Urban Water Waste Causes, Solutions, and the EPA Water Efficiency Program
The Alliance for Water Efficiency comes into existence, and the Environmental Protection Agency hopes its impact will be AWEsome.
Frogs with five eyes, or no eyes but six legs. When mutated amphibians began showing up a few years ago, scientists scrambled to find the cause. It didn’t take long to uncover the usual suspect: chemicals, of course, especially the ones we put on our landscapes and crops to keep them picture perfect—herbicides, insecticides, nutrients, fertilizers. All these chemicals were turning up in the aquifers partly because we, the landscape industry, are very sloppy, and the municipalities weren’t paying attention. The EPA and the USDA are diligent with agriculture, but landscapes had fallen under the radar. Something had to be done, and quick. Thus began the current EPA Alliance for Water Efficiency program.
Here in America we pretty much assume that unlimited, clean fresh water is a birthright. We, being the leaders we are, have been outstanding when it comes to wasting that water—in our washers, cleaning our cars, watering our lawns. Compare our average use of 200 gallons per person per day to that of a village in India, where water has to be carried from a well, resulting in 1 or 2 gallons per person per day. Visitors to America often are astounded at how much water we use—and waste. Queen Victoria was ridiculed because of her lavish use of water—she had the luxury of bathing once a month, whether she needed it or not.
The EPA and the California Urban Water Conservation Council began doing studies and soon discovered what many of us in the landscape industry already knew: The largest single use of treated water in American cities (that require irrigation) is water on the landscape, from one-third to two-thirds of total treated water use. This landscape water use is usually far above what the landscape actually needs to thrive. Excess water that runs down the street causes water companies to buy more water shares, treat more wastewater, and use more energy to process that water. And don’t forget all those landscape chemicals down the drain.
For 50 years we have been overwatering everything, especially in the arid western United States. It wasn’t an intentional waste; rather, the feeling was water is free and easy, so live it up. Let’s turn Las Vegas into an emerald isle! And water is cheap: At $0.90 per thousand gallons in Palm Springs, it’s hard to look at water as a valuable resource. Imagine—that’s like buying a thousand gallons of bottled water at the grocery store for $0.90. What would it cost to fill a 20,000-gallon pool in Palm Springs? How about $18? Less than a trip to Starbucks.
As Peter Mayer of Waterwiser.org said recently, “There aren’t enough zeros in water.” While treated water is incredibly cheap, municipalities are afraid of raising rates to cover conservation costs. We have to move beyond viewing treated water as just a cheap commodity. It must become a valued resource that must be controlled and conserved for the sake of the environment and community—not for the monetary value but for the environment and our future. California and Nevada have known this for some time. Now, other regions are realizing it’s time to change our perception of treated water.
The Landscape Industry and Water Waste
The EPA realized the best way to stop chemicals from running off into groundwater is to stop runoff, and the best way to stop that is to educate and elevate the landscape industry, the water purveyors, the irrigation designers, installers, maintenance crews, and landscape chemical companies—not a small task, with thousands of small companies across the country.
How did we get into this revoltin’ landscape runoff situation? Early lawn sprinklers were designed to put down as much water as possible as quickly as possible. The most popular spray heads on the market today are designed to put down 1.5 inches per hour, but soil does not absorb water that quickly. According to the USDA, clay takes in water at 0.2 to 0.4 inch per hour, loam at 0.5 to 0.75, and sandy soil at 0.75 to 1—far less than most sprinkler systems put out. The result has been runoff—lots of runoff that leeches all those chemicals off our lawns and into the aquifers. The trick was to slow down the sprinklers’ rate to a point where the application rate matched the absorption, or soak-in, rate. New sprinkler technologies now exist that cover the lawn at a much slower and more uniform rate, and these types of heads are becoming endorsed and rebated items in cites across the West. Smart controllers—those smart enough to portion water use much more precisely, using evapotranspiration levels and current weather conditions—also are gaining acceptance throughout the West.
