building energy standards because they apply strictly to existing housing rather than strictly to new home construction. The Evolution of State Water Conservation Policy in Texas. Personett, Mike Texas Water Development Board, Local and Regional Assistance Division, Austin, TX 

### Source: Proceedings of Conserv 93; The New Water Agenda, AWWA, Las Vegas, NV, December 12-16, 1993, p 957-965, 1993. Sb` t: Mike Personett, Assistant Director, Planning Division, Texas Water Development Board, P.O. Box 13231, Capitol Station, Austin, TX 78711 Ate: Over the past 20 years, water policy in Texas has evolved from its historical focus on water supply development to a much more balanced approach that includes an emphasis on water efficiency and other water demand management strategies. Prompted by economic, environmental, technological, demographic, and social forces, state policy-makers have responded with new laws and regulations that promote and, to a significant degree, mandate water conservation. State policy-makers have also provided significant state resources to aid individuals and local water agencies in the transition to a more water efficient future. Although progress has been incremental, the State of Texas has made great strides in water conservation over the past decade. This paper provides an overview of the history of state law and policy in Texas relating to water conservation and provides a brief summary of the key components of current state policy.

DRAFT, January 27 , 1995 49 

### Gennany, F.R. 1986 P 115 Abstract: The 

### book is 

### developed from 1egalexpertise ofthe 

### Gennan Federation ofToilet Articles and Detergents Producers and is intended to show that the increasingly used infonnal administrative instruments of official notice or recommendations ought to be**integ~ted** 

### into the system of administrative law. RECOs: when state and local governments mandateenergyconservation. Source: Energy Auditor Retrofitter (United States) v 4:1. Jan-Peb 1987 p 31-39 Abstract: Several US cities and state have passed residential energy conservation ordinances (RECOs) that require investments in certain energy conservation measures before a home is sold. Attic, water heater and duct insulation, weatherstripping and low flow showerheads are among the measures 

### which must be

### in place at the 

### time ofsale ofresidential single-family and multi-unithomes. RECDs 

### differ from standard building energy standards because they apply strictly to existing housing rather than strictly to new home construction. The Evolution of State Water Conservation Policy in Texas. Personett, Mike Texas Water Development Board, Local and Regional Assistance Division, Austin, TX Source: Proceedings ofConserv 93; The New Water Agenda, A WWA, Las Vegas, NY, December 12-16, 1993, P957-965, 1993.
. Contact: Mike Personett, Assistant Director, Planning Division, Texas Water Development Board, P.O. Box 13231, Capitol Station, Austin, TX 78711 Abstract: Over the 

### past 20 

### years, waterpolicy in 

### Texas has 

### evolved from its historical focus on water supply development to amuch more 

### balanced approach that includes an emphasis on water efficiency and other water demand management strategies. Prompted by economic, environmental, technological, demographic, 

### and socialforces, state policy-makers have responded with new laws and regulations that promote and, to a significant degree, mandate water conservation. State policy-makers have also provided significant state resources to aid individuals and local water agencies in the transition to a more water efficient future. Although progress has been incremental, the State ofTexas has 

### made great strides in water conservation over the past decade. This 

### paper provides an overview ofthe history ofstate law and policy in Texas relating to water conservation and provides a briefsummary ofthe key components ofcurrent state policy.

DRAFT, January 27,1995 

### 49

### h. Education Programs

Casa Del Agua:. A Residential Water Conservation and Reuse Demonstration Project in Tucson, Arizona. Foster, K. E.; Karpiscak, M. M.; Brittain, R. G., Arizona Univ., Tucson. Office of Arid Lands Studies. 

