PALOUSE WATER CONSERVATION NETWORK
Water Conservation Plan
Adopted by the Board of Directors, 05/05/05
Introduction: Habits are Hard to Break
It's not the purpose of this document to argue whether the water supply of the Palouse basin needs to be conserved.
The unsustainability of current and projected consumption levels by Palouse area residents is well documented.
The only purpose here is to propose a program to effectively and fairly reduce consumption to reasonable levels.
Individual, household and institutional water use practices largely reflect the habits and attitudes of those using the water.
Habits are notoriously hard to break (witness the numbers of people who still smoke) and attitudes are even more resistant to change.
Some individuals will reduce their consumption of water because it's "the right thing to do."
People in this category are already using water conservatively.
Some institutions may conserve in response to outside pressure or a conservation-minded employee.
But most change in habits and attitudes governing water use will result from financial incentives and government regulation.
Lots of different things motivate lots of different people, but the most universal motivator is money.
As long as water is inexpensive enough to be an inconsequential expenditure, many will use it as though it has no value.
But when water starts to have a noticeable cost it will begin to be valued by those paying for it.
As the perceived value of water increases, so will the amount of thought that goes into how it is used.
This is often called a "price signal."
But our current system charges consumers only for the cost of maintaining the supply system, and pumping and piping the water (i.e. the "cost of delivery").
How many commodities or resources wouldn't be over-consumed if the end users paid nothing for them but the shipping and handling?
Most of the public water conservation measures currently utilized on the Palouse are passive.
This means that they are only effective with individuals who are already motivated to reduce their consumption.
Water conserving fixtures, notices in media (newspaper, public access channel, newsletters), xeriscape demonstration gardens, and generic pamphlets at the water department will NOT have any effect on those not motivated to make use of them.
Since only a small percentage of consumers will respond to passive conservation, these methods will accomplish only a small percentage of what could be achieved through conservation.
Yet many of our decision-makers (councils, mayors, government administrators, PBAC) look at current programs and assume we're already "doing" conservation, not realizing that we've only scratched the surface.
We can all agree that stealing, driving recklessly and committing murder are unacceptable behaviors which negatively impact society.
Surely, we can count on people to do the right thing and not engage in these activities.
Can't we?
Then why do we have laws, law enforcement agencies, courts and a penal system designed to enforce compliance with what we all agree are acceptable modes of behavior?
Apparently, no matter what the personal or societal costs, some people will still have no concern for the impacts that their actions have on present and future generations.
Government regulations set the boundaries within which most of us behave and provide the methods for enforcing that behavior, where necessary.
While wasting a public resource, such as water, seems in no way comparable to murder, it isn't unlike stealing.
Like other behaviors which are detrimental to society, misuse of water needs to be prohibited and punished.
The following water conservation measures are presented in order of priority, but are interdependent in forming a comprehensive strategy for reducing consumption.
While each will save water as a stand-alone method, the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
They provide the motivation, regulation and education that will change the habits and attitudes which control water use decisions.
But at the same time, these measures allow a great deal of personal freedom in deciding how much water to use, and how and when to use it.
Most of the force is motivational; very little is punitive.
Some of these measures can be implemented with very little cost or research.
Others will require a larger investment of time and funds to apply effectively.
But even those are far less costly than projects to increase water supply (i.e. enhanced/artificial recharge, importation of water, impoundment of seasonal precipitation, etc.).
For years, we've heard that "conservation alone won't solve our water supply problem."
Since we've never tried real conservation, how would we know?
But even if these measures, fully implemented, fail to reduce consumption to levels which can be supplied naturally on a sustainable basis, they will significantly reduce the size, cost and environmental impacts of whatever project(s) we do find necessary to achieve sustainability.
And these savings are available NOW!
With every day that passes without availing ourselves of them, our water account gets that much smaller.
Conservation Rate Structure
The heart of an effective water conservation program must be a rate structure which rewards careful use of the resource.
The are a variety of ways to do this, but the one we recommend is the "tiered" or "ascending block" rate, where increasing amounts of usage are billed at increasingly higher rates.
There's no limit to the number of steps in the rate structure, but most utilities have three to five.
Most of these structures still have a base rate, and may include some amount of water each month at no additional charge over the base.
