2010-07-09 AWR Water Use Efficiency

Drinking Water Research
Advancing the Science of Water
JulySeptember 2010 volume 20, number 3 water conservation communication metering loss control revenue rates smart irrigation end use
Water Use Efficiency
Drinking Water Research
Advancing the Science of Water
FEATURES
DEPARTMENTS
Water Use Efficiency Research for Water Utilities

Linda Reekie, Foundation project manager
2
Web Resources
17
End Uses of Delivered Water

Jennifer Warner, Foundation project manager
3
Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective
Communications
Tony Silva, Diana Pape, Ronald Szoc, ICF International; Peter
Mayer, Aquacraft Inc.; and Linda Reekie, Foundation project
manager
8
Smart Irrigation Technologies: Water Savings Potential
Michael D. Dukes, University of Florida
18
Water Efficiency Programs for Integrated Water Management
Thomas Chesnutt, A&N Technical Services Inc.
24
A Balanced Approach to Water Conservation: Removing
Barriers and Maximizing Benefits (project#4175)
28
Metering and Water Conservation
Steven L. Barfuss, Michael Johnson, Utah State University;
Donald L. Schlenger, RW Beck, David M. Hughes, American
Water; Jian Zhang, Foundation project manager
30
Rates, Rate Structures, and Revenues Research to Support
Water Conservation Programs
Susan Turnquist, Hydropology Ltd. (former Foundation project
manager)
39
Utility Leakage Management
Maureen Hodgins, Foundation project manager
46
Reducing Leaks in Service Lines
George Kunkel, Philadelphia Water Department; Carl Yates,
Halifax Regional Water Commission; David Hughes, American
Water; and Maureen Hodgins, Foundation project manager
57
JULY SEPTEMBER 2010 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH
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 District
36
Denver Water Customers Know the
More They Use, the More They Pay
45
Water Loss Control: Philadelphia
Case Study
51
Leakage Reduction Through Flow
Modulated Pressure Control: the Halifax
Water Experience
52
American Water Case Study: Continuous
System Leak Monitoring
54
New Developments in Leakage
Detection
55
Webcast Announcement
56
VIEWPOINT
Board Appoints New Chair

We are pleased to extend a warm welcome to Roy Wolfe, PhD, who in June took over as chair of
the Foundations Board of Trustees.
Wolfe, who is also group manager of corporate resources for the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, has long served and advocated for the Foundation. For the past six years, he
has served as vice chair and was also a member of the executive committee, and as such, was part
of the team that led the Foundations 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 have
a 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. Hes long
been shoulder deep in research, working on water quality issues for the state of California and, through an appointment to
the National Academy of Sciences panel, developing research priorities for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Given Wolfes home state of California, perhaps its appropriate that this issue of Drinking Water
Research focuses on water conservation. Western state water utility managers and residents of the
Western states have long known that saved water is found water. Conservation, in many cases, is less
expensive than finding new water supplies.
New Board Chair

Roy Wolfe
This issue focuses on all aspects of conservation and efficiency, with a particular focus on water
loss control, water efficiency programs, water conservation communications strategies, and new
technologies to control water use. It also contains guidance on how utilities can implement a balanced
approach to conservation.
This issue of Drinking Water Research exemplifies the Foundations commitment to funding practical
research 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 continuing
support of water research.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Renner, P.E., D.E.E.

Executive Director
The Water Research Foundation is a member-supported, international, nonprofit organization that sponsors research to enable water utilities, public health agencies, and other professionals
to provide safe and affordable drinking water to consumers.
Editor: editor@WaterResearchFoundation.org; 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
The Water Research Foundation provides contracts for studies of problems in the water supply industry. The Foundation assumes no responsibility for the content of the research studies reported or for the opinions or statements of fact expressed by contributors in this publication. The mention of tradenames or commercial products does not represent or imply the Foundations approval or endorsement. Drinking Water
Research 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.
DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JULY SEPTEMBER 2010
Introduction
Water Use Efficiency Research

for Water Utilities
Linda Reekie, Water Research Foundation project manager
Water use efficiency (WUE) measures

are increasingly being implemented by
drinking water utilities to diversify water
supply portfolios and to support utility
sustainability goals. WUE implies water
efficiency on the supply side in terms of
managing water loss in the distribution
system and on the demand side in terms
of promoting and facilitating customer
water use efficiency. Both supply and
demand efficiency result in less water being
extracted, conveyed, treated, and pumped,
and therefore reduced costs associated with
new water supply development, chemicals
for treatment, and energy consumption.
The Water Research Foundation is pleased
to highlight WUE in this issue of Drinking
Water Research and provide information
from Foundation funded research projects
on many diverse aspects of WUE. It includes
information ranging from identifying
costs and benefits of a WUE program, to
integrating WUE planning into overall
water resource planning, to developing
appropriate rate structures to ensure

adequate revenues when conservation
measures are implemented. This issue
includes information ranging from
implementing water loss control programs
in distribution systems to identifying
potential impacts of implementing
automated metering infrastructure on
water demand. It presents information on
efficient residential irrigation systems, and
trends in residential water use. This issue
also presents information on understanding
customers in order to communicate water
conservation messages more effectively.
Additional information on these topics
can be obtained by ordering the final
Foundation reports, available to Foundation
subscribers on the Website www.WaterRF.
org. Since the Foundation will continue
to fund research in this important area,
subscribers are encouraged to submit
suggestions for specific research ideas
to the Foundation at www.WaterRF.org/
GetInvolved/SubmitResearchIdea.
End Uses
End Uses of Delivered Water

Jennifer Warner, Water Research Foundation project manager
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 the
responsibility to assure a sustainable supply
of safe, high quality water for drinking
purposes and other purposes requiring high
quality water comes down to municipal
water providers. Water conservation and
other demand management strategies
help utilities ensure efficient use of
available supplies. In order for a utility
to plan and implement effective demand
management techniques, there needs
to be a comprehensive understanding
of the many uses of its delivered water
typically categorized by residential,
commercial, industrial, and institutional
needs. For utilities to both encourage
conservation and have adequate financing
for maintenance and growth, they also need
to understand how end uses may change
over time as a result of legislation, climate
change, development, population growth,
public awareness, and other factors.
A good national resource for total water
usage information in the United States is
the 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 public
and private water suppliers and delivered
to users for residential, commercial, and
industrial purposes, accounted for 11% of
the 2005 total water use, or 44,200 million
gallons per day. Residential uses make up

a significant fraction of a drinking water
utilitys delivered water (i.e., 58% of public
supply withdrawals were for residential
uses per the 2005 USGS survey).
In 1999, the Water Research Foundation
(WaterRF) published a landmark study
detailing 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 for
single-family residential use information
by most utilities, and planning and
regulatory agencies. Otherwise known as
the Residential End Uses of Water Study
(REUWS), the report summarizes indoor
and outdoor water use at single-family
homes 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 12,000
residences. Most of the data were collected
in 1998 and across all study sites 42% of
annual water use was for indoor purposes
and 58% for outdoor purposes. The mean
per capita daily water use was about 172
gallons, of which 69 gallons were used
for 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 data
showed 5.05 toilet flushes per day, 0.75
showers/baths per day, 0.37 clothes washer
uses per day, and 8.1 minutes per day running
water from faucets. Highest overall water
use occurred in the morning between 5:00
a.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
and the lowest water use occurred during the

night hours between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.
Although the data represent only a fraction of
the households in the United States, they are
considered to be representative and are useful
for planning purposes.
A secondary objective of the REUWS project
was to develop end use models to confirm
or dispel previously held beliefs and offer
additional insights between specific end
uses and socioeconomic factors obtained
through the 6,000 households that were
surveyed. The model results found that
residence square footage can be interpreted
as a surrogate for standard of living and
indicative 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 swimming
pools were shown to use more water on
average for toilet flushing. Similar trends
were observed in the model results for
shower 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 increasing
salaries and household sizes. North
America Residential Water Use Trends
Since 1992 (2010, order/project#4031),
prepared by the Center for Infrastructure
Research at the University of Louisville,
discusses trends in household water usage
300,000
Seattle
Philadelphia
Cincinnati
Cleveland
250,000
New Haven
Gallons per Year
Phoenix
Louisville
Las Vegas
200,000
Calgary
Dallas
St Paul
150,000
100,000
50,000
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
Year
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)
End Uses
in North America during the past 30 years

and draws preliminary conclusions on the
magnitude and causes of declining usage
per residential customer. Figure 1 shows
a declining trend of annual average water
usage per residential customer for eleven
partner utilities, all of which are urban
settings. Based upon data from 54 utilities,
residential water usage per customer has
decreased more than 380 gallons annually
over the last three decades or 0.44% of
average annual use. Compounded over 30
years, the decline amounts to 13.2% and
implies that a household will use 11,673 less
gallons 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 in
average daily water use. Outdoor usage was
a big factor in water usage; a swimming
pool 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 why
residential usage might be on the decline
including low-flow fixtures in retrofitted
and new construction, changing weather
patterns, rate increases, increased
customer awareness, and improved leakage
management. This study did a more
rigorous modeling effort for the City of
Louisville, Kentucky to assess the influence
of many factors (i.e., climate, household
demographics, fixtures, indoor vs. outdoor
uses, education levels, construction year,
etc.). In Louisville, household water usage
fell 10% from 1990 (208 gpd) to 2007
(187gpd). The largest factors contributing

to the decline were attributed to increased
penetration of low-flow appliances
(-19gpd) and fewer people per household
(-5gpd), yet were offset by increased
incomes (+7gpd).
On the topic of shifting weather patterns
and a changing climate, WaterRF recently
began a study with Hazen and Sawyer,
Stratus Consulting, and Aquacraft, and 10
geographically diverse utilities of different
sizes called Analysis of Changes in Water
Use Under Regional Climate Change
Scenarios (project#4263). The project
will evaluate urban and non-urban uses of
water and simulate the impacts of alternative
climate scenarios on municipal water
demands. A primary goal of the research is
to increase the adaptive capacity of water
utilities to plan for and respond to changing
water demands that may result from a
changing 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 institutional
sectors. Much less is known overall about
these customer classes, which represent a
heterogeneous mix of highly variable users.
Commercial and Institutional End Uses
of Water (2000, order#90806/project#241)
is the companion report to the REUWS
and one of the only studies to document
how commercial and institutional (CI)
customer classes use water. An analysis
of 11 CI categories and water use was
performed using billing records from five
urban water providers. Five CI categories
(i.e., schools, hotel/motels, office buildings,
restaurants, and supermarkets) were
selected for detailed analysis because these
types are common to most cities, and they
form a good basis for examining water
conservation, each representing diverse
End Uses
needs for potable water. Hotels used the

most water in the study followed by, in
order of decreasing daily use, schools, office
buildings, restaurants, and supermarkets. In
terms of conservation potential amongst all
categories, customers using cooling towers
for air conditioning and refrigeration had by
far the most potential to save water.
The WaterRF Research Advisory Council
has identified the need to also update the
Commercial and Institutional End Uses of
Water report and include the industrial sector
in the research. Essentially a framework is
needed by water utilities that standardizes
customer classifications and billing structures
for these important users. WaterRF staff is
seeking subscriber input on this topic.
In recent years, the Foundation has funded
several 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 Water
Conservation: Removing Barriers and
Maximizing Benefits (project#4175)
Smart Irrigation Controller

Demonstration 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 of
updating the original landmark REUWS
work, since it has been over ten years since
the work was done. While the information
in Residential End Uses of Water continues
to have merit, the original research
excluded seasonal fluctuations and weather
impacts of single family outdoor water use,
and a comprehensive evaluation of the
socioeconomic considerations of residential
end uses. In addition, the maturation since
the original publication of low flow fixture
use, green building principles, and other
water efficiency programs, and the impacts
of these on customer behavior and the
resulting residential end use trends, need to
be studied. The newly funded project#4309,
Update Residential End Uses of Water,
will include new end uses and an evaluation
of socioeconomic variables affecting end
use that were not covered in the original
research. Proposals for the project are
under review and research is anticipated to
begin in late 2010.
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 water
withdrawals 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. The
2005 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-ofwater-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 for
urban 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 focuses
more on water efficient appliances, landscaping, and improving data collection, but does not appear to stress leak
management 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).
cOMMUNICATIONS
Water Conservation: Customer Behavior

and Effective Communications
Tony Silva, Diana Pape, Ronald Szoc, ICF International; Peter Mayer, Aquacraft Inc.; and Linda Reekie,
Water Research Foundation project manager
When water utilities better understand their

customers and the factors that affect their
behaviors related to water conservation,
they can design and disseminate more
effective communications to influence
water conservation behavior. A Water
Research Foundation (WaterRF)
funded research project has recently
been completed and the following has
been excerpted from the Executive
Summary of the final report, Water
Conservation: 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 to
see the list of Webcasts available to subscribers.
Introduction
Since the beginning of human civilization,

communicating the concept and value
of wise water usage, conservation, and
efficiency has been a common endeavor.
In the modern era, water utilities have often
taken on the responsibility of informing
and educating customers about the need
and importance of wise water use and
stewardship. Today, water providers
regularly implement sophisticated
education and marketing campaigns
to promote water use efficiency and
conservation behaviors, but little is known
about the specific, measurable impacts
of these efforts or what constitutes a
successful program.
8
The process of communicating with the

public in an effort to change peoples
behaviors for the benefit of an individual,
group, or community is commonly known
as social marketing. Water conservation
social marketing campaigns are intended
to educate customers about the importance
and value of water, to encourage
behaviors and practices that diminish
water waste, and to reduce demands for
the benefit of the individual customer
and the community. Water conservation
communication campaigns may promote
a range of conservation behaviors, from
installing more water-efficient fixtures to
changing 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 the
country. Consequently, the conservation
behaviors promoted by water utilities are
often similar (e.g., replacing inefficient
toilets, improving irrigation efficiency, and
eliminating single-pass cooling). A key
difference lies in the delivery channels
and messages by which utilities promote
water conservation. Utility sponsored water
conservation 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 conservation
communication campaigns in terms of
customer recognition, attitudinal changes,
cOMMUNICATIONS
behavior modification, and verifiable

water use reductions? What are the
most effective methods and techniques
for 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 agency
partners, 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 Foundations 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:

investigatethrough empirical research

and literature reviewthe relationships
among the water conservation
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 social

marketing 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.
The 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 social
marketing 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.
cOMMUNICATIONS
Research Findings
Literature Review: Key Principles of Social

Marketing
Water utilities across North America
have shown significant interest in
social marketing as a useful approach
for conservation programs. Marketing
experts have promoted broad-based
media communications as the best way
to hasten behavior change and as a
cost-efficient way to reach the broadest
audience (Hoffman 2006). Prepackaged
marketing programs such as WaterUse
It Wisely (developed by Park and Co.) have
been implemented in states ranging from
California to Arizona to North Carolina.
Programs such as Water IQ in Texas and the
Seattle 1% Program represent substantial
efforts to enlist social marketing principles
in the search for water savings.
The social marketers job is complete when
a behavior is performed consistently by
the target audience. Although complete
adoption of a behavior is ideal, it is not
realistic. Therefore, social marketers must
plan, evaluate, and refine their approaches
and clearly identify measurable outcomes
and performance measures.
Traditional commercial marketers often refer
to the marketers toolbox or the four principles
(4Ps: product, price, place, and promotion).
The 4Ps are important because they remind
social marketers that any marketing effort must
apply a customer orientation to their strategy
and message development.
Literature Review: Commitment, Norms, and
Prompts: Tools for Social Change
Social marketing researcher and author
Doug McKenzie-Mohr has identified a
number of tools that can make social
marketing efforts effectivethe idea
of commitment, norms, and prompts.
10
McKenzie-Mohr developed an approach to

social marketing called community-based
social marketing (CBSM) that includes its
own fundamental principles and concepts.
CBSM has caught the attention of water
conservation professionals and has been
implemented in a number of utilities with
favorable results (e.g., Region of Durham,
Canada, Los Angeles). Some key concepts
from CBSM (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith
1999) are as follows:

