sustainable real estate roundtable: management best practices … · 2020. 1. 20. · 2010 and 2011...

© 2011 Sustainability Roundtable, Inc. Confidential – For use in connection with SR Inc Services only.

Sustainable Real Estate Roundtable:Management Best Practices

Water efficiency: reducing costs and use Portfolio-Wide

SuStainable Real eState Roundtable© 2011 Sustainability Roundtable, Inc. Confidential – For use in connection with SR Inc Services only.

table of contentsexecutive summary 4

section 1: introduction to Water efficiency 61.1 Overview 61.2 Market Drivers 7

Reduce Costs 8Mitigate Market and Regulatory Risks 8Obtain Green Building Certification 8Address Shareholder and Customer Concerns 9Enhance Brand and Reputation 10

1.3 Water Efficiency in Commercial Buildings 10Water Demand 10Definitions and Units 13Water and Energy Connection 14Stormwater Management 14Water Billing Methods 15

1.4 Trends 16Increasing Water Rates 16Decreasing Regional Supplies 18

1.5 Conclusion 21

section 2: industry Best Practice case studies 222.1 Limited Intervention 23

U.S. Bancorp Tower 23Google Data Center 24

2.2 Sub-Optimal Intervention 25Kirtland Air Force Base 25VA Medical Center 26Marshall Space Flight Center 27

2.3 Complete Intervention 28Burns & McDonnell 28Hurt Building 29EPA Environmental Science Center 30

2.4 Comprehensive Intervention 3160L Office Building 31Omega Center 32


section 3: srer memBer-client case studies 333.1 Brandywine Realty Trust 333.2 AAA Northern California, Nevada and Utah Insurance Exchange 373.3 The National Institutes of Health 42

section 4: sustainaBle value creation 464.1 Water Efficiency as Part of a Sustainability Strategy 474.2 Portfolio-wide Water Efficiency 474.3 Strategies and Strategic Constraints 48

Types of Strategies 50Integrate Strategies 56

4.4 Planning 57Make the Business Case 57Define Roles and Responsibilities 57Select Key Performance Indicators 58Conduct Assessment and Set Goals 58Develop a Roll-out Plan 62

4.5 Implementation 63Communicate and Educate 63Conduct Pilot 63Implement Portfolio-wide 64

4.6 Evaluation 64Gather Data for KPIs 65Quantify Costs and Benefits 66Benchmark and Document Best Practices 66Improve Continuously 66Communicate Results Internally and Externally 67

section 5: tools and resources 685.1 SRER Research Documents 685.2 Mapping and Measuring 685.3 Strategic Support 695.4 U.S. FEMP Water Management Toolbox 705.5 World Climate Zones 72

Canadian Climate Zones 72Mexican Climate Zones 72Other International Climate Zones 72

ExECUTIVE SUMMARy


executive summary

The Water Efficiency: Reducing Costs and Use Portfolio-wide report is part of SR Inc’s year-round Sustainable Real Estate Roundtable (SRER) business service, which includes Member-Client Executives responsible for making more than one billion square feet of real estate more sustainable. SR Inc presents this management best practice research report to address the expressed and growing interest of SRER Member-Clients in developing and implementing various water efficiency solutions to increase real es-tate portfolio and operational efficiencies and reduce enterprise water and energy consumption costs.

Leading companies are innovating beyond traditional water-use practices. They are doing so in response to enabling technologies, trends in prices and scarcity, and other market drivers. Dramatic reductions in potable wa-ter use through conservation, efficient systems, greywater recycling, and stormwater diversion are now possible and cost-effective on a compelling scale. Tenants, owners, investor-advisors, and governmental agencies are partnering to improve water efficiency across all major industries.

The management best practice research and recommendations presented here are premised on dozens of SR Inc Member-Client interviews during 2010 and 2011 with executives leading corporate real estate portfolios as well as with major national and global real estate owners. SR Inc research into management best practices is on-going and will be regularly updat-ed. SR Inc’s recommendations are strictly vendor- and solution-neutral.

Section 1 of this report provides an overview of water efficiency, includ-ing market drivers, benefits, and trends. Key drivers for the prioritization of water efficiency, such as reduced costs, market and regulatory risk mitigation, enhanced reputation, increased ability to address shareholder and customer concerns, and increased potential to obtain green building certification, are discussed and supported with examples.

Section 2 reviews the various water efficiency options deployed by com-panies and discusses the synergies among them. This section provides a decision framework and proposes a step-wise, iterative process for the three phases of strategic success: Planning, Implementation, and Evalu-

ExECUTIVE SUMMARy


ation. Case studies of ten leading organizations that have implemented water efficiency strategies are surveyed and include buildings such as the U.S. Bancorp Tower, the Hurt Building, and the Omega Center.

Section 3 features three SRER Member-Client case studies (Brandywine, AAA NCNU, and NIH) to provide insights into why and how leading ex-ecutives are adopting water efficiency programs. Brandywine installs effi-cient fixtures across its portfolio and maintains a variety of pilot programs. AAA NCNU partners with a contractor to monitor water bills for irregulari-ties and targets small, effective improvements for rapid paybacks. NIH di-verts stormwater to capture runoff which, together with the use of native plants, eliminates the need for potable water for irrigation.

Section 4 provides a high-level discussion on how real estate executives create sustainable value portfolio-wide by adopting water efficiency strat-egies as a part of (1) the overall sustainability strategy, (2) an integrated site-specific program, and (3) a company-wide rather than project-by-pro-ject effort to maximize cost savings and value-add.

Section 5 provides actionable implementation guidance for water effi-ciency company-wide in the form of tools and resources. This includes water mapping tools, savings calculators, and models; a range of SRER Member Advisories, Briefings, and Reports; the Federal Energy Manage-ment Program guidelines for water conservation; and an index of world-wide climate regions from ASHRAE.

• Increased awareness of water scarcity, full-cost pricing, and greater stakeholder concern about corporate impact on water resources drive the move to water efficiency portfolio-wide.

• Executives integrate water efficiency into their company’s sustain-ability strategy, adopting options tailored to business goals to en-hance sustainable value creation across the enterprise while ensuring compatibility with regional climate, building, and site characteristics.

• Leading companies implement water efficiency strategies at a variety of scales portfolio-wide to reduce costs, mitigate market and regulatory risk, enhance reputation, address shareholder and cus-tomer concerns, and obtain green building certification.

• Executives follow a step-wise, iterative process for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of water efficiency strategies to maximize benefits.

Key takeaways


section 1: introduction to Water Efficiency

• Leading companies implement water efficiency strategies across their real estate portfolios to control costs, ensure compliance with current and anticipated regulation, achieve green building certifica-tion, respond to shareholder and customer concerns, and enhance brand and reputation.

• Water tariffs will continue to rise in excess of general inflation, further reinforcing the importance of water efficiency portfolio-wide.

• Regional water supply and local climate conditions determine which water efficiency strategies will be most successful at a site.

• Executives target the four main categories of water demand in com-mercial buildings – domestic, heating and cooling, landscape, and kitchens – to reduce water consumption.

In the past decade, water scarcity has become a serious global problem, one that transcends socioeconomic and regional boundaries. Presently, only 0.8% of the planet’s water consists of water stored in freshwater rivers or lake basins or groundwater supplies, the availability of which may be dramatically altered by climate change.1 Annual snow melt, for example, is already occurring earlier in the year in mountain chains like the Sierras, the Himalayas, and the Alps.2 Because snow melt feeds major rivers, early melting reduces the amount of water available later in the season and

1 http://www.unwater.org/statistics_res.html2 http://wwa.colorado.edu/western_water_law/docs/WRCC_Complete_Draft_090308.pdf

Key takeaways

1.1 overview

http://www.unwater.org/statistics_res.html

http://wwa.colorado.edu/western_water_law/docs/WRCC_Complete_Draft_090308.pdf

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO WATER EFFICIENCy


thus prolongs droughts. With climate-driven supply risks and water scar-city on the rise, water utilities across the globe are increasing their prices to better reflect the full cost and value of water.

In light of increasing water scarcity and the concomitant supply risks and price increases, real estate executives have focused on developing and implementing water efficiency strategies across their portfolios. In this market environment, certifying green properties, addressing shareholder and customer concerns, and enhancing brand and reputation also drive executives to implement water efficiency as part of their comprehen-sive portfolio-wide sustainability strategy. Water efficiency also reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with water use (as defined in the new WBCSD/WRI Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard).3

Leading companies recognize five major market drivers for water efficien-cy, cited in Table 1. Each driver is described in further detail below.

market driver Definition motivating example

Reduce Costs Controlling water and sewer costs as well as costs related to operations required for water consumption

Water prices continue rising in excess of general inflation

Mitigate Market and Regulatory Risks

Proactively acting to comply with future water regulations and restrictions brought about by scarcity/shortage and price trends

Droughts are expected to become more frequent in many regions across the U.S., prompting restrictions on water use and higher prices

Obtain Green Building Certification

Certifying properties to build value, ensure operational efficiency, and secure public trust

LEED-EBOM allocates 13% of available points to water efficiency measures

Address Shareholder and Customer Concerns

Reporting on water efficiency measures to fulfill shareholder and customer expectations for corporate responsibility

Environmental, Social, & Governance (ESG) investors target companies which demonstrate leadership by reporting

Enhance Brand and Reputation

Building a brand associated with responsible use of resources

Green brands enjoy public-relations dividends, while companies perceived as profligate face criticism

3 http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/scope-3-standard

1.2 market drivers

Table 1. Key market drivers for water efficiency programs.

Source: SR Inc research.

http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/scope-3-standard



In many regions, subsidies or public ownership of water utilities have his-torically maintained low water prices relative to both the cost of other utilities and the value of water as an essential resource. However, increas-ing awareness of global and regional scarcity has encouraged districts to end subsidies and raise prices to cover the full costs of water treatment, storage, and delivery.4 Pricing and price trends vary dramatically by re-gion, as individual districts have adopted various billing systems and pric-ing mechanisms.

Leading companies have responded by focusing on improving efficiency to reduce costs. Reducing water costs often promotes second-order cost reductions in energy use, as water requires energy to be pumped, dis-tilled, filtered, cooled, and heated.

In the face of severe water shortages, China’s 12th five-year plan calls for 30% cuts in water consumption per unit of industrial output.5 U.S. Execu-tive Order 13423 requires federal agencies to reduce water use intensity (gallons per square foot) by 16% by the end of fiscal year 2015.

Legal rulings also redistribute or restrict water supplies in times of scarcity. In 2006, a local court determined new water restrictions for farmers after agricultural water diversion caused a 60-mile stretch of the San Joaquin River in California to run dry.

Both local government regulation and company financial motivation in water-scarce regions can lead to restrictions on domestic water use or landscape irrigation in commercial properties. Restrictions related to wa-ter scarcity can also potentially curtail manufacturing processes in indus-trial settings. To avoid any disruptions of normal operations due to water shortages, leading companies monitor scarcity risks in their region and plan to maximize efficient use of water resources over time.

Water efficiency is recognized in green building certification systems around the world. Most rating schemes accord water efficiency approxi-mately 10% of available credits, though more arid regions give water more weight (see Table 2). The Estidama Pearl System, used in Abu Dhabi, has the most stringent requirements due to the severe water shortage in the

4 Ibid.5 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/05/c_13762230.htm

Reduce Costs

Mitigate Market and Regulatory Risks

Obtain Green Building Certification

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/05/c_13762230.htm



region. The UAE government contemplates making the system manda-tory for the entire country (refer to SRER Member Briefing: International Green Building Rating Systems, 2010).

Certification Region Water Efficiency CreditsWeight in System

LEED-NC 2009 United States, Canada, India, and 16 other countries

Water reduction beyond 20%Water efficient landscapingInnovative wastewater technologies

9%

LEED-EBOM 2009 United States, Canada, India, and 16 other countries

Water reduction beyond 20%Water efficient landscapingWater performance measurementCooling tower management

13%

BREEAM UK, Europe, Gulf Water efficient appliancesWater metering Leak detection systemsWater tanks (for rainwater collection)

5–10%

Estidama Pearl Rating System

Abu Dhabi Demand reductionEfficient leak-proof distribution systems Use of alternative water sources

24%

Green Globes United States, Canada Water consumption reductionWater efficient fixtures Water management

8%

Australia Green Star

Australia Reduction of potable water useWater re-use Substitution with non-potable sources

Varies by state

China Three Star China Water consumption reduction

Avoiding pipe leakage

Efficient use of reclaimed water

12%

Leading companies set industry standards for reporting resource con-sumption. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investors moni-tor how companies are managing their water use. In 2011, the Climate Disclosure Project (CDP) requested information on the risks and oppor-tunities companies face in relation to water on behalf of 354 institutional investors with assets of U.S. $43 trillion.6 In the previous survey (2010), 150 of the 302 targeted companies responded to the questionnaire.

Many leading companies are beginning to integrate financial and envi-ronmental reporting. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provide relevant guidance.

6 http://www.cdproject.net

Table 2. Water credits across green building rating systems.


Address Shareholder and Customer Concerns

http://www.cdproject.net



Simultaneously, customers and shareholders alike are more frequently de-manding water reports. Leading companies publish environmental com-mitment statements and policies on their websites addressing water use.

Companies are increasingly aiming at “Branded Sustainability”. Employ-ees feel greater loyalty to employers if they are committed to sustain-ability. A Stanford University study shows that 77% of recent MBAs are ready to forgo some income to work for a company with a sustainability strategy. Building a positive brand in today’s competitive economy also requires careful attention to public perception of a company’s triple bot-tom line. As customers continue to become more aware of environmental constraints, they respond more strongly to brands that detail effective, comprehensive resource use programs.

Conversely, a company that fails to fulfill stakeholder expectations related to water use reduction risks reputational damage and, in cases when wa-ter is directly related to product development, can compromise opera-tions. In India’s Kerala and Tamil Nadu states, areas of high water stress, Coca-Cola bottling operations have been shut down and fined, and some localities banned the sale of Coca-Cola products. Nestle Waters, which operates water-bottling plants around the United States, combated or-ganized opposition from local residents and environmental NGOs for years over a plan to open a large facility in McCloud, California. Nestle eventually canceled plans for the facility due to a public-relations storm.

Water efficiency differs in significant respects from water conservation. Water conservation implies saving water through sacrifice, such as by turning off a faucet. Water efficiency means using less water to provide equal or better service, such as by adding an aerator to a faucet.7 This sec-tion elaborates on background information essential to crafting strategies for water efficiency.

