Vickers, Amy L

OpenSIUC

12INTEGRATED PLANNING’S CONSERVATION COM PONENT:  WHAT WATER M ANAGERS NEED TO KNOWAmy L. Vickers President, Amy Vickers, and Associates, Inc.INTRODUCTIONThe future of water conservation has brightened inrecent years by the introduction of integratedresource planning (IRP) concepts to the U.S. waterindustry.   With endorsements such as the AmericanWater Works Association’s White Paper on IRP(AWWA, 1991) and AWWA’s Total WaterManagement approach, the mainstream waterindustry seems to be finally acknowledging thatopportunities for enhanced water capacity achievedthrough conservation programs ought to beconsidered on par with traditional supply-sidestrategies, particularly when utilities are striving forleast-cost approaches to meeting future water needs.While the practical analytical and planning elementsof what constitutes a water IRP have been welldeveloped by Beecher (1995) more than a few waterutility managers suffer from entrenched biasesagainst conservation that may impede their ability toadhere to the IRP process and develop a fullyinformed water plan.  The reasons for this are many.Historically, conservation planning activities haveoften been crisis-oriented, haphazard, and lackingthe comprehensiveness and rigor typically applied tocomparable water supply planning activities.  Tosome extent, the water industry’s bias againstconservation is also rooted in outdated informationand ignorance about current water efficiencytechnology and practices.  Whatever its origins, this bias creates doubt about theextent to which the water industry is currentlyequipped to benefit from the IRP process and equallyevaluate its supply and demand options so as toselect cost-effective and sound water managementstrategies for the future.  The old adage, ?You canlead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”may characterize the typical water manager who canbe led through the IRP process but is neverthelessunwilling or unable to evaluate conservationopportunities.  As a result, even with an IRPframework, it should not be automatically assumedthat the water management strategies selected are themost financially and environmentally cost-effectiveoptions available.  Recognizing the current limitations of the waterindustry to fully assess the conservation potential ofits water supply systems, the challenge now is tobetter equip utility planners and engineers with theknowledge and tools that they need to conduct theconservation component of the IRP process just ascomprehensively and rigorously as will thesupply-side aspect of the plan.  In other words, whatdo most water managers need to know to ?get up tospeed” on conservation, lest they shortchange theirIRP efforts and pass along faulty and costly watersupply decisions to the ratepaying public?Some of the basic information and experience thatwater managers unfamiliar with conservation need tobecome apprised with includes:More than a Drought ResponseConservation is more than a drought response andhas resulted in permanent systemwide water savingsup to 25 percent. Dozens of major U.S. watersuppliers, big and small, have invested in large-scaleconservation programs since the late 1980s in orderto realize permanent (non-drought) demandreductions.  There is a growing body of case studyliterature which documents the water savings andrelated cost benefits for such cities as Boston, NewYork, Tampa, Austin, Albuquerque, Denver, LosAngeles, and Seattle, to name a few.  While nosupplier has yet to ?max out” on their conservationpotential (implement all feasible efficiency options),the literature documents permanent systemwidewater savings achieved thus far to range from 10 to25 percent.  Technological AdvancesToday’s conservation technologies offer markedly13better savings compared to past practices.  Up untilthe late 1980s, conservation measures promoted byutilities were typically geared toward behaviorchanges that were implemented during periods ofdrought, such as outdoor sprinkling restrictions andinexpensive showerhead restrictors (which mostpeople removed).  The water reductions from thesemeasures were usually temporary because once thecrisis was over, restrictions were lifted and the publicresumed past practices.  Today, there is a wide arrayof ?hardware” and behavior-oriented measures thatare designed to achieve permanent demandreductions, such as 1.6 gallon per flush (gpf) toilets,1.0 gpf and waterless urinals, low-volumeshowerheads and faucets, low water-usingdishwashers and clothes washers, high-efficiencyirrigation systems and improved landscape designand management (Xeriscape).A Clear UnderstandingA clear understanding of what constitutes aconservation measure is essential to identifyingoptions.  Many conservation plans and programs aredisadvantaged at the start by a poor understandingon the part of water and conservation managers (andsometimes their consultants) as to what exactlyconstitutes a conservation measure (Vickers, 1995).Typically, a utility’s conservation program iscomposed of conservation incentives and measures -as it should be - but unfortunately there is often anoveremphasis on incentives.  