Excerpts on Graywater Reuse and Rainwater Harvesting from 2010 Water Supply Plan and Water Rate and

Connection Charge Study For City of Sonoma

July 2010

by John Olaf Nelson Water Resources Mgt. Petaluma, Ca, Ph: 707 778-8620, jonolaf@comcast.net

This page intentionally left blank.

Excerpt Contents 4.8 Graywater Reuse 4.8.1 California Standards 4.8.2 Graywater Discharge (production) and Potable Water Offset 4.8.3 Systems Analyzed for Conservation Program Feasibility 4.8.3.1 Description and Cost 4.8.3.2 Irrigation System 4.8.3.3 Costs and B/C Ratios 4.8.3.4 Suggested Conservation Program 4.8.4 Public Health Issues 4.8.5 Plant Issues 4.8.6 Findings and Recommendations 4.9 Rainwater Harvesting 4.9.1 Citys Current Policy 4.9.2 System Design, Maintenance and Water Quality 4.9.3 Operation of Simple Rain Barrel Type System in Sonoma Climate 4.9.4 Type and Cost of Systems Analyzed for Conservation Program Feasibility 4.9.5 Rainwater Production and Use 4.9.6 B/C and Suggested Conservation Program 4.9.7 Findings and Recommendations Footnotes Appendix C Life Cycle Out-of-Pocket Cost and Benefit Analysis Appendix Greywater Reuse and Rainwater Harvesting

Terms Units of Water Measure af acre-feet afa or af/yr acre-feet per annum (year) g or gal gallons gcd gallons per capita per day gpd gallons per day gpd/a gallons per day per account gpf gallons per flush gpm gallons per minute mg million gallons (1 million gallons = 3.0689 af) mgd millions of gallons per day tgal thousands of gallons Billing Database Customer Group Designations COM Commercial customers IRR Irrigation only customers (i.e. customers whose use of water is primarily for irrigating landscape) MUN Government, institutional and certain non-profit organizations (also called OTHER in City documents) SF Single family detached dwelling (not actually a separate customer group but can be determined by DU designation) MF Multi-family type dwelling unit Other Ways Often Used to Describe Customer Groups: CII Commercial/institutional and industrial customers MH mobile home dwelling RES Residential customers (SF and MF) General ACM Alternative Calculation Method, CEC 2010 Energy Efficiency Building Standards AMR automatic meter reading equipment AWWA American Water Works Association B.I.G. Build-It-Green BMP Best Management Practices promulgated by the CUWCC BO Biological Opinion (document prepared by NMFS) BST Booster pumping station CBO Community based service organization CDPH California Department of Public Health CEC California Energy Commission CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CI or CII Commercial, Institutional and Industrial CIP Capital Improvement Plan Consultant John Olaf Nelson Water Resources Mgt Cooling Degree Day Degrees Fahrenheit that the average of maximum and minimum daily temperature exceeds a selected base temperature.

COPs Corps CPI CUWCC DEIR DSM DWR EF EIR El. ENR EPAct ESD ET ETo Extended MOU FYE 20__ General Plan HE HP HWD HWY IAQ MEF MOM MOU NMFS O&M PB peak month

Certificates of Participation (a special type of debt instrument) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Consumer Price Index published annually by US Bureau of Labor Statistics, As used in this report: CPI for San Francisco Bay Area All Urban Consumers, Base = 1902-84 California Urban Water Conservation Council Draft Environmental Impact Report Distribution System Multiplier, used by CEC in applying ACM when calculating energy consumption of building, CEC 2010 Energy Efficiency Standards California State Department of Water Resources Energy efficiency Environmental Impact Report Elevation and ENR SF Bay Area CCI means Engineering News Record San Francisco Bay Area Construction Cost Index U.S. Environmental Policy Act of 1992 as amended. equivalent single family detached dwelling unit demand (see Table 53) Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration for a base condition defined as a standard crop of cool season grass having a standard height, being non-shaded and on level ground Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment, October 16, 2006 denotes the fiscal year ending on June 30, 20__ or 2020 General Plan means City of Sonomas current General Plan High efficiency Horse power Hot water on demand Highway Inside air quality Modified energy factor Proprietary Billing/Accounting System (Corbin Willits Systems, Inc) Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment, March 1, 2001 National Marine Fisheries Service Operation and maintenance Polybutylene pipe (used for service lines that convey water from street main to meter) month during which average day demand is highest (generally July or August)

peak month demand average daily demand during the peak month Pk Mo peak month PV present value Restructured Agreement means Restructured Agreement for Water Supply, June 25, 2006 RCN reconstructed cost new RP Reduced Pressure back-flow prevention device R.R. Russian River RRIFR Russian River Instream Flow and Restoration SCWA Sonoma County Water Agency (previously known as the Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District) SDC Sonoma Developmental Center Tier 2 Memo November 2, 2006 Memorandum from consultant Bill Maddaus entitled Final Tier 2 and New Development Conservation Measure Evaluation, Summary of Data Inputs, Evaluation and Results, November 2, 2006, 2005 City of Sonoma UWMP, Appendix B. The Water Project Water Supply and Transmission Expansion Project described in 2008 DEIR, The Water Project (includes the Russian River Bypass) UFW unaccounted for water (leaks believed to be caused by Polybutylene service laterals, meter under-reads, water that leaves the system but is not metered or otherwise accounted for, etc.) ULFT Ultra-low flush toilet, (flush volume is < 1.6 gallons) USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency VOM Valley of the Moon Water District WAC Water Advisory Committee (created by master water supply agreement) Water Contractors Cities of Santa Rosa, Sonoma, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Cotati and Windsor (Windsor replaces Forestville Water District), North Marin and Valley of the Moon Water Districts Water Project Expansion project described in the 2008 DEIR WF Water factor WMA Weighted moving average a data smoothing technique 1998 EIR Final Approved EIR of Water Supply and Transmission Expansion Project approved in 1998 2000 Rate Study John Olaf Nelson Water Resources Mgt and Jack Weber, Weber Group, City of Sonoma Year 2000 Connection Fee and Rate Study, January 2001 2005 UWMP City of Sonoma 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 2007 Rate Study John Olaf Nelson Water Resources Mgt and Jack Weber, City of Sonoma Year 2007 Connection Charge and Rate Study, April 10, 2007 2008 DEIR DEIR for the Water Supply and Transmission Expansion Project released in 2008 and termed the Water Project (includes the Russian River Bypass)

4.8 Graywater Reuse 4.8.1 California Standards Pursuant to SB 1258, the California Department of Housing and Community Developments Codes and Standards Division, and the California Building Standards Commission are charged with promulgation of graywater standards. Standards were prepared and became effective August 4, 2009i. Previously, graywater standards were under the auspices of the California DWR. Although created in 1992 and the first code in the nation to formally address graywater, few permits were applied for standards and most graywater installations were bootleg systems. In California and elsewhere, the primary motivation for installing a graywater system is found in rural areas and is most often due to lack of a suitable or low cost wastewater disposal option. As Californias urban water supply expansion capability has continued to decline, use of graywater in urban areas has gotten a lot of attention and during severe droughts, reuse of clothes washer water has been practiced, usually on a bootleg basis. One expert estimates that 4% of the nations residences now reuse graywater in one fashion or anotherii. Californias new standards are an attempt to address the interest in graywater and deal with the lack of compliance with the code and permitting in a positive way. The new standards define graywater as: Untreated wastewater that has not been contaminated by any toilet discharge, has not been affected by infectious, contaminated, or unhealthy bodily wastes, and does not present a threat from contamination by unhealthful processing, manufacturing, or operating wastes. Graywater includes but is not limited to wastewater from bathtubs, showers, bathroom washbasins, clothes washing machines, and laundry tubs, but does not include wastewater from kitchen sinks or dishwashers. Regards backflow protection of the public water system, the standards state: The graywater system shall not be connected to any potable water system without an air gap or other physical device which prevents backflow and shall not cause the ponding or runoff of graywater. The standards allow graywater to be used for irrigation of landscape via drip systems, mulch basins or other approved means. The discharge points must be covered by at least 2-inches of mulch, soil or rock or a shield to minimize the possibility of human contact. Above ground sprinkler application of graywater is not allowed. Irrigation of edible root crops or edible parts of food crops that touch the soil is prohibited. There must be 3-ft of clearance from the point of deepest irrigation and the water table. Designs must meet criteria that assure graywater will be absorbed by the soil and not pond or runoff.

The storage tank in the system must be sized no larger than required to distribute the total amount of graywater estimated to be produced on a daily basis. This is to minimize microbial growth, stagnation, noxious odors, and public health issues associated with putrefaction of graywater. The tank must be vented, sealed against vermin and mosquitoes and be equipped with an overflow that drains by gravity to the sewer. Water used to wash diapers or infectious garments must not be allowed to enter the graywater system and graywater may not be used indoors for flushing toilets unless it is first treated to tertiary standards. The standards contain increasingly more stringent requirements for four types of systems. A. Clothes Washer only system. B. Simple System where the source includes graywater from more than just a clothes washer and has a discharge capacity of less than 250 gpd. C. Complex system, which has same sources as a Simple System but where the discharge capacity is greater than 250 gpd. D. Treated system, one that treats graywater to a level that includes indoor use for flushing toilets. Treatment must meet the standard for tertiary recycled water determined by the CDPHiii and the graywater system must be installed, inspected and tested as specified for reclaimed water systemsiv. All systems except Type A require submittal of a plan and acquisition of a permit from the enforcing authority (City). All four systems can be used for subsurface irrigation but only Type D can be used for indoor toilet flushing. The only difference between Type B and C systems is essentially the size and this is dictated by the number of occupants in the home and type of graywater producing fixtures that are connected to the graywater system. Type D systems are very, very expensive, extremely rare and are deemed to be beyond the scope of this report. 4.8.2 Graywater Discharge (production) and Potable Water Offset Based on the AWWA Residential End Use Study (refer to Reference 35), for a family of 4, clothes washer use (standard washer), averages 22,031 g/yr. If showers, tubs and an appropriate share of faucet use are included, the amount is 54,050 g/yr. If HE fixtures and equipment are used in the home, this figure is reduced by 30%. The plumbing code allows several methods for calculating graywater discharge, and includes a default method based on the number of bedrooms and fixture sources. For a 3-bedroom home, the default formula sets occupancy at 4 persons and graywater from the laundry is to be calculated using 15 gpd/person, which amounts to 21,900 g/yr or 60 gpd. Graywater from showers, bathtubs and washbasins are assigned a rate of 25 gpd/person, which amounts to 36.500 g/yr for a total of 58,400 g/yr or 160 gpd for a family of four. The two approaches agree vary closely for clothes washing and are within 10% as pertains to what is defined to be legally collectible graywater. For the purposes of this analysis, the in the new pluming code are used.

Irrigation demand for the typical SF home in the City of Sonoma, based on 2006 normalized sales (predates recent series of water short years) averages 59% of typical annual use and amounts to 79,050 g/yr. Based on long-term averages, the typical monthly distribution of this demand is shown in Table D-1 of Appendix D. This table also shows the normal distribution of ETo and rainfall. For a graphical display of the data, refer to Figure 10. Note that irrigation water, in a typical year, is not needed in the months of November December, January, February and March but peaks sharply in the mid-summer months. Graywater, on the other hand is produced year-round at a relatively constant rate. The benefit of graywater irrigation to offset potable water that would otherwise be used for irrigation is therefore significantly reduced and is 11,545 g/yr for Type A systems, or 53% of what is available, and 27,780 g/yr or 48% of what is available for a Type B or C systems. These calculations are for a family of 4 as previously noted. This is not to say that graywater cant be applied to soil in the winter, for at many sites it can but for much of the winter it will be necessary to simply bypass graywater directly to the sewer. In any event, over-application of water for irrigation is unnecessary and is not counted in calculating out-of-pocket benefits. In determining irrigation demand for the typical home, it is assumed that irrigation is applied by drip irrigation and that plants exhibit characteristics of drought tolerant plants common in the region. It is not advisable to use graywater for irrigation of turf, as it is very difficult to obtain high uniformity and avoid waste given the generally shallower root depth of grass. From Table D-1, it is also evident that graywater will not be sufficient to meet summertime demands for many of the irrigation months and supplemental water from the potable water system will be needed, at least on part of the landscape. 4.8.3 Systems Analyzed for Conservation Program Feasibility There are numerous types of graywater reuse devices and systems and cost for installing systems at existing home sites vary widely from as low as $150 to tens of thousands of dollars. In terms of actual practice the type of graywater system used narrows down dramatically and this evaluation focuses on these.