### Source: Water Resources Bulletin WARBAQ, Vol. 24, No. 6, p 1201-1206, December 1988. 12 fig, 5 ref. Abstract: A typical single family residence (Casa del Aqua) in Tucson, Arizona, was retrofitted to incorporate low-water-use fixtures and water reuse systems . Casa del Agua consists of architectural modifications, low-water-use landscaping and fixtures, and other modifications to accommodate rainwater harvesting and graywater reuse. Graywater was treated in water hyacinth holding tanks and stored for drip irrigation use in the summer months . Low water use toilets that used graywater for flushing were installed. The use of municipal water was reduced by 53% to 53 gallons per capita per day and total water use at the home was reduced by 33% to 74 gallons per capita per day. To date, use of municipal groundwater at Casa del Aqua is about 47% of that used in average Tucson homes. Total water use at Casa including municipal, rain, and graywater is about 33% less than that used in the typical single-family home in Tucson. The quantity of water used for toilet flushing at Casa is about 25% of that used by conventional fixtures. Based on data from Casa del Agua, an annual savings of approximately 25,000 acre-feet of water could be generated by using low-flow, one-gallon-per flush toilets on a community wide basis by the year 2025. Casa del Aqua was opened for public touring to allow.community residents to learn more about domestic water conservation. (See also W89-07561) (Geiger-PTT) Social Acceptability of Water Conservation in Springfield, M. Lant, C. L., Southern Illinois Univ., Carbondale. Dept. of Geography. 

### Source: Journal of the American Water Works Association JAWWA5, Vol. 85, No. 8, p 85-89, August 1993. 6 tab, 11 ref. Abstrac : Water-conservation initiatives are more likely to succeed if they are socially acceptable. A survey of 2700 residential customers of Springfield (Illinois) City Water, Light and Power was conducted to assess the acceptability of 12 possible conservation measures and the relationship between demographic and attitudinal factors and overall acceptance of conservation. Lawn watering restrictions, education, home water-saver kits, low-flush toilet rebates, and a low-flow fixtures ordinance for new construction were most acceptable. Overall acceptance of conservation was strongly related to attitude regarding importance of water conservation and was also related to age, income, and type of residence. (Author's abstract) Water Conservation in Los Angeles. Harasick, R. F., L. A. City Dept. of Water and Power, CA. Source: Hydraulics/Hydrology of Arid Lands (H2AL). American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. 1990. p 131-136. Contact: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Room 1348, 1111 North Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 abstract: The Department of Water and Power (DWP) has implemented an aggressive outdoor water conservation program, with a multi-faceted array of projects in several areas. Residential programs

DRAFr, January 27 , 1995 50 

### h. Education Programs Casa Del Agua:. A Residential Water Conservation and 

### Reuse Demonstration Project 

### in Tucson, Arizona. Foster, K. E.; Karpiscak, M. M.; Brittain, R. G., Arizona Univ., Tucson. Office ofArid Lands Studies.
. Source: Water Resource's BulletinWARBAQ, Vol. 24, No.6, p 1201-1206, December 1988. 12 fig, 5 ref. Abstract: A typical single family residence (Casa del Aqua) in 

### Tucson, Arizona, was retrofitted to incorporate low-water-use fixtures and water reuse systems. Casa del Agua consists ofarchitectural modifications, low-water-use laridscaping and 

### fixtures, and other modifications to accommodate rainwater harvesting and 

### graywaterreuse. 

### Graywaterwas 

### treated in water hyacinth holding tanks 

### and stored for drip irrigation use in the summer months. Low water use tOilets that used 

### graywater for flushing were installed. The

### use ofmunicipal water was reduced by 53% to 

### 53 gallons per capita per day and 

### total water use at the home was reduced by 33% to 

### 74 gallons per capita per day. To date, use 

### ofmunicipal groundwater at Casadel Aqua is 

### about 47% ofthat used in average Tucson homes. Total water use 

### at Casa including municipal, rain, and graywater is about 33% less than 

### that used in the typical single-family home in Tucson. The quantity ofwater used 

### for toilet flushing at Casa is about 25% of that used by conventional fIXtures. Based on data from Casa del Agua, an annual savings of approximately 25,000 acre-feet of water could be generated by using low-flow, one-gallon-perflush toilets on acommunity wide basis by the year 2025. Casa del Aqua was opened for public touring to allow.community residents to 