Commitment. Social marketing

research has shown that people
who make a nominal commitment
to a cause (e.g., wearing a button or
signing a petition) are more likely to
respond favorably to requests to adopt
behaviors that support that cause
than those who have not made such
a commitment. Water utilities should
consider obtaining a commitment to
water conservation through a pledge
campaign or community network. In
doing so, utilities will establish a core
group of individuals and businesses that
see themselves as water conservation
advocates and who are more likely to
make changes in usage behaviors when
asked to do so.
Norms. Water utilities should seek to

establish a water conservation ethic, or
norm, that fosters desired behaviors.
Prompts. People are more likely to

take actions that are top-of-mind and
that appeal to them personally. Water
utilities should consider using prompts,
or reminders, in their marketing
campaigns to motivate behavior
changes. Examples could include
giveaways at festivals or events that
will prompt people to change their
behaviors.
cOMMUNICATIONS
Marketing Water Conservation

Ideally, water conservation programs
need a communications and marketing
component. Every water conservation
program must include some effort to
communicate with the targeted audience.
Some of the participating agencies in this
project utilized a number of the principles
described above in the marketing campaign
studied by the researchers. The report
documents the measurable impacts of
marketing 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 particular
conservation message with lower water use
in customers familiar with the message.
In most cases, such a connection was not
possible to discern.
Survey ResultsDemographic Questions
The intent was to survey detached singlefamily residential properties exclusively. As it
turned 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 similar
dwelling. Respondents who reported living in
something other than a single-family home
were not excluded from subsequent analysis.
Policy Act of 1992, which required more

water-efficient toilets, showerheads, and
faucets to be manufactured. The average
home in this study was built in 1974, and
more than 25% of the homes were built
prior to 1960.
The average home of the survey
respondents had 2.2 bathrooms and
2.4 people per household year-round.
Household income averaged $84,562
among survey respondents. The median
household income in the United States
in 2006 was $48,000 according to the U.S.
Census Bureau. The median is of course
different from the average. It is not possible
to compute a precise median value from the
survey data obtained in this study, but the
median would fall at the upper end of the
$50,000 to $74,999 category, a little below
the average. The income data collected here
proved a useful explanatory variable for
water use.
Which water conservation behaviors are
practiced most frequently?
Most of the survey respondents (95%)

owned the home they live in. Only 5%
indicated they rent their home and less than
1% did not know. Nearly three-quarters
of the survey respondents (72%) reported
living at the current address for seven
or more years and another 19% reported
living at the current address for 3 to 7 years.
About 6% reported living at this address for
between 1 to 3 years and only 2% had been
at the current address less than one year.
In general, respondents reported practicing

all of the conservation measures listed on
the survey at least some of the time. These
measures included a choice of 20 behaviors
ranging from checking toilets for leaks to
taking a shorter shower to using water-wise
landscaping techniques. A maximum of
only 14% of respondents said they rarely or
never practice any of the specific measures.
The results suggest that most people believe
they regularly practice water efficiency
measures. Whether true or not, it does
suggest a high level of awareness about
conservation practices and a concerted
attempt to integrate conservation practices
into everyday life.
The homes of the survey respondents were

largely built prior to 1994 when the Federal
plumbing code changed through the Energy
Using a garbage can rather than the toilet

to dispose of trash was the most frequently
practiced water conservation behavior
11
cOMMUNICATIONS
practiced most or all of the time by

94% of respondents. In this study, 90% of
respondents reported avoiding the heat of
the day for watering most or all of the time
and another 88% said they dont 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 next
most 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
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 double
the 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.
Table 1. Average annual water use and sample size six study sites
Total annual water use from billing records
Site Location
Sample Size* 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 size
presented is smaller than the original sample because of missing data.
**Based on most recent available complete year of historic billing data2006 for all sites
except Seattle (2008).
12
cOMMUNICATIONS
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 to
achieve 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
money78%; (2) it is the right thing to
do76%; and (3) concern about water
availability75%.
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.
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 preferred
method 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 in
the REUWS was 146.1 kgal per year and the
13
Annual Residential Water Use (kgal)
cOMMUNICATIONS
250
Average
Median
200
150
100
50
0
Tempe
Durham
Phoenix
JEA
Orange County
Seattle
All Sites
Figure 1 Annual residential water use (average and median) in six study sites
median was 123.3 kgal per year. Results are

shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.
The consistency of results from this study
and the REUWS indicates that about 135 to
145 kgal per year is a reasonable estimate of
the average annual water use for residential
properties. When considering typical
single-family residential water use, the
median is probably a better measure than
the mean, which is strongly influenced by a
few high water users. The median water use
across all six study sites was 99.0 kgal per
year, which is about 27% less than the mean.
Factors That Influence Water Use
Using the dataset developed for this study
and logarithmic transformation multiple
regression 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 to
influence water use at a 95% confidence level
(in order of magnitude) were as follows:
1. Type of residence: Single family
residences used 35% more water
annually than duplexes, apartments, and
other multi-family types of residence.
2. Number of bathrooms in the home:
Each bathroom added about 29% more
14
water use annually. This factor is often

considered a surrogate for size and
value of the home.
3. Number of people in the home: Each
additional 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 behavior
change, some of the research findings can
be immediately considered for current and
future utility program efforts. Below are
some of the findings that the authors believe
to be noteworthy with regard to planning
conservation communication efforts.
Conservation or Efficiency Behavior
Recommendation: Focus on cost-effective
water efficiency measures that are
underutilized such as fixture replacement.
This finding may help water agencies focus
on other water saving measures not often
reported or poorly adopted but would
still garner significant savings. At the
same time, water agencies could use
this finding to support the approach of
cOMMUNICATIONS
reinforcing and rewarding existing, welladopted positive behavior.

Recommendation: Clothes washer rebate
programs appear to be accelerating the
adoption of water and energy efficient
products. Target rebate messaging at
customers with high indoor water demands
and provide rebates only for the most
efficient products. This finding may help
water agencies prioritize rebate programs
and fine tune outreach regarding the
combined water and energy savings attained
by clothes washers because receptivity for
this activity is seemingly favorable.
Findings in Relation to the 4Ps of Social

Marketing
While it may be difficult to associate
changes 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.
Recommendation: Many people believe

Reject a Potential Behavior: Dont let
they are conserving already, even if their
a faucet leak for a long period of time
water use suggests otherwise. Conservation
without fixing it.
communication efforts must effectively
Modify a Current Behavior: Take shorter
educate customers about what constitutes
showers.
efficient use and where each customers
demand fits on a spectrum of efficiency levels. Abandon an Old Behavior: Stop
watering some or all of the existing lawn.
To address this, effective communications
should identify a conservation behavior path
Product: In this context the product
that water users can take. Communicating
is the programs and services offered by
options to them will identify numerous ways
the utility to reach water conservations
to expand conservation.
goals. By defining the behavior or set of
behaviors you want your audience(s) to
Recommendation: Mine customer water
adopt and sustain, the customer message
billing records to identify good candidates
is determined. Ideally, messaging should
for water conservation program efforts. This
move consumers to action. The results
could help water agencies better focus their
indicate that water conservation messages
efforts by further examining their customer
account records and target marketing toward have worked over time. Consumers already
have a high level of awareness about water
individuals who are high-use customers
conservation practices, and they make a
but have shown receptivity or adoption to a
concerted attempt to integrate water
conservation or efficiency measure.
conservation practices into everyday life.
Recommendation: The overarching water
Recommendation: Use multiple
conservation message should address
communications channels to effectively
water supply and demand, which stood
deliver the right message to the right
alone at the top as the biggest concern
audience at the right time.
for consumers.
15
cOMMUNICATIONS
Price: In the context of social marketing,

price is the perceived costs of adopting
the desired behavior. For example, the
cost 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.
Recommendation: Disseminate messages

to consumers where they live, work, and
play. Non-traditional venues should
be 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 case
studies 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.
References
Hoffman, J.R. 2006. Do We Have A Water Problem?: The Use of Social Marketing as a Problem
Solver. Journal AWWA. August 2006 (3436).
Mckenzie-Mohr, D., and W. Smith. 1999. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to
Community-Based Social Marketing. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Whitcomb, J. 2003. Freeriders in ULFT Programs. Sacramento, Calif.: California Urban Water
Conservation Council.
16
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 the
efficient and sustainable use of water. Located in Chicago, the Alliance serves as a North American advocate for
water efficient products and programs, and provides information and assistance on water conservation efforts.
www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org
The American Water Works Associations WaterWiser is a comprehensive clearinghouse of resources on water
conservation, efficiency, and demand management for conservation professionals and the larger water supply
community. http://www.awwa.org/Resources/Waterwiser.cfm?navItemNumber=1561
The California Urban Water Conservation Council was created to increase efficient water use statewide through
partnerships among urban water agencies, public interest organizations, and private entities. The Councils goal is to
integrate urban water conservation Best Management Practices into the planning and management of Californias water
resources. www.cuwcc.org
Water Conserve provides capabilities to search the world of water conservation information on the Internet. It is part
of Ecological Internet Inc., which specializes in the use of the Internet to achieve ecological science-based environmental
conservation outcomes. Ecological Internets mission is to empower the global movement for environmental sustainability
by providing information retrieval tools, portal services, expert analysis, and action opportunities that aid in the protection
of climate, forest, ocean, and water ecosystems; and to commence the age of ecological sustainability and restoration.
Ecological Internets family of environmental portals are a special kind of Website that try to identify, filter, and network all
the 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. Its
aim is to accelerate water conservation behavior change and water saving product purchasing in line with government
and 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 nations
water supply by promoting water efficiency and enhancing the market for water-efficient products, programs, and
practices. www.epa.gov/watersense
The Water Sustainability Project (WSP) began in 2003 at the University of Victorias POLIS Project on Ecological
Governance 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 crucial
to 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 is
a centre for transdisciplinary research that investigates and promotes sustainability. POLIS was established in 2000
by the Eco-Research Chair of Environmental Law and Policy at the University of Victoria. http://poliswaterproject.org/
conservation
The WaterUse It Wisely campaign was launched in 1999 to promote an ongoing water conservation ethic among
Arizonas rapidly growing population. Following Arizonas lead, nearly 400 towns, cities, states, utilities, and private
and public organizations have adopted the Water - Use It Wisely conservation campaign, making it one of the largest
conservation 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 from
sponsorship and consultancy work. In England, it participates on the Environment Ministers Water Saving Group alongside
the water industry and regulators. Waterwise set up the Saving Water in Scotland Network. www.waterwise.org.uk
17
sMART iRRIGATION
Smart Irrigation Technologies:

Water Savings Potential
Michael D. Dukes, University of Florida
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 technologies
that 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 be
enhanced 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) ondemand 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
18
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. The exact method of
this calculation varies depending on the
particular manufacturer. There are generally
three types of ET controllers: (1) signal
based, (2) standalone, and (3) historicalbased. The signal based controllers are sent
an ET amount typical for the previous day.
The ET signal is based on calculations
performed using weather data in the region
of the controller. This ET signal is then
adjusted to represent water needs in terms
of controller run time depending on plant
type, soil type, and other factors. Standalone 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
University of Florida, Institute of Food

and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) Smart
Controller Research
As a result of water supply pressures and

commercial availability of SWAT technology,
by 2003 a number of Florida local and state
agencies as well as industry groups were
interested in testing the SWAT controllers
under Florida conditions. Thus, the
first research site established was at the
University of Florida (Gainesville) at the
Agricultural and Biological Engineering
facilities. This test site consisted of 72
independently irrigated bermuda grass
plots that are 12feet by 12feet and
independently irrigated with spray heads.
The initial testing in Gainesville consisted
of four SMS controller brands, each at
three irrigation frequencies: 1day per
week, 2days per week, and 7days per week.
Comparisons included timer irrigation
schedules as given by Dukes and Haman
(2002) with and without expanding disk
rain sensors as well as non-irrigated control
plots. Irrigation water use was continually
monitored and turfgrass quality ratings
were taken at least every two months.
Both 2004 and 2005 were above normal
rainfall years. Averaged across all irrigation
frequencies and brands, SMS control
reduced water application 72% compared
to time-based irrigation without a rain
sensor (Cardenas-Lailhacar et al.2008). The
time-based irrigation schedule without a
rain sensor actually applied less water than
we have observed in residential irrigation
systems in Central Florida (Haley et al.
2007), thus potential savings on homes
may be even greater. SMS brands did
not function identically, but three of the
four tested were similarly effective with
irrigation savings ranging from 70% to
90%. More recent testing during the dry
years of 2006 and 2007 has resulted in 34%
savings when compared to a schedule
similar to many homeowners. Turf quality

was not impacted by irrigation savings
due to the wet conditions throughout
2004 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 Gulf
Coast Research and Education Center near
Wimauma. The site was installed and plants
established throughout the spring of 2005.
This site consisted of twenty 1,000-squarefeet plots that were 65% Floratam St.
Augustine grass and 35% mixed ornamental.
Three brands of ET controllers were tested
along with two time-based comparison
treatments. Over the testing period, which
exceeded 15 months in 20062007, ET
controller savings across all brands averaged
43% compared to the timer irrigation control
(Davis et al. 2009). Maximum savings were
observed in the winter as ET controllers
effectively reduced irrigation based on
weather conditions. As in the SMS studies
discussed previously, irrigation savings did
not reduce turfgrass quality.
A 26-month study has just been completed
where 59 cooperating homes in Pinellas
County, Florida were divided into four
groups and where different irrigation
control strategies were employed as follows:
(1) new SMS controller installed, (2) rain
sensor installed and homeowner provided
customized materials detailing timer setting
throughout seasonal changes, (3) rain
sensor installed, (4) no new control strategy
in addition to existing irrigation timer. Over
the study period, only the SMS strategy
19
sMART iRRIGATION
resulted in significant irrigation reduction

of 65% relative to the group with just the
timers for irrigation control as is typical
for landscapes.
and demonstration and testing of SWAT

technologies at a large scale. Detailed
information on testing results can be found
at http://irrigation.ifas.ufl.edu.
In summary, during normal to wet years

SMS controllers resulted in 7090% savings
with good bermudagrass turf quality, where
savings are compared to a timer schedule
without a rain sensor. In dry years, SMS
controllers have shown 1153% savings with
acceptable turf quality. ET controllers have
shown savings of 43% over predominantly
dry conditions. Thus, these control
technologies have shown the potential to
reduce wasted irrigation water substantially.
Future work will include optimizing
set points for SMS thresholds, detailed
programming instructions for all controllers
under Florida conditions, comparing
controller performance to theoretical
irrigation water requirements,
Orange County Utilities Project
Recently, UF/IFAS and Orange County