Ag - Clothes Wash Only-gravity (Figure D-1, Appendix D) Ap - Clothes Wash Only-pump B - Simple System (Figure D-2, Appendix D)
The capitalized letter stands for the applicable State Standard definition and the g and p simply designate a sub-category of gravity or pump type system. The pump type system will also have a storage tank of some sort to pump out of. Detailed estimates of discharge, portion that can be counted as offsetting potable water use and costs are presented in Table D-2 of Appendix D. At best, costs for the more expensive systems are ball park estimates. They do not include situations where foundations have to be drilled or walls opened up to access waste pipes such as would be

the case in a two story house where typically, black water (pipes carrying household sewage) and graywater pipes from the second story join in a vertical waste pipe. Clearly, it is far more cost effective to install graywater systems when the home is being built. One notable exception is the simple clothes washer only system (Type A) that does not involve cutting into any sewer line. Irrigation system costs are not included in the analyses as these are assumed to be incurred by the homeowner whether or not graywater is used. Also note that the cost of installation labor is not included in the Ag alternative and it is in the others. The Ag alternative is assumed to be a do-it-yourself installation. If a plumbers labor were to be added, it would amount to about $200 and the alternative would render the alternative infeasible. In practice, the most common graywater system is the Ag type system. 4.8.3.1 Description and Cost Ag - Clothes Wash Only-gravity ($649): Simple gravity delivery of graywater direct from clothes washer through an air gap to landscape using the pump built into the washing machine and elevation available at top of the washing machine (this is the elevation from which the water will fall by gravity into the yard irrigation system). This system includes a ball valve whose purpose is to direct discharge to sewer or irrigation. The best place to install directional ball valve is on inside wall directly above clothes washer. There is no cutting into a sewer line required. There is no storage tank. When water is directed to irrigation it immediately drains to the graywater irrigation system each time the washing machine cycle would ordinarily direct water to waste. Oasis Designs, one designer of this type system and an excellent source for information on how to build and successfully operate such a systemv advises that the pump built into the clothes washer can, without harm to itself, convey graywater for a distance of 100 ft if the distribution pipe is not less than 1-inch in diameter and the highest elevation encountered in the irrigation system is 20-inches below the elevation of the top of the clothes washer. There should be no U dips in the distribution line. The distance is virtually unlimited if the irrigation line follows the lay of the land and the latter falls down hill from the clothes washer. Figure D-1, Appendix D, shows a diagram of this very simple and effective system. Advantages: System can be installed by any handy do-it-yourselfer. It is very low cost. If diapers or contaminated clothing needs to be washed or occupant wants to use a heavy dose of chlorine bleach to wash a load, its a simple matter to reach up and turn the ball valve and direct graywater to the sewer. There is no possibility of a smelly storage tank, and there are no filter bags or filter devices to mess with. Disadvantages: System may not be low cost if clothes washer does not back up to an exterior or garage wall or is in some inconvenient location for retrofit. The lay of the irrigation system may not be irregular and might increase in elevation and therefore require a storage vessel and a pump and the attendant operational issues (i.e. storage vessel needs to be sealed against varmints and should be emptied every day to avoid

graywater turning black). Depending on size of irrigation system and type of plants, It is probable that supplemental water from the potable water system will be needed when on vacation or if demands in mid-summer exceed water needs of plants on system. (The latter can generally be accommodated rather easily with introduction of potable water via an air gap and standpipe attached at the head-end of the graywater distribution system.) Ap - Clothes Wash Only pump ($4,060): Same as Ag type system but includes a 60gallon tank and submersible pump to deliver pressurized graywater to irrigation system. The collected graywater enters at the top of the tank via a pipe fitted with a filter bag. Advantages: This system provides the pressure to distribute bag filtered graywater anyplace on the typical SF lot. Disadvantages: System is much more expensive. The bag filter will need routine monitoring, and probably monthly cleaning as a minimum. Cleaning the filter bag is not a pleasant task and protective gloves should be worn for health safety reasons. New filter bags are needed periodically (two per year are assumed). Graywater should not be stored in the storage tank for more than 24 hours to eliminate odors and density issues that quickly materialize as the graywater oxidizes and turns septic. Another means of distributing supplemental water from the potable water system may be needed. System uses energy. Likelihood of customer dissatisfaction and even disuse of system due to time required for proper operation, filter maintenance, potential burning up of the pump, and clogging emitters is highest with this system. B - Simple System ($8,280): System includes a 60 gallon tank, submersible pump, standalone canister filter with automatic backwash via RP connection to potable water supply, and controller to automatically deliver pressurized water (graywater if available, potable if need be) sufficient to meet total AWR of plants on graywater drip system. Figure D-2, Appendix D, shows a diagram of a high tech system of this type designed by ReWater Systemsvi. Advantages: This system provides the pressure to distribute sand media filtered graywater anyplace on the typical SF lot. Sand filter is backwashed automatically. Controller distributes graywater and automatically introduces potable supplemental water if needed to meet AWR of plants. Disadvantages: System is very, very expensive. Sand filter needs occasional attention and media replacement. System uses energy. Clogging of irrigation emitters can still occur with this system, but risk is reduced. If this type system is designed to deliver water into a large diameter pipe irrigation system that in turn distributes water by gravity, the likelihood of successful operation and use of the system increases appreciably. A detailed description of how Type A, B and C systems work is contained on Table D-3 of Appendix D. Regarding Type B simple systems, the example evaluated here employs a pressurized irrigation system. Not evaluated, but a less expensive way to go is to eliminate the pump and gravitate discharges collected from showers, bathtubs and

bathroom basins directly to irrigation as described above for the Ag type system. The plumbing for such a system is a major design issue and complex. A surge tank may be needed. Hydraulic head available to flow water to the landscape is less than that available from a washing machine unless the source of graywater is from second story sources. In any event, such a system is much more complex than a Type Ag system and generally takes plumbing skills well beyond the capability of the average homeowner. Other types of expensive graywater recycling systems are also commercially available and more are coming on the market every day, but the systems described above have been available for an extended period of time now and are therefore the examples chosen for evaluation in this report. 4.8.3.2 Irrigation System The cost of the graywater irrigation system is not included in Table D-2 as irrigation system costs are common to all alternatives, including irrigating solely with potable water. As for design of the irrigation system, this is a major subject of its own and is only briefly touched on here. Suffice to say that when using graywater, clogging is a key issue in design. One approach to guard against clogging, the one with the most followers, and in JONWRMs opinion is far superior to all others, avoids use of pumps and filters altogether and employs a branched drain system using relatively large diameter pipe (1inch) laid below the surface and falling on a downward slope of not less than -inch/ft and terminating in mulch basins. The most common and best way of delivering water into such a system is by gravity by water falling through an air gap as it is being pumped out of the clothes washer by the pump built into the washer. Another approach relies on filtered graywater, delivered under pressure to a drip irrigation system utilizing special emitters that deliver 12 gpm (6 times the capacity of the 2 gpm emitter commonly employed in a potable drip irrigation system). If emitters are used and clogging occurs, advice from one designervii is that end caps on irrigation lines be removed and the system flushed with potable water. If that doesnt work, charging the system with phosphoric acid might work, and if that fails, digging up and replacing emitters is the only remedy. This type of irrigation system requires care and attention to good management, much more than a drip irrigation system that operates with potable water. 4.8.3.3 Costs and B/C Ratios To evaluate the cost-effectiveness, of these retrofit alternatives the same life cycle B/C analysis performed on the conservation programs was performed. This analysis is contained in Table C-4 of Appendix C and the results are incorporated into Table D-2 of Appendix D and are summarized here as:

No Subsidy: Ag Clothes Washer Only gravity benefit Ap Clothes Washer Only pump B Simple System First Cost_ O&M/yr_ B/C Cust. $649 $90 0.4 $4,060 $8,280 $110 $160 0.1 0.2 B/C City (all and no costs)

Be reminded the Ag system is assumed to be a do-it-yourself installation. No cutting of sewer lines is required. Similarly, O&M costs for all system types do not include labor. Building Department Fee: The City does not currently have a set fee for processing graywater system applications. Should the City set such fees, the sliding scale of fees shown in Table D-2 are recommended. Backflow Prevention Device: It is assumed that the City will require a reduced pressure (RP) backflow prevention assembly for all graywater systems. This assembly is typically installed just downstream of the service meter. The installed capital cost of a RP device for even the simplest system is estimated at $424. Backflow prevention devices protecting the public water supply are required to be tested annually. The estimated cost of testing is $90. Note that in the case of the simplest system (Ag), backflow prevention amounts to $424 or 65% of first costs, and since homeowner O&M is being ignored in the case of Ag type systems, accounts for all the O&M shown in Table D-2. The B/C ratios shown from the customers perspective are calculated on an out-ofpocket basis and include no sewer charge savings as the SVCSDs current residential charge is not a uniform charge and not a function of water use. If the SVCSD SF charge is converted from a flat fee to a charge that is a function of water use, the B/C customer ratio would more than treble and for the Ag system would be 1.9. Based on current SVCSD charges for a SF home, the savings amount to $61/year. Viewing the costs and B/C ratios in Table D-2 and Table C-4 the conclusion is that, from the customers view, none of the systems are cost-effective. If, however, a homeowner were to bootleg a Type Ag system, installation of a backflow prevention device is avoided and the annual inspection/testing cost is eliminated and the B/C ratio becomes 1.1. For other more expensive graywater systems, the B/C ratio hardly changes. The conclusion is that it is likely that if an easy to install clothes washer only gravity graywater system is installed, it is likely that it will be done without permits. Not withstanding the availability of the more relaxed graywater code, the Citys Building Department reports receiving no applications for graywater systems. 4.8.3.4 Suggested Conservation Program The disparate benefit to cost situation between the customer and the City suggests a unique solution that will take advantage of the potential savings of graywater systems,

while at the same time removing a huge incentive to cheat and bootleg a system, namely to offer a cash rebate of $50 plus free installation of RP assembly by the Water Department. From the customers perspective, this equates to $474 of first cost savings. The customer would still be responsible for annual testing of the RP device. (If the RP installation is scheduled at the Water Departments convenience, the out of pocket cost to the City is on the order of $205 - the purchase cost of the RP assembly.) It is recommended the offer be limited to SF customers applying for installation of an Ag, Ap or B type system. The costs and B/C ratios with such an offer change as follows: With Rebate of $50 Cash + City to Install RP Device at No Cost to Applicant: Ag Clothes Washer Only gravity Ap Clothes Washer Only pump B Simple System _First Cost_ O&M/yr_ B/C Cust $175 $90 0.6 $3,585 $110 0.1 $7,806 $160 0.2 B/C City 1.0 1.0 1.5

