DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ALAN PLUMMER ASSOCIATES, INC.

Evaluation of Peak-Day Water Conservation Strategies for the City

of Austin: 2007-2015

PROJECT: 382-1701

DATE: July 12, 2006

PREPARED FOR: City of Austin Water Conservation Division

PREPARED BY: Brian K. McDonald, Texas P.E. 83332 Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. (APAI)
Stephen J. Coonan, Texas P.E. 65516 Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. (APAI)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Water demand and water treatment plant capacity projections for the City of Austin indicate that the City
will have to place a fourth water treatment plant into service within the next seven years. With a goal of
deferring the need for this plant, the City is evaluating the potential for additional peak-day water
conservation in the next five years.

In support of this effort, Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. (APAI) has identified and evaluated 12 water
conservation strategies that have the potential for significant peak-day water savings in the next five years.
This technical memorandum describes the selection of peak-day water conservation strategies for
evaluation, describes each selected strategy, and discusses the potential water savings, reliability,
implementation schedule, and opinion of probable cost for each selected strategy. A table of contents is
shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Table of Contents

Item Memorandum
Section
Selection of peak day water conservation strategies 2.0
Enhanced water waste ordinance 3.0
Conservation water pricing and rate structure changes 4.0
Large property irrigation systems analysis 5.0
Single-family irrigation system audits 6.0
Pressure control 7.0
Turfgrass rebates 8.0
Single-family retrofit on resale ordinance 9.0
Federal clothes washer standards 10.0
Multi-family submetering ordinance 11.0
Efficient pre-rinse spray valves 12.0
Single-family winter leak detection 13.0
Enhanced leak detection and repair 14.0
Summary 15.0
References 16.0

In the second phase of this project, APAI will perform a more comprehensive evaluation of water
conservation strategies with a goal of reducing average day demand into the future.

1 of 61
2.0 SELECTION OF PEAK-DAY WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIES

Table 2.1 presents 161 potentially feasible water conservation strategies compiled from recommendations
of the statewide Water Conservation Implementation Task Force1, from strategies that have been
implemented by other cities or agenciesa, and from strategies that were proposed in Austin’s Water
Conservation Plan2. Beginning with this initial list, strategies were selected for further evaluation. Selected
strategies must impact peak-day water use and must have the potential to conserve a significant amount of
water in the next five years. (Reuse strategies are being evaluated as part of a different project task).
Identification of strategies that result in a “significant amount” of water savings is somewhat subjective and
was based on APAI experience.

Some methods were not considered for this initial phase of work because the relatively high unit cost will
likely limit implementation and water savings. Other strategies were not selected for this initial phase
because it is anticipated that it will take more than five years to develop significant water savings. All
strategies not considered for this initial phase will be included in the second phase of evaluation to
determine whether they can contribute to the long term goal of reducing total water consumption.

Table 2.1: Potentially Feasible Water Conservation Strategies

Additional FTE, professional marketing staff, for ICI program

Advertisements/program marketing
Aggressive, sustained public education program; perhaps contract with professional PR firm
Alternative water sources
Athletic fields, parks, golf course programs
Automatic meter reading (AMR) meters that detect continuous flow (SNWA/LVVWD)
Block leader program
Car wash certification
Central cooling plant incentives and/or requirements
City-wide water efficiency
Clothes washer rebate
Collecting fuel cell vapor
Comprehensive landscape ordinance (X% native plants, Y% max turf, Z soil depth, etc.)
Conservation awards
Conservation block rates or peak rates
Conservation coordinator
Conservation kits, including shower heads and aerators
Conservation ordinance - Annual irrigation system analyses for large properties
Conservation ordinance - Car wash fundraisers at commercial facilities only
Conservation ordinance - Car wash restrictions
Conservation ordinance - Collection of AC condensate
Conservation ordinance - Commercial power washer registration
Conservation ordinance - Cooling tower minimum cycles; new towers have conductivity controllers, make-up and blowdown
meters
Conservation ordinance - Minimum irrigation areas and flow direction on new systems
Conservation ordinance - Positive shutoffs on spray rinse wands, flow restrictors for garbage disposals
Conservation ordinance - Prohibit once-through cooling equipment
Conservation ordinance - Prohibit once-through cooling ice machines
Conservation ordinance - Rain shutoff device requirements
Conservation ordinance - Soil depth ordinance

a
The City surveyed the following cities and/or agencies: Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio, Tampa, East Bay Municipal
Utility District (California), Southern Nevada Water Authority/Las Vegas Valley Water District, and Seattle.
2 of 61
 Table 2.1 Continued: Potentially Feasible Water Conservation Strategies

Conservation ordinance - Turfgrass dormancy capability required

Conservation ordinance - Xeriscape option from homebuilders
Conservation ordinance - Xeriscape option on model homes required
Conservation ordinance - Zonal irrigation system required
Conservation Potential Assessment using computer modeling (e.g., Seattle)
Conservation rate structure changes; add another tier on top end or water budgeting combination
Cooling tower audits
Cooling tower certification program
Decentralized water/wastewater reuse plants
Dedicated irrigation meters required for new accounts
Drip irrigation incentives
Electronic newsletter
Energy and water conservation
Enhanced education-in-schools program
Enhanced leak detection/repair program
Enhanced metering program
Enhanced reuse program
Enhanced water waste ordinance; bump Stage 2 elements to Stage 1
ET controller rebate
ET controllers and bi-annual system audits for existing irrigation systems
ET watering program
Evaporative AC replacement rebates
Full or greater rebates for toilet installation; performance contractor possibility
Graywater recycling incentives and/or requirements for new construction
Graywater recycling incentives for existing homes
HOA rules - prohibit restrictive covenants that prevent conservation in landscaping and irrigation systems/practices
Hot water on demand rebates
Ice machine rebate
ICI newsletter
Increase water rates
Industrial boiler and steam systems
Industrial refrigeration
Industrial system audits and surveys
Industrial water treatment
Institute conservation rate structures, practices, programs with wholesale customers upon contract renewal
Irrigation meters required for commercial over 10,000 sq ft.
Irrigation system audits
Irrigation system permits; w/ system requirements per HB2914
Irrigation system rebates
Landscape rebates
Leak detection kits
Leak detection/repair program for low-income
Local/state clothes washer standards
Management and employee programs
Metering of all new connections and retrofit of existing connections
Multi-tiered rebates to promote clothes washers that achieve efficiency levels beyond 2007 federal standards
Parkway strips - remove TCM requirement or prohibit all but drip irrigation
Peak day management campaign
Perform on-site indoor audits while doing irrigation audits
Performance contracting for wider deployment of rebate/incentive programs
Pool cover incentives or requirements
Pressure control
Professional irrigators' training course
Promotional program (free car)
Rain barrel rebates and distribution
3 of 61
 Table 2.1 Continued: Potentially Feasible Water Conservation Strategies

Rain shutoff device distribution/incentives

Rainwater harvesting demonstration projects
Rainwater harvesting incentives for new construction
Rainwater harvesting system rebates
Raw water pump station
Re-evaluate trigger policy
Remote control auto-irrigation controller incentives
Require indoor self-audits, provide free fixtures
Require irrigation meter and submetered common areas and no allocated billing on this water (for MF that are allowed
allocated billing)
Require reclaimed water (if available) for cooling towers, irrigation, central cooling plants
Restaurant certification (spray valves and toilets)
Retrofit on resale or by 2010
Reuse of process water
Rinsing/cleaning
School education programs
Send conservation kits, including shower heads and aerators when residents return indoor/outdoor self surveys
Showerhead, aerator distribution
Soil depth initiative
Soil sensor incentives or requirements
Special commercial rebates
Spray valve replacement
Submetered billing incentives or requirements
Swimming pool filter rebates
Swimming pool maintenance
Swimming pool program
Swimming pool retrofit
Targeted low-income conservation program
Toilet flapper retrofit
Toilet leak detection kits - wide distribution
Toilet replacement/rebate
Turf removal incentives
Two-tiered rebates to promote HETs and/or dual-flush over ULFTs
Use pressure zone analyses to ID areas to focus on for customer assistance (EBMUD)
Videos and other publications
Water efficiency SOPs, checklist and reporting for all city departments
Water reuse
Water system audit and water loss reduction
Water waste ordinance - 50-ft runoff
Water waste ordinance - Athletic field, golf course restrictions
Water waste ordinance - Broken/misadjusted irrigation components
Water waste ordinance - Cannot use swimming pool fill valves
Water waste ordinance - Fountain restrictions
Water waste ordinance - Hand water at night on designated days only
Water waste ordinance - Hotels reduce laundry
Water waste ordinance - Hydrant and sewer flushing on emergency basis only
Water waste ordinance - Irrigation system watering every other week
Water waste ordinance - No construction watering unless reclaimed water
Water waste ordinance - No daytime watering with irrigation system
Water waste ordinance - No hand watering on restricted days
Water waste ordinance - No irrigation system watering
Water waste ordinance - No misters
Water waste ordinance - No new connections (with some exceptions)
Water waste ordinance - No new landscapes
Water waste ordinance - No pavement washing
4 of 61
 Table 2.1 Continued: Potentially Feasible Water Conservation Strategies

Water waste ordinance - No pool filling

Water waste ordinance - No unattended hoses
Water waste ordinance - No vehicle washing
Water waste ordinance - Nursery water restrictions
Water waste ordinance - Ordinance variances suspended
Water waste ordinance - Ponding hard surfaces
Water waste ordinance - Restaurant water on request only
Water waste ordinance - Restricted foundation watering
Water waste ordinance - Restricted watering days (1/5)
Water waste ordinance - Unrepaired leaks
Water waste ordinance - Vehicle washing by hand only
Water waste ordinance - Vehicle washing restrictions
Water waste ordinance - Voluntary watering days (1/5)
Water waste ordinance - Water for power production voluntarily reduced
Water waste ordinance - Wholesale customers encouraged to comply
Water waste ordinance - Wholesale customers encouraged to reduce leaks, stabilize pressure
Waterwise Hotel/Motel Program
Waterwise Restaurant Program - enhanced deployment
Web page
Wholesale agency assistance programs
Winter leak detection program
Workshops, presentations, outreach
Xeriscape and rainwater harvesting home tour

The following peak day water conservation strategies were selected for further evaluation in this phase:

• Outdoor measures:
o Enhanced water waste ordinance (transfer certain Stage 2 elements to Stage 1)
o Conservation water pricing and rate structure changes (tiers, peak rates, water budgeting)
o Large property irrigation systems analysis
o Single-family irrigation system audits
o Pressure control
o Turfgrass rebates
• Indoor measures:
o Single-family retrofit on resale/multi-family and ICI retrofit by date ordinance
o Federal clothes washer standards
o Multi-family submetering ordinance
o Efficient pre-rinse spray valves
o Single-family winter leak detection
• Other measures:
o Enhanced leak detection and repair

Table 2.2 shows water use types and water users that would be most impacted by these strategies. Each
strategy is discussed in detail in the next sections.

5 of 61
Table 2.2: Water Uses and Water Users Most Impacted by Selected Peak-Day Water
Conservation Strategies
Strategy Water Uses
Water Users

Single-Family

Multi-Family
Outdoor
General

Indoor

Utility
Public
ICI*
Enhanced water waste ordinance X X X X X X
Conservation water pricing and rate structure changes X X X X X X
Large property irrigation systems analysis X X X X
Single-family irrigation system audits X X
Pressure control X X X
Turfgrass rebates X X X X X
Single-family retrofit on resale ordinance X X X X
Federal clothes washer standards X X
Multi-family submetering ordinance X X
Efficient pre-rinse spray valves X X
Single-family winter leak detection X X X
Enhanced leak detection and repair X X
*ICI is “Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional.”

6 of 61
3.0 ENHANCED WATER WASTE ORDINANCE

3.1 Description

Title 6, Article 2 of the Austin City Code establishes a water use management plan. The water use
management plan consists of permanent water use restrictions, Stage 1 regulations, Stage 2 regulations,
Stage 3 regulations, and additional restrictions during long-term water supply shortages.

Under the permanent water use restrictions, a person must repair controllable leaks, properly repair and
adjust permanently installed irrigation systems, and prevent irrigation runoff and ponding.

Stage 1 regulations are effective from May 1 through September 30 and at other times determined by the director
of the Austin Water Utility. Stage 1 regulations ban outdoor irrigation with a permanently installed irrigation
system between the hours of 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. However, the prohibition does not apply to a single family,
duplex, triplex, or fourplex residence or to certain other situations. Residential customers are requested to follow
the watering hours, and all water customers are requested to maintain a once-every-five-days watering schedule10.

Under Stage 2 regulations, a person may not irrigate outdoors, except with a hand-held hose or a hand-held bucket
at any time; or with a hose-end sprinkler, a soaker hose, or drip irrigation, from 12:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from
7:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. on a designated outdoor water use day; or with a permanently installed automatic
irrigation system from 12:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on a designated outdoor water use day. Designated outdoor water
use days are assigned on a once-every-five-days schedule. The Stage 2 regulations also include restrictions on
washing of vehicles, foundation watering, use of fountains, golf course irrigation, and water service at restaurants.
In addition, the Stage 2 regulations include a prohibition on using an automatic fill valve to add water to an
outdoor pool or pond.