The first tier will typically cover an amount of water that is sufficient for the reasonable monthly indoor needs of an average sized household.
Successively higher tiers charge increasingly more per 100 cubic feet, since the additional water is being used for decreasingly necessary purposes.
If we consider water to be an unlimited resource, there will be no reason to pick and choose how it is used --
there should be enough for any conceivable purpose.
But since we don't have an infinite supply of water, we must prioritize water uses.
Drinking and cooking will top the list for most people, with bathing and washing clothes not far behind.
After these essentials, the common uses of water are discretionary and will be prioritized differently, depending on the needs, values and interests of the user.
Watering landscapes and washing cars will usually receive fairly high priority, with washing pavements, filling pools and other uses farther down the list.
Unfortunately, most consumers perceive water to be an unlimited resource and, therefore, don't prioritize or limit their uses of it.
The tiered water rate gives consumers the "price signals" that water is not unlimited, that it does have cost, and that it should be used with some discretion.
The increasing cost applied to increasing usage will motivate most people to prioritize the ways they use water and decrease the amount they allocate to their low priority uses.
As the motivation to reduce consumption increases (through increasing cost) so will the attractiveness of methods to use water more efficiently.
Most of the conservation measures that follow are just that - ways to increase efficiency.
Conservation doesn't mean doing without (as many people assume); it means doing the same with less.
But without the motivation that a tiered water rate introduces, few consumers will see any value in implementing conservation measures.
An important consideration in the implementation of any conservation rate structure is to maintain sufficient revenue to operate the water utility.
Since it is difficult to predict, at least initially, how consumers will adjust their usage to increases in unit cost, there is more uncertainty in how much to charge and still recover system costs.
The utility's expectation should be that the rates will need to be adjusted annually for a few years until consumption data can provide more predictability.
After that, adjustments should be needed less frequently.
Here's the process we recommend for first-year implementation of a tiered rate structure:
- Decide how many tiers to use and what the rate needs to be at each tier to achieve the desired reduction in consumption at each level of usage.
- Estimate the year's consumption, based on the greatest conceivable usage reduction that could result from the new water rates.
To be on the safe side, cut this number in half and calculate how much revenue will result.
- Subtract this volume-based revenue from the water department budget for the next year.
This tells you how much revenue must be derived from the base rate.
Set base rates to yield this amount of revenue.
Since it's unlikely that consumption will decrease as much as #2 allows for, there should be excess revenue in the first year of implementation.
This excess revenue should be used to:
- Establish a contingency fund to cover revenue shortfalls that could occur in future years.
- Fund an evaluation of how the first-year tiered rates affected usage and how the rates should be adjusted for year two.
- Fund additional conservation measures.
- Fund additional aquifer research and/or projects to augment the existing water supply.
This process is very safe, since it ensures revenue excess in the first year.
As a result, it also provides a great deal of flexibility in further development of both the rate structure and the overall conservation program.
One result of a tiered rate is that it "shaves," or lowers, peak demand during the summer months.
Landscape irrigation represents, for many consumers, their largest single category of water use, which is also the most discretionary and the most wasteful.
Unless it happens to be very high on their priority list, consumers will reduce the amount they use for irrigation in response to a tiered rate.
What this means for a community is that the greatest amount of water that ever needs to be supplied in one 24-hour period is less than it would be without the conservation rate.
This reduced peak demand reduces infrastructure costs and reduces the amount of water that might be needed in the future to supplement the existing water supply.
This saves water and money for all consumers.
Another result of a tiered rate is that those who continue to use the greatest amounts of water will also be providing the bulk of the excess revenue which will be used to fund the items listed above.
In other words, those who are contributing most to the problem are also paying the most toward the solution.
The fairness of this should be obvious.
In order to be effective, however, the differences between the tiers must be large enough for consumers to notice the difference in their water bill.
A common misconception is that increased rates won't reduce usage because people become habituated to the increase.
Residents of the Palouse certainly don't notice the winter/summer differentials currently used in Moscow and Pullman, but that's because the differential is too small.
If summer rates jumped to $5.00/100 cubic feet, most households would notice!
But until you try it, there's probably no good way to accurately predict how much price increase is necessary before habits start to change.
That's why the first year rate structure should be designed to guarantee excess revenue, as well as some notice on the part of the ratepayers.