From Table C-4, the life cycle unit cost to the City of water saved is $1,203/af, compared to other cost-effective water conservation programs being implemented for SF accounts running from $693 to $1,420 and having a weighted average of $1,051 (Table C-2). Regards effectiveness of the program, much is unknown. How many SF customers would apply for such a device is unknown. It is believed there may be a small initial surge of interest followed by relatively few applications per year. It is suggested the program be opened the first year on a pilot program basis and offered to the first 50 applicants that apply for a Type Ag system and then be shut down for the remainder of the year and evaluated to determine if program should be expanded to include Ap and B type systems or make other changes. Budget for such a pilot program would be $2,500 plus 2 x normal administration costs of 15% plus $21,200 to cover labor and materials cost of installing free RP devices for a total of $25,000. Another option the City may wish to seriously consider is to not require a backflow prevention device for Ag types systems. Recommended key criteria are that the system has an approved air gap and employ no pump or storage tank. JONWRM believes the California and Citys code governing backflow prevention gives the City this latitude. The local CDPH representative needs to be brought in on any such discussion. Sites with the exemption should be flagged in the water utility billing data base so that if there is a change in name of the party signed in for service, a site inspection and meeting with the new homeowner/tenant would be held to be sure new occupants are aware of the graywater system and how to properly use it. Further, a list of easy to read Dos and Donts should be prepared suitable for posting right in the laundry area. 4.8.4 Public Health Issues The composition of clothes washer graywater is bacteria, viruses, bleach, foam, high pH, hot water, nitrates, phosphates, oil and grease, oxygen demand, salinity, soaps, sodium, lint and turbidity and other suspended solids. Amounts can vary widely and depends on

number of occupants, individual life styles, presence of children, health of residents, household products used, type of work performed, etc. Graywater may contain pathogenic microorganisms. Organic compounds in graywater support the growth of microorganismsviii. At not more than 5-ft intervals, graywater distribution piping must be identified with the words "CAUTION: NONPOTABLE WATER, DO NOT DRINK". Public health concerns related to graywater use expressed by regulatory agencies and utilities are echoed by the public. A survey report prepared in Southern Nevadaix found that 81 percent of those interviewed considered public safety to be their greatest concern. A comparative tabulation of total coliforn bacteria (in MPN/100mL), the indicator organism for contaminated bacteria compiled by Bahman (refer to Reference 78) shows:

Drinking Water <1 Disinfected Tertiary <2.2 Disinfected Secondary Reclaimed Water <2.3 Undisinfected Reclaimed Water 20 to 2000 Graywater 100 to 100 million Raw Wastewater Millions to billions

A review of the literature in report in 2006 did not indicate any illnesses due to contact with graywater have been reportedx. An excellent summary of literature on this subject was provided by Crook, in February of 2009xi. JONWRM concludes from extensive reading of the literature that graywater is safest when quickly introduced to soil below the surface, such as in a mulch basin, and human contact should be avoided. Should handling or repair of elements of a grey water system be necessary, for example changing a filter, protection should be worn such as surgical gloves. 4.8.5 Plant Issues Laundry products use a variety of chemicals that can be harmful to plants. Most soaps and detergents, including baking soda, contain sodium compounds. High levels of sodium can cause discoloration and burning of leaves, and can contribute toward an alkaline soil condition. In addition, high sodium and Boron can be toxic to certain plants and can prevent calcium from reaching the plants. High sodium can also affect the soils ability to absorb water. Increasing the sodium adsorption ratio above 13 will result in soils with reduced permeability and aeration, and a general degradation of the soils structure. This is probably one of the most serious potential long-term consequences of irrigation with graywater. Practices recommended to avoid or mitigate potential problems are:

Use hydrogen peroxide bleach instead of chlorine to avoid inhibiting plants ability to
absorb water.

Avoid cleaning products containing Boron.

9

 Use liquid detergents instead of powered detergents as they have much less salt. Counter salts immediate effects by using fertilizers recommended for acid-loving
plants. Use reduced sodium products. If use acid cleaners, dilute with plenty of water. Avoid use of water softeners. Limit/avoid use of soaps loaded with lanolin, perfumes, and other chemicals. Minimize/avoid use of fabric softeners. Use lots of mulch to build up poor soils. Clays should be worked into loams. Target the root systems of plants when irrigate. Avoid use on seedlings or tender new plants. If sodium level does build up and soil pH exceeds 7.5, apply gypsum.

Desert House, a residential water and energy efficiency demonstration project, located at the Center for Desert Living in the Phoenix Desert Botanical Garden, has been using graywater for landscape irrigation since 1996. The system uses the water retained from showers, baths, sinks, and washing machines, resulting in annual water savings of 11,370 gallons. Desert House prepared a 2-year study on the effect of graywater irrigation on the landscape plants around the residence. The irrigation system is a drip system, buried a few inches underground. The study revealed no accumulated effect on the plants or the surrounding soil aside from a slight increase in Boron, probably from soap, and although elevated, the Boron levels detected were below acceptable levels for irrigation. The residents of Desert House use common soap products but direct graywater to the sewer when they use products containing bleach. 4.8.6 Findings and Recommendations In addition to the need to meet design standards contained in the new State code, the following are key findings reached in this review: 1. At this stage of graywater development for SF homes, by far the most widely practiced and successful method involves utilization of clothes washer water that is passed through an air gap and drops down a standby connecting to a gravity irrigation system utilizing 1-inch or larger pipe laid in place with adequate slope, lack of dips, and simple branches that terminate in mulch basins to irrigate plants and trees (Type Ag system). Any rebate the City offers should target this type system. Avoiding use of filters, a storage tank and pump, will eliminate most of the headaches and much of the risk of probable improper operation and ultimate customer dissatisfaction with the system. Cost of materials for such a system (excluding irrigation system) is about $150. Graywater is best used immediately, but if it has to be used in a system with storage, the storage tank should be emptied as quickly as possible and storage of graywater for longer than 24 hours should be avoided if odors, black water and attendant fouling of irrigation systems especially drip systems is to be avoided.

2.

3.

10

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

10.

11.

12.

Much preferable to drip systems of any type is use of large diameter (1-inch or so) pipe laid down with adequate slope, terminating in mulch basins. System should have a ball valve at the washing machine readily accessible to the washing machine user and clearly labeled to permit selection of To Garden and To sewer in order to deal with unhealthy soiled clothing, etc. or times when user needs to employ a bleach or other cleaning product harmful to plants. Knowledge of what should go to sewer and knowledge of cleaning products is necessary education for all washing machine users and an easy to read dos and donts list should be posted in the laundry area. While graywater can be sent to the garden anytime it will not pond and runoff, on average for the Citys climate, 53% of the amount of graywater discharge over the course of a year will actually be effective in displacing irrigation water from the potable source (all of the summer discharge, much of the spring and fall discharge and very little of the winter discharge). For the average SF household in Sonoma, the amount of water generated by a standard clothes washer (not HE type) is about 21,900 gallons. Public policy in common practice regarding use of a backflow prevention devices, increases the first cost of a simple gravity clothes washer only irrigation system (Type Ag) by $424 and annual costs for inspection/testing of the equipment by a certified plumber of about $90. Based on the avoided cost of The Water Project, if the City offers a cash rebate of $50 plus installs the RP device free of charge (homeowner still must comply with annual inspection/testing requirement), the out-of-pocket B/C to the homeowner is 0.6 and to the City water enterprise is 1.0. If the SCVSD were to change their SF sewer service charge from a fixed fee to one calculated as a function of winter water use, the B/C to the homeowner would increase to 6.9 and at current SCVSD rates the homeowner would see a reduction of $61 in the annual sewer bill. The Ag type of system, which has a high probability of working well and being successfully operated compared to other systems, the likelihood of public health risks or undesirable esthetic problems is judged to be extremely low provided human contact with graywater is guarded against. Building Department Fees for processing Graywater permit applications should be on a sliding scale.

As a result of this review it is recommended: 1. 2. City adopt sliding scale for building permit processing of graywater applications as follows: Type Ag-$75, Ap-$173, B-$374, C-$492 and D-actual time and materials. City pilot a graywater rebate offering to SF customer applicants interested in installing clothes washer only gravity irrigation system (Type Ag) consisting of $50 cash plus free RP device installation. It is suggested program be offered on a first come first served basis up to 50 applicants and then be closed and evaluated. A budget of $25,000 should suffice.

11

3.

Follow-up program with an evaluation and recommendations for future programs including preparation of a handout guideline, including reference to existing informative how to install installation clips, scheduling training workshops, and provision of free warning signage.

It is impossible to estimate whether 50 SF customers will even take advantage of the offer and whether or not use of installations will persist. Only time will tell. If 50 systems were installed, however, the estimated reduction in annual demand on the water system is 11,545 g per household, which is 8% of the demand for the average SF customer. For 50 such systems, total savings is 577,262 g/yr enough potable water offset to serve the water needs of 4.3 average SF customers.

12

4.9 Rainwater Harvesting 4.9.1 Citys Current Policy In September 2009, the City published an informational handout (Handout No. 36) on rainwater harvesting. It describes some typical systems and sets forth the Citys policy on rainwater harvesting systems. As of July, Building Department staff report receiving inquires about harvesting but no applications have been received. The handout describes rainwater harvesting as follows: Rainwater harvesting is the capture, diversion and storage of rainwater for use in landscaping and other purposes. Collection of rainwater is usually from rooftops, which is stored in catchment storage tanks. Stored water can be used for nonpotable purposes such as irrigating landscaping, washing cars or possibly even flushing toilets. Rainwater harvesting systems can range from a simple barrel at the bottom of a downspout to multiple large tanks with pumps and controls. The handout sets forth the Citys permit requirements as follows: For the typical home served by a public sewer system, no building permit and no backflow prevention device is required if all of the following conditions are metxii:

Total collection storage is < 500 gallons (depending on barrel size, that amounts to

from 6 to 10 barrels). Collected water is not used inside a building. No collected water is used for supplying toilets urinals, washing machines or trap primers. All components of the system are located outside of a building. If electrical pumps, electrical valves or electrical controllers are installed, they must be cord and plug connected or operate at less than 25 volts and not capable of supplying more than 50 watts. Storage vessels must be above grade. Storage vessels must rest on ground or concrete slab. Non potable water piping must be exposed to view and must be marked every 20 feet with a yellow identification band and labeled CAUTION: NONPOTABLE WATER, DO NOT DRINK. Discharge outlets (faucets) must be exposed to view and must be labeled with the international symbol for non-potable water and the words CAUTION: NONPOTABLE WATER, DO NOT DRINK. System is not directly connected to other potable water sources such as the City supplied domestic water system or a well serving the home or business. Rainwater barrels must be provided with tank overflows to prevent tank pressure build-up and to provide an overflow route should the vessel fill to capacity.

13

All other harvesting systems require a permit. Building Department staff indicates permit and attendant fees for a system requiring a permit are:

For system valued at $500 - $105 For system valued at $1,000 - $130
In addition, if a backflow prevention device is deemed necessary, another $400 or so is required for its installation plus on-going annual cost of inspection/testing of $90 will be incurred. The backflow device must be install by a certified plumber and annual testing must also be done by a certified expert. Another issue involves potential setback requirements. Regarding compliance with this issue, the Citys handout states: A rainwater storage barrel with a volume of 80 gallons or less may be placed below downspouts around a building without considering front, side or rear yard building setback requirements. For the typical home that might equate to 3 or 4 barrels. Multiple side-by-side barrels connected in a row (a common configuration) would be subject to set back requirements. The handout quotes four other provisions of the Sonoma Municipal Code (Section 19.50.080.C.2.a, Section 19.50.080.C.2.b, Section 19.50.080.C.3 and Section 19.40.110.A.1) regarding setbacks. The prudent approach for a homeowner wishing to install a rainwater harvesting system that meets all the requirements that qualify the homeowner for a non-permit installation is to check with the Planning Department regarding setback requirements for their site. For the common situation where a row of barrels is utilized and located adjacent to the structure within the fenced portion of the side or rear yard, it is likely no setback issues will exist. The Citys handout also addresses systems on commercial sites. These become complex and are beyond the scope of this review. Almost all commercial site systems are likely to require a building permit. This review focuses on simple systems for residential sites that do not require a building permit. 4.9.2 System Design, Maintenance and Water Quality Proper design of a system must take into account variables such as available capture area, storage volume, rainfall amount and distribution and intended usage. For the purposes of this analysis, usage is assumed to be irrigation of plants and gardens preferably native plants for they are best adapted to the regions rainfall profile. Collected roof water is not fit for human consumption. It is important that a rainwater harvesting system be designed to prevent growth of algae and other organisms. Collected water may have come in contact with bird droppings and organic matter such as leaves. A range of enteric pathogens has been found in roof-collected rainwater including Salmonella, Campylobacter, Giardia and Cryptosporidium. The likely sources of these pathogens are fecal material deposited by birds, frogs, rodents and possums, and dead animals and insects, either on the roof, in the gutters or in the water tank itselfxiii. Concrete tile and other porous roofing material can grow moss and algae in shaded areas.

