GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Water Conservation Program

Water Conservation Plan Guidelines

May 24, 2004

INTRODUCTION

Water is second only to air in that we can live without air for several minutes – without water for several days. Water conservation’s time has come, in our communities, our state, our nation and our planet.

G. Tracy Mehan, III, former Assistant Administrator for Water with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states, “If we are to sustain the water infrastructure that is so important to the health of people and the environment, we must be smarter about water use. We must manage demand, reclaim and reuse municipal wastewater, recycle industrial process water, and begin to think in a more integrated fashion about water management.”

Water resources in Georgia, though historically plentiful, are limited and our population is rapidly growing. Recurring droughts also compromise the amount of available water supplies. Water allocation and permitting are important topics that must be addressed, and water conservation must have a prominent position at the table of any comprehensive water planning effort.

It is essential that we use water as efficiently as possible so that current and future residences, businesses, schools, hospitals, industries, and farms in Georgia continue to prosper and have the high quality of life we now enjoy. All aspects of our economy and environment are dependent on water in order to properly function. We must also address water conservation from the standpoint of protecting the aquatic environments that are so prevalent and important in our State.

Georgia’s water needs will be met through a multiplicity of solutions with water conservation as a primary answer. Conservation is defined as any beneficial reduction in water loss, waste, or use. Georgia will reap long-term economic and ecological benefits by recognizing that water conservation is a water supply solution. For instance, developing new sources of water and infrastructure is typically more expensive than “developing” future supplies with water conservation. Additionally, water conservation increases capacity and reduces wastewater flows. Reduced water use not only means that the “saved” water can be diverted for future human use but it must also be left in the water source to ensure proper functioning of the ecosystem. Research shows that conservation programs that use saved water to protect the natural function and services provided by the streams, wetlands, and estuaries, often reduce or avoid costly structural developments that attempt to recreate services lost when the natural systems are damaged.

Georgia is taking the critical first step to realizing permanent water savings by developing a comprehensive water conservation plan to guide implementation of conservation program and associated measures. The mission of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Water Conservation Program is to promote and achieve the long-term efficient use of Georgia’s water resources throughout the state. The main strategy we establish in this statewide water conservation plan is to define and benchmark efficient and non-efficient use. There are several plans, such as the Georgia Drought Management Plan and the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan of the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, that incorporate elements of water conservation. The uniqueness of this plan is that it sets standards, or benchmarks of water efficiency, as the main goal of the document. The purpose of this document is to be the statewide authority of water conservation planning in Georgia and to set goals regarding water use efficiency.

BACKGROUND

The State of Georgia launched the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Water Conservation Program in July 2002 to promote the efficient use of Georgia’s water resources and implement a statewide water conservation plan. The goals of the program include: coordinating existing water conservation efforts; implementing new programs as needed; strengthening existing regulatory programs; working with local governments regarding required water conservation planning; building the financial resources that are necessary to implement the program; and documenting that water use in Georgia is becoming more efficient. The program follows a five-point strategy that includes planning, programming, policy needs, funding needs and education.

In October 2003, the first draft of a statewide water conservation plan was proposed. A public comment period followed and concluded on January 31, 2004. Over fifty stakeholders representing sectors such as agriculture, urban agriculture, environmental groups, municipalities, and federal agencies filed comments. The comments were compiled, analyzed and have been used to create a statewide water conservation plan that is presented in this document.

The Statewide Water Conservation Program will only be successful if Georgia rises to meet the challenge of providing water and protecting natural resources through a comprehensive and effective water supply and conservation plan. First, the Program should reconcile and integrate the existing policy layers at the state, regional, and local level that address water conservation planning. Second, elected officials need to champion water conservation in order to provide sufficient political will. Third, the existing interest and knowledge of stakeholders must be harnessed and involved in the planning process. Fourth, the Program must develop adequate goals and objectives for short-term, near-term, and long-term water conservation planning. Fifth, Georgia must ramp up its water use monitoring and increase data collection in areas such as agriculture irrigation use. Sixth, a non-politicized funding source should be established so that the Program is empowered to achieve set goals and objectives. Seventh, additional staff should be added to the Water Conservation Program in order to cover programmatic areas such as public education and outreach. Lastly, an aggressive and creative public education campaign must be launched so that the citizens of Georgia understand the benefits and strategies underpinning water conservation.