Climate, Soils and Plants of the Palouse
Before discussing conservation measures that relate to irrigation, a brief overview of the factors affecting the timing and amount of supplemental watering is in order.
The Palouse receives most of its precipitation in the winter and spring, with July and August the most dependably dry months of the year.
Because of our proximity to the Pacific Ocean, the vagaries of the jet stream, El Nino, and the probable effects of global warming, average doesn't have much meaning.
Comparing the hot, dry conditions of 2003 with the cooler, moister conditions of 2004 is a good example of this variability in our climate.
But wet winters and dry summers will probably continue to be the general pattern.
Soils of the Palouse range from clay, to clay-loam, to silt-clay loam.
They are fine-textured, leaving little room for water between the soil particles.
Water doesn't move into or out of our soils very quickly, but this fits well with our typical rainfall, which tends to be light and spread out over several days.
Once our soils dry out in the summer, they are slow to rehydrate.
On the flip side, once our soils are saturated by winter/spring rains, they are slow to dry out again.
Native plants of the Palouse Prairie adapted over millennia to survive these climatic and soil conditions by compressing their life cycles into the cool, wet spring months.
Between late-winter and mid-summer, most Palouse Prairie natives germinate, grow, bloom, set seed and become dormant again.
This makes them oblivious to the hot, dry months of July and August.
Since human habitants want their landscapes to be green and active through the whole summer, supplemental irrigation is necessary in all but the wettest years.
While native plant gardens and xeriscapes can be wonderfully attractive and require minimal watering, these plantings won't suit the needs and tastes of everyone.
So we won't entirely eliminate the need for irrigation by simply changing landscaping practices.
What we can do is:
(1) make sure irrigation doesn't occur when it's not needed; and
(2) make sure irrigation is done without waste.
Watering Season
After the tiered water rate structure, which is necessary to drive all conservation, we feel the next most important measure to enact is the watering season.
To us, the watering season is the "season when you water."
Outside of this watering season, artificial irrigation should be prohibited.
Reasonable exceptions to this would be the watering of new plantings (trees, shrubs, perennials, vegetables, or turfgrass), either with a bucket or a hose-end device (which is directly held by the person doing the watering).
It's often difficult to imagine how people decide when to begin watering their yards.
Reliably, you can find sprinklers running on the first warm day after New Years.
This year (2005) many sprinkler systems were turned on in February, since it was warmer and dryer than normal.
When cool, wet conditions returned in March, many of those sprinklers continued to run.
But even in very wet years, there are people who insist on irrigating in April or May, apparently because that's what they always do.
Actual assessment of the needs of the plants being watered seldom factors into the decision.
Any horticulturist will tell you that more plants die from over-watering than from drought.
Since we always get enough moisture over the winter and spring to saturate our soils, they never dry out enough to require supplemental irrigation before late May or June (and sometimes July).
And once moisture returns in the fall (often in September) or plants start trying to enter dormancy, further irrigation is needless.
Establishing a watering season, outside of which watering is prohibited, will eliminate the pointless irrigation of saturated soils, which now occurs.
But arbitrarily setting a watering season, which is the same every year, fails to make adjustments for the variability of our climate.
We recommend selecting a panel of plant/soil/irrigation experts who will decide the beginning and ending of each watering season.
Finding three to five appropriate individuals to donate their time to such a panel will be relatively easy.
Drafting guidelines for how they will come to a decision shouldn't be much harder.
Our communities have many vehicles for announcing the beginning and ending dates, so public communication is equally trivial in the enactment of this measure.
Once the watering season is established, we recommend that infractions be fineable after an initial warning.
After one warning, a plea of ignorance holds no water (pun intended!)
As an estimate of how much water might be conserved by enacting the watering season, we totaled Moscow's water use above the winter baseline for the months of October through May.
In 2003, this amounted to 49.5 million gallons, or 5.38% of the annual pumping.
In 2004, which was cooler and wetter, the total was 29.7 million gallons, or 3.67% of the annual pumping.
This suggests that both Moscow and Pullman could save 30-50 million gallons of water a year by simply enacting a true watering season.
And there is virtually no cost involved in realizing this savings.