Utilities have begun WaterRF project#4227
entitled, Smart Irrigation Controller
Demonstration and Evaluation in Orange
County (Fla.) Utilities. Orange County
Utilities has partnered with the Water
Research Foundation, St. Johns River
Water Management District, and the
South Florida Water Management District
to fund a research demonstration project
integrating two types of smart controllers.
The study will look at both SMS and ET
controllers on cooperating homes in the
Orange County Utilities service area.
Potential cooperating homes are potable
customers with automatic irrigation
References
Cardenas-Lailhacar, B., M.D. Dukes, and G.L. Miller. 2008. Sensor-based automation of irrigation on bermudagrass
during wet weather conditions. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 134(2):120-128. Available at http://abe.
ufl.edu/mdukes/pdf/publications/SMS/Cardenas-SMS-paper-JID.pdf.
Davis, S., M. D. Dukes, and G. L. Miller. 2009. Landscape irrigation by evapotranspiration-based irrigation controllers
under dry conditions in Southwest Florida. Agricultural Water Management 96(12):1828-1836. Available at http://abe.
ufl.edu/mdukes/Controllers/et-controller-pubs.shtml.
Dukes, M. D., and D. Z. Haman. 2002. Operation of residential irrigation controllers. CIR1421, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. Available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AE220.
Haley, M.B., M.D. Dukes, and G.L. Miller. 2007. Residential irrigation water use in Central Florida. Journal of Irrigation
and Drainage Engineering 133(5):427-434. Available at http://abe.ufl.edu/mdukes/pdf/irrigation-efficiency/Haley-FLresidential-irrig-JID.pdf.
McCready, M.S., M.D. Dukes, and G.L. Miller. 2009. Water conservation potential of smart irrigation controllers on St.
Augustinegrass. Agricultural Water Management 96(11):1623-1632. Available at http://abe.ufl.edu/mdukes/Controllers/
soil-moisture-sensor-pubs.shtml.
20
sMART iRRIGATION
systems. The project will span the two

dominant soil types in the county, sandy
and high water table flatwoods soils. This
will be the first project in Florida to assess
the water conservation potential of SMS
and ET technologies at the same time
nearby. In addition, the study seeks to
define technology transfer aspects of smart
irrigation controllers that will be essential
to achieving sustainable water savings. The
goal of this project is to define these
important technology transfer aspects that
will make transfer of this projects results
possible to other utilities.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the

funding sources for the work mentioned
in this article: Pinellas-Anclotte Basin
Board of the Southwest Florida Water
Management District, Hillsborough County
Water Department, Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
Florida Turfgrass Association, Golf Course
Superintendents Association of America,
Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape
Association, Acclima Inc., Rain Bird Inc., the
Toro Company, and the Florida Agricultural
Experiment Station. In addition, the Water
Research Foundation, Orange County Utilities,
the St. Johns River Water Management
District, and the South Florida Water
Management District are recognized for
funding the Orange County Utilities study.
Foundation Contacts
Customer Service
Phone: +1 888.844.5082 or +1 303.347.6121
Fax: +1 303.730.0851
E-mail: rfreports@WaterRF.org
Editorial Questions
Phone: +1 303.347.6111
E-mail: editor@WaterRF.org
Order Drinking Water Research
Phone: +1 303.347.6248
E-mail: tfreeman@WaterRF.org
Address/Phone Changes
Phone: +1 303.347.6243
E-mail: emahoney@WaterRF.org
Foundation Subscription Program

Phone: +1 303.347.6128
E-mail: pschrader@WaterRF.org
Solicited & Unsolicited Research Programs
Phone: +1 303.347.6188
E-mail: crayburn@WaterRF.org
Tailored Collaboration Program
Phone: +1 303.347.6104
E-mail: rkarlin@WaterRF.org
21
Case Studies and Value of Research

Smart Irrigation Controller Demonstration and Evaluation
in Orange County Utilities Florida
Jacqueline W. Torbert and Camille Reynolds, Orange County Utilities
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the withdrawal of freshwater for public water supply in Florida is expected
to be 3.7 billion gallons of water per day by 2025. This is not a sustainable level without harmful impacts to the
environment, according to the state of Florida Water Management Districts officials. Some may ask how a state
surrounded by water on three sides could be concerned about sustainability of water supply. In Orange County, Florida,
the primary source of water (the Floridan Aquifer, Figure 1) is predicted to reach its sustainable level by 2013 and as a
result a new source of water must be developed to meet the growing water needs of the community. Prior to economic
changes that we are currently experiencing, the growth in Orange County, Florida ranged from 610% for the past 10
years. During that same time frame, Orange County Utilities was able to meet all its infrastructure improvement needs
without a rate increase to its customers. In 2005, Orange County Utilities began an extensive project to develop the
plans for alternate water sources in Orange County. However, to delay the financial impact of potentially large rate
increases that would be needed to develop alternative water sources, the governing board of Orange County sought
new and innovative ways to meet the water needs of a thriving community with the existing sources by conserving and
using only the water that is necessary. Education, incentives, and regulatory requirements are the primary tools used to
change behaviors and modify water use habits.
In 2008, the state of Florida legislature enacted statutes that encourage local governments to include Florida friendly
landscaping practices in their ordinances as a condition for certain permits. Some of the statistics that drove the
regulatory changes with respect to irrigation were based on the fact that the average household use for irrigation
in Orange County is more than 50% of the total household water use, the majority of the homes with in-ground
irrigation systems operate at 4045% efficiency, and those systems typically applied 23 times more water than the
landscape requires just because the irrigation system may not be working optimally. The current practice in Orange
County Utilities is to restrict irrigation to certain days of the week based upon addresses and restrict the number of
times a customer can irrigate during the course of a week based upon the time of yearodd vs. even addresses and
eastern vs. daylight savings time.
In 2008, Orange County Utilities revised its conservation and landscape ordinances to begin to address the largest area
of opportunity to save water, which were the inefficient irrigation practices within the community. Since conserving
water in our landscapes is really about irrigating at the right time and in the right amount, the policy of having a fixed
irrigation schedule based upon household address rather than based on the needs of the landscape was not taking
advantage of the smart technology that is available.
Before new regulations associated with smart irrigation
controllers were implemented, Orange County Utilities wanted
to research the water use impact of these types of smart
technologies in the hands of the everyday user.
Orange County Utilities contracted the University of Florida/
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) to
conduct a three-year study on the water-saving impact of
installing smart irrigation devices (soil moisture sensors and
evapotranspiration (ET) controllers) in 160 residential properties
and a few businesses in Orange County. Other partners in
study include the Water Research Foundation, St. Johns River
Water Management District, and the South Florida Water
Management District. The study, Smart Irrigation Controller
Demonstration and Evaluation in Orange County, Florida
22
Figure 1 Diagram of the Floridian Aquifer
Case Studies and Value of Research
(project #4227) is investigating the use of the Smart irrigation devices in Orange Countys two distinct soil types
sandy soils in the western portion of the county and very mucky, flatwoods soils in the east (with varying degrees of
both throughout the county). The varying soil types affect the moisture-holding capacity of the soil and consequently
the amount of irrigation water that may be required. The study also includes researching the usability of the smart
irrigation devices by non-expert users.
Monthly water billing records from January 2003 through December 2008 for Orange County Utilities residential
customers were reviewed and analyzed to identify customers who irrigate frequently and at high rates. This amounted
to nearly 7.5 million monthly records. The property analyses (which considered lot size, irrigable area, average per
capita indoor water usage, historical ET and rainfall data, and other factors) resulted in over 7,600 properties in over 80
subdivisions that showed potential for being included in the study. The identified pool of customers was then mailed
an invitation to complete an online questionnaire to be considered for the research. The selection process will consider
the proximity of properties to one another in order to form study groups, and the properties locations in relation to
soil types.
Site visits and irrigation system evaluations will be conducted to further narrow the pool of participants. Based on
previous research involving irrigation water use in Florida, 12 sites is the minimum number required to have statistical
power to detect significant differences between comparison groups. Orange County Utilities will target 16 sites for
each type of smart device, soil type, degree of monitoring, and for each control group. This will include a total of
160 separate sites. Commercial sites that have a potential for more efficient irrigation will be selected based on their
proximity to groups of residential properties.
The research project began in September 2009 and is expected to be published in 2013. Subscribers can read periodic
updates about this project at http://www.WaterRF.org/ProjectsReports.
23
Water Efficiency Programs
Water Efficiency Programs for

Integrated Water Management
Water utilities have increasingly come to

appreciate the value of water efficiency
programs for accomplishing their longterm mission of providing a safe, reliable,
and affordable water supply. Utilities
looking to plan, design, and implement
successful water efficiency programs
have often struggled to sort out the costs
and benefits that define efficiency. Water
efficiency has been broadly described to
include both demand-side management
(conservation programs and incentives)
and supply-side management (system
loss programs or water recycling). Water
Efficiency Programs for Integrated
Water Management (2007, order#91149/
project#2935) describes the logic of
efficiency that applies to all these practices
while focusing on development of applied
work on water use efficiency (WUE)
programs. This research project provides
practical tools to enable water utilities
of different sizes and differing levels of
sophistication to better integrate their
supply-side and demand-side planning.
Specific work products include a Direct
Utility Avoided Cost Model, a water
conservation Benefit-Cost Model, and
a compendium of the costs and savings
generated by WUE measures and practices.
Why Water Efficiency?
Water utilities are facing intense challenges

they have never before faced such as:

24
Substantial need for investment

to replace or upgrade an aging
infrastructure
Increasing competition for new raw

water sources
Threats to existing watersheds and

surface water quality
Lingering unresolved issues with

potentially over-drafted groundwater
basins
Emerging new threats to water quality

and safety
Changing environmental compliance

and public-health standards
Dependency on complex power supply

networks and markets
Natural and human caused threats to

safety and security
Higher expectations from customers for

communication and service
Pressure from all stakeholders for more

public involvement
Without exception, each of these challenges

presents water utilities with additional costs
associated with providing water service.
The potential financial outlays by water
and wastewater utilities are substantial
and water prices are likely to continue to
outpace the rate of inflation. The water
industry can be rightly characterized
as a rising-cost industrythe future
cost of water service will be greater than
its historical cost. These costs include
source-of-supply, transmission and
distribution, and treatment. For older
systems, infrastructure replacement is a key
cost driver. Water supply is highly energy
intensive, so rising energy costs are a factor.
Although per-capita demand for water is
relatively flat, aggregate demand is driven

by population growth. Systems that serve
growth areas often have the added pressure
of developing expensive new sources of
supply, including costs associated with
water purchasing and transmission.
Other forces also are affecting the water
industry. The combined effect of water and
wastewater makes matters more difficult for
both providers. Both are under competitive
pressure, including institutional
competition (public vs. private). Both
public and private systems face competitive
pressure in the capital markets. Public
systems face additional political pressures
as well, including resistance to raising rates.
Systems of all types are expected to operate
more efficiently to help keep costs down.
The environment within which they operate,
including the regulatory environment, is
increasingly uncertain.
Still, for most of these challenges,
alternatives are available. The key question
is how a utility can choose the best
alternative, particularly in the context of
uncertainty and imperfect information.
Integrated water management, with its
emphasis on considering a broad spectrum
of options and applying systematic
evaluation tools to the selection process,
may offer some guidance.
Developing a portfolio of options is at the
heart of integrated resources planning
(IRP). One of the tenets of IRP is finding
solutions that achieve goals at the least
cost. Broadening the definition of resource
planning to include efficiency alternatives
helps deepen the understanding of
integrated planning.
Integrated planning is particularly useful
in the joint contemplation of supply-side
and demand-side options in developing
the resource portfolio. Water utilities that

once viewed themselves as being only in
the water supply business have redefined
their mission as one of providing safe and
reliable water service. This redefinition
immediately introduces new objectives
beyond supplying water quantitysafety
and reliability implies that water quality
and delivery certainty are also objectives
within the mission of water utilities.
Pressures may not come directly from the
water supply side; the impetus for several
large-scale water efficiency programs has
come about from constraints on existing
wastewater systems.
How Water Efficiency Helps
WUE measures and practices help water

utilities accomplish their long-term mission
of providing a safe and reliable potable
water supply. The importance of water
efficiency goes well beyond the short-term
measures invoked to respond to drought
emergencies and is much broader in scope.
Improved water use efficiency is seen
as a viable complement to, and in some
instances, a substitute for investments in
long-term water supplies and infrastructure.
This understanding of water efficiency
includes outdoor as well as indoor WUE,
nonresidential water customers as well as
residential customers, and utility delivery
efficiency as well as end-use efficiency.
At the heart of the new understanding of
water efficiency is an economic standard:
a good WUE program produces a level of
benefits that exceed the costs required to
undertake the program. WUE programs for
which this is not the case are questionable
undertakings for water utilities. Of course,
the key challenges are to determine which
benefits and costs are relevant and how to
estimate their magnitudes.
25
Within this deceptively simple statement

of the underlying economic standard lie
many complexities that have plagued
water utilities as they attempt to rationally
determine the efficacy of water efficiency
programs. These difficulties fall into three
categories:
1. Conceptual. How do we define the
benefits and costs of conservation
programs? How do those benefits and
costs differ when viewed from different
perspectives? Why are those different
perspectives important?
2. Analytical. How should the benefit and
cost information be properly compared
to make the correct decisions? What
analytical tools can facilitate these
comparisons?
3. Informational. Where should a
water utility obtain valid and reliable
information to estimate the benefit
and cost components? Often, the
information needed to assess costs and
benefits is either not readily accessible
or not directly applicable to the
particular circumstances and planning
constraints of a water utility.
This study addresses all three of these
difficulties in a way that enables water
utilities of different sizes and differing levels
of sophistication to better integrate their
supply-side and demand-side planning.
Unfortunately, water utilities looking to
plan, design, and implement a good WUE
program struggle to sort out the costs and
benefits. This project was designed to
address these challenges:

26
To explain the basic concepts and

key functional linkages in WUE costeffectiveness or cost-benefit analysis.
To identify other WUE benefits that can
serve as the basis for the determination
of incentive levels and cost-sharing
agreements.
To conduct case studies to show how

planning is carried out under differing
circumstances.
To derive a set of best planning

practices for WUE analysis.
To develop, adapt, and test spreadsheet

based planning tools that incorporates
these best planning practices.
This project has compiled information and

produced modeling tools to facilitate the
integration of WUE into a water utilitys
long-term plans.
Project Results
The project achieved the following specific

research results:

Developed a rigorous and universallyapplicable set of definitions of

benefit and cost components from
different perspectives, described the
relationships among those benefits and
costs, and explained the relevance of
each perspective to integrated planning.
Compiled, in an easily accessible form,

the best available information on WUE
program costs and savings.
Provided clear guidance to water

utilities on program cost and benefit
estimation, and furthered the
understanding of technical analyses
cost, engineering, and economic
required to identify the costs and
benefits of WUE measures.
Provided a planning framework that

allows demand-side water efficiency
alternatives to be rationally compared
with supply side alternatives.
Provided a structure for accessing data

requirements for integrating water
efficiency into integrated water planning.
Provided modeling tools, which enable

water utilities to rigorously evaluate the
economics of WUE programs.
Analytic Tools
A Benefit-Cost WUE Planning Model
AwwaRF/CUWCC (California Urban Water

Conservation Council) Direct Utility Avoided
Cost Model
This is a spreadsheet-planning tool

that quickly calculates water savings,
costs, economic benefits, benefit-cost
comparisons, and customer bill impacts
for individual conservation programs.
The current version of the model (see
Figure 2 for a screen shot.) also computes
cumulative results for up to 10 programs.
Both the avoided cost and the benefit-cost
models have been extensively field tested
and revised on the basis of participating
utility feedback.
This spreadsheet planning tool can assist

water utilities in developing robust and
defensible avoided cost estimates. By
analyzing the direct costs that utilities
can avoid via demand reduction, water
utilities define the benefits produced by
WUE programs. Influenced by system
simulation models, this path-breaking work
distinguishes between short-run and longrun costs and permits utilities to consider
seasonal differences in avoided costs. This
model (see Figure 1 for a screen shot) is
intended to inform the design of more
valuable WUE programs.
Figure 1 Direct Utility Avoided Cost Estimation

Model Screen Shot
Figure 2 Water Conservation Benefit Cost

Model Screen Shot
Water Research Foundation subscribers can order the final report Water Efficiency Programs for Integrated
Water Management on the Foundation Website at www.WaterRF.org/ProjectsReports.
27
Maximizing Conservation Benefits

Maximizing Benefits (project#4175)
Water utilities have increasingly come to

appreciate the value of Water Use Efficiency
(WUE) to do the following:

Support the long-term mission of

providing a safe and reliable potable
water supply, where improved water
use efficiency is seen as a viable
complement to, and in some instances
a substitute for, investments in longterm water supplies and infrastructure.
For purposes of this project, we call this
long-term conservation.
Manage shortages associated
with droughts or other short-term
emergencies. For purposes of
this project, we call this shortage
management.
There are key differences between these

two types of WUE. Of course, the kinds of
activities appropriate in the two cases often
differ considerably. More fundamentally,
the underlying premise of long-term
conservation is that it will deliver the same
level of services (whether tooth brushing,
car washing, or industrial cooling) with
less water. In contrast, the emergency
nature of shortage management means
that customers may in fact suffer some
economic or other hardship.
Water efficiency can focus on outdoor as
well as indoor end uses, nonresidential as
well as residential water customers, and
utility delivery efficiency as well as end use
efficiency. At the heart of an understanding
of water conservation is an economic
28
standard: a good conservation program

produces a level of benefits that exceeds the
costs required to undertake the program,
where both the benefits and costs may
be monetary or otherwise. Conservation
programs for which this is not the case are
questionable undertakings for water utilities.
Within this statement of an underlying
economic standard lie many complexities
that have plagued water utilities as they
attempt to implement water conservation
programs. These difficulties fall into three
categories:
1. Conceptual. What is the difference
between short-term shortage
management and long-term
conservation? What are the interactions
between the two? How do utilities know
if WUE is worth it? What does worth
it mean? Why would you pay to get
customers to use less of your product?
How much passive conservation
from efficiency codes, technological
innovation, and changes in consumer
preferences will occur in the absence
of utility-sponsored active programs?
What are the perceived and actual
effects of WUE on utility finances,
resource plans, water quality objectives,
and customer relations?
2. Planning for Conservation. How
can WUE programs be designed to
maximize their benefits and minimize
their direct and indirect costs? How can
revenue variability be managed when
future demand is not certain? How can
Maximizing Conservation Benefits
pricing be integrated into both shortage

management and long-term conservation
plans? What analytical tools can facilitate
conservation planning? How can the
information needed for conservation
planning be obtained?
3. Program Implementation. How can
theoretically cost-effective WUE measures
be practically implemented? What are
the real-world implementation barriers
and potential solutions? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of multiutility/regional conservation efforts?
The purpose of ongoing project#4175,
Maximizing Benefits is to address these
difficulties in a way that will enable water
utilities of different sizes and differing levels
of sophistication to better define, design,
and implement effective WUE programs.
Many water utilities struggle to design and
implement effective WUE programs that can
be incorporated into their overall resource
planning. This struggle stems partly from
unfamiliarity with or lack of knowledge
about WUE and partly from perceived or
actual difficulties integrating WUE and
the utilitys existing resource and financial
planning. This project is designed to help
utilities address both causes of ineffective
WUE programs. Specifically the research
team will conduct the following tasks:

Develop a conceptual framework that

makes explicit the distinctions between
short-term and long-term conservation,
the relationships between WUE and
other utility investments, and the key
functional linkages between WUE and
the rest of the utility enterprise
Describe how the traditional financial

model for water utilities can be adapted
to accommodate WUE programs
designed to address short- and longterm demand management objectives
Offer specific methods and models to

analyze WUE programs
Present the outcome of detailed

written and oral surveys of a variety
of water utilities regarding their
WUE programming, design, and
implementation, how they integrate
WUE with their broader resource
and financial planning, and how they
have addressed common obstacles to
effective WUE program implementation
Provide a set of Best Practices for both

short-term shortage management
and long-term conservation program
analysis, screening, and decision
making, including a DecisionFramework designed to help
utilities maximize the value and
avoid or mitigate potential adverse
consequences of WUE implementation
Develop an easy-to-use spreadsheetdriven planning tool for applying the

Decision Framework and Best Practices
In short, this project will provide water

utilities with guidance and tools designed
to facilitate implementation of effective
WUE programs consistent with and
supportive of their long-term resource
planning objectives, shortage management
requirements, customer service goals, and
financial constraints.
The project is currently underway and the
final report is expected to be available in
the summer of 2011.
Discuss the institutional context within

which WUE is planned and implemented
and the roles different water institutions
can play in facilitating WUE
29
Metering
Metering and Water Conservation

Steven L. Barfuss, Michael Johnson, Utah State University; Donald L. Schlenger, RW Beck; David M.
Hughes, American Water; Jian Zhang, Water Research Foundation project manager
Meters are known as the cash register

of water utility infrastructure. In some
municipal water systems, especially
older ones, a significant portion of the
distributed water is unaccounted for as a
result of metering accuracy errors, leaks in
the distribution system, firefighting, pipe
flushing, and theft (Hunaidi 2000). Accurate
metering aids municipal water districts
in determining all aspects of water use
and loss. Foremost, the accurate metering
of consumed water encourages personal
accountability, water conservation, and
equity in billing rates.
On the other hand, there are few functions
in the water utility operation that are
shifting as swiftly as meter technologies.
The trend appears to be a movement away
from mechanical meters to non-mechanical
units that offer the potential for longerterm high accuracy. The ability of meters
to perform diagnostic tests for tampering,
continuous flow, and backflow and to
send immediate alarms will continue to
be integrated. Acoustic monitor research
and development continues to make these
systems more reliable and immediate. The
technology and systems to read water
meters and manage the information they
produce continue to change rapidly while
gaining widespread commercial success.
The most fundamental shift has been
from automatic meter reading (AMR),
the straightforward capture of readings
from meters at customer premises using
a communication medium, to advanced
metering infrastructure (AMI), which
gathers information with greater frequency
and variety without dispatching anyone
into the field.
30
Two Water Research Foundation

(WaterRF) projects, Accuracy of InService Water Meters at Low and
High Flow Rates (project#4028) and
Advanced Metering InfrastructureBest
Practices for Selection, Acquisition and
Implementation (project#4000), have
conducted extensive lab experiments
to study meter accuracy, held many
workshops, and performed in-depth
analysis to develop best practices for
selection, acquisition, and implementation
of AMI. They also provide the drinking
water industry with comprehensive
information regarding the relationship
between metering and water loss control.
Accuracy of In-Service Water Meters at Low
and High Flow Rates
Water utilities in the United States have

moved away from the earlier practice of
billing customers on a flat rate basis
to the practice of metering customers.
The practice of metering residential,
commercial, industrial, and pubic authority
customers accomplishes a number of
water utility goals, including accounting
for water loss, rate equity among customer
classes, and promoting wise use of water.
With increased emphasis on conservation
and increasingly restricted water resources,
water metering has become an important
tool in water conservation and in billing
water consumers fairly. According to the
American Water Works Association (2002),
no tool available to water utilities has
played a greater part in the conservation of
water than the water meter.
A research team led by Steven L. Barfuss and
Michael Johnson at Utah State University is
Metering
finalizing WaterRF project#4028. The

team has evaluated the accuracy of inservice flow meters (5/8 x 3/4- to 2-inch
sizes) over a wider range of flow rates
than is currently specified within AWWA
standards. The project was organized so
that several specific questions regarding
the accuracy of modern day in-service
water meters could be answered. To this
end, the project was given two major
focus areas: (1) investigating the accuracy
of commercially available new off-theshelf meters and (2) investigating the
effects of age, throughput, and particulates
on meter accuracy degradation. The
results from this work will directly help
water utility managers make decisions
regarding meter accuracy, meter use,
and meter replacement.
consistently indicated registry accuracies

above 95% at the minimum AWWA flow
rate compared to the other meter types.
Degradation trends for individual meter
types were most apparent at low flow
rates after testing the meters over full
life cycles. The nutating disc type meters
maintained the most consistent low flow
accuracy results from the new to the full life
condition, while the multi-jet and single-jet
meters had the largest reduction in registry
accuracies (at low flows) from the new to
the full life condition.
The accuracy testing of the pulled meters
(shipped to the research team from
water utilities across the United States)
indicated that water quality (other than
sand and other particulates) has a very
small influence on the accuracy of meters.
Surprisingly, most of the degradation
trends for the pulled meter tests correlated
very closely to the laboratory endurance
degradation trends and there were very few
notable correlations between interior meter
wear and indicated meter accuracy other
than some extreme wear cases.
Test results clearly illustrated that a largerthan-expected number of new meters

do not meet the AWWA flow registry
standard applicable to that meter type.
Of the technologies represented during
this study, it is evident that not all meter
types are created equal. Some meter types
passed the AWWA registry standard tests
more consistently than other meter types.
Surprisingly, test results also clearly show
that most manufacturers that publicize
AWWA standard compliancy do not
consistently meet AWWA metering standards.
Project results also indicated a surprisingly

high percentage of meters that passed the
AWWA flow rate registry tests in spite of the
fact that a relatively large slug of sand had
been passed through them.
Test results also illustrated that some

meter types were capable of accurately
measuring flow at flow rates well below
and well above the AWWA standard flow
rates and that other meter types were
not capable of measuring these same
flows. Test results indicate that the fluidic
oscillator type meter consistently met
the AWWA maximum accuracy standard
at new conditions and after the full life
of throughput even at flow rates much
greater than the AWWA maximum. The new
nutating disc and piston type meters most
The final report is expected to be finished

in 2010 and will present tools and methods
for drinking water utilities to develop
their own meter evaluation programs and
optimize meter replacement programs. This
project will provide valuable information
for future accuracy standards for residential
flow meters in drinking water systems.
The project will also benefit utilities by
providing a large database that includes
information about meter accuracies over
a large range of flow rates and the effect of
age and wear on meter accuracy.
31
Metering

Implementation
Donald L. Schlenger, vice president of

RW Beck, and David M. Hughes, Water
Distribution Infrastructure lead with
American Water, are finalizing project#4000,
Implementation. The purposes of this
WaterRF and United Kingdom Water
Industry Research (UKWIR) jointly
sponsored research project are to assess the
state of the art and gather the information
to allow managers to make informed
judgments about AMI. The research team
compiled and evaluated data from ongoing
installations and trials and created models
for economic evaluation and guidelines
for procurement and implementation. This
report is designed to serve as a guidance
manual, providing an in-depth examination
of advanced metering technology,
economics, and implementation issues.
AMI Technology
For water metering systems, it is the
combination of technology in the meter,
the transmitter at the meter (known as the
meter interface unit or MIU) and the data
collection units, as well as the infrastructure
network and data management that creates
functionality. AMI systems can collect
and provide data from meters and other
devices at relatively short intervals (e.g.,
several times per day). The data can either
be time-stamped when it is received or
time-synchronized, so that all readings
are taken at the same time (e.g., at the top
of the hour). Two-way AMI systems can
synchronize the clocks in the MIUs and
send control signals for other devices.
Dozens of data communications design
characteristics and operating parameters
determine the overall capability and
32
performance for an AMI system. Most AMI

systems operate in bubble-up mode,
wherein the transmitter sends a signal at
regular intervals. In two way systems, both
the MIU and the data collector are capable
of transmitting and receiving information
(like control signals or firmware updates).
Transmission duration is short, which
conserves power and minimizes colliding
signals. Radio signals can be altered by
many factors and their power diminishes
with distance. AMI system design focuses
on techniques to optimize battery life,
signal, range, data transmission rate,
transmission reliability, and overall cost.
A meter data management system (MDMS)
stores the readings received from the
AMI system and makes it available to the
utilitys customer information system (CIS)
and various other information systems
and users. Some MDMSs will maintain
additional information such as geographic
coordinates of meters. The MDMS may be
used to manage the relationships between
customer accounts, meters, and other
assets as well as manage some customer
service functions, such as virtual or soft
turn-offs and watchdog functions, and
other customer data. The utility may build
an MDMS in-house, purchase the MDMS
from its AMI provider, purchase a thirdparty MDMS package, or contract with a
hosted MDMS service. The MDMS will
provide standard reports, query capability,
and the ability to create customized reports
covering current status and reading history
of individual and selectable groups of
accounts. In many cases customers can
access their own consumption history. The
MDMS can filter flags and error messages,
manage billing determinants, and validate,
edit, and estimate meter readings.
AMI Conservation Benefits
Virtually all water utilities practice water
use efficiency, despite the fact that a
Metering
reduction in water consumption will impact

revenues. Water conservation and the need
to alleviate pressure on limited resources
are one of the major drivers for AMR and
AMI. In some cases, the program is simply
designed to reduce leaks in customers
premises, improving customer service. In
many cases, conservation programs are
designed to address short-term droughts
or long-term water scarcity. The nature and
sophistication of conservation programs has
evolved, due in part to (1) the availability of
low flow and low volume plumbing fixtures
and appurtenances as well as codes that
mandate their use, (2) increasing scarcity of
water resources and higher costs for water
and wastewater treatment, and (3) water
conservation techniques like xeriscaping
that are aligned with green outlooks on
environmental issues.
AMI is generally accepted as having a
positive impact on water conservation,
either on its own or as an enhancement
to existing conservation measures, as a
result of certain features and capabilities,
including the following:

Supplying more frequent meter readings

at low incremental cost
Parsing consumption among daily or

more frequent time intervals, enabling
the utility and its customers to look at
consumption profile data for education
and awareness, feedback, or compliance
monitoring and enforcement
Detecting continuous flow, which might

indicate a leak at customers premises
Providing meter readings at the precise

beginning and end of specified periods
The effectiveness of these capabilities

depends on meter sampling interval,
meter resolution, transmission interval,
synchronization, and latency of readings.
Providing AMI-based consumption
informationand informing customers
about potential leaks or overly high

consumptionhas a stand-alone impact
on conservation. It can also complement
existing conservation efforts.
The savings to the utility for reductions
in water use through conservation are
calculated at the marginal cost of water.
Traditionally this includes marginal
pumping and process costselectrical,
chemical, and sludge handling expenses.
The savings to the individual customer are
usually lowered retail rates of water and
reduced fees for sewer. The ability of AMI
to affect or influence conservation depends
on many factors:

The capabilities of the AMI and

associated technology, including special
capabilities like continuous usage and
leak detection
The utilitys water rates and rate

structureif water rates overall are
very low, or if the marginal commodity
charges are low, customers might
not be sensitive to conservation. If
wastewater costs for the whole year are
determined based on the winter quarter
consumption, then the effective unit
cost of additional water in that quarter
can be quite high.
The underlying supply and demand

situation. For example, occasional
droughts in some areas vs. long-term
water supply issues
The focus of existing and potential

conservation programs. Some are
focused on reducing base consumption,
while others are concerned more with
reducing peak demands.
To what extent that conservation is

mandatory or voluntary and the extent
of enforcement. Mandatory programs
can be ignored by some if there is
no perception of a consequence to
noncompliance.
33
Metering
Timing and permanence of conservation

programs. For example, programs applied
intermittentlyin times of drought
may be more effective than if applied all
the time. Typically, there are different
measures appropriate to every situation.
The extent of existing conservation

infrastructure. For example, if
housing stock is new, there may be a
preponderance of low-flow fixtures,
meaning that there is less opportunity
to achieve conservation benefits
from replacing existing fixtures. If
homes and businesses have already
used xeriscaping, then there is less
opportunity to achieve additional
conservation benefits.
Demographics. Customers will respond

differently depending on their economic
situation. Customers with greater
incomes may be less inclined to conserve
water at the expense of their lifestyles.
Less affluent customers may already be
operating close to minimal usage and
conservation would have little effect.
History of conservation measures.