STATEWIDE NEED FOR WATER CONSERVATION

· Growing statewide population, one of the fastest in the nation, is increasing water demands.

· State’s water supplies are fixed; alternative water supplies such as reclaimed and desalinated water are costly and would impose severe rate increases on consumers that could be minimized or avoided by first reducing unnecessary water waste.

· Excessive and wasteful water use increases consumer and state capital and operation and maintenance costs to build and maintain infrastructure for water, wastewater, reclamation, and other supply facilities.

· Increasing statewide water use, especially for nonessential demands such as excessive lawn watering and other forms of irrigation, contribute to stream flow diminishment and associated impacts on fisheries, recreation and tourism, threatening both the state’s environment and long-term economy.

· There exist numerous state laws, rules and policies that require or promote water conservation. For example, Georgia has statewide rules on outdoor watering, system unaccounted-for water, metering requirements for farms, and other conservation-related requirements.

STATE WATER CONSERVATION GOALS

The state shall establish quantitative water conservation goals targeted at reducing unnecessary and wasteful water use among all water users, including water utilities (e.g., system water leaks and losses) and each major customer category (residential, irrigation, commercial, industrial, public/institutional, and agricultural).

It has been estimated that most U.S. water supply systems can reduce total demand by 10 to 30 percent, even with some growth. Such goals can take years to realize, but they are achievable for many U.S water systems.

In addition to establishing measurable water reduction goals, annual water use data from all local and regional water suppliers shall be required to be submitted to the Environmental Protection Division of DNR. These data shall be disaggregated by major customer usages (e.,g system/utility UFW, residential, multi-family, industrial, commercial, and institutional/public, irrigation, agricultural, and other). in order to track water use and reported water savings from conservation for each use sector. The development of this database will enable EPD and water planners to have a full accounting of total statewide water use as well as improvements to water use efficiencies, information that is not presently available.

MONITORING AND REPORTING OF WATER USE

To facilitate the monitoring of statewide water use and efficiency improvements, DNR’s existing administrative annual ground water and surface water permit reporting program shall be enhanced to maintain a statewide database of water used by each major use sector (system/utility UFW, residential, multi-family, industrial, commercial, and institutional/public, irrigation, agricultural, and other). Local and regional water use statistics shall be reported annually to the state for publication in the state’s annual water use report. Data to be reported annually shall include:

1. Volume of total available water supplies

2. Total volume of water produced, monthly and annually

3. Total volume of metered water use, by customer category or other described end-user, monthly and annually

4. Description of volumetric water savings and changes from prior year, with discussion of conservation goals and plans.

5. Description of customer water rate structure (conservation-oriented or not conservation-oriented) and related charges

6. Customer class and user-specific water use averages:

Water systems

· Average annual unaccounted-for water (UFW), percentage and total volume, based on total volume of water produced (from the source or treatment plant) minus total metered sales

Single family

· Average gallons per capita per day (GPCD), based on total single family residential water use divided by the total single family dwelling population

Multi-family

· Average gallons per capita per day (GPCD), based on total multi-family residential water use divided by the total multi-family dwelling population

Irrigation for Golf Courses and Playing Fields

· Total annual volume of irrigation water used and average annual volume of water applied per irrigated area (volume per acre)

Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional/Public

· Water use per industry type and/or unit output (e.g., square yard of carpet, patient served, etc), based on customer classification codes or meter size

Agricultural

· Total annual volume of irrigation water used and average annual volume of water applied per irrigated area and per unit of crop produced (e.g., volume per bushel of corn, etc)

ESTABLISH WATER EFFICIENCY BENCHMARKS

To help realize water conservation goals, EPD shall establish water efficiency benchmarks for each major category of water user. Benchmarks help water users measure their relative water use efficiency and to judge whether improvements could be made to save water. Water efficiency benchmarks are a direct, simple and practical measurement tool for the public, private sector, government, and the media to understand what is efficient water use and what is wasteful water use. Performance benchmarks abound in our culture, science and medicine; water managers need them, too. Not unlike the BMI–body mass index–benchmark for human body weight, some water users will fall below and others will meet or exceed their water efficiency threshold.

