Page 16

SOURCE Summer 2012

Water Smart Home, Continued from page 15 of 1.49, and pre-drought code homes of the that observed for more traditional landscape sample of homes from the larger groups early 2000s had a peaking factor of 1.47. styles should be of broad interest to water to match the lot size distribution of the utilities, as summer limitations of both WSH group. Further analyses of annual Discussion and Conclusions supply and delivery capacity are common consumption for normalized lot sizes for Several findings are revealed by the quanti- and becoming more so. Water Smart Homes WSH, pre-drought code homes, and post- tative analyses in these comparisons: had a peaking factor 59 percent lower than the homes built in the 1990-1995 timeframe. drought code homes built in the same 1. Water Smart Homes (WSHs) use 49% less This illustrates enormous potential for period as WSHs. Results appear in Graph 2. water than the study groups of homes built freeing up system capacity through turf Since the annual means of the pre-drought up to 2003. This is an average savings of 91.7 limitations, particularly in arid climates. and older traditional homes groups were kgals annually. Clearly, local builders and identical, only the pre-drought group was SNWA have cooperatively made significant 5. Since there was no difference in use for used for further normalized consumption gains in reducing the water footprint of traditional homes built in the early 1990s analyses. residential development and these gains will and the early 2000s, it seems that either grow in the future as efficient development older homes have generally retrofitted Analyses of annual consumption for the further saturates housing stock. major water using fixtures and appliances normalized lot size groups demonstrates with newer versions or that the relative that there was still a strong and statisti- 2. WSHs also use 19% less water than magnitude of outdoor use obscures any cally significant difference in mean annual non-WSH homes on average, but the indoor water savings. Survey data would consumption for the WSHs (93.8 kgal/yr) difference is influenced by the higher density be needed to further determine this. The versus the pre-drought code homes (128.9 of WSHs. This is not impinging the benefits results here should not be taken to imply kgal/yr). While the values for the WSHs are of the program; rather it demonstrates indoor use reductions cannot be realized as numerically different from the post-drought smaller residential lots reduce water use by other research has demonstrated this to be code homes built in the same period (97.1 reducing irrigated landscape area. the case. kgal/yr), this difference is not statistically significant. reducing turfgrass and associated water use Now in its seventh year, the Water Smart3. The impact of drought development codes Homes Program has substantiated that An examination of mean monthly use among in this study cannot be overstated. Even labeled homes not only reduce demand, the groups (Graph 3) demonstrates summer normalizing for lot size difference, homes but also compete effectively in the peaking was less pronounced in post- constructed after imposition of turf limits marketplace. Despite the additional cost drought code groups than in pre-drought used 25% less water (31.8 kgals/yr) than of building labeled homes, over the past code groups. The peaking factor for WSHs pre-drought homes. seven years, Water Smart Homes have held was 1.2. Non-labeled homes subjected to 4. Monthly use analyses demonstrate the approximately 15 percent of the region’s turf restrictions had a peaking factor of 1.28. bulk of the savings is in outdoor use (Graph new home market. The early 1990s homes had a peaking factor 3). The reduction in peaking to a fraction of More information about the program requirements can be found at: www.snwa. com/biz/programs_home.html. S Toby Bickmore is a Conservation Services Administrator for the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) where he supervised devel- opment and implementation of the Water Smart Home Program. Bickmore has an MBA from the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, and also holds professional credentials as a Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor and a CA-NV AWWA Certified Conservation Practitioner. Kent Sovocool is the Senior Conservation Research Analyst in the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s Conservation Division. Sovocool oversees analyses of potential and actual impact of conservation initiatives and development of water-efficiency codes and policies. He has a Master’s of Arts in Science from the University of Nevada at Las Vegas and also holds profes- sional credentials as a Certified Landscape Irri- gation Auditor and a CA-NV AWWA Certified Conservation Practitioner. 16 SOURCE summer 2012


SOURCE Summer 2012
To see the actual publication please follow the link above