UBC Faculty Research and Publications

BC Municipal Water Survey 2016 Honey-Rosés, Jordi; Gill, David; Pareja, Claudio Mar 3, 2016

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52383-Honey-Roses_J_et_al_BC_Municipal_Water.pdf [ 1.82MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52383-1.0300363.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0300363-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0300363-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0300363-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0300363-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0300363-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0300363-source.json
Full Text
52383-1.0300363-fulltext.txt
Citation
52383-1.0300363.ris

Full Text

BC MUNICIPAL WATER SURVEY 2016Jordi Honey-Rosés, David Gill, Claudio ParejaMarch 2016Water Planning labSchool of community and regional PlanninguniverSity of britiSh columbiaWater Planning LabSchool of Community and Regional PlanningFaculty of Applied SciencesUniversity of British Columbiawww.wpl.scarp.ubc.cawater.planning@ubc.caReport design: Jessica JinRelease date: 3 March 2016Research project approved by the Behavioural Research Ethic Board of the University of British Columbia.  UBC BREB Number: H1501274CitationHoney-Rosés, J., Gill, D., Pareja, C. 2016. BC Municipal Water Survey 2016. Water Planning Lab. School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia. Online URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2429/57077Open Access DataThe data has been made publically available for use by researchers and interested stakeholders.  The data may be downloaded from the Abacus Dataverse Network with the following URL: http://hdl.handle.net/11272/10343W a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i aIIB C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 6IIIACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMultiple research programs at the University of British Columbia have supported the design and implementation of the BC Municipal Water Survey 2016. We recognized the support received from the Hampton Fund, the Faculty of Applied Sciences and the School of Community and Regional Planning. We also thank those who assisted in the development of the survey, especially, Nora Angeles, Jennifer Bailey, Eugene Barsky, Oliver Brandes, Stephanie Chang, Jenna Cook, Paula Farrar, Paul Lesack, Emme Lee, Marc Parlange, Hans Schreier, Kim Stephens, Kirk Stinchcombe, Michel Villeneuve, and Daniel Ward. Most importantly, we are grateful to the municipal water managers who assisted in the completion of the survey.   W a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i aIVTABLE OF CONTENTS123347141719212323263438391. INTRODUCTION 2. DATA COLLECTION METHODS3. RESULTS 3.1 Response Rate 3.2 Water Use 3.3  Water Metering 3.4 Water Pricing 3.5 Water Conservation 4. CONCLUSION 5. REFERENCES APPENDICESAppendix 1 Appendix 2       Appendix 3   Appendix 4  Appendix 5 B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 6VW a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i aVIEXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe BC Municipal Water Survey 2016 presents an overview of local water use, pricing, and metering coverage in the province of British Columbia. In the summer and autumn of 2015, we contacted local governments to ask them basic questions about water use in their jurisdiction. Our survey was designed to provide continuity with Environment Canada’s Municipal Water and Wastewater Survey.  We obtained responses from 45 local governments, which correspond to 66% of the population in the province and 32% of the local governments. The response rate is comparable to the last Municipal Water and Wastewater Survey released by Environment Canada in 2011 with data from 2009.  We find that water use in liters per capita per day (lpcd) continues to fall, with total water use dropping 18% to 494 lpcd, and residential water use falling 12% to 312 lpcd from 2009. If our survey results accurately estimate water use trends, the province would be on track to meet its target to improve water efficiency by 33% by 2020. We find a metering coverage rate of 26% percent of water connections in the province. Among single family connections, the metering rate is 36%, while 18% of multifamily homes are individually metered. Notably, our metering coverage rate for single family connections is lower than the 40% that can be estimated with the data from Environment Canada (2011). Despite the low metering coverage rates reported, we find that an important number of municipalities are transitioning to universal metering, or have semi-mandatory metering programs that are gradually bringing water meters into communities throughout the province. We expect metering coverage rates to rise. On average, local governments in BC charge residents $394 a year for water services. Two thirds of the municipal governments in our survey still use a flat fee rate structure. The average flat fee in the province for a typical residential connection is $381. Only one third of municipal governments charge fees based on volumes of water consumed. Of these, most use a constant unit charge, rather than an increasing block rate. Assuming that an average resident consumes 25 m3 per month, residents with volumetric rate structures pay on average $418 per year. Finally, we observe that the rate charged by municipalities is highly variable throughout the province, ranging between $135 to $782.Lastly, we inquired about water conservation programs implemented by local governments. The most common water conservation measures are educational campaigns (80%), mandatory restrictions (73%), and an active leak-detection program (58%). On the other extreme, only one municipality reported having a residential water reuse program; two reported having seasonal water pricing; and two had municipally-implemented ICI water reuse programs. Our results present the most up to date analysis of local water use in British Columbia. Nevertheless, there remain major gaps. Therefore we call for improved collaboration among municipal planners, researchers and government officials in order to compile a comprehensive data set on municipal water use, pricing and metering coverage in the province of British Columbia.B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 6VII1. INTRODUCTIONThe Water Planning Lab of the University of British Columbia developed the BC Municipal Water Survey to fill a critical knowledge gap concerning how municipalities use water in the province. In the past, the Canadian Federal government collected information from municipal governments about how they used, measured, distributed, treated and priced water, and Environment Canada published this information in the Municipal Water and Wastewater Survey. For over a decade, the survey was repeated in order to provide a comprehensive view of how towns and cities used and managed water. The longitudinal nature of the survey allowed one to observe how trends evolved over time. The last Municipal Water and Wastewater Survey was published in 2011 with data collected in 2009 (Environment Canada 2011). In this report we cite this survey as “Environment Canada (2011)” although we may refer to the data as Environment Canada (2009).   Since the cancellation of the Municipal Water and Wastewater Survey, no other agency is collecting this information at a municipal scale. The Federal government partially addressed this data gap with a new Survey of Drinking Water Plants from Statistics Canada, which compiles information on water treatment facilities (Statistics Canada 2015). However many of the important features of the Municipal Water and Wastewater Survey remain absent. Most importantly, the data is not reported at a municipal scale in the new Survey of Drinking Water Plants. In the absence of the Municipal Water and Wastewater Survey, the province of British Columbia has been in the dark about how municipal governments use and price water. While municipal water providers must have water licenses to supply local water users, these licenses reflect allocated water allowances, not real consumption values. The new Water Sustainability Act is likely to include new water reporting requirements for water license holders (Brandes et al 2015), however at present, the information is not being compiled.  