BV Water Smart: Conservation Through Education - Neel Gopal

Presented at June 6-7 Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts Business Meeting

1. BVWATERSMART: APPLIED RESEARCH FOR WATER
CONSERVATION THROUGH EDUCATIONRA Kaiser
JD Nations
R Garcia
CP Khedun
D Smith
K Gopal
AC Lewis
B Stoker
N Gopal

2. Motivation: 2010 – 2015 Drought in Texas
§Exceptional drought in southern US
§2011 was worst one-year drought on
record in Texas
§Brazos Valley County
•City of College Station & Bryan, Texas
•69 days temperatures above 100°F
•1/3 of expected precipitation
Texas Water Journal, Volume 3, Number 1
82
U.S. Drought Monitor
http://drought.unl.edu/dm
Intensity:
D0 Abnormally Dry
D1 Drought - Moderate
D2 Drought - Severe
D3 Drought - Extreme
D4 Drought - Exceptional
Drought Conditions (Percent Area)
Texas
June 28, 2011
Valid 7 a.m. EST
The Drought Monitor focuses on broad-scale conditions.
Local conditions may vary. See accompanying text summary
for forecast statements.
Richard Heim/Liz Love-Brotak, NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC
Released Thursday, June 30, 2011
NoneD0-D4D1-D4D2-D4D3-D4D4
Current
Last Week
(06/21/2011 map)
3 Months Ago
(03/29/2011 map)
Start of
Calendar Year
(12/28/2010 map)
Start of
Water Year
(09/28/2010 map)
One Year Ago
(06/22/2010 map)
51.7848.2213.000.000.000.00
75.5724.432.430.990.000.00
7.8992.1169.4337.469.590.00
0.00100.0094.8778.5443.070.00
3.3396.6795.7194.5291.3170.61
2.6897.3295.7194.5290.6272.32
Figure 18. U.S. Drought Monitor for Texas for September 27, 2011. Available online at http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu.
The 2011 Texas Drought
Available online at http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu

3. Impact of the drought on water supply
§About 1,000 (21%) of water utilities in Texas under water use restrictions
§College Station Utilities: no water restrictions
•Consumption increased
•2011 (worst year)
•Average consumption: 0.67 m3/person/day
•Peak consumption : 1.1 m3/person/day
§Meeting peak water use strains water production and infrastructure
•Peak water: most expensive and energy intensive
1 m3 = 264 US gallons

4. Water Waste and the Need for Conservation
§Residential water use
•50% used outdoors mostly for lawn &
landscape irrigation
§30-50% of residential water wasted
due to overwatering
§Brazos Valley County
•66% of water use is for residential
purposes

5. Outdoor Water Waste
•Failure to shut irrigation
after rainfall
•Watering too long or too
often
Poor system designLeaks

6. BVWaterSmart: A Collaborative Effort
BVWaterSmart.tamu.edu
WIXON
Quality on Tap

7. Provide water budgets to homeowners
BVWaterSmart website and mobile app
Weekly watering notifications
Free irrigation system inspections
Water conservation workshops
BVWaterSmart: Educational Interventions

8. 2007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019
Timeline of Educational Interventions
2007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019
CSU moves from flat rate
to inclined block rate
One-year drought
of record
Drought
Hurricane Harvey
BVWaterSmart.tamu.edu
goes live
CSU offers free
irrigation check-ups
Water budgets mailed to customers
CSU offers free
irrigation seminars
BVGCD starts public
service announcements
App
Development

9. RESIDENTIAL WATER BUDGETS FOR
15,000 CUSTOMERS
! =1
%&!×()"−+×,#$$×0.62
Irrigation
needs
(gal)
Landscape/Crop
Coefficient
Reference
Evapotranspiration
(in)
Rainfall
(in)
Irrigable
Area
(ft2)
Unit
Conversion
(gal/ft3)Water Application
Efficiency
LOT SIZE MINUS
BUILDING AREA
IRRIGABLE AREA
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
(TURF NEEDS)
RAINFALL
MOISTURE DEFICIT
STEPS

10. Weather Network

11. Website and App
for Realtime Watering
Recommendations
BVWaterSmart.tamu.edu

12. Water Conservation Workshops

13. §Run on local TV
§Give tips for:
•Irrigation check-up
•Efficient watering
•Adjust sprinklers, etc.
§Educational programs
in middle schools
Public Service
Announcements

14. Impacts of the Educational
Interventions
15,000 Single Family Residences

15. Methodology
§Dataset
•15,000 single-family residential (SFR) customers
•2008 to 2018
§Methodology
•Kernel density estimation of outdoor water use
•Clustering of SFR: consumption vs irrigable area
•Identify wasteful SFR
•Regression
•Dependent variable: outdoor consumption
•Independent variables: market value, irrigable area, pool,
precipitation and evapotranspiration
0 10 20 30 40 50
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Volume (1,000 gallons)
f(x)
0
100
200
300
400
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Irrigable Area (m
2
)
2008 Average Summer Use (
m
3
/month)
(a)

16. Drought and Effect of Educational Interventions
Drought
•More customers used more water
Pre-interventions
•Set it and forget it
•Consumption profile remains the same
irrespective of weather
Effect of educational
interventions
•More customers use less water
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0 50 100 150 200 250
Average Summer Use (m
3
)
Density
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Drought
Pre-interventions
Interventions

17. Benefits to the City
§Per-capita summer consumption decreased
§Water saved between 2012 and 2017 is 157 million gallons
•About 3 months of 2018 average summer use
§Significant energy savings: $150,000
§Ability to defer investment in water infrastructure
§Two major state awards for conservation
§Model for water conservation in the State of Texas and beyond

18. Thank You