Now we all agreed we were watering too fast and sloppy, causing runoff. Among the several reasons a typical lawn sprinkler system has runoff problems, one culprit is bad designs. Designers find one kind of sprinkler head they like, which may not be the best choice. Some designs do not look at sun, shade, slope, or local weather conditions. Or, when money is a problem, heads are spaced too far apart. The result is poor uniformity of coverage, resulting in brown spots. Then, when most maintenance crews see a brown spot, they do the easy thing, which is exactly the wrong thing—they turn the water up! The brown spot goes away, but now the lawn is using twice the water it needs, running off in wetter areas.
Conversely, a designer may “pad” a design, putting in far more heads than are needed for uniform coverage. More heads and valves are used, driving the installation price up. The uniformity goes up, but the application rate does too, and who will notice? This type of system tends to run off almost immediately. Using standard spray heads on turf slopes is like giving a bucket of water to a circus clown—someone’s going to get soaked.
Here’s a reason that even you as a property owner might be overwatering and never suspect. Some lawn maintenance companies turn up the irrigation system so the grass will grow faster. This equals more mowings, which equals more money: capitalism at work. Cutting the grass shorter uses more water too. To be fair, many maintenance companies tell us the customers want shorter grass for a cleaner look, and the customer tells them “green at any cost.” Hey, with water at $0.90 per thousand, who cares? Education is needed here also, to get the public beyond the “water is free and easy” mentality.
Those Darn Irrigation Contractors
The next big challenge is irrigation contractors. This is a non-cohesive, disjointed section of the landscape world. There are good conscientious companies out there, but the typical irrigation company consists of a few people with not much background in business (or irrigation).
In this landscape world there are two kinds of customers—price and quality. The quality jobs are few and hard to get—the lavish estate, the elite private school. Much more common is to be in the scrum trying to land a large commercial “lowest bid” installation. Cut every corner to keep that price down. If zone 6 shows 10 heads, maybe we can make it work with 7. No one’s ever going to check—sad but true. If there are brown spots we can just—you guessed it—turn up the runtime, double the water on the lawn, and watch it sail down the street. The installer doesn’t pay for the water, just the parts and labor going in. After a few years of underbidding and not covering overhead, many irrigation companies fold. When, on that rare occasion, the irrigation contractor is called on the carpet to explain the excess water costs and runoff, the answer is usually the same: The builder insisted on taking the lowest bid, and we needed the work. If the builder had been willing to spend enough, we would have done things right. Here we see a need to educate both the customer and the contractor.
Municipal and EPA Response to Residential and Commercial Runoff and Waste
A few cities and states are going on the offensive on quality irrigation systems. The City of Westminster, CO, has taken a bold step. The city has imposed minimum uniformity rates for new sprinkler systems, rates strict enough to make a difference. Verified soil prep and Smart Controllers also are required. Westminster Inspector Bret Eastberg notes that the program is producing much more efficient new sprinkler systems, a professional self-image among contractors as water stewards, and positive feedback from city residents.
Westminster’s aggressive enforced program is being watched closely by the irrigation industry and other municipalities to see if the strong rules can survive legal challenges and make a significant reduction in waste.
The EPA, citing the needs and challenges mentioned above, started the Alliance for Water Efficiency program (AWE) and a program for certification of landscape professionals. The program will include training of water professionals, certification, and ongoing oversight for compliance. The program will have a brand, to identify those businesses that have completed certification. The hope is that this voluntary program will stop much of the treated water waste and chemicals in the aquifers. At this writing, the EPA is asking for input from the Irrigation Association and irrigation professionals from across the country. Within a few months the program will be up and running, using the IA for some training and certification programs, and EPA-designed classes for others.
