Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Greywater systems in urban environments
(USC Thesis Other)
Greywater systems in urban environments
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
GREYWATER SYSTEMS IN URBAN ENVIRONMENTS
by
Chase Jamison Blood
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF BUILDING SCIENCE
May 2012
Copyright 2012 Chase Jamison Blood
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ............................................................................................................ viii
Abstract .........................................................................................................................ix
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
The Language of Greywater ...................................................................................... 1
Levels of Greywater................................................................................................ 2
Historical Approaches to Water Reuse ................................................................... 4
Greek Practices with Water Reuse ........................................................................ 5
Practices in Yemen with Water Reuse .................................................................. 5
Modern Approaches to Water Reuse ...................................................................... 6
Singapore ............................................................................................................... 6
Bermuda ................................................................................................................. 7
Current Issues Pertaining to Greywater ................................................................... 7
Health Issues .......................................................................................................... 7
Sustainability Programs and Greywater .................................................................. 9
LEED Neighborhood............................................................................................. 9
Sustainable Sites .................................................................................................. 10
Water Systems in Buildings ..................................................................................... 11
Commercial and Office Sites ................................................................................ 11
Toilets and Urinals................................................................................................ 11
Sinks and Other Faucets...................................................................................... 12
Irrigation, Fountains, and Landscaping.............................................................. 12
Cooling Towers .................................................................................................... 12
Other Sources .......................................................................................................13
Residential Sites ........................................................................................................13
Toilets and Urinals................................................................................................13
Sinks and Faucets ................................................................................................ 14
Showers and Baths ............................................................................................... 14
Dishwashers ......................................................................................................... 14
Washing Machines .............................................................................................. 14
Landscaping and Irrigation ................................................................................. 15
Other Sources ...................................................................................................... 15
Net Water Inflow and Outflow of Residential Spaces ....................................... 15
Chapter 2: Previous Works and Case Studies ............................................................ 17
Greywater and the Scale of Sites ............................................................................. 17
Sustainability of Greywater Reuse .......................................................................... 19
iii
Chapter 3: Research Methods .....................................................................................24
Site Variables and Constants ..................................................................................24
Systems Studied ....................................................................................................... 25
MBR Systems ........................................................................................................ 25
RBC Systems .........................................................................................................26
AIRR Systems ....................................................................................................... 27
Brac Systems ........................................................................................................28
Denver Case Study for Site Usage ...........................................................................28
General Notes ......................................................................................................... 29
Calculation Algorithm ............................................................................................. 30
Chapter 4: Results and Analysis.................................................................................. 33
Trends and Relationships of Data .......................................................................... 33
Three Example Cases of Data Collection ............................................................... 34
Los Angeles .......................................................................................................... 35
Phoenix ................................................................................................................ 40
Nashville ............................................................................................................... 43
General Findings ......................................................................................................47
Metrics of Greywater Systems ................................................................................ 48
Source Concerns ................................................................................................. 49
Transit Concerns .................................................................................................. 51
Destination Concerns .......................................................................................... 53
Site Concerns ....................................................................................................... 54
Discussion of Piping ................................................................................................ 57
Investing in Sustainability ....................................................................................... 57
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions .....................................................................59
Hypothesis Revisited ...............................................................................................59
Experiences ............................................................................................................. 60
Further Discussion & Research ............................................................................... 61
Bibliography .................................................................................................................65
Appendix A: Extended Data ........................................................................................70
1. New York, New York.........................................................................................70
2. Los Angeles, California ..................................................................................... 71
3. Chicago, Illinois ................................................................................................ 72
4. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania............................................................................... 73
5. Miami, Florida ...................................................................................................74
6. Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas ................................................................................. 75
7. Boston, Massachusetts ......................................................................................76
8. Washington, D.C. ............................................................................................. 77
iv
9. Detroit, Michigan..............................................................................................78
10. Houston, Texas ..............................................................................................79
11. Atlanta, Georgia ............................................................................................ 80
12. San Francisco, California............................................................................... 81
13. Phoenix, Arizona ...........................................................................................82
14. Seattle, Washington ...................................................................................... 83
15. San Diego, California .................................................................................... 84
16. Minneapolis, Minnesota ...............................................................................85
17. Cleveland, Ohio ............................................................................................ 86
18. St. Louis, Missouri .........................................................................................87
19. Baltimore, Maryland..................................................................................... 88
20. Tampa, Florida.............................................................................................. 89
21. Denver, Colorado ......................................................................................... 90
22. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania .............................................................................. 91
23. Portland, Oregon .......................................................................................... 92
24. San Jose, California ........................................................................................ 93
25. Riverside, California ..................................................................................... 94
26. Cincinnati, Ohio ............................................................................................95
27. Virginia Beach, Virginia ............................................................................... 96
28. Sacramento, California ..................................................................................97
29. Kansas City, Missouri ................................................................................... 98
30. San Antonio, Texas ....................................................................................... 99
31. Las Vegas, Nevada ....................................................................................... 100
32. Milwaukee, Wisconsin ................................................................................. 101
33. Indianapolis, Indiana .................................................................................. 102
34. Providence, Rhode Island ........................................................................... 103
35. Orlando, Florida .......................................................................................... 104
36. Columbus, Ohio .......................................................................................... 105
37. New Orleans, Louisiana .............................................................................. 106
38. Buffalo, New York ........................................................................................ 107
39. Memphis, Tennessee ................................................................................... 108
40. Austin, Texas ............................................................................................... 109
41. Bridgeport, Connecticut............................................................................... 110
42. Salt Lake City, Utah ....................................................................................... 111
43. Jacksonville, Florida ..................................................................................... 112
44. Louisville, Kentucky ..................................................................................... 113
45. Hartford, Connecticut .................................................................................. 114
46. Richmond, Virginia ...................................................................................... 115
47. Charlotte, North Carolina ............................................................................ 116
48. Nashville, Tennessee .................................................................................... 117
49. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma .......................................................................... 118
v
50. Tucson, Arizona............................................................................................ 119
Appendix B: Extended Graphs .................................................................................. 120
1. New York, New York....................................................................................... 120
2. Los Angeles, California ................................................................................... 120
3. Chicago, Illinois ............................................................................................... 121
4. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.............................................................................. 121
5. Miami, Florida ..................................................................................................122
6. Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas ................................................................................122
7. Boston, Massachusetts ..................................................................................... 123
8. Washington, D.C. ............................................................................................ 123
9. Detroit, Michigan............................................................................................ 124
10. Houston, Texas ............................................................................................ 124
11. Atlanta, Georgia ............................................................................................125
12. San Francisco, California..............................................................................125
13. Phoenix, Arizona ......................................................................................... 126
14. Seattle, Washington .................................................................................... 126
15. San Diego, California ....................................................................................127
16. Minneapolis, Minnesota ..............................................................................127
17. Cleveland, Ohio ........................................................................................... 128
18. St. Louis, Missouri ....................................................................................... 128
19. Baltimore, Maryland.................................................................................... 129
20. Tampa, Florida............................................................................................. 129
21. Denver, Colorado ........................................................................................ 130
22. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ............................................................................ 130
23. Portland, Oregon .......................................................................................... 131
24. San Jose, California ....................................................................................... 131
25. Riverside, California ..................................................................................... 131
26. Cincinnati, Ohio ........................................................................................... 132
27. Virginia Beach, Virginia ............................................................................... 132
28. Sacramento, California ................................................................................. 132
29. Kansas City, Missouri ................................................................................... 133
30. San Antonio, Texas ....................................................................................... 133
31. Las Vegas, Nevada ....................................................................................... 134
32. Milwaukee, Wisconsin ................................................................................ 134
33. Indianapolis, Indiana ................................................................................... 135
34. Providence, Rhode Island ............................................................................ 135
35. Orlando, Florida .......................................................................................... 136
36. Columbus, Ohio .......................................................................................... 136
37. New Orleans, Louisiana ............................................................................... 137
38. Buffalo, New York ......................................................................................... 137
vi
39. Memphis, Tennessee ................................................................................... 138
40. Austin, Texas ............................................................................................... 138
41. Bridgeport, Connecticut.............................................................................. 139
42. Salt Lake City, Utah ..................................................................................... 139
43. Jacksonville, Florida .................................................................................... 140
44. Louisville, Kentucky .................................................................................... 140
45. Hartford, Connecticut .................................................................................. 141
46. Richmond, Virginia ...................................................................................... 141
47. Charlotte, North Carolina ........................................................................... 142
48. Nashville, Tennessee ................................................................................... 142
49. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ......................................................................... 143
50. Tucson, Arizona........................................................................................... 143
Appendix C: Sources for City Utility Data................................................................ 144
1. New York, New York....................................................................................... 144
2. Los Angeles, California ................................................................................... 144
3. Chicago, Illinois .............................................................................................. 144
4. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania............................................................................. 145
5. Miami, Florida ................................................................................................. 145
6. Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas ............................................................................... 145
7. Boston, Massachusetts .................................................................................... 145
8. Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................... 145
9. Detroit, Michigan............................................................................................ 146
10. Houston, Texas ............................................................................................ 146
11. Atlanta, Georgia ........................................................................................... 146
12. San Francisco, California............................................................................. 147
13. Phoenix, Arizona ......................................................................................... 147
14. Seattle, Washington .................................................................................... 147
15. San Diego, California ................................................................................... 148
16. Minneapolis, Minnesota ............................................................................. 148
17. Cleveland, Ohio ........................................................................................... 148
18. St. Louis, Missouri ....................................................................................... 149
19. Baltimore, Maryland.................................................................................... 149
20. Tampa, Florida............................................................................................. 149
21. Denver, Colorado ........................................................................................ 150
22. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ............................................................................ 150
23. Portland, Oregon ......................................................................................... 150
24. San Jose, California ....................................................................................... 151
25. Riverside, California ..................................................................................... 151
26. Cincinnati, Ohio ........................................................................................... 151
27. Virginia Beach, Virginia ...............................................................................152
vii
28. Sacramento, California .................................................................................152
29. Kansas City, Missouri ...................................................................................152
30. San Antonio, Texas .......................................................................................152
31. Las Vegas, Nevada ........................................................................................ 153
32. Milwaukee, Wisconsin ................................................................................. 153
33. Indianapolis, Indiana ................................................................................... 153
34. Providence, Rhode Island ........................................................................... 154
35. Orlando, Florida .......................................................................................... 154
36. Columbus, Ohio .......................................................................................... 154
37. New Orleans, Louisiana ............................................................................... 155
38. Buffalo, New York ......................................................................................... 155
39. Memphis, Tennessee .................................................................................... 155
40. Austin, Texas ............................................................................................... 156
41. Bridgeport, Connecticut.............................................................................. 156
42. Salt Lake City, Utah ..................................................................................... 156
43. Jacksonville, Florida .....................................................................................157
44. Louisville, Kentucky .....................................................................................157
45. Hartford, Connecticut ..................................................................................157
46. Richmond, Virginia ..................................................................................... 158
47. Charlotte, North Carolina ........................................................................... 158
48. Nashville, Tennessee ................................................................................... 158
49. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ......................................................................... 159
50. Tucson, Arizona........................................................................................... 159
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Percent Use, Per Device, of Total Consumption ......................................... 16
Figure 2: Consumption Of Los Angeles, Per Capita .................................................. 36
Figure 3: Consumption Patterns of Different Sites in Los Angeles ........................... 37
Figure 4: Hard & Operating Costs, Per System, and Site in Los Angeles ................. 38
Figure 5: Payback Period, in Years, in Los Angeles .................................................... 38
Figure 6: Payback Period Chart for Los Angeles ........................................................ 39
Figure 7: Cost of Greywater vs Municipal Water Rate for Los Angeles ................... 40
Figure 8: Consumption of Phoenix, Per Capita ......................................................... 41
Figure 9: Consumption Patterns of Different Sites in Phoenix ................................. 41
Figure 10: Hard & Operating Costs, Per System, and Site in Phoenix ......................42
Figure 11: Payback Period, in Years, in Phoenix .........................................................42
Figure 12: Payback Period Chart for Phoenix ............................................................. 43
Figure 13: Cost of Greywater vs Municipal Water Rate for Phoenix ......................... 43
Figure 14: Consumption of Nashville, Per Capita ..................................................... 44
Figure 15: Consumption Patterns of Different Sites in Nashville .............................. 45
Figure 16: Hard & Operating Costs, Per System and Site in Nashville ..................... 45
Figure 17: Payback Period, in Years, in Nashville ...................................................... 46
Figure 18: Payback Period Chart for Nashville .......................................................... 46
Figure 19: Cost of Greywater vs Municipal Water Rate for Nashville .......................47
Figure 20: Ranked Payback Periods, Lowest to Highest............................................58
ix
ABSTRACT
This thesis examines the feasibility of greywater systems under various conditions
in order to understand optimal circumstances for greywater system instillation
and, in turn, site sustainability. The study begins by analyzing historical and
modern approaches to greywater such that successful methods can be
implemented into present day sustainable design. Current issues pertaining to
greywater such as health concerns and overcoming public opposition to recycling
water are discussed in order to better design integrated greywater systems that will
not be encountered with a negative perspective. Furthermore, sustainability
programs such as LEED and Sustainable Sites are examined for implementation of
water sustainable site design and if greywater systems are being incentivized by
these programs. Water use is dissected into commercial and residential use in
order to typify sites and identify consumption patterns in order to generalize a
site’s feasibility for greywater system implementation. This data is used to
establish an algorithm which quantifies a site’s feasibility for a greywater system in
the form of a payback period. Other variables include the amount of rainfall and
precipitation, utility data such as water, sewage, and electric rates, and typical user
consumption. Four different system types- Membrane Bioreactor, Rotary
Biocontactor, Alternating Intermittent Recirculating Reactor, and Brac- are
examined and implemented into the modeling process to understand how system
demands, based on the given variables, impact system feasibility. Trends and
x
relationships are identified which establish general patterns in model output,
including quantified metrics of greywater system variables. Embedded costs and
benefits to current infrastructure are discussed to properly understand the true
price of the utilities consumed to provide for daily water consumption.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
When the United States started to industrialize its infrastructure, materials and
labor were readily available and cost of energy was low, as was the cost of the land
being developed. However, present-day infrastructure is in dire need of repair and
maintenance at an unsustainable rate. Crises such as this provide opportunities to
critically examine the current model of planning, zoning, design, and construction
and look to both historically successful models and designs that yield a new hope
for tomorrow. One of the most vital branches of infrastructure, water and sewage,
is critically examined in this thesis and a drastic change is proposed: reusing and
recycling water, otherwise known as greywater, instead of treating and dumping it.
The Language of Greywater
Greywater is a broad term for water that has been used, but does not contain fecal
or biologically degradable waste matter. Household sources for greywater include
sinks, showers, dish washers (on certain cycles), washing machines, and other
miscellaneous faucets. Within a commercial or office environment, sources for
greywater expand to include ice machines, cooling towers, and water used for
sanitary purposes. Furthermore, greywater typically encompasses captured
rainwater.
Purplewater is defined as reclaimed waste water that has been partially treated but
is not potable or suitable for human contact.
2
Blackwater is defined as untreated waste water containing fecal or waste matter
and needs to be properly treated to not threaten public health.
For most residential sites, the majority of water which flows out of a site is
greywater, and therefore has a huge potential to be reclaimed and reused. Office
outflow depends on user type and office use. Regardless of the source, greywater
contains particulates, contaminants, and other constituents that are undesirable.
These may consist of soaps, biological debris such as hair, skin, and grease,
cosmetic and hygienic products such as toothpaste and mouthwash, and chemical
contaminants like bleach or antiseptics. In some cases, organic content like food
particulate or bacteria may contaminate the greywater supply.
1
Depending on the
source and storage method, untreated greywater could pose a threat to public
health. However, with either proper filtration or precautions taken to ensure a lack
of direct human contact, greywater systems can substantially reduce domestic
water consumption: as much as 50%.
2
Thus, it is of great importance to fully
assess a greywater system and properly tailor the precautionary measures needed
to store, deliver, and re-use greywater in a safe and effective manner.
Levels of Greywater
Within the realm of greywater, there is no broadly accepted classification based on
levels of particulate or solute concentration; the concentration or amount of a
certain additive can vary greatly depending on the source of the greywater, the
3
time of day, and the season. Some parameters used to describe greywater are:
3 4 5
1. Five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD
5
)
2. Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
3. Total organic carbon (TOC)
4. Total suspended solids (TSS)
5. Total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
6. Fat, oil, and grease content (FOG)
7. Nitrogen concentration
8. Phosphate concentration
9. pH
10. Total coliforms
11. E. Coli concentration
12. Concentration of various nutrients such as zinc or sodium
These parameters are significant because water must remain within a reasonable
limit for each parameter if the water is to be reused on site, infiltrated into
groundwater, or returned into a larger stream of freshwater. Some parameters
suggest that greywater would be best used for irrigation where nutrients and
particulates can be used as fertilizer for the soil in which plants grow. However,
other parameters define unhealthy boundaries, which could kill vegetation or
expose users to disease upon contact. These parameters are extremely important
4
to examine when designing a greywater system, but are complex and must be
balanced in order to have safe, or at least usable, greywater. Unfortunately, due to
the specificity of knowledge and experience that proper assessment of these
parameters entails, greywater system installation and review must be a
multidisciplinary effort. Especially within the realm of building science, the
specific parameters required for a project will need to be designed by a
professional outside of the field. Thus, in this paper the parameters will not be
discussed at length; rather, this paper focuses more on external and internal
controls and variables which impact the factors used to assess feasibility of a
particular system.
Historical Approaches to Water Reuse
In order to fully understand the capabilities and restrictions that current practices
have imposed on greywater, it is beneficial to examine previous cultures’ uses of
greywater and what successes, as well as failures, these societies have had.
Developing an understanding of a world confined by a lack of industrial
technology can lead to a deeper knowledge of practices which may be utilized in
passive and low-energy methods. Examining successful models and precedents
yield paths to future innovations and increase the rate of successful design.
5
Greek Practices with Water Reuse
Ancient Greece was unique among the great civilizations of the past because its
dense urban areas were not strategically located adjacent to large water sources.
Thus, in early years the towns relied heavily upon wells and springs while in later
years, systems of aqueducts and pipes were developed to import water from nearby
resources. Conserving water was of utmost importance since having enough water
at any given time was a delicate issue.
6
The typical lavatory in Greece used a very passive and low-tech solution in order to
reuse greywater and conserve natural resources while removing waste from the
site. Water would be collected from sinks and baths to manually flush the storage
tanks underneath the toilets. In larger sites, ducts ran from under kitchens and
bathrooms to lavatory to waste ditches, using the sink and bath water to naturally
wash away sewage.
7
Practices in Yemen with Water Reuse
In Yemen, an Islamic country, the mosques have traditionally drawn water from
wells for ablution and bathing. In order to keep the pools hygienic, the water
would be emptied about twice per week. This greywater would be directed into
irrigation channels throughout local farms and neighborhood gardens. In this case
greywater was used to maintain social equity while providing an aspect of cultural
and religious ceremony.
8
6
Modern Approaches to Water Reuse
Many present-day societies are effectively reusing greywater throughout the world.
It is invaluable to understand the legislation and systems used to recycle greywater
in order to develop a firm grasp on greywater systems design as well as see the
potential areas for innovation. All of the approaches studied have been
implemented or remodeled after 1990.
Singapore
The island nation of Singapore, with an approximate size of 275 mi
2
hosting a
population of over 4.5 million people in 2000 and nearly 5.0 million in 2011, is a
country that understands the need for sustainable water systems. Before
implementing any sort of greywater approach, Singapore relied on reservoirs and
imported water from Malaysia. During the 1970’s, Singapore started designing an
infrastructure which was sustainable and independent from other countries,
ultimately aiming to turn greywater into potable water. However, due to
technological and financial considerations, the plan was not implemented until
1998. Singapore’s current plan involves four “taps” for potable water: treated
reservoir and catchment water, imported water, desalinated water, and purified
greywater.
9
By 2000, the first plant to reclaim greywater, dubbed NEWater, was
completed.
10
7
Bermuda
Similar to Singapore, Bermuda is forced to rely upon greywater for the majority of
its freshwater. The near 60 inches of annual rainfall provides a sufficient amount of
water.
11
Perhaps surprising for such a developed nation, Bermuda legally doesn’t
enforce a strict legislation upon greywater use and filtration. Requirements include
proper painting and paint type on basins, gutters, and roofs.
12
Wickstead
compares the maintenance of greywater systems in Bermuda akin to maintenance
of vehicles in America: at the end of every set period, it is of the best interest to the
user and owner to service the system.
Current Issues Pertaining to Greywater
Health Issues
A majority of legislation concerning greywater comes from a concern for public
health. Greywater can contain a broad range of particulate and bacteria if not
properly filtered, or could harm the public if proper barriers are not set up
between the water and user.
Issues Pertaining to Greywater in Residential Spaces
The scope of issues concerning residential reuse of water is extensive due to the
large number of uses that greywater can be used within the site. The most
common uses for greywater are to cycle used water into a filtration chamber and
then into an irrigation network to distribute water to lawns and gardens. In these
8
cases, the prevalent concerns include biological and chemical hazards that could
affect the plants they are hydrating. Most greywater irrigation systems, in order to
keep users out of contact with the actual greywater supply, are subterranean;
therefore, greywater irrigation systems have minimal concerns for human contact.