14

Operationally, it is good practice to bypass the first runoff of the rainy season. Depending on the systems configuration this can be done manually or by employment of a first flush device that traps sediment as the first discharge from the roof occurs. A simple practice to help assure water in storage is kept fresh is simply to apply the water to the landscape relatively soon after a rain event about 3 or four days later. This strategy also works out best for the Sonoma climate. Rainwater needs to be shielded from sunlight and stored water must have screened access to air. Water introduced into storage, after initial leaf filter/guard, should be passed through a fine mesh (3 mm) screen. This is best located on top of the catchment vessel where it can be easily accessed and cleaned. Overflow from the vessel needs to be routed to a pervious area of the landscape or be rerouted to the normal drain or drainage area serving that downspout. In any event, inlet and overflow screens are needed to prevent access of mosquitoes and other insects and vermin. Access provisions should be made for periodic draining and cleaning the storage vessel of silt buildup. Most importantly, gutters must be well maintained and cleaned before the rainy season commences. Also some systems may need a submersible pump and an electric outlet box in order to get water to where it is needed. Excellent design references and video clips abound on the Internet and are otherwise available. Some examples are: Rainwater Catchment Design and Installation Standards, American Catchment Systems Association, October 2009 Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Manual, The Cabell Brand Center, August 2007 Texas Manual on Rainwater Harvesting, Texas Water Development Board, Third Edition, 2005 EPA, Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure Municipal Handbook, Rainwater Harvesting Policies, December 2008 City of San Francisco Rainwater Harvesting site with information on how to make a rain barrel, assemble a daisy chain (series of barrels), etc. http://www.sfwater.org/mto_main.cfm/MC_ID/14/MSC_ID/361/MTO_ID/559 (barrel systems) Rain Harvesting, Complete Rainwater Solutions, Brisbane, Australia www.rainharvesting.com (for tank systems)

For the purposes of this analysis, only simple systems are evaluated for conservation program feasibility. 4.9.3 Operation of Simple Rain Barrel Type System in Sonoma Climate While reading this description it may be convenient to refer to Table D-1 and Figure 10. Both contain monthly data on rainfall, ET and AWR. The following suggested operations assumes a 500 g system, collection form a roof

15

covering a 1,500 sf horizontal area, normal rainfall conditions for Sonoma, and the typical irrigation demand for a median use SF customer, namely 103,276 g/yr of which 48,092 g/yr is outside use. It is noteworthy that over 40,000 g of this outside use occurs after the last rain of spring and before the first rain of October. In other words to meet the typical dry season irrigation demand of a SF home in Sonoma would require installation of 40,000 g of storage on-site, clearly a prohibitively costly option. Because of the regions long rainless summers, it is only cost-effective to size harvesting systems to meet shoulder month irrigation demands. That takes much less storage than one might think and is dictated by how rain comes in the months of April through October. Normal rainfall from November through March is enough to meet ET demands of plants and therefore irrigation water is generally not needed in these months. Average rainfall in April is 1.823 inches. A roof area covering a horizontal area of 1,500 sf will discharge 1,705 g. With the way the rain comes in April, all of the discharge can be captured and put to irrigation use if the site is equipped with 8 -55 g barrels (assumes barrels are situated to match well with roof area served by each downspout). Net AWR in April (after taking into account contribution of rain falling directly on the landscape) for a median Sonoma SF home is 1,735 g, a pretty good match. The key to capture April rain is to empty the barrels to use between rain events as opposed to saving storage for later summer use. April turns out, on average, to be the only month that normally will require careful management of the rain harvesting system for irrigation purposes. On average rain storage will need to be completely used up 3.6 times or about once a week. Roof water production drops to 643 g in May (that only requires emptying the barrels once) and in June to 233 g and then it doesnt climb above 300 g/month until October, but irrigation demand in October is generally declined markedly and on average is only 362 g. With careful attention using captured water in April and in some years May, a 440 g system is all the homeowner needs to take advantage of available rainwater that can be harvested for irrigation. Over the course of the period from April through October, the system can provide 3,362 g for irrigation. To irrigate the entire yard, the homeowner should start with a the most distant plants first and then work back to the barrel as the water level in the tank drops, irrigating plants nearest to the barrel last. Mounting the barrels on a raised foundation will help greatly (concrete cinder blocks are commonly used). Failing that investing in a portable in-line pump or sump pump may be necessary. As for winter operation, there normally would be no need to use the barrels much at all, except for potted plants, if irrigation is the only interest. However, it would be beneficial for area ground water to think of the harvesting system as a slow the flow system during these months and to periodically drain captured water to pervious areas in the yard with the aim of getting as much water to seep into the ground as possible. If rain barrels are checked weekly and evacuated after rain events lagging about 4 days or so it is possible for a 500 g system to provide up to 11,110 gallons to ground water in this way. The actual amount may be less depending on preexistent manner in which downspout discharge was routed, availability of percolation areas on the lot, homeowners

16

willingness to empty the barrels between rain events, etc. 4.9.4 Type and Cost of Systems Analyzed for Conservation Program Feasibility Depending on size and purpose, rainwater harvesting systems vary from the simple and inexpensive to the complex and costly. Typically, the more common systems are simple, consisting of roof gutters dropping water via downspouts conveying water to a sealed storage container fitted with a screened inlet and three outlets: a bottom drain plug, an overflow and a water service outlet. The latter is generally a hose bib that conveys water by gravity to a garden and plants via a hose, or connection to a porous pipe, soaker tubing, furrows, or pipe and mulch basin system. Variations on this general basic system have to do with how the water is diverted from the downspout to the vessel and how water is distributed from the system. Regarding downspout diversion, there are a numerous ways to accomplish this and many devices available. The basic alternatives are: Common Downspout Diverter Methods: Alt. 1. The simplest and cheapest way is to cut the downspout and reroute it directly into the screened top opening of a container ($19) and size the overflow large enough to convey the spill back to the original drain via flexible drainpipe. Alt. 2. Alternatively the cut can be connected to an upside-down Y section fitted with a manual two-way control with one leg going to storage and the other connecting back to the original drain or directed elsewhere ($42). Alt. 3. The third option is install a diverter installed near the top of the downspout, which directs water into a hose, or piping that gravitates the water to storage. This alternative operates automatically and allows the storage vessel to be removed from the wall of the house and is a good solution if owner wants the barrel to be tucked behind a fence or if it would interfere with a pathway, etc. A cheaper device of this type diverts about 40% of the downspout flow until storage is full ($40). More expensive devices ($100) divert up to 90% of the downspout flow. Once storage is full all water drains as it normally would to the old drain. Alt. 4. A variation of Item 3, this device also works automatically, but diverts all of the downspout flow, then reverts to the normal drain pattern ($33). Receiving barrel must be adjacent to downspout. Regarding distribution of water, the choices are irrigation of nearby plants by hose, soaker, low-head pipe to mulch basins, and furrows using the head provided by the height of water stored above grade; or utilization of a low voltage submersible pump or exterior in-line pump. A pump will require access to an electrical outlet. The types of systems that were reviewed are: Type I 200 g Single Barrel per Roof Drain System (4 barrels) ($328) Type II 500 g Daisy Chain Barrel System (8 barrels) ($488)

17

Type III 1,000 g Cistern Tank System (single tank) ($1,809) Examples of Type I and II system components are shown in Figure D-3. For Type III, see Figure D-4. System descriptions, cost estimates, irrigation water provided that offsets potable use, potential for winter recharge and resulting B/C ratios for the suggested conservation program are summarized in Table D-4. It is assumed all three systems serve a roof area covering 1,500 sf of horizontal area. For Type I and II, it is assumed the 1,500 sf represents a typical modest sized home on a typical lot served by 4 downspouts. It is assumed Type I has one barrel at each downspout and Type II uses 2 barrels at each downspout. For Type III, the assumption is simply that 1,500 sf of horizontal area drains to the tank. It is assumed downspout diverters are of the Alternative 2 type. No foundation preparation costs are included. A full 50 g rain barrel weighs 418 lbs and must rest on a stable level surface. The tank for the Type III system will weigh 4.2 tons when full. Leaf screening is not included either: it being assumed this is a normal cost of gutter maintenance. Except for inclusion of a low-head pump in Type III, cost of irrigation distribution is not included, it being assumed that would be an expense incurred by the homeowner in any event. Lastly, no labor costs are included. It is assumed all projects are do-it-yourself. Cost of Type I and II Systems: Costs for a 50 to 65 g rain barrel run from $15 for a good condition used food barrel to $150 or even more for fancy designs. A complete package for one barrel includes a sealable barrel, fine mesh screen inlet, drain port with cap, overflow outlet with hose or flexible tubing or drain pipe, and a hose bib. A used food barrel, together with parts will cost $40. Added cost of additional barrels connected in a so-called daisy chain is $40 each. Assembly is relatively easy and includes use of a drill, screw drive, crescent wrench and level, and box cutter. Allowing $42 to cover the cost of each downspout diverter, the total cost of a Type I system is $328 and for a Type II system is $488. Alternatively, purchasing a new 50 gallon barrel with do-it-yourself kit of parts is available on the Internet for $164 each including shipping. That would run $656 for Type I system and $1312 for the Type II system. It is assumed that Type I and II systems will meet all the requirements listed in Section 4.9.1 and therefore require no City permits and no backflow prevention device. Type III system (before permits and backflow device) is estimated to cost $1,255 and includes $655 for a polyethylene 1,000 g storage vessel and $600 to cover piping, connections and a small pump. This is a very rough estimate. Type III system is assumed to require City permits and a backflow device, adding another $554 for a total of $1,809. 4.9.5 Rainwater Production and Use There is no escaping the fact that the regions semi-arid climate that generally has only a few trace rainfall events for four months of the year is a very bad match for rainwater harvesting, which is optimum where periodic rains occur all summer long. Refer to

18

Figure 10 for a visual depiction of this scarcity of rain during the growing season and mismatch of rainfall and irrigation demand. A model was created to determine the amount of water that could be captured and made available for irrigation use (and hence offset water that would otherwise be provided by the potable system) and the amount of water that could be captured and potentially delayed a bit and directed to percolation areas on the property for assisting ground water recharge. The results with data loaded for a 1,500 sf horizontal capture area served by 500 g of rain barrel storage, is shown in the bottom half of Table D-1. The model takes into account the following variables: monthly average rainfall, ET of Xeriscape type plants, irrigation efficiency (application by a low-head gravity system), effective rainfall (i.e. rain that falls on the landscape and contributes to satisfying ET), resultant applied water requirement based on the irrigation demand of a median SF customer calculated to be 48,092 g/yr roof water production (which is a function of the flat area covered by the roof), amount of rainwater harvesting storage available, and estimate of barrel refills per month based on the assumption that the homeowner doesnt simply shutdown the system in the winter months but will check system once per week and drain captured water to permeable areas in the landscape between rain events.

As already pointed out, very little or no rain occurs after the first week in June until sometime in late September, therefore the last water captured by the system is quickly used and the barrels stand idle for virtually all of June through September. Therefore the main benefit of the rain water system is to help meet irrigation demand during the socalled shoulder months of the year, namely April and May, a bit of June, a bit of September and October. The barrels are generally of no use meeting irrigation demand for November through March, as on average there is more than enough rain falling on the landscape to more than meet ET during these months. The system does provide another benefit, however, particularly valid given the Citys need to now turn to ground water to provide for future needs, and that is too Slow the Flow, by over applying water in the landscape and to percolation areas on the property during the October through March period between rain events. The model calculates how much the different storage alternatives could contribute in this regard. The values calculated are maximums and will be reduced a little or a lot by a number of considerations such as: how much of the downspout discharge stayed on the property before installation of the harvesting system (this is a higher amount for older homes than for newer homes who often have most if not all of the runoff channeled or piped directly to the storm drain system); are there any suitable percolation areas; will undesirable ponding of water occur; will runoff to a neighbors property occur, etc.

