August Ontario 1998 3t^V Solutions for Ontario's environmental challenges City of Barriers water conservation program: huge success Innovativepartner- ships supporting ttie The challenge capabilities at theWPCC through an effluent qual- water conservation ity upgrade (EQU). The water conservation pro- program and the The city of Barrie, located on Lake Simcoe, 80 gram would prove to be beneficial not only to the l<ilometres north of Toronto, is one of Canada's city but also to residential and Industrial water ultraviolet disinfec- fastest growing communities with a current popu- users as conservation savings would be reflected tion system have lation of 90,000. The main impetus for Barrie's in their metered water charges. enabled the city of water conservation program was the need to Barrie to postpone reduce wastewater flows at the Water Pollution The approach Control Centre (WPCC). By 1994, average flows for up to five years at the WPCC had reached 37,300 cubic metres Conservation partnership about $19 million in (m3) per day, nearly 80 per cent of the design The city worked with the Ontario Clean Water capital expansions flow capacity for an average day of 46,350 m3. Agency (OCWA) and the Ministry of the to the Water The citywas faced with having to build a $41 mil- Environment (MOB) In developing a conservation lion addition to the WPCC starting in 1996 to partnership. The city determined on a conserva- Pollution Control accommodate future growth and development, as tion program that focused on replacing, In exist- Centre. approved in the official plan. ing homes, showerheads and toilets using high or Growth pressures were also placing constraints excessive amounts ofwater. A strong, cost-Incen- Ron Cemmell, CET on the city's water supply. Currently, the Barrie tive program based on rebates was developed for ManagerofPublic Works Public Utilities Commission (PUC) provides all the the homeowner. The program offered a $145 CityofBarrie, ON city's water through groundwater wells. The cost rebate per toilet, which meant that most toilets of developing a new surface water supply on the were free to the homeowner. Any toilet upgrade shores of Kempenfelt Bay to meet growth in costs above the $145 rebate were the responsibili- demand Is projected to cost about $27 million in ty of the homeowner. current dollars. Plant construction was originally A partnership including the city, OCWA and forecast to start in 2000. MOB covered materials and program administra- The city was facing sewer infrastructure expan- tion costs. Additional support was provided by sion costs of $41 million between 1994 and the Ontario Hydro, Consumers Gas, Environmental year 2000 if it didn't act to curb demands. Action Barrie, the PUC and property owners. The Instead, the city chose to implement a water con- city developed a roster of plumbing contr—actors servation program and to Improve treatment who agreed to a set price for Installation $53 for one toilet and $85 for two. Setting targets — New, ultralow flush (ULF) toilets six litres per — flush approved by the Canadian Standards Association, were found to be the most cost-effec- tive and water-efficient models to assist in meet- ing program goals. The goal was to obtain a 50 litre, per person, per day (L/c/d) reduct—ion in water demands in 15,000 households just more than 55 per cent of Barrie's 1994 housing stock. This would represent about a 5.5 per cent reduction in 1994 avetfge day flows at the WPCC once all 15,000 households were recruited. Ministry of the Environment . Green Industry Deferring capital worl<$ Households recruited The reduction in wastewater flows from the water Between the launch of the program in February conservation program would allow the city to 1995 and the end of 1997, a total of 8,827 scale back the cost of the WPCC upgrade from households received 12,685 ULF toilets (1.4 toilets $41 million to about $19.2 million - a savings of per household for all housing types). This repre- about $21.8 million. Subtracting the to-date sents about 60 per cent of the 15,000 households costs of the water conservation program ($3.1 the city hopes to reach. Of the 12,685 toilets million) from the $21.8 million in capital deferrals installed, 7,856 went into 4,373 single-family would result in a net capital deferral of about detached homes, for an average of 1.8 toilets per $18.7 million. home. The remaining 4,829 toilets went into All that would be required in the way of capital 4,454 apartment units, for an average of 1.1 toi- improvements at the WPCC over the 1994 to lets per unit (see Figure 1). Old toilets were collect- 2001 period would be the EQU. This worl< was ed and ground up for use as aggregate material. needed to handle the increased discharges of solids associated with the projected future popula- Figure 1 -Toilet installation rates by housing type tion