Water primarily comes from showers, dish washers, and washing machines, which
contains a high amount of nutrients and chemicals beneficial for the growth of
vegetation. Another common use for greywater in a residential site is to reuse sink
and shower water for the flushing of toilets. These systems can be much more
localized than irrigation systems, as the network is no more than a few feet in most
cases. As such, there is no human contact with the greywater outside of the spray
dispersed into the air from flushing a toilet. The largest concern in these smaller
systems pertains to the stagnation of greywater and the subsequent degradation of
water quality as bacteria may blossom or chemicals may react or precipitate out
into the water storage. As such, most systems do not allow the greywater to be
stored in the tank.
Issues Pertaining to Greywater in Commercial Spaces
As previously discussed, one main concern is the stagnation of water stored in
toilet tanks used for flushing. In a commercial or office building, however, the
water used for flushing can be stored in a more central tank and distributed to the
toilets as needed, and purification and filtration can occur before and in this
9
central storage tank. The main concern in this process, is how greywater effects
pipes through excessive corrosion due to the nutrients in the flow, or can cause
buildup due to the organic and inorganic matter causing plaque in the pipes. Also,
when greywater is used in cooling towers, airborne illnesses can be much more
prevalent due to the water containing nutrients beneficial to organic growth.
Specifically, one major concern is the growth of Legionella, among other
waterborne bacteria that are easily inhaled after diffused from a cooling tower.
13
Sustainability Programs and Greywater
There are several certification programs currently focused on sustainable design.
By understanding the positions these programs have towards greywater and water
reuse, it is easy to understand the current perception and motivation for
sustainable water design from the group most likely to incorporate a system.
LEED Neighborhood
In LEED ND 2009, most discussion about water pertains to preserving and
maintaining existing accessibility to bodies of water.
14
In the Smart Location and
Linkage category, one prerequisite concerns the protection of current wetlands,
and three credits focus on the protection, conservation, and restoration of
wetlands and bodies of water near or on site. However, none of these address how
a site’s water consumption impacts the bodies of water and wetlands around the
site. Within the Green Infrastructure & Buildings category, one prerequisite
10
ensures that buildings use low-flow fixtures and that buildings draw less water
than the current baseline. One point further addresses plumbing devices that
reduce water consumption, while another point rewards sites that reduce
landscape water consumption from a midsummer baseline. Another point
addresses stormwater management, diverting rainwater away from sewers and
instead reusing it on site. Only one credit, for a maximum of two points, directly
rewards sites with a water reuse system that replaces potable water with
wastewater.
In this brief analysis of LEED ND, only eleven of the 110 total points possible
address water use, with two specifically addressing reusing wastewater in place of
potable water. All in all, it would be very easy to circumvent any sort of water
recycling system in the 2009 LEED ND design guideline.
Sustainable Sites
The Sustainable Sites Initiative’s 2009 guidelines, similar to LEED’s, award points
toward certification of a site. Out of 250 points, a minimum of 100 points are
required for the lowest SSI certification. 44 points are available through the Water
Site Design category.
15
The prerequisite for this category is reducing potable water
demand for irrigation and vegetation by 50% from a calculated baseline. Further
points are awarded for further reduction. A total of 22 points are focused on water
reused, and either directly or indirectly associated with greywater systems.
11
Water Systems in Buildings
It is important to understand basic input/output flows of a building before systems
are analyzed. This breakdown is essential to recognize where innovation can occur
and what impact changes will have in proposed models.
Commercial and Office Sites
Non-residential sites consume and produce different flows of water than
residential sites, per capita, of potable water, and greywater/blackwater
respectively. All data and figures are based off of the most conservative 2012
standards in sustainability-geared programs such as LEED, Energy Star, etc.
Toilets and Urinals
United States codes mandate that toilets use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush
and urinals use no more than 1.0 gallons per flush. Dual flush toilets shall have no
more than a 1.6 gallons per flush at full flush and 1.1 gallons per flush at reduced
flush, statistically averaging less than 1.28 gallons per flush over the product
lifespan.
16
High efficiency toilets shall use no more than 1.28 gallons per flush
(offering a 20% improvement from the baseline) and high efficiency urinals shall
use no more than 0.5 gallons per flush, under the EPA WaterSense program.
17
However, there are waterless urinals commercially available. For the purposes of
this thesis, toilets shall be assumed to use 1.28 gallons per flush and urinals are
waterless.
12
Sinks and Other Faucets
Under LEED standards, which are based on ASME standard A112.18.1, bathroom
faucets shall flow at 0.5 gallons per minute. Faucets should not include proximity
or infrared sensors that activate a timer because statistically waste more water
than they save. In kitchen appliances, the flow rate shall be 1.6 gallons per minute
according to LEED standards. While often users select a flow rate lower than the
maximum 1.6 gpm, the maximum flow is used for calculations.
Irrigation, Fountains, and Landscaping
Some sites in the urban landscape and nearly every site in a suburban or rural
setting require water consumption for irrigation or landscaping. The exact amount
of consumption depends on level of vegetation and element design, amount of
rainfall, and amount of vegetation requiring irrigation.
Cooling Towers
In smaller commercial spaces- typically under 10,000 ft
2
- the environment is
usually conditioned using packaged units rather than a cooling tower.
18
However,
in larger spaces, central systems with cooling towers are more commonly used to
condition the interior space. Cooling towers consume large amounts of water and
in some cases produce effluent containing a high amount of dissolved solids and
nutrients.
13
Other Sources
As more buildings shift to a LEED oriented design, showers are being installed in
commercial buildings and in office spaces. In the coming years, these showers may
add a significant amount of water to a commercial building’s effluent.
Ice machines are also a source of consumption within office buildings but this
amount of consumption is assumed to be minimal.
Various studies cite a major source of water consumption being leaks. However, in
this study, best practices are assumed and no water is lost due to leaks. In some
sites it might be necessary to understand how much water is being lost to leakage
in order to properly perform an analysis, but in these cases there is no
generalization pertaining to how much water is lost over a given amount of time.
Every case is unique.
Residential Sites
Unlike commercial buildings, residential sites consume and release a consistent
amount of water, per user, over a given time period. The following is a breakdown
of how a residential site typically consumes water.
Toilets and Urinals
As in commercial spaces, toilets are assumed to have an average of 1.28 gallons per
flush and urinals are waterless. The average person flushes 5.05 times per day
14
when at home according to REUW, resulting in a net consumption of 6.464 gallons
per capita per day at home.
Sinks and Faucets
Unlike the commercial minimum, residential spaces normally have a maximum
faucet flow of 2.2 gallons per minute in a sink under LEED standards. Other
faucets have a flow rate of 1.5 gallons per minute. Users turn on a sink faucet for an
average of 8.1 minutes per day and open miscellaneous faucets on average for 1.0
minute per day.
Showers and Baths
Under WaterSense standards, showers shall flow at 2.0 gallons per minute and the
average user showers for 8.2 minutes at an occurrence of 0.75, meaning that every
three out of four days the average resident showers, resulting in a net consumption
of 12.3 gallons per capita per day.
Dishwashers
Dishwashers use an average of 4.25 gallons per use per user at an occurrence of 0.1,
resulting in a net use of 0.425 gallons per user per day.
Washing Machines
Clothes washers use 40.9 gallons per use per capita at an occurrence of 0.37,
resulting in a net consumption of 15.133 gallons per user per day.
15
Landscaping and Irrigation
The typical American household uses 100.8 gallons per person per day for outdoor
purposes, including landscaping, irrigation, and water for swimming pools. This
number will vary greatly for the urban user, as he will not have such demands as
the suburban or rural resident.
Other Sources
Similar to commercial spaces, best practices are assumed for residential units and
no water is lost due to leaks.
Net Water Inflow and Outflow of Residential Spaces
Figure 1, below, shows the summarized breakdown of total consumption in a
residential site. In a site without greywater, 100% of water that is used on site flows
from municipal source to municipal waste. In a site that has greywater, it is
possible to recycle water from sources that do not add fecal or biological content,
whose numbers are listed in blue in Figure 1.
16
Figure 1: Percent Use, Per Device, of Total Consumption
Showers 19.5%
Clothes Washers 22.1%
Toilets 18.0%
Dishwashers 1.5%
Baths 2.7%
Leaks 8.8%
Faucets 23.9%
Other Domestic Uses 3.4%
17
CHAPTER 2: PREVIOUS WORKS AND CASE STUDIES
Under the adage of “standing on the shoulders of giants,” it is important to have a
foundation of previous studies before beginning a new academic study.
Greywater and the Scale of Sites
A study conducted by Hadari in 2006 showed that
“on-site greywater reuse is a feasible solution for decreasing overall urban
water demand, not only from an environmental standpoint, but also from
economic profitability under typical conditions.”
19
The study estimated that the cost of an adequate greywater system is a small
percentage of the total building cost for a multistory building. While the detailed
conclusions found were dependent on market rates of water and sewage charges,
the general result can be considered reliable: it is cost effective to implement a
greywater system on a mid- to large-scale project, given the proper system.
Hadari examined the possibility of using greywater only from certain sources due
to the fact that greywater consumption is less than its production; in other words,
a site produces more greywater than it could possibly use internally. This lower
level of greywater, sourced from cleaner and more consistently clean appliances,
would require less filtration and be less of a hazard in its use. The two parties
studied within the paper are individual users of a building and its greywater
system(s), and the general public, implying that greywater systems impact more
than the people using, paying for, and maintaining the system. In his study, the
18
system solely delivered treated greywater, solely from showers and hand washing
sinks, to toilet tanks via a filtration and purification system in multifamily
residences. The two systems analyzed are membrane bioreactors and rotating
biological contractors. Costs considered included hard costs of the systems,
subsequent plumbing, chemical treatment units, and storage tanks, and soft costs
such as operation and maintenance. Financial benefits were also calculated.
Ultimately Hadari argues that the cost of a system is insignificant compared to the
cost of the rest of the project and return on investment (ROI) is significantly
impacted by number of users and the cost of utilities. Regardless, greywater
systems should be implemented because they are financially sustainable according
to Hadari.
Because of the impact of cost and size of the site, it is necessary to return to
Hadari’s methods and analyze greywater systems under the market and conditions
of 2012, possibly in various climates. The scale of site is very important in
determining feasibility and, as such, if a smaller site is determined financially and
physically sustainable for greywater reuse the results could have ramifications on a
substantial scale, both environmentally and socially.
Another study conducted by Memon, et al. corroborates Hadari’s claims that using
greywater for some activities is cost effective especially over a period of time.
Memon studied only the impact of using greywater for toilet flushing and found
19
significant energy, water, and financial savings over the lifespan of a greywater
reuse system for both small and mid-sized sites. Memon chose to evaluate cost
using a whole-life cost model, which considers all costs over the lifespan of the
system, resulting in a net annual cost, rather than breaking down each cost and
benefit per quarter or month and translating that cost into a present day value or
future value. This method is beneficial because it allows average annual costs to be
directly compared to average annual savings through water, energy, and sewage
savings.
Sustainability of Greywater Reuse
That greywater reuse generates financial and environmental benefits appears
obvious; however, more rigorous modeling methods are required to corroborate
this intuition. Al-Jayyousi argues that due to the large range of parameters within
greywater produced on site, it is hard to develop a single treatment method that
adequately prepares the greywater to be reused immediately. He then discusses
two-stage systems that consist of rudimentary filtration alongside a chemical
filtration as being a simple treatment system that makes greywater both less turbid
and safer for use in irrigation, but the filtration often requires maintenance which
hinders the financial feasibility of the system. Consequently, biologically treated
systems are presented as an alternative or complement to two-stage systems.
Specifically, membrane bioreactors and biologically aerated filters, while not
20
directly addressing the physical filtration of hazardous contaminants or turbidity
of the water, are a viable option for larger scale sites’ landscaping while requiring
less maintenance than other systems. Al-Jayyousi concludes that greywater is most
suited for irrigation and addressing water needs within a landscape, especially in
arid and semi-arid climates.
20
While Al-Jayyousi raises several valid points, he
does not consider two important factors: urban areas, and climates which receive a
significant amount of rainfall and resulting in landscaping that is not wholly
dependent on greywater consumption. Urban areas do not need as much water for
landscaping and thus greywater can be used in other areas; it is these areas which
must be examined. However, when greywater is used off-site or for purposes
potentially involving more human contact, the greywater must be filtered more
extensively and thus requires a more compounded system than a simple two-phase
or biological treatment system, which impacts cost and return on investment.
Matos, et al, found that even when implementing a sorted greywater system, in
this case, two streams of greywater with the only separation factor being source,
there is still a large degree of variability within parameters. By removing greywater
from kitchens and laundry rooms, sources which vary greatly due to household
habits, a much more predictable stream can be established within a site, in regards
to both quantity and quality. The resultant water can be used, according to
Marcos, for toilet flushing, car washing, and to decrease clean water demand for
21
irrigation- which even when consuming 100% of site-produced greywater, still
would require tap water for some activities when greywater use would be more
suitable due to the water demand of landscaping. In this study, the word “urban”
does not mean high-density neighborhoods but rather developed areas with a
municipal water supply connected to several appliances. Matos does not consider
situations in urban cases where landscaping is less of a demand and instead sees
greywater as a way to alleviate demand, not sustainably supply an alternative to
tap water consumption for activities not demanding pure water.
21
This study went
significant lengths to define two levels of greywater and their subsequent
parameters but ultimately found that the degree of variability was too high to
make any broad claims for a single stream of water. Expectedly, in some cases the
entire stream (labeled Total Grey Water) was just as usable as the stream only
from selected sources; contaminants in grey water are not consistently present or
always present in unsafe amounts. However, it might be best to selectively choose
inputs into a greywater system to prevent certain filtering methods required to
sanitize particulates only from certain sources.
In 1999, a study conducted by Nolde concluded that,
“It should be possible in the future to have a dual water system in
households with two water qualities. The first a high quality drinking water
originating primarily from natural water resources, and a second water
quality for all other uses. This should bring with it an environmental relief
on both the water and energy sectors.”
22
22
which we are starting to see come to fruition. In various cities around the world,
this exact scenario is happening, although on different levels and with different
levels of environmental and economic efficiency.
Friedler also studied how different streams contribute contaminants in greywater.
Testing 150 samples in 20 parameters, he isolated what appliances are the source of
various contaminants, especially relative to the amount of greywater they produce.
Through this he was able to concretely say which streams should be disconnected
from a greywater system and should be channeled as blackwater. Indeed the
highest pollutants and hazardous contaminants came from the washing machine,
dishwasher, and kitchen sink, while bath and shower discharge contained the
majority of fecal coliform. Most interestingly, Friedler found that the first two
cycles of a dishwasher (approximately 60% of the water from the appliance)
contributed the vast majority of pollutants, while the remaining cycles were mostly
clean water. Sinks were found to be the “least polluting” of the appliances
examined but also only contributed 15% of the entire greywater stream. Ultimately
Friedler suggests diverting streams from the kitchen sink and the initial washes
from the dishwasher and washing machine, leaving approximately 65% of the
original greywater supply while drastically reducing the contaminants and need for
filtering.
23
On the other hand, combining all greywater flows into the same channel widens
the breadth of dissolved nutrients and particulates, allowing a more stable and
predictable biological filtration process to be used. Especially in larger scale
systems, it is more feasible to use a biological filtration process to not only remove
dissolved solids and contaminants but also replenish the water’s lifespan and
ability to not degrade. A study by Jefferson et al. implied that with larger systems
comes a two-fold bonus of being less expensive and being more able to process a
broader range of parameters ensuring higher quality greywater.
23
While this study
does sufficiently address concerns of financial feasibility relative to system size as
well as the end result of greywater quality from said system, it does not consider
legislation of domestic, community (neighborhood sized), and municipal (city-
wide) systems, nor does it talk of the ultimate cost of installation in community
and municipal areas for a greywater system. Greywater, because it is potentially
hazardous, might be better managed on a personal or smaller scale for both safety
and legislation behind the issue. While larger systems are much more financially
feasible, according to Jefferson, they do present an issue concerning maintenance
and liability.
24
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS
This study focuses on two different methods- physical feasibility and economic
feasibility- to model and analyze greywater system feasibility in urban zones. This
chapter defines the process and methods used to conduct the study.
The modeling process consisted of gathering data on each variable and constant,
finding the mathematical relationship between each factor, and establishing a
solution for each set of variables. Most data was able to be found through primary
sources, such as reports and published materials, and was verified through
secondary or tertiary sources such as other scholarly work or published
government findings.
Site Variables and Constants
Each part of the study includes a set of variables and constants which are used to
determine the feasibility of a greywater system within a specific site. Per system,
the constants include the flow rate and production volume parameters of usable
water, as well as hard and soft costs, including maintenance and material costs. Per
city, constants include rainfall, subsidies available, and present day cost of utilities.
Per site, constants include lot size. Variables include number of users, as well as
choice of system, city, and site. By performing a multivariable analysis, it is
possible to determine what scale of site is appropriate for a greywater system in
25
each city, or conversely, which cities are appropriate for a specific greywater
system given a scale of site.
Systems Studied
For this study, four different types of systems were implemented into the model:
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR), Rotating Biological Contractor (RBC), Brac systems,
and a new low-cost technology called Alternating Intermittent Recirculating
Reactor (AIRR). Reverse Osmosis (RO) filters were considered, but ultimately not
integrated into the simulation because no consistent data was found. All three
systems are self-contained and enclosed. A myriad of other systems are capable of
fulfilling the requirements of a greywater filtration system, but these three systems
were applied to the simulation to understand how different system factors impact
greywater system metrics.
MBR Systems
Because the MBR system can handle a high volume of dissolved solids, untreated
water can enter the system. Precipitates will exit the solution upon entering a flow
regulation chamber, which lets solids settle and the liquid to be filtered. The actual
filtration occurs in a two-step process, first passing the water through a biological
filter where bacteria and enzymes breakdown organic content in the water and
then onto a physical membrane which separates water from solute. However, there
is still a need for chemical disinfection after the water has been filtered. Once
26
disinfected, typically with a chlorine-based treatment, the water is capable of being
stored or used.
This system has a very small footprint relative to a treatment plant and is capable
of producing high-quality water. However, it does require maintenance to clean
the membranes and to chemically treat the water, as well as require a constant
power source. Power consumption is dependent on pump size and rate. The higher
quantity of hard to breakdown solutes, such as soaps and detergents, require a
longer filtration time to have the sludge react with the particulate.
24
RBC Systems
These systems have been in existence the longest of the four being studied and
they reliably filter water. RBC effluent is at the same quality as MBR effluent,
across the market.
19
Similar to MBR units, water with a high amount of dissolved
solids can enter the system, as the first basin settles out most large particulates.
Then, a biological filter breaks down organic content and extracts sludge from the
effluent, followed by another clarifying biological filter that removes any
remaining solids and solvent from the water. The water is then treated with a
disinfectant such as chlorine, stored, and reused.
25
RBC systems typically have the largest footprint of the four systems, but can be
partially or fully subterranean. Like MRB systems, RBC filtration setups require a
27
constant power source to filter greywater, although power demands are dependent
on the size of system.
AIRR Systems
Although there are significantly fewer AIRR systems currently built, there is far
greater convergence in data for performance, cost, and availability of systems
compared to other systems. Ultimately the AIRR system aims to reproduce the
natural filtration systems of the earth and water table and as such produces an
extremely clean effluent. The systems are typically larger than MRB but smaller
than RBC systems, and can be subterranean or above ground, typically in their
own shed or building.
Unlike other systems, water needs to be separated from most solid material before
entering the system, similarly to what is required for a septic tank. Water is then
dosed into a filtration bed which both physically and biologically removes
contaminant from the water supply. The water is then sprinkled over another
treatment bed, which after UV filtration, is ready for reuse.
These systems require very little maintenance as the beds are self-regulating and
there are no traditional filters to clean. Furthermore there is little electrical
consumption, and because the AIRR relies on an intermittent flow, there is no
constant power demand.
26
28
Brac Systems
Brac systems, like AIRR systems, are commercially available greywater processing
and filtration units. The systems are self-contained and have reliable, published
figures for energy consumption and water production. While the technical
filtration process is not readily available for every system, the concept of every
system is the same: greywater is pumped through the system and through physical
and chemical filtration and water that can be used for irrigation and flushing
toilets enters a storage tank. The water is not meant to be drinkable but is safe
enough to use for non-vital purposes.
Denver Case Study for Site Usage
Located in the high plains of Colorado, Denver is in a semi-arid climate that
receives little precipitation annually. Citizens tend to use more in indoor
residential water consumption at 87 gallons per capita per day.
27
Water
consumption rates are dependent on property type and how much water is
consumed monthly, as Denver Water uses a block rate method to charge
customers. Assuming 87 gallons per capita per day, a typical four person home
remains in the lowest block rate. Multifamily users are charged at a different scale
but the basis remains: typical water use establishes use at the lowest block rate.
Wastewater rates are split into storm and sewer flows, where storm water is an
annual charge dependent on property size, not consumption. Sewer contribution
29
charges could not be specifically found, but a monthly price for 5000 gallons was
found and subsequently converted into a price per gallon rate for use in the
matrix.
General Notes
Where rates were dependent on meter size, a 5/8” meter was selected. This meter
is the most common for residential units, indicative of residential usage and fees
associated with water usage.
