2010-07-09 AWR Water Use Efficiency

8/16/2019 2010-07-09 AWR Water Use Efficiency

1/60

Drinking Water Research Advancing the Science of Water®

Water Use Efficiency

uly–September 2010 volume 20, number 3 water conservation communication metering loss control revenue rates smart irrigation en


2/60JULY– SEPTEMBER 2010 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

Drinking Water Research Advancing the Science of Water®

FEATURES

Water Use Efficiency Research for Water Utilities

Linda Reekie, Foundation project manager2

End Uses of Delivered Water

Jennifer Warner, Foundation project manager3

Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective

Communications

Tony Silva, Diana Pape, Ronald Szoc, ICF International; PeterMayer, Aquacraft Inc.; and Linda Reekie, Foundation projectmanager8

Smart Irrigation Technologies: Water Savings Potential

Michael D. Dukes, University of Florida18

Water Efficiency Programs for Integrated Water Management

Thomas Chesnutt, A&N Technical Services Inc.24

A Balanced Approach to Water Conservation: RemovingBarriers and Maximizing Benefits (project #4175)

Thomas Chesnutt, A&N Technical Services Inc.28

Metering and Water Conservation

Steven L. Barfuss, Michael Johnson, Utah State University;

Donald L. Schlenger, RW Beck, David M. Hughes, AmericanWater; Jian Zhang, Foundation project manager30

Rates, Rate Structures, and Revenues Research to Support

Water Conservation Programs

Susan Turnquist, Hydropology Ltd. (former Foundation projectmanager)39

Utility Leakage Management

Maureen Hodgins, Foundation project manager46

Reducing Leaks in Service Lines

George Kunkel, Philadelphia Water Department; Carl Yates,

Halifax Regional Water Commission; David Hughes, AmericanWater; and Maureen Hodgins, Foundation project manager57

DEPARTMENTS

Web Resources

17

Foundation Contacts

21

Case Studies and Value of Research:

Smart Irrigation Controller

Demonstration and Evaluation in

Orange County Utilities Florida

22

Advanced Metering at East Bay

Municipal Utility District36

Denver Water Customers Know the

More They Use, the More They Pay45

Water Loss Control: Philadelphia

Case Study

51

Leakage Reduction Through FlowModulated Pressure Control: the Halifax

Water Experience

52

American Water Case Study: Continuous

System Leak Monitoring

54

New Developments in Leakage

Detection

55

Webcast Announcement56


3/60DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JULY–SEPTEMBER 2010

VIEWPOINT

The Water Research Foundation is a member-supported, international, nonprofit organization that sponsors research to enable water utilities, public health agencies, and other professionalsto provide safe and affordable drinking water to consumers.

Editor: [email protected]; Contributing editor: Adam Lang; Art director: Cheri Dougherty

Drinking Water Research (ISSN 1055-9140) is published quarterly for $40 a year in North America ($50 elsewhere) by the Water Research Foundation,6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235-3098, Telephone: +1 303.347.6100, Periodicals postage paid at Denver, Colo.

Postmaster: Send address changes to Water Research Foundation, 6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235-3098

e Water Research Foundation provides contracts for studies of problems in the water supply industry. e Foundation assumes no responsibility for the content of the research studies reported or for the opin-ions or statements of fact expressed by contributors in this publication. e mention of tradenames or commercial products does not represent or imply the Foundation’s approval or endorsement. Drinking WaterResearch is published for general information purposes only.

Copyright © 2009 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Published in the U.S.A. Printed on recycled paper.No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced or otherwise utilized without permission.

Robert C. Renner, P.E., D.E.E.Executive Director

Board Appoints New Chair

We are pleased to extend a warm welcome to Roy Wolfe, PhD, who in June took over as chair ofthe Foundation’s Board of Trustees.

Wolfe, who is also group manager of corporate resources for the Metropolitan Water District ofSouthern California, has long served and advocated for the Foundation. For the past six years, hehas served as vice chair and was also a member of the executive committee, and as such, was partof the team that led the Foundation’s expansion into new research programs, our name change,and our embrace of new communications media.

Given the complexity of water issues facing our nation and our subscribers, we are fortunate to havea professional with such extensive experience and knowledge of the industry leading the Board.

At Metropolitan, Wolfe oversees a staff of nearly 700 employees with an annual budget exceeding $500 million. He’s longbeen shoulder deep in research, working on water quality issues for the state of California and, through an appointment tothe National Academy of Sciences panel, developing research priorities for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Given Wolfe’s home state of California, perhaps it’s appropriate that this issue of Drinking WaterResearch focuses on water conservation. Western state water utility managers and residents of theWestern states have long known that saved water is found water. Conservation, in many cases, is lessexpensive than finding new water supplies.

This issue focuses on all aspects of conservation and efficiency, with a particular focus on waterloss control, water efficiency programs, water conservation communications strategies, and newtechnologies to control water use. It also contains guidance on how utilities can implement a balancedapproach to conservation.

This issue of Drinking Water Research exemplifies the Foundation’s commitment to funding practicalresearch that helps utilities solve day-to-day problems. Subscribers turn to us to help them implement

programs that help not only provide safe clean water, but support their financial sustainability.

Thank you, Roy, for leading this organization at such a critical time, and sincere thanks to our subscribers for their continuingsupport of water research.

Sincerely,

New Board ChairRoy Wolfe

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=mailto%3Aeditor%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=mailto%3Aeditor%40WaterRF.org


4/60JULY– SEPTEMBER 2010 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH2

INTRODUCTION

Water use efficiency (WUE) measuresare increasingly being implemented by

drinking water utilities to diversify watersupply portfolios and to support utility

sustainability goals. WUE implies waterefficiency on the supply side in terms of

managing water loss in the distribution

system and on the demand side in termsof promoting and facilitating customer

water use efficiency. Both supply and

demand efficiency result in less water beingextracted, conveyed, treated, and pumped,

and therefore reduced costs associated withnew water supply development, chemicals

for treatment, and energy consumption.

The Water Research Foundation is pleasedto highlight WUE in this issue of Drinking

Water Research and provide informationfrom Foundation funded research projectson many diverse aspects of WUE. It includes

information ranging from identifyingcosts and benefits of a WUE program, to

integrating WUE planning into overall water resource planning, to developing

appropriate rate structures to ensureadequate revenues when conservationmeasures are implemented. This issue

includes information ranging fromimplementing water loss control programs

in distribution systems to identifyingpotential impacts of implementing

automated metering infrastructure on water demand. It presents information on

efficient residential irrigation systems, andtrends in residential water use. This issue

also presents information on understandingcustomers in order to communicate water

conservation messages more effectively. Additional information on these topicscan be obtained by ordering the final

Foundation reports, available to Foundationsubscribers on the Website www.WaterRF.

org. Since the Foundation will continueto fund research in this important area,

subscribers are encouraged to submitsuggestions for specific research ideas

to the Foundation at www.WaterRF.org/GetInvolved/SubmitResearchIdea.