By now you may have come to the conclusion that the landscape industry is the big culprit in water waste. Guess again. Homeowners do a fair share of overwatering also, but often because they have no idea what their lawn really needs to thrive. Some western cities have set up free sprinkler inspection programs for homeowners, using college students during the summer months. The inspections often are misnamed “audits” but actually consist of going through the system and controller, looking for obvious problems. So far so good. Homeowners across the western US have gotten on the bandwagon, taken to heart the notion that we all must do our part to conserve.
Cities Shy Away From Conservation
Currently, some cites in the Rocky Mountain region have completely misread their residents’ desire to go on conserving. These cities believe that residents want to go back to their pre-drought use levels—they don’t. These cities have dropped their conservation programs, going into water use growth mode. Instead of trying to lower per-capita consumption, they are engaging in “empire building,” as recently noted in the Denver Post by Gary Wockner. The current strategy is to sell lots of water now, to build more storage for later. But the residents don’t want to use more water. There appears to be only one obvious answer. Put some more zeros in water.
By the numbers: Indoor average monthly use nationally is around 5,000 gallons per single-family household. This number is being used as a baseline by a number of cities. Outdoor peak summer use is being estimated at 15,000 gallons for an average residential irrigated landscape. Thus, cities are setting 20,000 gallons per month peak as a benchmark. At $1.60 per thousand gallons, the bill is $32, plus sewer and base charge, maybe $50 total. If the water price doubles to $3.20 per thousand gallons, the bill rises to $64, plus sewer and base charge—about $82. And that’s peak summer use. Would residential customers go into revolt because of an $82 bill?
Commercial and Corporate Water Waste
There are other suspects here, aka commercial property owners and management companies. A typical shopping mall can waste as much water in a week as a household uses in a year. The water conservation industry often faces a large brick wall when it comes to reducing outdoor water waste in commercial settings. The scenario usually goes like this:
- The commercial owner/manager does not pay for water use; the tenants do.
- It will cost more to correct the runoff and waste problems than the water costs us.
- The city wants our sites to look good, and we aren’t breaking any laws.
- We’re actually helping the city by purchasing lots of its water.
- We’re creating jobs for lawn maintenance companies, providing tax base.
- When the city tells us we have to stop wasting water, we’ll talk.
- Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Often, the city encourages this lack of conservation by inaction. Shopping malls and corporate residents are important for the tax base and “curd appeal.” It’s best to not rock the boat. The sad part is this segment of the market tends to overuse water more than any other.
This is a sticky wicket for city staff; keep everyone happy, don’t get fired, and become pro-conservation. When cost savings or fines are not an issue, commercial residents can be enticed with rewards of a political nature, such as an offer of recognition by the city for being environmentally good neighbors. As Conrad Hilton said, there is always a deal that benefits both parties.
Municipal Water Waste
Those of you in the water biz are chuckling about now—he hasn’t mentioned the most common entity wasting the most water in town—the city itself! Many cities have hundreds of miles of irrigated medians, acres of parks. Those decorative turf medians are known for having runoff. The cities around Dallas–Fort Worth, now struggling to fund their drought conservation programs, are becoming aware very quickly just how much water medians and parks use. City in-house maintenance crews need training to get up to speed on conservation. Meanwhile, monies are needed for public awareness, education, and, most odious of all, code enforcement.
While commercial properties are a brick wall, city median and parks crews are more like Hadrian’s Wall. Most city crews absolutely do not want to hear about how to save water from some pencil neck with soft hands. Clever terms like evapotranspiration and precipitationrates do not impress them. Their watering practices were good enough in 1946, and they’re good enough now. The city water conservation staff and water professionals talk themselves blue in the face and get nowhere. Not even PowerPoint 5.1 and a free lunch help. Meanwhile the water continues to cascade down the street, and the mayor gets mean looks at parties. The disconnect between the city planners and the maintenance crews is legendary, as old as the crofter and the laird.
