water city of revelstoke water smart action plan september 2013

City of RevelstokeWater Smart Action PlanSeptember 2013

AgendaItem#7g.AgendaItem#7g.AgendaItem#7g.AgendaItem#7g.

Water Smart Action Plan33 of 179Page 133 of 179Page 133 of 179Page 133 of 179


Water Smart Action PlanPage 134 of 179Page 134 of 179Page 134 of 179Page 134 of 179

City of Revelstoke Water Smart Action Plan

AcknowledgementsColumbia Basin Trust (CBT) wishes to acknowledge the following authors of this Water SmartAction Plan, dated September 2013.

thinkBright Environmental InnovationsMeredith [email protected]

Focus CorporationElise Paré, [email protected]

H2Okanagan Water Conservation Ltd.Neal [email protected]

It is noted that this Water Smart Action Plan is intended to be a living document, continually revisedand updated by the local government as their unique local context, data sets, targets, andimplementation strategies are refined during the course of this multi-year initiative. Such changesare made by the local government and are not necessarily endorsed by the authors of the originaldocument nor by CBT.

CBT would also like to acknowledge the local government Staff and Elected Officials whoparticipated in the development of this Action Plan. Your participation in and commitment to theWater Smart Initiative has been integral not only to development of your community’s Action Plan,but also to the Initiative as a whole.




Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ 1Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ i2015 Demand Reduction Target ............................................................................................ iBackground ............................................................................................................................ iObjectives ............................................................................................................................. iiTotal Expected Water Savings ............................................................................................. iv1.0 Columbia Basin Water Smart Background and Basin Wide Objectives .............. 12.0 Community Vision and Water Use Efficiency Objectives ..................................... 32.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 32.2 Community Vision ...................................................................................................... 32.3 Water Use Efficiency Objectives ................................................................................ 53.0 Community Profile.................................................................................................... 63.1 Service Population and Demographics....................................................................... 63.2 Seasonal Population Variability .................................................................................. 63.3 Community Growth Estimates .................................................................................... 73.4 Water Connection Summary ...................................................................................... 73.5 Infrastructure Summary .............................................................................................. 83.6 Source Resiliency ....................................................................................................... 83.7 Major Water Uses ....................................................................................................... 93.8 Unique Community Attributes ..................................................................................... 93.9 Existing Conservation Approach .............................................................................. 104.0 Water Use Profile .................................................................................................... 114.1 Metered Data Availability .......................................................................................... 124.2 Gross Water Consumption ....................................................................................... 124.3 Major User Information and Real Losses - 2011 ...................................................... 13

4.3.1 Residential Water Use .................................................................................... 134.3.2 Leakage or Real Losses ................................................................................. 134.3.3 Non-Revenue Water ....................................................................................... 144.3.4 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) .................................................. 14

4.4 Demand Forecast (Business as Usual) .................................................................... 154.5 Water Profile Summary Table .................................................................................. 165.0 Energy Use Implications ........................................................................................ 17




6.0 Summary of Primary Community Drivers ............................................................ 187.0 Recommended Community Specific Actions and Implementation Strategy .... 197.1 Objective 1 Background and Recommended Actions ........................................ 207.2 Objective 2 Background and Recommended Actions ........................................ 247.3 Objective 3 Background and Recommended Actions ........................................ 297.4 Total Expected Water Savings .............................................................................. 308.0 Monitoring and Reporting Protocol ...................................................................... 31APPENDIX A: A Primer on Public Education for Water Conservation ........................ 32APPENDIX B: Watering Restrictions .............................................................................. 35APPENDIX C: Columbia Basin Water Smart Charter .................................................... 37APPENDIX D: Glossary of Acronyms ............................................................................. 38




i | Page

Executive Summary

2015 Demand Reduction TargetAs a signatory to the Columbia Basin Water Smart Charter, the City of Revelstoke has set anachievable target to reduce gross community water consumption by an additional 5 per cent from2009 levels by 2015.

By the end of 2012, the City of Revelstoke had already achieved a 20 per cent demand reductionfrom 2009 base levels. The additional 5 per cent will bring the City’s overall demand reductiontarget to 25 per cent. This target will contribute to Columbia Basin Trust’s cumulative reductiontarget for all participating Water Smart communities of 20 per cent by 2015.

Revelstoke’s 2009 baseline gross consumption was 2228.4 ML. Therefore, a 25 per cent reductionfrom the 2009 baseline will be equal to a savings of 557.1 ML, or 557,100,000 litres annually. Theadditional 5 per cent target results in a demand reduction of 115ML by 2015.

BackgroundThe City has demonstrated long standing leadership and consistency in its water use efficiency(WUE) efforts, resulting in significant water savings since 20021. The City’s approach to growth iseffective management of existing resources and infrastructure, as opposed to infrastructureexpansion. Demand side management for the water system has been a key component of thisapproach.

1 As of 2012, water demand has fallen by 24 per cent since 2002.




ii | Page

There is a high degree of consistency in water use efficiency actions across multiple policydocuments, and implementation of City policy can be considered very successful thus far. ThisWater Smart Action Plan will support and extend the City’s ongoing WUE efforts. Taking advantageof the experience of the 22 other Water Smart communities in the Columbia Basin, this Action Planis considered to be an update and refinement of the 2007 City of Revelstoke Water ConservationStudy2 using the most currently available complete data sets (2011). It also supports and refinesthe water use efficiency policy directions contained in the Community Development Action Plan(CDAP), the Official Community Plan (OCP), and the Draft Integrated Community SustainabilityPlan (ICSP).

At the time of writing this action plan the City is implementing a wide range of WUE actions,including, among others:

Water Meter Study: Veritec Consulting Inc. is preparing a Water Metering Assessment todetermine water savings and cost/benefit of water metering for the City’s water utility – plancompletion due in October 2013Water Conservation Education: ongoing public WUE education, now also supported withresources and strategies through the Water Smart Ambassador ProgramWatershed Management Planning: development of a Greeley Creek Watershed ProtectionPlan for is currently underway with a final plan due in August 2013. The plan will providedirection on whether source resiliency is a driver for water use efficiencyWater Loss Management: Veritec Consulting Inc. is preparing a water loss assessment andmanagement plan for the City – plan completion due in October 2013

ObjectivesIn order to achieve the 2015 reduction target, the City of Revelstoke will focus their waterconservation efforts on the three main objectives outlined below. It is important to note that theseobjectives have been developed based on the best available data provided by the community. Asthe data changes or is refined through enhanced monitoring and analysis or the implementation ofimproved data gathering technologies, the Action Plan objectives may also need to be changed orrefined accordingly.

Objective 1: Implement a sustainable water loss management program.

The Water Smart Team strongly recommends that the City focus its water use efficiency humanand financial resources first and foremost in the area of sustainable water loss management,which may or may not include water metering, depending on the results of the Veritec WaterMetering Assessment.

The volume of water “consumed” by leakage in Revelstoke exceeds all other demand sectors,as indicated by the Water Balance. By minimizing leakage in the distribution system, the Citywill not only reduce demand, but will also reduce wear and tear on existing infrastructure,thereby reducing operating and capital costs in the short- and long-terms.

2 City of Revelstoke Water Conservation Study, Dayton and Knight, January 2007




iii | Page

The City has engaged Veritec Consulting Inc. to develop a Water Loss Management Plan toquantify current system loss and to determine the feasibility of a universal or system meteringprogram for the City. The initial results from Veritec’s 2012 night flow analysis suggest asignificant amount of leakage within the system (approximately 51 per cent of total systemdemand plus or minus 27.7 per cent3). Veritec estimates that up to 75 per cent of this leakage(or nearly 40 per cent of total demand) is recoverable through infrastructure repair and/orreplacement guided by implementation of a sustainable water loss management program.

As of 2012, on average, 40 per cent of treated water in Basin communities is being lost throughleaks in water utility distribution systems - in some cases this figure is well over 70 per cent.This situation is not unique to the Basin. Across Canada and North America the infrastructuredeficit continues to climb and water loss is a result. Therefore, at an estimated range of 30-70percent potential loss, the City is well within the “normal” range in the Basin, and across NorthAmerica. Section 7.1 addresses strategies for sustainable water loss management that can beapplied by the City. Despite uncertainty in the water loss estimates that have been developedby Veritec, in Revelstoke, as in most Basin communities, it is clear that Water LossManagement is the primary opportunity for demand reduction.

It is anticipated that by fully implementing the City’s water loss management plan prepared byVeritec and a pipe repair/replacement program could result in water use reductions of up to 40per cent of total demand. It is unrealistic though, to expect that the full 40 per cent demandreduction can be achieved by December 31, 2015. As such a more modest, though somewhatarbitrary target for leakage reduction by 2015 is 5 per cent of total demand.

Objective 2: Continue and augment public water use efficiency outreach with a focuson cost effective consumer demand reduction strategies.

It is recommended that public water use efficiency education in Revelstoke’s unique localcontext should achieve two objectives: sustaining public awareness about and commitment to water use efficiency in keeping with

the OCP, draft ICSP, and with the Veritec Water Metering Feasibility Study and Water LossManagement Plan; and

providing opportunities for cost effective demand reductions that can be implemented byconsumers until such time as adequate City resources can be allocated to implementation ofa comprehensive indoor residential demand reduction program.

Public education programs based principally on provision of printed or digital water conservationinformation are generally not effective in achieving measurable demand reductions. There musteither be some form of incentive or a technological incentive to encourage people to act on theinformation they receive. Therefore, it is recommended that the City implement a Water SmartAmbassador program, using either a summer student or an existing staff member to deliveroutreach in three primary areas: Residential irrigation demand reduction; Audits for Parks, Schools, Government Buildings and Public Spaces; and Free Commercial Accommodation Indoor Audits

3 The confidence levels are ± 27.7 per cent due to an unknown accuracy of the meters within the system and limitationswith the reporting of data.




iv | Page

We are estimating that in Revelstoke it may be possible to reduce outdoor residential demandby 15 per cent over 3 years, resulting a gross demand reduction of 1.5 per cent. The potentialdemand reductions from commercial audits and parks, and other local government facility auditsare not yet quantifiable.

Objective 3: Implement the recommended metering program identified in the 2013Water Metering Feasibility Study

In 2013 the City contracted Veritec Consulting Inc. to undertake a detailed analysis of the costsand benefits of universal, ICI and Distribution system metering. This study is identified aspriority in the CDAP, the draft ICSP (Action Plan Appendix 3 – Resilient Infrastructure), and inthe 2007 Water Conservation Study.

Until such time as the Veritec study is complete (projected for late 2013), the Water Smart Teamwill not make specific recommendations for water metering in Revelstoke.