Water Use Efficiency Research

for Water UtilitiesLinda Reekie, Water Research Foundation project manager

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2Fthe-foundation%2Fresearch-programs%2FPages%2FSubmit-Research-Idea.aspxhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2Fthe-foundation%2Fresearch-programs%2FPages%2FSubmit-Research-Idea.aspxhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2Fthe-foundation%2Fresearch-programs%2FPages%2FSubmit-Research-Idea.aspxhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2Fthe-foundation%2Fresearch-programs%2FPages%2FSubmit-Research-Idea.aspxhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2Fthe-foundation%2Fresearch-programs%2FPages%2FSubmit-Research-Idea.aspx



END USES

Water is perhaps the most important

natural resource in the United States,and the assurance of supply to meet

increasing human demands for drinking,irrigation, and power generation has

become a national priority. Ultimately theresponsibility to assure a sustainable supply

of safe, high quality water for drinkingpurposes and other purposes requiring high

quality water comes down to municipal water providers. Water conservation and

other demand management strategieshelp utilities ensure efficient use of

available supplies. In order for a utilityto plan and implement effective demandmanagement techniques, there needs

to be a comprehensive understandingof the many uses of its delivered water

typically categorized by residential,commercial, industrial, and institutional

needs. For utilities to both encourageconservation and have adequate financing

for maintenance and growth, they also needto understand how end uses may change

over time as a result of legislation, climatechange, development, population growth,

public awareness, and other factors.

A good national resource for total waterusage information in the United States isthe national assessment conducted and

reported by the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) every five years. According to the

latest installment, Estimated Use of Water

in the United States in 2005 (USGS 2010),

the total water used in the United States was 410,000 million gallons per day (gpd).

Public supply, or water withdrawn by publicand private water suppliers and delivered

to users for residential, commercial, andindustrial purposes, accounted for 11% of

the 2005 total water use, or 44,200 million

gallons per day. Residential uses make upa significant fraction of a drinking water

utility’s delivered water (i.e., 58% of publicsupply withdrawals were for residential

uses per the 2005 USGS survey).

In 1999, the Water Research Foundation(WaterRF) published a landmark studydetailing how water is used by single-family

homes. Residential End Uses of Water (order #90781/project #241), prepared by

Aquacraft Inc., is used as the baseline forsingle-family residential use information

by most utilities, and planning andregulatory agencies. Otherwise known as

the Residential End Uses of Water Study(REUWS), the report summarizes indoor

and outdoor water use at single-familyhomes as gathered through metering

of approximately 1,200 residences in

12 geographically diverse study sites,surveying 6,000 households, and mining

historic water billing records from 12,000residences. Most of the data were collected

in 1998 and across all study sites 42% ofannual water use was for indoor purposes

and 58% for outdoor purposes. The meanper capita daily water use was about 172

gallons, of which 69 gallons were usedfor indoor purposes. Toilet use, clothes

washing, and showering used the most water per capita, followed by faucet use,

leaks, and dishwashers.

More granular per capita water use datashowed 5.05 toilet flushes per day, 0.75

showers/baths per day, 0.37 clothes washeruses per day, and 8.1 minutes per day running

water from faucets. Highest overall water

use occurred in the morning between 5:00a.m. and 11:00 a.m., dipped during the day,

ramped back up from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.,

End Uses of Delivered Water Jennifer Warner, Water Research Foundation project manager

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=3&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwater.usgs.gov%2Fwatuse%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=3&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwater.usgs.gov%2Fwatuse%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=3&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwater.usgs.gov%2Fwatuse%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=3&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwater.usgs.gov%2Fwatuse%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=3&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwater.usgs.gov%2Fwatuse%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=3&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=3&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=3&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=3&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=3&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwater.usgs.gov%2Fwatuse%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=3&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241



END USES

and the lowest water use occurred during thenight hours between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.

Although the data represent only a fraction ofthe households in the United States, they are

considered to be representative and are usefulfor planning purposes.

A secondary objective of the REUWS project

was to develop end use models to confirmor dispel previously held beliefs and offer

additional insights between specific enduses and socioeconomic factors obtained

through the 6,000 households that weresurveyed. The model results found that

residence square footage can be interpretedas a surrogate for standard of living andindicative of the number of toilets at a

residence, and thus water used for flushing.

Renters were found to use about 10% more water for toilet flushing, and those who

irrigate and those who have swimmingpools were shown to use more water onaverage for toilet flushing. Similar trends

were observed in the model results forshower and bath use.

Since the REUWS data was collected and

the report published, there has been widespread speculation that residential

water usage is declining despite increasingsalaries and household sizes. North

America Residential Water Use Trends

Since 1992 (2010, order/project #4031),

prepared by the Center for InfrastructureResearch at the University of Louisville,

discusses trends in household water usage

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

G a l l o n s

p e r Y e a r

Year

Seattle

Philadelphia

Cincinnati

Cleveland

New HavenPhoenix

Louisville

Las Vegas

Calgary

Dallas

St Paul

Figure 1. Annual water usage per residential customer, in gallons, for eleven major U.S. cities(Source: North America Residential Water Usage Trends Since 1992 )

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=4&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4031http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=4&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4031http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=4&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4031http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=4&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4031http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=4&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4031http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=4&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4031http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=4&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4031



END USES

in North America during the past 30 yearsand draws preliminary conclusions on the

magnitude and causes of declining usageper residential customer. Figure 1 shows

a declining trend of annual average waterusage per residential customer for eleven

partner utilities, all of which are urbansettings. Based upon data from 54 utilities,

residential water usage per customer hasdecreased more than 380 gallons annually

over the last three decades or 0.44% ofaverage annual use. Compounded over 30

years, the decline amounts to 13.2% andimplies that a household will use 11,673 lessgallons in 2008 than it did in 1978.

The Louisville study also supported the

findings of the REUWS. Not surprisingly, weather was an important factor in

estimating water use. Wetter soil conditions,as measured by one of the models, led

to 2.6 gpd less water used per customer.Conversely, a one-degree increase in

temperature led to about 0.7 gpd more inaverage daily water use. Outdoor usage was

a big factor in water usage; a swimmingpool increased water usage by 65 gpd,

outdoor spa by 13 gpd, and landscape watering by 10 gpd. The average indoor use was 151 gpd, with roughly 60% of the usage

by toilets, showers, and clothes washers.