Water users who exceed their water efficiency standards can reduce their use through the implementation of efficiency measures and thus are good candidates for participation in water conservation programs. Such information can help in the evaluation of groundwater and surface water permit renewals and applications. For example, how Community A compares to Community B in terms of average (year-round) single family water use will demonstrate each town’s relative water use efficiency. In some cases, an application for a new water supply permit may be contingent on the adoption of water efficiency measures that will lower average use to meet established benchmarks.

Benchmarks for water use efficiency shall be established for all major categories of water end-users in Georgia, including water utilities, as follows:

System water efficiency benchmarks

· System unacccounted-for water (water leaks and losses) shall not exceed the state’s current maximum 10% standard

Explanation: Georgia’s present standard for unacccounted-for water (UFW) is 10% or less; this is consistent with AWWA’s Water Loss Committee’s 1996 10% UFW recommended guideline. Under the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia [ck ref], EPD defines UFW as “the difference between the total amount of water pumped into the water system from the source(s) and the amount of metered water use by the customers of the water system expressed as a percentage of the total water pumped into the system.” EPD requires, as part of a permit to withdraw ground and surface water, submission of an annual water-use data report that includes information on unaccounted-for water for the prior twelve (12) months.

References

American Water Works Association, Leak Detection and Water Accountability Committee, “Committee Report: Water Accountability,” Journal American Water Works Association, Vol. 88, No. 7 (July 1996): 108-111.

Beecher, Janice A. “Survey of State Water Loss Reporting Practices,” Beecher Policy Research, Inc., Final Report to the American Water Works Association, Denver, CO, January 2002).

Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Drinking Water Permitting and Engineering Program, Operations & Maintenance Plan, Appendix B, Guidance Manual for Preparing Public Water Supply System O&M Plans, May 2000.

Single family (indoor) water efficiency benchmarks

Maximum average daily use:

· Inefficient: exceeds 70 gpcd

· Average: 70 gpcd

· Efficient: 50 to 70 gpcd

· Most efficient: less than 50 gpcd

Explanation: The gallon per capita per day (gpcd) water efficiency benchmarks for single-family (SF) users as shown above should not be confused with system per capita figures for total system use–they are not comparative. The 70 gpcd SF indoor residential water use efficiency threshold is based on findings from the landmark AWWARF water use study of 1,200 homes in North America, Residential End Uses of Water (Denver, CO: AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association, 1999). The AWWARF study found that that average indoor water use measured in SF homes was 69 gpcd. Rounding that up to 70 gpcd and considering it the average, indoor residential use above that level is considered inefficient and use below the 70 gpcd benchmark is considered efficient. The most efficient use– less than 50 gpcd – is based on the fact that existing, on-the-shelf high-efficient fixtures and appliances can easily reduce indoor home water use to 45 gpcd or below.

In the most recent (2004) national report of domestic water use produced by the U.S. Geological Survey, self-supplied domestic water withdrawals in Georgia were reported to average 76 gpcd. Residential (domestic) water use from public-supply deliveries was not reported in the 2004 USGS survey.

References

Mayer, Peter, et al. Residential End Uses of Water (AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association: Denver, CO, 1999).

Hutson, Susan S., et al. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. USGS Circular 1268 (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2004 online edition), Table 6: Self-supplied domestic water withdrawals, 2000 http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/table06.html (Accessed April, 2004)

Multi-family (indoor) water efficiency benchmarks

Maximum average daily use:

· Inefficient: exceeds 70 gpcd

· Average: 60 to 70 gpcd

· Efficient: 50 to 60 gpcd

· Most efficient: less than 50 gpcd

Explanation: Residential water use tends to be lower in multi-family dwellings (i.e., they are less likely to have washers and other water-using appliances). The definition of what is efficient and what is not for MF users is similar to SF users.

References

Mayer, Peter, et al. Residential End Uses of Water (AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association: Denver, CO, 1999).

Hutson, Susan S., et al. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. USGS Circular 1268 (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2004 online edition), Table 6: Self-supplied domestic water withdrawals, 2000 http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/table06.html (Accessed April, 2004)

Outdoor Watering (residential lawn irrigation) water efficiency benchmarks

Maximum average daily use:

· Inefficient: exceeds 30 gpcd

· Average: 30 gpcd.