Under Stage 3 regulations, a person may not irrigate outdoors, except with a hand-held hose or hand-held
watering can from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on a designated outdoor water use day.
The Stage 3 regulations also include additional restrictions on foundation watering and prohibition of vehicle
washing; adding potable water to a swimming pool, wading pool, fountain, or pond; beginning a new landscape;
and washing paved areas.

Finally, during long-term water supply shortages, the city manager may prohibit use of potable water for outdoor
watering and may require municipal wholesale customers to curtail water use on a pro rata basis.

There are a number of minor exceptions and exemptions from the above regulations. Outdoor use of reclaimed
water is largely exempted from these restrictions. Other exceptions are not discussed here in the interest of
brevity.

To enhance the existing water waste ordinance, the following Stage 2 regulations could be moved to Stage 1,
where they would automatically take effect from May 1 through September 30:

• A person may not irrigate outdoors, except:

o with a hand-held hose or a hand-held bucket at any time; or

o with a hose-end sprinkler, a soaker hose, or drip irrigation, from 12:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and
from 7:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. on a designated outdoor water use day; or

o with a permanently installed automatic irrigation system from 12:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on a
designated outdoor water use day. It is anticipated that designated outdoor water use days would
be assigned on a once-every-five-days schedule.

7 of 61
 • Restrictions on vehicle washing, with exemption of certain commercial car washes:

o A person may not wash a vehicle or mobile equipment, except on a designated outdoor water
use day from 12:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 7:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.

o A person who washes a vehicle or mobile equipment must use a hand-held bucket or a hand-held
hose equipped with a positive shutoff nozzle.

• A person may not water the ground around a foundation to prevent foundation cracking except on:

o a designated outdoor water use day from 12:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

o the second day after the designated outdoor water use day from 12:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. using a
soaker hose or drip system placed within 24 inches of the foundation that does not produce a
spray of water above the ground.

• A person may not use an automatic fill valve to add water to an outdoor swimming, wading pool, or
pond.

• A person may not wash a sidewalk, driveway, parking area, street, tennis court, patio, or other paved
area, except to alleviate an immediate health or safety hazard.

• A restaurant may not serve water to a customer except when requested by the customer.

The above regulations currently serve as reserve measures to allow the utility to quickly reduce water use during
emergencies or severe droughts. If these regulations are moved to Stage 1 for all customers, the Utility will no
longer have this flexibility when it is needed most. To achieve significant water savings but retain the ability for
the Utility to quickly reduce water use during emergencies or severe droughts, the Utility could move the above
regulations to Stage 1 for multi-family residential and ICI (MF/ICI) customers only.

3.2 Potential Water Savings

On July 16, 2000, Austin implemented Stage 2 regulations and did not lift the Stage 2 regulations until
September 22, a total of 69 days 10. Figure 3.1 (taken directly from reference 10) shows that water use
quickly dropped from 220 million gallons per day (mgd) to approximately 185 mgd, rebounding slightly to
approximately 193 mgd. Two rain events limited daily water use for the remainder of July. With the
exception of days following two small rain events, daily water use gradually trended higher throughout
August, reaching a peak of approximately 212 mgd in early September when a new all-time high
temperature of 112ºF occurred. After this peak, temperatures moderated somewhat and several rain events
occurred, reducing water use until the Stage 2 regulations were lifted September 22.

During this implementation, daily water use was reduced by about 12.3 percent during the first week.
However, a new peak water use was established (approximately 212 mgd) that was about 3.6 percent less
than the peak water use prior to implementation of the Stage 2 regulations.

In 2000, the annual average water use was 137.7 mgd. Stage 2 regulations were implemented at 220 mgd,
a factor of 1.6 times the annual average water use.

There are two methods for estimating the potential annual water savings from an enhanced water waste
ordinance applied to MF/ICI customers. The first method is to assume that the experience of summer 2000
will be repeated. The potential water savings are estimated based on the following assumptions:

8 of 61
 Figure 3.1
Summer 2000 Stage 2 Water Use Restrictions

230 120

220 1.06 110

210 100
0.92
200 90

Temperature (deg F)
Water Use (mgd)

190 80

180 70

170 60

160 50

150 0.37 40

0.29
140 0.26 30

TRACE
130 20
7/1 7/8 7/15 7/22 7/29 8/5 8/12 8/19 8/26 9/2 9/9 9/16 9/23 9/30
Date

TRACE Rainfall (in) Beginning/End of Stage 2 Restrictions Water Use Stage 2 Trigger Temperature

9 of 61
 § Projected pumpage with water conservation from Austin’s Water Conservation Plan2,

§ May-September average monthly usage is 1.11 times the annual average monthly usage for MF/ICI
customers (as experienced from 2001 to 2004),

§ Water savings from May-September will be 3.6 percent of the May-September usage for MF/ICI
customers, and

§ Peak day water use equals May-September water use for MF/ICI customers (this is conservative).

The second method is to estimate the savings for an individual MF/ICI connection and project that amount
to all MF/ICI connections. Under this method, the potential annual water savings are estimated based on the
following assumptions:

§ Savings of 4,000 gallons per summer month for an MF/ICI connection that irrigates frequently2,

§ Approximately 10.7 percent of connections are MF/ICI connections,

§ Approximately 50 percent of MF/ICI connections have automatic irrigation systems,

§ 95 percent participation,

§ Peak day water use equals summer average water use for MF/ICI customers (this is conservative).

Based on these estimation methods, Table 3.1 shows the potential reductions in water use from additional
Stage 1 regulations.

3.3 Reliability

It is perceived that the public was supportive of Stage 2 restrictions in the summer of 2000 because the
restrictions were short-term and were caused by above-normal temperatures and below-normal rainfall10. It
is not clear that the public will be as supportive of a permanent mandatory five-day summer watering
schedule (and other restrictions). Building support for, knowledge of, and widespread participation in this
conservation measure will require a strong public education effort and consistent enforcement. In addition,
the 3.6 percent savings achieved in the summer of 2000 was based on water used by all customers. It is not
clear whether MF/ICI customers reduced water use by 3.6 percent during that period. Because of
uncertainty in public support/participation and in the expected magnitude of the savings, the reliability of
achieving the 3.6 percent savings experienced in the summer of 2000 is medium.

The projected savings based on analysis of a five-day watering schedule for individual MF/ICI connections
represent a savings of approximately 1.1 percent from peak day water use. This estimate should be a
reliable lower bound on actual savings.

3.4 Implementation

Additional Stage 1 restrictions could be implemented by the City Council in time for the summer of 2007.
As discussed above, a strong public education effort will be required to build support for, knowledge of,
and participation in this conservation measure.

10 of 61
 Table 3.1: Potential Changes in Water Use from Additional Stage 1 Regulations on MF/ICI Customers
(mgd)
Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Peak Day (1.29)-(4.12) (1.31)-(4.21) (1.34)-(4.28) (1.36)-(4.36) (1.38)-(4.44) (1.41)-(4.54) (1.43)-(4.61) (1.46)-(4.69) (1.49)-(4.78)
Annual (0.55)-(1.75) (0.56)-(1.79) (0.57)-(1.82) (0.58)-(1.85) (0.59)-(1.89) (0.60)-(1.93) (0.61)-(1.96) (0.62)-(1.99) (0.63)-(2.03)

11 of 61
3.5 Opinion of Probable Cost

Assuming annual costs of $100,000 for public education in the first year, $50,000 for public education in
subsequent years, and $1.00 per MF/ICI connection per year to enforce additional Stage 1 restrictions, the
annual cost would be approximately $121,000 in 2007 and approximately $71,000 in 2008, with
subsequent increases over time in direct proportion to the number of connections. The opinion of probable
unit cost ranges from $0.19 to $0.61 per thousand gallons, depending on which estimate of savings is used.

12 of 61
4.0 CONSERVATION WATER PRICING AND RATE STRUCTURE CHANGES

4.1 Description

As realb water rates increase, water consumption generally declines. Therefore, increases in real water price
can result in water conservation. A water conservation pricing strategy may include increases in average
water price and/or a rate structure that increases marginal prices with increased water consumption.
Potential conservation rate structures include increasing block rates, base and excess usage rates, and
seasonal rates.

Studies of water pricing and water demand in Texas have found that customers focus on the total amount
of their water bill and are generally unaware of the pricing structure4,5,6. In other words, average price is
more important than marginal price in explaining water demand. In addition, price sensitivity is greatest
with respect to summer water usage (outdoor irrigation), 4,5,6 because summertime outdoor water use is not
as essential as other water uses.

The City’s water rates (effective November 1, 2005) are shown in Table 4.1. The rate structure for retail
customers includes a four-tiered increasing block rate for single-family customers. For retail multi-family
residential, commercial, large industrial, and golf course customers, there is a single, flat rate that increases
by 7 to 8 percent from July through October.

Figure 4.1 shows a comparison of the City’s retail rate for single-family residential customers with that of
other cities in Texas and nationwide. For monthly use of 20,000 gallons or more, Austin’s rates are the
second highest behind Seattle’s peak rates (in effect May 16 through September 15). For monthly use of
5,000 to 15,000 gallons, Austin’s rates are lower than those for San Antonio, Houston, Seattle, and the East
Bay Municipal Utility District (California). Austin’s top tier rate of $6.42 per thousand gallons is the second
highest top tier rate behind Seattle’s peak rate of $11.43 per thousand gallons.

Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show a comparison of the City’s retail rates for multi-family residential and commercial
customers with that of other cities in Texas and nationwide. Most of these cities do not differentiate
between multi-family residential and commercial water use. Austin’s rates are among the highest, trailing
Seattle (peak rates), San Antonio, and El Paso at for high-use customers.

The City could potentially conserve additional water through four changes in water rates:

• Increase real water prices for single-family residential customers and add a fifth tier to the rate
structure.
• Create water budgets for multi-family and ICI (MF/ICI) customers.
• Implement an irrigation rate structure for MF/ICI customers.
• Changes to the wholesale rate structure.

These items are discussed in more detail in Section 4.4 after discussion of the price and income elasticities
of water demand.

b
Adjusted for inflation.

13 of 61
 Table 4.1: City of Austin Water Rates (Effective November 1, 2005)

Monthly Charges Volume Charges: Retail Customers Volume Charges: Wholesale Customers
Retail and Wholesale Customers Unit Cost per 1,000 Gallons Unit Cost per 1,000 Gallons

Meter Customer Equivalent Total Inside Outside All Contract

Size Account Meter Customer City City Volumes Expiration
Charge Charge Charge Date
Single-Family
5/8" $2.90 $1.45 $4.35 0 - 2,000 Gallons $0.86 $0.86 Anderson Mill MUD $2.29 6/9/2007
3/4" $2.90 $2.18 $5.08 2,000 - 9,000 Gallons $2.29 $2.29 Branch Creek Estates Water Supply Corp. $2.23 7/15/2016
1" $2.90 $3.19 $6.09 9,001 - 15,000 Gallons $3.70 $3.70 Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp. $2.19 8/3/2011
1 1/4" $2.90 $4.64 $7.54 15,001 - over Gallons $6.42 $6.42 High Valley Water Supply Corp. $2.18 6/25/2017
1 1/2" $2.90 $6.09 $8.99 Lost Creek MUD $2.61 7/7/2007
2" $2.90 $8.99 $11.89 Multifamily Manville Water Supply Corp. $2.89 1/24/2027
3" $2.90 $21.75 $24.65 Off Peak* $2.77 $2.91 Marsha Water Supply Corp. $2.27 4/3/2017
4" $2.90 $36.25 $39.15 Peak* $3.00 $3.15 Night Hawk Water Supply Corp. $2.14 12/23/2016
6" $2.90 $72.50 $75.40 North Austin MUD #1 $2.52 1/30/2024
8" $2.90 $108.75 $111.65 Commercial Northtown MUD $2.52 1/6/2026
10" $2.90 $145.00 $147.90 Off Peak $3.38 $3.67 Pflugerville, City of $6.29 N/A
12" $2.90 $166.75 $169.65 Peak $3.62 $3.92 Rivercrest Water Supply $2.36 10/26/2031
Rollingwood, City of $2.71 2/3/2030
Large Volume / Industrial Shady Hollow MUD $2.87 11/7/2020
Off Peak $3.06 N/A Sunset Valley, City of $2.46 N/A
Peak $3.29 Travis Co. WCID #10 $2.58 8/30/2020
Village of San Leanna $2.55 11/2/2014
Golf Courses Wells Branch MUD - N.A.G.C. $2.34 4/13/2021
Off Peak $3.38 $3.67 Windemere Utility Co. $4.12 4/12/2022
Peak $3.62 $3.92
Average Wholesale Rate $2.55
* Off Peak (November 1 through June 30 bills)
Peak (July 1 through October 31 bills)

14 of 61
 Figure 4.1: Comparison of Single-Family Residential Monthly Water Bills

$300

Austin

$250 San Antonio

San Antonio
(seasonal)
$200 El Paso
Monthly Water Bill

Houston

Dallas
$150

Seattle

Seattle
$100 (seasonal)
Tampa

EBMUD
$50
SNWA/
LVVWD

$0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Water Usage (1,000 gal)

15 of 61
 Figure 4.2: Comparison of Multi-Family Residential Monthly Water Bills

$3,000

Austin

$2,500 Austin
(peak)
San Antonio

$2,000 El Paso
Monthly Water Bill

Houston

Dallas
$1,500

Dallas
(peak)
Seattle
$1,000
Seattle
(seasonal)
EBMUD
$500
SNWA/
LVVWD

$0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Water Usage (1,000 gal)

16 of 61
 Figure 4.3: Comparison of Commercial Monthly Water Bills

$3,000

Austin

$2,500 Austin
(peak)
San Antonio

$2,000 El Paso
Monthly Water Bill

Houston

Dallas
$1,500

Dallas
(peak)
Seattle
$1,000
Seattle
(seasonal)
EBMUD
$500
SNWA/
LVVWD

$0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Water Usage (1,000 gal)

17 of 61
4.2 Price Elasticity of Water Demand

Price elasticity of water demand is the change in water demand due to an increase in real water price. A
price elasticity of -0.20 indicates that a 1.00 percent increase in real water rates will cause a 0.20 percent
decrease in water usage. Price elasticity of water demand is a function of time, water price, customer
behavior, and economic conditions. As water price increases and non-essential uses are eliminated, water
demand should become less elastic with respect to price.