For comparison, the city of Moscow has contemplated spending $2.5 million on an effluent line to new ballfields on Palouse River Drive to save 6 million gallons per year.
Since the watering season only prohibits irrigation when there is no need for it, no one should be inconvenienced and no changes in landscaping should be necessitated by this action.
Mandatory Sprinkler System Controls
It's ironic that technology which can potentially irrigate most efficiently is also the greatest culprit in wasting our drinking water supplies.
Households watering with hose-end sprinklers will limit their wasting of water because of the time and effort involved in dragging hoses around.
But with a poorly designed, improperly programmed automatic sprinkler system, one simple push of a button can dispense millions of gallons of water with only a tiny fraction of it doing anything useful.
Trained professionals using state of the art equipment can design and install irrigation systems that will provide appropriate amounts of water to any landscape, with any type of soil, on any slope.
These systems can be controlled by sophisticated timers, whose watering schedules change with the time of year.
They can also be controlled by data collected by local weather stations, which take into account temperature, humidity, rainfall and wind.
Modern controllers can also greatly decrease runoff of irrigation water by putting it on a little at a time.
Unfortunately, many systems are installed by homeowners who have no idea what they're doing or by low-bidding installers; usually, the only thing conserved is the initial investment.
While it's probably not feasible to regulate irrigation system installations to ensure that they are as good as they can possibly be, an effective tiered water rate will hopefully motivate many to install, or upgrade existing systems to the most water conserving design.
But two controlling devices should be required on all systems: a soil moisture sensor and a rain collector.
Soil moisture sensors actually monitor the amount of moisture in the soil and prevent an irrigation system from turning on until the soil becomes dry enough to warrant watering.
The cost is under $100 and the sensors can be attached to any system.
Rainwater collectors are usually mounted on an eave and over-ride the system's programming when a pre-set amount of rain has collected in the sensor.
Cost is under $30.00 and also attachable to any system.
While the temptation might be to require these devices only on new installations, it's not unreasonable to set a deadline for the retrofitting of all irrigation systems.
Households with sprinkler systems are likely to be higher income, for whom the installation costs will not be an onerous burden.
New installations, with the motivation of tiered water rates, are more likely to be water-conserving by design.
Older, less efficient installations may generate the greatest water savings with the addition of these controlling devices.
If enough excess revenue were generated by the tiered rate structure, a rebate program could be implemented to assist homeowners and businesses in adding the controllers.
From an educational standpoint, after tiered water rates are in effect our local utilities should be ready to provide ratepayers with all the information they need about: soil moisture sensors; rainwater collectors; seasonally programmable controllers; efficient sprinkler heads; irrigation scheduling for conservation; irrigation contractors knowledgeable in conservation systems; etc.
Something along the lines of the City of Moscow's recent irrigation seminar should be offered on a recurring basis.
Restrictions during Watering Season
Some common-sense things can be done to increase the efficiency of irrigation and reduce waste.
The tiered rate will motivate most people to utilize at least some of these practices, but some might usefully be regulated by ordinance and fines.
- Avoid watering pavement, whether public or private.
- Avoid watering too fast or too long on slopes, where the water can run off to storm sewers.
- Avoid watering during windy conditions.
- Avoid using sprinklers that put out a fine mist, which will evaporate and blow away more easily.
- Avoid watering in the middle of the day, when plants can scald and water will evaporate more easily.
- Avoid washing pavements.
Use a broom or blower instead.
One recurring idea which may not have much merit is the assigning of watering days.
It's not uncommon for an even-odd watering schedule to actually increase water use, since it may force people who might not water for three days to water more often.
A system that assigns only one or two days per week during which a user may water will probably have the desired effect, but not necessarily more than the tiered water rate.
Our recommendation is to implement the tiered water rate and improve compliance by increasing the tiers in future, if necessary.
Restriction of watering days should be used as a last resort, if financial considerations fail to motivate efficient water use.
Sewer Rate Based on Water Usage
One concept which has been discussed locally, but never implemented, is the idea of basing sewer rates on winter baseline water use.
The idea here is that the more water you send down the drain, the more burden you're placing on the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
Therefore, the more water you use, the more you should be paying to support the WWTP.
This would not only provide for more equitable sewer rates, with the biggest flushers contributing most to future WWTP expansions, but would also be one more reason for consumers to conserve water.