### learn more about domestic water conservation. (See also W89-07561) (Geiger-P1T) Social Acceptability orWater Conservation in Springfield, 

# m. Lant, C. L., Southern Dlinois Univ., Carbondale. Dept. ofGeography. Source: Journal ofthe American Water Works Association JAWWAS, Vol. 85, No.8, 

### P 85-89, August 1993. 6 tab, 11 ref. Abstract: Water-conservation initiatives are more likely to succeed if

### they are socially acceptable. A survey of 2700 residential customers of Springfield (Dlinois) City Water, Light and 

### Power was conducted to assess the acceptability of 12 possible conservation measures and the relationship between demographic and 

### attitudinal factors and overall acceptance ofconservation. Lawn watering restrictions, education, home water-saver kits, low-flush toilet rebates, and a low-flow fixtures ordinance for new construction were most acceptable. Overall acceptance of conservation was strongly related 

### to attitude regarding importance ofwaterconservation and was also related to age, income, and type ofresidence. (Author's abstract) Water Conservation in Los 

### Angeles.**Ha~ick,** 

### R. 

### F., L. 

### A City Dept. ofWater and Power, CA. Source: HydraulicslHydrology ofArid Lands (H2AL). American Society ofCivil Engineers, New York. 1990. p 131-136. Contact: Los Angeles Department ofWater and Power, Room 1348, 1111 North Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Abstract: The

### Department ofWater and 

### Power (DWP) 

### has 

### implemented an aggressive outdoor water conservation program, with a multi-faceted array ofprojects in several areas. Residential programs

DRAF!', January 27,1995 

### 50

### focused on the ultra-low flush toilet rebate program. Lastly, public information programs included

advertising, Water Awareness Month, water bills and bill inserts with a water consumption comparison between the current and the immediately prior year to encourage water use efficiency; portable water conservation exhibits; the Speakers' Bureau; and school education programs. Lastly, the DWP has adopted a seasonal pricing structure under which water is priced at a higher rate during the higher demand summer periods than during the winter. Water Conservation in Small Communities: Selected Case Studies (Technical rept). Brogan, J. A., Washington Univ., Seattle. So ur P: Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Office of Cooperative Environmental Management. Report No.: EPA/101/F-90/030,1989 24p Abstract: The report is part of the National Network for Environmental Management Studies under the auspices of the Office of Cooperative Environmental Management of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Four cities, Lorena, Texas, Bern, Kansas, Tolleson, Arizona, and Sanibel, Florida were selected as case studies for water conservation in small communities. The city of Lorena plans to build an additional well because it faces increased growth and water demands. Also, through education and conservation it hopes to reduce per capita daily usage. Bern incurred serious water shortages during the summer months of 1988 and 1989. Subsequent conservation steps implemented included toilet kits, low-flow shower heads, car-wash and irrigation restrictions and water rate hikes. Tolleson has had to react to mandate by the Arizona Department of Water Resources to decrease water usage. Ordinance 285 amended the city charter establishing water conservation policy and guidelines. The city's primary goal over the next year is to educate its residents. Seasonable rainfall and a hundred year supply of groundwater has done little to instill a sense of urgency in the minds of Tolleson's residents, though. Sanibel, Florida is a barrier island situated in the Gulf of Mexico. Tourist traffic in the winter months swell the population to 18,000 from 5,000. Increased demand, decreased yield and increasing salinity of the mainland water source have prompted water conservation. Changes include expansion of the reverse osmosis plant in 1990 and again in 1992 to increase capacity and a water shortage plan for peak consumption months. Water Watching Pays off for Students and Customers. Harmon, R. Birmingham Water Works Board, AL. 