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) sponsored a 1991 study7 of per capita water consumption
in Texas. Price elasticities were estimated from regression analyses of 11 years of municipal water usage
data, water pricing, income statistics, weather data, and conservation programs across 72 cities in 28
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in Texas. The estimated price elasticity of water demand for Austin
was -0.293 in summer and -0.316 in winter.

The TWDB also sponsored a 1999 study4 of water price elasticity in single-family homes in Austin, Corpus
Christi, and San Antonio. In Austin, water use data were gathered for 1,022 homes that fit 15 different
customer profiles reflecting house age, property value, lot size, and house size. The overall price elasticity
for single-family water demand in Austin was -0.17. Note that the price elasticities from the 1991 study are
based on municipal water usage (which includes single- and multi-family residential, commercial, and other
water uses), while the price elasticity from the 1999 study is for single-family residential water usage only.

In response to price increases, commercial and industrial customers usually reduce their water usage by a
greater amount than residential users6. This may help explain why the 1991 price elasticities derived from
Austin municipal water demand were greater than those derived from single-family residential demand. In
addition, Austin per capita water usage was greater during the period 1978-1988 (covered by the 1991
study) than in period 1990-1997 (covered by the 1999 study). As more water is conserved, it is expected
that water demand will become less and less elastic with respect to price, because there is a certain amount
of water usage that is necessary, regardless of price. Therefore, it is reasonable that the price elasticity of
demand reported in the 1999 study (-0.17) is somewhat closer to zero than the price elasticities reported in
the 1991 study (-0.293 in summer and -0.316 in winter).

There is mixed evidence about whether summer and winter (outdoor and indoor) water demands have
different price elasticities. The 1999 study4 found that outdoor water demands were more sensitive to price
than indoor water demands. However, the 1991 study7 found little difference between summer and winter
price sensitivity in Austin.

Austin switched from a flat rate, single-tier rate structure to an increasing block, four-tier rate structure
during the 1999 study. The study found that the change to an increasing block rate structure did not reduce
Austin’s water use, probably because the average real water price decreased after the change in structure.

4.3 Income Elasticity of Water Demand

Water demand also changes due to changes in real income. An income elasticity of 0.50 indicates that a
1.00 percent increase in real income will cause a 0.50 percent increase in water usage. Income elasticity of
water demand is a function of time, water price, customer behavior, and economic conditions. As income
decreases and non-essential water uses are eliminated, water demand should become less elastic with
respect to income.

The 1991 study of per capita water consumption in Texas7 found that the income elasticity of water
demand for Austin was 0.941. This means that for every 1.000 percent increase in real income, water usage
will increase by 0.941 percent. It is not clear how this income elasticity was derived, and the result seems to

18 of 61
contradict actual water use and income statistics. From 1980 through 1994 (prior to introduction of most of
Austin’s conservation programs), overall per capita water use declined from approximately 200 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd) to approximately 170 gpcd, per capita income8 increased from $9,743 per year to
$23,811, and the consumer price index for U.S. urban consumers9 rose from 77.8 to 150.3. In other words,
real income increased by approximately 1.65 percent per year, yet per capita water use decreased by
approximately 1.08 percent per year. Although increases in real water price and other factors may have
played a role in the decreasing water use, it appears unlikely that the actual income elasticity of demand
from 1980 through 1994 was 0.941.

Since 1994, Austin has implemented a number of conservation programs, including public education. By
reducing non-essential water use, these programs should make water demand less elastic with respect to
income. In recent years, the general trend in per capita water use has been toward decreasing per capita
water use, while real income has continued to increase. Therefore, it appears that any influence of
increasing income is being held in check by conservation programs and other factors. Therefore no impact
of increasing real income will be considered in the estimation of potential water savings in Section 4.4.

4.4 Proposed Strategies and Potential Water Savings

Table 4.2 shows the estimated breakdown in 2003 water usage by user category. The single-family
residential, commercial, and multi-family residential categories account for 83.7 percent of peak month
water use. Peak day demands are greater; in 2003, the peak day demand for the entire system was 232.5
MGD, or 1.93 times the annual average demand.

For maximum impact, price increases should be targeted at reducing peak day single-family residential,
commercial, and multi-family residential water use.

Table 4.2: Breakdown of 2003 Peak Month Water Use by Category

User Type Annual Percentage Peak Peak Percentage
Water Use of Annual Month Month of Peak
(MGD) Billed to Water Use* Month
Water Use Annual (MGD) Billed
Average Water Use
Water
Use
Billed Water:
Single-family residential 46.0 38.3 1.42 65.2 40.6
Multi-family residential 22.6 18.8 1.19 26.9 16.2
Commercial 32.7 27.2 1.37 44.7 26.9
Industrial 8.6 7.1 1.14 9.8 5.9
Golf Course 0.2 0.2 2.62 0.6 0.3
Utility 0.2 0.1 1.36 0.2 0.1
Wholesale 9.9 8.2 1.67 16.5 9.9
Subtotal Billed Water 120.2 100.0 1.35 166.0 100.0
Unbilled Water 19.9 16.6 N/A N/A N/A
TOTAL 140.1 116.6 N/A N/A N/A
* These peak demands did not all occur in the same month, so the “Subtotal Billed Water” is the sum of the peak
month water use for each category.

4.4.1 Single-Family Residential Rates

Table 4.3 shows a single-family residential rate structure that includes a fifth tier for use exceeding 25,000
gallons per month. The exact boundary of the fifth tier should be determined during a water rate study. In
Table 4.3, the monthly charge and the rates for the first two tiers increase at the inflation rate (assumed to
19 of 61
be 2.4 percent per year) each year. The rate for the third tier increases by 6 percent per year for 5 years and
increases at the inflation rate thereafter. The rate for the fourth tier increases by 10 percent per year for 5
years and increases at the inflation rate thereafter. Finally, the rate for the fifth tier increases by 15 percent
per year for 5 years and increases at the inflation rate thereafter. Rates are assumed to change beginning
January 1, 2007. Note that the rates shown in Table 4.3 are not adjusted for inflation.

In real (inflation-adjusted) terms, the monthly charge and the rate for the first two tiers remains unchanged.
As shown in Table 4.4, the suggested rates lead to an increase in the real average unit price of 2.4 to 2.7
percent per year.

The potential water savings due to an increase in water price is shown in the following equation:

S = 0.01*D* (εp*∆P + εi*∆I)

where S is the potential water conservation savings (ac-ft/yr), D is the total water demand (ac-ft/yr) with no
change in price or income, εp is the price elasticity of water demand, ∆P is the change in real price
(percent), εi is the income elasticity of water demand, and ∆I is the change in real income (percent).

To estimate potential water savings for the potential water prices shown in Table 4.3, it has been assumed
that the population will increase as shown in Austin’s Water Conservation Plan2, that the price elasticity of
water demand is -0.17, that the income elasticity of water demand is 0.00, and that the distribution of usage
versus number of connection follows is similar to that experienced in July 2005. Tables 4.5 and 4.6 show
potential changes in peak month water use and average month water use.

Recently, the utility has been struggling with an issue concerning master metering of residential subdivisions,
where a subdivision is installed with a master meter and submeters for the individual homes. This is generally to
accommodate gated communities. The problem lies in the lack of assurance that there will be individual metering
of each home or housing unit; and more importantly, these communities are currently charged a multifamily rate.
These conditions may insulate these users from any impact of increased rates. The City may want to consider
establishing separate master meter rates based on the residential rate for each community so that customers would
be paying the same for water as if there were billed directly by the Ctiy. This would require the City to require the
submetering company to charge the City residential rate. The City may also want to require direct utility metering
of these types of communities in the future.

4.4.2 MF/ICI Customer Water Budgeting

The City could also create an inclined block rate structure for MF/ICI customers that is similar to the
single-family residential rate structure, except that the tier boundaries are set using water budgets for
individual customers. As an example, Table 4.7 shows the MF/ ICI rate structure used by the San Antonio
Water System.

The water budget for a customer may consist of a fixed component (representing indoor water use) and a
variable component (representing outdoor water use), so that the budget may be different for each month of
the year. As an example, Table 4.8 shows the base allocation for multi-family and ICI customers of the
Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). The IRWD allows variances on a case-by-case basis for more people
living in the home, special medical needs, etc.

At this time, water budgeting is not in widespread use, so there are few reliable estimates of savings.
California water utilities that implemented water budgeting for irrigation water use experienced decreases
of 20 to 37 percent in water applied to landscapes14. The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) implemented
evapotranspiration-water-budget-based rates in 1991, and experienced a 19 percent decrease in water use
the first year15. Through 1998, the IRWD reported non-drought-period savings of 9 percent for residential
customers15 and commercial landscape water savings of 54 percent16 (although some of these savings may
20 of 61
be attributable to other conservation programs). Preliminary results from the Centennial Water and
Sanitation District in Colorado indicate achievement of a 20 percent reduction in overall water use17.

Although several estimates of actual savings are presented above, there is no accompanying information
about the impact of other conservation programs, about price elasticities of water demand, or about other
utility-specific factors. Based on limited information, it appears that a 5 percent reduction in annual multi-
family residential and ICI water use may be a conservative estimate of the potential for water savings
through adoption of a multi-family residential and ICI rate structure similar to the SAWS rate structure
(Table 4.7) and an allocation method similar to the IRWD method (Table 4.8). Table 4.9 shows the
potential peak month and annual water savings assuming a 5 percent reduction in annual and peak use, and
full implementation.

Actual savings from this change in rate structure will depend on the levels of the different tiers, the
associated rates, and the allocated water budgets. Because this change is particularly complex, a detailed
rate study should be performed to set the rate structure and to identify expected changes in revenue.

The opinion of probable unit cost for the water budgeting conservation measure ranges from $0.03 to $0.15
per thousand gallons, depending on the year.

4.4.3 Irrigation Rates for MF/ICI Customers

Since 1998, Austin has required that all commercial or multi-family residential customers with a site plan
area of more than 10,000 square feet must “purchase and install a separate meter or meters for all
irrigation, fountain, swimming pool, and/or any other outdoor use of water.” Currently, the Utility has more
than 2,500 irrigation accounts. In 2004, these accounts had a billed water use of approximately 0.65 billion
gallons, or about 1.3 percent of total pumpage.
The Utility could require retrofit of pre-1998 commercial and multi-family residential connections with a
site plan of 10,000 square foot or more with separate irrigation meters by January 1, 2012, and could
implement an irrigation rate structure for irrigation accounts that would reflect the cost of providing water
during the summer when most irrigation takes place.
To estimate the potential savings from retrofit of irrigation meters and an irrigation rate structure, the
following assumptions have been made:
§ The effective irrigation rate will increase by 10 percent per year for 5 years (beginning January 1,
2007) and increase at the inflation rate thereafter.
§ The elasticity of demand for irrigation water is -0.17, which is the elasticity of demand for total
water use from the 1999 TWDB study. This is a conservative assumption, because irrigation water
use should be more elastic than total water use.