Generally speaking, the City and the water utility would benefit significantly from improved waterdata collection and analysis capabilities. At minimum, calibration of the source meter wouldprovide a higher degree of confidence in the City’s supply data. Also, as suggested in the 2007Dayton and Knight Study, it is highly probable that, at minimum, implementation of zonemetering and collection of continuously logged flow data will allow the City to monitor specificsectors within the distribution system and more effectively assess and address water loss.

Universal metering programs typically result in savings of 20 – 25 per cent of peak waterdemands, and 10-15 per cent of base indoor use. In the absence of volumetric water rates,potential water savings are diminished. In that case, demand reductions would need to besought via different means including technical interventions (i.e. significant purchase andinstallation incentives for low flow fixture installations coupled with ongoing public education).

Commercial metering programs have widely varying reduction rates.

Distribution system metering will not directly result in demand savings, but is an important partof a sustainable water loss management program.

Total Expected Water SavingsIf the City were to fully implement all recommended actions in this Plan, water use savings inexcess of 30-50 per cent may be possible. It is not, however, projected that resources will be madeavailable to achieve full implementation by 2015.

By the end of 2012, the City had already achieved a 20 per cent demand reduction from 2009 baselevels. It is anticipated that an additional 5 per cent will be achievable by 2015, resulting in acombined target of 25 per cent by 2015. It is noted that the City’s 25 per cent target may need tobe revised either upward or downward during the course of the remaining 3 years of the initiativedepending on resource allocation and a refined analysis of enhanced data.




1 | Page

1.0 Columbia Basin Water Smart Background and Basin WideObjectives

Domestic water consumption is increasingly being identified as a critical issue for Basincommunities. Perceived supply limitations, infrastructure deficits, and rising costs to treat anddeliver water are the primary factors driving communities pursue water use efficiency (WUE)measures. In response, Columbia Basin Water Smart (Water Smart) is a regional initiative thatprovides support to participating First Nations, Regional Districts, and Municipalities to assess theirlocal WUE challenges and opportunities, and then to plan for the most locally effective actions toreduce community wide water consumption.

The goal of Water Smart is two-fold: To build the capacity of Basin communities to understand and implement sustainable,

effective, and locally relevant water use efficiency policies and activities; and To achieve a Basin-wide reduction in community water demand of 20 per cent by 2015.

Definition: Water Use Efficiency (WUE) is defined as policies and activities focusing on increasingwater supply efficiency and water demand efficiency to minimize water withdrawals and water use.

Background: WUE policies and activities include all activities that would be traditionally understoodas water conservation, but also include, among others, water loss management; resilient andsustainable water infrastructure operations; effective public communications strategies; sustainablewater utility rate setting; and irrigation best practices.

Expected outcomes of a WUE approach to water utility management and operations include:1. Long-term capital cost savings for infrastructure required to treat and deliver water and

waste water;2. Long-term operational cost savings for water and waste water treatment and distribution

systems;3. Improved customer awareness about the direct relationship between water demand and

water infrastructure costs and consumer rates; and4. Water conservation.

As of 2013, participating Water Smart communities include: Creston Castlegar Cranbrook Elkford Fernie Fruitvale/Beaver Valley WB Golden Kaslo Kimberley Montrose Nakusp

Nelson Radium Revelstoke Rossland Salmo Slocan Sparwood Tobacco Plains Band Trail Valemount

Regional District of East Kootenay – Edgewater Regional District of Central Kootenay – Erickson




2 | Page

Each Water Smart community determines their own local water conservation target that willcontribute to the overall Basin-wide target.

Included in the definition of community water consumption for the purposes of this initiative isresidential, municipal, institutional, and commercial water consumption. Wherever possible,industrial and agricultural water consumption are excluded from the target and the gross supplydata. In some instances, however, it is not feasible to separate consumption by user group andlocal strategies for addressing these data gathering issues are developed on a community specificbasis.

Demonstrating commitment to the Water Smart initiative at the political level, Mayors and BoardChairs from all participating communities have signed on to the Water Smart Charter (SeeAppendix “A” ), and will work collaboratively with CBT and Basin communities to address waterconsumption at the local level.

In order to facilitate the achievement of both community specific and basin-wide targets, CBT willprovide participating communities with the following resources:

Water Smart Match Funding up to $10,000 in a one-third / two-third matching grant forimplementation of actions identified in each community’s Water Smart Action Plan;

Water Smart Planning Team to help communities assess their water conservation priorities anddevelop effective Water Smart Action Plans to achieve their stated water conservation targets;

Water Smart Toolkit: a web-based Water Use Efficiency tool kit for local governments, whichincludes Basin-specific resources and tools for water conservation as well as community specificWater Smart web pages with basic data reports and summary of actions to date; and

Water Smart Network, which will support communities to effectively collaborate with and learnfrom each other and from leading water conservation experts.

For more detailed information on Columbia Basin Water Smart, please go towww.cbt.org/watersmart




3 | Page

2.0 Community Vision and Water Use Efficiency Objectives

2.1 IntroductionThe City of Revelstoke has a long standing commitment to water use efficiency (WUE). This WaterSmart Action Plan will support the City’s ongoing WUE efforts. Taking advantage of the experienceof the 22 other Water Smart communities in the Columbia Basin, this Action Plan is considered tobe an update and refinement of the 2007 City of Revelstoke Water Conservation Study4 using themost currently available complete data sets (2011).

Section 2.0 of this plan outlines the City’s existing vision for water use efficiency.

Sections 3.0 and 4.0 summarize the data that was used to guide development of recommendationsfor action in Section 7.0.

2.2 Community VisionIt is clear from public consultation during the recent Integrated Community Sustainability Planning(ICSP) consultation processes that the community as a whole values responsible water use. In a2012 community survey, “48% of respondents…felt that quality drinking water was one of the top 5environmental issues needing attention; it was the second most frequent response. 22% ofrespondents felt that water conservation was one of the top 5 issues…”5.

The City of Revelstoke has a well developed vision for WUE that is detailed in a wide range ofmunicipal plans. In 2012 the City signed the Columbia Basin Water Smart Charter as a means tocontinue and enhance implementation of ongoing WUE efforts and participate in the Basin-widecollaborative process.

2007 Water Conservation StudyIn 2007, Dayton and Knight Ltd. prepared a Water Conservation Study for the City thatassessed a wide range of demand management options and made recommendations for actionusing a detailed cost/benefit analysis approach. The goal of the study was to “…identifymethods that could permanently reduce the demand in the municipal water supply system in acost effective manner” (pp1-1). The Dayton and Knight study is referenced directly andfrequently in both the 2009 Official Community Plan (OCP) and the 2013 Draft ICSP.

2009 Official Community Plan (OCP)6

The City’s commitment to water use efficiency has been reinforced by the 2009 OCP. The OCPVision statement for the community is:

“Revelstoke will be a leader in achieving a sustainable community by balancing environmental,social and economic values within a local, regional and global context. Building on its richheritage and natural beauty this historic mountain community will pursue quality and excellence.

4 City of Revelstoke Water Conservation Study, Dayton and Knight, January 20075 ICSP Action Plan – Appendix 4, Resilient Infrastructure, pp7-8.6 City of Revelstoke Official Community Plan, Bylaw 1950, July 2009.




4 | Page

Revelstoke is seen as vibrant, healthy, clean, hospitable, resilient and forward thinking. It will becommitted to exercising its rights with respect to decisions affecting the North ColumbiaMountain region. Community priorities include: opportunities for youth; economic growth andstability; environmental citizenship; personal safety and security; a responsible and caring socialsupport system; a first-class education system and local access to life-long learning; spiritualand cultural values, and diverse forms of recreation. All residents and visitors shall have accessto the opportunities afforded by this community.”

The OCP contains a number of explicit WUE goals and policies pertaining to water supply,water and wastewater distribution and treatment infrastructure, and demand side management.This Action Plan is in compliance with the OCP and will support ongoing advancement of arefined, sustainable, and cost effective approach to water use efficiency for the City.

2007 Community Development Action Plan (CDAP)7

The 2007 CDAP contains explicit goals, objectives and targets relating to water quality andwater use efficiency.

The overall community goal outlined for water and 2007 is: “The potential for limited sources ofclean water over the long-term is recognized and acted on through water conservation andmaintaining high water quality in local waterways.”

On the topic of water conservation the CDAP objective and target are as follows:Objective: Enhance water conservation by community residents, businesses and governmentby modifying water use habits.Target: By 2008, water consumption (per capita) is 20% less than 2002 levels. By 2010, waterconsumption is 30% less than 2002 levels8.

Projects and tasks that were considered include: Continue public education to enhance water conservation (ongoing) Fully implement the Water Conservation Strategy (ongoing) expand the existing summer student program to promote water conservation … (ongoing)

Continue to implement landscape planning / maintenance programs to reduce water use Develop a long-term water metering implementation plan (ongoing) In conjunction with the updated Provincial Building Codes, enforce mandatory water

conservation in new buildings (complete)

2013 Draft Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP)9

The City of Revelstoke Draft ICSP was received by Council on July 22, 2013. At this time the ICSPis still considered to be a draft. The following relevant water use efficiency sections are beingconsidered for inclusion in the final ICSP.

Sustainability Framework (Part 1 of 3 ICSP Documents)10

The City’s Sustainability Framework identifies sustainability priorities and integrating strategiesfor achieving the community vision. Responsible Water Use is explicitly identified as a

7 http://www.cityofrevelstoke.com/index.aspx?nid=1958 Note that significant progress toward achievement of these targets has been made - as of 2012 water demand inRevelstoke has fallen by approximately 24 per cent from 2002 levels.9 http://www.cityofrevelstoke.com/index.aspx?nid=32210 Sustainability Framework (Part 1 of 3 ICSP Documents)




5 | Page

community sustainability priority (section 4.3.4), and includes consideration of source protection,aging infrastructure, and demand management.

State of Sustainability Report (Part 2 of 3 ISCP Documents)11

The State of Sustainability report “…provides a current snapshot of the community’ssustainability performance as well as challenges and opportunities”. Responsible Water Use isaddressed specifically at section 3.4 of the report. Clear and sophisticated linkages are made inthis document between water-supply, -quality, -treatment and distribution infrastructure, wastewater treatment, and water demand.

ICSP Action Plan (Part 3 of 3 ICSP Documents)12

The ICSP Action Plan contains “very high” and “high priority” actions for WUE, including fullimplementation of the 2007 Water Conservation Strategy and completion of a water meteringstudy. These actions are further detailed in the Action Plan Appendix 4 – ResilientInfrastructure13. Both actions are addressed in this Water Smart Action Plan at section 7.0.