19

Based on the assumptions noted above and in the footnotes of the model (Table D-1), the utility of the three systems was evaluated. The results are shown in Table D-5. Findings from the modeling are presented below.

Total roof production from 1,500 sf is 27,601 g based on average annual rainfall of

29.5 inches. Given assumptions made in model and available storage, the amount actually captured to storage is 6,895 g (25%), 14,472 g (52%) and 23,854 g (86%) for the 200 g, 500 g and 1,000 g systems respectively. Only rain captured during the period April through October contributes to meeting irrigation demand for any of the type systems. In other months, sufficient rain falls to more than meet ET requirements. Of the annual AWR of 48,092 g for the median SF customer, 3,362 g or 7% was met by the 500 g system. Rain captured and stored during the period April through October amounted to 4,472 g, therefore the 500 g system put 75% of this amount to irrigation use. For a 1,000 g system, the irrigation yield and capture percentage were the same. For a 200 g storage system, the irrigation yield and capture efficiency dropped to 2,357 and 55% respectively. The optimum storage, that is the minimum storage to yield the maximum irrigation yield of 3,362 g/yr was found to be 427 g. In other words, 8 55 g barrels (440 g) do as good a job capturing water for irrigation use from 1,500 sf as the 500 or 1,000 g system. Assuming homeowners will operate there rainwater system to benefit groundwater recharge by checking storage barrels weekly through the winter and draining water to on-site percolation areas or for over irrigation if acceptable and non harmful to the plants, as much as 11,110 g is available to recharge from the 500 g system. For the 200 g system the amount is 4,438 g. For the 500 g system, the utilization of captured water to offset potable irrigation is 23% and the balance, or 77%, is available for potential beneficial recharge. For the three type systems investigated for irrigation efficiency, the 500 g system was the best, although 440 gallons of storage would have done as well.

4.9.6 B/C and Suggested Conservation Program The cost of the systems analyzed and B/C calculations are summarized Table D-4 and derived in Table C-4. The cost for the 500 g system is estimated at $488 assuming it meets the Citys criteria for not requiring a building permit or backflow prevention device. Given the long dry summers, large storage systems are not cost-effective. Systems sized sufficient to capture and use rainwater falling in the months of April through October are sufficient and should be the target for any conservation program. Using the same parameters used in evaluating conservation programs, if the City were to offer a rebate of $0.39/g of rainwater storage up to 500 g or $195 maximum, allowing 15% for program administration, the resulting B/C to the City is 1.0. (The B/C analysis only takes into account out-of-pocket costs and assigns no benefit for the potential ground water recharge.) The corresponding for the typical SF customer is 0.8. The life cycle cost from the Citys perspective is $1,207/af. While not fully cost-effective from the customers view, customers motivated to install rainwater systems should therefore be

20

encouraged to do so. Because of lack of knowledge on the persistence of use of rain barrels by customers, the subsidy should be capped say at $150. The cap should apply to larger systems proposed on SF lots as well due to their poor feasibility. Alternatively, and the least cost option for he City to encourage rainwater harvesting is for the City to purchase a large supply of used food barrels (sturdy olive barrels with removable lids are believed best) and make them available free to customers directly or through the good services of a community based organization (CBO). One Santa Rosa salvage company sells used olive barrels for $18. These are the type of barrel shown in the daisy chain at the bottom left corner of Figure D-3. Including cleaning and drayage, a supply of 400 55 g barrels is estimated to cost $10,000. Parts for screened inlet, overflow port, service hose bib, and drain plug are estimated at $4,800. Adding the cost of informational materials and an including 2 x 15% for program administration, a budget of $17,000 is estimated. Downspout diverters are not included in this sum, it being assumed the homeowner would select the type(s) best suited for their individual site and purchase that separately. The City should be able to garner a discounted price on at least one type diverter and make that information available to participants. Assuming 100 homes using 4 barrels each participate in the program, irrigation savings from deployment of this number of barrels in SF homes is estimated at 2,457 g/yr/home or a total 245,700 g/yr. If such a program were pursued, it would be best if done by a CBO and most of the administration cost could be avoided or the funds given to the CBO. Very likely the CBO could have volunteers rig and assemble the barrels. If free barrels are offered, it is suggested it be done on a first-come-first-serve basis and limited to 4 per SF customer. Customers wishing to purchase more barrels could be referred to the salvage company. Eligibility rules would help assure barrels would go only to customers who commit to install and use them for irrigation and recharge to the degree possible and suitable for the site. Due principally to the means of how captured rainwater is likely to be used (irrigation by hand, or use of low-head pipe and furrows) it seems the best fit is small gardens that focus on plants not turf. This type of SF customer should be the target. Use of rainwater harvesting systems help satisfy shoulder month irrigation demand, and will do little to decrease peak month demand. Perhaps the greatest benefit of harvesting systems to the City is their potential for improving the flow of rainwater into the local ground water. For the typical situation, Table D-5 demonstrates that two to three times as much water harvested is potentially available for on-site percolation as compared to the amount of water made available for irrigation. The benefits of increasing recharge are numerous and information should be made available with the program to help educate users on just how they can optimize their harvesting system for this purpose. Lastly, both for irrigation and wintertime discharge, the best way to use the water is probably just opposite of what most people would think. The best way to use the water is relatively soon after it is captured, not to save it an extended time for later use. The latter approach will lead to missed opportunities to capture water.

21

How satisfied customers will be with a harvesting systems and how long savings would persist are difficult to estimate and would be guesses at this point in time. Little information exists to be guided by. A pilot program approach is therefore suggested. Offering the subsidy for a limited time until the supply of barrels is exhausted, then reevaluation to determine the path forward. Providing modest funds to a CBO with access to motivated volunteers would appear ideal for this program. The City could purchase used barrels in bulk and print informational support materials. The CBO could research and craft the material, organize community training workshops, perhaps even rig barrels with screens, a hose bib, drain port and overflow port with parts donated by local suppliers, and help interested applicants with installation and information on proper maintenance and operation of system on their site with the aim of saving irrigation water and enhancing ground water recharge. 4.9.7 Findings and Recommendations Findings from review of rainwater harvesting as a conservation strategy are: 1. The City has already gotten a start on capturing benefits from rainwater harvesting by preparing a policy dealing with permit situations. A permit and a backflow prevention device, items together that could have added $530 to the installation cost of even the simplest system and $90 per year to the operating costs, are not required of simple rain barrel type systems provided they meet the policy criteria (see Section 4.9.1). One suggested amendment to these policies is to allow rain barrel systems to be supported by sold paving stone, concrete cinder block or other suitable solid foundation that accommodates raising the barrels above grade. 2. Because of the regions long rainless summers, it is cost-effective to size harvesting systems to meet shoulder month irrigation demands only. For a 1,500 sf SF home, this can be accomplished with 440 gallons of storage (8 55 g barrels). A system of this size if carefully operated in April (and in some years May) can be expected to refill about 8 times during the April through October period and provide 3,362 g/yr of potable irrigation savings (7% of annual irrigation demand) and has the potential to provide up to 11,110 g of ground water recharge in the winter months depending on preexisting disposition of roof discharge, availability of percolation areas on site and homeowners willingness to operate the system (once per week) from November through March. 3. Small rainwater harvesting systems of up to 500 g are worthy of conservation program support on a trial basis. Once persistence of utilization of such systems is known, a permanent program could be offered. 4. It is recommended the City budget $17.000 for a pilot program to be carried out by a CBO and involve provision of up to 4 free rain barrels to interested residents who agree to install and use them to both save irrigation water and help Slow the Flow

22

to ground water. The plan is for the CBO , with access to volunteer help, administer the program, rig and assemble the barrels (used food barrels purchased in bulk) with a screened inlet, overflow outlet, drain plug and hose bib; help train residents on their proper installation and use, make deliveries, etc. After exhaustion of the supply, estimated to take one or two years, close the program and evaluate if it should be continued or modified. Footnotes:
i ii

iii iv v vi vii viii ix

xi

xii xiii

2007 CPC, Title 24, Part 5, Chapter 166A, Part 1 Non-potable Water Reuse Systems White Paper on Graywater, Bahman Sheikh, PhD, PE, Water Reuse Consultant, sponsored by AWWA, Water Environmental Federation, and WaterReuse Assoc., 2010 California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 60301.230 California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 1618.0 and 1620.0 Art Ludwig of Oasis Design, www.oasisdesign.net, Create an Oasis with Greywater, and Builders Greywater Guide ReWater Systems Inc., POB 210171, Chula Vista, CA, 92821 ReWater Systems Owners Operation Manual, 2009-2010 Edition NSW Health. 2000. Greywater Reuse in Sewered Single Domestic Premises. New South Wales, Department of Health, Sydney, Australia Alpha Communications, Inc. and H20UTREACH. 2008. Reuse and Graywater Use in the Las Vegas Valley. Report prepared for the Clean Water Coalition and Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas, Nevada Roesner, L., Y. Qian, M. Criswell, M. Stromberger, and S. Klein. 2006. Long-term Effects of Landscape Irrigation Using Household Graywater Literature Review and Synthesis. Report published by the Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia Technical Memorandum on Graywater, Crook, James, Ph.D., P.E., Environmental Engineering Consultant, for Black & Veatch on behalf of the Clean Water Coalition and Southern Nevada Water Authority, 13 February 2009 Personal Communication with Wayne Wirick, Development Services Director Rain Harvesting, Complete Rainwater Solutions, Brisbane, Australia http://www.rainharvesting.com

23

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix C Life Cycle Out-of-Pocket B/C Analyses

Table C-1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Select Conservation Measures - Viewed from the Customer's Perspective Footnotes> (1) Water Saved (Unless otherwise noted) g/DU/yr 4,524 2,809 7,957 482 3,100 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Annual Value of Other Benefits $/yr $18 $15 $0 $8 $17 (7) (8) (9) Ongoing Annual O&M Cost $/yr $0 $0 $39 $0 $3 (10) Annual Admin. & OH Cost $/yr $0 $0 $6 $0 $0 (11) (12) (13) (14)

Measure

Useful Life yrs 14 13 20 10 15

Value of Water Saved $/yr $24 $21 $44 $3 $17

Value of Sewer Benefits $/yr $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other Benefit or Savings

Hot water energy Convenience, scheduling, labor More equitable payment method Hot water energy

Capital PV of All or "First" Benefits Costs $ $ $472 $379 $658 $93 $408 $245 $315 $358 $114 $488

PV of Annual Costs $ $0 $0 $671 $0 $38

PV of All Costs $ $245 $315 $671 $114 $526

B/C Ratio 1.9 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.8

Life Cycle Cost $/af $1,263 $2,811 $1,375 $7,724 $3,687

NEW DEVELOPMENT ON-SITE MEASURES HE Clothes Washers Smart Controllers Submetering MF (15) HE Dishwashers Structured Plumbing w. Hot Water Demand

Hot water energy

WATER CONSERVATION OFF-SITE PROGRAMS Smart Controllers for IRR Accounts (Rebate: Full 159,057 cost up to $1200 cap) (16) Smart Controllers for Upper Quartile SF DUs (Rebate: 80% of cost w. $700 cap) (17) Double $75 HE Clothes Washer Rebate for Residential Customers(18) Submetering MF DUs (Full cost up to $385 cap) (19) Cash for Grass for SF DUs (75 cents/sf Rebate w. $500 cap) (20) Hot Water Demand Retrofit for SF DUs (Rebate: 30% of cost w. cap) Smart Controllers for Typical SF DUs (Rebate: 80% of cost w. $500 cap) (21) 24,418 4,460 7,957 6,570 3,100 3,546

13 13 14 20 30 15 13

$1,166 $203 $24 $44 $55 $16 $24

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Scheduling Labor. Scheduling Labor Hot water energy More equitable payment method Maintenance Labor Hot water energy Scheduling Labor