The utilitys customers may have a
high conservation awareness and
consciousness. Conversely, they may be
indifferent to conservation messages.
Conservation planners generally believe

that a long-term conservation program can
reduce water consumption in a typical system
by 10 to 20% over a 10- to 20-year period.
Water demand may rise, but it should rise at
a rate that is 1 to 1 % per year slower than
projected without a conservation program in
place. Conservation in this range can usually
be economically managed by the utility. There
is evidence that water use per household
has been dropping in many areas with the
advent of water saving devices: showerheads,
dishwashers, washers, and toilets.
34
AMI and Capital Construction Deferral

A potentially significant benefit of AMI lies
in its ability to provide information that can
help utilities reshape customers demand.
Utilities must design facilities to meet fire
flow requirements, peak hour demand,
maximum day demand, and average day
demand. Peak hour demand requires
distribution system storage and sufficient
pipe capacity to keep pressure in the system
and pass such flow rates. Over the course
of the maximum demand day the utility
will endeavor to replenish its distribution
system storage at night during the lightest
demand periods. Average day demand
requires sources of supply and production
sufficient to meet needs over longer periods.
If AMI data could be used to enable
conservation efforts targeted at high demand
periods, then the utility might be able to
lower the maximum day water demand.
For example, it could impose alternate day
sprinkling bans and limit the time of day
for sprinkling, using AMI to monitor and
enforce them. It could establish peak load
pricing rates, and use AMI to measure the
water used during short intervals when
the price would be high. It could analyze
customer consumption data, and educate
customers about optimal irrigation practices.
If the utility could lower the maximum day
water demand (and the peak to average
ratio), it might be able to design new
capital facilities slightly smaller, or it might
postpone some construction for awhile and
extend the life of existing facilities. Every
year that it could postpone the construction,
it would save the annual financing costs on
the capital cost of the facility.
Metering
AMI Strategies and Business Case

The business case for AMI is highly
integrated with the technology selected
and the deployment strategy chosen, which
are themselves interrelated, and all of
these depend on the utilitys needs and
circumstances. Selection of an appropriate
AMI system requires awareness of the
many technologies offered and the data
requirements engendered by the utilitys needs.
References
American Water Works Association. 2002.
AWWA Standard: Cold-Water MetersDisplacement Type, Bronze Main Case.
Denver, Colo.: AWWA
Hunaidi, Osama. 2000. Detecting Leaks
in Water-Distribution Pipes. Construction
Technology Update No. 40, NRC-CNRC,
Oct 2000.
The choice of metering technology is tied

to deployment strategy, and both affect
the business case. These decisions should
be based on the data required to provide
certain services to customers and the utilitys
managers, and are impacted by such factors
as the utilitys service area size and density
of customers, terrain, location of meters,
existing processes, and regulations.
35
Case StudIES and Value of Research

Advanced Metering at East Bay Municipal Utility District
This case study has been excerpted from Advanced Metering InfrastructureBest Practices for Selection,
Acquisition and Implementation (project#4000).
Demographics and Background

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) serves about 385,000 customers in Oakland, California and surrounding
communities. All services are metered. Its 350,000 residential customers are read bimonthly, and the remaining
customers monthly. Most meters are read manually and recorded on handheld data entry terminals. EBMUD customers
use an average of about 165 gallons per day per household. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) is investigating
the potential to use AMI-based data as a dynamic conservation tool and eventually integrate advanced meter reading
technology into the water supply management plan.
EBMUD has a water supply management plan designed to address increasing demands and cyclical droughts that
incorporates three elements: (1) system improvements and expansion, (2) water recycling, and (3) water conservation.
Water supply improvements help meet increasing demand as the EBMUD service territory fills in and provide flexible
and additional supplies needed during cyclical droughts. Water recycling frees up potable water by replacing some
irrigation and industrial demand with recycled wastewater. Conservation is another key element that reduces overall
demand. EBMUD has a variety of programs directed at residential, commercial and industrial, institutional, and heavy
industrial customers to meet those objectives. The goal of conservation is to reduce demand, both under normal
circumstances to extend supplies, and in times of drought. Still another element of the plan is to reduce real losses,
such as from leaks in the distribution system.
EBMUDs role in water conservation can range from passive to proactive. From a passive position, EBMUD observes
the increase in penetration of low flow toilets through remodeling and turnover of housing stock. In a proactive role,
EBMUD has provided rebates for low flow toilet installations and, more recently, high efficiency toilets that exceed the
current plumbing code standards for efficiency.
FindingsDeferring Capital Construction

In EBMUDs Round Hill Pumping District the average household uses 1,100 gallons per day; and in the peak month
about 1,600 gpd. One customer even gets up to 10,000 gpd. EBMUD had established engineering practices to size
facilities based upon customers served. However, the design engineers had no way to know that water use in this zone
was going to be so profligate. The customers in these districts had little interest in talking to us about conservation
and their usage continued to increase. Based on the very high demand by water customers in the Round Hill
Pumping District, EBMUD engineers determined that the reservoir and pumping station were undersized. A $3 million
upgrade of both, to be paid for as part of EBMUDs capital improvement program, was planned. However, that much
investment for so few customers seemed a little unfair to the rest of EBMUDs customers.
When the AMI system was used to analyze water consumption, excessive water use and wastage was identified. For
example, 40% of the customers had leaks of one cubic foot per hour (180 gallons per day) or more. Because some
meters were broken, the full extent was not immediately apparent.
EBMUD contacted every customer in the Holly and Round Hill districts by letter, through the homeowners associations,
and by phone and asked to discuss their water use. About half of the customers returned calls and agreed to meet.
Individual site visits were set up by appointmentmostly daytime, some evenings, or Saturdays. Using laptops
containing the AMI data, utility representatives sat down with those customers to do water use interventions.
EBMUD never had a message before that resonated with these customers. Equipped with charts and graphs EBMUD
could effectively demonstrate real money. An EBMUD representative spent about 1 hour with each customer, in
addition up to an hour of travel time (these customers were in an outlying part of the service territory). EBMUD
anticipates that most conservation interventions can be accomplished over the telephone at probably one-half hour
36
each. These times are consistent with what EBMUD has been spending as part of its residential audit program.
Many customers were over-watering their landscapes without realizing it. In one case, the house had been sold with
the irrigation system left on; the AMI data helped resolve the dispute as who was responsible for the water. In another
case, a part-time resident could have prevented some property damage and a very high water bill from a leak had
the utility been able to tell them about the consumption. When fully informed about the consumption, invariably one
family member or another confessed to be the excess usage culprit.
As a measure of the effectiveness of this outreach program, EBMUD compared the consumption for customers in the
Round Hill and Holly pilots in a summer month to the consumption in the same month the previous year. The more
recent summer was hotter, and people EBMUD was not able to meet with ended up using 6% more water while the
people EBMUD met with used on average 14% less water afterwards. So, differences between informed customers
and those not contacted averaged 20% less water use.
As a result of the consumption reduction in Round Hill, EBMUD upgraded the pumping plant, but indefinitely
postponed the reservoir, resulting in millions of dollars in capital cost savings. Pipeline upgrades in Round Hill were also
avoided, based on a conservatively estimated reduction in demand (10% allowing for a safety factor).
Customers reactions to EBMUDs conservation outreach effort were solicited. Customers were not concerned about
invasion of privacy, but they were concerned that this service would add to their water bill. Some customers said,
Why didnt you tell us we had a water leak sooner? or Will you fix this problem for me? Almost all the customers
said they would have preferred to have this information available on a website and could see the value in having this
information to avoid future problems.
Metering and Non Revenue Water

Based on billing records, EBMUD identified a discrepancy between the amount of water that was being pumped into
the Holly Pressure District and the total amount registered by customers meters. EBMUD verified that the reservoir level
sensors were accurate and there were no distribution system leaks, and determined that the pumping plant metering
was accurate by reviewing calibration charts and observing reservoir fill rates versus pump flow.
EBMUD found it curious that 111 older 1 domestic service meters monitored in the pilot did not show leaks. (A 1
meter size was required in each of those homes because their fire sprinklers required up to 90 gpm.) A 1 meter will
not capture a gpm leak, because the meter is not accurate at that low rate, especially after it has been in service a
few years. So these customers probably werent getting billed for water use.
The Holly Pressure District included a senior citizens home. When lots of people in the home were using water, the flow
rate was high, and the meter was accurate. However, at low flows, the meter could not pick up leaks. Many of the
toilet flappers at this location were leaking, and have since been replaced. Now, toilets are periodically inspected for
leaks along with inspection of fire sprinklers.
About half of the 610% discrepancy in the Holly mass balance analysis could be attributed to meter inaccuracies.
Identifying Meter Problems

Accurate meters and meter reading are essential to an effective conservation program. EBMUD imposes an initial
capacity charge, as well as a regular service charge, based on the size of the meter. Of course, developers and
customers would rather pay the smaller charge, and because they specify the meter size, some meters are undersized.
In Round Hill and Holly, very high usage rates were forced through 5/8 meters. Some 5/8 meters passed 10 gpm
37
for extended periods of time and frequently exceeded the 20 gpm recommended capacity. Meters that are overtaxed
will fail to register all the consumption going through them, and break or wear out prematurely. EBMUD found
non-functioning meters as part of the AMI project. Broken meters equal lost revenue. EBMUD found a 40% average
increase in metered consumption after a stuck meter replacement program.
In another study, EBMUD staff checked 13,000 cases of failed meters to see the consumption pattern before the meter
died. A meter might register a significant year to year drop; however, only looking at a month to month decline might
not detect this. The meters apparently started losing significant accuracy 18 months before. This suggests that if the
meter read is registering significantly less consumption than the year before, and there are no obvious reasons (for
example, the property changed hands), it should be inspected or tested. Since this study, EBMUD adopted a trigger of
80% of prior years consumption.
EBMUD should be replacing or repairing the meters that are overused more frequently. The billing system or a
meter data management system could identify meters that are registering excessive usage and schedule them
for early replacement.
With abundant customer side leaks, there will be significant low flow rate use. With heavy irrigation usage, there
will be significant extremely high flow rate use. In such cases the AWWA standard test flow rates and weights
used to calculate accuracy may not be applicable. EBMUD may expand its focus from low flow rate consumption
to meters that have registered a disproportionate amount of consumption at high flow rates . This is best observed
with an AMI system.
Distribution System Management has traditionally taken a top-down, supply-side view of its distribution system,
watching how water moves from pressure district to pressure district without actually knowing exactly whats
pulling it. Understanding demand can tell the utility where it needs to move water. Using AMI, EMBUD could better
understand demand and the factors that affect it, such as media advertising, weather, and conservations efforts. This
represents a major shift in thinking. Demand information is very valuable in emergency situations because EBMUD
would know where water is moving, who is using it, and where potential leaks might be occurring.
Future of AMI
The future of AMI is very promising. Recent developments in AMI have allowed some meters to record consumption
usage down to 0.01 cubic feet or approximately 1 cup of water. Some meters can report backflow events and
potentially even excessive flow rates. The integration of pipeline leak detection equipment into AMI is happening
very rapidly and may be standard protocol. Other improvements have allowed meter data management systems to
aggregate hourly usage by zone or even customer type.
38
Rates and Revenues
Rates, Rate Structures, and

Revenues Research to Support
Water Conservation Programs
Susan Turnquist, Hydropology Ltd. (former Water Research Foundation project manager)
Conservation programs implemented

by water utilities in response to drought
sometimes present a paradox: as customers
comply with a utilitys water restrictions,
revenues nosedive because less water is
sold. Soon after, the utility raises water rates
to maintain a sustainable revenue stream,
and predictably, customers feel penalized
for their cooperation with water restrictions.
No one is happy.
water suppliers, generally under conditions

of population and economic growth that
generated increasing sales and revenues
as discussed in an ongoing Foundation
project, A Balanced Approach to Water
Maximizing Benefits (Beecher, to be
completed in 2011, project#4175). Water
conservation, by contrast, emphasizes
demand management.
This is not inevitable. Conservation

programs enacted for reasons other than
a current drought have been successful
without damage to the bottom line or
customer relations. Strategy and timing are
key factors. Advance planning that de-links
conservation rates from drought restrictions
also allows for a gradual introduction of
conservation rates or rate structures that
minimizes rate shock. Advance planning
also provides opportunity to frame water
conservation issues more strategically in
communications with the public. This
article focuses on long-term rather than
short-term conservation research that
supports systemic change in utility finance
to encourage water use efficiency and
stabilize revenues.
As Beecher points out elsewhere, Water

conservation can be exceedingly beneficial
to the environment, society, and consumers,
but not necessarily to water supply utilities
(especially in the short term) (Beecher et
al. 1994). Conservation lowers sales and
erodes revenue. However, longer-range
planning can introduce significant cost
savings that offset lower revenues, through
forestalling capacity expansion, reducing
energy and chemical costs, shrinking the
volume of wastewater to be collected and
treated, and reducing risk of extremely low
levels of water supply.
The term water conservation may itself

be part of the paradox. It goes against the
grain of long-established practice in the
water utility industry, in which demand
is estimated, and water supplies are
developed and managed to meet those
projections. Water utilities evolved to be
Many utilities have developed a

demand-management approach to water
conservation as a routine way of doing
business, by building conservation rates or
rate structures into the program; adopting
or improving metering; developing
programs specific to each water-use sector;
introducing incentives such as rebates
for water-efficient fixtures, appliances,
and landscaping; and investing in public
information and education.
39
Rates and Revenues
The Water Research Foundation (WaterRF)

has developed and sponsored evidencebased research to assist utilities in
incorporating long-term, efficiencyoriented policies and practices in both
supply and demand management to
achieve revenue-neutral conservation
goals. This article discusses methods,
completed or underway, for estimating
demand, adapting traditional rate
structures, introducing innovative rate
structures, and investigating long-term
effects of conservation rates. It includes a
brief discussion of public communication
experiences and practices for conservation
programs, as these are essential to changing
customer water use behaviors.
Why Adopt Conservation Rates?
Many utilities have adopted conservation or

demand-management programs for a broad
range of benefits to their water resource
sustainability and capital programs. These
include the following:

Stability or reduction in the volume

of water that must be withdrawn from
watersheds and aquifers, and keeping
more water in-stream
Delays to capital expenditure for

construction or expansion of water
storage and treatment facilities
Stability or reduction in volume of

wastewater
Delays to or avoidance of capital

expenditure for construction or
expansion of wastewater treatment
facilities
Most cost-effective solution to expand

finite water supplies
Effective conservation programs

can dramatically reduce per capita
consumption. San Antonio reduced per
capita consumption by 25% between the
40
mid-1980s and 1998. El Pasos per capita

use dropped from 220 gallons to 165 gallons
per day (25%), including all classes of
customers. Seattle Public Utilities deferred
the acquisition of its next source of water
supply for 10 years (Wang et al. 2005).
Denver Water has already achieved an 18%
reduction in water consumption on the way
to its target of 22% (see sidebar).
However, to achieve these benefits and
sustain revenue stability, utilities must
set rates or prepare rate structures that
will generate sufficient income while
maintaining fairness to their customers
and preserving or enhancing customer
satisfaction with their water service.
Studies in the 1990s that looked at the
revenue impacts of conservation rates
include Foundation project, Long-Term
Effects of Conservation Rates (Amatetti
et al. 1997, order#90723/project#902),
and the National Regulatory Research
Institute (NRRI) Revenue Effects of Water
Conservation and Conservation Pricing:
Issues and Practices (Beecher et al. 1994).
Beechers study, examining regulatory
issues, emphasized that the appropriate
use of regulatory incentives... is not to
make demand management preferable to
supply-side investment, but to encourage
cost-effective resource planning. Financial
incentives for this include cost-recovery
mechanisms, lost-revenue mechanisms,
and performance-motivation mechanisms.
The effectiveness of conservation-oriented
rate structures noted in the Beecher
study is illustrated by several utilities
experiences. In Spaulding County, Georgia,
the introduction of increasing-block rates
resulted in a 5% decline in per capita water
use and a 21% increase in utility revenues. In
Tucson, Arizona, a seasonally differentiated
increasing-block rate structure for
residential customers resulted in an 11%
drop in total residential use over 8 years.
Rates and Revenues
Five case studies in the United States and