2.3 Water Use Efficiency ObjectivesIf the City were to fully implement all recommended actions in Section 7.0 of this Action Plan, wateruse savings in excess of 30 per cent may be achievable. However, it is not reasonably feasible tocomplete implementation of all recommendations in this plan by 2015.

As of December 31, 2012, the City has already achieved a 20 per cent reduction since 2009. Thus,a conservative reduction target of 5 percent from 2012 for a total reduction from 2009 levels of 25percent is considered viable. In future, the availability of improved data may result in the need torevise this target upward or downward accordingly.

11 State of Sustainability Report (Part 2 of 3 ISCP Documents)12 ICSP Action Plan (Part 3 of 3 ICSP Documents)13 ICSP Action Plan – Appendix 4, Resilient Infrastructure


Water Smart Action Plan6 of 179Page 146 of 179Page 146 of 179Page 146 of 179


6 | Page

3.0 Community Profile

3.1 Service Population and DemographicsThe current population of the City of Revelstoke is estimated to be 7720 as estimated by theRevelstoke Local Health Authority. This includes the population of the Big Eddy area of the city andpart of the CSRD Area “B” estimated to be 600 and 700 people respectively. The Greeley Creekwater system does not service these two areas and therefore the service population of theRevelstoke water system is estimated to be 6420 permanent residents.14

According to the 2011 Statistics Canada census data15, 71 per cent of Revelstoke’s population isdistributed between the 15-64 age cohorts with a median age of 40.9. Males make up 51 per cent ofthe population, and females 49 per cent. The 20-29 aged permanent population has increasedsince the opening of Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR) in 2007.

Revelstoke has a diverse economic base considering the size of the community. Major industriesinclude forestry, transportation (primarily rail), power generation, tourism, and government services.The retail and service industries also employ a large sector of the population.

3.2 Seasonal Population VariabilityRevelstoke has become an international winter destination for snow sports including downhill,alpine touring, cross country skiing, and snowmobiling. Summer visitors include those travellingthrough Revelstoke on the Trans Canada Highway and staying en route to visiting the adjacentNational Parks, as well as those recreating in the community and surrounding mountains (hiking,mountain biking etc...). These visitors tend to seek short-term accommodations along the highwaycorridors and in the City centre.

It is very difficult to accurately estimate the dynamic seasonal population, as detailed in the recentlycompleted ICSP: “The population of Revelstoke has several components: "permanent" residents,seasonal population with both visitors and seasonal employees to support them, and non-residentproperty owners who visit Revelstoke on weekends and holidays or seasonally.”16 It is estimatedthat Revelstoke’s service population can increase up to 15,000 people in peak summer season.

For the purposes of this report we have deferred to the population estimates cited in the recentVeritec Water Loss and Metering report17. Non-resident properties include 526 serviced dwellings.To estimate the occupancy of these dwellings, two categories have been assumed with 70 per centof the residential dwellings occupied by seasonal workers (325 workers) and seasonal visitors, andowner or otherwise occupying the remaining 226 properties 50 per cent of the time with 2.6 peopleper dwelling. The shadow population is therefore estimated to be approximately 913 additionalwater users.

14 Water Loss and Metering Project FINAL Technical Memorandum #1, Veritec Consulting Inc. May 2013.15 Revelstoke Census Profile, Statistics Canada, 2011.16 State of Sustainability Report (Part 2 of 3 ISCP Documents) pp.16-1717 Water Loss and Metering Project FINAL Technical Memorandum #1, Veritec Consulting Inc. May 2013




7 | Page

3.3 Community Growth EstimatesRevelstoke’s 2009 OCP considers several growth scenarios. The preferred growth scenarioforecasts a total permanent population of 11,201 persons by 2026. Including resort equivalentpopulation, the community is projected to grow to 16,384 on average, with an estimated equivalentpopulation of 5,182 visitors. In-migration of new residents is estimated at 1,312 persons over thisperiod.

Should RMR development increase as planned, this could mean an additional 15,000 bed units,500,000 square feet of commercial space and a golf course. These additional bed units also meansan increase in seasonal workers in the order of 4000-5000 people putting more demands fromresidential dwellings on the utilities.18

It is noted that historical growth has been relatively flat over the past ten years, and the 2011census data does not support the growth scenario in the OCP. Since 2007, the population hasremained relatively constant with a recent increase of 0.8 percent in 2011 over 201019.

3.4 Water Connection SummaryInformation provided by the City of Revelstoke shows the following breakdown of waterconnections:

2,996 total residential connections including 20 residential homes with pilot meters, 310 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) connections

Additional information regarding major water users is contained in Sections 3.7 and 4.0 of thisdocument.

18 State of Sustainability Report (Part 2 of 3 ISCP Documents)19 BC Stats Community Facts – Revelstoke Census 2011.




8 | Page

3.5 Infrastructure SummaryAccording to the City’s 2011 Annual Water Report20, the majority of the City’s water system issupplied by Greeley Creek with back up supply from the Golf Course Well. The surface water istreated with a relatively new (installed in 2000) micro filtration membrane plant locatedapproximately 8km from the City with chlorine added to provide a residual in the distribution system.The capacity of this plant is 175 L/s. The golf course well provides untreated water for irrigation atthe golf course and can be used as a supplement to the distribution system during periods of peakdemand. Chlorine is added to the well water when connected to the potable water system. The wellcan produce 75 L/s.

Storage: Trans Canada Highway Reservoir 4.55 ML; Arrow Heights Reservoir 2.27ML Pipe network: 98 km including 10.8 km cast iron, 11 km ductile iron, 3.7 galvanised, 0.3 km

steel,37.1 km asbestos concrete, 0.01 km copper and 35.3 km PVC pipe. Pump Stations: Arrow Heights pump station fills the Arrow Heights reservoir and the RMR

pump station regulates the line pressure to the few buildings at the resort but are designedto fill future reservoirs once demand requires it.

Pressure Zones: Five zones with pressures ranging from 40-130psi

3.6 Source ResiliencyUnlike our neighbours in the Interior of BC or Alberta, source resilience has not typically proven tothe be a primary driver for water conservation in the Basin’s Water Smart communities. In a handfulof cases, however, ecosystem supply constraints do play a role. In Revelstoke’s case, two studiesmay clarify the local relevance of source resilience as a driver for water use efficiency action:

the 2012 Climate Adaptation Scanning and Planning Workshops21; and the pending Greeley Creek Watershed Protection Plan.

At the January 2012 Climate Change Adaptation Planning Workshops, it was perceived by bothresidents and local government staff that water supply is a priority area for climate change riskmitigation in Revelstoke. The Summary of Dialogue and Ideas for Action document that resultedfrom the 2012 workshops noted:

“Increased temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns create uncertainty aboutRevelstoke’s future water supply. Potential changes could reduce the availability ofwater for domestic, recreation, irrigation, fire fighting and generating hydroelectricity.The result could be an inability to meet peak water demand in future years (pp 7)”.

Ideas for Action to support risk mitigation in the area of Water Supply include (pp 12-13) WaterMetering; Water Conservation Education; Watershed Management Planning; and Leak Detection.

20 City of Revelstoke 2011 Annual Water Report, Engineering and Public Works Department.21 City of Revelstoke Climate Adaptation Scanning and Planning Workshop: Summary of Dialogue and Ideas for Action

Draft Report 2012.




9 | Page

The City is taking currently action on each of these as follows:

Water Metering: Veritec Consulting Inc. is preparing a Water Metering Assessment todetermine water savings and cost/benefit of water metering for the City’s water utility – plancompletion due in October 2013

Water Conservation Education: ongoing public WUE education, now also supported withresources and strategies through the Water Smart Ambassador Program

Watershed Management Planning: development of a Greeley Creek Watershed ProtectionPlan for is currently underway with a final plan due in August 2013. The plan will providedirection on whether source resiliency is a driver for water use efficiency

Leak Detection: Veritec Consulting Inc. is preparing a water loss assessment andmanagement plan for the City – plan completion due in October 2013

3.7 Major Water UsesBased on the best available data, the top three water uses in Revelstoke are:

o real losses (leakage) in the distribution system;o indoor residential use; ando outdoor residential water use.

The local mill and brewery are connected to the City’s distribution system but are unmetered andtheir total use is small as compared to the proportion of residential use.

Additional details on each of these users, including explanations regarding how the extents of usewere determined, are provided in section 4.3.

3.8 Unique Community AttributesRevelstoke has been implementing water conservation measures for many years now and wateruse has been steadily decreasing since 2002 (see Figure 2). Although a substantial level ofdevelopment has been approved for the resort area within the City, the rate of development overthe past six years has not been as significant as planned . The City does, however, need to plan forthis growth as existing development approvals allow for the expansion. The City’s approach togrowth is effective management of existing resources and infrastructure, as opposed toinfrastructure expansion. Demand side management for the water system is a key component ofthis approach.




10 | Page

Figure 2: Annual Water Supply 2002-2012

3.9 Existing Conservation ApproachThe City of Revelstoke has made water conservation a priority over the past 15 years starting with aWater Use Efficiency Study in 1998 that was updated as a comprehensive Water ConservationStudy in 2007.

The City’s current approach to water conservation has been focused on implementation ofrecommendations contained in the 2007 Water Conservation Study including:

ongoing public education in the form of print materials, distribution of indoor waterconservation kits, and outreach at local events

watering restrictions implementation of advanced irrigation technologies and IIABC certification for Parks staff ongoing leak location and repair water metering pilot project Completion of a back up well at the City golf course to provide untreated irrigation water to

the course; Use of untreated water for street cleaning with minimal supplementation by municipal water.

In 2013 two additional studies are currently being undertaken concurrently by Veritec ConsultingInc. to guide further water use efficiency actions:

a water metering feasibility study is being developed to aid in understanding the social,economic and environmental cost/benefits of water metering options; and

a water loss assessment and management plan to more accurately assess the scope ofwater loss and to develop a plan to cost effectively mitigate that loss.




11 | Page

4.0 Water Use ProfileThe following water use profile has been developed based on the best available and complete dataprovided by the City of Revelstoke for 2011.

It is noted that the baseline year for all Water Smart communities is 2009. The 2015 demandreduction targets for the Initiative are based on the per cent change from the 2009 baseline (seesection 4.2). However, for the purposes of developing the recommendations in this Action Plan, wehave used the City’s 2011 data. This ensures that the recommendations in this plan are based onthe same, current data sets as those employed by Veritec in development of a Water MeteringFeasibility Study and Water Loss Management Plan.

Veritec has developed an AWWA Water Audit for the City. For the purposes of this Action Plan, wehave used the Veritec audit and further refined it to allow for a better understanding of residentialwater demand.