growth. Construction began in 1996 and is expected to be completed in 1999. MULTI UNIT SINGLE DETACHED In fact, MOE concluded that the effects of the 1.1 toilets/fiousehold I.Stoilets/fiousefiold 8000 EQU and the water conservation program were sufficient to meet projected hydraulic require- 7000 ments at the WPCC to the year 201 1 6000 Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection 5000 BS9 As part of the EQU, the city also wanted to 4000 improve the quality of the treated effluent leaving 1 3000 the WPCC. Staff were looking for a treatment sys- tem that could replace chlorine as a disinfecting 2000 agent. The desire was to reduce the concentra- 1000 tions of chlorine derivatives finding their way into Kempenfelt Bay and Lake Simcoe. The city decided on an ultraviolet disinfection #ofhouseholds Toiletsinstalled #ofhouseholds Toiletsinstalled system that will expose the wastewater to ultravi- olet light before it enters Kempenfelt Bay. It was Water savings determined that this would provide the optimum — — and more environmentally acceptable way Water consumption was analysed in 1,866 house- to kill bacteria in the wastewater. The UV system holds both before and after the plumbing fixtures began operation in the spring of 1998. were replaced. The results of the analysis indicate a reduction in water demand of about 62 litres The results per person per day in participating households. Flexible program the key to success This is very encouraging. Recognizing that the goal is to reduce consumption per person in par- Enrolling in the water conservation program was ticipating households by 50 L/c/d, it appears that easy. The city sent information kits on the pro- the program has bettered this target by about 20 gram to interested homeowners and landlords. per cent. The kit included a list of eligible toilets, program guidelines and a list of the prequalified plumbing Wastewater flow reductions contractors. Homeowners had the option to do Water savings do not directly translate into reduc- the installations themselves. Low flow shower- tions in sewer flows because some of the observed heads were also offered at a rebate cost of $8 savings were due to the elimination of lawn each. The PUC provided an on-bill financing option for those homeowners who wanted to pay watering in the colder months. A correction fac- tor brought the estimate of wastewater flow for the cost of installation through interest-free reductions per person down to 55 L/c/d. Based instalments on their water bill. on the 8,827 households that have received the fixture replacements, the conservation program has generated about 1,335 m3/day in reductions Ministry of the Environment . Green Industry ofwastewater flow, which is 65 per cent of the Total costs to date target of reduction in 1994 daily flows of 2,065 If the city had not proceeded with a program to m3/day. conserve water and reduce wastewaterflows, con- The other good news is that there have been struction on WPCC expansions at a cost of about no negative effects at the WPCC due to the water $41 million would have commenced in 1996. For conservation program at each stage ofthe treat- a total investment of about $22.3 million ($19.2 ment process. In addition, concerns about sewer million for the effluent quality upgrades and $3.1 blockages due to reductions in flow volumes have million for the conservation program), the city proved groundless. appears to be on track to defer about $18.7 mil- lion in WPCC expansions until 2011 Public reaction to the program The benefits Public reaction to the water conservation program has been very positive. During followup inter- For the homeowner views with a random sample of households, more than 90 per cent of customers reported satisfac- The homeowner/landlord was responsiblefor only tion with the way the program was administered the cost of the fixture installations, which aver- by the city. The ULF toilets also got high marks, aged about $60 per household. Assuming that with 93 per cent of participants reporting they the average water saving per household is 1 70 were either satisfied orvery satisfied with the litres per day, a typical yearly water/wastewater products installed under the program. reduction is 62,050 litres or 62.05 m3. At the city's combined water and sewercosts of The costs $.978/m3, the dollarvalue of these reductions amounts to about $61 peryear, for a simple pay- The costs of conservation back of oneyear. If the homeowner had paid the Between the start of the conservation program in total $350 cost per household for the program, early 1995 and the end of 1997, a total of $3.1 the payback would have been just under six years. million was spent. As the pie chart indicates, about 56 per cent of the total costs went to the Figure2-Program expendituresbycategory purchase of the toilets and showerheads, 26 per cent to