21 of 61
 Table 4.3: Potential Unit Prices for Single-Family Residential Customers*
($/1,000 gallons)
Tier 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Monthly charge (5/8” meter) $4.35 $4.35 $4.45 $4.56 $4.67 $4.78 $4.90 $5.02 $5.14 $5.26
0 – 2,000 gallons $0.86 $0.86 $0.88 $0.90 $0.92 $0.95 $0.97 $0.99 $1.02 $1.04
2,001 – 9,000 gallons $2.29 $2.29 $2.34 $2.40 $2.46 $2.52 $2.58 $2.64 $2.70 $2.77
9,001 – 15,000 gallons $3.70 $3.70 $3.92 $4.16 $4.41 $4.67 $4.95 $5.07 $5.19 $5.32
15,001 – 25,000 gallons $6.42 $6.42 $7.06 $7.77 $8.55 $9.40 $10.34 $10.59 $10.84 $11.10
25,001 – over gallons $6.42 $6.42 $7.38 $8.49 $9.76 $11.23 $12.91 $13.22 $13.54 $13.87
Average unit price $3.18 $3.18 $3.34 $3.50 $3.68 $3.86 $4.06 $4.16 $4.26 $4.37
*Not adjusted for inflation

Table 4.4: Potential Percentage Changes in Real Unit Price for Single-Family Residential Customers*
Tier 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Monthly charge (5/8” meter) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0 – 2,000 gallons 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2,001 – 9,000 gallons 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
9,001 – 15,000 gallons 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
15,001 – 25,000 gallons 0.0% 0.0% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
25,001 – over gallons 0.0% 0.0% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Average change 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
*Adjusted for inflation

Table 4.5: Potential Changes in Peak Month Water Use for Single-Family Residential
(mgd)
Tier 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
0 – 2,000 gallons 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2,001 – 9,000 gallons 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9,001 – 15,000 gallons 0.00 (0.09) (0.19) (0.29) (0.39) (0.50) (0.51) (0.52) (0.53)
15,001 – 25,000 gallons 0.00 (0.27) (0.55) (0.84) (1.13) (1.44) (1.46) (1.49) (1.51)
25,001 – over gallons 0.00 (0.60) (1.20) (1.81) (2.43) (3.07) (3.12) (3.18) (3.24)
Total 0.00 (0.96) (1.94) (2.94) (3.96) (5.01) (5.09) (5.18) (5.28)

22 of 61
 Table 4.6: Potential Changes in Average Month Water Use for Single-Family Residential
(mgd)
Tier 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
0 – 2,000 gallons 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2,001 – 9,000 gallons 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9,001 – 15,000 gallons 0.00 (0.07) (0.14) (0.22) (0.30) (0.38) (0.38) (0.39) (0.40)
15,001 – 25,000 gallons 0.00 (0.12) (0.24) (0.37) (0.50) (0.64) (0.65) (0.66) (0.67)
25,001 – over gallons 0.00 (0.19) (0.37) (0.57) (0.76) (0.96) (0.98) (1.00) (1.01)
Total 0.00 (0.38) (0.76) (1.16) (1.56) (1.97) (2.00) (2.04) (2.08)

Table 4.7: San Antonio Water System Monthly Volume Charge for Multi-Family Residential and ICI Customersc
($/1,000 gallons)
Tier Charge
0 – 100% of Base Allocation $0.980
100 – 125% of Base Allocation $1.135
125 – 150% of Base Allocation $1.474
150 – 200% of Base Allocation $1.931
Over 200% of Base Allocation $2.854

c
There is also an availability charge based on meter size, a Water Supply Fee of $1.378 per thousand gallons, and an Edwards Aquifer Authority permit fee of $0.1549 per thousand
gallons.

23 of 61
 Table 4.8: Irvine Ranch Water District Base Allocation for Multi-Family Residential and ICI Customers
Account Base Landscape Base Allocation Base Allocation Total
Type Allocation Area Indoor Outdoor Allocation
Number of (acres) (gal/day) (gal/day)
Residents
Multi- 2 per unit Site specific 150 gal/unit/day * 27,154 * ET * Kc * 1.25 (Indoor +
Family based on number of units * irrigated acreage Outdoor) *
Residential irrigated days in bill
acreage service
period
ICI NA Site specific Site specific 27,154 * ET * Kc * 1.25 Site
based on based on * irrigated acreage specific,
irrigated productivity, adjusted for
acreage employees, water days in bill
use efficiency service
practices, etc. period
Notes:
27,154 converts from acre-inches per day to gallons per day
ET is evapotranspiration (inches per day)
Kc is the crop coefficient
1.25 is an adjustment for irrigation system efficiency

Table 4.9: Potential Water Savings for MF/ICI Customers Through Water Budgeting with Full Implementation
(mgd)
Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Peak month (4.50) (4.59) (4.67) (4.75) (4.84) (4.95) (5.02) (5.12) (5.21)
Annual (3.51) (3.58) (3.64) (3.71) (3.78) (3.86) (3.92) (3.99) (4.07)

24 of 61
 § Water use by irrigation meters was capped at the projected seasonal water use for MF/ICI
customers, which may cause underprediction of the potential water savingsd.

Table 4.10 shows the associated potential savings. Some of the potential water savings from retrofitting
MF/ICI irrigation meters and implementing an irrigation rate structure are already included in the potential
water savings from the MF/ICI water budgeting conservation measure described in Section 4.4.2 and Table
4.9. Therefore, implementation of both measures will not result in the full potential savings from both
measures.

Table 4.10: Potential Water Savings for MF/ICI Customers Through Irrigation Rates
(mgd)
Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Peak month 0.00 (0.15) (0.48) (1.03) (1.82) (2.41) (2.45) (2.50) (2.54)
Annual 0.00 (0.06) (0.18) (0.39) (0.69) (0.91) (0.93) (0.94) (0.96)

4.4.4 Wholesale Rates

Wholesale water use comprises 9 to 10 percent of peak day total water use. Wholesale water rates are fixed
by contract between the City of Austin and the wholesale entity. As each existing contract expires, the City
should consider adding a conservation rate structure to the new contract. One possibility is to implement a
base rate for off-peak demand periods and a peak rate for peak demand periods.

The contracts with Anderson Mill Municipal Utility District and Lost Creek Municipal Utility District expire
within the next five years (June 9, 2007, and July 7, 2007, respectively). Potential savings from changes to
these contracts have not been projected.

4.5 Reliability

Reliability is the degree to which the potential water savings from a conservation strategy can be predicted.
One factor that affects reliability is customer behavior. Customer behavior can be difficult to predict;
therefore, conservation strategies that require changes in behavior may be less reliable than those based on
technological improvements. Another factor is uncertainty in the data used to estimate the potential water
savings.

Customer participation is highly reliable for changes in the water rate structure and water rates, since these
changes automatically affect all water customers. However, two issues regarding the price elasticity of
water demand cause the reliability of the savings estimates to be low:

• The price elasticities of water demand are based on actual (though somewhat dated) water usage
data. However, the price elasticity can change over time as socioeconomic conditions change or as
the price of water changes. Because of decreases in Austin per capita water usage since 1990, the
current price elasticities of water demand is more likely to be -0.17, as reported in the 1999 study,
than the -0.293 to -0.316, as reported in the 1991 study. However, there is a significant amount of
uncertainty in this estimate.

d
In 2004, actual water use for irrigation meters was 2.9 billion gallons, which was 79 percent of seasonal water use for
MF/ICI customers (3.65 billion gallons). However, by 2004 the irrigation meter requirement had only been in effect for 6
years, so presumably a minority of MF/ICI customers with a site plan area of 10,000 square feet or more had irrigation
meters. This appears to indicate that, when all eligible MF/ICI customers have irrigation meters, water use registered by
irrigation meters may be much greater than projected seasonal water use. If true, it also indicates that “seasonal” water use
does not capture all irrigation water use, because some customers are irrigating in the winter.
25 of 61
 • As the price of water increases and more water is conserved, it is expected that water demand will
become more and more price inelastic, because there is a certain amount of water usage that
cannot be avoided, regardless of price. No literature estimates of how the price elasticity of water
demand will change with increasing water price were found. The estimates of potential water
savings shown in Section 4.4 are based on a constant price elasticity that does not change as the
water price increases. Therefore, the estimated potential water savings may be somewhat high.

• The estimates of potential water savings are based on an income elasticity of 0.00. The actual
current value is unknown.

• The potential price increases shown in Section 4.4 do not consider equity issues between the
different customer types and do not consider revenue neutrality.

• Actual water savings through water budgeting will depend on the tiers, the rates, and the allocated
water budgets.

For a water conservation pricing structure to be effective, customers need to respond to marginal water
prices4. This means that customers must understand the rate structure and be aware of the associated
increase in marginal prices. A significant public education effort would be required to maximize the
potential savings due to changes in water rates and rate structure.

4.6 Implementation

Discussions with Utility staff indicate that modification of the water billing system poses a significant hurdle
to implementation of a water-budget-based rate structure for multi-family residential and ICI customers. It
is anticipated that new billing software will be purchased in 2010 and that specifications for the new billing
software could include the ability to set water budgets for individual customers. However, it does not
appear likely that a water-budget-based rate structure could be implemented in the next five years.
Therefore, it has been assumed that the Utility will increase peak rates for multi-family and ICI customers
as discussed in Section 4.4.

A water rate study would be necessary to identify equity issues, define an irrigation rate structure, and
refine the rate increases. It is anticipated that the rate study would take 6 months. All changes would be
subject to Council approval. It is anticipated that, by January 1, 2008, revised rate structures and prices and
irrigation meter retrofit requirements could be completely implemented.

4.7 Opinion of Probable Cost

For this conservation measure, Austin would add a fifth tier to the single-family residential rate structure,
raise single-family residential rates, require certain MF/ICI customers to retrofit irrigation meters, and raise
prices for irrigation water (as discussed in Section 4.4). The following capital costs have been assumed:

• $100,000 to conduct a water rate study and to pass a water rate ordinance.

• $100,000 to revise utility billing programs to allow addition of a fifth single-family residential tier
and irrigation rates and to increase rates.

Assuming that this capital cost is financed at 6 percent interest for 20 years, the resulting opinion of annual
debt service is $17,437. In addition, it has been assumed that public education regarding new rate
structures and annual changes to rates will cost approximately $40,000 per year for 5 years.

26 of 61
Table 4.11 summarizes the opinion of probable cost. The opinion of probable unit cost ranges from $0.36
per thousand gallons in 2008 to $0.02 per thousand gallons by 2013.

Table 4.11: Opinion of Probable Cost for Water Rate Changes

Item 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Annual Cost n/a $57,437 $57,437 $57,437 $57,437 $57,437 $17,437 $17,437 $17,437
Unit Cost n/a $0.36 $0.17 $0.10 $0.07 $0.05 $0.02 $0.02 $0.02
($/1,000 gallons)

27 of 61
5.0 LARGE PROPERTY IRRIGATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS

5.1 Description

Under this proposed conservation measure, athletic fields, golf courses, and large properties (5 acres or
more) that use potable water for irrigation would be required to perform an annual irrigation system
analysis. The goal of this analysis is to reduce water waste and irrigation amounts.

5.2 Potential Water Savings

The City of San Antonio passed a water conservation ordinance that requires annual large property
irrigation system analysis effective January 1, 2006. The San Antonio Water System estimated that this
measure would save 515 acre-feet per year23. Table 5.1 shows projected water savings from large property
irrigation system analysis, assuming that the City of Austin has similar demographics and irrigation
requirements.

Table 5.1: Potential Changes in Water Use from Large Property Irrigation System Analysis
(mgd)
Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Peak day 0.00 (1.36) (1.39) (1.41) (1.44) (1.47) (1.49) (1.52) (1.55)
Average day 0.00 (0.35) (0.36) (0.36) (0.37) (0.38) (0.38) (0.39) (0.40)

It would be possible to realize more water savings if the requirement were to be extended to smaller
properties (between 1 and 5 acres). Extension of the requirement would greatly increase the number of
participating irrigation systems but would also generate more opposition to the measure and would increase
enforcement/compliance costs. For these reasons, extending the requirement to properties between 1 and 5
acres in size has not been investigated further. If implementation of the proposed measure with a 5-acre
size requirement proves to be particularly effective, extension to smaller properties could be reconsidered.

5.3 Reliability

As a check on the validity of the quantities in Table 5.1, an independent estimate can be constructed with
land use and evapotranspiration information. As a preliminary check on the above estimate, the total area of
land devoted to cemeteries, parks, and golf courses (8,232 acres as of 2003) was identified from City
Geographic Information Systems data. With the following assumptions:

• 50 percent of this area is irrigated with potable water,

• The peak month irrigation requirement is 2.59 inches (for low stress),
• The average day irrigation requirement is 0.67 inches, and
• Irrigation audits will save 15 percent of the monthly irrigation requirement,

the estimated peak month savings are 1.15 times the amount shown in Table 5.1, and the estimated average
day savings are 1.15 times the amount shown in Table 5.1. This check suggests that the potential savings
shown in Table 5.1 are reasonable.

5.4 Implementation

It is anticipated that the City Council would pass an ordinance requiring an annual irrigation system analysis
for athletic fields, golf courses, and properties of 5 acres or larger that would become effective January 1,
28 of 61
2008. This measure would apply to customers both inside and outside the city limits. The analysis would be
conducted by the water customer and would be submitted to the Utility each spring. A similar ordinance
becomes effective in San Antonio on January 1, 2006.

5.5 Opinion of Probable Cost

The cost to the City would be the cost of passing an ordinance and the ongoing cost of tracking and
enforcement. If it is assumed that the cost of passing an ordinance is $10,000 and the cost is financed at 6
percent interest for a term of 3 years (the estimated life of an irrigation system audit), that the cost of staff
time to track and follow up to ensure that the recommendations are implemented is $50 per connection,
and that public education will require $30,000 per year, then the opinion of probable unit cost ranges from
$0.70 to $0.75 cents per thousand gallons, depending on the year.

29 of 61
6.0 SINGLE-FAMILY IRRIGATION SYSTEM AUDITS

6.1 Description

Under this proposed conservation measure, Utility personnel would conduct an irrigation system audit once
every three years for each single-family residential account that uses more than 25,000 gallons per month in
the summer. The goal of these audits is to reduce irrigation water use.

6.2 Potential Water Savings

Potential savings were estimated using the following assumptions:

§ Customers using more than 25,000 gallons per month account (high-water-use customers) for 46
percent of seasonal water use by all single-family residential customers.

§ 95 percent of high-water-use customers have automatic irrigation systems.

§ 50 percent of high-water-use customers will participate by allowing irrigation audits24.

§ Average water savings of 10 percent of irrigation water use for audited customers24.

Table 6.1 shows projected water savings from single-family residential irrigation system audits.