To implement this measure, the utility would annually adjust sewer rates for each customer based on their average monthly water consumption over the previous year's winter baseline period.
We recommend that the entire non-watering season constitute the baseline period, rather than just December and January.
This will provide further incentive to minimize outdoor usage that might inflate the next year's sewer rate.
Metering/Billing of all Water
Hopefully, very little water is used in the Palouse basin without being metered.
Any that isn't should be metered as soon as possible.
The more we know about how our public water supply is used, the easier it will be to manage that use.
While Pullman bills each of its departments for the water they use, Moscow doesn't make its departments include water in their budgets.
Making water a line item in every department's budget will hopefully force greater thought on how water is used.
Other entities, if any, who aren't being billed for their water (such as Latah County at the fairgrounds) should likewise be billed for their water, just like any other user.
Informative Water Bills
Once consumers are motivated to reduce their water consumption, they will make use of a variety of information that could be provided monthly on their billing statement.
Weather data (precipitation, average temperature, average evapotranspiration rate), especially compared to the previous year, can show customers whether their usage should have increased or decreased for the current billing.
Comparisons to the average consumption for other users in their class will help customers see how they are doing compared to the rest of the community.
Showing the high and low usages for their customer class would also send signals about what can be accomplished through conservation.
Year to year comparisons of total system pumpage would inform the community of how we're doing as a whole.
Tips and reminders about how to reduce consumption, services offered by the water department, and notices of events of interest could also be incorporated.
Implementing this measure would require adoption of an envelope-based water bill, purchase of software to do the necessary calculations, and dedication of staff time to oversee the program.
The cost of making these changes has stood in the way of earlier adoption of this measure.
But providing an informative water bill is an integral part of operating the utility in a responsible and efficient manner.
The cost should be passed on to the ratepayers, just like all other costs of operating the water department.
Water-Conserving Landscaping
So many varieties of landscaping can be water-conserving that a full treatment is beyond the scope and purpose of this document.
PWCN is working on a Guide to Xeriscaping on the Palouse, which we hope to complete sometime in 2005.
Unfortunately, until the establishment of tiered water rates motivates more widespread interest in xeriscaping, there's not much point in finishing that project.
With the exception of new development, it's probably not feasible to require conversion of existing landscapes to xeriscapes.
If we provide homeowners with proper motivation, demonstration projects (such as at the UI Arboretum and Pullman's Lawson Gardens), and lots of good information, many will gradually convert some of their yard area to conserve water.
Some water utilities in the West provide rebates to households that convert to xeriscape.
Some communities regulate what can be planted in curb areas and medians by prohibiting anything but drip irrigation in those areas.
Others require a certain percentage of yard area to be xeriscaped to earn a "conservation" water rate.
We feel that a sensible approach is to see how much change can be stimulated by a conservation rate structure, saving mandates and other incentives for later, if necessary.
Given good information and some financial incentive (tiered rate), we think most homeowners will make choices that fit well with their own personal tastes and needs, as well as the community's need to reduce water consumption.
Effluent Reuse
WWTP effluent should be used to the greatest extent which is economically feasible.
Moscow is fortunate to have UI in close proximity to the WWTP, which allows irrigation of many spaces at a fairly low cost.
As treatment requirements become more stringent and distances for pumping the effluent become greater, costs increase dramatically.
Pullman and WSU should definitely continue working toward an effluent reuse facility and Moscow and UI should continue their cooperation.
But as the costs of using effluent increase, we should be considering whether other uses of funding might actually do more to save water (such as subsidized replacement of water circulating coolers in restaurants and research facilities).
Rainwater Collection
The greatest challenge to collecting rainwater for future use is storage.
During the time of year when we have the most rainwater to collect, we have no way to use it.
Installing enough storage capacity to make a significant difference during irrigation season is costly and requires space that may be difficult to dedicate.
A homeowner with a very water-conserving landscape can collect enough water in barrels to provide most or all of the landscape's irrigation needs.
Something that needs to be explored is a system that channels rainwater into a cistern that would provide the water source for toilets, washing machines and outdoor faucets.
A filtering mechanism cleans the water and an electric pump distributes it to fixtures.
Such systems are used in European countries, but our building codes probably don't allow for them.
