AWWAs Utility Surveyof CIIWater Efficiency Programs Report

NATIONAL SURVEY OF COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL WATER

EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS
The National Survey of Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) Water Efficiency Programs project was
commissioned by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Water Efficiency Programs & Technology
Committee (WEPTC) Project Team and funded by the AWWA Technical & Educational Council.
Report prepared by Dr. Benedykt Dziegielewski, consultant

bdzieg@gmail.com
January 2016
Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report describes the results and key findings of a survey of water utilities with active CII
(Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional) water conservation/water efficiency programs. These
include the common practices, program designs, data collection and analytical methodologies
employed by water utilities for CII programs. The survey was undertaken by the AWWA Water
Efficiency Programs and Technology Committee (WEPTC) and funded by the AWWA’s
Technical and Educational Council. It was conducted during July 27, 2015 to September 2, 2015,
using an online survey questionnaire at the SurveyMonkey® website. A total of 383 valid
responses were identified including responses from 350 utilities in the United States and 33
utilities in Canada.
The survey results lend support to several conclusions and observations about the availability,
design and implementation of CII water efficiency programs. These are briefly summarized
below and are described in more detail in Part I (Summary of Survey Findings) of the main
report. A full review of the survey results is provided in Part II of the main report.
1. Water conservation and improvements in water-use efficiency appear to have gained a

general acceptance among water utilities as a sensible practice of water management. A
majority of utilities (74 percent) have a formal conservation program and 86 percent consider
conserved water as one of their water supply alternatives.
2. The availability of water conservation/water efficiency programs that are directed

specifically to CII customers is limited – the actual proportion of utilities with CII programs
is about 20 percent or less. The need for such programs is likely higher in light of the
conservation potential in the CII sector and the need for water conservation due to restrictive
water supply conditions in many locations.
3. Despite the general acceptance of water conservation and high adoption rate of conservation
programs among utilities, the availability of staff and budgets to support these programs
appears to be inadequate.
4. Although utilities typically target the largest water users, selecting specific categories of CII
customers is also a frequently used approach for directing utility efficiency programs. The
three most frequently targeted customer categories include government and municipal
buildings, large landscape areas, and schools and colleges. Another three frequently targeted
categories include office buildings, restaurants and hotels.
5. Information and education programs are universally used alongside the three predominant
incentives that include free surveys and audits, free landscape irrigation evaluations and
traditional customer rebates.
6. The complexity of some of the end uses of water in the CII sector likely affects the nature of
the equipment and incentives used in the design of the CII programs. The efficiency
programs tend to focus on indoor fixtures in office buildings and domestic-like uses on
business premises.
ii
7. Approaches used to evaluate program success focus on water savings to customers and
participation rates. Other frequently used criteria include customer satisfaction and
awareness, and water savings to the utility.
8. Relevant data on CII facilities are obtained directly from the customers and less frequently
from external data sources. Those who rely on external data most frequently used geospatial
data, tax assessor records, or census data.
9. The expansion of utility water conservation and efficiency programs must overcome several
obstacles to program participation including: (1) obtaining high-level buy-in within customer
organizations, (2) lack of sufficient capital improvement monies in customers' budgets, and
(3) inadequacy of the incentives being offered relative to the participant’s costs of retrofits.
10. AWWA and other organizations have an important role in helping utilities address barriers to
improve their CII programs. The majority of utilities obtain information on conservation
programs through professional conferences (such as AWWA or WaterSmart Innovations
meetings), as well as resources from EPA WaterSense, the Alliance for Water Efficiency
(AWE) and AWWA.
The survey results can serve as a basis for developing recommendations for water utilities on
how to proceed in developing or enhancing their CII efficiency programs. They can also inform
the AWWA and other water organizations on the need to conduct further research and
developing appropriate guidance materials to support utility efforts. The initial recommendations
include:
1. Water conservation planners can use the survey information to help them design and
implement utility-sponsored efficiency programs for the CII sector. The survey includes
relevant information about the selection of customer categories, efficiency equipment and
delivery mechanisms and incentives, as well as information on budget and staffing,
application forms, and methods to promote programs to customers.
2. The adoption of CII efficiency programs by utilities could be greatly enhanced by

“streamlining” or “standardizing” program design and implementation and using
standardized flat incentives.
3. More research and data dissemination could be performed by the AWWA, AWE and other
water organizations to develop estimates of water savings from currently available water-
efficient equipment that are frequently found in CII establishments. Such information could
be used to inform CII program design and build customer demand.
4. A follow-up research project should be undertaken by AWWA or other organizations to

collect more information from the 81 responding utilities with CII programs who implement
close to 200 individual CII efficiency programs they named in the survey.
5. Future surveys of utility CII efficiency programs should be expanded to include questions to
explore the reasons for the utilities’ decisions when selecting program participants, delivery
mechanisms/incentives and efficiency devices and equipment.
iii
The WEPTC National Survey of CII Water Efficiency Programs project team includes:
Lisa Krentz
Hazen & Sawyer
Veronica Blette
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mary Ann Dickinson

Alliance for Water Efficiency
Frank Kinder
Colorado Springs Utilities
Bill McDonnell
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Kent Sovocool
Southern Nevada Water Authority
Robert Wanvestraut
South Florida Water Management District
iv
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables............................................................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................................... xi
PART I. SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... 1

A. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................................. 1
B. KEY FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................................... 2
#1 Water conservation and improvements in water-use efficiency .................................................................. 2
#2 The availability of water conservation/water efficiency programs ............................................................ 5
#3 Availability of staff and budgets to support programs appears to be inadequate................................. 6
#4 Utilities typically target the largest water users and specific categories of CII customers................ 7
#5 Information and education programs are the predominant type of program delivery ...................... 9
#6 The complexity of CII sector likely affects the nature of the equipment and incentives .................. 10
#7 Evaluation of programs focused on water savings to customers and participation rates. .............. 13
#8 Relevant data on CII facilities are obtained directly from the customers ............................................... 14
#9 The expansion of CII programs must confront a number of barriers to program participation. .. 16
#10 AWWA and other organizations have an important role in helping utilities ……………………….. 17
C. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 18
R1 The results can assist water conservation planners in designing CII efficiency programs. ............ 19
R2 Results show a need for “streamlining” CII program design and implementation ............................. 19
R3 More research and data needed on commercial and industrial water-using equipment................. 19
R4 A follow-up research needed to compile program-specific data on the existing CII programs. .... 20
R5 Future surveys should explore the reasons for selection of program designs and participants... 20
PART II. COMPLETE SURVEY RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 21

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................ 21
1.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................................. 21
1.2 Survey Implementation ............................................................................................................................................... 21
1.3 Analysis of Survey Results.......................................................................................................................................... 22

2. SURVEY RESPONDENTS ........................................................................................................................................... 22
2.1 Survey Responses by State and Province............................................................................................................. 22
2.2 Respondent Characteristics ....................................................................................................................................... 23
3. PREVALENCE OF WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ............................................................................. 25
3.1 Utility Adoption of Water Conservation ............................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Reasons for Establishing Conservation Programs ........................................................................................... 27
3.3 Reasons for Not Having a Water Conservation or CII Program .................................................................. 28
3.4 Water Conservation Staff ............................................................................................................................................ 28
3.5 Water Conservation Budgets..................................................................................................................................... 29
3.6 Sources of Financing Water Conservation Programs...................................................................................... 30
4. PREVALENCE OF CII EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................ 31
4.1 Geographical Prevalence of CII Efficiency Programs ...................................................................................... 31
4.2 Personnel and Budget for CII Programs ............................................................................................................... 33
4.3 Estimated Water Savings from CII Programs ..................................................................................................... 35
4.4 Customer Classes Covered by CII Programs ....................................................................................................... 36
5. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION METHODS ....................................................................................................... 39
5.1 Approaches for Targeting CII Participation ........................................................................................................ 39
5.2 CII Program Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives .......................................................................................... 39
5.3 Efficiency Equipment and Devices .......................................................................................................................... 42
5.4 Names of CII Conservation/Efficiency Programs ............................................................................................. 44
5.5 Program Assessment Criteria ................................................................................................................................... 46
5.6 Promoting Programs to CII Customers ................................................................................................................. 46
5.7 Use of Submission Forms for CII Rebate/Incentive Application ................................................................ 47
5.8 Program Coordination with Local Energy Utilities .......................................................................................... 47
6. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODS .......................................................................................................... 48
6.1 Conservation and Water Supply Planning ........................................................................................................... 48
6.2 CII Program Performance Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 48
6.3 Methods of Analysis for Estimating Savings ....................................................................................................... 49
6.4 Methods to Evaluate Economic Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 50
6.5 Sources of Evaluation Expertize .............................................................................................................................. 50
6.6 Reporting on CII Program Performance ............................................................................................................... 51
6.7 Collection of CII Facility-Specific Information ................................................................................................... 51
6.8 Use of Data for Benchmarking and Program Evaluation ............................................................................... 52
6.9 Use of External Data Sources for Program Evaluation ................................................................................... 53
vi
7. IMPLEMENTATION OBSTACLES AND PROSPECTS ....................................................................................... 53
7.1 Key Barriers to CII Program Participation .......................................................................................................... 53
7.2 Suggestions for CII Program Improvements ...................................................................................................... 55
7.3 Sources of Information for Improving CII Programs ...................................................................................... 56
8. RESPONDENT (UTILITY) PROFILES .................................................................................................................... 56
8.1 Services Provided by Responding Utilities .......................................................................................................... 56
8.2 Utility Ownership ........................................................................................................................................................... 58
8.3 Population Served .......................................................................................................................................................... 59
8.4 Number of Service Connections ............................................................................................................................... 59
8.5 Water Use in Retail Service Areas ........................................................................................................................... 62
8.6 Water Use of Wholesale Utilities ............................................................................................................................. 62
8.7 Utility Partnering with Water Organizations and Participation in Research........................................ 64
8.8 General Comments and Contact Information ..................................................................................................... 65
APPENDIX A – ADDITIONAL TABLES ........................................................................................................................... 66
APPENDIX B – SURVEY INSTRUMENT………………………………………………………………………………………..83
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Prevalence of Utility Water Conservation Programs 3

Figure 2 Prevalence of Conservation and CII Programs by System Size 4
Figure 3 Utility’s Reasons for Establishing Conservation Programs 4
Figure 4 Availability of Utility CII Programs 5
Figure 5 Full-Time Equivalent Employees to Support Conservation Programs 6
Figure 6 Percent of Respondents Who Targeted Specific CII Categories 7
Figure 7 Respondents’ Rating of Success in Program Participation by CII Category 8
Figure 8 Respondents’ Use of Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives 9
Figure 9 Respondents’ Rating of Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives 10
Figure 10 Respondents’ Use of Efficiency Equipment by Type 11
Figure 11 Respondents’ Rating of the CII Efficiency Equipment by Type 11
Figure 12 Respondents’ Use of Specific Efficiency Devices 12
Figure 13 Respondents’ Rating of Efficiency Devices and Equipment 13
Figure 14 Criteria for Assessing Effectiveness of CII Programs 14
Figure 15 Collection of CII Facility Specific Data 15
Figure 16 Use of External Data Sources in Program Evaluation 16
Figure 17 Relative Importance of Key Barriers to CII Program Participation 17
Figure 18 Options for Improving CII Programs 17
Figure 19 Sources of Information for Improving CII Programs 17
Figure 20 Comparison of the Distribution of Responses and Existing Systems by 24
System Size
Figure A1 Climatic Regions of the United States. 82
viii
List of Tables
Table 1 Valid Survey Responses by State and Province 23

Table 2 Selected Utility Profile Data for Survey Respondents 24
Table 3 Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs 25
Table 4 Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs by State/Province 25
Table 5 Regional Differences in Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs 27
Table 6 Reasons for Establishing Water Conservation/Efficiency Programs 27
Table 7 Reasons for Not Having a Conservation Program 28
Table 8 Employees Involved with Water Conservation Program 29
Table 9 Funding Levels for Water Conservation Programs 30
Table 10 Sources of Funding for Water Conservation 31
Table 11 Utility Adoption of CII Water Efficiency Programs 31
Table 12 Incidence of CII Efficiency Programs by State/Province 32
Table 13 Effect of System Size on Adoption of Water Conservation 33
Table 14 Utility Staff Working on CII Programs 34
Table 15 Percentage of Utility’s Total Conservation Budget for CII Programs 34
Table 16 Reported Water Savings from CII Programs 35
Table 17 Eligible Customer Groups for Utility CII Programs 36
Table 18 Utility’s “Targeting” (Eligibility) of Subsectors for CII Programs 37
Table 19 Utility Rating of the Level of Program Participation by CII Subsector 38
Table 20 Approaches for Targeting CII Participants or Conservation Efforts 39
Table 21 Use of CII Incentives and Delivery Mechanisms by Water Utilities 40
Table 22 Respondents’ Ranking of CII Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives 41
Table 23 Use of CII Efficiency Devices and Equipment by Water Utilities 42
Table 24 Respondents’ Ranking of CII Efficiency Devices and Equipment 43
Table 25 Examples of Names of Landscape Related Programs by State/Province 44
Table 26 Examples of Names of CII Efficiency Programs by State/Province 45
Table 27 Criteria Used in Assessing Program’s Success 46
Table 28 Methods for Promoting Programs to CII Customers 46
Table 29 Use of Program Submission Forms 47
Table 30 Coordination of CII Programs with Energy Utilities 47
Table 31 Water Conservation as Water Supply Alternative 48
Table 32 CII Program Performance Criteria 48
Table 33 Use of Statistical Methods for Estimating Savings 49
ix
Table 34 Evaluation of Economic Effectiveness 50
Table 35 Evaluators of Program Effectiveness 50
Table 36 Program Performance Reporting Requirements 51
Table 37 Sources of Facility-Specific Information and Data 52
Table 38 Use of Customer Data for Benchmarking and Evaluation 52
Table 39 Use of External Data Sources for Program Evaluation 53
Table 40 Key Barriers to CII Program Participation 54
Table 41 Possible Ways of Improving Utility’s CII Programs 55
Table 42 Sources of Information for Improving CII Programs 56
Table 43 Utility Services Provided and Adoption of Conservation Programs 57
Table 44 Utility Services Provided and Adoption of CII Programs by Survey 57
Respondents
Table 45 Proportion of Retail and Wholesale Services 58
Table 46 Ownership Profile of Responding Utilities 58
Table 47 Retail and Wholesale Population Served 59
Table 48 Number of Retail Residential and Nonresidential Connections 60
Table 49 Percent of Total Connections in Residential Sector 60
Table 50 Persons per Residential Connections 61
Table 51 Reported Water Deliveries and Per Capita Use 62
Table 52 Questions and Responses for Wholesale-only Respondents 63
Table 53 Wholesale-Only Utilities: Population, Customers and Water Deliveries 64
Table 54 Utility Affiliations with Water Organizations 64
Table 55 Willingness to Participate in Research on CII Programs 65
Table A1 “Other” Reasons for Establishing Water Conservation Plan 67

Table A2 “Other” Sources of Funding for Water Conservation 68
Table A3 “Other” Approaches for Targeting CII Participants or Conservation Efforts 69
Table A4 Respondents Comments on “Other” CII Efficiency Devices and Equipment 70
Table A5 Names of CII Water conservation Efficiency Programs 71
Table A6 “Other” Methods for Promoting CII Water Conservation/Efficiency 75
Programs
Table A7 “Other” Suggestions for Improving CII Water Efficiency Programs 76
Table A8 Reasons for Not Having a Conservation or CII Program 77
Table A9 T- Test of Population Served Between Utilities With and Without Programs 78
Table A10 T- Test of Per Capita Water Use Between Utilities With and Without 79
Programs
Table A11 General Comments on CII Programs and the Survey 79
x
List of Acronyms
AWWA American Water Works Association
AWE Alliance for Water Efficiency
AFY Acre-feet per year
BIG Business, Industry and Government
CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency
CII Commercial, Industrial and Institutional
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FTE Full-Time Equivalent employee
GPCD Gallons per capita per day
ICI Industrial, Commercial and Institutional
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
MGD Million gallons per day
MGY Million gallons per year
MaP Maximum Performance Testing
ROI Return on Investment
WEPTC Water Efficiency Programs and Technology Committee
WSI WaterSmart Innovations Conference
xi
PART I. SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS
A. INTRODUCTION
This survey of water utilities was undertaken by the AWWA Water Efficiency Programs and
Technology Committee (WEPTC) and funded by the AWWA’s Technical and Educational
Council. The aim of the survey was to provide the AWWA members with information about
common practices, programs, data collection and analytical methodologies currently employed
by utilities with active commercial, industrial and institutional (CII) programs. The major goals
of the survey were: (a) to identify and describe the design and effects of the existing CII
efficiency programs, (b) to assemble a compendium of existing principles and practices for
planning, implementing, and evaluating CII water use and conservation potential, and (c) to
assist conservation planners by providing a basis for development of best management practices,
educational efforts, and conducting additional research on water use efficiency in the CII sector.
The survey was conducted during July 27, 2015 to September 2, 2015. During this 5-week time
period the online survey questionnaire was made available to water utilities at the
SurveyMonkey® website. After undertaking QA/QC process, a total of 383 valid responses
from the utilities in the United States and Canada were identified from the 478 registered survey
entries. A total of 350 responses were obtained from 40 U.S. states, the U.S. Guam and the
District of Columbia. Additional 33 responses were obtained from seven Canadian Provinces.
Nearly 60 percent of the U.S. respondents came from nine states (California, Florida, Texas,
Illinois, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, and Virginia). Nearly half of the respondents
from Canada came from Ontario. The CII survey responses strongly over-represent the large
(with population served of 10,000 to 100,000) and very large systems serving more than 100,000
persons. Therefore, the findings of this survey apply primarily to large and very large systems.
This report consists of two parts. Part I provides the main findings and observations from the
survey, as well as recommendations. It also includes references to the sections of the report with
more detailed information. Part II provides a complete documentation of the survey results for all
383 responses. The survey responses were pooled and summarized for each survey question and
the answers are tabulated and interpreted in the text. Part II of the report is organized into eight
sections that reflect the contents of the survey questionnaire:
• Section 1 covers the introductory matters including the purpose of the survey, its
implementation and the initial review of survey responses.
• Section 2 describes the geographical distribution of valid survey responses and provides a
summary of selected general characteristics of survey respondents (i.e., utility profiles).
• Section 3 covers six initial questions of the survey, which pertain to the adoption of a
formal conservation program by the responding water utilities.
• Section 4 covers the questions about the prevalence and general characteristics of CII
water efficiency programs.
1
• Section 5 addresses more detailed questions about implementation of CII programs are
includes information on the selection of participants and program delivery mechanism
and incentives.
• Section 6 covers questions about program evaluation methods.
• Section 7 covers questions about the common barriers to program participation.
• Section 8 presents utility profile characteristics.
The report also includes Appendix A, which contains tabulation of respondent comments and
explanations used in the “other” answer options. Appendix B contains the survey instrument.
B. KEY FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS

The survey results provide useful information to support planning, design, and implementation of
efficiency programs directed to CII customers. The results sum up the experience of utility
managers, conservation coordinators and analysts from utilities with 282 active conservation
programs and 81 programs directed toward CII customers. The results include information about
the most frequently targeted CII categories, budget and staffing, the use and rating of delivery
mechanism and incentives and efficiency equipment and devices, as well as information on data
collection and analytical methods currently employed by utilities with active CII programs. The
respondents’ comments include a number of suggestions for improving the design and delivery
of programs to CII customers and possible ways to overcome the existing barriers to customer
participation. The following subsections briefly summarize and illustrate the ten key findings and
observations from the survey and provide references to more detailed information in Part II of
the report.
#1 - Water conservation and improvements in water-use efficiency appear to have gained a

general acceptance among water utilities as a sensible practice of water management.
Within the total of 383 survey respondents, 282 (or about 74%) indicated that they have a formal
water conservation or water use efficiency program, and 101 respondents (about 26%) do not
(Figure 1). The availability of programs varied by geographical regions and system size.
2
Figure 1. Prevalence of Utility Water Conservation Programs
In terms of the adoption rates by state and province, in California, nearly all responding utilities
had formal conservation programs. In Texas and Washington, respectively, 95 and 89 percent of
responding utilities had a formal conservation program. The rates were much lower in other
states. In terms of regions, the highest adoption rates were reported in the Northwest, the
Southwest and the Great Plains. The lowest adoption rates were reported by utilities in the
Midwest and Northeast (see Section 2.1 in Part II).
Large and very large systems (in terms of population served) are more likely to have a
conservation program than smaller systems (see Section 2.2 for additional characteristics of
survey respondents). Figure 2 compares the counts of survey respondents with the number of
utilities with a conservation program for three arbitrarily selected groupings of system size. The
availability of conservation programs was higher than average (70 percent) in the medium and
large size categories.
3
Figure 2. Prevalence of Conservation Programs by System Size
The main reasons for establishing the water conservation and efficiency programs were “utility
stewardship and sustainability” and “regulatory compliance” (Figure 3, also Section 3.2). These
results support the notion of the acceptability of the societal goal of achieving efficient water use.
Furthermore, the majority of survey respondents (86 percent) also indicated their utility
considers conserved water as one of water supply alternatives, which gives water conservation
and water efficiency programs an important role in planning for utility’s water supply.
Figure 3. Utility’s Reasons for Establishing Conservation Programs
4
#2 - The availability of water conservation/water efficiency programs that are directed
specifically to CII customers appears to be somewhat limited.
While the majority of the utilities indicated they have a formal conservation program (which is
typically directed to residential customers), less than one-third of these utilities had a sub-
program or a program component directed to the CII sectors. Among the 282 respondents with a
conservation program only 81 indicated they have a CII program (Figure 4, and Section 4.1).
Assuming that the utilities who skipped the question do not have a CII program, this result would
indicate that only 21 percent of utilities (81 out of 383) have a CII program. The most common
reasons for not having a conservation/efficiency program were the utility’s CII water use not
being significant or not enough staff to support a program.
Because the survey responses are likely to be slightly biased toward utilities with conservation
and efficiency programs, the actual proportion of utilities with CII programs is likely to be below
21 percent. The actual need for such programs could be much higher in light of the conservation
potential in the CII sector and the need for water conservation due to restrictive water supply
conditions in some regions. Possibly, the utility adoption of CII programs should be similar or
comparable to the adoption of residential programs.
Figure 4. Availability of Utility CII Efficiency Programs
5
#3 - Despite of the general acceptance of water conservation and high adoption rate of
conservation programs among utilities, the availability of staff and budgets to support these
programs appears to be inadequate.
The majority (83 percent) of respondents with conservation programs were able to provide an
estimate of the full-time equivalent employees dedicated to conservation programs. The survey
results concerning the staff and budget dedicated to the conservation programs revealed that on
average 1.5 full time equivalent (FTE) staff members were involved with water conservation
programs. Close to one-half (46 percent) of the responding utilities have 1.0 or fewer FTEs and
additional 29 percent reported between 1 and 3 FTEs (Figure 5, and Section 3.4).
Among the utilities with CII programs, more than one-half (54 percent) estimated the allocation
of staff time to the CII programs between 1.0 and 2.0 FTEs, and a third provided estimates of
less than 1.0 FTE (Section 4.2).
Less than two thirds of the utilities with conservation programs have a dedicated water
conservation budget (Sections 3.5 and 4.2). Among the 246 respondents who answered the
budget question 168 (or 69%) indicated they had a dedicated budget (although only 113 provided
the budgeted amounts). Because 78 respondents indicated they did not have a budget and the
remaining 36 did not answer the budget question, the proportion of utilities with a budget is 168
out of 282 (or 60 percent).
Figure 5. Full-Time Equivalent Employees to Support Conservation Programs
The average value of the reported 2014 budget was $1.44 million. When the reported 2014
budget amounts were divided by the reported total population served (retail and/or wholesale),
about one-half of the respondents (those with available data) showed per capita budget amounts
of less than $1 per person per year, and cumulative 74 percent had budgets of $3 per capita or
6
less. Five of the six utilities with 2014 budgets that were above $10 per capita, were medium size
with budgets in the range from $1 to $5 million. With respect to the budget for the CII programs,
on average, about 20 percent of total conservation budget was allocated to the utility’s CII
subprograms. However, 40 percent of utilities reported CII budgets to be below 10 percent of
total conservation budget.
#4 - Although utilities typically target the largest water users, selecting specific categories of CII
customers is also a frequently used approach for directing utility’s CII efficiency programs.
The most common reported approach for selecting CII program participants was to target the
largest water users – it was used by about 73 percent of responding utilities. The ease of program
implementation was the second most common criterion used by about 44 percent of utilities
(Sections 4.4 and 5.1).
The survey also provided 21 pre-defined CII subsectors (or categories) to ask if the subsector
was “not targeted” by the utility’s CII programs and, if the subsector was included in the
program, the respondents were asked to rate the level of participation on a scale from 1 to 5
(where 5 = “excellent success”).
Figure 6. Percent of Respondents Who Targeted Specific CII Categories