There are many theories regarding whyresidential usage might be on the decline

including low-flow fixtures in retrofittedand new construction, changing weather

patterns, rate increases, increasedcustomer awareness, and improved leakage

management. This study did a morerigorous modeling effort for the City of

Louisville, Kentucky to assess the influenceof many factors (i.e., climate, household

demographics, fixtures, indoor vs. outdooruses, education levels, construction year,etc.). In Louisville, household water usage

fell 10% from 1990 (208 gpd) to 2007

(187 gpd). The largest factors contributing

to the decline were attributed to increased

penetration of low-flow appliances(-19 gpd) and fewer people per household(-5 gpd), yet were offset by increasedincomes (+7 gpd).

On the topic of shifting weather patterns

and a changing climate, WaterRF recentlybegan a study with Hazen and Sawyer,

Stratus Consulting, and Aquacraft, and 10geographically diverse utilities of different

sizes called “Analysis of Changes in WaterUse Under Regional Climate Change

Scenarios” (project #4263). e project will evaluate urban and non-urban uses of

water and simulate the impacts of alternativeclimate scenarios on municipal water

demands. A primary goal of the research isto increase the adaptive capacity of waterutilities to plan for and respond to changing

water demands that may result from achanging climate. Information from this

project will be shared with subscribers via the WaterRF Website as the project progresses.

Other key users of potable water include

the commercial, industrial and institutionalsectors. Much less is known overall about

these customer classes, which represent aheterogeneous mix of highly variable users.

Commercial and Institutional End Uses

of Water (2000, order #90806/project #241)

is the companion report to the REUWSand one of the only studies to document

how commercial and institutional (CI)

customer classes use water. An analysisof 11 CI categories and water use was

performed using billing records from fiveurban water providers. Five CI categories

(i.e., schools, hotel/motels, office buildings,restaurants, and supermarkets) were

selected for detailed analysis because thesetypes are common to most cities, and they

form a good basis for examining waterconservation, each representing diverse

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4263http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4263http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4263http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4263http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4263http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4263http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4263



END USES

• “Smart Irrigation ControllerDemonstration and Evaluation

in Orange County, Florida” (project #4227)

More information on these projects is found

later in this issue of Drinking Water Research

Further, WaterRF is in the process ofupdating the original landmark REUWS

work, since it has been over ten years sincethe work was done. While the information

in Residential End Uses of Water continuesto have merit, the original research

excluded seasonal fluctuations and weatherimpacts of single family outdoor water use,

and a comprehensive evaluation of thesocioeconomic considerations of residentialend uses. In addition, the maturation since

the original publication of low flow fixtureuse, “green building” principles, and other

water efficiency programs, and the impactsof these on customer behavior and the

resulting residential end use trends, need tobe studied. The newly funded project #4309

“Update Residential End Uses of Water,” will include new end uses and an evaluation

of socioeconomic variables affecting enduse that were not covered in the original

research. Proposals for the project areunder review and research is anticipated tobegin in late 2010.

needs for potable water. Hotels used themost water in the study followed by, in

order of decreasing daily use, schools, officebuildings, restaurants, and supermarkets. In

terms of conservation potential amongst allcategories, customers using cooling towers

for air conditioning and refrigeration had byfar the most potential to save water.

e WaterRF Research Advisory Council

has identified the need to also update theCommercial and Institutional End Uses of

Water report and include the industrial sectorin the research. Essentially a framework is

needed by water utilities that standardizescustomer classifications and billing structuresfor these important users. WaterRF staff is

seeking subscriber input on this topic.

In recent years, the Foundation has fundedseveral efforts to better understand end

uses of water and to optimize the uses of water resources, including:

• Water Efficiency Programs for

Integrated Water Management

(order #91149/project #2935)

• Water Conservation: Customer

Behavior and Effective

Communication (order/project #4012)

• “A Balanced Approach to WaterConservation: Removing Barriers and

Maximizing Benefits” (project #4175)

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4227http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4227http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4227http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4227http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4227http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D2935http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D2935http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D2935http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D2935http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4175http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4175http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4175http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4175http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4227http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4175http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D2935http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=6&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241



END USES

Other resources

USGS National Water Use Assessment

(http://water.usgs.gov/watuse ) Every five years since 1950, the USGS evaluates and reports the estimated waterwithdrawals in the United States by state, source of water, and eight categories of use: public supply, domestic,irrigation, livestock, aquaculture, industrial, mining, and thermoelectric-power generation. According to the latest report,thermoelectric-power generation used the most water (49% of total water withdrawn), followed by irrigation (31%)and public supply (11%). The remaining categories accounted for less than 10% of the total water withdrawn. The2005 USGS report and the 11 earlier five-year reports generated since 1950 can be downloaded from the Website.

California Energy Commission Project CP1-007-08 “Embedded Energy in Water Studies”

A large part of this research includes evaluating end uses in California (http://uc-ciee.org/pubs/ref_water.html).

The Price of Water: A Comparison of Water Rates, Usage in 30 U.S. Cities

Circle of Blue WaterNews (http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/the-price-of-water-a-comparison-of-water-rates-usage-in-30-u-s-cities/ ) posted April 26, 2010, Brett Walton, author.

2009 Water Conservation Bill (Senate Bill x 7-7)

(http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/ ) Enacted in November 2009, the bill requires all water suppliers forurban and agricultural uses to increase water use efficiency with penalties for not reaching set targets.

20x2020 Water Conservation Plan

(State of California, February 2010) (http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/hot_topics/20x2020/docs/20x2020plan.pdf) California published this plan as part of the 2009 Water Conservation Bill (CA Senate Bill x7-7). The plan focusesmore on water efficient appliances, landscaping, and improving data collection, but does not appear to stress leakmanagement of the distribution system.

Water Use in the California Residential Home

(2010, ConSol) (http://www.cbia.org/go/cbia/?LinkServID=E242764F-88F9-4438-9992948EF86E49EA&showMeta=0).