Collecting municipal-level data on water use and pricing is essential for wise water management. Without municipal data we cannot accurately diagnose trends and demands, nor assess if we are meeting our water efficiency targets. The BC Municipal Water Survey aims to provide insight into essential questions concerning municipal water management across the province.  We hope agencies and governments across the province will use this data to inform their decisions surrounding the management of our most critical resource.W a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a12. DATA COLLECTION METHODSWe administered the survey with the municipal water community between June and December 2015 (Appendix 1: Data Collection Methods). Municipal governments were contacted by telephone and followed up by email with approval from the Behavioural Research Ethic Board of the University of British Columbia. In our initial contact with municipal water managers, we aimed to identify the person who was able to answer our questions about municipal water use. Once we had identified the correct individual, we sent him or her a document with the critical information we sought to collect, so they could prepare in advance if necessary.  We asked all respondents to provide data from 2013, although we accepted data from other years.  We also allowed respondents to complete the survey on their own time and submit their response electronically if they preferred.  Municipalities with a population under 10,000 were emailed the survey. Our questions and variable names were chosen to mimic the Municipal Water and Waste Water Survey administered by Environment Canada (Appendix 2: BC Municipal Water Survey Questions and Variables). However the Environment Canada survey was considerably longer and asked detailed questions about the operations, infrastructure and treatment technologies, including wastewater. To avoid low response rates, we omitted these questions, and focused instead on water use, metering coverage, pricing and water conservation. While we aimed to make our results as comparable as possible with the Environment Canada Survey, there are a few differences. › We use BC Stats data for population sizes, while Environment Canada uses Stats Canada.  › Our initial contact list included Cities, District Municipalities, Towns, Villages and an Island Municipality. Regional Districts were not contacted unless specifically involved in the water system of the initial respondent.  › While we aimed to collect data for 2013, in some instances, we obtained responses from 2014.In administering the survey, we found the section on pricing to be burdensome on respondents. We adapted by eliminating this section and instead asking for the bylaw that outlined water pricing and rates. We then compiled a detailed database on rates structures from the municipal bylaws. In some instances, survey respondents described special circumstances, which made it difficult for them to respond, or they needed to make assumptions in order to provide a response. Therefore we report instances in which data users should be cautious about the information reported (Appendix 3: Notes on Data). B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 6263%66%50%60%70%80%90%100%2009Enviroment	   Canada2013Water	  Planning	  Lab	  -­‐ UBC0500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0002009	  	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	   	  	  	   	  	  	  	  Environment	  Canada2013	  	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	   	  	  	  	   	  	  	   	  	  	  	   	  	  	  Water	  Planning	  Lab	  -­‐ UBCPopulation500,000+50,000	  -­‐ 499,9995,000	  -­‐ 49,9992,000	  -­‐ 4,9991,000	  -­‐ 1,999Less	  than	  1,000Figure 1. The response rate for the Environment Canada 2009 survey and BC Municipal Water Survey by the Water Planning Lab in percent population.  3. RESULTS3.1 Response RateWe obtained responses from 45 local governments, which corresponds to 66% of the population and 32% of the local governments surveyed. These response rates are comparable to the most recent Environment Canada survey, which obtained 63% of the population from 51% of the local governments (Figure 1).While we obtain a sample that represents a larger number of BC residents, we obtained fewer local governments.  In comparison to Environment Canada, we obtained a better response rate among larger municipalities Figure 2. Survey response by municipal population size. and a lower response rate among smaller municipalities, especially towns and villages with fewer than 2,000 residents. Most of the population accounted for in the BC Municipal Water Survey are from larger municipalities (Figures 2 & 3).  W a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a3100%77%29%18%5%4%100%67%38%58%44%23%0% 50% 100%500,000+50,000	  -­‐ 499,9995,000	  -­‐ 49,9992,000	  -­‐ 4,9991,000	  -­‐ 1,999Less	  than	  1,000Municipal	  	  Population2009	  (Environment	  Canada) 2013	  (Water	  Planning	   Lab	  -­‐ UBC)Figure 3. A comparison of percent response rate for municipalities by population size. 3.2 Water UseTotal Municipal Water UseWe find that BC residents use a total of 494 litres per capita per day (lpcd). This figure is a significant drop from the 606 lpcd reported by Environment Canada (2011) (Figure 4). Total municipal water use includes all sectors including industrial, commercial, institutional, agriculture and water losses. However, this figure does not include water use from industry with separate water licenses or any other user not connected to the municipal network. Since other water uses are not included in this figure, the true total water use per person in the province is likely to be higher that what is reported here. Nevertheless, the drop respective 2009 is notable. We find a 18% drop in total lpcd since 2009. Thus, if these results are accurate, and trends continue, the province is on track to meet its target of a 33% efficiency improvement by 2020 for municipal water use. B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 64Figure 4. Trends in total and residential water use in liters per capita per day (LPCD) in British Columbia.  Residential Water UseWe find that residential water use in British Columbia is 312 litres per capita daily (lpcd). This is a 12% drop from what was reported by Environment Canada (2011), and thus mirrors the downward trend in total municipal water use (Figure 4). What Might Explain Reduced Water Use?The observed reductions in water use raise questions about what might be driving this trend. In the residential sector, reduced water use might be explained by differences in climate between the years surveyed. We examined precipitation records from 2000 to 2014 to assess if climatic differences between 2006, 2009, 2013 and 2014 might explain the observed reductions in water use. If outdoor water use is the major component of residential water use, then we would expect lower water use in wet years, and higher water use in dry years. The data in these years do not correlate, and the downward trend in water use persists regardless of climatic conditions. However, it has been noted that drought conditions were observed in some parts of the province in 2009 (BC Provincial Government 2015), coinciding with the last year in which we have provincial wide data. Drought could increase or decrease water use, depending on assumptions made about how users would respond to dry conditions 0100200300400500600700LPCDBC	  Total	  LPCD	   BC	  Residential	   LPCDW a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a501002003004005006007008009000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Residential	  LPCDMunicipal	  Categories	   by	  Population	   SizeEnvironment	   Canada BC	  Municipal	  Water	  SurveyFigure 5. Residential LPCD by municipal population size. The size of the circle represents the size of the total responding population in each survey.  