Figures 1 and 2 describe the average demand for water in commercial buildings in the U.S. and Australia. Domestic and restroom use (31%) and cooling and heating use (48%) were both higher proportions of water use in Australia, while landscape (18%) and other uses (3%) were lower.

7 http://www.watersmartinnovations.com/PDFs/Thursday/Sonoma%20D/1100-%20Amy%20Vickers-%20Water%20Efficiency%20or%20Water%20Conservation-%20What%27s%20the%20Difference.pdf

Enhance Brand and Reputation

1.3 Water Efficiency in commercial

Buildings

Water Demand

http://www.watersmartinnovations.com/PDFs/Thursday/Sonoma%20D/1100-%20Amy%20Vickers-%20Water%20Efficiency%20or%20Water%20Conservation-%20What%27s%20the%20Difference.pdf

http://www.watersmartinnovations.com/PDFs/Thursday/Sonoma%20D/1100-%20Amy%20Vickers-%20Water%20Efficiency%20or%20Water%20Conservation-%20What%27s%20the%20Difference.pdf



Landscaping: 22%

Cooling and Heating: 28%

Domestic /Restroom: 37%

Kitchen and Other: 13%

Figure 1. Water demand in U.S. commercial buildings, 2009.

Source: http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/docs/ci_whitepaper.pdf

Landscaping: 18%

Cooling and Heating: 48%

Domestic/Restroom: 31%

Other Uses: 3%

Figure 2. Water demand in Australian commercial

buildings, 2003.

Source: http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/chananetal2003sus-tainableofficebuildings.pdf (data)

The different water use profiles of the U.S. and Australia highlight that buildings in different climate zones will likely have different water use pro-files. Similarly, buildings with different site plans can expect different use profiles. For instance, a building with with significant landscaping will use proportionally more water for landscaping, while one located in a warm climate will use more water for cooling. Areas where irrigation efficiency is most effective will be discussed later in this report.

The Institute for Sustainable Futures in Australia estimates that potable water use can be reduced by as much as 80% and wastewater volume can be reduced by as much as 90% in commercial buildings if an integrated design approach is used.8

Leaks

In the U.S., six billion gallons of water are lost daily through leaks.9 Exten-sive water audits in Australia suggest that leaks may account for 20-25% of commercial building water demand. One thousand gallons of water can be lost annually from a leak or faucet dripping once every two seconds.10

8 Ibid. 9 http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/wec_wp.cfm10 http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/sc4.html

http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/docs/ci_whitepaper.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/docs/ci_whitepaper.pdf

http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/chananetal2003sustainableofficebuildings.pdf



http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/wec_wp.cfm

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/sc4.html



Domestic Use

Domestic use refers to water directly used by occupants. This includes water fountains, sinks, rest rooms, and showers. Companies install low-flow faucets, low-flush toilets, hands-free faucets, and waterless urinals to reduce water demand. A Boston facility replaced 126 of the existing 3.5 gallons per flush (gpf) toilets with 1.6 gpf toilets and achieved a 15% an-nual water use reduction.11

Landscaping

Landscaping offers opportunities for significant water savings. Replacing turf grass with less water-intensive options, sprinklers with drip irrigation systems, and foreign plant species with native and adaptive species are modifications that can save significant amounts of water and in some arid regions qualify for rebates.12 Operational changes such as watering in the morning rather than mid-day can reduce water loss from evaporation.

Using recycled water, especially from a municipal reuse supply, may be cheaper than landscaping with potable water. Some water-efficient facili-ties have systems in place to utilize captured rainwater or greywater for irrigatation.

Cooling

Cooling towers can account for up to about one-third of a building’s wa-ter use, and often a larger proportion in hot, humid climates. Cooling towers therefore represent an opportunity for significant water savings. In one year, the Environmental Science Center in Fort Meade, Maryland saved 530,000 gallons of water and $1,800 by reducing its cooling tower discharge through no-cost operational changes.13 In humid climates, con-densation from air conditioning can add significantly to the wastewater flow, but this greywater can be captured for re-use. For instance, an EPA laboratory in Houston, Texas installed a catch mechanism for condensate recovery. The installation cost $6,000 and has since saved $2,300 and 832,000 gallons of water per year for the past six years.14

11 http://www.mwra.com/04water/html/bullet4.htm12 http://www.socalwatersmart.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=10213 http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/facilities/fortmeade.htm14 http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/water/techniques.htm#ten

http://www.mwra.com/04water/html/bullet4.htm

http://www.socalwatersmart.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=102

http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/facilities/fortmeade.htm

http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/water/techniques.htm



Commercial Kitchens

Commercial kitchens use water in almost every stage of food preparation and can account for up to 14% of building water demand.15 Installing low-flow rinse sprays, adjusting ice machines, and operating dishwashers only when full can yield significant water savings. One Boston building elimi-nated two ice machines that utilized once-through cooling in favor of one that used a recirculating cooling loop. The change lowered the building’s water demand by 10%.16

Laboratories and Other Special Uses

Laboratory buildings use significantly more water than standard commer-cial buildings of comparable size.17 Sterilization and testing equipment often require high water use. Although such equipment often has a mini-mum water flow rate, the rate is frequently set above the recommended level. Potable water may not be required in all laboratory processes, so stormwater or reuse water can be used.

Table 3 lists the major types of water that are used to track water use.

Type of Water Definition

Potable Water Water that is safe to drink.

Municipal Reuse Water Wastewater that has been treated to remove impurities and solids. It is available at a price cheaper than potable water, but is not potable.

Ground or Well Water Water that is pumped from reserves in the ground on the property.

Rain or Storm Water Precipitation that is collected in drainage systems and usually runs into municipal drains.

Greywater Non-potable waste water from domestic processes. This does not include blackwater.

Blackwater Wastewater that contains fecal matter and urine.

Wastewater Water left over from domestic use that is discharged into the sewer. Often includes both grey and blackwater.

15 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (http://www.mwra.com/04water/html/bullet4.htm).16 Ibid.17 http://www.epa.gov/lab21gov/pdf/bp_water_508.pdf

Definitions and Units

Table 3. Types of water.


http://www.mwra.com/04water/html/bullet4.htm

http://www.epa.gov/lab21gov/pdf/bp_water_508.pdf



Table 4 lists common volumetric units used to measure quantities of water.

unit conversion

1 Gallon 3.79 liters, 0.134 cubic feet

1 Liter 0.26 gallons, 0.035 cubic feet

1 Cubic Foot 7.48 gallons, 28.32 liters, 0.028 cubic meters

1 Cubic Meter 35.31 cubic feet, 1000 liters, 264.17 gallons

1 Acre Foot 1,233,481.8 liters, 325,851.4 gallons, 43560 cubic feet

Water and energy use are intimately connected: energy is required to pump, treat, deliver, and recycle water, while power plants use water in cooling or to turn turbines. Water use is thus responsible for carbon emis-sions from the energy required to treat and pump it. The EPA reports that about 8% of U.S. energy demand goes to processing and moving water, a demand equivalent to the amount of electricity required to power more than 5 million homes for a year.18 The same report estimates that the United States spends $4 billion annually to run drinking water and waste-water utilities.

In northern California, where water flows naturally from streams in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, one million gallons of water require 1,500 kil-owatt-hours of electricity for treatment and distribution. In southern Cali-fornia, where most water is imported, the same volume requires 10,200 kilowatt-hours.19 One million gallons of wastewater consume 2,500 kilo-watt-hours.20 Overall estimates for the amount of electricity required to process water in the U.S. range between 2,000 and 20,000 kilowatt-hours per million gallons.21

The new WBCSD/WRI Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard complements the widely used WBCSD/WRI GHG Protocol for corporate GHG emissions inventories. The new standard in-cludes detailed guidance for accounting for emissions associated with water use.

Stormwater is treated as a nuisance in most areas and removed through expensive on-site infrastructure (except in very dry climates). In parts of some major cities (San Francisco, New york) stormwater flows are com-

18 http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/gbstats.pdf 19 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-2005-011/CEC-700-2005-011-SF.PDF20 Ibid.21 http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/infographic-energy-used-in-the-water-cycle/

Table 4. Volumetric units.


Water and Energy Connection

Stormwater Management

http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/gbstats.pdf

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-2005-011/CEC-700-2005-011-SF.PDF

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/infographic



bined with wastewater flows, thereby increasing the burden on water treatment plants and causing untreated releases into waterways. Leading corporate real estate executives are reassessing stormwater management to capture its value and reduce operating costs.

Onsite capture and treatment typically requires expensive infrastructure on- and off-site. However, stormwater is essentially free water that pro-vides irrigation and, with limited on-site filtration, treatment, and storage, can reduce potable water demand and cost. Managing stormwater onsite through bioswales, permeable parking lots, and green roofs helps replen-ish natural aquifers and reduces the amount of stormwater that enters treatment plants.

Each of the 60,000 water districts in the United States calculates water bills differently. In most districts, a high proportion of properties have water meters to measure water use and bill accordingly.22 Table 5 lists the four most common water rate types.

Type Description

Flat rates Charges per unit of water are constant.

Declining block rates Water use is divided into blocks. Rates decline progressively for water use in additional blocks.

Increasing block rates Water use is divided into blocks. Rates increase progressively for water use in additional blocks.

Constant (temporal) rate Charges are assessed based on duration not consumption, giving unlimited access to water at a fixed price. The rate is usually based on building area, frontage, type, or number of fixtures.

Constant rates can lead to high water use because users have no finan-cial incentive to monitor or reduce consumption. The Alliance for Water Efficiency describes installing meters and billing by usage as “the single most-important water conservation method” a water utility can initiate. The Alliance estimates that introducing metering reduces consumption 15 to 30%. Constant bills are still common in Canada and the United King-dom, but both countries have been increasing the use of metered rates. Various water districts in the United States also still use frontage rates for some properties.

22 http://www.pacinst.org/reports/energy_and_water/energy_down_the_drain.pdf

Water Billing Methods

Table 5. Water use billing rates.

Source: Municipal Water Issues in Canada.

http://www.pacinst.org/reports/energy_and_water/energy_down_the_drain.pdf



Water and wastewater providers use additional price structures to encour-age conservation or to reduce peak water demand. These price structures are summarized in Table 6.

type description

Time of day pricing Higher prices are charged during a utility’s peak demand periods.

Water surcharges A higher rate is imposed on “excessive” water use, i.e. water consumption that is considered higher than average.

Seasonal rates Prices rise and fall according to water demands and weather conditions (summer months are usually assessed at higher prices).

In the present market for water, conditions encourage cost-saving meas-ures through increasing water rates and decreasing regional availability. These trends in water trade are expected to continue.

In the U.S., water prices have been increasing much faster than inflation. New york City’s combined, inflation-adjusted water and sewer rates in 2010 exceeded 1980 rates by 370%. While San Francisco does not pro-vide its historical water rates, its published five-year rate projections (from 2009-2013) show that increases will outpace inflation. As Figure 3 identi-fies, the average cost increase for water and wastewater has increased nearly twice as much as the average consumer price index.

Table 6. Rate incentives to reduce peak water demand.


1.4 trends

Increasing Water Rates

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

2008200420001996199219881984

Cos

t In

crea

se

Year

Water

Inflation

Figure 3. Average water rates have outpaced inflation by 50% in the

24-year period between 1984 and 2008 (http://www.kysq.org/docs/

Maxwell_prices.pdf).

Source: American Water Works Association.

http://www.kysq.org/docs/Maxwell_prices.pdf

http://www.kysq.org/docs/Maxwell_prices.pdf



Similarly, European rates increased dramatically over the past several dec-ades. Notably, both price increases (see Figure 4) and rates (see Figure 5) vary dramatically across Europe.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%Sweden (1991-98)

Italy (1992-98)

England & Wales (1994-98)

Greece (1990-95)

Belgium (1988-99)

Scotland (1993-97)

Germany (1992-97)

Finland (1982-98)

Netherlands (1990-98)

Luxembourg (1990-94)

Denmark (1984-95)

France (1991-96)

Hungary (1986-96)Figure 4. European water price increases during the 1990s.

European Environmental Agency.

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350%Italy (Rome)

Norway (Oslo)Poland (Warsaw)Finland (Helsinki)

Sweden (Stokholm)Spain (Madrid)

Greece (Athens)France (Paris)

Portugal (Lisbon)UK (E&W) (London)

Austria (Vienna)Belgium (Brussels)

LuxembourgDenmark (Copenhagen)

Netherlands (The Hague)Germany (Berlin)Figure 5. European water rate

comparison, 1998.

European Environmental Agency.

Water utility rate increases are primarily due to three factors: increasing cost of transporting water from source to user, increasing total demand for water, and decreasing price subsidies.23 Rapidly-developing cities are increasingly located hundreds of miles from water sources; even massive urban centers such as Los Angeles and Beijing transport water using ex-tensive manmade canal systems. This same rapid development also in-creases total demand, as more of the world’s population lives in urban regions. Incorporating full-cost pricing is an increasingly common civic decision, which removes water subsidies and shifts full cost for treatment

23 http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2007/update64

http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2007/update64



plants and transportation onto water consumers. In some regions, where higher prices are being assessed, consumers reduce consumption. This, in turn, requires the utilities to raise rates still further to cover fixed costs.24

The world’s water resources are concentrated in specific regions. In conse-quence, water scarcity affects different localities to varying degrees, com-manding greater fiscal and political priority in areas of particular scarcity.

Figure 6 illustrates the availability of water by country without account-ing for regional variance within countries and Figure 7 identifies the per capita water use annually by region of the world. The sections that follow survey availability by region.

South Africa

Figure 6. Global per capita water availability, 2000.

(Data in ‘000 liters/person/year)

Extreme Scarcity (<500)

Scarcity (500-1,000)

Stress (1,000-1,700)

Adequate (1,700-4,000)

Abundant (4,000-10,000)

Surplus (>10,000)

No Data

Source: Global Water Initiative.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Sub-Saharan Africa

South America

Europe

Central America & Caribbean

Asia (excluding Middle East)

Middle East & North Africa

Oceania

North AmericaFigure 7. Per capita water use by region, 2000.

(Data in cubic meters per year).

Source: World Resources Institute.

24 http://www.map-inc.org/pdf/pub_water_rates.pdf

Decreasing Regional Supplies

http://www.map-inc.org/pdf/pub_water_rates.pdf



Water footprints are geographical indices of water consumption, measur-ing both domestic (internal) and foreign (external) consumption of water resources via manufactured goods. External footprints demonstrate the virtual flow of water between countries. Figure 8 shows regional virtual-water balances and net interregional virtual-water flows greater than ten billion cubic meters per year. Europe, the Middle East, and Central and South Asia are net importers of water-intensive products; North and South America, Africa, South East Asia and Oceania are net exporters.