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwater.usgs.gov%2Fwatusehttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uc-ciee.org%2Fall-documents%2Fa%2F339%2F113%2Fnestedhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.circleofblue.org%2Fwaternews%2F2010%2Fworld%2Fthe-price-of-water-a-comparison-of-water-rates-usage-in-30-u-s-cities%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.circleofblue.org%2Fwaternews%2F2010%2Fworld%2Fthe-price-of-water-a-comparison-of-water-rates-usage-in-30-u-s-cities%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.circleofblue.org%2Fwaternews%2F2010%2Fworld%2Fthe-price-of-water-a-comparison-of-water-rates-usage-in-30-u-s-cities%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.circleofblue.org%2Fwaternews%2F2010%2Fworld%2Fthe-price-of-water-a-comparison-of-water-rates-usage-in-30-u-s-cities%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.circleofblue.org%2Fwaternews%2F2010%2Fworld%2Fthe-price-of-water-a-comparison-of-water-rates-usage-in-30-u-s-cities%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.water.ca.gov%2Fwateruseefficiency%2Fsb7%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.swrcb.ca.gov%2Fwater_issues%2Fhot_topics%2F20x2020%2Fdocs%2F20x2020plan.pdfhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.swrcb.ca.gov%2Fwater_issues%2Fhot_topics%2F20x2020%2Fdocs%2F20x2020plan.pdfhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbia.org%2Fgo%2Fcbia%2F%3FLinkServID%3DE242764F-88F9-4438-9992948EF86E49EA%26showMeta%3D0http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbia.org%2Fgo%2Fcbia%2F%3FLinkServID%3DE242764F-88F9-4438-9992948EF86E49EA%26showMeta%3D0http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.swrcb.ca.gov%2Fwater_issues%2Fhot_topics%2F20x2020%2Fdocs%2F20x2020plan.pdfhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.swrcb.ca.gov%2Fwater_issues%2Fhot_topics%2F20x2020%2Fdocs%2F20x2020plan.pdfhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.water.ca.gov%2Fwateruseefficiency%2Fsb7%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.circleofblue.org%2Fwaternews%2F2010%2Fworld%2Fthe-price-of-water-a-comparison-of-water-rates-usage-in-30-u-s-cities%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uc-ciee.org%2Fall-documents%2Fa%2F339%2F113%2Fnestedhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwater.usgs.gov%2Fwatuse



COMMUNICATIONS

When water utilities better understand theircustomers and the factors that affect theirbehaviors related to water conservation,they can design and disseminate moreeffective communications to influence

water conservation behavior. A Water

Research Foundation (WaterRF)funded research project has recentlybeen completed and the following hasbeen excerpted from the ExecutiveSummary of the final report, WaterConservation: Customer Behavior and

Effective Communications (2010, project/order #4012). The final report is available to subscribers on the Foundation Website.

To hear a recorded Webcast on this project

presented by Tony Silva, ICF International,principal investigator, go to: www.WaterRF.org/Resources/Webcasts. You will need to login tosee the list of Webcasts available to subscribers.

Introduction

Since the beginning of human civilization,communicating the concept and valueof wise water usage, conservation, andefficiency has been a common endeavor.In the modern era, water utilities have often

taken on the responsibility of informingand educating customers about the needand importance of wise water use andstewardship. Today, water providersregularly implement sophisticatededucation and marketing campaignsto promote water use efficiency andconservation behaviors, but little is knownabout the specific, measurable impactsof these efforts or what constitutes asuccessful program.

The process of communicating with thepublic in an effort to change people’s

behaviors for the benefit of an individual,group, or community is commonly knownas social marketing. Water conservationsocial marketing campaigns are intended

to educate customers about the importanceand value of water, to encouragebehaviors and practices that diminish

water waste, and to reduce demands forthe benefit of the individual customerand the community. Water conservation

communication campaigns may promotea range of conservation behaviors, frominstalling more water-efficient fixtures tochanging consumption habits, such as

turning off the faucet while brushing teeth.

Water use patterns differ by region and

customer, but the categories of end uses(toilet flushing, bathing, washing clothes,food preparation, landscape irrigation, etc.)

are remarkably consistent across thecountry. Consequently, the conservationbehaviors promoted by water utilities are

often similar (e.g., replacing inefficienttoilets, improving irrigation efficiency, andeliminating single-pass cooling). A key

difference lies in the delivery channelsand messages by which utilities promote water conservation. Utility sponsored waterconservation campaigns leverage a variety

of delivery channels, including bill stuffers,print and broadcast media, the Internet,and outdoor advertising.

What are the impacts of water conservationcommunication campaigns in terms of

customer recognition, attitudinal changes,

Water Conservation: Customer Behavior

and Effective CommunicationsTony Silva, Diana Pape, Ronald Szoc, ICF International; Peter Mayer, Aquacraft Inc.; and Linda Reekie,Water Research Foundation project manager

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.WaterRF.org%2FResources%2FWebcastshttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.WaterRF.org%2FResources%2FWebcastshttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.WaterRF.org%2FResources%2FWebcastshttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.WaterRF.org%2FResources%2FWebcastshttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.WaterRF.org%2FResources%2FWebcastshttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012



COMMUNICATIONS

behaviors of customers, demographics

and other factors, and effective

communication that influence behavior

• establish communication guidelines

that water agencies can use to design

effective, integrated communication

approaches aimed at influencing water

conservation behavior

• provide reference data and methods

for evaluating the success of water

conservation social marketing efforts

The final report outlines key socialmarketing principles and explains how

they can be applied in the water utility and

conservation context. It provides a synthesis

of information on the current knowledge

concerning conservation communication

and social marketing efforts.

It also presents a time-and-place view of

conservation communication efforts in a

number of water agencies in North America.

e researchers sought to include information

and data from a diverse group of providers,

but the results should not be interpreted as

being statistically representative of all North

American locations. Rather, the results from

this research provide examples and guidance

for water providers seeking to implement

effective water conservation education and

social marketing campaigns that resonate with

customers and produce tangible water savings.

The report will assist water utilities in

designing and implementing socialmarketing campaigns through three

mechanisms: (1) sharing of informational

resources on social marketing; (2) sharing

lessons learned from other water utilities;

and (3) sharing research on linkages

between demographics and effective

communications for use in designing

targeted communications campaigns, in

particular when budgets are limited.

behavior modification, and verifiable

water use reductions? What are the

most effective methods and techniquesfor designing and implementing water

conservation social marketing campaigns?

Water Conservation: Customer Behavior

and Effective Communications seeks to

answer these and other critical questions

in an effort to help water providers improve

the design and implementation of water

conservation social marketing campaigns.

Research Objectives

The objective of this study was to evaluate

the linkages and relationships between

the water conservation behavior of

residential customers and the

communication approaches that seek

to influence that behavior. The research

team implemented this evaluation through

a multi-method approach including

telephone interviews with water agency

personnel, surveys of residential water

customers, analyses of current and past

billing records supplied by water agencypartners, in-depth case studies of water

agencies and their water conservation

communication campaigns, and an

evaluation of communication methods

implemented by six participating utilities

(Durham, North Carolina; Phoenix and

Tempe, Arizona; Jacksonville and Orange

County, Florida; and Seattle, Washington).