· Efficient: 15 gpcd

· Most efficient: no supplemental irrigation; rainwater irrigation only, rainwater harvesting

Explanation: Based on U.S. Geological Survey data collected on U.S. domestic water use for publicly supplied systems, it is estimated that on a year-round average, Americans use 30 gpcd for outdoor use. Based on that national average, it is assumed that outdoor use above the 30 gpcd U.S. average is labeled as “inefficient” and that use below the average is considered “efficient.” Most efficient outdoor water use represents little or no supplemental water used for lawn and landscape watering, with natural rainwater “irrigation” only.

As water-thrifty homeowners, communities, and “green” building and landscape projects have demonstrated, lawns and landscapes do not require supplemental irrigation to survive. Alternatives such as no irrigation, drought-stressing lawns, the use of native and adaptive turf and plant materials, and rainwater harvesting techniques are some of the newer methods to create water-wise and attractive landscapes.

References

Solley, Wayne B., et al. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200 (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, Va., 1998).

U.S. Green Building Council, Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED™) rating system, Sustainable Sites: Credit 5 (Reduced Site Disturbance: native or adaptive vegetation) and Water Efficiency: Credit 1 (Water Efficient Landscaping: high efficiency irrigation, 50 percent potable water reduction or no potable water irrigation).

Vickers, Amy. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation: Homes, Landscapes, Businesses, Industries, Farms (WaterPlow Press: Amherst, MA, 2001).

Irrigation Water Users (Golf Courses and Playing Fields) water efficiency benchmarks

· To be established within two (2) years (see “Monitoring of Water Use” section below)

Explanation: The U.S. Irrigation Association recently established Best Management Practices for turf and landscape irrigation. The IA’s BMPs, along with other water-efficient landscape guidelines such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Certification Standards for landscapes, are industry-recognized standards from which the Georgia green industry, EPD and other stakeholders can draw from to establish water efficiency benchmarks for irrigation water use in Georgia.

References:

Irrigation Association, Turf and Landscape Irrigation Best Management Practices, (Irrigation Association, Fairfax, VA, February 2004).

U.S. Green Building Council, Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED™) rating system, Sustainable Sites: Credit 5 (Reduced Site Disturbance: native or adaptive vegetation) and Water Efficiency: Credit 1 (Water Efficient Landscaping: high efficiency irrigation, 50 percent potable water reduction or no potable water irrigation).

Industrial, Commercial and Public/Institutional (ICI) water efficiency benchmarks

· To be established within two (2) years (see “Monitoring of Water Use” section below)

Explanation: There are several sets of water use efficiency benchmarks that can be applied to ICI water users in Georgia, and more can be developed using site audits and surveys.

One of the most commonly applicable benchmarks for measuring water use efficiency in the ICI sector is plumbing fixture use by employees. Data on other types of ICI end uses is also available. A water use survey of over 57 public facilities in the United Kingdom produced a database of water use and potential efficiency benchmarks that also has applicability to ICI water users in the U.S. The UK study established benchmarks for 17 building categories that account for approximately 80% of the UK public sector. For each category, a benchmark for median water use as well as a benchmark for “best practice” (efficient water use) has been established. The study found that an estimated 99 million gallons of water per year could be saved at the 57 facilities surveyed through the implementation of efficiency measures, with a payback of less than 11 months. Examples of benchmarks for median and best practice water use from the UK studay are shown below.

Watermark Study of Water Use and "Best Practice" Benchmarks at Public Facilities in the U.K. (2003)
Public Facility	Benchmark for median water use	Benchmark for "best practice" water use efficiency	Water efficiency reduction potential
Office	2,455 gals/person/year	1,695 gals /person/ year	31%
Prison with laundry	37,780 gals /prisoner/ year	30,600 gals /prisoner/ year	19%
Secondary school with pool	1,347 gals/pupil/ year	955 gals/pupil/ year	29%
Large acute or teaching hospital	41 gals/ft2/ year	34 gals/ ft2/ year	17%
College and University	15 gals/ ft2/ year	10 gals/ ft2/ year	35%
Sports Center	10 gals/visitor/ year	8 gals/visitor/ year	21%
Community Center	8 gals/ ft2/ year	4 gals/ft2/ year	47%

References

Vickers, Amy. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation: Homes, Landscapes, Businesses, Industries, Farms (WaterPlow Press: Amherst, MA, 2001).

