Source: https://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2009/06-24/pec/2-ACS2009-ICS-WWS-0011-%20Water%20Efficiency.htm
Timestamp: 2019-10-17 16:06:46+00:00
Document Index: 89614821

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'CSC ', 'arts 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3']

1. reçoive et accepte le présent rapport annuel sur la mise en œuvre du Plan de valorisation de l’eau : Phase I de la Ville;
2. approuve les modifications apportées au Plan de valorisation de l’eau : Phase I, telles qu’elles sont précisées dans le présent rapport.
1. Deputy City Manager’s report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability dated 14 May 2009 (ACS2009-ICS-WWS-0011).
14 May 2009 / le 14 mai 2009
N. Schepers, Deputy City Manager / Directeur municipal adjointe
Infrastructure Services & Community Sustainability /
Contact Person/Personne resource : Dixon Weir, General Manager/Directeur général
613-580-2424 x 22002, dixon.weir@ottawa.ca
Ref N°: ACS2009-ICS-WWS-0011
SUBJECT: WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN: PHASE 1 UPDATE
OBJET: PLAN DE VALORISATION DE L’EAU : MISE À JOUR SUR LA PHASE 1
The City of Ottawa has actively promoted water efficiency since 2004, per Ontario’s Water Taking & Transfer Regulation, O. Reg. 387/04, which requires the City to demonstrate a commitment to water conservation. The City adopted a 10 year Water Efficiency Strategy in 2005 and a 3 year Water Efficiency Plan in 2006. Both the strategy and the plan identify specific targets to be met by the City’s Water Efficiency Program, and require annual reporting of program outputs and results to Council.
Initially, the program focused on reducing peak outdoor water consumption, using radio and bus ads, (and various billboards, newspaper and television ads) to promote efficiency. The program has met summer maximum day targets every year since. In fall 2007, the City kicked-off the indoor efficiency program that consists of the following elements:
· Distribution of residential water efficiency kits;
· Issuance of rebates for replacement of up to two inefficient residential toilets;
· Provision of a 10% rebate up to a maximum of $10,000 for high volume user retrofits, including high density residential; and
· Distribution of tamper proof water efficiency kits to social housing providers for installation during occupancy changeovers.
The indoor program has operated a full year, and there is now sufficient data to begin to assess the impacts and cost effectiveness of the campaign. For example, analysis of billing data for those who received a toilet rebate in 2007 indicate an average reduction in annual consumption of 51m3, at an approximate savings of $130/year. With a payback to consumers of less than two years, this rebate program has met with tremendous success (we currently receive over 15 applications per day). The program is so popular that the City is unable to meet the rebate turn around time of eight weeks, and rebate funds are expected to be depleted by the end of Q3.
With respect to water efficiency kits, results of a follow-up telephone survey indicate that those who picked-up their kit from a municipal office tended to install and retain use of more kit elements (showerhead, toilet bank, faucet aerators) than those who had a kit delivered to their home. While the effect of this difference on water consumption is not significant, (both groups having an average saving of 36m3 or $90 per year on their water bill), there were significant differences in distribution costs to the City, $6/kit and $15/kit respectively.
This report discusses each element of the Water Efficiency Program and recommends opportunities for improvement. Specifically, the following changes are recommended for 2009:
· Reallocate program funds to the Toilet Replacement Program from less popular program elements to meet projected demand;
· Allocate a larger portion of program funds to increase staffing of the Water Efficiency Program. These additional resources would ensure that service delivery goals and objectives of the program are met;
· Reduce annual auditing requirements for the rebate program from 10% to 5%;
· Discontinue home delivery of water efficiency kits by a third party;
· Pilot home delivery and installation of water efficient showerheads by water meter staff;
· Review with Ottawa Community Housing Corporation options for increasing participation;
· Develop a voluntary water restriction program for use in the event of drought conditions; and
· Discontinue the Pilot Timer Study.
The above changes would have no impact on operating costs, as the two FTEs would be temporary positions funded through existing unspent capital funding.