Where assumptions have been made in development of the water balance that follows, they arebased on industry standards and/or the professional expertise and judgement of Veritec (theconsultant retained to develop the City’s Water Metering Feasibility Study and Water LossManagement Plan), and the Water Smart Team. The values contained in Veritec’s 2011 WaterAudit include sometimes highly variable confidence levels based on uncertainty in the raw data andestimates and therefore may vary slightly from the water demands presented in this report. Demandestimates contained in this Action Plan do fall within Veritec’s confidence levels.

Gross Water Consumption (4.1 and 4.2) was provided by the City of Revelstoke. Statedflows from the Greeley Creek Water Treatment Plant are considered accurate. A smallportion (2 per cent) of the total potable demand from the well source was estimated.

Total residential use has been derived using data from 20 pilot residential meters inRevelstoke, while the estimate of indoor and outdoor residential uses (4.3.1), has beenderived from professional assumptions and standards.

The estimates of real water loss (4.3.2) were developed by Veritec using night flowanalysis – this figure is deemed to be accurate within 30 percent.

Industrial, Commercial, Institutional (ICI) (4.3.4) demand includes one large meteredconnection and the remaining ICI demand (4.3.4) and non-revenue water (4.3.3) havebeen derived from professional assumptions and standards.

In conjunction with the review and input of City staff, the data contained in this section areconsidered sufficiently reliable to serve as a basis for developing the recommended actions found insection 7.0. Should ongoing data gathering and analysis result in a revised water use profile, theCity may be required to adjust this Water Smart Action Plan’s recommendations accordingly.

It is noted that this data scenario is not uncommon in the Basin. It is projected that, during thecourse of the Water Smart Initiative, all communities will have an opportunity to enhance their watersystem data gathering.




12 | Page

4.1 Metered Data AvailabilityThe City has been metering and tracking water supply at the Greeley Creek Treatment Plant sinceits commissioning in 2000. The peak demand backup supply from the golf course well is alsometered, but the meter data was not available in a useable format for this analysis and hastherefore been estimated based on pump run hours.

The City began a volunteer pilot residential metering program in 2002 and there are currently 20residential meters intermittently read on a quarterly to bi-annual basis. The Sutton Place Hotel atRMR is metered and billed based on monthly meter reads. An estate home subdivision at RMR isalso metered but the meter is not read on a regular basis and billing is based on a flat rate. No otherconnections are metered.

4.2 Gross Water ConsumptionThe baseline year for the Water Smart Initiative is 2009. The total volume of water supplied bythe City in 2009 was 2,228.4 ML. The 2009 gross supply figure is used only as a basis for theWater Smart Initiative to allow comparisons between other Basin communities who joined theinitiative earlier. The 2009 data has not been used in developing the Water Balance in this section,however, the chart below shows 2009, 2011, and 2012 water demand data for comparativepurposes. The results of water use efficiency measures implemented by the City since 2009 areevident in the water demand reduction experienced since 200922. For the purposes of the WaterBalance in this section, the total volume of water supplied by the City in 2011 was 1,967.4ML, a reduction of 12 per cent from 2009. As of December 31, 2012, total demand has alreadybeen reduced by 20 percent from the 2009 baseline.

22 It is noted that gross demand has fallen by approximately 24 per cent since 2002.




13 | Page

4.3 Major User Information and Real Losses - 2011Major water users in Revelstoke in 2011 included real water losses estimated to be in the order of51 per cent of total water supply ± 27.7 per cent (see section 4.3.2 for more detail), and 27 per centresidential indoor use. The methods used to estimate water demands by major users is describedbelow.

4.3.1 Residential Water UseTotal residential demand was determined using the pilot meter data from 2002 until present bycalculating the average consumption per connection of 790.4 litres/day and dividing by an averagepermanent occupancy rate of 2.6 persons/connection. The resulting residential water demand perconnection is 304 litres per person per day (lpd). This value is relatively low compared to otherBasin and Canadian communities and may be due to a number of factors, such as lower demandstypically seen in homes with voluntary water meters, relatively small lot size or to local climatefactors (e.g.: higher summer precipitation than elsewhere in the Basin).

Indoor demandIndoor residential use for activities such as bathing, cooking, dish washing, drinking and laundry isestimated at 23023 lpd based on universal meter data from the District of Sparwood. This value is areasonable estimate given that many homes in Revelstoke are older and may have inefficientfixtures. Some of these homes may also have leaking fixtures within the house. It is also noted thatthe Design Guidelines for Rural Residential Community Water Systems24 state that basic domesticindoor use is well established at 230 lpd. The 2007 Water Conservation Report estimates indoordemand at 426 lpd, which appears relatively high. It is noted that without several years of residentialmeter data from a statistically reliable data set, these figures must be considered gross estimatesonly. Nevertheless, residential demand reduction is highlighted as an opportunity for increasedwater use efficiency in Revelstoke.

Outdoor DemandOutdoor residential use was estimated by subtracting the estimated indoor demand (230 lpd) fromthe metered demand per connection (304 lpd), resulting in 74 lpd outdoor demand. Caution shouldbe applied to this value as it is based on a low estimate for total residential demand. The overalldemand profile for Revelstoke for 2011 however does not show an excessive peak demand in thesummer irrigation months.

In total, indoor residential uses were estimated in 2011 to account for 539 ML or 27 per cent of totaluse with approximately 173 ML or 9 per cent attributed to outdoor residential use.

4.3.2 Leakage or Real LossesOne of the first tasks in Revelstoke’s Water Loss Assessment was to determine real loss in thesystem by performing a night flow analysis (NFA). The analysis was completed by VeritecConsulting Inc, using SCADA data provided from the City from November 2012. By measuring flowat night when there is little demand, and considering assessed night time users, the remaining

23 Note: 350+ lpd indoor demand is considered a “high use home”; 200 lpd would be the expected demand in a home builtto current building code standards; and 150 lpd is considered an achievable conservation target for per capita waterdemand in BC.24 Design Guidelines for Rural Residential Community Water Systems (Water Stewardship Division of BC MoE, 2012)




14 | Page

minimum flow represents leakage within the system. It should be noted that night flow analysisprovides a snapshot of the current water loss situation only. If significant repairs or additional leaksoccurred in 2012, the percentage of water loss compared to total demand will vary. It does howeverprovide a reasonable value for the magnitude of water loss in the system.

This approach resulted in a measure of 1008 ML of water or 51 per cent of total annual demandallocated to real loss in the system. The confidence levels are ± 27.7 per cent due to an unknownaccuracy of the meters within the system and limitations with the reporting of data.

In 2012, Water Smart learned that, on average, 40 per cent of treated water in Basin communities isbeing lost through leaks in water utility distribution systems— in some cases this figure is well over70 per cent. This situation is not unique to the Basin. Across Canada and North America theinfrastructure deficit continues to climb and water loss is a result. Therefore, at a range of 30-70percent potential loss, the City is well within the “normal” range in the Basin, and across NorthAmerica. Section 7.1 addresses strategies for sustainable water loss management that can beapplied by the City.

4.3.3 Non-Revenue WaterNon-revenue water within a water system can include water used for winter bleeding practices,system flushing, fire suppression, unmetered water use and unauthorized water use. The City usescreek water for street cleaning with only minimal top ups using treated municipal water. Without anydata to inform this sector, Veritec estimated total non-revenue water to be 1.25 percent of the totalsupply volume and represents 49 ML.25

4.3.4 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI)All ICI uses except for the City golf course are connected to the community water utility. City billingrecords show that there are 310 ICI users with one hotel billed based on monthly metered use.There is insufficient information available to provide an accurate estimate of ICI use. The meteredICI demand at the hotel for 2011 was 17.5ML. All of the other metered or estimated demands weresubtracted from the total water supply to estimate ICI, resulting in a remainder of 205 ML.

This approach resulted in an estimate of 222.5 ML water demand per year from industrial,commercial and institutional activities or 11 percent of total annual system demand.The ICI connection breakdown in Revelstoke includes 20 hotels and motels of which only one ismetered. This metered hotel is also the newest and therefore would not be representative of wateruse in a more established hotel or motel where older or leaky fixtures may be in use. As acomparison to check the overall ICI estimate, we reviewed per room metered data from the Villageof Valemount’s hotel and motels. The accommodations in both communities are typically of thesame range in age and it was assumed that the occupancy rates are similar, approximately 60 percent. In Valemount, the usage per room ranges from 1.5 m3 per month in the newest hotel usingwater conserving fixtures and minimal landscape irrigation to 17.5 m3 per month in one of the oldermotels suspected to have leaky fixtures. Removing these two outliers, the average use per room is8.5 m3 per month, a minimum use of 4 m3 per month and a maximum use of 12.5 m3 per month. Byapplying these rates to the unmetered hotels and motels in Revelstoke, the annual water use wouldrange between 43 ML and 134 ML per year or 20 to 65 per cent of the unmetered ICI use. Without

25 Water Loss and Metering Project FINAL Technical Memorandum #1, Veritec Consulting Inc. May 2013




15 | Page

more detailed information on the age of fixtures in each motel, it is difficult to estimate the typicalwater demand from the unmetered hotels and motels within this range.

4.4 Demand Forecast (Business as Usual)Creating a demand forecast for the City of Revelstoke presents a challenge. Significant resortexpansion has been approved for the City. If projected population increases due to resortdevelopment come to fruition, additional demands in the order of 4,000 to 5,000 users could berealized. In 2007, the Dayton and Knight Water Conservation Study projected that demand couldrise by 2.5 times by 2025 in the absence of WUE measures being implemented.

In response, the City has been implementing a wide range of effective WUE measures with theobjective of accommodating new demand through demand side management as opposed toinfrastructure and supply expansion. The OCP explicitly states the intention that “RevelstokeMountain Resort is not to adversely impact domestic water supply.

Since the 1990’s, water use efficiency has become the “business as usual” model in Revelstoke.Since 2002 the City has achieved a 24 per cent reduction in demand despite a stable permanentpopulation and increases to seasonal visitation.




16 | Page

4.5 Water Profile Summary TableThe following table summarizes the water use profile for the community of Revelstoke for 2011.

Table 4 – 2011 Community Water Use Summary (ML)

BC PopulationStats.