When rates were dependent on monthly consumption, the rates were taken from
the tier of average monthly consumption in a given city.
Data recorded is in most cases for proposed 2012 rates. When those rates were not
available, current rates for 2011 were used. If that data was not readily available,
2010 data was used. Some electric rates were selected from peak summer months.
In cities with privatized water, electric, or wastewater utilities, an average of
available was calculated as used for rates for each respective utility.
In both RBC and MBR systems, UV disinfection can be implemented but only for
larger scale systems, often only feasible for high-rise volumes and above.
19
Cost of greywater-only plumbing was assumed to be approximately the same as
typical plumbing costs per square foot, thus doubling the cost of plumbing systems
30
in a building. For the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that plumbing,
mean per square foot of the site, costs $4.53.
28
Included in this estimate is:
“All sanitary, service, laboratory and special institutional fixtures.
Wastes, soil pipes and vents to connections immediately (within 5
feet) outside the building.
Hot and cold water, gas, vacuum, special gases and fuel piping
systems within the building.
Water treatment, storage and circulation, including hot water
generation, within the building.
Roof and floor drains and piping.
Subsurface drainage below the building and pumps for water or
sewage ejection.
Wet and dry fire stand pipes.”
as quoted from the 2003 report by Libris Design Project.
28
While this assumption
may be high or low for specific cases, it generally allows for an accurate model to
be made.
Calculation Algorithm
This modeling process is based on an algorithm which requires defined variables
to be input in order to produce a quantified metric of feasibility- in this case,
payback period. Given a particular city, the variables to initially calculate feasibility
are: (1) the average indoor residential water consumption per capita in
gal/person/day, (2) average annual rainfall in in/year, (3) utility data including
31
electricity rate in USD/kWh, water rate in USD/gal, and sewage rate in USD/gal.
This data is then computed into a matrix of assumed occupant and site variables
which outputs generalized site consumption data.
Relationships between both hard cost and operational cost for each greywater
system size were determined based on published system figures. These
relationships were then integrated with the results of the consumption data to
output real costs per site/system, which was used to determine site payback
period. Hard costs included system cost and costs for plumbing. Operation costs
include an approximate cost of disinfection of treated water, and electricity
demanded by the system. Other costs, dependent on system use and demands,
include filter replacement and regular system maintenance, but were not
calculated due to the inconsistent and aperiodic nature of the costs.
Payback period was then determined by calculating the dollars saved, compared to
not implementing a greywater system, and then evaluating how long it would take
for a system to return its investment based on a system’s hard and operational
costs. In short, the formula can be summarized by the following equation:
−
which approximates the amount of time it takes for a system to return its
investment. Of course, this modeling method does not include any interest or
32
change to the economy, nor does it allow for changes in utility consumption rates.
The results of this model are not intended to be used for economic modeling but
instead for use in decisions concerning greywater systems on a particular site.
33
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Through collection of data and determining relationships between certain
variables, a return on investment, given no interest, was calculated for each city,
site size, and system type.
Results are sorted by matrix according to city, as shown in Appendix A. The
columns are sorted by site size, in terms of how many users are on each site. Each
user is allotted 250 ft
2
when calculating square footage of a building. Each row is
for a different system type. Building footprint is as listed for each site.
Trends and Relationships of Data
For MRB systems, the following relationships were used:
19
Electric Demand (kWh) = 1.5 kWh/m3
Cost (USD) = 18,853 + 17,945 * Ln (size, m
3
). (R² = 0.868)
For RBC systems, the following relationships were used:
19
Electric Demand (kWh) = 42.2 * e
(0.1046-(size, m3))
. (R2 =0.991)
Cost (USD) = 3,590 * (size, m
3
)
0.6776
. (R² = 0.978)
For AIRR systems, the following relationships were determined:
Electric Demand (kWh) = y = -3E-08(size, GPD)
2
+ 0.0018(size, GPD) + 2.4521.
(R
2
=0.8248)
34
Cost (USD) = 5.1441 (size, GPD)
+
2806.8 if tank size is smaller than 7500 gallons
(R² = 0.9913)
Cost (USD) = 2.013(size, GPD)
+
16686 if tank size is larger than 7500 gallons (R² =
0.9944)
For Brac systems, the following relationships were determined:
Electric Demand (kWh) = -6E-08(size, GPD)
2
+ 0097(size, GPD) - 0.3894.
(R
2
=0.9999)
Cost (USD) = 0.0129(size, GPD)
2
+ 18(size, GPD)
+
14150 if tank size is smaller than
792 gallons (R² = 0.9954)
Cost (USD) = 6.3182(size, GPD)
+
20680 if tank size is larger than 792 gallons (R² =
0.9941)
Three Example Cases of Data Collection
While data was collected and analyses were conducted for 49 of the most
populated urban centers in the United States, only three cases will be examined.
These three cases typify the three types of cities in terms of water accessibility: a
coastal city with no major river or lake, an inland city with no major river or lake,
and a city with access to a river or lake. The coastal city is Los Angeles, which relies
on importing most of its water from neighboring regions, but also has access to
desalination. The inland city is Phoenix, which like Los Angeles imports most of its
35
water supply but does not have access to an ocean. Finally, Nashville represents
the “river city,” pulling almost all of its water from the river running through the
city, and dumping all processed waste water downstream. Almost every major city
in America can be categorized in one of these typologies.
Los Angeles
The city of Los Angeles is somewhat of an anomaly is several aspects: although it is
coastal, there is only a small amount of freshwater available within city limits, the
city is one of the worst cases of urban sprawl in America and therefore has a
unique water delivery infrastructure, and lastly, due to its size, it requires large
amounts of water to be imported. Los Angeles is a semi-arid climate, as a whole,
with access to groundwater, river water, and has potential for desalination if
needed. Over half of all Americans live within 50 miles of the coast, which
indicates the relevancy of modeling water consumption in a city like Los Angeles.
29
Figure 2, below, models the typical interior water consumption for a single
residential user per day. This figure also shows rainwater received annually, and
per square foot, in Los Angeles. These variables are the first needed to calculate
greywater system feasibility.
36
Figure 2: Consumption Of Los Angeles, Per Capita
Figure 3 transforms the variables from Figure 2 into usable data, per site. This table
shows how much greywater is taken (Greywater), how much water each site
consumes daily (Water Taken), and how much wastewater is generated in sites
that have no current greywater or water recycling system. Occupants lists the
number of users per site, while footprint defines the building footprint in units of
square feet. All other data is in terms of gallons per site per day.
Los Angeles, CA consumes 63.27
B3 gal/cap/day
Showers 19.5% 12.3
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.0
Toilets 18.0% 11.4
Dishwashers 1.5% 0.9
Baths 2.7% 1.7
Leaks 8.8% 5.6
Faucets 23.9% 15.1
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.2
Rainwater (in/year) 13.2
Rainwater (gal/day/sf) 0.0
37
Figure 3: Consumption Patterns of Different Sites in Los Angeles
Data from Figure 2 is then used to calculate hard and operating costs per system,
as shown in Figure 4. The hard costs are a one-time investment cost, and include
the system cost and cost of plumbing. Daily system operating costs include
disinfection costs, when applicable, and cost of utilities. The daily cost of utilities
with and without a greywater system is calculated, and the difference is found.
Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 49.3 148.0 1233.7 12336.7
Clothes Washers 55.9 167.8 1398.2 13981.6
Toilets 45.6 136.7 1138.8 11387.8
Dishwashers 3.8 11.4 94.9 949.0
Baths 6.8 20.5 170.8 1708.2
Leaks 22.3 66.8 556.7 5567.3
Faucets 60.5 181.4 1512.0 15120.4
Other 8.6 25.8 215.1 2151.0
Rainwater 22.5 45.1 67.6 90.2
Greywater 195.1 562.9 4382.3 43237.1
Water Taken 252.8 758.4 6320.2 63202.0
Wastewater 80.2 240.7 2005.5 20055.1
38
Figure 4: Hard & Operating Costs, Per System, and Site in Los Angeles
Finally, the calculations from Figure 4 are used to calculate the payback period, per
site and system, to quantitatively evaluate different systems’ feasibilities per site.
This table lists a system’s payback period, in years, for each site in a given city.
Figure 5: Payback Period, in Years, in Los Angeles
Of course, because this data is founded in formulas, not individual sets of datum, it
is simple to expand the calculation to several sites and densities, not just four
different typologies. Figure 6 visually shows the results from an expanded
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,340.58 19,292.16 138,599.92
BRAC 10,105.76 30,495.17 161,618.41
MBR 18,535.88 46,623.86 183,149.42
RBC 8,042.69 20,190.63 137,972.94
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 0.56 0.57 0.72
BRAC 0.23 0.72 5.70
MBR 0.20 0.59 4.57
RBC 0.13 0.37 2.84
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.31 3.82 30.33
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.35 7.05 58.72
Difference 1.04 3.23 28.40
1000
1,236,222.31
1,426,360.74
1,243,521.23
1,246,761.63
7.44
49.39
45.09
31.56
1000
300.39
587.24
286.85
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 48.02 19.94 13.72
BRAC 34.30 33.31 19.51
MBR 60.83 48.41 21.06
RBC 24.23 19.35 14.79
12.12
16.46
14.09
13.38
1000
39
calculation set for Los Angeles.
Figure 6: Payback Period Chart for Los Angeles
As the number of users increases, the payback period stabilizes between 13 and 16
years, under current economic conditions.
Figure 7, below, shows the cost of treated greywater in terms of dollars per 1,000
gallons, compared to the municipal rate for the same amount of water.
40
Figure 7: Cost of Greywater vs Municipal Water Rate for Los Angeles
Phoenix
Phoenix has little access to water outside of its allocated amount of snowpack and
river water. Yet despite this, the average person in Phoenix consumes far more
water than average for indoor purposes alone. Cities like Phoenix represent the
extreme scenarios where water crises are occurring both in the United States and
internationally. Thus, it is important to understand which systems and which site
conditions are ideal for greywater recycling.
4 12 100 1000
AIRR 2.88 1.02 0.16 0.17
BRAC 1.18 1.27 1.30 1.14
MBR 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04
RBC 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.73
Municipal Rate: 4.92
Water Cost (USD/1000 gal)
41
Figure 8 to Figure 12 illustrate the same type of data for Phoenix as was previously
shown for Los Angeles.
Figure 8: Consumption of Phoenix, Per Capita
Figure 9: Consumption Patterns of Different Sites in Phoenix
Phoenix, AZ consumes 115.00
B14 gal/cap/day
Showers 19.5% 22.4
Clothes Washers 22.1% 25.4
Toilets 18.0% 20.7
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.7
Baths 2.7% 3.1
Leaks 8.8% 10.1
Faucets 23.9% 27.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 3.9
Rainwater (in/year) 8.3
Rainwater (gal/day/sf) 0.0
Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 89.7 269.1 2242.5 22425.0
Clothes Washers 101.7 305.0 2541.5 25415.0
Toilets 82.8 248.4 2070.0 20700.0
Dishwashers 6.9 20.7 172.5 1725.0
Baths 12.4 37.3 310.5 3105.0
Leaks 40.5 121.4 1012.0 10120.0
Faucets 109.9 329.8 2748.5 27485.0
Other 15.6 46.9 391.0 3910.0
Rainwater 14.2 28.4 42.5 56.7
Greywater 327.9 969.5 7885.5 78486.7
Water Taken 459.5 1378.6 11488.5 114885.0
Wastewater 145.8 437.5 3645.5 36455.0
42
Figure 10: Hard & Operating Costs, Per System, and Site in Phoenix
Figure 11: Payback Period, in Years, in Phoenix
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 9,023.53 21,384.06 145,809.56
BRAC 13,669.03 40,395.56 183,752.33
MBR 27,858.49 56,391.43 193,702.11
RBC 9,283.78 22,870.38 149,756.84
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 0.78 0.81 1.23
BRAC 0.48 1.49 12.08
MBR 0.39 1.16 9.41
RBC 0.22 0.63 5.17
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.87 5.56 45.58
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 3.56 10.69 89.10
Difference 1.69 5.13 43.52
1000
1,307,179.73
1,649,074.68
1,254,232.39
1,303,312.14
84.97
88.40
93.66
65.56
1000
454.31
891.01
436.71
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 27.20 13.57 9.45
BRAC 30.97 30.43 16.01
MBR 58.77 38.91 15.56
RBC 17.26 13.93 10.70
10.18
12.97
10.02
9.62
1000
43
Figure 12: Payback Period Chart for Phoenix
Figure 13: Cost of Greywater vs Municipal Water Rate for Phoenix
Nashville
Lastly, Nashville is a “typical” American city, pulling almost all of its water from a
river running through the city. The usage statistics in Nashville are almost exactly
4 12 100 1000
AIRR 2.38 0.84 0.16 1.08
BRAC 1.47 1.54 1.53 1.13
MBR 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19
RBC 0.66 0.65 0.66 0.84
Municipal Rate: 4.08
Water Cost (USD/1000 gal)
44
aligned with the national average of water consumption, per capita, in America.
While these river cities are not at risk of an immediate water crisis, it is
nevertheless important to understand how water can be sustainably used in these
cities.
Figure 14 to Figure 18 illustrate the same figures of data as previously presented for
Phoenix and Los Angeles.
Figure 14: Consumption of Nashville, Per Capita
Nashville, TN consumes 70.00
B49 gal/cap/day
Showers 19.5% 13.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 15.5
Toilets 18.0% 12.6
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.1
Baths 2.7% 1.9
Leaks 8.8% 6.2
Faucets 23.9% 16.7
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.4
Rainwater (in/year) 48.1
Rainwater (gal/day/sf) 0.1
45
Figure 15: Consumption Patterns of Different Sites in Nashville
Figure 16: Hard & Operating Costs, Per System and Site in Nashville
Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 54.6 163.8 1365.0 13650.0
Clothes Washers 61.9 185.6 1547.0 15470.0
Toilets 50.4 151.2 1260.0 12600.0
Dishwashers 4.2 12.6 105.0 1050.0
Baths 7.6 22.7 189.0 1890.0
Leaks 24.6 73.9 616.0 6160.0
Faucets 66.9 200.8 1673.0 16730.0
Other 9.5 28.6 238.0 2380.0
Rainwater 82.1 164.3 246.4 328.6
Greywater 273.1 737.2 5020.4 48068.6
Water Taken 279.7 839.2 6993.0 69930.0
Wastewater 88.8 266.3 2219.0 22190.0
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,741.70 20,188.92 141,882.48
BRAC 12,126.41 37,463.10 165,650.19
MBR 24,574.61 51,470.37 185,591.36
RBC 8,796.42 21,397.69 140,298.81
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 0.73 0.75 0.97
BRAC 0.38 1.09 7.49
MBR 0.32 0.86 5.83
RBC 0.18 0.48 3.26
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.41 3.98 29.70
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.64 7.93 66.10
Difference 1.23 3.95 36.40
1000
1,245,948.08
1,456,887.01
1,245,424.22
1,255,215.56
12.89
60.74
55.80
39.06
1000
290.35
660.97
370.62
46
Figure 17: Payback Period, in Years, in Nashville
Figure 18: Payback Period Chart for Nashville
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 48.07 17.31 10.97
BRAC 39.11 35.88 15.70
MBR 73.69 45.60 16.63
RBC 22.94 16.90 11.60
9.54
12.88
10.84
10.37
1000
47
Figure 19: Cost of Greywater vs Municipal Water Rate for Nashville
System cost was determined on a per-system basis. For AIRR and Brac systems,
correlations were formulated between system size, cost, and electricity demand.
For RBC and MBR systems, data was found in Friedler and Hadari’s 2006
publication in Desalination. While their data is based on systems in a European
market, it provides the approximate figures needed to establish a relationship
between system price and ultimate cost.
General Findings
During and after the study, discoveries were made within the data examined. This
section finds and analyzes those findings.
Most personal use of water is at home; non-residential interior water use is
approximately 1/6
th
of domestic use.
30
As an approximate rule, most residents use
as much water for showers as they do for flushing toilets.
Therefore, it is most important to consider greywater sources from a residential
context, apart from possible rainwater catchment. In almost every residential
4 12 100 1000
AIRR 2.68 1.02 0.19 0.27
BRAC 1.40 1.47 1.49 1.26
MBR 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16
RBC 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.81
Municipal Rate: 3.11
Water Cost (USD/1000 gal)
48
scenario, a local greywater system would be feasible. In commercial and office
buildings, feasibility is dependent on specific site use and consumption patterns.
However, in a broad-level mixed use greywater network, every site produces
greywater in some amount.
There is generally a convergence in payback period across different systems as the
number of users becomes larger than 1,500. However, the quantified convergence
is not universal in terms of payback period- some cities have low payback periods,
around 10 to 15 years for large sites, while other cities have longer periods,
exceeding 50 years.
Regardless of the payback period, it is almost always less expensive to process
greywater than it is to buy the same amount of potable water from the municipal
grid. The overwhelming exception to this generality lies with the AIRR system on a
site with four users, where it is not cost effective to install the system.
Metrics of Greywater Systems
The current water infrastructure across America is an integrated system that relies
upon a network of water reserves such as lakes, rivers, snowpack, and ground
water. Therefore, implementation of greywater systems on a scale larger than small
neighborhoods impacts more than the area recycling water. It is of the utmost
importance to understand how the water cycle works and what political, social,
and health factors impact the ultimate cost of changing how we access, use, and
49
treat water.
Financial analysis helps determine the immediate costs of implementing a system
on a site, but it is only through quantifying the embedded costs and benefits that a
decision can be truly understood. The financial aspect does indeed account for
part of this process, but it is joined by other perspectives that are often more
complicated and impossible to quantify, much less assess, on a broad scale. These
include elements such as: how sources are impacted and how the communities, or
lack thereof, around such sources are impacted by a change in demand; how
infrastructure and channels are impacted by a change of demand and, in
reconsidering the transit of water, how this process could be changed to improve
the quality of and access to potable water; how local water treatment affects city-
wide treatment plans and its infrastructure especially in cities where sewers and
storm drains are combined. There are many more elements to this discussion,
which will be addressed in this section, ultimately to help make informed
decisions about the costs and benefits of greywater systems.
Source Concerns
One of the most unique situations regarding water supply is that every city obtains
its water from a unique source. While this presents a fair number of complications
that can only be addressed on a case-by-case basis, there are universal concerns,
issues, costs and benefits when discussing the source of a water supply.
50
Los Angeles Case Example
The city of Los Angeles is a unique case where the water available within the city
limits cannot provide for the demands of its users. Thus, the metropolis depends
on sourcing its water from three main sources to append its limited supply: the Los
Angeles Aqueduct, the State Water Project, and the Colorado River Aqueduct.
In 1913, the city of Los Angeles began to tap the water from the sources of the
Owens River via the Los Angeles Aqueduct to provide for the needs of its citizens.
31
Over the next century, Owens Lake, which had been fed from the river, was
emptied. The initial cost for this project in 1913 was $23 million, with extensions
being added in 1940 and 1970, costing $40 million and $88, respectively.
32
In
today’s dollars, the system has cost $1.7 billion alone, not calculating the energy
costs of pumping the water when needed. At present day, the lakebed is, according
to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the worst stationary source
of particulate pollution in the country and affects the neighboring cities and
agricultural businesses, as well as drastically impacts the former lake’s tourism
industry.
33
34
Total remediation of the lake would cost approximately $1.5 billion,
which may or may not include the cost of water being diverted from Los Angeles
and back into the lakebed.
35
The Los Angeles Aqueduct only provides 25% to 50%
of Los Angeles’ water demands.
32 36
51
Another large source for water is the State Water Project, which pulls water from
the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta over 400 miles into Los Angeles. The State
Water Project consumes 5 billion kWh annually, consuming more than any other
entity in the state, costing $200 million per year.
37
It is estimated that 8% to 27%
of Southern California’s water comes from the State Water Project.
36
The project
cost $1.75 billion in 1960, valued at $13.4 billion in current dollars.
38
The last main imported water source for Los Angeles is the Colorado River
Aqueduct, which draws water from the Colorado River and delivers it to Los
Angeles through a network of pipes and channels. Energy costs for pumping are
around $50 million annually, and the aqueduct delivers between 37% and 46% of
water needed for residents in Los Angeles.
36
39
In present day dollars, the project
cost over $2.9 billion dollars.
40
Transit Concerns
While there are a myriad of different sources for water, there are only three main
methods of moving water between a source and its destination. In some cases, this
step does not exist because water is collected from area which consumes it.
Certainly in closed-loop greywater systems this is the case. But generally, water
that is captured away from its destination is brought to be treated by way of pipe,
concrete channel, or rough-bottom channel such as a river or canal. Unlike other
streams, lakes, and rivers, these bodies of water are protected to ensure that water
52
is delivered to its destination. These three methods can be analyzed to understand
the associated costs and benefits.
Pipe is one of the most common ways of transporting potable water from source to
destination in the United States. However, pipe is inherently expensive, requires
heavy installation and maintenance costs, leeches minerals and dissolved solids
into the water supply, and can by obtrusive. However, pipe allows for almost no
loss of water in transit, which few other methods can offer.
Another method employed is a concrete channel. Less expensive than some types
of pipe and requiring less maintenance, a concrete channel is open to the air and
thus allows for organic buildup and transpiration loss of water. Furthermore, there
is a security risk that the water supply can be tampered with. However, this
method is effective despite its loss of water in transit.