### Source: Water Environment & Technology WAETEJ, Vol. 5, No. 1, p 30, January 1993. Abzstra t: A program called Water Watchers' was implemented in Birmingham, AL to employ local students and educate residents about water conservation. Students went door-to-door showing customers how simple measures like repairing leaking faucets can save money. They also distributed conservation kits that contained flow restrictors for faucets and shower heads, leak detection tablets for toilets, and toilet tank water displacement bags. Besides educating customers, Water Watchers also participated in cleanup efforts at a lake that serves as the area's primary source of drinking water.

DRAFr, January 27, 1995 51 

### focused on the ultra-low flush toilet rebate program. Lastly, public information programs included advertising, Water Awareness Month, water bills 

### and bill inserts with a water consumption comparison between the current and the immediately prior year to encourage wateruse efficiency; portable water conservation exhibits; the 

### Speakers' Bureau; and school education programs. Lastly, the 

### DWP has 

### adopted a seasonal

### pricing structure under which water is priced at a higher rate during the higher demand summer periods than during the winter.



### . . 

### Water Conservation in Small Communities: Selected Case Studies (Technical rept). Brogan, J. A., Washington Univ., Seattle. Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Office ofCooperative Environmental Management. Report No.: EPAl1011F-90/030, 

### 1989 24p Abstract: 1be

### report is 

### part ofthe National Network for Environmental Management Studies under the auspices ofthe Office ofCooperative Environmental Management ofthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fourcities, Lorena, Texas, Bern, 

### Kamas, Tolleson, Arizona, and Sanibel, Florida were selected as case studies for water conservation in small communities. The city ofLorena plans to build an additional well because 

### it faces increased growth and water demands. Also, through education and conservation it

### hopes to reduce per capita daily usage. Bern incurred serious water shortages during the 

### summermonths of 1988 and 

### 1989. Subsequent conservation steps implemented included toilet kits, low-flow shower heads, 

### car-wash and irrigation restrictions and water rate hikes. Tolleson has had to react to mandate by the Arizona Department ofWater Resources to decrease water usage. Ordinance 285 amended the city charter establishing water conservation policy and guidelines. The city's primary goal over the next yearis to educate its residents. Seasonable rainfall and 

### ahundred year 

### supply ofgroundwaterhas done little to instill a sense ofurgency in the minds of Tolleson's residents, though. Sanibel, Florida is abarrier island situated in the GulfofMexico. Tourist traffic in the 

### winter months swell the 

### population to 18,000 from 5,000. Increased demand, decreased yiekl and 

### increasing salinity ofthe mainland 

### water source have prompted water conservation. Changes include expansion ofthe reverse osmosis plant in 1990 and again in 1992 to increase capacity and a water shortage plan for peak consumption months. Water Watching Pays ofT for Students and Customers. Harmon, R. 

### Birmingham WaterWorks Board, AL. Source: Water Environment & 

### Technology WAETEJ, Vol. 5, No.1, 

### P 30, January 1993. Abstract: Aprogram called WaterWatchers' was implemented in Birmingham, AL to employ local students and educate residents about water conservation. Students went door-to-door showing customers how simple 

### measures like 

### repairing leaking faucets can save money. They also distributed conservation kits that contained flow restrictors for faucets and shower heads, leak 

### detection tablets for toilets, and toilet tank 

### water displacement bags. Besides educating customers,WaterWatchers also participated in cleanup efforts at a lake 

### that serves as the 

### area's primary source ofdrinking water.

DRAFT, January 27,1995 

### 51

### References

A & N Technical Services, Inc. and W.L. Corpening & Associates
. 1994
. Ultra-Low Flush Toilets in Commercial Installations
. California Urban Water Agencies and California Urban Water Conservation Council. February. 

### A & N Technical Services, Inc.. 1994
. Ultra-Low Flush Toilet Programs: Evaluation of Program-Outcomes and Water Savings

. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

. November. Aher, Abhay, Anand Chouthai, Lalitha Chandrasekar, Wendy Corpening, Professor Laurence Russ and Bhargav Vijapur. 1991. East Bay Municipal Utility District Water Conservation Study. Steven Institute of Technology. October. Amrein, Diana L
. 1990. Water matters: water conservationists, plumbing industry still at odds over Nation Plumbing Products Efficiency Act of 1989. Contractor v37:nlp3O(2). January. Babcock, Thomas M., Mary Ann Dickinson, Thomas E. Pape, and David Schultz. 1993. The Water Conservation Manager's Guide to Residential Retrofit. American Water Works Association. Birdsall, Weston
. Energy Efficiency -- The Osage Experience. Osage Municipal Utilities. 