Figure 8. Net importers and exporters of water.

Source: Global Water Initiative.

United States

The United States, which has a population of about 310 million, used 410 billion gallons of water daily in 2005. The largest portions of water use stem from agriculture and thermoelectric production, but public con-sumption via homes and office buildings amounts to 11%, or about 44 bil-lion gallons daily.25 The EPA estimates that six billion gallons of water are lost daily through leaks.26 In the Southeast, where droughts are common, multiple states have sued each other over control of water resources.27 Up to one-third of all counties in the continental United States will face water shortages by 2050.28

Canada

Canada is home to 7% of the world’s fresh water. Its water costs per cap-ita are among the lowest in developed countries and the 343-liter (90.6

25 http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/26 http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/wec_wp.cfm27 http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/water-scarcity-climate-change-risks-for-investors-2009/view28 http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/pdf/WaterRisk.pdf

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/wec_wp.cfm

http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/water-scarcity-climate-change-risks-for-investors-2009/view

http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/pdf/WaterRisk.pdf



gallons) daily per-capita consumption is one of the highest worldwide.29 However, Canada suffers regional water shortages because although 75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border, 60% of its water sup-ply drains to the north from the Arctic Circle.

Mexico

Mexico’s population has increased four-fold in 55 years. The arid north-ern region has experienced severe water stress, which has led to conflict over water in the area. Water stress is expected to continue to be a prob-lem in Mexico because 85% of land is classified as arid or semi-arid and droughts are expected to increase with climate change.30 In Mexico City it is estimated that more than 1 million residents lack adequate access to safe drinking water.31 An international treaty governs the sharing of water resources between the U.S. and Mexico from the Colorado River and the Rio Grande.

Brazil

Although 12% of the world’s surface water is in Brazil, only 77% of the population has access to treated water.32 Parts of the Northeast have a semi-arid climate and suffer periodic water shortages. Highly-populated urban centers occasionally suffer disruptions from pollution due to the paucity of wastewater treatment facilities.33

European Union

While Europe is generally considered to have adequate water supply, in 2007 an estimated 11% of Europeans suffered from water scarcity.34 Many western and southern European water sources dried up or were contami-nated by salt water intake due to overuse. The more heavily populated European countries have lower per-capita consumption rates. The Euro-pean Commission estimates that leaks account for 50% of loss in some portions of Europe’s water infrastructure and minimizing leaks has become a key part of the region’s efforts to reduce water demand.

29 http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=F25C70EC-130 Environmental Change Institute (http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk).31 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3729632.html32 http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2005/06/16/000016406_200506

16092016/Rendered/PDF/wps3650.pdf. 33 http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/envpdf/pap_wasess4a4brazil.pdf34 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/scarcity_en.htm

http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=F25C70EC-1

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3729632.html

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2005/06/16/000016406_20050616092016/Rendered/PDF/wps3650.pdf

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2005/06/16/000016406_20050616092016/Rendered/PDF/wps3650.pdf

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/envpdf/pap_wasess4a4brazil.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/scarcity_en.htm



United Kingdom

The United Kingdom uses 19 billion liters (5 billion gallons) of water daily. The UK has experienced only occasional water scarcity in the past. There is concern that climate change could lead to a 15% or more decrease in precipitation, which may lower water tables.

India

India’s 1.1 billion people consume 1.7 trillion liters (450 billion gallons) of water daily. The growing population and economy have stressed tradi-tionally ample water supplies.35 In some regions, India lacks facilities to treat its wastewater. Only 60% of industrial and 27% of domestic waste-water is treated.

China

China, the most populous country on Earth with about 1.3 billion people, consumes less water than the United States despite being home to al-most a billion more people. China consumes just over 1 trillion liters (260 billion gallons) of water daily.36 As in India, economic development and urbanization are causing those numbers to increase, and the government has begun phasing in more water-efficient standards to compensate.

Japan

Japan’s annual water usage is about 61 million gallons daily.37 Japan suf-fers a major water shortage about once every 10 years. Troubles in tap water supply affected 16 million people during a water shortage in 1994. As in most countries, climate change is threatening the water supply. An-nual rainfall has decreased about 90 millimeters (about 3.5 inches) in the last 100 years. Japanese planners expect periods of extremely low rain-fall, low snow, and earlier thaw in the future.

Market drivers such as rising costs and increasing scarcity, in concert with strategic drivers such reputational risk, green building certification, and investor concerns, are compelling real estate executives to create value through water efficiency. Understanding water footprints and the different types of water is fundamental to evaluating water opportunity and risk. Leaders in real estate are assessing flows and measuring water use across portfolios to capture data, establish baselines, and benchmark results.

35 http://www.grailresearch.com/pdf/ContenPodsPdf/Water-The_India_Story.pdf36 Ibid. 37 http://www.mlit.go.jp/tochimizushigen/mizsei/water_resources/contents/current_state2.html

1.5 conclusion

http://www.grailresearch.com/pdf/ContenPodsPdf/Water-The_India_Story.pdf

http://www.mlit.go.jp/tochimizushigen/mizsei/water_resources/contents/current_state2.html


section 2: industry Best Practice case studiesSR Inc has mapped water efficiency best practices of ten detailed case examples provided on the quadrant chart. The deployed options for wa-ter reduction range from point-based to highly integrated solutions, as summarized in Figure 9.

• The Hurt Building

• EPA Environmental Science Center

• Google Data Center

• U.S. Bancorp Tower • Kirtland Air Force Base

• VA Medical Center

• Marshall Space Flight Center

• 60L Office Building

• The Omega Center• Burns & McDonnell

Buildings without landscaping

Integratedsolutions

Point-basedsolutions

Buildings with landscaping

CCOMPLETE

DCOMPREHENSIVE

ALIMITED

BSUB-OPTIMAL

Figure 9. Ten case studies in water efficiency best-practices.


SECTION 2: INDUSTRy BEST PRACTICE CASE STUDIES


Facilities seeking limited interventions lack the potential for comprehen-sive savings from landscaping efficiency. Managing companies frequently target specific point-based or end-use efficiency solutions.

The U.S. Bancorp Tower, pictured in Figure 10, is a 42-story building with 740,000 square feet of office space. It is the second tallest building in Portland, OR. The Tower is owned by Unico Properties, a real estate in-vestment and operating company in the western United States. Efficiency improvements at the U.S. Bancorp Tower were one element of Unico’s efforts to increase the water efficiency of its whole portfolio.

Figure 10. U.S. Bancorp Tower, Portland, OR.

Source: Unico Properties.

Strategies

Unico retrofitted the U.S. Bancorp Tower with 500 low-flow toilets in 2008 as part of an effort to green and modernize the building, originally con-structed in 1983. Low-flow toilets are typically 1.6 gallons per flush fix-tures. Unico also realized indirect water savings from necessary renova-tions to the building’s heating, air conditioning, and ventilation systems.

Impact

Water use in the building decreased 38% and the plumbing investment paid for itself in two years. The building also received LEED-EBOM Silver certification.

2.1 limited intervention

U.S. Bancorp Tower



In 2007, Google built a new data center, pictured in Figure 11, in Saint-Ghislain, Belgium in accordance with its corporate directive to use 100%-recycled water in all data center cooling processes. Typical 15-meg-awatt data centers use up to 360,000 gallons of water per day.38

Figure 11. Google data center in Saint-Ghislain, Belgium.

Source: Google.

Strategies

Google drains water from an industrial canal and purifies it through a 20,000-square foot onsite water treatment plant before using the water for cooling operations. No potable water is used to cool the data center. The system also uses a “fresh-air” cooling system that does not require chiller coolers for the data center cooling towers.

Impact

The treatment center was built using part of the $341 million investment in the Belgium site. Water is entirely drawn and evaporated onsite, result-ing in no potable water use in data center cooling processes.

38 http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/04/20/google-boosts-its-water-recycling-efforts/

Google Data Center

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/04/20/google



The following facility teams performed single-point or end-use interven-tions on large properties with landscaping.

The Kirtland Air Force Base is a 52,000 acre facility near Albuquerque, NM. It draws water from an aquifer, but declining water tables prompted the Air Force to examine its water use because the area receives only about 8 inches of rain a year. In 2006, the Air Force utilized an active leak detection program.39

Figure 12. Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, NM.

Source: U.S. Air Force.

Strategies

Active leak detection involved acoustic listening devices directed over 108 miles of pipes. The Air Force found and repaired 31 leaks, estimated to be collectively losing 333 gallons per minute (gpm). The largest leak was found in a 30-inch supply line leaking 150 gallons of water a minute. The active leak detection covered 90% of the pipes on base.

Impact

It cost $75,000 to locate the leaks and $514,000 to repair them. The re-pairs saved 179 million gallons of water annually, about 16% of the base’s total. The project had a payback period of about 1.75 years.

39 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/water_cs_kirtland.pdf

2.2 sub-optimal intervention

Kirtland Air Force Base

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/water_cs_kirtland.pdf



The Huntington, WV Veterans’ Affairs medical center is an acute-care hos-pital facility with 24 buildings covering 635,000 square feet on 101 acres. In 2007, the Department of Veterans Affairs retrofitted the building with efficient fixtures.

Figure 13. Veterans’ Affairs Medical Center, Huntington, WV.

Source: Veterans’ Affairs.

Strategies

The campus only installed water efficient fixtures, including 178 1.5 gal-lons per minute (gpm) faucets to replace old 2.5 gpm models. The depart-ment also converted 33 showerheads from 2.2 gpm to 1.75 gpm models with flow restrictor style heads. Finally, it replaced 87 old toilets utilizing both 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) and 1.3 gpf dual flush toilets.

Impact

Hospital staff installed the new fixtures, completing the project for $3,500. The facility now saves 1.5 million gallons annually and the project paid for itself in two months.

VA Medical Center



The Marshall Space Flight Center for NASA in Huntsville, AL occupies 4.5 million square feet of building space. It serves 7,000 personnel and consumes approximately 240 million gallons of potable water annually.

Figure 14. Marshall Space Flight Center.

Source: NASA.

Strategies

NASA researchers implemented a pilot “Flozone” treatment in one of its cooling towers. It utilized radio frequencies to reduce scaling and tightly controlled the pH balance through ozone production to limit corrosion and biofouling. Sidestream filtration was also used. NASA also imple-mented 24/7 cooling tower management, allowing property managers to increase the cooling towers’ cycle of concentration from 2.5 to 5.7.

Impact

The Flozone treatment saved 821,300 gallons of water during the 8-month trial period and saved $5,650 in water/sewer costs. It also reduced electric bills by $27,399.

Marshall Space Flight Center



These properties, though they do not have landscaping, realized a broad variety of complementary cost savings measures.

Engineering firm Burns & McDonnell retrofitted its Kansas City, MO world headquarters in 2006. The property is a 468,000-square foot office build-ing originally built in 1985. Burns & McDonnell are tenants on the prop-erty and divided the costs of the project with the property manager. The property manager covered maintenance related costs and Burns & Mc-Donnell paid for sustainability initiatives.40

Figure 15. Burns & McDonnell world headquarters,

Kansas City, MO.

Source: Burns & McDonnell.

.

Strategies

Burns & McDonnell installed low-flow fixtures, such as 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) toilets, 0.25 gpf urinals, and 0.5 gallon per minute (gpm) fau-cets. They also installed a new boiler system that circulates hot water around the building. The building manages stormwater onsite through bioswales and green roofs.

Impact

Burns & McDonnell spent $101,500 for its fixture improvements, for an estimated payback period of 13.5 years. The building’s total water use has been reduced by more than 50%, and now 40% of stormwater is captured and treated onsite.

40 http://www.hpbmagazine.org/images/stories/articles/Fall-2009-Burns-McDonnell.pdf

2.3 complete intervention

Burns & McDonnell

http://www.hpbmagazine.org/images/stories/articles/Fall-2009-Burns-McDonnell.pdf



The Hurt Building is a 17-story office building in Atlanta, GA that encom-passes 522,502 square feet. Over the course of almost 100 years it has incorporated various energy saving and water efficiency retrofits.

Figure 16. Hurt Building, Atlanta, GA.

Source: Hurt Building.

Strategies

In its original installation, the building was equipped with 4.5 gallons per flush (gpf) toilets and 1.6 gpf urinals. Forty percent of toilets were re-placed with 1.6 gpf models and the remaining 60% were retrofitted with 3.5 gpf flush kits. All urinals were replaced with 1.0 gpf models. Restroom sinks that were equipped with 1.5 gallons per minute (gpm) faucets were retrofitted with 0.5 gpm units. The building now has a rainwater harvest-ing system that provides irrigation for interior plants as well as a system for capturing condensate for reuse in the cooling tower.

Impact

Indoor water use was reduced 27% in 2008 for an annual savings of 1.3 million gallons and an annual savings of $29,000. The payback period on the fixture improvements was less than six months. The building was granted LEED-EB Gold certification in 2009.41

41 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ashrae/hpb_2010spring/index.php?startid=Cover1#/50

Hurt Building

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ashrae/hpb_2010spring/index.php?startid=Cover1#



The Environmental Science Center is a 160,000 square foot facility that houses the EPA Office of Analytical Services and Quality Assurance in Fort Meade, MD.

Figure 17. EPA Environmental Science Center, Fort Meade, MD.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Strategies

By 2002, the building already had water efficient plumbing fixtures in-stalled, including 18 dual flush toilets (1.6 gallons per flush [gpf] for solid wastes and 1.1 gpf for liquid wastes), 12 1.0 gpf urinals, 18 0.5 gallons per minute (gpm) faucets, and 6 2.5 gpm showerheads. The EPA also had also already utilized xeriscaping techniques, planting only native, drought resistant landscape and minimizing or eliminating water-dependent turf-grass.

Following these improvements, a water audit was performed. The EPA sought further water efficiency at the building through cooling tower op-timization in 2003. As a water efficiency strategy, the EPA reduced the amount of water lost to blowdown by increasing the number of cycles before discharge from seven to eight or nine depending on the season. The EPA also instituted weekly monitoring of tower water use. Four con-densate collectors were installed in 2009 to provide reuse water. 42

Impact

Reducing the blowdown saved about 530,000 gallons of water and about $1,800 annually. The building’s cooling tower used 17% less water in 2009 than it did in 2002. The condensate collectors collect about 110,000 gallons per year.