Depuis 2004, la Ville d’Ottawa encourage la valorisation de l’eau, conformément au Règlement Water Taking and Transfer, Règl. de l’Ont. 387/04, qui exige qu’elle montre un engagement à économiser l’eau. La Ville a adopté une Stratégie de valorisation de l’eau étalée sur dix ans en 2005 et un Plan de valorisation de l’eau échelonné sur trois ans en 2006. On présentait dans la stratégie et le plan des objectifs précis qui devaient être atteints dans le cadre du programme Valorisation de l’eau de la Ville, et on indiquait qu’il fallait produire des rapports annuels sur les résultats du programme et les présenter au Conseil.
Dans un premier temps, le programme visait principalement à réduire les pointes de demande de consommation d’eau à l’extérieur. On utilisait des annonces publicitaires à la radio et des panneaux publicitaires sur les autobus (et aussi différents panneaux-réclame, ainsi que des annonces dans les journaux et à la télévision) afin de promouvoir la valorisation de l’eau. Depuis, le programme a permis d’atteindre chaque année les objectifs établis quant à la consommation maximale durant les jours d’été. À l’automne 2007, la Ville a lancé le programme de valorisation de l’eau à l’intérieur dont voici les éléments :
· distribution de trousses d’économie de l’eau dans les résidences;
· remise accordée pour le remplacement d’un maximum de deux toilettes résidentielles inefficaces;
· remise de 10 % pouvant aller jusqu’à concurrence de 10 000 $ pour réduire le nombre de consommateurs à demande élevée, y compris dans les quartiers d’habitation à forte densité;
· distribution de trousses d’économie de l’eau inviolables aux fournisseurs de logements sociaux aux fins d’installation entre le départ des anciens locataires et l’arrivée des nouveaux.
Le programme d’économie de l’eau à l’intérieur est en cours depuis une année complète, et on possède maintenant suffisamment de données pour évaluer les incidences et le rapport coût‑efficacité de la campagne. Par exemple, une analyse des données de facturation des personnes ayant reçu une remise pour une toilette en 2007 révèle une réduction moyenne de la consommation annuelle de 51 m3, soit une économie d’environ 130 $ par année. Offrant une période de recouvrement de moins de deux ans, ce programme de remise a eu un immense succès (nous recevons actuellement plus de 15 demandes par jour). Le programme est si populaire que la Ville est incapable de respecter le délai de retour des remises de huit semaines, et on prévoit que les fonds consacrés aux remises seront épuisés d’ici la fin du troisième trimestre.
En ce qui a trait aux trousses d’économie de l’eau, les résultats d’un sondage téléphonique de suivi indiquent que les personnes s’étant procuré leur trousse à un bureau de la Ville avaient tendance à installer plus de dispositifs contenus dans ces trousses (pommes de douche, aérateurs de robinet, sac réducteur de volume pour réservoir de toilette) et à continuer de les utiliser que celles à qui on avait livré une trousse à la maison. Bien que l’incidence de cette différence sur la consommation d’eau ne soit pas importante (les deux groupes réalisant des économies moyennes d’environ 36 m3 ou 90 $ par année sur leur facture d’eau), les différences étaient importantes en ce qui concerne les coûts de distribution de la Ville, soit 6 $ par trousse et 15 $ par trousse respectivement.
Le présent rapport aborde chaque élément du programme de Valorisation de l’eau, et on y recommande des occasions d’amélioration. Plus particulièrement, les recommandations suivantes y sont formulées pour 2009 :
· réaffecter les fonds du programme prévus pour les éléments moins populaires au Programme de remplacement de toilettes afin de répondre à la demande prévue;
· utiliser une plus grande partie des fonds du programme afin d’augmenter l’effectif du programme de Valorisation de l’eau. Ces ressources supplémentaires permettraient d’atteindre les buts et objectifs du programme en matière de prestation de service;
· réduire de 10 % à 5 % les exigences en matière de vérification annuelle du programme de remise;
· mettre fin à la distribution par un tiers de trousses d’efficacité de l’eau dans les résidences;
· mettre en œuvre un projet pilote de distribution et d’installation de pommes de douche à débit réduit par le personnel de la Ville chargé des relevés des compteurs d’eau;
· Examiner les possibilités d’accroissement de la participation avec la Société de logement communautaire d’Ottawa;
· élaborer un programme de restriction volontaire de l’eau qui sera mis en œuvre en cas de sécheresse;
· mettre fin à l’étude pilote sur les compteurs.