This needs to be changed, at least at the local level.
One common practice that should be discontinued is the diversion of downspouts into structures (such as drain tile) that carry the water directly to storm sewers.
All roof runoff should be carried to parts of the yard which can absorb and utilize the water.
The only exceptions to this would be places that will flood if they receive the runoff.
Graywater Reuse
Building codes are very restrictive when it comes to graywater.
Code compliant systems that collect, filter and distribute graywater to soil are complex, expensive and of questionable use to the landscaping.
It's possible that graywater could be used to supply toilets.
If so, water from bathtubs and bathroom sinks could be reused year-round to displace the drinking water that is currently used to flush toilets.
Since toilets account for about 30% of indoor water usage, the savings would be tremendous.
Indoor Conservation
Methods for conserving water indoors are fairly universal, well-known and well-accepted.
Common devices for reducing water use include low-flow faucets and aerators, low flush-volume toilets, and water conserving clothes and dish washers.
A less commonly utilized device is the point-of-use water heater, which eliminates the waste of running cold water down the drain in order to get hot water to the fixture.
Plumbing designed to constantly recirculate water through the hot water pipes gets the same result, though at the cost of increased energy consumption.
The cheap way to do this, of course, is to collect the cold water in a bucket and use it elsewhere (watering plants, flushing toilets, etc.).
Much of indoor water conservation results from simply changing habits.
Once you do them for awhile, many things can become automatic:
- Don't leave faucets running when you're not actually using the water.
- Don't flush the toilet every time you use it.
- Take shorter showers.
- Turn the water off while soaping down or shampooing.
- Wash only full loads of clothes or dishes.
- Wear clothes and use bath towels several times before putting them in the laundry.
Simply valuing water as a resource that shouldn't be wasted is a big step toward changing habits.
The tiered water rate is central to effecting this change in attitude.
Unlike outdoor water uses, indoor uses can't be monitored.
We can strongly recommend careful use of water, but the change must arise with the individual.
Institutionally, low-flush toilets, waterless urinals, and low-flow faucets and showerheads should be universal.
Composting toilets should be considered for parks and other outdoor facilities.
Standards for New Construction
Many of the measures described here involve the replacement of existing fixtures, equipment and landscaping with water-conserving versions.
While the tiered water rate will encourage people to make some of these upgrades, such changes will take time and probably shouldn't be mandated.
However, mandating the use of conservation devices and landscaping in new construction, where replacement of an existing device is not an issue, might make more sense.
The long-term cost savings from reduced water bills should make such a mandate more palatable to the developer, builder or new homeowner.
An alternative to mandating the use of conservation strategies would be instituting several tiers of utility connection fees, depending on the degree of compliance with conservation guidelines.
On a subdivision level, designing rainwater collection and reuse structures, graywater systems, and common areas with water-conserving landscaping could earn lower fees for development.
Who Should Pay for Conservation?
Since the current residents of the Palouse are the ones depleting the resource and benefiting from the water provided, shouldn't they be the ones to share the costs associated with achieving sustainability in our long-term water supply?
The longer we go without adequately addressing the problem, the more we shift the burden of finding (and paying for) the solution to future generations.
And while every opportunity to secure state or federal funding should be pursued, lack of outside funding shouldn't serve as an excuse to do nothing (as it has for PBAC for many years).
Another point of debate is whether residents of new subdivisions (who may or may not be new residents to the area) should shoulder a greater burden of conservation than those residing in established neighborhoods.
Is it fair to require water-conserving landscaping, efficient irrigation systems, rainwater catchments, graywater reuse systems, water-conserving fixtures and appliances, and higher connection fees in new developments without requiring existing structures to make similar upgrades, where feasible?
This is a question that will have to be answered by the entire community.
Motivate or Mandate?
One of the beauties of the conservation water rate is that it doesn't tell people what they can or can't do.
Everyone is free to decide how much they're comfortable paying for their water bill and to make whatever changes they choose in order to achieve that level of expenditure.
This method also requires no policing, no warnings, no citations and no fines.
One person's top water use priority might be taking long showers.
Someone else might go to any cost to maintain at least a small area of lush, green lawn.
If both of these individuals are consuming the same amount of water, who's to say which of them is making better use of it?