42 http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/water/techniques.htm

EPA Environmental Science Center

http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/water/techniques.htm



Facilities engaging in comprehensive intervention integrated various wa-ter efficiency measures, deploying landscaping and indoor measures to maximal effect.

The 60L Green Building in Melbourne, Australia is home to the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF). The Green Building Partnership trans-formed ACF’s brick warehouse home into a sustainable building, which opened in 2002 at a capital cost of $8 million. The building has 3,375 square meters (about 36,330 square feet) of available space.

Figure 18. 60L Green Building, Melbourne, Australia.

Source: Australian Conservation Foundation.

Strategies

The site design includes water efficient fixtures such as waterless urinals, 1.32 gallons per minute (gpm) showerheads, and 0.79-gallons dual flush toilets. The site harvests rainwater, which is filtered to provide almost 100% of the building’s water requirements. Melbourne receives ample rainfall that allows the building to collect up to 132,000 gallons of rain-water annually. Greywater and blackwater are treated onsite for reuse in flushing toilets and for irrigation of the roof garden. Only the emergency sprinkler system is connected only to the main water supply line to meet fire codes.

Impact

The building uses 90% less water and 70% less energy than a typical office building of the same size and location. The owners claim that the building is almost water-neutral. The building has received several awards, includ-ing the Victorian Premier’s Sustainability Award 2003 and the Banksias Award 2003.

2.4 comprehensive intervention

60L Office Building



The Omega Center operates a building for its environmental education operations in Rhinebeck, Ny. It was built new in 2006 at a price of $1.6 million. The single-story building covers 6,250 square feet and sits on 4.5 acres of land. It takes an integrated, proactive approach to water manage-ment.

Figure 19. Omega Center, Rhinebeck, Ny.

Source: Omega Center.

Overview

The building harvests rainwater with an 1,800 gallon cistern. Fixtures on site are low-flow. All toilets are dual flush which average about 1.3 gal-lons per flush (gpf). The sole urinal is waterless. The property harvests rainwater and supports swales for stormwater management. The site is xeriscaped using indigenous plants. The building treats and purifies all wastewater on site through a 7-step process known as the Eco Machine.

Impact

With the water efficiency improvements, 100% of stormwater and waste water are processed on site. Payback has not been determined for the $1.6 million facility, but it is considered to have net-zero water use. The center has been named a Living Building and has earned LEED NC Plati-num certification.

Omega Center


section 3: srer member-client case studiesSR Inc has surveyed SRER Member-Client companies in order to provide insights as to why and how leading executives are deploying water effi-ciency strategies. The analysis includes the specific motivation behind the adoption of water efficiency strategies as well as the execution process from design and stakeholder engagement through implementation to evaluation. SRER Member-Clients have shared what they consider to be the greatest benefits and challenges as well as best practices associated with the deployment of these practices. Impacts of the program, includ-ing cost savings, are also provided.

3.1 Brandywine realty trust

Brandywine comprehensively investigated its building operations and the potential for incorporating greater sustainability in its portfolio. Seventy five percent of Brandywine’s inventory is located in the northeastern Unit-ed States, where water rates have been dramatically increasing. Following these investigations, Brandywine prioritized water efficiency as an impor-tant sustainability consideration.

Motivation

SECTION 3: SRER MEMBER-CLIENT CASE STUDIES


To establish a water baseline, Brandywine surveyed regional managers regarding water usage. Brandywine estimates that its total water use like-ly exceeds 350 million gallons annually. Brandywine has set a reduction goal of 10% (about 35 million gallons annually) by 2012. As properties reach the 10% reduction goal, the company will consider the feasibility of long-term reduction targets. Brandywine uses an online data repository to monitor, review, and pay all utility bills. By 2012, Brandywine intends to store water data for all properties in the database. Property manag-ers have recently also begun to report water use in EPA’s ENERGy STAR Portfolio Manager.

To meet the 2012 target, Brandywine is focusing primarily on fixture im-provements, cooling tower optimization, and water-efficient irrigation strategies that have payback periods of one to two years. Regional man-agers are granted discretion on which strategies to implement.

Metering and Sub-metering

Brandywine plans to install irrigation meters and separate meters for cool-ing tower makeup and blowdown in unmetered properties. Brandywine estimates it will need 97 new meters to complete this initiative during summer 2011. Weekly monitoring of meters identifies irregularities such as a sudden spike in water use, which can indicate a leak. Brandywine determines domestic usage by subtracting irrigation and cooling tower submeter readings from primary meter values; this difference is the do-mestic water use of the property.

Fixture Improvements

Brandywine prioritized installation of plumbing fixtures that meet the 2006 standards of the International Plumbing Codes (IPC). By summer

Profile Brandywine Realty Trust is among the largest publicly-traded integrated real estate companies in the United States. Brandywine is headquartered in Radnor, PA, and controls a $6 billion market capitalization. The compa-ny manages 25 million square feet of commercial office space in over 200 properties, primarily Class-A suburban and urban office facilities, across Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Texas, Virginia, California and the District of Columbia. Brandywine spends $3.5 million annually on water utility bills.

Data, Tracking, Benchmarking

Strategies



2011 Brandywine expects to install faucet aerators that have a flow rate of 0.5 gallons per minute (gpm) or lower in all of its properties and upgrade diaphragms in all 3.5 gallons per flush (gpf) flush toilets or 1.5 gpf urinals. By the end of 2012, Brandywine plans to have all fixtures meet or change to ‘or exceed the following IPC baseline:

• Toilets – 1.6 gpf • Urinals – 1.0 gpf • Faucets – 0.5 gpm • Showerheads – 2.5 gpm

Cooling Tower Optimization

Cooling towers account for the largest fraction of water use in many of Brandywine buildings. Property managers monitor cooling tower makeup and blowdown to ensure efficient operation. Some properties are consid-ering reuse of cooling tower water for irrigation or using recycled water for the cooling tower itself. By the end of 2012, Brandywine will have de-veloped a plan to guide replacement of older cooling towers with more efficient closed-loop cooling towers during major renovations or new con-struction.

Landscaping

Seventy four Brandywine properties reported that they have already insti-tuted some form of water-efficient landscaping. Common parallel strate-gies include minimizing turfgrass and only planting endemic florae. Inte-grating these two strategies reduces irrigation requirements dramatically, as native plants are adapted to regional rainfall patterns. Brandywine has retained third-party consultants to develop responsible landscaping pro-grams based on LEED requirements. These programs include:

• Cutting grass higher to ensure greater water retention and improve drought tolerance

• Mulching to minimize water loss due to evaporation

• Using drip irrigation to deliver small amounts of water near plant roots

By summer 2011, Brandywine will have installed rain sensors at all proper-ties. Rain sensors monitor precipitation and only allow scheduled water-ing when rainfall is neither present nor imminent.

Brandywine is building an internal database of water efficiency informa-tion to assist decision-making. Once savings are achieved from initial wa-

Planned Initiatives



ter efficiency improvements, Brandywine staff will provide building-spe-cific promotional materials for tenants to demonstrate the savings from the low-cost site improvements. According to Regional Property Manager Sean Byars, “There are a lot of low-cost things we can do quickly that are understandable and do not require an engineer to design. Our focus is there.”

Due to the relatively low cost of water on the East Coast, water efficiency improvements are less common than energy-efficiency improvements. Sean Byars explains that Brandywine spends about $57 million annu-ally on electricity compared to only $3.5 million for water: “With water, the paybacks and returns aren’t quite as great. We all know it’s the right thing to do for the environment, but linking that with cost isn’t quite as easy.” Brandywine executives are concerned about tenant reaction to new plumbing fixtures, but believe this can be mitigated through tenant education regarding water savings.

Brandywine estimates each meter installation costs between $300 and $700. Initially, Brandywine is focused on improvements that have payback periods of less than a year. “The paybacks are pretty good, particularly in regards to bathroom fixtures,” said Executive Vice President Brad Molot-sky.

Brandywine executives calculated the payback for fixture improvements using the IPC baseline for water efficiency. Brandywine based calculations on the estimated water usage from IPC-standard fixtures and subtracted from the estimated water use for existing fixture. The savings in gallons are multiplied by the estimated cost of water ($6.73 per hundred cubic feet [748 gallons]) to approximate annual savings which is used to es-timate payback. Table 7 contains examples of the analysis Brandywine executives use to calculate payback periods.

existing fixture Water Efficient Fixture annual savingscost Per aerator

Payback Period (years)

flow rate (gpm)

usage Per year (gallons)

flow rate (gpm)

usage Per year (gallons)

gallons savings

2.2 8,765 .5 1,992 6,773 $60.95 $8 .1

2 7,968 .5 1,992 5,976 $43.02 $8 .2

1.5 5,976 .5 1,992 3,984 $25.09 $8 .3

1 3,984 .5 1,992 1,992 $17.93 $8 .5

Challenges and Benefits

Costs and Savings

Table 7. Payback for faucet aerator replacement.

Source: Brandywine Realty Trust.



• Brandywine conducted intensive research to select optimal strate-gies based on the desired payback timeframe.

• Brandywine uses some properties as pilots for more ambitious strat-egies such as green roofing. If strategies in pilot properties produce strong returns, the company considers expanding the use of green roofs to more of its portfolio.

• Brandywine officials perform technical retrofits, such as closed-loop cooling tower installation, during extensive renovations or new construction to minimize costs.

3.2 aaa northern california, nevada and utah insurance exchange

AAA Northern California, Nevada and Utah Insurance Exchange (AAA NCNU) is dedicated to achieving greater sustainability in its real estate portfolio. The company’s Northern California headquarters is LEED-NC Gold certified and its leased Oklahoma City Operation Center is LEED-NC Silver certified. Dale Skoda, AAA NCNU Manager of Facilities, ex-plains that water efficiency was a logical continuation of sustainability ef-forts: “We have an enterprise commitment to sustainability, starting with the leadership team and organization in general.”

AAA NCNU has contracted the National Utility Services (NUS) to collect and monitor its utility bills. NUS compiles bills in an online database for analysis and auditing, and reports anomalies to AAA NCNU. Using the NUS data, AAA NCNU can examine water usage trends through an online database at a building or portfolio level. Figure 20 demonstrates one type of comparison enabled by the NUS interface.

Best Practices

Motivation

Data, Tracking, and Benchmarking

Profile SRER Charter Member-Client AAA Northern California, Nevada and Utah Insurance Exchange (AAA NCNU Insurance Exchange) is part of the 12-million-member AAA Club Partners (ACP). The AAA NCNU Insurance Exchange has 140 offices in Northern California, Nevada, and Utah and the surrounding areas.



Figure 20. AAA NCNU Portfolio Water Use, 2009-2011.

Source: AAA NCNU.

AAA NCNU provides NUS with facility area, which allows the company to normalize for size and compare properties by water usage per square foot as shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21. AAA NCNU Building Water Efficiency

Graph provided by AAA NCNU. Data compiled by National Utility

Services (gal/SF).

Source: AAA NCNU.

AAA NCNU has focused on reducing water consumption in existing build-ings via point-based projects that have paybacks of less than two years. The company uses integrated strategies in new construction. AAA NCNU markets successful projects internally to employees via AAA NCNU’s in-tranet system. Low-flow fixtures are already present in many of AAA NC-NU’s buildings; the company has not yet prioritized the replacement of fixtures across the portfolio.

Landscape Improvements

Sites requiring significant irrigation already have sensors that receive weather forecasts and deactivate sprinkler units when rain is expected

Strategies



in the following 24 hours. Replacing water-intensive landscaping with drought-resistant and native plants has been a main strategy for improv-ing water efficiency in the portfolio. The Las Vegas, NV and Glendale, AZ offices have realized the most significant savings from landscaping strate-gies.

At AAA NCNU’s Las Vegas office, landscapers replaced turfgrass with na-tive plants. A local water district rebate paid for half the $24,000 cost. AAA NCNU estimates the simple payback from this procedure at one year.

Upgrading the Glendale facility, pictured in Figure 22, cost $165,000. Al-though AAA NCNU did not receive a rebate, landscape improvements alone saved about $5000 during each summer month. Maintenance costs have been reduced year-round, contributing to an expected payback timeframe of 4-5 years.

Figure 22. Landscaping at AAA NCNU’s Glendale office before and

after xeriscaping.

Source: AAA NCNU.

AAA NCNU’s leadership team supported the landscaping project. “It’s a no-brainer. The payback on it is good. We save on landscaping costs, and we save on water,” Dale Skoda explained. Figure 23 details cost savings over the year following installation.

Figure 23. Two-year comparison of AAA NCNU facility water consumption, Glendale, AZ.

Source: AAA NCNU.

.



Leak Repair

Richard Pine, Manager of Facility Operations in AAA NCNU, cites NUS as a barrier against leaks and inefficiencies: “Their challenge is to make us aware of any metrics that have gone up.” The Concord office noted a 10-fold increase in water costs in one month, indicating a leak. After work crews repaired an irrigation valve leak, water usage remained higher than average, suggesting a second leak. With the help of outside contractors, AAA NCNU located and fixed a second leak in underground pipes.

New Construction (Station Landing)

AAA NCNU followed several water efficiency best-practices in the con-struction of its new headquarters in Station Landing, CA. The $62-mil-lion six-story 255,000-square foot building was awarded LEED-NC Gold certification in 2010. Water-efficient installations include low-flow fixtures in sinks, toilets, urinals, and showers. Faucets are hands-free, electronic models that use 20% less water than comparable manual faucets. Toilets are dual-flush, using about 67% less water on average than 3.5-gpf coun-terparts. Urinals are 0.125-gpf models. Signage requests that restroom users conserve water.

Figure 24. AAA NCNU headquarters in

Station Landing, CA.

Source: AAA NCNU.

.

Landscaping is comprised solely of native plants and tall grass. Grounds managers water the garden using smart irrigation sensors. Watering only occurs at night or in the morning to minimize evaporation. Zoning laws for Contra Costa County required the property to incorporate three bi-oswales for stormwater management, which contribute to stormwater management credits for LEED certification.

The Station Landing building is designed to use 42% less water than a comparable building, saving 780,000 gallons annually. Despite the pres-ence of a cafeteria and showers, the Station Landing facility uses only



about 3,500 gallons daily (5.01 gal per square foot per year). The new facility is significantly more efficient than the company’s previous head-quarters, using approximately 71% less water per square foot. The for-mer structure, a 420,000-square foot San Francisco high rise, used about 17,000 gallons of water daily (14.77 gal per square foot per year). “I per-sonally feel like we’re doing a great job here. Everything has been work-ing out,” Richard Pine said. The building advertises its sustainable attrib-utes and LEED status through a kiosk in its lobby. A green team manages an intranet site for employees.