Service Population Estimate 6420Relevant Shadow Population 913

Projected Growth uncertain

Water UseSummary(2011 Data)

2009 Baseline for Water Smart Initiative 2228.4 ML

Gross Water Supply 1,967.4 MLWinter Monthly Average* 147 MLSummer Monthly Peak* 213 MLSystem Peaking Factor +1.7

Residential Indoor 539 MLResidential Outdoor 173 ML

ICI 222.5 MLReal Losses 1008 ML

Non-Revenue Water 25 ML

LPD Calculation [1](estimate only)

Revelstoke total average daily flow lpd(Total water use/service population)

823

BC total average daily flow lpd 606Canada total average daily flow L/p/d 510

2012 Columbia Basin Average26 933Revelstoke average daily residential flow lpd(Residential indoor & outdoor water use/service

population)304

BC average daily residential flow lpd 353Canada average daily residential flow lpd 274

[1] Environment Canada. pp. 6. 2011 Municipal Water Use Report. Municipal Water Use 2009 statistics. BC L/p/d andCanada L/p/d are quoted from Ministry of Environment Municipal Water Use Report for 2011 using data from 2009 Adetailed report summarizing the data can be found athttp://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&xml=B77CE4D0-80D4-4FEB-AFFA-0201BE6FB37B BC andCanadian lpd numbers presented by Environment Canada are being refined on an ongoing basis as new water use datais available. While the community total average daily flow numbers can be compared directly to the BC and Canadianaverages, care should be exercised when trying to make a direct comparison to BC and Canadian average dailyresidential flows given that it is unclear how those numbers were calculated or what data was available to support thosecalculations.** winter monthly average calculated based on November through March; summer monthly peak is August.26 Including 19 of the 23 participating Water Smart communities; data known to be unreliable or unavailable has beenomitted from the total analysis.




17 | Page

5.0 Energy Use Implications

Reductions in water use will translate into minor reductions in energy demand and cost. As only asmall amount of groundwater resources are currently used, energy savings will stem largely fromreduced pumping requirements to move water through pump stations to utility customers at higherelevations within the distribution system. Additional savings may be realized from diminished needto move volumes of wastewater through lift stations and onto treatment facilities. The extent ofwater and energy savings will be linked, although it is not likely to be a direct correlation as thereare some fixed demands and costs in the energy component, such as building lighting and heating.




18 | Page

6.0 Summary of Primary Community Drivers

The City’s commitment to Responsible Water Use is driven by the following: A commitment to achieve new water supply through demand reduction as opposed to

expansion of water supply and storage infrastructure. A need to ensure adequate water supply to accommodate planned growth. A perceived need to minimize the vulnerability of City’s water supply to future climate

change risks, which are not fully understood at this time; The ability to meet fire demands with existing reservoir capacity during peak demand; Reduction in infrastructure costs – capital cost reductions through eliminating, postponing

and/or downsizing the need for water and wastewater capital investments, and operatingcost reductions (energy, chemicals, etc.) in both utilities (see page 2-9 of the Dayton andKnight Ltd. Water Conservation Study for a list of potentially deferrable infrastructure) ;

A desire to encourage a conservation ethic in the community through more efficient use ofwater and energy resources in order to achieve the cost and vulnerability improvementsnoted above.

In conjunction with the demand data summarized in section 4.0, these drivers have significantlyinformed development of recommendations for water use efficiency action in Section 7.0




19 | Page

7.0 Recommended Community Specific Actions andImplementation Strategy

This section presents the Water Smart Team’s recommendations for water use efficiency actionbased on analysis of the best available data and a basic assessment of cost : benefit for a widerange of water use efficiency actions. It is strongly recommended that this action plan be revisitedwithin 2-3 years to determine the ongoing effectiveness and relevance of these actions for reducinggross water demand.

The following objectives are detailed in this section 7.0.

Objective 1Implement a sustainable water loss management program

Objective 2Continue and augment public water use efficiency outreach with a focus on cost effectiveconsumer demand reduction strategies

Objective 3Implement the recommended metering program identified in the 2013 Water MeteringFeasibility Study




20 | Page

7.1 Objective 1 Background and Recommended ActionsImplement a sustainable water loss management program.

BackgroundThe City has engaged Veritec to develop a Water Metering Feasibility Study and Water LossManagement Plan to quantify current system loss and to determine the feasibility of a universal orsystem metering program for the City. The initial results from Veritec’s 2013 night flow analysissuggest a significant amount of leakage within the system at 1008 ML, or approximately 51 per centof total system demand ± 27.7 per cent27. Veritec estimates that up to 75 per cent of this leakage (ornearly 40 per cent of total demand) is recoverable through infrastructure repair and/or replacementguided by implementation of a sustainable water loss management program.

In 2012, Water Smart learned that, on average, 40 per cent of treated water in Basin communities isbeing lost through leaks in water utility distribution systems— in some cases this figure is well over70 per cent. This situation is not unique to the Basin. Across Canada and North America theinfrastructure deficit continues to climb and water loss is a result. Therefore, at an estimated rangeof 30-70 percent potential loss, the City is well within the “normal” range in the Basin, and acrossNorth America. This section addresses strategies for sustainable water loss management that canbe applied by the City.

What is a sustainable water loss management program?Sustainable Water Loss Management (WLM) is the term for a series of best-practices that can beemployed to reduce water loss in the distribution system, but also to reduce wear and tear oninfrastructure. It starts with ensuring that reliable supply and demand data is being collected for theutility as a whole, and then assesses how much water is flowing through system in the middle of thenight when we’d typically expect there to be very little water in the pipes. Night flow analysisprovides a critical “big picture” understanding of how much leakage there is in the system.Operators can then implement a series of zone-tests to find out which portions of the system havethe worst leaks and target their leak location, repair and replacement efforts there first. Finally, arange of strategies can be employed to reduce average water pressure in the distribution system,especially at night, which reduces the volume of water being lost through leaks in the distributionsystem.

Comprehensive water loss management in amunicipal water system is a problem solvingprocess where a broad assessment of thesystem is undertaken well before acoustic leakdetection or digging up pipes. The experienceand intuition of the water system operatorsprovide an invaluable starting point. Age of pipeand knowledge of the quality of workmanshipduring the installation, potentially through recordof previous repairs, can narrow down the

27 The confidence levels are ± 27.7 per cent due to an unknownaccuracy of the meters within the system and limitations with thereporting of data.




21 | Page

general location of a leak. Night time flow monitoring each autumn in the early morning hours of 1 to4 am when there is little to no system demand will provide a baseline flow, and an annual approachwill allow utility operators to track changes and trends in night flow over time. If water use isoccurring during the night, a determinable portion of that night use can be attributed to systemlosses through leakage with the remainder being other non-revenue water (i.e. cooling units,plumbing losses, incidental residential use, etc).

How much water loss is too much?Due to the inherent nature of a pressurized piped network, every water system is subject toleakage. Calculating the Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) is one of the best ways to identify RealLosses and inform water loss management policies. It is a comparison of the Current Actual RealLosses (CARL) to the Unavoidable Real Losses (UARL) of the of the system. The UARL calculationis based on the length of watermain, system pressure, number of connections and average lengthof each connection. The World Bank Institute has developed a banding system to provide aninternationally acceptable water loss management activities appropriate to the amount leakage.

Night flow analysis should be performed at least twice a year in the spring and fall, outside ofirrigation and possible winter bleed season to determine the Current Actual Real Losses andmonitor ILI (see Table 8 – World Bank Institute Bands for Leakage Management in DevelopedCountries).

The 2007 Dayton and Knight report suggests that an Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) of between3 and 5 is achievable and is likely to be cost effective for the City. The 2013 City of Revelstoke ILIwas calculated to be 9.6 by Veritec, putting leakage at over 9 times than what is achievable in thesystem. Once the Veritec Water Loss study is complete including water loss management planningstrategies specific for Revelstoke, a detailed capital and operational budget for implementation ofthe recommended actions will be required and will support determination of an appropriate andachievable ILI target for the City.

Band ILI Range Guideline Description of Real Loss Management Performance Categoriesfor Developed Countries

A < 2.0 Further loss reduction may be uneconomic unless there are shortages;careful analysis needed to identify cost-effective leakage management

B 2.0 to < 4.0 Possibilities for further improvement; consider pressure management,better active leakage control, better maintenance

C 4.0 to < 8.0 Poor leakage management, tolerable only if plentiful cheap resources;even then, analyze level and nature of leakage, intensify reduction efforts

D 8.0 or more Very inefficient use of resources, indicative of poor maintenance andsystem condition in general, leakage reduction programs imperative andhigh priority

Table 8: World Bank Institute Bands for Leakage Management in Developed Countries

Since starting to implement Water Loss Management, water operators in the Basin are now theleaders in implementing water use efficiency practices in Water Smart communities. Water demandreductions in the majority of Water Smart communities are first and foremost attributable to theimplementation of sustainable water loss management practices. Up to this point, the water savingsand operational improvements that have been gained have been achieved using existing staff andresources generally by modifying or adapting existing work plans to address leakage.




22 | Page

It is worth noting that 3 Water Smart communities are experiencing extreme water loss of over 70percent. But just one year ago, they were unaware of the losses. Now, through focused analysis ofnight flows and other utility water data, they know where the major problems are, and have aprocess in place that will help them figure out how to solve those problems cost effectively. It seemslikely that by 2015 these communities will have reversed the trend, and may even meet or exceedtheir demand reduction targets.

For more information on Water Loss Management efforts being undertaken across the basin, go to:http://www.cbt.org/watersmart/pg-whatsnew-nl5a3.asp

Recommended ActionsIn general, the Water Smart Team strongly recommends that the City focus its WUE humanand financial resources first and foremost in the area of sustainable water loss management,which may or may not include water metering, depending on the results of the Veritec WaterMetering Assessment. The volume of water “consumed” by leakage in Revelstoke exceeds allother demand sectors. By minimizing leakage in the distribution system, the City will not onlyreduce demand, but will also reduce wear and tear on existing infrastructure, thereby reducingoperating and capital costs in the short- and long-terms.

In the 2007 Dayton and Knight Study, implementation of zone metering and pressure managementwere recommended as having a positive cost benefit ratio based on an estimated potential demandreduction of between 3 and 5 per cent through pressure reduction. Given that the water lossestimate of 51 per cent (+/- 27 %) is significantly higher than the Dayton and Knight estimate of 14per cent, it is reasonable to conclude that the cost / benefit ratio may have further improved.

1. It is recommended that the City of Revelstoke implement the actions outlined byVeritec in the soon to be completed Water Loss Management Plan in order to ensurethe implementation of an effective, customized approach that will meet the unique needs ofthe City’s water infrastructure.

We note that in addition to pipe repair and replacement, a cyclical and persistent approachto water loss management is vital to the sustainability and resilience of Revelstoke’s waterutility infrastructure. This approach requires implementation of a range of actions that,together, will lead to reduced leakage in the distribution system. Revelstoke’s Utilityoperators are qualified to implement refined water loss management activities within theirdaily work plans.

