Rose

Conclusion: The Happy Gardener's Drought Survey

Rose

In 1989 we did our first Water Management Survey for the years of 1987 and 1988. Each of our participating clients had a water consumption record for 1 year prior to following our Water Management Program. We used those records as a base to compare our findings to. For our first survey we used 1987 as the base year for a comparison of water saved from 1987 to 1988.

At first, we sent our client list to EBMUD and requested that they send us the information that we needed for our survey. Since it is district policy not to release individual customer records to anyone other than the customer, EBMUD told us that the consumption records we wanted first had to be sent to our clients and then forwarded to us by them. Each year we wrote a letter to our clients explaining the procedure and our intent.

So, it has become our custom, once a year, to send EBMUD our list of participating clients, and EBMUD, in turn sends our clients a printout of their consumption history which they in turn, promptly send to us. Our survey is based on those records.

This survey is different than one prepared by a University because it was not done in a controlled environment. We did not have the luxury or opportunity to know what was going on with our water management project on a day to day basis. The participants were the homeowners, our clients. Most of them did not have a great deal of time and energy to participate in a survey. Some of the homeowners in our survey had been our clients from one to six years.

We had no control over our clients water use. All we had was a Water Management Program that our clients received in a monthly newsletter, year after year, along with the strong recommendation that certain water conservation devices be installed. It was up to the homeowner to decide whether they were going to follow the irrigation schedule we've provided for them or if they were going to make one up for themselves.

Factors that affected the results of our survey were: Some clients moved away during the survey. Some clients let their landscapes go and some clients installed even more landscape. Physical breaks in the irrigation sometimes occurred, causing a loss of excess water. Some clients were more concerned with saving water than others. These clients were the ones we worked closest with and they saved a larger percentage of water.

This survey is applicable to customers in all water districts because it deals with real life and real people. Our program was set up as a guideline, a consistent series of choices, explanations, education and recommendations, leaving it up to the homeowner to ultimately decide how to use the water. Our program focused on outdoor, gardening-related water use. It was the homeowner's responsibility to monitor their indoor water use.



Rose

1988-Our First Survey

Rose


In 1988, EBMUD requested that homeowners reduce their water use by 25%. Out of 23 homes, 1 saved less than 20%, 4 saved 20-25%, 3 saved 25-30%, 10 saved 30-35%, 4 saved 35-40%, and 1 saved over 40%. As you can see many of our clients saved over the 25% that was requested. Out of the 23 homes, 18 saved more than 25% and only 5 saved less. Our clients were located in Alamo, Blackhawk, Danville, Moraga and Walnut Creek. Collectively these 23 homes and one commercial site saved 4,302,467 gallons of water. The dollar amount saved by the clients during that year was $13,660.

We included one commercial account in two of our surveys. This site is a Common Area, and is the equivalent of four to six homes in Blackhawk. In 1987 it used 2,276,021 gallons of water. In 1988 we put Saddleback on our Water Management Program and it used 1,441,986 gallons. The savings is a significant 834,035 gallons for the year, which is a 37% decrease from the previous year. Homeowners were asked to reduce their water use by 25%, but commercial sites were asked to reduce their water use by only 15%. This commercial site was able to reduce its consumption by 37%, and save over $3,000 on the water bill. This example clearly shows that water management should also be required for commercial sites.



1987 through 1992-The Whole Picture
* Executive Summary *



We have attempted to create a large picture of the impact of water management from the second year of the drought right up to the sixth. We surveyed 59 homes during the six year drought. 6, out of the 59 homes, were in Alamo, 23 were in Blackhawk, 15 were in Danville, 3 were in Moraga, and 12 were in Walnut Creek. Out of the 59 homeowners, 24 participated in the survey for two years (with the first year being the base year), 14 participated for three years, 5 participated for four years, 4 participated for five years, and 12 participated for six years. During our survey some clients moved away and some were added to the list later.

The end calculation of water saved is not based on the entire six year period. The amount of water we've calculated was saved collectively among the 59 homes surveyed over the six years:

The grand total of gallons saved by our clients for the whole six years is 19,195,859. During the entire drought period, 25,594.47 units of water (one unit being approx.750 gallons) were used. The cost saved (at $1.37 a unit) was $35,064.42.