7
Three CII subsectors (or categories) were targeted most frequently by CII programs (Figure 6).
These included: government and municipal buildings, large landscape areas, and schools and
colleges. Also, slightly more than 80 percent of utilities included in their CII programs office
buildings, restaurants and hotels. Military facilities and justice centers were least likely to be
selected for CII programs.
Four CII subsectors that received the highest ranking (shown on Figure 7 as percent of
respondents that assigned ranks 3, 4 or 5) in terms of customer participation were (in descending
order): schools and/or colleges, mixed use commercial and apartments, large landscape areas,
and lodging and hospitality. CII subsectors with the lowest ranking of program participation
included: retail outlets, warehouses, and auto service and car washes.
Figure 7. Respondents’ Rating of Success in Program Participation by CII Category
8
#5 – Information and education programs are universally used alongside the three predominant
incentives that include free surveys and audits, free landscape irrigation evaluations and
traditional customer rebates.
Nearly all utilities rely on water information and education programs to promote water
conservation. The three most frequently used specific delivery mechanisms/incentives to help
bring about the adoption of water-efficient technologies and practices were free surveys and
water audits, free landscape irrigation evaluations, and traditional customers’ rebates or vouchers
(Figure 8, and Section 5.2). Two other frequently used approaches included onsite technical
assistance and conservation rate designs. The efficiency financing options were offered least
frequently.
Figure 8. Reported Use of Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives

While information and education programs and free surveys and water audits were used by the
largest number of respondents, a few approaches were identified as being more successful.
Conservation rate designs, water budgets, and onsite technical assistance are the top three ranked
incentives (shown on Figure 9 as percent of respondents that assigned ranks 3, 4 or 5 ̶ i.e., good,
very good or excellent). However, it appears that most of the approaches are successful with
more than 70 percent of the respondents ranking all 12 types of incentives as 3 or higher.
9
Figure 9. Respondents’ Rating of Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives
#6 - The complexity of some of the end uses of water in the CII sector likely affects the nature of
the equipment and incentives used in the design of the CII programs.
The promotion and use of different types of equipment (six general categories of equipment)
with CII programs showed the most frequent use of plumbing fixtures and irrigation efficiency
products (Figure 10). These two equipment groups also received the highest ranks in terms of
degree of success. Because a significant proportion of CII water is used for landscape irrigation,
especially in arid and semi-arid regions, outdoor water use was frequently targeted by the CII
programs. The promotion and use of irrigation efficiency products was the second most
frequently used type of equipment (after indoor plumbing fixtures) and received the highest rank
in terms of its degree of success (based on water savings and participation, see Figure 11, and
Section 5.3 for more detailed discussion).
10
Figure 10. Respondents’ Use of Efficiency Equipment by Type
Figure 11. Respondent’s Rating of the of CII Efficiency Equipment by Type
The survey respondents with CII programs were also asked to report on the promotion and use of
20 specific efficiency devices offered by their utility’s CII programs (Figure 12). Four of the top
five most frequently used efficiency devices included: faucet aerators, toilets, showerheads, and
urinals. All four also received the highest ranking in terms of the degree of success (Figure 13).
This indicates that many CII programs focus on outdoor irrigation equipment or indoor fixtures
in office buildings and domestic-like uses on business premises. More specialized equipment
such as counter-flow washing systems was used least frequently.
11
Figure 12. Respondents’ Use of Specific Efficiency Devices
Among the specific efficiency devices (i.e., 20 different devices), the top four rankings included:
toilets, drip-irrigation equipment, faucet aerators, and showerheads. Seven devices were ranked
as “good” or better by more than 70 percent of respondents. These included: toilets, drip
irrigation equipment, faucet aerators, showerheads, urinals, irrigation controllers, and flow
sensors.
12
Figure 13. Respondents; Rating of Efficiency Devices and Equipment
As a follow-up to the ranking of the utility’s success with delivery mechanisms/incentives and
efficiency devices/equipment, the respondents were asked if they focus more on customer
participation or on water savings when assessing success. On average, nearly 3 out of 5
respondents reported using “both participation and savings” as their evaluation criteria. About
15 percent placed more emphasis on customer participation and about 12 percent focused more
on water savings.
#7 - Approaches used to evaluate program success focus on water savings to customers and
participation rates.
The two most frequently specified criteria for assessing the effectiveness of CII programs (as
opposed to specific incentives or devices) were participation rates and water savings to customer
(each indicated by more than 70 percent of utilities, see Figure 14 and Section 5.5). Close to two
thirds of respondents also indicated customer satisfaction and awareness and water savings to
utility. Cost savings were mentioned as a criterion by only one third of the responding utilities.
13
In order to evaluate water savings of the CII conservation and efficiency programs the majority
(75 percent) of utilities use trend analysis (i.e., comparing water use before and after program
implementation). The use of two other statistical methods, comparison of means and multiple
regression, were reported, respectively, by 22 percent and 13 percent of the respondents (Section
6.3).
Figure 14. Criteria for Assessing Effectiveness of CII Programs
When evaluating economic effectiveness of the CII conservation and efficiency programs one
half of the respondents reported using benefit-cost analysis (Section 6.4). About one fourth used
the “total cost avoidance” and another one fourth reported they do not use this type of program
evaluation.
Evaluation of program effectiveness was reported to be conducted internally by agency staff
although one third of respondents indicated that both internal and external evaluations are
conducted (Section 6.5). The success (or failure) of the CII programs has to be reported primarily
to the internal management of the utility (as indicated by 80 percent of the respondents) and/or to
state agencies (Section 6.6).
#8 - Relevant data on CII facilities are obtained directly from the customers and less frequently
from external data sources.
Utilities with CII programs collect data/information about individual CII customers through
audits, on program applications, or from external data sources (Section 6.7). The data that are
collected most frequently include: landscaping square footage, recent efficiency upgrades and
14
retrofits, property age, and building square footage (Figure 15). The specific sources of the data
depended on the type of information but the most frequent two sources for most data types were
facility audits followed by program application forms. External sources were used more
frequently for property age, building square footage and sector sub-classification than for the
remaining data types. About one third of the respondents use the collected customer-level data to
develop metrics for benchmarking and/or for evaluating program success rates and about one-
fifth indicated they plan to develop benchmarks (Section 6.8).
Figure 15. Collection of CII Facility Specific Data
About one-half of the respondents do not use any external data sources to obtain information
about their CII customers (Figure 16, and Section 6.9). Those who rely on external data most
frequently used geospatial data, tax assessor records or census data. “Other” external data
included CEE (Consortium for Energy Efficiency) data, MaP (Maximum Performance) Testing
information, and government business registration records.
15
Figure 16. Use of External Data Sources in Program Evaluation
#9 - The expansion of utility’s water conservation and efficiency programs to include CII
customers must confront a number of barriers to program participation.
Implementation of CII programs can be hindered by a number of obstacles on the part of the CII
customers. The survey respondents rated 14 potential barriers to program participation (Figure
17, and Section 7.1). Three top rated barriers (based on the percent of respondents with rank of 3
or higher) included: (1) difficulty in customers getting high-level buy-in within their
organizations, (2) the lack of sufficient capital improvement monies in customers' budgets, and
(3) costs of retrofits to the participant versus incentive offered. Interestingly, the potential barrier
of “technology not proven/available” received the lowest score, which signifies that the key
barriers are not technological but financial and economic or are related to the lack of
commitment to achieving water-use efficiency.
“Other” barriers to participation (those mentioned by the respondents) included the lack of direct
involvement of businesses with water billing and management and limited interest in making
efficiency improvements by tenants of business properties.
The majority of the respondents (nearly 70 percent) indicated that their utility's CII program
could be improved by refining their marketing and outreach strategies (Figure 18, and Section
7.2). The second most frequent suggestion was to change (presumably increase) the value of
incentives. “Other” comments on program improvements included suggestions for streamlining
of CII custom rebates for certain types of projects by developing case studies that could serve as
“cookie-cutter” basis for defining flat rebates. This would alleviate the customer’s need to track
water use and utility’s oversight.
16
Figure 17. Relative Importance of Key Barriers to CII Program Participation
Figure 18. Options for Improving CII Programs
17
#10 - AWWA and other organizations have an important role in helping utilities address barriers
to improve their CII programs.
The survey found that utilities obtain information on design and implementation of CII programs
from several external sources. Conferences (such as AWWA or WSI meetings) and informal
networking are two most frequently mentioned sources of information (Figure 19, and Section
7.3). Three additional sources, indicated by about two thirds of respondents were EPA
WaterSense, Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) and AWWA resources.
Figure 19. Sources of Information for Improving CII Programs
C. RECOMMENDATIONS
The survey responses and also the respondents’ comments provide a basis for developing
suggestions for improving the design and delivery of programs to CII customers and finding
ways to overcome the existing barriers to customer participation. The recommendations, which
are listed below, are directed to water utilities on how to proceed in developing or enhancing
their CII efficiency programs and also to the AWWA and other water organizations on
conducting further research and developing appropriate guidance materials to support utility
efforts.
18
R1 – The results of the survey can assist water conservation planners in designing and
implementing CII efficiency programs.
The information and data contained in this report can be used by water conservation planners
who need to design and implement one or more utility-sponsored efficiency programs for CII
customers or reformulate the existing programs. The process could start by selecting the
categories of CII customers from those that were ranked highest in terms of program
participation. For each selected category of customers the appropriate efficiency equipment and
delivery mechanisms and incentives could be then selected by reviewing the experience of the
respondents with respect to the success in achieving program participation and water savings.
The report can also be used as a guide when deciding on the more ordinary program elements
such as budget and staffing, application forms, and methods to promote programs to CII
customers including the selection of program names that would appeal to potential participants
(by consulting the listing of nearly 200 program names provided by the survey respondents).
However, some elements of program design were not included in the survey (such as the size of
the monetary incentives or rebates) but could be obtained directly from the web sites of the
responding utilities.
R2 – Results show an immediate need for “streamlining” or “standardizing” CII program design
and implementation.
The adoption of CII efficiency programs by utilities could be furthered by “streamlining” or
“standardizing” program design and implementation. The AWWA, and especially its 42 local
sections across Canada and the U.S., can collect and compile detailed information on the existing
CII programs among the AWWA member utilities in each region and use it to create standard
program designs with standard incentives that are appropriate for their regions. As one
respondent from Florida suggested: “If Florida Chapter of AWWA can make a member-
accessible, segregated list and abstracts/reports of CII programs implemented by other utilities, it
would make new program planning easier and justifiable to upper management and decision-
makers. Include contact information.” Another respondent from Washington State made a
similar suggestion by stating that the barrier to participation can be overcome by developing
“case studies that can be used as ‘cookie-cutter’ basis for rebates, i.e. upgrade of condenser in x
type of business saves x gpd and costs about x, so rebate should be X. It means customer doesn't
need to track down all that data and flat rebate is defined, so as long as they can show invoice for
work that exceeds rebate amount - done.”
R3 – More research and data dissemination should be done on commercial and industrial water-
using equipment.
More research and data dissemination could be performed by the AWWA, AWE and other water
organizations to develop estimates of water savings from water-using apparatus that are
frequently found in CII establishments. Currently, only pre-rinse spray valves for kitchens seem
to be well-researched and are frequently used. The respondents’ comments suggest that
technical data on some water-using equipment are not readily available. For example, one
19
respondent from Texas mentioned that they try all the sources listed on the survey Question 32
(including AWWA manuals, journal, website, AWWA and WSI conferences; Alliance for Water
Efficiency, EPA WaterSense resources), but few of those are up to date and because the
technology changes quickly, they have to resort to getting up-to-date specification sheets from
vendors to assess options. It appears that this type of information is critical for designing
effective CII programs and could be used to help build customer demand.
R4 – A follow-up research project is needed to compile program-specific data on the existing CII
efficiency programs.
A more immediate follow-up research project could be undertaken by the AWWA Water
Efficiency and Programs Committee (WEPTC) based on the information provided in the survey.
A total of 131 respondents stated that they would be willing to participate in follow-up research
on CII water efficiency programs and 114 of these respondents also provided complete contact
information. Forty-two of these respondents have a total of 136 different CII programs. The
number of CII programs that could be included in the follow-up research would be even greater
since only 10 respondents out of 81 with CII programs opted out. The follow-up contacts could
collect additional information about each individual CII program including the level of
incentives, number of participants, customer costs, and water savings, as well as other available
data.
R5 – Future surveys of utility CII Efficiency programs should explore the reasons for selection of
program participants, delivery mechanisms/incentives and efficiency devices and equipment.
While this survey addressed the rationale behind some decisions of the utilities regarding the
design and implementation of CII programs, the summary results for questions that pertain to
selection of program participants, delivery mechanisms/incentives and efficiency devices and
equipment indicate the need for additional exploration of reasons behind the utilities’ decisions.
Future surveys of utility CII Efficiency programs should be expanded to include the questions to
explore the factors that address the motivation or rationalization of the various elements of
program design.
20
PART II. COMPLETE SURVEY RESULTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The main intent of this project was to capture the varying knowledge within the AWWA
membership about active water conservation/water efficiency initiatives in the commercial,
industrial and institutional (CII) sector of water customers. In contrast to the residential sector,
the CII customers and their water use tend to be highly varied and water utilities cannot easily
benchmark the CII water use to support planning and implementation of water conservation or
efficiency improvement programs within this sector. Readily available information about the
existing and potential efficiencies of a large array of water-using apparatus, technologies and
practices of CII customers is limited and contributes to difficulties in the design and delivery of
utility-sponsored CII programs and, in some cases, may deter water utilities from undertaking
such programs.
This survey of water utilities was undertaken by the AWWA Water Efficiency Programs and
Technology Committee (WEPTC) and funded by the AWWA’s Technical and Educational
Council. The aim of the survey was to provide the AWWA members with information about
common practices, programs, data collection and analytical methodologies currently employed
by utilities with active CII programs. Three major objectives of the survey were: (a) to identify
and describe the design and effects of the existing CII efficiency programs, (b) to assemble a
compendium of existing principles and practices for planning, implementing, and evaluating CII
water use and conservation potential, and (c) to assist conservation planners by providing a basis
for development of best management practices, educational efforts, and conducting additional
research on water use efficiency in the CII sector.
1.2 Survey Implementation

The survey was conducted during July 27, 2015 to September 2, 2015. During this 5-week time
period the online survey questionnaire was made available to water utilities at the
SurveyMonkey® website. The utilities were notified about the survey by the email broadcast
from AWWA Engineering and Technical Services and additional rebroadcasts by other water
organizations (i.e., Alliance for Water Efficiency [AWE], Colorado WaterWise, regional
association of water agencies, and others). A reminder email was sent by AWWA on August 25,
2015 and the survey was effectively closed on September 2, 2015.
The SurveyMonkey® registered a total of 478 survey entries. However, a significant number of
responses were not valid, or could not be included in the analysis. There were 6 blank responses
and 111 cases with 2 or more identical IP addresses, suggesting multiple responses from the
same water utility. The availability of IP addresses from SurveyMonkey® permitted a reverse IP
address lookup to identify the location for responses without postal address (through an online
21
site: http://ipaddress.com/reverse-ip/) to identify the state, province or the country of origin of
the survey. A total of 17 responses originated from countries other than United States or Canada.
1.3 Analysis of Survey Results

The survey results were analyzed and subjected to a through QA/QC process to ensure inclusion
of reliable data. Multiple (repeated) responses from the same water utility were excluded from
the analysis by selecting only one response per utility with the most complete answers. Also
excluded from the analysis were responses from countries other than U.S. and Canada. The
excluded responses were archived in the data set for independent analysis by AWWA staff. This
initial screening produced a total of 383 valid responses from the utilities in the United States
and Canada.
All valid responses were further reviewed for correctness. The answers that were clearly
incorrect (mostly caused by the respondent’s misunderstanding of the question) and could not be
easily corrected were excluded. Some respondent entries were edited to conform to the consistent
format or the units of measurement. For each survey question, the answers were tabulated and
where appropriate were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Answers to the key questions of the
survey were also cross-tabulated with selected characteristics of the responding utilities.
The terminology used throughout the report should conform to the terms that are generally used
in survey research. The terms “survey respondents” and “utilities” or “responding utilities” are
used interchangeably because each completed survey represents a utility. The term “survey
responses” or “responses” pertains to the answers to survey questions. Because some questions
allowed multiple answers, the number of responses (i.e., response count) can exceed the number
of respondents. The result is that while the percent of responses sums up to 100 percent, percent
of respondents for the same question could sum up to more than 100 percent. For questions
where only one answer is allowed (or possible) the number of responses is the same as the
number of respondents or utilities.
2. SURVEY RESPONDENTS
2.1 Survey Responses by State and Province
The initial screening of the data produced a total of 383 valid responses from the utilities in the
United States and Canada (Table 1). A total of 350 responses were obtained from 40 U.S. states,
the U.S. Guam and the District of Columbia. An additional 33 responses were obtained from
seven Canadian Provinces. Nearly 60 percent of the U.S. respondents came from nine states
(California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, and Virginia).
Nearly half of the respondents from Canada came from Ontario.
22
Table 1. Valid Survey Responses by State and Province
Region State/Province Responses Region State/Province Responses
SW California 63 NE Pennsylvania 4
SE Florida 28 MW Missouri 3
GP Texas 20 SW New Mexico 3
NW Washington 19 SW Utah 3
MW Illinois 18 GP Nebraska 3
SW Colorado 18 SE Louisiana 2
SW Arizona 14 NE Maryland 2
SE Georgia 12 GP North Dakota 2
SE Virginia 11 SE Alabama 1
NW Oregon 8 SE Arkansas 1
NE Connecticut 7 NE District of Columbia 1
SE North Carolina 7 USA Guam 1
NE Massachusetts 6 USA Hawaii 1
MW Minnesota 6 SE South Carolina 1
NE New York 6 GP South Dakota 1
GP Kansas 6 USA Other States (U.S.) 22
MW Ohio 6 Total United States 350
MW Indiana 5
NE Rhode Island 5 CAN Ontario 16
SW Tennessee 5 CAN Alberta 6
MW Wisconsin 5 CAN British Columbia 6
NE New Jersey 4 CAN Saskatchewan 2
MW Iowa 4 CAN Manitoba 1
SE Kentucky 4 CAN New Brunswick 1
MW Michigan 4 CAN Nova Scotia 1
SW Nevada 4 Total Canada 33
GP Oklahoma 4 All Valid Responses 383
Response counts by region: Southwest (SW) – 105; Southeast (SE) – 72; Midwest (MW) – 51;
Great Plains (GP) – 36; Northeast (NE) – 35; Northwest (NW) – 27; Unknown regions (USA) –
24; Canada (CAN) – 33.
The response counts from U.S. states and Canadian provinces were also summarized by 6
climatic regions of the Continental U.S. (following the regional designations used in the Third
National Climate Assessment Report (www.globalchange.gov). The highest number of
responses were obtained for the Southwest and the Southeast (see the bottom panel of Table 1).
2.2 Respondent Characteristics