Table 6.1: Potential Water Savings from Single-Family Irrigation System Audits
(mgd)
Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Peak day n/a (0.24) (0.48) (0.74) (0.75) (0.77) (0.78) (0.79) (0.81)
Average day n/a (0.10) (0.20) (0.31) (0.31) (0.32) (0.32) (0.33) (0.34)

6.3 Reliability

There is significant uncertainty in each of the assumptions used to estimate potential water savings.
Therefore, the potential water savings have a medium level of reliability.

6.4 Implementation

It is anticipated that the Utility staff would begin auditing high-water-use single-family residential customers
in 2008 and would attempt to audit all such customer once every three years (the projected lifetime of
benefits from irrigation audits).

6.5 Opinion of Probable Cost

The following assumptions were used in developing opinions of probable cost for this measure:

§ Approximately 6.7 percent of single-family residential accounts must be audited every three years,

§ Each auditor can perform 2 audits per working day, and

§ Auditors would be paid approximately $13 per hour in salary, with $6.50 per hour in benefits.

30 of 61
With these assumptions, along with a small allowance for miscellaneous costs, it is anticipated that each
audit would cost approximately $90. Therefore, the opinion of probable annual cost is approximately
$179,000 in 2008 and would increase in proportion to population growth.

The opinion of probable unit cost is $5.00 per thousand gallons in 2008, $2.50 per thousand gallons in
2009, and $1.67 per thousand gallons in 2010. Future unit costs would remain at about $1.67 per thousand
gallons. The unit costs decrease rapidly in the first years as more audits are conducted and level off by 2011
as savings from new audits replaces expired savings from audits performed more than three years prior.

31 of 61
7.0 PRESSURE CONTROL

7.1 Description

Decreasing water distribution system pressure will reduce overall water use. For individual water uses that
primarily depend on a water volume (e.g., filling of toilet tanks, dishwashers, and clothes washers), the fill
time is extended, but the amount of water used is unchanged. However, for individual water uses that are
primarily based on run time (e.g., water leaks and irrigation cycles using an automatic irrigation system),
the amount of water used (or lost) is reduced.

A study of the effects of pressure control was conducted in the Irvine Ranch Water District service area11.
The average system pressure was reduced in two neighborhoods during a one-year experimental period. In
one neighborhood, the average pressure was reduced from 82.9 psi to 68.3 psi, a reduction of 17.6 percent.
In this neighborhood, a 1.9 percent reduction in overall water use was estimated, with a 4.1 percent
reduction for accounts with large landscapes. In the second neighborhood, the average pressure was
reduced from 69.8 psi to 65.6 psi, a reduction of 6.0 percent. There was no apparent reduction in water use
in this neighborhood. Customer complaints regarding low pressure did not significantly increase, and
customer complaints regarding high pressure did decrease.

Within the Utility’s service area, there are significant changes in elevation. The Utility must ensure
minimum pressures to customers located on hilltops and has spent considerable funds achieving this goal,
but the improvements implemented can result in higher pressures for customers located at lower elevations.
Pressure controls can only be implemented if it can be achieved without lowering the pressures at the high
points in the system.

On a system-wide basis, the system pressure should be maintained just above the minimum standard-of-
service level (including fire requirements). Because there is so much elevation variation within pressure
planes, it is not be possible to reduce the system pressure across an entire pressure plane, particularly at
peak demand times. In other words, the Utility has already reduced system pressures as much as it can and
still meet peak demands. It may be somewhat more feasible to reduce system pressures at night, reducing
system leakage. It may also be feasible to adjust pressures at some “neighborhood” PRVs that have already
been installed or may be installed in the future. It is assumed for purposes of estimating potential
conservation savings that the Utility cannot further reduce system pressures.

On a customer basis, pressure-regulating valves (PRVs) can be installed at individual customer

connections, either on the customer side or the Utility side of the customer meter.

7.2 Potential Water Savings

For flow in a pipe, the flowrate is proportional to the square root of the pressure. In an idealized situation,
10 percent reduction in pressure will result in a 5.1 percent decrease in flowrate. In practice, because some
water uses are not affected by the change in pressure, a modification factor must be applied. The potential
water savings can be estimated using the following equation:

( )
S = 1 − (1 − X ) * Y * Z
n

where S is the percentage change in water use, X is the percentage reduction in pressure, n is an exponent
that is generally 0.5 for irrigation or large leaks, Y is the percentage of water use that is affected by pressure
changes, and Z is the percentage of the customers impacted by the change in pressure. In the Irvine Ranch
Water District study, Y was approximately 20.6 percent for all customers in the neighborhood that showed
measurable reduction in water use and 44.4 percent for customers with large landscapes11.
32 of 61
Based on analysis of the Utility’s operating pressures, approximately 51 percent of customers may
experience static water pressure of 80 psi or greater (Figure 7.1) at times and approximately 26 percent will
always experience a static water pressure of 80 psi or greater. This is based on subtracting the ground
elevation at the customer address from the high elevated storage tank elevation in the appropriate pressure
zone. There will be some pressure loss as water is transported through the system. In addition, some of
these customers may have already installed PRVs. Based on these considerations, it has been assumed that
20 percent of customers would benefit from installation of PRVs to reduce pressures as much as possible,
while still maintaining adequate pressure to drive sprinkler heads within their irrigation system.

Potential water savings were projected assuming an 18 percent reduction in pressure, assuming that 21.7
percent of annual water use is associated with outdoor irrigation (as experienced from 2001 to 2004), and
assuming that 51.4 percent of peak day water use is associated with outdoor irrigation (as experienced from
2001 to 2004). Table 7.1 summarizes the potential water savings with full implementation.

Table 7.1: Potential Changes in Water Use from Customer PRVs with Full Implementation
(mgd)
Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Peak day 0.00 (0.15) (0.31) (0.48) (0.65) (0.83) (1.01) (1.20) (1.39)
Average day 0.00 (0.06) (0.13) (0.20) (0.27) (0.35) (0.42) (0.50) (0.59)

7.3 Reliability

Water savings due to installation of customer PRVs should be very reliable during the effective life of the
PRV (estimated to be 10 years). At the end of their effective life, customer PRVs must be replaced to
maintain water savings.

It is not known how many existing customers already have already installed PRVs. The potential water
savings in Table 7.1 are based on the assumption that no existing customers have installed PRVs.

7.4 Implementation

To achieve the maximum available savings, it has been assumed that the Utility will install PRVs on the
Utility side of customer meters. Based on providing PRVs for 20 percent of customer connections during
the next ten years, PRVs must be installed for approximately 2 percent of customers each year through
2015 (Table 7.2). Beyond 2015, installation/replacement must continue at the same rate to replace aging
PRVs and to meet the needs of new customers.

Table 7.2: Implementation Schedule for Utility Installation of PRVs

(units per year)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3,946 4,018 4,091 4,165 4,240 4,316 4,394 4,474 4,555

Some customers may have designed their irrigation system based on existing water pressure. These
customers may experience poor irrigation system performance at lower pressures, leading to customer
complaints.

33 of 61
 Figure 6.1: Percentage of Connections vs. Static Pressures

100%

90%
Percentage of Connections with Greater Pressure

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Pressure (psi)

Low Tower Elevation Typical Tower Elevation High Tower Elevation 80 psi

7.5 Opinion of Probable Cost

The cost to the Utility to install PRVs is approximately $300 per unit. If financed at 6 percent interest over
10 years (the approximate life of the PRV), the annual cost for each PRV would be $40.76. Table 7.3
summarizes the opinion of probable cost for Utility installation of PRVs.

34 of 61
 Table 7.3: Opinion of Probable Cost of Utility Installation of PRVs
Item 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Annual Cost n/a $163,769 $334,504 $512,502 $698,065 $891,515 $1,093,188 $1,303,432 $1,522,612
Unit Cost ($/1,000 gallons) n/a $6.99 $7.03 $7.05 $7.07 $7.07 $7.11 $7.13 $7.16

35 of 61
8.0 TURFGRASS REBATE

8.1 Description

Under this conservation measure, the Utility would provide a rebate for customers to remove high-water-
use turfgrass and replace it with xeriscaping or other low-water-use landscaping. This measure has been
implemented by several utilities in the Southwest, including the City of Albuquerque, El Paso Water
Utilities, and the San Antonio Water System (SAWS). Programs for these utilities are discussed below.

8.1.1 City of Albuquerque

The City of Albuquerque implemented a xeriscape rebate program in 1997, offering a rebate of $0.20 per
square foot of converted area. In addition to conversion of turfgrass to xeriscaping, the terms of the rebate
required participants to replace sprinklers with more efficient irrigation methods (hand watering or drip,
soaker, or bubbler irrigation)29.

As of October 2002, the City had paid rebates totaling $317,079 to 1,127 customers for xeriscaping of
1,586,819 square feet26. These numbers indicate participation of approximately 196 customers per year
with an average rebate of $281 and an average xeriscape area of 1,408 square feet. As of 2002, the City
had an estimated 189,928 single- and multi-family water connections26. Ignoring commercial connections,
the participation rate for the xeriscape rebate program was approximately 0.1 percent per year. Including
commercial connections, the actual participation rate was lower.

The current rebate level is $0.40 per square foot of converted area. Including $0.02 per square foot for
administrative costs and $0.13 per square foot for freerider costs, the estimated program cost is $0.55 per
square foot of converted area29. The City of Albuquerque estimated that savings from the program were 19
gallons per square foot of bluegrass turf converted to xeriscape per year29. With amortization at 6 percent
interest for 10 years (the approximate life of the measure), this information implies a unit cost of $3.93 per
thousand gallons of water saved.

The City also found that approximately 17 percent of rebate customers saw increased water use after
installation of xeriscaping29.

For 2006, the City has implemented an increased rebate of $0.80 per square foot of converted area for
landscape conversions that are supported without supplemental irrigation.

8.1.2 El Paso Water Utilities

Beginning in 2004, El Paso Water Utilities began offering a rebate of $1.00 per square foot of turf
converted to xeriscape. The program has had 385 participants that have removed 29 acres of turfgrass,
saving 18 gallons per square foot per year29. The average xeriscaped area is approximately 3,281 square
feet. In 2004, El Paso Water Utilities had 183,210 retail and wholesale connections, indicating a
participation rate of approximately 0.2 percent per year.

Including $1.00 for the rebate, $0.02 per square foot for administrative costs, and $0.31 per square foot for
freerider costs, the estimated program cost is $1.33 per square foot of converted area29. With amortization
at 6 percent interest for 10 years (the approximate life of the measure), this information implies a unit cost
of $9.93 per thousand gallons of water saved.

36 of 61
8.1.3 San Antonio Water System

SAWS implemented a WaterSaver Landscape rebate program in January 1995. By June 2001, the program
had paid rebates totaling about $365,000 to 1,381 customers27. These numbers indicate participation of
approximately 212 customers per year with an average rebate of $264. At the end of fiscal year 2001,
SAWS had 294,286 connections28, indicating that the participation rate for the WaterSaver Landscape
rebate program is approximately 0.07 percent of water customers per year.

8.2 Potential Water Savings

The potential water savings from a turfgrass rebate program is approximately 30 percent of irrigation water
use for the areas where turf is replaced with low-water-use landscaping30.

It is anticipated that the savings from the turfgrass rebate program will last for 10 years. Based on a
participation rate of 0.2 percent of water customers per year and a measure life of 10 years, the projected
final market penetration is 2 percent of water customers. It has also been assumed that customers that take
advantage of the rebate will use twice as much water for irrigation as the average customer. Table 8.1
shows projected water savings from a turfgrass rebate program.

Table 8.1: Potential Changes in Water Use from a Turfgrass Rebate Program
(mgd)
Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Peak day 0.00 (0.12) (0.25) (0.39) (0.52) (0.67) (0.81) (0.97) (1.13)
Average day 0.00 (0.03) (0.07) (0.10) (0.14) (0.17) (0.21) (0.25) (0.29)

8.3 Reliability

There is significant evidence to suggest that the savings from turfgrass rebate programs are not reliable. In
1994, Austin began offering a rebate for installation of trees, bushes, and turfgrass that were better adapted
to local climate conditions. Analysis of the water use at the participating residences showed little difference
in water use after installation of water-efficient plants3. It is assumed that, although the installed plants
required less water, the residents continued to water them as if they were high-water-use plants. For this
reason, Austin discontinued rebates for turfgrass conversion.

In other areas:

• Albuquerque found that approximately 17 percent of rebate customers saw increased water use
after installation of xeriscaping29.

• An Arizona State University study found that xeriscape in Phoenix and Tempe received an average
of 10 percent more irrigation than traditional landscapes31.

• A study of water use at 1,188 single-family homes (primarily in Western states) found that
irrigation water use at the 176 homes where the residents reported installing “low-water-use
landscaping” was not statistically different from the remaining 1,012 homes32.

The potential water savings depend on customers maintaining efficient irrigation practices and maintaining
a water wise landscape. Therefore, the overall reliability of the potential water savings from a landscape
design and conversion program is low.

37 of 61
8.4 Implementation

To publicize this strategy, it is important that the City demonstrates water wise landscape design within its
own facilities and provides educational materials to new customers and change-of-service customer
accounts. This program will be most effective in conjunction with public and school education about water
wise landscaping principles.

To protect the projected savings, the agreement between the Utility and the customer should allow the
Utility to recover rebates if water use does not decline after installation of water wise landscaping or if
water use returns to previous levels within a given time25.

Based on the case studies in Section 8.1, it is anticipated that, to achieve a final market penetration of 2
percent, the Utility must offer a rebate of $1.00 per square foot of converted area. After the initial 10-year
implementation period, the turfgrass rebate program must be continued indefinitely to maintain the
projected final market penetration of 2 percent.

8.5 Opinion of Probable Cost

Table 8.2 shows opinions of probable cost by year, assuming a rebate of $1.00 per square foot of converted
area, administration and freerider costs totaling an additional $0.10 per square foot, and amortization at 6
percent interest over 10 years.

38 of 61
 Table 8.2: Opinion of Probable Cost of Turfgrass Rebate Program
Item 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Annual Cost n/a $120,097 $244,543 $373,454 $506,936 $649,822 $797,663 $950,591 $1,108,741
Unit Cost ($/1,000 gallons) n/a $10.23 $10.25 $10.25 $10.24 $10.28 $10.35 $10.38 $10.40

39 of 61
9.0 SINGLE-FAMILY RETROFIT ON RESALE AND MULTI-FAMILY AND ICI RETROFIT
BY DATE ORDINANCES

9.1 Description

In 1991, the 72nd Texas Legislature passed the Water Efficiency Plumbing Act, which effectively required
the use of low-flow plumbing fixtures in new construction but did not require retrofit of low-flow plumbing
fixtures. This law became effective in 1992. In 1992, Congress passed the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992,
which implemented a slightly lower maximum flowrate for showerheads. This law became effective in
1994. Table 9.1 summarizes maximum allowable flow rates for new plumbing fixtures and the range of
flowrates seen in older fixtures.
Table 9.1: Flowrates for Plumbing Fixtures
Type Toilets Showerheads Faucets
(gal/flush) (gpm) (gpm)
Maximum allowable for new fixtures 1.6 2.5 2.5
Actual range for older fixtures12 3.5 - 7.0 2.75 - 8.0 2.75 – 7.0

Since 1993, Austin has offered incentives for replacement of inefficient toilets and showerheads. Through
2004, these incentives have led to the retrofit of approximately 48,033 single-family residential toilets,
35,291 multi-family residential toilets, 4,282 commercial toilets, and 36,552 residential showerheads. In
addition, many more inefficient fixtures have been replaced by efficient fixtures in homes and businesses as
they reached the end of their useful life or as homes were remodeled (“natural replacement”). Table 9.2
shows estimated numbers of inefficient plumbing fixtures as of the beginning of 2006.

Table 9.2: Estimated Numbers of Inefficient Plumbing Fixtures as of 2006

Type Toilets Showerheads Faucets
Single-family residential 161,422 94,430 141,645
Multi-family residential 41,327 28,330 56,660
ICI 26,588 Unknown Unknown

A retrofit ordinance would accelerate the replacement of inefficient plumbing fixtures with efficient
models. Under this ordinance, inefficient toilets, showerheads, and faucet aerators in single-family
residences would be replaced upon the sale of the residence and inefficient toilets, showerheads, and faucet
aerators in multi-family residences and ICI facilities would be replaced by January 1, 2012.

Several California cities have implemented a retrofit-on-resale ordinance including Los Angeles, San
Diego, Santa Monica, and Santa Cruz. Although indoor water use by inefficient fixtures is relatively
constant throughout the year, the projected potential savings are significant enough to warrant consideration
as a peak day water demand management strategy.

9.2 Potential Water Savings

Design fixture life has been assumed to be 50 years for toilets, 15 years for showerheads, and 15 years for
faucet aerators. The projected water savings for residential toilets is 10.5 gallons per capita per day25
(gpcd), and the projected water savings for commercial toilets is 26 gallons per toilet per day12. The
projected water savings for residential showerheads and faucet aerators are 5.5 gpcd25 and 2.0 gpcd,
respectively. The projections are based on natural replacement rates for these fixtures that result in 75
percent of inefficient fixtures being naturally replaced by the end of their design life. In addition, it has been
assumed that 75 percent of inefficient multi-family and ICI plumbing fixtures will be replaced by 2012 as
required.
40 of 61
Austin has other incentive programs that encourage replacement of inefficient toilets and showerheads. To
estimate the benefit of a retrofit on resale/retrofit by date ordinance, it has been assumed that these
programs would otherwise continue with the same effectiveness shown in the past.

A retrofit ordinance accelerates water savings that would eventually occur without any action. These
savings over natural replacement are projected to peak in 2011 and to gradually decrease thereafter. Table
9.3 shows the projected savings over the next five years, and Figures 9.1 and 9.2 show projected long-term
savings. The savings estimated can be increased if the City adopts a standard 20 percent below the current
code.

Table 9.3: Potential Changes in Water Use from a Retrofit Ordinance

(mgd)
Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Peak day 0.00 (0.56) (1.09) (1.63) (1.63) (1.63) (1.61) (1.58) (1.55)
Average day 0.00 (0.56) (1.09) (1.63) (1.63) (1.63) (1.61) (1.58) (1.55)

9.3 Reliability

Water savings from a retrofit ordinance should definitely occur and persist into the future. The toilet life
assumption may be a bit long. Many other references assume that the life of a toilet is 25 to 30 years. If a
toilet life of 30 years were used in the above analysis, the savings shown in Table 9.3 for 2010 would be
reduced by about 8 percent. In addition, the compliance rate for replacement of inefficient multi-family and
ICI plumbing fixtures may differ from the assumed 75 percent.

In general, this water conservation measure has a high reliability in that real savings will occur, and the
savings estimate has a medium reliability.

9.4 Implementation

It is anticipated that the City of Austin would implement a retrofit ordinance that would become effective
January 1, 2008. This measure would apply to customers both inside and outside the city limits. Under this
ordinance, inefficient toilets, showerheads, and faucet aerators in single-family residences would be
replaced upon the sale of the residence, and inefficient toilets, showerheads, and faucet aerators in multi-
family residences and ICI facilities would be replaced by January 1, 2011.

There are two primary implementation methods for retrofitting single-family residences on resale. The first
is for the seller to replace inefficient toilets, showerheads, and faucet aerators prior to the sale and to
provide documentation at the closing. Documentation could include certification by a licensed plumber that
inefficient fixtures had been replaced with efficient fixtures. The second implementation method is for the
buyer to replace inefficient toilets, showerheads, and faucet aerators after the sale and to provide
documentation to the Utility. As above, documentation could include certification by a licensed plumber
that inefficient fixtures had been replaced with efficient fixtures. This method has the advantage that the
buyer would get to choose the replacement fixtures. Single-family homes built in 1992 or later would be
exempt from this requirement, because the Texas Water Efficiency Plumbing Act required the use of
efficient fixtures in new construction beginning in 1992. Exemptions could also be allowed for
foreclosures, transfer of ownership, and other situations.

41 of 61
 Figure 9.1: Projected Water Savings with Single-Family Retrofit Ordinance

0.80

0.70

0.60
Annual Water Savings (mgd)

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Year

Toilets Showerheads Faucets

Figure 9.2: Projected Water Savings with Multi-Family and ICI Retrofit Ordinance

1.40

1.20
Annual Water Savings (mgd)

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Year

MF Toilets MF Showerheads MF Faucets ICI Toilets

42 of 61
Under a retrofit by date ordinance, multi-family and ICI accounts would have to provide documentation
that inefficient fixtures had been replaced with efficient fixtures by January 1, 2011.

This ordinance will likely face opposition from the real estate industry, because it will impose an additional
cost and additional paperwork for sales of single-family residences.

An alternative implementation that would lead to lesser savings than discussed above is to require that
owners retrofit inefficient fixtures to qualify for a homestead exemption on property taxes.

9.5 Opinion of Probable Cost

The cost to the Utility of a retrofit ordinance would be the cost of passing an ordinance and the cost of
public education to inform the public of the new requirements. It has been assumed that these costs would
be approximately $100,000 in the first year, decreasing to $50,000 in later years (Table 9.4). The opinion of
probable unit cost starts at $0.49 per thousand gallons in 2008, decreasing to approximately $0.09 per
thousand gallons by 2013.

In single-family homes, most of the cost of the water savings would be borne by the owners/sellers. A
representative cost of retrofitting an older single-family home is approximately $650. The projected water
savings from an older home is approximately 23,400 gallons per year. At the third-tier residential water rate
of $3.70 per thousand gallons, the payback period for a typical retrofit is approximately 7.5 years.

43 of 61
 Table 9.4: Opinion of Probable Cost of Retrofit on Resale Ordinance
Item 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Annual Cost n/a $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Unit Cost n/a $0.49 $0.13 $0.08 $0.08 $0.08 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09
($/1,000 gallons)

44 of 61
10.0 FEDERAL CLOTHES WASHER STANDARDS

10.1 Description

Title 10 Part 430 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requires residential clothes washers
manufactured on or after January 1, 2004, to be 22 percent more energy-efficient than pre-2004 models
and clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2007, to be 35 percent more energy-efficient than
pre-2004 models.

The Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 also mandated similar energy efficiency standards for commercial
clothes washers manufactured after January 1, 2007. These standards apply to washers typically found in
multi-family housing laundry rooms and in Laundromats.

The new energy standards are also projected to produce significant water conservation savings. These
savings are projected to occur without any action by the Utility.

10.2 Potential Water Savings

It is estimated that there are more than 158,000 inefficient residential clothes washers and more than 7,800
inefficient commercial clothes washers in the Utility service area (including wholesale service areas). The
expected life of a residential clothes washer is approximately 13 years, and the expected life of a
commercial clothes washer is 8 years33. It is assumed that 75 percent of inefficient clothes washers will be
naturally replaced by the end of their design life. The projected potential savings is approximately 5.6
gpcd25. It has also been assumed that there are 18 multi-family units per clothes washer33. Table 10.1
shows the projected water savings from implementation of the federal clothes washer standards. Increased
savings could be achieved if the City offered rebates for fixtures that have water factors below the current
standard.

Table 10.1: Potential Changes in Water Use from Federal Clothes Washer Standards
(mgd)
Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Peak day 0.00 (0.53) (1.01) (1.43) (1.81) (2.15) (2.46) (2.74) (3.00)
Average day 0.00 (0.53) (1.01) (1.43) (1.81) (2.15) (2.46) (2.74) (3.00)

Figure 10.1 shows the projected long-term savings from this measure.

10.3 Reliability

The reliability of the potential water savings for each high-efficiency clothes washer is high. The reliability
of the measure life and the natural replacement rate is somewhat lower. Therefore, the overall reliability of
the potential water savings is medium.

10.4 Implementation

The savings should occur with no action by the Utility, since the conversion to more efficient clothes
washers is mandated by existing federal law.

10.5 Opinion of Probable Cost

The savings should occur at no cost to the Utility, since the conversion to more efficient clothes
45 of 61
washers is mandated by existing federal law.

46 of 61
 Figure 10.1: Projected Water Savings from Federal Clothes Washer Standards

5
Annual Water Savings (mgd)

0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Year

47 of 61
11.0 SUBMETERING OF MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES

11.1 Description

The Utility typically monitors water use at a multi-family property through a master meter and bills the
property owner for water use. The property owner passes along the charges to the residents as part of the
monthly rent, by a cost allocation method, or by actual water use as determined by submeters. A recent
national study18 of the impact of submetering on indoor water use found that, on average, submetering
resulted in a 15.3 percent decrease in indoor water use compared to “in-rent” or allocated billing.

According to the Texas Water Code, multi-family housing on which construction begins after January 1,
2003, must provide for the measurement of water use in each unit through submeters (owned by the
property owner) or individual meters (owned by the Utility). There are some minor exemptions to this rule.
The Water Code stops short of specifying a required billing method. However, it does mandate that owners
who implement a program to bill tenants for submetered or allocated water service after January 1, 2003,
must do the following:

• Retrofit all units with efficient faucet aerators and showerheads.

• Perform a water leak audit of each unit and each common area and repair identified leaks.

• Within one year, replace all toilets that exceed 3.5 gallons per flush with toilets that meet the 1.6
gallons per flush standard.

The Utility could require that multi-family housing complexes constructed after January 1, 2003, bill
tenants for water use based on submeters or individual meters.

11.2 Potential Water Savings

As mentioned above, a recent national study found that billing tenants for water use based on submeters
results in a 15.3 percent decrease in indoor water use. Based on projections for new multi-family housing
units and average indoor water use in multi-family housing, Table 11.1 shows projected water savings from
a submeter billing requirement. It has been assumed that no multi-family housing currently bills tenants for
water use based on submeters or individual meters.

Table 11.1: Potential Changes in Water Use from a Multi-Family Submeter Billing Ordinance
(mgd)
Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Peak day (0.20) (0.26) (0.31) (0.37) (0.42) (0.48) (0.54) (0.60) (0.66)
Average day (0.20) (0.26) (0.31) (0.37) (0.42) (0.48) (0.54) (0.60) (0.66)

It would be possible to realize more water savings if the requirement were to be extended to owners of
multi-family properties constructed prior to January 1, 2003. However, it is likely that this would face
significant public opposition, and this alternative has not been investigated further.

11.3 Reliability

Water use in multi-family housing depends on a number of factors, including18:

• Number of bedrooms per unit

• Year the property was constructed (before or after efficient fixture requirements)
• Rental or non-rental property
48 of 61
 • Average price of water and wastewater
• Presence of a play area
• Presence of cooling tower
• Classification as a senior/retirement community
• Water billing method

More bedrooms per unit, inefficient plumbing fixtures (as represented by the year of construction), rental
status, lower water prices, play areas, and cooling towers are all associated with greater than average water
use. Fewer bedrooms per unit, efficient plumbing fixtures, non-rental status, higher water prices,
classification as a senior/retirement community, and submetered billing are all associated with lower than
average water use.

It has been assumed that new multi-family housing in Austin would be substantially similar in terms of the
above factors to the multi-family housing in the recent national study. If this assumption is valid, then
reliability of the projected water savings should be relatively high.

11.4 Implementation

It is anticipated that the City Council would pass an ordinance requiring that owners of multi-family
properties constructed after January 1, 2003, must bill residents for water using submeters or individual
meters. This measure would apply to customers both inside and outside the city limits, and submetered
billing would begin in 2007.

11.5 Opinion of Probable Cost

The cost to the City of submetered billing is primarily related to passing the ordinance and educating
owners of new multi-family housing. There could be additional costs if the property owner requests
installation of individual unit meters by the Utility, but these costs should be covered by the Utility’s
standard meter charges. It is assumed that the cost of passing an ordinance is $10,000, that this cost is
financed at 6 percent interest for a term of 20 years, and that the Utility will spend approximately $30,000
per year in public education. In addition, approximately 0.5 full time employee equivalent will be required
to assure compliance. Therefore, then the opinion of probable annual cost is approximately $55,000 per
year, and the opinion of probable unit cost ranges from $0.20 to $0.80 per thousand gallons, depending on
the year.

49 of 61
12.0 EFFICIENT PRE-RINSE SPRAY VALVES IN COMMERCIAL DINING FACILITIES

12.1 Description

Dishwashing can account for over two-thirds of all water used in a restaurant, and up to half of this amount
may be consumed by a pre-rinse spray valve (PRSV) used to remove food from dishware, utensils, and
pans before placing them in the dishwasher19. Water-efficient PRSVs use approximately 1.6 gallons per
minute (gpm), while inefficient PRSVs may use 3 gpm or more19.

In addition, inefficient PRSVs use a “shower-type” spray pattern with multiple small orifices that can
become clogged due to mineral buildup. Efficient PRSVs use a “knife-like” spray pattern that is not subject
to clogging due to mineral buildup and that is more efficient in removing food from the rinsed items19.

House Bill 2428, a new law that took effect on January 1, 2006, requires that all commercial pre-rinse
spray valves sold, offered for sale, distributed, leased, or imported into the state must have a flowrate of 1.6
gpm or less. The law allows the sale of existing inventories of inefficient PRSVs through September 1,
2006. The City of Austin will realize a benefit from this state law as inefficient PRSVs are replaced with
efficient models.

The California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) recently implemented a Rinse & Save
program, where representatives visited restaurants, explained potential benefits to the owners/managers,
and installed efficient PRSVs in a single visit at no cost to the restaurant. Under this program, the CUWCC
installed 16,896 PRSVs throughout California. Prior to implementation of the program, the saturation of
efficient PRSVs was approximately 1 percent19. Much of the information about potential water savings for
PRSVs is based on the experience of the CUWCC’s Rinse & Save program.

12.2 Potential Water Savings

Actual flow measurements at CUWCC Rinse & Save program installations showed that installation of an
efficient pre-rinse valve reduces the flowrate by an average of 2.24 gpm and saves approximately 50,000
gallons per year per valve. The actual savings were less than the estimated potential savings of 73,000
gallons per valve per year. The CUWCC attributed this to the fact that, due to self-imposed program
limitations, efficient PRSVs were installed at a disproportionately large percent of small restaurants19.
Presumably larger restaurants would operate the PRSV for a longer duration each day.

A pilot study in Waterloo, Canada, found a net water savings of 245 liters per day (approximately 23,639
gallons per year). Prior to implementation of the pilot study, it was discovered that submeters installed on
the PRSV supply piping overregistered flowrates by 15 to 40 percent, apparently due to pulsed operation of
the valve. This submetering system was used in monitoring of the Rinse & Save program20, which suggests
that there may be some error in the reported Rinse & Save program savings of 50,000 gallons per valve per
year. Measurements for the Waterloo study were executed using paddle-type flow switches and pressure
loggers.

The Waterloo pilot study also found that the average post-installation rinse time was increased by 19
percent compared to pre-installation21. Informal results reported during evaluation of the Rinse & Save
program suggested that the rinse time would be reduced20.

Utility staff estimates that there are approximately 1,750 inefficient PRSVs in use in the service area. The
life of a PRSV is approximately 2 years, and it has been assumed that 75 percent of inefficient PRSVs will
be replaced within 2 years. Table 12.1 shows the estimated potential water savings from installation of
efficient PRSVs.
50 of 61
Table 12.1 shows low, medium, and high savings estimates that are based on the different estimated
savings reports discussed above (23,639 gallons per valve per year, 50,000 gallons per valve per year, and
73,000 gallons per valve per year, respectively). Since this represents indoor water use that is conducted
year-round, the peak day savings are the same as the average day savings.

Table 12.1: Potential Changes in Water Use from Efficient PRSVs Implemented by Ordinance
(mgd)
Type Series 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Peak day Low (0.06) (0.09) (0.11) (0.12) (0.12) (0.13) (0.13) (0.13) (0.14)
Medium (0.13) (0.19) (0.23) (0.25) (0.26) (0.27) (0.28) (0.28) (0.29)
High (0.19) (0.28) (0.33) (0.36) (0.38) (0.39) (0.40) (0.41) (0.42)
Average day Low (0.06) (0.09) (0.11) (0.12) (0.12) (0.13) (0.13) (0.13) (0.14)
Medium (0.13) (0.19) (0.23) (0.25) (0.26) (0.27) (0.28) (0.28) (0.29)
High (0.19) (0.28) (0.33) (0.36) (0.38) (0.39) (0.40) (0.41) (0.42)

12.3 Reliability

There are significant savings to be realized through installation of efficient PRSVs, but there is uncertainty
in the savings estimates (Table 12.1) due to conflicting literature information. In addition, there is
uncertainty about how many inefficient PRSVs are installed in Austin. For these reasons, the reliability of
the savings is medium.

12.4 Implementation

Due to the relatively short life of PRSVs and the existing state law limiting the availability of inefficient
PRSVs, the Utility does not have to take any action to realize the projected savings from this measure.

12.5 Opinion of Probable Cost

Since the projected savings result from an existing state law, there is no cost to the City to realize the
projected savings.

Customers that install an efficient PRSV are expected to save $500 to $1,000 annually on water, sewer, and
gas or electric utility costs19. Therefore, the associated payback period for the efficient PRSV is projected to
be 4 months or less.

51 of 61
13.0 WINTER LEAK DETECTION

13.1 Description

According to a study of 1,188 single-family homes, approximately 5.5 percent of connections lose more
than 100 gallons per day to leakage32, or approximately 3,000 gallons per month. Under this measure, the
utility would identify customers whose winter water use increased by 3,000 gallons per month or more
from the previous winter, notify these customers of an increase in winter water use, and encourage the
customers to investigate and repair leaks.

13.2 Potential Water Savings

It is anticipated that 5.5 percent of single-family residential connections leak more than 100 gallons per
day32. In Austin, this translates to approximately 9,300 connections that leak more than 0.94 mgd.

Comparison of winter water use from year to year will not identify existing large leaks and may not identify
small leaks that become large leaks, because the utility will only flag accounts whose water use increases by
more than 3,000 gallons per month. For example, if an account has leakage of 50 gallons per day that
increases to 100 gallons per day, the account will not be flagged. It is assumed that analysis of customer
records will identify 50 percent of new, large leaks. It is also assumed that one-third of the customers
contacted will identify and repair leaks as a result of the program. It is also assumed that leaks are naturally
repaired in 3 years.

Based on these assumptions, it is anticipated that the Utility can reduce accounts with leakage of more than
100 gallons per day to about 4.6 percent of single-family residential accounts. Table 13.1 shows projected
water savings from a winter leak detection program.

Table 13.1: Potential Changes in Water Use from Winter Leak Detection
(mgd)
Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Peak day (0.06) (0.09) (0.12) (0.14) (0.15) (0.16) (0.17) (0.18) (0.18)
Average day (0.06) (0.09) (0.12) (0.14) (0.15) (0.16) (0.17) (0.18) (0.18)

13.3 Reliability

There is no available information to justify the assumptions that analysis of customer records will identify
50 percent of new large leaks or that one-third of customers contacted will identify and repair leaks.
Therefore, the reliability of the projected savings is low.

13.4 Implementation

Each spring, the Utility would compare winter water use for each residential customer to water use from
the previous winter. For accounts where the winter water use has increased by more than 3,000 gallons per
month, the Utility will mail a letter to the customer notifying them of a potential water leak, encouraging the
customer to identify and repair the potential leak, and pointing out potential water and cost savings.

13.5 Opinion of Probable Cost

It is anticipated that staff time for data analysis and direct mail costs would be approximately $30,000 per
year. Table 13.2 shows the opinion of probable cost.
52 of 61
 Table 13.2: Opinion of Probable Cost of Winter Leak Detection
Item 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Annual Cost $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Unit Cost $1.48 $0.88 $0.68 $0.60 $0.54 $0.50 $0.48 $0.46 $0.46
($/1,000 gallons)

53 of 61
14.0 ENHANCED LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR

14.1 Description

Austin recently estimated that it loses water to leakage at an average flowrate of approximately 12 mgd.
This represents approximately 8.5 percent of the average daily pumpage for 2005 (approximately 140.8
mgd). Traditionally, unaccounted-for water of less than 10 percent of pumpage has been considered to be
characteristic of a well-run urban water system.

According to the International Water Association (IWA) water audit methodology, there is a certain
amount of leakage that is unavoidable (the Unavoidable Real Loss, UARL), even for a well-run water
system34. Using the IWA methodology and the following assumptions:

§ 3,000 miles of water main,

§ 193,684 retail service connections, and
§ Median system pressure of 74 psi,

it is estimated that Austin’s UARL is approximately 3.6 mgd.

The IWA methodology also defines an Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) as the ratio of actual real losses
to unavoidable real losses. Based on the above estimates, Austin’s ILI is approximately 3.3. The target ILI
should reflect the Economic Level of Leakage (ELL), which is the “level at which the cost of leakage
reduction activities meets the cost of water saved through leakage reduction.34”

Table 14.1 shows general descriptions of the water resources, operational, and financial considerations
associated with various target ILI levels.

Table 14.1: General Descriptions of Target ILI Levels34

Target Water Resources Operational Considerations Financial Considerations
ILI Considerations
Range
Available resources are greatly Operating with system leakage Water resources are costly to
limited and are very difficult above this level would require develop or purchase; ability to
and/or environmentally unsound expansion of existing increase revenues via water rates
1.0-3.0
to develop. infrastructure and/or additional is greatly limited because of
water resources to meet the regulation or low ratepayer
demand. affordability.
Water resources are believed to Existing water supply Water resources can be
be sufficient to meet long-term infrastructure capability is developed or purchased at
needs, but demand management sufficient to meet long-term reasonable expense; periodic
3.0-5.0 interventions (leakage demand as long as reasonable water rate increases can be
management, water leakage management controls feasibly imposed and are
conservation) are included in the are in place. tolerated by the customer
long-term planning. population.
Water resources are plentiful, Superior reliability, capacity, and Cost to purchase or obtain/treat
reliable, and easily extracted. integrity of the water supply water is low, as are rates charged
5.0-8.0
infrastructure make it relatively to customers.
immune to supply shortages.
Although operational and financial considerations may allow a long-term ILI greater than 8.0, such a
Greater
level of leakage is not an effective utilization of water as a resource. Setting a target level greater than 8.0
than 8.0
(other than as an incremental goal to a smaller long-term target) is discouraged.

54 of 61
Through enhanced leak detection and repair, Austin could reduce achieve water savings and reduce its ILI.
Enhanced leak detection and repair may include everything from faster response to reported leaks to
sophisticated leak detection techniques.

14.2 Potential Water Savings

Among other factors, leakage depends on pipe materials, pipe age, pipe construction, number of
connections, geology, climate, and system pressure. These are all very region- and site-specific. At this
time, it is not clear what costs would be associated with a given level of leak reduction, so the Economic
Level of Leakage (the theoretical target ILI) has not been determined. However, for the purposes of this
memorandum, if a target ILI of 2 is adopted, savings of approximately 4.8 MGD would need to be
achieved.

14.3 Reliability

Once system leaks are found and repaired, the Utility can have a high degree of confidence that the water
will be conserved. However, as the system continues to age, leaks in other locations should be anticipated.
The Utility will need to be vigilant in locating and fixing leaks on a continual basis to maintain the
conservation benefits.

14.4 Implementation

Austin should begin implementation of enhanced leak detection and repair by adding staff to repair
reported leaks more quickly.

14.5 Opinion of Probable Cost

Probable costs have not been projected.

55 of 61
15.0 SUMMARY OF EVALUATED CONSERVATION MEASURES

15.1 Summary of Water Conservation Measures

In previous sections, 12 water conservation measures that have the potential for significantly reducing peak
day demand in the next five years have been evaluated. The evaluated water conservation measures are
projected to provide peak day water savings of 19.7 to 23.3 mgd by 2015 at a weighted average unit cost of
$0.67 to $0.77 per thousand gallons.

Two measures, pressure control and turfgrass rebates, have particularly high projected unit costs.

Table 15.1 summarizes potential peak day water savings from each method, Table 15.2 summarizes
potential average day water savings, Table 15.3 summarizes the opinions of probable annual cost, and
Table 15.4 summarizes the opinions of probable unit cost.

Significant expenditures on public education will be necessary to achieve the potential water savings. The
opinions of probable annual cost (Table 15.3) include public education costs of $300,000 in 2007 and
$200,000 per year in subsequent years. These expenditures would be to support specific conservation
efforts.

56 of 61
 Table 15.1: Potential Changes in Peak Day Water Use from Evaluated Water Conservation Measures
(mgd)
Measure 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Enhanced water waste ordinance (1.29)-(4.12) (1.31)-(4.21) (1.34)-(4.28) (1.36)-(4.36) (1.38)-(4.44) (1.41)-(4.54) (1.43)-(4.61) (1.46)-(4.69) (1.49)-(4.78)
Conservation water pricing and rate structure n/a (1.11) (2.42) (3.96) (5.78) (7.42) (7.54) (7.68) (7.82)
changese
Large property irrigation systems analysis n/a (1.36) (1.39) (1.41) (1.44) (1.47) (1.49) (1.52) (1.55)
Single-family irrigation system audits n/a (0.24) (0.48) (0.74) (0.75) (0.77) (0.78) (0.79) (0.81)
Pressure control n/a (0.15) (0.31) (0.48) (0.65) (0.83) (1.01) (1.20) (1.39)
Turfgrass rebates n/a (0.12) (0.25) (0.39) (0.52) (0.67) (0.81) (0.97) (1.13)
Single-family retrofit on resale/multi-family n/a (0.56) (1.09) (1.63) (1.63) (1.63) (1.61) (1.58) (1.55)
and ICI retrofit by date ordinance
Federal clothes washer standards 0.00 (0.53) (1.01) (1.43) (1.81) (2.15) (2.46) (2.74) (3.00)
Multi-family submetering ordinance (0.20) (0.26) (0.31) (0.37) (0.42) (0.48) (0.54) (0.60) (0.66)
Efficient pre-rinse spray valves (0.06)-(0.19) (0.09)-(0.28) (0.11)-(0.33) (0.12)-(0.36) (0.12)-(0.38) (0.13)-(0.39) (0.13)-(0.40) (0.13)-(0.41) (0.14)-(0.42)
Single-family winter leak detection (0.06) (0.09) (0.12) (0.14) (0.15) (0.16) (0.17) (0.18) (0.18)
Enhanced leak detection and repairf n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total (1.61)-(4.57) (5.84)-(8.93) (8.82)-(11.99) (12.02)-(15.26) (14.66)-(17.97) (17.10)-(20.49) (17.97)-(21.41) (18.84)-(22.35) (19.70)-(23.28)

e
Have assumed that peak day savings are equal to peak month savings.
f
Potential water savings and probable costs have not been projected for this measure.

57 of 61
 Table 15.2: Potential Changes in Average Day Water Use from Evaluated Water Conservation Measures
(mgd)
Measure 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Enhanced water waste ordinance (0.55)-(1.75) (0.56)-(1.79) (0.57)-(1.82) (0.58)-(1.85) (0.59)-(1.89) (0.60)-(1.93) (0.61)-(1.96) (0.62)-(1.99) (0.63)-(2.03)
Conservation water pricing and rate structure n/a (0.43) (0.94) (1.54) (2.25) (2.89) (2.93) (2.99) (3.04)
changes
Large property irrigation systems analysis n/a (0.35) (0.36) (0.36) (0.37) (0.38) (0.38) (0.39) (0.40)
Single-family irrigation system audits n/a (0.10) (0.20) (0.31) (0.31) (0.32) (0.32) (0.33) (0.34)
Pressure control n/a (0.06) (0.13) (0.20) (0.27) (0.35) (0.42) (0.50) (0.59)
Turfgrass rebates n/a (0.03) (0.07) (0.10) (0.14) (0.17) (0.21) (0.25) (0.29)
Single-family retrofit on resale/multi-family n/a (0.56) (1.09) (1.63) (1.63) (1.63) (1.61) (1.58) (1.55)
and ICI retrofit by date ordinance
Federal clothes washer standards 0.00 (0.53) (1.01) (1.43) (1.81) (2.15) (2.46) (2.74) (3.00)
Multi-family submetering ordinance (0.20) (0.26) (0.31) (0.37) (0.42) (0.48) (0.54) (0.60) (0.66)
Efficient pre-rinse spray valves (0.06)-(0.19) (0.09)-(0.28) (0.11)-(0.33) (0.12)-(0.36) (0.12)-(0.38) (0.13)-(0.39) (0.13)-(0.40) (0.13)-(0.41) (0.14)-(0.42)
Single-family winter leak detection (0.06) (0.09) (0.12) (0.14) (0.15) (0.16) (0.17) (0.18) (0.18)
Enhanced leak detection and repair n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total (0.87)-(2.20) (3.07)-(4.49) (4.89)-(6.37) (6.77)-(8.29) (8.06)-(9.62) (9.24)-(10.84) (9.79)-(11.41) (10.31)-(11.96) (10.81)-(12.49)

Table 15.3: Opinion of Probable Annual Cost to the Utility for Evaluated Water Conservation Measures
Measure 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Enhanced water waste ordinance $121,016 $71,396 $71,783 $72,178 $72,579 $72,987 $73,402 $73,825 $74,255
Conservation water pricing and rate structure n/a $57,437 $57,437 $57,437 $57,437 $57,437 $17,437 $17,437 $17,437
changes
Large property irrigation systems analysis n/a $83,964 $84,873 $85,799 $82,999 $83,956 $84,931 $85,924 $86,934
Single-family irrigation system audits n/a $179,243 $182,488 $185,792 $189,149 $192,566 $196,046 $199,588 $203,195
Pressure control n/a $163,769 $334,504 $512,502 $698,065 $891,515 $1,093,188 $1,303,432 $1,522,612
Turfgrass rebates n/a $120,097 $244,543 $373,454 $506,936 $649,822 $797,663 $950,591 $1,108,741
Single-family retrofit on resale/multi-family n/a $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
and ICI retrofit by date ordinance
Federal clothes washer standards $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Multi-family submetering ordinance $30,872 $30,872 $30,872 $30,872 $30,872 $30,872 $30,872 $30,872 $30,872
Efficient pre-rinse spray valves $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Single-family winter leak detection $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Enhanced leak detection and repair n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total $45,872 $750,382 $999,717 $1,310,856 $1,630,458 $1,971,169 $2,285,137 $2,652,843 $3,034,791

58 of 61
 Table 15.4: Opinion of Probable Unit Cost to the Utility for Evaluated Water Conservation Measures
($/1,000 gallons)
Measure 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Enhanced water waste ordinance $0.19-$0.61 $0.11-$0.35 $0.11-$0.35 $0.11-$0.34 $0.11-$0.34 $0.11-$0.33 $0.10-$0.33 $0.10-$0.33 $0.10-$0.32
Conservation water pricing and rate structure n/a $0.36 $0.17 $0.10 $0.07 $0.05 $0.02 $0.02 $0.02
changes
Large property irrigation systems analysis n/a $0.65 $0.65 $0.64 $0.61 $0.61 $0.61 $0.60 $0.60
Single-family irrigation system audits n/a $5.00 $2.50 $1.67 $1.67 $1.66 $1.67 $1.66 $1.66
Pressure control n/a $6.99 $7.03 $7.05 $7.07 $7.07 $7.11 $7.13 $7.16
Turfgrass rebates n/a $10.23 $10.25 $10.25 $10.24 $10.28 $10.35 $10.38 $10.40
Single-family retrofit on resale/multi-family n/a $0.49 $0.13 $0.08 $0.08 $0.08 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09
and ICI retrofit by date ordinance
Federal clothes washer standards $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Multi-family submetering ordinance $0.42 $0.33 $0.27 $0.23 $0.20 $0.18 $0.16 $0.14 $0.13
Efficient pre-rinse spray valves $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Single-family winter leak detection $0.74 $0.44 $0.34 $0.30 $0.27 $0.25 $0.24 $0.23 $0.23
Enhanced leak detection and repair n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total $0.06-$0.15 $0.46-$0.67 $0.43-$0.56 $0.43-$0.53 $0.46-$0.55 $0.5-$0.58 $0.55-$0.64 $0.61-$0.71 $0.67-$0.77

59 of 61
16.0 REFERENCES

1. Water Conservation Implementation Task Force: Water Conservation Best Management Practices
Guide, Texas Water Development Board Report 362, Austin, November 2004.

2. City of Austin Water Conservation Division: Water Conservation Plan, Austin, May 2005.

3. Gregg, T. and D. Strub: “Water Efficiency in Austin, Texas 1983-2003: An Historical

Perspective,” Water Supply, Volume 4, Number 3, March 2004.

4. Stratus Consulting, Inc.: Water Price Elasticities for Single-Family Homes in Texas, prepared for
the Texas Water Development Board, August 1999.

5. Griffin, R., and C. Chang: “Pretest Analysis of Water Demand in Thirty Communities,” Water
Resources Research 26 (10): 2251-5, 1990.

6. American Water Works Association: Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges, AWWA
Manual M1, 2000.

7. Southwest Econometrics, Inc.: Understanding Trends in Texas Per Capita Water Consumption,
prepared for the Texas Water Development Board, July 1991.

8. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis: “Local Area Personal Income,”
accessed online at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis, August 2005.

9. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics: “Table Containing History of CPI-U
U.S. All Items Indexes and Annual Percent Changes From 1913 to Present,” accessed online at
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt, September 2005.

10. Gregg, T.: “Water Restrictions That Work: The Summer of 2000 in Austin,” unpublished, June
2001.

11. Bamezai, A. and D. Lessick: Is System Pressure Reduction a Valuable Water Conservation Tool?
Preliminary Evidence From the Irvine Ranch Water District, prepared for the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, February 2003.

12. Vickers, Amy: Handbook of Water Use and Conservation, WaterPlow Press, Amherst, MA, 2001.

13. M.Cubed: Estimated Water Savings from a Statewide Residential Toilet Retrofit-on-Resale
Requirement, prepared for the California Urban Water Conservation Council, January 2002.

14. A & N Technical Services: BMP Costs & Savings Study, prepared for the California Urban Water
Conservation Council, December 2003.

15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Cases in Water Conservation: How Efficiency Programs
Help Water Utility Save Water and Avoid Costs, EPA832-B-02-003, July 2002.

16. Ash, T: “Efficient Landscapes,” presented at Energy 2002, Palm Springs, California, June 2002,
accessed online at http://www.energy2002.ee.doe.gov.

17. Colorado WaterWise Council: “Centennial Water: When in Drought – Budget!,” WaterWise,
Volume 10, Number 1, Spring 2004.

18. Mayer, P.B. et al: National Multiple Family Submetering and Allocation Billing Program Study,
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al, 2004.
60 of 61
19. California Urban Water Conservation Council: Rinse & Save, Revised February 2005.

20. Koeller and Company: A report on Potential Best Management Practices Annual Report - Year
One, prepared for the California Urban Water Conservation Council, August 2004.

21. Veritec Consulting, Inc.: Region of Waterloo Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Pilot Study Final Report,
January 2005.

22. Austin/Travis County Health and Human Services Department: Restaurant Inspection Scores,
accessed online at http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/health/restaurant/search.cfm, September 2005.

23. San Antonio Water System, 2005 Conservation Ordinance, accessed online at
http://www.saws.org/conservation/ordinance/2005ConservationOrdinance.pdf, September 2005.

24. GDS Associates, Inc.: Quantifying the Effectiveness of Various Water Conservation Techniques in
Texas, prepared for the Texas Water Development Board, May 2002.

25. Texas Water Development Board: Water Conservation Best Management Practices Guide, Report
362, prepared by the Water Conservation Implementation Task Force, November 2004.

26. EJJ Associates: Evaluation of Alternatives for the Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Plan,
Technical and Physical Feasibility Fact Sheet, Alternative 22: Conservation Incentives, prepared
for the Middle Rio Grande Water Assembly, 2003.

27. Texas A&M University Agriculture Program: “SAWS, Extension Partner to Help Folks in San
Antonio Conserve Water”, AgNews, January 23, 2002.

28. San AntonioWater System: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2004.

29. Addink, S.: Cash for Grass – A Cost Effective Method to Conserve Landscape Water?, accessed
online at http://ucrturf.ucr.edu/topics/Cash-for-Grass.pdf, October 2005.

30. Montgomery Watson: Water Conservation Plan, prepared for the City of Austin, March 1993.

31. International Turfgrass Producers Federation: Water Right - Conserving Our Water Preserving
Our Environment, accessed online at http://www.turfgrasssod.org/contents.html, October 2005.

32. Aquacraft, Inc. et al: Residential End Uses of Water, prepared for the American Water Works
Association Research Foundation, 1999.

33. GDS Associates, Inc.: Quantifying the Effectiveness of Various Water Conservation Techniques in
Texas, prepared for the Texas Water Development Board, May 2002.

34. American Water Works Association Water Loss Control Committee: “Committee Report:
Applying worldwise BMPs in water loss control,” Journal AWWA, Volume 95:8, August 2003.

61 of 61