Finally, rough bottom channels most emulate the most natural way of water flow:
having a flow of water moving through a trench, allowing growth of natural
vegetation and percolation into the ground. There is a minimal cost to this method
and it requires little maintenance, but may lose water readily as it discharges into
ground and air. Furthermore, natural blockages may form and organic growth will
occur. However, there are several benefits to this method as well: recharged
ground water supply, vegetative growth which engages a natural ecosystem, and
53
performative effects along the channel which results in greater comfort and a more
enjoyable environment.
Clearly each of these methods have embedded costs and benefits, and the best
method for a particular system must be evaluated based on financial demands as
well as what is most appropriate for the surrounding area.
Destination Concerns
Lastly, there are several issues concerning where the water is brought to, and
particularly what happens to the water after use. When imported water first arrives
in a municipal area, it is treated in a plant and then piped to its various points of
consumption. Of course, when local water is being used for immediate
distribution, source concerns are applicable as well.
The most prevalent destination concern mostly lies in coastal cities with potential
for desalination. Desalination relies on pushing salt water through a membrane,
resulting in potable water and concentrated brine in most filtration methods. The
cost of this process is heavily dependent on available desalination technology and
the cost of energy. As of 2006, the lowest cost of treated water in the world via
desalination is from the Ashkelon desalination plant at $2.01 per 1000 gallons.
41
While most large-scale greywater treatment systems produce treated water for a
lower rate, desalination does present a viable option for cities without access to
less expensive forms of treatment. However, other filtration and treatment options
54
are less energy intensive and consume less water in the process of treating
saltwater. Furthermore, reverse osmosis, the most common method of
desalination, separates minerals and other additives from the water which are
typically considered desirable for public supply.
Site Concerns
Most site concerns lie within a set of conditions defined as variables in this
simulation. The concerns are factors that designers may or may not have control
over, but can use in determining a design strategy for sustainability. These factors
are the cost of utilities, including water, sewage, and electricity rates, typical user
consumption, and the amount of rainfall received on site.
Utility structure varies per city. Examining the top fifty cities by population size in
America, data was collected on current utility rates in order to model greywater
systems in each city. Electricity rates ranged from $27.57 to $210.00 per 1000 kWh,
with the average rate being $92.78/1000 kWh and a standard deviation of $43.54.
Water rates ranged from $0.948 to $8.08 per 1000 gallons, with a mean value of
$3.45 per 1000 gallons and a standard deviation of $1.51. Sewer rates range from
$1.16 to $14.27 per 1000 gallons, with a standard deviation of $2.78 and an average
rate of $5.00 per 1000 gallons.
User consumption varies per city, ranging from 41 gallons per day per capita to 211
gallons per day per capita. This data was retrieved from a study concerning
55
different consumption patterns in different cities across the country.
27
Nationwide, it was approximated that the average person, using the latest
technologies and most up to date codes in construction, uses 67.178 gallons per
day. This figure was derived from modernizing usage data published in 1999 by the
AWWA Research Foundation entitled Residential End Uses of Water.
42
When
corroborated city usage statistics could not be found, the average value of 67.178
gallons per day per capita was used.
Lastly, rainfall is a consideration when discussing water on a particular site.
Depending on the building footprint and the amount of rainfall, precipitation can
be a major contributor to the amount of water available to be processed and
distributed from a greywater system. Precipitation in cities studied ranged from
4.5 inches to 64.2 inches per year, with an average of 36.4 inches.
These five variables, independently examined, can affect the payback period
significantly. By performing a statistical analysis on each variable, it is possible to
quantify how much each variable can impact the payback period, which was one of
the calculations used to determine system feasibility. A Z-Score was calculated
from the extremes and the averages of the payback period, which were determined
from each variable’s extreme maximum, minimum, and average. This Z-Score set
was then transformed through allowing each score to be compounded, not
diminished, when combined with other values for one variable’s data set. This set
56
was then adjusted to quantitatively compare variable influence, with the lowest
variable having an impact of 1.0. Electricity rates were found to have the least
impact, and were thus intrinsically assigned an impact of 1.0. Water rates were
found to have an impact of 1.69; amount of precipitation was found to have a value
of 6.49; user consumption was found to have an impact of 49.43; sewage rates had
the largest impact at a value of 305.16. This trend was corroborated with both a
second statistical analysis based on the total difference between two matrices of
data, where one matrix was a set of data for a typical case, using average values for
a hypothetical city, and the other matrix used an extreme value for one specific
variable.
This simulation assumed that only precipitation falling over the footprint of the
building could be captured. Of course, there are several other methods to
collecting rain water on site. One of the more popular techniques is through
having permeable pavement and having a cistern or catchment basin which
collects water. These technologies were not considered due to the various site
layouts that could exist in an urban environment. Instead, the amount of rainfall
was factored into the model to understand how precipitation affects greywater
system feasibility and to see what general trends emerge when solely comparing
rainfall to payback period.
57
Discussion of Piping
This simulation assumed that greywater systems were connected only within a
specific site, remaining relatively small in size. However, it is possible to have a
network of greywater systems and water sustainable sites connected, which
delivers recycled water to a destination off-site, such as a local park or agricultural
field. This would require a significant amount of piping in some cases, but should
be considered as a sustainable option for having a community provide water for
the amenities upon which it relies and uses on a regular basis.
Investing in Sustainability
While sustainability is important, the finances of a project are fundamental to
project delivery; thus, a system with a low payback period would be most likely to
be installed. An alternative evaluation method, which was not considered, is the
return on investment (ROI) over a given period. The deviation of payback periods
across individual cities and the entire model indicates that a ROI evaluation would
not accurately assess system feasibility or benefit. Furthermore, payback periods
seem to provide a clear variation among examined systems and sites. For that
reason payback period is the measure of financial feasibility used in this study.
58
Figure 20: Ranked Payback Periods, Lowest to Highest
Through examining trends existing in every city’s payback periods, it is possible to
compress every payback period chart into one chart expressing general trends
found across the modeling process. Figure 20, above, shows a chart ranking the
payback periods of each system and site, visually and quantitatively demonstrating
the trends of which sites are best for a greywater system given a particular user
size. As a whole, larger sites are more feasible, except with the AIRR system, which
allows for mid-sized sites to have a lower payback period.
4 12 48 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000
AIRR 43 36 19 12 9 6 4 1 3 8 22
BRAC 41 40 37 34 32 31 29 27 25 21 15
MBR 44 42 39 35 30 28 26 23 14 11 7
RBC 38 33 24 20 18 17 16 13 10 5 2
Number of Users per Site
System
59
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Hypothesis Revisited
It was determined that a greywater system is not economically feasible in every
residential situation, although it will typically always be physically feasible by
providing enough greywater to be reused on site or repurposed within a larger
network of greywater collection, treatment, and distribution centers. In almost
every case, the cost per gallon is less for treated greywater than it is to buy from a
municipal source.
However, just because a greywater system is not economically feasible does not
mean that its implementation is not necessary or sustainable. The embedded cost
of water catchment, treatment, and distribution is not always directly associated
with the hard costs of water and utilities. Factors ranging from environmental
degradation to carbon footprint of treatment and transit are invisible when
calculating these hard costs, and thus economic modeling is not the paramount
factor when making decisions concerning greywater systems. There are several
benefits, both economic and holistic, that can be contributed by implementing a
local greywater system.
Almost every city needs to consider the water-energy nexus- the cycle of using
energy to get water and water to get energy- on a large scale and, if possible,
quantifiably assess whether energy and water waste can be eliminated. In most
60
cases, it will not be economically feasible, but it raises a different question: is the
need for water, energy, and sustainable use of resources greater than the financial
considerations of a project, city, or state?
Finally, in almost every found situation of greywater reuse, the public is opposed
to coming into contact with recycled water. It is important to overcome this
hurdle before installing greywater systems because without public support the
project will not come to fruition and without user support the system will not be
used.
Experiences
This thesis has taken many shapes during its production. First, it was centered on
greywater systems in every type of building, and using that water within the site
for cooling and waste removal. However, when learning about greywater and the
parameters that separate it from drinking water, the thesis had to change to a
feasibility analysis. It was then discovered that, while residential consumption
rates are fairly well defined, the consumption patterns for commercial and
industrial sites have a very large variation in patterns and types of consumption.
For that reason the study concentrated on residential uses.
Once focused on the greywater production of residential sites, the ultimate goal of
the thesis had to be revisited. While it was simple to talk about the feasibility with
a simple “yes” or “no,” the embedded costs and benefits and unseen factors were
61
being disregarded. Thus, this thesis took its final shape when considering the
entirety of the problem.
As a whole, the problem seemed almost too large to tackle: how can one discuss
water from the context of an urban fabric, without diminishing one, if not many,
factors? Everything from water pollution to availability to cost to economic impact
to sustainability had to be considered. In an isolated site, water is fairly easy to
conceptualize and quantify, but in urban situations it is just the opposite.
Furthermore, there are political factors involved in most urban situations, if not
corporate ones involved as well. Sustainable water solutions that satisfy the triple
bottom line of social, economic, and environmental good on paper are often much
easier to discuss and design than they are to build and function.
Further Discussion & Research
It would be beneficial to expand the study into every city of the United States,
possibly taking data from a database that hosts current utility data, consumption
patterns, and rainwater availability. Consumption patterns are bound to change as
climate patterns and accessibility to clean water alter over time.
Results from research could be implemented into a GIS model showing regions,
areas, or neighborhoods that would benefit most from greywater system
instillation.
62
There are several other embedded benefits to water conservation and preserving
water resources in and around urban areas. Greywater system implementation
would, therefore, have embedded benefits as it increases the amount of water
available. These benefits may include performative cooling effects, increased
ventilation, greater user comfort and enjoyment of the space, and other benefits to
both the space and the landscape.
It is assumed in the model that utility rates and fees would not change solely on a
broad scale implementation of greywater systems. Surely, in some cases users
would see an increased utility rate due to decreased demand for potable water, but
such an increase is not calculated in this simulation.
As of date of publishing, there was no consistent data for commercial and office
sites. It would be beneficial to further explore greywater system feasibility within
the context of non-residential sites.
One of the most difficult aspects of a feasibility report to quantitatively define is
the opportunity costs and benefits from design choices. These may benefits
delivered from developing an area that previously was lacking vital resources, or
the environmental and social costs of diverting water from one area to another-
there are a myriad of considerations to be justified, which would need to be
analyzed case by case. In future work, it would be beneficial to understand
63
different methods to analyze opportunity costs, and then quantifying specific
projects that have significantly impacted a city’s water supply.
This thesis assumes new construction, but would broaden its practicality by
considering the costs for a new piping and greywater strategy, in other words a
greywater retrofit, in an existing building. For such a study, variables would be
analyzed, such as construction type, neighborhood density, and building typology,
and retrofit costs, in order to properly assess how retrofitting impacts greywater
system feasibility.
Having a permeable landscape allows for water to be reclaimed that otherwise
would flow off site. However, permeable pavement requires additional systems to
be installed and may contribute a new set of contaminants, leeched from the
pavement, into the water supply that would in turn need to be filtered out. The
costs and benefits of permeable pavement need to be further studied.
In California, one of the largest consumers of water is the agriculture industry.
Using greywater instead of drinking water would reduce the water demand of the
state, but might not be cost feasible due to the gross water rates and the subsidies
that the agricultural industry receives. On the other hand, it could be a catalyst for
urban agriculture which would alleviate that pressure from the industry, as well as
have other environmental and health benefits. Nevertheless, it would be a viable
64
research study to understand how water is used in California, especially within the
agricultural industry, and how greywater could be used in place of potable water.
65
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 A Brief Guide to Greywater. Issues. 2007;79(June):8-9.
20 Al-Jayyousi OR. Greywater reuse: towards sustainable water. Desalination.
2003;156:181-192.
8 Al-Nozaily FA, Al-Sabri A, Pelat F. The Traditional Use of Greywater from
Mosques in Sana’a, Yemen: How to create Institutional Knowledge from
Indigenous Knowledge (IK) in Water Management? International Conference
on Construction and Building Technology. 2008;D(14):143-156.
7 Antoniou GP. Ancient Water Technologies. Tempe, AZ: Springer; 2010. p. 67-
86.
4 Benefield LA. Rule Development Committee Issue Research Report. Research
Report. Washington State Department of Health ; 2002. Available from:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/ww/TechIssueReports/T-
5WastewaterQuality-LAB.pdf.
34 Biland LA. Owens Valely | Pacific Southwest: Air. [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2012
March 15]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/owens/.
39 Boxall B. Water's energy -- and expense. [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2012 March 12].
Available from: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/14/local/la-me-water-
power-20111114.
43 Braitman J. De-mystifying the Choice of Toilets. [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2011
December]. Available from: http://www.braitmandesign.com/kitchens-
baths/bath-remodeling/demystifying-choice-toilets/.
28 Butcher N, Demmers L. Cost Estimated Simplified [Document]. Exhibit Copy.
Libris Design Project; 2003. Available from:
http://www.librisdesign.org/docs/CostEstimatSimp.pdf.
31 Chang K. Los Angeles’s Water Wars: Revisiting Owens Lake. [Internet]. 2004
[cited 2012 January]. Available from:
http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20040613/los-angeless-water-wars-
revisiting-owens-lake.
66
37 Cohen R, Nelson B, Wolff G. Energy Down The Drain [Electronic]. Oakland,
California: Pacific Institute; 2004 National Resources Defense Council.
Available from: http://www.nrdc.org/water/conservation/edrain/edrain.pdf.
5 Diaper C, Toifl M, Storey M. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol. CSIRO:
Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship; 2008. 1835-095X.
16 EPA WaterSense. WaterSense®Tank-Type High-Efficiency Toilet
SpecificationSupporting Statement. EPA; 2007. Available from:
http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/docs/het_suppstat508.pdf.
19 Friedler E, Hadari M. Economic feasibility of on-site greywater reuse in multi-
storey buildings. Desalination. 2006 221-234.
30 General Electric Company. Creating Effective Incentives for Water Reuse and
Recycling [Electronic Document]. White Paper. GE Power & Water; 2011.
GEA18682. Available from: http://www.sustainableplant.com/assets/GE-
White-Paper-Creating-Effective-Incentives-White-Paper.pdf.
33 Green E. LADWP: Cheaper to Fight than Fix. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2012
March 12]. Available from: http://chanceofrain.com/2012/03/ladwp-cheaper-
to-fight-than-fix/.
36 Green LA Coalition Water Team. Not Enough to Waste. [Internet]. 2010 [cited
2012 March 12]. Available from:
http://www.notenoughtowaste.org/notenoughtowaste/imported.html.
44 Hills S, Birks R. Washroom behaviour and users’ perceptions of “novel” water-
efficient appliances. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply.
2004;4(3):13-23.
23 Jefferson B, Palmer A, Jeffrey P, Stuetz R, Judd S. Grey water characterisation
and its impact on the selection and operation of technologies for urban reuse.
Water Science and Technology. 2004;50(2):157-164.
2 Jeppesen B. Domestic greywater re-use: Australia’s challenge for the future.
Desalination. 1996 311-315.
67
25 KEE Process Limited. Siecone Engineering. [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2011
December 1]. Available from:
http://www.sieconengineering.com/web/pdf/rbc.pdf.
6 Koutsoyiannis D, Zarkadoulas N, Angelakis AN, Tchobanoglous G. Urban
Water Management in Ancient Greece: Legacies and Lessons. Journal of
Water Resources Planning and Management. 2008;134(1):45-54.
32 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Los Angeles Aqueduct.
[Internet]. 2012 [cited 2012 March 12]. Available from:
http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp004409.jsp.
40 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The Colorado River: A Regional
Solution. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2012 March 12]. Available from:
http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/historyoflaa/coloradoriver.htm.
21 Matos C, Sampaio A, Bentes I. Possibilities of greywater reuse in non-potable
in situ urban applications, according with its quality andquantity. WSEAS
TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT. 2010;6(7):499-
508.
42 Mayer PW, DeOreo WB, Opitz EM, Kiefer JC, Davis WY, Dziegielewski B,
Nelson JO. Residential End Uses of Water [Electronic]. Report. Denver:
AWWA Research Foundation; 1999. ISBN 1-58321-016-4. Available from:
http://www.waterrf.org/ProjectsReports/PublicReportLibrary/RFR90781_1999
_241A.pdf.
22 Nolde E. Greywater reuse systems for toilet flushing in multi-storey buildings
– over ten years experience in Berlin. Urban Water. 1999;1:275-284.
18 Office Building Introduction. [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2011 October 1]. Available
from: http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/office_buildings.aspx.
10 PUB. NEWater. [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2011 September 26]. Available from:
http://www.pub.gov.sg/about/historyfuture/Pages/NEWater.aspx.
9 PUB. Water Supply. [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2011 September 26]. Available from:
http://www.pub.gov.sg/about/historyfuture/Pages/WaterSupply.aspx.
68
35 Reynolds M. L.A. Blasts California in Owens Lake Water War. [Internet]. 2012
[cited 2012 March 12]. Available from:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/17/43986.htm.
41 Sauvet-Goichon B. Ashkelon desalination plant- A successful challenge.
Desalination. 2007 75-81.
29 Schneider R. The Coastal Community Development Partnership. [Internet].
2010 [cited 2012 February 20]. Available from:
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/partnership.html.
13 Sehulster LM, Chinn RYW, Arduino MJ, Carpenter J, Donlan R, Ashford D,
Besser R. Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care
facilities. Recommendations from CDC andthe Healthcare Infection Control
Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Chicago: American Society for
Healthcare Engineering/American Hospital Association; 2004.
11 Service BW. Bermuda's Climatology 1949-1999. [Internet]. 2000 [cited 2011
September 21]. Available from:
http://www.weather.bm/data/climatology.html.
26 SPEC Industries I. SPEC Industries, Inc. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2011 December
1]. Available from: http://www.specind.biz/airr_system.html.
38 State Water Contractors. History of the State Water Project. [Internet]. 2012
[cited 2012 March 12]. Available from: http://www.swc.org/issues/state-water-
project/history-of-the-state-water-project.
15 The Sustainable Sites Initiative. Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks
[Online]. Design Guideline. The Sustainable Sites Initiative; 2009. Available
from:
http://www.sustainablesites.org/report/Guidelines%20and%20Performance%
20Benchmarks_2009.pdf.
24 Sutherland K. Water and sewage: The membrane bioreactor in sewage
treatment. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2011 December 1]. Available from:
http://www.filtsep.com/view/835/water-and-sewage-the-membrane-
bioreactor-in-sewage-treatment-/.
69
17 US Department of Energy. Best Management Practice: Toilets and Urinals.
[Internet]. 2011 [cited 2011 September 29]. Available from:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/waterefficiency_bmp6.html.
14 US Green Building Council. LEED for Neighborhood Development. [Internet].
2009 [cited 2012 February]. Available from:
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148.
3 Veneman PLM, Stewart B. Greywater Characterization and Treatment
Efficiency [Document]. Final Report. University of Massachusetts; 2002.
Available from: www.mass.gov/dep/water/wastewater/gwstudy.pdf.
27 Walton B. The Price of Water. [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2011 October 15].
Available from: http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/the-price-
of-water-a-comparison-of-water-rates-usage-in-30-u-s-cities/.
12 Wickstead FA. Quantifying the Benefits of Greywater Systems. Masters of
Science Thesis. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology School of Building
Construction; 2011.