A section of the survey was designed to obtain information on key utility characteristics. Table 2
shows nine selected utility characteristics that describe the profiles of the responding utilities.
More detailed presentation of utility profiles is included in Section 8 of this report.
23
Table 2. Selected Utility Profile Data for Survey Respondents
No. of Standard
Respondent (Utility) Characteristic Mean Median Range
Responses Deviation
Population served in retail areas 200 221,500 60,000 651,900 108 ̶ 8,400,000
Population served in wholesale areas 103 370,200 19,000 1,804,000 0 ̶ 18,000,000
Residential (retail) service connections 176 43,300 15,000 67,700 0 – 398,000
Nonresidential service connections 163 6,000 1,600 2,600 0 – 78,000
Total retail connection 179 52,100 19,000 80,100 0 – 473,800
Residential water deliveries (MGD) 109 19.67 4.40 64.96 0.01 – 654.0
Nonresidential deliveries (MGD) 94 10.40 2.51 22.54 0.001– 181.0
Total water deliveries (MGD) 118 29.56 6.85 82.87 0.01 – 835.0
Calculated per capita water use (GPCD) 115 120.2 102.7 56.4 43.3 – 318.0
The statistics in Table 2 show a broad range of utilities represented by survey respondents in
terms of population served, number of customers and water use. However, in terms of
representation of the water utilities across the U.S., the sample of 350 utilities is more
representative of large water supply systems (Figure 20).
The histograms on Figure 20 compare the distribution of survey responses from the U.S. utilities
(by system size based on population served) with the 2011 EPA inventory of community water
systems in the U.S., and with the proportional sampling used in the 2006 EPA survey. In 2011,
there were 51,356 community water systems in the U.S. and 55 percent of these were very small
serving less than 500 persons. Only 0.8 percent of systems served more than 100,000 persons.
The respondents to the CII survey clearly under-represent the very small and small systems and
slightly over-represent the medium size systems (3,301 to 10,000) and strongly over-represent
the large (10,000 to 100,000) and very large systems serving more than 100,000 persons. This
could be expected because both the availability and the need for CII programs in very small
systems is likely to be very low. Therefore, the findings of this survey apply primarily to large
and very large systems.
CII Survey EPA Sample 2006 EPA Inventory 2011

60%
50%
Relative Frequency
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Less than 500 501 - 3300 3,301 - 10,000 10,001 - Greater than
100,000 100,000
Figure 20. Comparison of the Distribution of Responses and Existing Systems by System Size
24
3. PREVALENCE OF WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
3.1 Utility Adoption of Water Conservation
The respondents were asked if their utility has a formal water conservation or water use
efficiency program (or programs) (Question 1). The results in Table 3 show that among the 383
respondents 282 (or about 74%) indicated that they have a water conservation/water efficiency
program, and 101 respondents (about 26%) do not. The latter group includes 20 respondents (5
percent of the total) who are developing a conservation program.
Table 3. Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs
Response Percent of
Response Options
Count Utilities
Yes 282 73.6%
No 74 19.3%
In development but not implemented 20 5.2%
No in-house program – programs are offered by our wholesale utility 4 1.0%
Previously existing program has been discontinued 3 0.8%
Totals 383 100.0%
Survey question Q1-- Does your utility have a formal water conservation or water use efficiency
program (or programs)?
The adoption rates among the responding utilities by state and province are shown in Table 4. In
California, nearly all responding utilities had formal conservation programs – only one utility
reported no in-house program but was covered by a program of its wholesale district. In Texas
and Washington, respectively, 95 and 89 percent of responding utilities had a formal
conservation program.
Table 4. Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs by State/Province
With Without Percent with

Response
State/Province Conservation Conservation Conservation
Count
Program Program Program
California 63 62 1 98%
Florida 28 23 5 82%
Texas 20 19 1 95%
Washington 19 17 2 89%
Colorado 18 13 5 72%
Illinois 18 9 9 50%
Arizona 14 10 4 71%
Georgia 12 10 2 83%
Virginia 11 6 5 55%
Oregon 8 8 0 100%
Connecticut 7 3 4 43%
North Carolina 7 5 2 71%
Kansas 6 3 3 50%
Massachusetts 6 2 4 33%
Minnesota 6 4 2 67%
New York 6 4 2 67%
25
With Without Percent with
Response
State/Province Conservation Conservation Conservation
Count
Ohio 6 2 4 33%
Indiana 5 2 3 40%
Rhode Island 5 4 1 80%
Tennessee 5 2 3 40%
Wisconsin 5 1 4 20%
Iowa 4 3 1 75%
Kentucky 4 2 2 50%
Michigan 4 4 0%
New Jersey 4 4 0 100%
Nevada 4 4 0 100%
Oklahoma 4 4 0 100%
Pennsylvania 4 4 0%
Missouri 3 2 1 67%
Nebraska 3 1 2 33%
New Mexico 3 3 0 100%
Utah 3 3 0 100%
Louisiana 2 2 0%
Maryland 2 1 1 50%
North Dakota 2 2 0 100%
Alabama 1 1 0 100%
Arkansas 1 1 0 100%
District of 1 1 0%
Columbia
Guam 1 1 0%
Hawaii 1 1 0 100%
South Carolina 1 1 0%
South Dakota 1 1 0 100%
Other States (U.S.) 22 16 6 73%
Subtotal U.S. 350 258 92 74%
Ontario 16 13 3 81%
Alberta 6 3 3 50%
British Columbia 6 6 0 100%
Saskatchewan 2 2 0%
Manitoba 1 1 0 100%
New Brunswick 1 1 0 100%
Nova Scotia 1 1 0%
Subtotal 33 24 9 73%
Canada
Grand Total 383 282 101 74%

Survey question Q1-- Does your utility have a formal water conservation or water use efficiency
program (or programs)?
From a regional perspective, the highest adoption rates were reported in the Northwest
(Washington, Oregon and Idaho) and the Southwest (California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado,
Arizona and New Mexico) followed by the Great Plains (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska
and North Dakota). The lowest adoption rates were reported by utilities in the Midwest and
Northeast (Table 5). While the prevalence of conservation programs in the Southwestern U.S.
can be explained by the limited availability of water due to the arid and semi-arid climate, the
26
high incidence of such programs in the Northwest could be related to environmental constraints
and ecological protection.
Table 5. Regional Differences in Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs
In Wholesaler Percent
Have No Dis-
Region N Develop- Program with
Program Program continued
ment Only Program
Northwest 27 25 2 93%
Southwest 105 95 6 2 2 90%
Great Plains 36 30 5 1 83%
Southeast 72 50 17 3 1 1 69%
Northeast 35 18 11 5 1 51%
Midwest 51 23 24 4 45%
Other U.S. 24 17 4 3 71%
Canada 33 24 5 3 1 73%
All regions 383 282 74 20 4 3 74%
Survey question: Q1-- Does your utility have a formal water conservation or water use efficiency
program (or programs)? N = number of utilities
3.2 Reasons for Establishing Conservation Programs

Respondents with conservation/efficiency programs were asked to identify reasons for
establishing their programs. Table 6 shows the distribution of responses among seven predefined
reasons in the survey question. Not surprisingly, the most frequently selected reason was “utility
stewardship and sustainability.” It was selected by more than half of the utilities. About 40
percent of utilities indicated “regulatory compliance” as one of the reasons. The proportion of
these two answers was significantly higher among the utilities in the Southwest than in other
regions.
Somewhat surprising is the relatively low frequency of the reasons for conservation related to
infrastructure investments and availability of water in supply sources. Respectively, only about
20 and 18 percent of utilities selected such reasons. The reasons selected least frequently were
related to capacity of water and wastewater treatment plants.
Table 6. Reasons for Establishing Water Conservation/Efficiency Programs

Response Percent of Percent of
Response Option
Count Responses Utilities
Utility stewardship and sustainability 203 29.8% 53.0%
Regulatory compliance 150 22.0% 39.2%
Reduction of O&M costs and/or energy costs 78 11.5% 20.4%
Deferral/avoidance of infrastructure investments 77 11.3% 20.1%
Exceeding safe yield of water supply source(s) 68 10.0% 17.8%
Demand approaching capacity of water treatment plant(s) 46 6.8% 12.0%
Approaching capacity of wastewater treatment plant(s) 22 3.2% 5.7%
Other reasons (please specify): 37 5.4% 9.7%
Total Responses 681 100.0% 100.0%
Survey Question Q2 -- What are the primary reasons for establishing water conservation or water use
efficiency program(s) at your utility? (Select all that apply).
27
About 10 percent of respondents (37 utilities) also indicated other reasons. These are included in
Table A1 of Appendix A at the end of this report. While the “other” reasons varied across
utilities and states, many were related to water conservation as part of water management during
drought.
3.3 Reasons for Not Having a Water Conservation or CII Program

Respondents without an active conservation program were directed (through a skip option in the
questionnaire) to a question about reasons for not establishing any water conservation or CII
efficiency programs. Table 7 shows that the most common answer was that the utility’s CII water
use is not significant.
Table 7. Reasons for Not Having a Conservation Program
Response Percent of
Response Option
Count Responses
CII use is not significant enough to warrant a program 71 33.3%
Not enough staff 44 20.7%
Need information about how to establish and maintain a program 35 16.4%
Not enough funding 22 10.3%
Other (please indicate): 41 19.2%
Total 213 100.0%
Survey question Q33 -- What are the primary reasons for not having (or discontinuing) a water
conservation and/or CII program?
The “other” reasons for not having a program are listed in Table A8 in the appendix. Three
recurring types of “other” reasons were: (1) wholesale utility that supports programs done by
retailers, (2) lack of need for water conservation, and (3) availability of conservation incentives
without having a formal program with dedicated staff.
3.4 Water Conservation Staff

A total of 235 out of 282 respondents with conservation programs provided information on the
number of employees that currently work on their water efficiency/water conservation programs.
The respondents were asked to provide estimates of full-time equivalents (FTE) and were
instructed that 1 FTE = 2,080 hours/year, and 1.5 FTE = 3,120 hours/year.
The results in Table 8 show that close to one-half (45.5 percent) of the responding utilities
reported having between 0 and 1 FTEs involved with water conservation programs and
additional 28.5 percent reported between 1 and 3 FTEs. The median response value was 1.5
FTEs. There is no statistically significant relationship between the number of employees who
work on conservation programs and total population served by a water utility.
28
Table 8. Employees Involved with Water Conservation Program
Full-Time Equivalent Response

Percent
Employees Frequency
<1 107 45.5%
1-2 42 17.9%
2-3 25 10.6%
3-4 18 7.7%
4-5 9 3.8%
5-6 2 0.9%
6-7 3 1.3%
7-8 1 0.4%
8-9 3 1.3%
9 - 10 8 3.4%
>10 17 7.2%
Total 235 100.0%
Survey Question Q3 -- Please estimate the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees that
currently work on your water efficiency/water conservation programs
3.5 Water Conservation Budgets

The 282 respondents with conservation program were asked if their utility had a dedicated
budget for water conservation and efficiency programs. A total of 246 respondents answered the
question and 168 respondents (69%) indicated they had a dedicated budget but only 113
provided the budgeted amounts. Another 78 respondents indicated they did not have a budget
and the remaining 36 did not answer the budget question. These response counts suggest that
only about 60 percent of utilities with a conservation program have a dedicated budget for the
program.
The annual budgets in the 113 reporting utilities summed up to $162,100,000 (or, on average,
$1.44 million per utility). Table 9 shows the distribution of the reported levels of annual funding
for 2014. Approximately one third (33.6 percent) of the reported budget amounts were below
$100,000 per year and about one fourth (26.5 percent) were above $1,000,000. The median value
of the 2014 budget was $307,000.
Understandably, the budget levels depended on the size of service area. The highest annual
budget of $32 million was reported by a utility serving about 4 million residents. The bottom
panel of Table 9 shows the 2014 budget amounts obtained by dividing annual conservation
budget by the reported total population served (retail and/or wholesale). Close to one-half of the
82 respondents with available data had per capita budget amounts of less than $1 per person per
year, and 74 percent of utilities had budgets of $3 per capita per year or less. Five of the six
utilities with 2014 budgets that were above $10 per capita, were medium size with budgets in the
range from $1 to $5 million.
29
Table 9. Funding Levels for Water Conservation Programs
Water Conservation Budget 2014 Frequency Percent

Annual Total, $
<100,000 38 33.6%
100,000-250,000 16 14.2%
250,000-500,000 18 15.9%
500,000-1,000,000 11 9.7%
1,000,000-2,500,000 18 15.9%
2,500,000-5,000,000 6 5.3%
>5,000,000 6 5.3%
All respondents 113 100.0%
Budget Per Capita, $
<$1 37 45.1%
$1-2 12 14.6%
$2-3 12 14.6%
$3-5 8 9.8%
$5-10 7 8.6%
$10-20 4 4.9%
>$20 2 2.4%
All respondents 82 100.0%
Survey Question Q5: Approximately how much was budgeted and spent by your utility in 2014
on water conservation and efficiency programs?
The actual amount of funds spent in 2014 was under the 2014 budget in 93 utilities (on average
lower by 20 percent) and over the budget in 11 (about 31 percent higher, on average). The total
amount spend by all respondents in 2014 was 12 percent below the budget.
The respondents were also asked to provide the budgeted amount for 2015. The sum of the 2015
budgets among 111 responding utilities has increased from $162.5 million in 2014 to $281.1
million in 2015. However, the total increase was caused primarily by large increases in the
conservation budgets in some utilities in California due to the on-going drought. One of the
wholesale utilities in California has increased the 2015 budget to $100 million (from $20 million
in 2014) and planned a budget of $450 million in 2016. In per capita terms, the 2015 budget in
this utility of about $5 per person would be increased in 2016 to about $25 per person.
Among the 111 utilities, 60 utilities reported decreased 2015 budgets (on average by about 10
percent relative to the 2014 budget) and 51 utilities reported the 2015 budgets that were on
average higher than 2014 budget (on average by 58 percent).
3.6 Sources of Financing Water Conservation Programs

The respondents were asked about the source of funds for the conservation and efficiency
programs. Table 10 shows the distribution of answers to eight predefined financing options. The
use of operating budget funds was selected most frequently – by about 81 percent of utilities
(169 out of 210 who responded to Question 6). The use of grants and capital improvement funds
30
were reported, respectively, by 26.2 and 19.0 percent of utilities. Utilities without dedicated
budgets were more likely to use operating budgets and capital improvement funds. Those with
dedicated budgets were more likely to use grants and dedicated funding from water rates.
While 114 respondents selected only one source of funds (with majority of those selecting
operating budget funds), 90 respondents selected two or more funding sources. The compilation
of the “other” sources of funding is included in Table A2 in the appendix.
Table 10. Sources of Funding for Water Conservation
No. of Responses Percent of Total

Response Options With Without
All Responses Utilities
Budget Budget
Operating budget funds 112 56 169 46.70% 80.50%
Grants or other outside funding sources 43 12 55 15.20% 26.20%
Capital improvement funds 25 14 40 11.00% 19.00%
Dedicated funding from volumetric rates 25 2 27 7.50% 12.90%
Connection charges 12 6 18 5.00% 8.60%
Development or impact fees 10 5 16 4.40% 7.60%
Taxes, special fees 11 2 13 3.60% 6.20%
Other (please identify) 16 8 24 6.6% 11.4%
Total 254 105 362 100.0% 172.4%
Survey Question Q6. How does your utility finance your conservation and efficiency programs?
4. PREVALENCE OF CII EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS

4.1 Geographical Prevalence of CII Efficiency Programs
Respondents were asked if their existing water conservation and efficiency program include
subprograms or components directed to the CII subsector. A total of 204 respondents out of 282
with conservation program answered this question (Table 11). The availability of a CII program
was indicated by 81 responding utilities with additional 21 indicating that a CII program is
currently being developed.
Table 11. Utility Adoption of CII Water Efficiency Programs
Response Percent of
Response Options
Count Utilities
Yes 81 39.7%
Currently in development 21 10.3%
No longer active 4 2.0%
No 98 48.0%
Total responses 204 100.0%
Survey question Q7: Does your conservation and efficiency program include subprograms or components
directed to the CII subsector?
31
The incidence of conservation and efficiency programs for the CII subsector by state/province is
summarized in Table 12. It shows the answers to Question 7 and compares them with adoption
of overall conservation programs (as previously reported in Table 4). Only states or provinces
with respondents’ answers about a CII program are included on Table 12.
The 81 utilities with a CII subprogram represent approximately 29 percent of the 282 utilities
with an overall conservation program, and about 21 percent of all utilities who responded to the
survey. The states of California, Washington and Oregon have the highest rates of adoption of
CII programs (as percent of total respondents). In terms of regions, Northwest and Southwest
have the highest incidence of CII programs. Respondents from 16 states (plus 3 responses with
unidentified states) and one Canadian Province indicated they have a CII program. In California,
27 respondents (out of the total of 63) have a CII program and 2 respondents are developing a
program. It should be noted that 20 respondents from California did not answer the question.
Across the 31 states (plus the unknown locations) 65 utilities did not answer the question about
CII programs. The lack of answers could be interpreted as likely absence of a CII program.
Table 12. Incidence of CII Efficiency Programs by State/Province
Availability of CII Programs

With
State/ Response No
Conservation In Total
Province Count Yes No Longer
Program Develop. Responses
Active
California 63 62 27 2 13 42
Washington 19 17 8 1 6 15
Texas 20 19 6 3 6 15
Florida 28 23 5 2 9 1 17
Arizona 14 10 5 4 9
Colorado 18 13 4 4 8
Oregon 8 8 4 1 5
Georgia 12 10 3 3 3 9
Nevada 4 4 2 2 4
Rhode Island 5 4 2 2
North Carolina 7 5 1 1 3 5
Connecticut 7 3 1 2 3
Massachusetts 6 2 1 1 2
New Jersey 4 4 1 3 4
New York 6 4 1 1 2
Hawaii 1 1 1 1
Illinois 18 9 4 1 5
Indiana 5 2 1 1 2
New Mexico 3 3 1 2 3
Oklahoma 4 4 1 2 3
Utah 3 3 1 2 3
Iowa 4 3 2 2
Kansas 6 3 2 2
Kentucky 4 2 2 2
Minnesota 6 4 4 4
Missouri 3 2 2 2
North Dakota 2 2 1 1
Nebraska 3 1 1 1
32
Availability of CII Programs
With
State/ Response No
Conservation In Total
Province Count Yes No Longer
Program Develop. Responses
Active
Ohio 6 2 1 1
Tennessee 5 2 2 2
Virginia 11 6 3 3
Other U.S. states 22 16 3 1 5 9
Subtotal U.S. 327 253 75 16 94 3 188
Ontario 16 13 6 1 2 9
British Columbia 6 6 2 2 4
Alberta 6 3 2 2
Manitoba 1 1 1 1
Subtotal Canada 29 23 6 5 4 1 16
Grand Total 356 276 81 21 98 4 204
No CII programs reported in: AL, AR, DC, GU, LA, MD, MI, PA, SC, SD, WI,
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan.
The rate of adoption of water conservation also differed by system size as measured by total
population served (both retail and wholesale) in three arbitrarily selected groupings. Table 13
shows the response counts and percent of respondents with conservation and with CII efficiency
programs across three utility size categories.
Table 13. Effect of System Size on Adoption of Water Conservation
Ranges of Combined Retail Conservation Program CII Efficiency Program

Response
& Wholesale Population With With CII
Count Percent Percent
Served Conservation Efficiency
Small: <25,000 73 35 48% 2 3%
Medium: 25,000 ̶ 250,000 90 74 82% 25 28%
Large" >250,000 59 46 78% 28 47%
Total Respondents 222 155 70% 55 25%
Statistics: Chi-square=25.0, d.f.=2 Chi-square=35.7, d.f.=2
The comparison of adoption rates shows that small systems were less likely to have a
conservation program than medium and large systems. The adoption of CII efficiency programs
increased with increasing system size. Three-by-two chi-square contingency tables (not included
here) produced statistically significant chi-square values both for the conservation and CII
efficiency programs. These relationships were confirmed using a t-test that compared mean
values of total population served for utilities with and without conservation and CII efficiency
programs (see Table A9 in the appendix for detailed test results).
4.2 Personnel and Budget for CII Programs

The utilities with CII subprograms were asked to provide an estimate of the number of full time
equivalent (FTE) employees that currently work on the CII water efficiency/water conservation
33
programs and an approximate percentage of the utility’s total conservation budget for CII
programs. Of the 81 utilities with CII programs 76 answered the personnel question and 69
provided information about the budget. Table 14 summarizes the responses about the allocation
of staff to the CII programs. More than one-half (53.9 percent) of the respondents estimated the
staff time between 1.0 and 2.0 FTEs, and a third of respondents provided estimates of less or
equal 1.0 FTE.
Table 14. Utility Staff Working on CII Programs
Full-Time Equivalents Responses Percent

<=0.5 13 17.1%
0.5 ̶ 1.0 12 15.8%
1.0 ̶ 2.0 41 53.9%
2.0 ̶ 3.0 6 7.9%
3.0 ̶ 4.0 0 0.0%
4:0 ̶ 5.0 1 1.3%
>5.0 3 3.9%
Total 76 100.0%
Statistics (Full-Time Equivalent Employees):
Average 1.26
Median 1.00
Maximum 10.0
Survey Question Q8: Please estimate the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
employees that currently work on your CII water efficiency/water conservation programs
(1 FTE = 2080 hours/year).
The reported number of FTEs assigned to the CII program was compared to the number of
nonresidential (NR) customers for 34 utilities (with available data for both items). The
comparison revealed only a weak relationship (R2 = 0.21) where the number of FTEs was
increased from 0.71 FTEs at the rate of 0.021 FTE per each 1000 of additional customers
(regression: FTE = 0.712 + 0.000021*NR).
The answers to the question about the budget for the CII subprograms are summarized in Table
15. On average, about 20 percent of total conservation budget was allocated to the utility’s CII
subprograms. However, 40 percent of utilities reported CII budgets to be below 10 percent of
total budget and nearly 75 percent reported the CII budgets to be less than 25% of the total.
Table 15. Percentage of Utility’s Total Conservation Budget for CII Programs
Percent of Total
Frequency Percent
Conservation Budget
<5 14 21.5%
10 12 18.5%
15 5 7.7%
20 5 7.7%
25 12 18.5%
30 4 6.2%
40 4 6.2%
>50 9 13.8%
34
Total 65 100.0%
Statistics: Mean = 21.5%, Median = 20.0%
Survey Question Q9 -- Approximately what percentage of your total
conservation budget is for CII programs?
4.3 Estimated Water Savings from CII Programs