$80 $15 $18 $0 not calculated $17 $15

$13,253 $2,316 $468 $658 $1,069 $397 $414

$0 $147 $95 $0 $147 $411 $116

$84 $0 $0 $41 $0 $3 $0

$13 $0 $0 $6 $0 $0 $0

$1,027 $0 $0 $703 $0 $44 $0

$1,027 $147 $95 $703 $147 $455 $116

12.9 15.8 4.9 0.9 7.3 0.9 3.6

$162 $151 $498 $1,440 $243 $3,189 $820

Column and Other Notes: 1 For new development measures, water saved is the average for all dwelling units. For offsite measures, water saved is the average per participating dwelling or, in the case of IRR accounts, per site. 2 Based on author's experience and conservative estimates commonly found in the literature. 3 Estimated FYE 2020 Rates less Inflation. Judgments made on which tier or combination of tier rates to use is worked out in Table C-3. Since this is an out-of-pocket analysis, the potential savings in delaying construction of expansion projects or avoiding them altogether is ignored. 4 Set to "0" as the SVCSD charges flat rates for sewer service. 5, 6 Other benefits taken into account are noted in Col. 5. Rates and values used are shown in Col. 6 and are derived in Table C-3 (2010 dollars). Utility rates are rates current as of Feb. 2010. 7 The Present Value (PV) of annually occurring benefits. Discount rate = 3% (represents cost of borrowing less inflation). 8 Re. onsite measures, since these are being installed at the time of initial construction, the capital cost is the added cost over and above what a non-conserving measure would cost. Re. offsite measures, capital costs are the net costs incurred by the customer to participate in the conservation program. For SF Clothes Washer program the first cost is the added cost of purchasing a HE washer. Values are 2010 dollars and are compiled from the program analysis tables for ET, Submetering, or Hot Water on Demand or are shown on Table C-3. 9 On-going annual costs to promulgate a given measure. For Smart Controllers, these are the signal/service fees are included for controllers serving IRR and Upper Quartile SF accounts. For the typical SF participant, no signal fee is included, it being assumed these participants opt for less complicated controllers that do not require signal service. 10 Where on-going City administration costs are expected they are estimated at 15% of on-going annual costs. 11 The PV of annually occurring costs. Discount rate = 3%. 12 Sum of capital (first) costs and PV of annual ongoing costs. 13 PV of all benefits divided by the PV of all costs. This ratio is an estimate of the cost-effectiveness of different measures. It ignores social and environmental benefits. 14 PV of all costs divided by the amount of water saved over the useful life of a given measure. The result allows comparison of the relative life-cycle cost of a given measure. 15 It is assumed that the meter, register, transmitter and battery are replaced after 10 years due to the typical life of batteries used to power the transmitters. This is the most cost-effective approach, given current technology, and results in a useful life of 20 years for this measure. The "First Cost" is adjusted to reflect this cost. It is also assumed that the City's administration cost estimated at $6 per DU is paid by the building owner but recovered from the occupant as part of the rent. 16 IRR means Irrigation only accounts - generally commercial irrigation of large landscape or turf areas or common area landscape areas associated with MF units. 17 When annual use for each SF account is arrayed in descending order, those falling into the top 25% are upper quartile users. 18 Doubling the rebate reduces the B/C for the City but brings potential savings on-line much faster and increases participation. 19 It is assumed that the meter, register, transmitter and battery are replaced after 10 years due to the typical life of batteries used to power the transmitters. This is the most cost-effective approach, given current technology, and results in a useful life of 20 years for this measure. The "First Cost" is adjusted to reflect this cost. It is also assumed the City will charge property owners an annual fee to cover administration costs estimated at $6 per DU. This is not included on this table but shows up in Table C-1 as a cost assumed to be born by renters as part of their rent. 20 City's current cap of $1,000 is reduced to $500 as recommended in the 2005 UWMP in order to preserve the B/C ratio from City's perspective. Also it is recommended a condition of the rebate is to install a Smart Controller which would also qualify for a rebate. Also assumed that participant would have landscaped with turf rather than Xeriscape and that the cost per sf would be at least as much, that in-ground irrigation system would also have been installed anyway. Therefore the only added cost is the cost of a Smart Controller less rebate. Ongoing O&M costs assumed to be no more than if turf had been installed. To avoid double counting savings due to the Smart Controller, they are not included here but are assumed to be included in the Smart Controller Program. 21 Rebate rate same as for Upper Quartile SF applicants but cap is reduced as controller cost is less.

Table C-2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Select Conservation Measures - Viewed from the City's Perspective (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Water Saved Ongoing Annual (Unless Value of Value of Capital or Annual Admin. PV of PV of Life Measure otherwise Useful Water Sewer PV of All "First" O&M & OH Annual All Cycle noted) Life Saved Benefits Benefits Costs Cost Cost Costs Costs B/C Cost g/DU/yr yrs $/yr $/yr $ $ $/yr $/yr $ $ Ratio $/af WATER CONSERVATION OFF-SITE PROGRAMS Smart Controllers for IRR Accounts (Rebate: 159,057 13 $770 $0 $8,189 $1,194 $0 $0 $0 $1,194 6.9 $188 Full cost up to $1200 cap) (13) Smart Controllers for Upper Quartile SF DUs 24,418 13 $118 $0 $1,257 $675 $0 $0 $0 $675 1.9 $693 (Rebate: 80% of cost w. $700 cap) (14) Double $75 HE Clothes Washer Rebate for 4,460 14 $22 $0 $244 $166 $0 $0 $0 $166 1.5 $866 Residential Customers(15) Submetering MF (Full cost up to $385 cap) 20 7,957 $39 $0 $573 $478 $0 $0 $0 $478 1.2 $978 (16) Cash for Grass for SF DUs (75 cents/sf Rebate 6,570 30 $32 $0 $623 $575 $0 $0 $0 $575 1.1 $950 w. $500 cap) (20) Hot Water Demand Retrofit for SF DUs 15 3,100 $15 $0 $179 $203 $0 $0 $0 $203 0.9 $1,420 (Rebate: 30% of cost w. cap) Smart Controllers for Typical SF DUs (Rebate: 3,546 13 $17 $0 $183 $534 $0 $0 $0 $534 0.3 $3,773 80% of cost w. $500 cap) (18) Combined or Melded Cost of 187,021 13 $905 $0 $9,628 $2,403 $0 $0 $0 $2,403 4.0 $322 Smart Controller Program Weighted Average for All Programs Listed for SF Accounts: $1,051 Notes 1 Water saved is the average per participating dwelling or, in the case of IRR accounts, per site. 2 Based on author's experience and conservative estimates commonly found in the literature. 3 Rate used is estimated unit cost (PV over 30-yrs) of The Water Project (capital + O&M) if it were built. See Table 51. 4 Set to "0" as the SVCSD charges flat rates for sewer service. 5 The Present Value (PV) of annually occurring benefits. Discount rate = 3% (represents cost of borrowed less inflation). 6 Costs incurred by the City to implement a given water conservation measure (rebates, program costs, admin., etc.). Year 2010 dollars. 7 There are no on-going annual costs to the City to promulgate a given measure as the recommended program design has assigned these to the participant. 8 There are no on-going annual administration costs to the City to promulgate a given measure as the recommended programs place this obligation with the participant. 9 The PV of annually occurring costs. Discount rate = 3%. 10 Sum of capital (first) costs and PV of annual ongoing costs. 11 PV of benefits divided by PV of costs. This ratio is an estimate of the cost-effectiveness of different measures. It ignores social and environmental benefits. 12 PV of all costs divided by water saved over the useful life of a given measure. The result allows comparison of the relative life-cycle cost of a given measure. 13 IRR means Irrigation only accounts - generally commercial irrigation of large landscapes or common area landscapes associated with MF units. 14 When annual use for each SF account is arrayed in descending order, those falling into the top 25% are upper quartile users. 15 Doubling the rebate reduces the B/C for the City but brings potential savings on-line much faster and increases participation. 16 Cost to City is cost of rebates. It is also assumed City will charge property owners an annual fee to cover administration costs estimated at $6 per DU/yr. This is not included on this table but shows up in Table C-1 as it is a cost born by renters as part of the rent. 17 City's current cap of $1,000 is reduced to $500 as recommended in the 2005 UWMP in order to preserve B/C ratio from City's perspective. Cost to City is therefore the cost of the rebates. 18 Rebate rate same as for Upper Quartile SF applicants but cap is reduced as controller cost is less. Footnotes>

This page intentionally left blank.

Table C-3 Supporting Data Used in Calculating Life Cycle Analyses Discount Rate used to calculate Net Present Values (1) Marginal Cost of Water (2) Customer's perspective - City's Rates projected to 2020 Rate less inflation: Current (FYE 2010) City Water Rates, $/tgal: Tiers 1 2 3 SF $3.26 $5.54 $6.92 IRR $6.11 n.a. n.a Comm $4.63 n.a n.a City's perspective (Cost for Aqueduct water from SCWA: Marginal Cost of Sewer Service (3) Customer's perspective (SVCSD charges flat rate, therefore no savings): City 's perspective (out-of-pocket cost of SVCSD service): 3% Estimated FYE 2020 Rates less Inflation: PV of 2020 Rate for SF inside, $/tgal PV of 2020 Rate for SF Typ Irr. Acct., $/tgal PV of 2020 Rate for SF Upper 1/4, $/tgal PV of 2020 Rate for MF Inside, $/tgal PV of 2020 Rate for IRR only, $/tgal PV of Future Rate $/af $/tgal $/tgal $/af $/tgal

$5.28 $6.74 $8.30 $5.56 $7.33 $1,577 $4.84 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.28 $1.24 14.5 6.7

Energy Costs (PG&E marginal rates, January 2010): Electricity (Sched. E-1, used 131%-200% above baseline, Tier 3) $/kWh Natural gas (Sched. G-1, rate over baseline rate for Territory X) $/Therm Energy Savings (4) HE Clothes Washers 424 kWh/yr/DU or in Therms/yr HE Dishwashers 196 kWh/yr/DU or in Therms/yr HE Shower Heads (<2.0 gpm flow rate) 0.150 kWh/g HE Faucets w. Aerators (<1,5 gpm flow rate) 0.068 kWh/g Shower Heads & Faucets w. Aerators 0.117 kWh/g or in Therms/g Irrigation Controllers (5) Cost of good quality standard Controllers (non-weather based): 6 Station $170 18 Station $388 9 Station $171 24 Station $505 12 Station $256 36-42 Station $2,525 ET Controller Installation Labor Cost, $/hr $100 ET Controller Labor Savings (6) SF (6 station), 2 hr @ $7.50/hr, $/yr Commercial (24 station), 8hr @ $10.00/hr, $/yr ET Controller Monthly Signal Fee/Service Cost SF (6 station) $0.00 /mo (assumes use of solar radiation type controller) Commercial (24 station) $7.00 /mo (assumes ET type controller used) Cost of Submetering Service Meter reading and billing, $/yr (7) HE Shower Heads and Faucet Aerators - additional cost over less efficient models (8) Shower Head Faucet Aerator HE Toilets (9) HE Clothes Washers - additional cost over less efficient models (10) HE Clothes Washers - average cost (10) HE Dishwashers - additional cost over less efficient models (10) Hot Water Demand Annual O&M Energy to run on-demand pump Replace batteries in remotes (assume 2 bathrooms) Total Hot Water Demand Energy Savings (11): 400 kWh/yr 13.65 Therms/yr

0.003994

$15 $80 $0 $84 $41 $3.61 $1.03 $103 $245 $670 $114 $1.13 $2.06 $3.19 $16.92

Notes: 1 The cost of borrowed capital is est'd at 6% and rate of inflation as 3%. The discount rate is the difference. 2 Avoided Cost Assumptions: 20% From Customer's View: Assumed real increase (sans inflation) in retail rates to mid-point of implementing period for cons. measure (circa 2020). From City's View: PV of The Water Project alternative: $1,577 2 SCWA's rate to City for Aqueduct deliveries as proposed on Mar. 15, 2010 for FYE 2011. 3 Sewer service from SVCSD. Customer View: Since SVCSD charges a flat rate, conservation savings and hence inducement is not seen. City View: Does not operate sewer system, so realizes no out-of-pocket savings from programs except on own buildings. 4 Reference: Vickers, Handbook of Water Use and Conservation, May 2001 (Ref. 63). Conversion Factors: 1 kWh = 3412 BTUs 1 Therm = 100,000 BTUs 1 kWh = 0.03412 Therms 5 Contractor prices for non-weather based but quality irrigation controllers. Estimate by JONWRM. 6 Labor Cost savings due to elimination of irrigation scheduling. Estimate by JONWRM. 7 National Multiple Family Submetering and Allocation Billing Program Study, USEPA, August 2004. Cost adjusted using CPI. 8 Cost to contractor Estimate by JONWRM. 9 Estimate by John Koeller, Personal communication. April 2008. Cost adjusted using CPI. 10 Gleick, Peter, et al, Pacific Institute, Waste Not, Want Not, The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California, Pacific Institute, Nov. 2003. Costs adjusted using CPI. 11 Tomilimson and Ward, Oak Ridge National Lab., "Water and Energy Savings using Demand Hot Water Recirculating Systems in Residential Homes, A Case Study of Five Homes in Palo Alto, California", September 2002.