AAA NCNU intends to use NUS water data for 2009 as a baseline for future improvements. However, the company has not yet created bench-marks for water reduction, which Dale Skoda said has been one of the main challenges. Instead, AAA NCNU has treated water efficiency up-grades as part of a 3-year plan like other capital projects because the return on investment for intensive water efficiency improvements is not always clear. Ambitious water efficiency strategies do not always yield quick paybacks like energy efficiency, even in dry areas of the southwest. AAA NCNU spends about ten times more on energy than water.

Except several large projects such as the xeriscaping initiative in Glen-dale, AZ, AAA NCNU undertakes projects that have a simple payback of two years or less. AAA NCNU is also planning to replace two old cooling towers at the Glendale office, though early analysis does not yet allow precise estimation of specific strategies’ costs and savings.

• AAA NCNU took advantage of local water rebates to achieve the shortest payback period possible.

• Third-party contractor NUS monitors sudden increases in water use in the short-term and allows AAA NCNU to track usage patterns in the long run.

• AAA NCNU incorporated both water- and general-efficiency up-grades during new construction and necessary renovation.


Costs and savings

Best Practices



3.3 the national institutes of Health

NIH has been implementing water efficiency improvements at its cam-puses for more than 10 years. Greg Leifer, Supervisor of NIH’s Energy Management Team, explains, “It’s part of our sustainable strategy, part of our compliance goals, and part of our responsibility as stewards of the environment.” Water efficiency improvements are guided by federal regulation. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires agencies to reduce water consumption through efficiency methods that have paybacks of less than 10 years43. The 1999 Executive Order 13123 required agencies to install low-flow fixtures and implement water-management plans for 80% of buildings by 2010.

Another motivation is the increasing cost of water at the Bethesda cam-pus. According to Greg Leifer, “There is another rate increase proposed even right now. It seems to be going up an average of once a year almost. If I’m not mistaken, it’s one of the higher water costs in the United States.” Currently, water rates in Bethesda are $12.73 per thousand gallons.

NIH tracks campus water use with building meters, typically reserving sub-meters to monitor cooling towers. “Sub-metering to us is already at the building level since we are a campus and we only have one major water bill,” observes Greg Leifer. NIH’s water consumption targets come from 2007 Executive Order 13423, which requires Federal agencies to reduce water consumption (gallons per square foot) by 16% by the end of fiscal year 2015. This is a 2% per year reduction from 2008 through 2015 with a long-term reduction goal of 26% compared to a 2007 baseline.44

43 http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/water/archives/prev_req.htm44 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/financing/m/uescs_diversityportfolio.html

Motivation

Data Tracking and Benchmarking

Profile SRER Member-Client National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the U.S. govern-ment agency responsible for health research. Since 2005, NIH has oper-ated an Environmental Management System (EMS) covering its Bethesda, Poolesville, and Rockville campuses in Maryland. The Bethesda campus, NIH headquarters, has 50 buildings that cover 10 million square feet of the 325-acre campus. Many buildings are water-intensive medical labora-tories. The Bethesda campus used more than 1 billion gallons of water in 2010.

http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/water/archives/prev_req.htm

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/financing/m/uescs_diversityportfolio.html



Landscaping

In the 1990s, NIH planted drought-resistant species that require no irri-gation other than rainfall. Consequently, NIH does not irrigate any of its campuses.

Plumbing Fixture Improvements

By 2008, NIH had retrofitted fixtures in existing buildings in compliance with the 1999 Executive Order. All new buildings meet the following standards in NIH’s Guidelines:45

• Toilets – between 1.0 - 1.3 gpf

• Urinals – between 0.5 - 0.8 gpf

• Restroom sinks – hands-free at 0.4 - 0.5 gpm

• Laboratory sinks – 2.0 gpm

• Surgical prep sinks – 2.5 gpm

• Showers – 2.0 gpm

Stormwater Diversion

The Bethesda campus manages stormwater using stream and ponds. The campus also installed the first greenroof in Montgomery County above the Gateway Center in 2008 (see Figure 25). The green roof captures 55% of the runoff from the building and facilitates compliance with zoning regulation for stormwater management.46

Figure 25. Gateway Center Green Roof. Bethesda, MD.

Source: National Institutes of Health.

45 http://orf.od.nih.gov/PoliciesAndGuidelines/BiomedicalandAnimalResearchFacilitiesDesignPoliciesandGuide-lines/DRMHTMLver/Chapter8/Section8-2PlumbingFixtures.htm

46 http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2007/08_10_2007/story1.htm

Strategies

http://orf.od.nih.gov/PoliciesAndGuidelines/BiomedicalandAnimalResearchFacilitiesDesignPoliciesandGuidelines/DRMHTMLver/Chapter8/Section8-2PlumbingFixtures.htm

http://orf.od.nih.gov/PoliciesAndGuidelines/BiomedicalandAnimalResearchFacilitiesDesignPoliciesandGuidelines/DRMHTMLver/Chapter8/Section8-2PlumbingFixtures.htm

http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2007/08_10_2007/story1.htm



Wastewater Recycling

At the Poolesville campus, NIH recycles greywater using an onsite treat-ment plant. This saves between 25,000 and 60,000 gallons daily, and re-duces onsite water use by up to 50%.

Leak Detection

NIH conducts an ultrasonic leak detection survey for every campus on a three-year schedule. Surveys were completed in March 2011 for the Bethesda and Poolesville campuses. Although there were no major leaks at the Bethesda campus, repairing one significant leak at the Poolesville facility reduced losses by 15,000 gallons a day.

Billing Analysis

Monthly water bills are entered into an archival system. NIH intends to hire more staff to analyze usage and monitor data for irregularities. NIH also compiles data on its water and energy usage for an annual report to the Department of Energy.

Federally mandated reductions are based on a 2007 baseline, established after NIH had stopped irrigating properties and following water-efficient fixture installation. Greg Leifer acknowledged that NIH had achieved the least-costly efficiency gains before the 2007 baseline: “Now it’s going to be a struggle to get further gains on top of what we’ve already done.“

NIH utilizes Energy Savings Performance Contracts and Utility Energy Savings Contracts to determine and implement water efficiency strate-gies. With these contracts, NIH receives water audits, analyzed results, and proposals for efficiency measures. If proposals are accepted, the con-tractors also implement the improvements and report the savings. These contracts have been used in 25 buildings with a combined energy and water savings of about $5 million annually.

The water bill for the Bethesda campus was $6.8 million in 2008, and $8.6 million in both 2009 and 2010. NIH’s long history of water efficiency improvements makes it difficult to determine total expenditures on the efficiency projects. On average, NIH’s payback period for individual pro-jects has been five years.


Contracting Process

Costs and Savings



• NIH diverted stormwater into streams and ponds that would other-wise have contributed to runoff and soil erosion.

• NIH conducted periodic leak detection to monitor ongoing perfor-mance; this strategy can be optimized further by the installation of smart submeters that report in real time.

• NIH adopted an external contracting process that incentivizes outside agents to proactively develop new solutions.

Best Practices


section 4: sustainable value creation

• Leading companies are increasingly integrating water efficiency into their portfolio-wide sustainability strategies.

• Executives have recognized that integrating improvements in both physical structure and occupant behavior is key to maximizing water efficiency strategy results.

• Executives follow a stepwise process consisting of three major phases – Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation – to improve portfolio water efficiency.

• Leading executives adapt portfolio-wide strategies to regional climate, and building and site characteristics.

• Executives ensure continuous improvement by rigorous evaluation of all water efficiency strategies and benchmarking by ongoing water use and costs.

In this section, SR Inc synthesizes recommendations for successful water efficiency strategy deployment based on the primary and secondary case studies (in Sections 2 and 3 above) as well as conversations with water ef-ficiency experts.

Corporate tenants, owners, and investor-advisors all benefit from greater water efficiency in their properties. Corporate tenants reduce their wa-ter bills and increase revenues. Owners and investor-advisors realize in-creased property values and reduced operating costs. Thus, water effi-ciency efforts are frequently spearheaded by a coalition of stakeholders with interests in greater real estate sustainability.

Key takeaways

SECTION 4: SUSTAINABLE VALUE CREATION


Leading companies create value portfolio-wide through the effective im-plementation of water efficiency strategies. To create such value, execu-tives adopt: (1) a focus on water as part of the overall portfolio-wide sus-tainability strategy, (2) relevant water efficiency strategies, and (3) water efficiency company-wide to maximize benefits.

Executives incorporate water efficiency into their companies’ portfolio-wide sustainability strategy rather than adopting it as a discrete program. They have clearly identified the role water efficiency and the concomitant reduced energy consumption play in greater sustainability – environmen-tally, financially, and socially. Executives use this framework to more ef-fectively reduce costs, mitigate risks, and create opportunities. From the corporate perspective, executives improve water efficiency in order to:

• Reduce water and energy costs.

• Mitigate market and regulatory risks.

• Increase their ability to obtain green building certification.

• Increase their ability to address shareholder and customer concerns.

• Enhance their reputation and industry leadership.

Implementing portfolio-wide water efficiency requires executive sup-port in coordinating strategies. With this support, the real estate team is responsible for conducting or outsourcing a thorough water audit and mapping all facility water footprint and usage patterns. Once a complete profile of portfolio water use has been developed and relevant KPIs and metrics defined, executives can develop strategies and begin planning pilot programs, integration into existing systems, and portfolio-wide ex-pansion.

For continued success and complete implementation, executives clear-ly define and document relevant KPIs and metrics, data gathering, and assessment methodology for historical and current water use and water costs in each property. Establishing a baseline from present water con-sumption allows for benchmarking to continue improving efficiency on a portfolio basis.

Executives collect and communicate results and best practices internally and externally. Reporting methods and results establishes the company as an industry leader in water efficiency, underscoring the executive and corporate commitment to sustainable value for the company and the in-dustry as a whole.

4.1 Water Efficiency as Part of a sustainability

strategy

4.2 Portfolio-wide Water Efficiency



Companies adopt water efficiency strategies to varying degree, in ac-cordance with corporate requirements, regional context, and facility char-acteristics. This section discusses factors used to choose among water strategies and then proposes a framework for water efficiency strategies categorized by type of intervention.

Leading companies prioritize the costs and benefits of implementing a wide range of water strategies. While factors such as adherence to corpo-rate vision and scale of impacts may influence the selection processs, the two essential criteria for each potential solution, evaluated at the level of individual properties, are fitness for climate zone and landscaping.

Company

Companies adopt strategies in line with corporate vision and high-level directives. Strategies support brand development and help establish the company as an industry leader. Market research helps determine which strategies best align with the company’s ideal brand image and how to publicize strategies as they are implemented. Companies also ensure that water strategy execution fits the company’s fiscal and public timetable.

Region

Properties in relatively warm regions rely more heavily on temperature conditioning systems and consume more water in cooling towers. Com-panies with significant portfolios in these regions focus on deploying water-conservation methods that specifically target cooling equipment. Upgrading HVAC systems, for example, provides opportunities to reduce both energy and water consumption.

Facilities in drier areas often use more water for irrigation when non-native plants are included in landscaping. Companies in drier regions therefore are increasingly adopting xeriscaping practices that include using only na-tive and adaptive plants accustomed to local precipitation patterns and structuring landscaping to capture and retain both rainfall and irrigation.

Conversely, facilities in humid areas have enhanced opportunities for strategies making use of freely-available water. Companies with facilities in these regions optimize by implementing strategies such as condensate recovery and rainwater reuse. In the most humid regions, companies set ambitious goals to rely as much as possible on these sources of water.

4.3 strategies and strategic

constraints



Temperature and humidity exert complex effects on water tables and wa-tersheds. Accordingly, companies take these two factors into account at a regional or site level when measuring a corporate water footprint, which is used in turn to prioritize individual site strategies.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning En-gineers (ASHRAE), recommends using climate regions to gauge water-conservation strategies based on temperature and rainfall. ASHRAE cli-mate zones are numbered to indicate temperature, and some are suffixed by letters (A, B, C) to differentiate zones with the same temperature and divergent precipitation patterns. Figure 26 depicts the ASHRAE climate zones in the United States, as broken down by temperature.

Figure 26. U.S. Climate Zones and ASHRAE Climate Zone numerical

correspondence.

1 – Very hot

2 – Hot

3 – Warm

4 – Mixed

5 – Cool

6 – Cold

7 – Very cold

8 – Subarctic

Source: SR Inc research and http://energymodeling.

pbworks.com/f/1226455344/ASHRAE%20zone%20map.png

1

22

2 33

4

4

55

66

7

Marine (C)Dry (B) Moist (A)

Warm-Humid Below White Line

Zone 1 includes Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin IslandsAll of Alaska is in Zone 7 except for the following boroughs which are in Zone 8: Bethel, Dellingham, Fairbanks N. Star, Nome, North Slope, Northwest Arctic, Southest Fairbanks, Wade Hampton, Yukon-Koyukuk

Site

In landscaped properties, executives observe a range of savings oppor-tunities related to managing outdoor consumption. It is often observed that water consumption in gardens holding non-native plants outpaces regional precipitation; terraces with uneven ground promote run-off; and antiquated irrigation systems waste water through leaks or excessive evaporation. Landscaped properties also usually cover more area, allow-ing for more ambitious rainwater recycling systems.

http://energymodeling.pbworks.com/f/1226455344/ASHRAE%20zone%20map.png





As determined by the factors described above, companies adopt relevant water efficiency strategies to reduce water use, recycle and repurpose non-potable water, and redirect stormwater for either water table assimi-lation or on-site use. Although all strategies ultimately aim to reduce over-all consumption, they vary by complexity of systems affected and by rela-tionship to property infrastructure and exterior setting. Table 8 illustrates some common strategies. These and other strategies are detailed below.