70
APPENDIX A: EXTENDED DATA
1. New York, New York
City: New York, NY consumes 78.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
1 B2 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 15.2 60.8 182.5 1521.0 15210.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 17.2 69.0 206.9 1723.8 17238.0
Toilets 18.0% 14.0 56.2 168.5 1404.0 14040.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.2 4.7 14.0 117.0 1170.0
Baths 2.7% 2.1 8.4 25.3 210.6 2106.0
Leaks 8.8% 6.9 27.5 82.4 686.4 6864.0
Faucets 23.9% 18.6 74.6 223.7 1864.2 18642.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.7 10.6 31.8 265.2 2652.0
84.9 169.8 254.6 339.5
49.7 Greywater 297.7 808.1 5574.2 53535.5
0.1 Water Taken 311.7 935.1 7792.2 77922.0
Wastewater 98.9 296.7 2472.6 24726.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.210 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.007 0.007
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,868.02 20,553.83 144,731.27
BRAC 12,805.30 39,375.83 169,149.20
MBR 26,121.13 53,120.68 187,471.03
RBC 9,018.48 21,861.52 142,240.72
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 1.69 1.75 2.32 41.29
BRAC 0.72 2.08 14.47 107.34
MBR 0.55 1.48 10.24 98.32
RBC 0.20 0.53 3.67 68.82
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.93 5.42 40.28 393.48
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 3.42 10.26 85.53 855.27
Difference 1.49 4.84 45.24 461.78
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #N/A 18.20 9.24
BRAC 45.10 39.05 15.06
MBR 75.61 43.38 14.67
RBC 19.13 13.91 9.37
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1000
1,256,953.02
1,491,428.17
1,247,359.32
1,264,457.31
1000
8.19
11.53
9.40
8.82
71
2. Los Angeles, California
City: Los Angeles, CA consumes 63.27 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
2 B3 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 12.3 49.3 148.0 1233.7 12336.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.0 55.9 167.8 1398.2 13981.6
Toilets 18.0% 11.4 45.6 136.7 1138.8 11387.8
Dishwashers 1.5% 0.9 3.8 11.4 94.9 949.0
Baths 2.7% 1.7 6.8 20.5 170.8 1708.2
Leaks 8.8% 5.6 22.3 66.8 556.7 5567.3
Faucets 23.9% 15.1 60.5 181.4 1512.0 15120.4
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.2 8.6 25.8 215.1 2151.0
22.5 45.1 67.6 90.2
13.2 Greywater 195.1 562.9 4382.3 43237.1
0.0 Water Taken 252.8 758.4 6320.2 63202.0
Wastewater 80.2 240.7 2005.5 20055.1
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.070 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.002 0.004 0.004
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,340.58 19,292.16 138,599.92
BRAC 10,105.76 30,495.17 161,618.41
MBR 18,535.88 46,623.86 183,149.42
RBC 8,042.69 20,190.63 137,972.94
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.56 0.57 0.72 7.44
BRAC 0.23 0.72 5.70 49.39
MBR 0.20 0.59 4.57 45.09
RBC 0.13 0.37 2.84 31.56
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.31 3.82 30.33 300.39
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.35 7.05 58.72 587.24
Difference 1.04 3.23 28.40 286.85
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 48.02 19.94 13.72
BRAC 34.30 33.31 19.51
MBR 60.83 48.41 21.06
RBC 24.23 19.35 14.79
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,426,360.74
1,243,521.23
1,246,761.63
1000
12.12
16.46
1000
1,236,222.31
14.09
13.38
72
3. Chicago, Illinois
City: Chicago, IL consumes 61.10 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
3 B4 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 11.9 47.7 143.0 1191.5 11914.5
Clothes Washers 22.1% 13.5 54.0 162.0 1350.3 13503.1
Toilets 18.0% 11.0 44.0 132.0 1099.8 10998.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 0.9 3.7 11.0 91.7 916.5
Baths 2.7% 1.6 6.6 19.8 165.0 1649.7
Leaks 8.8% 5.4 21.5 64.5 537.7 5376.8
Faucets 23.9% 14.6 58.4 175.2 1460.3 14602.9
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.1 8.3 24.9 207.7 2077.4
62.0 124.0 186.0 248.0
36.3 Greywater 228.7 624.0 4353.0 41918.2
0.1 Water Taken 244.2 732.5 6103.9 61038.9
Wastewater 77.5 232.4 1936.9 19368.7
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.157 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,513.14 19,606.90 138,449.11
BRAC 10,949.84 32,823.71 161,433.18
MBR 21,385.26 48,477.40 183,028.84
RBC 8,377.17 20,626.51 137,863.54
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 1.26 1.29 1.61 15.37
BRAC 0.43 1.29 9.19 74.23
MBR 0.35 0.96 6.68 64.37
RBC 0.15 0.41 2.84 45.06
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.75 2.09 15.25 148.48
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.16 3.47 28.96 289.56
Difference 0.41 1.39 13.70 141.08
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #N/A 544.40 31.38
BRAC #N/A 884.21 98.07
MBR 975.81 308.20 71.44
RBC 89.43 57.74 34.77
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,244,401.74
26.89
58.11
44.39
35.51
1000
1,233,567.31
1,418,027.47
1,242,964.69
1000
73
4. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
City: Philadelphia, PA consumes 84.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
4 B5 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 16.4 65.5 196.6 1638.0 16380.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 18.6 74.3 222.8 1856.4 18564.0
Toilets 18.0% 15.1 60.5 181.4 1512.0 15120.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.3 5.0 15.1 126.0 1260.0
Baths 2.7% 2.3 9.1 27.2 226.8 2268.0
Leaks 8.8% 7.4 29.6 88.7 739.2 7392.0
Faucets 23.9% 20.1 80.3 240.9 2007.6 20076.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.9 11.4 34.3 285.6 2856.0
71.9 143.8 215.7 287.6
42.1 Greywater 301.1 831.3 5944.5 57575.6
0.1 Water Taken 335.7 1007.0 8391.6 83916.0
Wastewater 106.5 319.5 2662.8 26628.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.172 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,885.45 20,672.88 146,635.93
BRAC 12,900.57 39,522.06 171,488.57
MBR 26,324.43 53,627.90 188,626.27
RBC 9,048.64 22,009.96 143,504.30
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 1.39 1.43 1.95 43.09
BRAC 0.63 1.85 13.32 98.87
MBR 0.49 1.35 9.63 93.32
RBC 0.20 0.55 3.91 65.32
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.64 4.60 33.99 331.67
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.47 7.40 61.69 616.92
Difference 0.83 2.81 27.70 285.25
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #N/A 41.19 15.60
BRAC 174.99 112.99 32.65
MBR 210.68 100.68 28.60
RBC 39.47 26.67 16.52
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
14.31
22.30
17.82
15.83
1000
1,265,085.70
1,516,954.20
1,248,666.32
1,271,092.02
1000
74
5. Miami, Florida
City: Miami, FL consumes 81.63 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
5 B6 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 15.9 63.7 191.0 1591.8 15918.4
Clothes Washers 22.1% 18.0 72.2 216.5 1804.1 18040.8
Toilets 18.0% 14.7 58.8 176.3 1469.4 14693.9
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.2 4.9 14.7 122.4 1224.5
Baths 2.7% 2.2 8.8 26.4 220.4 2204.1
Leaks 8.8% 7.2 28.7 86.2 718.4 7183.7
Faucets 23.9% 19.5 78.0 234.1 1951.0 19510.2
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.8 11.1 33.3 277.6 2775.5
99.9 199.8 299.7 399.6
58.5 Greywater 322.6 867.9 5867.1 56073.1
0.1 Water Taken 326.2 978.6 8155.1 81551.0
Wastewater 103.5 310.5 2587.8 25877.6
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.116 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.006
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,996.31 20,861.38 146,237.65
BRAC 13,515.64 39,753.59 170,999.39
MBR 27,566.31 54,402.78 188,390.76
RBC 9,237.95 22,242.26 143,242.22
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.94 0.97 1.31 26.56
BRAC 0.52 1.49 10.10 77.28
MBR 0.42 1.13 7.64 73.05
RBC 0.21 0.57 3.83 51.14
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.58 4.44 32.90 321.24
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.90 8.71 72.61 726.11
Difference 1.32 4.27 39.71 404.87
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 63.63 17.30 10.43
BRAC 46.35 39.08 15.82
MBR 83.59 47.45 16.10
RBC 22.79 16.44 10.94
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
Rainwater (in/year)
1000
1,262,061.18
10.31
9.83
1,507,461.15
1,248,191.29
1,268,642.70
1000
9.14
12.61
75
6. Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas
City: Dallas-Fort Worth consumes 69.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
6 B7 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.5 53.8 161.5 1345.5 13455.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 15.2 61.0 183.0 1524.9 15249.0
Toilets 18.0% 12.4 49.7 149.0 1242.0 12420.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.1 12.4 103.5 1035.0
Baths 2.7% 1.9 7.5 22.4 186.3 1863.0
Leaks 8.8% 6.1 24.3 72.9 607.2 6072.0
Faucets 23.9% 16.5 66.0 197.9 1649.1 16491.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.4 28.2 234.6 2346.0
59.3 118.5 177.8 237.1
34.7 Greywater 247.5 683.2 4883.6 47295.1
0.1 Water Taken 275.7 827.2 6893.1 68931.0
Wastewater 87.5 262.5 2187.3 21873.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.186 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.005
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,609.94 19,911.37 141,178.48
BRAC 11,440.01 35,196.73 164,785.50
MBR 22,805.73 50,105.07 185,094.88
RBC 8,557.72 21,035.13 139,808.44
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 1.50 1.54 1.98 25.18
BRAC 0.53 1.60 11.63 90.82
MBR 0.42 1.16 8.31 80.47
RBC 0.17 0.45 3.20 56.33
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.23 3.50 26.42 259.05
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.19 6.58 54.80 548.00
Difference 0.96 3.08 28.38 288.95
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #N/A 35.34 14.65
BRAC 73.37 65.00 26.95
MBR 115.85 71.59 25.27
RBC 29.59 21.92 15.21
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1000
1,244,390.94
1,451,999.61
1,245,132.77
1,253,881.16
1000
12.93
20.08
16.36
14.77
76
7. Boston, Massachusetts
City: Boston, MA consumes 41.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
7 B8 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 8.0 32.0 95.9 799.5 7995.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 9.1 36.2 108.7 906.1 9061.0
Toilets 18.0% 7.4 29.5 88.6 738.0 7380.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 0.6 2.5 7.4 61.5 615.0
Baths 2.7% 1.1 4.4 13.3 110.7 1107.0
Leaks 8.8% 3.6 14.4 43.3 360.8 3608.0
Faucets 23.9% 9.8 39.2 117.6 979.9 9799.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 1.4 5.6 16.7 139.4 1394.0
72.6 145.2 217.8 290.3
42.5 Greywater 184.4 480.7 3014.0 28252.3
0.1 Water Taken 163.8 491.5 4095.9 40959.0
Wastewater 52.0 156.0 1299.7 12997.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.053 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.007
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,285.54 18,869.64 131,560.89
BRAC 9,844.56 27,568.10 152,972.77
MBR 17,523.03 43,790.42 176,425.28
RBC 7,932.13 19,580.31 132,571.57
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.43 0.44 0.51 2.31
BRAC 0.19 0.54 3.45 30.27
MBR 0.17 0.46 2.86 26.77
RBC 0.12 0.31 1.95 18.74
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.36 3.68 25.31 242.92
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.03 6.08 50.65 506.50
Difference 0.67 2.40 25.34 263.58
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 93.97 26.32 14.51
BRAC 56.66 40.56 19.15
MBR 97.04 61.71 21.50
RBC 39.64 25.70 15.53
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1000
1,206,057.96
1,331,683.93
1,235,876.90
1,218,304.17
1000
12.65
15.64
14.30
13.63
77
8. Washington, D.C.
City: Washington, DC consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
8 B9 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
67.3 134.6 201.9 269.2
39.4 Greywater 250.6 684.4 4783.4 46084.6
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.133 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.003
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,625.67 19,917.25 140,663.15
BRAC 11,520.76 35,243.71 164,152.55
MBR 23,026.21 50,135.09 184,722.56
RBC 8,586.62 21,042.90 139,446.67
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 1.07 1.10 1.40 16.72
BRAC 0.43 1.27 9.02 72.14
MBR 0.35 0.96 6.69 64.49
RBC 0.17 0.45 3.12 45.14
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.54 4.32 31.98 312.20
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.58 7.75 64.56 645.61
Difference 1.05 3.43 32.58 333.41
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #N/A 23.37 12.36
BRAC 51.36 44.62 19.08
MBR 90.60 55.51 19.55
RBC 26.75 19.32 12.97
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,444,351.45
1,244,666.99
1,251,778.76
1000
10.74
15.15
1000
1,241,954.22
12.68
11.90
78
9. Detroit, Michigan
City: Detroit, MI consumes 63.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
9 B10 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 12.3 49.1 147.4 1228.5 12285.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 13.9 55.7 167.1 1392.3 13923.0
Toilets 18.0% 11.3 45.4 136.1 1134.0 11340.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 0.9 3.8 11.3 94.5 945.0
Baths 2.7% 1.7 6.8 20.4 170.1 1701.0
Leaks 8.8% 5.5 22.2 66.5 554.4 5544.0
Faucets 23.9% 15.1 60.2 180.7 1505.7 15057.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.1 8.6 25.7 214.2 2142.0
56.2 112.4 168.6 224.8
32.9 Greywater 228.1 628.0 4465.2 43190.8
0.1 Water Taken 251.7 755.2 6293.7 62937.0
Wastewater 79.9 239.7 1997.1 19971.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.049 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.005
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,509.93 19,627.14 139,026.07
BRAC 10,933.80 32,977.84 162,141.82
MBR 21,336.21 48,590.34 183,485.83
RBC 8,371.10 20,654.06 138,280.78
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.39 0.40 0.51 5.16
BRAC 0.24 0.68 4.91 42.80
MBR 0.21 0.58 4.11 39.80
RBC 0.15 0.41 2.89 27.86
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.92 2.62 19.96 196.03
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.76 5.29 44.08 440.81
Difference 0.85 2.67 24.12 244.78
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 51.43 23.68 16.13
BRAC 49.14 45.40 23.12
MBR 92.02 63.59 25.12
RBC 32.94 24.98 17.84
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,246,679.08
1000
14.13
19.34
16.62
15.75
1000
1,236,128.99
1,426,067.84
1,243,501.95
79
10. Houston, Texas
City: Houston, TX consumes 72.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
10 B11 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 14.0 56.2 168.5 1404.0 14040.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 15.9 63.6 190.9 1591.2 15912.0
Toilets 18.0% 13.0 51.8 155.5 1296.0 12960.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.1 4.3 13.0 108.0 1080.0
Baths 2.7% 1.9 7.8 23.3 194.4 1944.0
Leaks 8.8% 6.3 25.3 76.0 633.6 6336.0
Faucets 23.9% 17.2 68.8 206.5 1720.8 17208.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.4 9.8 29.4 244.8 2448.0
81.6 163.3 244.9 326.5
47.8 Greywater 278.1 752.5 5155.3 49430.5
0.1 Water Taken 287.7 863.1 7192.8 71928.0
Wastewater 91.3 273.9 2282.4 22824.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.099 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.009 0.009
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,767.13 20,267.85 142,576.23
BRAC 12,261.44 38,125.56 166,502.28
MBR 24,896.84 51,840.40 186,067.54
RBC 8,841.63 21,499.20 140,777.83
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.80 0.82 1.07 15.25
BRAC 0.41 1.17 8.08 64.82
MBR 0.34 0.91 6.22 59.68
RBC 0.18 0.49 3.35 41.78
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.93 5.45 40.81 399.41
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 3.66 10.98 91.49 914.92
Difference 1.73 5.53 50.68 515.52
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 25.72 11.79 7.87
BRAC 25.35 23.92 10.71
MBR 48.83 30.71 11.47
RBC 15.64 11.68 8.15
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
6.84
8.91
7.49
7.27
1000
1,248,689.69
1,465,492.08
1,245,926.15
1,257,548.29
1000
80
11. Atlanta, Georgia
City: Atlanta, GA consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
11 B12 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
85.7 171.5 257.2 342.9
50.2 Greywater 269.0 721.3 4838.7 46158.3
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.051 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.013 0.013
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,720.55 20,107.01 140,947.80
BRAC 12,014.73 36,784.06 164,502.17
MBR 24,302.12 51,078.15 184,929.17
RBC 8,758.61 21,291.62 139,646.80
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.41 0.42 0.54 6.39
BRAC 0.29 0.80 5.40 45.91
MBR 0.25 0.67 4.51 43.00
RBC 0.18 0.47 3.13 30.10
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 2.04 5.82 44.42 436.51
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 4.42 13.26 110.54 1,105.35
Difference 2.38 7.45 66.12 668.85
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 12.09 7.84 5.89
BRAC 15.68 15.15 7.42
MBR 31.20 20.65 8.22
RBC 10.86 8.36 6.07
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,244,695.73
1,251,907.41
1000
5.14
6.35
5.45
1000
1,242,102.74
1,444,817.61
5.37
81
12. San Francisco, California
City: San Francisco, CA consumes 57.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
12 B13 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 11.1 44.5 133.4 1111.5 11115.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 12.6 50.4 151.2 1259.7 12597.0
Toilets 18.0% 10.3 41.0 123.1 1026.0 10260.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 0.9 3.4 10.3 85.5 855.0
Baths 2.7% 1.5 6.2 18.5 153.9 1539.0
Leaks 8.8% 5.0 20.1 60.2 501.6 5016.0
Faucets 23.9% 13.6 54.5 163.5 1362.3 13623.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 1.9 7.8 23.3 193.8 1938.0
34.3 68.7 103.0 137.3
20.1 Greywater 189.8 535.1 3990.4 39011.3
0.0 Water Taken 227.8 683.3 5694.3 56943.0
Wastewater 72.3 216.8 1806.9 18069.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.183 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.010 0.010
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,313.28 19,149.64 136,583.74
BRAC 9,975.70 29,482.33 159,142.05
MBR 18,040.57 45,717.15 181,466.40
RBC 7,988.10 19,988.21 136,490.04
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 1.47 1.50 1.84 15.05
BRAC 0.39 1.22 9.41 77.59
MBR 0.32 0.90 6.72 65.66
RBC 0.13 0.35 2.61 45.96
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.72 4.97 38.97 385.06
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 3.48 10.43 86.94 869.37
Difference 1.76 5.46 47.97 484.31
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 77.04 13.23 8.11
BRAC 19.90 19.04 11.31
MBR 34.29 27.46 12.05
RBC 13.42 10.72 8.24
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1000
7.17
9.43
8.13
7.74
1000
1,227,715.77
1,399,661.28
1,241,673.61
1,239,114.16
82
13. Phoenix, Arizona
City: Phoenix, AZ consumes 115.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
13 B14 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 22.4 89.7 269.1 2242.5 22425.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 25.4 101.7 305.0 2541.5 25415.0
Toilets 18.0% 20.7 82.8 248.4 2070.0 20700.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.7 6.9 20.7 172.5 1725.0
Baths 2.7% 3.1 12.4 37.3 310.5 3105.0
Leaks 8.8% 10.1 40.5 121.4 1012.0 10120.0
Faucets 23.9% 27.5 109.9 329.8 2748.5 27485.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 3.9 15.6 46.9 391.0 3910.0
14.2 28.4 42.5 56.7
8.3 Greywater 327.9 969.5 7885.5 78486.7
0.0 Water Taken 459.5 1378.6 11488.5 114885.0
Wastewater 145.8 437.5 3645.5 36455.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.097 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 9,023.53 21,384.06 145,809.56
BRAC 13,669.03 40,395.56 183,752.33
MBR 27,858.49 56,391.43 193,702.11
RBC 9,283.78 22,870.38 149,756.84
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.78 0.81 1.23 84.97
BRAC 0.48 1.49 12.08 88.40
MBR 0.39 1.16 9.41 93.66
RBC 0.22 0.63 5.17 65.56
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.87 5.56 45.58 454.31
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 3.56 10.69 89.10 891.01
Difference 1.69 5.13 43.52 436.71
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 27.20 13.57 9.45
BRAC 30.97 30.43 16.01
MBR 58.77 38.91 15.56
RBC 17.26 13.93 10.70
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1000
12.97
10.02
9.62
1,307,179.73
1,649,074.68
1,254,232.39
1,303,312.14
1000
10.18
83
14. Seattle, Washington
City: Seattle, WA consumes 52.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
14 B15 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 10.1 40.6 121.7 1014.0 10140.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 11.5 46.0 137.9 1149.2 11492.0
Toilets 18.0% 9.4 37.4 112.3 936.0 9360.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 0.8 3.1 9.4 78.0 780.0
Baths 2.7% 1.4 5.6 16.8 140.4 1404.0
Leaks 8.8% 4.6 18.3 54.9 457.6 4576.0
Faucets 23.9% 12.4 49.7 149.1 1242.8 12428.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 1.8 7.1 21.2 176.8 1768.0
63.4 126.7 190.1 253.4
37.1 Greywater 205.2 552.3 3736.5 35717.4
0.1 Water Taken 207.8 623.4 5194.8 51948.0
Wastewater 65.9 197.8 1648.4 16484.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.046 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.014 0.014
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,392.46 19,237.85 135,277.66
BRAC 10,355.57 30,106.13 157,537.87
MBR 19,441.15 46,283.70 180,285.46
RBC 8,145.12 20,113.88 135,504.26
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.37 0.38 0.46 3.11
BRAC 0.21 0.58 4.02 35.43
MBR 0.19 0.50 3.38 32.36
RBC 0.13 0.36 2.42 22.65