This study leveraged previous research,

in particular the Foundation’s report,

Residential End Uses of Water(order #90781/project #241), also

referred to as the Residential End Uses

of Water Study (REUWS).

The three primary research objectives were

as follows:

• investigate—through empirical research

and literature review—the relationships

among the water conservation

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=9&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=9&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=9&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=9&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=9&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=9&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=9&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D241http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=9&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4012



COMMUNICATIONS

McKenzie-Mohr developed an approach tosocial marketing called “community-based

social marketing” (CBSM) that includes itsown fundamental principles and concepts.

CBSM has caught the attention of waterconservation professionals and has been

implemented in a number of utilities withfavorable results (e.g., Region of Durham,

Canada, Los Angeles). Some key conceptsfrom CBSM (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith

1999) are as follows:

• Commitment. Social marketing

research has shown that people

who make a nominal commitmentto a cause (e.g., wearing a button orsigning a petition) are more likely to

respond favorably to requests to adoptbehaviors that support that causethan those who have not made such

a commitment. Water utilities shouldconsider obtaining a commitment to

water conservation through a pledgecampaign or community network. In

doing so, utilities will establish a coregroup of individuals and businesses that

see themselves as water conservationadvocates and who are more likely to

make changes in usage behaviors whenasked to do so.

• Norms. Water utilities should seek toestablish a water conservation ethic, or

norm, that fosters desired behaviors.

• Prompts. People are more likely to

take actions that are top-of-mind andthat appeal to them personally. Water

utilities should consider using prompts,or reminders, in their marketing

campaigns to motivate behaviorchanges. Examples could includegiveaways at festivals or events that

will prompt people to change theirbehaviors.

Research Findings

Literature Review: Key Principles of Social

Marketing

Water utilities across North America

have shown significant interest insocial marketing as a useful approach

for conservation programs. Marketingexperts have promoted broad-based

media communications as “the best wayto hasten behavior change” and as “a

cost-efficient way to reach the broadestaudience” (Hoffman 2006). Prepackagedmarketing programs such as Water—UseIt Wisely (developed by Park and Co.) havebeen implemented in states ranging from

California to Arizona to North Carolina.Programs such as Water IQ in Texas and theSeattle 1% Program represent substantialefforts to enlist social marketing principles

in the search for water savings.

The social marketer’s job is complete whena behavior is performed consistently by

the target audience. Although complete

adoption of a behavior is ideal, it is notrealistic. Therefore, social marketers mustplan, evaluate, and refine their approachesand clearly identify measurable outcomes

and performance measures.

Traditional commercial marketers often referto the marketer’s toolbox or the four principles

(4Ps: product, price, place, and promotion).e 4Ps are important because they remind

social marketers that any marketing effort must

apply a customer orientation to their strategyand message development.

Literature Review: Commitment, Norms, andPrompts: ools for Social Change

Social marketing researcher and authorDoug McKenzie-Mohr has identified a

number of tools that can make socialmarketing efforts effective—the idea

of commitment, norms, and prompts.



COMMUNICATIONS

Policy Act of 1992, which required more water-efficient toilets, showerheads, and

faucets to be manufactured. The averagehome in this study was built in 1974, and

more than 25% of the homes were builtprior to 1960.

The average home of the survey

respondents had 2.2 bathrooms and2.4 people per household year-round.

Household income averaged $84,562among survey respondents. The median

household income in the United Statesin 2006 was $48,000 according to the U.S.

Census Bureau. The median is of coursedifferent from the average. It is not possibleto compute a precise median value from the

survey data obtained in this study, but themedian would fall at the upper end of the

$50,000 to $74,999 category, a little belowthe average. The income data collected here

proved a useful explanatory variable for water use.

Which water conservation behaviors are

practiced most frequently?

In general, respondents reported practicing

all of the conservation measures listed onthe survey at least some of the time. These

measures included a choice of 20 behaviorsranging from checking toilets for leaks to

taking a shorter shower to using water-wiselandscaping techniques. A maximum of

only 14% of respondents said they rarely ornever practice any of the specific measures.The results suggest that most people believe

they regularly practice water efficiencymeasures. Whether true or not, it does

suggest a high level of awareness aboutconservation practices and a concerted

attempt to integrate conservation practicesinto everyday life.

Using a garbage can rather than the toilet

to dispose of trash was the most frequentlypracticed water conservation behavior

Marketing Water Conservation

Ideally, water conservation programs

need a communications and marketingcomponent. Every water conservationprogram must include some effort to

communicate with the targeted audience.Some of the participating agencies in this

project utilized a number of the principlesdescribed above in the marketing campaign

studied by the researchers. The reportdocuments the measurable impacts ofmarketing efforts in these communities,

given the limitations of the data set

available. In a few cases, the research team was able to directly connect a particularconservation message with lower water use

in customers familiar with the message.In most cases, such a connection was not

possible to discern.

Survey Results—Demographic Questions

e intent was to survey detached single-

family residential properties exclusively. As itturned out, 93% of the respondents live in a

single-family home while the remaining 7%live in a townhouse, multi-family apartment,

mobile home, duplex, or other similardwelling. Respondents who reported living in

something other than a single-family home were not excluded from subsequent analysis.

Most of the survey respondents (95%)

owned the home they live in. Only 5%indicated they rent their home and less than1% did not know. Nearly three-quarters

of the survey respondents (72%) reportedliving at the current address for seven

or more years and another 19% reportedliving at the current address for 3 to 7 years.

About 6% reported living at this address forbetween 1 to 3 years and only 2% had been

at the current address less than one year.

The homes of the survey respondents werelargely built prior to 1994 when the Federal

plumbing code changed through the Energy



COMMUNICATIONS

they installed a “water-saving” showerhead

in the past year, and 30% reported stopping

irrigation of some or all of an existing lawn,possibly due to drought conditions.

One in five respondents (20%) reported

installing an efficient clothes washer

during the past year. Clothes washers have

an expected useful life of 14 years, so it

is anticipated that a little over 7% of the

public will replace their clothes washer

per year. This is much lower than the 20%

replacement rate found in the survey group.

The respondents appear to be installing

new clothes washers at more than doublethe expected rate, perhaps due to incentive

programs or anticipated water and energy

savings associated with installing a new

washing machine.

One in four respondents (25%) reported

replacing a toilet or installing a toilet

displacement device during the past year.

Nearly one in five (19%) reported installing

water efficient faucet aerators during the

past year. Both of these reported installation

rates exceed the expected natural

replacement rate for these fixtures.

practiced “most” or “all of the time” by

94% of respondents. In this study, 90% of

respondents reported avoiding the heat ofthe day for watering most or all of the time

and another 88% said they don’t irrigate

when it is raining. Running the dishwasher

and clothes washer only when full ranked

highly as well.