Survey respondents with CII programs were asked about the most recently estimated total water
savings from their programs. About 60 percent (49 out of 81) of utilities with a CII program
answered the question but only 46 percent (37 utilities) provided usable data (including several
non-numerical entries). Eleven utilities reported savings in acre-feet per year (AFY). The
reported values ranged from 1 to 3,010 AFY (the average was 447 AFY). Savings in million
gallons per year were reported by 20 utilities and ranged from 0.5 to 730 MGY (the average of
100 MGY). Finally, six utilities provided estimates of savings as percent reduction in total
annual CII water use. Four of the respondents reported 10 percent savings, one 7 percent and one
20 percent. The percent estimates of savings appear to be greatly over-estimated when compared
to the annual volumes of CII use and in comparison to the savings in AFY and MGD that were
provided by other respondents.
In order to normalize the reported quantities of annual savings, the reported quantities of savings
were converted to 1000s of gallons per day and divided by the reported retail population served.
While the retail population served is not the best “normalizing” variable because it is correlated
primarily with residential use, it captures the “bottom line” reduction in the overall per capita
use. Because CII use was on average less than 10 percent of total retail sales (see Table 49 in
Section 8), the per capita savings would be understandably very small. The calculated per capita
savings (for 28 utilities with available data on savings and population served) are shown in Table
16. As expected, the average (population weighted) per capita savings from the CII programs
were 0.43 GPCD (the median value of savings was 0.28 GPCD) and 86 percent of respondents
(24 out of 28) showed the converted savings of 1.0 GPCD or less.
Table 16. Reported Water Savings from CII Programs
Reported Retail Savings in

Responding
Savings in Population Gallons per
Utility
1000 GPD Served Capita per Day
1 0.71 73,000 0.01
2 0.82 20,000 0.04
3 1.37 50,000 0.03
4 1.92 33,000 0.06
5 2.05 316,000 0.01
6 2.54 54,000 0.05
7 2.74 240,000 0.01
8 3.57 550,000 0.01
9 11.61 270,000 0.04
10 16.07 93,000 0.17
11 24.55 84,800 0.29
35
Reported Retail Savings in
Responding
Savings in Population Gallons per
Utility
1000 GPD Served Capita per Day
12 33.15 95,000 0.35
13 48.49 1,292,450 0.04
14 51.78 580,200 0.09
15 59.97 45,000 1.33
16 120.55 140,000 0.86
17 136.99 170,000 0.81
18 205.48 118,000 1.74
19 209.79 168,000 1.25
20 213.70 250,000 0.85
21 219.18 796,000 0.28
22 255.32 800,000 0.32
23 417.80 615,916 0.68
24 580.82 1,232,000 0.47
25 646.58 1,419,000 0.46
26 669.56 1,600,000 0.42
27 2,000.00 8,400,000 0.24
28 2,687.15 460,000 5.84
Total/Ave. 8,624.27 19,965,858 0.43
Statistics: N = 28, Weighted average (by population) = 0.43 gpcd,
Median value = 0.28 gpcd, Standard deviation = 1.12 gpcd.
Survey Question Q10 -- What are the most recently estimated total
water savings from the CII program(s)?
4.4 Customer Classes Covered by CII Programs

Respondents with CII subprograms were asked to indicate which of the broadly-defined
customer sectors are eligible for (or targeted) by their CII efficiency program(s). Table 17
summarizes the answers provided by 74 utilities (including 2 utilities without formal CII
programs). The most frequent selection was “all CII customers” – it was selected by 74.3 percent
of utilities. Interestingly, nearly one-fourth of respondents indicated the eligibility of multifamily
residential customers among the CII subsectors.
Table 17. Eligible Customer Groups for Utility CII Programs
No. of Percent of Percent of

Eligible CII Customer Groups
Responses Responses Utilities
All CII customers 55 44.7% 74.3%
Multifamily customers 17 13.8% 23.0%
All commercial customers 16 13.0% 21.6%
All institutional customers 13 10.6% 17.6%
All industrial customers 12 9.8% 16.2%
Select groups of CII customers 10 8.1% 13.5%
Total 123 100.0% 166.2%
Survey Question Q11 -- What CII sectors are eligible for (or targeted by)
your CII conservation and efficiency program(s)? (Please select all that apply).
36
More detailed classification of the eligible 20 pre-defined CII subsectors (or categories) was
addressed in Question 12, where respondents were asked to indicate if the subsector was “not
targeted” by the utility’s CII programs. If the subsector was included in the program, then the
respondents were asked to rate the level of participation on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “poor
success” and 5 = “excellent success”).
Table 18 shows the number of utilities who answered the question and the number of “not
targeted” responses for each of the 20 pre-defined CII categories. The last column of the table
shows the percent of respondents who ranked the success of participation for each category and
thus were assumed to “target” it. The three CII subsectors, which were targeted by close to 90
percent of respondents included: government and municipal buildings, schools and colleges, and
large landscape areas. Also, slightly more than 80 percent of utilities included office buildings,
restaurants and hotels in their CII programs. Military facilities and justice centers were least
likely to be selected for CII programs.
It appears that the most frequently targeted CII categories are being selected because they are
easily identifiable and would be more likely than others to agree to participate in the utility
sponsored program. Other factors within the context of utility operations, available solutions
(practices and or hardware) and expected water savings will also have an effect on participation
and funding.
Table 18. Utility’s “Targeting” (Eligibility) of Subsectors for CII Programs

CII Sub- Percent
Responding
CII Subsector sector “Not Targeting
Utilities
Targeted” Subsector
Government & municipal buildings/facilities 61 6 90%
Schools and/or colleges 58 8 86%
Large landscape areas 59 8 86%
Food and beverage service (restaurants) 57 10 82%
Office buildings 56 10 82%
Lodging and hospitality 57 11 81%
Mixed use (commercial and apartments) 56 15 73%
Health care facilities 53 16 70%
Religious buildings 55 18 67%
Laundries and laundromats 54 18 67%
Manufacturing plants 55 20 64%
Retail outlets 53 19 64%
Retirement/nursing homes 57 22 61%
Auto service and car washes 52 21 60%
Food and beverage processing 54 22 59%
Public pools and water parks 54 23 57%
Golf courses 57 25 56%
Warehouses 53 25 53%
Justice centers 54 39 28%
Military facilities 54 46 15%
Other 16 13 19%
No specific CII subsectors are being targeted 45 45 --
Survey Question Q12 (Part 2) -- If a CII subsector listed is not targeted by your utility,
simply select the “Not Targeted” box.
37
Table 19 shows a summary of subsector ranking in terms of CII program participation. The
second to last (right-hand side) column shows the weighted average rank for each CII subsector.
It should be noted that the expected value of average rank of 3.0 (which obtains when the same
number of responses is given for each rank) may not be considered neutral because it is
described as “good.” Therefore, the average ranking score of 3.0 or higher could be interpreted
as good or as better than good program participation.
Six subsectors with the highest average rank for customer participation (in descending order)
were: schools and/or colleges, large landscape areas, mixed use commercial and apartments,
lodging and hospitality, government and municipal buildings/facilities, and public pools and
water parks. The survey responses suggest that the categories with the highest ranking were also
likely to be targeted by the CII subprograms (four of the six most frequently targeted categories
were among the top-ranked six categories for customer participation). CII subsectors with the
lowest ranking included: retail outlets, warehouses, and auto service and car washes.
Table 19. Utility Rating of the Level of Program Participation by CII Subsector
Success (Rank) of Program

Participation
Resp.
CII Subsector 1 2 3 4 5 Score
w/Ranks
Very Excel-
Poor Fair Good
Good lent
Schools and/or colleges 2 7 17 15 9 3.44 50
Large landscape areas 1 11 17 9 13 3.43 51
Mixed use (commercial and apartments) 1 8 16 10 6 3.29 41
Lodging and hospitality 2 10 17 10 7 3.22 46
Government & municipal buildings/facilities 4 16 15 9 11 3.13 55
Public pools and water parks 4 6 9 7 5 3.10 31
Food and beverage service (restaurants) 5 13 10 13 6 3.04 47
Golf courses 5 9 5 9 4 2.94 32
Justice centers 3 2 5 3 2 2.93 15
Health care facilities 7 9 8 8 5 2.86 37
Religious buildings 5 11 9 9 3 2.84 37
Office buildings 4 18 13 5 6 2.80 46
Military facilities 3 1 1 1 2 2.75 8
Food and beverage processing 6 9 7 9 1 2.69 32
Retirement/nursing homes 6 12 9 4 4 2.66 35
Laundries and laundromats 9 9 10 4 4 2.58 36
Manufacturing plants 6 12 10 5 2 2.57 35
Auto service and car washes 9 9 6 3 4 2.48 31
Warehouses 7 11 4 5 1 2.36 28
Retail outlets 8 16 4 3 3 2.32 34
Other 0 0 1 1 1 4.00 3
Survey Question Q12 (Part 1) -- Using the table below, please rate the degree of success in terms of program
participation for the CII subsectors specifically targeted by your CII conservation and efficiency programs (on a
scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “poor success” and 5 = “excellent success”).
38
Three respondents also ranked “other” subcategories. One utility initially targeted the top 7 CII
customers for their rollout of the program and subsequently other participants have approached
the utility to participate in the program. Another respondent included golf course efficiency
improvements, which were completed mostly by the customers. Finally, one respondent
commented that the utility works with all types of commercial customers and stated that “one is
not ‘targeted’ over others and efforts are positive, not punitive since ‘targeted’ implies something
negative.”
5. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION METHODS

5.1 Approaches for Targeting CII Participation
The approaches that are used by water utilities to select participants or target their conservation
efforts are shown in Table 20. Predictably, the most common approach is to target the largest
water users – it was used by about 73 percent of responding utilities. This implies the expectation
by the utilities that the largest users have the largest conservation potential and the savings can
be achieved in a cost-effective manner. The “ease of program implementation” was the second
most frequent response used by about 44 percent of utilities. Most utilities use 2 or more
approaches to target CII customers (2.7 approaches on average).
Table 20. Approaches for Targeting CII Participants or Conservation Efforts

Response Options
Largest water users 50 27% 73%
Ease of implementation 30 16% 44%
Customers with a large dominant end use of water 28 15% 41%
High profile customer class (by public perception) 26 14% 38%
By directive (political or regulatory) 19 10% 28%
Through information obtained through professional associations 11 6% 16%
Other (please identify): 13 7% 19%
Does not use specific approaches to target efforts 11 6% 16%
Total 188 100.0% 272.5%
Survey Question Q13 -- What approaches does your utility use to target participants or conservation
efforts? (Select all that apply).
“Other” approaches to targeting CII customers are summarized in Table A3 in the appendix.
Some respondents mentioned “demand trending analysis” and “inefficient” users, but in general,
the other approaches seem to emphasize voluntary participation of CII customers in the programs
being offered.
5.2 CII Program Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives

The survey respondents with CII programs were asked to report on the use of 25 possible
promotional methods and program delivery mechanisms and/or incentives to bring about the
adoption of water-saving behaviors and technologies (Table 21). Nearly all utilities (95 percent)
rely on water information and education programs to encourage the adoption of water
39
conservation. The three most frequently used mechanisms/incentives were free surveys and
water audits, free landscape irrigation evaluations, and traditional customers’ rebates or
vouchers. The efficiency financing options, including loan options, bill financing, and fee
deferrals for water efficiency, were offered least frequently.
The almost universal use of information and education programs could be expected because they
are generally viewed as a necessary component of any conservation program. Public information
and education programs also serve to increase the awareness of the need to conserve water and
can increase program participation. Free surveys and water audits and free landscape evaluations
impose no cost to the customers and, in a sense, represent a prerequisite to implementation of
conservation practices and hardware retrofits. Finally, the use of traditional customer rebates and
vouchers is a well-tested and successful incentive. This was well summarized by one respondent
who stated: “Custom rebates are effective. A combination of reasonable regulations, education
and incentives works to change practices and equipment over time.”
Table 21. Use of CII Incentives and Delivery Mechanisms by Water Utilities
“Not Percent
Responding
Delivery Mechanism or Incentive Offered” Offering
Utilities
Responses Incentive
Information and education programs 66 3 95%
Free surveys and water audits 65 8 88%
Free landscape irrigation evaluations 66 15 77%
Traditional customer rebates or vouchers 67 16 76%
Onsite technical assistance 64 20 69%
Conservation rate design incentives 63 26 59%
Direct distribution and/or installation 64 30 53%
Recycled water incentives 63 37 41%
Water budgets 64 38 41%
Recognition incentives: 52 32 38%
Certification 63 37 41%
Efficiency partnerships 59 35 41%
New construction certifications 61 52 15%
Vendor, distributor and contractor incentives: 65 47 28%
Contractor direct rebates 63 49 22%
In-store product markdowns 63 55 13%
Pay for performance incentives 63 44 30%
Efficiency financing options: 57 50 12%
Loan options 61 56 8%
Grants 61 47 23%
Bill financing 60 55 8%
Fee deferrals for water efficiency 61 57 7%
New construction conservation offsets 63 51 19%
Landscape turf buy-back 64 37 42%
Other 18 17 6%
Survey Question 14 (Part 2) -- If a delivery mechanism and/or incentive listed is not offered to the CII
sector by your utility, simply select the “Not Offered” box."
Table 22 shows the summary of the respondents’ ranking of the degree of success of the delivery
mechanisms and incentives. Among the mechanisms/incentives ranked by at least 30 percent of
40
utilities, the top 6 mechanisms/incentives with the highest average scores were water budgets,
onsite technical assistance, conservation rate design incentives, free landscape irrigation
evaluations, recognition incentives, and free surveys and water audits. The lowest ranked
incentive was in-store product markdowns, however only 8 respondents ranked this approach.
The frequency of use of specific mechanisms/incentives was not replicated in the respondents’
ratings of the degree of their success. Efficiency financing options, water budgets and
conservation rate design incentives received high average scores for success but were in the
middle range of the frequency of use.
“Other” comments on incentives given by four respondents were: (1) CII grants program with
25-50 percent of project cost not to exceed $20,000; (2) installing individual water meter on each
apartment in Los Angeles; (3) water budgets are informational only; and (4) (as cited above)
custom rebates are effective: a combination of reasonable regulations, education and incentives
works to change practices and equipment over time.
Table 22. Respondents’ Ranking of CII Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives

Success (Rank) of Delivery
Mechanism/Incentive Number
Average
Delivery Mechanism or Incentive 1 2 3 4 5 with
Score
Very Ranking
Poor Fair Good Excellent
Good
Water budgets 1 3 9 5 8 3.62 26
Onsite technical assistance 1 7 10 17 9 3.59 44
Conservation rate design incentives 2 3 15 7 10 3.54 37
Free landscape irrigation evaluations 2 9 13 16 11 3.49 51
Free surveys and water audits 3 12 13 15 14 3.44 51
Traditional customer rebates or vouchers 3 9 14 14 11 3.41 51
Information and education programs 4 10 20 15 14 3.40 63
Direct distribution and/or installation 1 8 13 3 9 3.32 34
Efficiency financing options: 0 2 0 3 2 3.71 7
Loan options 1 1 2 0 1 2.80 5
Grants 0 3 3 5 3 3.57 14
Bill financing 0 1 2 1 1 3.40 5
Fee deferrals for water efficiency 0 0 2 0 2 4.00 4
New construction conservation offsets 3 0 4 4 1 3.00 12
Landscape turf buy-back 2 6 4 8 7 3.44 27
Recognition incentives: 1 5 3 6 5 3.45 20
Certification 5 5 2 9 5 3.15 26
Efficiency partnerships 2 5 4 8 5 3.38 24
New construction certifications 1 0 1 5 2 3.78 9
Vendor, distributor and contractor incentives 2 2 6 5 3 3.28 18
Contractor direct rebates 1 1 7 2 3 3.36 14
In-store product markdowns 2 3 1 1 1 2.50 8
Pay for performance incentives 3 7 2 3 4 2.89 19
Recycled water incentives 5 3 6 8 4 3.12 26
Other 0 0 0 1 0 4.00 1
Survey Question Q14 (Part 1) -- Using the table below, please rate the degree of success of the delivery mechanisms
and/or incentives offered by your utility on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “poor success” and 5 = “excellent
success”).
41
5.3 Efficiency Equipment and Devices
The survey respondents with CII programs were also asked to report on the promotion and use of
six general categories of equipment and 20 specific efficiency devices offered by their utility’s
CII programs (Table 23).
Among the six groups of efficiency products, plumbing fixtures and irrigation efficiency
products were used most frequently, by 65 percent and 59 percent of respondents, respectively.
Process water conversion equipment was used least frequently (by only 30 percent of
respondents). Among the specific efficiency devices the top four most frequently used included:
faucet aerators (78%), toilets (77%), showerheads (75%) and pre-rinse spray valves (72%).
Urinals, irrigation controllers, irrigation nozzles and heads, high-efficiency clothes washers, and
irrigation sensor devices (SMS) were used by 50 percent or more of the respondents. Least used
devices included pH meters, irrigation conduit repair/replacement, and counter-flow washing
systems.
Table 23. Use of CII Efficiency Devices and Equipment by Water Utilities
“Not Percent
Responding
Efficiency Devices and Equipment Offered” Offering
Utilities
Responses Device
Plumbing fixtures and products: 52 18 65%
Toilets 64 15 77%
Urinals 64 27 58%
Showerheads 65 16 75%
Faucet aerators 64 14 78%
Flow sensors 63 46 27%
Flow control valves 63 43 32%
Irrigation efficiency products: 59 24 59%
Irrigation controllers (climate-based or soil moisture-based) 63 28 56%
Irrigation sensor devices (SMS) 63 32 49%
Irrigation nozzles and heads 63 28 56%
Irrigation conduit repair/replacement 62 50 19%
Drip irrigation equipment 63 43 32%
Commercial kitchen equipment: 59 31 47%
Connectionless food steamers 62 42 32%
Pre-rinse spray valves 64 18 72%
Commercial laundry equipment: 57 33 42%
High-efficiency clothes washers 64 30 53%
Multi-load washers 62 41 34%
Cooling tower retrofit equipment: 59 35 41%
Makeup and blowdown water meters 62 44 29%
Conductivity controllers 61 44 28%
pH meters 62 48 23%
Process water conversion equipment: 60 42 30%
Counter-flow washing systems 62 51 18%
High-pressure low-volume sprays 62 46 26%
Other 15 15 0%
Survey Question 15 (Part 2) -- If an efficiency device or equipment listed is not offered to the CII sector by your
utility, simply select the “Not Offered” box.
42
In terms of ranking the success in using these devices, the equipment group of irrigation
efficiency products received the highest average rank (3.43), above the plumbing fixtures (3.35)
(Table 24). In ranking the specific devices and fixtures the top six were (in descending order):
toilets, drip irrigation equipment, showerheads, faucet aerators, irrigation nozzles and heads, and
irrigation controllers. Conductivity controllers, connectionless food steamers, pH meters, and
makeup and blowdown water meters were used least frequently. Respondents’ comments about
other efficiency equipment and devices are listed in Table A4 in the appendix.
Table 24. Respondents’ Ranking of CII Efficiency Devices and Equipment
Success of Devices and Equipment Ranks