The categories on the X-axis (1-6) are size of the local government in which category 1 are towns with a population less than 1,000; category 2 has a population 1,001-1,999; category 3 has a population 2,000-4,999; category 4 has a population 5,000-49,999; category 5 has a population 50,000-499,999 and category 6 has a population over 500,000. and regulatory restrictions. Thus while a more careful analysis would be needed, it is unlikely that climate conditions alone explain the drop in water use observed in our survey. The trends could also be dictated by efficiencies made in the larger municipalities. To identify which types of local governments may be reducing water use, we looked at residential water use per capita (lpcd) by municipal size, as categorized by Statistics Canada (Figure 5).  We find that smaller municipalities have higher water use, in some cases even higher than what Environment Canada reported. However, one should be cautious drawing conclusions as our response rate was low among smaller municipalities (Figure 3). On the other hand, our response rate among larger municipalities was much higher and among this group we observe a drop in water use (Figure 5). While this drop appears small, the large number of people in this group makes a large difference in the provincial lpcd estimates. Therefore, the observed drop in residential lpcd may be due entirely to efficiency improvements in larger municipalities and cities. B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 660% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Metered	  Single	  FamilyUnmetered	   Single	  FamilyUnmetered	  MultifamilyMetered	  Multifamily3.3  Water MeteringWater meters are essential for wise water management. The installation of water meters allows municipal governments to (1) price users based on real volumes consumed; (2) identify leaks; (3) evaluate the impact of water conservation programs; and (4) better prepare for and respond to drought. Scholars and practitioners across Canada have advocated for water metering as a best practice and a top municipal priority (Federation of Canadian Municipalities 2003, AWWA 2010, Renzetti 2009, Brandes et al 2010, BCWWA 2012).Coverage Rates We estimate that water meters are installed on at least 170,477 residential connections in British Columbia. This means that approximately 26% of all water connections included in the survey, regardless of housing type (single family or multifamily), have individual water meters that monitor water consumption. While multifamily units often have a meter for the entire complex, we counted multifamily homes as metered only if they lived in a municipality with a universal metering policy. Thus those multifamily homes without individual meters were not counted as metered.Metering rates are often reported by housing type. We find that 36% of single family homes are metered (107,595 metered connections) and 18% of multifamily homes are metered (62,882 metered connections). When viewing both housing types together, we can observe a smaller proportion of metered connections compared to unmetered connections (Figure 6).Thus our survey finds fewer metered connections in the province than the 493,008 reported by Environment Canada in 2011. While the data from Environment Canada produced an estimate of 40% of metered single family connections, we find that only 36% of single family homes have metered connections. This smaller value is surprising, given that our survey was conducted several years later, and that large municipalities such as Richmond and Surrey are transitioning to metering. However, this difference might be explained by an underestimate in our data.  It is likely that we underestimated the number of metered connections in the Victoria metropolitan area, and possibly Kelowna as well.   Figure 6. Proportion of metered and unmetered connections by single family and multifamily homes in BCW a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a7In addition, several metered communities did not responde to our BC Municipal Water Survey. Most notably, we did not receive responses from Nanaimo, Fort St. John, Port Alberni, Dawson Creek, Tofino, Summerland, and other smaller communities that Environment Canada reports as universally metered. This leads us to underestimate the absolute number of metered connections. However the impact of the missing data on the percentage estimate is uncertain, since we would also need to account for the missing unmetered connections. Thus we estimate that the number of metered connections in the province is probably between 20-29%, and the percentage of single family homes that are metered is in the range of 35-40%. Our survey reports 26% and 36% respectively, however we would need a more complete data set to report these values with greater certainty.  While uncertainty remains about the precise rate of metering coverage, it is clear that BC is far below the Canadian average (72%) and behind most provinces in the country, many of which are close to universal coverage (Brandes et al 2010, Environment Canada 2011). Figure 7.  Timeline showing the date in which municipal governments adopt a universal water metering policy. Victoria was the earliest adopter in 1888.  Water Metering PoliciesWe tabulated municipal water metering policies for all users, including ICI and residential metering policies (Table 1). Most municipalities have ample metering coverage of the ICI sector. In the residential sector, we confirm that at least 13 municipalities have universal residential metering. Metering coverage rates are much higher in the ICI sector, followed by multifamily homes, with the single family homes having the least amount of coverage. Metering coverage rates show extreme values, with most municipalities either covering a large segment of the sector (>80%), or a low coverage (<20%).  Few municipalities have metering coverage rates in any sector between 20 and 80%.B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 68Table 1. Municipal and Residential Metering PoliciesMunicipality Municipality Municipal Metering Policy Municipal Metering Policy Residential Metering PolicyResidential Metering PolicyAbbotsfordAnmore VillageArmstrongBurnabyCampbell RiverChetwyndChilliwackComoxCoquitlamCourtenayCranbrookCumberlandDeltaDistrict of New HazeltonElkfordGibsonsGreater Vancouver A (UEL)HopeKamloopsKelownaKentLangley (District - Township)Maple RidgeMissionNakuspNelsonNorth Vancouver CityNorth Vancouver DistrictPentictonPitt MeadowsPort MoodyPowell RiverPrince GeorgePrince RupertRichmondSalmon ArmSquamishSurreyTerraceVancouverVernonVictoriaWest VancouverWhistlerWilliams LakeW a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a9UniversalSemi-MandatoryNo policyVoluntaryFigure 8. Residential water use by metering policy. Water Metering and Water UseIt is often assumed that the installation of water meters will bring large reductions in water use, and that metered communities use less water. While we find that the highest residential water users per capita are unmetered (Elkford and Prince Rupert) we also find metered communities with high water use (Vernon, Cumberland, West Vancouver). On the other extreme, among low water users per capita, we find both metered communities (Abbotsford, Gibson) as well as unmetered communities (Nelson, Pitt Meadows) (Figure 8). Boxplot comparisons of total and residential water use show some differences across metering policies but not necessarily statistically significant differences (Figures 9 & 10). Especially among residential consumption, we find little difference in water use based on metering policy. While municipal governments with no policy have outliers in the upper range, their median values are similar to municipalities with semi-mandatory or universal metering policies. Understanding the relationship between metering policy and water use is also complicated by an intrinsic bias in the dataset, in that the decision to meter water depends