program administration and delivery costs Installation (including monitoring and evaluation) and 18 per 18% cent to homeowner costs associated with fixture installations (see Figure2). An average of 1.4 toi- lets and 1.6 showerheads were installed per household at a total program cost of just under $350 per household. Fixtures Programdelivery 56% 26% The costs of WPCC upgrades The effluent quality upgrades currently underway at the WPCC will cost about $19.2 million when completed, with the cost of the new UV disinfec- tion system representing about $0.5 million of this total. The UV system will use about $15,000 in For the city electricity each year to operate the UV lamps, The city wins by being able to delay financing the which is a new operating cost compared to that new water and sewer capital works. At the of the old chlorine system. In addition, the main- WPCC, a combination of the water conservation tenance costs are higher than with the chlorine program and the upgrades to the plant currently system, requiring 20 person-hours per week com- under way mean that no new hydraulic capacity pared to three person-hours per week for chlorine. will be needed until 2011. This may also enable However, these higher operation and mainte- the PUC to delay construction of the the new nance costs represent only about a 0.5 per cent lake-based waterfiltration plant beyond the year increase in the total operating and maintenance 2020. In addition, the community wins by being budget. able to delay having to absorb the rate increases that would be needed to pay for the costs ofthis new Infrastructure. Ministry of the Environment Green Industry For the environment Figure3-DailyflowsummaryattheWPCC The environment is a clear winner when it comes to water conservation. Reducing water demands 50000 and delaying the need to build the new filtration 45000 plant on Kempenfelt Bay delays the disruption to the aquatic environment that such a construction 40000 project would produce. As well, a reduction in sewer flows going into the WPCC (see Figure 3) 35000 may increase the hydraulic retention time of the 30000 wastewater in the plant. This allows for better and more thorough treatment. However, the 25000 increased efficiency of solids removal may increase 20000 the city's sludge disposal costs. 1992/3 1993/4 1994/5 1995/6 1996/7 1997/8 The UV disinfection system will generate con- Dailyflows siderable environmental benefits by eliminating the introduction of chlorine byproducts into the aquatic ecosystem in Kempenfelt Bay while pro- The bottom line — viding better bacteriological treatment of the The bottom line is compelling environmental wastewater. UV has the potential to destroy bac- benefits, job creation, increased disposable teria, viruses and other micro-organisms in waste- incomes from lower water and energy bills and water without using chemicals. Limiting the use the deferral of $18.7 million in municipal waste- of chemicals is not only beneficial to the environ- water treatment expenditures. By initiating one ment but also reduces chemical storage and han- of the largest water conservation projects in dling concerns. Canada, Barrie is proving that water conservation can play an integral role in the wider strategic For the community planning involving the provision of municipal There are broader community benefits associated water and sewer services. Water conservation with the Barrie conservation program that are works, it saves taxpayers money and it's good for equally important to highlight. In addition to the the environment. environmental and resource conservation benefits, the program has generated considerable benefits for the Barrie economy. For more information, please contact: For example, OCWA calculated that about 825 Green Industry Office more jobs would be created through the conser- vation program compared to the capital works 1 35 St. Clair Ave. W. S'h fj. originally proposed during the next 15 years. The Toronto ON M4V 1 P5 job creation benefits stem from the labor-intensive Tel: (416) 314-7898 nature of the conservation program. Fax:(416)314-7919 The other economic benefit stems from the E-mail: [email protected] fact that most people still spend the money they Internet: www.ene.gov.on.ca save from lowerwater and energy bills. This money is being injected back into the Barrie econ- Land Use Policy Brancfi omy, where it generates more jobs and greater 40 St. Clair Ave. W. lOthfl. tax revenues for all levels of government. And Toronto ON M4V M2 while the homeowner spends only once to pur- 1 chase and install a low flow toilet and shower- Tel: (416) 314-7090 head, that same homeowner continues to spend Fax: (416) 314-0444 the savings from conservation year afteryear. E-mail: [email protected] Ministry of the Environment iPnrcilnutdeidnogn751%00p%osrte-ccycolnesdumpearpefribre PIES: 3659E 3M - 8 - 98