2. Over the past two years, the Water Smart Initiative has delivered a four part Water LossManagement training course for water utility operators addressing the following topics: A comprehensive overview of sustainable water loss management practices Night Flow Analysis Training District Metered Areas, Pressure Management, and the AWWA Audit Acoustic Leak Detection

Water Smart will be offering a final training course in Water Loss Management forUtility Managers and Engineers in the fall of 2013. It is recommended that theappropriate staff person(s) at the City attend this course.




23 | Page

It is noted that there are a few Water Smart communities that have demonstratedexceptional leadership in Water Loss Management. The Water Smart Team can support theCity in connecting with utility operators, managers, and engineers in Basin communities whoare willing and able to provide City of Revelstoke staff with peer-to-peer mentoring andproblem solving support relevant to the specific challenges and opportunities presented inthe final Veritec WLM Plan.

Expected Water Use ReductionsOnce fully implemented, it is anticipated that the City’s water loss management and piperepair/replacement program could result in water use reductions of up to 40 per cent of totaldemand.

It is unrealistic though, to expect that the full 40 per cent demand reduction can be achieved byDecember 31, 2015. As such a more modest, though somewhat arbitrary target for leakagereduction by 2015 is 5 per cent of total demand.

Supporting Tools and Resources The Water Smart Website provides access to a number of resources and presentations on

Water Loss Management. Go to the following website and click the Water Loss Managementtab http://www.cbt.org/watersmart/pg-waterworx.asp :

o Free AWWA Audit Softwareo Water Loss Management presentationso A multi-community collaborative acoustic leak detection RFP template:o Link to AWWA’s M36 Water Audits and Water Loss Control Programs manual

Water Use and Loss in Water Distribution Systems – A Best Practice by the National Guide toSustainable Municipal Infrastructure – Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) andNational Research Council, 2003. This is available online through the FCM’s SustainableCommunities website;Water Loss Control-Second Edition, Thornton, Sturm, and Kunkel, McGraw Hill Company, 2008.Water Loss Guidelines – Water New Zealand, Lambert and Taylor, February 2010.

Reducing Leaks – Using Water Audits and leak detection surveys, Washington StateDepartment of Health Office of Drinking Water. DOH 331-388 Feb 2008http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/dw/Publications/331-388.pdf

Hunaidi O., Chu, W. Wang, A and Guan, W. Detecting Leaks in plastic pipes. Journal AWWA,92:2:82-94, American Water Works Association, 2000.




24 | Page

7.2 Objective 2 Background and Recommended ActionsContinue and augment public water use efficiency outreach with a focus on costeffective consumer demand reduction strategies.

BackgroundAfter water loss (leakage), the second largest water use in Revelstoke is residential demand. Dueto a lack of statistically reliable residential demand data there is some uncertainty about the balanceof water use between indoor and outdoor demand (see section 4.3.1).

In the absence of reliable demand data that clearly identifies which type of residential demand ispredominant, we defer to the question of cost / benefit to guide our recommendations on where theCity should focus it’s demand side management efforts for residents in Revelstoke.

At this time, the data analysis shows major water uses in Revelstoke as follows: Water Loss: 51 per cent (+/- 27%) Residential indoor demand: 27 per cent Residential outdoor demand: 9 per cent

At 27 per cent of gross demand, indoor water consumption would seem to be the next logicalpriority for water use efficiency action for the City. However, taking cost / benefit into consideration,indoor demand reduction is not recommended as the next best area for water use efficiency actionin Revelstoke for the foreseeable future.

Indoor demand reduction cost / benefit assessmentIt can reasonably be assumed that in order to achieve significant indoor demand reductions, theCity may need to provide low-flow retrofit support for up to 75-80 per cent of the City’s nearly 3000residential connections in order to retrofit the primary indoor plumbing fixtures (toilets, showerheads). Assuming a minimum cost of $150 - $200 /household, this could result in a program cost ofbetween $330,000 and $480,000. If every home with high demand fixtures were retrofitted resultingin a 15 per cent reduction in indoor demand, this would equate to a 4 per cent reduction in grossdemand for the City, at a cost of between $85,000 and $120,000 for each one per cent in watersavings. At this time, the cost does not warrant the benefit of implementing an indoor fixture retrofitprogram and water use efficiency funding could be more effective spent on other strategies.

It is noted that in the absence of aggressive volumetric water rates, a standard toilet rebate andshower-head giveaway program will not result in the demand savings noted above. In order toachieve these savings, a municipal program including full purchase subsidy, fixture removal, andfixture installation would be required so as to ensure that an adequate number of qualifying toiletsand showerheads are actually installed28.

Outdoor demand reduction cost / benefit assessmentOutdoor demand reductions are estimated at 9 per cent of gross City demand. If the city were toimplement an intensive face-to-face public outreach program targeting irrigation reduction, similar tothe Water Smart Ambassador program, it may be possible over a 2-3 year period to reduce outdoorwater demand by 15 percent, which equates to 1.5 per cent of gross supply. Assuming similar

28 see also Appendix A for more background on effective public water use efficiency outreach




25 | Page

Ambassador program costs as experienced in other Basin communities, it is reasonable to estimate$15,000 per year for three years, for a total cost of $45,000, or approximately $30,000 for each oneper cent in water savings.

As noted above at section 7.1, the Water Smart Team strongly recommends that the City focus itswater use efficiency resources (human and financial) first and foremost in the area of sustainablewater loss management, which may or may not include water metering, depending on the results ofthe Veritec Water Metering Assessment. Given that capital works and human resources associatedwith mitigation of the 51 per cent water loss in Revelstoke’s water system is likely to be extensive,and hence, a substantial budget commitment, the Water Smart Team cannot recommend diversionof major financial resources away from implementation of a water loss management plan. However,we also recommend that persistent public communications are vital to sustaining the long-termpublic and Council support necessary to achieve demand reductions through implementation of acomprehensive water use efficiency program, including water loss management and some form ofmetering. So, while some action on residential outreach and demand reduction is required, wecannot, at this stage in Revelstoke’s water use efficiency program, recommend investing the majorcapital that would be required to execute a successful indoor demand reduction program. In future,if/when water loss is reduced significantly, it may be worthwhile to re-examine the costs andbenefits of an indoor retrofit program on a cost / per cent basis.

Recommended ActionsGiven the background analysis presented above, at this time we recommend that public water useefficiency education in Revelstoke’s unique local context should achieve two objectives:

sustaining public awareness about and commitment to water use efficiency in keeping withthe OCP, ICSP, and with the Veritec Water Metering Feasibility Study and Water LossManagement Plan; and

providing opportunities for cost effective demand reductions that can be implemented byconsumers until such time as adequate City resources can be allocated to implementation ofa comprehensive indoor residential demand reduction program.

Therefore, at this time, we recommend that the City continue and augment public water useefficiency outreach with a focus on cost effective consumer demand reductions, while alsoclearly communicating the City’s priority focus on water loss management. The Water SmartAmbassador program, outlined below, provides the City with an approach for consideration. It isimportant that the recommended actions outlined below are reviewed in conjunction with AppendixA to this action plan, which outlines the fundamental elements and considerations of a successfulwater conservation campaign.

Public Education Priority One: Reduce Outdoor Water UseOutdoor irrigation at single family dwellings presents a cost effective opportunity for modest waterdemand reductions in Revelstoke. Currently the City imposes watering restrictions and has a longstanding public water conservation outreach program that must be credited with driving someportion of the impressive water savings garnered in Revelstoke since 2009.

Staff informs residents of efficient watering practices through fairs and advertisements; they haveprovided indoor retrofit kits in the past; and they have advised residents when their wateringpractices contravene the water restrictions bylaw. While this suite of approaches is common inmany communities, provision of information and/or hardware giveaways are not sustainable meansof changing long standing behaviours. Further, bylaw enforcement, no matter how gentle, can foster




26 | Page

a sense of confrontation rather than cooperation between local governments and residents (seeAppendix B for a background on watering restrictions).

Ideally, the City and its residents should see each other as partners in the effort to reduce waterconsumption. One means of fostering this partnership is to provide face-to-face on-site irrigationeducation to residents.

Water Ambassador: The Bridge Between Information and ActionAs outlined in Appendix A, public education programs based principally on provision of waterconservation information are generally not effective. There must either be some form of incentive ora technological incentive to encourage people to act on the information they receive.

While it is still important to ensure that water regulation bylaws are enforced, consideration shouldbe given to the fact that many people do not break regulations wilfully. Often a malfunction in asprinkler system will cause it to run at the wrong times without the homeowner’s knowledge. Givinga fine in these situations causes resentment. Even the word “warning” may be perceived asconfrontational.

This is why, over the past 3 years, many Basin communities have had “Water Smart Ambassadors”to deliver face-to-face outreach during the irrigation season. These are personable summerstudents or existing staff trained in effective methods of securing sustainable outdoor water demandreduction. Ambassadors spend their time in one-on-one consultation with homeowners, showingthem how to set their irrigation timers and offering advice on landscape watering efficiency, andthey may also provide free hose timers and/or rain sensors (see, for example,http://www.cbt.org/watersmart/cm-castlegar.asp ).

An Ambassador who is a helpful resource (as opposed to someone who hands out fines) will helpsustain positive awareness about water use efficiency in Revelstoke and help facilitate actualbehaviour change and demand reduction.

Free Landscape & Irrigation System AssessmentsSurface and automatic in-ground sprinklers systems are the main cause of excessive water use –both in a residential and a commercial setting. Studies by the irrigation industry in the United Statesindicate that the majority of homeowners do not really know how often or how much to water, howto set irrigation timers or how to properly maintain the system. Once installed, in-ground systemsare rarely inspected and malfunctions create inefficiencies over time.

An Ambassador would offer free landscape and irrigation assessments for both manual and in-ground systems. They would be trained on how to conduct a basic irrigation system audit and howto recognize and recommend plants that use less water.

The Ambassador would patrol neighbourhoods on bicycle during primary surface irrigation times(early morning and evening). Wearing a clearly identifiable Water Smart uniform, the student wouldknock on doors of houses where watering regulations are not being followed, or wasteful water useis observed. If the homeowner does not answer, the student would leave a “doorknocker” to serveas a friendly reminder of watering regulations (as opposed to a serious warning). If the homeownerdoes answer, the Ambassador would engage them in conversation about watering regulations, andwatering efficiency in general, and may also offer advice on the subject of appropriate winter bleedpractices.




27 | Page

In cases where a home owner continues to break regulations, the City should be prepared toenforce the water regulations bylaw with fines.

A typical example of a system malfunction that creates excessive water use with an in groundsystem is a damaged sprinkler head. A sprinkler covered in snow might get run over by a car duringthe winter, resulting in a malfunction during the summer. This will create a brown spot on the lawnwhich the homeowner will attempt to rectify by boosting the timing of the entire system. As moremalfunctions occur within the system over time, the homeowner will continue to increase thesprinkler run times to compensate.

