Designing Water Efficient Development: Options for Water Neutral Growth

Mary Ann DickinsonPresident/CEO

Source: Google Earth. 2014.

What is a Water Demand Offset? The goal of a water demand

offset is to allow growth without increasing system-wide water consumption

This is achieved through on-site water efficiency and off-site water efficiency

Benefits of Water Demand Offsets Reduces or completely

eliminates impact of new development on water supply

Can help avoid building moratoriums in resource constrained communities

Examples

House #1 Estimated demand = 120,000 gal/year Offset with 12 toilet replacements in

existing customer homes (3.5 gpf replaced with 1.28 gpf)

Offset cost at $200 per toilet = $2,400

House #2 Estimated demand = 120,000 gal/yr On-site efficiency lowers demand

estimate to 80,000 gal/yr Offset with 8 toilet replacements in

existing customer homes (3.5 gpf replaced with 1.28 gpf)

Offset cost at $200 per toilet = $1,600

AWE Report

In 2013/2014 AWE conducted research related to water demand offset policies Reviewed terminology Reviewed literature Reviewed existing and past policies

Funded by the Walton Family Foundation

Provides basis for the future development of a model ordinance with additional partners

Posted at www.a4we.org

Currently Existing Offset Policies

Offset requirements for new development

Offset requirements for expanded use of existing connections

New development fees used to fund efficiency programs

Water bank Offsets only for development

requiring annexation

Current Programs1. Cambria Community Services District,

California2. Town of Danvers, Massachusetts3. East Bay Municipal Utility District,

California4. City of Lompoc, California5. Monterey Peninsula Water

Management District, California6. City of Morro Bay, California7. City of Napa, California8. City of St. Helena, California

9. County of San Luis Obispo, Californiaa. Paso Robles Groundwater Basinb. Los Osos Groundwater Basinc. Nipomo Mesa Conservation Area

10.City of Santa Fe, New Mexico11.City of Santa Monica, California12.Soquel Creek Water District, California13.Town of Weymouth, Massachusetts

Current Programs

Danvers, Massachusetts

Service area population 26,493 Fees to offset new or expanded use as a

condition of its water permit Efficiency requirements for new

construction Fees based on size of dwelling for

residential $1,980 per bedroom Fees are $9.00/gpd for commercial Danvers uses offset fees to fund rebates

(toilets, clothes washers, showerheads, faucets, rain sensors)

2:1 offset ratio

East Bay MUD, California

Service area population ~1.3 million Water demand offsets have been

required for new development requiring annexation

New development within the service area does not require water demand offsets, but there are efficiency requirements

Offsets via on-site and off-site water conservation, and recycled water

Covenants, conditions, and restrictions for development to ensure the on-site conservation remains permanent

Santa Fe, New Mexico Service area population ~68,000 Has a water bank that contains

accounts of consumptive water right holders and holders of water credits

Water demand offset for new development projects via credits or water rights transfer

Water budget must be approved by the Water Budget Administrative Office

Offset amount is equal to the water budget plus an additional 9.8 percent, “contingency water”

Soquel Creek WD, California

Service area population 37,720 Offsets required for all new and

expanded water service Now fee based at $55,000/AF From 2003 through June 2014 offsets

were achieved through replacing 1.6 gpf and greater toilets with 1.0 gpf or less

Very thorough verification process, required licensed plumbers to install toilets

Green credits can also be earned Developers are required to offset 160

percent of the projected water demand

Defunct Offset Programs

Abington Rockland Joint Water Works, Massachusetts (Ended 2004)

City of Ojai, California City of San Luis Obispo, California

(~1990-2005) City of Santa Barbara, California Town of Sharon, Massachusetts (bylaw

drafted, not implemented)What can we learn from these?

Water Offset Policy Components

Demand offset trigger Water demand projection methodology Offset calculation methodology Offset ratio Demand mitigation options:

On-site efficiency measuresOff-site efficiency measuresOn-site recycled water use

Water Offset Policy Components

Developer performed retrofits In-lieu fees

Places burden on water provider or municipality

May have difficulty expending fundsAre permits approved after fee is

paid and possibly before retrofits occur?

Verification Permanence

Policy Strengths Requirements for licensed plumbers to

install efficient fixtures Demand projection approval Offset verification Offset ratio greater than 1:1 Covenants Communication

Policy Weaknesses Low offset ratios (i.e., 1:1) Limited offset options Outdated language in ordinances Development project approval before

demand mitigation implemented Exorbitant rebates and potential

freerider promotion Fees in lieu of retrofits that simply go

into municipal general fund without increasing supply

Next Steps Expanding work through partnership

with the Environmental Law Institute and River Network in an effort called “Net Blue”

Deepening analysis of issues in offsets Developing model ordinance, offset

methodology, and other resources Vetting and piloting with communities

across US Financial support from the Rosin Fund

over 3 year period