The term water efficiency means different things to different people. For many, water efficiency means performing a function with less water than traditionally used; high efficiency toilets and low-flow household fixtures are good examples. Water efficiency also occurs when a traditional water-using function is accomplished without the need for water; waterless urinals come to mind. Employing lower quality water, such as recycled water, for irrigation of golf courses or public green spaces can achieve cost efficiencies, as well as water resource efficiencies by leveraging multiple uses of water volumes throughout the water cycle. Efficiency is also characterized by process refinements that minimize water wastage. The collective efforts undertaken by water utilities to control leakage and metering and billing errors—under the heading of water loss control—are a valid and important water efficiency approach.
The “green” consciousness of the public is increasing, and the value of water resources, along with energy, air, and other natural resources, is taking a greater stature in society’s priorities. The links between land use and water resources, surface water and groundwater, and other important relationships are now well established and being brought forward into the realm of public policy. Water efficiency, as one of the most important aspects of this movement, will only continue to grow in importance. However, in order to truly achieve water efficiency on a large scale, efficiency programs must have clearly defined goals, attributes, and measures that can be monitored to ascertain that a desired water efficient outcome is reached. An old saying states, “You can’t manage it if you don’t measure it.” So, how do we ensure that efforts to instill water efficiency are properly measured and validated?
In order to answer that question, we enter the realm of accountability. A process that is accountable is one that has clearly defined goals, measures, and reporting structures that are reliably employed to quantify, track, and promote the goals of the effort. It is very possible for a process to be accountable, but not efficient; however, a process cannot be efficient without being accountable. It is essential that sound accountability structures be employed in a water efficiency process if it is to succeed.
Over 50,000 community drinking water utilities in the US withdraw roughly 40 billion gallons per day of water from the nation’s resources, yet, there are no water accountability requirements that ensure that the efficiency of water utilities is reliably tracked, let alone optimized. It is quite startling to realize that—in a country whose southeastern states have been locked in acrimonious water rights conflict, while suffering through a drought of historic proportions—the nation’s water utilities are not required to reliably report, let alone control, leakage losses estimated as high as 6 billion gallons per day, of treated, energized drinking water. These losses represent more than enough water to supply the 10 largest cities in the US. Those who point to existing statutes in many state water codes calling for reduction in “unaccounted-for” water do so with a hollow voice, as these limited “requirements” and the imprecise unaccounted-for measure are known to be ineffectual: they lack auditable controls and are almost never enforced.
If the water utility sector in the US is to become truly efficient in its daily management of 40 billion gallons of precious water resources, then standardized water accountability requirements featuring robust, auditable, and meaningful water efficiency structures must be put into place. While a certain number of forward-thinking water utilities will always seek high levels of efficiency on their own, the immensely fragmented nature of our water utility sector ensures that significant inefficiency will exist in the absence of mandated standardized accountability requirements.
In a strict mathematical sense, efficiency is an output/input performance measure. Efficiency is high when the level of output is great, relative to a given level of input. Unfortunately, the output/input ratio is a poor way to measure the success of a water utility in managing its water supplies from source, through treatment, distribution, and arrival at the customer end user. The conveyance, metering, billing, and data management activities of a water utility are disparate in nature and aren’t reliably represented by a single, simple percentage indicator. Just as drinking water quality cannot be represented by a single qualitative parameter (such as turbidity), a single, simplistic indicator cannot adequately represent the quantitative efficiency of water supply operations.
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) partnered with the International Water Association (IWA) in 2000, to publish a water audit methodology that features a variety of well-defined terms and an array of performance indicators. This methodology focuses on clearly defined loss volumes and their cost impacts. This includes real or physical losses, such as leakage, and apparent losses due to metering inaccuracy, systematic data handling error in customer billing systems, and unauthorized consumption. AWWA has been busy generating tools featuring this method, including water audit software that is currently available for free download from the AWWA Web site, and a revised guidance manual to be published in late 2008. In 2007, the American Water Works Association Research Foundation published final reports for two extensive research projects addressing water auditing and leakage control.
The methods and tools are now available to manage drinking water supplies in a quantitatively efficient manner. It remains to be seen how long it will take for the water utility sector, environmental groups, and public policy-makers to recognize that poor water utility efficiency in drinking water supply operations is a barrier to long-term water sustainability. Until meaningful and effective water accountability requirements are put into place, we will continue to live with a water utility sector that is, in terms of its quantitative management of water resources, neither efficient nor accountable.