Since 2003, Building Design+Construction has produced a series of annual reports on the green building movement.¹ Our first two White Papers covered the early days of green building. In subsequent reports, we took on life cycle assessment of green building products (2005); analyzed the bottom line of green buildings (2006); and conducted groundbreaking studies of owner and user perceptions of green buildings (2007). Last year, we tackled climate change in an effort to help our audience of AEC professionals, building owners, and real estate developers understand the impact of global warming on their businesses.
Together, these White Papers encompass more than 225,000 words—enough for a decent-size book—and provide arguably the most sustained, objective analysis of the green building movement available to the AEC community. Four have been finalists for the Jesse H. Neal Award (called the “Pulitzer Prize of the Business Press”); two have won that award, along with national awards from the Construction Writers Association and the American Society of Business Publication Editors.
Now, in our seventh White Paper, we turn to water. Why water?
The availability of water is becoming an increasingly serious public issue. A 2003 survey by the General Accounting Office found that water managers in 36 states foresaw water shortages hitting their states to some extent over the next 10-year period under merely “average water conditions” (Figure 1.1). Colorado and South Carolina said their states would be entirely under drought; 16 states said one or more regions would be affected, while another 18 states saw localized water shortages.²
Two water-stressed states, California and New Mexico, did not complete the survey (along with Michigan). Georgia, which experienced a crippling drought in 2007, said in 2003 it would only experience “localized” water shortages.
Water managers in 11 states told the GAO that their states were likely to experience water shortages “under drought conditions” in the following decade; 29 states said water shortages would be regional, and another six said it would be localized. Again, California and New Mexico did not participate.
On top of this, the U.S. will be adding another 100 million to its population over the next three decades, adding further to water stress.
Defining water performance. It is important to draw a distinction between water efficiency and water conservation, according to John Watson, water efficiency director for Sloan Valve Co. (a sponsor of this report). Water efficiency is driven by technology—how well a plumbing device such as a toilet or showerhead can operate effectively, using the least amount of water. Water conservation refers to the actual consumption of water by the end user. “You have the efficiency component and the conservation part of the formula. Together, they yield water performance”—a measure of how well the technology works and how well it meets the needs of the end user, says Watson.
For example, Watson points to plumbing industry research which showed that 95% of consumers were satisfied with a flow rate of 0.8 gallons per minute for high-efficiency lavatory faucets. For high-efficiency showerheads, the industry first modeled an optimal system, then built an apparatus to test the “ideal” model in the real world. “We actually proved that the data we came up with mathematically”—a flow rate of 2.0 gpm—“was a good shower” in most people’s view, says Watson.
Kate McMordie, of the U.S. Energy Department’s Pacific Northwest National Lab, frames “performance” another way. “It’s not about everyone taking shorter showers” to save water, she says. “It’s doing the same function with less water”—with no loss of end-user satisfaction.
How water is used. Buildings account for somewhere around 12% of water use in the U.S., according to the U.S. Geological Survey (or 14%, if you use the U.S. Green Building Council’s figure). The preponderance of the water that is actually consumed in the U.S.—82%—is used for irrigation (Chart 1.1). About two-thirds of water use in urban areas goes to homes, apartment buildings, and condominiums (Chart 1.2). And nearly two-thirds of the water for single-family homes winds up on the lawn, or is lost to leaks (Chart 1.3).
This raises the question of how much water homeowners and building occupants can actually save.
“One of the real disconnects we have is that you 'know’ what you 'see,’ says Rob Zimmerman, a senior staff engineer for water conservation initiatives at Kohler Co. (a sponsor of this report). “People think the toilet wastes water, or the shower wastes water. But only about 4-5% of water use in U.S. goes through plumbing fixtures. When we talk about water shortages, there’s only so much we can do on the plumbing side. If people think we’re going to solve this problem with low-flow showerheads and faucets, that’s not going to happen.”
This is not to say that we shouldn’t seek what Zimmerman calls “definite and attainable goals”: an average 100 to 250 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) for single-family homes, about 55-70 GPCD for indoor use—possibly as low as 40 GPCD for indoor use in new green homes. Bill Gauley, a water engineering expert with Veritec Consulting, Mississauga, Ont., thinks 32 GPCD is feasible.
But indoor plumbing may not be the real culprit. As we shall see (Chapter 4), landscape irrigation uses a lot more water than is used inside buildings or homes.³ “Using potable water for irrigation is a sin,” says Toto USA’s Gunnar Baldwin, a charter board member of the Alliance for Water Efficiency. “It’s totally unnecessary and should be banned completely.”
In commercial buildings, cooling towers can account for a major chunk of water use, especially in hot, dry climates, says Texas-based water consultant H.W. (Bill) Hoffman. “In a typical office building in downtown Austin, cooling tower use typically would be 30-50% of total water use,” he says. On a hot, dry day, an office building with 800-1,000 tons of A/C equipment can use 20,000-30,000 gallons a day, “even if the system is operating efficiently.”
The true cost of water. In the U.S., water, like gasoline, is cheap. It is estimated that water used for agricultural irrigation is priced at only one-sixth of its true value. According to Jeff Kishel, PE, SVP and leader of A/E firm Stantec’s environment business, agricultural users may pay about $10 an acre-foot for water, while residential users might pay hundreds of dollars for the same amount, depending on location.
Becoming more efficient also drives up the unit cost of water. “Los Angeles is using the same amount of water it used 20 or 30 years ago, but the cost per gallon has gone up, because your fixed costs are virtually the same,” says Kishel.