Watermark, “Final Watermark Project Report” (Watermark, OGCbuying.solutions: Liverpool, England, 2003.

http://www.watermark.gov.uk/w_Events.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&StoryID=235

http://www.watermark.gov.uk/Downloads/Final%20Report_version%202_short.pdf

http://www.watermark.gov.uk/w_benchmarks_tbl1.asp ( Accessed April 2004)

Agricultural water efficiency benchmarks

· To be established within two (2) years (see “Monitoring of Water Use” section below)

Explanation: Agricultural water use efficiency benchmarks can be based on several criteria, including: total volume of water used, units of crops produced per unit of water, irrigated area, and irrigation type.

Georgia farmers have already started to make some strides in irrigation efficiency. For example, with the recent passage of HB 579, farmers are now required to have metering devices installed on all permitted irrigation systems. With over 1,463,000 acres of farmland in Georgia, on-farm water measurement is an important step toward future improvements to statewide agricultural water use efficiency. In addition, Georgia-based research on variable rate irrigation (VRI) technology, conducted by the National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory (a unit of the University of Georgia's College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences in Tifton), indicates that some fields could save over 4 million gallons of water by retrofitting existing pivot irrigation systems with VRI.

The development of agricultural water efficiency benchmarks can be enhanced by the establishment of Georgia-based agricultural water efficiency best management practices. One example of agricultural BMPs is the State of California Department of Water Resources voluntary Efficient Water Management Practices (EWMPs) for agricultural water suppliers, as shown below. The EWMPs consist of three lists: List A measures are generally considered to be applicable to all agricultural water districts and suppliers; List B measures are applicable when subject to a net present analysis; and List C measures are applicable when subject to a detailed net present analysis.

California Agricultural Efficient Water Management Practices (EWMPs) Based on Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (1996)

List A: Generally Applicable Practices

1. Prepare and adopt a water management plan using the MOU as a guideline.

2. Designate a Water Conservation Coordinator.

3. Support the availability of water management services to water users.

4. Improve communication and cooperation among water suppliers, water users, and other agencies.

5. Evaluate the need for changes in policies.

6. Evaluate and improve efficiencies of water suppliers’ pumps.

List B: Conditionally Applicable Practices

1.Facilitate alternative land use.

2. Facilitate use of available recycled urban wastewater.

3. Facilitate the financing of capital improvements for on-farm irrigation systems.

4. Facilitate voluntary water transfers.

5. Line or pipe ditches and canals

6. Increase flexibility in water ordering

7. Construct and operate water supplier spill and tailwater recovery systems

8. Optimize conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater

9. Automate canal structures

List C: Other Practices

1. Water Measurement and Water Use Report

2. Pricing or Other Incentives

References

California Department of Water Resources, "Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use" (per the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Efficient Water Management Practices by Agricultural Water Suppliers in California, Nov. 13, 1996.

University of Georgia, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory, Tifton, GA. “Enhancing Irrigation Efficiencies,” http://www.nespal.org/irreff/print.html and “Variable Rate Irrigation,” http://www.nespal.org/vri/home/ (Accessed April 2004).

Vickers, Amy. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation: Homes, Landscapes, Businesses, Industries, Farms (WaterPlow Press: Amherst, MA, 2001).

MANDATORY WATER CONSERVATION INCENTIVES AND MEASURES

Achieving water savings through conservation involves a combination of incentives and measures. Incentives are essential to motivating water users to adopt a water efficiency measure – technology and/or practice that reduces water use.

Conservation incentives

Conservation incentives consist of a range of voluntary and mandatory educational, regulatory, and financial “carrots and sticks that inspire, require, and/or speak to the financial bottom line of water suppliers and customers.

