THE PLAN APPENDIX A DEMAND APPENDIX - Dublin · 4.1 STRATEGIC STUDY 1996 & YEAR 2000 REVIEW The...

THE PLANWater Supply Project - Dublin Region

APPENDIX A

DEMAND APPENDIX

October 2010

Water Supply Project - Dublin Region Demand / Supply Projections

MDW0158Rp0106 i F01

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 WATER SUPPLY NEEDS – SHORT TO MEDIUM TERM.......................................................... 1

1.2 WATER SUPPLY NEEDS – MEDIUM TO LONG TERM............................................................ 1

1.3 GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC GROWTH POLICY...................................................................... 1

2 DEMAND PROJECTIONS – PROCESS.................................................................................... 3

3 REPORTS REVIEW................................................................................................................... 4

4 DEMAND ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY / DEMAND SCENARIOS ...................................... 5

4.1 STRATEGIC STUDY 1996 & YEAR 2000 REVIEW................................................................ 5

4.2 MINIMUM & MAXIMUM PLANNING SCENARIOS .................................................................... 6

4.2.1 Maximum Planning Scenario............................................................................ 6

4.2.2 Minimum Planning Scenario............................................................................. 6

4.2.3 Appendix AA..................................................................................................... 7

5 DOMESTIC DEMAND................................................................................................................ 8

5.1 POPULATION – GDA & DUBLIN REGION (WATER SUPPLY AREA)........................................ 8

5.2 PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION (PCC)................................................................................. 10

6 NON DOMESTIC DEMAND (INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL) ............................................... 12

7 CUSTOMER SIDE LEAKAGE LOSSES .................................................................................. 13

8 DISTRIBUTION LEAKAGE LOSSES....................................................................................... 14

9 DEMAND PROJECTIONS 2010 – 2022 – 2031 – 2040 .......................................................... 15

10 HEADROOM ............................................................................................................................ 16

10.1 CURRENT & SHORT TERM NETWORK OPERATIONS ......................................................... 16

10.2 HEADROOM REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................... 16

10.3 CLIMATE CHANGE.......................................................................................................... 16

11 PRODUCTION CAPABILITY OF EXISTING DUBLIN SOURCES .......................................... 18

12 DEMAND/SUPPLY BALANCE................................................................................................. 19

13 DUBLIN REGION – TIMING OF SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS FROM NEW SOURCE ........... 20

13.1 PEAK DEMAND & HEADROOM ALLOWANCES.................................................................... 21

14 DEMAND GROWTH – MIDLANDS.......................................................................................... 23

15 EXTENT OF NEW SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................... 25

16 PHASING ................................................................................................................................. 26

17 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................... 27


MDW0158Rp0106 ii F01

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.1 GDA Historic Population Growth & Projections (2009 – 2031) ....................................... 10

Figure 13.1 Minimum & Maximum Average Water Demand Growth Scenarios ............................ 21

Figure 13.2 Peak Demand Growth Scenarios (incl Headroom provision)...................................... 22

Figure 14.1 Water Supply to Midlands ........................................................................................... 24

Figure 16.1 New Source Supply Phases........................................................................................ 26

Figure 17.1 Demand Growth Scenarios / Sustainable Production / Project Delivery..................... 27

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.1 Dublin Region (Water Supply Area) Population 2010-2020-2031- 2040 ........................ 10

Table 5.2 Projected Domestic Demand 2010-2020-2031- 2040 ..................................................... 11

Table 6.1 Industrial Demand / Hectare – Wet & Dry Industries....................................................... 12

Table 6.2 Dublin Region Non-Domestic Growth 2010-2020-2031- 2040........................................ 12

Table 7.1 Customer Side Leakage Losses: 2010-2022-2031-2040................................................ 13

Table 8.1 Distribution Leakage Losses: 2010-2022-2031-2040...................................................... 14

Table 9.1 Average / Peak Demand (2010 – 2040) – Dublin Region (Water Supply Area) ............. 15

Table 11.1 Treated Water Production from Existing Sources ........................................................... 18

Table 12.1 Demand/Supply Balance (Mld) ........................................................................................ 19

Table 15.1 Minimum Planning Scenario ........................................................................................... 25

Table 15.2 Maximum Planning Scenario (SEA Phase 2) ................................................................. 25

Table 15.3 New Source Supply Requirements................................................................................. 25


MDW0158Rp0106 iii F01

APPENDICES

APPENDIX AA Demand Projections 2009-2040 No. of Pages 1

APPENDIX AB Demand Review No. of Pages 147


MDW0158Rp0106 1 F01

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 WATER SUPPLY NEEDS – SHORT TO MEDIUM TERM

During the past 10 – 15 years, the major socio-economic development in the Dublin Region has significantly increased demand for water. This demand has largely been met by a major programme of leakage management and water conservation, which has reduced distribution system losses from the order of 45% in the late 1990’s to under 30% today. Demand has been met within an ongoing knife edge ‘supply – demand balance’ operational regime as there is no spare capacity (headroom) in the supply system. Whilst operating with little or no headroom, future short to medium term demand growth can continue to be met by sustained leakage management and water conservation initiatives (eg domestic metering), in combination with the expansion of Ballymore Eustace and Leixlip water treatment plants to their sustainable limits. The scale of increased water availability from these initiatives, however, will at best maintain the status quo (up to approx 2020) taking account of the increasing short term water demand growth in the Region.

1.2 WATER SUPPLY NEEDS – MEDIUM TO LONG TERM

The National and Local Authorities in the Dublin Region recognise that developing a new major water source for the region is a key long-term project which could take up to 10 years to realise. Because of this long timescale, it is imperative that the region’s future water-supply needs are quantified and the strategies to meet them determined now.

The potential to abstract further water from existing Dublin Region sources is limited. Water abstractions must be balanced with conservation, amenity and recreational needs, and good water quality must be preserved. These objectives are enshrined in the EU Water Framework Directive which is being implemented by all relevant local authorities nationally.

The potential to further conserve water through reduction of distribution network leakage is also limited. The age and condition of the pipes in the supply network are such that even with a planned investment of over €100m (2007 – 2012) in pipeline replacement and leakage repair, there is a technical and economic limit to the achievement of water savings from these activities.

The contribution that other conservation solutions can make is also limited. Measures to encourage efficient use of domestic and commercial water (eg metering and charging for all consumers) will result in valuable water savings which will defer the timing of supplies being first needed from a new source but will not prevent the ultimate need.

1.3 GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC GROWTH POLICY

High level Irish Government policy in relation to economic growth is set out in the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) 2002-2020 and the National Development Plan (NDP) 2007-2013. Both of these policy documents recognise that national economic-growth objectives will continue to require managed development of the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) / Dublin Region to its full potential since the Region is the economic powerhouse of the country as a whole, with over 50% of Ireland’s economic growth generated there. Economic growth objectives are provided for in the (Dublin & Mid East) Regional Planning Guidelines (2010 – 2022), supported by Development Plans in each Local Authority area within the Region.

The planned growth objectives in the Dublin Region as envisaged in the (2010 – 2022) Regional Planning Guidelines and National Spatial Strategy (2030) form the basis for estimating the extent of water availability which must be provided in order to sustain the economic growth targets. These long


MDW0158Rp0106 2 F01

term growth forecasts take account of high and low / negative growth economic cycles and extend the consistent long term growth patterns for the region since 1960 (see Section 5).

To support this strategy, it is essential that a secure supply of high-quality water is provided throughout the area. The Dublin Region water authorities' objectives, as per the Water Services Strategic Plans, are to ensure a secure sustainable water supply, which provides:

guaranteed supplies of water throughout the Region to meet daily needs, including day-time and seasonal peaks

flexibility to increase water supply to meet development needs as these increase over time

a margin between supply and demand to make sure that supply is secure in the event of local system failures (treatment-plant breakdown, trunk main bursts, pollution incident etc)

This approach is in line with best international practice and requires:

reliable sources and treatment systems

adequate pipeline and storage capacities

robust, well-managed distribution systems

responsible management and use of water, including minimisation of water use through volumetric metering & associated charging regimes which incentivise conservation

control of water leakage by customers

responsible use of water for non-essential purposes


MDW0158Rp0106 3 F01

2 DEMAND PROJECTIONS – PROCESS

The analysis of projected water demand growth in the Dublin Region for the 2010 – 2040 period, has built on the findings of the DEHLG 1996 and 2000 studies updated to take account of the proposed policy to meter all customers (domestic as well as non-domestic) and to optimise water management.

The process for estimation of future potable water demand for the Dublin Region involved:

Review of all relevant reports (National Spatial Strategy / Regional Planning Guidelines etc)

Analysis of trends in the Dublin Region over the 1996 to 2007 period

Analysis of trends in the Dublin Region over the 2008 to 2010 period (economic slowdown)

Ongoing Consultations with Dublin Region Local Authorities

Assessment of impacts of extensive demand management initiatives made possible by the proposed introduction of domestic metering & charging (see Appendix AB of this Demand Report)


MDW0158Rp0106 4 F01

3 REPORTS REVIEW

The following key reports and studies were referenced:

Greater Dublin Water Supply Strategic Study (GDWSSS) '96

Year 2000 Review of GDWSSS96

Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS) 2004 / 2005

Population and Land use Study 2003 (incl. Strategic & Regional Planning Guidelines / National Spatial Strategy / Local Authority Development Plans)

Table 3.28 adj. - Monthly "Water Balance" Report to Dublin Region Water Supply Steering Group

Yield of the River Liffey 2005 (O’Dwyer / Tobin) - Fingal County Council

Kildare Water Strategy - Nov 2003 (Nicolas O'Dwyer)

Water Services Investment Programme - Assessment of Needs 2008 – 2010 & 2010 – 2012

Strategic Storage Study 2006 (Mc Carthy-Hyder)

Regional Planning Guidelines for the GDA ; Review 2010 – 2022 Dublin & Mid East Regional Authorities

RPS Demand Review 2010 (Appendix AB of this Report re potential for water savings from demand management programmes)


MDW0158Rp0106 5 F01

4 DEMAND ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY / DEMAND SCENARIOS

4.1 STRATEGIC STUDY 1996 & YEAR 2000 REVIEW

The 1996 Strategic Supply Study and Year 2000 Review established the methodologies for best practice demand analysis and forecasting which in turn were based on UK Department of Environment recommendations (Sept. 1995). The demand projections in this report are based on this methodology.

The total demand is calculated following analysis of a number of demand sub-components and preparation of projections for each sub – component in order to arrive at an overall total. The demand sub-components are as follows:

Domestic Consumption

Non Domestic Consumption

Customer Side Leakage

Distribution Network Leakage

Headroom (peak/security of supply/contingency/climate change)

Each of these sub-components is developed in Sections 5 to 9.

Appendix AB of this Demand Report analyses each demand sub-component and identifies factors influencing demand (eg metering & charging). It also looks at international experience on demand management including identification of lowest technically achievable water savings across the various demand sectors and the measures which are required to achieve significant water savings. Overall relevant international demand strategies are examined including demand risk management strategies and implementation costs. The international demand analysis & benchmarking focuses on;

UK & Thames Water

Denmark & Copenhagen

Germany & Berlin

Belgium

The Netherlands

Lithuania

Australia & Sydney

Demand projections for the Dublin Region Water Supply Area, and projected savings from water conservation initiatives, can be assessed more thoroughly against the background of experience and achievements internationally.


MDW0158Rp0106 6 F01

4.2 MINIMUM & MAXIMUM PLANNING SCENARIOS

The assessments of demand growth in the Dublin Region for the 2010 – 2022 – 2031 – 2040 period, have built on the findings of the DEHLG 1996 and 2000 studies and include updated assessments of projected population growth (as per the 2010 - 2022 Regional Planning Guidelines & National Spatial Strategy 2030), economic growth projection ranges and anticipated water savings from leakage management / demand management / water conservation measures. Two demand scenarios have emerged from the analyses – Maximum Planning Scenario & Minimum Planning Scenario.

The ‘Maximum Planning Scenario’, was prepared in 2007 for Phase 2 of the Strategic Environmental Assessment process. The 2007 demand forecasts were based on an approach involving strong emphasis on network rehabilitation and active leakage control programmes with demand management strategies limited to customer awareness programmes, building bye-laws, promotion of water efficient appliances and 100% metering of the non-domestic sector. This scenario involved a (relatively) lower emphasis on extensive domestic demand management initiatives in the absence of policies requiring domestic metering & charging. Details are contained in Volume 2 Appendices (SEA Draft Plan). The main assumptions of the Maximum Planning Scenario are summarised in Section 4.2.1 .

4.2.1 Maximum Planning Scenario

- Metering & Charging only applicable to Non Domestic Sector

- Reductions in personal usage (1% - 2%) resulting from customer awareness programmes, building bye-laws and greater use of water efficient appliances

- Reductions in customer leakage (1% - 2%) resulting from customer awareness programmes

- Reductions in Distribution Network Leakage (Network Rehabilitation) to 20% (2030 – 2040)

- Medium to High Economic Growth (all zoned lands developed by 2030)

The Minimum Planning Scenario main assumptions are summarised in Section 4.2.2.

4.2.2 Minimum Planning Scenario

The ‘Minimum Planning Scenario’ demand projections are based on the ‘Minimum Achievable’ scenario in the Demand Review (Appendix AB of this Demand Report), which was carried out following indications signalled by Government in draft Budget 2010 with respect to metering and volumetric charging for domestic water supplies. The Minimum Achievable / Minimum Planning Scenario assumes that best practice water conservation measures are being implemented in the Dublin Region in advance of the introduction of any supplies from a new source. Domestic demand growth forecasts assume that personal consumption is reduced by up to 15% as a result of the domestic metering policy changes. Customer leakage is reduced by up to 70%. Distribution system leakage is reduced from 29% to 20% through active leakage management and network rehabilitation. Forecast non domestic demand growth rates are reduced by up to 30% to reflect the current economic slowdown (2008 – 2010).

- Full introduction of Domestic Metering & Charging by 2020

- Reductions in personal usage (up to 20% resulting from metering & charging)

- Reductions in customer leakage (up to 70% resulting from metering & charging)


MDW0158Rp0106 7 F01

- Reductions in Distribution Network Leakage (Network Rehabilitation) to 20% by 2040

- Low to Medium Economic Growth (all zoned lands developed by 2040)

The Minimum Planning Scenario is regarded as the ‘best practical environmental & economic scenario’ and is recommended in The Plan as the scenario on which planning for the development of a new water supply is based. It assumes that water savings are optimised through best practice management of leakage and personal consumption. This approach was advocated in much of the SEA public consultation stakeholder feedback which is fully accounted for in this scenario. Detailed demand projections for the Dublin Region, based on the Minimum Planning Scenario, are contained in Appendix AA of this Demand Report.

4.2.3 Appendix AA

Appendix AA (of this Demand Report) contains greater detail of;

Minimum & Maximum Planning Scenarios

- on a year by year basis (2009 – 2040)

- by demand components


MDW0158Rp0106 8 F01

5 DOMESTIC DEMAND

Domestic demand is a product of population and per capita consumption (PCC).

5.1 POPULATION – GDA & DUBLIN REGION (WATER SUPPLY AREA)

Population projections for the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) were undertaken at a high level of detail during the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS 2002 – 2004) and reported on in the Population & Land Use Report of 2003. The population projections in the 2003 report were based on;

GDA Regional and Strategic Planning Guidelines 2004 (applicable at that stage)

Long-term (2030) Central Statistics Office (CSO) and Economic & Social Research Institute (ESRI) population projections contained in the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) of 2002

Domestic water demand growth projections contained in (New Major Source – Dublin Region) Feasibility Studies 2005 – 2008 were based on these population projections.

The current (2010) domestic water demand growth projections (Appendix AA) are based on GDA & Dublin Region (Water Supply Area) population projections estimated as follows;

Domestic Demand 2009 / 2010 – based on population / actual outturns for 2009 and trends for Jan - April 2010 as reported in DCC Report (Table 3.28) – Monthly Water Balance Report to Dublin Region Water Supply Steering Group

Domestic Demand 2010 / 2022 – based on population projections contained in the Regional Planning Guidelines (RPG) for the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) 2010 – 2022 (Dublin & Mid East Regional Authorities – Draft for Public Consultation March 2010)

Domestic Demand 2022 / 2031 – based on longterm Central Statistics Office (CSO) and Economic & Social Research Institute (ESRI) population projections contained in the 2002 National Spatial Strategy (NSS) and 2003 Population & Land Use Report (GDSDS 2005)

Domestic Demand 2031 / 2040 – based on extrapolation

The above GDA population projections were used as the basis for estimating future domestic water demand growth (2010 / 2031) in the Dublin Region (Water Supply Area) which includes all of Dublin City Council, Fingal, South Dublin, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown and substantial parts of Kildare, Wicklow and Meath

The population projections for the Kildare, Meath and Wicklow sections of the Dublin Region (Water Supply Area) are estimated as follows;

Kildare – 90% of population (2010 – 2040) supplied from Dublin Region sources. Allowance has been made for supplies from the Barrow coming on-stream in 2013

Wicklow – 60% of population supplied from Dublin Region sources (2010 – 2016) and 90% of population (2022 – 2040)

Meath – Population of Meath supplied from Dublin Region sources increasing as follows;

10,000 (2010) – 15% at 2016 – 30% at 2022 – 40% (2031 – 2040)


MDW0158Rp0106 9 F01

The population projections in the (Draft) Regional Planning Guidelines (2010 – 2022) are based on Central Statistics Office (CSO) forecasts for the GDA, all of which show GDA population exceeding 2.0m in the early 2020’s and potentially reaching 2.5m by 2031 (see Figure 5.1). The Regional Planning Guidelines (2010 – 2022) population projections are a close fit with CSO Scenario M2F1 Traditional i.e;

International migration into Ireland will continue but in a declining manner (M2)

Fertility rates will remain as at present (F1)

Internal migration to the Dublin Region (from other Irish Regions) will revert back to pre 1996 ‘Traditional’ levels as opposed to the more ‘Recent’ levels of the past 10 years.

A GDA population of 2.5m (approx 2031) equates to a Dublin Region (Water Supply Area) population of 2.2m when adjustment is made for population supplied in Kildare, Wicklow and Meath.

Figure 5.1 shows historic growth in GDA population from 1961 to the present and projections for 2009 to 2031. The population growth line and associated water consumption growth line for the 1961 to 2009 period show the same continuously increasing trend.

Three Central Statistics Office (CSO) population projections are illustrated in Figure 5.1 for the 2009 – 2031 period.

1) M0F1 Traditional

2) M2F1 Traditional

3) M2F1 Recent

M0 = Net International Migration & Emigration = 0

M2 = Net International Migration & Emigration declining but greater than zero

F1 = Current fertility rates (births / deaths)

Traditional = Internal Migration (into Dublin Region from within Ireland) prior to 1996

Recent = Internal Migration (into Dublin Region from within Ireland) between 1996 & 2008


MDW0158Rp0106 10 F01

Figure 5.1 GDA Historic Population Growth & Projections (2009 – 2031)

GDA Population Growth 1961 - 2009 & CSO Projections 2009 - 2031

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1961

1966

1971

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

Pro

ject

ed 2

031

Year

Popu

latio

n (1

000'

s)

Population GDA (historic) Population GDA (projected) - M2F1 RecentPopulation GDA (projected) - M0F1 Traditional National Spatial StrategyPopulation GDA (projected) - M2F1 Traditional

M - International Migration ScenariosF - Fertility RatesRecent / Traditional - Internal Migration Scenarios

Table 5.1 below outlines the population projections for the Dublin Region (Water Supply Area) which have been used for the calculation of domestic demand growth (2010 – 2040).

Table 5.1 Dublin Region (Water Supply Area) Population 2010-2020-2031- 2040

Year 2010 2022 2031 2040

Population 1,490,000 1,908,455 2,293,235 2,694,790

5.2 PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION (PCC)

In the Dublin Region, PCC has been increasing steadily over the past 10 years reflecting growth in affluence and lifestyle changes. Demand analysis indicates that current (2010) average PCC levels in the Dublin Region are approx 147 l/hd/d (litres per head per day).

The assessments of long term water supply needs in the Dublin Region were carried out in the context of best practice water conservation measures being implemented within the region. Consequently, forecast PCC levels, assume the implementation of full domestic metering by 2020/22 (in line with


MDW0158Rp0106 11 F01

recently announced Government commitment to metering of domestic water supplies ) and also assume volumetric charging of customers using tariffs which are geared towards incentivising water conservation in domestic premises. The projected PCC levels are similar to UK Walker Report recommendations for this component of demand when comparing on a ‘like for like’ basis (see Appendix AB of this report).

Table 5.2 below outlines the projected PCC’s / Population & Associated Domestic Demand Growth for the 2010-2022-2031-2040 period.

Table 5.2 Projected Domestic Demand 2010-2020-2031- 2040

Year 2010 2022 2031 2040

Population 1,490,000 1,908,455 2,293,2352 2,694,790

PCC 147 l/hd/d 135 l/hd/d 130 l/hd/d 130 l/hd/d

Total Domestic Demand Mld 218 258 298 350


MDW0158Rp0106 12 F01

6 NON DOMESTIC DEMAND (INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL)

The estimation of future non-domestic demand was based on a ‘zoning approach’. The Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study Report (GDSDS 2005) contained details of lands in each Local Authority in the GDA which have been zoned for non-domestic development.

Having established the extent of potential future non-domestic development lands, average demand estimates per hectare were derived from Table 3.5 of Year 2000 Review of GDWSSS96. The average demand / hectare for wet / dry industry is outlined in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Industrial Demand / Hectare – Wet & Dry Industries

Dry Industry Wet Industry

17 m3/ ha / day 31m3/ ha / day

The non domestic demand projections are based on the following:

Development of Industrial & Commercial zoned land assumed to be 50% wet, 50% dry

Development of Scientific & Technology lands assumed to be 100% dry

All current land zoned for non domestic development to be fully developed by 2040 (demand projections in SEA Phase 2 Draft Plan assumed all non-domestic land fully developed by 2031 but on account of economic slowdown this component of demand growth has been re-phased)

Table 6.2 below outlines the projected growth in non-domestic demand over the 2010-2022-2031-2040 period.

Table 6.2 Dublin Region Non-Domestic Growth 2010-2020-2031- 2040

Year 2010 2022 2031 2040

Non Domestic Demand Mld 127 184 227 270

These projections are inclusive of non-domestic demand associated with new residential development and expansion of serviced industry in existing developed areas.


MDW0158Rp0106 13 F01

7 CUSTOMER SIDE LEAKAGE LOSSES

Customer side leakage losses are currently estimated at average 65.0 litres per property per day (l/prop/d) for the Dublin Region (2009). Because the assessments of long term water supply needs in the Dublin Region are being carried out in the context of best practice water conservation measures being implemented within the region (ie full domestic metering by 2022) demand projections arising from this component of demand are assumed to reduce substantially as follows;

65l/prop/d (2009) – 35l/prop/d (2022) – 25l/prop/d (2031- 2040)

These customer side leakage loss targets are similar to Walker Report targets in the UK for this component of demand on a ‘like for like’ basis (see Appendix AB of this report).

Total customer side leakage losses are a product of leakage per property and forecast property numbers. Forecast property numbers have been determined from population forecasts and projected household occupancy rates. Because of uncertainties in future domestic property growth, household occupancy rates of 2.50 have been used for all GDA Local Authorities over the planning period. Previous demand projections in the SEA Phase 2 Draft Plan assumed an average occupancy rate of 2.50 at 2011 reducing to 2.20 by 2031.

Customer Side Leakage Losses for the 2010-2022-2031-2040 period are summarised in Table 7.1 below.

Table 7.1 Customer Side Leakage Losses: 2010-2022-2031-2040

Year 2010 2022 2031 2040

Leakage/Property/Day 63 litres 35 litres 25 litres 25 litres

Household Occupancy Rate – Dublin Region Average

2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50

No. of Dublin Region Properties 596,000 763,000 917,000 1,078,000

Customer Side Leakage Losses 37Mld 26.70Mld 22.90Mld 26.90Mld


MDW0158Rp0106 14 F01

8 DISTRIBUTION LEAKAGE LOSSES

Dublin Region Local Authorities have assessed the network leakage level reductions which are likely to be achieved over the 2010-2022-2031-2040 period as a result of active leakage control, water conservation measures and network rehabilitation programmes.

Each Local Authority is starting from a different base with higher leakage currently occurring in the older networks in Dublin City, parts of Fingal and in Bray, Co. Wicklow. The total network is 8,000km in length and 10% of the network (800km) is in excess of 100 years old.

International best practice for equivalent networks (particularly in Britain) would indicate that leakage levels of 20% are potentially attainable with pro-active leakage detection supported by ongoing targeted network rehabilitation. The 2007 – 2012 network rehabilitation programme with a budget of €118m is currently underway in the Dublin Region. Ongoing network rehabilitation post 2012 will be required to achieve the forecast leakage savings as the network will continue to deteriorate in a ‘do-nothing’ scenario.

Estimates of leakage levels for 2009 would indicate that the Dublin Region average is approx 29%.

Table 8.1 summarises network leakage projections for the 2010-2022-2031-2040 period.

Table 8.1 Distribution Leakage Losses: 2010-2022-2031-2040

Year 2010 2022 2031 2040

Leakage % 29% 26% 23% 20%

Leakage Rate 161Mld 160Mld 160Mld 160Mld


MDW0158Rp0106 15 F01

9 DEMAND PROJECTIONS 2010 – 2022 – 2031 – 2040

Table 9.1 (below) summarises projected water demand growth for the Dublin Region based on the above planning criteria in Section 5 to Section 8.

Table 9.1 Average / Peak Demand (2010 – 2040) – Dublin Region (Water Supply Area)

Description Unit 2010 2022 2031 2040

Population No 1,490,000 1,908,455 2,293,235 2,694,790

Households No 596,000 763,000 917,000 1,078,000

Occupancy Rate hd/house 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50

Per Capita Consumption l/hd/day 147 135 130 130

Domestic Demand Projection Mld 218 258 298 350

Non Domestic Demand Projection Mld 127 184 227 270

Customer Side Losses Mld 37 26.70 22.90 26.90

Distribution Losses Mld 161 160 160 160

Operational Usage Mld 2 2 2 2

*Barrow Supply (Kildare) Mld -10 -10 -10

Total Average Mld 545 621** 700 800

Total Peak*** Mld 594 678 767 879

* Kildare estimated to reduce its requirements from the Dublin Region (10Mld – 20Mld) from 2013 when the Barrow scheme is anticipated to come on stream. The more conservative 10Mld has been used for these demand projections

** Maximum sustainable production of existing Dublin Region sources is 627Mld

*** Peaks in demand – 12.5% of (Distribution Input – Leakage)

NB.

The average demand in the Dublin Region in 1996 was 460Mld servicing a population of 1,180,000


MDW0158Rp0106 16 F01

10 HEADROOM

10.1 CURRENT & SHORT TERM NETWORK OPERATIONS

Demand for treated water in the Dublin Region currently exceeds the sustainable production capability of the four existing water treatment plants and consequently there is little or no headroom available for managing contingencies or enabling maintenance activities on critical infrastructure which can’t be taken out of service. Short term future demand growth will be met by water savings from sustained leakage management and water conservation, including planned network rehabilitation, in combination with limited additional water availability resulting from the expansion of Ballymore Eustace and Leixlip water treatment plants to their maximum sustainable limits. The scale of increased water availability from these initiatives, however, will at best maintain the status quo (up to 2020) taking account of the increasing short term water demand growth in the Region. Given the age of the network and its vulnerability to leakage from pressure variations, frost heave, failure of joints and corrosion effects on pipelines, the water supply to the metropolitan region will remain marginal in its ability to meet essential demands even with major capital investment over the coming years in additional production capacity and implementation of best practice water conservation & leakage reductions.

10.2 HEADROOM REQUIREMENTS

In addition to meeting increases in average and peak demands, the new supply source must also have sufficient headroom capacity to provide for the following requirements;

Increased demand resulting from frost action on pipeline network (eg January 2010)

Lack of availability of sufficient sustainable raw water quantities in the Dublin Region because of drought climatic conditions (eg 1975 / 76 & 1995)

Reduced sustainable yields of existing Dublin Region sources as a result of future climate change (see Section 10.3)

Limitations in treated water storage availability and treated water production capacity

Critical infrastructure maintenance (eg the supply infrastructure from Ballymore Eustace to Saggart / Vartry Tunnel)

Contingencies – eg large new ‘wet’ industries (Intel type industries)

An allowance of 50Mld has been included in demand projections to cover headroom requirements.

10.3 CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change analyses for the East of Ireland project rainfall increases in Winter (+10% to +20% for 2010 – 2039) and reductions in Summer (-20% to -40% for 2010 – 2039). Projected increases / reductions in Winter / Summer rainfall for Ireland East have been advised by climate experts at NUI Maynooth (ICARUS). Raw water storage facilities at Poulaphuca and Roundwood have some limited potential for offsetting Winter rainfall increases against Summer rainfall reductions but the net effect of climate change in the East of Ireland will result in a long term gradual reduction in the sustainable yield of existing Dublin Region sources.


MDW0158Rp0106 17 F01

Ireland generally, and the East in particular, have had a series of wet summers in recent years and consequently, raw water shortages in the Region, as a result of drought conditions, have not arisen. However, there is little doubt that if a 1975 / 76 type drought weather pattern re-emerged in the East before supplies from a new source become available, significant water shortages, particularly in the Liffey, could occur, leading to a return of water rationing and restrictions. A new supply source is necessary to ensure that this situation does not materialise.


MDW0158Rp0106 18 F01

11 PRODUCTION CAPABILITY OF EXISTING DUBLIN SOURCES

Table 11.1 outlines the current and projected production capabilities of the existing Dublin Region public water supply sources and also the anticipated production of Kildare Wellfields and the River Barrow. The projected longterm production represents the maximum sustainable production limits of the respective sources.

The maximum sustainable availability of water from the Liffey River is 318Mld (BME) and 215Mld (Leixlip). These maximum sustainable production capacities are anticipated to be fully developed by 2014. Between now and 2014 there is some limited potential in the BME and Leixlip Water Treatment Plants to produce additional treated water quantities (see red figures Table 11.1). This additional water production is not operationally sustainable but is being currently utilised to meet ongoing demand growth requirements. New supplies from the Barrow from 2014 onwards will reduce Kildare’s dependence on Dublin Region sources (by 10Mld – 20Mld).

The sustainable production from all existing Dublin Region sources when fully developed is estimated at 627Mld – available from 2014 onwards (assuming that Leixlip expansion is complete by 2014) – see Table 11.1.

Table 11.1 Treated Water Production from Existing Sources

Source Units 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

BME (Sustainable)

Production 2009 / 2010*Mld

274

294

318 318 318 318 318 318

Leixlip (Sustainable)

Production 2009 – 2012* Mld

148

168

148

168

148

168

148

168

148

168

215 215

Roundwood Mld 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Ballyboden Mld 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

Bog of the Ring Mld 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

TOTAL Sustainable

Total Production* Mld

516

556

560

580

560

580

560

580

560

580

627 627

Kildare

- Wellfields

- Barrow

Mld

Mld

3

-

3

-

8

-

8

-

8

30

8

30

8

30

Kildare Total Mld 3 3 8 8 38 38 38

*Unsustainable production: plants are operating within their design capabilities but cannot operate indefinitely at these levels as it limits good maintenance practice.


MDW0158Rp0106 19 F01

12 DEMAND/SUPPLY BALANCE

Table 12.1 summarises the Demand / Supply Balance for the 2010-2040 period. Demand projections are based on the Minimum Planning Scenario which assume full implementation of domestic metering by 2022 coupled with significant leakage reductions arising from ongoing network rehabilitation

Table 12.1 Demand/Supply Balance (Mld)

YearSustainable ProductionExistingSources

Average DublinRegionDemand

NonSustainable ProductionExistingSources

PeakDublinRegionDemand

2010 560 546 580 594

2011 560 553 580 602

2012 560 561 580 611

2013 560 568 580 619

2014 627 566 580 616

2015 627 573 N/A 624

2016 627 580 N/A 632

Critical 2020 627 608 N/A 664

Period 2022 627 621 N/A 678

2031 627 742 N/A 768

2040 627 800 N/A 879

From 2010 to 2012 the completion of Ballymore Eustace (318Mld) enables average demand to be met from sustainable production of existing sources.

Between 2012 and 2014 average demand can be met from additional unsustainable production at Leixlip of approx 20Mld.

From 2015 onwards (assuming that Leixlip expansion is complete by 2014) the sustainable production capacity (627Mld) is also the maximum production capacity as abstractions from all Dublin sources will have reached their licensed sustainable limits. Anticipated peak demand from 2015 onwards begins to exceed the maximum sustainable production capability (outlined in amber).

The critical period, outlined in red, Table 12.1 above, is reached when average daily demand begins to exceed the maximum sustainable production capacity of existing sources. This situation is projected to occur approx 2020 / 2022 based on demand projections which assume full implementation of domestic metering coupled with leakage reductions arising from ongoing network rehabilitation. Supplies from a new source will be required at that stage if current levels of service are to be maintained.

In addition to the above, localised supply shortages are possible in certain areas before 2020, since infrastructure restrictions in the network prevent the outputs from the various water production facilities being used in all distribution areas.


MDW0158Rp0106 20 F01

13 DUBLIN REGION – TIMING OF SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS FROM NEW SOURCE

The RPS analysis of projected water demand growth in the DRWSA for the 2010 – 2031/ 40 period, has built on the findings of the DEHLG 1996 and 2000 studies. As outlined in Section 4 two Planning Scenarios were developed (Minimum & Maximum).

The ‘Minimum Planning Scenario’ is the recommended Planning Scenario as it entails an overall integrated water resource management solution for the Dublin Region.

The Minimum Planning Scenario main assumptions are summarised as follows;

- Metering & Charging only applicable to Non Domestic Sector

- Reductions in personal usage (1% - 2%) resulting from customer awareness programmes, building bye-laws and greater use of water efficient appliances

- Reductions in customer leakage (1% - 2%) resulting from customer awareness programmes

- Reductions in Distribution Network Leakage (Network Rehabilitation) to 20% (2030 – 2040)

- Medium to High Economic Growth (all zoned lands developed by 2030)

In the Minimum Planning demand growth scenario, supplies from a new source will be required by (latest) 2022 when average day demand equals the sustainable production capacity of existing sources (627Mld). The timing of new supply requirements for this scenario is illustrated (solid green line) in Figure 13.1. If planned leakage targets or savings from reduced personal consumption experience slippage then the demand projections represented by the ‘solid green line’ will move backwards towards the ‘dotted green line’ necessitating an earlier need for water supplies from a new source.

In the Maximum demand growth scenario (Strategic Environmental Assessment Phase 2 Planning Scenario) involving higher economic growth rates and reduced savings from water conservation & leakage, supplies from a new source could be required as early as 2016 (coloured red) in Figure 13.1.

The Minimum & Maximum Planning demand growth scenarios, potential slippages in ‘supply-demand’ targets and earliest project delivery dates are all illustrated schematically in Figure 13.1.


MDW0158Rp0106 21 F01

Figure 13.1 Minimum & Maximum Average Water Demand Growth Scenarios

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040Year

Mld

Minimum Planning Scenario Maximum Planning Scenario (SEA Phase 2) Headroom

Maximum Planning Scenario (SEA Phase 2)

Minimum Planning Scenario

Unsustainable Production

Sustainable Production

Barrow Supplies on stream

Earliest Delivery Date

50Mld Headroom

13.1 PEAK DEMAND & HEADROOM ALLOWANCES

Demand growth projections in Figure 13.1 are based on ‘Average Demand’. Management of water demand also requires that sufficient production & storage capacity is available to meet peak demands at certain times of the year and that sufficient excess capacity (headroom) is also available to cater for infrastructure failure / plant outages / pollution incidents (eg cyrptospiridium) etc.

The ‘Demand Review’ contained in Appendix AB of the this Demand Report considered four demand growth scenarios;

Do Nothing

Maintain Current (Equivalent to SEA Phase 2 - ‘Maximum Planning Scenario’)

Minimum Achievable (‘Minimum Planning Scenario’)

‘Theoretical Minimum’ scenario. This scenario effectively identified each component of demand (domestic / non domestic / leakage / headroom etc) and ‘cherry-picked’ best practice for each demand component across a range of international water companies. These best practice projections were then applied to the Dublin Region growth projections.

Figure 13.2 illustrates the four scenarios for peak demand including provision for headroom based on international best practice. The graph identifies that even for the ‘Theoretical Minimum’ scenario,


MDW0158Rp0106 22 F01

supplies from a new source would still be required in the early 2020’s in order to manage peaks and have adequate headroom in place.

Figure 13.2 Peak Demand Growth Scenarios (incl Headroom provision)

Peak Water Demand Scenarios

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040Year

Mld

Theoretical Minimum Minimum Achievable Maintain Current Do Nothing

1250

1053

942

742

627

Sustainable Production = 627Ml/d


MDW0158Rp0106 23 F01

14 DEMAND GROWTH – MIDLANDS

In addition to supplying water to the Dublin Region the proposed water supply scheme from the Shannon may also be required to supply water to Laois, Offaly and Westmeath Co Councils (Figure 14.1). An allowance of 50Mld has been provided for supplies to population in these counties – some contingency allowance has also been provided.


MDW0158Rp0106 24 F01

Figure 14.1 Typical Water Supply to Midlands

W I C K L O W

S O U T H D U B L I N

W E S T M E A T H

L A O I S

K I L D A R E

F I N G A L

M E A T H

O F F A L Y

T I P P E R A R Y N O R T H

L O U T H

Raw Water StorageRaw Water StorageRaw Water StorageRaw Water StorageRaw Water StorageRaw Water StorageRaw Water StorageRaw Water StorageRaw Water Storage/ Treatment Plant/ Treatment Plant/ Treatment Plant/ Treatment Plant/ Treatment Plant/ Treatment Plant/ Treatment Plant/ Treatment Plant/ Treatment Plant

Shannon (Lower)

Shan

non

(Upp

er)

Lough ReeLough ReeLough ReeLough ReeLough ReeLough ReeLough ReeLough ReeLough Ree

Lough DergLough DergLough DergLough DergLough DergLough DergLough DergLough DergLough Derg

Lough OwelLough OwelLough OwelLough OwelLough OwelLough OwelLough OwelLough OwelLough Owel

Dun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun LaoghaireDun Laoghaire

TullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamoreTullamore

PortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlingtonPortarlington

PortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoisePortlaoise

SaggartSaggartSaggartSaggartSaggartSaggartSaggartSaggartSaggart

PeamountPeamountPeamountPeamountPeamountPeamountPeamountPeamountPeamount

BalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbrigganBalbriggan

Dublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin CityDublin City

KildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildareKildare

NaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaasNaas

DroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDroghedaDrogheda

TrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrimTrim

BirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirrBirr

NenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenaghNenagh

AthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthloneAthlone

MullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingarMullingar

Scale: 1: 500,000 @ A3

Approved by:

Checked by:

Title

Project

Issue DetailsDrawn by:

Legend

Figure

Water Supplies toMidland Local Authorities

Water Supply ProjectDublin Region

2.2

Rev.

File Ref.

Date: 18/11/2009

G.Geoghegan

E.Ledwith

D03

E.Laurinaviciute Project No. MDW0158A

Drawing No.

MI5115

MDW0158Mi5115D03

Client

West Pier Business Campus, Dun Laoghaire, Co. DublinIreland

Notes 1. This drawing is the property of RPS Group Ltd. It is a confidential document and must not be copied, used, or its contents divulged without prior written consent.2. All levels are referred to Ordnance Datum, Malin Head.3. Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence EN 0005009 ©Copyright Government of Ireland.

TFEW

+353 (0)1 2884499+353 (0)1 [email protected] rpsgroup.com/ireland

1

Raw Water Pipeline

Water Supply Pipelines

Water Supplie

s

Water Supplies

Existing Reservoir

Treated Water Pipeline


MDW0158Rp0106 25 F01

15 EXTENT OF NEW SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS

Dublin Region demand projections have been estimated (Table 15.1 & Table 15.2) for the Minimum & Maximum demand growth scenarios as follows;

a) The Minimum Planning Scenario – 800Mld average demand reached at 2040

Table 15.1 Minimum Planning Scenario

Dublin Region (Water Supply Area)

1996 2008 2010 2016 2022 2031 2040

Average Total Demand (MId) 460 540 545 580 621 700 800

Max. Production of Dublin Region Sources (MId)

470 560 580 627 627 627 627

b) Maximum Demand Growth (SEA Ph 2 Scenario) – 800Mld average demand reached at 2031

Table 15.2 Maximum Planning Scenario (SEA Phase 2)

Dublin Region (Water Supply Area)

1996 2008 2010 2016 2022 2031 2040

Average Total Demand (MId) 460 540 545 627 670 800 N/A

Max. Production of Dublin Region Sources (MId)

470 560 580 627 627 627 N/A

Maximum Sustainable Production (2014 onwards) of existing Dublin Region sources is 627Mld

Supply requirements from a new source have been calculated as shown in Table 15.3.

Table 15.3 New Source Supply Requirements

Average Supply Requirements (at 2031 / 2040) = 800 Mld – 627 Mld = 173 Mld

Additional Peak Requirements (at 2031 / 2040) = 80 Mld

Supply Allowance for Midlands Local Authorities = 50 Mld

Headroom (Contingency) Allowance = 50 Mld

Supply (new source) Total = 353 Mld

(say 350Mld)


MDW0158Rp0106 26 F01

16 PHASING

The total design capacity of 350 Mld (for the Dublin Region & Midlands) can be implemented over a number of phases to provide flexibility in catering for gradually increasing demand growth.

Figure 16.1 below illustrates a two-phased approach - 250 Mld in Phase 1 and 100 Mld in Phase 2 - approximately 15 years apart.

Figure 16.1 also illustrates;

average demand growth Dublin Region

average demand growth Midlands (Offaly, Westmeath, Laois & Meath-Louth)

peak demand (12.5%) growth (Dublin Region & Midlands)

contingency allowance (new industry / new areas / climate change etc)

headroom availability (during each new supply phase)

sustainable production capacity of existing Dublin Region sources.

Figure 16.1 New Source Supply Phases

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044

Year

Ml/d

Ave DR Ave DR + Midlands Peak DR Peak DR + Midlands Existing sources supply All sources supply

Leixlip Final Extension

New Source Phase 1250Mld

New Source Phase 2100Mld


MDW0158Rp0106 27 F01

17 CONCLUSION

Minimum Planning Supply Demand Scenarios identify that new water supplies for the Dublin Region are required by (latest) 2022 if current levels of service are to be maintained in the Region.

It is recommended that new supplies from the Shannon are made available by the earliest date (estimated 2020 – see Figure 17.1) in order to cater for potential slippages in projected water savings from reduced personal consumption & leakage (customer side & network).

The recommended scheme may have potential for water supply provision to other Local Authorities (eg Offaly, Westmeath, Laois & Meath-Louth).

Figure 17.1 outlines in schematic form;

Demand Growth Scenarios (Max & Min)

Sustainable Production (Dublin Region Sources)

Earliest Project Delivery Date

Headroom Requirements to cater for slippage in savings from reduced consumption & leakage (customer side & network)

Figure 17.1 Demand Growth Scenarios / Sustainable Production / Project Delivery

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040Year

Mld

Minimum Planning Scenario Maximum Planning Scenario (SEA Phase 2) Headroom

Maximum Planning Scenario (SEA Phase 2)

Minimum Planning Scenario

Unsustainable Production

Sustainable Production

Barrow Supplies on stream

Project Activity Technical Approval of Prelim Report (DCC&DEHLG) Preparation of Planning Application Planning Process Procurement Construction Total

Headroom Required :Slippage in Domestic Metering & Charging - Lower Reductions in PCC / CSLSlippage in Network Rehabilitation Programme - Lower Reductions in Distribution Leakage Slippage in Expansion of Existing Sources - Leixlip - BarrowContingencies - New Industry - Climate Change

Earliest Delivery Date 50Mld Headroom

Years = 0.5

= 1.5 = 2.0

= 2.0 = 4.0

10.0

APPENDIX AA

Demand Projections

2009 – 2040

Water Supply Project - Dublin Region Demand Projections

Maximum Planning Scenario (SEA Phase 2)Description Unit 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040DRWSA - TotalPopulation hd 1,511,520 1,552,954 1,594,389 1,554,750 1,588,111 1,621,471 1,654,832 1,688,192 1,721,553 1,754,913 1,788,274 1,821,634 1,854,995 1,888,355 1,921,716 1,955,076 1,988,437 2,021,797 2,055,158 2,088,518 2,121,879 2,155,239 2,188,600Occupancy Rate hd/house 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2Households No. 603,952 620,508 637,064 625,005 642,324 659,857 677,607 695,578 713,774 732,201 750,862 769,761 788,904 808,295 827,938 847,840 868,004 888,437 909,144 930,129 951,399 972,960 994,818Per Capita Consumption l/hd/day 147 146 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145Domestic Demand Projection Ml/d 222.0 226.9 231.2 225.4 230.3 235.1 240.0 244.8 249.6 254.5 259.3 264.1 269.0 273.8 278.6 283.5 288.3 293.2 298.0 302.8 307.7 312.5 317.3Non Domestic Demand Projections Ml/d 143.0 148.6 154.3 154.4 160.4 166.3 172.3 178.2 184.2 190.1 196.1 202.0 208.0 213.9 219.9 225.8 231.8 237.7 243.7 249.6 255.6 261.5 267.4

Customer Side Losses Ml/d 39.5 40.7 41.9 40.7 41.4 42.1 42.7 43.4 44.0 44.7 45.4 46.0 46.7 47.3 48.0 48.7 49.3 50.0 50.6 51.3 52.0 52.6 53.3Distribution Losses Ml/d 159.9 160.1 160.3 157.9 158.1 157.1 158.3 158.4 158.6 158.7 158.9 159.0 159.1 159.3 159.5 159.6 159.8 159.9 160.1 160.3 160.4 160.6 160.7Operational Usage Ml/d 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

Total Average 566.0 578.0 589.3 580.3 591.8 602.3 615.0 626.5 638.1 649.7 661.3 672.9 684.5 696.1 707.7 719.3 730.9 742.5 754.1 765.7 777.4 789.0 800.5Total Peak 616.79 630.25 642.96 633.05 646.05 657.93 672.05 685.05 698.07 711.09 724.11 737.13 750.16 763.19 776.23 789.27 802.31 815.35 828.39 841.43 854.47 867.50 880.44

Minimum Planning ScenarioDescription Unit 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040DRWSA - TotalPopulation hd 1,465,000 1,490,000 1,524,371 1,558,743 1,593,114 1,627,486 1,661,857 1,696,229 1,731,600 1,766,971 1,802,342 1,837,713 1,873,084 1,908,455 1,951,209 1,993,962 2,036,715 2,079,469 2,122,222 2,164,975 2,207,729 2,250,482 2,293,235 2,337,853 2,382,470 2,427,087 2,471,704 2,516,321 2,560,939 2,605,556 2,650,173 2,694,790Occupancy Rate hd/house 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5Households No. 586,000 596,000 609,749 623,497 637,246 650,994 664,743 678,491 692,640 706,788 720,937 735,085 749,234 763,382 780,483 797,585 814,686 831,787 848,889 865,990 883,091 900,193 917,294 935,141 952,988 970,835 988,682 1,006,529 1,024,375 1,042,222 1,060,069 1,077,916Per Capita Consumption l/hd/day 148 147 146 145 144 143 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 134 133 133 132 132 131 131 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130Domestic Demand Projection Ml/d 216.1 218.3 221.9 225.4 228.9 232.2 235.5 238.8 242.1 245.3 248.5 251.6 254.7 257.6 262.3 267.0 271.6 276.1 280.6 285.1 289.5 293.8 298.1 303.9 309.7 315.5 321.3 327.1 332.9 338.7 344.5 350.3Non Domestic Demand Projection Ml/d 122.7 127.4 132.2 136.9 141.7 146.5 151.2 156.0 160.7 165.5 170.3 175.0 179.8 184.5 189.3 194.1 198.8 203.6 208.3 213.1 217.8 222.6 227.4 232.1 236.9 241.6 246.4 251.2 255.9 260.7 265.4 270.2Customer Side Losses l/house 65.0 62.7 60.4 58.1 55.8 53.5 51.2 48.8 46.5 44.2 41.9 39.6 37.3 35.0 33.9 32.8 31.7 30.6 29.4 28.3 27.2 26.1 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0Customer Side Losses Ml/d 38.1 37.4 36.8 36.2 35.5 34.8 34.0 33.1 32.2 31.3 30.2 29.1 28.0 26.7 26.4 26.1 25.8 25.4 25.0 24.5 24.0 23.5 22.9 23.4 23.8 24.3 24.7 25.2 25.6 26.1 26.5 26.9Distribution Losses Ml/d 160.8 160.8 160.7 160.7 160.7 160.6 160.6 160.5 160.5 160.5 160.4 160.4 160.4 160.3 160.3 160.3 160.2 160.2 160.1 160.1 160.1 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0Operational Usage Ml/d 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6Barrow Supply Ml/d -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10Total Average Ml/d 539.2 545.5 553.2 560.9 568.4 565.7 572.9 580.0 587.2 594.2 601.0 607.8 614.4 620.8 630.0 639.0 648.0 656.9 665.7 674.4 683.0 691.6 700.0 711.0 722.0 733.0 744.0 755.0 766.1 777.1 788.1 799.1Total Peak Ml/d 586.55 593.59 602.31 610.89 619.32 616.35 624.49 632.48 640.51 648.38 656.11 663.69 671.11 678.39 688.67 698.87 708.96 718.96 728.87 738.68 748.39 758.00 767.52 779.90 792.29 804.67 817.05 829.43 841.81 854.19 866.57 878.96

Notes:1. Regional 2009 Water Usage Statistics (D.I. & UFW) are as per Table 328adj. out-turns for that year2. 2009 to be used as the Baseline for all data3. Population projections for the years 2010 (incl) onwards are based on Regional Planning Guidelines (RPG) for the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) 2010 – 2022 (Dublin & Mid East Regional Authorities – Draft for Public Consultation March 2010)4. Standard PCC and Occupancy ratio figures are used throughout the Region5. Estimates of population and housing data for Meath Co Co to be included (MCC only indicated in Table 3.28adj. as an export figure)6. Population and housing data for the individual local authorities included on 'best fit' basis whilst maintaining the highest degree of accuracy possible

MDW0158DF0060D11 - Demand Summary June 2010

APPENDIX AB

Demand Review

Water Supply Project – Dublin Region Demand Review

MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01

Preface

The following demand review report has been prepared by RPS Consulting Engineers in response to the publication of the draft Budget 2010 which signalled possible changes to Government Policy in relation to domestic metering and volumetric charging for water. Such a change in policy could, if structured to encourage water efficiency, enable the introduction of more aggressive domestic demand management initiatives in the Dublin Region which, in turn could potentially defer the initial timing of supply needs or reduce the capacity required from a new source for the Region.

The objective of this report is therefore, to assess the lowest water demand growth scenarios which may be potentially achievable in the Dublin Region through the implementation of international best practice, particularly in demand management and leakage reduction, facilitated by the introduction of domestic water metering and charging.

A wide range of sources have been consulted in researching current international best practice including published materials from Government, Environmental Organisations, Water operators and advisory resources in a number of different jurisdictions, in addition to websites and research papers.

The best available comparison data from Europe and further afield has been used and while every effort has been made to ensure its’ suitability for comparison purposes it must be recognized that methods used for collecting and compiling data can vary widely, while climatic and cultural conditions can also influence actual local water demands. Developed western European economies such as the UK, Germany, France, Denmark and the Netherlands are culturally and climatically similar and allow for meaningful comparisons to be made, however, even in continental Europe differences in plumbing systems (where direct fed supplies predominate versus indirect in the UK and Ireland) for example can lead to performance comparisons being made which are not therefore on a like for like basis. It is important to be aware of any such differences that might exist when comparing data from different countries and regions. Indeed in 2007 the European Commission in a Communication on water scarcity and droughts in the European Union (COM (2007) 414 final) identified “improved knowledge and data collection” as one of its’ 7 main policy options to address water scarcity and drought in the European Union. It plans to implement a number of studies from 2010 to 2012 to improve the situation.


MDW0158RP0115 i Rev F01

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACEEXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................16 PAGES1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 DEMAND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................... 2

1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT .............................................................................................. 4

1.4 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 4

1.5 STRUCTURE OF REPORT .................................................................................................. 5

1.6 DEMAND MANAGEMENT IN IRELAND & THE DUBLIN REGION................................................ 6

1.7 ASSUMPTIONS ON NATIONAL POLICIES .............................................................................. 8

1.8 KEY ISSUES..................................................................................................................... 8

2 OVERVIEW OF DEMAND COMPONENTS & BASELINE DEMANDS .................................... 92.1 DOMESTIC USE AND PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION ............................................................... 9

2.1.1 Dublin Region Current Baseline PCC and Domestic Demand Estimate ....... 10

2.1.2 Influencing Factors ......................................................................................... 11

2.2 MICRO-COMPONENTS OF DOMESTIC DEMAND ................................................................. 13

2.2.1 Overview......................................................................................................... 13

2.2.2 Water Using Devices within the Home........................................................... 14

2.2.3 Garden Water Use ......................................................................................... 24

2.3 ACTIONS FOR REDUCTION.............................................................................................. 24

2.3.1 Appliance/Plumbing Standards and Labelling Schemes ............................... 24

2.3.2 New Build Policies.......................................................................................... 24

2.3.3 Retrofit Devices .............................................................................................. 25

2.3.4 Water Replacement – Rainwater and Greywater........................................... 26

2.3.5 Water Audits ................................................................................................... 30

2.3.6 Awareness & Education Campaigns.............................................................. 30

2.3.7 Metering and Tariffs ....................................................................................... 33

2.3.8 Subsidy Schemes........................................................................................... 37

2.3.9 Challenges to Water Demand Management Policies..................................... 37

2.4 CUSTOMER SIDE LOSSES............................................................................................... 38

2.4.1 Definition......................................................................................................... 38

2.4.2 Reasons for and Influencing Factors ............................................................. 39

2.4.3 Typical Levels................................................................................................. 39

2.4.4 Actions for Reduction ..................................................................................... 40

2.4.5 Barriers ........................................................................................................... 40

2.5 LEAKAGE/LOSSES.......................................................................................................... 40

2.5.1 Overview......................................................................................................... 40


MDW0158RP0115 ii Rev F01

2.5.2 Current Baseline Leakage in the Dublin Region ............................................ 42

2.6 NON DOMESTIC DEMAND ............................................................................................... 44

2.6.1 Overview and Baseline Demand.................................................................... 44

2.6.2 Actions for Reduction of Non Domestic Demand........................................... 44

2.7 SUMMARY OF PRIMARY DEMAND COMPONENTS .............................................................. 46

2.8 OPERATIONAL USAGE .................................................................................................... 46

2.9 PEAK DEMANDS............................................................................................................. 46

2.10 HEADROOM AND OUTAGE............................................................................................... 48

3 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF LOWEST TECHNICALLY ACHIEVABLE DEMANDS BY COMPONENT ....................................................................................................................................... 51

3.1 OVERVIEW OF WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT IN REVIEW COUNTRIES .............................. 52

3.2 DOMESTIC USE & PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION ................................................................ 53

3.2.1 Rest of World.................................................................................................. 53

3.2.2 United Kingdom.............................................................................................. 57

3.2.3 The Dublin Region.......................................................................................... 59

3.2.4 Conclusion...................................................................................................... 61

3.3 CUSTOMER SIDE LOSSES............................................................................................... 62

3.4 LEAKAGE/LOSSES.......................................................................................................... 63

3.5 NON DOMESTIC DEMAND ............................................................................................... 67

4 REVIEW OF DEMAND STRATEGY BEST PRACTICE.......................................................... 684.1 OVERVIEW OF COMPARISONS......................................................................................... 68

4.1.1 Australian Integrated Resource Management Approach ............................... 68

4.1.2 UK Environment Agency Water Resource Management Plans..................... 70

4.2 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 72

5 DEMAND SCENARIO ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 745.1 DOMESTIC DEMAND SCENARIOS – DUBLIN REGION ......................................................... 76

5.2 CUSTOMER SIDE LOSSES SCENARIOS ............................................................................ 78

5.3 LEAKAGE/LOSSES SCENARIOS ....................................................................................... 79

5.4 NON DOMESTIC DEMAND SCENARIOS............................................................................. 81

5.5 TOTAL DEMAND PROJECTION SCENARIOS 2010-2040..................................................... 82

6 RISKS AND COSTS OF ACHIEVING DEMAND REDUCTION STRATEGIES...................... 856.1 COSTS OF SCENARIOS ................................................................................................... 86

6.1.1 Indicative Demand Management Scenarios Costs ........................................ 86

6.1.2 Indicative Leakage Scenario Costs................................................................ 87

6.1.3 Customer Side Leakage................................................................................. 88

6.2 RISK OF DEMAND SCENARIOS ........................................................................................ 88

6.3 BALANCING COSTS AND RISKS ....................................................................................... 89

7 RECOMMENDED APPROACH............................................................................................... 907.1 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS FOR RECOMMENDED APPROACH ........................................... 90

7.2 REQUIRED TIMELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION................................................................... 91


MDW0158RP0115 iii Rev F01

8 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 929 GLOSSARY OF TERMS.......................................................................................................... 9510 APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 99

10.1 RAINWATER HARVESTING AND GREYWATER USE ............................................................ 99

10.2 BLOCK TARIFF WATER CHARGING ................................................................................ 113

10.3 INTERNATIONAL WATER SUPPLY DATA SHEETS............................................................. 120

10.4 DEFRA WATER EFFICIENCY STANDARDS CONSULTATION............................................. 138

10.5 EXPLANATION OF AVERAGE INCREMENTAL COST AND AVERAGE INCREMENTAL SOCIAL COST

ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 141

10.6 WATER EFFICIENCY MEASURE COST ESTIMATES .......................................................... 143

10.7 WATER SUPPLY PROJECT – DUBLIN REGION – PROJECT MILESTONES DIAGRAM............ 147


MDW0158RP0115 iv Rev F01

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 PCC Frequency Pilot Meter Survey Dublin City Council 2008 ........................................ 10

Figure 2.2 PCC Frequency Profile UK Watersave Network 2001 .................................................... 11

Figure 2.3 PCC by Household Size UK Watersave Network 2001 .................................................. 12

Figure 2.4 PCC by Household Size UK Water Company PCC Study Area ..................................... 13

Figure 2.5 Typical Components of Household Water Use................................................................ 14

Figure 2.6 Reductions in Dishwasher Water Use since 1970........................................................... 16

Figure 2.7 Reductions in Washing Machine Water Use since 1970................................................. 16

Figure 2.8 Toilets from “Beaufort” 1885 to Present Day Dual Flush (Twyefords)............................. 18

Figure 2.9 Average UK Flush Volume ............................................................................................. 19

Figure 2.10 Age of Dublin Region Housing Stock .......................................................................... 19

Figure 2.11 Cistern Displacement Devices .................................................................................... 20

Figure 2.12 Toilet Flush Retrofit Devices ....................................................................................... 20

Figure 2.13 Flow Restrictor inside Tap Inlet & Nozzle Restrictor Components ............................. 22

Figure 2.14 Water Efficient Bath Design ........................................................................................ 23

Figure 2.15 Award Winning “Breathing Bath Tub” Moulds to Body Design ................................... 23

Figure 2.16 Rainwater Storage Urban Dwelling Australia .............................................................. 26

Figure 2.17 5,000 litre Rainwater Harvesting Tanks (Australia)..................................................... 27

Figure 2.18 Emerging Water Replacement Technology Caroma Profile WC with integrated wash-hand basin and Ecoplay Toilet Fed from Bath and Shower........................................ 29

Figure 2.19 Tap Tips Campaign Web and Advertising................................................................... 31

Figure 2.20 Denver Water Conservation “Use Only What you Need Advertisement”.................... 32

Figure 2.21 Denver Water Conservation “Tackle Running Toilets” and Water Restriction Advertisement.............................................................................................................. 32

Figure 2.22 Semi Traditional Advertisement .................................................................................. 33


MDW0158RP0115 v Rev F01

Figure 2.23 OECD/GWI World Water Tariff Survey 2007 .............................................................. 34

Figure 2.24 Water Tariff Trade Offs OECD Global Forum on Sustainable Development 2008..... 35

Figure 2.25 Typical Service Pipe Layout and Responsibility.......................................................... 38

Figure 2.26 (DIY) Attic Tank Overflow Leaks ................................................................................. 39

Figure 2.27 Leak Detection and Leaks........................................................................................... 41

Figure 2.28 Factors influencing levels of Real Losses / Leakage .................................................. 42

Figure 2.29 Domestic Daily Water Use Profile Summer Peak (Source Evidence Base Defra’s Market Transformation Programme) ........................................................................... 47

Figure 2.30 Supply Area Weekly Demand Variation ...................................................................... 48

Figure 2.31 Thames Water Components of Headroom Uncertainty .............................................. 49

Figure 3.1 EU Per Capita Water Consumption (l/hd/day)................................................................. 53

Figure 3.2 Estimates of Elements of Household Water Use in Litres per Person per Day (Data derived from OFWAT)...................................................................................................... 56

Figure 3.3 England and Wales PCC 1992-2009 Source UK Environment Agency.......................... 57

Figure 3.4 How to Achieve 80 l/p/day New Buildings in the UK ....................................................... 59

Figure 3.5 Changes in UK Supply Pipe Leakage ............................................................................. 62

Figure 3.6 Comparison of Water Loss in the EU .............................................................................. 63

Figure 3.7 Factors influencing levels of Water Losses ..................................................................... 64

Figure 3.8 Australian ILI Figures....................................................................................................... 65

Figure 3.9 UK ILI Figures.................................................................................................................. 65

Figure 3.10 International ILI Figures............................................................................................... 66

Figure 3.11 IWA ILI Bands.............................................................................................................. 66

Figure 3.12 Leakage as Litres per Connection and Cubic Metres per km of Main per Day .......... 67

Figure 4.1 Traditional Approach and Integrated Resource Planning Comparison ........................... 69

Figure 4.2 Australian Integrated Resource Planning Approach ....................................................... 70


MDW0158RP0115 vi Rev F01

Figure 4.3 UK Water Resource Planning Methodology .................................................................... 72

Figure 5.1 Factors Influencing Demand Forecasting........................................................................ 74

Figure 5.2 Actual Demand Growth vs. Previous Projections ............................................................ 75

Figure 5.3 UK EA Future PCC Models ............................................................................................. 76

Figure 5.4 Domestic Demand Scenarios 2010-2040........................................................................ 78

Figure 5.5 Customer Side Losses Scenarios 2010-2040 ................................................................. 79

Figure 5.6 Distribution Leakage Scenarios 2010-2040..................................................................... 81

Figure 5.7 Non Domestic Demand Scenarios 2010-2040 ................................................................ 82

Figure 5.8 Total Demand Scenarios 2010-2040............................................................................... 83

Figure 5.9 Total Demand Scenarios including Peak and Headroom Factors 2010-2040 ................ 84

Figure 5.10 Total Minimum Achievable Demand Scenario 2010-2040.......................................... 84

Figure 6.1 Balancing Cost and Risk.................................................................................................. 89


MDW0158RP0115 vii Rev F01

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Demand Management Policy Instruments......................................................................... 3

Table 1.2 Status of Demand Management in Ireland and the Dublin Region ................................... 7

Table 2.1 Estimated Components of Water Use in an Average Home within the Dublin Region ... 14

Table 2.2 Total Capital Costs Based on Tank Size ......................................................................... 28

Table 2.3 Recommendations for Application to Dublin Region Based on Categories of Properties29

Table 3.1 Per Capita Consumption Figures in other Countries. ...................................................... 54

Table 3.2 Water Tariffs and Average Annual Bills in other Countries ............................................. 55

Table 3.3 Potential Domestic Household and PCC Demand Reduction......................................... 60

Table 3.4 Retrofit Uptake Rates Required to Achieve Various Average PCC Figures in the Dublin Region.............................................................................................................................. 60

Table 5.1 Domestic Demand Scenarios Description ....................................................................... 77

Table 5.2 Customer Side Losses Scenarios Description ................................................................ 79

Table 5.3 Distribution Leakage Scenarios Description.................................................................... 80

Table 5.4 Non Domestic Demand Scenarios Description ............................................................... 82

Table 6.1 Indicative Demand Management Implementation Costs................................................. 86

Table 6.2 Leakage Reduction via Mains Rehabilitation Costs ........................................................ 87

Table 6.3 Risk Assessment Scoring ................................................................................................ 88

Table 6.4 Demand Side Options Risk Scores ................................................................................. 89

Table 7.1 Demand Side Management Plan Measures.................................................................... 91


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 E1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

Assessment of strategies for meeting the long-term water supply needs of the Dublin Region (comprised of the Local Authority areas of Dublin City, Fingal, South Dublin, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown and parts of Meath, Kildare and Wicklow) has been underway since the Department of Environment Heritage and Local Governments (DEHLG’s) Greater Dublin Water Supply Strategic Study was prepared in 1996 and reviewed in 2000. The pace of economic growth, particularly during the Celtic Tiger years (1995-2007), gave rise to significant growth in water demand which was largely met by increased production from existing sources combined with operational initiatives to reduce leakage.

Feasibility Studies and Strategic Assessments 2004 – 2008 largely concentrated on a continuation of this approach with a strong emphasis on actions to optimise water supply abstractions and the efficient use of natural resources via network rehabilitation and active leakage control programmes. Demand management strategies were also implemented albeit, limited to customer awareness programmes, building bye-laws, promotion of water efficient appliances and 100% metering of the non-domestic sector.

The need for / timing of potential supplies from a new source were evaluated against this background with lower emphasis on extensive domestic demand management initiatives in the absence of policies requiring domestic metering & volumetric charging for water. This situation changed significantly in the latter half of 2009 with the publication of draft Budget 2010 which signalled possible changes to Government Policy in relation to domestic metering and volumetric charging for water.

The Plan in relation to requirements for supplies from a new source for the Dublin Region was revised over the Dec ‘09 - Apr 2010 period to take account of the intended Domestic Metering & Charging Policy change. This ‘Demand Review’ report was prepared in order to inform The Plan of the impacts which could be anticipated on demand growth from the mooted policy changes.

Purpose of This Report

The objective of this report is to assess the lowest water demand growth scenarios which may be potentially achievable in the Dublin Region through the implementation of international best practice, particularly in demand management and leakage reduction. The assessments involve evaluations of a range of potential demand management scenarios, in conjunction with the risks and costs associated with their implementation, in the context of the Dublin Region’s existing water management regime.

The Dublin Region Local Authorities recognise the need to consider both demand side and supply side solutions in meeting water demand requirements over the next 30 years. Therefore the assessments of long term water supply needs in the Dublin Region (The Plan, October 2010) are based on such an Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) approach. The approach minimises leakage and water use in the Region and maximises environmentally sustainable production from existing Region sources. However, it also recommends planning now for the potential development of supplies from a new source which are highly likely to be required despite the considerable water-conservation savings which can be generated from full implementation of each of the demand growth scenarios considered.

This report identifies a ‘Minimum Achievable’ scenario which forms the basis for the Minimum Planning Scenario on which the recommendations in The Plan are based. The demand projections in this Minimum Achievable / Minimum Planning Scenario are extremely ambitious and are likely to be difficult and costly to achieve. Nevertheless they have been assessed as realistic, even against the reality of Ireland / Dublin’s ‘starting point’, which is considerably behind many developed countries which have been more actively involved in the pursuit of ‘best practice’ demand management for well over 20 years in many instances.



Structure of Report and Key Findings

This report consists of seven Chapters as follows:

Chapter 1: Introduction to the report, its background and the principles of Integrated Water Resource Management.

Chapter 2: Overview of demand components, the factors which influence changes in each demand component, potential actions, strategies and technologies for their reduction and potential barriers to these actions.

Chapter 3: Review of the lowest technically achievable demand level by component based upon current international and best practice review.

Chapter 4: Review of currently applied demand strategies in a number of different jurisdictions and key issues and learning lessons identified.

Chapter 5: Review of demand scenarios assessed for the Dublin Region and comparison with best practice.

Chapter 6: Review of the risks and costs of achieving demand strategies and the need to find an appropriate balance of the costs, risks and environmental concerns.

Chapter 7: Recommended approach for the Dublin Region.

Overview of Demand Components & Baseline Demands

In summary, the key findings related to the primary demand components are as follows:

Domestic demand currently stands at 216.1Mld (2009) across the Region. A wide variety of viable options exist to reduce domestic demand generally targeted at existing homes via retrofitting of water efficient fittings and new homes via revised water efficient building standards. Key to the success of such schemes is the local metering penetration and charging policy and supporting legislation and regulation.

Regional customer side leakage is estimated at circa 38Mld at a rate of 65 litres per property per day with a high proportion assumed to be associated with lead services. It is extremely difficult to reduce customer side losses, particularly without metering, however, the Water Services Act offers some powers to assist enforcement of repairs.

Regional distribution leakage is currently 161Mld or 30% (2009 average) of water into supply. Major reductions in leakage have been achieved but further sustainable reductions will require a major and sustained pipe replacement programme.

Non domestic demand is 122.7Mld (2009). Demand reduction is achieved via similar approaches to domestic demand but rainwater harvesting and greywater re-use may have more potential in this demand sector.

In order to meet daily, weekly and annual variations in demand, a peak factor is applied to average baseline demands following analysis of actual local demand variations. Based upon the analysis of the Dublin Region a minimum peak factor of 10% or 80Mld (2040) has been applied to the Dublin Region.



All demand forecasting methodologies, including Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) approaches, recognise that there are varying degrees of uncertainty associated with the forecasting exercise. Therefore, in assessing future resource requirements, the concept of ‘Headroom’ is considered as a means of reducing the risk of failing to meet supply due to these uncertainties. In effect additional production capacity is quantified and provided to reduce the risk of failure to meet demand occurring.

In addition, at any given point in time a water provider may find that the achievable output from some of its treatment facilities is below the normal output. This can be for a variety of reasons, including unplanned events – such as raw water quality failures or asset failures in the treatment plant itself – or planned events, such as scheduled maintenance or capital schemes. For example such capacity was required and proved essential in continuing to supply water to much of Cork City when the Lee Rd Water Treatment Works was flooded in November 2009. Where this reduction in output is of a temporary nature (i.e. the situation is recoverable in time), it is known as an “Outage”. It is therefore important for water resource planning that sufficient allowance is made for such temporary reductions in output to ensure that for each resource zone, the risk of an imbalance between water demand and water supply is eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level. Typically these figures will range from 5-7% of distribution input.

In considering international practice and in the absence of detailed assessment, typical international figures for headroom of 5-10% and outage of 5-7.5% were used.

Therefore, for both the ‘Maximum Planning Scenario’ and ‘Minimum Planning Scenario’ in The Plan a total combined headroom and outage allowance of 6.25% or 50Mld minimum has been applied for the Dublin Region.

By comparison, the figure recently used for the London Water Resources plan to 2034 is approximately 10%.

International Review of the Lowest Technically Achievable Demands by Component

A review of demand components in various jurisdictions has been carried out focusing on countries where extremely low or best practice demands have been achieved, particularly domestic demands. Such comparisons, while not intended to provide “cherry picked” targets, do provide a useful reference as to what is technically achievable when due regard is given to localised differences including:

Climate,

Regulation,

Water supply structure and management,

The often significantly better infrastructure condition due to higher historical replacement rates,

Water charging and meter policies,

Household occupancy rates,

Length of time pursuing demand management policies.

Countries considered include (Refer to Table E1 for PCC details):

UK; The UK water industry has been privatised since 1989 and consists of 21 water companies monitored and regulated by several different agencies (Water Services Regulation Authority (OFWAT), Environment Agency (EA), Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI)). Customers are all charged for a combined water/wastewater service, with the majority on the basis of rateable property value and some (approximately 30%) on a metered charge. Pipe networks, although old are well managed and



have undergone regular upgrade. Thames Water is currently engaged in a major pipe rehabilitation programme designed to reduce leakage which has been consistently the highest in the UK due to the network age and the urban environment. Leakage levels in the UK have been reduced significantly over the last 20 years and are now among the lowest in the world for this type of network. There is a wide variation in PCC across the different regions. The average figure is noted here for overview purposes.

Denmark; Similar to Ireland, Regional Councils are responsible for water resource use and protection in Denmark. Water supply is managed by a very large number of publicly owned water suppliers (2,500 small – 158 large). The Danish climate is temperate with cool winters and summers. Leakage is very low at 10% of supply input. All users (with the possible exception of individual apartments) are metered and charged for water and wastewater use. Water tariffs are the highest in the world including a water, wastewater and tax element with a break-even principle applied to water companies.

Germany; Responsibility for water supply lies with municipalities. There are over 6,000 separate utilities however, 100 of these serve about half of the population. All properties are metered and water tariffs for water/wastewater are amongst the highest in Europe. Water losses are again reported as very low at 7% which is likely to be associated with a historically high water mains replacement rate which although more recently reduced still stands at 0.91% per annum currently . Climate varies from oceanic to continental.

The Netherlands; In 2007 the number of water companies which are publicly owned was reduced to 10 from 52. The Netherlands has a maritime climate with cool summers and mild winters. Leakage is exceptionally low at under 6%. Mains replacement runs at about 0.8% of the network per annum from historically higher levels. All properties are metered and customers are charged a combined charge for water and wastewater.

Lithuania; Lithuania is included due to a reported PCC which is amongst the lowest in Europe. It is currently reported at 110 l/hd/day, an increase from 97 l/hd/day reported in 2006/2007. Lithuania like many of the former Soviet States has moved from subsidised water supply to full cost recovery which has much to do with the low rate of water use. 42 municipal water companies have responsibility for water supply. Climate is similar to Ireland. Leakage is reported at 15% and the majority of customers are metered and charged the full cost of recovery.

Australia- Sydney; Sydney Water Corporation is a State owned corporation which supplies all water and wastewater services to the people of Sydney. Its water supply area and network is approximately three times the size of the Dublin Region. Sydney has a temperate climate with warm summers and cool winters and general rainfall throughout the year however, it regularly suffers from low rainfall and drought for extended periods and has in fact been in a severe drought since 2003. As a result major efforts to reduce demand have been made over the last 15-20 years. Leakage levels have been reduced consistently year on year and are now 8.5%. Customers are charged for water and wastewater at a relatively low rate, however given high household use annual bills would be of a higher comparative level.



Orignal PCC(l/h/d) Year Latest PCC

(l/h/d) YearReduction in

PCC(l/h/d)

% Difference in PCC

Duration to achieve reduction

(Yrs)Main Reasons for Reduction

Denmark 196 1982 131 2005 -65 33% 23

Benchmarking;Increased water prices;Public awareness campaigns;Metering

Germany 147 1990 122 2007 -25 17% 17

Increased water prices;Use of water-saving appliances;Increased public awareness;Metering;Benchmarking

The Netherlands 137 1995 128 2007 -9 7% 12

Public awareness campaigns;Technology and labelling;Culture;Benchmarking

UK 147 2001/02 149 2006/07 2 -1% 5 N/A

Lithuania 181 1996 110 2008 -71 39% 12 Metering;Increased water prices

Sydney 364 1990/91 245 2005/06 -119 33% 15

Water restrictions;Water saving programmes, indoor and outdoor;Public awareness campaigns;Labelling

SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL PCC DATA

PCC DETAILS

Table E1 Per Capita Consumption Figures in Other Countries

It is concluded that:

PCC

Best practice average per capita consumption is heavily influenced by many factors including local conditions, user behaviour, tariffs, extent of external water use and climate.

UK studies have indicated that the lowest technically achievable PCC in a new build house is in the region of 80 l/hd/day on the basis of 30l/hd/day being provided from rainwater harvesting however, Dublin Region rainfall patterns would only allow a minimum of 85-90 l/hd/day. However, there are serious concerns on how practical and achievable this would be on a large scale given some of the issues and uncertainties associated with implementation. These include the current growth in high water use or luxury fittings and the ability of the market to deliver the volume of water efficient fittings that would be required as they are not currently produced in large numbers. A consultation by the UK’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Communities and Local Government (refer to Appendix 10.4 for an overview of the results) found that the view of the majority of those who responded from industry and other interested parties was that a PCC in the order of 120l/hd/day was technically achievable. Ultimately they recommended the standard for new houses in the UK be set at 125l/hd/day.

Research to date would indicate that the lowest technically achievable PCC for an individual existing dwelling, following retrofit with water efficient devices, is approximately 110 l/hd/day. However, the global PCC reduction that can be achieved for all existing dwellings is a function of the scale of the retrofit scheme introduced and the uptake rates achieved. Uptake rates range from 6-22% in the UK and 29% has been achieved by Sydney Water in Australia. In the Dublin Region it is estimated that an uptake rate of between 30-40% would be required to achieve an average PCC of 135l/hd/day for all existing properties.

The lowest achievable average PCC for both new build and existing houses (combined) would appear to be in the range of 120-130l/hd/day.


The only comparable jurisdiction for customer side leakage targets is the UK and it would appear that the lowest achievable level is in the order of 25 l/prop/day.

Distribution Leakage

Leakage levels are compared with the UK and Australia via the IWA Infrastructure Leakage Index (Refer to Chapter 3, page 64 for a description). An ILI of between 1 and 3 is considered best practice



depending on local economic conditions. This is equivalent to 10-20% of distribution input or 5-10 m3/km/day of distribution main.

Review of Demand Strategy Best Practice (Integrated Water Resource Management-IWRM)

A review of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) approaches in Australia and the UK has been carried out which concluded that it is clear that due to increasing worldwide pressures on water supplies due to urbanisation and climate change that a more considered approach to water resources and water supply is required including reviews of demand management options. Table E1 details the differences between these approaches and describes the approach being followed in Dublin. CRITERIA TRADITIONAL INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING DUBLIN REGION WATER SUPPLY Planning Orientation

Resource options Supply options with little diversity

Supply management and demand management options, efficiency and diversity are encouraged

Supply and Demand options analysed and adopted.

Resource ownership and control Centralised and utility-owned Decentralised utilities, customers and

others Decentralised, customers and others

Scope of planning Single objective, usually to add to supply capacity

Multiple objectives determined in the planning process Multiple objectives determined.

Assessment criteria Maximise reliability and minimise process

Multiple criteria, including cost control, risk management, environment protection, community

Multiple criteria used for assessment of Supply-side/Demand-side

Resource selection Based on a commitment to a specific option Based on developing a mix of options Mix of options on demand and supply

side considered.Planning Process

Nature of the process Closed, inflexible, internally oriented Open, flexible, externally oriented Open and flexible involving widespread

consultation.

Judgement and preferences Implicit Explicit Explicit

Conflict management Conventional dispute resolution Consensus-building Consensus-building through SEA & EIA

processesStakeholders Utility and its rate-payers Multiple interests Multiple interests

Stakeholders’ role Disputants Participants Participant ref consultation processes (2006-2010)

Planning IssuesSupply reliability A high priority A decision variable A priority decision variable.Environmental quality A planning constraint A planning objective A planning necessity

Cost considerations Direct utility system costs Direct and indirect costs, including environmental and social externalities

Direct and indirect costs, including environmental and social externalities

Role of pricing A mechanism to recover costs

An economic signal to guide consumption and way in which to share costs and benefits between different stakeholders

Awaiting Policy Details but should be based on economic signals

Efficiency An operation concern A resource option A resource optionTrade-offs Hidden or ignored Openly addressed Will emerge through planning process

Risk and uncertainty Should be avoided or reduced Should be analysed and managed Analysed & Managed

Figure E1 Traditional Approach and Integrated Resource Planning Comparison Source: WSAA Guide to Demand Management

Both the UK and Australian/International Water Association approaches have the following key elements:

Detailed assessments of baseline and future water demands should be carried out the lowest level of detail that locally available data allows (housing and occupancy statistics, meter data etc). Preferably this should be carried out to a micro-component level and reviewed at regular intervals. Where improved data is available it should be used.

A wide variety of available and technically achievable solutions to meet future demands should be assessed.

A levelised cost (average incremental cost) analysis approach is used to compare options.

A participatory process is adopted consulting a wide range of stakeholders.



An iterative on-going learning process is followed to allow for review of changes or impacts on assumptions made.

A high degree of uncertainty is recognised and this risk should be recognised and managed through the use of outage, headroom, regular plan review and development of dual solutions e.g. Sydney Water has progressed an aggressive demand management approach however, they have recognised that there is a high risk that a number of these programmes may not deliver the water required. In order to minimise this risk they have progressed new source proposals (desalination – due to lack of surface/groundwater sources) through the planning process so that a plant may be constructed rapidly if required.

Both the UK and Australia have been developing these approaches, the underlying data used and the techniques employed for the past 10-20 years and have therefore, adopted sophisticated water resource plans. These plans and the data at their core are regularly updated and improved.

While the same level of detail cannot be achieved in the Dublin Region or Ireland as a whole at this stage due to data deficit and administrative/logistical issues, the same general approach can and has been applied in assessing the future needs for the Dublin Region including the appropriate consideration of cost and risk. Where local information has not been available, UK data has been used as a surrogate where considered appropriate.

Demand Scenario Analysis

In general, similar methodologies for demand forecasting are being applied today as were applicable to previous forecasts from 1996-2007, with a revised focus on demand side options for reducing certain demand components, in particular domestic demand, as a result of impending changes to metering policy. It is worth reviewing how accurate such estimation methodologies have been in the past by comparing actual demand growth with historical demand projections. Figure E2 charts overall demand growth within the Dublin Region between 1999 and the present day. The high and low forecast scenarios predicted in the Year 2000 of the Greater Dublin Water Supply Scheme 1999/2000 and available sustainable production outputs are also shown.

It is clear that demand growth remained within the high and low predictions throughout the entire period, generally approaching the higher level for much of the time. It also shows that there has been no headroom/outage allowance available since 2003 and that the deficit in this regard is worsening with demand only being met through the operation of treatment plants at levels higher than their sustainable production capacity.



Average Day Demand Forecasts vs Actual Average Day Demands 1999-2009

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Ml/d

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Area between High & Low Forecasts from 2000 GDWSSS High & Low Average Day Demand Forecasts from 2000 GDWSSSActual Yearly Average Day Demand Sustainable Production - Existing Sources

Figure E2 Actual Demand Growth vs. Previous Projections

Various demand scenarios have been assessed as detailed in Table E2 below including:

1. Do Nothing; where demand management policies are not pursued and demands are allowed to increase naturally.

2. Maintain current; existing polices relating to leakage control etc are maintained and effort is made to maintain PCC at current levels.

3. Minimum Achievable; the considered minimum demand levels that could be achieved for all demand components when due regard is given to local conditions including network condition, domestic water metering and charging, rainfall etc.

4. Theoretical Minimum; the minimum which might be achieved in the Dublin Region should the lowest demand levels currently attained anywhere in the world be applied without regard to the underlying local factors in these other jurisdictions such as network age or condition or water charging policies.



Scenario Title Domestic Demand 2040 Non-Domestic

Demand 2040 Customer Side Leakage 2040 Distribution Leakage 2040Operational Usage 2040

Mld

Total 2040 Demand

Mld(including peak and

headroom)

Theoretical Minimum

100% Uptake Rate WEM Programmes, New build compulsory PCC 85 l/hd/day as per Voluntary Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5 and 6.Domestic Demand = 266Ml/d

Low Demand = 238Ml/d

Achieving an average of 25 l/prop/d CSL between existing and new build properties. In order to achieve this, CSL would have to be reduced to 42.5 l/prop/d on existing properties and should not exceed 5 l/prop/d on new build properties.Total Leakage Volume = 27Ml/d

To achieve an ILI = 2, leakage on existing infrastructure should be reduced to 9.5m3/km/d and should not exceed 3m3/km/d on new infrastructure. Total leakage volume = 110 Ml/d.

1.6 643

Minimum Achievable

30% Uptake Rate WEM Programmes to 110 l/hd/day, New build compulsory PCC 125.Domestic Demand = 351Ml/d

Average Demand = 270Ml/d

Achieving an average of 25 l/prop/d CSL between existing and new build properties. In order to achieve this, CSL would have to be reduced to 42.5 l/prop/d on existing properties and should not exceed 5 l/prop/d on new build properties.Total Leakage Volume = 27Ml/d

To achieve the current plan, leakage on existing infrastructure should be reduced to 15m3/km/d and leakage on new infrastructure should not exceed 3m3/km/d.Total leakage volume = 160 Ml/d.

1.6 810

Maintain Current

Maintain current PCC levels (148 l/hd/day)Domestic Demand = 399Ml/d

Average Demand = 270Ml/d

Achieving an average of 40 l/prop/d CSL between existing and new build properties. This would involve maintaining CSL on existing properties at 65 l/prop/d and not allowing CSL on new build properties to exceed 10 l/prop/d.Total Leakage Volume = 42Ml/d

To maintain current distribution leakage levels, leakage on existing infrastructure should be maintained at 17m3/km/d and leakage on new infrastructure should not exceed 5m3/km/d.Total leakage volume = 194 Ml/d.

1.6 907

Do Nothing

2010 PCC increases by 0.245 l/hd/day in line with UK PCC growth 1992-2005 OFWATDomestic Demand = 419Ml/d

High Demand = 303Ml/d

Achieving an average of 49 l/prop/d CSL between existing and new build properties. This would involve doing nothing to reduce existing CSL of 65 l/prop/d on existing buildings and allowing CSL on new build properties to increase to 30 l/prop/d due to poor building control.Total Leakage Volume = 52Ml/d

Doing nothing would allow leakage to increase on both existing and new infrastructure.Total leakage volume = 307 Ml/d.

1.6 1082

Table E2 Demand Scenarios

WEM = Water Efficiency Measure

Figure E3 below shows the total (combined components) average demand scenarios (excluding peak and headroom/outage allowances) which range from 643Mld to 1082Mld. The Minimum Achievable (refer Figure E4) envisages a 2040 level towards the lower level at 810Mld. When best practice peak and headroom/outage factors are included, the 2040 total treatment capacity requirement increases to 942Mld.

Figure E5 below shows the final demand scenarios when the required peak demand and headroom/outage factors are added bringing the range of available treatment capacity required for each scenario to between 742Mld and 1250Mld.



Total Demand Scenarios

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Year

Ml/d

Theoretical Minimum Minimum Achievable Maintain Current Do Nothing Sustainable Production = 627Ml/d

1082 Mld

907 Mld

810 Mld

643 Mld

Figure E3 Total Demand Scenarios 2010-2040

Demand Scenario

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Year

Ml/d

Domestic Demand Non Domestic Demand Customer Side Losses Distribution Losses Operational Usage Peak Headroom

942 Mld

Figure E4 Total Minimum Achievable Demand Scenario 2010-2040




0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040Year

Mld


1250

1053

942

742

627


Figure E5 Total Demand Scenarios including Peak and Headroom Factors 2010-2040

Risks and Costs of Achieving Demand Reduction Strategies

A number of different demand scenarios have been presented, ranging from the traditional “do nothing” approach requiring source augmentation and water treatment capacity increases to a “theoretical minimum” level that, whilst potentially technically achievable, has an inherently high risk of failure and potentially very high cost. This is largely due to its success being dependent on a wide variety of largely unpredictable factors.

It is recognised that a “do nothing” approach is not sustainable and that the “maintain current” scenario would require that a new source be put in place by 2017/18. As a result both these scenarios are discounted as viable options.

Ultimately strategy selection comes down to assessing how much water can be released to meet future demand requirements (or potentially enabling deferment of the development of a new source in addition to providing headroom and outage allowances) via demand management activities and how much investment is required to achieve it.

PCC

Table E3 below presents the estimated overall cost of implementing the Theoretical Minimum and Minimum Achievable PCC targets when the relevant unit costs are applied to the uptake rates required (refer Appendix 10.6).

It is estimated that achieving the “Theoretical Minimum” will have a total cost in excess of €3 billion excluding other ancillary costs.



DescriptionCost to Achieve

Existing Buildings Retrofit Targets

Cost to Achieve New

Building Standards

Targets

Awareness Campaign

and Household

Audits Budget

Total Cost to Achieve Demand Target

€M €M €M €M

Theoretical Minimum100% Uptake Rate WEM Programmes to 110 l/hd/day, New build compulsory PCC 85 l/hd/day as per Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5 and 6.

703-936 2566 20-30 3289-3532

Minimum Achievable

30% Uptake Rate WEM Programmes in existing houses to 110 l/hd/day taking average in existing houses to 135 l/hd/day, New build compulsory PCC 125.

211-613 164 20-30 395-807

Option

Table E3 Indicative Demand Management Implementation Costs

The total estimated cost to implement the demand side assumptions contained in the “Minimum Achievable” will range from €395-807M which excludes the costs of implementing ancillary activities required for successful implementation likely to include the following:

1. Domestic meter installations (based upon reported National costs, the non domestic metering experience and assuming installation at the boundary of properties) are estimated to cost a further €240-340M for 100% penetration.

2. National labelling scheme.

3. Appliance rating scheme.

4. Review of plumbing standards and plumber training.

5. Production and implementation new building regulations, training and guidance.

6. Building quality control.

7. Administration of schemes.

8. Development of Policies and Standards for Grey and Black water use.

Obviously a portion of the above costs may well be borne by householders/developers. However, in order to ensure the required level of success by ensuring PCC targets are met (which is a pre-requisite if such a policy is pursued) a sizeable level of subsidy is likely to be required. The size of this subsidy will be dependent on the water charging tariffs implemented and resulting pay back periods perceived by customers.


It is anticipated that active leakage control (find and fix) activities will continue as presently resourced over the term of the plan.

Experience from network rehabilitation works to date in the Dublin Region and in London has shown that mains rehabilitation can be expected to achieve a leakage reduction of between 30-100m3 per day per kilometre replaced.



Based upon varying leakage reduction rates per kilometre replaced, an assessment of the length of mains replacement required in order to achieve leakage targets has been made and presented as Table E4.

2010 2040

m3/km/day m3/km/day m3/km/day m3/day km for Rehab € €

Leakage m3/km/d 21.0 10.0 11.0 100,100Rehab Saving @

30m3/km 3336.67 1,334,666,667 44,488,889 1.22%50m3/km 2002.00 800,800,000 26,693,333 0.73%

100m3/km 1001.00 400,400,000 13,346,667 0.37%

Leakage m3/km/d 21.0 6.5 14.5 131,950

Rehab Saving @30m3/km 4398.33 1,759,333,333 58,644,444 1.61%50m3/km 2639.00 1,055,600,000 35,186,667 0.97%

100 m3/km 1319.50 527,800,000 17,593,333 0.48%

Minimum Achievable

Plan Options

Theoretical Minimum

Annual % of

Network to be Replaced

Distribution Leakage Leakage Reduction on Existing Network to

meet Plan

Length of Mains for Rehabilitation Required to Meet

Target Saving

Annual Investment2010-2040

Total Cost

Table E4 Leakage Reduction via Mains Rehabilitation Costs

It should be noted that ongoing rehabilitation is required in any event to ensure security of supply and to prevent continued network failures of the kind experienced over the winter of 2009/2010. For this reason it may be necessary to accelerate replacement rates where available budgets allow in order to gain all of the benefits as early as possible, particularly for the oldest Victorian mains.


At this point it is impossible to estimate the likely cost of reducing supply pipe (customer side) leakage to proposed plan levels given the uncertainty on actual current levels, however, the replacement of a large number of lead supply pipes is likely to be required which probably number circa 170,000. It would cost between €150-255M alone just to replace all of these supply pipes.

Implementation Risk

The various demand scenarios have been assessed against the risk of failing to achieve them as this should be a key consideration in selecting the best balance between supply and demand side options for meeting the Dublin Region long-term water supply needs. Supply side options could be considered to be a lower risk in general as they have long established methodologies and mitigation options for those risks that are present. Table E5 outlines a high level overview of the comparative risks for each primary demand component of each demand scenario

Option Scenario Title Domestic Demand

Non-DomesticDemand



Total(Max Risk = 20)

Option 1 Theoretical Minimum 5 1 4 5 15

Option 2 Minimum Achievable 4 1 4 4 13

Option 3 Maintain Current 2 1 2 3 8

Option 4 Do Nothing 1 1 1 1 4Table E5 Demand Side Options Risk Scores

Achieving both the Theoretical Minimum and Achievable Minimum demand scenarios are scored as high risk in comparison to other options and there would be real concerns that they may not be achievable.



The Minimum Achievable although a lower score, has a relatively high risk associated with it given the very challenging targets set for leakage and domestic demands and an uncertain domestic metering and charging policy at this time. The introduction of water charges at a sufficient level to encourage demand reduction could reduce the risk, however, pilot implementation of various schemes could provide valuable information from which to develop more robust strategies and targets for achievement of Minimum Achievable demand targets.

High investment in infrastructure reduces the risk of water supply restrictions due to failure which must be balanced with the potentially high cost (Figure E6).

Figure E6 Balancing Cost and Risk Source: WSAA Framework for Urban Water Resource Planning

Comparing the costs and risk assessments for the “Minimum Achievable” and “Theoretical Minimum” demand targets, the former offers the better balance between cost and risk.

Recommended Approach

Following detailed review it is apparent that demand management is being implemented successfully throughout the world. If applied to the Dublin Region it also offers a viable option in meeting long-term demands. If implemented aggressively in the short-term it has the potential to increase available headroom and capacity for meeting ongoing supply requirements while supply augmentation is being developed.

The “Minimum Achievable” demand scenario for the Dublin Region incorporates extremely challenging demand side efficiency targets which entail significant risk of achievement. Therefore, a cautious approach to implementation should be adopted incorporating parallel development of demand and supply side options via progression of source augmentation to the planning stage and the immediate implementation of demand management pilots to assess viability and costs. The installation of ‘boundary boxes’ as part of the current Dublin Region Watermains Rehabilitation Project offers an opportunity to implement pilots cost effectively as meter installations could be carried out at minimum cost.



Implementation Actions for Recommended Approach

This Demand Review identifies that the demand projections of the “Minimum Achievable” scenario are in keeping with best practice integrated resource management and incorporate challenging demand side targets. The uncertainty in such an approach represents a risk to meeting future demand which requires mitigation in its implementation. The measures identified in Table E6 below and which are listed broadly in order of importance will need to be considered in delivering such a demand side management plan.

Demand Mgt. Instrument/Policy Heading

Measures Required

Quantification of uncertainty and risk in not achieving goals.

Required Timelines for Implementation.

1. Strategic Requirements

Continuation and possible acceleration of water mains rehabilitation schemes.

Tariff Structures to Incentivise Reduced Use.

Smart Metering/AMR Policy.

2. Metering Policies and Implementation (including AMR and/or Smart Metering)

Data Access Policies.

Confirm Potential Saving and Base Data used including PCC and methods to benchmark PCC

Confirm Impact of reduced Use on Drainage Systems Performance.

3. Further Research

Develop target methodologies that are transparent, simple to understand and evaluate, and which are also achievable

4. Economic Policies Subsidy Schemes to encourage Take up Rates.

New Building Regulations/Codes and Legislation if required. Will also require advance liaison with building industry and major roll out.

Improved enforcement and Building Control.

Revised Plumbing Standards.

Development of Policies and Standards for Grey and Black water use.

Consideration of Integration with Energy and Waste Schemes.

5. Regulatory Needs

National Water Appliance Standards, Assessment and Labelling Scheme.

Plumber Training Schemes. 6. Education and Awareness

Major Continuous Awareness & Behavioural Change Campaigns.

Table E6 Implementation Actions

The current lack of available headroom/outage allowance in the Dublin Region and the chronically deteriorating network places water supply to the 1.5 million customers served under constant threat. Water supply will be open to severe failure during extreme weather events (ice, flood or drought) or other infrastructural failures while this situation continues.



An outline Programme milestones diagram is included as Appendix 10.7. Critically it indicates that commissioning of any new source is unlikely to be achieved before 2020. Installation of domestic meters and the implementation of charging if adopted as policy is likely to take 5-10 years also, however, it could be achieved before new source development, offering the potential to meet additional demand and/or increase short-term headroom.

It is strongly recommended that commissioning of a new source, the installation of domestic meters and the implementation of charging are pursued and that planning commences as soon as possible to mitigate risks and secure water supply for the Dublin Region. Such an approach has been adopted by Sydney Water (demand management and new source development) and Thames Water (demand management, new source development and storage) in London.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Assessment of strategies for meeting the long-term water supply needs of the Dublin Region (comprised of the Local Authority areas of Dublin City, Fingal, South Dublin, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown and parts of Meath, Kildare and Wicklow) has been underway since the Department of Environment Heritage and Local Governments (DEHLG’s) Greater Dublin Water Supply Strategic Study was prepared in 1996 and reviewed in Year 2000. The pace of economic growth, particularly during the Celtic Tiger years (1995-2007), gave rise to significant growth in water demand which was largely met by increased production from existing sources combined with operational initiatives to reduce leakage.

Feasibility Studies and Strategic Assessments 2004 – 2008 largely concentrated on a continuation of this approach with a strong emphasis on actions to optimise water supply abstractions and the efficient use of natural resources via network rehabilitation and active leakage control programmes. Demand management strategies were also implemented albeit, limited to customer awareness programmes, building bye-laws, promotion of water efficient appliances and 100% metering of the non-domestic sector.

The need for / timing of potential supplies from a new source were evaluated against this background with lower emphasis on extensive domestic demand management initiatives in the absence of policies requiring domestic metering & volumetric charging for water. This situation changed significantly in the latter half of 2009 with the publication of draft Budget 2010 which signalled possible changes to Government Policy in relation to domestic metering and volumetric charging for water.

The Plan in relation to requirements for supplies from a new source for the Dublin Region was revised over the Dec ‘09 - Apr 2010 period to take account of the intended Domestic Metering & Charging Policy change. This ‘Demand Review’ report was prepared in order to inform The Plan of the impacts which could be anticipated on demand growth from the proposed policy changes.

Throughout the developed world, water supplies are coming under stress as a result of increased urbanisation, and associated customer water use due to economic and population growth and lifestyle choices. More recently this issue is being exacerbated by the effects of climate change and resulting reduced water resource availability. Many urban centres and large regional areas are finding it more and more difficult to provide for future water needs from existing water sources. Traditionally such needs were achieved through the increase of water supply via increased water abstractions from surface and ground water sources or water treatment works capacities. The practice of meeting water demands purely from supply augmentation alone is increasingly seen as no longer acceptable due to environmental policies such as the Water Framework Directive, without considering conjunctive technically achievable and cost effective demand side solutions. Ultimately sustainable production requires sustainable consumption.

Current best practice in water resource planning has adopted an integrated approach in which both supply side and demand side approaches are key options in providing for future water supply needs. “Integrated least cost planning” or “Integrated Resource Management” (IRM), which emerged in the context of regulations from electricity utilities in the USA, emphasises Water Conservation and Demand Management as potential alternatives to supply side management options (e.g. new sources). Integrated Resource Management is a process for determining the appropriate mix of demand-side and supply-side resources that are expected to provide long-term, reliable service to users:

at the lowest reasonable risk and total cost and

that maximises benefits to society including enabling economic growth and


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 2

minimises any negative impact on the environment.

The main functions of the integrated least cost planning approach and demand management are:-

Integration of initial capital costs and long term operating costs into the planning process.

Introduction of social, environmental and economic issues as important considerations in the planning process.

Focusing on the end consumers and users.

Integration of the planning of the various stakeholders in the water supply chain.

All demand-management activities that decrease demand tend to affect supply management because existing system capacity is released for other customers and other users. The redirected capacity can be compared to that provided by the development of new capacity.

1.2 DEMAND MANAGEMENT

Water demand management (WDM) can be defined as “the adaptation and implementation of a strategy (policies and initiatives) by a water operator or consumer to influence the water demand and usage of water in order to meet any of the following objectives: economic efficiency, development needs, environmental protection, sustainability of water supply and services, and political acceptability”1. In particular, WDM is implemented to satisfy existing water needs with a smaller amount of available resources through the achievement of increased efficiencies in water use.

WDM should not be regarded as the objective but rather as a strategy to meet a number of objectives. Its scope includes both distribution management and customer or end user demand management measures.

Demand management can incorporate the implementation of the policies or measures set out in Table 1.1 to influence end users to implement water conservation or efficiency measures (Herrington 2006).

These measures are sometimes referred to as the five E’s of demand management, Economics, Education, Enforcement, Encouragement and Engineering. The implementation of demand management can have demonstrable benefits economically, environmentally and in reducing carbon emissions and energy use however, supply side options in some situations can offer better overall results.

1 Department of Water Affairs and Forestry of South Africa, 2000. Water Conservation and Demand Management for the Forest Sector in South Africa. National Water Conservation and Demand Management Strategy.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 3

Demand Mgt. Instrument/Policy

Heading

Options Comment/Tools Used

Tariff Policy Subsidies and Rebates Fines

Economic/Incentive Based

Tax Credits Awareness Campaign Schools/Education

Educational/Motivation

Water Audits Appliance Labelling Scheme

Plumbing Codes BuildingCodes/Regulation Consumption Regulation

Regulatory

Landscaping Code

Often combined into demand management strategy and implementation of water efficiency measures across all customer water use sectors both domestic and non domestic:

Retro fitting of existing plumbing fittings: dual-flush or interruptible toilets user-activated urinals low flow shower heads tap controllers and aerators displacement devices e.g. Hippo’s grant incentives schemes where water

operators will pay part of the costs to retro-fit to the consumer marketing and research of new technology

Reduction in gardening water use: water wise plants mulching efficient irrigation systems irrigation scheduling rainwater harvesting and recycling of

wastewater Reduction in the demand by new consumers Reduction of natural water demand growth rate: selecting appropriate level of services for

different users efficient plumbing fittings negotiations and incentives to developers improved design and plumbing standards.

Above can include2

“water conservation or doing less with less” “Water efficiency “doing more with less” Water sufficiency “enough is enough” e.g. turn off tapWater substitution “replace water with something else like air” e.g. waterless urinal. Water reuse, recycling and harvesting.

Rationing – hose pipe ban

Restriction

Moral (per)suasion

Generally emergency or short term

Leak detection and Repair Pressure Management Pipe replacement and rehabilitation

Operational Control

Metering

Water operator

Table 1.1 Demand Management Policy Instruments

2 Watersave Network, 2002. Water Conservation Products - A preliminary review.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 4

1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

The objective of this report is to assess the lowest water demand growth scenarios which may be potentially achievable in the Dublin Region through the implementation of international best practice, particularly in demand management and leakage reduction. The assessments involve evaluations of a range of potential demand management scenarios, in conjunction with the risks and costs associated with their implementation, in the context of the Dublin Region’s existing water management regime.

The Dublin Region Local Authorities recognise the need to consider both demand side and supply side solutions in meeting water demand requirements over the next 30 years. Therefore the assessments of long term water supply needs in the Dublin Region (The Plan, October 2010) are based on such an Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) approach. The approach minimises leakage and water use in the Region and maximises environmentally sustainable production from existing Region sources. However, it also recommends planning now for the potential development of supplies from a new source which are highly likely to be required despite the considerable water-conservation savings which can be generated from full implementation of each of the demand management initiatives considered.

This report identifies a ‘Minimum Achievable’ scenario which forms the basis for the Minimum Planning Scenario on which the recommendations in The Plan are based. The demand projections in this Minimum Achievable / Minimum Planning Scenario are extremely ambitious and are likely to be difficult and costly to achieve. Nevertheless they have been assessed as realistic, even against the reality of Ireland / Dublin’s ‘starting point’, which is considerably behind many developed countries which have been more actively involved in the pursuit of ‘best practice’ demand management for well over 20 years in many instances.

1.4 REFERENCES

A wide range of sources have been consulted in researching current international best practice including published materials from Government, Environmental Organisations, Water operators and advisory resources in a number of different jurisdictions, in addition to websites and research papers.

International “best practice” review includes the following:

1. The United Kingdom as our closest neighbour and most comparable jurisdiction in terms of climate, water use, network age and performance, water operation and plumbing standards. The UK has also carried out a considerable amount of detailed research into demand management activities in the UK and internationally and its potential success as an effective and sustainable water resource management option.

2. Australia which although a very different area in terms of climate and water stress is currently a world leader in demand management and leakage control following unprecedented periods of drought. Although direct comparison is not possible due to major differences in water use due to climate and lifestyle (e.g. very high outdoor use), Australia offers valuable information in terms of the types of policies implemented and relative returns in terms of water saved.

3. Various water use information from other jurisdictions has also been referenced including Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany and Lithuania.

A full list of references is provided, however some key documents used in carrying out this review have included the following UK documents:

1. “Future Water: The Government’s water strategy for England” UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) © Crown Copyright 2008


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 5

2. “The Independent Review of Charging for Household Water and Sewerage Services”Final Report Anna Walker CB December 2009 UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) © Crown copyright 2009.

3. “Every Drop Counts Achieving Greater Water Efficiency”, September 2006 © UK Institute for Policy Research (IPPR).

4. “Water Efficiency in the South East of England Retrofitting Existing Homes” © UK Environment Agency (EA), April 2007.

5. “Measuring success of Demand Management Interventions” © UK Environment Agency – July 2008.

6. “Water Efficiency Retrofitting: A Best Practice Guide” Waterwise UK November 2009

7. “Water Efficiency Audit Programmes: A best practice guide “Final report Waterwise In contract to UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), March 2008.

8. “Evidence Base for Large-scale Water Efficiency in Homes” October 2008 Waterwise UK

9. “Evidence Base for Large-scale Water Efficiency in Homes Phase II Interim Report”February 2010 Waterwise UK.

10. “The economics of water efficient products in the household” Prepared for the Environment Agency by Elemental Solutions June 2003.

11. “International Comparisons of Domestic per Capita Consumption” Prepared for the Environment Agency by Aquaterra 10 December 2008.

1.5 STRUCTURE OF REPORT

This report consists of seven Chapters as follows:

Chapter 1: This introduction

Chapter 2: Overview of demand components, the factors which influence changes in each demand component, potential actions, strategies and technologies for their reduction and potential barriers to these actions.

Chapter 3: Review of the lowest technically achievable demand level by component based upon current international and best practice review.

Chapter 4: Review of currently applied demand strategies in a number of different jurisdictions and key issues and learning lessons identified.

Chapter 5: Review of demand scenarios assessed for the Dublin Region and comparison with best practice.

Chapter 6: Review of the risks and costs of achieving demand strategies and the need to find an appropriate balance of the costs, risks and environmental concerns.

Chapter 7: Recommended approach for the Dublin Region.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 6

1.6 DEMAND MANAGEMENT IN IRELAND & THE DUBLIN REGION

Demand management in Ireland has largely been limited to localised education and awareness campaigns and operational control activities which are well advanced throughout the country via a Government policy to reduce leakage nationally. Major work in this regard has been carried out in the Dublin Region with significant reductions in network leakage achieved.

There has been very little customer side demand management carried out in Ireland up until recently and in particular, following the implementation of charging for non domestic water use. Prior to that there was no policy with regard to demand management and only limited experience is available via a small number of pilot projects mostly relating to the non domestic sector which have included the following:

1. Limerick City Domestic Water Efficiency Pilot Study Ballinacurra Gardens 2000, Limerick City Council/DEHLG.

2. Schools Demand Management Studies - Gorey Community School May 2005 Wexford County Council/DEHLG, Birr Community School County Offaly and Headford Secondary School County Galway.

3. Demand Management Study Wicklow County Buildings 2006, Wicklow County Council/DEHLG.

4. Rainwater Harvesting Pilot, National Rural Water Monitoring Committee/DIT 2007.

5. Schools Water Conservation Project, Fingal County Council January 2009.

6. Sustainable water supply and consumption in County Sligo Research Project http://www.sligowater.com. This recently commenced research project aims to address this topic by establishing a baseline study of water supply and consumption in the county by monitoring a selection of users across a number of categories (domestic, farm, business, group/private/public water scheme, metered/non-metered).

A number of high profile water saving awareness campaigns have been run and most if not all Local Authorities provide advice on water conservation in the home and business. Generally these awareness campaigns have been of limited duration and market penetration with the possible exception of the Tap Tips campaign in Dublin which ran major press and media advertising campaigns for 3 years (2004-2006) and continues to maintain an internet presence www.taptips.ie.

Other National environmental efficiency initiatives which incorporate a water element in addition to energy have included the Green Schools www.greenschools.ie and Green Business www.greenbusiness.ie programmes.

The recent introduction of meter based water charges for all non domestic users has seen many individual customers from this sector pursue water efficiency activities. Water efficiency is also increasingly policy within Local Government and Government Department such as the Department of Education Policy3 which is to provide for rainwater recovery in all new schools and large extension designs.

3 Department of Education & Science, 2009. Ensuring sustainability in School Buildings. A Department of Education & Science submission to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 7

An overview of the status of demand management measures both nationally and within the Dublin Region is provided in Table 1.2 below.

As can be seen, demand management activities have primarily focused on the network and operational control areas. While there are a number of pilot water efficiency studies completed there is a significant lack of experience in the widescale implementation of customer side demand management activities in the Region and Nationally from which to draw accurate conclusions on potential costs, risks and the sustainability of water savings.

Demand Mgt. Instrument/Policy

Heading

Dublin Region Status National Status

Economic/Incentive Based

As per national Non domestic water charges only.

Domestic charges to be introduced with free allowance within 2 years.

Educational/Motivation Taptips awareness campaign over 3 summers 2004-2006 including “live” website.

Green business funded through the National Waste Prevention Programme (NWPP) of the Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government offers energy and water awareness and free audits to businesses.

Green schools programme – environmental awareness programme.

Regulatory Local bye-laws introduced in all Dublin Authorities in 2004/2005 with separate water conservation section for domestic and non domestic new builds. Requires max toilet flush of 6 litres and requirement to deliver a water conservation management plan for developments.

Local voluntary water and energy efficiency appliance labelling introduced by CODEMA

Water Services Act 2003 introduced additional powers to help address customer side leakage.

Restriction “Informal” moral suasion campaign required during frost January 2010 to reduce demands.

None

Operational Control Dublin Region Water Conservation project implemented from 1998-2002. Major metering, leak detection and repair and pressure management project reducing leakage from 42.5-28%. Leak detection and repair ongoing and network rehabilitation commenced 2006 replacing 27km (0.3%) per annum 2006-2012.

Water conservation projects focussing on leak detection and repair commenced 1996 and ongoing in all Local Authorities. Pipe replacement and rehabilitation programme being rolled out nationally from 2010.

Table 1.2 Status of Demand Management in Ireland and the Dublin Region


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 8

1.7 ASSUMPTIONS ON NATIONAL POLICIES

National water policy in Ireland has undergone significant change in recent years and further significant changes in relation to water charging are also anticipated. In order to assess the viability of future demand management options it is necessary to understand what future policies in relation to Regulation and Tariff policy will be as they are inextricably linked to the success of water efficiency programmes. The implementation of policy, as has been currently indicated by the Minister of Environment, is assumed as follows:

1. Continued pursuit of operational control activities through ongoing funding of water conservation and network mains replacement/rehabilitation at current levels as a minimum.

2. Implementation of domestic water charging on a polluter pays basis. A level of free allowance is assumed.

1.8 KEY ISSUES

From the literature review carried out, the following issues can be critical to the viability and extent that demand side solutions are suitable options for a particular water resource plan:

1. Climate Change and resource availability.

2. Demographics and population growth.

3. Rates of per capita water consumption as influenced by lifestyle choices and increase in wealth.

4. Legislation and regulation including EU policies.

5. Water tariff structures and the cost of water to the end user as a portion of total income.

6. Data quality and availability for demand projections and water efficiency savings.

7. Locally available technology and expertise.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 9

2 OVERVIEW OF DEMAND COMPONENTS & BASELINE DEMANDS

The following section describes typical components of demand as they apply in the Dublin Region, the factors which influence them, actions for their reduction and potential barriers to succeeding in their management. It also outlines methods used for forecasting future demands and underlying uncertainties in their estimation.

Components considered include those which need to be assessed in the planning of future water needs for the Region:

Domestic water demands; from all households including both houses and apartment complexes.

Non domestic demands; including existing users and projected demand requirements from zoned lands for non domestic use.

Customer side leakage; leakage from within the customers’ property boundary.

Distribution leakage; leakage present on the Local Authorities’ water mains network up to the customers property boundary including leakage from reservoirs, trunk mains and distribution mains and service connections to the property boundary.

Peak demands; estimates of the above demand components are generally based on average annual or daily usage figures. In reality demands will fluctuate on an hourly and daily basis but usually exhibit peaks in the day (such as morning where showering and kitchen activities occur) and on certain days and weeks during the year. Quite often this occurs during the summer months when temperatures are high and there is increased use for garden watering. A peak demand factor is usually applied to the average demand components to ensure there is sufficient supply available to meet these regular increased or “peak” demands.

Operational headroom and outage; all water supply systems are susceptible to unusual occurrences or “risk events” which can lead to increased demands or a reduction in available source water (outage of water treatment works due to a pollution event). These events have been very visibly and painfully experienced in Dublin and nationally during the freezing weather in late 2009 early 2010 where a significant climatic event led to water shortages. The system could not cope with the increased demands experienced as there was insufficient headroom available as a buffer to large short term changes in demand. While some areas of Cork City were without water during the flooding of 2009, the majority of the City was able to continue to receive water due to the additional capacity available from the County Council water supplies, albeit for large areas only by tanker.

In assessing demand management opportunities it is important to consider the components and micro-components of demand in some detail as set out in the following sections.

2.1 DOMESTIC USE AND PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION

The basis of domestic or household water demand is complex and difficult to assess without metering. A wide range of factors need to be considered in estimating existing and future domestic demand projections. Assessment and understanding of per capita water use rates, their calculation and variance is essential for identifying opportunities for its reduction.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 10

2.1.1 Dublin Region Current Baseline PCC and Domestic Demand Estimate

Given the current lack of metering of domestic households in Ireland, domestic water demand is estimated. Typically this is achieved by applying an assumed or verified average per capita water usage figure in litres per person per day to an estimated baseline or future population estimate. Baseline population estimates are based upon relatively robust figures derived from Census data updated in interim periods from annual house build figures and average house occupancy rates.

It is usual to estimate the PCC by reference to UK figures where approximately 28% of domestic users are metered and where statistical studies are carried out by UK water companies on a regular basis. The average figure used in the Dublin Region, which has been verified as a reasonable average via PCC assessment trials in Dublin is 148 l/hd/day in 2009. These figures are consistent with the current UK PCC estimate which is reported as 150 l/hd/day (Walker Report 2009). It is worth noting that these are average figures and in reality there will be a significant range of PCC figures from house to house and area to area throughout the year. This is demonstrated from the PCC frequency (number from total sample within range) results of a domestic meter reading trial carried out in Dublin City (Figure2.1) and details of PCC frequency (number from total sample within range) in the UK (Figure 2.2). It is worth noting that the frequency profiles are remarkably similar.

The resulting estimated domestic demand for the study region based upon a population of 1,465,000 in 2009 is 216.1 Mld.

Figure 2.1 PCC Frequency Pilot Meter Survey Dublin City Council 2008

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 150 151 - 200 201 - 250PCC (l/person/day)

Frequency (No. from

total sample within range)


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 11

Figure 2.2 PCC Frequency Profile UK Watersave Network 2001

2.1.2 Influencing Factors

Domestic or household water demand is complex and varies considerably from household to household. As a result per capita consumption can change depending on a number of factors, many of which are interlinked and include the following:

Household size or occupancy; Occupancy has a direct influence on PCC and Figures 2.3 and 2.4below demonstrate that while increased occupancy leads to overall increased household demand, PCC invariably falls as household occupancy increases. This is a very important characteristic as occupancy levels are falling nationally.

Household type and age (flat etc); A number of studies have indicated that average consumption per household is higher in detached houses and lowest in flats due to garden use and greater available space for water using appliances and bathrooms. The age of houses is an indicator of the type of water use appliances, toilets etc that may be present with potential for water use reduction e.g. replacement of older 11 or 9 litre per flush toilet with 6 or 4 litre toilet.

Climate; Seasonal variations in demand are well documented with summer peaks common usually due to increased garden watering.

Tariff structure and level; The presence of water tariffs and their level relative to average incomes is clearly a significant influencer on water use.

Metering; The introduction of metering with water charging is generally regarded to reduce water use by up to 10% (UK Walker Report). Most importantly meters are a key piece of infrastructure to assist consumers monitor and reduce their water use and identify leaks if sufficient access to meter data is enabled.

Religion; Recent studies in the UK have provided evidence that religious persuasion can influence water use or patterns.

020406080

100120140160

5 to

14

45 to

54

85 to

94

125

to 1

34

165

to 1

74

205

to 2

14

245

to 2

54

285

to 2

94

325

to 3

34

365

to 3

74

405

to 4

14

445

to 4

54

485

to 4

94

525

to 5

34

565

to 5

74

Water consumption (l/hd.d)

Freq

uenc

yFr

eque

ncy

(No.

from

tota

l sam

ple

with

in ra

nge)

Water Consumption (l/hd/d)


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 12

Socio-economic factors or wealth: Affluence has clear effects on water use both in the number and scale of water using appliances and fittings in the home and their replacement rate but also in relation to the ability to pay for water use “above the norm”.

Age group; A study has found that retired people in single person dwellings use significantly more water than similar working groups. The study assumed this to be due to longer periods spent at home.

Public understanding of water use; The public’s understanding of the wider costs, environmental importance and value of water can be a key factor in peoples’ water behaviour and water saving or wasting habits.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Per

capi

ta

cons

umpt

ion

(l/hd

.d)

1 pe

rson

2 pe

ople

3 pe

ople

4 pe

ople

5 pe

ople

6 pe

ople

7 pe

ople

8 pe

ople

Household size

Figure 2.3 PCC by Household Size UK Watersave Network 2001


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 13

Figure 2.4 PCC by Household Size UK Water Company PCC Study Area

2.2 MICRO-COMPONENTS OF DOMESTIC DEMAND

2.2.1 Overview

In order to better quantify water efficiency opportunities in the home it is necessary to understand water uses for personal hygiene, cooking etc that make up PCC and daily household water use. The volume of water used is a function of the volume used for each event and the frequency the events occur e.g. number of times toilet is flushed. Figure 2.5 details typical water use in the home based upon UK studies.

Water used for toilet flushing personal hygiene and clothes washing make up the majority of water used at somewhere between 60-80%. These uses offer the greatest opportunity for reduction. It has been reported that the frequency of bath/shower use has increased over the last 30 years while water used for toilet flushing, dishwashing (where a dishwasher is owned) and clothes washing (where a washing machine is owned) is decreasing due to the introduction of new lower water using technologies and standards. Toilet flushing remains the largest water use component within the home.

Table 2.1 details how PCC might be proportioned within an average home within the Dublin Region based upon the split of uses presented in Figure 2.5, with a PCC of 148 l/hd/day and an occupancy rate of 2.5.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 14

Washing Machine

12%

Dish Washer4%

Sink18%

Drinking Water3%

Toilet28%

External3%

Bath18%

Shower14%

Figure 2.5 Typical Components of Household Water Use

% OF TOTAL USE * PCC Litres / use

Average Frequency (per house

per day)

Total / house

@ 2.5 OR

Washing Machine 12% 17.76 60 0.75 45Dish Washer 4% 5.92 21 0.7 14.7

Sink 18% 26.64 2 35 70Drinking Water 3% 4.44 1.11 10 11.1

Toilet 28% 41.44 9.4 11.5 108.1 External 3% 4.44 13 0.89 11.57

Bath 18% 26.64 71 0.95 67.5Shower 14% 19.98 35 1.5 52.5

TOTAL 100% 148 380* SOURCE: OFWAT

@ CURRENT PCC

USE

KITCHEN

BATHS & SHOWERS

Table 2.1 Estimated Components of Water Use in an Average Home within the Dublin Region

From Table 2.1 it is clear how demand is influenced by both volume per use and frequency of use. Both aspects provide opportunity for saving water either through provision of devices using less water and/or reducing the frequency of use through better product design or influencing end user behaviour. It must also be recognised that there can be a fine line between achieving water savings and not doing so. For example frequency of use may increase rather than decrease due to poor design and performance (multiple toilet flushing) and ultimately may lead to customer dissatisfaction and possible removal of the device.

2.2.2 Water Using Devices within the Home

Water use can be reduced either through the introduction or substitution of devices with ones which use less water or through the substitution of the water used by the device with non potable water (rainwater or greywater) or indeed a combination of both for maximum effect. The current status of individual water using devices in terms of available technology and water saving possibilities is discussed below. What is particularly relevant is that in general, industry has developed new appliances and bathroom fittings over the last 20 years that are much more environmentally friendly and efficient in terms of water and energy use than ever before. Much of the information presented has been obtained from the following publications:

1. “Water Conservation Products a preliminary review.” Watersave network. May 27th 2002.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 15

2. “Assessing the Cost of Compliance with the Code for Sustainable Homes” UK Environment Agency January 2007.

3. “Water and energy consumptions of dishwashers and washing machines” Waterwise September 2008.

4. “Water Efficiency Retrofitting: A Best Practice Guide” Waterwise UK November 2009.

2.2.2.1 Appliances

The Waterwise report listed in 4) above has found the following in relation to washing machines and dishwashers and their impact on water use in the UK:

Ownership

Washing machine ownership has risen from 75% in 1977 to approximately 95% in 2008 (15% is washer dryer) and is anticipated to remains static. Replacement rate is every 12 years.

Dishwasher ownership has risen from less than 5% in 1977 to over 28% in 2008 which is compared to 60% in Germany. This too is anticipated to remain static with replacement every 16 years.

Usage

Washing machine use has risen by 23% in the past 15 years, up from 3 times a week in 1990 to an average of 4 times a week per household today.

Dishwasher use has stayed static over the past 15 years, at an average of 4 times a week per household.

Efficiency

In the past 30 years dishwasher efficiency has risen by over 60% from an average of over 50 litres per wash in the 1970s to an average of 14 litres per wash today (Figure 2.6). Much of this was driven by energy efficiency improvements with water use reducing 30% since 1990.

This increase in dishwasher efficiency is likely to continue in the next few years with potential savings of 50%.

The dishwasher half load or rinse option is only used 5% of the time.

Average washing machine efficiency has doubled, partly due to the disappearance of top loaders; the average machine now uses 60 litres per wash (Figure 2.7). In the past 5 years there has been a 10% increase in efficiency and machines using 40 litres per wash are widely available. However, it is unlikely that washing machines will become more efficient in the next few years.

The most energy efficient washing machine is not necessarily the most water efficient but water efficiency generally increases with energy efficiency.

The washing machine half-load option is used 20% of the time.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Wat

er u

sed

(litr

es/c

ycle

)

1970 1980 1985 1992 1997 1999

Year

Figure 2.6 Reductions in Dishwasher Water Use since 1970

020406080

100120140160180

Wat

er u

sed

(litr

es/c

ycle

)

1970 1980 1985 1988 1992 1998

Year

Figure 2.7 Reductions in Washing Machine Water Use since 1970

Dishwashing by hand or machine

Households without dishwashers Time spent hand washing 4.6 hours per week. Volume per wash 14.33 litres Consumption per person per day without a dishwasher is around 10 litres

Households with dishwashers People with dishwashers still wash dishes by hand but spend only about 2 hours a week. Consumption per person per day with a dishwasher is around 4 litres. People with a dishwasher use about 60% less on washing up than people without a dishwasher. The rise in dishwasher ownership and the efficiency of dishwashers has lead to a reduction in the

water used for washing up.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 17

Waterwise Predictions

1. Water companies forecasts for water use estimate that dishwasher ownership will be 40% in 2015.

2. Dishwasher use will remain constant - that people with dishwashers will use them about the same amount of times.

3. There will be growth in water efficiency of dishwashers with a potential to halve the amount of water used.

4. Washing machine efficiency has probably reached a plateau - unless ultrasound washing is developed commercially.

5. Washing machine use has probably reached a plateau and that products for clothes 'freshening' will be more common.

6. Washing machines will become more intelligent and easier to use, so water use will be more directly tailored to need without human intervention (i.e. you will not have to choose a programme) so there may be some efficiency gains here.

Waterwise Conclusions

1. The efficiency of washing machines has risen in the past ten years but the water savings from this are cancelled out by the fact that people are using their machines more often.

2. There is slow but steady growth in the uptake of dishwashers.

3. Dishwasher efficiency has risen in the past 10 years but people are not using the dishwashers more often (this has stayed steady whilst washing machine use has risen), therefore dishwashing is reducing overall consumption of water.

4. People with dishwashers still do some washing by hand but on average households with dishwashers use 60% less water than households without a dishwasher.

5. The growth in dishwasher efficiency and the increased ownership of dishwashers will have a positive impact on water conservation. This is not true for washing machines. Dishwashers are a significant area where technological advance will have a positive environmental impact. However, the public actually think totally the opposite and think that dishwashers use more than washing by hand!

2.2.2.2 Toilets

Flush Toilets

While toilets have not changed significantly in appearance over the years (Figure 2.8) there has been a significant change in the volume of water used per flush, primarily as a result of regulation and improved technology. Most recent developments allow the selection of variable flush volumes as required by the end user (e.g. dual or variable flush toilets which are currently mandatory in Ireland, both in new buildings and in existing buildings where WCs are being replaced, since 1st November 2008).


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 18

Figure 2.8 Toilets from “Beaufort” 1885 to Present Day Dual Flush (Twyefords)

With no ready information available on toilets in Ireland, UK data is assumed to be consistent given the proximity of markets. Of particular importance in relation to toilets are the regulated standards for volume of flush introduced in the UK as follows:

Before 1989 11-13 litres or more.

1989 to 1993 7.5 litres or 9.5 litres dual flush.

1993 to 2000 7.5 litres.

After 2001 6 litres.

Toilets currently available on the market include six and 4.5 litre single flush and 6/4, 6/3 and 4.5/3 litre dual flush. The current lowest technically achievable flush is 3 litres however, it is not widely approved for use. The current most widely approved low flush toilet is a 4/2.6l dual flush toilet. For dual flush toilets the effective flush volume is believed to be based upon a ratio of dual to single flushes of 1:1 e.g. 6/3 litre toilet has an effective flush of 4.5 litres. Likewise the average flush volume of a 6/4 litre dual flush toilet is reported to be 5 litres.

The average resulting national flush rate for existing houses taking into account all the various flush volumes existing in the UK is 9 litres per flush (Figure 2.9). There has been some concern expressed that if flush volumes are too low (3 litres and below) it will affect efficient sewerage network performance through increased blockages. This issue is currently being researched and is likely to recommend specific building standards or guidelines on where these toilets may be used and required plumbing standards when fitted (size of outlet pipe).


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 19

Figure 2.9 Average UK Flush Volume

An analysis of the average age of housing stock in the Dublin Region (refer Figure 2.10) would support a similar volume based upon an assumed toilet replacement rate of once every 16-20 years. Current Dublin Region Water Bye-Laws (2004/5) require the fitting of 6 litre flush toilets in all new build houses.

Houses Classified by Period in Which Built

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Before 1919 1919-1940 1941-1960 1961-1970 1971-1988 1989-1992 1993-2000 2001-2008

Period

No.

of H

ouse

hold

s

11L 7.5-9.5L 7.5L 6L

Figure 2.10 Age of Dublin Region Housing Stock

Acceptable performance of dual flush toilets is essential or consumers will “double flush” which can have the opposite effect and use more water than higher flush volume models.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 20

As the great majority of existing houses have flush volumes higher than the 6 litre model there are three ways in which existing models may have their flush volumes reduced depending on the model and existing flush capacity. These are:

1) Fit a retrofit device (Figure 2.12) to convert the existing cistern to dual flush or controlled interrupted flush e.g. “Mecon Water Saver (Irish Device)” or “Ecobeta”. The variable flush retrofit involves fitting a small device to an existing, single flush toilet that allows it to flush with different amounts of water. Evidence from large-scale studies suggests that implementing this can bring noticeable savings.

2) Fit a complete replacement cistern/toilet to convert to dual or low single flush; or,

3) Fit a cistern displacement device (refer Figure 2.11) which reduces the flush volume.

Generally, options 1) or 2) are felt to be more permanent and satisfactory than option 3) assuming all are fitted correctly which is essential.

For valve operated cisterns, a check should be made for leaks using either a dye or dry paper test which can be a common problem on these models.

Figure 2.11 Cistern Displacement Devices

Figure 2.12 Toilet Flush Retrofit Devices

Waterless Toilets

Toilets have recently been developed which do not require any water for flushing. An example is a composting toilet which relies on natural processes to make compost. There are usually two chambers: one in use and the other left to decompose. A handful of wood shavings or straw is dropped into the toilet after each use to aid ventilation and prevent bacteria giving off excess nitrogen in the form of ammonia. Vent pipes from each chamber prevent the toilet from generating odours and a drain is required to take away any excess liquid.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 21

These so called “waterless toilets” are being adopted in ecological building designs in Scandinavia, Northern Europe and Australia, resulting in water-savings of up to 40%. There are 3 categories of waterless toilets that are used in the urban environment. The first involves immediate diversion of waste to an onsite composting unit via a pipe, and therefore requires a reasonable amount of space to house the composting unit directly below the bathroom. The second involves immediate diversion of waste to a ventilated pit. The third involves manual removal of small bins and emptying to a compost location, this may be done communally for several households. Some designs of the latter involve a rotation unit so that several bins may be filled and begin the composting process before they require manual handling. The first and second options are used frequently in roadside public toilets, holiday homes and ecological building designs in Scandinavia and other countries. The third option is marketed as suitable for apartments.

Several buildings and urban development projects in Germany are now using vacuum toilets that use just 15% of the water of conventional toilets, but can still make use of existing sewage infrastructure. Vacuum toilets are not normally recommended for simple water saving except in extreme situations such as aircraft and trains. Dry toilet designs are evolving but are mostly intended for rural sanitation. Vacuum technology may have wider application but would require some technical problems to be solved if it is to be used on the domestic scale whether in individual dwellings or blocks of flats. Installation and maintenance costs, energy use and life cycle issues must be considered before selection.

It is not generally believed that waterless toilets have widespread domestic potential at this time due to space requirements, maintenance issues, energy use and serious concerns regarding acceptance by the general public with regard to odour and cost (view expressed in “Water efficiency in new homes An introductory guide for house builders” UK NHBC Foundation October 2009).

Reference report 2 above also excluded waterless toilets from its analysis as it was felt that “(a) composting toilets would require a significant change in behaviour and design and (b) the water benefits of vacuum or incinerator toilets would be offset by their energy use. However, provided these issues are addressed they are a viable way of meeting the code levels.”

2.2.2.3 Taps

Taps can either be mixer taps for kitchen or basin taps for bathroom, cloakroom and kitchen sinks. Taps for bath use are excluded from this section as they require a high functional flow rate and water savings are more likely from baths themselves.

Taps currently available on the market include spray taps, aerated taps, variable flow rate taps (those with a ‘brake’ of flow between water efficient and standard flow rates e.g. Eco Click Tap, generally require minimum pressure) and outside taps, along with basic non-restricted taps for a wide variety of application in kitchens, bathrooms and cloakrooms. Also available are tap inserts (flow regulators or limiters) designed to reduce flow rates in any tap (see Figure 2.13).

Typically tap flow rate is reduced by modifying the spray or introducing air to break up droplets. Existing taps may have adapters or fittings to modify the water consumption or spray pattern inserted into the tap or if a size does not suit a flow restrictor can be installed before the tap where sufficient pressure exists. It should be noted that such taps can be prone to blockage and may require maintenance. Push action taps (percussion taps) are an established tap control which helps limit waste.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 22

Figure 2.13 Flow Restrictor inside Tap Inlet & Nozzle Restrictor Components

No significant developments in tap technology that could reduce water consumption per use are expected in the future, although sensor taps could rise in popularity within houses, decreasing reliance on the user to switch taps off, particularly in bathrooms or cloakrooms. This would alter the duration of use, rather than the flow rate.

It is considered that the savings achievable from retrofitting taps are relatively small but may have merit as a “low saving” scheme or in combination with other schemes.

2.2.2.4 Baths and Showers

Showers

Water efficient showers are a complex subject as although the flow rate of a shower can be measured easily the performance of a shower is more complex and dependent on a combination of flow rate, spray pattern, user comfort and the feel of pressure droplets on the skin.

In the UK and Ireland we have electric showers, gravity fed and mains pressure hot water systems and a wide range of user expectations. About 45 percent of households in the UK have an instantaneous electric shower and because the volume of water that needs heating limits flow rates, these devices cannot be improved for water efficiency. The UK and Ireland are unique as far as electric showers are concerned. The rest of the world tend to have mains pressure hot water systems rather than storage tank fed systems so it is a simple matter to specify a shower head of a given flow rate and for users to find something that suits them.

Where showers are suitable for flow reduction the solution is often the replacement of the shower head with low flow options similar in principle to taps (aerated or flow restriction) however, flow rates are important to maintain user satisfaction or comfort.

The “Water Efficiency in the South East of England Retrofitting Existing Homes” report found that savings from the low flow shower option are relatively small but at very low cost. However, they felt it was worth considering in combination with other water efficiency measures such as low flow taps and variable flush retrofit devices.

In pursuing water savings and specifying showers a number of other parameters besides flow rate need consideration:

1. duration of showers,

2. frequency of showering,

3. the available water temperature and pressure from the specified hot water system design,

4. variations in supply pressure and volume of hot water available,

5. flow rate at the available or specified dynamic water pressure,

6. air temperature within the shower cubicle or bathroom,


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 23

7. ease of use and clarity of controls.

It is relatively easy for a 10 minute shower to use more water than a bath and a recent survey by a UK consultant found that the average shower time for a sample of 650 people was 13.8 minutes.

Baths

Baths are available in a wide range of shapes and volumes. None of the current standards include a test method for determining the volume of a bath (dependent on user and overflow height) and there is no agreed method of testing, therefore data is not always available.

Typically it has been found that an average bath uses between 65-100 litres of water depending on the type of bath equivalent to about 40% of the bath capacity.

Baths are being designed today to use less water by shaping the bath to reduce capacity Figure 2.14and Figure 2.15). A current average size is approximately 230 litres with an industry target of 130 litres.

The main options for reducing bath water use besides fitting lower capacity baths are through conversion to shower only use and changing habits to reduce the frequency of bath use. It is recognised that this can be difficult to achieve as bath use can be seen as a low cost “luxury and relaxation” experience or essential for those with children.

Figure 2.14 Water Efficient Bath Design

Figure 2.15 Award Winning “Breathing Bath Tub” Moulds to Body Design


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 24

2.2.2.5 Viability of Water Efficient Fittings

In determining the viability of water efficiency measures it should be noted that water efficient fittings such as low flow shower heads or taps do not generally cost more than conventional types however, they are generally more restricted in the range available which might limit their user penetration.

2.2.3 Garden Water Use

Garden irrigation is generally a small proportion of the total amount of water used by households however, it can increase and peak during periods of low rainfall and high temperature. Water use in gardens can be reduced through the use of hose trigger guns, “water butts” which collect rainwater in the garden or the design of gardens using drought tolerant plants.

2.3 ACTIONS FOR REDUCTION

There are various strategies that can be implemented to reduce domestic water use either by the end user (with or without subsidies) or promoted by local government or the water provider. Overall these can focus on existing buildings, new buildings or both and can include the options described below which usually involve:

utilising new technology which offers the same performance, same action but uses less water. It is important that performance is satisfactory.

Modifying behaviour.

Providing financial incentives.

2.3.1 Appliance/Plumbing Standards and Labelling Schemes

If customers, builders and plumbers are to be encouraged to purchase water efficient goods and fittings it must be made easy for them to identify these fittings and be confident that they will deliver adequate performance and be really efficient. While current European Union (EU) schemes for energy and water are a step in this direction they are not comprehensive. Specific labelling and standardisation schemes need to be introduced to maximise water savings where awareness campaigns or regulations are introduced. Indeed the EU has recognised this and as part of its’ policy to address water scarcity and drought has recently commissioned and published “A Study on Water Efficiency Standards July 2009” which recognises that the introduction of European Union wide standards can offer significant water savings.

Examples of such standards can be found in Australia’s’ Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS Scheme) www.waterrating.gov.au and the UK Voluntary Labelling Scheme www.water-efficiencylabel.org.uk. Such schemes provide advice for manufacturers and importers, retailers and wholesalers, plumbers and builders, architects and specifiers and local government.

2.3.2 New Build Policies

In order to reduce future water demand it is essential to ensure that new buildings are built to an agreed standard that aims to deliver improved water efficiency. This can be achieved either through


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 25

enforcement (Building Regulations) or optional codes (e.g. UK Code for Sustainable Homes which includes a wide range of targets not just water e.g. energy use and waste). The UK Government is committed to achieving average PCC levels of 130 l/hd/day by 2030 (Walker Report, 2009) and new building regulations will make this compulsory in new buildings from 2010. In addition they have introduced a voluntary code for sustainable homes which includes water efficient targets ranging from 80 l/hd/day to 130 l/hd/day.

It is likely that revised Building Regulations and fittings standards will be required in Ireland to ensure efficiency targets in new buildings are achieved if any new policy objectives are to be met.

In order to ensure the successful implementation of new regulation the following (in no particular order) are likely to be required in conjunction with regulation as has been found in the UK and Australia:

water efficiency awareness and education campaigns (see also findings of “Water efficiency in new buildings” joint Defra and Communities and Local Government policy statement) labelling schemes,

formal assessment and certification of fixtures and fittings performance (see also findings of “Water efficiency in new buildings” joint Defra and UK Communities and Local Government policy statement),

enforcement policies and staff to carry it out,

plumbing standards and training for plumbers.

It should be noted that well policed water efficiency regulations will not guarantee lower PCC levels unless end users are satisfied with their performance and are educated on the underlying need.

This was identified by the UK Communities and Local Government which issued the “Code for Sustainable Homes: A Cost Review”.

This contains little on water but it warns:

“prospective buyers might be deterred by measures such as low flow taps, low flow showers, shorter baths and so on and could have concerns in relation to maintenance and on-going costs of a greywater recycling / rainwater harvesting systems.

low flow fittings can be replaced by standard taps, flow restrictors removed etc if the purchaser of a new home is not satisfied with the performance of taps and showers, for example”.

2.3.3 Retrofit Devices

In existing buildings there is little option but the retrofitting or replacement of existing fittings with new more water efficient devices. The options available obviously depend on the age of the house and existing fittings in use (which is virtually impossible to accurately assess) but are likely to include the following:

1. Toilets a. Existing toilet replacement with low flush toilet. b. Fitting of displacement devices if suitable. c. Fitting of variable flush device to existing toilet if suitable.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 26

2. Replacement of or retrofit with inserts of existing taps and shower heads with low flow model if suitable.

3. Replacement of appliances with lower water use models. 4. Replacement of baths with showers or lower capacity versions. 5. Introduction of water butts for garden irrigation.

Estimates of the savings from such actions vary however, the highest savings are achieved from toilets and bath replacements followed by appliance replacement and taps and garden use.

Overall savings from the implementation of multi-solution water efficiency schemes are usually anticipated to be up to 34 litres per property per day or 10% of an average house’s use with up to 64litres achieved in housing associations. Sydney Waters’ “Waterfix” programme is reporting average savings of 57 litres per property per day in 29% of properties (466,000 customers). This is consistent with the results of the Limerick City Water Efficiency Pilot which realised savings of 22.5 l/prop/day and an exceptionally high uptake rate of 57%.

Success of schemes is very often dependent on the end user taking part (uptake rates) and this is usually quite low ranging from 6-22%4 in the UK experience and 29% in the case of the Sydney scheme. As a result there is a high degree of uncertainty on the actual results that may be achievable.

There is some evidence of improved results when a qualified plumber or trained personnel are used to carry out retrofits and awareness campaigns or specific end user advice and water audits are carried out as part of retrofitting schemes. These actions are discussed later.

2.3.4 Water Replacement – Rainwater and Greywater

A detailed technical assessment of rainwater and greywater harvesting and their applicability in the Dublin Region given rainfall constraints is provided as Appendix 10.1 of this Demand Review Report. A summary is provided below.

2.3.4.1 Rainwater Harvesting

Key considerations include available usable rainfall, storage tank size and cost. Given the rainfall levels in the Dublin Region the maximum annual water usage that could be substituted for an average house would be 23% at best and could be substantially lower depending on rainfall patterns and

storage availability. This makes payback periods long for existing houses and storage requirements extremely large which would prove difficult to accommodate in existing dwellings.

At this time, rainwater harvesting systems would seem to be preferential to greywater harvesting systems given the reduced need for complexity and treatment (where end use allows) and their economic viability where rainfall is adequate. Figure 2.16 and Figure 2.17 show rainwater harvesting systems installed in Australia – one system under veranda and 5,000L tanks at the side of houses.

Figure 2.16 Rainwater Storage Urban Dwelling Australia

4 Waterwise UK, 2010. Evidence Base for Large-scale Water Efficiency in Homes, Phase II Interim Report.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 27

Figure 2.17 5,000 litre Rainwater Harvesting Tanks (Australia)

The yield from rainwater harvesting varies due to a number of factors but for design purposes the minimum should be planned for. Climate change impacts such as seasonal variations in rainfall amount, frequency and intensity need to be taken into account which could reduce yields.

An average per capita consumption (PCC) for houses in the future as recommended by DEFRA “Future Water”4 is 110 l/hd/day without rainwater harvesting. Based upon the analysis in Appendix 10.1 it appears that with rainwater harvesting, the lowest achievable average PCC (for an average occupancy house) in the Dublin Region is likely to be somewhere between 85-90 l/hd/day.

As a minimum, the following would need to be implemented to ensure significant uptake on rainwater harvesting systems:

Legislation: Building Regulations would need to be updated to include the requirement of site specific assessments on rainwater harvesting systems installation as a condition for planning approval. Japan has strict regulations to ensure that buildings with a floor area greater than 300,000 m2 have greywater and rainwater harvesting systems. In the region of Flanders in Belgium, there is an obligation to install combined rainwater harvesting and storm water attenuation in new buildings with a roof area of greater than 100m2. This is an innovative approach to supporting rainwater harvesting as part of sustainable urban drainage.

Plumbing Control and Standards: Standards for installation and monitoring will have to be set out in order to address the current perceived health and safety concerns with regards to rainwater harvesting systems. Any retrofitting or installation of a rainwater harvesting system should only be carried out by a qualified professional. Pipes and fittings should be clearly identified and labelled to reduce the possibility of inadvertent cross connection into potable water supplies. Backflow prevention measures would also be required to reduce the possibility of contamination of potable water. Before adoption, the Local Authorities should satisfy itself that no legal liability would arise should any health incident occur. The Rainwater Harvesting Pilot Project commissioned by the National Rural Water Monitoring Committee and researched by Dublin Institute of Technology, found that exceedances in terms of the parameter for Lead suggest that lead flashings should never be used where rainwater is to be employed for potable applications. This might also prove a barrier to an existing home retrofit even though rainwater use for potable water substitution is not considered here.

Domestic Water Charging Pricing Structure: The introduction of metered charging for domestic water use may encourage uptake on rainwater harvesting systems, provided that the cost of mains water is sufficiently high to encourage water saving behaviour. Germany has embraced rainwater harvesting technology to a significant extent as homes are on a metered supply and the high cost of mains water is an incentive to households to install a rainwater harvesting system.

Financial Support: As recommended in Rainwater Harvesting Pilot Project due to the high capital cost, it is envisaged that a significant level of grant aid would be required to make installation of rainwater harvesting systems a viable option for consumers. In Germany, grants up to €1,200 are


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 28

available depending on the region. Austria offers financial support for the installation of rainwater harvesting systems on a regional basis, providing grants of up to €1,800 in the state of Burgenland.

A study was commissioned by the National Rural Water Monitoring Committee in 200533 to assess the feasibility of supplementing treated mains water used for non-potable purposes in a rural housing development in County Carlow. Table 2.2 below is a reproduction of the total capital costs for the installation of a rainwater harvesting system based on tank size as obtained from this study.

2m3 Tank 9m3 TankFittings 2,012.55 2,012.55Precast Reinforced Concrete Tank 650.00 1,500.00Installation Costs 525.00 840.00Total Capital Cost 3,188 4,353

Cost (€)Item

Table 2.2 Total Capital Costs Based on Tank Size

In general, installation costs would depend on the following factors:

Above ground or below ground systems New build or retrofit of existing property.

An average sized suburban semi-detached house having to retrofit a rainwater harvesting system would have an installation costs ranging from €4,000 - €6,00034 (between 2 and 5 times greater than the grants provided in Germany and Austria).

Education and Media: A sustained campaign highlighting the benefits of rainwater harvesting and associated benefits to the environment should be created to increase public awareness and ensure stakeholder buy-in. Increasing the awareness of builders, plumbers, product manufacturers and architects of the benefits of rainwater harvesting systems could also encourage wider uptake.

2.3.4.2 Greywater Reuse

There is uncertainty and a lack of confidence in the reliability of greywater harvesting systems as they are a relatively new technology to be proven and have significant barriers to uptake due to end user perception although there may be more uptake in non domestic scenarios.

As a result greywater (and blackwater) use is illegal or severely restricted in many countries including Denmark.

2.3.4.3 Conclusion on Rainwater and Greywater Harvesting

In conclusion based upon the detailed review it is unlikely that greywater systems will offer any major Regional water savings at this time, however it may still prove popular for specific non domestic uses or individual domestic users.

Rainwater harvesting is definitely more promising and should be pursued although the greatest potential is likely to be in the area of new build for non domestic and domestic properties rather than retrofitting of existing buildings. Significant work is still required as detailed above to ensure this becomes a reality. Table 2.3 below shows the likely potential for rainwater harvesting for four different categories of properties, based on use.

In general these conclusions agree with a recent UK Department of Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) briefing note for their Sustainable Product Market Transformation Programme which found that “in new and existing homes it is generally more economic to reduce water use by fitting more water efficient appliances and educating customers in waterwise behaviour before considering the use of either rainwater (except a garden water butt) or greywater”. It predicts an uptake of 2% of properties for rainwater and 2% for greywater by 2020.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 29

Category Recommendation

Retrofitting of existing properties with a rainwater harvesting system is costly and results in large disruption to households.

This category is more suited towards installation of water efficiency devices.

Without significant levels of grant aid and subsidies for installation of rainwater harvesting systems, it is unlikely that there would be large uptake in this category

Best suited due to considerable benefits of scale on large scale projects

Communal rainwater harvesting systems would have lower maintenance and storage costs compared to individual units

The site specific assessment of installation of rainwater harvesting systems should be made an obligation through Building Regulations

Installation of rainwater harvesting system may be of benefit to businesses if there is high potable water usage for non-potable use

Retrofitting of existing properties may be costly and require significant investment and result in disruption to business

Currently shorter payback period compared to domestic properties

Without significant levels of tax incentives, this category has limited potential in rainwater and greywater harvesting

As in domestic new-build properties, best suited due to considerable benefits of scale.


Installation of greywater harvesting systems may be suited for this category as well

Existing Domestic Properties

New-build Domestic Properties

Existing Commercial Properties

New-build Commercial Properties

Table 2.3 Recommendations for Application to Dublin Region Based on Categories of Properties

Emerging technologies may change the situation in the future with direct transfer of wastewater to toilets for flushing such as those presented in Figure 2.18 below.

Figure 2.18 Emerging Water Replacement Technology Caroma Profile WC with integrated wash-hand basin and Ecoplay Toilet Fed from Bath and Shower


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 30

2.3.5 Water Audits

Water audits involve householder’s monitoring their own water use by component (frequency of water using events) using typical usage figures and comparing this with their meter readings and household water bills (where access to the meter is available). The data can be used to identify areas where water may be saved and can be very effective in stimulating householder’s interest and “buy-in” to water efficiency.

Self audit packs or website tools can be provided but it can also be provided by water providers or as part of a package of Water Efficiency Measures (WEMS).

Audits are not generally believed to provide significant savings in their own right but can be effective as part of other schemes and useful in identifying leakage.

2.3.6 Awareness & Education Campaigns

It is well recognised within the industry that water is undervalued amongst the general public and water consumers. This is primarily due to the fact that there are presently no water charges for domestic water use but also due to a lack of knowledge of where water comes from, what has to be done to it to make it potable and the wider environmental implications of the water cycle.

A significant move to demand side water strategies as is proposed to meet future water supply needs for the Dublin Region requires a “step change” in not only end user water use but will also require a significant change in approach from the building industry, regulators, water providers, plumbers and manufacturers and suppliers of water devices and fixtures. In order to ensure the success of demand side measures awareness campaigns are an integral part of any water efficiency programme (Figure 2.19). While it is difficult to measure their success directly they are generally regarded as having the potential to save considerable amounts of water or to improve the success of other actions.

Key elements include:

Widespread dissemination of information to consumers and other stakeholders about the merits and potential cost savings that result from sensible water use, the need for efficiency and technical information and advice on technology.

Key messages to change end user behaviour.

Training and information for plumbers etc.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 31

Figure 2.19 Tap Tips Campaign Web and Advertising

Potential devices that can be used to increase public awareness include information leaflets, bill board & press advertisements, shopping centre stalls, and internet sites. The current level of public interest in receiving this kind of information via the Internet is believed to be low, so more traditional means should be employed to guarantee the measure’s overall success.

There is considerable experience within the Dublin Region recently in the delivery of innovative and successful awareness campaigns including the “Race against Waste” and the “Tap Tips” campaign. These campaigns have included the following elements:

Launch of an internal awareness campaign; Focussed on staff members and public buildings.

Development and Distribution of Leaflets; leaflets promoting conservation were produced and distributed to all consumers through local press and made available on the website and in public buildings.

Development and Launch of Schools Awareness Campaigns; Long term success in this area has been proven to rest in raising awareness in children via schools programmes.

Press Campaigns; Press campaigns at various intervals both through local radio and print media.

Website; local authority websites should promote conservation, inform of ongoing leakage control and demand management strategies and make leaflets available.

Major successful campaigns have been run in Sydney and notably Denver, Colorado which utilised very innovative advertising (See figures below). It is of note that both of these campaigns were introduced during periods of serious drought which in all likelihood assisted in conveying the message as the general public were already aware of the issues. A similar affect might be experienced in the Dublin Region if a media campaign was launched in the near future following the winter freeze and water shortages. It should also be noted that both of these campaigns and most of the successful ones reviewed were carried out as part of an overall water demand management initiative including various major actions with significant investment.

Denver adopted an Awareness Community Based Social Marketing Scheme designed to change behaviour by blending non traditional and conventional communication methods (see Figure 2.20, Figure 2.21 and Figure 2.22).

The overall campaign included:


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 32

Advertising campaign. Rebates and incentive contracts. New operating rules, enforcement and fines. Conservation rates. Outreach to high-use customers.

Figure 2.20 Denver Water Conservation “Use Only What you Need Advertisement”

The message of the campaign was “don’t waste” rather than ”conserve” which an advance feedback survey had identified as having negative connotations i.e. “indicates hardship and lifestyle impact” with the general public.

Figure 2.21 Denver Water Conservation “Tackle Running Toilets” and Water Restriction Advertisement


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 33

Figure 2.22 Semi Traditional Advertisement

Overall the campaign as a whole delivered a 33% drop from pre drought consumption figures.

Campaigns should be re-run at regular intervals (2-5 years) to ensure the message is maintained following an initial intensive campaign.

2.3.7 Metering and Tariffs

Meters do not in themselves reduce consumption but rather they influence and enable customers to reduce their water usage (assuming they have sufficient access to meter data) and wastage. This often depends upon the type of key policy areas selected and implemented in conjunction with their roll out.

These include the following:

Tariffs applied (refer to Appendix 10.2 for an overview of tariff structures) – level (how much customers pay) and type e.g. rising block during peak demand periods (who pays),

Water efficiency and awareness education campaigns, New build policies for water fittings, Appliance efficiency rating schemes, Supply pipe leakage policies – e.g. free/subsidised repairs, Meter read frequency and availability of meter data to consumers Type of meter installed – “dumb” meters limit tariff options to flat rate or annual block.

That said metering and the introduction of appropriate tariffs are universally recognised as potentially one of the most effective demand management measures. This is perhaps confirmed in Denmark which has amongst the lowest leakage and PCC figures in Europe but has also been confirmed by a recent OECD/GWI water tariff survey as having the most expensive tariffs in the world (Figure 2.23).Much of the high tariff level is due to the wastewater provision element however, it has had a significant impact on water demand.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 34

Figure 2.23 OECD/GWI World Water Tariff Survey 2007 Note: Denmark’s water charge includes a water, wastewater and tax element but the split is not reported in Tariff Survey however, wastewater is understood to make up 45%.

Tariff selection is an emotive and complex issue and must achieve the correct balance of ensuring tariffs are high enough and structured correctly to encourage water conservation while ensuring the ability of all to pay and receive adequate amounts of water (Figure 2.24).


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 35

Figure 2.24 Water Tariff Trade Offs OECD Global Forum on Sustainable Development 2008

“Waste Not, Want Not Sustainable Water Tariffs” a report by Paul Herrington (a recognised expert on water economics) for WWF-UK in September 2007 found that

“An appropriate tariff structure should have a number of characteristics. For sustainability, full cost recovery should be sought since subsidies send users the wrong signals. Most importantly, however, pricing should include a significant metered element, in order that the marginal environmental and economic costs of the provision of additional supplies are reflected in the price. This notion can be extended to prices for peak and drought demands, perhaps utilising ‘Smart’ meters.

Social tariffs come in two variants: passport tariffs and certain increasing block tariffs (IBTs).

The first category includes any scheme which reduces charges for one or more carefully defined household groups constituting or dominated by lower-income and/or other vulnerable households. Eligibility is normally established by one or more household characteristics, e.g. already being in receipt of one or more of a specified list of government benefits, or a sub-set of such a group (e.g. those with dependent children).

The second variant refers to any general metered tariff for households which, through its structure and the tariff rates levied, reduces significantly the water charge burdens of financially or otherwise disadvantaged customers. The structure which most obviously fits this bill is that of an increasing block tariff in which a first ‘block’ of ‘basic’ water use is provided at a lower price than that of a further block or blocks representing higher rates of water use. The size of the ‘basic’ block should be dependent upon household size, either precisely or to some limited degree, so that larger families are not disadvantaged.”

The report found strong evidence that metering and tariffs do provide sustainable water savings with minimal evidence of “bounce back”. With the right tariffs in place demand reductions of 10-15% can be achieved. Increasing block tariffs are some of the most popular worldwide and increasing in use. The OECD has found that:

Decisions about tariffs need to consider, among other issues:

o Service levels and quality

o Policies in other sectors that provide incentives to water users,

Keeping average tariffs levels too low generally hurts the poor,

Affordability should be assessed locally,


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 36

Tariff structures can help achieve both financial sustainability and access/affordability – But cross-subsidies need to be targeted,

Different water supply services require different pricing mechanisms,

Tariff-setting and adjustment process matters.

Mr Herrington proposes a number of rules for sustainable water tariffs:

“Overall, we conclude that a single, inclusive, and adaptable conservation-oriented tariff is the best way forward. This should incorporate explicitly the differences between basic, discretionary and wasteful water use in the home – the first a ‘social good’ and latter two a ‘private good’. Only this way can we obtain a water tariff structure which is fit for purpose: to encourage sustainability while addressing the issue of affordability for all it is that in general all the costs incurred by the water utility should be met by customers through charges. This principle is known as Full Cost Recovery. Subsidies are generally to be resisted, because they both give rise to a misleading signal for consumers about the worth of what is being provided and have been shown to lead, consequently, to the over-building of water systems, the waste of public funds and sub-optimal water use practices (OECD, 1987)”

“The second working rule for sustainability is that household tariff structures which rely on a fixed annual charge are generally inefficient and encourage waste. They should have only a very minor permanent role in a country which takes its environmental protection seriously.

The social benefits from domestic metering stretch from the enduring cost savings, both operating and capital, that result from lower demands, out to the benefits enjoyed by the water utility in the form of easier (and therefore cheaper) leakage detection and the improved demand forecasting and planning which is generated by knowing which customer groups are using how much water.

Third, the ‘ideal’ benchmark price of water for metered consumers is the marginal cost of its provision (that is, the extra cost of one more unit), because there is then in place a system whereby consumers can be relied upon to make decisions about consumption which accord with the social interest. Thus if the ‘true’ marginal cost of producing another unit (e.g. a cubic metre) of water is £3, and that sum includes any scarcity and environmental value of raw water, and also the appropriate share of the utility’s manufactured capital costs, then £3/unit is the correct price signal to present to the customer (Pezzey and Mill, 1998; OECD, 1987). Tariff structures which incorporate such marginal cost pricing will usually come nearest to ensuring sustainability of water resources in both an economic and an environmental sense.

However, in most mature economies, if a household were to pay that unit price for all of its consumption, the utility would probably make a very substantial (and entirely unwarranted) financial surplus. This should be unacceptable whether or not the utility is a private profit seeking company. What it suggests is that it would often be both necessary and desirable to charge a much lower price for a household’s ‘basic’ use of water, with one or more other succeeding ‘blocks’ then charged at successively higher rates.”

It is unclear at this time what tariff structure will be introduced in Ireland after meters are installed, however, it has been mooted that a combined water/wastewater charge will apply incorporating a basic free water allowance with the balance of water supplied to be charged at a flat per cubic meter rate. If implemented, this is effectively a rising block tariff with the first block set at zero and the cost of providing for this free allowance (which must ultimately be paid for through the overall charging mechanism) to all effectively being recovered through the second block charge as noted by Herrington below. No information has been issued on how high this allowance will be which is critical to the effectiveness of the tariffs as a demand management tool.

A number of other countries have moved away from free allowance (e.g. Australia) as it was not deemed to be effective in reducing demands however, there are several countries where a reduced rate is charged for the initial block. The only water region understood to operate a free allowance system is Flanders in Belgium where it is set at 41 litres per person per day (the generally agreed minimum requirement to live) allocated per occupant. It should be noted that very good occupancy data exists in Belgium and charges increase significantly after that, furthermore Belgium overall was found to have the 4th most expensive water charges in the world in the 2007 OECD survey.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 37

Herrington has also reviewed free allowance blocks noting that subsequent blocks must rise steeply stating that in Flanders it “meant that volumetric prices on the remaining units rose to 65% higher than they would have been if all consumption had been priced at a uniform rate” he also noted that they have very good data on occupancy which is required for “free allowances” to be effective as in practice, smaller households escape penalty if all use is charged at low prices, because basic occupancy allowance’s in practice may have to be fixed for 3 or 4 person households.

2.3.8 Subsidy Schemes

Demand management schemes often incentivise customers to adopt water efficient appliances or devices by offering subsidies to reduce the cost of devices. This may be to remove the difference in cost between water efficient and less efficient devices or to increase uptake rates by making payback periods shorter. These can range from full subsidies to minor.

Such schemes can be very effective in increasing uptake rates which can be essential for the successful implementation of demand management measures. It is usual to carry out detailed cost benefit analysis to assess the level at which the subsidy should be set.

2.3.9 Challenges to Water Demand Management Policies

A move to demand management policies can involve a significant change in thinking, policies and behaviour not just on the part of customers but also a wide range of other stakeholders including the water provider or Local Authority, politicians and government, engineers and architects, developers/builders and planners and manufacturers and suppliers.

Many of these challenges have been described in the previous sections and in the Irish case will require that the following areas are addressed to ensure they are successfully met:

Develop knowledge, advanced skills and information on the subject including costs (capital and maintenance), benefits etc,

Address concerns about public health – water quality for rainwater etc,

The cost of water,

Changing behaviours and overcoming the following:5

o Lack of conscious awareness and understanding of the issues,

o Perceptions of water as a natural resource

o The blaming of others actions such as local authorities “it’s someone else’s responsibility”

o Personal impacts including hygiene, time and effort

New legislation and regulation required and concerns about political effect,

Required revisions to standards and a National labelling scheme,

Consistency in what constitutes “best practice”,

Address the perception of need,

Provision of local research and information,

Provision of information on sustainability of measures,

5 Defra, 2009. Public Understanding of Sustainable Water Use in the Home. HM Government, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 38

The lack of certainty on the success of measures and resulting perceived reduced security of supply offered,

Apathy and laziness,

Increasing affluence and ownership of water using devices,

Perception of water efficiency as the difficult option,

Quality of data on the existing situation relating to occupancy, water use and appliance ownership.

Although the list is long there are strategies to deal with all issues however, it may take time to address these significant challenges. Key areas to be addressed include regulation, water tariffs and education.

Overall it is important to recognise that domestic demand management is a relatively new water supply option and it will take time to gain acceptance and become effective. Therefore, given the uncertainty of success a cautious approach to implementation with realistic targets and timeframes is recommended.

2.4 CUSTOMER SIDE LOSSES

2.4.1 Definition Customer side leakage is defined as leakage occurring on the customer owned water infrastructure. In the Dublin Region this extends to all pipework on the customer side of the property boundary including internal pipework. The most difficult leaks to address generally occur on underground pipework between the property boundary and the property itself (Figure 2.25). The length of underground supply pipes per property can vary significantly from effectively zero for terraced properties to 20-30 metres on larger detached properties.

Figure 2.25 Typical Service Pipe Layout and Responsibility


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 39

Customer side leaks or water loss can also occur when water tanks or toilet cisterns overflow or from dripping taps and joints.

2.4.2 Reasons for and Influencing Factors

Customer side leakage can occur for a variety of reasons but primarily relate to the following:

1. Age of plumbing and pipework; in particular, lead services which are commonly associated with cast iron and asbestos cement mains and housing constructed prior to 1970. Based upon the age of houses within the Region it is likely that up to 31% or circa 170,000 houses have lead services. These services tend to become porous in the ground over time and leak considerably.

2. Quality of Workmanship; Poor quality plumbing will leak and unfortunately this has been a common occurrence throughout the country during the building boom.

3. Failure of Fittings; Common leaks are found in toilets and water tanks where ballcocks fail and water escapes via overflow and from dripping taps where seals and washers have failed.

The leaks described at 1 and 2 above are relatively difficult to identify and costly and inconvenient to repair which means it proves extremely difficult to encourage customers to repair them. The third category is relatively easy to repair but without water charging there has been little incentive. People can go to extraordinary lengths to avoid repair as shown in Figure 2.26.

Figure 2.26 (DIY) Attic Tank Overflow Leaks

2.4.3 Typical Levels

Customer side leakage levels vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Where domestic metering is in place it is often not reported at all but treated as usage. For this reason we often compare our customer leakage with the UK who report supply pipe leakage or the leakage on the customer pipe from the property boundary to the house. While this is not the same as customer side leakage it would incorporate the majority of it. In the UK supply pipe leakage has fallen from levels of 65 l/connection/day in 1995/1996 (OFWAT) to a current average of 33 l/conn/day.

It is estimated that customer side leakage is currently 65 l/conn/day in the Dublin Region equating to a total of 36.5Mld (2009). This reflects the age and complexity of services to properties, unknown connections, and unattended leaks.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 40

2.4.4 Actions for Reduction

Customer side leakage is difficult to reduce particularly without metering as it is firstly difficult to identify and secondly it really requires charging to be in place to incentivise repairs. Therefore, the primary tools to reduce customer side leakage are as follows:

Metering; meters are the primary way in which customer side leaks can be identified and quantified either during installation or in subsequent reads. The effectiveness is strongly linked to the meter technology used and the access and frequency the customer has to the data. Tariffs; if sufficiently high and the leak is sufficiently large this can be the best incentive to encourage repair. Enforcement; Strong regulation can be required to force certain customers repair leaks. Generally the method of last resort but essential nonetheless. The recent Water Services Act does provide strong powers in this regard.Free/Subsidised Repair; Commonly used in the UK to make a serious reduction in leakage and can be very effective. According to OFWAT 253,000 supply pipes have been repaired (70% for free) by water companies in the UK between 2004 and 2009. Typically repairs can cost from £100-£1,000 and where applicable, subsidies are generally limited to a maximum of £500. Ongoing liability for the water provider (e.g. repeat leak or damage to properties) can be an issue. Free/Subsidised Replacement; More expensive than repair but a much more sustainable solution. OFWAT reports that 45,000 supply pipes have been replaced (35% for free) by water companies in the UK between 2004 and 2009. Typically replacements can cost from £1,000-£2,000 and where applicable, subsidies are generally limited to a maximum length with restrictions relating to reinstatement and where pipes run under the property. Ongoing liability should issues arise with the work carried out (e.g. reinstatements) for the water provider can be an issue. Education and Awareness; Customers are more likely to carry out repairs, particularly simple ones if they are aware of the issues and potential consequential risks that long running supply pipe leaks pose to damaging their properties.

2.4.5 Barriers

Clearly the cost, effort and disruption to effect a leak repair are the primary barriers to successful reduction. However, awareness and incentives are effective in overcoming these.

2.5 LEAKAGE/LOSSES

2.5.1 Overview

Leakage control is an essential element in a water supply strategy in order to maintain levels of service and as a cost effective way to reduce demands and defer source development. While leakage reduction is unlikely to meet all future demands over the study period it is likely to improve headroom and play a large part in meeting short term demand as it has done over the last 10-15 years.

For estimates of future leakage, it is necessary to distinguish between baseline consumers and new consumers. Improved building control, metering of all non-domestic connections and greater customer awareness of supply losses must be put in place in order to ensure that losses in infrastructure associated with new consumers will be lower than in existing infrastructure.

Leakage from public networks consists of leakage from mains, services (to the customer boundary), reservoirs (and overflows) and water treatment works. Leakage control is a complex activity from understanding and quantifying leakage to actually reducing it.

The level of leakage on a network is primarily a function of the following:


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 41

1. The age, materials and condition of the network.

2. The level of leak detection and repair activity being carried out (Figure2.27).

3. Pressure in the network.

4. The frequency and typical flow rates of new leaks and bursts which are a function of

a. Soil conditions and ground movement – Climate.

b. Break down in Materials (corrosion).

c. Type of Leak – Hole/Crack.

d. Poor quality materials/installation.

e. Cyclic Stresses (PRV/Pumps).

f. Valve Operations (surges/water hammer).

g. Traffic loading.

5. The proportion of new leaks which are reported.

6. The awareness time (how quickly leaks are noticed).

7. The location time.

8. The repair time and.

9. The level of background leakage (undetectable small leaks).

Figure 2.27 Leak Detection and Leaks

There are four primary methods, which reduce or prevent leakage from increasing as shown in Figure 2.28.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 42

Note: Figure Courtesy of Pearson, Lambert, Waldron, Wide Bay Water Corporation

Figure 2.28 Factors influencing levels of Real Losses / Leakage

The purpose of Figure 2.28 is to highlight the fact that system leakage is highly dependent on several key factors. If the water operator disregards or ignores one or other of these factors, the leakage will tend to increase. It is clearly necessary to address all four issues simultaneously if leakage is to be properly controlled and eventually reduced.

For example, if the water authority can improve the speed and quality of repairs through the use of better repair procedures and additional repair teams, then the leakage will improve to some degree reducing the level of losses on the left of the diagram. Leakage reduction will respond similarly for active leakage control and pipe replacement or rehabilitation.

Finally, if pressure management is implemented to reduce leakage, the situation will be improved further. In this case, however, it should be noted that pressure management not only reduces the real losses but also reduces the background leakage or unavoidable annual losses, which are dependent on pressure.

Furthermore, there will be a natural rate of rise (NRR) in leakage resulting from the breakout of new leaks and the increase in flow rate of existing leaks. This will occur in each of the above categories depending on the condition of the asset and other factors. Leak detection and repair is therefore a continuous function in order to be successful.

In order to assess resource and budget needs to implement active leakage control and repair, it is first necessary to assess suitable target levels of leakage which are desirable, necessary as a result of supply deficits or for economic reasons.

2.5.2 Current Baseline Leakage in the Dublin Region

Dublin City Council, acting on behalf of the 7 authorities in the region (Dublin City Council, Fingal County Council, South Dublin County Council, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council, Kildare


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 43

County Council, Bray Town Council and Wicklow County Council), implemented a major leakage reduction project funded by the DEHLG in 1998. The Dublin Region Water Conservation Project (DRWCP) which ran until 2002 began the process of addressing the high level of unaccounted for water and leakage across the region.

The DRWCP was extremely successful and reduced leakage from an estimated 42% to 28%, in the process ensuring that the rapid underlying demand growth of the “Celtic Tiger” period was satisfied, with only limited additional production being added.

The DRWCP project delivered the following during the period 1998 to 2002:

Reduction in Unaccounted for Water (UFW) from 42% to 28% as has been stated above.

New bulk meter and telemetry systems.

530 District Meter areas (DMAs) were established.

Pressure management in selected areas (78 Pressure Reducing Valves (PRV’s) installed).

A regional GIS system was established.

Regional hydraulic models were constructed.

Establishment of trained leakage control teams in each Local Authority.

Levels of service improvements to consumers including the removal of night time pressure reductions and water rationing.

At the conclusion of that stage of the project, it was clear that further water savings from leakage would require:

1. Continual development of the Regional DMA structure to match development growth.

2. Ongoing sustained adequately resourced leak detection and repair activities.

3. A programme of rehabilitation of poorly performing watermains (in particular although not limited to, old cast iron mains and lead services) where chronic repeat failures were experienced and significant additional leakage occurred during periods of frost.

Extensive investigation was carried out during the DRWCP to confirm the condition of the older Cast Iron and uPVC mains network. This established that much of the infrastructure was in such poor condition that it was unlikely to respond to find and fix activities. This was confirmed during the project whereby find and fix activities identifying repeat leaks and requiring large numbers of leak detection passes which provided poor return in terms of sustained leakage reduction.

As a result of these findings, pilot rehabilitation works were carried out to establish whether selective mains replacement was an effective method of further reducing leakage on a DMA by DMA basis, where proactive leak detection and repair had failed.

Work commenced in 2001 and continued until 2004 with mains rehabilitation or replacement carried out on approximately 17km of water main in 22 DMAs throughout the Greater Dublin Region (GDR). In the DMAs rehabilitated, replacing approximately 10% of the network achieved an average leakage reduction of 72%.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 44

The project concluded that:

Selective mains replacement was a successful approach to reduce leakage.

Non dig techniques should be considered where possible on monetary, social and environmental grounds.

Pressure management should be considered in conjunction with any works to control the pressure increase associated with mains replacement within a DMA and to limit any negative impact (increased leakage) in the target and neighbouring DMAs.

In 2006 a regional water mains rehabilitation project was implemented which has replaced 55 km or 0.6% of the network from 2006 to 2010. Further funding has recently been allocated to continue the project to the end of 2012.

Leakage currently stands at 161Mld or 30% (2009 Average) of water into supply. Local authorities have effectively maintained the regional leakage level since the initial major reduction in 2002. Leakage levels vary from authority to authority with a low of 11% and a high of 37%. It is of note that the higher leakage levels are in the areas with the highest proportion of older Victorian cast iron water mains.

2.6 NON DOMESTIC DEMAND

2.6.1 Overview and Baseline Demand

Non domestic water demand is a function of economic activity and the types of water using premises being operated, which range from high water users (major industry) to minor commercial (shop or doctor).

Availability and security of water supply can be a key issue for enterprise (Forfás “Assessment of Water and Wastewater Services 2008”) and therefore it is usual to make allowance for possible industry which may choose to site themselves in the Region.

All existing non domestic water users have been metered in the Dublin Region since late 2008 and have been receiving water bills based upon these meter readings during the course of 2009 and 2010. As a result there is much better information on existing non domestic water use available for demand projections (demand figures have been revised to utilise the latest data). It is also apparent that water use in this sector has declined due in part to the economic climate but also it is assumed due in some measure to non domestic users improving water efficiency to reduce costs.

The current baseline non domestic demand figure for the Dublin Region is 122.7Mld (projected 127.4Mld for 2010).

2.6.2 Actions for Reduction of Non Domestic Demand

Many of the components of water use with the exception of processes and manufacturing are similar to the domestic sector. As a result many of the actions for reduction also apply, in particular awareness campaigns which can be focussed on different types of user depending on volume of usage, with a particular focus on major and large users. Furthermore the non domestic sector already has an incentive with meter charges to reduce demands and available assistance schemes to help them achieve water reductions. It is already likely that this is having an impact.

Some other actions which are specific to the non domestic sector are detailed below.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 45

2.6.2.1 Regular Monitoring

Non domestic users should have access to meters which can identify leakage early through regular meter reading or permanent digital monitoring. Such access can facilitate early identification of leakage and monitoring of usage and the impacts of water efficiency activities.

2.6.2.2 Waterless Urinals

Similarly to domestic use, offices use the majority of water in the toilets. Up to 60% of office water use can be from toilets with 20% of this from urinals. Urinals are frequently left to run for long periods when they are not in use and their usage can be significantly reduced through the installation of controls such as timers or infra red sensors.

An alternative is to install a waterless urinal. There are currently two types of waterless urinal - the siphonic trap and the deodorising pad.

Siphonic trap

A siphonic trap contains a barrier fluid (oil) that is inserted in the urinal bowl. The urine passes through the siphon and drains to sewer, while the low-density barrier fluid (a deodorising disinfectant) remains in the siphon.

The disadvantages of this device include the need for; specialised cleaning (cleaners must be advised of their use and maintenance procedure); the replacement of a cartridge or in more recent models the addition of more barrier fluid every 1 - 2 weeks depending on use.

A retrofit siphonic trap costs about €110. Barrier fluid costs around €20 - €70 per urinal per year (2004/05 prices).

Deodorising pad

This device uses a pad impregnated with a deodorising chemical that is inserted in a modified Sbend to maintain hygiene. In most cases, the modified S-bend trap units are available as kits which can be retrofitted.

Depending on use, the pads require changing once a week. Again, the disadvantage of this system is that it requires specialised cleaning (cleaners must be advised of their use and the correct maintenance procedure). Damage caused from objects (e.g. cigarette butts) blocking the waste pipe can be avoided by enclosing the pad in a chrome mesh case.

Mechanical designs are also now available.

Given the specialised cleaning requirements waterless urinals may prove unpopular until a critical mass of use is reached.

Finally payback periods can range from 20-65 years (UK Environment Agency 1999). Ultra efficient urinals are now available which while still using water are very efficient.

2.6.2.3 Reducing Leakage

Non domestic users can often be situated on large sites with significant pipe networks. Active monitoring of water supplies and sub metering can pay dividends in the identification and repair of leaks.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 46

2.6.2.4 Water Replacement and Reuse

As any water use bill includes for wastewater disposal there is much more scope for wastewater reuse, greywater reuse or rainwater harvesting within the non domestic sector. This is particularly true for larger users which have space and particular process water requirements which may not require potable water quality. Manufacturing processes can use large amounts of water which can be replaced or reduced through improved management (e.g. closed loop systems reducing evaporation). It must be noted that the vast majority of non domestic users by number have similar water use activities to the domestic sector and therefore water replacement opportunities may be limited.

2.7 SUMMARY OF PRIMARY DEMAND COMPONENTS

In summary the key findings related to the primary demand components are as follows:

Domestic demand currently stands at 216.1Mld (2009) across the Region. A wide variety of viable options exist to reduce domestic demand generally targeted at existing homes via retrofitting of water efficient fittings and new homes via revised water efficient building standards. Key to the success of such schemes is the local metering penetration and charging policy and supporting legislation and regulation.

Regional customer side leakage is estimated at circa 38Mld at a rate of 65 litres per property per day with a high proportion assumed to be associated with lead services. It is extremely difficult to reduce customer side losses, particularly without metering, however, the Water Services Act offers some powers to assist enforcement of repairs.

Regional distribution leakage is currently 161Mld or 30% (2009 Average) of water into supply. Major reductions in leakage have been achieved but further sustainable reductions will require a sustained major pipe replacement programme.

Non domestic demand is 122.7Mld (2009). Demand reduction is achieved via similar approaches to domestic demand but rainwater harvesting and greywater re-use have more potential in this demand sector.

2.8 OPERATIONAL USAGE

Operational water usage is a common feature in all water supply systems and refers to water used for various operational activities including street washing, fire fighting and flushing of mains. Typically these figures are difficult to assess accurately and are therefore based upon a percentage of average daily demand. Usually this figure is approximately 0.5% to 1% of accounted for demand figures.

The total baseline operational figure used for the Dublin Region is 1.6Mld or 0.5%.

2.9 PEAK DEMANDS

Demand assessment and forecasting is generally carried out using average day demands. Water supply systems experience variations in demand throughout the day, the year and their planning horizon (refer Figure 2.29 and 2.30). Water supply systems must be designed to meet these demand fluctuations over their design life.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 47

For this reason a peak factor is applied to future demand projections which are based upon amalgamated components of average daily demand estimates. Typically the peak factor is to estimate the average day in the peak demand week of the year.

Peak demand factors are usually derived from analysis of historical demands.

A detailed analysis has been carried out of peak demands in the Dublin Region from 2000 to 2008. However, it must be noted that higher historical levels of leakage may mask the total peak demand effect as, due to pressure variations, leakage reduces during peak demand periods, effectively “feeding the peak”.

Based upon the analysis of peak demands a minimum peak factor of 10% or 80Mld has been applied.

Figure 2.29 Domestic Daily Water Use Profile Summer Peak (Source Evidence Base Defra’s Market Transformation Programme)


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 48

Figure 2.30 Supply Area Weekly Demand Variation

2.10 HEADROOM AND OUTAGE

Headroom

All demand forecasting methodologies, including Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) approaches, recognise that there are varying degrees of uncertainty associated with the forecasting exercise. Uncertainties exist on both the supply and demand sides (Figure 2.31) and can include the following:

Potential Supply Side Uncertainties

Uncertainty in the base data for baseline demand calculations e.g. PCC where there is no metering

Uncertainty in the future demand estimates surrounding economic growth or new water users.

Variation in actual demands due to climate change or localised events e.g. winter frosts and increased leakage and demand.

Abstractions and their limitations.

Bulk imports.

Gradual pollution of sources (causing a reduction in abstraction).

Uncertainty of impact of climate change on source yields.

Uncertain output from new resource developments e.g. groundwater.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 49

Potential Demand Side Uncertainty

Uncertainty of achieving leakage targets.

Uncertainty of achieving water efficiency targets.

Uncertainty around PCC and demand micro-components.

Peak factor uncertainty.

In assessing future water resource requirements, the concept of ‘Headroom’ is considered as a means of reducing the risk of failing to meet supply due to these uncertainties. In effect additional production capacity is quantified and provided to reduce the risk of failure to meet demand occurring.

The issue of headroom came to prominence as a result of the 1995 drought in Yorkshire in the UK where the independent commission of inquiry concluded that the Yorkshire Water supply system had an insufficient margin of resource over demand.

The risk of failure to meet demand has become a real issue for foreign direct investment by international companies who rely on the availability of a guaranteed water supply. This is evident as conferences are being organised to address the issue, an example of which is the recent ‘Corporate Water Scarcity Risk Management’ conference presented in April 2010 by London Business Conferences.

‘Target headroom’ is defined as the minimum buffer that should be applied to the supply-demand balance to ensure that the chosen level of service can be achieved. It is the margin between water available for use (source yields less outage) and demand.

‘Available headroom’ is the actual difference between water available for use and demand at any given point in time. Where available headroom falls below target headroom the water resource zone is considered to be in supply demand balance deficit.

Figure 2.31 Thames Water Components of Headroom Uncertainty

More recently a risk based approach is being applied to calculate headroom in the UK and Australia, however, typical figures range from 5-10% usually at the higher end.

The Dublin Region has been operating with little or no headroom for the last 10 years.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 50

Outage

At any given point in time a water provider will find that the achievable output from some of its treatment facilities is below the normal output. This can be for a variety of reasons, including unplanned events – such as raw water quality failures or asset failures in the treatment plant itself – or planned events, such as scheduled maintenance or capital schemes. For example such capacity was required and proved essential in continuing to supply water to much of Cork City when the Lee Rd Water Treatment Works was flooded in November 2009. Where this reduction in output is of a temporary nature (i.e. the situation is recoverable in time), it is known as an outage.

It is therefore important for water resource planning that sufficient allowance is made for such temporary reductions in output to ensure that for each resource zone, the risk of an imbalance between water demand and water supply is eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level. Typically these figures will range from 5-7% of distribution input. For practical purposes the ‘outage estimation’ can be incorporated into the resource calculation as being: -

Water Available for Use = The Deployable Output – The Outage Allowance

In considering international practice and in the absence of detailed assessment, typical international figures for headroom of 5-10% and outage of 5-7.5% were used.

Therefore, for both the ‘Maximum Planning Scenario’ and ‘Minimum Planning Scenario’ in The Plan a total combined headroom and outage allowance of 6.25% or 50Mld minimum has been applied for the Dublin Region which would be considered at the lower end of typical international figures. By comparison the figure recently used for the London Water Resources plan to 2034 is approximately 10% for headroom only.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 51

3 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF LOWEST TECHNICALLY ACHIEVABLE DEMANDS BY COMPONENT

The following chapter reviews the various components of demand, across a range of relevant different countries, in order to establish the lowest levels of each demand component which are technically achievable. The purpose is to set a benchmark against which the current proposals for the Dublin Region, may be assessed. In doing so, it is not the intention to provide specific demand targets for the Dublin Region based upon a range of “cherry-picked” targets achieved elsewhere. Such an approach would not be in keeping with Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) methodologies which ultimately aim to achieve the optimum balance of environmental, economic and social issues in the supply demand balance with appropriate regard to localised risk/uncertainty and value for money.

Carefully researched international benchmarking however, does provide a useful reference as to what is theoretically achievable when due regard is given to localised differences including:

Climate,

Regulation,

Water supply structure and management,

The often significantly better infrastructure condition due to higher historical replacement rates,

Water charging and meter policies,

Household occupancy rates,

Length of time pursuing demand management policies.

Countries considered include:

UK and London; The UK water supply industry is the most similar to Ireland and London is the most similar to the Dublin Region. Similarities in climate, network age and condition and lack of extensive domestic metering make it the most appropriate country for ready “like for like” comparisons. The UK is significantly ahead of Ireland in terms of water resource management, leakage reduction, asset management and Integrated Resource Management Planning and consequently a track record and history of achievement is readily available. Finally there has been significant recent research (much already referred to) into the implementation of demand side strategies including metering and PCC reduction which provides a wealth of useful information for this demand review.

Continental Europe; The continental European countries of Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands and Lithuania have been included on account of their broadly similar climatic conditions and their reported low per capita consumption levels.

Australia and Sydney; Although completely different in terms of climate, having experienced their worst drought in history since 2003, Australia has completely transformed the way it approaches its water management. Australia is now a world leader (Australian water companies were winners of the Global Water Awards 2009 & 2010 Public Water Agency of the Year) in leakage control and is implementing some of the largest demand management programmes in the world. As such it is useful to give it some consideration.

Summary data sheets are provided as Appendix 10.2 of this report for each country, detailing current and historical domestic per capita consumptions and the background to their water supply systems.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 52

3.1 OVERVIEW OF WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT IN REVIEW COUNTRIES

Key facts regarding water supply in the various countries are summarised below with details of the cost of water and per capita consumption provided as Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 which are further discussed in Section 3.2.

UK; The UK water industry has been privatised since 1989 and consists of 21 water companies monitored and regulated by several different agencies (OFWAT, Environment Agency, Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI)). Customers are all charged for a combined water/wastewater service, with the majority on the basis of rateable property value and some (approximately 30%) on a metered charge. Pipe networks, although old are well managed and have undergone regular upgrade. Thames Water are currently engaged in a major pipe rehabilitation programme designed to reduce leakage which has been consistently the highest in the UK due to the network age and the urban environment. Leakage levels in the UK have been reduced significantly over the last 20 years and are now among the lowest in the world for this type of network.

Denmark; Similar to Ireland, Regional Councils are responsible for water resource use and protection in Denmark. Water supply is managed by a very large number of publicly owned water suppliers (2,500 small – 158 large). The Danish climate is temperate with cool winters and summers. Leakage is very low at 10% of supply input. All users are metered (with the possible exception of individual apartments within blocks) and charged for water and wastewater use. Water tariffs are the highest in the world including a water, wastewater and tax element. Water companies must operate on a break-even principle only recovering the costs of delivering the water with zero profit.

Germany; Responsibility for water supply lies with municipalities. There are over 6,000 separate utilities however, 100 of these serve about half of the population. All properties are metered and water tariffs for water/wastewater are amongst the highest in Europe. Water losses are again reported as very low at 7% which is likely to be associated with a historically high water mains replacement rate which although reduced remains at 0.91% per annum. Climate varies from oceanic to continental.

The Netherlands; In 2007 the number of water companies which are publicly owned was reduced to 10 from 52. The Netherlands has a maritime climate with cool summers and mild winters. Leakage is exceptionally low at under 6%. Research carried out by UKWIR, comparing leakage practices and levels in the UK to the Netherlands confirmed the figure and found that the reasons for low leakage are as follows:

Flat terrain results in low operating pressures,

Newer post-war infrastructure made of non-corrosive PVC,

Mains tend to be located under footpath paving blocks in sandy soils, allowing early leak detection and easy repair access,

Rapid response to reported leaks.

Mains replacement currently runs at about 0.8% of the network per annum. All properties are metered and customers are charged a combined charge for water and wastewater.

Lithuania; Lithuania is included due to a reported PCC of less than 100 l/hd/day which is amongst the lowest in Europe. Lithuania like many of the former Soviet States has moved from subsidised water supply to full cost recovery which has much to do with the low rate of water use. 42 municipal water companies have responsibility for water supply. Climate is similar to Ireland. Leakage is reported at 15% and the majority of customers are metered and charged the full cost of service.

Australia- Sydney; Sydney Water Corporation is a State owned corporation which supplies all water and wastewater services to the people of Sydney. Its water supply area and network is approximately three times the size of the Dublin Region. Sydney has a temperate climate with warm summers and cool winters and general rainfall throughout the year however, it regularly suffers from low rainfall and drought for extended periods and has in fact been in a severe drought since 2003.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 53

As a result major efforts to reduce demand have been made over the last 15-20 years. Leakage levels have been reduced consistently year on year and are now 8.5%. Customers are charged for water and wastewater at a relatively low rate, however given high household use annual bills would be of a higher comparative level.

3.2 DOMESTIC USE & PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION

Countries (and major cities within them) were in general selected as they have lower reported PCC figures and are similar in climate and economy to Ireland. Key details are provided in Table 3.1 and 3.2.

3.2.1 Rest of World

With the exception of the United Kingdom and Australia all of the European countries reviewed have substantially lower PCC figures than Ireland and the Dublin Region (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 EU Per Capita Water Consumption (l/hd/day)

Note: the figures quoted in Figure 3.1 do not coincide exactly with the PCC figures quoted below as the PCC figures quoted below are taken from sources that are more up to date.

Current PCC figures range from 97 l/hd/day in Lithuania to 131 l/hd/day in Denmark. Coincidentally these two countries have also exhibited the largest PCC reductions at 71 and 65 l/hd/day respectively.

The reasons for these major drops in household water use are attributed to the following primary factors:

1. Full metering and water tariff increases, in particular in Lithuania (and other former Soviet block countries such as East Germany refer Appendix 10.3), where following independence from the Soviet Union water subsidies were removed and the cost of water relative to income rose significantly.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 54

Orignal PCC(l/h/d) Year Latest PCC

(l/h/d) YearReduction in

PCC(l/h/d)

% Difference in PCC

Duration to achieve reduction

(Yrs)Main Reasons for Reduction

Denmark 196 1982 131 2005 -65 33% 23

Benchmarking;Increased water prices;Public awareness campaigns;Metering

Germany 147 1990 122 2007 -25 17% 17

Increased water prices;Use of water-saving appliances;Increased public awareness;Metering;Benchmarking

The Netherlands 137 1995 128 2007 -9 7% 12

Public awareness campaigns;Technology and labelling;Culture;Benchmarking

UK 147 2001/02 149 2006/07 2 -1% 5 N/A

Lithuania 181 1996 110 2008 -71 39% 12 Metering;Increased water prices

Sydney 364 1990/91 245 2005/06 -119 33% 15

Water restrictions;Water saving programmes, indoor and outdoor;Public awareness campaigns;Labelling

PCC DETAILS

SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL PCC DATA

Table 3.1 Per Capita Consumption Figures in other Countries. Note: Reductions in per capita consumption ranging from 7-40% have been achieved in the continental European countries indicated above. This has primarily been achieved via water pricing and awareness campaigns. A similar reduction has been achieved by Sydney Water following the implementation of major subsidised WEM schemes.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 55

NOTE - The €/m3 and Average Annual Bills stated below have been calculated as follows: Each country has a different water pricing structure, which can include variable costs, fixed costs and taxes. The GWI has developed a €/m3 per month for water and wastewater for the main cities in each country, which takes into account the various contributors to the overall cost. The typical monthly household usage has been determined for each country by multiplying the country's PCC*Occupancy Rate*365/12. Average annual water bills and wastewater bills have been calculated by applying the €/m3 relevant to the monthly household usage and multiplying it by the PCC*Occupancy Rate*365 It is important to note that the €/m3 rates for the countries are determined by taking the average of the €/m3 for the country's main cities included in the GWI s/s. The cities included are listed in the table below.

Typical usage per houshold

(m3/month)

WATER:€/m3

Avg Annual WATER Bill

WASTEWATER:€/m3

Avg Annual WASTEWATER Bill

Avg Annual WATER & WASTEWATER Bill Cities included in country rates...

Denmark 9 €6.80 combined water and wastewater bill

combined water and wastewater €/m3

combined water and wastewater bill €715 Copenhagen, Aarhus

Copenhagen 8 €6.94 combined water and wastewater bill

combined water and wastewater €/m3

combined water and wastewater bill €703 -

Germany 8 €2.40 €235 €1.88 €185 €420Frankfurt, Berlin, Hamburg, Koln,

Dusseldorf, Stuttgart, Munich, Essen, Dortmund, Bremen

Berlin 8 €2.30 €225 €2.68 €263 €488 -

The Netherlands 9 €1.73 €185 €1.54 €164 €349 Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, The Hague

Amsterdam 9 €2.02 €216 €1.52 €163 €378 -

UK 10 €1.75 €219 €1.91 €239 €458 Cardiff, Manchester, Bristol, Newcastle, Bermingham, London

London 10 €1.66 €208 €1.17 €146 €354 -Lithuania 9 €0.57 €59 €0.68 €71 €130 Vilnius

Vilnius 9 €0.57 €59 €0.68 €71 €130 -

Australia 20 €1.25 €301 €1.01 €244 €546 Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth

Sydney 20 €1.40 €337 €1.27 €307 €645 -

* $1 = €1.34Assumed same PCC and OR for capital cities as for countries

Data from GLOBAL WATER INTELLIGENCE Tariff Survey - 2009*

Table 3.2 Water Tariffs and Average Annual Bills in other Countries Note:Water tariffs and average annual water and wastewater bills across the range of countries considered are presented above. Denmark has the highest water tariffs and annual water bills in the world which has been reported as due to a very high wastewater element. This has however, had a significant impact in reducing average PCC rates. While Lithuania has the lowest average bill of all shown it would make up a much larger proportion of an average household income.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 56

2. Public Awareness Campaigns and the promotion of water efficiency devices.

3. Appliance Labelling Schemes (The Netherlands).

It has taken 15-20 years to achieve the reductions indicated.

Australia in general has significantly higher per capita water usage due to large outdoor use (Refer Figures 3.2) and larger indoor use (175 l/hd/day compared with 140-145 l/hd/day Dublin/UK). Major reductions have been made throughout Australia, and in particular in Sydney where PCC reduced from 364 l/hd/day to 245 l/hd/day in the 15 year period from 1990 to 2005.

28%29%

19%30%

32%42%

30%33%

18%

8%

6%

17%

8%

21%

20%

13%

14%

25%

7%

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

UK Australia Netherlands Portugal

Litr

es p

er p

erso

n pe

r day

Outdoor UseClothes WashingKitchen and otherBathing and ShoweringToilet Flushing

Total: 149.0*

Total: 233.5*

Total: 124.0*

Total: 161.0**

* PCC figures for the UK, Australia and the Netherlands are taken from OFWAT's International Comparisons Rp, 2008.** PCC figure for Portugal was taken from Figure 3.1 in this report.

Figure 3.2 Estimates of Elements of Household Water Use in Litres per Person per Day (Data derived from OFWAT)

This reduction has been attributed to major water restrictions being put in place due to the drought and the aggressive implementation of a water demand management programme by Sydney Water Corporation which has included the following:

Water Conservation Strategy:

The Water Conservation Strategy was implemented by Sydney Water in 1999.

Significant savings have been achieved through

Leak reduction

the ‘Every Drop Counts’ Business Programme

Residential Indoor and Outdoor Programmes

Drinking water substitution from water recycling.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 57

Residential programmes include,

The WaterFix Program, which offers householders the opportunity to have a qualified plumber visit their home to provide a new water efficient (3-star rated) showerhead and tap flow regulators, a toilet cistern flush arrestor for single flush toilets and the repair of minor leaks. The service has a retail value of $180 but is offered to customers for $22.

DIY Water Saving Kits, as an alternative to the Waterfix Programme

Washing Machine Rebate

Rainwater Tank Rebate

the ‘Love Your Garden’ Programme.

Awareness:

Sydney Water has carried out campaigns intended to promote awareness, particularly of outdoor water conservation practices, as outdoor water use accounts for 28% of total household water use. Through such campaigns (e.g. the ‘Love Your Garden’ Programme), customers are encouraged to adopt water efficient gardening and outdoor water use practices and to participate in the Rainwater Tank Rebate Programme.

Residential programmes have contributed to approximately 21% of the total water savings achieved by Sydney Water since the implementation of the Water Conservation Strategy in 1999. The majority of residential savings have been achieved through the WaterFix and Washing Machine Rebate schemes.

3.2.2 United Kingdom

Per capita consumption in the UK is generally divided into those with metered supplies and those without. The unmeasured element making up 70% of supplies tends to have a significantly higher PCC figure. The average figure as can be seen from Figure 3.3 has been increasing since the 1990’s until 2003 when it started falling. More recently it started rising again.

Figure 3.3 England and Wales PCC 1992-2009 Source UK Environment Agency

There has been much debate in the UK recently regarding household water consumption as they have explored the likely future effects of climate change and development patterns. Interestingly given their demographics much of the UK is considered water stressed and would have less available water supply than Spain or Greece.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 58

A number of major reviews have been carried out on how to meet these challenges including:

1. “Every Drop Counts Achieving Greater Water Efficiency”, September 2006 © UK Institute for Policy Research (IPPR).

2. “Future Water: The Government’s water strategy for England” UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) © Crown Copyright 2008

3. “The Independent Review of Charging for Household Water and Sewerage Services”Final Report Anna Walker CB December 2009 UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) © Crown copyright 2009.

4. “Independent Review of Competition and Innovation in Water Markets: Final report Cave Review” – DEFRA April 2009.

As a result the UK Governments stated policy is to aim to achieve an average UK PCC of 130 l/hd/day by 2030 potentially reducing to 120 litres a day after 2030 depending on available technology at that time.

This figure is based upon an assumed reduction of 10% in PCC via a move to volumetric charging based on metered use following the introduction of metering. It is noted that the potential reduction in PCC through the introduction of metering and charging is uncertain but is likely to range from 5-15%.

10% is the currently accepted industry standard assumed for PCC reductions associated with the introduction of metering in this and a variety of other reports including:

DEFRA The Independent Review of Charging for Household Water and Sewerage Services “Walker Report” December 2009

Environment Agency (EA) International Comparisons of Domestic PCC (10-15% max) December 2008

Environment Agency Science Report – The impact of household water metering in South East England July 2009.

Furthermore the “Walker Report” recommends the systematic but gradual metering of all properties commencing in water stressed areas. A target of 80% meter coverage by 2020 was recommended.

Overall the following strategy is being adopted to achieve these objectives:

1. Implementation of mandatory PCC levels of 130 l/hd/day in all new buildings in Building Regulations.

2. Implementation of a voluntary code for sustainable housing which sets lower PCC targets to a minimum of 80 l/hd/day. This has been described as the lowest technically achievable minimum and would require rainwater harvesting to achieve it (Refer Figure 3.4).

3. Mandatory water efficiency targets to be implemented by Water Companies across the UK utilising water efficiency schemes including house retrofits, awareness campaigns etc.

4. A revision of water charges to link them to water use and an increase in meter penetration, in particular in water stressed areas. Full metering will not be implemented from the outset.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 59

Figure 3.4 How to Achieve 80 l/p/day New Buildings in the UK Source DEFRA “Future Water”

It should be noted that the roof area referred to in Figure 3.4 above would be significantly larger than a typical residential dwelling which would be expected to have a roof area of between 50m2 to 60 m2.

3.2.3 The Dublin Region

Following review of other jurisdictions and the UK in particular, the following section explores the lowest technically achievable average PCC across the Dublin Region by 2040. In deriving such an estimate it must be recognised that different average PCC rates will apply to existing housing and to future or new build housing. The combined levels will equate to the average for the region.

While there is little local data available for detailed micro-component analysis there is significant information available from the UK which is considered likely to be very similar however, it is recommended that local pilots be established to confirm this and account for any Regional or National variations.

Table 3.3 below updates Table 2.1 to demonstrate reductions in PCC that can be achieved in existing houses through the introduction of water efficiency retrofit measures (WEMS).


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 60

This indicates that the lowest technically achievable PCC for an individual existing house is 110 l/hd/day following the introduction of all possible retro fit technologies with the exception of rainwater or greywater harvesting.

Existing Housing

Savings Method Reduced Litres / use

Average Frequency (per day)

Total / house @ 2.5 OR

Saving from

current usage

l/prop/day

Saving %

Revised PCC based on Achieving Potential Savings

Washing Machine Low Use 40 0.81 32.4 13 12% 12.96Dish Washer Low Use 14 0.7 9.8 5 5% 3.92

Sink None 1.7 35 59.5 11 10% 23.80Drinking Water None 1.11 10 11.1 0 0% 4.44

Low Flush 5.25 11.5 60.375 48 45% 24.156.5 0.89 5.785 6 5% 2.31

Bath Reduced Bath Volume 60 0.95 57 10 10% 22.80

Shower Low Flow Shower 25 1.5 37.5 15 14% 15.00TOTAL 273 107 28% 109.38

REVISED WITH PROPOSED SAVINGS METHODS

KITCHEN

USE

BATHS & SHOWERS

Toilet External

Table 3.3 Potential Domestic Household and PCC Demand Reduction

Table 3.4 identifies the average PCC that could be achieved across all existing dwellings in the Dublin Region for various uptake rates should such a scheme be introduced. Sydney Water has implemented one of the largest WEM schemes in the world at present and has achieved a maximum uptake rate of 29% which is better than current UK experience. Should a similar uptake rate be achieved in the Dublin Region an average PCC in existing houses of 140l/hd/day could be achieved representing a circa 10l/hd/day overall reduction.

Achieving an uptake rate in the order of 30-40% would also require other factors to be in place including universal metering and water tariffs conducive to encouraging uptake.

Uptake Rate

Total / Use

Uptake Rate

Total / Use

Uptake Rate

Total / Use

Uptake Rate

Total / Use

Uptake Rate

Total / Use

Washing Machine 100% 32.40 80% 34.92 60% 37.44 50% 38.70 30% 41.22Dish Washer 100% 9.80 80% 10.78 60% 11.76 50% 12.25 30% 13.23Sink 100% 59.50 80% 61.60 60% 63.70 50% 64.75 30% 66.85Drinking Water 100% 11.10 80% 11.10 60% 11.10 50% 11.10 30% 11.10Toilet 100% 60.38 80% 69.92 60% 79.47 50% 84.24 30% 93.78External 100% 5.79 80% 6.94 60% 8.10 50% 8.68 30% 9.83Bath 100% 57.00 80% 59.09 60% 61.18 50% 62.23 30% 64.32Shower 100% 37.50 80% 40.50 60% 43.50 50% 45.00 30% 48.00Total 273 295 316 327 348PCC 109 118 126 131 139

Say 110 Say 120 Say 125 Say 130 Say 140

Use

Option 1 Option 5Option 3 Option 4Option 2

Table 3.4 Retrofit Uptake Rates Required to Achieve Various Average PCC Figures in the Dublin Region

New Housing

It has been identified in Figure 3.4 above that the lowest theoretically achievable PCC for new build houses in the UK would be as per the UK Voluntary Code minimum of 80 l/hd/day. Achieving this average PCC level within a property requires the substitution of a sustainable 30 l/hd/day of mains water with rainwater. Earlier review of rainwater harvesting and its application in the Dublin Region where differing rainfall patterns apply, suggest that the theoretical minimum PCC achievable here would be between 85-90 l/hd/day. Based upon recent UK analysis of appropriate sustainable PCC targets for new homes a more realistic achievable figure for the Dublin Region is 120-125 l/prop/day.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 61

3.2.4 Conclusion

From the foregoing review the following can be concluded:

1. Best practice average per capita consumption is heavily influenced by many factors including local conditions, user behaviour, tariffs, extent of external water use and climate.

2. UK studies have indicated that the lowest technically achievable PCC in a new build house is in the region of 80 l/hd/day on the basis of 30l/hd/day being provided from rainwater harvesting (Dublin Region rainfall patterns would only allow a minimum of 85-90 l/hd/day). However, there are serious concerns on how practical and achievable this would be on a large scale given some of the issues and uncertainties associated with implementation. These concerns include the current growth in high water use or luxury fittings or the ability of the market to deliver the volume of water efficient fittings that would be required as they are not currently produced in large numbers. A consultation by DEFRA and Communities and Local Government (refer to Appendix 10.4 for an overview of the results) found that the view of the majority of those who responded from industry and other interested parties was that a PCC in the order of 120l/hd/day was technically achievable. Ultimately they recommended the standard for new houses in the UK be set at 125l/hd/day.

3. Research to date would indicate that the lowest technically achievable PCC for an individual existing dwelling, following retrofit with water efficient devices, is approximately 110 l/hd/day. However, the global PCC reduction that can be achieved for all existing dwellings is a function of the scale of the retrofit scheme introduced and the uptake rates achieved. Uptake rates range from 6-22% in the UK and 29% has been achieved by Sydney Water in Australia. In the Dublin Region it is estimated that an uptake rate of between 30-40% would be required to achieve an average PCC of 135l/hd/day for all existing properties.

4. The lowest achievable average PCC for both new build and existing houses (combined) would appear to be in the range of 120-130l/hd/day.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 62

3.3 CUSTOMER SIDE LOSSES

There is no readily available published data on supply pipe leakage from any other jurisdiction with the exception of the UK. This is likely to be because most other countries generally have universal metering and leaks on the customer side of the meter may be treated as usage. Other jurisdictions retain ownership of the supply pipe to the customer building boundary.

Figure 3.5 Changes in UK Supply Pipe Leakage Source George Archibald SBWWI Conference 30 November 2009

Figure 3.5 displays UK supply pipe leakage on metered and unmetered properties since 1994. Supply pipe leakage can be seen to reduce significantly on unmetered houses since 1995 as a result of policies implemented by water companies at the behest of OFWAT. The reduction is primarily due to companies carrying out free repairs or replacement of customer supply pipes. Companies have also invested in research to understand customer side leakage and identify the split between consumption and leakage; this has refined the reported values. From 2000-2006, 328,885 supply pipe repairs were carried out in England and Wales, of which 285,278 were carried out free of charge to the customer. In addition, between 2000-2006, 44,356 supply pipes were replaced, of which 19,674 were carried out free of charge to the customer.

The Walker Report found that a quarter of all supply pipes leak and one in 25 leak badly. It is inherently difficult to identify and repair supply pipe leakage and unless supply pipes are actually replaced they are likely to leak again. However, they have estimated that in the order of 10 l/hd/day or approximately 25 l/prop/day could be saved following the introduction of metering. This would be assuming meters are installed at the property boundary rather than internally, tariff levels are at a suitably high level and meter read intervals or technology used will aid detection. Ultimately the report anticipated an average UK supply pipe leakage level of 25 l/prop/day.

Given the consistency of the metered properties supply pipe leakage level over the past 15 years it would appear that 25 l/prop/day would be the lowest average level achievable.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 63

3.4 LEAKAGE/LOSSES

Traditionally distribution leakage has been expressed as a percentage of water delivered into supply as indicated on Figure 3.6. However, there was a wide variance in how these figures were calculated and it is highly dependent on consumption leading to confusion when comparing different jurisdictions.

Figure 3.6 Comparison of Water Loss in the EU Source EU Water Saving Potential Report Final Report 2007 Ecologic Institute for International and European Environmental Policy


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 64

Since percentages can be unsuitable as a reliable measure for comparison of leakage reduction achievements due to the different methodologies adopted worldwide in its calculation the current review focuses on;

Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI)

and

Litres/connection/day

Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) Definition

The ILI was developed by the International Water Association (IWA) Water Loss Task Force in the late 1990’s as a method for international comparisons of relative leakage levels. It is appropriate for use in comparing leakage levels between developed and developing countries, in situations where operating environments may be very different and data availability may be limited. It is unitless and is defined as the ratio of Current Annual Real Losses (CARL) to Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL). The ILI is a measure of how well a distribution network is managed (maintained, repaired, and rehabilitated) for the control of real losses, at the current operating pressures (see Figure 3.7 for a schematic representation of ILI). Whilst widely used, it is not without its flaws and is not widely accepted by the UK water industry as they believe it takes no account of leakage economics, network condition, or operating environment (other than pressure), and that it is not an indicator of the efficiency of leakage management. Nevertheless it has been used in this review to indicate where the Dublin Region is at present and the best practice levels which could be aspired to in an Irish context.

Figure 3.7 Factors influencing levels of Water Losses

Note: Figure Courtesy of Pearson, Lambert, Waldron, Wide Bay Water Corporation


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 65

Figure 3.8 Australian ILI Figures

Figure 3.9 UK ILI Figures

Figures 3.8-3.10 show a range of ILI figures for the UK and Australia who are generally regarded as now having well managed and low leakage networks. The average figures for both would be in the order of 2 at this time.

ILIs for 19 Australian Distribution Systems

02468

101214161820

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Infra

stru

ctur

e Le

akag

e In

dex

ILI

Average ILI = 2.3

ILIs for 22 English/Welsh Water Companies, 2002/03

02468

101214161820

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22Infra

stru

ctur

e Le

akag

e In

dex

ILI

Average ILI = 2.8


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 66

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

AVERAGE ILI PER COUNTRY50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

AVERAGE ILI PER COUNTRY

DUBLINREGIO

N–

CURRENT ILI

Figure 3.10 International ILI Figures

ILI figures have been classified into 4 bands from A-D (Figure 3.11) depending on the ILI. In general an ILI of 1 is the lowest technically achievable level and describes a fairly perfect network. However, in general an ILI of 2 could be considered the lowest appropriate target unless further detailed economic analysis is carried out to confirm whether it is a cost efficient and appropriate to aim for an ILI below 2. The UK average leakage figures are at their “economic level” and the average ILI calculated is between 2 and 3.

Developing Countries

Developed Countries

< 4 < 2 AFurther loss reduction may be uneconomic unless there are shortages; careful analysis is needed to identify cost effective improvement.

Local conditions critical to viability of thi sband. Further experience of rehabilitation effects required to assess if this band is achievable and economic.

4 to < 8 2 to < 4 BPotential for marked improvements; consider pressure management, better active leakage control, and better network maintenance.

Key issue in Dublin Region is better network performance through replacement. Current implementation of rehabilitation programme would aim to reach this band.

8 to < 16 4 to < 8 C

Poor leakage record; tolerable only if water is plenty and cheap; even then analyse level and nature of leakage and intensify leakage reduction efforts.

Dublin Region attained mid-point of band C following DRWCP. Confirmed rehabilitation required to achieve band B.

16 or more 8 or more D Very inefficient use of resources; leakage reduction programs imperative & high priority.

Status of Dublin Region circa 1996. Plan implemented to reach next band.

BAND General Description of Real Loss Performance Management Categories Comment

ILI Range

Figure 3.11 IWA ILI Bands


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 67

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Litres per property per day

Cub

ic m

etre

s pe

r km

mai

n pe

r da

y

Australia min

Netherlands average

Portugal max

Scotland

England and Wales max (Thames)

England and Wales average

Portugal averageAustralia max

Australia average

Portugal min

England and Wales min

Maintain Leakage at current levels

Current planned leakage levels

ILI = 2

* Includes both Distributionand Customer Side Losses

Data Source: OFWAT International Comparison 2008

Figure 3.12 Leakage as Litres per Connection and Cubic Metres per km of Main per Day

Figure 3.12 represents leakage from various countries as litres per property per day and m3 per kilometre per day. An ILI of 2 for the Dublin Region is represented as a red triangle.

3.5 NON DOMESTIC DEMAND

There is no particular best practice level for non domestic demand as it is not homogeneous and is a function of the type and scale of industry present and the respective water uses of each type. Non domestic demands can be strongly influenced by a small number of very large water users and it is therefore impossible to define a “lowest technically achievable” level.

It is however, worth considering that much of the demand management measures previously described can equally apply to the large number of smaller business users and they should therefore be considered in any demand management scheme or in particular awareness campaigns.

As has been mentioned these users have been charged for metered water use for some time and have already water saving advice available. It is considered that this is likely to already have achieved some effect on lowering their water use.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 68

4 REVIEW OF DEMAND STRATEGY BEST PRACTICE

The following chapter reviews current international best practice in developing demand management strategies as part of an integrated water resource planning (IWRP) process.

The United Kingdom’s Water Resource Management Plans (WRMP’s) and Guidelines as prescribed by the UK Environment Agency and Australia’s Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA) Guide to Demand Management 2008 are taken as key approaches for review.

4.1 OVERVIEW OF COMPARISONS

There is a high degree of similarity between the UK and Australian approach to water resource management planning as described below.

4.1.1 Australian Integrated Resource Management Approach

The most commonly used approach for water resource planning in Australia is now the IWRP approach (Figure 4.2) recommended by the Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA) an umbrella organization for the Australian urban water industry. Its 30 members and 27 associate members provide water and sewerage services to 15 million Australians and all of the large urban areas.

The WSAA feels this approach is particularly effective as it uses adaptive management and therefore assists water authorities to:

“forecast water demand more accurately by understanding in detail where and how water is used determine the gap between available supply and projected demand, the supply–demand balance develop and analyse options to fill the supply–demand gap, that consider the full spectrum of options available using consistent economic and sustainability assessment methods plan and implement the preferred suite of options evaluate the options implemented and the planning objectives identified.”

The primary differences with traditional supply side planning are reproduced as Figure 4.1 below.

The key principles of IWRP as defined by the WSAA include:

“Water service provision – This principle recognises that it is the service that is required (e.g. clean clothes and aesthetically pleasing gardens) and not the water itself. This ultimately leads to the principle that a kilolitre of water saved per year is equivalent to a kilolitre of water supplied per year.

Detailed demand forecasting – Disaggregation of demand into end uses of water such as toilets and showers enables detailed demand forecasting but also the determination of water conservation potential with respect to options.

Consideration of a broad spectrum of viable options that satisfy service needs – For water resources, this means that water efficiency, source substitution, reuse and supply options are all considered.

Comparison of options using a common metric, boundary and assumptions – In this way the economic analysis ensures that the water service provider supplies services at the lowest cost to society as a whole. The common metric, the ‘levelised’ or ‘unit’ cost is measured in present value $/kL. The common boundary means decision-makers can consider benefits and externalities such as energy, greenhouse gases, social, environmental and risk issues for all options equally using the same basic assumptions such as discount rate and timeframe.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 69

A participatory process – This principle recognises that water service provision interacts with many other facets of natural resource management, urban development and consumer preferences. Hence the involvement of a diverse group of stakeholders at particular parts of the planning process will be necessary to identify and respond to multiple needs and objectives.

Adaptive management – The high emphasis on iteration means that the planning processes considered an on-going learning process in which initiatives are decided upon, implemented and evaluated in repeated cycles. In this way short-term needs are addressed, at the same time as ensuring movement towards desirable long-term outcomes.”

CRITERIA TRADITIONAL INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING DUBLIN REGION WATER SUPPLY Planning Orientation

Resource options Supply options with little diversity

Supply management and demand management options, efficiency and diversity are encouraged

Supply and Demand options analysed and adopted.

Resource ownership and control Centralised and utility-owned Decentralised utilities, customers and

others Decentralised, customers and others

Scope of planning Single objective, usually to add to supply capacity

Multiple objectives determined in the planning process Multiple objectives determined.

Assessment criteria Maximise reliability and minimise process

Multiple criteria, including cost control, risk management, environment protection, community

Multiple criteria used for assessment of Supply-side/Demand-side

Resource selection Based on a commitment to a specific option Based on developing a mix of options Mix of options on demand and supply

side considered.Planning Process

Nature of the process Closed, inflexible, internally oriented Open, flexible, externally oriented Open and flexible involving widespread

consultation.

Judgement and preferences Implicit Explicit Explicit

Conflict management Conventional dispute resolution Consensus-building Consensus-building through SEA & EIA

processesStakeholders Utility and its rate-payers Multiple interests Multiple interests

Stakeholders’ role Disputants Participants Participant ref consultation processes (2006-2010)

Planning IssuesSupply reliability A high priority A decision variable A priority decision variable.Environmental quality A planning constraint A planning objective A planning necessity

Cost considerations Direct utility system costs Direct and indirect costs, including environmental and social externalities

Direct and indirect costs, including environmental and social externalities

Role of pricing A mechanism to recover costs

An economic signal to guide consumption and way in which to share costs and benefits between different stakeholders

Awaiting Policy Details but should be based on economic signals

Efficiency An operation concern A resource option A resource optionTrade-offs Hidden or ignored Openly addressed Will emerge through planning process

Risk and uncertainty Should be avoided or reduced Should be analysed and managed Analysed & Managed

Figure 4.1 Traditional Approach and Integrated Resource Planning Comparison Source: WSAA Guide to Demand Management


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 70

Figure 4.2 Australian Integrated Resource Planning Approach Source: WSAA Guide to Demand Management - Adapted from the IWA International Demand Management Framework

4.1.2 UK Environment Agency Water Resource Management Plans

The United Kingdom Environment Agency (EA) is an Executive Non-departmental Public Body responsible to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and an Assembly Sponsored Public Body responsible to the National Assembly for Wales.

Their principal aims are to protect and improve the environment, and to promote sustainable development. They play a central role in delivering the environmental priorities of central government and the Welsh Assembly Government through their functions and roles.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 71

The EA introduced the concept of the “provision of formal water resource plans by water companies” on a voluntary basis, in 1999 and 2004. The UK Water Act 2003 and The UK Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007 now require water companies to prepare, consult, publish and maintain a water resource management plan as a statutory requirement. The plan must be prepared in accordance with the guidance issued by the EA, refer Figure 4.3, (in consultation with Ofwat, Water UK, Defra, Welsh Assembly Government and Natural England) and be approved following consultation and reviewed every 5 years or in interim periods if there are material changes.

A water resources plan shows how a water company intends to maintain the balance between supply and demand for water over 25 year periods. The plans are complemented by the water company drought plans, which set out the short-term operational steps a company, will take as a drought progresses. Companies set out a baseline forecast of demand for water for 25 years, assuming current demand policies. This includes Government policy and any forthcoming changes in legislation about demand management and the impact of climate change on demand and the required level of headroom to allow for uncertainty in the assessment.

This gives a calculated surplus or deficit of water for each year. This is known as the baseline supply-demand balance and companies aim not to have a deficit. Where there is a deficit, companies choose water management options to meet the difference following consideration of the costs and benefits of a range of options and justify the preferred option set.

A company’s water resources management plan must contain the following features:

An assessment of water available for use based on the annual deployable output determined for a company’s proposed level of service and for a critical period, if applicable.

A forecast of daily water demand for a dry year and for a critical period, if applicable. The baseline demand forecast must reflect the following assumptions:

o leakage levels should be maintained at the agreed OFWAT targets;

o the inclusion of agreed water efficiency targets and;

o metering programmes.

The demand forecast should assume the implementation of the company’s water efficiency plan. The expected water savings from each element of the water efficiency plan should be identified separately within the water resources management plan.

An appropriate allowance for climate change. This is to include an assessment of climate change uncertainty within target headroom and an assessment of the potential impacts of climate change on demand and water available for use.

An appropriate economic analysis involving the calculation of unit costs of the various schemes in order to allow direct comparison of the schemes which may have different costs and benefits. The Average Incremental Cost (AIC) or Average Incremental Social Cost (AISC) approach should be used for the analysis (refer Appendix 10.5 for a detailed description). Average incremental cost is derived by dividing the net present value of the cost of the option by the net present value of the water produced/saved over the timeframe considered usually to be 25-30 years.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 72

Figure 4.3 UK Water Resource Planning Methodology Source: Environment Agency

4.2 CONCLUSIONS

It is clear that due to increasing worldwide pressures on water supplies due to urbanisation and climate change that a more considered approach to water resources and water supply is required including reviews of demand management options. Both the UK and Australian/International Water Association approaches have the following key elements:

1. Detailed assessments of baseline and future water demands should be carried out to the lowest level of detail that locally available data allows (housing and occupancy statistics, meter data etc). Preferably this should be carried to a micro-component level and reviewed at regular intervals. Where improved data is available it should be used.

2. A wide variety of available and technically achievable solutions to meet future demands should be assessed.

3. A levelised cost analysis (equivalent to AIC) approach is used to compare options. 4. A participatory process is adopted consulting a wide range of stakeholders. 5. An iterative on-going learning process is followed to allow for review of changes or impacts on

assumptions made. 6. A high degree of uncertainty is recognised and this risk should be recognised and managed

through the use of outage, headroom, regular plan review and development of dual solutions e.g. Sydney Water has progressed an aggressive demand management approach, however they have recognised that there is a high risk that a number of these programmes may not deliver the water required. In order to minimise this risk they have progressed new source proposals (desalination – due to lack of surface/groundwater sources) through the planning process so that a plant may be constructed rapidly if required.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 73

Both the UK and Australia have been developing these approaches, the underlying data used and the techniques employed for the past 10-20 years and have therefore adopted sophisticated water resource plans. These plans and the data at their core are regularly updated and improved.

While the same level of detail cannot be achieved in the Dublin Region or Ireland as a whole due to data deficit and administrative/logistical issues, the same general approach can and has been applied in assessing the future needs for the Dublin Region including the appropriate consideration of cost and risk. Where local information has not been available UK data has been used as a surrogate where considered appropriate.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 74

5 DEMAND SCENARIO ANALYSIS

As has been described in previous chapters and illustrated in Figure 5.1 below there are many factors which affect demand and forecasts of demand growth. In order to identify an appropriate balance of supply and demand side options for meeting future water supply needs, a number of demand forecast scenarios have been considered and are described in this chapter. The scenarios have been developed by primary demand component and then combined to estimate various ultimate demand needs for each scenario. Scenarios explored include the following:

1. Do Nothing; where demand management policies are not pursued and demands are allowed to increase naturally.

2. Maintain current; existing polices relating to leakage control etc are maintained and effort is made to maintain PCC at current levels.

3. Minimum Achievable; the considered minimum demand levels that could be achieved for all demand components when due regard is given to local conditions including network condition, domestic water metering and charging, rainfall etc.

4. Theoretical Minimum; the minimum which might be achieved in the Dublin Region should the lowest demand levels currently attained anywhere in the world be applied without regard to the underlying local factors in these other jurisdictions such as network age or condition or water charging policies.

Figure 5.1 Factors Influencing Demand Forecasting Source White 2003

In general, similar methodologies for demand forecasting are being applied today as were applicable to previous forecasts from 1996-2007, with a revised focus on demand side options for reducing certain demand components, in particular domestic demand as a result of impending changes to metering policy. It is worth reviewing how accurate such estimation methodologies have been in the past by comparing actual demand growth with historical demand projections. Figure 5.2 charts overall


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 75

demand growth within the Dublin Region between 1999 and the present day. The high and low forecast scenarios predicted in the Year 2000 of the Greater Dublin Water Supply Scheme 1999/2000 and available sustainable production outputs are also shown.

It is clear that demand growth remained within the high and low predictions throughout the entire period, generally approaching the higher level for much of the time. It also shows that there has been no headroom available since 2003 and that the deficit in this regard is worsening with demand only being met through the operation of treatment plants at levels higher than their sustainable production capacity.

Average Day Demand Forecasts vs Actual Average Day Demands 1999-2009

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Ml/d

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Area between High & Low Forecasts from 2000 GDWSSS High & Low Average Day Demand Forecasts from 2000 GDWSSSActual Yearly Average Day Demand Sustainable Production - Existing Sources

Figure 5.2 Actual Demand Growth vs. Previous Projections

Prior to considering the various scenarios it is interesting to consider the UK Environment Agency’s view of what needs to happen in order that the UK meets it’s water needs and effectively manages water resources until 2050 - See “Water for People and the Environment – 2009”. The primary findings were that in order to ensure sustainable development the following were required:

1. The twin track approach of demand management and new resource development is adopted in all sectors of water use.

2. In England, the average amount of water used per person is to be reduced to 130 litres each day by 2030.

3. The Environment Agency targets and adapts its approach to reflect the location and timing of pressures on water resources.

4. In England, water companies implement near universal metering of households by 2030, starting in areas of serious water stress. (It should be noted that the Walker Report does not support the need for universal metering by 2030).

5. New and existing homes and buildings are more water efficient.

6. Leakage from mains and supply pipes is reduced.

7. Water resources are allocated efficiently and are shared within regions where there are areas of surplus.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 76

It is clear from this work that changes in technology and behaviour both reduce demand, and that metering is a prerequisite for both – but the biggest impact is achieved when all initiatives are implemented in parallel.

In the same report the UK EA examined a number of PCC target options with their respective metering and water efficiency targets to achieve them which are reproduced as Figure 5.3 below.

Figure 5.3 UK EA Future PCC Models

5.1 DOMESTIC DEMAND SCENARIOS – DUBLIN REGION

Forecasts for household construction and occupancy rates for the Dublin Region have been derived from agreed Regional planning forecasts which have been and will continue to be reviewed regularly during the project lifecycle. The primary consideration for the derivation of domestic demand requirements over the next 30 years are the likely levels of per capita consumption that will apply.

Six No. (6) options have been examined as described below in Table 5.1. Domestic demand growth has been projected to 2040 for options DD1 (also referred to as the Theoretical Minimum), DD4


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 77

(Minimum Achievable), DD5 (Maintain Current) and DD6 (Do Nothing) and presented graphically in Figure 5.4. It has been assumed that retrofit options achieve their target PCC within 10 years by 2020 and new build achieve their targets from 2011 onwards.

Option Scenario Title Scenario Description

Existing Building

2040 PCC(l/hd/day)

New Building

PCC(l/hd/day)

Average 2040 PCC(l/hd/day)

DD1 Theoretical Minimum100% Uptake Rate WEM Programmes, New build compulsory PCC 85 as per Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5 and 6.

110 85 99

DD280% Uptake Rate WEM Programmes, New build compulsory PCC 105 as per Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and 4.

115 105 111

DD350% Uptake Rate WEM Programmes, New build compulsory PCC 120 ss per Code for Sustainable Homes Level 1 and 2.

125 120 123

DD4 Minimum Achievable 30-40% Uptake Rate WEM Programmes to 110, New build compulsory PCC 125. 135 125 130

DD5 Maintain Current Maintain current PCC levels 148 148 148

DD6 Do Nothing 2010 PCC increases by 0.245 l/hd/day in line with UK PCC growth 1992-2005 OFWAT 155 155 155

Table 5.1 Domestic Demand Scenarios Description In summary, the four options graphed are as follows:

Theoretical Minimum: An average PCC of approximately 99 l/hd/day is achieved. Savings of 153Mld(2040) achieved over do nothing scenario.

Minimum Achievable: Significant demand management programme introduced on foot of the installation of universal metering and the introduction of water tariffs at an appropriate level to encourage conservation and uptake. Savings of 68Mld (2040) achieved over do nothing scenario and 48Mld (2040) over the maintain current, comprising 19Mld from retrofit programmes and 28Mld from new build policy changes.

Maintain Current Levels: PCC is maintained at 148l/hd/day. This is still likely to require the introduction of building regulations, customer awareness programmes and reduced demand management schemes to prevent increase. Savings of 20Mld (2040) achieved over do nothing scenario.

Do Nothing: PCC is not controlled either through efficiency programmes with the possible exception of limited awareness campaigns or revised building regulations.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 78

Domestic Demand Scenarios

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Year

Ml/d


Figure 5.4 Domestic Demand Scenarios 2010-2040

5.2 CUSTOMER SIDE LOSSES SCENARIOS

Customer side leakage (CSL) is extremely difficult to control however, the impending introduction of water metering and charging will enable significant reduction.

Various options have been examined as described below in Table 5.2. Resulting customer side leakage demand has been projected to 2040 for all 3 options considered and presented graphically as Figure 5.5. It has been assumed that target levels will be achieved over the 30 year period at an equal level however, initial larger reductions may apply following the introduction of charging.

The projection for CSL assumes that different leakage rates for existing and newly built dwellings will be achieved over the period. This would require improved building control in addition to customer side leak repair and supply pipe replacement programmes.

In summary the three options graphed are as follows:

Theoretical Minimum and Minimum Achievable: The minimum technically achievable level is successfully implemented delivering a saving of 25.5Mld over the Do Nothing.

Maintain Current Levels: Customer side leakage level reduced from 65 to 40 l/property/day saving 10Mld over the Do Nothing option.

Do Nothing: Assumes current customer side losses level maintained on existing houses with a 50% reduced leakage level on new build houses through continued lack of sufficient building control.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 79

Customer Side Leakage Options Scenario Title Scenario Description

Existing 2040 CSL

(l/prop/day)

New 2040 CSL

(l/prop/day)

Average 2040 CSL

(l/prop/day)

CSL 1Theoretical Minimum & Minimum Achievable

Achieving an average of 25 l/prop/d CSL between existing and new build properties. In order to achieve this, CSL would have to be reduced to 42.5 l/prop/d on existing properties and should not exceed 5 l/prop/d on new build properties.

42.50 5.00 25.04

CSL 2 Maintain Current

Achieving an average of 40 l/prop/d CSL between existing and new build properties. This would involve maintaining CSL on existing properties at 65 l/prop/d and not allowing CSL on new build properties to exceed 10 l/prop/d.

65.00 10.00 39.39

CSL 3 Do Nothing

Achieving an average of 49 l/prop/d CSL between existing and new build properties. This would involve doing nothing to reduce existing CSL of 65 l/prop/d on existing buildings and expecting CSL of 30 l/prop/d on new build properties due to poor building control.

65.00 30.00 48.70

Table 5.2 Customer Side Losses Scenarios Description

Customer Side Leakage - Scenarios

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Year

Ml/d

Theoretical Minimum & Minimum Achievable Maintain Current Do Nothing

Figure 5.5 Customer Side Losses Scenarios 2010-2040

5.3 LEAKAGE/LOSSES SCENARIOS

Distribution leakage is a function of the age and condition of the network and the level of active leakage detection and repair undertaken amongst many other factors.

Various options have been examined as described below in Table 5.3. Resulting distribution leakage demand has been projected to 2040 for all 4 options considered and presented graphically in Figure5.6. It has been assumed that target levels will be achieved over the 30 year period at a constant rate however, this is highly dependent on funding for network rehabilitation.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 80

It is assumed that targets are achieved resulting from different rates of distribution leakage for existing and newly built infrastructure over the period, primarily from new developments. It would be normally assumed that new infrastructure will not leak, however, experience of infrastructure constructed during the “Celtic Tiger” years clearly indicate that a rigorous building control policy is required to achieve this.

In summary the 4 options graphed are as follows:

Theoretical Minimum: The minimum theoretically achievable economic level of distribution leakage is assumed to be at an ILI of 2 or approximately 6.5m3/km/day. Different levels have been applied to new and existing infrastructure indicating the importance of building control. This option equates to halving the leakage level on the existing network and ensuring new infrastructure is constructed to sufficient quality to have minimum levels of leakage. This is likely to require a very high annual mains replacement rate in addition to increasing active leakage control activities and further pressure management. This option realises a saving of 197Mld over the do nothing option.

Minimum Achievable: The Minimum Achievable envisages that an ILI of 2.5-3 is achieved (current 2010 ILI is 6) or approximately 9.4m3/km/day. Different levels have been applied to new and existing infrastructure. This option equates to a modest leakage reduction on the existing network of 18Ml/day and ensuring new infrastructure is constructed to sufficient quality to have minimum levels of leakage. In reality this will be difficult to achieve as the existing network continues to age and deteriorate and still requires significant mains replacement and aggressive active leakage control. This option realises a saving of 147Mld over the do nothing option.

Maintain Current Levels: Assumes leakage on the existing network is maintained through active leakage control and minimal mains rehabilitation in addition to relatively good building control. This option realises a saving of 112Mld over the do nothing option.

Do Nothing: Assumes mains replacement reduces from the current minimum level, new building control continues at current levels and find and fix activities are adversely affected by staffing reductions.

Distribution Leakage Options

Scenario Title Scenario Description

Existing 2040 Distribution

Leakage(m3/km/day)

New 2040 Distribution

Leakage(m3/km/day)

Average 2040 Distribution

Leakage(m3/km/day)

DL 1 ILI = 2To achieve an ILI = 2, leakage on existing infrastructure should be reduced to 9.5m3/km/d and should not exceed 3m3/km/d on new infrastructure. Total leakage volume = 110Ml/d.

9.50 3.00 6.47

DL 2 Minimum Achievable

To achieve the current plan, leakage on existing infrastructure should be reduced to 15m3/km/d and leakage on new infrastructure should not exceed 3m3/km/d.Total leakage volume = 160Ml/d.

15.00 3.00 9.41

DL 3 Maintain Current

To maintain current distribution leakage levels, leakage on existing infrastructure should be maintained at 17m3/km/d and leakage on new infrastructure should not exceed 5m3/km/d.Total leakage volume = 194Ml/d.

17.00 5.00 11.41

DL 4 Do NothingDoing nothing would allow leakage to increase on both existing and new infrastructure.Total leakage volume = 307Ml/d.

25.00 10.00 18.02

Table 5.3 Distribution Leakage Scenarios Description


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 81

Distribution Leakage - Scenarios

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Year

Ml/d

ILI = 2 Minimum Achievable Maintain Current Do Nothing

Figure 5.6 Distribution Leakage Scenarios 2010-2040

5.4 NON DOMESTIC DEMAND SCENARIOS

Future demand scenarios for non domestic users usually incorporate the following elements:

1. Existing non domestic users (now all metered) and their future water use requirements.

2. Anticipated future non domestic demand based upon currently zoned lands within the region for commercial and industrial use.

3. Strategic industrial allowance to cater for unplanned development such as a major water user wishing to establish a factory within the region e.g. Intel type industries.

Non domestic demand projections are extremely difficult to anticipate over a long 30 year period considering they shouldn’t limit economic growth opportunities by being too low. This must be balanced against constructing water supply schemes that are too large for purpose or have major environmental impacts as a result.

For this reason this demand component in particular, has been revised on several occasions during the course of developing The Plan and remains under constant review. Most recently given the worldwide economic downturn the strategic allowance has been removed and existing non domestic demands updated with metered data.

Furthermore the period for anticipated full development of zoned lands has been extended to 2040 from 2030.

The number of hectares available for development will also be kept under constant review.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 82

Table 5.4 below sets out the demand growth options currently applied to water use for zoned lands based upon internationally accepted norms and which are graphed as Figure 5.7.

In summary the three options graphed are as follows:

Theoretical Minimum: Low Demand from wet and dry industries. Theoretical minimum is only 60Mld less than the do nothing (high demand) scenario.

Minimum Achievable and Maintain Current: Average Demand from wet and dry industries. 30Mld less than the do nothing scenario.

Do Nothing: High Demand from wet and dry industries.

Option Scenario Title Wet Industry 2040 Demand(l/ha/day)

Dry Industry 2040 Demand(l/ha/day)

Low Demand Theoretical Minimum 20.00 14.00

Average DemandMinimum Achievable / Maintain Current 31.00 17.00

High Demand Do Nothing 42.00 20.00Table 5.4 Non Domestic Demand Scenarios Description

Non Domestic Demand Scenarios

238

219

201

182

164

145

126

270

246

223

199

175

151

127

303

274

245

216

186

128

157

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Year

Ml/d

Low Demand (Theoretical Minimum) Average Demand (Minimum Achievable / Maintain Current) High Demand (Do Nothing)

Figure 5.7 Non Domestic Demand Scenarios 2010-2040

5.5 TOTAL DEMAND PROJECTION SCENARIOS 2010-2040

Figure 5.8 below shows the total (combined components) demand scenarios (excluding peak and headroom allowances) which range from 643Mld to 1082Mld.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 83

Total Demand Scenarios

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Year

Ml/d

Theoretical Minimum Minimum Achievable Maintain Current Do Nothing Sustainable Production = 627Ml/d

1082

907

810

643

Figure 5.8 Total Demand Scenarios 2010-2040

Figure 5.9 below shows the final demand scenarios when the required peak demand and headroom factors are added bringing the range of available treatment capacity required for each scenario to between 742Mld and 1250Mld.

The Minimum Achievable scenario (refer Figure 5.10) when best practice peak and headroom factors are included, requires a total available treatment capacity of 942Mld.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 84


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040Year

Mld


1250

1053

942

742

627


Figure 5.9 Total Demand Scenarios including Peak and Headroom Factors 2010-2040

Demand Scenario

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Year

Ml/d

Domestic Demand Non Domestic Demand Customer Side Losses Distribution Losses Operational Usage Peak Headroom

942 Mld

Figure 5.10 Total Minimum Achievable Demand Scenario 2010-2040


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 85

6 RISKS AND COSTS OF ACHIEVING DEMAND REDUCTION STRATEGIES

Predicting the future is a difficult exercise for any organisation. Forecasting water demand, and the impacts which a wide variety of technical and political influences described earlier may have, is a significant challenge.

A number of different demand scenarios have been presented, ranging from the traditional “do nothing” approach requiring source augmentation and water treatment capacity increases to a “Theoretical Minimum” level that, whilst potentially technically achievable, has an inherently high risk of failure and potentially very high cost. This is largely due to its success being dependent on such a wide variety of largely unpredictable factors in particular:

Current and future Government policy – potentially subject to change.

The implementation of new technologies and approaches to domestic and non domestic water use in the home and at work which have uncertain success rates and costs.

A high degree of dependence on influencing the behaviour and attitudes of a large number of individuals regarding water use.

The limited base of accurate data upon which to estimate results.

Having said that, it is recognised that a “do nothing” approach is not sustainable and the successful international implementation of demand management on the network has proven its value as a potential solution.

This therefore suggests that the most sustainable and economic demand solution lies somewhere between the “do nothing” and “Theoretical Minimum” approaches. For this reason the “do nothing” scenario is discounted from further consideration.

The “maintain current” scenario would require that a new source be in place by 2017/18 and is therefore also discounted as a viable option as a new source is unlikely to be deliverable before 2020.

Ultimately, strategy selection comes down to assessing how much water can be released to meet future demand requirements (potentially enabling deferment of the development of a new source in addition to providing headroom/outage) via demand management activities and how much investment is required to achieve it.

The following sections provide some cost estimates for the achievement of the demand side targets of the “Theoretical Minimum” and the “Minimum Achievable”. At this point these cost estimates must be viewed as “indicative” as more detailed and in depth economic assessment is required to improve confidence levels. This can be achieved following the gaining of further experience from existing network demand management activities (water mains rehabilitation, pressure management etc) and Water Efficiency Measure (WEM) pilots if implemented. A full understanding of the proposed water metering and charging policy (to be implemented) is also required to refine cost estimates.

Calculation of ‘Average Incremental Social or Levelised’ costs is beyond the scope of this report and in reality, would require improved data and certainty regarding Government policy before it could be calculated accurately. However, in order to provide some way to compare or benchmark the demand management approaches considered comparisons have been made on a unit cost basis with UK and Sydney water schemes in particular.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 86

Finally the risks associated with the various options are also considered.

6.1 COSTS OF SCENARIOS

6.1.1 Indicative Demand Management Scenarios Costs

The body of evidence from worldwide experience of demand management suggests that schemes implemented across the domestic and non domestic sector can be successful and in some cases can be achieved at lower long run costs than supply augmentation.

Cost estimates have been prepared for the implementation of various water efficiency measures on existing (retrofit) and new build houses. The basis for the various costs are described for each option and provided as Appendix 10.6.

The analysis suggests it will cost somewhere between €1,180 - €2,570 to retrofit houses with the full range of water efficiency measures to achieve an average PCC range of 140l/hd/day to 110l/hd/day.

In addition, the additional cost per newly built house to achieve a reduced average PCC level, ranges from €4,500 per house for a PCC of 85 litres utilising rainwater harvesting to €260 to meet the “Minimum Achievable” target of 125l/hd/day (refer Appendix 10.6).

Table 6.1 below presents the estimated overall cost of implementing the “Theoretical Minimum” and “Minimum Achievable” PCC targets when the relevant unit costs are applied to the uptake rates required (refer Appendix 10.6).

It is estimated that achieving the “Theoretical Minimum” will have a total cost in excess of €3 billion excluding other ancillary costs.

Cost to Achieve Existing Buildings

Retrofit Targets

Cost to Achieve New

Building Standards

Targets

Awareness Campaign

and Household

Audits Budget

Total Cost to Achieve DemandTarget

€M €M €M €M

Theoretical Minimum100% Uptake Rate WEM Programmes to 110 l/hd/day, New build compulsory PCC 85 l/hd/day as per Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5 and 6.

703-936 2566 20-30 3289-3532

Minimum Achievable30% Uptake Rate WEM Programmes in existing houses to 110 l/hd/day taking average in existing houses to 135 l/hd/day, New build compulsory PCC 125.

211-613 164 20-30 395-807

Option Description

Table 6.1 Indicative Demand Management Implementation Costs

The total estimated cost to implement the demand side assumptions contained in the “Minimum Achievable” scenario will range from €395-807M which excludes the costs of implementing ancillary activities required for successful implementation likely to include the following:

1. Domestic meter installations (based upon reported National costs, the non domestic metering experience and assuming installation at the boundary of properties) are estimated to cost a further €240-340M for 100% penetration.

2. National labelling scheme.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 87

3. Appliance rating scheme.

4. Review of plumbing standards and plumber training.

5. Production and implementation new building regulations, training and guidance.

6. Building quality control.

7. Administration of schemes.

8. Development of Policies and Standards for Grey and Black water use.

Obviously a portion of the above costs may well be borne by householder/developers. However, in order to ensure the required level of success by ensuring PCC targets are met (which is a pre-requisite if such a policy is pursued) a sizeable level of subsidy is likely to be required. The size of this subsidy will be dependent on the water charging tariffs implemented and resulting pay back periods perceived by customers.

Typical Average Incremental Costs (€/m3) for the implementation of retro fit demand management in the UK vary widely from €0.40-€2 which compares with an approximate AIC for the development of a new source of €0.90 per cubic metre. Should the domestic retrofit demand reduction of 19.4Mld be achieved at an AIC in the mid point (€1.20/m3) the investment required will be in the order of €49M. A detailed description of Average Incremental Cost Analysis is included in Appendix 10.5.

6.1.2 Indicative Leakage Scenario Costs

It is anticipated that active leakage control (find and fix) activities will continue as presently resourced over the term of the plan. It has been demonstrated earlier (Section 5.3) that major leakage reductions below current levels will require significant mains replacement. Thames Water, for example, is only recently beginning to make major inroads into reducing its leakage levels and achieving annual targets set by OFWAT. This has only been achieved following the implementation of a major programme of Victorian water mains replacement.

Experience from network rehabilitation works to date in the Dublin Region and in London has shown that mains rehabilitation can be expected to achieve a leakage reduction of between 30-100m3 per day per kilometre replaced.

Based upon varying leakage reduction rates per kilometre replaced, an assessment of the length of mains replacement required in order to achieve leakage targets has been made and presented as Table 6.2.

2010 2040

m3/km/day m3/km/day m3/km/day m3/day km for Rehab € €

Leakage m3/km/d 21.0 10.0 11.0 100,100Rehab Saving @

30m3/km 3336.67 1,334,666,667 44,488,889 1.22%50m3/km 2002.00 800,800,000 26,693,333 0.73%

100m3/km 1001.00 400,400,000 13,346,667 0.37%

Leakage m3/km/d 21.0 6.5 14.5 131,950

Rehab Saving @30m3/km 4398.33 1,759,333,333 58,644,444 1.61%50m3/km 2639.00 1,055,600,000 35,186,667 0.97%

100 m3/km 1319.50 527,800,000 17,593,333 0.48%

Minimum Achievable

Plan Options

Theoretical Minimum

Annual % of

Network to be Replaced

Distribution Leakage Leakage Reduction on Existing Network to

meet Plan

Length of Mains for Rehabilitation Required to Meet

Target Saving

Annual Investment2010-2040

Total Cost

Table 6.2 Leakage Reduction via Mains Rehabilitation Costs


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 88

Varying degrees of additional leakage reduction activities are likely to be required in order to reduce leakage to the levels presented for both scenarios, including additional find and fix and pressure management.

Based upon an assumed saving of between 30-50m3/km of main rehabilitated, an annual investment of between €13-40M would be required to achieve the “Minimum Achievable” which would mean rehabilitating an average of 60km per annum. This is the original level envisaged when the current (2006-2012) Dublin Region Watermains Rehabilitation Project commenced.

It should be noted that ongoing rehabilitation is required in any event to ensure security of supply and to prevent continued network failures of the kind experienced over the winter of 2009/2010. For this reason it may be necessary to accelerate replacement rates where available budgets allow in order to gain all of the benefits as early as possible particularly for the oldest Victorian mains.

6.1.3 Customer Side Leakage

At this point it is impossible to estimate the likely cost of reducing supply pipe leakage to proposed plan levels given the uncertainty on actual current levels. Following the roll out of domestic metering sufficient information on leakage levels and the impacts of water tariffs should be available and also the level of subsidy which might be required.

The “Minimum Achievable” proposed level is the technical minimum likely to be achievable and therefore it will require significant financial input to identify and manage the forecast reductions. For example the replacement of a large number of lead supply pipes is likely to be required which probably number circa 170,000. It would cost between €150-255M alone just to replace all these supply pipes.

6.2 RISK OF DEMAND SCENARIOS

The inherent risks in demand management planning have been described in earlier chapters. The various demand scenarios have been assessed against the risk of failing to achieve them as this should be a key consideration in selecting the best balance between supply and demand side options for meeting the Dublin Region long-term water supply needs. Supply side options could be considered to be a lower risk in general as they have long established methodologies and mitigation options for those risks that are present. A high level relative risk assessment has been carried out in relation to the uncertainty in the implementation of demand targets for the primary demand components of each demand scenarios. Details are included in Tables 6.3 and 6.4.

Customer demand side options are a relatively recent development with the outcome and indeed the base data uncertain. Outcome uncertainties are strongly linked to the wide range of influencing factors and the fact that actions are targeted at a wide range of customers with the aim of achieving common behaviours relating to water supply. In order to achieve the targets envisaged in this policy, regulation and funding changes are all required.

Relative Risk Assessment Methodology Risk Severity Risk Rating

High Risk 5Medium to High Risk 4Medium Risk 3Low to Medium Risk 2Low Risk 1

Table 6.3 Risk Assessment Scoring


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 89

Option Scenario Title Domestic Demand

Non-DomesticDemand



Total(Max Risk = 20)

Option 1 Theoretical Minimum 5 1 4 5 15

Option 2 Minimum Achievable 4 1 4 4 13

Option 3 Maintain Current 2 1 2 3 8

Option 4 Do Nothing 1 1 1 1 4Table 6.4 Demand Side Options Risk Scores

As can be seen from Table 6.4 achieving both the “Theoretical Minimum” and “Minimum Achievable” demand scenarios are scored as high risk in comparison to other options and there would be real concerns that they may not be achievable.

The “Minimum Achievable”although a lower score, has a relatively high risk associated with it given the very challenging targets set for leakage and domestic demands and an uncertain domestic metering and charging policy at this time. The introduction of water charges at a sufficient level to encourage demand reduction could reduce the risk, however, pilot implementation of various schemes could provide valuable information from which to develop more robust strategies and targets for achievement of “Minimum Achievable” demand targets.

6.3 BALANCING COSTS AND RISKS

As shown in Figure 6.1 below high investment in infrastructure reduces the risk of water supply restrictions due to failure which must be balanced with the potentially high cost.

Figure 6.1 Balancing Cost and Risk Source: WSAA Framework for Urban Water Resource Planning

It can be seen from the previous sections that demand side supply options involve significant investment; however, failure to meet demands can restrict inward investment and severely affect existing economic performance in addition to the inconvenience caused to domestic and non-domestic customers.

Comparing the costs and risk assessments for the “Minimum Achievable” and “Theoretical Minimum” demand targets, the former offers the better balance between cost and risk.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 90

7 RECOMMENDED APPROACH

Following the foregoing detailed review it is apparent that demand management is being implemented successfully throughout the world. If applied to the Dublin Region it also offers a viable option in meeting long-term demands. If implemented aggressively in the short-term it has the potential to increase available headroom/outage and capacity for meeting ongoing supply requirements while supply augmentation is being developed.

The “Minimum Achievable” for the Dublin Region incorporates extremely challenging demand side efficiency targets which entail significant risk of achievement. Therefore, a cautious approach to implementation should be adopted incorporating parallel development of demand and supply side options via progression of source augmentation to the planning stage and the immediate implementation of demand management pilots to assess viability and costs. The installation of ‘boundary boxes’ as part of the current Dublin Region Watermains Rehabilitation Project offers an ideal opportunity to implement pilots cost effectively as meter installations could be carried out at minimum cost.

7.1 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS FOR RECOMMENDED APPROACH

This Demand Review identifies that the demand projections of the “Minimum Achievable” are in keeping with best practice integrated resource management and incorporate challenging demand side targets. The uncertainty in such an approach represents a risk to meeting future demand which requires mitigation in its implementation. The following measures (refer Table 7.1) which are listed broadly in order of importance will need to be considered in delivering such a demand side management plan:


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 91

Demand Mgt. Instrument / Policy Heading Measures Required

Quantification of uncertainty and risk in not achieving goals.

Required Timelines for Implementation. 1. Strategic Requirements Continuation and possible acceleration of water mains rehabilitation schemes.

Tariff Structures to Incentivise Reduced Use.

Smart Metering/AMR Policy. 2. Metering Policies and Implementation (including AMR and/or Smart Metering)

Data Access Policies.

Confirm Potential Saving and Base Data used including PCC and methods to benchmark PCC

Confirm Impact of reduced Use on Drainage Systems Performance. 3. Further Research

Develop target methodologies that are transparent, simple to understand and evaluate, and which are also achievable

4. Economic Policies Subsidy Schemes to encourage Take up Rates.

New Building Regulations/Codes and Legislation if required. Will also require advance liaison with building industry and major roll out.

Improved enforcement and Building Control.

Revised Plumbing Standards.

Development of Policies and Standards for Grey and Black water use.

Consideration of Integration with Energy and Waste Schemes.

5. Regulatory Needs

National Water Appliance Standards, Assessment and Labelling Scheme.

Plumber Training Schemes. 6. Education and Awareness

Major Continuous Awareness & Behavioural Change Campaigns. Table 7.1 Demand Side Management Plan Measures

7.2 REQUIRED TIMELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

The current lack of available headroom/outage in the Dublin Region and the chronically deteriorating network places water supply to the 1.5 million customers under constant threat. Water supply will be open to severe failure during extreme weather events (ice, drought and flood) or other infrastructural failures while this situation continues.

An outline Programme milestones diagram is included as Appendix 10.7. Critically it indicates that commissioning of any new source is unlikely to be achieved before 2020. Installation of domestic meters and the implementation of charging is likely to take 5-10 years also, however, it could be achieved before new source development, offering the potential to meet additional demand and/or increase short-term headroom.

It is strongly recommended that commissioning of a new source, the installation of domestic meters and the implementation of charging are pursued and that planning commences as soon as possible to mitigate risks and secure water supply for the Dublin Region. Such an approach has been adopted by Sydney Water (demand management and new source development) and Thames Water (demand management, new source development and storage) in London.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 92

8 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

References identified in the report:

1. Herrington, P. R., 2006. The Economics of Water Demand Management. In: Butler, D. and Memon, F. A. (eds.) Water Demand Management. International Water Association, London.

2. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry of South Africa, 2000. Water Conservation and Demand Management for the Forest Sector in South Africa. National Water Conservation and Demand Management Strategy.

3. Watersave Network, 2002. Water Conservation Products - A preliminary review.

4. Defra, 2008. Future Water: The Government’s water strategy for England. HM Government, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

5. A. Walker CB, 2009. The Independent Review of Charging for Household Water and Sewerage Services. Final Report. HM Government, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

6. UK Institute for Policy Research, 2006. Every Drop Counts – Achieving Greater Water Efficiency.

7. UK Environment Agency, 2007. Water Efficiency in the South East of England – Retrofitting Existing Homes.

8. UK Environment Agency, 2008. Measuring Success of Demand Management Interventions.

9. Waterwise UK, 2009. Water Efficiency Retrofitting: A Best Practice Guide.

10. Defra, 2008. Water Efficiency Audit Programmes: A best practice guide. Final report. HM Government, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

11. Waterwise UK, 2008. Evidence Base for Large-scale Water Efficiency in Homes.

12. Waterwise UK, 2010. Evidence Base for Large-scale Water Efficiency in Homes, Phase II Interim Report.

13. UK Environment Agency, 2003. The economics of water efficient products in the household.

14. Aquaterra, 2008. International Comparisons of Domestic per Capita Consumption. Ref. L219/B5/6000/025b. UK Environment Agency

15. Department of Education & Science, 2009. Ensuring sustainability in School Buildings. A Department of Education & Science submission to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science.

16. Memon, F and Butler, D, 2001. Water Consumption Trends and Domestic Demand Forecasting. Presentation. Watersave Network.

17. UK Environment Agency, 2007. Assessing the Cost of Compliance with the Code for Sustainable Homes.

18. Waterwise UK, 2008. Water and energy consumptions of dishwashers and washing machines: An analysis of efficiencies to determine the possible need and options for a water efficiency label for wet white goods. HM Government, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

19. UK NHBC Foundation, 2009. Water efficiency in new homes: An introductory guide for house builders.

20. Defra and the Department for Communities and Local Government, 2007. Water Efficiency in New Buildings: A joint Defra and Communities and Local Government policy statement.

21. Department for Communities and Local Government, 2010. Code for Sustainable Homes: A Cost Review.

22. Herrington, P, 2007. Waste Not, Want Not? Water Tariffs for Sustainability. WWF-UK, Godalming.

23. Defra, 2009. Public Understanding of Sustainable Water Use in the Home. HM Government, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

24. Forfás, 2008. Assessment of Water and Wastewater Services for Enterprise.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 93

25. Defra’s Market Transformation Programme, 2008. BNWAT27: Domestic external water use: An overview. Briefing Note. Version 1.0, last updated 25th March 2008.

26. Bundesverband der Energie und Wasserwirtschaft, 2008. Profile of the German Water Industry 2008

27. Cave, M, 2009. Independent Review of Competition and Innovation in Water Markets: Final Report. HM Government, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

28. Archibald, G, 2009. Supply pipe leakage: a barrier to intelligent metering? SBWWI Conference.

29. Ecologic Institute for International and European Environmental Policy, 2007. EU Water Saving Potential (Part 1 – Report), Final Report.

30. Water Services Association of Australia, 2008. Guide to Demand Management.

31. UK Environment Agency, 2009. Water for People and the Environment. Water Resources Strategy for England and Wales.

32. Erlanger, P & Neal, B, 2005. Framework for Urban Water Resource Planning. Occasional Paper No. 14. Water Services Association of Australia.

33. McIntyre N, Pender J, Reid A, McCartan L, O hÓgáin S, 2007. Rainwater Harvesting Pilot Project. National Rural Water Monitoring Committee

34. The Sunday Times, 2010, Pennies from Heaven by Mark Keenan, in the Sunday Times (Irish Edition) published on 18th April 2010

Bibliography

1. UK Environment Agency, 2009. The impact of household water metering in South East England.

2. VEWA, 2006. VEWA Survey: Comparison of Water and Wastewater Prices. Information.

3. Global Water Intelligence, 2009. 2009 GWI Tariff Survey.

4. Prof. Roaf, S & Ghosh S. Barriers and Drivers to Water Conservation and Recycling. Presentation for Watersave.

5. British Standards Institute, 2009. BS 8515:2009, Rainwater Harvesting Systems – Code of Practice. Committee reference CB/506, January 2009. ISBN: 978 0 580 60490 4

6. Department for Communities and Local Government, 2008. Cost Analysis of The Code for Sustainable Homes. Final Report.

7. Waterwise. Waterwise Report into Dishwashing and Clothes washing Trends.

8. Kraemer, A & Piotrowski, R, 1998. Comparison of Water Prices in Europe. Summary Report. Ecologic, Centre for International and European Environmental Research.

9. Ech2o Consultants Ltd, 2010. Is the five minute shower an urban myth?

10. Defra’s Market Transformation Programme, 2008. BNWAT20: Very low water use water closets – Innovation Briefing Note. Version 2.0, last updated 25th March 2008.

11. Defra’s Market Transformation Programme, 2008. BNWAT28: Water consumption in new and existing homes. Briefing Note. Version 1.0, last updated 25th March 2008.

12. Scatasta, M, 2008. The challenges of designing and implementing tariff strategies for water and sanitation. Presentation for the Global Forum on Sustainable Development – Financing and Pricing Water, 1-2 December, 2008.

13. OFWAT, 2008. International comparison of water and sewerage service 2008 report.

14. Sustainable Development Commission, 2006. Stock Take: Delivering improvements in existing housing.

15. Denver Water. Use Only What You Need: Denver Water’s campaign to create a culture of conservation. Presentation.

16. Turner, A & White, S, 2007. A Town Like Alice: Overcoming Barriers to Unlocking the Potential of Water Efficiency. Presentation. Institute for Sustainable


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 94

17. Futures. Lallana, C, 2003. Indicator Fact Sheet (WQ02e) Water use in urban areas. Version 01.10.03. European Environment Agency.

18. Marshallsay, D & Mobbs, P, 2006. Sustainability of Water Efficiency Measures. UK Water Industry Research, Report Ref. No. 06/WR/25/2. In collaboration with Defra and the Environment Agency.

19. Butler, D, Memon, FA, Makropoulos, C, Southall, A, Clarke, L, 2010. WaND Guidance on water cycle management for new developments. CIRIA C690.

20. Turner, A, White, S, 2006. Does demand management work over the long term? What are the critical success factors? Institute for Sustainable Future, University of Technology, Sydney.

21. Turner, A, White, S, Kazaglis, A, Simard, S, 2007. Have we achieved the savings? The importance of evaluations when implementing demand management. Institute for Sustainable Future, University of Technology, Sydney.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 95

9 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Average Levelised Cost Same as Average Incremental Cost below

AIC Average Incremental Cost. The average incremental cost of a scheme is calculated by dividing the net present value of scheme costs (incremental investment, operational etc) by its discounted output over the same period.

AISC Average Incremental Social Cost. This is calculated by dividing the net present value of scheme costs by its discounted contribution to balancing supply and demand.

BMA Bathroom Manufacturers Association (UK)

CARL Current Annual Real Losses

CODEMA Sustainable energy advisor for the four Dublin Local Authorities

CSL Customer Supply Pipe Leakage

DANVA Danish Water and Waste Water Association

DCC Dublin City Council

DEFRA UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DEHLG Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government

DKK Danish Krone

DLRCC Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council

DM Demand Management. See ‘WDM’.

DMA A district metering area (DMA) is a discrete portion of the network that is created to facilitate leakage detection activities. All inputs and outputs are metered to give a continuous record of demand in the DMA.

DRWCP Dublin Region Water Conservation Project

DRWRP Dublin Region Watermains Rehabilitation Project

DWI Drinking Water Inspectorate. Responsible for enforcing drinking water quality standards in England and Wales and making sure that the appointed water companies comply with the requirements of the drinking water regulations.

EA UK Environment Agency. Responsible for water abstraction and water quality in rivers, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, coastal waters up to three miles from the shoreline and water stored naturally underground. In addition, it has powers to decide if water quality is up to standard and if not to determine how to improve it.

ELL Economic Level of Leakage. The level of leakage at which it would cost more to make further reductions in leakage than to produce the water from another source.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 96

ESPB Equivalent Supply Pipe Burst

GDR Greater Dublin Region

GDWSSS Greater Dublin Water Supply Strategic Study

GDWSA Greater Dublin Water Supply Area

GIS Geographical Information System

GWI Global Water Intelligence

HWW Hamburg Water Works

hr Hour

IBTs Increasing Block Tariffs

ILI Infrastructure Leakage Index. The ILI is a measure of how well a distribution network is managed for the control of real losses at the current operating pressures. It was developed by the IWA Water Loss Task Force as a method for international comparisons of relative leakage levels.

IPART Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal for New South Wales, Australia

IPPR UK Institute for Public Policy Research

IRM Integrated Resource Management. See ‘IWRM’.

IWA International Water Association. The IWA is the global network of water professionals spanning the continuum between research and practice, covering all facets of the water cycle.

IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management is a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in a equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems. (Defined by the Technical Committee of the Global Water Partnership (GWP))

IWRP Integrated Water Resource Planning

km Kilometre

l Litre

l/conn/day Litres per connection per day

l/hd/d Litres per head per day

l/p/d Litres per person per day

l/prop/day Litres per property per day

LA Local Authority


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 97

m Metre

m3 Cubic metre

M&C Mains and Communication Pipe Leakage

Ml Megalitre (One million litres)

Ml/d Megalitres per day

MNF Minimum Night Flow

NHBC National House-Building Council

NRR Natural Rate of Rise (in leakage)

NWPP National Waste Prevention Programme. Aim is to deliver substantive results on waste prevention and minimisation and integrate a range of initiatives addressing awareness-raising, technical and financial assistance, training and incentive mechanisms.

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OFWAT Water Services Regulation Authority (England & Wales)

PCC Per Capita Consumption. The measure of average use per person.

PRV Pressure Reducing Valve

PV Present Value

PVC Polyvinyl Chloride

s Second

SDCC South Dublin County Council

TIF Total Integrated Flow

UARL Unavoidable Annual Real Losses

UFW Unaccounted For Water. This is the demand that remains once legitimate assessed non-domestic and domestic use is deducted from the overall demand of the network. The major part of UFW is attributable to leakage and is more accurately defined if legitimate demand for domestic and non-domestic users is known (via metering) rather than estimated.

UKWIR UK Water Industry Research Ltd. An organisation set up to provide a framework for the procurement of a common research programme for UK water operators on ‘one voice issues’.

uPVC Unplasticised Polyvinyl Chloride

USD United States Dollar

WAFU Water Available For Use. (The deployable output plus bulk supply imports, less bulk supply exports and less reductions made for outage allowance)


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 98

WDM Water Demand Management. The adaptation and implementation of a strategy (policies and initiatives) by a water operator or consumer to influence the water demand and usage of water in order to meet any of the following objectives: economic efficiency, development needs, environmental protection, sustainability of water supply and services, and political acceptability

WELS Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Australia)

WEMS Water Efficiency Measures

WRAS UK Water Regulations Advisory Scheme

WRMP UK Water Resource Management Plans

WSAA Water Services Association of Australia

WSG UK Water Saving Group. A Government-led body, which was established in October 2005. Its aim is to encourage the efficient use of water in households. It is also considering targets, evidence base, best practice, education and policy with respect to water efficiency in the UK.

WWF World Wildlife Fund

Vewin Association of Dutch Water Companies

VFM Value for Money


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 99

10 APPENDICES

10.1 RAINWATER HARVESTING AND GREYWATER USE

The following briefing note provides an overview of rainwater and greywater use including a technical overview and an assessment of its potential as a demand management tool and its potential benefit in reducing long term demands within the Dublin Region.

INTRODUCTIONRainwater and greywater harvesting systems can play a part in demand management by reducing the amount of mains supply water used. This is achieved by using the rainwater and greywater harvested to provide water for uses that do not require water treated to drinking water quality.

DEFINITIONSThe following definitions, as defined in the UK Water Regulations Advisory Scheme (WRAS) guidance notes1 apply to this document.

Rainwater is water collected from the external surfaces of buildings and hard standing areas by diverting the flow to a storage cistern or system. Rainwater harvesting is the accumulation and storage of rainwater for non-portable use such as toilet flushing, clothes washing and for outside use such as gardening and car washing.

Greywater is the water originating from mains portable water supply that has been used for bathing or washing, washing dishes or laundering clothes.

DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM TYPES There are broadly three systems available for consideration:

Rainwater harvesting system Greywater harvesting system Combined systems – rainwater and greywater combined harvesting systems.

A conceptual layout of a rainwater or greywater harvesting system is as illustrated in Figure 1 below:

Figure 10.1 Conceptual Layout of Rainwater/Greywater Harvesting Systems

Rainwater/Greywater

Filtering/Treatment

CollectionTankOverflow

Cistern Overflow

DailyUse

Mains Water Top Up


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 100

RAINWATER HARVESTING Rainwater is the source of all of our water. It fills rivers, replenishes aquifers and lakes, from where it is abstracted for the public water supply. However, before mains water is distributed for use, it is treated to make it safe for human consumption.

Rainwater harvesting systems can reduce demand for drinking water quality mains water, making the availability of this scarce resource stretch further. Harvested rainwater is typically used for the following purposes:

Toilet flushing Clothes washing Watering the garden Washing cars Cleaning patios, drives, windows.

Figure 2 below shows the components of a typical rainwater harvesting installation2.

Figure 2 Typical Rainwater Harvesting Installation SchematicImage taken from McIntyre N, Pender J, Reid A, McCartan L, O hOigain S, (2007). Rainwater Harvesting Pilot Project.

Unlike greywater, for most non-potable domestic uses, rainwater does not require chemical or biological treatment before use. This makes the maintenance of rainwater harvesting systems easier and cheaper than greywater systems.

1

54

2

3

Rainwater Harvesting System

1. Roof Surface

2. Rainwater Filter

3. Rainwater Storage Tank

4. Supply Management System

5. Marking & Labelling

6. Overflow to surface water drainage

66


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 101

GREYWATER HARVESTING Greywater can be collected from sources such as sinks (excluding kitchen), baths, showers, or washing machines. Greywater is generally warm, nutrient rich, and high in contaminants making it an ideal medium for microbiological growth. Simple mechanisms for diverting greywater from the bath or shower directly to garden watering are available. Intermediate storage without treatment and disinfection is not recommended as, over a short period, greywater quality can deteriorate and pose a potential hazard to human health6.

Practical greywater systems generally consist of one or more storage tanks, pump, filtration units, chemical dosing (for disinfection), electronic control and connecting pipework. Greywater can offer advantages over rainwater systems in that storage volumes required can be smaller. However, the system operation and treatment are more complex, require greater maintenance and have shorter design lives.

A UK Study by Cranfield University and Thames Water “Assessment of Water Savings from Single House Domestic Greywater Recycling Systems” in 2000, found that these systems are not generally suitable for individual domestic houses for reasons of cost, reliability and maintenance and overall benefits. The study is quoted as follows:

“ Thames Water, in collaboration with Cranfield University, carried out a one year evaluation of five individual house “light” greywater recycling systems. The largest annual water saving observed was 36%, which was below the manufacturer’s claimed water saving of 40%. Although the savings from recycling were less than expected, improved water efficiency was observed, reflected in the per capita consumption (PCC), with 4 of the 5 houses well below the current average PCC figure of 152l/person/day. However, there were numerous problems with the reliability of the systems during the trial and the householders, although positive about the systems and being informed on how they operated, were still unable to maintain them and ensure they were operational. The periods of malfunction contributed to the lower than predicted water savings. In the UK, where the price of potable water is relatively low, the benefits to the householder cannot be justified on financial cost savings alone. Even if the wider, environmental benefits are to be realised, such individual house systems must be robust and easily maintained by “non-technical” householders, who need “fit and forget” solutions. This study has reinforced the view that under these particular social, economic, climatic and technical conditions larger scale recycling may be more variable. “ 15

COMBINED SYSTEMS Rainwater and greywater systems can be combined where one or the other has insufficient capacity to meet demand needs. The main consideration is the point in the system where the two sources are combined. The source waters may be combined before or after the filtration and disinfection processes. If the rainwater and greywater are combined before treatment, the whole must be treated as greywater. This saves the capital cost of a separate collection tank but can increase the operating costs as all the water must be disinfected before supply.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF RAINWATER AND GREYWATER HARVESTING The potential benefits of rainwater and greywater harvesting are diverse, however, in general they are only likely to have a significant impact on demand reduction if uptake is widespread.

The potential benefits include the following:

Reduction in the use of treated water and demand. Reduced impact on water resources. Reduction in peak demand. Reduction in local flooding risk – local only if significant uptake.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 102

Reduction in effluent volumes requiring treatment and operating costs. Reduction in stormwater overflow - minimal. Improvement in environmental profile. Independence from mains supply for consumers. However, this should be measured against

any potential health risks.

Although by no means representative it should also be noted that water savings may be limited where other water efficiency strategies are adopted at the same time. For example in a separate study, the Preston Water Efficiency Initiative11, piloted by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council and in partnership with the Environment Agency, Surrey County Council and Waterwise, it was noted that rainwater harvesting only showed an additional 5 percent savings (other water efficiency devices were installed at the same time), provided poor value for money and experienced a range of technical issues in installation and maintenance. In this pilot, a block of flats was retrofitted with a communal rainwater harvesting system by the local housing association, Raven Housing Trust.

BARRIERS TO UPTAKE Through recent studies in the UK (Buildings That Save Water projects) a number of barriers to acceptance and uptake by consumers have been identified. Many of these relate to unfamiliarity and include the following concerns:-

Quality standards and public health concerns. Installation and maintenance costs and unproven cost benefit. Difficulties in operation and maintenance. Unproven technology. Lack of guidance on systems.

Here in Ireland, the key barriers to acceptance are likely to be cost, maintenance requirements and installation. It is particularly unlikely to be an attractive option to domestic consumers who currently do not pay directly for water use and therefore see little cost associated benefit. The introduction of metered charging for domestic water use may change this perception, provided that the cost of mains water is sufficiently high to encourage water saving behaviour or a subsidy is offered.

Non-domestic consumers who currently pay a metered charge for water use, would be more inclined to adopt this technology as there is often greater potential to substitute rainwater for potable water.

For existing households, there are added barriers associated with retrofitting works. The disruption caused to households due to retrofitting works on existing properties would be a significant barrier to overcome in increasing uptake. The works associated with installation of a large storage tank either in a back garden or as an above ground installation and additional plumbing would cause major disruption to the households involved. In addition, the cost of retrofitting these systems into existing properties are generally higher than if they were built into the properties at the point of construction.

Therefore, without a significant level of grant aid, subsidies and tax incentives for existing households and businesses, it would be unlikely that there would be a significant level of uptake.

RAINWATER HARVESTING

Design Considerations The general principle of rainwater harvesting is simply to capture non-potable water at the point it falls, and then substitute it for mains water in non-potable applications.

Annual rainfall yield as defined by BS 8515: 20093 is calculated using the following equation:

Annual Rainfall Yield, m3 (Y) = P x A x D x F


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 103

Where P = annual precipitation (m)

A = collection area (m2)

D = drainage coefficient for pitched roof tiles range from 0.75 – 0.9

F = filter efficiency coefficient of 0.9 is used to account for losses related to the filter

Rainwater harvesting systems consists of components, such as tanks and filters that are common to all variations of this technology. The tank is often the most expensive part of the system, and therefore, careful consideration needs to be taken in sizing the tank. The tank size chosen should be a balance between the cost, storage capacity (to offset drought periods), and the need to enable an overflow at least twice a year, to flush out floating debris.

It should be noted that tank size would generally be influenced by the following five factors4:

Annual precipitation Physical characteristics of collection area Estimated usage and occupancy levels Level of drought protection. Available space for siting above or below ground.

The intermediate approach, as set out in BS 8515: 20093 recommends that tank sizing should be calculated based on the lesser of 5% of the annual rainfall yield or 5% of the annual non-potable water demand.

5% of the annual rainfall yield is calculated using the following equation:

YR = A x e x h x x 0.05

Where YR = annual rainfall yield (L)

A = collection area (m2)

e = yield coefficient

h = depth of rainfall (mm)

= hydraulic filter efficiency

5% of the annual non-potable water demand is calculated using the following equation:

DN = Pd x n x 365 x 0.05

Where DN = annual non-potable water demand (L)

Pd = daily requirement per person (L)

n = number of persons

5% of annual demand or supply equates to 18 days a year and is needed to take account of dry periods and daily rainfall variability. Typical values for the yield coefficient and hydraulic filter efficiency can be found in BS 8515: 20093.

Most rainwater harvesting systems are designed to reduce the level of user intervention required, but periodic operational and maintenance checks are required to guarantee water quality and ensure optimal efficiency of the system.

Table 1 below lists the suggested frequency for maintenance activities based on a single domestic system5.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 104

Component of System Maintenance Frequency

Manual cleaning of filters Monthly

Self cleaning and/or coarse filters Check and clean every 3 months depending on site (ie tree cover)

Roofs and gutter Cleaning once or twice a year

Ultra-violet disinfection 6 months or annual replacement depending on system

Chemical disinfection Some systems require monthly replacement of disinfectant

Pump Annual check on operation status and wiring

TankVisual inspection of the tank is recommended at least once a year. Excessive silt should be removed. Tank cleaning and draining down may not be required for some time (every 10 years)

Mains water top -up Should be checked every 6 months to annually to ensure it is working

Table 1 Maintenance Frequency of Selected Components for Typical Rainwater Harvesting System

Costs

The cost of a typical rainwater harvesting system with mains supply backup based on tank size and location is as tabled in Table 2 below.

It is to be noted that the cost data and prices reproduced here are given as the retail value, excluding VAT as obtained from the RainWaterHarvesting.co.uk7,8 website and do not include costs of installation which is likely to be an additional €1,000-2,000 for existing properties.

Tank Size (m3) Price € (Excl. VAT) Tank Dimensions (m)1.60 1,322 1.3 (D) x 1.6 (H)2.60 1,655 Unavailable from website3.64 1,908 1.8 (D) x 1.8 (H)5.46 2,126 2.0 (D) x 2.1 (H)7.27 2,368 2.1 (D) x 2.4 (H)10.00 2,828 2.3 (D) x 2.9 (H)2.00 2,508 2.2 (W) x 2.0 (L) x 1.3 (H)2.70 2,305 2.1 (W) x 1.6 (L) x 1.4 (H)3.00 2,715 2.9 (W) x 2.5 (L) x 1.4 (H)3.75 2,545 2.3 (W) x 1.8 (L) x 1.6 (H)4.80 2,751 2.3 (W) x 2.0 (L) x 1.8 (H)6.50 3,074 2.4 (W) x 2.2 (L) x 2.1 (H)13.00 4,825 2 x 6500 tanks

Above Ground Systems

Below Ground Systems

Table 2 Price of Rainwater Harvesting Systems based on Tank Size

In a study commissioned by the National Rural Water Monitoring Committee in 20059 to assess the feasibility of supplementing treated mains water used for non-potable purposes in a rural housing development in County Carlow, installation costs of €525 and €840 were recorded for a 2m3 and 9m3

underground tank respectively. It is to be noted that these installation costs were for new-build properties and not for retrofitting of existing properties.

Table 3 below is a reproduction of the total capital costs for the installation of a rainwater harvesting system based on tank size as obtained from this study.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 105

Cost (€)2m3 Tank 9m3 Tank

Fittings 2,012.55 2,012.55Precast Reinforced Concrete Tank 650.00 1,500.00Installation Costs 525.00 840.00Total Capital Cost 3,188 4,353

Item

Table 3 Total Capital Costs Based on Tank Size

In general, installation costs would depend on the following factors:

Above ground or below ground systems New build or retrofit of existing property.

An average sized suburban semi-detached house having to retrofit a rainwater harvesting system would have an installation costs ranging from €4,000 - €6,00010.

Application to Dublin Regional Water Demand Management Background In order to assess the applicability of rainwater harvesting in the Dublin Region, an estimation of the rainfall yield was conducted based on historical rainfall data.

The mean annual rainfall at the Casement Aerodrome gauging station was 711.1mm for the period 1968 – 199612. Dublin Airport rainfall data was also available but the lower average of the two – Casement Aerodrome – was used for design purposes. Assuming a house roof area of 50m2,drainage coefficient of 0.8 and filter coefficient of 0.9, this produces an annual rainfall yield of 25m3.

Figure 3 below shows the mean annual precipitation in Ireland for the period 1961 – 199013.

It is of note that the Greater Dublin region received the lowest amount of rainfall during this period. As yield is calculated based on the average mean, this suggests that the benefits of rainwater harvesting will be small in areas with low rainfall and significant in areas with abundant rainfall.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 106

Figure 3 Mean Annual Rainfall in Ireland for the Period 1961 – 1990 Image taken from Irish Meteorological Service Online, on the internet at http://www.met.ie/climate/rainfall.asp (visited April 21, 2010)

Table 4 below gives a breakdown of the potable water use that may be substituted by rainwater harvesting based on increasing levels of property occupancy. Up to 49% of the total household demand could be substituted by rainwater harvesting, if sufficient rainwater and storage were available, for use in toilets, washing machines and externally.

Total

l/day m3/month m3/yearToilets (30%)

Washing Machine

(16%)

External(3%) (m3/month)

2 148 296 8.88 108.04 2.66 1.42 0.27 4.35

2.5 148 370 11.10 135.05 3.33 1.78 0.33 5.44

3 148 444 13.32 162.06 4.00 2.13 0.40 6.53

4 148 592 17.76 216.08 5.33 2.84 0.53 8.70

5 148 740 22.20 270.10 6.66 3.55 0.67 10.88

6 148 888 26.64 324.12 7.99 4.26 0.80 13.05

House 3

House 4

House 5

House 6

Usage (m3/month)

Occupancy PCC(l/h/day)Property

House 1

House 2

Household Usage

Table 4 Water Use Breakdown for Dwellings of Increasing Occupancy Levels

Yield Assessment

Table 5 below shows the monthly rainfall harvest yield based on the 30 year mean rainfall at Casement Aerodrome (1968 – 1996). The monthly yield is converted to show the yield per person per


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 107

day, in litres, for each of the varying occupancy rates. For the average household occupancy rate of 2.5 in the Dublin Region, a maximum yield of 27 l/hd/day is calculated. An average per capita consumption (PCC) for houses in the future as recommended by DEFRA “Future Water”17 is 110 l/hd/day without rainwater harvesting. The calculations below show that this would reduce it to 83 l/hd/day in the Dublin Region.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total63.9 48.6 50.3 50.8 58.1 52.6 46.9 68.5 63.3 68.6 65.9 73.6 711.131 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 3652.2 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.6 25.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec36.2 30.5 28.5 29.7 32.9 30.8 26.6 38.8 37.0 38.8 38.6 41.7 34.228.9 24.4 22.8 23.8 26.3 24.6 21.2 31.0 29.6 31.1 30.8 33.3 27.324.1 20.3 19.0 19.8 21.9 20.5 17.7 25.9 24.7 25.9 25.7 27.8 22.818.1 15.2 14.2 14.9 16.4 15.4 13.3 19.4 18.5 19.4 19.3 20.8 17.114.5 12.2 11.4 11.9 13.2 12.3 10.6 15.5 14.8 15.5 15.4 16.7 13.712.1 10.2 9.5 9.9 11.0 10.3 8.9 12.9 12.3 12.9 12.9 13.9 11.4

Average (l/h/day)

Yield per person (l/h/day)

MonthMean (mm)

House 5

Days

House 6

Yield (m3/month)

Property

House 1House 2House 3House 4

Table 5 Monthly Yields

Climate Change

In assessing the long term viability of rainwater harvesting, it must be noted that climate change may have an impact on the yield. It is predicted (Sweeney et al, 2008 16), that mean winter rainfall in Ireland will increase by approximately 10% by the 2050s and in the southern and eastern coasts, there will be summer reductions of 20-28% by the 2050s. The same report predicts that by the 2080s Irish winter rainfall will have increased by 11-17% and in the southern and eastern coasts, there will be summer reductions of 30-40%.

These climate change assumptions (for 2050) are applied to the average rainfall from Casement Aerodrome in order to assess its impact on rainwater harvesting yields. The results are shown in Table 6. For the average household occupancy rate of 2.5 in the Dublin Region, a yield of 25 l/hd/day is calculated, resulting in a PCC of 85 l/hd/day.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total70.3 53.5 50.3 50.8 41.8 37.9 33.8 49.3 45.6 68.6 72.5 81.0 655.3

31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 3652.5 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.6 2.4 2.5 2.8 23.0


House 3House 4

Mean (mm)Month

House 6

Property Yield per person (l/h/day) Average (l/h/day)

House 1House 2

House 5

DaysYield (m3/month)

Table 6 Monthly Yields with Climate Change

In order to assess an appropriate average yield per person from rainwater harvesting in the future, allowances for the effect of climate change must be included. Along with variances in winter and summer rainfall as outlined above, Sweeney et al (2008) also predict other risks: “Lengthier heatwaves, much reduced number of frost days, lengthier rainfall events in winter and more intense downpours in summer are projected. At the same time an increased summer drought propensity is indicated, especially for eastern and southern parts of Ireland.”

The calculations in Table 6 take the predicted seasonal variations in rainfall into account. However, they are based on monthly averages and do not allow for daily variances in rainfall events. Lengthier rainfall events and more intense summer downpours could lead to a rainwater harvesting tank filling quickly but with increased summer droughts and lengthier heatwaves, it may not refill as often. These factors, along with the seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, could lead to reducing the average yield from a rainwater harvesting system in the future and increasing the PCC. Based upon the


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 108

foregoing analysis it appears that the lowest achievable average PCC (for an average occupancy house) in the Dublin Region is likely to be somewhere between 85-90 l/hd/day.

Yield and Total Household Usage

Table 7 below shows the monthly rainfall harvest yield and the percentage of the yield compared to the total household usage based on Table 4.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total63.9 48.6 50.3 50.8 58.1 52.6 46.9 68.5 63.3 68.6 65.9 73.6 711.1

31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 3652.2 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.6 25.0


Days

House 6

Yield (m3/month)

Property

House 1House 2House 3House 4House 5

MonthMean (mm)

Average (%)Percentage of Total Usage (%)

Table 7 Monthly Yields as a Percentage of Total Household Usage

Depending on the occupancy levels, there is potential for between 7.8% - 23.4% of the total household’s annual usage to be substituted by rainwater harvesting. This is based on an average yield of 68.4 l/day.

CONCLUSIONS At this time, rainwater harvesting systems would seem to be preferential to greywater harvesting systems given the reduced need for complexity and treatment (where end use allows) and their economic viability where rainfall is adequate.

The yield from rainwater harvesting varies due to a number of factors but in order to be conservative the minimum should be planned for. Future yields may be impacted negatively by changes to the Irish climate in amount, frequency and intensity of rainfall events. Decreasing yield will increase per capita consumption and as a result, a PCC of 85-90 l/hd/day should be adopted to allow for these impacts.

There is uncertainty and a lack of confidence in the reliability of greywater harvesting systems as they are a relatively new technology to be proven and have significant barriers to uptake due to end user perception. As a minimum, the following would need to be implemented to ensure significant uptake on rainwater harvesting systems:

Legislation: Building Regulations would need to be updated to include the requirement of site specific assessments on rainwater harvesting systems installation as a condition for planning approval. Japan has strict regulations to ensure that buildings with a floor area greater than 300,000 m2 have greywater and rainwater harvesting systems. In the region of Flanders in Belgium, there is an obligation to install combined rainwater harvesting and storm water attenuation in new buildings with a roof area of greater than 100m2. This is an innovative approach to supporting rainwater harvesting as part of sustainable urban drainage14.

Plumbing Control and Standards: Standards for installation and monitoring will have to be set out in order to address the current perceived health and safety concerns with regards to rainwater harvesting systems. Any retrofitting or installation of a rainwater harvesting system should only be carried out by a qualified professional. Pipes and fittings should be clearly identified and labelled to reduce the possibility of inadvertent cross connection into potable water supplies. Backflow prevention measures would also be required to reduce the possibility of contamination of potable water. Before adoption, the Local Authorities should satisfy itself that no legal liability would arise should any health incident occur. The Rainwater Harvesting Pilot Project9 found that exceedances in terms of the parameter for


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 109

Lead suggest that lead flashings should never be used where rainwater is to be employed for potable applications. This might also prove a barrier to existing home retrofit.

Domestic Water Charging Pricing Structure: The introduction of metered charging for domestic water use may encourage uptake on rainwater harvesting systems, provided that the cost of mains water is sufficiently high to encourage water saving behaviour. Germany has embraced rainwater harvesting technology to a significant extent as homes are on a metered supply and the high cost of mains water is an incentive to households to install a rainwater harvesting system14.

Financial Support: As recommended in Rainwater Harvesting Pilot Project9 due to the high capital cost, it is envisaged that a significant level of grant aid would be required to make installation of rainwater harvesting systems a viable option for consumers. In Germany, grants up to €1,200 are available depending on the region. Austria offers financial support for the installation of rainwater harvesting systems on a regional basis, providing grants of up to €1,800 in the state of Burgenland14.

Education and Media: A sustained campaign highlighting the benefits of rainwater harvesting and associated benefits to the environment should be created to increase public awareness and ensure stakeholder buy-in. Increasing the awareness of builders, plumbers, product manufacturers and architects of the benefits of rainwater harvesting systems could also encourage wider uptake.

In conclusion based upon the foregoing detailed review it is unlikely that greywater systems will offer any major Regional water savings at this time, however it may still prove popular for specific non domestic uses or individual domestic users.

Rainwater harvesting is definitely more promising and should be pursued although the greatest potential is likely to be in the area of new build for non domestic and domestic properties rather than retrofitting of existing. Significant work is still required as detailed above to ensure this becomes a reality. Table 8 below shows the likely potential for rainwater harvesting for four different categories of properties, based on use.

In general these conclusions agree with a recent UK Department of Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) briefing note for their Sustainable Product Market Transformation Programme which found that “in new and existing homes it is generally more economic to reduce water use by fitting more water efficient appliances and educating customers in waterwise behaviour before considering the use of either rainwater (except a garden water butt) or greywater”. It predicts an uptake of 2% of properties for rainwater and 2% for greywater by 2020.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 110

Category Recommendation

Retrofitting of existing properties with a rainwater harvesting system is costly and results in large disruption to households.

This category is more suited towards installation of water efficiency devices.

Without significant levels of grant aid and subsidies for installation of rainwater harvesting systems, it is unlikely that there would be large uptake in this category

Best suited due to considerable benefits of scale on large scale projects

Communal rainwater harvesting systems would have lower maintenance and storage costs compared to individual units


Installation of rainwater harvesting system may be of benefit to businesses if there is high potable water usage for non-potable use

Retrofitting of existing properties may be costly and require significant investment and result in disruption to business

Currently shorter payback period compared to domestic properties

Without significant levels of tax incentives, this category has limited potential in rainwater and greywater harvesting

As in domestic new-build properties, best suited due to considerable benefits of scale.


Installation of greywater harvesting systems may be suited for this category as well

Existing Domestic Properties

New-build Domestic Properties

Existing Commercial Properties

New-build Commercial Properties

Table 8 Recommendations for Application to Dublin Region Based on Categories of Properties


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 111

REFERENCES

1 Water Regulations Advisory Scheme, 1999, Information and Guidance Note: Reclaimed Water Systems, Information About Installing, Modifying or Maintaining Reclaimed Water Systems. WRAS, August 1999, No. 9-02-04 Issue 1.

2 Image taken from McIntyre N, Pender J, Reid A, McCartan L, O hOigain S, (2007). Rainwater Harvesting Pilot Project.

3 British Standards Institute, 2009, BS 8515:2009, Rainwater Harvesting Systems – Code of Practice. Committee reference CB/506, January 2009. ISBN: 978 0 580 60490 4

4 Rainwater Harvesting, 2008, Rainwater Harvesting Information Pack, on the internet at http://www.rainwaterharvesting.co.uk/downloads/rainwater-harvesting-information.pdf (visited April 22, 2010)

5 Construction Industry Research and Information Association, 2003, Model Agreements for Sustainable Water Management Systems: Model Agreements for Rainwater and Greywater Use Systems. Publication RP664, Shaffer P, Eliott C, Reed J, Holmes J, Ward M, 2001.

6 Construction Industry Research and Information Association, 2001, Rainwater and Greywater Use in Buildings, Best Practise Guidance. Publication C539, Leggett D J, Brown R, Brewer D, Holliday E, 2001. ISBN: 0 86017 539 1

7 On the internet at http://www.rainwaterharvesting.co.uk/products.php?cat=27 (visited April, 26, 2010)

8 On the internet at http://www.rainwaterharvesting.co.uk/products.php?cat=30 (visited April, 26, 2010)

9 McIntyre N, Pender J, Reid A, McCartan L, O hOigain S, (2007). Rainwater Harvesting Pilot Project.

10 The Sunday Times, 2010, Pennies from Heaven by Mark Keenan, in the Sunday Times (Irish Edition) published on 18th April 2010.

11 Waterwise, 2009, Preston Water Efficiency Initiative: Final Report, March 2009 on the internet at http://www.waterwise.org.uk/images/site/Research/preston%20water%20efficiency%20initiative%20-%20final%20report%20-%20march%202009%20-%20waterwise%20with%20partners.pdf (visited April 26, 2010)

12 Irish Meteorological Service Online, on the internet at http://www.met.ie/climate/casement.asp(visited April 16, 2010)

13 Image taken from Irish Meteorological Service Online, on the internet at http://www.met.ie/climate/rainfall.asp (visited April 21, 2010)

14 Environment Agency, 2008, Harvesting Rainwater for Domestic Uses: An Information Guide. Environment Agency, January 2008, GEHO0108BNPN-E-E


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 112

15 Thames Water Research and Technology, Cranfield University School of Water Sciences, 2000, Assessment of Water Savings from single house domestic greywater recycling systems, on internet at http://paginas.fe.up.pt/~mjneves/publicacoes_files/data/es/ponencias/por_autor/pdf/10026.pdf (visited June 15, 2010)

16 Sweeney et al (2008), Climate Change: Refining the Impacts for Ireland,, Report submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency, Johnston Castle, Wexford. On internet at http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/research/climate/sweeney-report-strive-12-for-web-low-res.pdf(visited June 15, 2010)

17 Defra, 2008. Future Water: The Government’s water strategy for England. HM Government, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 113

10.2 BLOCK TARIFF WATER CHARGING

This briefing note gives an overview of block charging as a water pricing policy. It outlines the systems currently in place in other countries and the factors influencing block charging.

INTRODUCTIONWater pricing is an effective strategy for demand management as long as the water rate structures, or block charges, contain strong incentives to conserve water.

Economic theory suggests that consumers respond to economic incentives by assuming behaviours to maximise their economic self-interest. As such, water providers can encourage consumers to conserve water by introducing water rates at different usage blocks and surcharges to deter high usage of water or by establishing fines as a deterrent to wasteful water use practices.

Charging mechanisms are often designed to meet a number of the following objectives:

Revenue stability and sufficiency;

Stability of rates over time;

Equity and fairness;

Public health;

Consumer acceptability and understanding;

Administrative efficiency;

Political acceptability.

WATER CHARGING STRUCTURES There are many different variations of water charging mechanisms, but they would all generally fall into the following six categories:

Flat Rates;

Uniform Rates;

Decreasing Block Tariffs;

Increasing Block Tariffs;

Amended Increasing Block Tariffs;

Seasonal Tariffs


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 114

Figure 10.2.1 Diagrams of the various water tariff structures

Flat Rates

This is a constant fixed charge regardless of the volume used. The charge is normally either equalised for each customer or linked to a customer characteristic, such as size of supply pipe, property value etc.

Uniform Rates

This is a charge for the volume of water used at a constant per-unit rate, for example, €1/litre.

Larger low-income households would be those most adversely affected by a uniform rate charging structure.

Decreasing Block Tariffs (DBT)

This is a charge by volumetric rate that decreases for higher levels of use. An example would be imposing a charge of €1.50/litre for the first block and €1.00/litre for the second block and so on. This approach provides no incentive for water conservation behaviour.

Increasing Block Tariffs (IBT)

Commonly known as progressive tariffs. This is a charge by volumetric rate that increases for higher levels of use. IBTs would normally be used to reward water conservation behaviour and discourage excessive use.

The structure of IBTs and the actual rates levied (‘early’ low-priced blocks, intended to cover basic/essential use and ‘later’ higher priced blocks) may have the effect of resolving affordability issues while ensuring full cost recovery is still achieved overall. The approach does not require means testing to identify eligible households and therefore it does not stigmatise low-income households.

A desktop study carried out by Paul Herrington for WWF-UK assessed the financial effects for different types of households in switching to different tariffs structures. The study concluded that lower-income households were most likely to benefit from the introduction of increasing block tariffs, with allowances for essential use which must at least be partly determined by household occupancy in order to be


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 115

effective. Such information is often not readily available and tracking the information is difficult which poses its own inherent administration problems.

In Australia, Turkey, Mexico, Greece, Spain and Portugal, IBTs have been used explicitly to pursue conservation and demand management objectives.

Barcelona introduced an IBT structure in 1983, bringing in a third pricing block in a serious drought in 1989. Athens moved from a 3 block to a 5 block tariff over 1988 – 1991, the highest price increasing from nearly twice to over seven times that of the basic block.

Amended Increasing Block Tariffs

Generally known as socially influenced tariffs. This pricing structure has increasing rates for non-uniformly allocated usage blocks.

The main issue with the IBT structure is that the essential water consumption of larger poorer households may well exceed the initial low-priced block. The overall average cost per m3 of water for smaller more affluent households may be significantly less than that of larger poorer households. Amended IBTs are normally applied to serve equity and affordability objectives, ensuring that no group of consumers are priced out. Amended IBTs are usually implemented through the allocation of a free or nominally priced initial band, and then a step increase for higher usage. Successful implementation of amended IBTs requires accurate information about household occupancy that is not available in all countries.

In general, OECD countries have not adopted any quantified minimum allocation of water, which every person is entitled to for free. There are exceptions, with Flanders which has set a quota of 41 l/person/day of free water (generally regarded as the minimum required to live) for all consumers. Some countries have set an upper limit for a lifeline tariff at 5m3 per month.

Amended IBTs generate steeper price increases throughout the IBT structure, as there is a need to recover costs associated with the nominally priced blocks by pushing up the prices for the higher usage blocks.

Seasonal Tariffs

This is implemented through the use of a surcharge on IBTs or amended IBTs during periods of dry weather or low rainfall.

The use of seasonal tariffs for residential water supplies remains rare in developed economies, although in the one country where they are in evidence, the United States, surveys have shown a steady growth in their incidence.

WATER PRICE ELASTICITY If policymakers are to use prices to manage demand, the key variable of interest is the price elasticity of water demand. This is the percent decrease in demand that can be expected to occur when price is raised by one percent.

If demand is elastic, a price increase will drive demand down to such an extent that a water supplier’s total revenues will actually decrease. When demand is inelastic, a price increase will increase a water supplier’s total revenue. The extra per-unit revenues from the price increase will outweigh the lost revenues from the resulting decrease in demand.

A white paper published by the Institute for Public Policy Research has found that water demand in the residential sector is sensitive to price, but the magnitude of the sensitivity is small.

Primary uses of water have a special characteristic in that the elasticity becomes rigid when we approach the more essential needs of the user. People need water, whatever the price and for the most essential use of water, drinking, few alternative substitutes are available.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 116

Figure 10.2.2 Schematic figure of different uses of domestic water and their elasticities of demand

Demand elasticity for the industrial and agricultural sector tends to be more elastic than the residential sector but does vary substantially by industry. This is because alternatives for water use exist in these sectors like introducing water saving production technologies and shifting to less water demanding products/crops. For basic needs however, demand is relatively inelastic or rigid.

A best estimate of -0.15 with a range of -0.1 to -0.2 seems to be appropriate for average year-round demands. Therefore, an increase in price in real terms of 10% would lead to an expected reduction in demand of between 1% - 2%.

FACTORS INFLUENCING WATER PRICING POLICY Factors influencing Water Pricing Policy may include political intervention, service levels and quality, geological and climatic factors, and social objectives, as discussed below.

Political Influences:

A wide range of government Acts, Decrees, and decisions by governments in the OECD countries have had direct consequences on Water Pricing Policies. Examples of this include:

Australia, where the implementation of a Strategic Water Reform Framework by the Council of Australian Governments in 1994 has lead to radical and rapid reforms. To address issues such as unfair charging policies and service delivery inefficiencies, the Framework agreed on restructuring tariffs in line for ‘consumption-based’ pricing and full-cost recovery, reduction or elimination of subsidies and free allowance that were ‘inconsistent with efficient and effective service’, and increasing transparency of other subsidies and cross-subsidies;

France, where the 1992 Water Law prohibited the use of flat fee tariffs in a bid to reduce wastage and promote improved equity for users;

Belgium, where all households in the Flanders Region are entitled to 41l/p/d free allowance of water. The organisation of the tariff is facilitated through the use of an annual register of inhabitants of each household. This structure has enhanced equity, but has resulted in complex administration and the need to replace revenues lost as a result of the free allowance;

Denmark, where water utilities are obliged by law to ensure that all properties connected to the water supply have a meter installed.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 117

Other influencing factors:

A study of water pricing in the EU6 has listed the following factors that would influence water pricing policy:

Infrastructure – The need to build new infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure.

Geological and Climatic Factors – This relates to resource availability and the origin of water i.e. whether water needs to be drawn from deep wells or is easily available.

Social Objectives – Domestic access to public water supply is reported to be high in most EU countries. The dimension of access still to consider is therefore affordability.

When establishing tariffs, service levels and quality should be considered. Proposed increases in tariffs should be associated with improvements in service quality and coverage. Artificially low tariffs can result in insufficient investment and, consequently, in deteriorating infrastructure and services, reducing the benefits received by the users. This in turn can reduce the users’ willingness to pay.

In general, people who are most concerned with water tariffs are those for which water represents a high fraction of their income. Affordability should be assessed locally and appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that sustainable and affordable water is accessible to the poor and vulnerable groups by allowing those lower-income groups to be cross-subsidised by higher-income households.

Figure 10.2.3 Average water and wastewater bills as share of average net disposable income (in US Dollars)


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 118

Figure 10.2.3 Average water and wastewater bills as a share of income of the lowest decile of the population (in US Dollars)

In the UK, the poorer 5% of the population have to spend more than 5.6% of their income for water and the poorer 1% more than 10.5% of their income while an average person only spends 1.3% of their income on water. Clearly the social consequences are different.

Figure 10.2.3 illustrates the average water and wastewater bills as share of average net disposable income (in US Dollars), whereas figure 10.2.4 illustrates the average water and wastewater bills as a share of income of the lowest decile of the population (in US Dollars).

The analysis of recent OECD practise shows that member countries are attempting to ensure that water is available to all, to seek to reduce the number of disconnections and to enforce simple tariffs to make water affordable to the poor. Most of them have recognised that there is a fundamental right to water.

CONCLUSIONS Most countries have provided for water at a price below cost. There is nevertheless, a trend towards greater implementation of the user-pays principle in order to reduce the burden on public finance and to eliminate subsidies.

Progressive tariffs are often used to reduce wastage and to provide a partial solution to water affordability issues but it normally requires metering of water consumption. A targeted lifeline tariff is probably the easiest measure to implement when potential beneficiaries are well identified and can even be used when there is no metering infrastructure in place.

In general, countries implement a mix of general and special measures because no measure provides a perfect response to the issue of affordability.

Water pricing is just one aspect in the whole approach of financing water services and ensuring sustainability of supply. It should not be separated from solving first the side issue of reducing leakage levels and prevalent water quality issues.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 119

REFERENCES Dziegielewski B, 2003. Strategies for Managing Water Demand. Universities Council on Water Resources, Water Resources Update, November 2003, Issue 126, Pages 29 – 39

Policy Research Initiative, 2004, Economic Instruments for Water Demand Management in an Integrated Water Resources Management Framework, June 2004. ISBN: 0 662 39330 9

Center for Sustainable Energy, September 2007. Waste Not Want Not? Water Tariffs for Sustainability – Report to WWF-UK. Herrington P, 2007.

Smets H, 2002. Social Protection in Urban Water Sector in OECD Countries. Paper presented at the workshop on Consumer Protection and Public Participation in the Reforms of the Urban Water Supply and Sanitation in the NIS.

Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, 2007, Managing Water Demand: Price vs Non-Price Conservation Programs. Pioneer Institute White Paper, July 2007, No. 39, Olmstead S M, Stavins R N.

International Water Resources Association, 2002. Water as an Economic Good and Demand Management Paradigms with Pitfalls. Savenije H, van der Zaag P, Water International, Volume 27, Number 1, Pages 98 – 104, March 2002.

Herrington P, 2006. Critical Review of Relevant Research Concerning the Effects of Charging and Collection Methods on Water Demand, Different Customer Groups and Debt. Report 05/CU/02/1 (London, UK Water Industry Research)

European Environmental Bureau, 2001. Water Pricing in the EU – A Review. Roth E, EEB Publication Number 2001/002.

OECD, 2009. Managing Water for All: An OECD Perspective on Pricing and Financing. Key Messages for Policy Makers.

OECD, 1999. Household Water Pricing in OECD Countries. Working Party on Economic and Environmental Policy Integration. ENV/EPOC/GEEI(98)12/FINAL. OECD.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 120

10.3 INTERNATIONAL WATER SUPPLY DATA SHEETS

10.3.1 Per Capita Consumption Review for UNITED KINGDOM (England and Wales)

Table 1: Summary Table of PCC in England and Wales1&2

ORGINAL PCC (l/h/d) YEAR LATEST PCC

(l/h/d) YEAR CHANGE IN PCC (l/h/d)

DURATION OF CHANGE (yrs)

147 2001-02 149 2006-07 +2 6

OVERVIEW OF WATER SUPPLY

Management and Ownership:2

The Water Sector in England and Wales is made up of 21 fully privatised water companies.

The companies are monitored by OFWAT, the economic regulator, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which monitors the quality of drinking water, and the Environment Agency, which monitors the companies’ environmental performance.

In England, water policy and regulation is overseen by the Dept of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and in Wales by the Welsh Assembly Government.

Population:

The population served by water companies in England and Wales is 54,184,0002.

Climate:

The climate in England and Wales is similar to that of Ireland.

Leakage:

Current leakage levels in England and Wales are approximately 23%. Distribution losses are 105 l/prop/d or 7.5 m3/km/d, and total losses are 141 l/prop/d and 10.1 m3/km/d.2 The average infrastructure leakage index is 2.58.12

The average annual percentage of watermains replacement is 0.92.11

CHARGING POLICY

Currently around one-third of domestic properties in England and Wales are metered. The remaining properties are charged on a rateable value system.

Costs for metered customers comprise volume charges plus fixed annual charges. Costs for un-metered customers comprise supply charges (determined by multiplying the chargeable value for a household by the rate per pound, which varies across Local Authorities) plus fixed charges.

According to the Global Water Intelligence Tariff Survey 2009, the rates for water and wastewater in the United Kingdom’s capital city – London – are €1.66/m3 and €1.17/m3 respectively. Based on a PCC of 149 l/h/d and an occupancy rate17 of 2.3, the average annual water and wastewater bill is €354.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 121

CASE STUDY: LONDON

Thames Water is responsible for the supply of 2,600M litres of drinking water to 8.5M customers across London and the Thames Valley.7

The five year average per capita consumption in London was 161 litres per person per day from 2004/05 to 2008/09. This is a slight decrease from the 163 litres per person per day for the five-year period from 2003/4 to 2007/8. Water consumption in London is expected to decline until 2018, but it is predicted to increase after that due to population growth and climate change. The expected decrease is mainly the result of increased household metering and reduced leakage.8

Improving Water Efficiency in London:

At present, less than a quarter of London households have meters installed. In order to improve water efficiency, Thames Water’s business plan for the five year period, 2010-2015, proposes to increase the number of metered households to 41% by 2015, with an initial focus on those areas with the greatest potential deficit between supply and demand.9

In 2006, a four year pilot study on water metering in Bromley and Croydon was launched by Thames Water. These areas in South London were selected as their water resources are already under great pressure. The objectives of the pilot study were as follows:

To learn how to overcome the practical difficulties with installing meters and thereby make mass metering more efficient in the future,

To gather further information on the effect meters have on customers' consumption and encouraging greater water conservation

As the pilot study is still underway, conclusions and recommendations are not yet available.

Leakage reduction:

Over half of London’s watermain network is greater than a century old. Leakage in London is currently 26%.8 Through watermains replacement and find and fix measures, Thames Water has exceeded its leakage targets over the past two years and reduced the number of burst mains by 7%. The company intends to continue improving the distribution network with the replacement of nearly 1,500km over the five year period 2010-2015.9

CHANGE IN PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OVER LAST 20 YEARS

Table 2: Per Capita Consumption per Year in England and Wales1&2

Year 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07PCC 147 147 150 147 148 149

Note: PCC figures from 2001-2006 were taken from the OFWAT Security of Supply, Leakage and Water Efficiency 2005-2006 Report. The 2006-07 PCC figure comes from the OFWAT International Comparisons Report for 2008. The PCC figures above are weighted averages of metered and un-metered PCC figures.1

REASONS FOR PCC REDUCTION

Table 2 indicates that per capita consumption levels in England and Wales have remained constant since 2000. However, current policy stipulates that per capita consumption will be reduced to 130 l/h/d by 2030, or 120 l/h/d depending on new technological developments and innovation (Defra’s Future Water Report).

Establishment of Water Saving Group:

The UK Government established the Water Saving Group (WSG) in October 2005, bringing together key water sector organisations to develop a range of measures to reduce per capita consumption in households in England and Wales. The goals of the WSG were to look at long-term opportunities for better water management such as benchmarks for household use, to assess the potential of metering,


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 122

and to gather evidence for a wide range of conservation measures.4 The group has driven progress in a number of areas:

Waterwise and the water companies have developed an evidence base for water efficiency measures and interventions, where previously none existed or were incomplete;

The Environment Agency published a methodology for identifying water stressed areas in England for the purposes of metering;

The Government amended regulations allowing water companies in areas of serious water stress to consider compulsory water metering as part of their water resources management plans;

Ofwat has introduced activity-based water efficiency targets for the first time;

Valuable in-depth research has been completed by the Consumer Council for Water to help understand consumers’ attitudes to water use, and their views on willingness to play a part in using water wisely; and

As part of the Housing Green Paper, Defra and the Communities and Local Government (CLG) committed to a number of measures to improve water efficiency in new homes, including changes to the Building Regulations and setting performance standards for key fittings like toilets, taps and showers.

The success of the WSG has resulted in the provision of a better framework for encouraging water efficiency in the future in order to achieve the targets set in Defra’s Future Water Report.5

Metering:

Meters are currently installed in one-third of properties in the UK. Draft Water Resource Management Plans show that all companies expect to increase levels of metering over the coming years. For water companies in parts of the country which the Environment Agency has classed as ‘water stressed’, penetration is expected to reach at least 80% for most companies by 2020 and 90% by 2030 6.

Promoting Water Efficiency:

Since February 1996, water companies in England and Wales have had a duty to promote their consumers’ efficient use of water. To achieve this, water companies have distributed and promoted water saving devices, primarily cistern devices and waterbutts. Household water audit packs have also been distributed, increasing consumer awareness.3 The success of these initiatives has been limited.

Voluntary Labelling Scheme:13

The Bathroom Manufacturers Association (BMA) has developed a voluntary labelling scheme to allow consumers to make informed choices when purchasing water using products.

Water efficiency initiatives – good practice register:14

OFWAT have developed the ‘Water efficiency initiatives – good practice register’. The register provides a checklist of water efficiency options that companies can consider when planning their water efficiency activities. The register is a live document and is updated when new information, techniques or experience becomes available.

Future Plans:15&16

Future plans for the improvement of water demand management in England and Wales are discussed in Defra’s Future Water Report and The Independent Review for Charging of Household Water and Sewerage Service (the Walker Report).

The future plans discussed include the following:

Amendments to the Building Regulations, which will result in the introduction of minimum water efficiency standards.

The Code for Sustainable Homes, a voluntary standard for new homes, will be applied to new government-funded social housing. The Walker Report recommends that Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes should become mandatory for all new homes, irrespective of whether


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 123

they are being built as social or private housing. Level 3 requires that the home will be designed to use no more than 105 l/h/d.

A review of current labelling schemes to ensure that there is a national scheme which provides customers with clear and useful information on fittings and appliances. The scheme will be made mandatory if a voluntary approach cannot achieve these objectives.

Water companies will be encouraged to work with social landlords and housing associations when they are refurbishing homes to improve the water efficiency of social housing.

The increased use of metering to reduce water demand.

Continued work by the WSG to reduce PCC.

Awareness campaigns to encourage behavioural change.

REFERENCES

1. Ofwat, 2006. Security of Supply, Leakage and Water Efficiency 2005-06 Report(http://www.rsc.org/images/Chap2_tcm18-108473.pdf)

2. Ofwat, 2008. International comparison of water and sewerage service 2008.

3. Ofwat, 2007. Security of supply 2006-07 report.

4. www.water.org.uk

5. http://www.defra.gov.uk/News/2008/081121a.htm HM Government, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

6. www.water.org.uk ‘Water meters – the implications’

7. www.thameswater.co.uk

8. Environment Agency, 2010. Household water use in London

9. Thames Water, 2009. Our Plans for Water, 2010-2015 Summary of our final Business Plan submission to Ofwat

10. Thames Water Charges Table http://www.thameswater.co.uk/common/HTML/charges-table.htm


12. http://www.iwapublishing.com/pdf/August_2004.pdf International Water Association

13. http://www.water-efficiencylabel.org.uk/ The Water Efficient Product Labelling Scheme

14. Ofwat, 2007. Water Efficiency Initiatives - Good Practice Register

15. Defra, 2008. Future Water: The Government’s water strategy for England. HM Government, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

16. Walker, A, 2009. The Independent Review for Charging of Household Water and Sewerage Service, Final Report

17. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 2005


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 124

10.3.2 Per Capita Consumption Review for DENMARK (& Copenhagen)

Table 1: Summary Table of PCC Reduction in Denmark1


(l/h/d) YEAR REDUCTION IN PCC (l/h/d)

DURATION TO ACHIEVE

REDUCTION (yrs)

196 1982 131 2005 65 23

Table 2: Summary Table of PCC Reduction in Copenhagen6



DURATION TO ACHIEVE

REDUCTION (yrs)

168 1989 126 2005 42 16


Management and Ownership:

In Denmark, the Regional Councils are responsible for the use and protection of water resources, and the Local Municipal Councils are responsible for the planning, administration and supervision of all water suppliers and the water supply infrastructure. They monitor and enforce compliance with all laws and regulations with regards to water provision.

In 2005, 158 publicly owned water supplies and 2,464 common partnership-owned water supplies were registered in Denmark. Despite owning only 6% of the utilities, municipalities supplied 60% of water in 20056.

Population:

Denmark’s population has grown steadily from 5,119,155 in 1982 to 5,427,459 in 2006.5

A quarter of the Danish population lives in the Greater Copenhagen area.

Climate:

The Danish climate is in the temperate zone – the winters are not particularly cold and the summers are cool.

Leakage5:

Where loss of water in distribution exceeds 10% (metered water volume / distributed volume), communes must pay a fee to the state. This measure has led to significant repairs all over the country. From 1997 to 2006, the loss from the distribution networks has been reduced from 9% to 6%.

CHARGING POLICY

Danish legislation requires full cost recovery for both water supply and sanitation and operates on a break-even principle4.

Tariffs4 paid by the consumer are made up of three components:

Price of drinking water (covers suppliers costs for groundwater protection, abstraction, treatment and distribution)

Price of wastewater (covers sewerage suppliers costs for drainage, treatment and discharge)

Green taxes and VAT.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 125

In 2006, these components were divided 22%, 45% and 33% respectively.

The total price of water measured in fixed prices has increased by 32% between 1996 and 2006. Nevertheless, a household’s average expenditures for tap water and wastewater accounted for only 0.13% of its total income. This share has remained constant, mainly because water consumption decreased while tariffs increased4.

According to the Global Water Intelligence Tariff Survey 2009, the combined rate for water and wastewater in Denmark’s capital city – Copenhagen – is €6.94/m3. Based on a PCC of 126 l/h/d and an occupancy rate9 of 2.2, the average annual water and wastewater bill is €703.

CASE STUDY: COPENHAGEN7/8

Copenhagen Water is a regional supplier which delivers water to approximately 1 million people in the Greater Copenhagen area from seven water works located in the Greater Copenhagen area. 98% of the water supply in the Greater Copenhagen area is based on groundwater.

Since 1989 the total supply for the Greater Copenhagen area had been reduced from 82 million m³ per year to 66.5 million m³ in 1997 due to the pollution of ground water sources. In 1989 Copenhagen Water initiated a comprehensive water conservation programme in an attempt to influence consumption patterns of all consumer groups. The programme included

three education campaigns aimed at domestic consumers, launched in 1989, 1992 and 1995, to promote awareness of water consumption,

the establishment of the Water Saving Consultancy in 1992 as part of the division of distribution to deal solely with water saving measures and initiatives,

systematic investigations for leakage in the public distribution system.

The domestic sector, which accounts for two-thirds of total water use, was specifically targeted by the programme. Total water prices increased by over 200% in the period from 1989 to 1997, with water prices in 1997 of DKK 6.75 (€0.88), state tax on piped water of DKK 5.00 (€0.65) and 25% VAT.

In 1994, the Copenhagen City Council approved a proposal for a comprehensive plan concerning the future water supply of the city – the Copenhagen Water Supply Plan. The main priorities of this plan were:

efforts against leakage in the public distribution system;

renovation of the water distribution system in the city;

efforts and initiatives to reduce water use.

As a result of these measures, domestic consumption in the area supplied by Copenhagen Water dropped from 168 l/h/d in 1989 to 131 l/h/d in 1998, and has continued to drop following the implementation of the Copenhagen Water Supply Plan to a PCC of 126 l/h/d in 20051.

However, despite the focused demand management campaign in place, the PCC in the Greater Copenhagen Area is not the lowest in Denmark. The six most populous counties, accounting for 66% of the population, have a PCC of 130 l/h/d or less. PCC for four of these counties is less than 125 l/h/d6.


Table 3: Per Capita Consumption per Year in Denmark1

Year 1982 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005PCC 196 182 173 172 164 159 147 145 144 138 139 136 131 126 125 127 131


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 126

REASONS FOR PCC REDUCTION IN DENMARK

Total drinking water consumption from the water suppliers decreased from 605 million m³ in 1980 to 400 million m³ in 20055, primarily due to the following measures.

Benchmarking5 –

Since the introduction of benchmarking in 1999, water companies have been focusing on making the water supply sector more effective, focusing on quality, environment, security of supply and efficiency.

Water Tariffs5 –

Introduction of water taxes and VAT has increased the water price and made the price visible.

Water Saving Initiatives6–

All new homes are required to have 2/6 litres dual flush toilets.

There are currently no national schemes in place to offer financial incentives to domestic consumers for adopting water efficient technologies.

Public awareness campaigns are run nationally, regionally and locally. Water efficient technologies are used in public buildings.

Metering5 –

Introduction of individual water meters for all customers has resulted in significant savings.

REFERENCES

1. www.dst.dk Statistics Denmark

2. www.mst.dk The Danish EPA

2(a) The Danish model for sustainable water solutions – Reliable & Safe Water Supply

2(b) Environmental Project no. 667, 2002 - Groundwater protection in selected countries

3. www.danva.dk The Danish Water and Wastewater Association

4. DANVA, 2007. Water in Figures. DANVA’s Benchmarking and Water Statistics 2007. Danish Water and Waste Water Association

5. Danish Ministry of the Environment, 2005. ‘The Danish Action Plan for Promotion of Eco-Efficient Technologies’

http://www.geus.dk/program-areas/water/denmark/vandforsyning_artikel.pdf

6. Environment Agency, 2008. International Comparisons of Domestic per Capita Consumption.

7. http://www.eaue.de/winuwd/80.htm (European Academy of the Urban Environment – Copenhagen Water Company)

8. European Environment Agency, 2001. Environment Issue Report, No. 19 – Sustainable Water Use in Europe, Part 2: Demand Management.



MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 127

10.3.3 Per Capita Consumption Review for GERMANY (& Hamburg)

Table 1: Summary Table of PCC Reduction in Germany2/3



DURATION TO ACHIEVE

REDUCTION (yrs)

147 1990 122 2007 25 17



In Germany, responsibility for water supply provision lies with municipalities, which are regulated by the states. There are 6,383 water utilities, both private and public. The largest 100 of these serve over half of the total population.

99 per cent of the population are connected to the mains network.

All properties are metered, though sub-metering of flats is not common.1

Population:4

The German population has increased from 79,433,000 in 1990 to 82,268,357 in 2007.

Climate:3

The German climate varies from oceanic in the North-west and the North (mild winters and cool summers), to more continental in the east (very cold winters and very warm summers).

Leakage:

Current leakage levels in Germany are approximately 7% of distribution input.

Water losses have dropped from 10.9% in 1991 to 6.8% in 20043&6. These figures include extraction for operation purposes and fire control, so actual losses due to leakage are likely to be lower again.

Total investments in drinking water supply amount to more than €2 billion annually. The majority of investments are spent on maintenance and renewal of the existing network. This contributes to the fact that Germany holds a top position worldwide in terms of real water losses, and experiences almost no interruption of supply.3

According to the BKW Profile of German Water Industry 2005, the average annual rate of watermains replacement was 0.91%.

CHARGING POLICY

The calculation of water prices is subject to strict statutory regulation. The fixing of prices takes place according to the cost-covering principle – only cost covering rates and public fees for the municipal water services are charged.

According to the Global Water Intelligence Tariff Survey 2009, the rates for water and wastewater in Germany’s capital city – Berlin – are €2.30/m3 and €2.68/m3 respectively. Based on a PCC of 122 l/h/d and an occupancy rate7 of 2.2, the average annual water and wastewater bill is €488.

CASE STUDY: HAMBURG6

In Hamburg, the supply of drinking water is exclusively managed by the Hamburg Water Company, the Hamburger Wasserwerke (HWW). It supplies the City of Hamburg, 20 surrounding municipalities and seven water distributors with drinking water. In total 1,972,000 people get their water from HWW.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 128

All drinking water is drawn from ground water via 500 wells. The distribution network consists of 5,465 kilometres of watermains.

The economic use of drinking water to ensure sustainability of water sources has a high priority in the Hamburg Water Company's policy as ground water is expected to be subject to health risks in some areas.

As early as 1985, the installation of water meters in dwellings was considered an appropriate measure to stimulate the economic use of water. In particular, equipping apartments with water meters was considered to be fundamentally important in changing consumption behaviour.

Between 1986 and 1989 a pilot study was carried out on approximately 967 households. Water meters only were installed in 560 households, and water meters and water-saving devices were installed in the remaining 407 properties. An average saving rate of 15% was achieved with water meters alone, and an even better average saving rate of 25% was achieved in households with water meters and water-saving devices.

The pilot study led to the introduction by HWW of water meters in the entire distribution area in 1990.

In 1995, the water saving campaign was extended to include the following Public Awareness Campaigns:

Public Relations activities took place at three fairs and 17 exhibitions;

Two editions of the customer information paper, containing detailed information on water saving techniques, were distributed to households;

Water saving issues were introduced to the teaching curriculum.


Figure 1: Per Capita Consumption per Year in Germany2

Source: BDEW Water Statistics, Federal Statistical Office


4In the early 1990s, per capita consumption was similar in the former East Germany states (the ‘new states’) and West Germany states (the ‘old states’). However, between 1990 and 2004, PCC dropped dramatically in the new states by 34% to only 93 l, whereas PCC in the old states dropped by only 9% to 132 l.

The reasons for the gap in per capita consumption between the new and old states are as follows:


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 129

Sharp increases occurred in water prices during the early 1990s. These increases were significantly higher in the new states. Such sharp increases are likely to have raised awareness of water consumption and instigated behavioural changes towards a more efficient use of water.

Following reunification, households in the new states were able to ‘catch up’ with their Western counterparts with regard to household appliances, and a large part of the residential building stock was modernised at this time. It is likely that increased awareness of water consumption as well as high price responsiveness resulted in the purchase and installation of water-saving appliances and technologies.

As residential buildings in the new states were modernised following reunification, additional water meters were installed. This allowed water to be billed according to consumption which increased both awareness of the water used as well as financial incentives for water conservation.

It can be assumed that these same mechanisms have resulted in the 9% decrease in PCC in the old states.

Benchmarking:

In 2002 the German government passed the National Modernisation Strategy to make the water services more efficient, consumer-oriented, competitive and sustainable. As a key instrument to achieve these goals, benchmarking was introduced in order to compare utilities in terms of prices and services4.

Benchmarking was developed and promoted by the water sector itself in consultation with the political partners. It has contributed to the continuous improvement and ultimately to the modernisation and price stability within the German water industry3.

REFERENCES


2. Wackerbauer, 2009. The Water Sector in Germany, CIRIEC No. 2009/11 http://www.ciriec.ulg.ac.be/fr/telechargements/WP09-11.pdf


4. Schleich, J. and Hillenbrand, T., 2007. Determinants of Residential Water Demand in Germany. Working Paper, Sustainability and Innovation No. S 3/2007. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research.

5. http://www.eaue.de/winuwd/132.htm (European Academy of the Urban Environment – Hamburg Water Company)




MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 130

10.3.4 Per Capita Consumption Review for THE NETHERLANDS

Table 1: Summary Table of PCC Reduction in The Netherlands



DURATION TO ACHIEVE

REDUCTION (yrs)

137.1 1995 127.5 2007 9.6 12



Within the Netherlands, government ministries, regional and local administrations, district water boards and drinking water supply companies are all actively involved in water management.

The number of water companies in the Netherlands has reduced from 52 in 1990 to ten in 2007. All ten companies are members of the Vewin – the Association of Dutch Water Companies. The water companies are responsible for ensuring the provision of reliable drinking water for consumers. Tasks include water extraction from ground, rivers, canals and lakes, treatment and distribution. The water companies are also responsible for management and quality of the distribution network1.

Population:

The Dutch population has grown from 15,460,000 in 1995 to 16,381,137 in 2007. The Dutch have universal access to water supply and 96% of households are metered2.

Climate:

The Netherlands has a moderate maritime climate with cool summers and mild winters.

Leakage:

Average leakage losses in the Netherlands remain below 6%1. Research carried out by UKWIR, comparing leakage practices and levels in the UK to the Netherlands confirmed the figure and found that the reasons for low leakage are as follows8:

Flat terrain results in low operating pressures,

Newer post-war infrastructure made of non-corrosive PVC,

Mains tend to be located under footpath paving blocks in sandy soils, allowing early leak detection and easy repair access,

Fewer joints as a single connection generally supplies a number of buildings,

Rapid response to reported leaks.

The average total leakage across the water companies in the Netherlands is 27 l/prop/d or 1.6 m3/km/d.8

According to the OFWAT International Comparisons Report, 2007, the average annual rate of watermains replacement is 0.8%.

CHARGING POLICY

Water charges by all ten water companies are made up of a rate per cubic metre (volumetric rate), a fixed rate per year (standing charge), tap water tax and VAT3.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 131

According to the Global Water Intelligence Tariff Survey 2009, the rates for water and wastewater in the Netherlands’ capital city – Amsterdam – are €2.02/m3 and €1.52/m3 respectively. Based on a PCC of 128 l/h/d and an occupancy rate10 of 2.3, the average annual water and wastewater bill is €378.


Table 2: Per Capita Consumption in The Netherlands (1980 to 2007)Year 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007PCC 109.0 116.5 122.6 137.1 131.9 130.7 123.8 127.5

Note: PCC figures from 1980, 1985 and 1990 were taken from the Environmental Data Compendium (Netherlands)7. Subsequent PCC data was taken from the Dutch Drinking Water Statistics 2007 Report (Vewin).

According to a survey carried out by Vewin in 2007 on the domestic water usage by the Dutch population, the main uses of domestic drinking water are shower, toilet and washing machine. Between 1995 and 2007 domestic consumption per head dropped by approximately 7%, due primarily to the growing use of low-water-use toilets and washing machines. However, compared to 2004, per capita use has increased marginally. The survey indicates that this increase is due to increase in shower usage2.


The decrease in per capita consumption in the Netherlands since 1995 can be attributed to the following factors:

Public Awareness Campaigns4/5:

In the Netherlands, public awareness campaigns providing information on sustainable water use are considered to have been a key element in the reduction of household water consumption.

Technology & Labeling:

Between 1995 and 2007 domestic consumption per head dropped by approximately 7%, due primarily to the growing use of low-water-use toilets and washing machines2. The Dutch government requires devices that use water to be labelled to indicate how efficient they are, allowing people to distinguish between products based on their water consumption and thus promoting water conservation5.

Culture4:

Since the early 1980’s, responsible resource use has gradually become a socially accepted indicator of progress. Water saving behaviour, and the use of efficient kitchen, bath and garden equipment, is now a status attribute for some lifestyle groups.

Benchmarking:9

Benchmarking was introduced in the Dutch drinking water industry in 1997, with the aim of providing all interested parties a better understanding of the performance of the drinking water companies. Through the benchmarking process, companies have adopted each others best practices resulting in improved water quality, continued good service and reduction in costs. Research by the Erasmus University Rotterdam has shown that the sector has attained an efficiency improvement of 23% since the introduction of benchmarking.

REFERENCES

1. www.vewin.nl Association of Dutch Water Companies

2. Vewin, 2010. Dutch Drinking Water Statistics 2008. Association of Dutch Water Companies.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 132

3. Vewin, 2008. Water Supply Statistics 2007. Association of Dutch Water Companies.

4. OECD, 2002. Towards Sustainable Household Consumption? Trends and Policies in OECD Countries.


6. www.waterland.net Dutch Water Information Network

7. http://www.mnp.nl/mnc/i-en-0037.html The Environmental Data Compendium – Netherlands


9. Vewin, 2007. Reflections on Performance 2006, Benchmarking in the Dutch Drinking Water Industry



MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 133

10.3.5 Per Capita Consumption Review for LITHUANIA

Table 1: Summary Table of PCC Reduction in Lithuania



DURATION TO ACHIEVE

REDUCTION (yrs)

180.9 1996 109.5 2008 71.4 12



After Lithuania regained her independence in 1990, responsibility for public water supply transferred from the state to municipalities. Forty-two municipal water companies were established by reorganising the regional state water companies of the Soviet period. Lithuania depends entirely on groundwater for drinking water supply2.

Population:

Lithuania’s population has decreased continuously from 3,615,212 in 1996 to 3,366,357 in 20084. The population decline is a result of the high level of emigration of the early 1990s as well as natural demographic processes5. Approximately 70% of the population are connected to the public water supply3.

Climate:

Lithuania’s climate is relatively similar to that of Ireland, with typically wet, moderate winters and summers.

Leakage:

Water losses in the distribution network were approximately 15% in 20002.

CHARGING POLICY2

A major source of revenue for financing the public water supply is user fees on potable water. The water companies in Lithuania are independent financial units and they are expected to operate on the income they generate. Many water companies are struggling to earn enough to keep their operations running and have hardly any funds for capital investment.

Water tariffs calculated by the municipal company have to be approved by the municipal council and also by the National Control Commission for Prices and Energy.

According to the Global Water Intelligence Tariff Survey 2009, the rates for water and wastewater in Lithuania’s capital city – Vilnius – are €0.57/m3 and €0.68/m3 respectively. Based on a PCC of 110 l/h/d and an occupancy rate6 of 2.6, the average annual water and wastewater bill is €130.

CHANGE IN PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OVER LAST 20-30 YEARS

Table 2: Per Capita Consumption per Year in Lithuania Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008PCC 180.87 160.36 137.47 130.00 118.82 117.09 110.99 111.43 111.95 111.26 117.13 111.31 109.50

Note: PCC figures have been calculated by dividing the total annual water consumption (Lithuanian Statistics website) by 70% of the population (population data also extracted from the Lithuanian Statistics website) as only 70% of the population are connected to the public water supply network3.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 134


During the Soviet Era (pre-1990) people paid for their water according to norms based on the standard of housing and water bills remained the same regardless of how much water was used by the consumer.

In recent years it has become increasingly common for water meters to be installed for individual flats (>90% of flats have water meters installed) and houses, and that the occupants pay for the water they use according to actual metered usage. Metering, along with growth in water prices, appear to be the main causes of the significant reduction in domestic water consumption.2

Since 2000, water consumption has remained stable. However, it is believed that economic growth and growing household incomes could result in increased water consumption with householders wishing to make daily life more comfortable, despite the increasing prices. Though such an increase would be unfavourable in terms of sustainability, a slight increase to 120l/h/d would be acceptable in the case of Lithuania. In order to ensure sustainable development however, the report (‘Sustainability of Household Consumption in Lithuania1’) recommends that environmental education and information, eco-labelling together with provided infrastructure and appropriate other policy measures could help to increase the environmental consciousness of consumers and reshape consumption to the more sustainable pattern.1

REFERENCES

1. Dagili t , R, Juknys, R, 2009. Sustainability of Household Consumption in Lithuania

2. Pietilä, P, 2004. D10g: WaterTime National Context Report – Lithuania www.watertime.net

3. European Environment and Health Committee, 2010. Lithuania - Progress towards CEHAPE Regional Priority Goal I on water and sanitation

4. http://www.stat.gov.lt/en/ Statistics Lithuania

5. United Nations Population Information on Lithuania



MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 135

10.3.6 Per Capita Consumption Review for SYDNEY

Table 1: Summary Table of PCC Reduction in Sydney7&4



DURATION TO ACHIEVE

REDUCTION (yrs)

364 1990/91 245 2005/06 119 15


Management & Ownership:

Sydney Water Corporation (Sydney Water) is a State-owned corporation which supplies drinking water, wastewater services and some stormwater services to the people of Sydney, the Illawarra and the Blue Mountains. The distribution network consists of 21,000km of pipeline7.

Population:

The population served by Sydney Water is 4,309,0008.

Climate:

Sydney has a temperate climate, with warm summers and cool winters and rainfall spread throughout the year. The weather is moderated by proximity to the ocean. The city is prone to drought and bushfire on the one hand, and storms and flooding on the other, associated with the opposite phases of the El Niño Southern Oscillation.

Leakage:

Leakage levels decreased by more than 15% in Sydney during 2005/06 to 8.5% of total water supplied. Sydney Water’s Active Leak Detection Program achieved savings of 50ML a day.7

The Infrastructure Leakage Index has dropped from 2.8 in 2001/02 to 1.6 in 2005/06. Water losses in 2005/06 were 96 l/conn/day and 5.9 m3/km/d.7

The rate of asset replacement by Sydney Water in 2006-07 was 0.69%.8

CHARGING POLICY

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) sets prices to enable Sydney Water to deliver its services.7

Water bills in Sydney consist of variable and fixed charges. According to the Global Water Intelligence Tariff Survey 2009, the rates for water and wastewater in Sydney are €1.40/m3 and €1.27/m3

respectively. Based on a PCC of 245 l/h/d and an occupancy rate of 2.7, the average annual water and wastewater bill is €645.


Sydney Water figures show that Greater Sydney is using the same amount of water now as in 1974, even though the city's population has grown by one million.3

Daily per capita domestic water use in Sydney has fallen from 364 l/h/d in 1990-91 to 245 l/h/d in 2005-06.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 136


The substantial decrease in demand since the early 1990’s has been achieved through stronger mandatory water restrictions (Level 3 Water Restrictions) combined with Sydney’s Water Conservation Strategy.7

Level 3 water restrictions9 include the following measures:

No sprinklers at any time; drippers only,

Hand-watering of gardens and lawns is only allowed twice weekly, before 10am and after 4pm,

No filling of swimming pools above 10,000L without a permit,

No hosing of hard surfaces.

Water Conservation Strategy:4

The Water Conservation Strategy was implemented by Sydney Water in 1999.

Significant savings have been achieved through

Leak reduction

the ‘Every Drop Counts’ Business Programme

Residential Indoor and Outdoor Programmes

Drinking water substitution from water recycling.

Residential programmes include,

The WaterFix Program, which offers householders the opportunity to have a qualified plumber visit their home to provide a new water efficient (3-star rated) showerhead and tap flow regulators, a toilet cistern flush arrestor for single flush toilets and the repair of minor leaks. The service has a retail value of $180 but is offered to customers for $22.

DIY Water Saving Kits, as an alternative to the Waterfix Programme

Washing Machine Rebate

Rainwater Tank Rebate

the ‘Love Your Garden’ Programme

Awareness:4

Sydney Water has carried out campaigns intended to promote awareness, particularly of outdoor water conservation practices, as outdoor water use accounts for 28% of total household water use. Through such campaigns (e.g. the ‘Love Your Garden’ Programme), customers are encouraged to adopt water efficient gardening and outdoor water use practices and to participate in the Rainwater Tank Rebate Programme.

Residential programmes have contributed to approximately 21% of the total water savings achieved by Sydney Water since the implementation of the Water Conservation Strategy in 1999. The majority of residential savings have been achieved through the WaterFix and Washing Machine Rebate schemes.4

Labelling:2

WELS is Australia's Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme that requires certain products to be registered and labelled with their water efficiency in accordance with the standard set under the national Water Efficiency Labeling and Standards Act 2005. From 1 July 2006, the WELS scheme became mandatory. All new products — that is, where the product has been manufactured or imported into Australia on or after 1 July 2006 — must now be registered and labelled before they can be sold.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 137

REFERENCES

1. http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/335/index.html

2. www.waterrating.gov.au

3. www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au – water demand

4. Sydney Water – Water Conservation Annual Report 2008

5. www.sydneywater.com.au

6. www.ipart.nsw.gov.au

7. National Performance Report – 2005/2006

8. OFWAT International Comparisons Report 2008

9. http://www.waterwisesystems.com/


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 138

10.4 DEFRA WATER EFFICIENCY STANDARDS CONSULTATION

In December 2006, the UK’s Department for Communities and Local Government and Defra published a joint consultation document setting out their proposals to regulate for minimum standards for water efficiency in new buildings, to come into force in 2008.

The aim of the consultation was to seek views from a wide range of stakeholders (including Building Control Bodies, Local Authorities and Consultants) on whether there should be minimum regulatory standards for water efficiency in new buildings and on what the best way of achieving them would be.

The consultation document presented two options for water efficiency in domestic buildings: (A) Whole building performance standard and (B) Component based approach with minimum standards for key fittings.

This appendix provides an overview of the results of the consultation, which were as follows;

There was a clear divergence of opinion between different sectors on whether a standard of 120 l/p/d was achievable with existing fittings. Developers and local authorities thought it was realistic and achievable, whilst manufacturers thought it could only be achieved with rainwater harvesting or grey water recycling.

The whole building performance approach was widely seen as a positive move towards reducing water consumption in new homes but, on its own, it would not deliver the long term water savings that were needed, nor could it be relied upon to drive innovation in the provision of water fittings. There was strong support from all sectors that the whole building performance approach be coupled with a minimum performance of fittings standards.

The approach should be consistent with that taken on energy performance and that progressive targets should be set with the initial target achievable with existing technology and progressively more stringent targets for the future.

There was concern about the perceived growth in the use of high water use, or luxury fittings and how these could be accommodated equitably in the drive for water efficiency. There was a divergence of understanding of what might constitute a high use appliance and whether it was practicable to enforce any new regulations on the water use of such products.

There was general agreement that water efficient products were available, but as these were not currently produced in large numbers it would take some time before they became more readily available.

Generally it was felt that high water use products should be regulated but care needs to be taken not to impinge unduly on consumer preferences.

Some concerns were expressed about the ability of the system to cope with new areas of responsibility if sufficient resources were not made available. Some respondents suggested that progress would be slow if measures to improve the training and skills of plumbers were not also introduced, e.g. registration schemes/competent persons schemes.

The results of the consultation demonstrated overwhelmingly that respondents felt the whole building approach could be made to work. However, concerns over the Whole Building Performance Standards approach in achieving water efficiency in domestic buildings included:

Luxury items might be omitted from the build design to meet the requirements but then added to the property at a later date; alternatively low water use products could be included to offset high water using products but then be replaced at a later date;

The need to accommodate the substitution of planned fittings by alternatives (due to availability, purchasing etc.) during the build;


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 139

The need to accommodate the inclusion of new fittings during the building lifetime and building extensions;

The Whole Building Performance Standards approach may seem attractive to regulators but will not ensure water savings during occupation;

Allowing total flexibility in design will mean that installations are difficult to check by building control bodies;

The need for change in traditional methods e.g. plumbing practices;

The water efficiency design would not be a good indicator of actual water usage;

Behaviour of the consumer plays a large part in actual water usage – public awareness is also important;

Customers might object to the need to apply for re-approval of the premises when including new fittings in property;

Need to ensure that whatever is included does not add extra layers of bureaucracy and is not over-complicated.

With respect to individual fittings....

Some respondents commented that products are currently available to meet levels proposed; others that market transformation of fittings performance is required to achieve water savings in all buildings;

The water efficiency of fittings, once installed, needs to be able to be quickly identified by designers / approvers during design, during construction by inspectors and potentially by inspectors on change of occupancy;

Correct installation of products is equally important to correct purchasing, otherwise savings will not be realised;

There might be a need for specific approvals for very high water using fittings and/or restrict excessive water use

Achieving Targets...

There was a comment from the academic/research sector that to achieve the levels would require major improvements in fitting performance;

It was felt that progressive targets should be set, with the initial target achievable with current products.

Concerns over using the existing system....

A specialist knowledge of plumbing may be required to assess buildings and awareness of new requirements;

The addition of more regulations/requirements to understand;

There would be many different ways of meeting requirements and would place a heavy burden on Building Control Bodies (BCBs) for compliance checks on designs and/or on-site checks of installations;


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 140

BCBs and developers would require additional resources to meet the needs of this consultation, including software packages and calculation tools;

Every fitting would need to be checked on site to ensure compliance with design. Testing of performance on site would not be possible;

Charges for inspections cannot be altered to cover additional work required to inspect;

Previous experience has shown that water related inspections (unvented hot water systems) have not been given as high priority as building matters;

No ongoing check of compliance;

Technology to achieve water efficiency would need specialist design – this would need to be supported by adequate approval schemes, designers and products;

BCBs would need to be continually updated on new products and technologies to meet performance standards;

There would be a need for re-assessment every time a device is installed, this would be an unmanageable and unenforceable burden.

Possible solutions to skills and resources shortages...

The use of approved plumbers (self certification),

The use of current Water Regulation Inspectors to check against additional Building Regulations requirements;

A list of acceptable products (with water efficiency ratings)

A generic audit-based approach could be developed

Point-of-sale control of products would prevent sale of products which do not meet ither Water Fittings Regulations or these proposed new requirements.

‘Deemed to Satisfy’ examples in Approved Document.

Readiness of the market...

Legacy stock held by manufacturers and retailers could slow down market penetration;

Timescales should not try to be met by interim solutions (e.g. fitting flow restrictors on existing products) as this could cause user dissatisfaction and prejudice public acceptance;

Time to gain Water Regulations Advisory Scheme (WRAS) approval was seen as a problem by the water industry sector;

The lack of incentive for large purchasers (developers) to change purchasing practices;

Suitable water efficiency performance specifications would be needed for all products – this could cause a delay through preparation time and response by manufacturers;

Cheaper imports undermine the incentive for manufacturers to provide water efficient products.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 141

10.5 EXPLANATION OF AVERAGE INCREMENTAL COST AND AVERAGE INCREMENTAL SOCIAL COST ANALYSIS

INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLANNING

Integrated Water Resource Planning (IWRP) may be defined as a comprehensive form of planning that uses an open and participatory decision making process to evaluate least-cost analyses of demand-side and supply-side options against a common set of planning criteria (Turner et al, 2006).

IWRP requires a consistent approach to calculate the unit cost of water to facilitate the comparison of various types of schemes, whether related to new supply, demand (water saved), or reuse (source substitution)

Average Incremental Cost Analysis, discussed in detail below, can be used to estimate the unit cost of water supplied or saved by a scheme and thus compare a number of different demand-side and supply-side options. Average Incremental Cost Analysis is a form of Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, a method used for translating the schemes future cash flows back to their present value.

DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS

In order to economically evaluate demand-side and supply-side options, or indeed projects, the alternative options must be compared on the basis of their different costs projected into the future. As the cost profiles of all options will differ, it is necessary to apply a technique by which the cash flows of the various options can be compared on a like for like basis.

Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (DCF) is used as a method of translating the option’s future cash flows back to their present value. The World Bank defines Present Value (PV) as an amount which, if received today as a single payment, would be equivalent to the value of the future cash flow. The PV is determined by discounting the future cash flow at an appropriate discount rate.

The two common forms of DCF are Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Average Incremental Cost Analysis.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) is used to compare alternative options when only the costs of the options, and not the benefits, are being measured. CEA is used when the alternative options provide identical benefits. In this case, cost-effectiveness is defined as the PV of the projected future cash flow.

CEA only provides a basis for comparing the relative economic merits of project options and, unlike cost-benefit analysis, it does not provide a basis for demonstrating the economic viability of a project. This important limitation implies that project justification must be based on subjective rather than quantitative criteria.

Average Incremental Cost Analysis (AIC), an extension of the CEA technique, is used to compare options by ranking options in situations where the benefits of the alternative options are not identical. The AIC technique involves determining the average unit cost of the service (eg average cost per volume of water saved), a measure then used to compare the costs of alternative options with different project lives and benefits, and for providing a good general indication of the affordability to society of the proposed service

The AIC approach is used by the World Bank and other institutions to approximate the marginal cost pricing conditions needed for establishing cost reflective tariff structures.

AVERAGE INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS

The AIC of a scheme is essentially the computation of the unit costs for least-cost comparisons, based on the scheme’s future costs, including both capital and operational (management, operation and maintenance) expenditures, and the stream of future volumes consumed or supplied.

The AIC approach can be applied to investments in saving water, for example through reduced leakage or reduced consumer demand. In this case, the calculation includes the savings in operating costs by not producing the water saved by the scheme (OS) as well as the capital (C) and operating (O) costs of the water saving project.


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 142

The AIC of a scheme is calculated by dividing the Net Present Value (NPV) of all the costs (including management, operation and maintenance costs) by the NPV of the volume of water saved each year. As discounting is a financial concept its application to physical flows may seem peculiar at first glance. However, the fact that physical flows, such as future volumes consumed or volumes of water saved, are discounted to their present value is an outcome of the mathematical analysis of monetary values on which the method is based.6

AIC can be calculated using the following formula:

AIC = PV(C) + PV(O) – PV(OS) over 25 years (€)PV of Water Consumed or Saved over 25 years (m3)

Where; C = Capital costs; O = Operational costs; OS = Savings in operating costs in not producing water saved by the scheme.

The AIC represents the average cost of water over the entire life of a project, assumed in this case to be 25 years. Using a longer time period is unlikely to make a significant difference to the cost, depending on the discount factor used. All costs need to be included whether capital cost (C) or operating costs (O) but no consideration needs to be made for inflation and exchange rate depreciation.

The AIC method can be used to compare different water supply options, for example abstraction from groundwater or surface water or a desalination plant.

AVERAGE INCREMENTAL SOCIAL COST

The Average Incremental Social Cost (AISC) extends the AIC approach to include “externalities” - the social and / or environmental costs and benefits (E) arising from the implementation of a scheme.

AIC = PV(C) + PV(O) + PV(E) – PV(OS) over 25 years (€)PV of Water Consumed or Saved over 25 years (m3)

Where; C = Capital costs; O = Operational costs; E = Social and environmental costs and benefits; OS = Savings in operating costs in not producing water saved by the scheme.

The AISC approach is followed in the UK water industry planning process (Environment Agency, 2007) using a discount factor of 4.5% for comparing options.

In Australia, the equivalent approach of estimating the unit cost of water supplied or saved by a scheme is known as Levelised Unit Cost.

References:

Smout, I, Kayaga, S, Munoz-Trochez, C, 2008. Financial and Economic Aspects of Water Demand Management in the Context of Integrated Urban Water Management, 3rd SWITCH Scientific Meeting, November-December, 2008.

Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (DCF) and Average Incremental Cost Analysis (AIC) – World Bank

6 AIC analysis involves finding the revenue stream whose present value, when discounted at a chosen discount rate, is equivalent to the present value of the projected expenditure stream (ES) when similarly discounted. Revenue in any one year is equal to the AIC multiplied by the projected water savings (WS) in that year. AIC times WS is therefore a monetary value. As AIC is a constant, the present value of WS only is taken and the resulting formula is AIC = PV(ES) / PV(WS).


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 143

10.6 WATER EFFICIENCY MEASURE COST ESTIMATES

Cost estimates have been prepared for the implementation of various water efficiency measures on existing (retrofit) and new build houses. The basis and reason for the various costs are described for each.

RETROFIT OPTIONS

The full costs associated with the implementation of various retrofit options to reduce household demand and PCC are set out in the tables below. The costs presented are the total costs likely to be incurred by the householder or the State if fully funded. Either way they reflect the full cost of implementing water efficiency measures in households in the Dublin Region to achieve the PCC levels set out in the main report.

The retrofit options presented are as follows:

1. All efficiency measures required to achieve an average household PCC of 110 are implemented including complete replacement of toilets with low flush models (costs are shown with and without rainwater harvesting). Cost of replacement of white goods to more efficient models is included.

2. All efficiency measures required to achieve an average household PCC of 110 are implemented including complete replacement of toilets with low flush models (costs are shown with and without rainwater harvesting). Cost of replacement of white goods to more efficient models is excluded on the basis that householder replaces them due to age or perceived benefit.

3. As per 2 but half of toilets are replaced and half have a variable flush or a displacement device fitted and rainwater butt provided.

In all of the above plumbing costs are assumed to be €500/day.

Retrofit Scenario 1Retrofit Using Full Toilet Replacement and White Goods Replacement

Category Appliance Typical Cost of Appliance

Cost of Appliance Installation*

Total Cost(Appliance + Installation)

Washing Machine Low Use Washing Machine €500.00 DIY €500.00Dishwasher Low Use Dishwasher €500.00 DIY €500.00Sink Flow restrictor on taps €50.00 DIY €50.00Toilet Low Volume Flush Toilet €340.00 €500.00 €840.00

Rainwater Harvesting System €3,500.00 €1,000.00Greywater recycling €3,500.00 €1,000.00Water Butt €55.00 €25.00 80

Bath Reduced volume bath €300.00 €250.00 €550.00Shower Low flow showerheads / meter / timer €50.00 DIY €50.00

** Total €7,070.00Total Excluding Harvest €2,570.00

RET

RO

FIT

€4,500.00External

Retrofit Scenario 2




Washing Machine Low Use Washing Machine DIY €0.00Dishwasher Low Use Dishwasher DIY €0.00Sink Flow restrictor on taps €50.00 DIY €50.00Toilet Low Volume Flush Toilet €340.00 €500.00 €840.00




RET

RO

FIT

External €4,500.00

Retrofit Using Full Toilet Replacement Assume Householder Replaces White Goods Themselves within 10 years


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 144

Retrofit Scenario 3Retrofit Using Hippo or Variable Flush Mechanism 50/50 with Toilet Replacement




Washing Machine Low Use Washing Machine DIY €0.00Dishwasher Low Use Dishwasher DIY €0.00Sink Flow restrictor on taps €50.00 DIY €50.00Toilet Low Volume Flush Toilet €450.00





RET

RO

FIT

NEW BUILD

Cost estimates have been provided below for the additional cost associated with achieving various average PCC rates in newly constructed housing. These costs have been primarily derived from the UK Communities and Local Government report “Cost Analysis for the Code for Sustainable Homes” with allowance made for local additional costs.

Additional cost and actions to achieve 130 l/hd/day 130l


Cost of Appliance Installation *


Washing Machine Low Use Washing Machine €0.00Dishwasher Low Use Dishwasher €0.00Sink Low flow tap units €50.00 €50.00Toilet Low Volume Flush WC €150.00 €150.00

Rainwater harvesting systems €3,500.00 €500.00Greywater recycling systems €2,500.00 €500.00Water Butt €55.00 €25.00 80

Bath Reduced Volume Bath €0.00Shower Low flow showers €60.00 €60.00

** Total €4,340.00New Build Costs Above Baseline "Normal" Appliance Build Cost Total Excluding Harvest €340.00* Plumbing cost assumed to be approx €500/day

NEW

BU

ILD










NEW

BU

ILD



MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 145







Bath Reduced Volume Bath €100.00 €100.00Shower Low flow showers €0.00


NEW

BU

ILD


Full rainwater harvesting required to meet 85 l/hd/day PCC target 85l




Washing Machine Low Use Washing Machine €500.00 €500.00Dishwasher Low Use Dishwasher €500.00 €500.00Sink Low flow tap units €115.00 €115.00Toilet Low Volume Flush WC €150.00 €150.00

Rainwater harvesting systems €3,500.00 €500.00Greywater recycling systems €2,500.00 €500.00Water Butt (Not required due to rain system above)


Total €5,325.00New Build Costs Above Baseline "Normal" Appliance Build Cost* Plumbing cost assumed to be approx €500/day

NEW

BU

ILD


IMPLEMENTATION COST ESTIMATES

Table 10.1 Estimated Costs Associated with Retro fitting Existing Buildings at Various Uptake Rates for the 3 Retrofit Scenarios and Achieving Lower average PCC rates in new buildings.

Existing Buildings Retro Fit

Scenario 3


Scenario 2


Scenario 1

New Buildings

Achieving 120 l/hd/day

New Buildings Achieving

100 l/hd/day

New Buildings Achieving 80

l/hd/day2040 Population 1,490,000 1,490,000 1,490,000 1,204,790 1,204,790 1,204,790Occupancy Rate 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5Households 596,000 596,000 596,000 481,916 481,916 481,916Cost / Household €1,180 €1,570 €2,570 €340 €466 €5,325Uptake Rate

10.00% €70,328,000 €93,572,000 €153,172,000 €16,385,147 €22,457,289 €256,620,30920.00% €140,656,000 €187,144,000 €306,344,000 €32,770,293 €44,914,578 €513,240,61830.00% €210,984,000 €280,716,000 €459,516,000 €49,155,440 €67,371,867 €769,860,92840.00% €281,312,000 €374,288,000 €612,688,000 €65,540,586 €89,829,156 €1,026,481,23750.00% €351,640,000 €467,860,000 €765,860,000 €81,925,733 €112,286,445 €1,283,101,54660.00% €421,968,000 €561,432,000 €919,032,000 €98,310,879 €134,743,734 €1,539,721,85570.00% €492,296,000 €655,004,000 €1,072,204,000 €114,696,026 €157,201,023 €1,796,342,16580.00% €562,624,000 €748,576,000 €1,225,376,000 €131,081,172 €179,658,312 €2,052,962,47490.00% €632,952,000 €842,148,000 €1,378,548,000 €147,466,319 €202,115,601 €2,309,582,783100.00% €703,280,000 €935,720,000 €1,531,720,000 €163,851,465 €224,572,890 €2,566,203,092


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 146

Table 10.2 Estimated Total Costs Associated with Achieving Regional PCC and Domestic Demand Scenarios.

Option Scenario Title Scenario DescriptionExisting

Building Cost€M

New Building Cost€M

Total Cost €M

DD1 Theoretical Minimum100% Uptake Rate WEM Programmes, New build compulsory PCC 85 as per Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5 and 6.

703-936 2566 3269-3502

DD280% Uptake Rate WEM Programmes, New build compulsory PCC 105 as per Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and 4.

563-749 225 788-974

DD350% Uptake Rate WEM Programmes, New build compulsory PCC 120 ss per Code for Sustainable Homes Level 1 and 2.

352-468 164 516-632

DD4 Minimum Achievable 30-40% Uptake Rate WEM Programmes to 110, New build compulsory PCC 125. 211-613 164 375-777

DD5 Maintain Current Maintain current PCC levels 30-50 30 60-80

DD6 Do Nothing 2010 PCC increases by 0.245 l/hd/day in line with UK PCC growth 1992-2005 OFWAT 0 0 0


MDW0158RP0115 Rev F01 147

10.7 WATER SUPPLY PROJECT – DUBLIN REGION – PROJECT MILESTONES DIAGRAM

THE PLAN APPENDIX A DEMAND APPENDIX - Dublin · 4.1 STRATEGIC STUDY 1996 & YEAR 2000 REVIEW The...

Documents

Transcript of THE PLAN APPENDIX A DEMAND APPENDIX - Dublin · 4.1 STRATEGIC STUDY 1996 & YEAR 2000 REVIEW The...