The three conservation activities that

respondents practiced least often were

water-wise landscaping techniques

(50% most or all the time, which is still

quite high); a jug of water in the refrigerator(63% most or all of the time); and tracking

usage via monthly water bill (64% most or

all of the time).

Which water conservation actions have been

most frequently taken during the

past year?

Repairing leaking faucets and/or toilets

was the most frequently taken action with

58% of respondents indicating that they

had done this within the past year. The nextmost popular action taken was changing the

“lawn watering schedule,” but only 37% of

the respondents indicated doing this during

the past year. Thirty percent responded that

Table 1. Average annual water use and sample size – six study sites

Site Location Sample Size*

Total annual water use from billing records

Mean** (kgal) Median (kgal) Std. Dev. (kgal)

All Sites 5,223 135.5 99.0 149.3

Tempe 1082 190.8 155.2 231.2

Durham 952 53.2 47.9 29.5

Phoenix 966 159.5 125.7 139.7

JEA 969 148.8 114.4 122.0

Orange County 969 141.8 111.5 109.6

Seattle 282 52.9 43.4 39.2

*Samples drawn from the population of single-family accounts in each study. The sample sizepresented is smaller than the original sample because of missing data.

**Based on most recent available complete year of historic bil ling data—2006 for all sitesexcept Seattle (2008).



COMMUNICATIONS

The survey asked, “What would be the most

effective way to reach you with information

about water conservation that you will use?”Utility bill inserts about water conservation

(68%) and TV ads demonstrating water

conservation tips (55%) were the two most

frequently chosen information delivery

methods, followed by newspaper ads (35%),

radio ads (26%), TV demos (25%), magazine

articles (24%), the Weather Channel (23%),

demonstrations (21%), and billboards

(21%). Bill inserts are often criticized as

an ineffective way to reach people, yet in

this survey it was by far the most preferredmethod for receiving water conservation

information.

The lowest-rated methods for delivering

conservation information were irrigation

contractors (4%), university extension

services (4%), utility sponsored classes and

workshops (4%), public meetings (5%), and

plumbers (6%). Personal contact with a

utility representative was selected by 7%.

The Internet received mixed reviews in

this survey. Utility web sites (13%) are

frequently used to provide conservation

information, but apparently customers

do not view this as a particularly effective

communication method. Emailed

information also received a 13% response.

These results should be of interest to

utilities that strive to communicate

conservation messages regularly to

customers.

Water Use Comparison

The average annual single-family water

use across all six study sites was 145.4

kilogallons (kgal) per year and the median

was 105.0 kgal per year. The standard

deviation was 161.4 kgal. For comparison,

the average annual single-family water use(from billing data) from 12,055 homes inthe REUWS was 146.1 kgal per year and the

Only 10% of respondents have ever

participated in a utility rebate program, so

the increased installation rate for clothes washers, dishwashers, and toilet devices

found in the survey is not likely due to

utility-sponsored rebate programs. However,

13% of respondents said their utility

offered a program like that but they did not

participate. A full 61% said they would have

participated in a rebate program if one had

been available.

These results suggest that rebate programs

are useful, but not always necessary toachieve a higher than expected installation

rate of efficient fixtures. Many customers

are installing efficient fixtures without a

rebate incentive. Furthermore, if a rebate

were available, these customers might well

have taken advantage of the offering to get

money back for an action they would have

taken anyway. This is commonly referred

to as “free-ridership,” and has been shown

to be a real issue for many utility rebate

programs (Whitcomb 2003).

Why do people take action to conserve water?

Customers were asked to select reasons

they took deliberate steps to conserve

water sometimes or all the time. Three

reasons stood out as the most important in

influencing conservation steps: (1) saving

money—78%; (2) it is the right thing to

do—76%; and (3) concern about water

availability—75%.

About half of the respondents’ conservation

actions were brought about or prompted

by drought (57%), climate change (53%),

environmental impacts (50%), and drought

restrictions (44%). Water bill inserts (18%),

TV shows (13%), peer pressure (2%), and

utility workshops (1%), were at the bottom

of the list for respondents in terms of

supporting conservation steps.



COMMUNICATIONS

water use annually. This factor is oftenconsidered a surrogate for size and

value of the home.

3. Number of people in the home: Eachadditional person added about 11%more water use annually.

4. Household income: Each additional

$1,000 of annual income added 0.3%more water use annually.

Recommendations and Conclusions

Given the dearth of communication studies

specific to water conservation and behaviorchange, some of the research findings can

be immediately considered for current andfuture utility program efforts. Below are

some of the findings that the authors believeto be noteworthy with regard to planning

conservation communication efforts.

Conservation or Efficiency Behavior

Recommendation: Focus on cost-effective

water efficiency measures that areunderutilized such as fixture replacement.

This finding may help water agencies focuson other water saving measures not often

reported or poorly adopted but wouldstill garner significant savings. At the

same time, water agencies could usethis finding to support the approach of

median was 123.3 kgal per year. Results areshown in Table 1 and Figure 1.

The consistency of results from this study

and the REUWS indicates that about 135 to145 kgal per year is a reasonable estimate of

the average annual water use for residentialproperties. When considering “typical”single-family residential water use, the

median is probably a better measure thanthe mean, which is strongly influenced by a

few high water users. The median water useacross all six study sites was 99.0 kgal per

year, which is about 27% less than the mean.

Factors Tat Influence Water Use

Using the dataset developed for this study

and logarithmic transformation multipleregression techniques, the factors that

influence water use across all six study sites were examined. After correcting for water

use variation due to differences in climate,demography, water rates, and a myriad of

other factors, the four basic factors found toinfluence water use at a 95% confidence level

(in order of magnitude) were as follows:

1. Type of residence: Single family

residences used 35% more waterannually than duplexes, apartments, and

other multi-family types of residence.

2. Number of bathrooms in the home:

Each bathroom added about 29% more

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tempe Durham Phoenix JEA Orange County Seattle All Sites A n n u a l R e s i d e n t i a l W a t e r U s e ( k g a l )

Average Median

Figure 1 Annual residential water use (average and median) in six study sites



COMMUNICATIONS

Findings in Relation to the 4Ps of Social

Marketing

While it may be difficult to associatechanges in water use to social marketing

efforts, lessons learned from the research

results can be used to guide water utilities

in designing a social marketing campaign

around the four principles (4Ps: product,

price, place, promotion). The 4Ps are

best used as part of an overarching social

marketing process. Social marketing is

about being strategic in selling a behavior

change to a targeted group of individuals to:

• Accept a New Behavior: Use monthly water bills to track usage.