Our survey has enabled us to look back at the previous years to determine whether water management has made any real difference. As you can see 59 homeowners made an incredible savings during the six years of drought. As you can see water management does make an impact. It shows that homeowners can have beautiful homes with the lawns and landscapes they desire.



Rose

The Happy Gardener's Drought Survey Findings

August 1994

Rose


In 1987 we began our Water Managment Program. In 1989 we did our first Water Management Survey for the years of 1987 and 1988. Each of our participating clients had a water consumption record for 1 year prior to following our Water Management Program. We used those records as a base to compare our findings to. For our first survey we used 1987 as the base year for a comparison of water saved from 1987 to 1988. We sent our client list to EBMUD and requested the client's records. Since it is district policy not to release individual customer records to anyone other than the customer, the consumption records had to be forwarded to us by our clients.

Our First Survey

In 1988, EBMUD requested that homeowners reduce their water use by 25%. Out of 23 homes surveyed, 1 saved less than 20%, 4 saved 20- 25%, 3 saved 25-30%,10 saved 30- 35%, 4 saved 35-40%, and 1 saved over 40%. Out of the 23 homes, 18 saved more than 25% and only 5 saved less. Our clients were located in Alamo, Blackhawk, Danville, Moraga, and Walnut Creek. Collectively, 23 homes and 1 commercial site saved 4,302,467 gallons ofwater. The dollar amount saved by the clients during that year was $13,660.

We included one commercial account in two of our surveys. This site is a common area, and is the equivalent of four to six homes in Blackhawk. In 1987 it used 2,276,021 gallons of water. In 1988 we put the commercial site on our Water Management Program and it used 1,441,986 gallons. The savings is a significant 834,035 gallons for the year, which is a 37% decrease from the previous year. Homeowners were asked to reduce their water use by 25%, but commercial sites were asked to reduce their water use by only 15%. This commercial site was able to reduce its consumption by 37%, and save over $3,000 on the water bill. This example clearly shows that water management should also be required for commercial sites.

1987-1992

We have attempted to create a large picture ofthe impact of water management from the second year of the drought right up to the sixth. We surveyed 59 homes during the six year drought. Six out of the 59 homes were in Alamo, 23 in Blackhawk, 15 in Danville, 3 in Moraga, and 12 in Walnut Creek. Out of the 59 homeowners, 24 participated in the survey for two years, 14 participated for three years, 5 participated for four years, 4 participated for five years, and 12 participated for six years. During our survey some clients moved away and some were added to the list later. Water saved collectively among the 59 homes surveyed over the 6 years:


The grand total of gallons saved by our clients for the whole six years is 19,195,859. During the entire drought period, 25,594.47 units of water (one unit being approx. 750 gallons) were used. The cost saved (at $1.37 a unit) was $35,064.42.

These 59 homeowners made an incredible savings during the six years of drought. Our program focused on outdoor water use and it was the home owners responsibility to monitor indoor water use. Water management does make an impact. It shows that homeowners can have beautiful homes with the lawns and landscapes they desire. Good work Residential Farmers!


Rose

LETTER FROM EBMUD

EBMUD
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT



February 3, 1989



Mr. Bird Morningstar
P.O. Box 27971
Concord, CA 94527-0971




Dear Mr. Morningstar:

Thank you for sending me the names and addresses of many of your
customers.  Consumption histories were sent to these customers on
February 3, 1989.   We could not, however, use records for four
customers:



The results of your management effort are summarized below:

     Participants reduced 1988 summer water use by 33.4% over
     1987.   The average daily savings per residence was 716
     gallons per day and the total monthly savings per residence
     was 21,766 gallons.



Participating customers saved an average of $86.16 per month
per household on their water bills in 1988.



As you can see, proper attention to the landscape can have a
dramatic affect on water use without necessarily harming the
plant material.



Keep up the good work.
Sincerely,

Signature
Richard E. Bennett
Water Conservation Administrator



REB: jea
cc: Charles Evans

End of Chapter 9...



Got Questions ?? Get Answers !! ... Email us !

Rose

Previous Page Home Page Project Directory


Chap. 9 Directory Top Glossary