Efficiency Strategy description

Water Use Reduction

Low Flow Fixtures Install low flow (or waterless) fixtures

Cooling Tower Meter CT water use; implement preventative maintenance program; install zero-blowdown technology, or ensure correct chemicals are used; install closed-loop CT

Landscape Implement xeriscaping (native, adaptive & drought-tolerant species), substitute grass for turf, drip irrigation, irrigation timing and non-potable water use (municipal re-use water)

Leak Repair Find and repair leaks in distribution systems and equipment

Water Recycling

Onsite Wastewater Recycling

Treat and reuse condensate and wastewater on site instead of discharging to sewer

Water Diversion

Rainwater Harvesting Collect rooftop rainwater for re-use instead of discharging to sewer

Stormwater Management

Hold stormwater on site for infiltration into the aquifer instead of discharging to sewer

Water Use Reduction

Strategies that directly reduce water consumption frequently focus on up-grading equipment to more efficient models or developing campaigns to influence occupant behavior.

Low Flow Fixtures

Companies monitor and upgrade the efficiency of fixtures in bathrooms, kitchens, and elsewhere. Most appliances such as showerheads and toi-lets are evaluated in terms of flow, measured in gallons per minute (gpm). Toilets are evaluated per use, or gallons per flush (gpf). Older toilets can use as much as 3.5 gpf,47 and older kitchen and bathroom faucets can use 4 to 7 gpm.48 Through improved design, most of the currently available low-flow fixtures overcome the performance problems of earlier genera-tions of such fixtures.

47 http://www.waterwise.org.uk/reducing_water_wastage_in_the_uk/house_and_garden/toilet_flushing.html48 http://www.fypower.org/res/tools/products_results.html?id=100160

Types of Strategies

Table 8. Efficiency strategies.


http://www.waterwise.org.uk/reducing_water_wastage_in_the_uk/house_and_garden/toilet_flushing.html

http://www.fypower.org/res/tools/products_results.html?id=100160



Low-flow models frequently carry product labels such as EPA WaterSense, Waterwise (UK), and WELS Scheme (Australia and New Zealand). Wa-terSense sinks must have flow rates below 1.5 gpm at 60 psi. WaterSense toilets must have flush volumes below 1.28 gpf for single-flush toilets or, for dual-flush toilets, average below 1.28 gpf for two reduced flushes and one full flush.49

WELS Scheme provides a graded standard for labeling purposes, running from zero to six stars as “a quick comparative assessment” and also pro-viding a figure showing “water consumption flow...based on laboratory tests.” Toilets must have flow rates less than 5.5 litres per average flush volume. According to WELS, “a standard showerhead uses about 15 to 25 litres of water per minute - a three star rated water efficient shower-head uses as little as 6 or 7 litres per minute.”50

Niche vendors offer products that exceed most water standards. Toilets such as those offered by Niagara Conservation use as little as 0.8 gallons per flush. Niagara aerators typically have ratings of 0.5-1.5 gpm for fau-cets.51 Leading companies seek out regional specialty fixture vendors as well as larger general-appliance suppliers. Companies also install aerators on faucets. Aerators typically reduce faucet flow by 30-50%,52 and can reduce flow by 70% in some cases.53

Cooling Towers

Cooling towers (CTs) are responsible for 30% of water use in a typical office building. Cooling towers evaporate water to create cooling, and particulates and dissolved matter accumulate in the residual water, called ‘blowdown’. This blowdown water is released to lower the overall concen-tration of dissolved solids. Blowdown reduction through retrofit technolo-gies typically presents the most significant opportunity to improve overall CT water efficiency.54

Following blowdown reduction, leading companies optimize cooling tow-er performance further by improving water pump and cooling fan efficien-cy. Inefficient pumps or cooling fans draw in more water than should be necessary to maintain the same temperature or volume in the tower. More

49 WaterSense.50 http://www.waterrating.gov.au/about/index.html51 http://www.niagaraconservation.com/water_conservation/products/toilets/detail?object=5275&gclid=CJfq9rf

m6KoCFQmD5QodFS5xPg52 http://practicallygreen.com/install-one-low-flow-faucet53 http://www.waterrating.gov.au/products/index.html#showers54 http://www.ascent-corp.com/services/greensolutions.asp

http://www.waterrating.gov.au/about/index.html

http://www.niagaraconservation.com/water_conservation/products/toilets/detail?object=5275&gclid=CJfq9rfm6KoCFQmD5QodFS5xPg

http://www.niagaraconservation.com/water_conservation/products/toilets/detail?object=5275&gclid=CJfq9rfm6KoCFQmD5QodFS5xPg

http://practicallygreen.com/install

http://www.waterrating.gov.au/products/index.html

http://www.ascent-corp.com/services/greensolutions.asp



complex systems can be audited to lead to further improvements. While such audits may not be fully justified by incremental water efficiency gains, they frequently identify measures that reduce energy consumption.55

Commercial Kitchens

Kitchens account for 13% of water use in buildings that have cafeterias. Companies reduce water use by eliminating once-through cooling, tak-ing advantage of technologies that redirect high-quality or temperature-controlled water to additional sources. Companies also improve fixtures by reducing flow on rinse sprayers. Implementing behavior-modification strategies that encourage tenants to only run dishwashers when full and minimizing garbage disposal use are essential to long-term success in re-ducing water use. While there is presently no standard for water-efficient commercial kitchen appliances, LEED for Schools requires that water use be less than maximum levels in at least four of the categories included in the Table 9 below.

equipment type maximum Water usage other requirements

Commercial Clothes Washer* 7.5 gallons/CF/cycle

Commercial Dishwashers** 1.0 gallons/rack

Commercial Ice Machine***Lbs/day>175 = 20 gallons/100 lbs

Lbs/day<175 = 30 gallons/100 lbsNo water-cooled machines

Food Steamers 2 gallons/hour Boilerless steamers only

Pre-Rinse Spray Valves 1.4 gallons/minute

* Commercial CEE Tier 3a – Residential CEE (Consortium for Energy Efficiency) Tier 1** Hobart Warewashers that exceed the maximum water usage: Lxi undercounter, CLe

conveyor-type, and AM Select door-type *** CEETier 3

Notably, kitchens realize particularly significant energy-efficiency benefits from improving efficiency and circulation of water consumption. Strate-gies targeting heat recovery from processes for reuse and temperature-controlled water recycling can simultaneously reduce water and energy consumption.

55 http://realtimeservice.net/en/desarrollos/cooling_water_optimization.pdf

Table 9. LEED commercial kitchen standards.

Source: http://www.hobartcorp.com/sustainabledesign/doc/

LEED_Flyer_schools.pdf

http://realtimeservice.net/en/desarrollos/cooling_water_optimization.pdf

http://www.hobartcorp.com/sustainabledesign/doc/LEED_Flyer_schools.pdf





Landscaping

Although landscaped properties have historically required significant ir-rigation, leading companies are increasingly turning to xeriscaping tech-niques to mitigate irrigation needs in excess of that provided by rainfall. xeriscaping practices rely on plants endemic to the area and adapted to local temperature, humidity, and precipitation patterns. The seven princi-ples of xeriscaping are:56

• Planning and design

• Efficient irrigation systems, properly designed and maintained

• Use of mulch

• Soil preparation

• Appropriate turf

• Water-efficient plant material

• Appropriate maintenance

Smart irrigation practices can reduce water consumption without exten-sively redesigning or replanting gardens. Companies irrigate only when cool to minimize evaporation, shifting irrigation schedules from midday to morning, and installing weather sensors to deactivate sprinklers prior to rainfall events.57 Using drip rather than spray or sprinkle irrigation systems also reduces water use by 20-50%, because these only water in small amounts near plant roots.58

Leak Repair

Because leaks are typically responsible for significant proportions of water use, companies are devoting increasing attention to detecting, locating, and fixing leaks. Proactive leak repair programs forestall water waste and companion problems such as dampness, mold, and structural defects, as well as concomitant health-related issues.

Leak detection programs are categorized as active, where companies routinely probe facilities for leaks; passive, where companies deploy submeters and reporting devices to detect anomalous consumption pat-terns as they arise; and responsive, where companies notice pressure or consumption irregularities in water systems or bills and then seek leak points. For active detection, companies most frequently use acoustic or ultrasonic devices to detect leaks in pipeline networks, monitoring sonic or supersonic signal matches to determine system consistency. Passive

56 http://www.xeriscapenm.com/principles.html57 http://www.irrigationtutorials.com/faq/save-water.htm58 http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/business-booming-for-drip-irrigation-firm/

http://www.xeriscapenm.com/principles.html

http://www.irrigationtutorials.com/faq/save-water.htm

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/business



submetering devices are also frequently sonic, but can also be mechani-cal or electromagnetic, in each case typically tracking whether deviations from a steady current or flow are within an acceptable range.

Repairing leaks usually involves a cheap mechanical patch or replace-ment, and yields quick payback. However, accessing leakage points may be time-consuming or difficult, especially in older facilities. Thus, when renovating such buildings, companies frequently install new plumbing lines or replace pipeline sections to maximize plumbing lifespan and ef-ficiency.

Occupant Engagement

Campaigning to change occupant behavior is often one of the most cost-effective use reduction tactics because it does not require capital invest-ment or physical installation. Tactics range from brown-bag lunches to discuss sustainability initiatives, to signage placement in washrooms or on a frequented intranet site. When efficient end-use fixtures such as dual-flush toilets are installed, occupant education strategies are particularly important to maximize savings. Engagement strategies also complement strategies to improve water efficiency in public areas such as kitchens and common areas.

Companies communicate water efficiency results to occupants by post-ers, intranets, or through on-site kiosks or “big boards” displaying real-time analytics. More active occupant engagement strategies for enter-prise deployment include competitive elements; departments housed in different building zones may be separately submetered and evaluated on per-capita or per-facility metrics. Such informal inter-departmental com-petitions allow groups to designate additional de-facto corporate sustain-ability leaders or raise visibility of current sustainability leadership efforts.

Water Recycling

Companies increasingly choose to recycle high-grade water or freshwa-ter from use in one operation to another less quality-intensive process. Systems range from comprehensive treatment facilities to single-process recycling streams.

Greywater and Blackwater Recycling

Water efficiency leaders are reusing greywater in processes such as irriga-tion and cooling tower blowdown. Diverting greywater from disposal to reuse frequently obviates freshwater withdrawal for the target processes. However, such reuse requires the installation of separate pipes, usually



purple, to preclude mixing greywater and blackwater, as the two kinds of water would otherwise be disposed of together. Such installation is most easily performed during renovations or new construction.

In some instances, companies have installed systems that can recycle blackwater through multi-stage purification processes, although the most ambitious blackwater recycling processes typically require extensive reno-vation or new construction for treatment facilities. Most such treatment facilities are either required by the local building code, or represent ex-perimental investments.

Condensate Collection

In humid climates, facilities recycle water collected from condensation in dehumidifiers and similar equipment, and pipe the collected water to de-sired end use locations. Many dehumidifier models contain a built-in con-densation collection system, or may be readily integrated with a piping system via vendor extensions. More complex systems may be connected to central recycling systems via additional customized vacuums or pipes. Project costs are usually recovered only in very humid climates.

Water Diversion

In climates that experience ample rainfall, companies divert water cap-tured in a cistern and pipe collected water to desired end use locations. Installation costs are usually recovered only in climates with considerable rainfall; however, such installations can be relatively simple, with piping and recycling operations comprising the bulk of installation efforts. Re-cycled rainwater is frequently usable in all greywater-intensive processes and, with treatment such as filtration, in many freshwater processes as well. New construction can in certain circumstances mitigate or avoid util-ity connection fees by demonstrating self-sufficiency in various grades of water use and discharge.

Leading companies also manage stormwater via less direct capture mech-anisms, sometimes only reusing some of the harvested water. Compa-nies increasingly install green roofs, rain gardens, permeable pavement, and bioswales to absorb rain water for building reuse or water table ab-sorption. Furthermore, while declining water table levels once seemed a long-term and large-scale problem, responsible companies recognize that there are considerable opportunities to measurably replenish water tables, which effectively underlie the ecological health and sustainable vi-ability of their entire watersheds. Thus, leading companies redirect water they cannot capture into permeable soil for water table replenishment.



Leading companies integrate efficiency measures to create water efficien-cy solutions. Companies can integrate water efficiency measures to vary-ing degrees and may or may not include site landscaping in their strategy. The structure of the quadrant chart introduced in Section 2 of this report is used in Figure 27 which provides examples of water efficiency measures relevant to each quadrant.

Buildings without landscaping

Integratedsolutions

Point-based solutions

Buildings with landscaping

C – COMPLETELeak repairPassive leak detectionLow flow fixaturesCooling tower upgradesCommercial kitchen upgradesWaste water recyclingInformational outreachHeater upgradesAir conditioning upgradesRainwater captureCondensate collection reuse

D – COMPREHENSIVELeak repairPassive leak detectionLow flow fixaturesCooling tower upgradesCommercial kitchen upgradesWaste water recyclingInformational outreachHeater upgradesAir conditioning upgradesRainwater captureRain gardensCondensate collection reuseDrip irrigationXeriscaping

B – SUB-OPTIMALLeak repairLow flow fixature installationCooling tower upgradesCommercial kitchen upgradesInformational outreachHeater upgradesAir conditioning upgradesRainwater captureRain gardensCondensate collection reuseDrip irrigation

A – LIMITEDLeak repairLow flow fixature installationCooling tower upgradesCommercial kitchen upgradesInformational outreachHeater upgradesAir conditioning upgradesRainwater captureCondensate collection reuse

Figure 27. Solution matrix for water efficiency measures. Color

coded measures are especially important in regions that are

cold, hot, dry, or humid.

Cold

Hot

Dry

Humid


The process guidance outlined in Figure 28 provides a recommended sequence for implementing water efficiency measures. This sequence is designed to minimize cost and disruptions.

Perform leak detection &

repair

Reduce CT water use

Reduce irrigation water use

Perform simple fixture retrofits (Faucet aerators)

Implement other

measures

Figure 28. . Sequence of measures to minimize cost and disruptions.


Integrate Strategies



Leading companies use a step-by-step process to develop a complete plan for auditing facilities, assigning responsibilities, selecting strategies, managing and monitoring systems, and analyzing savings. Figure 29 demonstrates the planning process.

make the business case

Define roles and responsibilities

select key performance indicators

conduct assessment and set goals

• Make a business case to the C-suite

• Adopt an integrated evaluation of water-efficiency benefits

• Ensure strategic engagement at the executive level

• Recruit real estate team members and water experts as necessary

• Select KPIs that reflect quantifiable targets

• Determine water footprint

• Map facility water use

• Set short- and long- term goals

• Choose strategies

• Set milestones and allocate resources

Figure 29. Planning process for water efficiency strategies.