Canada on water conservation pricing are
included in a Canadian publication, Worth
Every Penny: A Primer on ConservationOriented Water Pricing (Brandes etal.2010).
Halifax Water, an autonomous and selffinanced utility, became a water, wastewater,
and stormwater utility in 2007, creating an
opportunity to provide integrated, costeffective, and environmentally sound services
across the full urban water cycle. The billing
structure they created consists of a fixed charge
and three variable components based on a
customers volumetric water consumption,
one each for water consumption, wastewater/
stormwater management, and environmental
protection charge. Another case study
focuses on Seattle Public Utilities, reviewing
its long history with conservation-oriented
pricing. While Seattle has plenty of water
in the winter, there is far less precipitation
during the summer when demand is highest.
In 1989, Seattle was among the first in North
America to introduce a seasonal surcharge in
summer months. In 1992, a drought surcharge
was added, with a strong rate penalty for
excessive water use. In 2001, Seattle Public
Utilities permanently introduced increasing
block rate tiers for single-family residential
customers, with three tiers. Since introducing
peak usage charges and other demand
management measures, Seattle Public Utilities
has seen significant, steady reductions in their
customers water use. Even as water rates have
continued to rise, a typical customer bill has
increased less due to lower water consumption.
Impacts of Conservation on Revenues
Water conservation may be the only defensible

strategy in periods of water scarcity, but for
reasons outlined earlier, may be a desirable
permanent strategy as well. A recurring
concern is the impacts on revenue.
Historically, rates have been set using
historical average costs. Conservation rates
are based on marginal costs, which are less
stable. Several Foundation reports address

this. Managing the Revenue and Cash Flow
Effects of Conservation (Amatetti et al. 1996,
order#90686/project#840) discusses both the
short- and long-term financial impacts of
conservation, providing a conceptual model
for estimating utility revenue and cash flow.
Long-Term Effects of Conservation Rates
(Amatetti et al. 1997, order#90723/
project#902), presents a spreadsheet rate
model to help depict a before and after picture
of utility demand, revenue, and costs. Revenue
Instability and Conservation Rate Structures
(Chesnutt et al. 1995, order#90681/
project#839) quantifies the extent to which
conservation pricing made revenue more
variable in two large water utilities, finding
that any rate structure containing a
volumetrically-based water rate varies when
sales volume varies. The report provides a
discussion of mechanisms to cope with
revenue uncertainty, such as contingency
funds, rate adjustment mechanisms and
frequency, and cost efficiencies.
Conservation pricing can be approached
using traditional rate structures, but
advances in techniques of rate setting and
technologies to support new types of rate
structures have expanded the range of tools
available to water utilities. WaterRF projects
have addressed both approaches, described
in the following sections.
Traditional Rate Structures:
Adaptation Options
Traditional rate structures, which forecast

demand and revenue requirements, and
then set rates to generate the revenues that
will be needed, are not well suited to sending
price signals to customers to encourage
conservation. An ongoing Foundation
project#4175, A Balanced Approach to
Water Conservation: Removing Barriers
and Maximizing Benefits includes
attention to the barriers presented by
41
Rates and Revenues
traditional rate structures and identifies

several incremental changes that could
improve utilities abilities to encourage
water use efficiency.
The incremental changes the research
team suggests begin with a reframing of
water utilities role and responsibilities
within communities, from that of a provider
of unlimited quantities of safe water, to
a steward of water resources. Flowing
from this change, utilities could alter
their approaches to forecasting demand,
estimating revenue requirements, and
setting rates. In demand forecasting,
utilities can change traditional assumptions
about stable growth in demand, instead
using multiple scenarios based on
combinations of interacting variables not
often used in traditional forecasts, such
as population decline and per capita
demand reductions. In estimating revenue
requirements, utilities could include
funding for conservation/efficiency
programs as investment costs rather than
discretionary expenditures in customer
service. In rate design, utilities could
add demand management as a critical
water resource management tool, to the
traditional set of water supply options.
Additionally, project#4175 encourages
utilities to develop financial planning
for drought management, as a matter of
standard practice rather than a response
to crisis, and presents a drought response
financial model that anticipates reductions
in the availability of water supplies,
increased customer outreach expenses, and
drought pricing for revenue management.
Other resources for adopting conservation
rates to stabilize revenues and manage water
resources more sustainably include USEPAs
Case Studies of Sustainable Water and
Wastewater Pricing (2005) as well as AWWAs
Water Conservation-Oriented Rates: Strategies
42
to Extend Supply, Promote Equity, and Meet

Minimum Flow Levels (Wang et al. 2005).
Innovative Rate Structures
Conservation-oriented water rate structures

have drawn widespread attention in
recent years. Foundation report, Water
Budgets and Rate Structures: Innovative
Management Tools (Mayer et al. 2008,
order#91205/project#3094) provides a
detailed overview of water budgets, which
are volumetric allotments of water to
customers based on customer-specific
characteristics and conservative resource
standards. Water budget-based rate
structures are among the most effective
tools available to water utilities to provide a
meaningful price signal, increase customers
water use efficiency, and manage drought
response equitably. These rate structures
have spread steadily in the past decade,
particularly to manage landscape irrigation,
and the report examined 15 utilities around
the country that have adopted them in
some form. Such rate structures have
become more feasible as technology has
improved in customer information and
billing systems, advanced metering, and
geographical information systems. However,
they need not be complex. The authors note
that most modern, database-centered utility
billing systems can probably be adapted
to incorporate water budgets without
significant effort.
The authors of Water Budgets and Rate
Structures present six case studies in
detail before walking readers through
the technical steps of designing water
budgets (both indoor and landscape) for
different customer classes, discussing
billing system requirements, and reviewing
implementation costs, issues, and solutions.
The authors developed a tool kit for utilities
interested in implementing water budgets,
consisting of a decision framework and
an implementation process. The tool kit
Rates and Revenues
includes a discussion, illustrated by a case

study, of barriers to implementation of
water budget-based rates.
Conservation Rates: Best Practices in
Customer Relations, and Other Tools
An essential component of success in

introducing conservation pricing and
rate structures is rolling these changes
out in a way that is acceptable to water
utility customers. While a full discussion
of that is beyond the scope of this article,
there are several useful reports and
resources that readers can review. In
the sidebar, Denver Water describes the
elements of its campaign to win customer
acceptance of the new conservation rate
structure. Several Foundation reports
cover similar ground. Effectiveness of
Residential Water Conservation Price
and Nonprice Programs (Michelsenetal.
1998, order#90747/project#737) includes a
focus on nonprice programs, referring to a
range of activities from public information
to ordinances and regulations. In Water
Efficiency Programs for Integrated
Water Management (Chesnutt et al. 2007,
order#91149/project#2935), the authors
offer a conceptual planning framework for
water use efficiency (WUE) built around
three distinct perspectives: (1) the utility
perspective, which tracks the net impact of
a WUE program on a utilitys revenue; (2)
the participant perspectives, which tracks
benefits and costs that directly affect utility
customers; and (3) the total resource cost
perspective, which tracks costs incurred
by both the utility and the participating
customers. This report includes a tool
for estimating benefits and costs of water
efficiency programs.
Foundation report, Water Conservation:
Customer Behavior and Effective
Communication (Silva et al. 2010, project/
order#4012), presents the results on
customer behavior of testing conservation
messages sent by various media with

varying content. Saving money was found
consistently to be the strongest incentive
for water customers to comply with
conservation programs. The report also
found that rebate programs were a greatly
underutilitized but potentially effective
incentive for changing customer behaviors.
Some types of customers are harder to reach
than others. Several Foundation reports
provide significant resources for planning
and implementing outreach to such groups
as residents of multi-unit complexes, elderly
residents, disabled residents, and residents
who do not speak English. These reports
include the following:

Best Practices in Customer Payment

Assistance Programs (Cromwell et al.
2010, project/order#4004)
Assessing Customer Preferences and

Willingness to Pay: A Handbook for
Water Utilities (Thacher et al., to be
completed in 2010, project/order#4085),
in addition, offers new robust survey
methodologies for assessing community
support for different levels of water
service, which could be effectively used
when designing conservation rates and
rate structures.

Finally, when evaluating options for

water conservation pricing and rate
structures, utilities may benefit from
a review of Socioeconomic Impacts
of Water Conservation (Beecher et
al. 2001, order#90817/project#497).
The report provides an overview of
design and implementation issues
for programs that address both water
conservation and socioeconomic
considerations. The authors provide a
framework for assessing conservation,
pricing, and affordability, with
empirical examples to quantify the
impacts of conservation programs.
references on next page
43
Rates and Revenues
References
Beecher, J.A., Mann, P.C., Hegazy, Y., and J.D. Stanford. 1994. Revenue Effects of Water Conservation and
Conservation Pricing: Issues and Practices, NRRI 94-18. Columbus, Ohio: The National Regulatory Research Institute,
The Ohio State University. http://ipu.msu.edu/research/pdfs/NRRI%20Revenue%20Effects%20of%20Water%20
Conservation.pdf
Brandes, O.M., Renzetti, S. and K. Stinchcombe. 2010. Worth Every Penny: A Primer on Conservation-Oriented Water
Pricing, POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada. http://poliswaterproject.org/
sites/default/files/Pricing%20Primer%20Final.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Case Studies of Sustainable Water and Wastewater Pricing, Office of
Water, Ground Water Drinking Water report 816-R-05-007. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsystems/pdfs/guide_
smallsystems_fullcost_pricing_case_studies.pdf
Wang, Y.D., Smith, W.J. Jr., and J. Byrne. 2005. Water Conservation-Oriented Rates: Strategies to Extend Supply,
Promote Equity, and Meet Minimum Flow Levels, Denver: American Water Works Association.
Foundation Reports
Amatetti, E. J., R. Albani, J. Beecher., P Mann,1996. Managing the Revenue and Cash Flow Effects of
Conservation, order#90686/project#840. Denver: Awwa Research Foundation.
Amatetti, E.J., Corssmit, C.W., Matthews, P., and J.D. Russell. 1997. Long-Term Effects of Conservation Rates,
order#90723/project#902. Denver: Awwa Research Foundation.
Beecher, J.A. (to be completed in 2011). Adapting the Traditional Utility Finance Model to Include WUE
Programs draft of chapter to be included in report for project#4175, A Balanced Approach to Water Conservation:
Removing Barriers and Maximizing Benefits (Principal Investigator: T.W. Chesnutt).
Beecher, J.A., Chesnutt, T.W., and D. W. Pekelney. 2001. Socioeconomic Impacts of Water Conservation,
order#90817/project#497. Denver: Awwa Research Foundation.
Bell, H., Brydon, B., Lowdon, A., Millan, A.M., Walton, B., Beecher, J.A., Bill, C., Foley, T.D., and M.K. Deif. 2005. Utility
Rate Structures: Investigating International Principles and Customer Views, order#91058F/project#2774.
Denver: Awwa Research Foundation.
Chesnutt, T.W., Fiske, G., Beecher, J.A., and D.M. Pekelney. 2007. Water Efficiency Programs for Integrated Water
Management, order#91149/project#2935. Denver: Awwa Research Foundation.
Chesnutt, T.S., Christianson, J., Bamezai, A., McSpadden, C.N., and W. M. Hanemann. 1995. Revenue Instability and
Conservation Rate Structures, order#90681/project#839. Denver: Awwa Research Foundation.
Cromwell, J.E. III, Colton, R.D., Rubin, S.E., Herrick, C.N., Mobley, J., Reinhardt, K. and R. Wilson. 2010. Best Practices
in Customer Payment Assistance Programs, project/order#4004. Denver: Water Research Foundation.
Mayer, P., DeOreo, W., Chesnutt, T., Pekelney, D., and S. Summers. 2008. Water Budgets and Rate Structures:
Innovative Management Tools, order#91205/project#3094. Denver: Awwa Research Foundation.
Michelsen, A.M., McGuckin, J.T., and D. M. Stumpf. 1998. Effectiveness of Residential Water Conservation Price
and Nonprice Programs, order#90747/project#737. Denver: Awwa Research Foundation.
Silva, T., Pape, D., R. Szoc, P. Mayer,. 2010. Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective
Communication, project/order#4012. Denver: Water Research Foundation.
Thacher, J., Marsee, M., Pitts, H., Hansen, J., Chermak, J., Thomson, B. (to be completed in 2010). Assessing
Customer Preferences and Willingness to Pay: A Handbook for Water Utilities, project/order#4085. Denver:
Water Research Foundation.
44

Denver Water Customers Know the More They Use,
the More They Pay
In 1990, Denver Water implemented a two-tiered block rate structure. They increased the number of tiers to three in
1999 and to four in 2006. The block-rate structure for billing single family residential customers is such that those that
fall in the lowest-use category pay less per gallon than customers who fall in higher tiers. That structure encourages
customers to save money on their bill by using less water.
To help educate customers about the block-rate structure, Denver Water uses several community-relations methods,
including:
Publishing reminders of the rate structure in customer publications (bill messages, bill inserts, newsletters, etc.)
throughout the summer.
Teaching customers that by making water conservation a normal way of life today, it will help ensure sufficient
supplies for future generations.
Targeting customers who fall into the higher tiers with assistance through rebates, incentives, and education
programs.
Issuing news releases and posting information on its Website that provides information on conservation rates.
Providing conservation audits and pilot programs targeted to high water use to encourage customers to use less
water and lower their water bills.
Charging irrigation and commercial customers with seasonal rates, which means they pay significantly more per
unit of water during the irrigation season to discourage peak usage.
Denver Water is in the midst of a 10-year plan to reduce water consumption by 22% system-wide by 2016. To date,
customers have reduced their water use by 18%.
By Ann Depperschmidt, Community Relations specialist, Denver Water, and Todd Cristiano, manager of Rate
Administration, Denver Water.
45
Water Loss Control
Utility Leakage Management

Maureen Hodgins, Water Research Foundation project manager
The U.S. Geological Surveys 1995 estimate

of 6 billion gallons of water per day that is
not accounted for or lost is often quoted
and today would be referred to as nonrevenue water (NRW). Most U.S. utilities
dont compile an annual water audit
to quantify the losses or costs of NRW,
and regulatory structures are only now
beginning to appear in certain states. A
recent estimate of the direct and societal
costs of a main break is estimated to
be $500,000 (Gaewski and Blaha 2007).
Inadequate user fees to cover full cost
of service (USGAO 2002), the estimated
spending shortfall on water infrastructure
of $1122 billion per year (USEPA 2002),
and the estimate of 6 billion gallons of
NRW per day illustrate that water utilities
need a better understanding of water
accountability and efficiency within their
own supply and billing operations.
This article discusses approaches to
improve water accountability and efficiency
as defined by the USGAO (2002), including
the International Water Association (IWA)
and American Water Works Association
(AWWA) Water Audit Method, ways to
determine system performance, quantifying
leakage by monitoring water flows and
leak noise, and mitigating leakage and
sustaining infrastructure by pressure
management. The article draws on a
variety of literature, while also highlighting
significant Water Research Foundation
projects including Leakage Management
Technologies (2007, order#91180/
project#2928), ongoing Continuous
System Leak MonitoringFrom Start to
46
Repair (project#3183), and Installation,

Condition Assessment, and Reliability
of Service Lines (2006, order#91167/
project#2927).
Where Does the Water Go?
Water utility managers know that leaks

occur in the distribution system, but often
dont know where or to what degree until
a water main bursts or a complaint is
received such as a damp basement. Because
all systems incur leakage, water utilities
treat and deliver a greater quantity of
water than their customer base consumes.
High or erratic pressure levels in pipelines,
corrosive soils, and poor construction
methods are just some of the causes of
leakage. Physical or real losses are defined
as all types of leakages and storage tank
overflows. Non-physical or apparent losses
result from unauthorized consumption
such as meter tampering, accounting errors
and inaccurate customer water meters, and
rob utilities of revenue each year.
The water audit is the foundation of
accountability in water supply operations.
Data from the annual water audit serves
as the first step in formulating a water loss
control plan. The water auditing process
can be carried out via three approaches
that increase in amount of effort, but also
in the degree of data validity achieved
in the process. Top-down auditing is a
desktop assembly of available data about
water produced, sold, and lost. It requires
the least effort, but often employs the use
of estimates for many loss components so
accuracy is limited. The mid-level approach
Water Loss Control
is component based leakage analysis

and makes use of utility field records
to categorize leak types and response
times in order to better quantify leakage
losses. Finally, the bottom-up auditing
approach requires the collection of field
measurements and data collection such
as pressure levels in the system, meter
accuracy testing, and customer billing
system analysis. This approach produces
a more accurate water audit, but requires
the time and resources to collect and
compile the detailed field data.
measures or estimates all the water as either

authorized consumption or water loss. It
has standard definitions for all the major
water consumption and loss categories,
including authorized consumption, revenue
water, water loss, real loss, apparent loss,
and NRW, rather than simply accountedfor and unaccounted-for water. The
methodology includes an array of effective
performance indicators to assess both
real and apparent losses, and allows water
utilities to understand their water losses,
benchmark themselves with other utilities,
and set performance targets. This approach
realizes that setting the same leakage
reduction targets for all water utilities is
neither realistic nor effective since system
conditions vary widely among utilities.
The performance indicators allow system
specific parameters, including size of the
system and average system pressure, to be
taken into account when assessing leakage
standing and setting targets. Finally, the
water audit determines the quantity of
each type of loss and the costs so financial
impacts can be assessed.
IWA and AWWA jointly developed a Water