In fact, water in the U.S. is so cheap that it makes it difficult to pay for much-needed improvements to the system. “The true cost of delivering clean water continues to creep slowly upwards, as does the average price of water, but not at the kind of rates that would seem to be required if we are going to upgrade and truly maintain our infrastructure on a sustainable basis,” note the editors of Environmental Business Journal in their recent WaterView 2009 Report. “It seems clear that we still don’t really recognize the true value of water—nor do we have to currently pay a price for water anywhere near what it is really worth to us.”4
Hidden costs of water. One of the less well-understood aspects of water is its energy cost. In most parts of the country, however, water has to be pumped to its point of use, and that takes energy, usually in the form of electricity or natural gas.
Water processing and distribution, coupled with sewage treatment, consumes about 4% of electricity in the U.S., according to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Menlo Park, Calif.5 A 2009 analysis by River Network, Portland, Ore., estimated U.S. water-related energy use—including heating water for homes and businesses—at 521 million MWh a year—equivalent to 13% of the nation’s electricity consumption.6 In California, water transport and treatment accounts for 19% of electricity used in the state. For many older municipal water systems, supplying fresh water to buildings and homes can account for 80% of the energy used by local water utilities, according to the Alliance for Water Efficiency
Crumbling infrastructure. The U.S. has about 700,000 miles of water and sewer pipe, of which an estimated 72,000 miles are 80 years of age or older. “The stuff’s falling apart,” says Stantec’s Jeff Kishel. “A lot of it is owned by public agencies and they tend to leave it in the ground until it falls apart. A lot of this infrastructure is nearing or at or even beyond its useful life.”
Greg Kail, public affairs director for the American Water Works Association, whose 60,000 members represent the nation’s water utilities, says what the AWWA calls “non-revenue water” comes in part from such things as water lost due to fire hydrants being flushed. As for leaks, says Kail, “We’ve gotten away from what an average percent would be, because of the various ways it’s measured” by the nation’s 54,000 community water systems. A 1996 estimate said that a 10% loss would be “a good level,” says Kail, but experts say it could be as much as 20-30% in older cities of the Northeast and Midwest.7
The nation’s larger water utilities are spending billions on infrastructure improvements—$46 billion for water (in 2004), $36.4 billion for sewers (2005).8 According to Jennifer Hoffner, of Portland, Ore.-based American Rivers, Atlanta has cut its leaks from 20% to about 14-15%. Chicago has made significant strides in relining and repairing miles and miles of its water pipes.
The AWWA says that an additional $250 billion spread over the next couple of decades is needed; the 2003 EPA Drinking Water Needs Survey put the cost at $276.8 billion over 20 years. But that kind of investment is unlikely to happen. Of the $787 billion in the economic stimulus, for example, only about $2 billion is set aside for drinking water improvements and about $4 billion for wastewater—“a drop in the bucket,” according to Kail.
In the meantime, billions of gallons of fresh water will be lost en route to homes or buildings, building owners will be charged for sewer services for wastewater that never reached the treatment plant, huge amounts of energy will be consumed, and untold tons of greenhouse gases will be generated.
'Unintended consequences.’When it comes to water performance, sometimes doing the right thing creates “unintended consequences,” to use the phrase du jour. Manufacturers are getting so good at making toilets efficient that we may be in danger of not having enough wastewater to flush the sewer lines properly—the so-called “drain line transport problem.”
In the U.S., five organizations—the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE), the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute (PMI), the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), the International Code Council (ICC), and the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association (PHCC)—have formed the Plumbing Efficiency Research Coalition. PERC’s first initiative: a research study on the drain line carry problem, which will seek to determine the minimum amount of water necessary to safely flush drain lines.
Another “unintended consequence” is what Gary Nuss, managing principal for water resources at Jacobs, calls “regulatory drought.” This occurs when protecting the environment trumps human need for water. This past July, a U.S. District Court judge ruled against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in favor of Florida, which said it was entitled to water from federally controlled Lake Lanier, Atlanta’s main reservoir, to maintain marine life in the Chattahoochee River on its side of the Georgia-Florida state line.
WATER REUSE: 'THE NEXT BIG THING’
“One thing that’s quickly gaining momentum is water reuse,” says Sloan Valve’s John Watson. “This is the next big thing.”
Water reuse involves both graywater and rainwater. In the case of graywater, why not collect the wastewater from sinks, clothes washers, and showers, give it a moderate level of filtering and disinfecting, and use it to flush toilets in a house or building? Why not give this valuable resource a second life, so to speak? It may seem logical, but plumbing, building, and health regulations in many jurisdictions prohibit this practice as a potential danger to the health of building occupants.
Likewise, it would seem to make sense to use roof runoff for other useful purposes. “We’re using fresh domestic drinking water to irrigate grass and replenish cooling towers,” says Rick Reinders, president of Watertronics, Hartland, Wis., a manufacturer of rainwater harvesting systems (and a sponsor of this report). “By harvesting rainwater, you’re reusing that water, and it’s not going into the treatment system. That relieves pressure on sewer and septic systems.”
Yet many states and local jurisdictions prohibit the indoor use of graywater and rainwater and limit their use at most to underground drip irrigation. NSF International, a product testing organization based in Ann Arbor, Mich., is drafting a standard on the water quality and O&M aspects of graywater to help clarify the health and safety aspects associated with reused water.9
In the following chapters we expand on the points hinted at here. Chapter 2 presents the results of two exclusive surveys. Chapter 3 explores what Building Teams are doing about indoor water performance; Chapter 4 looks at the exterior of buildings. Chapter 5 surveys the water components of the green building certification programs. Chapter 6 delves into water and energy.
We conclude with our Action Plan—21 specific recommendations on what AEC professionals, home builders, government agencies, trade associations, and the public can do to improve water performance.
| References |
|