Number
1 2 3 4 5 Average
Efficiency Devices and Equipment with
Very Score
Poor Fair Good Excellent Ranking
Good
Irrigation efficiency products: 3 4 11 9 8 3.43 35
Irrigation controllers (climate-based or 5 5 8 9 8 3.29 35
soil moisture-based)
Irrigation sensor devices (SMS) 7 5 7 6 6 2.97 31
Irrigation nozzles and heads 2 9 7 10 7 3.31 35
Irrigation conduit repair/replacement 3 2 1 3 3 3.08 12
Drip irrigation equipment 3 2 4 4 7 3.50 20
Plumbing fixtures and products: 2 8 7 10 7 3.35 34
Toilets 4 4 13 15 13 3.59 49
Urinals 5 5 11 8 8 3.24 37
Showerheads 3 10 11 14 11 3.41 49
Faucet aerators 2 11 14 12 11 3.38 50
Flow sensors 2 3 5 4 3 3.18 17
Flow control valves 4 7 3 3 3 2.70 20
Commercial kitchen equipment: 5 7 5 5 6 3.00 28
Connectionless food steamers 10 4 1 2 3 2.20 20
Pre-rinse spray valves 9 10 7 8 12 3.09 46
Commercial laundry equipment: 6 8 2 2 6 2.75 24
High-efficiency clothes washers 3 9 8 8 6 3.15 34
Multi-load washers 5 4 3 3 6 3.05 21
Process water conversion equipment: 6 1 6 2 3 2.72 18
Counter-flow washing systems 3 2 2 1 3 2.91 11
High-pressure low-volume sprays 3 4 2 3 4 3.06 16
Cooling tower retrofit equipment: 6 6 7 2 3 2.58 24
Makeup and blowdown water meters 7 3 4 2 2 2.39 18
Conductivity controllers 8 4 1 2 2 2.18 17
pH meters 7 1 2 3 1 2.29 14
Other 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0
Survey Question Q15 – Using the table below, please rate the degree of success of the efficiency devices and
equipment offered by your utility on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “poor success” and 5 = “excellent success”).
43
5.4 Names of CII Conservation/Efficiency Programs
Fifty-three (53) survey respondents provided names of their CII conservation/efficiency
incentive programs. In total, 194 names were provided and about 72 percent of utilities included
three or more program names. The reported program names are listed in Table A5 in the
appendix. For illustrative purposes, Table 25 below shows a listing of 58 landscape-related
program names (organized by state/province) that were reported by 37 utilities. Similarly, Table
26 lists 49 names of programs that were provided by 34 customers, which are aimed at
improvement of water-use efficiency of CII customers.
Table 25. Examples of Names of Landscape Related Programs by State/Province
State/
Utility CII Program Name - Landscape Related Only
Province
Arizona 1 Turf Removal Program Commercial, Industrial, Multifamily; Grass Strip Removal
by Sidewalks
2 Large Landscape Conservation Program
3 Landscape Irrigation Assistance Program
California 4 HELIUM (High Efficiency Landscape Irrigation Upgrade Measures)
5 Landscape Irrigation Survey Program; Controller Replacement Program
6 Cash for Grass Turf Rebate; Turf Conversion Demo Site Pilot
7 Large Landscape Surveys
8 Commercial Landscape Survey Program; Commercial Sustainable Landscape
Incentive Program
10 Commercial Turf Removal Incentive
12 Landscape Audits by Water Resources Technician; CII Turf Replacement Rebate;
Professional Landscaper Classes
15 Commercial Irrigation Efficiency Evaluations
16 Large Landscape Water Budgets
17 Irrigation Evaluation; WaterWise Landscape Rebate Program
18 Turf Conversion; Residential Smart Controllers; Large Landscape Smart
Controllers
19 Smart Landscape Evaluation; Full Irrigation Audit for CII
32 Landscape Upgrade Grant Program; Rain Sensor Install Program; CII Turf
Removal Rebate Program
Colorado 20 Large Irrigation Audits
21 Free CII WaterSense Partner Irrigation Audits; Free Slow the Flow Irrigation
Audits
22 Spray Valve Upgrade; Business Irrigation Assessment
23 Irrigation Audit Requirement for New Landscapes: Landscape Plan Requirements
Florida 25 Landscape and Irrigation Evaluation Program
26 Sensible Sprinkling Program - Irrigation Evaluations with Rain Sensor Installation
28 Irrigation Evaluations
29 Landscape Irrigation Evaluation
Nevada 33 Landscape Workshops
34 Water Smart Landscapes; Smart Irrigation Controller Rebate; Water Smart
Contractor
Oregon 41 Landscape Smart Controller and Multi-stream Rotor Rebates; Landscape
Irrigation Survey
Texas 43 Small Commercial Irrigation Retrofit Rebates; Large Property Irrigation Check-
Up
46 Rainwater Harvesting System Rebate; Irrigation System Upgrade Rebate
44
47 Commercial Irrigation Technology Rebate Program
Washington 51 Efficient Irrigation Rebate Program
54 Landscape Irrigation
Other states 48 HOA Irrigation Tune-up
49 Weather-Based Irrigation Controller Program; Turf Replacement Program
Ontario 36 Water Smart Irrigation Program
37 Irrigation Audits (Funded at 50% - capped)
39 Water Smart Irrigation Professional (WSIP) Program
Survey Question Q16 -- What are the names of your CII conservation/efficiency incentive programs?
Table 26. Examples of Names of CII Efficiency Programs by State/Province

State/
Utility Names of CII Efficiency Programs
Province
Arizona 3 Commercial Water Audit Program
California 4 Water Conservation Works Program
5 Water Savings Incentive Program
6 Sonoma County Green Business Program
7 SoCal Water$mart - CII (Rebates), Water Savings Incentive Program
(Performance), Innovative Conservation Program (Grants)
8 Water Wise Business Survey, Guaranteed Water for Industry,
WaterSmart Incentive Program
9 CII Water Use Efficiency Program
12 Water Savings Incentive Program, Onsite Retrofits to Reclaimed Water
CII Indoor/Outdoor Audits
13 Recycled Water Conversion Program, Water Smart Rebates
15 Commercial Water Use Reviews, Commercial Leak Detection Assistance
16 Smart Rebates Program, Green Business Certification
17 WaterWise CII Survey and Incentive Program
19 SoCal WaterSmart Commercial Rebate Program
32 Blue Alert Program (Water Mgmt. Program), Blue Dashboard Program
Colorado 20 CII Performance Rebates
22 Commercial Water Use Assessment
23 CRC (Center for Re\Source Conservation) Commercial Audits
Florida 27 MIL (Mobile Irrigation Lab) Program
Georgia 30 Certified Blue Water Conservation Program for Bars & Restaurants,
Leadership in Water Conservation Award, Green Schools
Nevada 33 Water Conservation Consulting Program
34 Water Efficient Technologies (WET) Program
New York 35 Mayor's Water Challenge to Hotels, Water Challenge to Restaurants
Oregon 42 Business, Industry and Government Program
Texas 43 Custom Rebate
44 Water Efficiency Assessments, Water Efficiency Rebates
45 SmartWater Audit ICI Program
46 3C Business Challenge, WaterWise Partner Certification Program
47 WaterSmart CII Program
Washington 54 Cooling Tower Rebates
Ontario 36 ICI Consultation Audit
Ontario 37 Restaurant Certification Program
Ontario 38 Water Efficient Business Certification Program
Ontario 39 ICI Indoor Water Assessment Program
Ontario 40 ICI Water Capacity Buyback Program
45
5.5 Program Assessment Criteria
As a follow-up to the ranking of the utility’s success with delivery mechanisms/incentives and
efficiency devices/equipment, the respondents were asked if they focus more on customer
participation or on water savings when assessing the success of the program. Table 27 shows the
distribution of answers from 65 respondents.
Table 27. Criteria Used in Assessing Program’s Success
Response Response
Assessment Criteria
Count Percent
Both participation and savings 47 72.3%
Customer participation 10 15.4%
Water savings 8 12.3%
Total 65 100.0%
Survey Question Q17 -- When measuring/assessing the success of the program delivery
mechanism/incentives or efficiency devices/equipment do you focus more on customer
participation or water savings?
On average, nearly 3 out of 5 respondents (72 percent) selected “both participation and savings”
as their evaluation criteria. About 15 percent reported more emphasis on customer participation
and about 12 percent focused more on water savings.
5.6 Promoting Programs to CII Customers

Water utilities use multiple methods to promote programs to CII customers. Among the 62
respondents who answered Question 18, approximately two thirds indicated direct mail and
presentations to professional organizations, and nearly one half checked industry/association
meetings and gatherings (Table 28).
Table 28. Methods for Promoting Programs to CII Customers

Answer Options
Direct mail 39 16.7% 63%
Presentations to professional organizations 38 16.2% 61%
Industry/association meetings and gatherings 29 12.4% 47%
Customer bill insert 26 11.1% 42%
Facility manager solicitation 25 10.7% 40%
Newsletters 24 10.3% 39%
Telephone solicitation 22 9.4% 35%
Incentives to CII consultants (e.g. cooling tower firms) 13 5.6% 21%
Other (please specify): 18 7.7% 29%
Total 234 100.0% 377%
Survey Question Q18 -- How does your utility promote programs to CII customers? (Select all that apply).
46
Other methods of customer outreach were provided by 17 respondents and are tabulated in
Appendix A (see Table A8). They included, among others, co-promotion with energy utility, the
use of websites, social media, email blasts, radio and media advertising, and word of mouth
approaches.
5.7 Use of Submission Forms for CII Rebate/Incentive Application

Another question about the program implementation process asked utilities whether they use
online or paper submissions for customers’ rebate or incentive applications. Fifty-four (54)
respondents answered Question 19 and 7 respondents included “other” application methods and
comments (Table 29). Almost half of the respondents indicated using paper forms and one third
used both online and paper submissions. The “other” comments included two responses
explaining that the online form is in a PDF format and has to be downloaded and filled out. One
respondent reported that customers do not need a formal application if staff are working with
them but large custom rebate deals may take 6 months of partnership to bring it to fruition.
Table 29. Use of Program Submission Forms
Response Response
Answer Options
Count Percent
Paper 26 48.1%
Online and paper 18 33.3%
Online 8 14.8%
Other (only): 2 3.7%
Totals 54 100.0%
Survey Question Q19 -- Does your utility use online or paper submission forms
for its CII rebate/incentive applications?
5.8 Program Coordination with Local Energy Utilities

Sixty-four utilities answered Question 20 about the coordination of programs with local energy
utility. Table 30 includes the summary of results. Exactly 50 percent of respondents (30+2
responses) do not coordinate their programs with the local energy utilities and 50 percent (26+6
responses) do.
Table 30. Coordination of CII Programs with Energy Utilities
Response Response
Answer Options
Count Percent
Yes 26 40.6%
My utility also provides energy - and we work together 6 9.4%
No 30 46.9%
My utility also provides energy - we do not coordinate 2 3.1%
Total 64 100.0%
Survey Question Q20 -- Does your utility coordinate with your local energy utility
on CII programs and incentives?
47
6. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODS
6.1 Conservation and Water Supply Planning
The respondents were asked about the role of water conservation in planning for utility’s water
supply. Among 64 respondents who answered the question, nearly 86 percent answered that their
utility considers conserved water as one of water supply alternatives (Table 31). Two “yes”
respondents also added comments. One stated that conservation is treated as water supply
alternative but “only in our most water supply stressed districts” and another stated “Not every
year, however in this 2015 drought year - yes!”
Table 31. Water Conservation as Water Supply Alternative
Response Response
Answer Options
Count Percent
Yes 55 85.9%
No 9 14.1%
Total 64 100.0%
Survey Question Q21 -- Does your utility consider conserved water as one of
water supply alternatives?
The 9 respondents who answered “no” included 3 from Ontario, Canada, 4 from Northwestern
U.S. and 2 from California.
6.2 CII Program Performance Criteria

Two most frequently specified criteria for assessing the effectiveness of CII programs were
participation rates and water savings to customer – both were checked by more than 70 percent
of utilities (Table 32). Close to two thirds of respondents also indicated customer satisfaction and
awareness and water savings to utility. Cost savings were mentioned as a criterion by only one
third of the responding utilities.
Table 32. CII Program Performance Criteria
Response Response Percent of

Answer Options
Count Percent Utilities
Water savings to customer 46 20% 73%
Participation rates 45 20% 71%
Customer satisfaction and awareness 41 18% 65%
Water savings to utility 39 17% 62%
Financial (payback period, ROI) 30 13% 48%
Cost savings 21 9% 33%
We do not assess the effectiveness 5 2.2% 8%
Totals 230 100.0% 365%
Survey Question Q22 -- How does your utility assess the effectiveness of its CII programs?
(Select all that apply).
48
Three respondents provided “other” comments on assessment of program effectiveness. One
stated that the utility is “currently developing a process to evaluate program effectiveness by
deemed water savings.” Another mentioned “cost-effectiveness threshold based on avoided cost
of building new wastewater treatment capacity.” The third comment was: “We have a total acre
foot goal for conservation for the year. In the future we will also be tracking a metric of average
bill per CII customer to continue to steady downward trend.”
6.3 Methods of Analysis for Estimating Savings

Sixty respondents answered a question about the statistical methods of analysis that are or have
been used to evaluate water savings of the CII conservation and efficiency programs. About 75
percent of utilities specified trend analysis (i.e., comparing water use before and after program
implementation) as the method of analysis (Table 33). Two other statistical methods, comparison
of means and multiple regression, were checked respectively by 22 percent and 13 percent of the
respondents.
Table 33. Use of Statistical Methods for Estimating Savings

Answer Options
Trend analysis (before vs. after) 45 56.3% 75%
Comparison of means 13 16.3% 22%
Multiple regression analysis 8 10.0% 13%
We do not carry out this type of analysis 9 11.3% 15%
Totals 80 100.0% 133%
Survey Question Q23 -- What methods of analysis are or have been used to evaluate water savings
of the CII conservation and efficiency programs? (Select all that apply).
The “other” 5 comments on methods included: (1) before and after comparison for the customer
over about 12 months, (2) the use of all of the above and other metrics at different times to
evaluate water savings, (3) evaluation as a part of a comprehensive water supply plan demand
study, and (4) the use of the AWE [Alliance for Water Efficiency] tracking tool to track savings
from traditional plumbing fixtures; grant program requires savings reports for 5 years (trend
analysis).
One respondent referred to the difficulty of measuring savings by stating: “Evaluation of outdoor
[use] is particularly challenging for very large sites. We are optimistic that central control
systems with flow sensors will facilitate this in the future. We use a variety of evaluation
methods to estimate savings over time despite confounding variables that make this difficult;
changes in production levels, weather (landscape efforts) and rates. Often a unique metric must
be established for a specific industry. Car washes are evaluated by gallons/vehicle for example.
Commercial large laundry on gallons per pound of laundry.”
49
6.4 Methods to Evaluate Economic Effectiveness
Approximately one half of the 60 respondents (i.e., utilities) who answered this question
indicated they use benefit-cost analysis to evaluate economic effectiveness of the CII
conservation and efficiency programs (Table 34). About one fourth used the “total cost
avoidance” and another one fourth reported they do not use this type of program evaluation.
Table 34. Evaluation of Economic Effectiveness
Percent
Response Response
Answer Options of
Count Percent
Utilities
Cost-benefit analysis (Utility side) 33 35.1% 55%
Cost-benefit analysis/ROI (Customer side) 29 30.9% 48%
Total cost avoidance 14 14.9% 23%
We do not carry out this type of analysis 15 16.0% 25%
Totals 94 100.0% 157%
Survey Question Q24 -- What methods are or have been used to evaluate economic effectiveness
of the CII conservation and efficiency programs? (Select all that apply).
Among “other” responses one utility stated they have not done this type of analysis specifically
for CII programs. Another respondent stated that “we conduct a very light analysis.” The third
comment was that “cost-benefit analysis is only conducted for the customer for purposes of
granting the incentives. Payback needs to be greater than one year.”
6.5 Sources of Evaluation Expertize

Evaluation of program effectiveness was reported to be conducted primarily by agency staff (i.e.,
internally). Eighteen respondents (30 percent) indicated that both internal and external
evaluations are conducted (Table 35). Additional 5 respondents reported they use external
consultants.
Table 35. Evaluators of Program Effectiveness
Response Response
Answer Options
Count Percent
Agency staff (internal) 34 56.7%
Both internal and external 18 30.0%
Consultant (external) 5 8.3%
No assessments are performed 3 5.0%
Total 60 100.0%
Survey Question Q25 -- By whom are these assessments of the program effectiveness conducted?
50
6.6 Reporting on CII Program Performance
The success (or failure) of the CII programs has to be reported primarily to the internal
management of the utility. This answer was given by 80 percent of the respondents (Table 36).
The second most frequently mentioned oversight body was the state agencies. The need to report
on program performance to an external oversight committee was selected by 12 percent of
utilities.
Table 36. Program Performance Reporting Requirements

Answer Options
Internal management (Utility CEO/Manager, Board, 53 55.8% 80%
Program Manager, Chief Financial Officer/Manager)
State agencies 20 21.1% 30%
We do not report the results of the program 9 9.5% 14%
External oversight committee 8 8.4% 12%
Total 95 100.0% 144%
Survey Question Q26 -- To whom does the program(s) need to demonstrate success?
Among “other” bodies to report the respondents mentioned: customers, the public, and elected
officials/county commissioners. One respondent stated that they “…have a Community
Conservation Committee, a Board of Trustees and a Public Utilities Office that all ask detailed
questions about results. We also have an internal audit department that has looked at our CII
programs.”
6.7 Collection of CII Facility-Specific Information

Respondents were also asked about the kinds of data/information concerning individual CII
customers that are collected and the specific sources of these data. Table 37 summarizes the
survey responses. The response options included 14 pre-defined types of data and three possible
methods/sources through which these data could be obtained (i.e., collected during audits, on
program applications, or from external data sources). The rows in Table 37 are sorted (from
highest to lowest) based on the percentage of utilities that collected each type of data.
The four kinds of data that were collected most frequently included (in descending order):
landscaping square footage, recent efficiency upgrades and retrofits, property age, and building
square footage. About two thirds of respondents also reported collecting data on guest
occupancy, throughput or customers served, units of production, and hours of operation. The
specific sources of the data depended on the type of information but the most frequent two
sources were facility audits followed by program application forms. External sources were used
more frequently for property age, building square footage and sector sub-classification than for
the remaining data types.
51
Table 37. Sources of Facility-Specific Information and Data
Data Collected From:

Response Not Percent
Type of Collected Data Program External
Count Audits Collected Collected
Applications Sources
Landscaping square footage 57 26 16 9 6 89%
Recent efficiency upgrades and retrofits 53 34 10 2 7 87%
Property age 55 23 10 13 9 84%
Building square footage 54 18 12 12 12 78%
Guest occupancy 50 23 7 4 16 68%
Throughput or customers served 50 25 6 3 16 68%
Units of production 49 21 9 3 16 67%
Hours of operation 52 22 9 4 17 67%
Hotel beds 52 19 9 5 19 63%
Sector sub-classification 50 14 8 7 21 58%
Meals served 48 18 5 2 23 52%
Employment 47 18 4 1 24 49%
Presence of end users 47 18 3 2 24 49%
Other 13 4 2 1 6 54%
No CII customer-specific information is 33 -- -- -- -- --
collected
Survey Question Q27 -- What type of CII facility specific information does your utility collect during audits or
through program participation applications? (Select all that apply).
“Other” types of collected data mentioned by the respondents included: (1) existing fixture and
appliance specifications, (2) age of fixtures and fixture model to determine design efficiency, (3)
water flows and related maintenance practices, (4) number of fixtures and water-using process
equipment, (5) make and manufacturer of water using equipment, and (6) maintenance company
of equipment (for follow up and further data analysis). One respondent stated that they collect
“enormous amounts of information to assess whether custom rebate options are really upgrades
in water efficiency or just necessary for business.”
6.8 Use of Data for Benchmarking and Program Evaluation

Approximately one third of 61 respondents reported using the customer-level data from audits,
program application forms and external sources to develop metrics for benchmarking and/or
evaluating program success rates (Table 38). Another 18 percent indicated they plan to develop
benchmarks.
Table 38. Use of Customer Data for Benchmarking and Evaluation

Response Response
Answer Options
Count Percent
Yes 21 34.4%
No 25 41.0%
We plan to develop benchmarks 11 18.0%
Not sure 4 6.6%
Total 61 100.0%
Survey Questions Q28 -- Does your utility use this additional customer information
to develop metrics for benchmarking and/or evaluating program success rates?
52
6.9 Use of External Data Sources for Program Evaluation
About one-half of the respondents stated that they do not use any external data sources to obtain
information about their CII customers (Table 39). Those who rely on external data most
frequently used geospatial data, tax assessor records or census data.
Table 39. Use of External Data Sources for Program Evaluation
Percent
Response Response
Answer Options of
Count Percent
Utilities
Geospatial data 21 18.6% 34%
Tax assessor records 15 13.3% 25%
Census data 14 12.4% 23%
Building ratings (Energy Star, LEED, other) 10 8.8% 16%
Corporate efficiency / sustainability goals 10 8.8% 16%
Third party business data 9 8.0% 15%
No external data sources about CII customers are used 30 26.5% 49%
Total 113 100.0% 185%
Survey Question Q29 -- Does your utility use any external data sources on CII customers to assist in
evaluating program success rates and/or benchmarking? (Select all that apply).
The respondents who checked “other” option reported several other data types being collected
from various sources including: (1) appliance/fixture manufacturer data, (2) third party efficiency
rating like CEE [Consortium for Energy Efficiency] or MaP [Maximum Performance] Testing,
and (3) industry code classification from government business registration records.
7. IMPLEMENTATION OBSTACLES AND PROSPECTS

7.1 Key Barriers to CII Program Participation
The survey respondents were asked to rate 14 pre-defined key barriers to CII program
participation. Table 40 shows a summary of results. Two top rated barriers were of financial and
economic nature and included the lack of sufficient capital improvement monies in customers'
budgets and costs of retrofits to the participant versus incentive offered. The next two were
related to customer commitment and included difficulty in customers getting high-level buy-in
within their organizations and low general interest from customers or lack of programs. The
barrier of “technology not proven/available” received the lowest score.
53
Table 40. Key Barriers to CII Program Participation
Slightly Very
Response Unimportant Important Critical Average
Barriers to Participation Important Important
Count Score
1 2 3 4 5
Lack of sufficient capital improvement 60 3 4 19 19 15 3.65
monies in customers' budgets
Costs of retrofits to the participant 59 3 5 19 16 16 3.63
versus incentive offered
Difficulty in customers getting high- 58 3 3 26 17 9 3.45
level buy-in within their organizations
Low general interest from customers / 59 4 10 16 19 10 3.36
lack of programs
Perception of inadequate return on 59 4 8 22 17 8 3.29
investment (long paybacks)
Low cost of water and wastewater 59 8 12 9 17 13 3.25
services
Smaller customers don't have the time 59 4 13 20 13 9 3.17
to evaluate conservation options
Complexity of upgrade or change 59 5 11 24 15 4 3.03
Investing in energy efficiency first 57 13 8 13 15 8 2.95
Legal/ownership/landlord-tenancy 59 7 16 17 11 8 2.95
restriction
Customer perception of product 58 11 18 13 13 3 2.64
performance
Customers perceive there are too many 58 10 19 17 9 3 2.59
bureaucratic hurdles to participation
Technology not proven/available 59 16 21 17 4 1 2.20
Other 3 1 0 2 0 0 2.33
Survey Question Q30 -- Using the scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “unimportant” and 5 = “critical”), please rate the
importance of each Key Barrier to CII Program Participation as provided in the table below.
Four respondents included comments on “other” barriers to participation. One responded defined
three major barriers to CII water efficiency that the survey did not identify. These included: (1)
“The majority of businesses are not water account customers, and as such, they do not receive a
utility bill directly. Many businesses occupy a unit in a larger complex, as with retail, office,
shopping centers, and medical buildings. In addition, most businesses are not directly responsible
for managing their outdoor water use. It is usually managed by a landscape contractor, or other
personnel. (2) Most businesses lease and do not own the property they occupy, so there is limited
interest in making efficiency improvements on someone else's property. (3) Many businesses that
do have utility bills have them paid by an outside third party, such as a property manager, some
of whom may be out of state. As a result, often times the business manager is largely unaware of
water usage.”
Another respondent stated that “restaurants usually lease equipment so it would be regional
distributors who need to change selection not the individual property. Need to obtain corporate
approval for a single operation's participation if they are part of a large firm can time out a
program.”
54
Two additional comments stated that “customers are unaware of the programs available,” and
“amount of time it takes customer to identify, evaluate, follow-through on projects (which takes
away from the main focus on their business).”
7.2 Suggestions for CII Program Improvements

