WATTS Conference- Water Conservation Education

Water Conservation Education

March 22, 2016Eddie WilcutAlan Plummer Associates, Inc.

OVERVIEW1. Why do we conserve?

2. How do we conserve?

3. The Goals

4. Evaluation Criteria

5. Cost/Benefit Analysis

Pumpage and Population

800,000

850,000

900,000

950,000

1,000,000

1,050,000

Pop

ulat

ion

155,000

160,000

165,000

170,000

175,000

180,000

185,000

190,000

195,000

Pum

page

(Acr

e Fe

et)

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024

Actual Pumpage Actual Population

Pumpage and Population

800,000

850,000

900,000

950,000

1,000,000

1,050,000

Pop

ulat

ion

155,000

160,000

165,000

170,000

175,000

180,000

185,000

190,000

195,000

Pum

page

(Acr

e Fe

et)

1980 1984 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

Actual Pumpage Actual Population

Supply & Demand Curve

50,000

150,000

250,000

350,000

450,000

550,000

Acr

e Fe

et

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Supply Goals

2000

Demand Projectionswithout Conservation

Demand Projectionswith Conservation

Presenter

Presentation Notes

AGAIN, TO ILLUSTRATE OUR LONG TERM WATER RESOURCE GOAL. THE SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM’S 50 YEAR WATER RESOURCE OUTLOOK INDICATES A STEADY GROWTH IN DEMAND. THE LONG TERM SUPPLY GOAL IS BASED ON MEETING THE DEMAND TEN YEARS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. A MAJOR COMPONENT OF OUR WATER SUPPLY REMAINS THE EDWARDS AQUIFER, THE AREA IN BLUE. OUR RECYCLED SUPPLY IS SHOWN IN GREEN STEADILY INCREASES AS THE PROJECT COMES ON LINE AND DEMAND INCREASES. THE AREA IN PURPLE ARE THE DEMANDS THAT NEED TO BE MET USING ADDITIONAL SUPPLIES. THOSE SUPPLIES WILL BE MET USING OTHER SOURCES DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE. THE WATER SUPPLY PORTFOLIO TO MEET THE LONG TERM NEEDS WILL BE BASED ON THE COMMUNITY’S EVALUATION MODEL DEVELOPED BY THE CITIZENS WORKING GROUP.

WHY CONSERVE? – MACRO VIEW1. Population & Demand Projections

2. Supply & Demand Projections

3. Peak Demand Reductions

4. Infrastructure Planning

5. Drought Response

6. State or Federal Mandates

7. GPCD Reductions

April

May

June

July

Augu

st

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec Ja

n

Feb

Ma

Months

Residential

Commercial

Seasonal Peaks

Discretionary Water Use

Drought Management Aquifer Levels

610

620

630

640

650

660

670

680

690

700

1-Ja

n

1-Fe

b

1-M

ar

1-Ap

r

1-M

ay

1-Ju

n

1-Ju

l

1-Au

g

1-Se

p

1-O

ct

1-N

ov

Feet

GPCD Reduction

HOW DO WE CONSERVE? MICRO VIEW

1. Establishing Goals

2. Water Consumption Evaluation

3. Identifying Opportunities

4. Program Development & Implementation

5. Program Tracking & Evaluation


ESTABLISHING GOALS

a. Reductions in Peak Demand

b. Reductions in Seasonal Demand

c. Reductions in Specific Service Areas

d. Reductions in Per Capita Consumption

CONSERVATION DIRECT PROGRAM GOALS

POPULATION – 1.28 MILLION

1 GPCD REDUCTION = 1,434 ACRE FEET OR 467 MILLION GALLONS

Direct Conservation Goals can best be achieved through the identification and development of partnerships, aimed at cost effectively reducing water consumption while maintaining or improving quality of life for the residential customer, and maintaining or improving productivity for the commercial customer.


WATER CONSUMPTION EVALUATION

a. Residential End Uses of Water Study (REUWS)b. Identification of Water Use Sectorsc. Industrial Production Datad. Climate Driven Consumption Patternse. Customer Driven Consumption Patternsf. Behavioral Consumption Patternsg. Comparing & Contrasting Similar End Uses

Lubbock, TX

Lubbock, TX


IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIESa. Residential Indoor & Outdoorb. Multifamily Indoor & Outdoorc. Industrial (Gallons per Pound of Product)d. Hospitalitye. Institutionalf. Low-Incomeg. Commercialh. Utilities i. Agricultural


PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATIONa. Incentives & Rebates b. Distribution of Fixturesc. Direct Installsd. Cost Sharinge. Auditsf. Ordinance Developmentg. Pricingh. Community Based Programsi. Low Income Programsj. Certification Programsk. Enforcement


PROGRAM TRACKING & EVALUATION

a. Assumed Savings (REUWS) Data b. Actual Savings – Pre vs Post Retrofit Analysisc. Reductions in Gallons per Pound of Productd. Normalized Data to Account for Weathere. Project or Equipment Lifef. Water & Sewer Savingsg. Energy Savingsh. Cost of Additional Water Resourcesi. Pumping & Treatment Costsj. Program Costs

COST/BENEFIT ANALYSISIn conducting a cost/benefit analysis, one must determine a cost per unit of water saved. That cost is based on a variety of factors that determine the viability of the option.

For the Conservation Planner, the cost benefit analysis is based on the cost per acre-foot of water saved, as compared to the cost per acre-foot for other water sources.

For the Homeowner, the cost benefit analysis is based on the water and/or energy savings, convenience, and cost.

For the Business owner, the cost benefit analysis is generally based on productivity, water and/or energy savings, a return of no more than two to three years.

SUCCESS IS BEST ACHIEVED WHEN PROGRAMS ARE DEVELOPED THAT WORK FOR BOTH THE CONSERVATION PLANNER AND THE CUSTOMER

Water Conservation Education

March 22, 2016Eddie WilcutAlan Plummer Associates, Inc.

Environment

WATTS Conference- Water Conservation Education