Table C-4 Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Residential Graywater Reuse and Rainwater Utilization Footnotes> (1) Water Saved (Unless otherwise noted) g/DU/yr 11,545 11,545 25,905 (2) (3) Value of Water Saved $/yr $61 $61 $137 (4) (5) (6) Annual Value of Other Benefits $/yr $0 $0 $0 (7) (8) Capital or "First" Costs $ $175 $3,586 $7,806 (9) Ongoing Annual O&M Cost $/yr $90 $110 $160 (10) Annual Admin. & OH Cost $/yr $0 $0 $0 (11) (12) (13) (14) Life Cycle Cost $/af $2,351 $9,217 $8,147

Measure

Useful Life yrs 15 15 15

Value of Sewer Other Benefits Benefit or $/yr Savings $0 $0 $0

Hot water energy Hot water energy Hot water energy none

PV of All Benefits $ $728 $728 $1,633

PV of Annual PV of All Costs Costs B/C $ $ Ratio $1,074 $1,313 $1,910 $1,249 $4,899 $9,716 0.6 0.1 0.2

From Customers Perspective Ag Clothes Washers Only Graywater System - gravity Ap Clothes Washers Only Graywater System w. pump B Simple Graywater System

2,257 18 $12 $0 $0 $164 $252 $0 $0 $0 $252 0.7 $2,019 I Single Barrel per Roof Drain none 3,362 18 $18 $0 $0 $244 $297 $0 $0 $0 $297 0.8 $1,601 II Chain Barrel System none 3,824 18 $20 $0 $0 $278 $1,618 $90 $0 $1,238 $2,856 0.1 $13,521 III Tank or Cistern System From City's Perspective Ag Clothes Washers Only Graywater none System - gravity 11,545 15 $56 $0 $0 $667 $482 $0 $15 $179 $661 1.0 $1,243 $50 Rebate + Free RP Device Ap Clothes Washers Only Graywater none System w. pump 11,545 15 $56 $0 $0 $667 $482 $0 $18 $215 $697 1.0 $1,311 $50 Rebate+Free RP Install. B Simple Graywater System none 25,905 15 $125 $0 $0 $1,497 $482 $0 $50 $597 $1,079 1.4 $904 $50 Rebate+ Free RP Install. none 2,257 18 $11 $0 $0 $150 $90 $0 $0 $0 $90 1.7 $719 I Single Barrel per Roof Drain (15) none 3,362 18 $16 $0 $0 $224 $224 $0 $0 $0 $224 1.0 $1,207 II Chain Barrel System (15) none 3,824 18 $19 $0 $0 $255 $224 $0 $0 $0 $224 1.1 $1,062 III Tank or Cistern System (15) Column and Other Notes: RP means Reduced Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly 1 Savings estimates for graywater are derived in Table D-2 and for rainwear utilization in Table D-3. The model contained in Table D-1 supports both estimates. 2 Based on author's experience and conservative estimates commonly found in the literature. 3 Estimated FYE 2020 Rates less Inflation. Judgments made on which tier or combination of tier rates to use is worked out in Table C-3. Since this is an out-of-pocket analysis, the potential savings in delaying construction of expansion projects or avoiding them altogether is ignored. 4 Set to "0" as the SVCSD charges flat rates for sewer service. 5, 6 Other benefits taken into account are noted in Col. 5. Rates and values used are shown in Col. 6 and are derived in Table C-3 (2010 dollars). Retail utility rates are current rates as of Feb. 2010. 7 The Present Value (PV) of annually occurring benefits. Discount rate = 3% (represents cost of borrowing less inflation). 8 Capital costs as determined in Table D-2. 9 On-going annual costs. Cost of new filters. For graywater systems, annual inspection of backflow prevention valve by certified inspector is included. 10 On-going City administration costs associated with keeping records on graywater systems. 11 The PV of annually occurring costs. Discount rate = 3%. 12 Sum of capital (first) costs and PV of annual ongoing costs. 13 PV of all benefits divided by the PV of all costs. This ratio is an estimate of the cost-effectiveness of different measures. It ignores social and environmental benefits. 14 PV of all costs divided by the amount of water saved over the useful life of a given measure. The result allows comparison of the relative life-cycle cost of a given measure. 15 Rebate is set at to be 39 cents per gallon installed up to 500 g or a cap of $195 for a Type II system. Include in capital cost to City is 15% for program administration.

Appendix D Graywater Reuse and Rainwater Harvesting

Table D-1 Utilization of Graywater and Rainwater in Existing Residential Landscape Jan Basic Weather Parameters, inches: Rainfall (1) ETo (2) AWR for Xeriscape, inches: Kc for Xeriscape (3) ET Xeriscape ER (relative to ET Xeriscape) IE (gravity irrigation system) (4) Net ET Xeriscape AWR for Xeriscape AWR % Graywater Irrigation: AWR after effective rainfall (5) Clothes Wash Only Graywater (A) Potable Water Offset Potable Water Offset,% Clothes Wash. + Bath Rooms (B and C) Potable Water Offset Potable Water Offset,% Rainwater Utilization (RU) Irrigation (6): Rainfall, inches AWR for Xeriscape after effective rainfall, inches A Ratio Used in Model (7) AWR (for median SF Customer), g (8) Roof Production, g (9) Maximum Refills Theoretically Possible, g Likely Number of Fillings (10) Rainwater Used to Offset Irrigation Demand, g (11) Percent of AWR Offset by Rainwater Harvest Sys. (12) Remaining Unmet Irr. Demand, g (13) Roof Production Not Used for Irrigation, g (14) Portion that Might be Percolated, g (15) Total Rainfall Captured and Put to Beneficial Use, g (16) Avg/ Annual Irrigation Savings per g of Storage, g/g 6.42 0.89 0.50 0.44 0.44 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.0% 1,825 4,867 Feb 5.24 1.56 0.50 0.78 0.78 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.0% 1,825 4,867 Mar 3.88 3.11 0.50 1.56 1.56 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.0% 1,825 4,867 Apr 1.82 4.68 0.50 2.34 1.82 0.75 0.51 0.69 3.6% 2,852 1,825 1,825 4,867 2,852 May 0.69 5.71 0.50 2.85 0.69 0.75 2.17 2.89 15.2% 11,999 1,825 1,825 4,867 4,867 Jun 0.25 6.66 0.50 3.33 0.25 0.75 3.08 4.11 21.6% 17,072 1,825 1,825 4,867 4,867 Jly 0.03 6.84 0.50 3.42 0.03 0.75 3.39 4.52 23.7% 18,767 1,825 1,825 4,867 4,867 Aug 0.11 6.25 0.50 3.12 0.11 0.75 3.02 4.02 21.1% 16,703 1,825 1,825 4,867 4,867 Sep 0.31 4.61 0.50 2.31 0.31 0.75 2.00 2.66 14.0% 11,061 1,825 1,825 4,867 4,867 Oct 1.57 3.36 0.50 1.68 1.57 0.75 0.11 0.14 0.8% 595 1,825 595 4,867 595 Nov 4.02 1.50 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.0% 1,825 4,867 Dec 5.18 0.93 0.50 0.47 0.47 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.0% 1,825 4,867 Total 29.52 46.10

23.05 8.78 14.27 19.03 100.0% 79,050 21900 11,545 53% 58,400 27,780 48% 29.52 19.03 48,092 27,601 55.2 28.9 3,362 44,730 24,239 11,110 14,472 6.7

Amount of Storage, g 6.42 5.24 0.00 0.00 5,999 4,904 12.0 9.8 4.0 4.0 0% 0% 5,999 4,904 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

3.88 0.00 3,628 7.3 4.0 0% 3,628 2,000 2,000

1.823 0.69 0.38 1,735 1,705 3.4 3.4 1,705 98% 30 1,705

0.69 2.89 1.00 7,300 643 1.3 1.3 643 9% 6,657 643

0.25 4.11 1.00 10,386 233 0.5 0.5 233 2% 10,153 233

0.03 4.52 1.00 11,418 28 0.1 0.1 28 0% 11,390 28

0.11 4.02 1.00 10,162 102 0.2 0.2 102 1% 10,059 102

0.31 2.66 1.00 6,729 289 0.6 0.6 289 4% 6,441 289

1.57 0.14 0.09 362 1,472 2.9 2.9 362 100% 1,110 1,110 1,472

4.02 0.00 3,754 7.5 4.0 0% 3,754 2,000 2,000

5.18 0.00 4,844 9.7 4.0 0% 4,844 2,000 2,000

Definition of Terms: The accurate formula for calculating the annual irrigation or applied water requirement is: AWR = [(ETo x Kc) - ER] / IE and: AWR = Annual Applied Water Requirement, inches/year ETo = Evapotranspiration for the "reference crop" (a stand of 4" to 7" high grass), inches/year Kc = Coefficient when multiplied x ETo yields ET for the type of "crop" in question ER = Effective rainfall, rain which can be used by the plant to meet ET demands, inches/year IE = Irrigation efficiency (amount of water that reaches the roots/total water applied), % To convert inches to gpd multiply by: 0.623 = 7.48 gallons per cubic ft / 12 inches per ft, a conversion constant Notes: 1 Annual total is from Sonoma Sta. 0483851 data. Monthly distribution based on 15 yr record (Jan. 1990 - Oct. 2005), room Santa Rosa CIMIS Sta. 83. 2 Annual ETo for Sonoma Valley is taken from DWR Model Landscape Ordinance. Monthly distribution determined same as in Note 1. 3 Crop Coefficient developed by University of California for cool season grasses from lysimeter field studies. 4 Estimate by JONWRM based on assumption that a low-head gravity system will be about as efficient as a drip or bubbler type irrigation system. 5 Determined by applying AWR % x outside portion (58.92% per 2005 UWMP) of Average SF customer demand (134,174 g/yr). 6 For Rainfall Utilization System having 500 g of storage serving roof covering 1500 sf of area. 7 Raton of AWR for Xeriscape / Rainfall. Set to 1.00 if rainfall is less than AWR. 8 Determined by applying AWR % x outside portion (estimated at 45.59%) of Median SF customer demand (103,216 g/yr). Median customer is used because it is believed that RU will be most popular with and is most applicable for smaller landscapes focused on plants rather than turf. 9 Water discharge from roof. 10 Whatever is available but limited to 4 per month on the assumption that homeowner would likely only mange rain barrels about once per week in non-irrigation months. 11 Calculated by taking the available storage, rainfall, roof production, likely fillings and AWR into account. 12 Resulting Offset Irrigation / AWR for median SF Customer. 13 Unmet irrigation demand that must be met from potable water system of other source. 14 In the winter months, rainfall falling on the irrigated area will meet all the ET needs and rainwater storage is not needed for that purpose, but if the homeowner cooperates and drains the barrels to permeable areas in the yard between storms, that will help recharge local ground water.. 15 Estimated fillings less water used for irrigation. 16 Rainfall captured in storage and put to beneficial use for irrigation and for ground water recharge. The latter may be much less if water drained to property before, etc.