Audit Method, which is recognized as the
best practice approach for standardized
water auditing (AWWA Water Loss Control
Committee 2003). This methodology has
been documented by the AWWA Water
Loss Control Committee (WLCC) and two
Foundation reports (Evaluating Water Loss
and Planning Loss Reduction Strategies
(2006, order#91163/project#2811) and
Leakage Management Technologies). In
2009, the WLCC released the third edition
AWWA Manual M36: Water Audits and
Loss Control Programs, (M36) which
was rewritten and expanded to provide
guidance on the IWA/AWWA Water Audit
Method, and advanced leakage and loss
control technologies emerging in the water
industry. The WLCC created the AWWA
Free Water Audit Software, which allows
auditors to quickly compile a preliminary
audit in the standardized and transparent
manner advocated by AWWA (AWWA 2010).
The AWWA water audit software accepts
data that is typically tracked by most water
utilities in conducting a top-down water
audit. In 2010, this software was enhanced
with a data grading capability that allows
auditors to rate the validity of their data.
The IWA/AWWA Water Audit Method has

already been adopted by Texas (Texas
Water Development Board), Georgia
(Metropolitan North Georgia Water
Planning District), and California Urban
Water Conservation Council; was piloted by
New Mexico (Office of State Engineer); and
is being implemented on a pilot basis by the
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. It
is being used voluntarily by the Delaware
River Basin Commission whose members
include New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
New York, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. This will become mandatory for
Delaware Basin water utilities starting in
2012. (Alliance for Water Efficiency 2010)
The IWA/AWWA Water Audit Method is

different than previous methods because it
Halifax Water (HW) adopted the IWA/

AWWA Water Audit Method as a best
Editors note: This

article was based
on Sustaining Water
Resources through
Water Auditing
and Loss-Control
Innovations by George
Kunkel, Carl Yates,
and David Hughes,
published in the
November/December
2006 issue of Drinking
Water Research
(Volume 16, number 6).
47
Water Loss Control
practice in 2000. Six years later, HW reduced

leakage in the distribution system by 9million
gallons/day, with a corresponding plant
output reduction of 44 to 35 million gallons/
day. The 9 million gallons/day leakage
reduction corresponds to an Infrastructure
Leakage Index reduction from a 9.0 to 3.0 or
annual savings of $550,000 Canadian Dollars.
Water utilities should compile a
comprehensive water audit on an annual
basis as a standard business practice to
establish water accountability. The findings
of the water auditwater loss volumes
and their cost impactsserve as the basis
to devise water efficiency programs to
control water losses. While the approach
to water auditing has advanced significantly,
technologies to control both apparent
and real losses have also seen advances.
Emerging technologies are providing better
control of both apparent losses and real
losses. Progressive leakage management
is now recognized as a significant factor
in preserving valuable water resources.
In fact, Sturm and Thornton (2007)
found cases where water loss control may
garner more water savings than customer
side conservation.
Traditional methods like leak detection
surveys have seen refinement, while new
technologies include pressure management,
the establishment of district metered
areas (DMAs), and continuous acoustic
monitoring (CAM). Active leakage control
entails locating and repairing hidden,
unreported leaks, with the intention of
minimizing the leak duration. Unreported
leaks are often more discernable during
minimum hours (often at night unless there
is landscape irrigation) by either leak noise
monitoringtraditional leak surveys and
CAMor by metering supply flows into a
discrete area, called DMAs, and monitoring
the variation in the flow trend.
48
DMA
The United Kingdom, which typically

doesnt meter customer use, has been
using DMAs as the most effective way
to reduce the duration of an unreported
leak. DMAs are a hydraulically discreet
part of the distribution network, ideally
with one inflow point equipped with a
meter to measure the bulk supply flow.
DMA management aims to continuously
monitor flows, to detect trends of increasing
minimum hour flow that infers emerging
leakage. Then leaks can be pinpointed by a
leak detection survey. DMA monitoring also
provides the necessary data for estimating
background leakage and the infrastructure
condition factor (ICF), a parameter that
assesses infrastructure condition. Even
though North American distribution
systems typically use larger diameter pipe
and have more service connections than the
United Kingdom, DMAs can be successfully
implemented and meet fire flow and water
quality requirements.
Both HW and the Philadelphia Water
Department (PWD) installed DMAs and
realized savings (Fanner et. al 2007). PWD
installed one permanent DMA in an area
that experienced both a high supply flow
and high pressure. Philadelphias DMA
has realized savings of $55,000 annually
and 1.2 million gallons of water day from
reduced leakage. For more information see
the accompanying article titled Water Loss
Control: Philadelphia Case Study on page51.
DMA and Pressure Management
Many water utilities operate with excessive

levels of water pressure in parts of their
distribution systems and have significant
pressure transients caused by rapid changes
in water velocity. Gaining control over
excessive pressure levels is highly effective
in controlling background leakage, the tiny
Water Loss Control
leakage that has been previously considered

unavoidable. Research by the Foundation
and HW found that installing a DMA and
flow modulated pressure reducing valves
was a successful leakage management tool
and can better sustain the life of piping
infrastructure.
High pressures are typically controlled
with pressure reducing valves (PRV) and
have also been shown to reduce short-term
break frequency and extend infrastructure
life. Fixed outlet pressure control devices
have been used for years, but usually only
for general pressure sustaining purposes.
Flow modulated pressure control is a more
sophisticated technique, which controls
outlet pressure in relation to demand.
When demand increases, the outlet
pressure is increased and when demand
reduces, outlet pressure is reduced, all
within a strategically selected operating
range that ensures adequate supply
for customer demand and fire fighting
flows, while optimizing the reduction of
background leakage.
HW established 65 DMAs in their system
and the typical DMA incorporates a
zone with maximum pipe length of 30
kilometers, 150 hydrants, or approximately
2,500 customer connections. HW uses
the DMAs and supervisory control and
data acquisition for night flow analysis
to assess leakage and benchmark system
flows. Flow modulated pressure control
was installed in one DMA to test out
advanced pressure management. A short
trial of 3 types of pressure control (none,
fixed outlet, and flow modulated) found
that fixed outlet pressure control resulted
in the most significant reduction in real
losses, ~45 gallons/connection/day, and
flow modulated saved an additional 8
gallons/connection/day. This pressure
management installation realized savings
of $16,300 Canadian Dollars annually

based on production costs. The payback
period for advanced pressure management
(HWs DMA each have 2 inflow chambers),
based on production cost savings only,
was approximately 13 years, which is very
encouraging since the two DMA chambers
represent the majority of the cost and have
a minimum life cycle of 50 years. Further
benefits in this DMA were a 50% decrease
in the total number of breaks, from 23 to 12
breaks per year (Fanner et. al 2007).
Monitoring Leak Noise
Another approach to quickly detect a leak

is to routinely listen for leak noises along
the pipes, called CAM. This approach
links acoustic monitors that have been
permanently placed throughout the system
to a communication network facilitated by
an advanced meter infrastructure (AMI)
system. Potential leaks are identified by
analyzing the history of acoustic patterns,
especially elevation in noise. The benefits of
this approach are that it detects leaks within
several hundred feet as they develop and
often before they come to the surface and
monitors both mains and service lines.
A much publicized case study of CAM is in
Connellsville, Pennsylvania, where leakage
is a concern because water is not cheap.
It is purchased and distributed through a
system of mostly 100-year old pipes, the
NRW exceeded 25% of water used, and
the Infrastructure Leakage Index was 12.
American Water (AW) collaborated with the
Foundation to document the Connellsville
experiences in the ongoing project#3183,
Continuous System Leak Monitoring
From Start to Repair. During the 3-year
study, 172 leaks were found and studied
to gain insight into how leaks develop and
how to use CAM. In the first year, the CAM
leak identification and repair campaign
49
Water Loss Control
allowed AW to reduce the NRW in half. For

more information see the accompanying
article titled American Water Case Study:
Continuous System Leak Monitoring on
page54 (Hughes and Schneider 2009).
Summary
The work by the Foundation, AWWA, HW,

PWD, and AW is helping utilities find
solutions to reduce water losses. With
the growing emphasis on sustainable
water and energy use as demonstrated by
California Senate Bill X7 7requiring per
capita water use reduction of 20% by 2020
and the federal governments new water
sustainability strategy, WaterSMART, which
focuses on wise decisions about water use,

utilities can respond with programs that
improve water efficiency and accountability.
Utilities may use the IWA/AWWA
Water Audit Method to obtain a better
understanding of water accountability.
Water efficiency, or a reduction in pipe
breaks and water losses, can be achieved
with pressure management, analyzing
DMA meter flows to infer leaks, and using
acoustic monitors to hear leaks. There is
no one solution for all utilities, but options
exist and advances in technology may
provide more solutions in the future.
References
Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2010. Water audit case studiesthe emerging use of water audits in the United States
Water Utility Sector. http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/water_audit_case_studies.aspx. Accessed July 23, 2010.
American Water Works Association (AWWA) Water Loss Control Committee, 2003, Applying Worldwide BMPs in
Water Loss Control. Journal AWWA, volume 95, number 8.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2010. Water Wiser: AWWAs Free Water Audit Software, Version 4.2.
http://www.awwa.org/Resources/WaterLossControl.cfm?ItemNumber=48511&navItemNumber=48158. Accessed May
26, 2009.
Fanner, P. et. al., 2007, Leakage Management Technologies, order #91180/project #2928. Denver, CO: Awwa
Research Foundation.
Gaewski, P. and F. Blaha. 2007. Analysis of Total Cost of Large Diameter Pipe Failures. http://www.WaterRF.org/Research/
SpecialReports/Lists/PublicSpecialReports/Attachments/5/SupplementalReport.pdf. Accessed August 26, 2010.
Hughes, D. and O. Schneider. 2009. Water Research Foundation Webcast: Managing Distribution IntegrityOld
Problem, New Tools. http://www.WaterRF.org/Resources/Webcasts
Kunkel, G. by email on August 2, 2010.
Sturm, R. and J. Thornton. 2007. Water loss control in North America: more cost effective than customer side
conservationwhy wouldnt you do it? Presented at AWWA CA-NV Section Spring Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada,
April 2007. http://www.wso.us/uploads/P103.pdf. Accessed July 29, 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment,
Fourth Report to Congress. Report EPA816-R-09001. Washington, DC.: USEPA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. Water Loss Reduction Financing Mechanisms for
Drinking Water Distribution Systems. Washington, DC: USEPA. http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/publications/
WaterLossReductionFinancingMarch2010.pdf Accessed August 26, 2010.
U.S. Government Accounting Office (USGAO). 2002. Water Infrastructure, Information on Financing Capital Planning
and Privatization. Report GAO-02-764. Washington, DC: USGAO.
50

Water Loss Control: Philadelphia Case Study
George Kunkel, Philadelphia Water Department; Rick Karlin, Water Research Foundation director of partnerships &
subscriber services; and Maureen Hodgins, Water Research Foundation project manager
Assessing the Problem

George Kunkel, assistant chief of the Water Conveyance Section for the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD),
has been conducting research and piloting various technologies to address water loss for more than a decade. He
estimated that in 2008, PWD lost 54 million gallons of water a day (or 19.7 billion gallons of water for the year) from
leaks alone, and spent more than $5 million in excessive production costs to treat and pressurize water that never
reached a customer. This amounts to enough water to supply 110,000 households.
While these leaks are an obvious form of water waste, Kunkel also estimates that PWD under-billed another 19 million
gallons of water a daya $27 million retail valuedue to accounting, billing, and metering errors, and from water
theft by customers who tamper with meters, make illegal connections, or reactivate service connections that have been
shut off for payment delinquency.
Finding Solutions
By participating in a number of water loss control studies and projects, Kunkel and his utility confirmed that water loss
control is one of the most cost-effective ways to sustain aging water distribution infrastructure and optimize revenue
capture.
One of the more innovative leakage management approaches employed by PWD was the creation of a District Metered
Area (DMA), a small area of the distribution system used to monitor supply flows for newly emerging leaks. In addition
to proactively monitoring for leaks, the DMA employs advanced pressure management to reduce subtle background
leakage and inhibit water main ruptures. PWD was guided by the research conducted in the report, Leakage
Management Technologies (order #91180/project #2928), to help design the DMA configuration, size flow metering
equipment, and pressure controls.
A DMA is created by closing valves in a connect-the-dots fashion to establish a small isolated area that is hydraulically
separated from the neighboring distribution grid. One or more water mains are left open to supply water to the area,
and this flow is continuously measured. By assessing the variations in flowparticularly during low use night hours
leakage rates in the zone can be inferred. A gradual increase in the minimum night rate serves as an early warning
of rising leakage.
By working in a smaller area, we can discern flow changes to indicate whether new leaks are emerging or if other
leaks are growing, Kunkel said. We can collect this data real time and monitor this zone dailyinstead of waiting
for leak crews to inspect the area every three years, as per our leak detection survey program schedule. If flows remain
low, we know were in good shape and our leak detection crews can deploy elsewhere. If not, we send in our crews to
pinpoint emerging leaks when they are small and before a significant loss occurs.
PWD installed one permanent DMA in an area that experienced both a high supply flow and high pressure. In the
preliminary work to establish the DMA, PWD found 7 defective valves and 12 valves in the wrong position. In the initial
leak and repair campaign, PWD found that 50% of the real losses were caused by 4 water mains ruptures, 1 water
main leak, and 8 leaking customer service connections, all running sight unseen from above ground.
In early 2010, the 3-year pilot phase of this project was completed and a final report was issued on the feasibility
of DMAs and advanced pressure management as an improved technology for PWDs service area. PWD controlled
continued on page 55
51