This disparity between what the city tells the residents to do and what it does not internally do causes something to happen, and every city in this situation will confirm. The citizens start to notice that while they are pitching in and saving water, their city—the very same city that told them to save water—is blowing millions of gallons off the parks and medians every day. Pretty soon the phone calls to the mayor start:
“Why am I washing my car with handy wipes while there is a lake in the middle of the city-owned baseball field?”
The mayor has to find funds and a manager that can connect with the crews on the streets. What’s a cash-strapped city to do?
Some cities have heard the call and actually are achieving significant results. Boulder, CO, began collecting conservation fees from the water ratepayers and now uses those funds to correct water waste in many ways, including on medians. Surprisingly, Boulder residents are very pleased to see their payments used for positive improvements they can see. Their city manager gets invited to parties where people smile at him.
Boulder Water Conservation Program Manager Paul Lander notes that positive steps by the city have impressed the residents and stopped the resentment that was beginning to emerge before those steps appeared.
Key phrase: The great fear that most cities have regarding raising water rates to cover conservation programs is unfounded—the citizens do want, and will pay for, conservation programs.
There is another benefit to reducing park, median, and residential landscape water-use levels. This portion of total water saved is significant, to the point of lowering the city’s per-capita use levels. Pre-existing treated water is freed up for new growth. The water district avoids buying new water or creating more storage. Water sales might remain flat or grow at an affordable pace, but do not drop.
Code Enforcement and Water Cops
Code enforcement of watering restrictions is the bride of Frankenstein no one wants to look at or talk about. The city fears a backlash from angry commercial properties—maybe they will move away if we hurt their feelings. Maybe residents will challenge every fine. As one Texas city water manager recently pointed out, he cannot personally go observe every violation at 3 a.m. and then appear in court to testify. The city is faced with that most serious of options—creating a full-time vested water cop position and tying up court time. The usual result, and we all see it, is a city with stern laws regarding runoff and waste, and absolutely no enforcement of those laws—empty threats, unfunded mandates, a regular city council blue plate special.
Take this good news straight to the mayor: These laws are easily enforceable and affordable, they do not lead to court time, and the residents heartily approve. Here’s what Albuquerque, NM, does with great success:
City Water Conservation Manager Katherine Yuhas has one water cop, an “officer” of the city. This person has training in the concepts of landscape water use, backflow prevention, and forensic photo rules. She goes out, usually at night, and videotapes sites where runoff is occurring. The video is filed with the city as evidence, and the property owner is sent a warning and then fined if the problem is not corrected. Offenders seldom want to go to court—video evidence is very compelling. The forensic steps needed to make this stick are very simple and teachable. Yes, the city has had to assign an employee to a part-time position, and create some authorization laws. But the results are well worth it—runoff stopped, revenue generated to support the position, and, best of all, the perception by the public that the city is doing its part.
There is a caveat here as well—cities deputizing stormwater or street cleaner crews into water cops as an additional unpaid “go get ’em, tiger!” duty has not worked well. The crews resent being assigned extra duties outside their area with no compensation. The results have been disappointing or worse.
Advertisement
Back to the EPA Water Efficiency Program
While its program is focusing on elevating the landscape profession in general, it is obvious that the other elements that contribute to water waste also will have to be addressed. City median and parks crews, commercial property management companies, and corporate landscape crews also will have to be given a lot of attention, guidance, and “encouragement.” To be effective, this voluntary program will need to be well funded, diligent, and, to use a White House term, “enableated.”
Can the EPA bring all the Middlesex towns and shires together, moving in one direction, and pull this off? If the program is voluntary, how many will rise to the moment? How many will understand the importance of water conservation? How many will tell the EPA to watch that door on the way out? We in the landscape irrigation industry are hopeful that they can get it up and going, and then keep it going. If this program dies from lack of interest, if cities find their water supply endangered, the only real motivator may be that looming obvious answer—putting more zeros in water, or having that Victorian luxury of bathing once a month.