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 2.09 5.92 44.47 435.43
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 4.13 12.39 103.27 1,032.71
Difference 2.04 6.47 58.80 597.27
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 13.77 8.64 6.35
BRAC 15.47 14.00 7.88
MBR 28.73 21.23 8.91
RBC 11.71 9.01 6.58
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
Rainwater (in/year)
1000
1,221,085.23
1,378,849.99
5.88
1,240,088.91
1,232,966.29
1000
5.63
6.72
6.01
84
15. San Diego, California
City: San Diego, CA consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
15 B16 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
18.4 36.9 55.3 73.8
10.8 Greywater 201.7 586.7 4636.9 45889.2
0.0 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.058 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,374.40 19,414.71 139,909.35
BRAC 10,268.21 31,386.82 163,226.70
MBR 19,131.13 47,368.49 184,163.65
RBC 8,109.65 20,362.10 138,913.05
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.46 0.47 0.60 7.17
BRAC 0.22 0.68 5.49 47.93
MBR 0.20 0.57 4.51 44.59
RBC 0.13 0.38 3.00 31.22
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.41 4.14 33.27 330.38
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.67 8.00 66.69 666.90
Difference 1.26 3.86 33.42 336.52
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 28.82 15.69 11.68
BRAC 27.10 27.03 16.01
MBR 49.33 39.39 17.45
RBC 19.73 16.01 12.51
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1000
1,241,560.91
1,443,116.99
1,244,590.66
1,251,437.76
1000
10.33
13.70
11.68
11.23
85
16. Minneapolis, Minnesota
City: Minneapolis, MN consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
16 B17 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
50.2 100.4 150.6 200.8
29.4 Greywater 233.5 650.2 4732.2 46016.2
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.080 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.004
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,537.81 19,741.54 140,399.58
BRAC 11,073.63 33,858.47 163,828.83
MBR 21,758.11 49,215.42 184,529.11
RBC 8,423.63 20,808.69 139,260.70
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.65 0.66 0.85 10.07
BRAC 0.30 0.89 6.60 55.28
MBR 0.26 0.72 5.21 50.65
RBC 0.15 0.42 3.07 35.45
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.10 3.15 24.10 236.96
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.02 6.06 50.51 505.13
Difference 0.92 2.91 26.41 268.17
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 85.42 24.02 15.05
BRAC 49.05 45.89 22.65
MBR 89.99 61.34 23.84
RBC 30.16 22.89 16.35
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,241,816.70
1,443,919.83
1,244,640.34
1,251,659.58
1000
13.18
1000
18.58
15.68
14.74
86
17. Cleveland, Ohio
City: Cleveland, OH consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
17 B18 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
66.1 132.2 198.3 264.4
38.7 Greywater 249.4 682.0 4779.8 46079.8
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.128 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.006 0.006
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,619.52 19,904.95 140,644.70
BRAC 11,489.14 35,145.46 164,129.89
MBR 22,940.29 50,072.23 184,709.08
RBC 8,575.33 21,026.63 139,433.67
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 1.03 1.06 1.35 16.09
BRAC 0.42 1.23 8.79 70.54
MBR 0.34 0.93 6.55 63.17
RBC 0.17 0.45 3.11 44.22
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.93 2.68 20.78 204.90
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.06 6.17 51.44 514.37
Difference 1.13 3.50 30.66 309.47
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 236.82 22.34 13.15
BRAC 44.42 42.53 20.56
MBR 79.90 53.55 20.99
RBC 24.42 18.89 13.87
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,244,665.12
1,251,770.42
1000
11.60
16.56
13.85
1000
1,241,944.59
1,444,321.24
12.93
87
18. St. Louis, Missouri
City: Saint Louis, MO-IL consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
18 B19 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
66.3 132.5 198.8 265.1
38.8 Greywater 249.5 682.3 4780.3 46080.5
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.091 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,620.39 19,906.70 140,647.33
BRAC 11,493.65 35,159.48 164,133.13
MBR 22,952.59 50,081.22 184,711.01
RBC 8,576.94 21,028.96 139,435.53
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.73 0.75 0.96 11.39
BRAC 0.34 1.00 7.12 58.60
MBR 0.29 0.79 5.54 53.39
RBC 0.16 0.44 3.10 37.37
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.83 2.34 17.32 169.11
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.39 4.18 34.81 348.11
Difference 0.56 1.84 17.49 179.00
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #N/A 49.82 23.30
BRAC 144.90 114.59 43.36
MBR 230.67 130.50 42.33
RBC 59.23 41.23 26.55
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1000
20.30
32.87
27.15
24.21
1000
1,241,945.96
1,444,325.56
1,244,665.39
1,251,771.61
88
19. Baltimore, Maryland
City: Baltimore, MD consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
19 B20 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
71.6 143.1 214.7 286.2
41.9 Greywater 254.8 692.9 4796.2 46101.6
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.133 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.004
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,647.63 19,961.17 140,729.04
BRAC 11,634.08 35,596.18 164,233.48
MBR 23,329.72 50,357.84 184,770.60
RBC 8,626.79 21,100.85 139,493.06
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 1.07 1.10 1.40 16.74
BRAC 0.44 1.28 9.04 72.16
MBR 0.36 0.97 6.71 64.51
RBC 0.17 0.45 3.13 45.16
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.99 2.77 20.46 199.61
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.68 5.04 42.03 420.25
Difference 0.69 2.27 21.57 220.64
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #N/A 46.47 19.12
BRAC 125.55 98.52 35.92
MBR 189.17 105.73 34.08
RBC 45.10 31.75 20.73
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1000
26.65
21.84
19.54
1,241,988.60
1,444,459.36
1,244,673.64
1,251,808.55
1000
16.69
89
20. Tampa, Florida
City: Tampa, FL consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
20 B21 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
76.5 153.0 229.5 306.1
44.8 Greywater 259.8 702.8 4811.1 46121.4
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.045 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.006 0.006
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,673.11 20,012.13 140,805.47
BRAC 11,766.30 36,008.14 164,327.36
MBR 23,675.49 50,612.81 184,826.16
RBC 8,673.11 21,167.79 139,546.83
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.36 0.37 0.48 5.66
BRAC 0.26 0.74 5.12 44.06
MBR 0.23 0.63 4.33 41.48
RBC 0.17 0.46 3.11 29.04
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.38 3.89 29.04 283.93
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.56 7.69 64.06 640.60
Difference 1.18 3.79 35.02 356.68
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 28.96 16.01 11.17
BRAC 35.07 32.30 15.05
MBR 68.39 43.84 16.50
RBC 23.46 17.36 11.98
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1000
1,242,028.48
1,444,584.53
10.47
1,244,681.36
1,251,843.09
1000
9.69
12.66
10.82
90
21. Denver, Colorado
City: Denver-Aurora, CO consumes 87.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
21 B22 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 17.0 67.9 203.6 1696.5 16965.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 19.2 76.9 230.7 1922.7 19227.0
Toilets 18.0% 15.7 62.6 187.9 1566.0 15660.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.3 5.2 15.7 130.5 1305.0
Baths 2.7% 2.3 9.4 28.2 234.9 2349.0
Leaks 8.8% 7.7 30.6 91.9 765.6 7656.0
Faucets 23.9% 20.8 83.2 249.5 2079.3 20793.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 3.0 11.8 35.5 295.8 2958.0
27.0 54.0 81.0 107.9
15.8 Greywater 264.3 766.0 6014.4 59441.9
0.0 Water Taken 347.7 1043.0 8691.3 86913.0
Wastewater 110.3 330.9 2757.9 27579.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.046 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.003
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,696.49 20,337.06 146,995.24
BRAC 11,888.39 38,713.07 171,929.89
MBR 23,987.09 52,158.74 188,836.11
RBC 8,715.38 21,587.67 143,739.78
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.37 0.38 0.52 12.89
BRAC 0.27 0.82 6.44 55.04
MBR 0.24 0.69 5.45 53.81
RBC 0.17 0.50 3.90 37.67
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.03 3.02 24.24 240.61
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.01 6.04 50.32 503.23
Difference 0.98 3.02 26.08 262.61
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 38.87 21.14 15.76
BRAC 45.69 48.17 23.98
MBR 88.37 61.49 25.07
RBC 29.46 23.46 17.75
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,528,746.05
16.39
20.18
1,274,105.95
1,249,239.42
13.92
1000
15.52
1,268,842.62
1000
91
22. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
City: Pittsburgh, PA consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
22 B23 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
64.7 129.5 194.2 258.9
37.9 Greywater 248.0 679.2 4775.7 46074.3
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.105 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.004 0.004
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,612.49 19,890.89 140,623.61
BRAC 11,453.06 35,033.41 164,103.99
MBR 22,841.60 50,000.11 184,693.67
RBC 8,562.41 21,008.02 139,418.81
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.84 0.87 1.11 13.18
BRAC 0.37 1.08 7.75 63.16
MBR 0.31 0.84 5.92 57.12
RBC 0.16 0.44 3.11 39.99
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 2.35 6.52 47.19 458.31
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 3.25 9.76 81.34 813.38
Difference 0.91 3.24 34.15 355.07
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 376.94 22.95 11.66
BRAC 58.67 44.54 17.03
MBR 104.62 57.13 17.93
RBC 31.66 20.58 12.31
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
13.56
1,251,760.89
1,244,662.99
1,444,286.71
1,241,933.59
1000
10.88
11.45
9.95
1000
92
23. Portland, Oregon
City: Portland, OR-WA consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
23 B24 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
63.4 126.7 190.1 253.4
37.1 Greywater 246.6 676.5 4771.6 46068.8
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.075 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.010 N/A
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,605.46 19,876.83 140,602.53
BRAC 11,417.05 34,921.61 164,078.09
MBR 22,742.37 49,927.70 184,678.25
RBC 8,549.46 20,989.37 139,403.95
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.60 0.62 0.79 9.42
BRAC 0.31 0.90 6.41 53.61
MBR 0.26 0.72 5.11 49.29
RBC 0.16 0.44 3.09 34.51
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.88 5.37 41.15 404.73
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 3.81 11.44 95.34 953.37
Difference 1.94 6.07 54.18 548.64
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 17.67 9.98 7.21
BRAC 19.21 18.48 9.41
MBR 37.23 25.57 10.31
RBC 13.20 10.21 7.48
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
Rainwater (in/year)
1,251,751.36
1,244,660.86
1,444,252.18
6.67
6.83
7.99
6.31
1000
1,241,922.59
1000
93
24. San Jose, California
No results; missing sewer rate data.
City: San Jose, CA consumes 107.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
24 B25 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 20.9 83.5 250.4 2086.5 20865.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 23.6 94.6 283.8 2364.7 23647.0
Toilets 18.0% 19.3 77.0 231.1 1926.0 19260.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.6 6.4 19.3 160.5 1605.0
Baths 2.7% 2.9 11.6 34.7 288.9 2889.0
Leaks 8.8% 9.4 37.7 113.0 941.6 9416.0
Faucets 23.9% 25.6 102.3 306.9 2557.3 25573.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 3.6 14.6 43.7 363.8 3638.0
25.8 51.6 77.4 103.2
15.1 Greywater 317.7 927.3 7374.8 73077.2
0.0 Water Taken 427.6 1282.7 10689.3 106893.0
Wastewater 135.7 407.0 3391.9 33919.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.183 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 N/A N/A
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,971.00 21,166.75 153,993.34
BRAC 13,373.84 40,128.65 180,525.25
MBR 27,290.27 55,591.18 192,499.17
RBC 9,195.10 22,611.95 148,165.14
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 1.48 1.53 2.26 116.21
BRAC 0.70 2.16 17.17 118.08
MBR 0.53 1.56 12.41 123.00
RBC 0.21 0.61 4.89 86.10
Utilities w/ GW (USD) #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Utilities w/o GW (USD) #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Difference #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
BRAC #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
MBR #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
RBC #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
1,295,274.99
1,252,949.45
#VALUE!
1000
#VALUE!
1,614,896.09
1,296,290.32
1000
94
25. Riverside, California
No results; missing sewer rate data.
City: Riverside, CA consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
25 B26 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
17.4 34.8 52.3 69.7
10.2 Greywater 200.7 584.6 4633.8 45885.1
0.0 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.151 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 N/A N/A
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,369.13 19,404.17 139,893.53
BRAC 10,242.79 31,309.36 163,207.28
MBR 19,039.64 47,305.64 184,151.74
RBC 8,099.26 20,347.44 138,901.80
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 1.21 1.24 1.58 18.81
BRAC 0.36 1.17 9.53 77.75
MBR 0.30 0.88 6.97 68.99
RBC 0.14 0.38 3.02 48.30
Utilities w/ GW (USD) #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Utilities w/o GW (USD) #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Difference #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
BRAC #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
MBR #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
RBC #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
1,251,430.60
1,244,589.06
1,443,091.10
1,241,552.66
1000
#VALUE!
1000
95
26. Cincinnati, Ohio
City: Cincinnati, OH consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
26 B27 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
72.8 145.5 218.3 291.0
42.6 Greywater 256.0 695.3 4799.8 46106.4
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.064 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.006
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,653.78 19,973.47 140,747.49
BRAC 11,665.92 35,695.31 164,256.14
MBR 23,413.79 50,419.72 184,784.02
RBC 8,638.00 21,117.04 139,506.04
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.52 0.53 0.68 8.12
BRAC 0.30 0.86 5.98 50.28
MBR 0.26 0.70 4.85 46.58
RBC 0.17 0.45 3.11 32.60
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.20 3.40 25.71 252.17
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.36 7.08 58.98 589.82
Difference 1.16 3.68 33.27 337.65
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 36.78 17.39 11.83
BRAC 37.02 34.63 16.49
MBR 70.93 46.40 17.81
RBC 23.78 17.92 12.67
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,251,816.89
1,244,675.51
1,444,489.58
11.24
11.72
13.77
10.33
1000
1,241,998.22
1000
96
27. Virginia Beach, Virginia
No results; missing sewer rate data.
City: Virginia Beach, VA consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
27 B28 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
78.1 156.1 234.2 312.2
45.7 Greywater 261.3 705.9 4815.7 46127.6
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.060 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 N/A N/A
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,681.01 20,027.94 140,829.19
BRAC 11,807.51 36,136.66 164,356.49
MBR 23,781.46 50,691.21 184,843.37
RBC 8,687.43 21,188.50 139,563.50
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.48 0.50 0.64 7.60
BRAC 0.30 0.84 5.81 48.97
MBR 0.26 0.70 4.75 45.50
RBC 0.17 0.46 3.12 31.85
Utilities w/ GW (USD) #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Utilities w/o GW (USD) #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Difference #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
BRAC #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
MBR #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
RBC #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
1,251,853.81
1,244,683.76
#VALUE!
1000
#VALUE!
1,444,623.38
1,242,040.85
1000
97
28. Sacramento, California
No results; missing utility rate data.
City: Sacramento, CA consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
28 B29 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
30.6 61.1 91.7 122.3
17.9 Greywater 213.8 610.9 4673.3 45937.7
0.0 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.000 Water rates not dependent on use! 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,436.78 19,539.47 140,096.48
BRAC 10,571.63 32,314.20 163,456.55
MBR 20,179.72 48,096.08 184,304.03
RBC 8,231.29 20,534.34 139,046.02
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR - - - -
BRAC 0.14 0.39 3.01 29.59
MBR 0.14 0.39 3.01 29.59
RBC 0.14 0.39 3.01 20.71
Utilities w/ GW (USD) #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Utilities w/o GW (USD) #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Difference #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
BRAC #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
MBR #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
RBC #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
1,251,522.46
1,244,609.64
1,443,423.45
1,241,658.55
1000
#VALUE!
1000
98
29. Kansas City, Missouri
City: Kansas City, MO-KS consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
29 B30 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
64.9 129.8 194.7 259.6
38 Greywater 248.2 679.6 4776.2 46075.0
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.098 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.002
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,613.37 19,892.65 140,626.25
BRAC 11,457.57 35,047.40 164,107.23
MBR 22,853.97 50,009.14 184,695.60
RBC 8,564.02 21,010.34 139,420.67
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.79 0.81 1.04 12.36
BRAC 0.36 1.05 7.46 61.07
MBR 0.30 0.82 5.74 55.41
RBC 0.16 0.44 3.10 38.79
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.39 3.87 27.98 271.77
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.93 5.79 48.27 482.70
Difference 0.54 1.92 20.29 210.93
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #N/A 48.94 20.02
BRAC 174.25 109.14 35.06
MBR 261.28 123.70 34.80
RBC 62.79 38.85 22.23
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,251,762.08
1,244,663.26
1,444,291.03
19.92
21.93
26.40
17.14
1000
1,241,934.96
1000
99
30. San Antonio, Texas
City: San Antonio, TX consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
30 B31 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
56.2 112.4 168.6 224.8
32.9 Greywater 239.5 662.2 4750.1 46040.2
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.067 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,568.56 19,803.03 140,491.83
BRAC 11,229.01 34,338.82 163,942.13
MBR 22,212.20 49,542.69 184,597.05
RBC 8,481.11 20,891.11 139,325.86
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.54 0.55 0.70 8.38
BRAC 0.28 0.83 6.02 50.97
MBR 0.25 0.68 4.86 47.12
RBC 0.16 0.43 3.08 32.98
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.42 1.22 9.41 92.67
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 0.87 2.62 21.81 218.11
Difference 0.45 1.40 12.41 125.44
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #N/A 63.76 32.89
BRAC 185.11 164.04 70.35
MBR 297.89 187.57 67.04
RBC 79.57 58.94 40.92
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
43.54
53.12
1,251,701.30
1,244,649.67
29.06
1000
37.09
1,444,070.90
1,241,864.83
1000
100
31. Las Vegas, Nevada
No results; missing sewage rate data.
City: Las Vegas, NV consumes 110.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
31 B32 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 21.5 85.8 257.4 2145.0 21450.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 24.3 97.2 291.7 2431.0 24310.0
Toilets 18.0% 19.8 79.2 237.6 1980.0 19800.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.7 6.6 19.8 165.0 1650.0
Baths 2.7% 3.0 11.9 35.6 297.0 2970.0
Leaks 8.8% 9.7 38.7 116.2 968.0 9680.0
Faucets 23.9% 26.3 105.2 315.5 2629.0 26290.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 3.7 15.0 44.9 374.0 3740.0
7.7 15.4 23.1 30.7
4.5 Greywater 307.8 915.6 7525.1 75050.7
0.0 Water Taken 439.6 1318.7 10989.0 109890.0
Wastewater 139.5 418.4 3487.0 34870.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.098 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 N/A N/A
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,919.98 21,106.79 145,083.94
BRAC 13,090.44 40,055.01 181,474.81
MBR 26,720.47 55,363.97 192,861.57
RBC 9,108.05 22,539.99 148,637.08
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.79 0.82 1.22 69.88
BRAC 0.45 1.41 11.61 86.43
MBR 0.37 1.10 9.02 89.99
RBC 0.20 0.60 4.93 63.00
Utilities w/ GW (USD) #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Utilities w/o GW (USD) #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Difference #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
BRAC #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
MBR #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
RBC #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,298,228.75
1,253,428.19
1,627,365.60
1,300,263.14
1000
#VALUE!