Sprinkler system inefficiencies are compounded by the fact that they typically operate at night orduring early morning hours, so broken or misaligned sprinklers heads can go unnoticed and un-repaired for years, wasting increasing amounts of water as time goes on.

An inefficient sprinkler system will use 25 – 30 per cent more water than an efficient one.Therefore, ensuring efficient residential sprinkler systems should be a top priority for the City. It willhave a significant impact on reducing peak day and peak hour demand.

Landscape and irrigation assessments are part of an action-oriented program that will generatereal, measurable results for water conservation.

Advertising & CommunicationsIf reducing outdoor irrigation is a priority, all public education efforts should be initially focused inthat direction. Newsletters, brochures, and advertisements containing water conservation tips arehelpful, but their impact may be minimal and there is no mechanism to track results.

From a social marketing perspective, it makes more sense to develop a program for assessingirrigation practices and systems and use the advertising budget to promote that program.The program could be launched in the spring (May/June) at the home of a well-known citizen,perhaps the Mayor or Councillor. Local media could be invited to the launch, and the resultingpublicity combined with advertising (direct mail might be the best option) would generate requestsfrom the public.

Soon after the first several irrigation audits have been completed, the focus of the advertising andcommunications could shift to a testimonial approach, featuring homeowners who have realizedlandscape benefits from the program. This kind of public recognition reinforces positive behaviourand results in more requests for irrigation system assessments.

Secondary Ambassador Priorities

Parks, Schools, Government Buildings and Public SpacesWhen a community sets outdoor water conservation as a priority, their own water use comes undera critical spotlight. Parks and open spaces are a major user for many water suppliers. In fact, a2005 study found that the largest single irrigation customer for most urban municipalities in BritishColumbia is their own Parks Department.

It is noted that the City of Revelstoke has IIABC certified parks staff and that municipal irrigationdemand is reduction is thought to be responsible for a significant portion of the gross demand




28 | Page

reduction achieved since 2009. While the City has made major improvements to their own irrigationtechnologies and practices, Revelstoke should make every attempt to ensure that they continue toirrigate parks and public spaces as efficiently as possible.

When parks are maintained by different people over many years, inefficiencies may be createdinadvertently. Broken sprinkler heads might be replaced with an improper head. Maintenancepractices and plans for future parks differ, resulting in a mix of products that may not be compatiblewith each other. Knowledge of each system’s intricacies may be lost when experienced staff moveor retire.

Ambassadors trained through the Water Smart Ambassador Program can work independently orwith Park staff to perform irrigation system audits/inventories at all parks, schools, and other majorpublic facilities with high irrigation needs. The audits would identify immediate system deficienciessuch as misaligned or broken sprinkler heads. The inventory would help parks staff refine theirparks water management plan for the future.

A Water Smart park audit/inventory consists of: determining the distribution uniformity (DU) of existing systems identifying every sprinkler head by type (rotor of fixed), manufacturer, and flow rate noting where master valves are or are not present creating a site map of each system for future reference

Following the inventory we recommend that staff develop a plan that consists of standards for newparks, and a purchasing/maintenance policy that will allow for the gradual replacement of existingstand alone irrigation timers to timers that can be connected to a weather-based centrally controlledsystem at some point in the future.

An Ambassador can also be trained to audit municipal facilities to identify high flow or leakingfixtures that may get extremely high use (e.g.: curling club, swimming pool, community hall etc…).The water savings from replacing a single high flow commercial fixture can be many hundreds oftimes more than savings from replacement of a single residential fixture.

Commercial Accommodation Indoor AuditsA water Smart Ambassador can cost effectively support the City to assess and mitigate waterdemand in commercial accommodation unit. As noted in section 4.0, water demand in a singlehotel room in a “water efficient” hotel can be a fraction of that in a comparable hotel unit with highflow or leaking fixtures. The Ambassador can also provide a free service to commercialaccommodation providers to audit every hotel unit for leaking and/or high flow fixtures. Often,accommodation operators will be unaware of opportunities for water conservation as leaks gounreported by cleaning staff.

ExpectationsRevelstoke’s small population makes it both possible and necessary to focus efforts and resourceson one key priority and make it a community-wide effort. If the population sees significantreductions in water use at the first stage (e.g. outdoor water conservation), it helps the idea of waterconservation gain momentum. This in turn makes it easier to take on the next level of educationpriorities (indoor water conservation).




29 | Page

It is important to keep in mind that the City has established a 5 year water conservation target forthis Action Plan, but that water conservation will likely be an ongoing priority for the City. As such, astrategic and phased approach to water conservation education will ensure that each barrier andopportunity is addressed in the order of highest priority; the most potential for water savings; andthe most favourable cost / benefit analysis.

Expected Water Use ReductionsSome of the recommended actions in this section are based on data assumptions, and thereforemay not be as effective as recommendations based on more reliable data. Given data gaps it is notpossible to estimate the volume of water that can be saved. As a stand-alone measure, publiceducation programs can reduce total water demand by approximately 5 per cent. The United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency’s Water Conservation Plan Guidelines use a range of 2 per centto 5 per cent as a benchmark. As data gaps are filled in Revelstoke, an accurate estimate ofpotential savings can be made. We are estimating that in Revelstoke it may be possible to reduceoutdoor demand by 15 per cent over 3 years, resulting a gross demand reduction of 1.5 per cent.

Supporting Tools and Resourceswww.cbt.org/watersmart

Fostering Sustainable Behaviour: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing’, byDoug McKenzie-Mohr and William Smith. The book is available through New SocietyPublishers, PO Box 189, Gabriola Island BC, V0R 1X0.

CBT Water Smart Ads (customizable) CBT Water Smart Action Plan (useful for educating the public)

Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines for Water Efficiency:http://www.kelowna.ca/CityPage/Docs/PDFs//Water%20Division/Water%20Smart%20Program/2010-05-03_Landscape-Irrigation-Guide-web_brochure.pdf

7.3 Objective 3 Background and Recommended ActionsImplement recommended metering program identified in the 2013 Water MeteringFeasibility Study

BackgroundWith the exception of one hotel, a residential neighbourhood at Revelstoke Mountain Resort, and20 residential connections, the City does not currently meter water utility subscribers. This creates achallenge in understanding water use behaviour in Revelstoke and in determining which water useefficiency actions will lead to the most cost effective demand reductions. This challenge is reflectedin section 4 of this document, where assumptions were made regarding residential indoor andoutdoor demand, and ICI demand. The 2007 Dayton and Knight study roughly estimated the cost /benefit ratios for ICI, Universal, and distribution system metering programs. At that time ICImetering was projected to be viable, while universal metering was not considered feasible givensignificant implementation costs.

In 2013 the City contracted Veritec Consulting Inc. to undertake a detailed analysis of the costs andbenefits of universal, ICI and Distribution system metering. This study is identified as a high priorityin the draft ICSP Action Plan Appendix 3 – Resilient Infrastructure.




30 | Page

Recommended ActionsUntil such time as the Veritec study is complete (projected for October 2013), the Water SmartTeam will not make specific recommendations for water metering in Revelstoke.

Generally speaking, the City and the water utility would benefit significantly from improved waterdata collection and analysis capabilities. At minimum, calibration of the source meter would providea higher degree of confidence in the City’s supply data. Also, as suggested in the 2007 Dayton andKnight Study, it is highly probable that, at minimum, implementation of zone metering and collectionof continuously logged flow data will allow the City to monitor specific sectors within the distributionsystem and more effectively assess and address water loss.

Expected Water Use ReductionsUniversal metering programs typically result in savings of 20 – 25 per cent of peak water demands,and 10-15 per cent of base indoor use. In the absence of volumetric water rates, potential watersavings are diminished. In that case, demand reductions would need to be sought via differentmeans including technical interventions (i.e. significant purchase and installation incentives for lowflow fixture installations coupled with ongoing public education.

Supporting Tools and ResourcesThe Water Smart website has a number of resources on the subject of water metering –www.cbt.org/watersmart - see Local Government Resources.Establishing a Metering Plan to Account for Water Use and Loss – A Best Practice by theNational Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure – Federation of CanadianMunicipalities (FCM) and National Research Council. This is available online through theFCM’s Sustainable Communities website;2007 Municipal Water Use Report – Environment Canada. This document is availablethrough the Environment Canada website.

7.4 Total Expected Water SavingsIf the City were to fully implement all recommended actions in Section 7.0 of this Plan, water usesavings in excess of 30-50 per cent may be possible. It is not, however, projected that resourceswill be made available to achieve full implementation by 2015. By the end of 2012, the City hadalready achieved a 20 per cent demand reduction from 2009 base levels. It is anticipated that anadditional 5 per cent will be achievable by 2015, resulting in a combined target of 25 per cent. It isnoted that the City’s 25 per cent target may need to be revised either upward or downward duringthe course of the remaining 3 years of the initiative depending on resource allocation and a refinedanalysis of enhanced data.




31 | Page

8.0 Monitoring and Reporting ProtocolCBT has finalized the following monitoring and reporting protocol after consultation with WaterSmart Communities.

Baseline Measurement ProtocolThe Basin wide target of 20 per cent reduction in community water consumption by 2015 is definedas:

20 per cent reduction from total gross 2009 community water consumption in participating ColumbiaBasin Water Smart Communities by 2015.

Points of ClarificationCBT’s 20 per cent target will be evaluated against the aggregate result of participating Water Smartcommunities’ change in gross consumption. The individual community targets will be based on thechange in their own gross consumption.

Population change is not factored into achievement of this target but reporting BC census data foryour community is included in the monitoring and reporting protocol so as to allow for calculation ofestimated litres per capita per day (lpd) figures. The exception to this is communities that aremetered or become metered during the course of the Columbia Basin Water Smart initiative.

Reporting FrequencyAnnual reports for the preceding year will begin in 2011 through to January 2016 for a total of sixreports for all participating Water Smart communities. 2009 baseline data has been established inthe Water Smart Action Plans and need not be reported by each community.

Required Data Annual Gross Consumption. Monthly Gross Consumption. BC census data for your community for 2006, 2011, and 2016. Metering data summary if and when it becomes available. Number of connections by class including residential, commercial, Institutional. Notable climate event summary.

CBT Public Information ReleasesCBT will report publicly on the aggregate percent change in gross consumption for the participatingcommunities as well as individual community percent changes. CBT may also, with permission ofeach community, post annual demand indicators on the Water Smart website(www.cbt.org./watersmart) and share annual Water Smart report quantitative data with the RuralDevelopment Institute for the purposes of the State of the Basin report.