Obviously, each is having his/her own say, and we think that's the way it should be.
Some consumers will choose to make no changes in their water use.
These ratepayers will be contributing most to funding the community-wide solutions to the problem that they're doing a great deal to create.
This is just a different way of mitigating the effects of their over-consumption.
While upper-limit rationing may make sense down the road, we don't believe it fits in the early stages of a conservation plan.
We believe that consumers should be motivated (by the rate structure) to make their own decisions about how to reduce their water use.
Regulations always seem heavy-handed and, while necessary in some measures (i.e. the watering season and irrigation system controllers), they should be a last resort in most of the available conservation methods.
How does This Work for Businesses?
Most of this conservation plan is geared toward residential consumers, who represent about 70% of the water pumped by Moscow and Pullman.
Businesses have different uses of water that will require customized conservation programs.
Here's one way these programs could be developed in a fair and equitable manner:
- Group business users into classes which share common characteristics.
Examples are motels/hotels, restaurants/bars, nursing homes, professional office/small retail, large retail, hospitals, etc.
- Perform audits of each class of business to identify how water is being used, as well as possible methods (and costs) for reducing consumption.
- Solicit representatives from each class to meet with the city to discuss conservation strategies.
These sessions would hopefully identify any special needs or constraints specific to each type of business that must be addressed in the conservation plan.
- Summarize all conservation strategies available to each type of business.
- Establish water rate tiers for each type of business that will reflect the degree to which a business has complied with the identified conservation strategies.
Bill all of the business' water use at the tier that they've qualified for.
Base rates for each business should reflect the percentage of the city's total pumping that they use.
- Businesses will have incentive to improve their compliance with conservation strategies in order to qualify for a lower rate.
We must work with businesses to meet the common goal of a sustainable water supply for all users.
Depending on the changes that need to be made, businesses may need time to: gradually convert equipment (such as water circulating chillers and dishwashers) to more efficient models; gradually increase prices to recover the costs of increased water bills; conduct employee training in conservation methods; etc.
Putting financial stress on businesses by too aggressively requiring infrastructure change or rate increases will not serve anyone well.
What About the Universities?
Universities operate very differently from municipalities and, therefore, will have to develop unique conservation strategies.
For example, the are no ratepayers on a college campus, so a tiered rate is not applicable.
Motivation to reduce consumption will have to be generated in different ways.
We haven't had the opportunity to work with either UI or WSU to improve their water conservation programs.
Hopefully that will change.
We do think that if the universities see the cities doing a better job with conservation they will feel more compelled to improve their own efforts.
What About Public Buildings, Parks and Schools?
Government always gets in trouble if it asks private citizens to do what it will not.
Our public buildings, parks and schools should lead the way in showcasing water-conserving landscapes, efficient irrigation, water-conserving fixtures, rainwater collection and graywater re-use.
If residents see all of these things utilized publicly, they will be more inclined (and feel less burdened) to do the same at home.
What Next? The Action Plan.
Recognizing that hundreds of thousands of gallons of water are wasted every day on the Palouse, we ask the cities of Moscow and Pullman to take these actions as soon as possible:
- Adopt effectively tiered water rate structures.
- Adopt a watering season that actually prohibits irrigation outside of it.
- Adopt new standards for irrigation systems requiring installation of a soil moisture sensor and a rainwater collector on all systems, whether new or existing.
- Consider restrictions during the watering season that would encourage and/or require efficient and sensible use of water.
- Begin basing sewer rates on water usage.
- Begin metering and billing all water delivered through the municipal supply system.
- Begin developing water bills that contain useful information about consumption and conservation.
- Continue working toward maximal cost-effective re-use of WWTP effluent.
- Begin exploring ways to incorporate rainwater and graywater in systems to partially displace current use of groundwater.
- Continue efforts to educate consumers about ways to reduce their water consumption, both indoors and outdoors.
- Begin discussion of water conservation standards in new buildings and developments.
- Begin scoping of conservation methods and rate structures for businesses.
- Begin conversion of public buildings and greenspaces to water conserving fixtures and landscaping.
Representatives of PWCN will gladly meet with representatives of city government to answer questions and discuss strategies for implementing these conservation measures.
Contact us at pwcn@moscow.com and visit our website - www.pwcn.org.