No later than __________________(suggested date: December 31, 2005), existing and future ground and surface water permit holders must have the following conservation incentives in effect or else they will not be granted renewals, increases and modifications:

· Conservation-oriented rate structures. Suppliers shall also establish revenue stabilization accounts to ensure adequate revenues from water demand reductions from conservation.

· Local water waste prohibition that includes increasing fines for violators

· Annual distribution of annual water use and conservation information booklet

· Mandatory irrigation schedule, allowing for a maximum of 3 irrigation cycles per week, not to exceed 30 minutes per irrigated area (30-day exemptions allowed for sod and new turf plantings). Reduced irrigation schedules, such as a maximum of one (1) or two (2) times per week and for no longer than 30 minutes each day, are encouraged to minimize water waste and lower excessive summer peak demands.

Conservation Measures

Conservation measures include water efficient “hardware” devices, technologies, and equipment and practices that reduce water use. There are over 100 water efficiency technologies and practices that can be applied to water systems, homes, industries, businesses, public facilities, and farms.

No later than __________________(suggested date: December 31, 2006), existing and future ground and surface water permit holders must provide at least the following conservation assistance programs to their customers or else they will not be granted renewals, increases and modifications:

· Water and non-potable water providers and utilities: Compliance with state 10% UFW goal or approved UFW reduction plan.

· Residential: home water audit and leak detection every two (2) years, high-efficiency plumbing and appliance retrofit and rebate programs, Irrigation schedule: allowing for a maximum of 2-3 irrigation cycles per week, not to exceed 30 minutes per irrigated area (30-day exemptions allowed for sod and new turf plantings).

· Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional/Public: meter sizing and accuracy inspection at least every two (2) years, water audit and leak detection every two (2) years, cooling tower and high water use audit every two (2) years, Irrigation schedule: allowing for a maximum of 2-3 irrigation cycles per week, not to exceed 30 minutes per irrigated area (30-day exemptions allowed for sod and new turf plantings).

· Irrigation for golf courses and playing fields: field audit of irrigation systems and water use efficiency, irrigation water efficiency budget, including meter sizing and accuracy, every two (2) years.

· Agricultural: onsite evaluation of water volumes used for irrigation and livestock every two (2) years, estimation of water use efficiency of irrigation equipment and methods, irrigation water efficiency budget, and recommendations for efficiency improvements every two (2) years.

LOCAL AND STATE SUPPORT

Support for the state’s water conservation requirements in the form of financial, policy, and public education assistance will be needed from local as well as state authorities. A mix of technical, legal, financial and programmatic strategies will be utilized and include, but not be limited to, the following elements:

Local Authorities

Local authorities and water suppliers shall support state and local water conservation goals and objectives through planning and implementing conservation plans in their jurisdictions. These efforts shall include but not be limited to:

· Water suppliers are encouraged to establish water efficiency incentives, including conservation-oriented water rate structures such as inclining rate blocks and seasonal (summer) use surcharges that discourage unnecessary usages (e.g., excessive lawn watering and neglected leaks).

· Planning and implementation of water conservation plans, including but not limited to program components required by existing water supply permit(s). Conservation programs shall include an appropriate combination of conservation incentives and measures, with an emphasis on the achievement of measurable and permanent, long-term savings.

· Local authorities will use a portion of revenue generated from water conservation rate structures to fund water conservation staffing, programming and education in their communities.

State Authorities

The DNR and other state agencies shall support state and local water conservation goals and objectives through a variety of policies, programs, and direct assistance. These efforts shall include but not be limited to:

· Educational outreach to the public and private sector concerning the state’s water supply condition and related conservation needs shall be ongoing through the creation and dissemination of information in print materials, the Internet, public service announcements, and related. DNR’s Office of Water Conservation will take the lead on this and other state agencies will provide support for such efforts as appropriate to each agency’s mission and scope.

· Technical assistance for conservation program planning, implementation, and monitoring, including guidance on the establishment of conservation-oriented pricing structures shall be coordinated and provided through the DNR’s Office of Water Conservation. Water use audits for farms, businesses, and local governments shall be administered by the DNR’s Pollution Prevention Assistance Division.

· Financial support in the form of state grants and low-interest loans for local and regional conservation programs to conduct water conservation incentive programs shall be administered by the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority’s loan program.