Table D-2 Savings and Costs of Graywater Systems Retrofitted in Existing SF Residences Available Discharge (1) gpd g/yr 60 21,900 60 21,900 160 58,400 Potable Water Offset (2) % g/yr 53% 11,545 53% 11,545 48% 25,905 Capital Cost RP (4) Fees (5) $424 $75 $424 $173 $424 $374 O&M /yr (6) $90 $110 $160 Life Cycle B/C (6) Customer City 0.6 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.2 1.4

Ag Clothes Wash Only - gravity Ap Clothes Wash Only - pump B Simple System System Descriptions: Ag Clothes Wash Only-gravity: Simple gravity delivery of graywater direct from clothes washer through an air gap to landscape using head available at elevation of top of washing machine. No storage tank. This system includes a valve on wall above washer which can direct graywater to sewer or to graywater irrigation. Ap Clothes Wash Only-pump: System includes up to 60 gallon tank and submersible pump to deliver pressurized graywater to graywater drip system. B Simple System: System includes up to 160 gallon tank, submersible pump, sand filter with automatic backwash and connection via RP valve to potable water supply, and controller to automatically deliver pressurized water (graywater if available, potable if need be) sufficient to meet total AWR of plants on graywater drip system. All systems have air gap between tank (or irrigation system in the case Ag type system) and source of graywater. n.c. means not calculated. RP means reduced pressure type backflow prevention device. AWR means applied water requirement. Notes: 1 Graywater discharge estimate based on Calif. Plumbing Code, Chap. 16A tables. For A and B type systems assumes 3 bedroom home with 4 occupants. Type C system is assumed to be serving a large home with enough occupants to generate > 250 gpd of graywater. (Using the Plumbing Code tables, it takes 7 occupants will generate 280 gpd of graywater discharge. Ag and Ap are clothes washer only discharge, B includes discharge from showers, bathtubs and bathroom basins. 2 Percentages are from Table D-1, an analysis of irrigation demand for typical existing SF home in Sonoma taking into account monthly ET and effective rainfall. Type B and C systems also include a deduction to account for potable water used to backwash filters calculated at the rate of 135g/2000 g of graywater production. 3 Costs developed by JONWRM based on survey of literature, including sources noted below. Cost of irrigation system piping, branches, valves, and emitters, etc. is not included. Costs do not include rebate. Costs are as of 2010. Costs, with one exception, include installation labor valued at $110 per hour. Exception is Ag type system, which is assumed to be "do-it-yourself" by homeowner and labor cost is ignored. Estimate for Ag also assumes clothes washer backs up against an outside wall or is otherwise situated to convey graywater easily by gravity. 4 California Plumbing Code, Chap. 16A requires a suitable on-site air-gap or backflow prevention device separating the graywater system from the customer's potable plumbing system. In addition, the City's existing Cross-Connection Control policy, adopted to comply with the provisions of Title 17, Section 7583-7604, promulgated by the CDPH, requires installation of a RP type backflow prevention device on between the public water supply and the customers plumbing.. 5 Variable building department fees are estimated by JONWRM.. 6 Assumes homeowner supplies all O&M labor, cost of which is not included. For Ap type system, polyester felt filter bag must be cleaned at least monthly and replaced once or twice a year. Cost of bags is included. For Type B systems, the cost of replacing sand filter media once a year is included. For systems including a pump, cost of energy is included. For all systems, the cost of annual inspection of the backflow protection valve protecting public water supply is included and is estimated at $90. Cost Sources: Tech.. Memo on Graywater, James Crook, Ph.D., P.E., Environmental Engineering Consultant, Boston, MA, for Black & Veatch Engrs. for Clean Water Coalition and Southern Nevada Water Authority, Feb. 13, 2009 Review of Water Recycling and Gray Water for MMWD, Bahman Sheikh, Ph.D. P.E. Water Reuse Specialist ad Parsons, April, 2001, escalated Metropolitan Water District of Southern Calif., IRP Tech. Workgroup Graywater issue Paper, Aug. 17, 2009 ReWater Systems Inc., POB 210171, Chula Vista, CA, 92821

System (3) $150 $3,463 $7,482

Total $649 $4,060 $8,280

Table D-3 Detailed Description of System Operation (Type A, B and C Systems) Definitions

Ag - Clothes Wash Only-gravity Ap - Clothes Wash Only-pump B - Simple System

For the Type Ag system (refer to Figure D-1), water is directed to the graywater irrigation system when the occupant directs the flow that way via the ball valve installed just above the clothes washer. As the washer goes through its drain cycles, water is directly pumped past the air-gap and falls via a standpipe into the irrigation system and drains directly via a branched drain system to terminal mulch basins (A traditional drip irrigation system would not work well with this type of system). No tank, pump or filter exists in this system. The Type Ap system is equipped with a sealed but vented tank fitted with a submersible pump operated by a float switch. When enough graywater fills the tank, the pump cycles on and pressurizes water in the irrigation system feed line to about 50 psi. If a drip system were connected, a pressure reducer would be present. If the drip system served a total of 55 emitters with a flow rate of 12 gallons per hour (about six times the normal emitter flow rate), the tank would drain in 5 minutes. The pump turns off when the tank empties and awaits another filling, which would take about 24 hours on average. This system would have to be manually shut off in the winter months. When shut off, graywater passes on into the sewer line. Type B and C systems are like Type Ap but in addition are equipped with a pressurized sand filer capable of filtering graywater to about 100 microns. The filter is automatically backwashed with potable water. Also added is an irrigation type controller with special features incorporated into its chip to run the system. The system is designed and sold by ReWater Systems of Chula Vista, California (Figure D-2). When the graywater tank almost fills, a float switch activates the controller, which opens a graywater irrigation valve and turns the pump on. Water is delivered for 2 minuets to Valve 1, then cycles to Valve 2 for 2 minutes, then Valve 3, etc. until the tank empties and the float valve shuts the pump off. The controller holds its place in the irrigation program until more graywater is produced and the tank refills and irrigation starts again. The controller picks up where it left off and resumes the process of sending water out in two-minute doses to the valves that require more water that day. If the controller does not complete the irrigation programs for that particular day (minutes of run time assigned to each valve for specific days) by midnight, it opens a valve connected to the household potable water system and introduces water into the graywater system via an RP backflow protection device. (This RP device is in addition to the RP device installed near the service meter.) Potable water is then used to complete the minutes of run-time remaining on any graywater valve. In this way the demands of the plants are always assured to be met during high demand periods when demand outpaces available graywater and at times when the occupants are absent or on vacation. The potable water connection is also activated automatically after 2000 gallons of graywater have been filtered. Flow is reversed through the sand media and blown down (drains under pressure) to the sewer. It takes about 135 gallons of potable water to accomplish backwash. At lease annually the filter case needs to be opened and sand replaced.

Table D-4 Savings and Costs of Rainwater Systems Retrofitted in Existing SF Residences Vessels # 4 8 1 Volume g 200 500 1000 Area (1) sf 1500 1500 2000 Potable Offset (2) Cost (3) % g/yr $ 7% 2,257 328 7% 3,362 488 8% 3,824 1,255 O&M/yr Life Cycle B/C (6) (6) Customer City $0 0.7 1.7 $0 0.8 1.0 $90 0.1 1.1

I Single Barrel per Roof Drain II Chain Barrel System III Tank or Cistern System System Descriptions: I 1 barrel or collector is placed at each major downspout. II 1 or more barrels connected by piping placed at major downspouts. III Below grade or above grade large cistern or tank served by downspout diverters. Notes: 1 "Footprint" of roof area. 2 Calculated in the model contained in Table D-1. Optimum storage for 1500 sf area was 600 g. Roof area was increased for Type III or storage would not have been optimized. 3 Type I and II are assumed to be simple gravity systems. Cost of a single 50 g to 65 g rain barrel system runs from $110 to $164 depending whether barrel is used or new. Costs do not include labor to assemble or install system. Type I system consists of sealable reconditioned food barrel ($30) with installation of screened inlet, overflow outlet with short length of hose, capped drain port, and water service spigot. Total cost per modified barrel = $60. Foundation materials, if required are not included in estimate. Leaf screening is not included either: it being assumed this is a normal cost of gutter maintenance. In addition one Y type diverter is included per downspout. Assume 4 downspouts. Type II assumes second (daisy chain) barrel added at cost of $50 each (includes screened air access port and connector pipe). Type III system, costs should be considered very rough as costs vary widely. Cost of polyethylene storage vessel is $655. Collection system for cistern including a low head pump is estimated at $600. No cost included for special foundation costs. 4 BF = backflow prevention device and could be double check valve assembly or reduced pressure type Cost of plumber's labor is included. 5 City fees include building permit, plan check, inspection, electrical and training fees. 6 B/C ratios are as for other similar calculations in the report based on identifiable out-of-pocket cost benefits and savings. Although potentially contributing to ground water storage, no credit is assigned.

BF (4) $0 $0 $424

Fees (5) $0 $0 $130

Total $328 $488 $1,809

Table D-5 Utility of Rainwater Harvesting Storage Type System > I II II Storage Volume of Rainwater Harvesting System, g 200 500 1000 Area, sf 1500 1500 1500 Irrigation Water Capture Efficiency 1 Roof Production Apr. through Sept., g (1) 4,472 4,472 4,472 2 Amount Captured and Applied to Irrigation (Potable Offset), g 2,457 3,362 3,362 3 Percent 55% 75% 75% Potential Recharge Water Capture Efficiency 4 Roof Production Not Used for Irrigation., g (2) 25,144 24,239 24,239 5 Recharge Potential (given storage available), g (3) 4,438 11,110 20,492 6 Percent 18% 46% 85% Overall Roof Water Production Capture Efficiency 7 Total Roof Production, g 27,601 27,601 27,601 8 Total Amount Captured to Storage (Line 2 + Line 5), g 6,895 14,472 23,854 9 Percent 25% 52% 86% Distribution of Water Captured 10 Used for Irrigation (Line 2/Line 8) 36% 23% 14% 11 Maximum Potentially Usable for Recharge (Line 5/Line 8) (4) 64% 77% 86% Increase in Cost and Savings Relative to Type I System: Increased First cost 49% 382% Increased Irrigation Offsets 37% 37% Notes: 1 Type II and III systems captured all of the roof production during this period and it is all used for irrigation. 2 Roof production means amount of water running down the downspouts. 3 Amount captured to storage and available for recharge based on limitations of storage, willingness/ability of homeowner to apply captured water to percolation areas on property. Note, there may be no increase if downspout discharge terminated on-site prior to installation of rainwater system.. Also, this volume could be as little as the storage volume of system if homeowner decides to shut down capture of rainwater in the rainy months. 4 If downspout discharge was routed off of the property before installation of rain harvesting system, this is the amount that the homeowner can potentially discharge on the property between rainfall events if there is suitable percolation area to receive it. Any portion of downspout discharge that was retained on property in the past needs to be deducted from this total in order to calculate potential for new recharge.

Figure D-1 Clothes Washer Only System - Gravity to Landscape (Type Ag) Diagram courtesy of Oasis Design, Create an Oasis with Greywater, Art Ludwig, Revised and Expanded 5th Edition, (this and other detailed information on graywater system design and operation available at www.oasisdesign.net)

Figure D2 Design for Simple (Type B) System Using Pressurized System (By increasing capacity of system components, this same design can be used for Complex (Type C) System) Diagram courtesy of ReWater Systems, Steve Bilson, P.O. Box 210171 Chula Vista, CA 91921, www.rewater.com

Figure D-3 Type I and II Rain Barrels, Diverters and Filters

Box Screen Filter

<

<<<<Directional valve.

Y Diverter

First Flush Bypass Devices (Note: first flush bypasses, filters and diverters are blown up relative to barrels) Various Barrel/Storage Vessels (55 to 65 gallons) Used Food Barrels Adapted for Harvesting: Screen filers are located on top of these barrels. Daisy Chain Flat Back

Figure D-4 Type III Water Harvesting Tank

Diagram courtesy of City of Sonoma, Handout No. 36, Sonoma, CA

Diagram courtesy of Rainwater Management Solutions, Salem, VA, www.rainwatermanagement.com