32 | Page

APPENDIX A: A Primer on Public Education for WaterConservationMany communities in the Columbia Basin have implemented water conservation public educationprograms with varying degrees of success. While public education will raise awareness about theneed for water conservation, increased awareness does not necessarily lead to action. This sectionoutlines some basic public education/social marketing concepts fundamental to the development ofa more results-oriented communications program.

Motivating Water ConservationThere are two kinds of water use: necessary and discretionary. Showers, cooking, cleaning, laundryand toilet flushing are examples of necessary water use. Car washing and lawn watering areexamples of discretionary water use. Necessary water use tends to occur indoors, whilediscretionary water use tends to occur outdoors.

It is important to make this distinction when planning a public education program as the motivationsand related messaging necessary to reduce indoor water use are different than the motivations andrelated messaging necessary to reduce outdoor water use.

Reducing necessary water use is best accomplished through plumbing retrofits: installing low flowshowerheads, low flow toilets, or water efficiency washing machines. No behaviour change isrequired; people continue to use water as they always did. It is the new plumbing fixture thanreduces the water use.

Traditional media (advertisements, newsletters, brochures) can be effective in reducing necessarywater use provided there is a strong “call to action,” such as a coupon or an offer to install a lowflow showerhead at no charge.

Reducing discretionary water use requires behaviour change, which is more difficult to accomplish.Behaviours are often tied to belief systems that can be deeply ingrained. Excessive discretionarywater use may also be tied to lack of knowledge. For example, many people do not know how tocorrectly set automatic irrigation system timers.

Traditional media is not as effective in reducing discretionary water use. Brochures containingdetailed, technical information are helpful, but one-on-one consultation and expert instruction is themost effective means to help people reduce outdoor water use.

Understanding Target GroupsAlthough “everybody” uses water, the messaging required to reduce water use can vary fromperson to person. Generally, women tend to respond better to environmentally themed orcommunity based messages such as “water conservation is the right thing to do,” while men tend torespond better to technical advice from trusted experts or peers.If the goal is to reduce peak demand due to residential lawn watering (a discretionary water use) itis important to know who is in control of the landscaping and the sprinkler system. Research inKelowna indicates that, generally, women chose the type of plants for the landscaping while menoperate and maintain the sprinkler system.




33 | Page

While each has some influence over the other, this demonstrates that public education designed toencourage Xeriscape gardening will require different messaging and a different target audiencethan education designed to increase sprinkler system efficiency.

This can create a challenge when developing public education materials, because there is atendency to produce one brochure, or one series of advertisements to appeal to both target groups.Public education materials that attempt to do too much often end up accomplishing very littlebecause of their lack of appeal to divergent target groups.

Advertising vs. Social MarketingPublic education programs that rely solely on traditional advertising such as newspapers, brochuresand newsletters are often ineffective. These kinds of programs require little expertise and are theeasiest to develop and implement. But when they do not work as well as expected there is the riskthat some might draw the conclusion that public education does not work at all.

Social marketing is a time-proven method of changing behaviour that goes beyond traditionaladvertising. It utilizes three different “motivators” to change an old, undesirable behaviour to a new,desired behaviour:

Financial Motivation: Make the old behaviour more expensive or the new behaviour lessexpensive. With water conservation, the obvious way to do this is through metering. Excessivewater users pay more, whilethose who conserve arerewarded with lower costs.Another example isproviding low flowshowerheads at no cost tothe homeowner.

Convenience Motivation:Make the old behaviour lessconvenient to engage in orthe new behaviour easier toengage in. Studies fromCalifornia show that whenlow flow showerheads aresimply given away, almost95 per cent of them arenever installed; howeverwhen students are hired togo door-to-door and installthem for the homeowner, almost 100 per cent of them are installed.

Social Motivation: Make the old behaviour socially unacceptable or make the new behaviour moresocially acceptable. Getting a fine for not complying with watering restrictions is more of anembarrassment than it is a financial hardship. On the positive side, giving rewards and recognitionto people who maintain Xeriscape gardens increases their social status, albeit in a small way.

The upsurge in environmental awareness and the “go green” movement over the last decade hasmade it less socially acceptable to be a water waster. Even though some people may not believe in




34 | Page

climate change and may privately scoff at environmentalists, they may still start to engage inenvironmentally sustainable behaviours because they don’t want to be perceived as uncaring.

Successful social marketing programs use a combination of all three motivators, but a well-plannedprogram using just two or even only one of the motivators can also be effective. The key is to selectthe right message and the right motivators for your community and remain consistent.

Water Metering and Public EducationAs more communities in the Columbia Basin consider water metering (which is the number one wayto reduce water use), more opportunities for public education arise. While water metering is almostuniversal in the United States and parts of Canada, British Columbia lags behind. It should come asno surprise that the cities in BC with the most successful water conservation programs are alsometered.

There is an often unfounded perception that water meters are politically unpopular and thathomeowners reject the idea of meters en mass. However, every year dozens of communitiesacross Canada install water meters and switch to volume based pricing with little or no push-backfrom residents.

When contracting a company to supply and install meters, it is beneficial to choose one withexperience in public education. A series of open houses prior to the installations allowshomeowners to express their concerns and ask questions. The ideal time to provide information onwater conservation is once the installations are underway and the installer is in the home. After theinstallations are finished a period of mock billing will give homeowners a chance to see how muchwater they use while continuing to pay the flat rate.

Mock billing can be the most effective way to reduce water consumption in a single sweep becauseit embraces all three social marketing motivators:

Financial: it allows homeowners to see how much water they actually use, and what it might cost;

Convenience: it gives homeowners time to adjust their water use prior to volume based pricing;and

Social: if the mock bill shows the homeowner’s water consumption compared to the average of thecommunity they may be pleased to see that they use less water than the average, or shocked tosee that they use more.




35 | Page

APPENDIX B: Watering Restrictions

Watering restrictions, usually in the form of an odd/even sprinkling bylaw, are the most commonmethod to control water use in the absence of water meters and a volume-based water rate. Evenmetered communities commonly implement some form of watering restrictions during summermonths. It is, however, a misconception that odd/even sprinkling regulations are designed to reducewater use, or that they are an integral part of a water conservation program. Anecdotal evidencesuggests that in some communities odd/even restrictions reduce water use while in others itactually increases water use. There is little independent, quantitative evidence about the subject.

Odd/Even and other similar types of watering restrictions are usually implemented in communitieswhere limited storage capacity is stressed by peak day demands. With odd/even, the daily peaksare lowered by spreading out water use more evenly throughout the week. Customers may waterfor longer periods on “their” day than they would otherwise (resulting in higher total water use) butthe overall impact is lower daily demands on the system.

A drought management plan takes watering restrictions to the next level through a series of stages.Odd/Even might be considered “normal” or “Stage 1” where the main goal is to reduce peak dayconsumption. When drought is anticipated further stages are designed to reduce total waterconsumption.

There are four challenges associated with watering restrictions as the primary tool for a waterconservation program: peak hour; enforcement; public perception; and soil moisture retention.

Peak Hour:Watering bylaws usually restrict water use to non-daylight hours. People without automaticirrigation systems tend to water in the evening around dusk. People with automatic irrigationsystems tend to set them to run in early morning hours, just as the sun is coming up, at the sametime when many people are waking up and getting ready for the day. This combination ofincreased indoor and outdoor water use time creates peak hour challenges.

Enforcement:Enforcing a bylaw requires staff time and resources. Reporting bylaw infractions can pit neighbouragainst neighbour. Giving warnings or fines can create hostile feelings. Residents may also try toget around the bylaw by watering less visible areas on the “wrong” day. While most customers willvoluntarily comply with watering restrictions, the small percentage of people who won’t can createpublic relations problems.

Public Perception:Odd/even restrictions reinforce behaviour that may not be water efficient. Residents feel forced orentitled to water every other day whether or not their landscape requires it. Also, when residentscomply with watering restrictions they may believe they are doing their part to conserve waterwhen in fact they aren’t conserving water at all.

Soil moisture retentionSoil moisture retention may be the most difficult challenge to overcome. Odd/even restrictionsgive no consideration to how much water a landscape actually needs, or how much water the soil




36 | Page

can hold at any given time. In large pockets of the BC Interior the soil tends to be sand or glacialtill. In other areas, heavy clay is present.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the best way to water is long and deep, allowing the soil to dryout between watering. This is only the case when the soil is of good quality with lots of organicmaterial present. In areas where the soil is heavy with sand, gravel, or clay, it is more efficient towater for short periods on a daily basis, which is in direct conflict with odd/even restrictions.

Any decision on watering restrictions, widening or closing watering windows, and decreasing orincreasing allowable watering times should take the four factors outlined above into consideration.Odd/even restrictions may work in theory, but on the ground, where the water consumption actuallytakes place, other alternatives may work better.

In conjunction with a comprehensive public communications plan for water conservation, wateringrestrictions may be considered as one part of an effective and comprehensive tool kit. If wateringrestrictions are used as a standalone tool, they may be ineffective at best, or lead to increasedoverall water consumption at worst.




37 | Page

APPENDIX C: Columbia Basin Water Smart Charter




38 | Page

APPENDIX D: Glossary of AcronymsAWWA American Water Works Association

CBT Columbia Basin Trust

CWWA Canadian Water Works Association

FCM GMF Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund

ICI Institutional, Commercial, and Industrial

ICSP Integrated Community Sustainability Plan

I&I

Infiltration and Inflow – Extraneous flows in a sewage collection system such asgroundwater or surface water that enters the sanitary sewer system through defectivepipes, leaking service connections, pipe joints, access port walls and/or manholecovers. Improper connections such as building foundation or cellar drains, yard andarea drains, roof leaders or rainwater downspouts, cooling water discharge, anddrains from springs/swampy areas are also typically included in I&I numbers.

lpd Litres per capita per day

m3 Cubic metres

ML Megalitre = 1,000,000 litres. For reference, an Olympic sized swimming pool holds2.5 ML

NFA Nigh Flow Analysis

OCP Official Community Plan

SFD Single Family Dwelling

UFW

Unaccounted For Water is more properly known as Non Revenue Water and istypically defined as water that is produced but is “lost” before it reaches theconsumer. These identified losses can be real or perceived. Real losses (alsoreferred to as physical losses) can be listed as leakage or unmetered flushing,testing, and fire fighting. Perceived or apparent losses are largely due to meteringinaccuracies, metering bypass or illegal connections

WLM Water Loss Management

WUEWater Use Efficiency (WUE): policies and activities focusing on increasing watersupply efficiency and water demand efficiency to minimize water withdrawals andwater use.



water city of revelstoke water smart action plan september 2013

Documents

water smart action planpage

wate smart action planpage

wa smart action planpage

water conservation

water savings

water smartaction plan

communitys action plan

thewater smart initiative