September-October 2006
Urban Water Waste Causes, Solutions, and the EPA Water Efficiency Program
The Alliance for Water Efficiency comes into existence, and the Environmental Protection Agency hopes its impact will be AWEsome.
Frogs with five eyes, or no eyes but six legs. When mutated amphibians began showing up a few years ago, scientists scrambled to find the cause. It didn’t take long to uncover the usual suspect: chemicals, of course, especially the ones we put on our landscapes and crops to keep them picture perfect—herbicides, insecticides, nutrients, fertilizers. All these chemicals were turning up in the aquifers partly because we, the landscape industry, are very sloppy, and the municipalities weren’t paying attention. The EPA and the USDA are diligent with agriculture, but landscapes had fallen under the radar. Something had to be done, and quick. Thus began the current EPA Alliance for Water Efficiency program.
Here in America we pretty much assume that unlimited, clean fresh water is a birthright. We, being the leaders we are, have been outstanding when it comes to wasting that water—in our washers, cleaning our cars, watering our lawns. Compare our average use of 200 gallons per person per day to that of a village in India, where water has to be carried from a well, resulting in 1 or 2 gallons per person per day. Visitors to America often are astounded at how much water we use—and waste. Queen Victoria was ridiculed because of her lavish use of water—she had the luxury of bathing once a month, whether she needed it or not.
The EPA and the California Urban Water Conservation Council began doing studies and soon discovered what many of us in the landscape industry already knew: The largest single use of treated water in American cities (that require irrigation) is water on the landscape, from one-third to two-thirds of total treated water use. This landscape water use is usually far above what the landscape actually needs to thrive. Excess water that runs down the street causes water companies to buy more water shares, treat more wastewater, and use more energy to process that water. And don’t forget all those landscape chemicals down the drain.
For 50 years we have been overwatering everything, especially in the arid western United States. It wasn’t an intentional waste; rather, the feeling was water is free and easy, so live it up. Let’s turn Las Vegas into an emerald isle! And water is cheap: At $0.90 per thousand gallons in Palm Springs, it’s hard to look at water as a valuable resource. Imagine—that’s like buying a thousand gallons of bottled water at the grocery store for $0.90. What would it cost to fill a 20,000-gallon pool in Palm Springs? How about $18? Less than a trip to Starbucks.
As Peter Mayer of Waterwiser.org said recently, “There aren’t enough zeros in water.” While treated water is incredibly cheap, municipalities are afraid of raising rates to cover conservation costs. We have to move beyond viewing treated water as just a cheap commodity. It must become a valued resource that must be controlled and conserved for the sake of the environment and community—not for the monetary value but for the environment and our future. California and Nevada have known this for some time. Now, other regions are realizing it’s time to change our perception of treated water.
The Landscape Industry and Water Waste
The EPA realized the best way to stop chemicals from running off into groundwater is to stop runoff, and the best way to stop that is to educate and elevate the landscape industry, the water purveyors, the irrigation designers, installers, maintenance crews, and landscape chemical companies—not a small task, with thousands of small companies across the country.
How did we get into this revoltin’ landscape runoff situation? Early lawn sprinklers were designed to put down as much water as possible as quickly as possible. The most popular spray heads on the market today are designed to put down 1.5 inches per hour, but soil does not absorb water that quickly. According to the USDA, clay takes in water at 0.2 to 0.4 inch per hour, loam at 0.5 to 0.75, and sandy soil at 0.75 to 1—far less than most sprinkler systems put out. The result has been runoff—lots of runoff that leeches all those chemicals off our lawns and into the aquifers. The trick was to slow down the sprinklers’ rate to a point where the application rate matched the absorption, or soak-in, rate. New sprinkler technologies now exist that cover the lawn at a much slower and more uniform rate, and these types of heads are becoming endorsed and rebated items in cites across the West. Smart controllers—those smart enough to portion water use much more precisely, using evapotranspiration levels and current weather conditions—also are gaining acceptance throughout the West.