· DNR’s Office of Water Conservation, in cooperation with the Pollution Prevention Assistance Division, shall develop a plan and lead the implementation of water audits in statewide buildings and facilities.

· The state shall establish a five-year Georgia Water Conservation Trust Fund (WCTF), to be administered by the State Water Conservation Program, to commence in 2005 and sunset in 2010, that will finance statewide conservation efforts to support local, regional and state conservation programs designed to meet the goals described herein. Potential sources of funding include:

· Revenues from local and regional water suppliers who shall levy an annual water conservation program incentive fee on active customer accounts based on meter size. For example, single- family residential accounts (5/8-inch and 3/4-inch meters) shall be assessed $10 annually for five years; commercial accounts (3/4-inch and 1-inch meters) shall be assessed $25 annually for five years. Notice of this annual assessment fee shall be imbedded in a report sent to all water customers that includes a description of the state’s water supply status, goals, descriptions of conservation measures to save water, and information about how water users can access the programs and services for saving water that are provided by the Georgia WCTF.

· Revenues for this fund may be collected by establishing water use permit fees for new and renewed drinking water, ground water and surface water permits. A portion of the funds collected will be returned to the local communities in the form of technical assistance grants.

· The DNR Program Support Division (PSD) will take a leadership role in water conservation by working with the DNR Water Conservation Program to implement a water conservation program that will work towards the implementation of water use efficiency measures in state facilities and infrastructure. One model for such an effort is the federal government. The U.S. requires all federal agencies to conduct water audits and implement efficiency measures. Some have done a better job than others, but progress has been made. Until the state starts to practice water conservation in its own house, it is ripe for the accusation “Do as I say, not as I do.” DNR needs to develop a statewide plan for its own building and facilities. Ideally, such a program would be a successful model for local governments and businesses.

· Other Divisions within DNR. The DNR State Parks and Historic Sites Division will take a leadership role in water conservation by working with the DNR Water Conservation Program and the P2AD to implement a State Parks and Historic Site Water Conservation Program that will work towards ensuring that State Parks and Historic Sites are utilizing water efficiency measures and increasing their water use efficiency. The Coastal Resources Division and the Wildlife Resources Division will also work with the DNR Water Conservation Program to implement appropriate water efficiency measures.

Sources

American Water Works Association, Leak Detection and Water Accountability Committee. Committee report: water accountability, Journal American Water Works Association, Vol. 88, No. 7 (July 1996).

Beecher, Janice A. “Survey of State Water Loss Reporting Practices,” Beecher Policy Research, Inc., Final Report to the American Water Works Association, Denver, CO, January 2002).

California Department of Water Resources, "Urban, Agricultural, and Environmental Water Use" (per the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Efficient Water Management Practices by Agricultural Water Suppliers in California, Nov. 13, 1996.

Elfner, Mary A. and Robin J. McDowell. Water conservation in Georgia, bringing efficiency into the mainstream. Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 96, No. 4 (April 2004).

Hutson, Susan S., et al. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. USGS Circular 1268 (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2004 online edition), Table 6: Self-supplied domestic water withdrawals, 2000.

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/table06.html (Accessed April, 2004)

Irrigation Association, Turf and Landscape Irrigation Best Management Practices, (Irrigation Association, Fairfax, VA, February 2004).

Keyes, Alice Miller, Mandy Schmitt, and Joy L. Hinkle. Critical components of conservation programs that get results: a national analysis. Proceedings of Water Sources Conference 2004 (American Water Works Association: Denver, CO, 2004).

Mayer, Peter, et al. Residential End Uses of Water (AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association: Denver, CO, 1999).

Mehan, G. Tracy, III, Assistant Administrator for Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Market Enhancement for Water-Efficient Products, Stakeholder Meeting, Washington, D.C. (October 9, 2003)

Solley, Wayne B., et al. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200 (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, Va., 1998).

University of Georgia, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory, Tifton, GA. “Enhancing Irrigation Efficiencies,” http://www.nespal.org/irreff/print.html and “Variable Rate Irrigation,” http://www.nespal.org/vri/home/ (Accessed April 2004).