Executives make a business case to the C-suite to ensure continuous sup-port and leadership from the highest level. Such such cases provide a pre-liminary analysis of benefits and costs of implementing water efficiency programs portfolio-wide as well as a platform for evaluating what types of strategies will align with the company’s long-term vision and goals. SRER Member-Client NIH solicits external contracts for water efficiency strategies that are reviewed for cost-effectiveness and overall fitness. Ex-ecutives at SRER Member-Client Brandywine performed preliminary cal-culations to deduce effective short-term payback periods for water fixture replacement before proceeding with the development of a plan.

Real estate executives partner with specialized consultants such as archi-tects, landscape architects, and water experts. Securing executive sup-port is essential to ensuring full support for comprehensive improvements and ongoing monitoring. SRER Member-Client Brandywine partnered with third-party consultants to develop responsible landscaping programs based on LEED requirements. SRER Member-Client AAA NCNU appoint-ed a green team to manage a sustainability intranet site for employees.

4.4 Planning

Make the Business Case

Define Roles and Responsibilities



Engineering firm Burns & McDonnell arranged with their property man-ager that the firm would cover water sustainability initiatives while the property manager paid for maintenance-related costs.

Leaders choose Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for water consump-tion and use them to set goals. Such common KPIs include annual water expenses per facility [$ / (year * facility)], annual water consumption per facility [gallons / (year * facility)], annual water expenses per area [$ / (year * square foot)], and annual water consumption per area [gallons / (year * square foot)]. Normalization by climate region and landscaping allows companies to compare different facilities using these KPIs.

The International Water Association (IWA) has developed a set of perfor-mance indicators designed to measure water loss. Financial performance indicators include non-revenue water percentage by volume, while op-erational performance indicators measure annual water losses per service connection by volume. Companies following IWA recommendations to focus on proactive leak response strategies also track related factors such as soil type, supply continuity, average operating pressure, and length of water mains.59

SRER Member-Clients AAA NCNU, Brandywine, and NIH follow IPC standards by monitoring gallons per flush or gallons per minute run for bathroom fixtures. SRER Member-Client NIH tracks percentage of runoff water captured by green roofs.

Companies conduct initial assessments of water use patterns to deter-mine goals for savings opportunities. Auditing, footprinting, and map-ping water use provide a complete picture of portfolio and facility-level consumption. Refer to the Mapping and Measuring Appendix in Section 5 of this report to access or learn more about tools reviewed in this section and additional resources.

Water Audit

Conducting a thorough audit of water use establishes baselines for con-sumption in different processes and departments. Leading companies evaluate their facilities in partnership with third-party assessors and con-sultants to ensure a complete, detailed, and externally-verified auditing

59 http://www.waterportal.com/comunication/document/D20Benchmarkingtools.pdf

Select Key Performance Indicators

Conduct Assessment and Set Goals

http://www.waterportal.com/comunication/document/D20Benchmarkingtools.pdf



process that fully captures potential savings. SRER Member-Client Bran-dywine comprehensively investigated all building infrastructure and op-erations to determine portfolio-wide options for improvement.

Water Footprinting

Water footprinting offers a viable method of gauging water use and re-sponsibility that extends beyond billable water consumption. A water footprint is the total volume of fresh water used directly or indirectly in operations, summed over the various steps of the supply chain. A wa-ter footprint includes a temporal and spatial dimension (location and duration).60 The water footprint is divided into three categories:

Blue water footprint – The volume of freshwater used in operations. The blue water footprint includes traditional on-site water use.

Green water footprint – The volume of rainwater that is used in opera-tions.

Grey water footprint – Based on the volume and concentration of pol-luted water discharged from the site. This metric is calculated as the vol-ume of water that is required to dilute pollutants until the quality of the water meets water quality standards.

Figure 30 shows how a full water footprint is calculated based on the three components of a water footprint.

WATERCONSUMPTION

WATERPOLLUTION

Return flow

Green water footprint

Blue water footprint

Green water footprint

Blue water footprint

Grey water footprint

Grey water footprint

INDIRECT WATER FOOTPRINT

DIRECT WATER FOOTPRINT

Figure 30. Water footprint calculations.

Source: United Nations Global Compact.

Developed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the spreadsheet- and Google Earth-powered Global Water Tool (GWT) supports an international assessment of water footprints. The

60 http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/WaterFootprintAssessmentManual

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/WaterFootprintAssessmentManual



tool provides information about trends in watersheds where each site is located and performs basic analytics on site parameters. Integrating avail-able site data with the GWT watershed projections database allows com-panies to determine which sites are most at risk. ConocoPhillips uses the GWT to “prioritize assets for action planning”.61 For an overview of six existing and two proposed water footprinting frameworks and tools, refer to SRER Water Footprinting Briefing, 2011.

The tool provided us with a

Figure 31. Global Water Tool map.

Source: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

Mapping Water Use

Effective water reduction strategies require knowledge of where a prop-erty is using water and how much water is being used. Leaders in cor-porate real estate combine efforts to understand flows with enhanced measurement and estimating to evaluate water use in facilities. The data compiled through this process is used to create performance baselines and benchmarks using such tools as ENERGy STAR Portfolio Manager, or BOMA BESt survey.

The GEMI Water Planner (Figure 31) allows executives to determine where the major water use takes place and provides ideas for reduction of pota-ble water and reuse of other water. By examining water flows, executives

61 http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=MTc1Ng

http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=MTc1Ng



can understand how the building uses potable water, wastewater, and stormwater.

Figure 32. GEMI Water Planner.

Source: Land Care research.

Using a water flow diagram, executives can determine ways to reduce potable water usage through stormwater and wastewater reuse. In this example, the Manaaki Whenua center in New Zealand is visualized on a map that shows the multiple ways in which water is re-used or redirected from conventional flows to reduce potable water demand and reduce sewer discharge.62

Figure 33. GEMI Water Planner.

Source: Land Care research.

62 Ibid.



Set Goals

After assessing water use portfolio-wide, companies set quantitative per-formance goals. They reference available benchmarks for guidance on goals, as well as published goals from among their competitive cohort. For individual sites as well as the portfolio, they express goals in terms of percentage reductions from a baseline year, by a set date. For example, SRER Member-Client Brandywine set a goal of decreasing portfolio-wide water use by 10% from a 2010 baseline in one year. Table 10 lists targets that fit different timetables. A comprehensive plan will integrate several targets and goals as appropriate.

Period Water strategy targets

Annual Targets

• Identify initiatives in building-specific environmental plans and reduce total water consumption by 2% on an annual like-for-like basis within our managed portfolio.

• Measure the proportion of water consumed from non-mains sources and set a target for the future.

• 15% of managed assets in the portfolio to have Biodiversity action plans.

• 25% of managed assets in the portfolio to have Green travel plans.

• All developments with a construction cost of over £5 million to result in a net improvement in site biodiversity.

• Establish intensity targets for water use to benchmark performance by sector against industry standards.

Medium-Term Targets

To reduce managed water use by 20% per square meter for each property type by 2015, compared to 2009.

Long-Term Targets

Reduce water use at our like-for-like portfolio by 20% by 2015, compared to 2004/05.

Companies choose appropriate strategies portfolio-wide to achieve their targets based on factors such as corporate strategic goals, regional cli-mate, and building site conditions. To meet a 2012 reduction target of 10%, SRER Member-Client Brandywine has prioritized fixture improve-ments, cooling tower optimization, and irrigation strategies with a pay-back period of 1-2 years. SRER Member-Client AAA NCNU replaced turfgrass with native plants to target a simple payback of one year, ac-counting for rebates. Companies conduct gap analysis and develop a concrete, actionable rollout strategy incorporating specific budget and date deliverables. Refer to the Strategic Support Appendix of Section 5 for resources that assist decision-making in implementing specific water efficiency strategies.

Table 10. Example timetables for different water strategy targets.

Source: British Land.

Develop a Roll-out Plan



Each strategy implementation begins with a pilot study and scales up to the entire portfolio. The scaling process permits adaptation to contin-gencies, integration with existing systems, and an occupant education program.

market and educate

conduct pilot

implement portfolio-wide

• Develop communication strategy with appropriate departments

• Educate occupants

• Configure and implement pilot

• Determine adaptations necessary for portfolio-wide deployment

• Deploy pilot-verified strategies across portfolio

• Monitor results

Figure 34. Implementation process for water efficiency strategies.


Occupant education, while a powerful strategy in its own right, is also an essential complement to physical changes to the building. Real estate leaders work with the marketing, communications and HR departments, as necessary, to craft an internal communication plan that raises aware-ness of the company’s water efficiency initiatives and the necessary role played by occupants. Companies also hold training programs for staff teams or contractors, such as those responsible for maintaining land-scaped areas, kitchens, or gyms. SRER Member-Client AAA NCNU adver-tises sustainable programs and attributes as well as LEED status through a lobby kiosk. SRER Member-Client Brandywine distributes building-specif-ic promotional materials for tenants to demonstrate savings from low-cost site improvement plans.

The real estate team configures a pilot and implements several of the strategies it has identified as appropriate and cost-effective in a single facility, campus, or group of properties. Companies perform detailed analytics on this effort to test if the selected water efficiency options are in fact effective and what adaptations may be required when these are deployed company-wide. Leaders learn from both measurable data and tenant feedback during the pilot stage. SRER Member-Client Brandywine uses certain properties as pilots for more ambitious strategies such as green roofs.

4.5 implementation

Communicate and Educate

Conduct Pilot



Wherever possible, executives move quickly to incorporate existing enter-prise management systems such as Building Management Systems (BMS) and Advanced Energy Management Systems (AEMS), starting at the pilot stage, to maximize the effectiveness of the established water efficiency strategies. When necessary, existing systems should be upgraded and integrated as much as possible to ensure maximum automation. Compa-nies may decide to purchase some of these systems if doing so supports company water efficiency and other major sustainability initiatives. For additional information, see SRER Report: Advanced Energy Management Systems, 2010.

Companies expand targeted strategies to all relevant properties, cover-ing the section of the portfolio for which each strategy is cost-effective. Analytics are similarly extended to measure the performance of strategies as they are scaled. SRER Member-Client NIH conducts programs such as ultrasonic leak detection on a regular schedule across all three campuses for maximum value.

Once implemented, companies monitor their water efficiency strategies to gauge progress and room for improvement in future initiatives. Figure 35 describes the evaluation workflow.

gather data for KPis

Quantify costs and benefits

Benchmark, document best practices

improve continuously

communicate results

• Gather data for hard KPIs (water use, water costs, energy use, energy costs; consumption and costs per square foot)

• Use total life cycle cost analysis to evaluate projects

• Calculate ROI

• Benchmark internally (buildings across portfolio)

• Benchmark with peers and leaders

• Document best practices, successes

• Adjust roll-out based on results and in line with documented best practices

• Communicate internally to increase engagement

• Communicate externally

Figure 35. Evaluation process for water efficiency strategies.


Implement Portfolio-wide

4.6 evaluation



Companies collect data from facilities at an increasingly granular level for the established water-related KPIs. Leaders implement submetering of major water-consuming sub-systems such as cooling towers and irriga-tion to provide such data. Ongoing monitoring directly tracks consump-tion data at endpoints as well as flows and costs. SRER Member-Client NIH meters its facilities to track water use patterns and responsiveness to water efficiency strategies. SRER Member-Client Brandywine gathers and stores water use data for all KPIs in a databasewhich is expected to cover all properties by 2012. Table 11 demonstrates different ways of measuring water use.

source information

Water Utility Meter Sites that purchase water from a local water utility can determine the total potable water use via the master utility meter.

Facility Submeter Submeters measure water used by processes like cooling towers or irrigation. The data from submeters are essential to understanding the efficiency opportunities in a facility.

On-Site Water Production

In the absence of meters, well production can be estimated using pump flow rates at the given well depth multiplied by run-time.

Unmetered Facility or Equipment

Facilities that are unmetered can estimate water use based on flow rates and run-times of all equipment and fixtures.

Executives are taking advantage of shorter paybacks for measurement technologies to implement sub-metering. Companies frequently install end-use meters or flow sensors on major water fixtures like kitchen fau-cets, showers, toilets, or water heaters.

Companies also integrate submeters and other data collection devices with AEMS and/or Enterprise Energy and Carbon Accounting (EECA) software to ensure optimal data reporting and management. Using these high-level systems to coordinate the data collection process allows com-panies to maintain a consistently comprehensive approach to data gath-ering and analysis. For more information, see the SR Inc Member Briefing: Submetering, 2011, and the SR Inc Member Reports: Enterprise Energy and Carbon Accounting, 2011, and Advanced Energy Management Sys-tems, 2010.

Gather Data for KPIs

Table 11. Water use metering.

Source: Federal Energy Management Program.



Companies quantify and evaluate the costs and benefits of each strategy throughout the portfolio. KPIs and cost-benefit metrics are tracked to at-tain a fine-grained evaluation of cases where different kinds of strategies were successful. SRER Member-Client AAA NCNU uses contracted Na-tional Utility Services (NUS) analytics to determine year-to-year monthly comparisons of the same metrics for the most direct evaluation.

Water efficiency benchmarking is increasingly prevalent and interoperable with energy benchmarking services, with ENERGy STAR Portfolio Man-ager in the U.S. and BOMA BESt in Canada providing comparison data-sets for analysis. Water and Sanitation International Benchmarking Net-work (IBNET), a partnership of the World Bank with the UK Department for International Development, provides guidance on defining indicators and setting up comparative national or regional benchmarking schemes. When benchmarking, executives most frequently normalize consumption by local climate, building age and type, and percentage of landscaping. See SRER Report: Benchmarking Real Estate Portfolio Sustainability for additional information on selecting normalization factors.

Benchmarking leak control and flow levels in individual fixtures or sub-facility systems is becoming more common due to increased submeter deployment. However, companies benchmark water reduction percent-age targets on the portfolio rather than building or sub-building level due to the impact of climate and specific building functions. They focus on maximum reductions in areas where water is more expensive and scarce. SRER Member-Client AAA NCNU contracts NUS to monitor and bench-mark portfolio-wide water use over time.

Leading companies codify best practices based on the experience to sup-port ongoing internal and industry improvement. A continuing focus on these best practices complements exhaustive benchmarking to ensure ongoing improvement. SRER Member-Client NIH maintains a reference list of tried-and-true strategies that can be implemented on an ongoing basis.

Leading companies document lessons learned and celebrate success of strategies deployed thus far, while also identifying best practices among peers. They also improve and expand internal training programs that sup-port sustainability initiatives. SRER Member-Client NIH has realized on-going benefits by iteratively planning, executing, and learning from the water efficiency strategy implementation process on a decade cycle.

