Throughout the country, municipal, state and regional water authorities are struggling with the common problem of how to supply an ever-increasing population with potable water from diminishing fresh water supplies and dropping water tables. Compounding the water supply problem is the lack of capital funds in most communities to build new water processing and wastewater treatment plants desperately needed to satisfy peak demands.
Almost every community in the U.S. reaches 100% of its processing capacity at some time during its yearly cycle. By introducing water conservation devices such as the Ecofaucet™ units, water planners and hydrologists can also introduce water conservation programs to change the water use patterns of consumers.
MUNICIPAL COST / PRICE EQUATION
There are no national standards for calculating the cost / pricing for water. Each municipality sets its own policy based on the cost of acquisition, transportation, treatment, storage, effluent collection, effluent / greywater treatment and effluent disposal.
While the consumer pays an average of $.002 – $.006 per gallon expressed as $ .52 – $1.58 per cubic meter = 264 gallons, the cost of delivering a cubic meter to a household is often subsidized by as much as 20% – 100%, when the administrative and infrastructure costs are factored into a cost per cubic meter.
The trend is for municipal water systems to use pricing as a lever towards reducing consumption and increasing operational revenues. Between 1986 and 1996 there has been an average increase of 5% per anum, which is projected to spiral as water shortages and droughts impact municipal and regional water systems. In Europe and South America the current cost per gallon is $.008 to $ .01 per gallon. In extreme drought stricken areas of the world, water costs $6.43 per gallon.
The growing populations, drought conditions and increasing demands for potable water are depleting the global water reserves along the same trend line as petroleum. The adoption of commodity pricing for water supplies is a certain reality, being resisted only by political considerations.
The Eco Faucet System can conserve from 65 – 70% of residential water consumption, providing municipal water systems with a technological solution along with price incentives to reduce the consumption of water in residential, commercial and institutional environments. The cost savings are substantial when you factor in infrastructure costs for water treatment and effluent recovery costs.
The Eco Products Group is developing a municipal water cost / pricing model to assist municipalities to project and monitor the cost benefit for installing the Ecofaucet™ technology and related Eco Products Group water conservation / re-cycling and water harvesting technologies.
COMMUNITY COST BENEFIT STUDY:
Every community facing increasing demands for water and declining reserves will be forced to adopt severe measures to conserve water through municipal and regional water districts. The low flow water closet program has been a resounding success in conserving residential water use. The Ecofaucet™ unit has very similar conservation characteristics. Water conservation models utilized by municipal and regional water districts to install the low flow water closet can be directly applied to the installation of an Ecofaucet™ system for both water conservation as well as infrastructure and capital programs that may have to be scaled down or postponed due to budgetary constraints.
CASE STUDIES:
A) Charlottesville, VA
“One community (Charlottesville, VA) that has about 25,000 residential connections and is facing a $30,000,000 expenditure to expand waterworks.
By installing an average of 2.0 Ecofaucet™ units in each of 25,000 homes, at a per home cost of $60, the community would spend about $3 million dollars for a five-year life of installation. Comparably, the interest and principal payments on a 30-yr. life, $30 million waterworks expansion over that five-year period would be about $12 million. Thus, saving 25% of the pre-installation water use would be a break-even.
The advantage–from a community standpoint–would fall to the water conservation alternative, because of the smaller amount of capital to be raised, the “educational value” of the device as part of a water conservation package, and the environmental enhancement from leaving more water in our streams for aquatic life and recreation. This makes a compelling case for looking to the device, at least experimentally, instead of proceeding blindly with the customary enlargement of water control facilities.”
Ed Imhoff, certified professional geologist (hydrology).
B) Toronto, CN
“The City of Toronto, Canada has deferred a capital expenditure of $200,000 for 15 years through a 15% reduction in residential water demand, accomplished by a mix of conservation measures. They estimate that faucets in Toronto residences are run to deliver 2 to 3 gallons per minute and they estimate Toronto showerheads are run to deliver 1.5 to 5 gallons per minute. Your devices would seem tailor-made for cities like Toronto, Canada.”
Ed Imhoff, certified professional geologist (hydrology).