Les changements susmentionnés n’auraient aucune incidence sur les coûts opérationnels, car les deux équivalents temps plein (ETP) occuperaient des postes temporaires financés par les fonds d’immobilisations non dépensés.
The City promotes water efficiency because it encourages the wise use of this valuable natural resource, and allows Ottawa to defer costly future expansions to existing water treatment and distribution facilities. In accordance with Ontario’s Water Taking & Transfer Regulation, O. Reg. 387/04, which requires permit holders[1] to demonstrate a commitment to water conservation, in 2005 Ottawa adopted a ten-year Water Efficiency Strategy with the following objectives:
· To inform water consumers of the need for water efficiency and how to become water efficient through the use of education programs, popular media and demonstration projects;
· To influence water consumers to reduce consumption, and alter consumptive patterns through partnership initiatives, rebates and other financial incentives; and
· To direct water consumers to change consumption patterns through judicious use of regulatory and financial tools, as warranted over time.
A Water Efficiency Plan: Phase I was adopted in 2006 that allocated funding for three years (as shown in Table 1) to implement the following measures[2] 2007 through 2009:
An Incentive Program consisting of the following:
· A rebate for residents that purchased and installed City-approved water efficient toilets;
· Door-to-door delivery and pick-up of free water efficiency kits;
· Staged implementation of a High Volume User Subsidy Program;
· A Social Housing water efficiency kit program; and
· Pilot a water timer study.
A WaterWise Promotion Campaign with the following objectives:
· To promote efficient use of water outdoors, targeting lawn and garden watering;
· To promote efficient use of water indoors, including distribution of information regarding the water efficiency kit and toilet rebate programs;
· To promote the High Volume User Subsidy Program; and
· To promote water efficiency success stories undertaken within or by the City.
A City Facilities Retrofit Program that allocates funds to carryout and promote water efficient retrofits at City facilities.
Annual monitoring and assessment, and reporting to Council.
Table 1 – Water Efficiency Plan: Phase I Budget
City Facilities Retrofit Program
Approved Staffing (FTEs)
$2.213 M
Sources: ACS2006-PWS-UTL-0015 and FSU.
Operating Total includes students and overhead allowance.
The following sections discuss each element of the Water Efficiency Program and identify opportunities for improvement. These are followed by a section on Performance Measurement that summarizes program outputs, results and cost effectiveness.
Originally, the program targeted approximately 1,400 replacements per year with a projected water demand decrease3 of approximately 60,000 m3 per annum. In 2008, the City received 2,743 applications, of which 2,282 were approved, an approval rate of 83%. This equates to a reduction3 in annual water consumption of approximately 116,000 m3 per year.
Water billing information for 50 residents who received a rebate under the Toilet Replacement Program was reviewed. From the billing information, it was found that the average water savings per year was approximately 51 m3/year, at 2009 water rates this equates to approximately $130 per year in savings. Based on an average toilet price4 of approximately $340, a savings of $130 per year and a $60 rebate, the average homeowner’s payback period is just over two years.
Chart 1 in Attachment 1 tracks program uptake by Ward in 2008. Toilet Replacement Program participation generally matches public response to the Residential Indoor Water Efficiency Kit Program. Based upon uptake rates (normalized for population differences) communications for the Residential Indoor Water Efficiency Kit Program and the Toilet Replacement Program appear to have been most effective in the east. It appears additional program advertising is required for south and rural wards of the City. Advertising will likely be in the form of bill inserts and newspaper ads. Attendance at the Carp Farmers’ Market is planned for July 2009.
Overall, it appears that residents are interested in reducing their water use, with the number of applications received per business day averaging six (6) per day in 2007, eleven (11) per day in 2008, and an average of 18 per day during the month of April 2009..
Approximately 10% of applications are audited because the application is either missing photos or contains unclear photos. On-site inspections are costly and rarely result in the denial of an application. Therefore, it is recommended that the audit target of 10% be reduced to 5% and that spot checks be used to identify a smaller set of applications for inspection. This approach would still deter abuse while mitigating the growing demands on this program.