Now we all agreed we were watering too fast and sloppy, causing runoff. Among the several reasons a typical lawn sprinkler system has runoff problems, one culprit is bad designs. Designers find one kind of sprinkler head they like, which may not be the best choice. Some designs do not look at sun, shade, slope, or local weather conditions. Or, when money is a problem, heads are spaced too far apart. The result is poor uniformity of coverage, resulting in brown spots. Then, when most maintenance crews see a brown spot, they do the easy thing, which is exactly the wrong thing—they turn the water up! The brown spot goes away, but now the lawn is using twice the water it needs, running off in wetter areas.
Conversely, a designer may “pad” a design, putting in far more heads than are needed for uniform coverage. More heads and valves are used, driving the installation price up. The uniformity goes up, but the application rate does too, and who will notice? This type of system tends to run off almost immediately. Using standard spray heads on turf slopes is like giving a bucket of water to a circus clown—someone’s going to get soaked.
Here’s a reason that even you as a property owner might be overwatering and never suspect. Some lawn maintenance companies turn up the irrigation system so the grass will grow faster. This equals more mowings, which equals more money: capitalism at work. Cutting the grass shorter uses more water too. To be fair, many maintenance companies tell us the customers want shorter grass for a cleaner look, and the customer tells them “green at any cost.” Hey, with water at $0.90 per thousand, who cares? Education is needed here also, to get the public beyond the “water is free and easy” mentality.
Those Darn Irrigation Contractors
The next big challenge is irrigation contractors. This is a non-cohesive, disjointed section of the landscape world. There are good conscientious companies out there, but the typical irrigation company consists of a few people with not much background in business (or irrigation).
In this landscape world there are two kinds of customers—price and quality. The quality jobs are few and hard to get—the lavish estate, the elite private school. Much more common is to be in the scrum trying to land a large commercial “lowest bid” installation. Cut every corner to keep that price down. If zone 6 shows 10 heads, maybe we can make it work with 7. No one’s ever going to check—sad but true. If there are brown spots we can just—you guessed it—turn up the runtime, double the water on the lawn, and watch it sail down the street. The installer doesn’t pay for the water, just the parts and labor going in. After a few years of underbidding and not covering overhead, many irrigation companies fold. When, on that rare occasion, the irrigation contractor is called on the carpet to explain the excess water costs and runoff, the answer is usually the same: The builder insisted on taking the lowest bid, and we needed the work. If the builder had been willing to spend enough, we would have done things right. Here we see a need to educate both the customer and the contractor.
Municipal and EPA Response to Residential and Commercial Runoff and Waste
A few cities and states are going on the offensive on quality irrigation systems. The City of Westminster, CO, has taken a bold step. The city has imposed minimum uniformity rates for new sprinkler systems, rates strict enough to make a difference. Verified soil prep and Smart Controllers also are required. Westminster Inspector Bret Eastberg notes that the program is producing much more efficient new sprinkler systems, a professional self-image among contractors as water stewards, and positive feedback from city residents.
Westminster’s aggressive enforced program is being watched closely by the irrigation industry and other municipalities to see if the strong rules can survive legal challenges and make a significant reduction in waste.
The EPA, citing the needs and challenges mentioned above, started the Alliance for Water Efficiency program (AWE) and a program for certification of landscape professionals. The program will include training of water professionals, certification, and ongoing oversight for compliance. The program will have a brand, to identify those businesses that have completed certification. The hope is that this voluntary program will stop much of the treated water waste and chemicals in the aquifers. At this writing, the EPA is asking for input from the Irrigation Association and irrigation professionals from across the country. Within a few months the program will be up and running, using the IA for some training and certification programs, and EPA-designed classes for others.