### Chansler, James M. and Victor J. Pujals. 1993. Conserv `93 Conference Proceedings. American Water Works Association. December. Chouthai, Anand, Bhargav Vijapur and Thomas Konen. 1992. A Laboratory and Field Evaluation of 1.6 GPF Water Closets in a Commercial Setting. Stevens Institute of Technology. August. Dziegielewski, Benedykt, Eva M. Opitz, Jack C. Kiefer, Duane D. Baumann. 1993. Evaluating Urban Water Conservation Programs: A Procedures Manual. American Water Works Association. 

### Ernst & Young. 1992. Water and Wastewater 1992 Rate Survey. Ernst & Young. Fiske, Gary S. and Ronnie Ann Weiner, Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. 1994. Customer Incentives For Water Conservation: A Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 230-R-94-001. February. Featherstone, Jeff. 1989. Hearing set for water -saving toilets

. Delaware River Basin Commission. March.

DRAFT, January 27 ,1995 52 References A & N Technical Services; Inc. and W.L. Corpening 

### & Associates. 1994. 

### Ultra-Low Flush Toilets in CommercialInstallations. CaliforniaUrban WaterAgencies 

### and California Urban Water Conservation Council. February. A &**~** Technical Services, Inc
.. 1994. 

### Ultra-Low Flush Toilet Programs: Evaluation of Program·Outcomes 

### andWater Savings. The MetropolitanWaterDistrictofSouthern California. November. Aber, Abhay, Anand Chouthai, Lalitha Chandrasekar,Wendy Corpening, ProfessorLaurence Russ and BhargavVijapur. 1991. 

### EastBayMunicipal UtiUty District Water Conservation Study. Steven Institute ofTechnology. October. Amrein, Diana

### L. 1990. 

### Water matters: water conservationists,plumbing industry stillatodds overNation Plumbing Products EfficiencyActof1989. Contractorv37:nlp30(2). January. Babcock, Thomas M., Mary Ann Dickinson, Thomas E. Pape, and David Schultz. 1993. 

### The Water Conservation Manager's Guide to ResidentialRetrofit. AmericanWater Worles Association. Birdsall, Weston. 

### Energy Efficiency

-- The Osage Experience. OsageMunicipal Utilities. Chansler, James M. and Victor

### J. Pujals. 1993. Conserv '93 Conference Proceedings. American WaterWorks Association. December. Chouthai, Ahand, BhargavVijapur and Thomas Konen. 1992.

### A Laboratory andField Evaluation of1.6 

### GPF Water Closets in a Commercial Setting. Stevens Institute of Technology. August Dziegielewski, Benedykt, EvaM. Opitz, Jack C. Kiefer, Duane D. Baumann. 1993. 

### Evaluating Urban Water Conservation Programs:A ProceduresManual. American WaterWorks Association. Ernst & Young. 1992. 

### Water 

### andWastewater 1992 

### Rate Survey. Ernst 

### & Young. Fiske,**Gary~.** and Ronnie Ann Weiner, Barakat 

### & Chamberlin, Inc. 1994. 

### CustomerIncentives For Water Conservation: A Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 230-R-94-001. February. Featherstone, Jeff. 1989. 