on both local water availability, and local cultural norms surrounding water use and conservation. Thus in dry climates, or in water-scarce communities such as the Okanagan or the Gulf Islands, we would expect both higher metering coverage and lower water use, but we could not attribute lower water use to the metering policy itself, since the local conditions of scarcity and other factors probably explain reduced water use. In short, we would expect metered communities to be fundamentally different than unmetered communities in key characteristics (climate, attitudes) that might also explain differences in metering policy and differences in water use. B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 610No policyVoluntaryUniversal              Semi-Mandatory            No policyFigure 9. Total municipal water use (lpcd) by water metering policy. Bars represent median values. Boxes signal the range of upper and lower quartiles. Whiskers locate the maximum values excluding outliers.Figure 10. Residential water use (lpcd) by residential metering policy. Bars represent median values. Boxes signal the range of upper and lower quartiles. Whiskers locate the maximum values excluding outliers.W a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a11Figure 11. Effectiveness of metering in reducing water consumptionViews on Water Metering from Municipal Water ManagersWe asked municipal water managers who worked in a metered community to provide their views on the impact, success and difficulties involved with their municipal policy. One question asked respondents to rate the effectiveness of the universal metering policy in reducing water consumption on a scale of 1-9, with 1 being extremely ineffective and 9 being extremely effective. The results indicate that most respondents found that the policy had been effective (Figure 11). Respondents were also asked if they had any advice, in their own words, for municipalities considering adopting universal metering. Almost all respondents encourage the adoption of water metering (Table 2). This advice includes tips to:1. Ensure political and public support;2. Conduct proper assessment of costs and environmental impacts of installation and maintenance;3. Tie in funding in from higher levels of government;4. Meter at the property line rather than in houses;5. Adopt broad and universal coverage as opposed to piecemeal approach; and6. Consider the increase in quantity and quality of data.B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 612Table 2: Advice from fully-metered municipalities to those considering adopting universal metering.  › “Universal water metering is the most important thing. You have to have the infrastructure.It is very effective to have metering, frequent billing, and a volumetric rate structure for effective conservation.” › “Water metering makes it so easy to understand how your system works: it is crucial for future planning, and it provides critical data.” › “Way easier for water conservation, especially if there are financial incentives.” › “DO IT! you don’t by bananas by flat fee, you put them on the scale...” › “You can’t manage what you can’t measure. Leak detection will reduce water demand.” › “Having individual water meters gives accountability for water use.” › “What are you waiting for? There is no reason not to put in water meters. The benefits of accounting for delivered and lost water, and the benefits of planning for infrastructure go far beyond any revenue benefits” › “Highly recommend it. Do it. You need to know how much water is used, where, and ideally when. For that reason we are looking into going to monthly billing, rather than twice a year. Metering is an important tool—the more data you have, the better.” › “Do it” › “Universal metering is a good thing to do. Definitely recommended.” › “Do it. Wasted effort if not paired with increasing tiered rate and water conservation education.” › “Do It! It can reduce water consumption by 20-30%. This has been proven.Surface water is diminishing, coupled with high temps and high water user and climate change adds even more incentive to get on this.It gives people info.It supports efficient operations.It promotes a cost effective operation.” › “Carefully consider the costs of maintaining the infrastructure.” › “Do it. Meter at property line, not in house. Tie the program in with federal grants.” › “Environmental footprint of having meters (replacement every 15 years, excavation of earth, energy costs & waste). Do business case cost/benefit analysis.” › “Have political support with public education and support.” › “Involve Council/Mayor in understanding complexity of water distribution.Importance of metering, plus cost of metering: how would we pay for it?” › “The push for implementation has to come from senior management/council in order for it to really work. Coverage needs to be broad and universal, not selective and only for a part.” › “Mixed advice: the business case has to be there. In our case, a phased approach made sense. It has to make sense for your municipality.It does reduce water use.” › “Beneficial in terms of getting a sense of what and how much water is being used. Obviously the long term operations and maintenance costs of metering, can be costly. Good opportunity to assess impact” › “It’s effective.Need to look at cost/benefit of it.Water conservation outcomes can be disappointing.”Encouraged Unequivocally Recommended with CautionNote: Includes all responses with identifying information removed.W a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a133.4 Water PricingRate Structure We analyzed the water pricing policies and rate structures of the 44 local governments who responded to our survey. For this segment, the University Endowment Lands are not included in our analysis. We obtained the data directly from the bylaws that set municipal water rates, typically a Waterworks Bylaw. We identified the bylaw adoption date, the residential fees and rates for both single-family and multi-family residents, as well as other relevant information. We found that there was a diversity of rates structures within municipalities, as many bylaws include both flat fee and volumetric rate structures.  However the bylaws do not clarify which price structure is used for the majority of households. In order to identify the dominant rate structure for each housing type (single family and multifamily), we used the percentage of households that are metered. For single-family homes, when the majority of households were metered, we assumed that the dominant rate structure was volumetric. For multifamily homes, we added an additional criterion in that only those living in municipalities with universal residential metering were assumed to pay volumetric rates. Our summary figures present results that consider the dominant rate structure for that municipality. We also found that some communities may have drafted volumetric rates in the bylaws but still charge most users a flat fee. Figure 12: Distribution of municipalities by rate structure for single family dwellings. The different rate structures are: flat charge, a constant unit charge (CUC), a constant unit charge plus a base charge (CUC+base charge), a decreasing block rate plus a base charge (DBR+base charge), and an increasing block rate plus a base charge (IBR+base charge).Figure 13: Distribution of municipalities by rate structure for multifamily dwellings. The different rate structures are: flat charge; a constant unit charge (CUC), a constant unit charge plus a base charge (CUC+base charge), a decreasing block rate plus a base charge (DBR+base charge), and an increasing block rate plus a base charge (IBR+base charge).292715Flat	  charge CUCCUC+Base	  charge DBR+Base	  chargeIBR+Base	  charge32282Flat	  charge CUCCUC+Base	  charge IBR+Base	  chargeB C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 614Water Rates for Single Family HomesTo compare how much residents pay for water across the province, we followed the approach used by Environment Canada and considered a monthly consumption of 25 cubic meters per household and a connection size of 3/4”.  