A1
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: April 2, 1996
Dept. File No. 1.40.96.04
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: General Manager of Engineering Services
SUBJECT: Water Conservation March 1996
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. THAT the General Manager of Engineering Services undertake a
proactive leak detection and repair program with annual
funding of $180,000 from the Water Rates Stabilization
Reserve, as a two year pilot program.
B. THAT a rebate program for retrofitting Ultra-low Flow toilets
not be pursued at this time, but that public education and
analysis of the retrofit of other low flow plumbing devices
continue.
COUNCIL POLICY
The City water system operates as a utility, with costs recovered
through its water rates. In the past Council has supported a number of
water conservation initiatives, such as the Water Shortage Response
Plan, public education programs and mandating Ultra-Low Flow (ULF)
toilets and water saving devices for new construction.
At present, single family and duplex residential customers are not
metered and pay a flat rate for water regardless of consumption.
PURPOSE
This report describes a proposed pro-active leak detection program and
provides a financial analysis of costs versus benefits. The report also
examines the effectiveness of efforts to reduce indoor water
consumption, by analyzing programs that provide rebates for
retrofitting ULF toilets in existing homes. It also examines
Vancouver's experience of installing low-flow retrofit plumbing
devices.
BACKGROUND
Since 1993 the City has been engaged in proactive water conservation.
In this time we have been successful in reducing per capita consumption
through a number of initiatives, including: public education for both
adults and school children, a demonstration low irrigation garden,
workshops for industry and parks, a subsidized rain barrel program, and
a pilot program of retrofits of low flow devices. In addition Council
has mandated ULF installation in new construction and enacted the Water
Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) for lawn sprinkling restrictions. The
results of these programs have been generally positive in reducing
consumption and raising awareness about water conservation. One
initiative whose effectiveness has been variable, however, is the
retrofit of low flow devices.
To give an overview of these programs, attached as Appendix 1 are the
Water Conservation initiatives for 1996.
A significant proportion of the water supplied into any municipal
distribution system is lost through leakage. According to the National
Research Council of Canada, the national average for lost water is 25%.
A study by Acres Ltd. in the late 1970's showed leakage in Calgary to
be 29%. London England presently estimates that leakage accounts for
19% of water supplied. We believe this is an area in which a
significant impact on Vancouver's water consumption can be made,
through a proactive approach to leak detection.
DISCUSSION
Pro-Active Leak Detection & Repair
Since the City does not meter its residential services it is not
possible to carry out an audit to establish the amount of unaccounted
for water, and we cannot accurately calculate the amount of water lost
through leaks in the system.
If we assume 15% leakage for Vancouver, which we feel is conservative,
based on experience in other cities, this would represent $2.4 million
lost annually from leaks (based on our $16 million water bill from the
Region). Some of these leaks are evident, as water appears on the
ground surface, but many will not be identified because of terrain or
soil type where the water will drain away. These non-evident leaks can
only be found by proactive detection or as a result of ground
subsidence or failure.
At present Waterworks Operations has two trucks equipped with
instrumentation to find underground leaks. These trucks are dedicated
to locating leaks that have become evident above ground. Pro-active
leak detection for non-evident leaks is presently only undertaken when
requirements to identify evident leaks are reduced, usually due to
seasonal conditions.
In 1994 one truck worked pro-actively for 6 months and in 1995 one
truck worked for just over 4 months. We have used the results of these
trial periods to estimate the effectiveness of a full time leak
detection program. Estimates of the costs versus benefits are based on
the fact that non-evident underground leaks could continue to flow for
an indefinite period. It may in fact require ground subsidence before a
leak is suspected. Based on Waterworks experience it was assumed that a
leak on a main could run for 10 years, a leak on a service could run
for 5 years and one on a hydrant for 6 months, before detection. These
numbers are based on average maintenance or replacement time with 10
years estimated as failure time for a main leak. Repair costs are
estimated to be $2,000 per main, and $1,000 per service. Negligible
repair costs are associated with hydrants as they usually only require
a valve to be closed off. The cost to operate the full time detection
crew and equipment is $126,000 per year. An additional $54,000 is
estimated for repairs based on previous years experience.
Based on descriptions of leaks found by our crews, the average water
value (to replace this lost water) for leaks on each type of pipe are
estimated to be:
Total Repair Net Savings
Mains $2,400/year/leak*
in 10 years $24,000 - $2,000 = $22,000
Services $1,600/year/leak
in 5 years $ 8,000 - $1,000 = $ 7,000
Hydrants $1,200/year/leak
in 6 months $ 600 = $ 600
* Based on current wholesale water costs from the GVRD.
Consequently we estimate that the savings resulting from one year of
leak detection could be as much as $460,000, accumulated over the
duration of the leaks (see Appendix 2). Also, finding leaks can reduce
the risk of liability to the City, as an unrepaired leak can lead to a
large break, flooding damage, and emergency repairs.
In addition to leaks in the Vancouver system we also are paying for any
water that leaks from the GVRD mains within the City. The GVRD does not
have its own leak detection program. Subject to funding approval, we
have agreed to trace leaks on these GVRD mains, and the District has
agreed to repair the leaks that we locate.
FUNDING
The Water Rate Stabilization Reserve (WRSR) is a fund that balances the
annual difference between our water revenues (which are based on
projected consumption) and actual costs for purchasing the water from
the Region and operating our system. If our actual costs are lower than
projected, then our water rates will go down or not rise so quickly.