### Hearing set for water-saving toilets. Delaware RiverBasin Commission. March.

DRAFI', January 27,1995 

### 52Hamilton, Fiona and James P. Craft, CTSI Corporation

. 1993. Dynamic Community

Programmingfor Water Efficiency. Conserv `93 Conference Proceedings
. American Water Works Association. December. Jones, Andrew P
. 1993. High-Efficiency Showerheads and Faucets: Water Efficiency Technology Report #

2. Rocky Mountain Institute Water Program. Koomey, J.G., C. Dunham and J

.D. Lutz
. 1994
. The Effect of Efficiency Standards on Water Use and Water Heating Energy Use in the U

.S.: A Detailed End-Use Treatment. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. DE-AC03

-76SF00098. May. Kuzminski, David. 1993. Retrofitting on a Budget. Conserv `93 Proceedings. American Water Works Association. December. Liebold, Warren. 1994. Making the Most of the Toilet Rebate Program. New York City Department of Environmental Protection. May. 

### Levin, Sondra. 1994. Flush of Success: Bronx First to Get New Water-Saving Toilets Bronx Press Review. April. National Association of Plumbing

-Heating-Cooling Contractors (NAPHCC) Educational Foundation. 1994. DraftRecommendationsfor EPACT , Section 123
. November. Nechamen, William S. 1993. New York State Polity: In Accordance with Local Needs and Conditions Proceedings of Conserv'93. American Water Works Association. December. Ruzicka, Denise. 1992. Connecticut Residential Retrofit Program: Retrofitting in a Wet State. State of Connecticut, Department of Health Services, Water Supplies Section. May. Ruzicka, Denise. 1993. Status Report, Connecticut Residential Retrofit Program: Interim Program Results. State of Connecticut, Department of Health Services, Water Supplies Section. March. Seattle City Light. 1990. Water Savings and Related Energy Savings in the Multifamily Conservation Program. Vickers, Amy. 1993. Achieving a High Customer Participation Rate with a Bulk Mail-out Retrofit Program. Conserv '93 Conference proceedings. American Water Works Association. December.

DRAFT, January 27 , ]995 53 Hamilton, Fiona and James P. Craft, crSICorporation. 1993. 

### Dynamic Community Programmingfor WaterEfficiency. Conserv '93 Conference Proceedings. American WaterWorlcs Association. December. Jones, Andrew P. 1993. 

### High-Efficiency Showerheads andFaucets: Water Efficiency Technology Report#2. Rocky Mountain Institute Water Program. Koomey, 

### 10.,C. Dunham and J.D. Lutz. 1994. 

### The Effect of Efficiency Standards on Water Use and Water Heating Energy Use in the U.S.: A DetailedEnd-Use Treatment. Lawrence BerkeleyLaboratory. DE-AC03-76SF00098. May. Kuzminski, David. 1993. 

### Retrofitting on a Budget. Conserv '93 Proceedings. American Water Worlcs Association. December. Liebold, Warren. 1994. 

### Making the Most of the Toilet Rebate Program. New York City Department ofEnvironmental Protection. May. Levin, Sondra. 1994. 

### Flush of Success: Bronx First to GetNew Water-Saving Toilets Bronx Press Review. Apri1. National Association ofPlumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors (NAPHCC) Educational Foundation. 1994. 

### DraftRecommendationsfor EPACT, Section 

### 123. November. Nechamen, William S. 1993. 

### New York State Polity: In Accordance with IncalNeeds and Conditions Proceedings ofConserv '93. American WaterWorks Association. December. Ruzicka, Denise. 1992. 

### ConnecticutResidentialRetrofitProgram: Retrofitting in a WetState. State ofConnecticut, Department ofHealth Services, Water Supplies Section. May. Ruzicka, Denise. 1993. 

### StatusReport, ConnecticutResidentialRetrofitProgram: Interim ProgramResults. State ofConnecticut, Department ofHealth Services, Water Supplies Section.·March. Seattle City Light 1990. 

### Water Savings andRelatedEnergy Savings in the Multifamily Conservation Program. Vickers, Amy. 1993.

### Achieving a High Customer Participation Rate with a BulkMail-out Retrofit Program. Conserv '93 Conference proceedings. American WaterWorks Association. December.

DRAfT. January 27. 1995 

### 53