For a household of two people, this translates to 411 LPCD.  In our sample of 44 municipalities, each household is charged an average of $391 annually. The average charge for volumetric rate structures at this water volume is $418, while for those who charge only flat fees, the average charge is $381 (Figure 14). We observe a wide range in average water charges. Both the lowest (Chilliwack $135) and the highest (Vernon $782) are volumetric rates. However many of the highest water fees are also flat fees, such as the District of North Vancouver ($630), Nelson ($569) and Vancouver ($568). Figure 14. Average annual water bill for households that consumes 25 cubic meter monthly with a 3/4” connection. For most municipalities the rate structure reflects 2015 rates and they do not consider any assessed (frontage based) fee or tax.0 200 400 600 800ChilliwackArmstrongTerraceElkfordCranbrookSalmon	  armHopeCumberlandWilliams	  LakeKentPowell	  RiverDistrict	  of	  New	  HazeltonCampbell	  RiverComoxAbbotsfordSurreyNakuspWhistlerCourtenayKelownaPort	  MoodyGibsonsNorth	  Vancouver	  CitySquamishPentictonPrince	  RupertKamloopsRichmondChetwyndPitt	  MeadowsCoquitlamTownship	  of	  LangleyMissionDeltaVictoriaPrince	  GeorgeMaple	  RidgeWest	  VancouverBurnabyAnmore	  VillageVancouverNelsonNorth	  Vancouver	  District.	  VernonCND$Volumetric FlatWe find flat fees remain the predominant rate structure in the province, with two thirds of the surveyed communities using a flat fee to charge single family homes. The remaining one third use some form of volumetric rate structure (Figure 12). In absolute terms, 15 of 44 municipalities reported charging single family dwellings a volumetric rate. For multifamily dwellings, the number of municipalities that charge a volumetric rate decreases to 12 (27%) (Figure 13). Moreover, in municipalities where a volumetric charge is in place, a constant charge is also present. This charge may take the form of a base charge or a minimum charge. It should also be noted that even when municipalities are charging volumetrically, most use a constant unit charge, in which each additional unit is priced the same. Only five municipalities have adopted increasing block rate structures in either housing types.  W a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a15ArmstrongElkfordPrinceRupertVancouverNorth	  VancouverDistrictChilliwackAbbotsfordWestVancouverVernon02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6000 200 400 600 800 1,000LPCD	  ResidentialAnnual	  PriceFlatVolumetricSingle Family Pricing and Water UsePrice is also believed to be an important predictor of total water use. Other studies show clear relationships between price and water use (Brandes et al 2010). We examined this relationship with the 33 municipalities for which we have data on residential water use (Figure 15). We do not find a clear negative relationship as expected, although on average, residents with low-priced water do consume more. Vernon is an unusual outlier with high price and high water use, and may be explained by Vernon supplying neighbouring communities not accounted Figure 15. The relationship between average annual water charge and residential water use, measured in litres per capita per day (LPCD) for single family homes.  for. We also suspect that municipal averages may hide internal disparities between metered and flat fee customers in cases where municipalities have a mixture of both fee structures. Combining residential level data across municipalities might show a stronger negative relationship between price and water use. Also, we advise caution on interpreting Figure 15 because the year of the water use data (2013-2014) does not always correspond to the year in which the bylaw was written. Most of the bylaws we examined are from 2014 and 2015. B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 6163.5 Water ConservationThe BC Municipal Water Survey included questions about water conservation programs and efforts. We asked respondents to identify which conservation measures they adopted in their municipality from a list of possible water conservation programs (Appendix 5: Conservation measures by municipality).Our list of conservation measures drew from the Water Use Efficiency Catalogue of the Water Conservation Strategy for British Columbia published by the BC Ministry of Environment (1998). The Ministry’s comprehensive catalogue had 94 municipalities respond if they used over 80 types of conservation measures. Although the BC Municipal Water Survey asked about 19 conservation measures, they were designed to provide continuity, where possible, with the previous catalogue. Most notably, the 28 specific measures regarding education and school outreach were condensed into one, “Educational Watersaving Campaigns (including tips, fact sheets, school outreach, etc…)”.A comparison of the BC Municipal Water Survey with the Water Use Efficiency Catalogue suggests greater adoption of a conservation agenda among BC municipalities since 1998. First, whereas the Water Use Efficiency Catalogue found only half (51%) of municipalities were pursuing any sort of water efficiency educational measures, 80% of municipalities responding to the BC Municipal Water Survey reported engaging in a water-saving educational campaign. Similarly, 45% of municipalities reported having mandatory restrictions in place in 1998, compared to 73% of our respondents. The most common conservation measures in British Columbia are educational campaigns (80%), mandatory restrictions (73%), and an active leak-detection program (58%). On the other extreme, only one municipality reported having a residential water reuse program (ie. greywater system program); two reported having seasonal water pricing; two had ICI water reuse programs, while only four reported ICI water audit programs. There is a wide range of water conservation programs and measures adopted by municipalities across the province. However, smaller municipalities tend to have fewer measures, while larger municipalities have more. This is unsurprising given resource constraints confronted by smaller local governments. Yet, as noted previously, water consumption per capita is highly variable and not explained simply by population size, metering policy, nor rate structure alone. As an exploratory analysis, we examine the relationship between total municipal water consumption per capita (LPCD) and number of conservation measures (Figure 16). The trendline indicates that while number of conservation measures is associated with lower per-capita water consumption, this association is weak (r2=0.04), and the relationship is not necessarily causal.We then reproduce this figure by adding information about the size of the total water use, and information about metering policy for each municipality (Figure 17). W a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a17Number of conservation measuresTotal LPCDNumber of conservation measuresTotal LPCDFigure 16. The relationship between total water use and the number of water conservation measures. Figure 17. The relationship between total water use and the number of water conservation measures. The size of the points represents the total water use and the colour represent the metering policy. B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 6184. CONCLUSIONUnderstanding existing practices and trends in municipal water use is essential for building resilient municipal water systems. The BC Municipal Water Survey provides new data on municipal water use, metering, pricing and water conservation in order to assess current practices, and provide provincial-wide comparison of municipal water use and policy.Most significantly, we find that water use appears to be declining in the province across two important measures: (i) total annual water use per capita and (ii) residential water use per capita. These measures declined 18% and 12% respectively from 2009. With these results, the province is on track to meet its ambitious target of improving water efficiency by 