Fifty-nine respondents answered the question about possible ways of improving the CII
programs (Table 41). Nearly 70 percent of utilities reported that their utility's CII program could
be improved by refining marketing and outreach strategies. The second most frequent suggestion
was to change (presumably increase) the value of incentives.
Table 41. Possible Ways of Improving Utility’s CII Programs

Answer Options
Improve marketing/outreach strategies 41 27.2% 69%
Change value of incentive 29 19.2% 49%
Additional examples/case studies demonstrating ROI and performance 23 15.2% 39%
Change type of incentive 20 13.2% 34%
Make simpler/streamline/less paperwork 17 11.3% 29%
Move to online submission of forms vs. paper 12 7.9% 20%
Other 9 6.0% 15%
Total 151 100.0% 256%
Survey Question Q31 -- Please indicate how you think your utility's CII program could be improved? (Select all that
apply).
Nine respondents also offered other suggestions for program improvements; these are listed in
Table A7 in the appendix. Two respondents suggested streamlining of CII custom rebates for
certain type of projects which due to their uniqueness can be time consuming to ensure proper
oversight. As one of these respondents stated: “Case studies that can be used as cookie-cutter
basis for rebates, i.e. upgrade of condenser in x type of business saves x gpd and costs about x,
so rebate should be X. Means customer doesn't need to track down all that data and flat rebate is
defined, so as long as they can show invoice for work that exceeds rebate amount - done.”
This comment indicates that enhanced customer participation in CII programs could be achieved
by creating standardized incentive descriptions and program names for utility adoption by
facilitating nationally recognizable opportunities that CII subsectors could adopt for promotion
or facilitation. For example, hotels, restaurants and other user categories could communicate to
their audiences to look for “Commercial Toilet Rebate” or other standardized programs, as
replicable ways to reduce consumption.
55
7.3 Sources of Information for Improving CII Programs
Conferences (such as AWWA or WSI meetings) and informal networking are the two most
frequently mentioned sources of information about improving utility’s CII programs (Table 42).
Three additional sources, indicated by about two thirds of respondents were EPA WaterSense,
AWE and AWWA resources.
Table 42. Sources of Information for Improving CII Programs
Percent
Response Response
Answer Options of
Count Percent
Utilities
Conferences (e.g., AWWA, WaterSmart Innovations) 48 18% 84%
Informal networking 45 17% 79%
EPA WaterSense resources 41 15% 72%
Alliance for Water Efficiency resources 39 14% 68%
AWWA resources (e.g., manuals, journal, website) 37 14% 65%
Industry specific publications/organizations 34 13% 60%
Paid consultants 23 9% 40%
Other 5 1.8% 9%
Total 272 100.0% 477%
Survey Question Q32 -- What are the sources of information you use to improve your CII program?
Other sources of information included: (1) discussions with other local/regional conservation
coordinators and analysts, (2) a specially created audit tool, (3) input from member and retail
agencies [to a wholesale agency], and (4) a regional organization that has worked on identifying
tools needed by businesses to achieve efficiencies. Also, one respondent mentioned that they try
all the sources listed on the survey question but few of those are up to date and because the
technology changes quickly, they have to resort to getting up to date specification sheets from
vendors to assess options.
8. RESPONDENT (UTILITY) PROFILES

8.1 Services Provided by Responding Utilities
The first “utility profile” question was about the types of services provided by the utility. The
respondents were given a list of six types of service as shown in top six rows in Table 43. The
question was answered by 275 utilities (or 72 percent of 383 survey respondents) and the
answers were examined to determine the most common “bundles” of services that are being
provided. These are shown at the lower panel of Table 43. The most common services were
water and wastewater as represented, respectively, by 264 and 177 of responses. In terms of the
implied bundles of services, nearly 60 percent of respondents (163 out of 275) provided water
only or water and wastewater.
56
Table 43. Utility Services Provided and Adoption of Conservation Programs
With Without
Response Percent With
Services Provided Conservation Conservation
Count Conservation
Program Program
Water 264 176 88 67%
Wastewater 177 123 54 69%
Electricity 31 17 14 55%
Natural gas 14 11 3 79%
Solid waste 47 35 12 74%
Storm water 60 43 17 72%
Total Responses 329 229 100 70%
Water only 80 46 34 58%

Water and wastewater 83 57 26 69%
Water, wastewater and storm water 30 22 8 73%
Water, wastewater and solid waste 17 15 2 88%
Water, wastewater, storm water, solid waste 17 12 5 71%
Water and electricity 9 7 2 78%
Water, wastewater and electricity 8 2 6 25%
Wastewater only 7 4 3 57%
Other multiple services 24 13 11 54%
Total utilities (Respondents) 275 178 97 65%
Survey Question Q34 -- What type of services are provided by your utility (Select that apply)?
The breakdown of survey responses by the availability of a water conservation programs shows
that 65 percent of utilities who answered the question have a formal program. The percentage of
utilities with a program was slightly lower than average among the “water only” utilities,
possibly due to the significant presence of wholesale providers in this group.
A total of 177 utilities answered both the question about the presence of the CII program and
about services provided. Table 44 compares the responses by type of services. On average, 35
percent of the 177 utilities had a CII program. Among the groups of utilities with more than 10
responses, water-wastewater and water-wastewater-storm water-solid waste utilities show higher
than average CII program adoption rates.
Table 44. Utility Services Provided and Adoption of CII Programs by Survey Respondents
With Without Percent
Response
Services Provided CII CII With CII
Count
Water only 46 15 31 33%
Water and wastewater 56 23 33 41%
Water, wastewater and storm water 22 4 18 18%
Water, wastewater and solid waste 15 5 10 33%
Water, wastewater, storm water and solid waste 11 6 5 55%
Water and electricity 7 3 4 43%
Water, wastewater and electricity 2 1 1 50%
Wastewater only 4 1 3 25%
Other multiple services 14 3 11 21%
Total 177 61 116 35%
Survey Question Q34 -- What type of services are provided by your utility (Select that apply)?
57
A follow-up question (Q36) determined if the services provided by the respondents were at the
retail or wholesale level (or both). About 56 percent of respondents provided only retail services
and 35 percent both retail and wholesale (Table 45). There was no discernible difference in the
adoption of water conservation programs between “retail only” and combined “retail and
wholesale” utilities. However, “wholesale only” utilities were slightly less likely to have formal
conservation program but almost twice more likely to have CII efficiency programs.
Table 45. Proportion of Retail and Wholesale Services
With Conservation With CII

Response Response Program Program
Answer Options
Count Percent Percent Percent
Count Count
With With
Retail 150 56% 98 65% 32 21%
Both retail and wholesale 94 35% 61 65% 21 22%
Wholesale only 25 9% 15 60% 10 40%
Total 269 100% 174 65% 63 23%
Survey question Q36 -- Are the services provided at retail or wholesale level?
8.2 Utility Ownership

Table 46 summarizes answers about the ownership structure of the respondents’ utilities. It
shows that 94 percent of responding utilities are publicly owned and the remaining 6 percent are
privately/investor owned.
Table 46. Ownership Profile of Responding Utilities
Response Response
Answer Options
Count Percent
Publicly owned (by city/village, municipality, or cooperative entity) 257 94%
Privately/investor owned 17 6%
Other (please specify) 0 0%
Total 274 100%
Survey Question Q35 -- Is the utility publicly or privately owned?
“Other” ownership types were provided in the comments but all could be classified into public or
private entities. Examples include: (1) regional wholesaler/special district, (2) water resources
district chartered by the state of Florida, (3) enterprise-funded public utilities (water, wastewater,
reclaimed water and solid waste); i.e., funded from user fees, not from ad valorem taxes, (4)
authority--regional wholesale supplier, (5) private not-for-profit membership Co-Op, (6)
privately funded through water and electricity sales but created publicly and functions more like
a public entity. One responded mentioned that their utility also provides fiber optic internet
(which comment was related to the previous question about services being offered).
The effect of ownership structure on adoption of water conservation appears not to be

significant. Sixty-six percent of public utilities had conservation programs (169 out of 257) and
58
59 percent of private utilities (10 out of 17). Also, 18 percent of private utilities (3 out of 17) had
a CII program compared to 22 percent (57 out of 257) of public utilities, roughly the same
proportion.
8.3 Population Served

The estimates of retail population served were provided by 200 respondents and ranged from 108
to 8.4 million (Table 47). Estimates of wholesale population served were provided by 103
respondents (including 21 wholesale-only utilities) and ranged from zero to 18 million.
Table 47. Retail and Wholesale Population Served
Range of Population Served Retail Population Wholesale Population

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
5,000 or Less 20 10% 34 33%
5,000-10,000 29 15% 9 9%
10,000-25,000 24 12% 10 10%
25,000--50,000 20 10% 8 8%
50,000--100,000 30 15% 10 10%
100,000--250,000 39 20% 10 10%
250,000--500,000 14 7% 10 10%
500,000--1,000,000 17 9% 6 6%
1,000,000-5,000,000 6 3% 5 5%
More than 5,000,000 1 1% 1 1%
All Respondents 200 100% 103 100%
Statistics (Population Served):
Average 221,485 370,174
Median 60,000 19,000
Standard Deviation 651,912 1,804,431
Minimum 108 0
Maximum 8,400,000 18,000,000
Sum 44,296,981 38,127,952
Survey Question Q37 -- What is the estimated population served by your utility?
Q42 (Wholesale-Only) -- What is the estimated (wholesale) population served by your utility?
The statistics in the lower panel of Table 47 show the average population served of 221,485 for
retail service areas and 370,174 for wholesale areas. The sum of total population served (retail
and wholesale) by the 222 utilities who provided population estimates is about 82.4 million.
8.4 Number of Service Connections

Table 48 shows the distribution of the reported number of residential, nonresidential and total
connections in retail service areas. The numbers ranged from zero to 473,800 of total
connections with the median of about 19,000 and the sum of approximately 9.3 million.
59
Table 48. Number of Retail Residential and Nonresidential Connections
Number of Retail Service Residential
Non-Residential Total
Connections Response
Response Counts Connections
(Range) Counts
Less than 1000 19 72 18
1,000 ̶ 2,500 15 23 14
2,500 ̶ 5,000 20 24 19
5,000 ̶ 10,000 27 21 21
10,000 ̶ 25,000 28 15 30
25,000 ̶ 50,000 23 5 26
50,000 ̶ 100,000 22 3 24
100,000 ̶ 200,000 15 0 15
200,000 ̶ 300,000 5 0 8
300,000 ̶ 400,000 2 0 3
More than 400,000 0 0 1
Total 176 163 179
Statistics (Number of Connections):
Average 43,319 6,000 52,117
Median 15,000 1,625 19,004
St Deviation 67,645 12,609 80,063
Minimum 0 0 0
Maximum 398,000 78,000 473,800
Sum 7,624,122 978,047 9,328,945
Survey Question Q38. What is the number of retail service connections and the number of wholesale
customers (if applicable) served by your utility?
The respondent utilities were also asked to provide the number of wholesale customers. Eighty-
one respondents answered the question. The number of wholesale customers ranged from zero to
120; the average was 8 and mode was 2 connections.
For 166 respondents it was possible to calculate the ratio of the number of residential
connections to total customer connections (Table 49) to be used primarily for data verification.
The median value of the proportion of residential connections was 92 percent. About 70 percent
of respondents reported the ratio of more than 90 percent.
Table 49. Percent of Total Connections in Residential Sector
Percent of Residential Response

Percent
Connections Frequency
Less than 60% 1 0.6%
60 ̶ 70% 3 1.8%
70 ̶ 80% 7 4.2%
80 ̶ 82% 4 2.4%
82 ̶ 84% 9 5.4%
84 ̶ 86% 11 6.6%
86 ̶ 88% 14 8.4%
88 ̶ 90% 18 10.8%
90 ̶ 92% 20 12.0%
92 ̶ 94% 19 11.4%
94 ̶ 96% 22 13.3%
60
Percent of Residential Response
Percent
Connections Frequency
96 ̶ 98% 13 7.8%
98 ̶ 100% 25 15.1%
Total 166 100.0%
Statistics (Percent of Residential Connections):
Average 91%
Median 92%
St Deviation 7%
Minimum 55%
Maximum 100%
Another ratio variable was obtained by dividing the reported retail population served by the
reported number of residential connections (also to be used primarily for data verification). The
average value of this ratio was 3.44 persons per connection (Table 50). The higher values
suggest a greater proportion of multifamily customers in the residential sector, which according
to the responses to Question 11 (see Table 17) are often included in the CII sector.
Table 50. Persons per Residential Connections
Persons per Residential Response Percent

Connection Frequency
Less than 1.0 2 1.2%
1.0 ̶ 1.5 3 1.8%
1.5 ̶ 2.0 7 4.1%
2.0 ̶ 2.25 6 3.6%
2.25 ̶ 2.5 11 6.5%
2.5 ̶ 2.75 12 7.1%
2.75 ̶ 3.0 18 10.7%
3.0 ̶ 3.25 12 7.1%
3.25 ̶ 3.5 23 13.6%
3.5 ̶ 3.75 19 11.2%
3.75 ̶ 4.0 15 8.9%
4.0 ̶ 4.5 16 9.5%
4.5 ̶ 5.0 16 9.5%
5.0 ̶ 5.5 4 2.4%
5.5 ̶ 6.0 1 0.6%
More than 6.0 4 2.4%
Total 169 100.0%
Statistics (Persons per Connection):
Average 3.44
Median 3.41
Standard Deviation 1.05
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 7.14
61
8.5 Water Use in Retail Service Areas
Before asking for the estimates of annual water use, the respondents were first asked about their
preferred unit of measurement for reporting water use (Question 39). The preferred measurement
units were provided by 210 respondents. The responses indicate that the most common unit is
average daily rate of annual use in million gallons per day (MGD), which was indicated by 153
respondents (73 percent). The annual use volume in acre-feet was reported by 26 respondents (12
percent) and 31 respondents (15 percent) did not wish to share water use information).
The reported data on water deliveries were reviewed and edited to be in consistent units of
measurement. In order to verify the use of measurement units, total retail deliveries were divided
by retail population served to calculate per capita water use. A common but easily corrected
problem was the reporting of annual volume in million gallons instead of the requested daily rate
of use in million gallons per day. In a few cases the reported numbers were in cubic feet although
this unit was not used in the survey questionnaire. In several cases the units could not be verified
and the reported numbers were omitted from the analysis. Table 51 shows the descriptive
statistics for the reported volumes of water deliveries (all converted to million gallons per day, or
MGD) and the range of the calculated per capita use in gallons per capita per day, or GPCD.
Table 51. Reported Water Deliveries and Per Capita Use

Residential Total Calculated
Non-Residential
Statistic Deliveries, Deliveries, Per Capita
Deliveries, MGD
MGD MGD Use, GPCD
Respondents, count 109 94 118 115
Average 19.67 10.40 29.56 120.2
Median 4.40 2.51 6.85 102.7
Standard Deviation 64.96 22.54 82.87 56.4
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.01 43.3
Maximum 654.00 181.00 835.00 318.0
Survey questions Q40 -- Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable) water
deliveries in MGD for 2014. Q41 -- Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable)
water deliveries in AFY for 2014.
The average per capita use was compared for utilities with and without CII programs (see t-test
results in Table A10 in Appendix A). While the mean per capita use was slightly higher in the
sample of 31 utilities with CII programs than in 50 utilities without CII programs (134.7 gpcd vs,
122.4 gpcd), the difference of means was not statistically significant.
8.6 Water Use of Wholesale Utilities

There were 25 wholesale-only utilities among the 383 survey respondents (see Table 44). The
wholesale-only respondents were asked separate questions about population served, wholesale
62
customers, water deliveries and other characteristics. Table 52 shows the list of questions asked
in the survey and the number of responses received.
Table 52. Questions and Responses for Wholesale-only Respondents

No. of
Questions and Responses for Wholesale-Only Respondents
Responses
Q42. What is the estimated population served by your utility? 22
Q43. What is the total number of wholesale customers served by your utility? 21
Q44. Please indicate the total volume of water deliveries (treated and untreated)
provided to your wholesale customers in 2014 (indicate in MGD or AFY).
Water Deliveries (MGD): 14
Water Deliveries (AFY): 7
Q45. Do you receive information on the number of retail service connections and/or 21
wholesale customers and water deliveries provided by your wholesale customers (or
member agencies)?
Q46. What is the total number of retail service connections and wholesale customers
served by your wholesale customers (or member agencies) in 2014?
Total retail service connections: 5
Residential retail service connections (if provided): 3
Nonresidential retail service connections (if provided): 2
Total wholesale customers (if applicable): 2
Q47. What is your preferred unit of measurement for reporting water use? 10
Q48. Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable) water
deliveries in MGD for 2014.
Residential retail volume (MGD): 2
Nonresidential retail volume (MGD): 2
Total retail volume (MGD): 1
Total wholesale volume (treated and untreated, if applicable) (MGD): 3
Q49. Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable) water
deliveries in AFY for 2014.
Residential retail volume (AFY): 0
Nonresidential retail volume (AFY): 0
Total retail volume (AFY): 0
Total wholesale volume (treated and untreated, if applicable) (AFY): 0
The valid answers to Questions 42 to 45 from 21 responding utilities are shown on Table 53. The
results show that four small utilities provided data on the number of retail customers in the
wholesale service areas instead of the number of wholesale connections. Also, only one half of
the wholesale-only utilities receive information on the number of retail service connections
and/or wholesale customers and water deliveries provided by the retail (or retail and wholesale)
customers (or member agencies).
63
Table 53. Responses from Wholesale-Only Utilities:
Population, Customers and Water Deliveries
Receive
Population Number of Water Water
Utility Data
in wholesale wholesale Deliveries Deliveries
No. from
service area: customers: (MGD): (AFY):
Retailers
1 5,000 2,000 0.4 -- Yes
2 5,000 2,800 0.9 -- Yes
3 5,900 5,900 1.5 -- Yes
4 15,000 2 1.5 -- No
5 45,000 -- -- -- --
6 76,000 2,600 -- 60,000 Yes
7 100,000 3 12 -- Yes
8 250,000 14 31 -- Yes
9 250,000 4 24.6 -- No
10 270,000 128 -- 124,084 No
11 300,000 4 -- -- No
12 300,000 7 25 -- Yes
13 350,000 5 11 -- No
14 400,000 5 30.137 -- No
15 570,000 7 39.631 -- Yes
16 600,000 10 -- 54,963 No
17 800,000 11 80 -- No
18 2,086,352 7 -- 491,800 No
19 2,100,000 30 -- 336,914 Yes
20 2,300,000 6 164 -- Yes
21 18,000,000 26 -- 2,150,000 No
8.7 Utility Partnering with Water Organizations and Participation in Research

Among the 194 respondents who answered Question 50 about 91 percent indicated membership
in the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and 64% indicated they are also involved
with the state or regional affiliates of AWWA. About two thirds of the respondents indicated that
they would be willing to participate in the follow-up research on CII water efficiency programs
(Table 55).
Table 54. Utility Affiliations with Water Organizations
Answer Options
AWWA 176 42% 91%
AWWA state/regional affiliate 124 29% 64%
EPA WaterSense 75 18% 39%
Alliance for Water Efficiency 49 12% 25%
Total 424 100% 219%
Survey Question Q50 -- Is your utility a member or partner with any of the following
organizations? (Select all that apply)
64
Table 55. Willingness to Participate in Research on CII Programs
Respondent Willingness Response Response
to Participate in Follow-up Research Count Percent
Yes 131 64%
No 74 36%
Total 205 100%
Survey Question Q52 -- Would you be willing to participate in the follow-up
research on CII water efficiency programs?
8.8 General Comments and Contact Information

At the end of the questionnaire the respondents were asked to provide general comments about
CII water conservation/efficiency programs or about the survey (Question 51). Thirty-seven
respondents provided such comments and these are included in Table A11 in the appendix.
The majority of the comments were about improving the survey (e.g., including metric units for
water volume to accommodate Canadian respondents). Several comments included suggestions
for improvement of CII programs. One responded from Florida suggested that “If Florida
Chapter of AWWA can make a member-accessible, segregated list and abstracts/reports of CII
programs implemented by other utilities, it would make new program planning easier and
justifiable to upper management and decision-makers. Include contact information. The budget
and staff cuts made during the "recession" are still being felt, leading to limitations in
conservation program planning and implementation.”
A total of 144 respondents provided contact information which has not been tabulated for the
purpose of this report because of confidentiality of the survey. The contact information is
maintained by the AWWA Engineering and Technical Services for providing copies of the final
report for survey participants and for future research contacts.
65
APPENDIX A – ADDITIONAL TABLES
66
Table A1. “Other” Reasons for Establishing Water Conservation Plan
State/
Other Reasons for Establishing Water Conservation Plan
Province
We are an investor owned water utility with many service areas. One service area has a
severe supply issue, the others we implement our water conservation programs as a part
Arizona
of meeting regulatory compliance, utility stewardship and sustainability, as well as use
our water conservation programs as a positive point of contact with our customers.
Drought and redevelopment
Avoid potential high marginal costs to acquire water supplies in dry (low supply) years
Implementation of best management practices, lessons from prior drought, reduce
dependence on imported water
California State mandates
State mandate due to drought
Unpredictable water deliveries from State Water Project during times of drought and
other environmental factors.
It's a BMP as defined by the CUWCC and is in our UWMP.
California
City Council priority
We count conservation as one of our water supplies
Part of our Future Water Supply Plan (looking out 40 years)
Long term groundwater overdraft, seawater intrusion.
Serious lack of water in California
We have been members of the CUWCC since 1991. We are assisting our 8 water
retailers with meeting their AB1881 requirements. Conservation is one part of District's
Water Reliability Mission to increase local water reliability, along with water recycling
and ocean desalination in the future.
Drought preparedness
Colorado Drought mitigation
Planning for buildout water demands now.
Florida Per capita guidance
Georgia Legal challenges to existing and future supply
Hawaii Reducing development fees.
Illinois Exceeding safe yield of water source during drought.
Kentucky Seasonal only during periodic summer droughts (approximately every 8-10 years).
New Jersey Purchase water supply limitations
Oregon Customer Service. It's the right thing to do.
Long term water management
Texas
Cheaper than purchasing new water supply, effective drought management tool
Based on a water conservation plan established with our regulators.
Virginia
Regional cooperation
In-stream flow for salmon habitat.
Washington
Assist customers with lowering water bill.
Limited Instantaneous Water Rights allowed from Dept. of Ecology
Deferral / avoidance of future water acquisition. Simply put, the more water we can save
Other
through conservation the less water we have to purchase in order to meet future demand.
States
This is an arid region and drought has been underway for over a decade. It is only prudent
(USA)
to be efficient with ultimately…
British A specific target with a deadline for reducing per capita water consumption (Directive
Columbia from City Council).
Reducing peak demands
Ontario Direction from Council as part of the corporate objectives
Benefit of electrical energy conservation for industry.
67
Table A2. “Other” Sources of Funding for Water Conservation
State “Other” Sources of Funding for Water Conservation
AZ Our rebate program is funded by a specific high block surcharge. Administration of the rebate
program and all other conservation expense is included in our regular operational budget. The
[reported budget] dollars above do not include employee costs.
CA Surcharge on water charge
CA Water wholesaler funds some of the water conservation
CA We are in the process of revising this item.
CA Our budget includes water supply management as well as conservation, including salaries and
benefits
CA Augmentation charge
CA Finance by both, Californian Metropolitan Water District and LA Department of Water and Power
CA Volumetric expense recovery- based off quantity charge of usage
CA West Basin Municipal Water District is a wholesale water agency. Conservation is funded through
operating budget funds and mostly through grants and other outside funding it obtains.
FL We are the funding agency - SWFWMD, not a utility
FL Collection of penalties from water restriction violation citations.
IL N/A. Water Conservation Ordinance in effect year-round since 2006.
IN At the whim of the director.
KS No program expenses
MO None, our conservation program is based on high usage during minimized availability of source
starting with notice of voluntary reduction of usage.
NC We only engage when we are in a drought
NJ There is a plan, but no assigned personnel.
TX residential; dedicated funding from volumetric rates commercial; part of the meter fee
TX Top tier customers usage is sufficient to offset costs of conservation budget.
VA Payments made to the City in lieu of taxes
WA The Conservation dues are paid to a regional entity that provides a portion of our water supply.
WA Our wastewater utility funds the majority of our indoor conservation programs. Our utility funds
outdoor programs and indoor programs for water customers on septic that don't qualify for the sewer
rebates.
Ontario Water rates
68
Table A3. “Other” Approaches for Targeting CII Participants or Conservation Efforts
State Other Approaches for Targeting CII Conservation Efforts
Arizona Large landscape users
Demand trending analysis
California We are a wholesaler so our programs support the local retailer programs.
General incentive program marketing & outreach, cooperation with member & retail agencies
All those that approach us
We evaluate largest use by normalized customer class
Colorado Reclaimed water customers, restaurants, schools
Through targeting of inefficient customers. Multi-family residential based on consumption per
unit. Large irrigation based on gallons per square foot.
Watering days are issued to all customers. We target the CII sector like this. It includes all of
Florida them although we have more hotels, restaurants, and multifamily units in the CII sector. We
consider all of these commercial in our database.
We have a GREAT Business program. In order to get certified, they have to have a water
Oregon efficiency audit of their business. We help them make corrections/improvements.
Customers contact us directly, and are referred to us by customer service and other agencies.
There are a variety of strategies that work. Often one stakeholder group is particularly active
Texas when a new technology comes along. We work with professional associations, with individual
property managers, and through general marketing.
USA We offer limited audits to customers by request in multifamily and HOA sectors.
69
Table A4. Respondents Comments on “Other” CII Efficiency Devices and Equipment
State “Other” CII Efficiency Devices and Equipment
CA Training for facility staff on landscape maintenance and leak detection.
CA By "degree of success" I have rated these devices based on the level of acceptance and
retrofitting for the sites going through our CII program.
FL Air cooled ice machine rebates - poor participation.
MA We do not offer these devices/retrofits but provide information on how they may reduce water
use in a facility.
OR All of the above would be eligible through our incentive program, which is self-designed by
the customer.
TX Cooling tower cycles of concentration are mandated so we do not provide equipment at this
point. A prior effort confirmed most were in compliance. We do not offer indoor fixtures any
longer due to near saturation after many years of free product and installation. We do
irrigation smart water management systems for large sites in custom rebates but do not give
variances for watering "to ET." We have had recent acceleration of landscape and irrigation
changes in our market with steady drops in irrigation water usage at commercial properties.
TX Potentially can offer some of these things through grant program but not offered through
traditional rebate program.
WA Air-cooled ice machines - very good.
70
Table A5. Names of CII Water conservation Efficiency Programs
Respondent State CII Program Name
1 AZ Turf Removal Program Commercial, Industrial, Multifamily
1 AZ Grass Strip Removal by Sidewalks
1 AZ Industrial Grants Program
2 AZ Large Landscape Conservation Program
2 AZ Rebate Program
2 AZ Retrofit Kit Program
3 AZ Landscape Irrigation Assistance Program
3 AZ Commercial Water Audit Program
4 CA Water Conservation Works Program
4 CA Water Champions Recognition Program
4 CA HELIUM (High Efficiency Landscape Irrigation Upgrade Measures)
4 CA Water SMART Allocation and Tiered Rates Program
5 CA Water Savings Incentive Program
5 CA High Efficiency Clothes Washer Program
5 CA High Efficiency Toilet Rebate Program
5 CA Landscape Irrigation Survey Program
5 CA Controller Replacement Program
5 CA Direct Install Toilet Program
6 CA Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper Training
6 CA Cash for Grass Turf Rebate
6 CA Sonoma County Green Business Program
6 CA Barnicale Pilot Project
6 CA Turf Conversion Demo Site Pilot
6 CA North Bay Water Sustainability Coalition
7 CA SoCal Water$Mart - CII (Rebates)
7 CA Water Savings Incentive Program (Performance)
7 CA Large Landscape Surveys
7 CA Innovative Conservation Program (Grants)
8 CA Water Wise Business Survey
8 CA Guaranteed Water For Industry
8 CA Commercial Landscape Survey Program
8 CA Commercial Sustainable Landscape Incentive Program
8 CA WaterSmart Incentive Program (through MWD)
8 CA Water Savings Incentive Program (through MWD)
9 CA CII Water Use Efficiency Program
10 CA Coin/Card Operated High-Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebate
10 CA Commercial Turf Removal Incentive
11 CA WaterSmart
12 CA SoCal WaterSmart Rebates
12 CA Water Savings Incentive Program by MWD
12 CA Landscape Audits By Water Resources Technician
12 CA Onsite Retrofits To Reclaimed Water
12 CA CII Turf Replacement Rebate
12 CA CII Indoor/Outdoor Audits
12 CA Professional Landscaper Classes
12 CA Urinal Valve Replacement Direct Install Program
13 CA Water Audits
13 CA Recycled Water Conversion Program
13 CA Water Smart Rebates (Through wholesale provider)
71
14 CA Water Efficiency
15 CA Commercial Water Use Reviews
15 CA Commercial Irrigation Efficiency Evaluations
15 CA Commercial Rebate Program
15 CA Commercial Leak Detection Assistance
15 CA Water Upon Request Program
16 CA Plumbing Fixture Retrofit Program
16 CA Smart Rebates Program
16 CA Green Business Certification
16 CA Spray Rinse Valve Distribution
16 CA Large Landscape Water Budgets
17 CA WaterWise CII Survey And Incentive Program
17 CA Irrigation Evaluation
17 CA WaterWise Landscape Rebate Program
18 CA Turf Conversion
18 CA New Generation Nozzles
18 CA Residential Smart Controllers
18 CA Large Landscape Smart Controllers
18 CA Commercial High Efficiency Toilet
18 CA Water Broom
18 CA Pre-Rinse Valves
19 CA SoCal WaterSmart Commercial Rebate Program
19 CA Smart Landscape Evaluation
19 CA Full Irrigation Audit For CII
32 CA Toilet Direct Install - Multifamily
32 CA Landscape Upgrade Grant Program
32 CA Rain Sensor Install Program
32 CA Blue Alert Program (Water Mgmt. Program)
32 CA Blue Dashboard Program
32 CA Ami Leak Detection Pilot
32 CA CII Turf Removal Rebate Program
32 CA CII Rebate Program (Clothes Washers, Etc)
20 CO CII Rebates
20 CO CII Performance Rebates
20 CO Large Irrigation Audits
20 CO Water Budget Program
20 CO Low-Income Retrofit Program
21 CO Free CII WaterSense Partner Irrigation Audits
21 CO Free Slow The Flow Irrigation Audits
21 CO Other One Time or Seasonal Events (E.G. PRSV Push; Fix-A-Leak Week Efforts, Etc.)
22 CO Spray Valve Upgrade
22 CO Business Irrigation Assessment
22 CO Commercial Water Use Assessment
22 CO Toilet Rebates
23 CO Irrigation Audit Requirement for New Landscapes
23 CO Landscape Plan Requirements
23 CO Conservation Focused Tap Fees
23 CO Inclining Tiered Rates
23 CO CRC Commercial Audits
23 CO Staff Walkthrough Audits
23 CO Leak Notification Program
23 CO Periodic Review Of Water Use And Water Purchased In Tap Fees
23 CO High Efficiency Fixture Incentive During Competition For Development
72
25 FL Landscape And Irrigation Evaluation Program
25 FL Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Replacement
25 FL Toilet Rebate Program
25 FL Energy And Water Audit
26 FL Sensible Sprinkling Program - Irrigation Evaluations With Rain Sensor Installation
26 FL Indoor Water Conservation Kit Give-Away
26 FL Toilet Leak Detection Kit Give-Away
27 FL Urinal, Toilet Rebates
27 FL MIL Program
27 FL Air Cooled Ice Machine Rebates
27 FL High Efficiency Clothes Washers
28 FL Irrigation Evaluations
28 FL Inside Audits
29 FL Landscape Irrigation Evaluation
29 FL Commercial Kitchen Pre-Rinse Sprayers
29 FL Tiered Rate Structure
29 FL Reclaimed Water
29 FL Water Restrictions Enforcement
30 GA Certified Blue Water Conservation Program For Bars & Restaurants
30 GA Leadership In Water Conservation Award
30 GA Green Schools
31 HI Toilet Rebates
31 HI WET is a Registered Trademark for Water Education for Teachers (so watch out)
33 NV Water Audit Program
33 NV Water Conservation Consulting Program
33 NV Landscape Workshops
34 NV Water Efficient Technologies (WET) Program
34 NV Water Smart Landscapes
34 NV Smart Irrigation Controller Rebate
34 NV Water Smart Contractor
35 NY Municipal Water Efficiency Program
35 NY Mayor's Water Challenge To Hotels
35 NY Water Challenge to Restaurants
41 OR Toilet/Urinal Rebates
41 OR Landscape Smart Controller and Multi-Stream Rotor Rebates
41 OR Self-Designed Incentive (up to 50% of project, no more than $5,000)
41 OR Landscape Irrigation Surveys
41 OR Site Visits with Written Reports
42 OR Business, Industry and Government Program
43 TX Custom Rebate
43 TX Small Commercial Irrigation Retrofit Rebates
43 TX Large Property Irrigation Check-Up (Regulatory Requirement)
44 TX Water Efficiency Assessments
44 TX Water Efficiency Rebates
45 TX SmartWater Audit ICI Program
46 TX Commercial Special Process Rebate ("Bucks For Business")
46 TX Commercial Kitchen Equipment Rebate
46 TX Rainwater Harvesting System Rebate
46 TX Irrigation System Upgrade Rebate
46 TX 3c Business Challenge
46 TX WaterWise Partner Certification Program
73
46 TX Reclaimed Water Program
47 TX WaterSmart Commercial Institutional And Industrial Program
47 TX Commercial Irrigation Technology Rebate Program
47 TX Firm Water Cost Share Program (Not Just CII Sector)
50 WA WaterSmart Technology Rebates
50 WA High-Efficiency Toilet Rebates
50 WA WashWise Rebates
50 WA Better-Than-Code Rebates (For New Development)
51 WA WaterSmart Technology Rebate Program
51 WA Efficient Irrigation Rebate Program
52 WA Commercial, Institutional, And Industrial Rebate Program
53 WA Energy Efficient Clothes Washers And Toilet Rebate Program
54 WA Landscape Irrigation
54 WA Direct Installation Of Fixtures
54 WA Toilet Rebates
54 WA Cooling Tower Rebates
48 USA HOA Irrigation Tune-up
49 USA High-Efficiency Washing Machine Program
49 USA Weather-Based Irrigation Controller Program
49 USA Turf Replacement Program
36 Ontario ICI Consultation Audit
36 Ontario ICI Capacity Buyback
36 Ontario Water Smart Irrigation Program
37 Ontario Restaurant Certification Program
37 Ontario WET Program - Water Audit Cost Sharing (At 50% to maximum $10,000)
37 Ontario WET Program - Water Savings Rebate (40c per litre of water saved in the long-term)
37 Ontario WET Program - Free Water Use Reviews
37 Ontario WET Program - Free Replacement Faucet Aerators and Showerheads
37 Ontario Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Replacement Program
37 Ontario Irrigation Audits - Funded at 50% (capped)
37 Ontario Sub-Metering Cost Sharing (At 50% to maximum $10,000)
38 Ontario Water Efficiency Technology (WET) Program
38 Ontario Water Efficient Business Certification Program
38 Ontario Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Replacement Program
39 Ontario ICI Indoor Water Assessment Program
39 Ontario Water Smart Irrigation Professional (WSIP) Program
40 Ontario Institutional, Commercial and Industrial (ICI) Water Capacity Buyback Program
40 Ontario Royal Flush Toilet Rebate Program
40 Ontario Smart Washer Rebate Program
Survey Question Q16 -- What are the names of your CII conservation/efficiency incentive programs? (E.g. Water
Efficient Technologies (WET) Program, Landscape Irrigation Survey For CII and Common Area Landscapes,
Cooling Tower High-Efficiency Drift Elimination Retrofit Program).
74
Table A6. “Other” Methods for Promoting CII Water Conservation/Efficiency Programs
No. "Other" Outreach Method
1 Annual technical workshops and seminars
2 Co-promotion with energy utility programs
3 Customized drought reports (2014 and 2015)
4 Email blasts from various lists
5 In the past has been through our retail water customers (we are a wholesale water provider), working on
changing that model to get more participation.
6 Media campaigns, general program collaterals, selected outreach events
7 Passive and on City website currently. Have written to all eligible properties several years ago.
8 Presentations to community groups and media advertisements
9 Pretreatment Surveys, FOG Outreach and Regulated Discharger Inspections/Site Visits, Tabling at
business events like local Chamber of Commerce forums
10 Rebates info for commercial customers is available on our website at OUC.com
11 Social media
12 We try to maintain relationship with stakeholder groups within each group of CII customers. We also
establish relationships with as many top users as possible. When there are regulations on CII for indoor or
landscape, these are also often a catalyst for the customer to use the custom rebate for efficiency upgrades.
13 Website at www.savedallaswater.com
14 Website, Account Executives, Power Conservation Team referrals
15 Website, social media, radio advertising
16 Website. Other agencies promote our program.
17 Word of mouth works well. Marketing to CII administration.
75
Table A7. “Other” Suggestions for Improving CII Water Efficiency Programs
No. "Other" Suggestions for Improving CII Programs
1 Target efforts to a specific end use (e.g. target Cooling Towers) to make the money go farther and get
more bang for the buck.
2 Case studies that can be used as cookie-cutter basis for rebates, i.e. upgrade of condenser in x type of
business saves x gpd and costs about x, so rebate should be X. Means customer doesn't need to track
down all that data and flat rebate is defined, so as long as they can show invoice for work that exceeds
rebate amount - done.
3 Generate more information from retail customers- if they are not willing to share retail data and
collaborate on outreach efforts it is difficult to do effective targeted marketing
4 Improving ordinances that require conservation
5 Add staffing so that we can handle more.
6 We streamlined turn-key retrofit programs for toilets and other fixtures. Custom rebates cannot be
streamlined because each one is unique. It does help once we have done one type of project because we
have the data to feel more confident of the savings for the next similar project. The first project of each
kind can be time consuming to ensure proper oversight.
7 Would need more resources to implement improvements
8 Better strategy for addressing the needs up the chain in the business to ensure full project buy in.
Disconnect between facility managers, corporate, and operators.
9 Hire staff to implement programs.
76
Table A8. Reasons for Not Having a Conservation or CII Program
State/
Reasons for Not Having a Conservation or CII Program
Province
AZ Water conservation is coordinated by water providers. We are a wastewater provider and
having a water conservation program would be duplicative
AZ I was only allowed to select one reason but you ask for "reasons". I would also select: need
information about how to establish and maintain program. We have an unofficial CII program
that provides customers with water budgets for outdoor water use and rebates which target both
indoor and outdoor water use. We will have an official CII program in the future but progress is
slow due to staffing concerns.
CA CII falls into same program as other customers. We have a small percentage of CII customers.
CA Most of the programs are available to all customer classes, only funding levels are higher for
CII versus Residential.
CA Specialized knowledge and skill sets can be needed to offer technical assistance over a range of
different business sectors.
CO There is no viable reason to not support this type of program
CT We have a minimal program regarding customer education on conservation practices but it is
not mandatory.
FL Minimal commercial and industrial use in service area.
FL We reached market saturation for commercial spray head replacements
FL Have not progressed to a special program for CII yet. CII customers take advantage of
irrigation audits and rebates as do residential customers.
FL Agency not sure if implementation is within their purview
GA Political sensitivity to providing incentives to for-profit entities
GA This Utility is a water wholesaler. We sell water to counties, cities that DO have formal
conservation programs. We participate with them, support them and more. We work with
schools and media to promote. They fix rates and give rebates for fixtures, etc. It is
complimentary.
GA Not familiar with it - the City of Savannah Georgia has one of the lowest water and sewer rates
in the S/E which is a double edged sword - good for the Politicians but bad for effective funding
of operations and capital improvements
GU The maintenance of the water distribution system was so poor until about 12 years ago that the
need for water line replacement has taken precedence. Funding was not available for those
projects until this year.
IL We offered the pre-spray rinse green nozzle to customers with commercial kitchens and
saturated the market. They continue to be offered by request.
IL Never gave it much thought.
IN Don't know what that is
KY NA
LA This is not an issue at this time.
MA City takes money from water use as a revenue stream.
NC Currently have significant capacity and need for additional revenue from water sales
NC We would only engage if needed because of drought, (water supply )
NC We are a 100% water wholesaler, utilities that purchase from us would implement these
programs.
NC Main/original program target was residential sector.
NY Our supply source is Lake Ontario, we don't have supply limitation concerns.
OK Working on program development
PA We are not in a conservation mode. We have plenty of water.
TX Working with customers for coordination (we are a wholesaler)
TX Residential has been our primary focus since establishing a WC program. There is also a
thought that revenue generating properties can invest in their own ways to reduce their
consumption, rather than the utility subsidizing their reduction.
77
State/
Reasons for Not Having a Conservation or CII Program
Province
TX Current Policy prohibits incentives for Conservation; any CII efficiency programs are
implemented and funded by the Customer without involvement of the Water Utility.
VA We have a water conservation plan.
VA We are a wholesale utility that serves five water retail utilities that maintain formal water
conservation programs.
WA Not a priority for our community
WA We are using portions of Washington State guidelines for conservation. No formal program.
WI Our ample supply, treatment and distribution capacity make "conservation" programs focusing
on reducing water use unnecessary. We do, however, have a "Use Water Wisely" program to
help residential customer find and fix leaks and know how to efficiently use their water. CII
organizations have resources and motivation to carry out water efficiency programs, with the
incentive/reward being reduced water bills.
WI Not enough time in my day to put a program together.
USA We have a metered system, not much waste
Alberta Is not a major concern for this utility at this time
British ICI programs are currently in development. The residential programs are well established.
Columbia
Saskatchewan Water wholesaler only
Table A9. Comparison of Means Test of Population Served Between Utilities

With and Without Programs
With Without Without

With CII
Statistic Conservation Conservation CII
Program
Mean (Population Served) 521,496 196,216 1,144,062 185,957
Variance 1,933,446 424,166 3,142,871 356,832
Observations 155 67 55 167
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 0
Degrees of Freedom (df) 185 54
t Stat -1.99 2.26
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.024 0.014
t Critical one-tail 1.65 1.67
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.048 0.028
t Critical two-tail 1.97 2.00
T-Test: Two-sample assuming unequal variances
78
Table A10. Comparison of Means Test of Per Capita Water Use between Utilities
With and Without Programs
With CII Without CII

Statistic
Program Program
Mean (Per Capita Use) 134.7 122.4
Variance 3874 2830
Observations 31 50
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Degrees of Freedom (df) 56
t Stat 0.9104
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.1833
t Critical one-tail 1.6725
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.3665
t Critical two-tail 2.0032
T-Test: Two-sample assuming unequal variances
Table A11. General Comments on CII Programs and the Survey

State/
No. General Comment
Province
1 Alberta A metric option would be appreciated for reporting water use data.
2 Alberta How best to work with ICI customers when time is very sensitive and water is very cheap?
3 AZ This survey is great! Looking forward to learning the results. However, the survey implies
that all utilities desire to make end users save water; some utilities see declining use as a
serious problem. We have different goals in each of the many districts that we own and
operate. Some districts are seeing enough (background/natural/cultural) decline in use that
it reduces revenues and impacts the utility's ability to invest in fixing aging infrastructure.
The desire to "improve" a utility's water conservation program is a component of the
overall issues and goals of that utility.
4 AZ We are a wastewater provider.
5 AZ We are just a very small water supply system. Usage is mostly seasonal during the summer
months. We are about 400 acres of mountain community north of Tucson Az. We are a
gravity, spring fed system with 2 million gallons of storage.
6 AZ None
7 British Was not clear from the initial questions that we were being asked about more than just CII
Columbia water conservation / efficiency programs (e.g., for the residential sector).
8 British It would be nice if you allowed a population range. We go from 500 to 10,000 people
Columbia depending on the season. The other would be if you allowed metric measurements. After
all that's how Canadian's track flows. More information from smaller communities on how
they were able to successfully keep conservation going would be great.
9 CA None
10 CA Our CII program is only a couple years old, but we have found that many of our
recommendations are maintenance related rather than fixture upgrades (i.e., replacing
flappers or flushometer cartridges). We offer a free survey and cost benefit analysis to any
CII customer who is interested, and incentives are on a first-come, first-served basis per
fiscal year.
11 CA We are in charge of managing the groundwater basin in the Pajaro Valley. We charge for
water extraction and we deliver tertiary water to coastal farmers because our modeling has
79
State/
No. General Comment
Province
shown that creating a hydro-static barrier will slow seawater intrusion. Because we use the
City of Watsonville's Waste Water we don't have as much of an incentive to lower effluent
flows into the plant because we are using all available water.
12 CO I am a contract operator for O&M, therefore answers were general in nature.
13 FL It would be beneficial to have benchmark consumption data for different CII categories to
help conservation efforts. Additionally, quantifying the water savings from different CII
conservation measures would help with decision making and budgeting.
14 FL If Florida Chapter of AWWA can make a member-accessible, segregated list and
abstracts/reports of CII programs implemented by other utilities, it would make new
program planning easier and justifiable to upper management and decision-makers. Include
contact information. The budget and staff cuts made during the "recession" are still being
felt, leading to limitations in conservation program planning and implementation.
15 FL None
16 FL Our wholesale deliveries to our 6 member governments does not make up all of the supply
in the region. Also, we have incomplete 2014 data, so you were provided the October 2013
averages.
17 GA The water utility can certainly be consider the expert in residential water conservation;
however, the end user is much more equipped to understand their water use in the
commercial and industrial application. Applying rates to benefit the for-profit business is a
concern, especially when considering the lower income customers.
18 GA Make water conservation simple: water leak detection program with immediate repairs
(after 811 notification of course); water meter repairs and servicing; meter accuracy testing
and immediate correction as needed; billing software integration with meter operations;
implementation of AMR / AMI / AMA systems; fire hydrant servicing; water valve
exercising program / servicing; prioritize spending; sub-contract out services as needed;
others. The survey should also address capital improvement funding and water and sewer
rates and rate structures
19 GU See item 2
20 IL Our Water Conservation-Efficiency initiative is new- in its second year. Last year it
received the WEGE Small Cities Sustainability Best Practices Award by the Great Lakes
and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative (GLSCI). (See:
http://www.cityhpil.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1095) It incorporates tiered rates,
sprinkling restrictions, moisture-sensing irrigation controllers & a public education
component. (See: http://www.cityhpil.com/index.aspx?nid=357,
http://www.cityhpil.com/index.aspx?nid=666). We are active members of the
ISAWWA Water Efficiency Committee. One half of our production goes to five satellite
systems in neighboring communities.
21 IL CII = ???? Is this C2? Is this CLL?? Is this Cii? A Google search provided the
following: Construction Industry Institute, Chartered Insurance Institute, or Council of
Institutional Investors?
22 KS none at this time
23 MI We don't have a formal program but we do offer separate meters for residential irrigation,
we monitor for high usage, we only allow trucks to fill from one metered hydrant, get
monthly reports from the fire department on their usage for fires and check our water loss
monthly.
24 MN Chief means for regulatory compliance and conservation is increasing block water rates.
25 MO We work with our CII customer more on an individual basis, especially when we were in a
drought. They are eligible for our WaterSense HET rebate - but it is limited, and is focused
primarily on residential. We do not have enough participation or savings from that
program alone to separate CII program costs or savings.
26 MO None
27 CA I have answered this survey from a California American Water perspective. We do water
efficiency in many other ways in American Water, but it didn't really seem to fit the
80
State/
No. General Comment
Province
purpose of this survey to respond more holistically since our California subsidiary does the
most efficiency work pertaining specifically to CII customers.
28 Ontario Only 3 comments: 1. This survey took much longer than 30 minutes as was suggested. 2.
All of our statistics are in Megalitres per day so converting everything took some time.
Perhaps that should be a reporting option on future surveys. Another option is that the
United States and/or the AWWA should catch up with the rest of the world and go metric).
3. The final page asking for contact information has a pull down menu for State/Province.
There are no province selections.
29 Ontario We are currently updating our Water Efficiency strategy. This will determine where the CII
program (or ICI) program will be headed for the next 5 years.
30 Ontario Question 42 does not permit the entry of a Canadian province. That is specifically we are in
Ontario.
31 OR It was difficult to answer some of the questions, especially when there was larger category
that required a response, followed by subcategories. At times we include our multi-family
in our Business, Industry and Government (BIG) program, but for the responses here, we
did not include them. Many of the larger multi-family buildings have boilers, cooling
towers, multi-use, e.g., restaurants, other businesses below and are all on same meter. We
have 2 staff people to service the 19,650 accounts, and we do not market our services.
Customers are either self-referred or are referred by our customer service staff, other city
agencies, or other organizations. Our BIG program and our residential program work as a
team to accomplish the work we need to do for our customers.
32 PA None
33 TX The survey was challenging on the near end and I almost gave up. It kept kicking it back
until I entered 1 over and over on the connections answers. We are a big utility...not one
connection of each type. I could send you the exact break down in an e-mail if you inquire.
34 TX We survey our customers about water conservation program implementation yearly but
only ask for connection data in the year prior to developing our 5 year water conservation
plan so I don't have 2014 data CII has not been a specific focus of our water conservation
program lately although we plan to increase targeted marketing for simple retrofits like pre-
rinse spray valves next year. When we first started the programs we hired a dedicated staff
person to do CII audits but we did not have the follow-through to incentive program
participation that we were hoping for, particularly in the private sector and eventually
eliminated that position. We did have some good participation with schools early on.
35 USA The meters take care of most of the waste.
36 WA Caution when evaluating data--fields for Q11 allowed entry of numbers with comma
separators; fields for Q12 did not allow entry of numbers with comma separators--at first I
thought it didn't like the zero in the wholesale field and I was going to enter a fake "1";
make sure you double check these fields on all responses. Anticipating rapid growth in
the CII sector in our City of >18,000 persons.
37 WI I am all for water conservation and efficiency, however, my fear is that AWWA will put
together guidance documents/plans that will then be adopted by the EPA. Then it will
become a Law. My problem is that we do not have enough time or bodies to implement
any more programs. Making more laws does not give me more time in my day to get my
work done.
Survey Question Q51. Are there any comments you would like to make about CII water conservation/efficiency
programs or about this survey? If so, please offer your comments below.
81
Figure A1. Climatic Regions of the United States.
(As used in the Third National Climate Assessment Report. (www.globalchange.gov)
82
APPENDIX B – SURVEY INSTRUMENT
83
National Survey of Utility CII Water Efficiency Programs
Introduction
The American Water Works Association requests your utility’s participation in this survey of
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) Water Efficiency Programs. The survey should
take approximately 30 minutes to complete. The target respondents for this survey are utility
personnel working with water use and conservation including General Managers, Utility
Directors, Planners, Financial Managers, and Conservation Coordinators.
Your utility’s responses will be kept strictly confidential and will be grouped with information
from other utilities for statistical purposes only. If you have any questions about the survey, or
if you believe this survey is best directed elsewhere in your organization, please contact
Lindsey Geiger at lgeiger@awwa.org.
Thanks in advance for your contribution to this collective effort and for supporting AWWA's
mission to provide solutions to effectively manage the world's most important resource.
84
Part A: Existing and Planned Water Conservation Programs
1. Does your utility have a formal water conservation or water use efficiency program (or
programs)?
Yes
No
In development but not implemented
No in-house program – programs are offered by our wholesale utility
Previously existing program has been discontinued
2. What are the primary reasons for establishing water conservation or water use
efficiency program(s) at your utility? (Select all that apply):
Demand approaching capacity of water treatment plant(s)
Exceeding safe yield of water supply source(s)
Approaching capacity of wastewater treatment plant(s)
Deferral/avoidance of infrastructure investments
Reduction of O&M costs and/or energy costs
Regulatory compliance
Utility stewardship and sustainability
Other reasons (please specify):
3. Please estimate the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees that currently work on your
water efficiency/water conservation programs (i.e. 1 FTE = 2080 hours/year, 1.5 FTE=3120
hours/year).
Total FTE employees:
4. Does your utility have a dedicated budget for water conservation and efficiency programs?
Yes
No
85
5. Approximately how much was budgeted and spent by your utility in 2014 on water conservation
and efficiency programs?
Budgeted amount in 2014 ($):
Actually spent amount in 2014 ($):
Budgeted amount for 2015 ($):
6. How does your utility finance your conservation and efficiency programs? (Select all that apply)
Operating budget funds
Capital improvement funds
Taxes, special fees
Connection charges
Development or impact fees
Grants or other outside funding sources
Dedicated funding from volumetric rates
Other (please identify)
7. Does your conservation and efficiency program include subprograms or components directed to
the CII subsector?
Yes
No
No longer active
Currently in development
8. Please estimate the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees that currently work on your
CII water efficiency/water conservation programs (1 FTE = 2080 hrs/yr).
Total FTE employees:
86
9. Approximately what percentage of your total conservation budget is for CII programs?
Percentage of your total conservation budget for CII programs:
10. What are the most recently estimated total water savings from the CII program(s) (Use dropdown
list to select unit of measurement):
Units:
Total savings:
11. What CII sectors are eligible for (or targeted by) your CII conservation and efficiency
program(s)? (Please select all that apply)
All CII Customers
All commercial customers
All industrial customers
All institutional customers
Multifamily customers
Select groups of CII customers
12. Using the table below, please rate the degree of success in terms of program participation for the
CII subsectors specifically targeted by your CII conservation and efficiency programs (on a scale
from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “poor success” and 5 = “excellent success”). If a CII subsector listed is not
targeted by your utility, simply select the “NOT TARGETED” box.
87
88
13. What approaches does your utility use to target participants or conservation efforts? (Select all
that apply).
Does not use specific approaches to target efforts
Largest water users
Customers with a large dominant end use of water
High profile customer class (by public perception)
Ease of implementation
By directive (political or regulatory)
Through information obtained through professional associations
Other (please identify):
89
14. Using the table below, please rate the degree of success of the delivery mechanisms and/or
incentives offered by your utility on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “poor success” and 5 =
“excellent success”). If a delivery mechanism and/or incentive listed is not offered to the CII
sector by your utility, simply select the “NOT OFFERED” box.
Free surveys and water

audits
90
15. What are the names of your CII conservation/efficiency incentive programs? (E.g. Water Efficient
Technologies (WET) Program, Landscape Irrigation Survey For CII and Common Area
Landscapes, Cooling Tower High-Efficiency Drift Elimination Retrofit Program).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
91
16. Using the table below, please rate the degree of success of the efficiency devices and
equipment offered by your utility on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “poor success” and 5 =
“excellent success”). If an efficiency devices and equipment listed is not offered to the CII sector
by your utility, simply select the “NOT OFFERED” box.
Check if 5-
NOT OFFERED 1 - Poor 2 - Fair 3 - Good 4 - Very Good Excellent
Commercial laundry
equipment
Irrigation controllers (climate-based or soil

moisture-based)
92
17. When measuring/assessing the success of the program delivery mechanism/incentives or
efficiency devices/equipment do you focus more on customer participation or water savings?
Customer participation
Water savings
Both participation and savings
18. How does your utility promote programs to CII customers? (Select all that apply).
Customer bill insert
Direct mail
Telephone solicitation
Industry/association meetings and gatherings
Presentations to professional organizations
Newsletters
Facility manager solicitation
Incentives to CII consultants (e.g. cooling tower firms)
Other (please specify):
93
19. Does your utility use online or paper submission forms for its CII rebate/incentive applications?
Yes
No
My utility also provides energy - and we work together
My utility also provides energy - we do not coordinate
Comments:
20. Does your utility coordinate with your local energy utility on CII programs and incentives?
Yes
No
My utility also provides energy - and we work together
My utility also provides energy - we do not coordinate
Comments:
21. Does your utility consider conserved water as one of water supply alternatives?
Yes
No
Other (please explain):
94
Part B. Program Evaluation
22. How does your utility assess the effectiveness of its CII programs? (Select all that apply).
Participation rates
Water savings to customer
Water savings to utility
Cost savings
Financial (payback period, ROI)
Customer satisfaction and awareness
We do not assess the effectiveness
23. What methods of analysis are or have been used to evaluate water savings of the CII
conservation and efficiency programs? (Select all that apply).
Trend analysis (before vs. after)
Comparison of means
Multiple regression analysis
We do not carry out this type of analysis
95
24. What methods are or have been used to evaluate economic effectiveness of the CII conservation
and efficiency programs? (Select all that apply).
Cost-benefit analysis (Utility side)
Cost-benefit analysis/ROI (Customer side)
Total cost avoidance
We do not carry out this type of analysis
25. By whom are these assessments of the program effectiveness conducted?

Agency staff (internal)
Consultant (external)
Both internal and external
No assessments are performed
26. To whom does the program(s) need to demonstrate success? (Select all that apply).
Internal management (Utility CEO/manager, Board, Program manager, Chief financial officer/manager
External oversight committee
State agencies
We do not report the results of the program
96
27. What type of CII facility specific information does your utility collect during audits or through
program participation applications? (Select all that apply).
Collected During Audit From Applications External Data Sources Not Collected
28. Does your utility use this additional customer information to develop metrics for benchmarking
and/or evaluating program success rates?
Yes
No
We plan to develop benchmarks
Not sure
97
29. Does your utility use any external data sources on CII customers to assist in evaluating
program success rates and/or benchmarking? (Select all that apply).
No external data sources about CII customers are used
Tax assessor records
Census data
Geospatial data
Third party business data
Building ratings (Energy Star, LEED, other)
Corporate efficiency/sustainability goals
98
Part C: Lessons Learned
30. Using the scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “unimportant” and 5 = “critical”), please rate the
importance of each Key Barrier to CII Program Participation as provided in the table below.
99
31. Please indicate how you think your utility's CII program could be improved? (Select all that
apply).
Change type of incentive
Change value of incentive
Improve marketing / outreach strategies
Make simpler/streamline/less paperwork
Move to online submission of forms vs. paper
Additional examples/case studies demonstrating ROI and performance
32. What are the sources of information you use to improve your CII program? (Select all that apply).
Informal networking
Paid consultants
AWWA resources (e.g., manuals, journal, website)
Conferences (e.g., AWWA, WaterSmart Innovations)
Alliance for Water Efficiency resources
EPA WaterSense resources
Industry specific publications/organizations
100
33. What are the primary reasons for not having (or discontinuing) a water conservation and/or CII
program?
Not enough funding
Not enough staff
CII use is not significant enough to warrant a program
Need information about how to establish and maintain a program
Other (please indicate):
Part D: Utility Profile
34. What type of services are provided by your utility (Select that apply)?
Water
Wastewater
Electricity
Natural gas
Solid waste
Storm water
35. Is the utility publicly or privately owned?
Publicly owned (by city/village, municipality, or cooperative entity)
Privately/investor owned
Other (please specify)
101
36. Are the services provided at retail or wholesale level?
Retail
Both retail and wholesale
Wholesale only
37. What is the estimated population served by your utility?
Population in retail service area:
Population in wholesale service area (if applicable):
38. What is the number of retail service connections and the number of wholesale customers (if
applicable) served by your utility?
Residential retail service connections:
Nonresidential retail service connections:
Total retail service connections:
Total wholesale customers (if applicable):
39. What is your preferred unit of measurement for reporting water use?
(MGD)
(AFY)
I would prefer not to share water use information
102
40. Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable) water deliveries in MGD
for 2014.
Residential retail volume (MGD):
Nonresidential retail volume (MGD):
Total retail volume (MGD):
Total wholesale volume (treated and untreated, if applicable)

(MGD):
41. Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable) water deliveries in AFY
for 2014.
Residential retail volume (AFY):
Nonresidential retail volume (AFY):
Total retail volume (AFY):

(AFY):
42. What is the estimated population served by your utility?

Population in wholesale service area (if applicable):
43. What is the total number of wholesale customers served by your utility?
Number of wholesale customers:
44. Please indicate the total volume of water deliveries (treated and untreated) provided to your
wholesale customers in 2014 (indicate in MGD or AFY).
Water Deliveries (MGD):
Water Deliveries (AFY):
45. Do you receive information on the number of retail service connections and/or wholesale
customers and water deliveries provided by your wholesale customers (or member agencies)?
Yes
No
103
46. What is the total number of retail service connections and wholesale customers served by your
wholesale customers (or member agencies) in 2014?
Total retail service connections:
Residential retail service connections (if provided):
Nonresidential retail service connections (if provided):
Total wholesale customers (if applicable):
47. What is your preferred unit of measurement for reporting water use?
(MGD)
(AFY)
I would prefer not to share water use information
48. Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable) water deliveries in MGD
for 2014.
Residential retail volume (MGD):
Nonresidential retail volume (MGD):
Total retail volume (MGD):

(MGD):
49. Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable) water deliveries in AFY
for 2014.
Residential retail volume (AFY):
Nonresidential retail volume (AFY):
Total retail volume (AFY):

(AFY):
104
50. Is your utility a member or partner with any of the following organizations? (Select all that apply)
AWWA
AWWA state/regional affiliate
Alliance for Water Efficiency
EPA WaterSense
Part E: Future Opportunities
51. Are there any comments you would like to make about CII water conservation/efficiency
programs or about this survey? If so, please offer your comments below.
52. Would you be willing to participate in the follow-up research on CII water efficiency programs?
Yes
No
53. If you wish to receive a copy of the final report or participate in follow-up research on CII water
efficiency programs, please provide your contact information below.
Name and
Position/Title
Utility Name
Address
Address 2
City/Town
-- select state --
State/Province
ZIP/Postal Code
Email Address
Phone Number
105
Thank you!
Thank you for completing the survey. This survey was conducted by the AWWA Water
Efficiency Programs and Technologies Committee whose purpose is to facilitate information
exchange, networking and partnerships on water efficient programs and technologies among
water utilities, manufacturers, consultants and service providers, interest groups and regulatory
agencies with respect to:
• Development, implementation and evaluation of water efficiency products, standards

and water conservation BMPs/programs.
• Evaluation of residential and nonresidential end-use technologies and methodologies for
estimation of potential savings rates associated with efficiency improvements.
• Origination, development and/or review of policy and issue papers on water
efficiency and water conservation.
To learn how to become more involved in the AWWA Water Efficiency Programs and
Technologies Committee, please contact Elizabeth Foster at efoster@awwa.org.
106

AWWAs Utility Surveyof CIIWater Efficiency Programs Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

AWWAs Utility Surveyof CIIWater Efficiency Programs Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AWWAs Utility Surveyof CIIWater Efficiency Programs Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATIONAL SURVEY OF COMMERCIAL,

INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL WATER

Report prepared by Dr. Benedykt Dziegielewski, consultant

Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association

1. Water conservation and improvements in water-use efficiency appear to have gained a

2. The availability of water conservation/water efficiency programs that are directed

2. The adoption of CII efficiency programs by utilities could be greatly enhanced by

4. A follow-up research project should be undertaken by AWWA or other organizations to

Mary Ann Dickinson

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... ii

PART I. SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... 1

PART II. COMPLETE SURVEY RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 21

Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association

Figure 1 Prevalence of Utility Water Conservation Programs 3

Table 1 Valid Survey Responses by State and Province 23

Table A1 “Other” Reasons for Establishing Water Conservation Plan 67

AWWA American Water Works Association

AWE Alliance for Water Efficiency

AFY Acre-feet per year

BIG Business, Industry and Government

CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency

CII Commercial, Industrial and Institutional

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FTE Full-Time Equivalent employee

GPCD Gallons per capita per day

ICI Industrial, Commercial and Institutional

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

MGD Million gallons per day

MGY Million gallons per year

MaP Maximum Performance Testing

ROI Return on Investment

WEPTC Water Efficiency Programs and Technology Committee

WSI WaterSmart Innovations Conference

B. KEY FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS

#1 - Water conservation and improvements in water-use efficiency appear to have gained a

Figure 3. Utility’s Reasons for Establishing Conservation Programs

Figure 4. Availability of Utility CII Efficiency Programs

Figure 5. Full-Time Equivalent Employees to Support Conservation Programs

Figure 6. Percent of Respondents Who Targeted Specific CII Categories

Figure 7. Respondents’ Rating of Success in Program Participation by CII Category

Figure 8. Reported Use of Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives

Figure 11. Respondent’s Rating of the of CII Efficiency Equipment by Type

Figure 14. Criteria for Assessing Effectiveness of CII Programs

Figure 15. Collection of CII Facility Specific Data

Figure 18. Options for Improving CII Programs

Figure 19. Sources of Information for Improving CII Programs

1.2 Survey Implementation

1.3 Analysis of Survey Results

2.2 Respondent Characteristics

CII Survey EPA Sample 2006 EPA Inventory 2011

Table 3. Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs

Table 4. Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs by State/Province

With Without Percent with

Grand Total 383 282 101 74%

Table 5. Regional Differences in Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs

3.2 Reasons for Establishing Conservation Programs

Table 6. Reasons for Establishing Water Conservation/Efficiency Programs

3.3 Reasons for Not Having a Water Conservation or CII Program