By now you may have come to the conclusion that the landscape industry is the big culprit in water waste. Guess again. Homeowners do a fair share of overwatering also, but often because they have no idea what their lawn really needs to thrive. Some western cities have set up free sprinkler inspection programs for homeowners, using college students during the summer months. The inspections often are misnamed “audits” but actually consist of going through the system and controller, looking for obvious problems. So far so good. Homeowners across the western US have gotten on the bandwagon, taken to heart the notion that we all must do our part to conserve.
Cities Shy Away From Conservation
Currently, some cites in the Rocky Mountain region have completely misread their residents’ desire to go on conserving. These cities believe that residents want to go back to their pre-drought use levels—they don’t. These cities have dropped their conservation programs, going into water use growth mode. Instead of trying to lower per-capita consumption, they are engaging in “empire building,” as recently noted in the Denver Post by Gary Wockner. The current strategy is to sell lots of water now, to build more storage for later. But the residents don’t want to use more water. There appears to be only one obvious answer. Put some more zeros in water.
By the numbers: Indoor average monthly use nationally is around 5,000 gallons per single-family household. This number is being used as a baseline by a number of cities. Outdoor peak summer use is being estimated at 15,000 gallons for an average residential irrigated landscape. Thus, cities are setting 20,000 gallons per month peak as a benchmark. At $1.60 per thousand gallons, the bill is $32, plus sewer and base charge, maybe $50 total. If the water price doubles to $3.20 per thousand gallons, the bill rises to $64, plus sewer and base charge—about $82. And that’s peak summer use. Would residential customers go into revolt because of an $82 bill?
Commercial and Corporate Water Waste
There are other suspects here, aka commercial property owners and management companies. A typical shopping mall can waste as much water in a week as a household uses in a year. The water conservation industry often faces a large brick wall when it comes to reducing outdoor water waste in commercial settings. The scenario usually goes like this:
- The commercial owner/manager does not pay for water use; the tenants do.
- It will cost more to correct the runoff and waste problems than the water costs us.
- The city wants our sites to look good, and we aren’t breaking any laws.
- We’re actually helping the city by purchasing lots of its water.
- We’re creating jobs for lawn maintenance companies, providing tax base.
- When the city tells us we have to stop wasting water, we’ll talk.
- Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Often, the city encourages this lack of conservation by inaction. Shopping malls and corporate residents are important for the tax base and “curd appeal.” It’s best to not rock the boat. The sad part is this segment of the market tends to overuse water more than any other.
This is a sticky wicket for city staff; keep everyone happy, don’t get fired, and become pro-conservation. When cost savings or fines are not an issue, commercial residents can be enticed with rewards of a political nature, such as an offer of recognition by the city for being environmentally good neighbors. As Conrad Hilton said, there is always a deal that benefits both parties.
Municipal Water Waste
Those of you in the water biz are chuckling about now—he hasn’t mentioned the most common entity wasting the most water in town—the city itself! Many cities have hundreds of miles of irrigated medians, acres of parks. Those decorative turf medians are known for having runoff. The cities around Dallas–Fort Worth, now struggling to fund their drought conservation programs, are becoming aware very quickly just how much water medians and parks use. City in-house maintenance crews need training to get up to speed on conservation. Meanwhile, monies are needed for public awareness, education, and, most odious of all, code enforcement.
While commercial properties are a brick wall, city median and parks crews are more like Hadrian’s Wall. Most city crews absolutely do not want to hear about how to save water from some pencil neck with soft hands. Clever terms like evapotranspiration and precipitationrates do not impress them. Their watering practices were good enough in 1946, and they’re good enough now. The city water conservation staff and water professionals talk themselves blue in the face and get nowhere. Not even PowerPoint 5.1 and a free lunch help. Meanwhile the water continues to cascade down the street, and the mayor gets mean looks at parties. The disconnect between the city planners and the maintenance crews is legendary, as old as the crofter and the laird.