Participation in the Toilet Replacement Program has exceeded original estimates. Based on current uptake5 it is projected that the 2009 funding will be exhausted during the month of July. To assist with addressing this funding gap, unspent monies from previous years will be reallocated to the Toilet Replacement Program. Despite this, available funds may be exhausted prior to year-end.
Residential Water Efficiency Kits
Client Service Centres Distribution
In 2008, from 21 October to 31 December, approximately 1,000 water efficiency kits were distributed through the City’s seven Client Service Centres (CSC). Kits contained the following elements: a low-flow showerhead, a water efficient bathroom aerator, a toilet tank bank (displaces up to 2 litres/flush), a flow test bag for residents to test their existing showerhead water use, and bilingual installation instructions.
Kit pick-up was likely influenced by many factors including but not limited to: interest in water efficiency, age of the home/area, access to a CSC, previously available water efficiency measures, exposure to program advertising and the population of the ward. Chart 2 in Attachment 1 contains the number of Residential Water Efficiency Kits distributed by Ward.
No changes are recommended to this program in 2009.
In 2008, the Enbridge Gas partnership was discontinued because proposed delivery charges exceeded the City’s budget and could not be adequately justified. Alternative delivery mechanisms were investigated and it was decided to pursue a scaled back program consisting of water meter staff providing free installation of a free low flow showerhead during meter maintenance calls. Using this method, it is estimated that water efficient showerheads can be installed in approximately 2,000 homes per year at a cost of approximately $3.00/year, compared to the Enbridge budget for door-to-door delivery of $15.52/year. The overall staffing impact of this change is considered to be minimal as the program is optional and the installation will be completed during a scheduled meter repair appointment.
Limited staff resources prevented implementation of the revised home delivery program in 2008, therefore monies allocated for this purpose were unspent that year. Program implementation on a pilot basis is scheduled to commence Q2, 2009 once key vacancies have been filled.
Kit Delivery Comparison
Water billing information was reviewed for 50 residents who received a water efficiency kit through a Client Service Centre and another 50 residents who received their kit via the Enbridge door-to-door program. The average water savings per year for both groups was approximately 36 m3/year, which at 2009 water rates equates to approximately $90 per year in savings.
In addition, residents who received water efficiency kits in 2007 either through the Client Service Centres (CSC) or the Enbridge Gas partnership were surveyed. Residents were contacted via telephone and asked a series of questions, including whether or not the previously installed water efficiency measures were currently installed. Chart 3 in Attachment 1 illustrates that more kit elements were installed and remained installed when residents picked-up the kits from a CSC.
The data seems to indicate that residents who initiate participation in the replacement program are more likely to install and maintain use of the water efficient fixtures. The cost of the kits and delivery through the CSC in 2007 was less than $6.00 per kit compared to $15.52 per kit via Enbridge Gas.
Unless future monitoring indicates a reduction in program effectiveness, it is recommended that the City continue to use CSCs as the main distribution vehicle, with meter maintenance staff providing in-home installation on a pilot basis.
High Volume User (HVU) Program
During 2008, $28,320 was rebated to applicants, with the majority of the money being rebated for applications submitted in 2007. Also, 17 screening (pre-application) forms were received.
If completed, the 2008 applications will result in the replacement of approximately 1,500 toilets and 1,000 showerheads. The 2008 applications include forms from four (4) Social Housing Providers and one (1) hotel. If approved, a total of $74,740 will be rebated. Note, six applications exceed the maximum rebate limit of $10,000, therefore, some toilets may be installed and not rebated.
Water billing information for five (5) multi-residential properties that received a rebate under the High Volume User was reviewed. The data was divided into two groups, multi-residential with less than 100 units (2 applicants) and multi-residential with greater than 100 units (3 applicants).
Multi-residential with less than 100 units
From the billing information, it was found that the average water savings per year was approximately 418 m3/year, at 2009 water rates this equates to approximately $1,100 per year in savings.
Multi-residential with greater than 100 units
From the billing information, it was found that the average water savings per year was approximately 10,400 m3/year, at 2009 water rates this equates to approximately $26,000 per year in savings.
Social Housing Provider Program
In 2008, the Social Housing[3] Program was modified to increase the number of available kits per facility from 10% to 50% to improve participation levels. Participation in the program has increased marginally with approximately 450 kits distributed in 2008.
Although Social Housing Providers have been informed of the program on several occasions, program participation continues to be low (approximately 5% of the eligible Social Housing units in the City of Ottawa have installed kits).
Significant savings can be realized by the social housing sector if program participation can be increased. Water billing information was reviewed for five (5) Social Housing Providers that participated in the program. The average water savings were approximately 685 m3/year, which at 2009 water rates equates to approximately $1,700 per year in savings.
A meeting has been scheduled to discuss this challenge with the Chair of Ottawa Community Housing Corporation. Depending upon the outcome of those discussions, further modifications to the program may be initiated using existing program funds.
The WaterWise portion of the City’s website attracts client interest and may provide initial client contact. As a result of client input, the site has been updated to provide additional information and further clarity to the existing information. In 2008, the approved toilet listings have been updated to reflect the most recent MaP (Maximum Performance Testing of Popular Toilet Models) Testing and now include additional information on solids removal per flush.
Staff attended events such as Doors Open, Frank Ryan Park Eco-Fair, Rideau Canal Festival, and the Capital Fall Home Show, and provided presentations at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Environment Week and the RA Centre Eco-Fair.
Water Efficiency Retrofits of Ottawa’s Civic Facilities
Water efficiency retrofits at Ottawa’s Civic Centre were to be carried out in 2008 but were postponed until other site works were completed and pending resolution of planning issues at Lansdowne Park. Instead, a partnership with Parks and Recreation was formed for replacement of an inefficient wading pool with a more efficient Splash Pad. Construction commenced in Fall 2008, and is to be completed this spring. Analysis of water consumption is to be completed after a full season of use.
For 2009, staff have identified Carleton Lodge as a potential site for water efficiency retrofits. Carleton Lodge, a long-term care facility, was built in 1960 and reconstructed in 1989. The facility consists of 136 single and 12 double rooms, along with a common area, for a total of 185 toilets. The proposed water efficiency retrofit will replace 185 20L toilets with 6L toilets, resulting in water savings of approximately 6,500 m3 per year or over $17,000 per year at the current water rate. The purchase order will likely be issued by the end of April and all work is scheduled to be complete by 15 August 2009. Public Works, Energy Management Unit will be project managing the work on behalf of Water Efficiency.
The 2008 outdoor promotional campaign comprised the following activities:
· Posted 50 bus board advertisements on OC Transpo vehicles;
· Placed two radio advertisements on local stations on watering and lawn mowing;
· Published ¼ page ads in community papers on watering and lawn mowing;
· Issued bill insert promoting wise water use; and
· Issued news release for launch of summer campaign.
Residents were asked on their Residential Water Efficiency Kit application form whether or not they agree with instituting outdoor watering restrictions:
“The City is considering a Voluntary Even/Odd outdoor water use restriction. Under the program, residents connected to the municipal system would voluntarily limit their watering to; even dates (e.g. 2nd, 4th) for even street addresses, and odd dates (e.g. 3rd, 5th) to odd street addresses. The restriction would apply to all outdoor water uses, except watering with a watering can.”
A sample group of approximately 350 residents yielded the following results: 75% agreed or strongly agreed with the restriction, 9% disagreed or strongly disagreed, 7% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 9% didn’t respond.
From these results, it appears that most residents would be agreeable to some form of voluntary outdoor water use restriction. In the event that the City experiences drought conditions this summer, it is recommended that the City implement voluntary water use restrictions. A voluntary water use restriction could also be in response to a local Conservation Authority Low Water Response Plan. In order to be prepared for this possibility, staff will draft educational materials; including bus boards, advertisements and public service announcements, along with development of an implementation plan.
Pilot Water Timer Project
The purpose of this two-year pilot was to determine how useful water timers are in helping homeowners to manage their lawn and garden watering requirements. During 2007-2008, approximately 180 sprinkler timers were distributed in the Meadowlands study area, with post-installation surveys issued to gauge their ease of use and usefulness.
Regular rainfall occurred during the summers of 2007 and 2008, therefore, it proved difficult to assess the value of the timer devices. The following results are based upon a survey return rate of 42%: 59% installed the timer and 45% indicated they used it. There is no intension to pursue this pilot further, however, some follow-up surveying may be carried out in the event that 2009 has a dry summer.
Quantitative Changes in Water Production
Monitoring of production data indicates that the combination of supply side (i.e. Water Loss Control) and demand side initiatives (i.e. the WaterWise Program) being carried out by the City are yielding positive results. Based on production information, the average daily flow in 2008 was 297 ML/day. According to historical records, production has not been below 300 ML/day since 1982 (281 ML/day). Table 2 shows that gross production and maximum day demand for water are diminishing; based on this information the City will be reviewing and updating the 2012 maximum day target of 580 ML/d.
Table 2 - Annual Production and Maximum Day Demand
Annual Production (ML)
Max. Day (ML/d)
Source: Drinking Water Services.
Since 2002, Ottawa has seen an average 3% annual reduction in its total annual production and an average 5% annual reduction in its maximum day production. Many factors contributed to these reductions. Maximum day consumption is influenced by the volume, frequency and type of rainfall, along with temperature and possibly cloud coverage. The City’s educational campaign appears to be offsetting the impacts of weather variation as shown in Figure 1. However, as summer water demand is highly dependent upon precipitation frequency and volumes, the City should not be complacent, particularly as weather patterns vary year to year.
Figure 1: Average Residential Consumption vs. Summer Precipitation
Since receiving budget approval in spring 2007, significant progress has been made towards implementation of the plan.
Table 3 – Water Efficiency Program 2007-2008 Outputs & Outcomes
No. approved / distributed
Dollar Savings per application (avg./yr.)
Water Savings per application (avg./yr.)
Water Efficiency Kits5
~36 m3
Toilet Replacement Program5
~51 m3
Social Housing Provider Program6
~685 m3
High Volume User Program6
~418 m3
~10,400 m3
Pilot Watering Timers
City Retrofit Program
As indicated in Table 4, the City currently has one full-time staff member dedicated to administration of all the program elements identified above. In 2007, this meant that the program could not be initiated until late summer/early fall, and only then on a phased-in basis; thus the under spending. The Water Efficiency Plan assumed approval of approximately 1,400 rebates per year. In the first 15 months of program delivery over 2,500 applications were approved. As awareness of the Toilet Rebate Program grew and applications increased, the turn-around time for issuance of rebates doubled from approximately one month to two months - longer still in 2009. Currently, there is a backlog of over 300 rebate applications awaiting review and approval. The tremendous success of the Toilet Rebate Program has come at the expense of other program elements, namely:
· Promotion of the water efficiency kits available at Client Service Centres;
· Implementation of a showerhead distribution program by metering staff;
· Promotion of the Social Housing Program;
· Education and promotion to children;
· Promotion of alternative landscaping approaches; and
· Program analysis and refinement.
While some of the above activities have been carried out, they have not met annual targets, in part due to insufficient resources. Several people within the department have been enlisted to assist with the program, including casual and student help, however it is recommended that program staffing increase by two FTEs to allow for appropriate program delivery, and to reduce the burden on other operating groups that cannot always provide assistance when needed.
Other municipalities were contacted to compare program design and delivery with the results shown in Table 4. Ottawa’s program is most similar in scope to that of the Region of Peel, which has 2.5 FTEs dedicated to its Toilet Replacement Program alone. On average, cities of comparable size delivering comparable water efficiency programs have four FTEs allocated to program implementation, plus part-time staff.
Table 4 – Comparison of Municipal Water Efficiency Programs
Program Annual Budget
Water Efficiency Kit Program
ICI or HVU Program
1 FTE and 6 PT
4 FTE & 10 PT
Indoor & outdoor kits
Proposal in draft
5 FTE and 4 PT
Indoor and outdoor kits
Based upon continued sharing of resources already in place within the department, it is felt that two FTEs: a Utility Service Clerk and a rotating Co-op/Summer Student position, can provide the assistance needed to enable the timely review and approval of rebate applications, and the reallocation of the program coordinator’s time to the implementation and enhancement of other program elements. Funding for these additional resources would be taken from unspent balances within the Water Efficiency Program resulting in no net change in overall program costs, but with improved service delivery.