U.S. Green Building Council, Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED™) rating system, Sustainable Sites: Credit 5 (Reduced Site Disturbance: native or adaptive vegetation) and Water Efficiency: Credit 1 (Water Efficient Landscaping: high efficiency irrigation, 50 percent potable water reduction or no potable water irrigation).

Vickers, Amy. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation: Homes, Landscapes, Businesses, Industries, Farms (WaterPlow Press: Amherst, MA, 2001).

Watermark, “Final Watermark Project Report” (Watermark, OGCbuying.solutions: Liverpool, England, 2003. http://www.watermark.gov.uk/w_Events.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&StoryID=235

http://www.watermark.gov.uk/Downloads/Final%20Report_version%202_short.pdf,

http://www.watermark.gov.uk/w_benchmarks_tbl1.asp ( Accessed April 2004)

APPENDIX A

STATE WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIES

EXPLANATION: The five strategies and subsequent tasks listed below form the backbone of the Georgia DNR Water Conservation Program. These strategies helped to initiate and guide the newly formed water conservation program from July 1, 2002, to present. These are the kinds of policies and program elements that the DNR Water Conservation Program has promoted among Georgia water providers and leaders in state government.

Planning

· Form the water conservation advisory group in partnership with GEFA to create the DNR Statewide Water Conservation Plan. Mr. Paul Burks, executive director of the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority, worked with Mary Elfner to hold 3 meetings.

· Work with existing EPD water permitting and water conservation planning structure – M&I, Ag, DW, GW, SW

· Work with existing water policy areas: ACT/ACF, Flint Drought Management Area, Coastal Interim Strategy Area, MNGWPD Area

Programming

· Water Rate Structures

· Accurate and Comprehensive Water Accounting through Georgia EPD. See report by Mary Elfner and Elizabeth Cavagnolo, Recommendations to the Georgia EPD Regarding Water Conservation Planning.

· Outdoor Water Use Restrictions through Georgia Drought Management Plan

· EPD Consent Order Supplemental Environmental Projects. Eight potential projects as of May 11, 2004.

· Plumbing Retrofits and Rebates

· Metering and Billing

· Work with green industry to develop criteria for a certification program for landscape professionals

· Industry Audits and Assistance through P2AD

· Agricultural Efficiency through Metering and Efficient Irrigation Measures. Worked very closely with several partners at the University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Science. Main contact is Ms. Susan Varlamoff.

Education

The water conservation program has initiated education strategies with the following partners:

· Georgia DNR Water Conservation Web Page. The website team consists of Georgia Southern University BBRED program, and Jordan Jones & Goulding consulting firm. Mr. Brian Skeens at JJG is the most knowledgeable source.

· Georgia DNR Water Conservation Program Comprehensive Communication Plan. Complete Communications, Ms. Michelle Griffin, was hired and completed the plan in early 2003. It is the property of the Georgia DNR Water Conservation Program.

· Georgia Department of Education Core Curriculum. Worked very closely with Mr. Stephen Pruitt, Science Program Specialist with the Georgia Department of Education. Although unsuccessful in having water conservation be a core curriculum subject, we were able to raise awareness of the issue.

· UGA College of Agriculture and Environmental Science

· UGA Dept of Family and Consumer Sciences and 4H

· Department of Community Affairs programs

· Governor, General Assembly, local governments, farmers, homeowners, businesses, State government

· Earned media such as newspaper stories and Clear Channel radio stations. Good relationship with Matt Cook at Clear Channel offices in Atlanta.

· Water Messaging Task Force

Funding

The water conservation program has identified the following funding sources for future funding of statewide conservation programs:

· State Appropriations

· Grants

· Partnerships

· Water Conservation Trust Fund

· Permit Fees

· GEFA. Working with GEFA and EPD to have efficiency language inserted into the State Revolving Fund Intended Use Plans for both drinking water and clean water.

Policy/Legislative

DNR water conservation program has initiated the following policy/legislative initiatives:

· Set Reduction Goals! Show how these fit into current and future policies.

· MNGWPD Water Conservation Measures – retrofit upon resale, low-flush urinals, and rain/moisture sensors

· Comprehensive Water Planning

· Existing OCGA and Rules and Regulations

PLEASE NOTE: All relevant water conservation files, plans, etc. are being provided to EPD Director Carol A. Couch on compact disc.