33% by 2020. More work is needed to confirm this trend. Similarly, more work is needed to understand what might explain the observed drop in water use. It is unclear if we can attribute this drop in water use to infrastructure efficiencies, policy changes, behavioural changes by water users or climatic differences between years. The explanation as to what is driving the drop in water use has policy implications. By understanding what is driving reduced water use, we can reveal which levers governments and water providers may use to manage water demands, and plan for the future. Our preliminary examination suggests that the observed drop in water use is being driven by efficiency gains in larger cities. Smaller municipalities (<50,000), in contrast, have higher water use per capita and show little sign of reduction. From a provincial perspective, greater efficiency gains may be made in the smaller communities. However their impact on meeting the provincial targets is likely to be small. Further research should aim to disentangle the possible impacts of municipal policies, changes in building codes, new mandates for water efficient appliances and fixtures, new fee structures, increases in urban density and new land use patterns. While we observe a decline in water use, we have no evidence that this drop is the result of government policy. It is possible that the decline in water use is due to larger structural changes in urban settings, irrespective of local or provincial water policy. For example, increased water efficiency per capita may merely be due to increases in residential density, in which multifamily households have less outdoor water use. This theory would suggest that large increases in residential density without any changes from the existing residents could result in an overall decline in per capita water use. Thus we should examine the extent to which urban densification may explain downward trends in per capita water use. We identify provincial metering rates that are lower than past studies, although this may be explained by gaps in our data. There are also methodological issues for calculating metering coverage rates that might need refinement (Appendix 4). Nevertheless, we can be confident that metering coverage is on the rise in BC, even though they remain below most other provinces in Canada. In part due to the transition to metering, many municipalities have a diverse fee structures in which flat fees and volumetric fees co-exist.  We suspect that this mixture also partially explains why we do not observe a clean negative relationship between price and water use, in which water use decreases as prices increase. We find that local governments are increasingly adopting a diverse set of water conservation programs to improve water W a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a19efficiency. Yet while the adoption of these programs is more widespread, we have limited evidence that they are effective or cost-effective in meeting their objective. Municipalities might consider common methods from the field of impact evaluation in order to evaluate the impact of their water conservation programs. With well-designed programs, municipalities can measure their own impact while simultaneously help build the evidence-base for demand management approaches (Ferraro and Price 2013). The BC Municipal Water Survey makes an important contribution to our understanding of municipal water use and practices in the province. Nevertheless, our data remains patchy and incomplete.  Without a complete dataset, it will be difficult to affirm with confidence that the observed drop in water use is attributable to real efficiency improvements or if it is a spurious result due to other factors. Given the gaps in our data, we urge caution when analyzing our results. Despite similar response rates to previous studies in terms of total population, there remain important gaps that could modify the results. Clearly, a more comprehensive data set is needed. In the next few years, it is possible that senior levels of government will begin requiring more systematic water use reporting. However we cannot be sure that they will require reporting on issues of metering coverage, pricing, water conservation or other important features of the water policy landscape. Thus in the absence of a mandatory reporting requirement, or other systematic data collection programs, we call for collaboration among government officials, researchers and the private sector to complete a comprehensive database of water use across the province. We must reach out to local managers who are intimately familiar with their particular water system. With their help, together, a pooled data set may help answer fundamental questions about water demands, trends, projections and the impact of conservation policies. The collaborative effort we envision would keep the data open to all, in order to benefit all residents of British Columbia and beyond. B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 6205. REFERENCESAWWA 2010. Statement of policy on water supply matters: Metering & Accountability. American Water Works Association (AWWA) http://www.awwa.org/about-us/policy-statements/p o l i c y - s t a te m e n t / a r t i c l e i d / 2 0 6 /metering-and-accountability.aspxBC Provincial Government 2008. Living Water Smart: British Columbia’s water plan. online: http://www.livingwatersmart.ca/BC Provincial Government 2015. British Columbia Drought Response Plan. Ministry of Environment. BCWWA 2012. Position Statement: Water Metering. BC Water & Waste Association. online http://www.bcwwa.org/component/bcwwaresourcelibrary/ ?view=resource&id=1109&Itemid=Brandes, O.M., S. Carr-Wilson, D. Curran, R. Simms 2015. Awash with opportunity: Ensuring the sustainability of British Columbia’s new water law. Polis Project on Ecological Governance. University of Victoria. http://poliswaterproject.org/awashwithopportunityBrandes, O.M., S. Renzetti, K. Stinchcombe 2010. Worth every penny: A primer on conservation oriented water pricing. Polis Project on Ecological Governance. University of Victoria. Coelho, S. J. (2005). Municipal Residential Water Metering in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Masters Project. School of Community and Regional Planning. University of British Columbia.Environment Canada. 2011. 2011 Municipal Water Use Report: Municipal Water Use 2009 Statistics (p. 24).Environment Canada. 2011. 2011 Municipal Water Pricing Report: 2009 Statistics https://ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&xml=992156D4-2599-4026-9B4C-47855D26CCB8 Federation of Canadian Municipalities & National Research Council (2003) Establishing a metering plan to account for Water Use and Loss. Issue No. 1. https ://w w w.fcm.ca/Documents/reports/Infraguide/Establishing_a_Meter ing_Plan_to_Account_for_Water_Use_and_Loss_EN.pdfMinistry of Environment. 1998. Water Use Efficiency Catalogue for British Columbia. Online: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/plan_protect_sustain/water_conservation/wtr_use_eff_cat_bc/toc.htmlRenzetti, S. 2009. Wave of the Future: The Case for Smarter Water Policy (p. 24). Toronto, Canada: C.D. Howe Institute.Ferraro, P. J., & Price, M. K. 2013. Using Nonpecuniary Strategies to Influence Behavior: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1), 64–73. RBC 2015. 