This initiative implements the policies and objectives of Ottawa 20/20, the Infrastructure Master Plan and the Environmental Strategy, all of which underwent extensive public consultation. Furthermore, it implements the City’s 2005 Water Efficiency Strategy and 2006 Water Efficiency Plan, both of which are public documents approved by Council.
This report was circulated for review to former Real Property Asset Management, Corporate Communications, Housing Branch and within the Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability Department.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATION
There are no direct legal or risk management impediments to implementing this report.
Funding for 2009 is available in the 2009 approved Rate Capital Budget in Internal Orders 900206 Water Efficiency Program and 904175 Water Efficiency Retrofit Program. Funding for 2010 and beyond has been identified in the LRFP and will be included in future draft Rate Capital Budgets.
The additional two temporary FTEs will have no net financial impact as the temporary positions will be created within the existing approved Operating Budget envelope and recovered from the capital projects identified above.
Excessive water consumption means greater volumes of water and wastewater requiring treatment, along with additional demands on source water, energy and other resources, and larger discharges to the natural environment. Successful implementation of the City’s Water Efficiency Program will have a positive impact on Ottawa’s natural and man-made environment.
Water efficiency for residents on private wells benefits not only the homeowner but also the community by reducing energy and treatment costs and reducing demand on local aquifers.
Document 1: Charts 1, 2 and 3
Document 2: ACS2008-PWS-WWS-0014 – Water Efficiency Plan (held on file with the City Clerk)
Document 3: ACS2006-PWS-UTL-0001 – Water Loss Control Strategy (held on file with the City Clerk)
Environmental Services Department will adjust the program as approved by Council.
Chart 1: 2008 Participation by Ward – Toilet Replacement Program
Chart 2: 2008 Participation by Ward - Residential Water Efficiency Kits
Chart 3: Installation Comparison - Enbridge Gas, Client Service Centres
WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN: PHASE 1 UPDATE
ACS2009-ICS-WWS-0011 City Wide/À l’échelle de la Ville
Barron Meyerhoffer, Director of Development and Renewal for Ottawa Community Housing, referenced a meeting with the program manager of environmental programs. He reiterated Ottawa Community Housing’s commitment and focus on conservation measures, including water. Partnership opportunities have also been formed with the Enviro Centre. To date, roughly 700 conversions have been completed, with another 300-400 to follow. The City program will allow further expansion, as it has fewer limits than the Enbridge taps program.
Sally McIntyre, Program Manager of Environmental Programs, Strategic and Environmental Services Branch, confirmed that generally, there is a less than desired level of participation amongst all the social housing partners. Staff is looking at program design, recognizing the tremendous interest in the toilet rebate applications.
Councillor Feltmate noted that the social housing network is very keen to make connections with the City on this program. She hoped upcoming changes to the corporate structure with regard to housing would facilitate connections and coordination.
[1] The City holds Permits to Take Water (PTTW) for the Britannia and Lemieux Water Purification Plants, and the Carp, Vars, Kings Park, Greely-Shadow Ridge, and Munster communal well systems. In order to renew these permits, the City must either have a water conservation program in place or have a program that will be undertaken for the duration of the permit, which is typically ten years. The City is required to report to the Province annually on the daily volume of water taking for each source.
[2] Program elements listed are as amended by Council in 2007 and 2008.
3 Based on four-person household, four flushes per person per day, an original toilet volume of 13L per flush and a replacement toilet volume of 6L per flush.
4 Based on toilet pricing information tracked from the original receipts received as part of approved Toilet Replacement Program applications received since 21 September 2007.
5 18 applications per day and approval rate of 83%.
[3] Non-profit Social Housing Providers refer to the 56 social housing providers who are administered by the City of Ottawa as Service Manager.
5 Based on 2007 installation and available billing data.
6 Based on 2008 installation and available billing data.