• Reject a Potential Behavior: Don’t let

a faucet leak for a long period of time

without fixing it.

• Modify a Current Behavior: Take shorter

showers.

• Abandon an Old Behavior: Stop

watering some or all of the existing lawn.

Product: In this context the “product”is the programs and services offered by

the utility to reach water conservations

goals. By defining the behavior or set of

behaviors you want your audience(s) to

adopt and sustain, the customer message

is determined. Ideally, messaging should

move consumers to action. The results

indicate that water conservation messages

have worked over time. Consumers already

have a high level of awareness about water

conservation practices, and they make aconcerted attempt to integrate water

conservation practices into everyday life.Recommendation: The overarching water

conservation message should address

water supply and demand, which stood

alone at the top as the biggest concern

for consumers.

reinforcing and rewarding existing, well-

adopted positive behavior.

Recommendation: Clothes washer rebateprograms appear to be accelerating theadoption of water and energy efficient

products. Target rebate messaging atcustomers with high indoor water demands

and provide rebates only for the mostefficient products. is finding may help

water agencies prioritize rebate programsand fine tune outreach regarding the

combined water and energy savings attainedby clothes washers because receptivity for

this activity is seemingly favorable.

Recommendation: Many people believethey are conserving already, even if their

water use suggests otherwise. Conservationcommunication efforts must effectivelyeducate customers about what constitutes

efficient use and where each customer’sdemand fits on a spectrum of efficiency levels.

To address this, effective communicationsshould identify a conservation behavior “path”

that water users can take. Communicatingoptions to them will identify numerous ways

to expand conservation.

Recommendation: Mine customer waterbilling records to identify good candidates

for water conservation program efforts. iscould help water agencies better focus their

efforts by further examining their customeraccount records and target marketing toward

individuals who are high-use customers

but have shown receptivity or adoption to aconservation or efficiency measure.

Recommendation: Use multiple

communications channels to effectivelydeliver the right message to the right

audience at the right time.



COMMUNICATIONS

Recommendation: Disseminate messages

to consumers where they live, work, and

play. Non-traditional venues shouldbe considered, such as movie theaters,

supermarkets, shopping malls, retail, and

fast food outlets.

Promotion: Promotion is how and where

you communicate to your audience about

the behavior, price, and place. It is using the

most appropriate mix of media vehicles to

best reach the target audience. Promotional

channels can range from face to face

contact to big budget advertising. The casestudies present in this report illustrate

that a portfolio approach of mixed media

can be effective in reaching consumers. A

media mix can include advertising (print,

broadcast, Web), direct mail (utility bill

inserts), outdoor, mass transit, or editorial

outreach (article placement) to name

a few. Recommendation: Use multiple

communications channels to effectively

disseminate information about water

conservation to consumers. The more times

consumers receive the message, the more

likely it is to influence their behavior.

Price: In the context of social marketing,

“price” is the perceived costs of adopting

the desired behavior. For example, thecost of buying low-flow faucets. However,

“price” does not solely rely on dollars, it

should be looked at from monetary, time,

effort, and psychological perspectives.

Recommendation: Educate consumers

about the availability and financial

advantages of utility rebate programs, since

saving money is becoming a higher priority

in households across the nation. In addition,

education should focus on ease related to

adopting the behavior.

Place: Place refers to the channels through

which the products or programs are

available, the places where the behavior

change can occur, or when a service is

received. The greater access people have

to the new behavior and the easier it is to

do, the more chance there is of persuading

people to change. In order to be effective,

education and outreach messages must

reach the consumer at the point of

decision-making, so that it is convenient

for the customer to get the message.

References

Hoffman, J.R. 2006. Do We Have A Water Problem?: The Use of Social Marketing as a ProblemSolver. Journal AWWA. August 2006 (34–36).

Mckenzie-Mohr, D., and W. Smith. 1999. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction toCommunity-Based Social Marketing. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Whitcomb, J. 2003. Freeriders in ULFT Programs. Sacramento, Calif.: California Urban WaterConservation Council.

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=16&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fapps.awwa.org%2FWaterLibrary%2Fshowabstract.aspx%3Fan%3DJAW_0063361http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=16&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fapps.awwa.org%2FWaterLibrary%2Fshowabstract.aspx%3Fan%3DJAW_0063361http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=16&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fapps.awwa.org%2FWaterLibrary%2Fshowabstract.aspx%3Fan%3DJAW_0063361http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=16&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fapps.awwa.org%2FWaterLibrary%2Fshowabstract.aspx%3Fan%3DJAW_0063361http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=16&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fapps.awwa.org%2FWaterLibrary%2Fshowabstract.aspx%3Fan%3DJAW_0063361http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=16&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fapps.awwa.org%2FWaterLibrary%2Fshowabstract.aspx%3Fan%3DJAW_0063361http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=16&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cuwcc.org%2FdocDetail.aspx%3Fid%3D1810http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=16&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cuwcc.org%2FdocDetail.aspx%3Fid%3D1810http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=16&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cuwcc.org%2FdocDetail.aspx%3Fid%3D1810http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=16&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cuwcc.org%2FdocDetail.aspx%3Fid%3D1810http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=16&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cuwcc.org%2FdocDetail.aspx%3Fid%3D1810http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=16&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fapps.awwa.org%2FWaterLibrary%2Fshowabstract.aspx%3Fan%3DJAW_0063361


19/60DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JULY– SEPTEMBER 201

WEB RESOURCES

Web Resources for Water Use Efficiency Professionals

The following organizations and Websites provide excellent resources for water use efficiency professionals:

The Alliance for Water Efficiency is a stakeholder-based 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to theefficient and sustainable use of water. Located in Chicago, the Alliance serves as a North American advocate forwater efficient products and programs, and provides information and assistance on water conservation efforts.www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org

The American Water Works Association’s WaterWiser® is a comprehensive clearinghouse of resources on waterconservation, efficiency, and demand management for conservation professionals and the larger water supplycommunity. http://www.awwa.org/Resources/Waterwiser.cfm?navItemNumber=1561

The California Urban Water Conservation Council was created to increase efficient water use statewide throughpartnerships among urban water agencies, public interest organizations, and private entities. The Council’s goal is tointegrate urban water conservation Best Management Practices into the planning and management of California’s waterresources. www.cuwcc.org