Quantify Costs and Benefits

Benchmark and Document Best Practices

Improve Continuously



Internal reporting ensures the executive team is aware of results. Key investors, customers, and other stakeholders also respond positively to information about sustainability initiatives. If public branding or indus-try leadership is a motivating factor in the decision to implement water efficiency strategies, results are publicized through the company web-site, press releases, and sustainability report. Deloitte and the Carbon Disclosure Project recommend that industry leaders release regular water reports through their websites.63 SRER Member-Client AAA NCNU also publishes details on strategy results and success via its intranet website.

63 http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_Gx/global/press-release/52571e6879671310VgnVCM3000001c56f00aRCRD.htm

Communicate Results Internally and Externally

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GX/global/press-release/52571e6879671310VgnVCM3000001c56f00aRCRD.htm

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GX/global/press-release/52571e6879671310VgnVCM3000001c56f00aRCRD.htm


section 5: tools and resourcesThis section provides actionable information and resources to guide im-plementation of successful water efficiency strategies.

The following documents are available for SRER Member-Clients

via the SR Inc digital library.

• SRER Member Briefing: Water Footprinting, 2011.

• SRER Report: Benchmarking Real Estate Portfolios for Sustain-ability, 2011.

• SRER Report: Advanced Energy Management Systems, 2010.

• SRER Member Briefing: Submetering, 2011.

• SRER Member Advisory: Payback for Automatic Faucets, 2011.

• SR Inc Member Advisory: Automatic Faucets 2011.

• Global Water Tool, 2010 http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=MTc1Mg&doOpen=1&ClickMenu=LeftMenu

• Guidance for Developing Baseline and Annual Water Use http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/waterefficiency_base-line.html

• Water Footprint Calculator http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalculator

5.1 srer research documents

5.2 mapping and measuring

http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=MTc1Mg&doOpen=1&ClickMenu=LeftMenu

http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=MTc1Mg&doOpen=1&ClickMenu=LeftMenu

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/waterefficiency_baseline.html

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/waterefficiency_baseline.html

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalculator

SECTION 5: TOOLS AND RESOURCES


• GEMI (Global Environmental Management Initiative) Facility Water Use and Impact Assessment Program http://www.gemi.org/waterplanner/module1.htm#

• ENERGy STAR Portfolio Manager http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_portfoliomanager

• CERES – Considerations for Addressing a Company’s Water Risk http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/assessing-water-risk/at_download/file

• IFMA – A Comprehensive Guide to Water Conservation: The Bot-tom Line Impacts, Challenges and Rewards http://www.ifmafoundation.org/documents/public/WaterGuide.pdf

• Water Efficiency Tool Box (FEMP Best Management Practices) http://water-management-toolbox.com/holding-area/general-water-conservation-bmps

• Federal Water Efficiency Requirements http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/waterefficiency_re-quirements.html

• FEMP Watergy Software (Savings Calculator) http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/software.cfm/ID=75/pagename=alpha_list_sub

• EPA WaterSense Rebate Finder http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/rebate_finder_saving_money_wa-ter.html

• Tips for xeriscaping (Water-efficient Landscaping) http://landscaping.about.com/cs/cheaplandscaping1/a/xeriscaping.htm

• EPA Guide: Water-efficient Landscaping http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/waterefficiency.pdf

• SR Inc Member Advisory: Automatic Faucets 2011.

5.3 strategic support

http://www.gemi.org/waterplanner/module1.htm

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_portfoliomanager

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_portfoliomanager

http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/assessing-water-risk/at_download/file

http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/assessing-water-risk/at_download/file

http://www.ifmafoundation.org/documents/public/WaterGuide.pdf

http://water-management-toolbox.com/holding-area/general-water-conservation-bmps


http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/waterefficiency_requirements.html

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/waterefficiency_requirements.html

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/software.cfm/ID=75/pagename=alpha_list_sub

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/software.cfm/ID=75/pagename=alpha_list_sub

http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/rebate_finder_saving_money_water.html

http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/rebate_finder_saving_money_water.html

http://landscaping.about.com/cs/cheaplandscaping1/a/xeriscaping.htm

http://landscaping.about.com/cs/cheaplandscaping1/a/xeriscaping.htm

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/waterefficiency.pdf



NIH follows the fourteen best management practices with the Water Man-agement Toolbox of the Federal Energy Management Program.64 The practices are available online through the U.S. Department of Energy and provide the following proven strategies:

• Water Management Planning – Successful water management plans require identifying and quantifying current water use to the fullest extent possible.

• Information and Education Programs – Agencies should provide educational outreach for employees, contractors, and the public about their commitment to water efficiency through the use of user-friendly hotlines, informational signs, or regular training workshops to complement efficiency improvements.65

• Distribution System Audits, Leak Detection, and Repair – Agencies should first conduct a full-scale leak audit and then monitor from the minimum flow rate, around 3-4 a.m. Any significant deviations from this baseline are likely leak-related.

• Water-Efficient Landscaping – Agencies should use landscaping that depends on rainwater and design systems that deliver supplemental irrigation efficiently.

• Water-Efficient Irrigation – Agencies should use contractors that are familiar with water-saving guidelines, install irrigation meters, and use an irrigation schedule that is appropriate for the climate, soil conditions, plant materials, and season.

• Toilets and Urinals – Agencies should follow the EPA WaterSense specifications for toilets and flushing urinals. Toilets cannot exceed 1.28 gpf and urinals are not to exceed 0.5 gpf.

• Faucets and Showerheads – Agencies should use the ASME guide-line of 0.5 gpm for public faucets and the EPA WaterSense guideline for showerheads of 2.0 gpm.

• Boiler and Steam Systems – Agencies should maintain a condensate recovery system and an automatic blowdown system that is based on boiler size or optimize cycles of concentration to reduce the frequency of blowdown.

64 http://water-management-toolbox.com/holding-area/general-water-conservation-bmps65 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/waterefficiency_bmp2.html

5.4 u.s. femP Water management

toolbox


http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/waterefficiency_bmp2.html



• Single-Pass Cooling Equipment – Agencies should eliminate single-pass cooling by modifying equipment to operate on a closed loop that recirculates water. If this is not possible, agencies should install an automatic control to shut off the system during nights and week-ends or find a way to recycle cooling water.

• Cooling Tower Management – Agencies should examine options, such as water softening or ozonation, to increase the cooling tower’s cycle of concentration.

• Commercial Kitchen Equipment – Agencies should run dishwashers only when full, install flow restrictors in existing pre-rinse spray valves to reduce the flow rate to 1.6 gpm, and replace single-pass cooling icemakers if possible.

• Laboratory and Medical Equipment – Agencies should use strategies to reduce water consumption from water treatment systems, disin-fection systems, x-ray equipment, vacuum systems, automatic animal watering systems, and glassware and cage washers.

• Other Water Intensive Processes – Agencies should sub-meter processes where possible and shut off water supply when processes are not operating. They should replace old equipment with ENERGy STAR-labeled models.

• Alternate Water Sources – Agencies should consult with experts to identify potential non-potable water use while reviewing current practices, but the use of non-potable water is most effective when incorporated into the design of new facilities.



Alberta (AB) Newfoundland (NF) Prince Edward (PE) Calgary International A 7 Corner Brook 6 Charlottetown A 6 Edmonton International A 7 Gander International A 7 Summerside A 6 Grande Prairie A 7 Goose A 7 Jasper 7 St John’s A 6 Quebec (PQ) Lethbridge A 6 Stephenville A 6 Bagotville A 7 Medicine Hat A 6 Drummondville 6 Red Deer A 7 Northwest Territories (NW) Granby 6 Ft Smith A 8 Montreal Dorval Int’l A 6 British Columbia (BC) Inuvik A 8 Quebec A 7 Dawson Creek A 7 Yellowknife A 8 Rimouski 7 Ft Nelson A 8 Septles A 7 Kamloops 5 Nova Scotia (NS) Shawinigan 7 Nanaimo A 5 Halifax International A 6 Sherbrooke A 7 New Westminster BC Pen 5 Kentville CDA 6 St Jean de Cherbourg 7 Penticton A 5 Sydney A 6 St Jerome 7 Prince George 7 Truro 6 Thetford Mines 7 Prince Rupert A 6 Yarmouth A 6 Trois Rivieres 7 Vancouver International A 5 Val d’Or A 7 Victoria Gonzales Hts 5 Nunavut Valleyfield 6 Resolute A 8 Manitoba (MB) Saskatchewan (SK) Brandon CDA 7 Ontario (ON) Estevan A 7 Churchill A 9 Belleville 6 Moose Jaw A 7 Dauphin A 7 Cornwall 6 North Battleford A 7 Flin Flon 7 Hamilton RBG 5 Prince Albert A 7 Portage La Prairie A 7 Kapuskasing A 7 Regina A 7 The Pas A 7 Kenora A 7 Saskatoon A 7 Winnipeg International A 7 Kingston A 6 Swift Current A 7 London A 6 Yorkton A 7 New Brunswick (NB) North Bay A 7 Chatham A 7 Oshawa WPCP 6 Yukon Territory (YT) Fredericton A 6 Ottawa International A 6 Whitehorse A 8 Moncton A 6 Owen Sound MOE 6 Saint John A 6 Petersborough 6 St Catharines 5 Sudbury A 7 Thunder Bay A 7 Timmins A 7 Toronto Downsview A 6 Windsor A 5

Mexico MexicoMexico City (Distrito Federal) 3 Tampico (Tamaulipas) 1 Guadalajara (Jalisco) 1 Veracruz (Veracruz) 4 Monterrey (Nuevo Laredo) 3 Merida (Yucatan) 1

Argentina Buenos Aires/Ezeiza 3 Cordoba 3 Tucuman/Pozo 2 Australia Adelaide (SA) 4 Alice Springs (NT) 2 Brisbane (AL) 2 Darwin Airport (NT) 1 Perth/Guildford (WA) 3 Sydney/KSmith (NSW) 3 Azores (Terceira) Lajes 3

Bahamas Nassau 1 BelgiumBrussels Airport 5 Bermuda St George/Kindley 2 Bolivia La Paz/El Alto 5 Brazil Belem 1 Brasilia 2 Fortaleza 1 Porto Alegre 2 Recife/Curado 1 Rio de Janeiro 1 Salvador/Ondina 1 Sao Paulo 2

Bulgaria Sofia 5 Chili Concepcion 4 Punta Arenas/Chabunco 6 Santiago/Pedahuel 4 China Shanghai 3 Cuba Guantanamo Bay NAS (Ote) 1











5.5 World climate Zones

Canadian Climate Zones

Mexican Climate Zones

Other International

Climate Zones



Czech Republic Prague/Libus Dominican Republic Santo Domingo Egypt Cairo

Luxor Finland Helinski/Seutula France Lyon/Satolas 4 Marseille 4 Nantes 4 Nice 4 Paris/Le Bourget 4 Strasbourg 5 Germany Berlin/Schoenfeld 5 Hamburg 5 Hannover 5 Mannheim 5 Greece Souda (Crete) 3 Thessalonika/Mikra 4

Cyprus

Akrotiri 3

Larnaca 3

Paphos 3

Greenland Narssarssuaq 7 Hungary Budapest/Lorinc 5 Iceland Reykjavik 7 India Ahmedabad 1 Bangalore 1 Bombay/Santa Bruz 1 Calcutta/Dum Dum 1 Madras 1 Nagpur Sonegaon 1 New Delhi/Safdarjung 1 Indonesia Djakarta/Halimperda (Java) 1

Kupang Penfui (Sunda Island) 1

Makassar (Celebes) 1 Medan (Sumatra) 1 Palembang (Sumatra) 1 Surabaga Perak (Java) 1

IrelandDublin Airport 5 Shannon Airport 4

Israel

Jerusalem

3

Tel Aviv Port

2 Italy

Milano/Linate

4

Napoli/Capodichino

4

Roma/Fiumicion

4 Jamaica

Kingston/Manley

1

Montego Bay/Sangster

1 JapanFukaura 5 Sapporo 5 Tokyo 3 JordanAmman 3 Kenya

Nairobi Airport

3 Korea

Pyonggang

5 Seoul 4 Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur

1

Penang/Bayan Lepas

1

Netherlands Amsterdam/Schiphol

5

New Zealand Auckland Airport

Christchurch

Wellington

Norway

Bergen/Florida

5

Oslo/Fornebu

6 Pakistan

Karachi Airport

1

Papua New Guinea

Port Moresby

1 Paraguay

Asuncion/Stroessner

1

Thailand Bangkok 1 Tunisia Tunis/El Auoina 3 Turkey Adana 3 Ankara/Etimesgut 4 Istanbul/Yesilkoy 4 United Kingdom Birmingham (England) 5 Edinburgh (Scotland) 5 Glasgow Airport (Scotland) 5 London/Heathrow

(England) 4

Uruguay Montevideo/Carrasco 3 Venezuela Caracas/Maiquetia 1 Vietnam Hanoi/Gialam 1 Saigon (Ho Chi Minh) 1

Singapore Singapore/Changi 1 South Africa Cape Town/D F Malan 4 Johannesburg 4 Pretoria 3 Spain Barcelona 4 Madrid 4 Valencia/Manises 3 Sweden Stockholm/Arlanda 6

Switzerland Zurich 5 Syria Damascus Airport 3 Taiwan Tainan 1 Taipei 2 Tanzania Dares Salaam 1

Peru LimaCallao/Chavez 2 San Juan de Marcona 2 Talara 2 Philippines Manila Airport (Luzon) 1 PolandKrakow/Balice 5 RomaniaBucuresti/Bancasa 5

Saudia Arabia Dhahran 1 Riyadh 1 Senegal Kakar/Yoff 1

Russia

Kaliningrad (E. Prussia) 5

Krasnoiarsk 7 Moscow Observatory 6 Petropavlovsk 7 RostovNaDonu 5 Vladivostok 6 Volgograd 6


SR Inc Authors: Joshua Rinaldi (Sustainability Analyst) John Mussman (Sustainability Fellow) Irina Mladenova (VP of Research and Consulting) Michael Gresty (EVP of Research and Consulting)

Member-Clients should contact SR Inc with any questions or comments. Member-Clients who have water efficiency best practices they wish to share with other Member-Clients are encouraged to do so for inclusion in future updates of this report.

One Broadway, 14th FloorCambridge, MA 02142 617.682.3632 www.sustainround.com

www.sustainround.com