Leakage Reduction Through Flow Modulated Pressure
Control: the Halifax Water Experience
Graham MacDonald and Carl Yates, Halifax Water
Background
As part of its holistic approach, pressure management through fixed outlet control has been actively pursued by
Halifax Water (HW) to ensure pressure within the distribution system is optimized for customer service and kept at
levels to minimize leakage. Building on the successful installation of district metered areas (DMA), flow modulated
pressure control was installed in a typical sector in Dartmouth to further control and manage leakage. The
Dartmouth Central DMA was selected to evaluate advanced pressure management as a leakage management tool
for Water Research Foundation report, Leakage Management Technologies (2007, order #91180/project #2928).
By reducing system pressures during periods of low demand, flow rates through background and active leaks were
expected to be reduced. It was anticipated that improved control of system pressures would also reduce or eliminate
pressure surges that can occur within the DMA and reduce main breaks. Dual supplies into the DMA offered the
challenge of modulating two control valves in geographically differing locations, to achieve the desired system
pressure in response to the changing demand. Flow modulating pressure reducing valve (PRV) controllers were
installed at the Leaman and Micmac supply chambers and programmed to regulate the pressure a modest 10 meters
head between minimum and maximum through the trial period.
Operational Issues
Over the 12 month trial period, repeated attempts to operate the Leaman and Micmac supply chambers
simultaneously in flow modulation mode were unsuccessful. Typically, in response to an increase in demand, one of
the supply chambers would respond by increasing the system pressure as the flow through that chamber increased.
This increase in system pressure is sensed at the second supply chamber where a corresponding reduction in flow
occurs, which is interpreted by the PRV controller as a reduction in demand. The second supply chamber responds to
this perceived reduction in demand by reducing the system pressure, thus creating a cycle that eventually results in
the complete closure of the second or lag supply chamber. Various control settings were tested, however, over time,
one supply chamber would eventually override the other. Programming the PRV controller at the Micmac supply
chamber to function in time-based modulation with Leaman in flow modulation was also tried with limited success.
Ultimately, to meet the intent of Foundation project #2928, the Micmac supply chamber was turned off leaving the
Leaman chamber supplying flow and modulating the pressure for the entire zone. Although this produced data that
satisfied the WaterRF project, it was clear Halifax
Water could not continue to operate the DMA
with a single supply.
Solving the Problem
Figure 1 Test setup including temporary programmable logic

controller (PLC) and pressure reducing valve (PRV) at Micmac
52
Following the trial period, Halifax Water staff

identified the problem. In simple terms, the
supply chambers were connected hydraulically
but were acting independently at the control
level. In this mode, an increased flow through
one supply chamber translated into a flow
reduction in the other. To correct this, the
controllers at each supply chamber would have
to be using the same process variable, the total
DMA demand, or the totalized flow from both
meters. To accomplish this, Halifax Water staff, in
partnership with Dalhousie University, developed
a control algorithm that combined the real-time flow from each meter into a single total DMA flow. This total flow
value would then be input into the PRV controllers at each chamber in place of their respective flow meter values. In
this way, the controllers at each location would increase and decrease the pressures together in response to the total
DMA demand. Digital spread spectrum radios were installed at each site and a peer to peer connection established
to allow the required flow data transfer. The remote terminal unit (RTU) at each site will execute the algorithm and
output the total flow demand to the PRV controllers. The algorithm incorporates fail safes to accommodate possible
communication losses and other technical scenarios. Figure 1 shows the initial test set up with a programmable logic
controller (PLC) running the algorithm connected to the controller.
The completed system will take advantage of the processing capabilities of the PLC based RTU that is a standard
component of the Halifax Water supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. Leveraging off the SCADA
system will minimize additional components required and simplify the installation.
Results
Initial results are very positive, communications are reliable, and the flow updates at the controllers occur in less than
4 seconds. To accommodate local hydraulic issues, the controllers can be configured with differing ramps. Figure 2
displays the total DMA flow with modulated pressures at each supply point.
m3/h
kPa
800
600
435.74
304.60
44.71
700
500
600
400
500
300
400
300
200
200
100
100
0
6/12/2010 7:00 PM
6/14/2010 3:20 AM
Dartmouth Central Zone Flow
Leaman PRV Low Pressure
6/15/2010 7:00 PM
Mic Mac PRV Low Pressure
Figure 2 Total district metered areas (DMA) flow with modulated

pressures at each supply point (Micmac and Leaman)
As seen in Figure 2, the two

pressures track very well with the
total DMA flow. The difference
in the pressures represents the
different elevations of the supply
chambers. Note the reduced
pressure during the low flow period
at night. Following a reasonable
trial period, this arrangement will
be made permanent and the test
equipment will be moved to other
DMAs for evaluation. In the future,
Halifax Water will be exploring
opportunities to use motorized
pilots and eliminate the need for
the PRV controller at sites where
power is available. The control logic
will reside in the SCADA system
RTU at each site.
Additional Resources about Halifax Waters Experiences

Kunkel, G., C. Yates, and D. Hughes. 2006. Sustaining Water Resources through Water Auditing and Loss-Control
Innovations. Drinking Water Research, 16(6): 2-7.
Fanner, P. et. al., 2007. Leakage Management Technologies, order #91180/project #2928. Denver: Awwa
Research Foundation.
Yates, C.D., G.D. MacDonald. 2007. Advanced Pressure Management via Flow Modulation; the Dartmouth Central
PMA. Presented at Water Loss 2007, Session C5Pressure Management. http://waterloss2007.com/pdf_vortraege/
Dienstag/C5-1.pdf. [cited August 4, 2010.]
53

American Water Case Study: Continuous System
Leak Monitoring
David Hughes, American Water and Maureen Hodgins, Water Research Foundation project manager
The utility American Water has been very progressive in both customer metering and leakage management
technologies. Using an innovative connection between a series of acoustic leak monitors and a fixed automatic meter
reading (AMR) network, American Water has demonstrated a successful method to detect leaks as they develop and
often before they come to the surface.
Daily acoustic monitors that are linked to a fixed AMR network are attached to service lines to feel pipe vibration
throughout the system. The unit monitors acoustic noise and filters and separates frequencies into several ranges over
every four-hour nighttime period. The values reported from each monitor each night are the lowest level of noise.
The frequency range captures sounds typical of leaks from a full variety of pipes. The effective range of the acoustic
monitors is usually 250 feet for plastic and 400 feet for metallic pipes. The average spacing of the units on metallic
pipes is about one of every ten customer connections.
The water system of Connellsville, which was a western Pennsylvania coal boomtown a century ago, was selected
for the pilot study portion of WaterRF project #3183, Continuous System Leak MonitoringFrom Start To
Repair. With 40 of the 57 miles of pipe being 100 years old and a mixture of galvanized steel, cast iron, ductile
iron, asbestos cement, and plastic mains, the system provides an excellent laboratory for leak investigations. The
finished water supply is purchased from two local municipal facilities and measured with master meters. The nonrevenue water (NRW) exceeded 25% of water used. The Infrastructure Leakage Index of the system calculated per
AWWA guidelines was 12.
The installation of the daily acoustic monitoring system and fixed network system for the monitors was completed
in early spring 2005. Over a seven month period, American Water and the systems manufacturer worked to track
suspicious acoustic sounds from 487 monitors scattered through the system, learning more about the nature of leaks
and their acoustic signatures. By the start of 2006, the system leakage had been reduced by more than half. In all,
46 leaks were found and repaired in seven months, approximating the number of leaks typically identified in a year.
During 2006 to 2008, 172 leaks were analyzed to better understand how to employ continuous acoustic monitoring
(CAM), how it would impact leak reduction, and any potential limitations.
NRW was significantly impacted. In the first year of the study, NRW had decreased by 50%. However, severe winters
in 2007 and 2008 adversely affected NRW volumes, generating breaks that erupted suddenly with high volume flow.
Some of these large breaks had very little, if any, non-surfacing time from start to repair.
An obstacle to CAM was interference noise, or noise that was created from sources other than leaks. Overnight
interference noise increased with weather extremes indicative of mechanical and electrical noise associated with
heating and cooling. Interference noise was also found in areas near pumps or continuous overnight metered
consumption. It was harder to identify leaks in these areas or situations, but was usually accomplished through careful
analysis of the leak history.
About 65% of the leaks that did run overnight produced an acoustic signal that was registered by the monitors. The
remaining 35% were not registered by monitoring. It is believed that the acoustic leak noise was attenuated as it
traveled through the plastic and repair clamps on the ferrous pipe mains from many previous repairs.
Acoustic leak noise is a function of several factors, including size of leak, pipe material(s), diameter, pressure, and the
shape and condition of the pipe failure. But the key element is proximity between the noise monitor and the leak, for
continued on page 56
54

New Developments in Leakage Detection
Steve Whipp, United Utilities and Dave Hughes, American Water
A breakthrough is currently taking place with leakage detection that relates to use of real-time data and network
hydraulic models. Data from sensors at pressure monitoring points and flow meters is being used to automatically
interrogate the network model for anomalies such as unknown blockages, to estimate pipe hydraulic roughness, and
to predict possible leaks and where they are occurring. This new approach, that includes planned network interventions
during the night to provide more varied pressure and flow data, has been in development for a couple of years. A
key benefit of the approach is that it uses available data from network sensors that can be supplemented by pressure
loggers as required. It is therefore seen as a foundation for creating effective and efficient control room monitoring
and for improvement of leakage detection operations eventually leading to significant improvements in management
of the mains infrastructure. The genetic algorithms involved in solving the anomaly problem were originally developed
at the University of Adelaide by Angus Simpson, PhD (Simpson et al. 1994) and have been significantly developed
by commercial developers to provide rapid robust solutions for use in an operational environment. The algorithms
that have been taken forward are giving highly credible and accurate results. WITSConsult Ltd, working with Bentley
Systems and the latters WaterGEMS product, have pioneered this development and trials have now taken place on a
United Utilities network in Northwest England.
With the same objective in mind, GL Industries has developed the Burstfinder service using a similar but separately
developed approach. Over the last two years Burstfinder has been used extensively in Thames Water and Severn Trent
Water and successful trials have been completed with a number of other utilities.
Reference
Simpson, A., G. Dandy, and L. Murphy. 1994. Genetic Algorithms Compared to Other Techniques for Pipe
Optimization. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. Volume 120, Issue 4, pp. 423-443 (July/August
1994). Available at http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JWRMD50001200000040004
23000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no
continued from page 51
Water Loss Control: Philadelphia Case Study

excessive pressure levels using flow modulated pressure control and water main break frequencies were reduced in 3
years since the system installation. Already, the DMA has been proven to sustain low leakage rates in a previously leakprone area. Kunkel estimates it is saving over $55,000 annually and 1.20 million gallons of water a day from reduced
leakage in an area that includes 12 miles of pipeline (0.4% of the PWD distribution system). The payback period for
the project is less than 7 years, a very economic return on investment in equipment that will see a much longer life
than 7 years.
Even assuming that the rest of PWDs system is less leak-prone than the area selected for the DMA, continuous leakage
monitoring and advanced pressure management have great potential for sustainable leakage reduction in other areas
of the city, which may further reduce the $5 million annually wasted on leakage losses.
Editors note: This article was updated from Return on Investment by Rick Karlin, published in the November 2009 issue of the Foundations
e-newsletter Water Research Update.
55
continued from page 54
American Water Case Study: Continuous System Leak Monitoring

example, a small leak located very close to the noise monitor will be registered as a larger noise than a more distant
but larger leak. There was no strong correlation between leak noise amplitude and leak flow. Nonetheless, leaks appear
to increase in flow with time as suggested by the level of noise. Some leaks appeared to flow constantly and many
others had a leak sound that increased in amplitude. Some climb slow and steady; others climbed in steps. Higher
frequencies were found with lower flows from small pipe openings. As flows increased, lower and medium frequencies
were found. Low frequencies were usually found with plastic pipe leaks.
American Water also investigated leak triggers. Pressure surges are unlikely in Connellsville, since the system receives
its supply through pressure regulating valves. Significant water temperature shifts seems to be a leak trigger, and has
also been reported by others (Habiban 1994). Further investigation is warranted in this area, specifically to examine
how stress relates to thermal expansion and contraction of pipe lengths already weakened by corrosion, etc. During
the study, 50% of the leaks that did not surface, but were found by acoustic monitoring, occurred during the last three
months of the year.
American Water showed that the CAM method can reduce the time to identify leaks and in turn reduce NRW.
Anywhere from 3070% of surfacing breaks seemed to start as small detectable leaks. This proactive approach of
identifying minor leaks also helps to reduce repair costs, schedule repairs during normal working hours instead of
emergencies, reduce real water losses, and prevent damages to infrastructure and private property.
Reference
Habiban, A. 1994. Effect of Temperature Changes on Water-Main Breaks, American Society of Civil Engineering
(ASCE) Journal of Transportation Engineering, 120:2:312-321.
Editors Note : This article is about Water Research Foundation ongoing project #3183. The final report is being prepared for publishing. However, the
draft executive summary and a Webcast can be viewed at the WaterRF Website at http://www.WaterRF.org.
Webcast Announcement
October 21, 1:00 EDT

Water Research Foundation Webcast Leak Management
Speakers: Carl Yates, Halifax Water and George Kunkel, Philadelphia Water Department
Moderator: Kim Linton, Water Research Foundation
Details available at www.WaterRF.org/Resources/Webcasts
56
Reducing Leaks
Reducing Leaks in Service Lines

George Kunkel, Philadelphia Water Department; Carl Yates, Halifax Regional Water Commission; David
Hughes, American Water; and Maureen Hodgins, Water Research Foundation project manager
Another area where water efficiency may

be improved is with service lines, which
may be overlooked by utilities, particularly
on sections of piping where ownership lies
with the customer. Recent research has
found that service line leaks have a large
bearing on annual water losses, mostly
because they go unnoticed and have a
long duration period. Water Research
Foundation report, Installation, Condition
Assessment, and Reliability of Service
Lines (2006, order #91167/project #2927)
examined issues related to leakage and
ownership/responsibility for service lines.
Many water utilities worldwide require
that their customers own either a portion
or the entirety of the service line. This
ownership issue makes it challenging for
utilities in North America to detect and
correct service line leaks. As an example,
recent work in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
indicates that roughly 60% of leakage losses
occur on customer service lines. Under
Philadelphias current policy of customer
maintenance of service lines, known leaks
run for long periods of time (36 days on
average for 2003). Clearly, a utility service
line management policy is critical in
controlling water losses.
A possible solution to the dilemma

of ownership and proper service line
maintenance in North America may be the
implementation of a voluntary or citymandated insurance program for customers.
These programs vary, but generally the
utilities offer an insurance program where
the customer pays a small fixed fee, on
the order of $3 per quarter, for service
line maintenance. In this situation, the
utility will make service line leak repairs
at no cost to the customer. This program
allows the utility to have a well-maintained
distribution system at minimal cost to the
customer. In addition, the customer avoids
expensive service line replacement and
repair costs, which can range from $1,000
to $10,000 for service line replacement.
In other cases, utilities can provide cost
sharing that consists of the utility paying a
percentage of the replacement cost while
the rest of the cost is transferred to the
customer. The utility might also provide
credits on water lost in service line leaks.
Editors note: This

article was excerpted
from Sustaining Water
Resources through
Water Auditing
and Loss-Control
Innovations by George
Kunkel, Carl Yates,
and David Hughes,
published in the
November/December
2006 issue of Drinking
Water Research
(Volume 16, number 6).
57
Facilitated Research Services

Leverage our expertise.
The Water Research Foundation is now offering to
manage your research projects on at at-cost basis.
Leverage our research management expertise to
solve your issues.
For more details about this new program, visit
our Website at www.WaterRF.org/Research/
ResearchPrograms/FacilitatedResearchServices.

2010-07-09 AWR Water Use Efficiency

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2010-07-09 AWR Water Use Efficiency

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Drinking Water Research

Advancing the Science of Water

Water Use Efficiency

Drinking Water Research

Advancing the Science of Water

Water Use Efficiency Research for Water Utilities

End Uses of Delivered Water

Board Appoints New Chair

New Board Chair

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

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JULY SEPTEMBER 2010

Water Use Efficiency Research

Water use efficiency (WUE) measures

JULY SEPTEMBER 2010 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

appropriate rate structures to ensure

End Uses of Delivered Water

Water is perhaps the most important

gallons per day. Residential uses make up

and the lowest water use occurred during the

Renters were found to use about 10% more

Gallons per Year

JULY SEPTEMBER 2010 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

in North America during the past 30 years

(187gpd). The largest factors contributing

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JULY SEPTEMBER 2010

needs for potable water. Hotels used the

JULY SEPTEMBER 2010 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

Smart Irrigation Controller

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

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

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

20x2020 Water Conservation Plan

Water Use in the California Residential Home

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JULY SEPTEMBER 2010

Water Conservation: Customer Behavior

When water utilities better understand their

Since the beginning of human civilization,

JULY SEPTEMBER 2010 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

The process of communicating with the

behavior modification, and verifiable

The objective of this study was to evaluate

investigatethrough empirical research

behaviors of customers, demographics

establish communication guidelines

provide reference data and methods

The final report outlines key social

Literature Review: Key Principles of Social

JULY SEPTEMBER 2010 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

McKenzie-Mohr developed an approach to

Commitment. Social marketing

Norms. Water utilities should seek to

Prompts. People are more likely to

Marketing Water Conservation

Policy Act of 1992, which required more

Most of the survey respondents (95%)

In general, respondents reported practicing

The homes of the survey respondents were

Using a garbage can rather than the toilet

practiced most or all of the time by

they installed a water-saving showerhead

Sample Size* Mean** (kgal)

Std. Dev. (kgal)

JULY SEPTEMBER 2010 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH