The final version of the Met Council’s “Feasibility Assessment of Approaches to Water Sustainability in the Northeast Metro” has been released. I posted my thoughts about this study before, but here are more rantings mostly pulled from my twitter feed.
The study says conservation of water is probably cheaper, but that’s not in this study, and we’ll get to it later (date 2015 TBD). From the study:
The alternatives evaluated should be viewed as examples. The best option for moving forward may be a hybrid of the examples considered in this study, and could involve approaches that were not considered in this study. For example, communities in the northeast metro could utilize less expensive approaches. These might include conservation or stormwater reuse to reduce groundwater pumping before making large-scale investments in alternative infrastructure solutions. Such a plan could couple these less expensive options with aggressive monitoring of groundwater and surface water, and set triggers for further action in the event these less expensive approaches are not effective.
So, we didn’t analyze the best and cheapest options, but we went ahead and did some demand forecasting so we could size some pipes anyway.
Households in many of the communities in the study area pay less for potable water each year than a family might pay towards their smart phone bill each month.
Water rates, from page 6 of the study
My household only has two smartphones, and we pay about $140 per month. Add a few teens to the mix, and you get the point. Water this cheap is obviously a triumph of civil engineering (and socialized infrastructure costs), but will likely make meaningful attempts at conservation difficult.
The study expects water consumption to grow 56% by 2040 while population will grow 37%. Historically, population growth in Minnesota has outstripped increases in (permitted) water use. From 1988 to 2011, population in the state grew about 24% while water use increased only 12%. Like electric utilities, water utilities nationally are also struggling with declining sales. The Met Council study doesn’t present any data on water usage trends in the study area communities (that I found). I’m not sure why they are projecting this large increase in water use per capita (perhaps they are planning for many more golf courses?). If any enterprising reader wants to dig in to the DNR data, trends for the counties included in the study area could be produced.
Searching the study for the words “grass” or “lawn” yields zero results. As I mentioned in the previous post, the study doesn’t really attempt to analyze what the end use of water is in the study area, although looking at the “peak usage ratio” hints that a lot of it is landscape-related.
For just the operating costs of each alternative infrastructure solution (not including capital costs), you could pay each household $30 to $422 each year to use less. Annual operating costs of the alternatives vary from $1.3 million to $20 million. The study area will include 189,470 people in 2040.
In other parts of the country with water supply issues, homeowners are paid to turn turf grass into water-efficient landscaping. In the California Bay Area, homeowners can get a rebate of $1 per square foot for lawn removal.
For the some capital cost as the medium-priced option in the study, homeowners could be paid to remove 6 square miles of grass at a rebate cost of $1 per square foot. Plus they could be paid to remove 129 football fields-worth (7.5 million square feet) in every future year for the equivalent operating costs of that option.
Photo: Sprinkler, Creative Commons licensed by flickr user Shaylor