1000
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
101
32. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
City: Milwaukee, WI consumes 47.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
32 B33 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 9.2 36.7 110.0 916.5 9165.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 10.4 41.5 124.6 1038.7 10387.0
Toilets 18.0% 8.5 33.8 101.5 846.0 8460.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 0.7 2.8 8.5 70.5 705.0
Baths 2.7% 1.3 5.1 15.2 126.9 1269.0
Leaks 8.8% 4.1 16.5 49.6 413.6 4136.0
Faucets 23.9% 11.2 44.9 134.8 1123.3 11233.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 1.6 6.4 19.2 159.8 1598.0
59.4 118.9 178.3 237.7
34.8 Greywater 187.7 503.5 3383.7 32291.7
0.1 Water Taken 187.8 563.4 4695.3 46953.0
Wastewater 59.6 178.8 1489.9 14899.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.126 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,302.09 18,986.94 133,462.91
BRAC 9,922.70 28,357.84 155,308.91
MBR 17,833.66 44,622.87 178,503.94
RBC 7,965.60 19,752.93 134,097.72
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 1.01 1.03 1.22 6.93
BRAC 0.30 0.89 6.18 52.36
MBR 0.26 0.68 4.60 43.92
RBC 0.13 0.33 2.20 30.75
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.51 1.41 10.02 96.89
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 0.76 2.27 18.96 189.57
Difference 0.25 0.87 8.94 92.68
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #N/A #N/A 47.38
BRAC #N/A #N/A 154.26
MBR #N/A 671.07 112.72
RBC 181.01 100.92 54.50
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
Rainwater (in/year)
38.80
1000
1,214,189.27
1000
1,226,374.73
1,238,277.58
1,357,205.65
54.25
69.59
92.23
102
33. Indianapolis, Indiana
City: Indianapolis, IN consumes 77.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
33 B34 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 15.0 60.1 180.2 1501.5 15015.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 17.0 68.1 204.2 1701.7 17017.0
Toilets 18.0% 13.9 55.4 166.3 1386.0 13860.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.2 4.6 13.9 115.5 1155.0
Baths 2.7% 2.1 8.3 24.9 207.9 2079.0
Leaks 8.8% 6.8 27.1 81.3 677.6 6776.0
Faucets 23.9% 18.4 73.6 220.8 1840.3 18403.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.6 10.5 31.4 261.8 2618.0
70.0 140.0 210.1 280.1
41 Greywater 280.1 770.2 5461.5 52794.1
0.1 Water Taken 307.7 923.1 7692.3 76923.0
Wastewater 97.6 292.9 2440.9 24409.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.067 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,777.56 20,358.86 144,151.14
BRAC 12,317.03 38,899.34 168,436.66
MBR 25,027.27 52,257.83 187,103.87
RBC 8,860.09 21,615.42 141,850.52
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.54 0.56 0.74 12.60
BRAC 0.34 0.97 6.92 57.09
MBR 0.29 0.79 5.60 54.09
RBC 0.18 0.50 3.54 37.86
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.33 3.75 27.90 272.59
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.18 6.54 54.50 545.00
Difference 0.85 2.79 26.60 272.41
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 78.01 24.97 15.27
BRAC 65.95 58.53 23.45
MBR 122.27 71.59 24.40
RBC 36.55 25.87 16.85
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
15.65
18.92
1,263,222.42
1,247,108.78
13.24
1000
14.76
1,486,743.64
1,255,460.51
1000
103
34. Providence, Rhode Island
City: Providence, RI-MA consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
34 B35 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
79.4 158.8 238.2 317.7
46.5 Greywater 262.7 708.6 4819.8 46133.1
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.051 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.004
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,688.04 20,042.00 140,850.28
BRAC 11,844.20 36,251.17 164,382.39
MBR 23,875.13 50,760.61 184,858.65
RBC 8,700.13 21,206.89 139,578.32
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.41 0.42 0.54 6.48
BRAC 0.28 0.79 5.42 46.13
MBR 0.25 0.66 4.51 43.18
RBC 0.17 0.46 3.12 30.22
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.18 3.28 23.76 230.72
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.87 5.60 46.67 466.73
Difference 0.68 2.32 22.91 236.01
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 87.92 29.02 17.25
BRAC 80.28 64.98 25.74
MBR 149.25 84.12 27.52
RBC 46.51 31.28 19.32
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
16.67
17.68
20.84
1,251,863.34
1,244,685.89
1,444,657.91
1,242,051.85
1000
14.83
1000
104
35. Orlando, Florida
City: Orlando, FL consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
35 B36 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
82.7 165.3 248.0 330.6
48.4 Greywater 265.9 715.1 4829.5 46146.0
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.070 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.004
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,704.73 20,075.39 140,900.35
BRAC 11,931.60 36,524.14 164,443.90
MBR 24,095.66 50,924.37 184,894.90
RBC 8,730.22 21,250.46 139,613.49
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.56 0.58 0.74 8.80
BRAC 0.32 0.92 6.25 52.01
MBR 0.28 0.74 5.02 48.00
RBC 0.17 0.46 3.13 33.60
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.62 1.77 13.51 132.75
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.34 4.01 33.40 334.01
Difference 0.72 2.24 19.89 201.26
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 152.60 33.04 20.15
BRAC 83.03 75.45 33.03
MBR 149.75 93.17 34.06
RBC 44.06 32.77 22.82
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,251,885.97
1,244,690.94
1,444,739.92
20.46
22.25
26.52
17.68
1000
1,242,077.98
1000
105
36. Columbus, Ohio
City: Columbus, OH consumes 53.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
36 B37 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 10.3 41.3 124.0 1033.5 10335.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 11.7 46.9 140.6 1171.3 11713.0
Toilets 18.0% 9.5 38.2 114.5 954.0 9540.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 0.8 3.2 9.5 79.5 795.0
Baths 2.7% 1.4 5.7 17.2 143.1 1431.0
Leaks 8.8% 4.7 18.7 56.0 466.4 4664.0
Faucets 23.9% 12.7 50.7 152.0 1266.7 12667.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 1.8 7.2 21.6 180.2 1802.0
65.8 131.5 197.3 263.0
38.5 Greywater 210.3 565.3 3811.9 36409.0
0.1 Water Taken 211.8 635.4 5294.7 52947.0
Wastewater 67.2 201.6 1680.1 16801.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.050 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.005
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,418.80 19,304.55 135,665.39
BRAC 10,483.66 30,584.41 158,014.10
MBR 19,883.70 46,700.52 180,644.21
RBC 8,196.47 20,208.06 135,799.10
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.40 0.41 0.49 3.50
BRAC 0.22 0.62 4.23 37.02
MBR 0.19 0.52 3.53 33.72
RBC 0.14 0.37 2.46 23.61
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.97 2.71 19.82 192.90
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.67 5.00 41.70 416.99
Difference 0.70 2.29 21.88 224.09
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 77.35 28.05 17.38
BRAC 59.95 49.98 24.53
MBR 108.59 72.33 26.97
RBC 40.19 28.75 19.16
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
17.85
20.26
1,234,271.74
1,240,433.42
15.18
1000
16.87
1,383,219.43
1,222,477.34
1000
106
37. New Orleans, Louisiana
City: New Orleans, LA consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
37 B38 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
109.6 219.3 328.9 438.6
64.2 Greywater 292.9 769.1 4910.5 46254.0
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.060 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.004 0.004
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,843.55 20,353.01 141,316.79
BRAC 12,672.17 38,849.27 164,955.38
MBR 25,831.69 52,231.28 185,193.51
RBC 8,975.93 21,607.98 139,905.12
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.48 0.50 0.64 7.62
BRAC 0.34 0.92 5.91 49.00
MBR 0.29 0.76 4.84 45.56
RBC 0.19 0.50 3.18 31.89
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.69 4.57 31.19 298.80
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.32 6.96 57.98 579.84
Difference 0.63 2.39 26.79 281.04
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 168.04 29.50 14.80
BRAC 118.77 72.39 21.64
MBR 208.55 87.77 23.11
RBC 56.36 31.34 16.23
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
13.77
14.48
17.07
1000
1,252,074.08
1,244,732.91
1,445,421.90
1,242,295.26
1000
12.45
107
38. Buffalo, New York
City: Buffalo, NY consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
38 B39 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
69.2 138.3 207.5 276.7
40.5 Greywater 252.4 688.1 4789.0 46092.1
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.054 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.000
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,635.33 19,936.57 140,692.14
BRAC 11,570.54 35,398.49 164,188.16
MBR 23,160.38 50,233.44 184,743.71
RBC 8,604.32 21,068.43 139,467.09
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.43 0.45 0.57 6.80
BRAC 0.27 0.78 5.50 46.94
MBR 0.24 0.65 4.55 43.83
RBC 0.17 0.45 3.10 30.68
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.73 1.98 13.79 132.73
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 0.77 2.32 19.33 193.26
Difference 0.05 0.34 5.53 60.53
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #N/A #N/A 77.64
BRAC #N/A #N/A 12667.75
MBR #N/A #N/A 516.06
RBC #N/A #N/A 156.93
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,251,791.87
1,244,669.92
1,444,398.93
114.91
204.23
291.21
63.33
1000
1,241,969.34
1000
108
39. Memphis, Tennessee
City: Memphis, TN consumes 96.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
39 B40 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 18.7 74.9 224.6 1872.0 18720.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 21.2 84.9 254.6 2121.6 21216.0
Toilets 18.0% 17.3 69.1 207.4 1728.0 17280.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.4 5.8 17.3 144.0 1440.0
Baths 2.7% 2.6 10.4 31.1 259.2 2592.0
Leaks 8.8% 8.4 33.8 101.4 844.8 8448.0
Faucets 23.9% 22.9 91.8 275.3 2294.4 22944.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 3.3 13.1 39.2 326.4 3264.0
93.4 186.8 280.3 373.7
54.7 Greywater 355.3 972.5 6827.5 65845.7
0.1 Water Taken 383.6 1150.8 9590.4 95904.0
Wastewater 121.7 365.2 3043.2 30432.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.063 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 9,164.55 21,399.47 151,177.95
BRAC 14,479.00 40,414.49 177,067.28
MBR 29,300.73 56,446.84 191,113.97
RBC 9,517.54 22,888.56 146,419.47
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.51 0.53 0.75 25.75
BRAC 0.42 1.19 8.34 66.08
MBR 0.36 0.97 6.82 65.81
RBC 0.23 0.63 4.44 46.07
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.96 2.70 20.14 196.88
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.66 4.98 41.52 415.16
Difference 0.70 2.28 21.38 218.27
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 126.88 33.34 20.07
BRAC 139.52 101.11 37.21
MBR 230.09 117.88 35.97
RBC 55.23 37.92 23.68
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
20.43
22.48
28.25
1,284,223.74
1,251,077.47
1,569,206.20
18.24
1000
1,281,733.36
1000
109
40. Austin, Texas
City: Austin, TX consumes 94.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
40 B41 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 18.3 73.3 220.0 1833.0 18330.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 20.8 83.1 249.3 2077.4 20774.0
Toilets 18.0% 16.9 67.7 203.0 1692.0 16920.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.4 5.6 16.9 141.0 1410.0
Baths 2.7% 2.5 10.2 30.5 253.8 2538.0
Leaks 8.8% 8.3 33.1 99.3 827.2 8272.0
Faucets 23.9% 22.5 89.9 269.6 2246.6 22466.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 3.2 12.8 38.4 319.6 3196.0
57.6 115.1 172.7 230.2
33.7 Greywater 314.0 884.4 6583.5 64338.2
0.1 Water Taken 375.6 1126.9 9390.6 93906.0
Wastewater 119.2 357.6 2979.8 29798.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.078 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,951.98 20,946.28 149,922.81
BRAC 13,267.82 39,857.86 175,525.66
MBR 27,079.99 54,741.13 190,460.25
RBC 9,162.76 22,345.84 145,626.74
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.63 0.65 0.92 29.40
BRAC 0.41 1.21 9.00 70.79
MBR 0.34 0.96 7.16 70.01
RBC 0.21 0.57 4.29 49.01
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 3.41 9.76 75.12 739.30
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 5.87 17.61 146.78 1,467.75
Difference 2.47 7.85 71.66 728.45
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 13.37 7.97 5.81
BRAC 17.68 16.43 7.67
MBR 34.94 21.77 8.09
RBC 11.11 8.41 5.92
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1000
1,278,698.84
1,559,681.76
1,250,661.40
1,281,871.66
1000
5.01
6.50
5.20
5.17
110
41. Bridgeport, Connecticut
City: Bridgeport, CT consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
41 B42 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 Greywater 183.3 549.8 4581.5 45815.4
0.0 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.089 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.006
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,279.52 19,224.95 139,624.70
BRAC 9,816.19 30,014.27 162,877.08
MBR 17,408.58 46,201.94 183,947.99
RBC 7,919.90 20,095.58 138,710.13
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.71 0.73 0.93 11.01
BRAC 0.24 0.79 6.76 57.80
MBR 0.21 0.63 5.27 52.65
RBC 0.12 0.36 2.97 36.86
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.42 4.25 35.42 354.18
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.91 8.72 72.69 726.91
Difference 1.49 4.47 37.27 372.73
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 29.12 14.06 10.52
BRAC 21.52 22.34 14.62
MBR 37.25 32.96 15.74
RBC 15.85 13.38 11.08
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
Rainwater (in/year)
1000
1,241,412.39
1,442,650.84
1,244,561.76
1,251,308.87
1000
9.40
12.55
10.65
10.21
111
42. Salt Lake City, Utah
City: Salt Lake City, UT consumes 180.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
42 B43 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 35.1 140.4 421.2 3510.0 35100.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 39.8 159.1 477.4 3978.0 39780.0
Toilets 18.0% 32.4 129.6 388.8 3240.0 32400.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 2.7 10.8 32.4 270.0 2700.0
Baths 2.7% 4.9 19.4 58.3 486.0 4860.0
Leaks 8.8% 15.8 63.4 190.1 1584.0 15840.0
Faucets 23.9% 43.0 172.1 516.2 4302.0 43020.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 6.1 24.5 73.4 612.0 6120.0
28.2 56.4 84.5 112.7
16.5 Greywater 519.2 1529.5 12360.5 122872.7
0.0 Water Taken 719.3 2157.8 17982.0 179820.0
Wastewater 228.2 684.7 5706.0 57060.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.087 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 10,007.72 24,264.60 154,817.77
BRAC 19,851.92 43,933.56 212,026.36
MBR 36,114.52 64,580.50 201,776.50
RBC 10,810.33 26,014.29 162,530.10
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.71 0.76 1.45 1,096.68
BRAC 0.74 2.23 17.57 104.01
MBR 0.59 1.74 14.07 139.87
RBC 0.34 0.99 8.45 97.91
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.91 2.70 22.00 219.14
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.73 5.19 43.27 432.72
Difference 0.82 2.49 21.27 213.59
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 251.72 38.22 21.40
BRAC 660.31 455.42 156.91
MBR 432.41 234.79 76.81
RBC 61.59 47.43 34.75
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,929,514.42
1,262,284.71
1,363,691.09
1000
#N/A
48.24
1000
1,396,528.79
46.91
32.30
112
43. Jacksonville, Florida
City: Jacksonville, FL consumes 84.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
43 B44 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 16.4 65.5 196.6 1638.0 16380.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 18.6 74.3 222.8 1856.4 18564.0
Toilets 18.0% 15.1 60.5 181.4 1512.0 15120.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.3 5.0 15.1 126.0 1260.0
Baths 2.7% 2.3 9.1 27.2 226.8 2268.0
Leaks 8.8% 7.4 29.6 88.7 739.2 7392.0
Faucets 23.9% 20.1 80.3 240.9 2007.6 20076.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.9 11.4 34.3 285.6 2856.0
89.3 178.6 268.0 357.3
52.3 Greywater 318.5 866.1 5996.8 57645.3
0.1 Water Taken 335.7 1007.0 8391.6 83916.0
Wastewater 106.5 319.5 2662.8 26628.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.124 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,975.06 20,852.11 146,904.77
BRAC 13,396.53 39,742.20 171,818.77
MBR 27,334.84 54,365.42 188,783.51
RBC 9,201.99 22,230.91 143,680.57
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 1.00 1.03 1.40 31.12
BRAC 0.54 1.54 10.74 81.59
MBR 0.43 1.17 8.07 77.62
RBC 0.21 0.57 3.92 54.33
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.25 3.47 25.04 243.00
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.82 5.45 45.40 453.99
Difference 0.56 1.98 20.36 210.98
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #N/A 60.52 21.23
BRAC 1456.59 251.92 48.96
MBR 555.90 184.03 42.11
RBC 71.52 43.19 23.95
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,271,205.11
1000
19.27
32.13
25.65
22.23
1000
1,265,225.97
1,517,394.46
1,248,688.05
113
44. Louisville, Kentucky
City: Louisville, KY-IN consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
44 B45 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
76.0 152.0 228.0 304.0
44.5 Greywater 259.3 701.8 4809.5 46119.4
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.072 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,670.47 20,006.86 140,797.56
BRAC 11,752.59 35,965.37 164,317.65
MBR 23,640.03 50,586.60 184,820.42
RBC 8,668.33 21,160.88 139,541.27
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.58 0.60 0.76 9.10
BRAC 0.32 0.91 6.34 52.78
MBR 0.27 0.74 5.07 48.63
RBC 0.17 0.46 3.12 34.04
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.96 2.67 19.38 188.27
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.50 4.51 37.58 375.82
Difference 0.54 1.84 18.21 187.56
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR #N/A 44.15 22.11
BRAC 145.01 106.57 37.94
MBR 240.81 126.19 38.55
RBC 63.85 41.94 25.34
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
19.07
29.37
24.55
22.34
1000
1,242,024.35
1,444,571.59
1,244,680.56
1,251,839.52
1000
114
45. Hartford, Connecticut
City: Hartford, CT consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
45 B46 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
78.9 157.8 236.7 315.6
46.2 Greywater 262.2 707.6 4818.3 46131.0
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.028 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,685.41 20,036.73 140,842.37
BRAC 11,830.43 36,208.20 164,372.68
MBR 23,840.06 50,734.62 184,852.92
RBC 8,695.37 21,200.00 139,572.76
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.22 0.23 0.29 3.48
BRAC 0.23 0.63 4.34 38.52
MBR 0.21 0.57 3.86 36.94
RBC 0.17 0.46 3.11 25.86
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.09 3.03 21.83 211.83
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.69 5.06 42.17 421.69
Difference 0.60 2.03 20.34 209.85
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 63.67 30.39 19.25
BRAC 88.23 70.81 28.15
MBR 169.40 94.70 30.73
RBC 56.01 36.83 22.19
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1000
1,242,047.73
19.72
18.64
1,444,644.96
1,244,685.09
1,251,859.77
1000
16.49
23.10
115
46. Richmond, Virginia
City: Richmond, VA consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
46 B47 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
75.0 150.0 224.9 299.9
43.9 Greywater 258.2 699.7 4806.5 46115.3
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.060 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,665.20 19,996.32 140,781.75
BRAC 11,725.18 35,879.93 164,298.22
MBR 23,568.89 50,534.07 184,808.93
RBC 8,658.77 21,147.05 139,530.15
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.48 0.50 0.64 7.59
BRAC 0.29 0.83 5.80 48.95
MBR 0.25 0.69 4.74 45.49
RBC 0.17 0.45 3.11 31.84
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.84 2.37 17.57 171.59
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.50 4.49 37.40 373.95
Difference 0.65 2.12 19.82 202.37
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 141.81 33.85 20.11
BRAC 89.60 76.70 32.10
MBR 162.48 97.08 33.58
RBC 49.12 34.85 22.88
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1000
1,242,016.10
1,444,545.69
1,244,678.97
1,251,832.37
1000
17.47
25.80
21.74
20.11
116
47. Charlotte, North Carolina
City: Charlotte, NC-SC consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
47 B48 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
74.3 148.6 222.9 297.2
43.5 Greywater 257.6 698.4 4804.4 46112.6
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.086 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.006 0.006
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,661.69 19,989.29 140,771.21
BRAC 11,706.93 35,823.06 164,285.27
MBR 23,521.31 50,498.96 184,801.27
RBC 8,652.38 21,137.82 139,522.73
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.69 0.71 0.91 10.81
BRAC 0.35 1.00 6.94 57.11
MBR 0.29 0.79 5.44 52.18
RBC 0.17 0.45 3.12 36.53
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.66 4.66 34.17 332.92
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.77 8.31 69.26 692.64
Difference 1.11 3.66 35.09 359.72
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 57.14 18.59 11.28
BRAC 42.26 36.90 15.99
MBR 79.15 48.29 17.07
RBC 25.33 18.09 11.96
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1000
1,242,010.60
1,444,528.42
1,244,677.90
1,251,827.61
1000
9.75
13.08
11.09
10.61
117
48. Nashville, Tennessee
City: Nashville, TN consumes 70.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
48 B49 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.7 54.6 163.8 1365.0 13650.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 15.5 61.9 185.6 1547.0 15470.0
Toilets 18.0% 12.6 50.4 151.2 1260.0 12600.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.1 4.2 12.6 105.0 1050.0
Baths 2.7% 1.9 7.6 22.7 189.0 1890.0
Leaks 8.8% 6.2 24.6 73.9 616.0 6160.0
Faucets 23.9% 16.7 66.9 200.8 1673.0 16730.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.4 9.5 28.6 238.0 2380.0
82.1 164.3 246.4 328.6
48.1 Greywater 273.1 737.2 5020.4 48068.6
0.1 Water Taken 279.7 839.2 6993.0 69930.0
Wastewater 88.8 266.3 2219.0 22190.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.091 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.006
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,741.70 20,188.92 141,882.48
BRAC 12,126.41 37,463.10 165,650.19
MBR 24,574.61 51,470.37 185,591.36
RBC 8,796.42 21,397.69 140,298.81
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.73 0.75 0.97 12.89
BRAC 0.38 1.09 7.49 60.74
MBR 0.32 0.86 5.83 55.80
RBC 0.18 0.48 3.26 39.06
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.41 3.98 29.70 290.35
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.64 7.93 66.10 660.97
Difference 1.23 3.95 36.40 370.62
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 48.07 17.31 10.97
BRAC 39.11 35.88 15.70
MBR 73.69 45.60 16.63
RBC 22.94 16.90 11.60
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,456,887.01
1,245,424.22
1,255,215.56
1000
9.54
12.88
1000
1,245,948.08
10.84
10.37
118
49. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
City: Oklahoma City, OK consumes 67.18 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
49 B50 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 13.1 52.4 157.2 1310.0 13099.7
Clothes Washers 22.1% 14.8 59.4 178.2 1484.6 14846.3
Toilets 18.0% 12.1 48.4 145.1 1209.2 12092.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.0 4.0 12.1 100.8 1007.7
Baths 2.7% 1.8 7.3 21.8 181.4 1813.8
Leaks 8.8% 5.9 23.6 70.9 591.2 5911.7
Faucets 23.9% 16.1 64.2 192.7 1605.6 16055.5
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 2.3 9.1 27.4 228.4 2284.1
61.3 122.6 183.9 245.3
35.9 Greywater 244.6 672.4 4765.5 46060.6
0.1 Water Taken 268.4 805.3 6711.1 67110.8
Wastewater 85.2 255.5 2129.5 21295.4
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.084 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.004
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,594.92 19,855.75 140,570.90
BRAC 11,363.14 34,754.39 164,039.25
MBR 22,592.48 49,818.54 184,655.09
RBC 8,530.00 20,961.37 139,381.65
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.67 0.69 0.89 10.55
BRAC 0.32 0.95 6.81 56.47
MBR 0.27 0.75 5.34 51.64
RBC 0.16 0.44 3.09 36.15
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 0.90 2.54 19.13 187.38
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 1.60 4.79 39.93 399.31
Difference 0.70 2.25 20.80 211.93
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 943.48 34.93 19.34
BRAC 82.78 73.03 32.11
MBR 145.40 91.23 32.72
RBC 43.40 31.69 21.56
Rainwater (in/year)
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
1,251,737.06
1000
16.90
25.45
21.27
19.51
1000
1,241,906.08
1,444,200.38
1,244,657.66
119
50. Tucson, Arizona
City: Tucson, AZ consumes 98.00 Occupants: 4 12 100 1000
50 B51 gal/cap/day Footprint: 1000 2000 3000 4000
Showers 19.5% 19.1 76.4 229.3 1911.0 19110.0
Clothes Washers 22.1% 21.7 86.6 259.9 2165.8 21658.0
Toilets 18.0% 17.6 70.6 211.7 1764.0 17640.0
Dishwashers 1.5% 1.5 5.9 17.6 147.0 1470.0
Baths 2.7% 2.6 10.6 31.8 264.6 2646.0
Leaks 8.8% 8.6 34.5 103.5 862.4 8624.0
Faucets 23.9% 23.4 93.7 281.1 2342.2 23422.0
Other Domestic Uses 3.4% 3.3 13.3 40.0 333.2 3332.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 Greywater 267.3 802.0 6683.6 66836.0
0.0 Water Taken 391.6 1174.8 9790.2 97902.0
Wastewater 124.3 372.8 3106.6 31066.0
Economic Electricity (per kWh) Water- Single fam Water- Multi Water- apartment Water- Other Sewage Stormwater
Rate 0.102 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004
Hard System Cost (USD) 4 12 100
AIRR 8,712.04 20,522.53 150,437.91
BRAC 11,969.98 39,337.40 176,158.32
MBR 24,191.39 52,984.95 190,731.41
RBC 8,743.35 21,822.28 145,953.20
Daily Sys Opr Cost (USD) 4 12 100 1000
AIRR 0.82 0.85 1.21 44.63
BRAC 0.40 1.27 10.62 81.88
MBR 0.33 0.98 8.18 81.84
RBC 0.18 0.52 4.37 57.29
Utilities w/ GW (USD) 1.10 3.31 27.60 275.99
Utilities w/o GW (USD) 2.51 7.54 62.86 628.64
Difference 1.41 4.23 35.26 352.65
Site Payback Per (yrs) 4 12 100
AIRR 40.57 16.62 12.10
BRAC 32.35 36.36 19.58
MBR 61.18 44.67 19.30
RBC 19.42 16.12 12.94
Rainwater (gal/day/sf)
Rainwater (in/year)
11.42
15.94
12.66
11.93
1000
1,283,726.87
1,575,463.22
1,251,345.65
1,285,759.47
1000
120
APPENDIX B: EXTENDED GRAPHS
1. New York, New York
2. Los Angeles, California
121
3. Chicago, Illinois
4. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
122
5. Miami, Florida
6. Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas
123
7. Boston, Massachusetts
8. Washington, D.C.
124
9. Detroit, Michigan
10. Houston, Texas
125
11. Atlanta, Georgia
12. San Francisco, California
126
13. Phoenix, Arizona
14. Seattle, Washington
127
15. San Diego, California
16. Minneapolis, Minnesota
128
17. Cleveland, Ohio
18. St. Louis, Missouri
129
19. Baltimore, Maryland
20. Tampa, Florida
130
21. Denver, Colorado
22. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
131
23. Portland, Oregon
24. San Jose, California
No data available.