Because leak detection and control will directly influence our water
purchase costs from the GVRD, it is proposed that funding for the
detection crew, equipment, and repairs be provided from the WRSR.
Since we have not pursued pro-active leak detection extensively in the
past we will probably locate many existing leaks in the first year or
two, and the number of leaks found may level off once the entire City
has been surveyed the first time. For this reason we are proposing that
the continuation of this program be assessed in two years. The
evaluation will be based on data collected from leaks found and the
estimated time until failure, to establish water loss costs.
INDOOR WATER CONSUMPTION
Council has mandated the installation of ULF water saving devices for
all new homes, effective July 1994. In May 1995 Engineering Services
recommended that we investigate and report back on options for ULF
rebate programs, to address existing homes.
Approximately 85% of household water consumption is used indoors (60%
in summer). Of indoor water use, 20% is used in toilets. The ULF
toilets being installed in new construction use 1.3 Imperial gallons (6
litres) per flush. Existing toilets are mostly 3.0 gallons (13 litres).
From a water efficiency point of view we would like to encourage our
customers to install ULF devices. Several ULF toilet rebate programs
have been implemented in North American cities to promote their
installation. Results, however have varied widely. Successful programs
have been undertaken in Southern California where water costs are high
and payback periods to the utilities and customers (all metered) are
short, in Waterloo where a payback to the customer was 5 years, and in
El Paso where payback was 2.6 years.
For comparison, however, the Greater Victoria Water District
implemented a $50 rebate in 1994. In Victoria all homes are metered.
$25,000 was spent on advertising the program, and from February 1994 to
September 1995 only 187 applications were approved. Given the cost of
$225-$275 for toilets, plus $75 for installation, these low numbers
were not surprising. Also, even though their water is metered, the
payback to consumers was 13 to 35 years (retail water rates vary
greatly in this Region). The $50 rebate did not prove to be an adequate
incentive. The Water District concluded that "From an economic point of
view there is little incentive to replace toilets". In addition they
concluded "Water efficient fixture replacement programs are not cost
effective given the low cost of supply side options", and other water
conservation initiatives.
In Vancouver, our water rates are lower than Victoria's. On average a
household uses 20,000 gallons per year in flushing toilets with an
ordinary 3.0 gallon flush. To reduce this to 1.3 gallons would reduce
consumption by 11,000 gallons per year. At the current GVRD rate of
$0.573 per thousand gallons, this would save the City around $6.30 per
year, resulting in a 16 year payback on a $100 rebate. Apart from the
long payback for the City, there is the critical matter of an incentive
for the customer; in Vancouver homes are flat rated and so our
customers have no financial incentive to participate. It should be
noted however, that Vancouver's water rates are so comparatively low ,
that even if our customers were metered we would be in a similar
position to Victoria with customer paybacks in the same range.
The City of Vancouver has been working to educate the public on water
efficient practices and we have been successful in reducing per capita
consumption for summer irrigation. However, appealing to the public to
spend a substantial amount of money with no payback is unlikely to be
met with a positive response, and we believe that promoting a rebate
program will not be cost effective to the City at this time.
OTHER LOW FLOW RETROFIT PROGRAMS
Encouraging customers to change their plumbing fixtures to save water
has also met with varied success. The City has embarked on three pilot
retrofit programs at Musqueam, False Creek, and at 1st and Rupert. Each
area was provided with the devices: low-flow shower heads, faucet
aerators and low flush devices (not ULF toilets). The devices and
installation were free of charge (City costs were in the range
$60-$80).
False Creek Co-op is metered and participation was high, at over 90%.
The Musqueam area is non-metered residential consisting of 144 homes;
of these only 50% chose to participate. At 1st and Rupert, where the
City was participating with the BC21 Powersmart program, we targeted
2,000 homes with water saving devices. A number of approaches were made
by mail and telephone (English and Chinese) as well as television
advertisements over a period of six months. In total only 430 homes
enrolled, or 22%. The experience in other communities suggests a 10 to
20% response rate is typical.
Consumption results are not yet available for the 1st and Rupert area.
Consumption patterns in the existing retrofits in False Creek and
Musqueam continue to be monitored. Our data indicates that indoor water
use in Musqueam has been reduced by 20%. At False creek only a 7%
reduction was observed, possibly because the metered customers were
already using water more efficiently than the unmetered.
We continue to monitor consumption in these areas to ascertain how
effective these low flow devices are, but one conclusion that can be
drawn from these pilots is that the single family housing section of
the public is resistant to these measures. This is probably because
there is no apparent financial advantage to them to conserve water, as
well as the perception that reduced water means reduced fixture
performance and quality of life. We have attempted to educate the
public about these low flow devices through demonstrations and displays
and will continue to promote them in this manner.
CONCLUSION
Pro-active leak detection has benefits to the City in that it will save
a great deal of water, supporting Council's water conservation policies
and considerably reducing our water bill.
Although the installation of ULF toilets is to be supported it is
unlikely that City residents would spend a significant amount of money
to replace their toilet with no payback. Experience in other areas
suggest that given our billing methods and the low cost of water, such
a rebate program would not be successful. Attempts to encourage
participation in retrofits of other low flow devices where the
residents are not metered, have had variable success. We would conclude
that as water conservation has no financial incentive, much of the
public sees little advantage in installing equipment that they feel may
compromise their standard of living. Further education is required to
show the public that less costly retrofit devices will not reduce their
quality of life, and can result in cost savings for the City and its
taxpayers.
* * * * *