The result is thatcustomers get frequent prodding about theimportance of conservation (either throughregulatory, pricing, or educational mechanisms) butlittle follow-up support to do anything of practicalvalue that will lower water use. The classic example of this situation is the utilitythat spends much of its conservation budget onbrochures, radio advertisements, and public outreachcampaigns to ?get the word out,”  with little or noinvestment in programs which will transferconservation devices and methods to customers (e.g.,low-volume toilets and improved landscapeirrigation practices).   Thus, a water manager’sunderstanding of the distinction betweenconservation measures and incentives is more than amatter of semantics and can affect the outcome of autility’s conservation program.The Great Untapped Water SupplyUnaccounted-for losses and leakage constitute a greatuntapped water supply.  Whether it should beclassified as a supply or demand management optionis often debated but really irrelevant, as the fact ofthe matter is that nearly every water supply systemhas an untapped reserve of water that is literallywasted due to leaks and improper accounting ofusage. Most U.S. suppliers record UFW levels in the15 to 20 percent range, although there is notconsistency in how this is measured within the waterindustry and UFW figures can be easily manipulateddepending on the desired outcome.  Though not widely publicized, a significantconservation milestone was set in July 1996 by thepublication in Journal AWWA of a recommendedgoal for utilities’ unaccounted-for water (UFW). Inthat document, AWWA’s Leak Detection and WaterAccountability Committee stated that ?because ofincreasing demand and higher operational costs, thegoal for lost or nonrevenue-producing water shouldbe less than 10 percent” (AWWA, 1996).   If followedor enforced, this new 10 percent industry standardcould serve as a powerful inducement for watersuppliers to meet an acceptable leakage standard andreduce their water demands and need for newsuppliers.  Institutional StructureThe institutional structure of most water utilitiesrequires revamping to accommodate the developmentof conservation projects.   For water IRPs to beproperly developed and implemented so that supplyand demand programs are emphasized alongleast-cost criteria, many suppliers will require areorganization of their existing organizationalstructures.  At present, most utilities have a strongbias toward supply development and management,devoting most if not all staff and budgetary resourcesto those departments.  Using an IRP and least-costplanning approach would typically redistributeemphasis toward more cost-effective demandmanagement strategies.  As a result, personnel needsand assignments could change significantly and maynecessitate new staff who are skilled in waterconservation.14PrivatizationPrivatization requires a reconciliation of theunprofitability of conservation.  One snag that waterIRPs may run into increasingly in the future is therole that privatization plays in the planning goalsand investments of investor-owned water utilities.There is an inherent bias against conservation bymost private water companies as corporate profits aremeasured by how much water is sold, not saved.  Toovercome this problem, public utility commissionswill likely need to do for the water industry what ithas sometimes been done for the electric industry toattempt to address this problem:  decouple sales andprofits.  In essence, PUCs need to establish profitincentives for water efficiency and penalties for poorutilization of existing facilities and/or creation ofexcess capacity.Consumer Involvement Consumer involvement in utility decisionmakingmay be on the rise.  With the planning requirementsfor water IRPs encouraging public involvement inthe decisionmaking process and the increasingprivatization of the water industry, a new generationof consumer activism may be spawned in the future.While utilities may seek to limit the public’s role(Mohl, 1996), the increasing number of private waterutilities will necessitate expansion of regulatoryagencies in order to respond to customer concernsand interests.REFERENCESAWWA.  1991.  White Paper on IntegratedResource Planning in the Water Industry.Washington, DC: American Water WorksAssociation.AWWA.  1996.   ?Leak Detection and WaterAccountability Committee Report: WaterAccountability.”  Journal AWWA. 88 (7):108.Beecher, J.A.  1995.   ?Integrated Resource PlanningFundamentals.”  Journal AWWA.87 (6):34-48.Mohl, B.  1996.  ?Utilities Oppose Official Role ForConsumer Boards.” Boston Globe (September 8, 1996).Vickers, A.  1996.  ?What Makes a TrueConservation Measure?”  AWWA Opflow 22 (6): 8-9.THE AUTHORAmy L. Vickers is President of Amy Vickers &Associates, Inc., Amherst, Mass., a firm specializingin water conservation.  Ms. Vickers is an engineerwho works with water utility and private industryclients in the United States, Canada, and Europe.She has published numerous articles on waterconservation issues, technology, and practices.  Sheis an active member of AWWA.

Integrated Planning\u27s Conservation Component: What Water Managers Need to Know

http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1317&context=jcwre

Integrated Planning\u27s Conservation Component: What Water Managers Need to Know

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

OpenSIUC