25. Riverside, California
No data available
132
26. Cincinnati, Ohio
27. Virginia Beach, Virginia
No data available
28. Sacramento, California
No data available
133
29. Kansas City, Missouri
30. San Antonio, Texas
134
31. Las Vegas, Nevada
No data available
32. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
135
33. Indianapolis, Indiana
34. Providence, Rhode Island
136
35. Orlando, Florida
36. Columbus, Ohio
137
37. New Orleans, Louisiana
38. Buffalo, New York
138
39. Memphis, Tennessee
40. Austin, Texas
139
41. Bridgeport, Connecticut
42. Salt Lake City, Utah
140
43. Jacksonville, Florida
44. Louisville, Kentucky
141
45. Hartford, Connecticut
46. Richmond, Virginia
142
47. Charlotte, North Carolina
48. Nashville, Tennessee
143
49. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
50. Tucson, Arizona
144
APPENDIX C: SOURCES FOR CITY UTILITY DATA
1. New York, New York
Power: http://www.bls.gov/ro2/avgengny.pdf
Water: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwaterboard/html/rate_schedule/index.shtml
Sewage:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwaterboard/html/rate_schedule/index.shtml
2. Los Angeles, California
Power: http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp001710.jsp
Water: http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp001068.jsp
Sewage: http://lacitysan.org/fmd/ssc1.htm
3. Chicago, Illinois
Power: http://www.bls.gov/ro5/aepchi.htm
Water:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/water/provdrs/cust_serv/svcs/know_
my_water_sewerrates.html
Sewage:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/water/provdrs/cust_serv/svcs/know_
my_water_sewerrates.html
145
4. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Power: http://www.bls.gov/ro3/apphl.pdf
Water: http://www.phila.gov/water/Bill/201107RateIncrease_v.pdf
Sewage: http://www.phila.gov/water/Bill/201107RateIncrease_v.pdf
5. Miami, Florida
Power: http://www.bls.gov/ro4/aepmia.pdf
Water: http://www.miamidade.gov/wasd/rates.asp
Sewage: http://www.miamidade.gov/wasd/rates.asp
6. Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas
Power: http://www.dallaselectricrates.com/
Water: http://www.dallascityhall.com/dwu/billing_rates_monthly.html
Sewage: http://www.dallascityhall.com/dwu/billing_rates_monthly.html
7. Boston, Massachusetts
Power: http://www.nstar.com/ss3/residential/rates_tariffs/rates/rates.asp
Water: http://www.bwsc.org/services/rates/rates.asp
Sewage: http://www.bwsc.org/services/rates/rates.asp
8. Washington, D.C.
Power: http://www.bls.gov/ro3/apwb.htm
Water: http://www.dcwasa.com/customercare/rates.cfm
146
Sewage: http://www.dcwasa.com/customercare/rates.cfm
9. Detroit, Michigan
Power: http://www.dteenergy.com/pdfs/detroitEdisonTariff.pdf
Water:
http://www.dwsd.org/downloads_n/customer_service/rate_schedules/detroit_wat
er_rates.pdf
Sewage:
http://www.dwsd.org/downloads_n/customer_service/rate_schedules/detroit_sew
er_rates.pdf
10. Houston, Texas
Power: http://www.houstonelectricrates.com/compare-rates/
Water:
http://documents.publicworks.houstontx.gov/documents/divisions/resource/ucs/
2011_water_rates.pdf }
Sewage:
http://documents.publicworks.houstontx.gov/documents/divisions/resource/ucs/
2011_water_rates.pdf
11. Atlanta, Georgia
Power: http://www.georgiapower.com/pricing/residential/pricing/standard-
147
service-plan.asp
Water: http://www.atlantawatershed.org/custsrv/Rate/2008-
09to2012RatesBillCalc.pdf
Sewage: http://www.atlantawatershed.org/custsrv/Rate/2008-
09to2012RatesBillCalc.pdf
12. San Francisco, California
Power: http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/electric.shtml
Water: http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=168
Sewage: http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=170
13. Phoenix, Arizona
Power: http://www.aps.com/main/services/residential/rates/rates_29.html
Water: http://phoenix.gov/WATER/watrates.pdf
Sewage:
http://phoenix.gov/waterservices/customerservices/payment/rates/index.html
14. Seattle, Washington
Power: http://www.seattle.gov/light/accounts/rates/docs/2011/Jan/2011Jan_rsc.pdf
Water:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/Services/Water/WaterRates/ResidentialWaterRates/in
dex.htm
148
Sewage:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/Services/Drainage_&_Sewer/Rates/DrainageRates/ind
ex.htm
15. San Diego, California
Power: http://www.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/ELEC_ELEC-SCHEDS_DR.pdf
Water: http://www.sandiego.gov/water/rates/rates.shtml
Sewage: http://www.sandiego.gov/mwwd/residential/rates.shtml
16. Minneapolis, Minnesota
Power:
http://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/Regulatory/Regulatory%20PDFs/Me_Se
ction_5.pdf
Water: http://mn-stpaul.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=3493
Sewage: http://mn-stpaul.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=3493
17. Cleveland, Ohio
Power: http://www.bls.gov/ro5/aepcle.pdf
Water: http://mn-stpaul.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=3493
Sewage: http://neorsd.org/rates.php
149
18. St. Louis, Missouri
Power: http://www.ameren.com/sites/aue/Rates/Pages/ResRates.aspx
Water: http://www.stlwater.com/waterrates.php
Sewage:
http://www.stlmsd.com/customerservice/rateinformation/ResidentialCusto
merswithWaterMeters
19. Baltimore, Maryland
Power: http://www.bls.gov/ro3/apwb.htm
Water:
http://www.greaterbaltimore.org/Portals/0/Utilities/BCity%20Water%20Ra
te%20Schedule.pdf
Sewage:
http://www.greaterbaltimore.org/Portals/0/Utilities/BCity%20Water%20Ra
te%20Schedule.pdf
20. Tampa, Florida
Power: http://www.tampaelectric.com/data/files/TariffSection6.pdf
Water:
http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Water/information_resources/rates_and_f
ees/
150
Sewage: http://www.tampagov.net/dept_wastewater/how_do_i/
21. Denver, Colorado
Power: http://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/Regulatory/COResRates.pdf
Water:
http://www.denverwater.org/BillingRates/RatesCharges/2012Rates/InsideCity/
Sewage:
http://www.denvergov.org/wastewatermanagement/Wastewater/BillingPayment/
WastewaterRates/SanitarySewerRates/tabid/441674/Default.aspx
22. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Power:
http://residential.directenergy.com/EN/Energy/Pennsylvania/Pages/ELE/res-ele-
default.aspx
Water: http://www.pgh2o.com/fees.htm
Sewage: http://www.pgh2o.com/AlcRates.htm
23. Portland, Oregon
Power:
http://www.portlandgeneral.com/our_company/corporate_info/regulatory_docum
ents/pdfs/schedules/Sched_007.pdf
Water: http://www.portlandonline.com/water/index.cfm?c=29415&a=350346
151
Sewage: http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=55059&a=354263
24. San Jose, California
Power: http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/electric.shtml
Water: http://www.sjmuniwater.com/customerservice/rates.asp
Sewage: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/esd/wastewater/sanitary-sewer-
rates.asp#residential
25. Riverside, California
Power: http://www.riversideca.gov/utilities/pdf/elec-
rates/2011/Electric%20Rate%20Schedule%20D-%20(9-27-
11%20CC)%20approved%20effective%209-27-11.pdf
Water: http://www.riversideca.gov/utilities/pdf/water-
rates/2011/Water%20Rate%20-WA1-%20(9-27-
11%20CC)%20approved%20effective%209-27-11.pdf
Sewage: http://www.riversideca.gov/sewer/
26. Cincinnati, Ohio
Power: http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/DE-OH-rs(5).pdf
Water: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/water/downloads/water_pdf40863.pdf
Sewage: http://msdgc.org/customer_service/rates/
152
27. Virginia Beach, Virginia
Power: http://www.dom.com/dominion-virginia-power/customer-
service/rates-and-tariffs/pdf/vab1.pdf
Water: http://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/public-
utilities/rates-fees-charges/Pages/Water-and-Sewer-Rates.aspx
Sewage: http://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/public-
utilities/rates-fees-charges/Pages/Water-and-Sewer-Rates.aspx
28. Sacramento, California
Consistent data could not be found
29. Kansas City, Missouri
Power: http://www.kcpl.com/about/MoERates.pdf
Water:
http://www.kcmo.org/CKCMO/Depts/WaterServices/WaterRates/index.htm
Sewage:
http://www.kcmo.org/CKCMO/Depts/WaterServices/WaterRates/index.htm
30. San Antonio, Texas
Power: http://www.cpsenergy.com/files/Rate_ResidentialElectric030110.pdf
Water: http://www.saws.org/service/rates/resident.shtml
Sewage: http://www.saws.org/service/rates/resident.shtml
153
31. Las Vegas, Nevada
Power:
http://www.nvenergy.com/company/rates/nnv/electric/schedules/images/Stateme
nt_of_Rates_Electric_South_000.pdf
Water: http://www.lvvwd.com/custserv/billing_rates_thresholds.html
Sewage: https://secure2.lasvegasnevada.gov/PaySewer/search.aspx
32. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Power: http://www.we-energies.com/residential/acctoptions/wi_pricetariff.htm
Water:
http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/WaterWorks/files/Rateswebdoc_
110906_3720-WR-107.pdf
Sewage:
http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/WaterWorks/files/brochureMuni
cipalServicesBill_.pdf
33. Indianapolis, Indiana
Power:
http://www.iplpower.com/library/IPL/Tariff%20Changes%202011/Residential%20R
ates%20for%20Master%20Tariff%20(Sheets%2010-14).pdf
Water: http://www.citizenswater.com/pdf/Rate-Water.pdf
Sewage: http://www.citizenswater.com/pdf/Rate-Wastewater.pdf
154
34. Providence, Rhode Island
Power: http://www.nationalgridus.com/narragansett/non_html/rates_tariff.pdf
Water: http://www.provwater.com/depts/cs/billrates.htm
Sewage: http://www.narrabay.com/en/Customer%20Service/Rates.aspx
35. Orlando, Florida
Power:
http://www.ouc.com/en/residential/electric_and_water_rates/electric_rates.aspx
Water:
www.ouc.com/Libraries/OUCDocuments/water_rate_schedule_0309.sflb.ashx
Sewage: http://www.cityoforlando.net/public_works/wastewater/rates.htm
36. Columbus, Ohio
Power:
https://www.aepohio.com/global/utilities/lib/docs/ratesandtariffs/Ohio/201
1-10-27-OP-Standard-Tariff-No19.pdf
Water:
http://utilities.columbus.gov/uploadedFiles/Public_Utilities/Customer_Ser
vice/Residential/Meter_Reading_and_Bill_Calculation/Calc11.pdf
Sewage:
http://utilities.columbus.gov/uploadedFiles/Public_Utilities/Customer_Ser
vice/Residential/Meter_Reading_and_Bill_Calculation/Calc11.pdf
155
37. New Orleans, Louisiana
Power: http://www.entergy-
neworleans.com/content/price/tariffs/enoi_elec_res.pdf
Water: http://www.swbno.org/custserv_information_rates_water.asp
Sewage: http://www.swbno.org/custserv_information_rates_sewer.asp
38. Buffalo, New York
Power:
https://www.nationalgridus.com/niagaramohawk/home/rates/4_standard.asp
Water:
http://www.buffalowaterauthority.com/CustomerService/RatesandFees/Rates
Sewage:
http://www.buffalowaterauthority.com/CustomerService/RatesandFees/Rates
39. Memphis, Tennessee
Power: http://www.mlgw.com/images/RSOct11.pdf
Water: http://www.mlgw.com/images/ScheduleW1Jan2011.pdf
Sewage:
www.cityofmemphis.org/pdf_forms/ordinances/5356_IncreaseSewerFees.pdf
156
40. Austin, Texas
Power: http://www.austinenergy.com/about%20us/rates/rateSummary.pdf
Water:
www.ci.austin.tx.us/water/downloads/retailwaterapprovedservicerates2012.pdf
Sewage:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/water/downloads/retailwastewaterapprovedservicerates
2012.pdf
41. Bridgeport, Connecticut
Power: http://www.electricrate.com/2011/08/low-electric-rates-in-
bridgeport-ct/
Water: http://www.aquarion.com/pdfs/finalapprovedrates10_02_13.pdf
Sewage: http://www.bridgeportct.gov/wpca/Pages/SewerUseFees.aspx
42. Salt Lake City, Utah
Power:
http://www.rockymountainpower.net/content/dam/rocky_mountain_powe
r/doc/About_Us/Rates_and_Regulation/Utah/Approved_Tariffs/Rate_Schedules/R
esidential_Service.pdf
Water: www.slcgov.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/new%20summer%20rates.pdf
Sewage: http://www.slcgov.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/sewer%20rates%202010.pdf
157
43. Jacksonville, Florida
Power: http://www.jea.com/services/electric/rates_quarterly.asp
Water:
http://www.jacksonvilleil.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BC952A9
B9-06F1-44EC-8700-0FEA48BC4917%7D&DE=%7B8799F89B-D9C8-4223-99CB-
0D2066362553%7D
Sewage:
http://www.jacksonvilleil.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BC952A9
B9-06F1-44EC-8700-0FEA48BC4917%7D&DE=%7B8799F89B-D9C8-4223-99CB-
0D2066362553%7D
44. Louisville, Kentucky
Power: http://www.lge-ku.com/rsc/lge/lgereselectric.pdf
Water: http://www.louisvilleky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/29D20E44-BB11-4C33-
B976-F80C870A929D/0/2011TariffandRateSchedule_AmendedMarch15_2011.pdf
Sewage: http://www.msdlouky.org/pdfs/MSDRateScheduleAugust2011.pdf
45. Hartford, Connecticut
Power: http://www.cl-p.com/Rates/rate1/
Water: http://www.themdc.com/BillInsert11-1.pdf
Sewage: http://www.themdc.com/BillInsert11-1.pdf
158
46. Richmond, Virginia
Power: http://www.dom.com/dominion-virginia-power/customer-
service/rates-and-tariffs/pdf/vab1.pdf
Water: http://www.richmondgov.com/publicutilities/UtilityRates.aspx
Sewage: http://www.richmondgov.com/publicutilities/UtilityRates.aspx
47. Charlotte, North Carolina
Power: http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/NCScheduleRS.pdf
Water:
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/Utilities/CustomerService/guidetorates/
Pages/CurrentRates.aspx
Sewage:
http://www.charmeck.org/city/charlotte/Utilities/Documents/A%20Guide
%20to%20Utilities%20Budget%20and%20Rates%20FINAL.pdf
48. Nashville, Tennessee
Power: http://www.nespower.com/resrates.html
Water: http://www.nashville.gov/water/rate_schedule.asp
Sewage: http://www.nashville.gov/water/rate_schedule.asp
159
49. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Power: http://www.oge.com/Documents/OK/3.00%20R-1.pdf
Water: http://www.okc.gov/water/service/Forms/rates_fees.aspx
Sewage: http://www.okc.gov/water/service/Forms/rates_fees.aspx
50. Tucson, Arizona
Power: http://www.tep.com/company/news/ratecase/index.asp
Water: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/water/rates
Sewage: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/finance/fees_July2012.htm
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This thesis examines the feasibility of greywater systems under various conditions in order to understand optimal circumstances for greywater system instillation and, in turn, site sustainability. The study begins by analyzing historical and modern approaches to greywater such that successful methods can be implemented into present day sustainable design. Current issues pertaining to greywater such as health concerns and overcoming public opposition to recycling water are discussed in order to better design integrated greywater systems that will not be encountered with a negative perspective. Furthermore, sustainability programs such as LEED and Sustainable Sites are examined for implementation of water sustainable site design and if greywater systems are being incentivized by these programs. Water use is dissected into commercial and residential use in order to typify sites and identify consumption patterns in order to generalize a site’s feasibility for greywater system implementation. This data is used to establish an algorithm which quantifies a site’s feasibility for a greywater system in the form of a payback period. Other variables include the amount of rainfall and precipitation, utility data such as water, sewage, and electric rates, and typical user consumption. Four different system types- Membrane Bioreactor, Rotary Biocontactor, Alternating Intermittent Recirculating Reactor, and Brac- are examined and implemented into the modeling process to understand how system demands, based on the given variables, impact system feasibility. Trends and relationships are identified which establish general patterns in model output, including quantified metrics of greywater system variables. Embedded costs and benefits to current infrastructure are discussed to properly understand the true price of the utilities consumed to provide for daily water consumption.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Impacts of indoor environmental quality on occupants environmental comfort: a post occupancy evaluation study
PDF
Streamlining sustainable design in building information modeling: BIM-based PV design and analysis tools
PDF
Seismic retrofitting with cost effectiveness
PDF
External bracing of existing buildings to reduce drift under lateral load
PDF
Zero net energy institutional building
PDF
Defining a sustainable aesthetic: a new paradigm for architecture
PDF
An investigation on using BIM for sustainability analysis using the LEED rating system
PDF
Unitized double skin façade assemblies: achieving the needs of future envelope systems through construction and performance advances
PDF
ctrl+z: exploring the effects of undoing retrofits to pre-war buildings in Los Angeles
PDF
The role of CALGreen codes and sustainable rating systems in practicing sustainability
PDF
Design proposal and analysis of curved brace system to reduce drift in moment frame structures
PDF
A parametric study of the thermal performance of green roofs in different climates through energy modeling
PDF
Evaluation of daylighting circadian effects: Integrating non-visual effects of lighting in the evaluation of daylighting designs
PDF
How age, gender, and education impact our path toward carbon-neutrality
PDF
Using architecture in the fight against global warming: presenting viable energy-saving renovation design strategies to homeowners via an interactive web learning tool
PDF
Structural design tool for performative building elements: a semi-automated Grasshopper plugin for design decision support of complex trusses
PDF
Watt Hall energy management system implementation initiative
PDF
The effectiveness of enviro-materially actuated kinetic facades: evaluating the thermal performance of thermo-bimetal shading component geometries
PDF
Changing space and sound: parametric design and variable acoustics
PDF
Façade retrofit performance evaluation: Predicting energy conservation potential from renovations to the building envelope
Asset Metadata
Creator
Blood, Chase Jamison
(author)
Core Title
Greywater systems in urban environments
School
School of Architecture
Degree
Master of Building Science
Degree Program
Building Science
Publication Date
05/07/2012
Defense Date
05/11/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Architecture,Building Science,graywater,greywater,holistic design,OAI-PMH Harvest,public planning,sustainability,Water
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Woll, Edward (
committee chair
), Carlson, Anders (
committee member
), Mar, Erik (
committee member
)
Creator Email
chaseblood@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-33727
Unique identifier
UC11289920
Identifier
usctheses-c3-33727 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-BloodChase-796.pdf
Dmrecord
33727
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Blood, Chase Jamison
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
graywater
greywater
holistic design
public planning
sustainability