This disparity between what the city tells the residents to do and what it does not internally do causes something to happen, and every city in this situation will confirm. The citizens start to notice that while they are pitching in and saving water, their city—the very same city that told them to save water—is blowing millions of gallons off the parks and medians every day. Pretty soon the phone calls to the mayor start:
“Why am I washing my car with handy wipes while there is a lake in the middle of the city-owned baseball field?”
The mayor has to find funds and a manager that can connect with the crews on the streets. What’s a cash-strapped city to do?
Some cities have heard the call and actually are achieving significant results. Boulder, CO, began collecting conservation fees from the water ratepayers and now uses those funds to correct water waste in many ways, including on medians. Surprisingly, Boulder residents are very pleased to see their payments used for positive improvements they can see. Their city manager gets invited to parties where people smile at him.
Boulder Water Conservation Program Manager Paul Lander notes that positive steps by the city have impressed the residents and stopped the resentment that was beginning to emerge before those steps appeared.
Key phrase: The great fear that most cities have regarding raising water rates to cover conservation programs is unfounded—the citizens do want, and will pay for, conservation programs.
There is another benefit to reducing park, median, and residential landscape water-use levels. This portion of total water saved is significant, to the point of lowering the city’s per-capita use levels. Pre-existing treated water is freed up for new growth. The water district avoids buying new water or creating more storage. Water sales might remain flat or grow at an affordable pace, but do not drop.
Code Enforcement and Water Cops
Code enforcement of watering restrictions is the bride of Frankenstein no one wants to look at or talk about. The city fears a backlash from angry commercial properties—maybe they will move away if we hurt their feelings. Maybe residents will challenge every fine. As one Texas city water manager recently pointed out, he cannot personally go observe every violation at 3 a.m. and then appear in court to testify. The city is faced with that most serious of options—creating a full-time vested water cop position and tying up court time. The usual result, and we all see it, is a city with stern laws regarding runoff and waste, and absolutely no enforcement of those laws—empty threats, unfunded mandates, a regular city council blue plate special.
Take this good news straight to the mayor: These laws are easily enforceable and affordable, they do not lead to court time, and the residents heartily approve. Here’s what Albuquerque, NM, does with great success:
City Water Conservation Manager Katherine Yuhas has one water cop, an “officer” of the city. This person has training in the concepts of landscape water use, backflow prevention, and forensic photo rules. She goes out, usually at night, and videotapes sites where runoff is occurring. The video is filed with the city as evidence, and the property owner is sent a warning and then fined if the problem is not corrected. Offenders seldom want to go to court—video evidence is very compelling. The forensic steps needed to make this stick are very simple and teachable. Yes, the city has had to assign an employee to a part-time position, and create some authorization laws. But the results are well worth it—runoff stopped, revenue generated to support the position, and, best of all, the perception by the public that the city is doing its part.
There is a caveat here as well—cities deputizing stormwater or street cleaner crews into water cops as an additional unpaid “go get ’em, tiger!” duty has not worked well. The crews resent being assigned extra duties outside their area with no compensation. The results have been disappointing or worse.
Back to the EPA Water Efficiency Program
While its program is focusing on elevating the landscape profession in general, it is obvious that the other elements that contribute to water waste also will have to be addressed. City median and parks crews, commercial property management companies, and corporate landscape crews also will have to be given a lot of attention, guidance, and “encouragement.” To be effective, this voluntary program will need to be well funded, diligent, and, to use a White House term, “enableated.”
Can the EPA bring all the Middlesex towns and shires together, moving in one direction, and pull this off? If the program is voluntary, how many will rise to the moment? How many will understand the importance of water conservation? How many will tell the EPA to watch that door on the way out? We in the landscape irrigation industry are hopeful that they can get it up and going, and then keep it going. If this program dies from lack of interest, if cities find their water supply endangered, the only real motivator may be that looming obvious answer—putting more zeros in water, or having that Victorian luxury of bathing once a month.