Water Conserve provides capabilities to search the world of water conservation information on the Internet. It is partof Ecological Internet Inc., which specializes in the use of the Internet to achieve ecological science-based environmentalconservation outcomes. Ecological Internet’s mission is to empower the global movement for environmental sustainabilityby providing information retrieval tools, portal services, expert analysis, and action opportunities that aid in the protectionof climate, forest, ocean, and water ecosystems; and to commence the age of ecological sustainability and restoration.Ecological Internet’s family of environmental portals are a special kind of Website that try to identify, filter, and network allthe best information found on a subject through one starting point. http://www.waterconserve.org /

The savewater!® Alliance Inc. was incorporated in Victoria, Australia on June 9, 2004 as a not-for-profit association. Itsaim is to accelerate water conservation behavior change and water saving product purchasing in line with governmentand water industry needs. savewater!® also aims to support product and service suppliers by increasing community

awareness of their product solutions. www.savewater.com.au

WaterSense is an EPA-sponsored partnership program launched in 2006 that seeks to protect the future of the nation’swater supply by promoting water efficiency and enhancing the market for water-efficient products, programs, andpractices. www.epa.gov/watersense

The Water Sustainability Project (WSP) began in 2003 at the University of Victoria’s POLIS Project on EcologicalGovernance in British Columbia, Canada. The WSP seeks to establish a new water paradigm based on conservation,stewardship, and sustainability. To address the challenge the project is divided into three core research themes crucialto a sustainable water future: Water Conservation & The Soft Path, Water-Energy Nexus, and Water Law, Policy &Governance. The Water Sustainability Project is part of the larger POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, which isa centre for transdisciplinary research that investigates and promotes sustainability. POLIS was established in 2000by the Eco-Research Chair of Environmental Law and Policy at the University of Victoria. http://poliswaterproject.org/

conservation

The Water—Use It Wisely campaign was launched in 1999 to promote an ongoing water conservation ethic amongArizona’s rapidly growing population. Following Arizona’s lead, nearly 400 towns, cities, states, utilities, and privateand public organizations have adopted the Water - Use It Wisely conservation campaign, making it one of the largestconservation educational outreach programs in the world. www.wateruseitwisely.com

Waterwise UK is an independent, non-profit organisation that receives funding from the UK water industry and fromsponsorship and consultancy work. In England, it participates on the Environment Minister’s Water Saving Group alongsidethe water industry and regulators. Waterwise set up the Saving Water in Scotland Network. www.waterwise.org.uk

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.allianceforwaterefficiency.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.awwa.org%2FResources%2FWaterwiser.cfm%3FnavItemNumber%3D1561http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cuwcc.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterconserve.org%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterconserve.org%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.savewater.com.auhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.epa.gov%2Fwatersensehttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliswaterproject.org%2Fconservationhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliswaterproject.org%2Fconservationhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wateruseitwisely.comhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterwise.org.ukhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterwise.org.ukhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wateruseitwisely.comhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliswaterproject.org%2Fconservationhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliswaterproject.org%2Fconservationhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.epa.gov%2Fwatersensehttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.savewater.com.auhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterconserve.org%2Fhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cuwcc.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.awwa.org%2FResources%2FWaterwiser.cfm%3FnavItemNumber%3D1561http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201007/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.allianceforwaterefficiency.org



SMART IRRIGATION

Introduction

In recent years, “smart” irrigation

technologies have gained interest as a way

to conserve water in landscape irrigation

systems while maintaining desired

landscape quality. These smart irrigation

technologies consist of control technologiesthat apply irrigation according to estimated

landscape needs based on measurements

of parameters in the landscape. Variables

measured in the landscape can consist of

weather parameters that drive plant water

use or soil water content that is influenced

by plant water use. The Irrigation

Association has been promoting Smart

Water Application Technologies (SWAT)

products for several years. The idea is that

irrigation scheduling efficiency can beenhanced by using control systems such as

evapotranspiration (ET) or soil moisture

sensor (SMS) controllers rather than just a

“dumb” time clock.

Soil Moisture Sensor Irrigation Control

Generally, SMS control can take two

forms: (1) bypass control and (2) on-

demand control. In bypass control, the SMS

controller is connected in line with a time

clock. The SMS controller will then decide whether or not to allow the scheduled time

clock irrigation cycles. The SMS controller

makes this decision by comparing the

measured soil moisture content with an

adjustable set point that should be set just

under the level where excess soil water

percolation occurs. All of the SMS units

we have tested at the University of Florida

use the bypass control method. Under

on-demand control, a time clock is not

required and the SMS system will initiate

and cease irrigation within upper and lower

thresholds that are defined by the user.

This type of control system is not typically

used on smaller irrigation systems such

as residential or small commercial due to

higher cost.

Evapotranspiration Irrigation Control

Evapotranspiration controllers in contrast

to soil moisture controllers do not have

sensors in the soil, but use weather variables

to calculate the amount of water needed

by the landscape. e exact method of

this calculation varies depending on the

particular manufacturer. ere are generallythree types of ET controllers: (1) signal

based, (2) standalone, and (3) historical-

based. e signal based controllers are sent

an ET amount typical for the previous day.

e “ET signal” is based on calculations

performed using weather data in the region

of the controller. is ET signal is then

adjusted to represent water needs in terms

of controller run time depending on plant

type, soil type, and other factors. Stand-

alone controllers use some type of weather variable measurement to calculate ET.

Again, adjustments are typically possible

for the many variables encountered in the

landscape. Finally, historical-based ET

controllers use preprogrammed values of ET

so that the controller automatically adjusts

the irrigation schedule seasonally according

to some historical average ET value.

Smart Irrigation Technologies:

Water Savings PotentialMichael D. Dukes, University of Florida



SMART IRRIGATION

similar to many homeowners. Turf quality

was not impacted by irrigation savings

due to the wet conditions throughout2004 and 2005. The SMS controllers had

acceptable turf quality during dry years but

non-irrigated plots had poor quality. We

have also shown that SMS controllers can

result in water savings as high as 53% on St.

Augustine grass during drought conditions

while maintaining acceptable turf quality

(McCready et al. 2009).

In 2005, plans were made to establish

a test site for ET controllers at the GulfCoast Research and Education Center near

Wimauma. e site was installed and plants

established throughout the spring of 2005.

is site consisted of twenty 1,000-square-

feet plots that were 65% Floratam St.

Augustine grass and 35% mixed ornamental.

ree brands of ET controllers were tested

along with two time-based comparison

treatments. Over the testing period, which

exceeded 15 months in 2006–2007, ET

controller savings across all brands averaged43% compared to the timer irrigation control

(Davis et al. 2009). Maximum savings were

observed in the winter as ET controllers

effectively

Documents

2010-07-09 AWR Water Use Efficiency