2015 RBC Canadian Water Attitudes Survey. Blue Water Project. Online http://www.rbc.com/community-sustainability/environment/rbc-blue-water/water-attitude-study.htmlStatistics Canada 2015. Survey of Drinking Water Plants, 2013. Statistics Canada. Online http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/150619/dq150619d-eng.htm W a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a21B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 622APPENDIX 1. DATA COLLECTION METHODSAssembling Stakeholder ListWe aimed to survey each village, town, district municipality and city in the province of British Columbia (146). We began by researching each municipality’s website to find basic contact information (e-mail and phone number) of the appropriate department responsible for water services. If possible, we recorded contact information for specific positions related to water conservation (eg. Water Conservation Program Coordinator, Water Sustainability Coordinator) or management (e.g. Manager of Water and Waste Services, Utilities manager). These were typically departments of Public Works, Engineering, or Operations, although occasionally Finance Departments were involved (due to their role in billing). If no specific water-related position was found on the website, or a directory unavailable, the main phone number for the municipality was recorded. If department information was found, but the position uncertain, the most senior position’s contact information was recorded, and then contacted.The stakeholder list was updated with new information as the surveys were conducted or municipalities contacted. Survey AdministrationAfter compiling the list of likely respondents, the survey was administered between June and December 2015 using two communicative pathways. The first pathway, illustrated in Figure A1, combined phone calls and e-mails, while the second pathway was exclusively by e-mail (Figure A2). The first approach was chosen as phone calls have been shown to have elicit a higher response rate than e-mail. However, they are more intensive, requiring staff time to look up each municipality, find the appropriate person responsible for water management, call them, ask for their participation, then schedule a separate phone call for a phone survey. As a result, given limited resources, this method was reserved for municipalities with populations of over 10,000 to ensure maximum coverage of the B.C. Population. 61 municipalities were initially contacted using this method.Phone Call ApproachIn this first approach, the target municipal stakeholder (or, if none was identified, the main line of the municipality) was called and asked who would be best suited in the organization to answer questions regarding water distribution, metering, and pricing. The stakeholder list was then be updated with the new name, e-mail and number, and be given a call. The target stakeholder was told about the survey, asked if they wanted to participate, and if so, sent a checklist to prepare and a time to schedule the interview. A second phone call on the agreed-upon date and time was made for the actual administration of the survey. This call took an average of twenty minutes.Blanket E-mail Approach The second pathway is a ‘blanket’ e-mail approach (Figure A2). Target municipal stakeholders who were not successfully reached by phone through the first method, and those of populations with fewer than 10,000, were sent an e-mail In our initial contact with municipal water managers, we aimed to identify the person who was able to answer our questions about municipal water use. Once we had identified the correct individual, we sent them a document with the critical information we sought to collect, in order to allow them to prepare if necessary.  We W a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a23asked all respondents to provide data from 2013, although we accepted data from other years.  We also allowed municipalities to Kick-Off Call › Find right person › Basic introduction of project › Introduce yourself/project in more detail › Ask if they are willing to participate › Answer any questions they may have › Set date and time › Thank them for agreeing to participate › Confirm date and time › Attach checklist of desired data that they will need to collect  › Reminder of date, time, and their contact number  › Explain it will take 20-30 minutes. › Describe information we are interested in: total municipal water use/metering coverage/pricing (re-attach checklist) › Describe purpose and goal of survey, voluntary nature of questions, and priorities › Re-obtain consent and ask if they have any questions before beginning › Conduct Survey! › Thank them for their participation › Provide our website where they will find updates on the study › Send final report and links to study results and analysisFirst Phone Call with Water PersonIntroductory E-mailReminder E-mailThank you E-mailSurvey callResultsAttached ChecklistMessage GoalsRe-attached ChecklistFigure A1. Data Collection Communication Flowchart for Municipalities over 10,000 inhabitantsrespond on their own and reply by email if the preferred.  B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 624Figure A2. Data Collection Communication Flowchart for Municipalities Having Fewer Than 10,000 inhabitants, and Larger Municipalities Not Responsive to Phone CallsAssemble e-mails › Find right person per municipality › Assemble list of e-mails › Introduce project › Ask if they are willing to participate, or if they can forward to the right person › Attach Survey in fillable Word format › Reminder to fill out survey › Re-attach survey › Respond to every received survey with thank you e-mail › Thank them for their participation › Provide our website where they will find updates on the study › Send final report and links to study results and analysisBlanket Survey E-mailBlanket Reminder E-mailThank you E-mailResultsAttached SurveyAttached SurveyMessage GoalsW a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a25APPENDIX 2. BC MUNICIPAL WATER SURVEY QUESTIONS AND VARIABLESBC Municipal Water SurveyVariable Name Question/Definitionariable	  Name stion/DefinitionMunicipality Name	  of	  the	  municipalityIntMunicipalities_ID ID	  used	  in	  the	  2009	  Environment	  Canada	  reportintCensusID Stats	  Can's	  Census	  subdivision	  7	  digit	  codeSGC BC	  Stats	  id	  codestrCensusType The	  type	  of	  census	  subdivision,	  in	  short	  form,	  according	  to	  Stats	  CanintPopulation2013 Population	  in	  2013,	  according	  to	  BC	  StatsintPopulation2014 Population	  in	  2014,	  according	  to	  BC	  StatsRespondingPop This	  is	  the	  population	  served	  by	  the	  water	  system.	  We	  used	  the	  population	  (intPopulation2013	  or	  intPopulation2014)	  depending	  on	  the	  year	  in	  which	  data	  was	  reportedRespondingPop_2013 This	  is	  the	  population	  served	  by	  the	  water	  system	  with	  popluation	  data	  from	  2013.	  Used	  to	  calculate	  response	  rate.	  Has	  a	  water	  provider Does	  your	  jurisdiction	  obtain	  its	  drinking	  water	  from	  another	  local	  municipality	  or	  regional	  water	  provider	  (water	  district)?Water	  provider Name	  of	  that	  municipality/regional	  provider?TotalAnnualVol_M3 Total	  annual	  water	  delivered	  by	  the	  municipality	  in	  cubic	  metersbooleanHasTotalData Indicates	  if	  the	  municipality	  submitted	  total	  consumption	  valuelpcd_tot Total	  water	  use	  percapita	  per	  day	  in	  liters	  (lpcd)	  calculated	  with	  TotalAnnualVol_M3	  and	  RespondingPopyear Year	  of	  the	  data	  submitted	  by	  the	  municipalityintSizeGroup The	  municipal	  population	  size	  groups	  using	  the	  population	  of	  2013.	  It	  uses	  the	  same	  categories	  that	  Environment	  Canada:	  1-­‐population	  less	  than	  1,000;	  2-­‐population	  1,001-­‐1,999;	  3-­‐Population	  2,000-­‐4,999;	  4-­‐	  Population	  5,000-­‐49,999;	  5	  population	  50,000-­‐499,999	  and	  category	  6	  has	  a	  population	  over	  500,000.	  IntResConecServedWDS How	  many	  residential	  connections	  are	  served	  by	  this	  water	  distribution	  system?	  (#)PctPopServedWDS What	  percent	  of	  the	  residential	  population	  is	  served	  by	  this	  water	  distribution	  system?	  (%)PctSF What	  percent	  of	  residents	  in	  your	  municipality	  live	  in	  Single	  Family	  Homes?	  (Data	  from	  Census	  2011)PctMF What	  percent	  of	  residents	  in	  your	  municipality	  live	  in	  multi-­‐family	  homes?	  (Data	  from	  Census	  2011)intAvgDwelling Average	  persons	  in	  the	  dwelling	  (Data	  from	  2011	  Census)Pct_DomUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  to	  the	  residential	  sector?	  (%)Residential	  WaterUse_AnnualM3Annual	  water	  delivered	  to	  residential	  in	  cubic	  meters,	  calculated	  using	  total	  water	  consumption	  (TotalAnnualVol_M3)	  and	  the	  percent	  of	  water	  delivered	  to	  residential	  (Pct_DomUse)booleanHasResidentialData Indicates	  if	  the	  municipality	  submitted	  residential	  consumptionlpcd_res Residential	  water	  used	  percapita	  per	  day	  in	  liters	  (lpcd),	  it	  is	  calculated	  as	  the	  residential	  consumption	  (Residential	  WaterUse_annualM3)	  divided	  by	  the	  responding	  population	  (RespondingPop)	  divided	  by	  365Pct_DomUseSF What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  to	  the	  residential	  sector	  to	  Single	  Family	  dwellings?	  (%)Pct_DomUseMF What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  to	  the	  residential	  sector	  to	  Multi	  Family	  dwellings?	  (%)Pct_ICIUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  industrial/commercial/institutional	  sectors?	  (%)ICIWaterUse_AnnualM3 Annual	  water	  delivered	  to	  ICI	  in	  cubic	  meters,	  calculated	  using	  the	  total	  consumption	  (TotalAnnualVol_m3)	  and	  percent	  of	  water	  delivered	  to	  ICI	  (pct_ICIUse)Pct_OnlyIndUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  the	  industrial	  sector?	  (%)Pct_OnlyComUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  the	  commercial	  sector?	  (%)Pct_OnlyInstUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  the	  institutional	  sector?	  (%)Method	  ICI	  Breakdown What	  estimation	  method	  is	  used	  to	  determine	  the	  percentages	  of	  the	  total	  in	  the	  ICI	  sector?Pct_OnlyAgrUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  the	  agricultural	  sector?	  (%)Method	  Agr	  Breakdown What	  estimation	  method	  is	  used	  to	  determine	  the	  amount	  of	  water	  delivered	  to	  the	  agricultural	  sector?Pct_UnaccountedUse What	  percent	  of	  the	  total	  system	  water	  is	  unaccounted	  for?str_UnaccountedUse The	  municipality	  considered	  the	  unaccounted	  use	  included	  in	  the	  100%	  breakdown	  of	  usesMethod	  Losses What	  estimation	  method	  is	  used	  to	  calculate	  the	  percentage	  of	  total	  unaccounted	  water?Metering	  policy Which	  best	  describes	  your	  municipal	  water	  metering	  policy?MeteringPolicy_Res Categorical	  variable	  describing	  the	  metering	  policy	  for	  the	  residential	  sector.PctPopServedSFMeters What	  percentage	  of	  single-­‐family	  homes	  have	  water	  meters?strScopeSF-­‐SurveySummary Single	  Family	  Residential	  Pricing	  Policy,	  above	  50%	  it	  is	  considered	  that	  the	  municipality	  charges	  volumetricallyPctPopServedMFMeters What	  percentage	  of	  multi-­‐family	  homes	  have	  water	  meters?strScopeMF-­‐SurveySummary Multi	  family	  pricing	  policy.	  While	  multifamily	  units	  often	  have	  a	  meter	  for	  the	  entire	  complex,	  we	  counted	  multifamily	  homes	  as	  metered	  only	  if	  they	  lived	  in	  a	  municipality	  with	  a	  universal	  metering	  policy.	  Thus	  those	  multifamily	  homes	  without	  individual	  meters	  were	  not	  counted	  as	  metered.PctServedIndMeters What	  percentage	  of	  your	  industrial	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?PctServedComMeters What	  percentage	  of	  commercial	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?PctServedInstMeters What	  percentage	  of	  your	  institutional	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?PctServedAgrMeters What	  percentage	  of	  your	  agricultural	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?PctServedICIMeters What	  percentage	  of	  your	  industrial,	  commercial,	  and	  institutional	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?Year	  Metering	  Data Year	  for	  Data	  on	  Metering	  CoverageYear	  Metering	  Beginning When	  did	  your	  municipality's	  water	  metering	  policy	  come	  into	  effect?Effectiveness	  of	  metering On	  a	  scale	  of	  1	  to	  9,	  with	  1	  being	  extremely	  ineffective,	  5	  being	  neither	  effective	  nor	  ineffective,	  and	  9	  being	  extremely	  effective,	  how	  effective	  do	  you	  think	  your	  metering	  program	  has	  been	  in	  reducing	  water	  consumption?Metering	  to	  detect	  leaks Has	  your	  municipality	  used	  household	  metering	  data	  to	  detect	  leaks	  in	  the	  water	  system?Metering	  to	  evaluate	  conservation	  programsHas	  your	  municipality	  used	  household	  metering	  data	  to	  evaluate	  the	  impacts	  of	  water	  conservation	  programs?Study	  for	  URM	  in	  last	  5	  years 	  In	  the	  past	  five	  years,	  has	  a	  study	  been	  conducted	  on	  requiring	  universal	  residential	  water	  metering	  in	  your	  municipality?Author	  of	  the	  study If	  yes,	  who	  conducted	  the	  study?Disicentives	  for	  URM	  -­‐	  CommentsWhat	  are	  the	  main	  disincentives	  to	  adopting	  universal	  residential	  water	  metering	  in	  your	  municipality?Disicentives	  for	  URM Previous	  research	  has	  identified	  six	  primary	  reasons	  for	  not	  adopting	  universal	  residential	  metering	  programs.	  Which	  of	  the	  following	  six	  apply	  to	  your	  municipality?Main	  disicentive	  for	  URM Which	  of	  these	  is	  the	  primary	  reason	  for	  not	  adopting	  universal	  residential	  water	  metering	  in	  your	  municipality?Comments Any	  additional	  relevant	  infoB C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 626Variable	  Name Question/DefinitionMunicipality Name	  of	  the	  municipalityIntMunicipalities_ID ID	  used	  in	  the	  2009	  Environment	  Canada	  reportintCensusID Stats	  Can's	  Census	  subdivision	  7	  digit	  codeSGC BC	  Stats	  id	  codestrCensusType The	  type	  of	  census	  subdivision,	  in	  short	  form,	  according	  to	  Stats	  CanintPopulation2013 Population	  in	  2013,	  according	  to	  BC	  StatsintPopulation2014 Population	  in	  2014,	  according	  to	  BC	  StatsRespondingPop This	  is	  the	  population	  served	  by	  the	  water	  system.	  We	  used	  the	  population	  (intPopulation2013	  or	  intPopulation2014)	  depending	  on	  the	  year	  in	  which	  data	  was	  reportedRespondingPop_2013 This	  is	  the	  population	  served	  by	  the	  water	  system	  with	  popluation	  data	  from	  2013.	  Used	  to	  calculate	  response	  rate.	  Has	  a	  water	  provider Does	  your	  jurisdiction	  obtain	  its	  drinking	  water	  from	  another	  local	  municipality	  or	  regional	  water	  provider	  (water	  district)?Water	  provider Name	  of	  that	  municipality/regional	  provider?TotalAnnualVol_M3 Total	  annual	  water	  delivered	  by	  the	  municipality	  in	  cubic	  metersbooleanHasTotalData Indicates	  if	  the	  municipality	  submitted	  total	  consumption	  valuelpcd_tot Total	  water	  use	  percapita	  per	  day	  in	  liters	  (lpcd)	  calculated	  with	  TotalAnnualVol_M3	  and	  RespondingPopyear Year	  of	  the	  data	  submitted	  by	  the	  municipalityintSizeGroup The	  municipal	  population	  size	  groups	  using	  the	  population	  of	  2013.	  It	  uses	  the	  same	  categories	  that	  Environment	  Canada:	  1-­‐population	  less	  than	  1,000;	  2-­‐population	  1,001-­‐1,999;	  3-­‐Population	  2,000-­‐4,999;	  4-­‐	  Population	  5,000-­‐49,999;	  5	  population	  50,000-­‐499,999	  and	  category	  6	  has	  a	  population	  over	  500,000.	  IntResConecServedWDS How	  many	  residential	  connections	  are	  served	  by	  this	  water	  distribution	  system?	  (#)PctPopServedWDS What	  percent	  of	  the	  residential	  population	  is	  served	  by	  this	  water	  distribution	  system?	  (%)PctSF What	  percent	  of	  residents	  in	  your	  municipality	  live	  in	  Single	  Family	  Homes?	  (Data	  from	  Census	  2011)PctMF What	  percent	  of	  residents	  in	  your	  municipality	  live	  in	  multi-­‐family	  homes?	  (Data	  from	  Census	  2011)intAvgDwelling Average	  persons	  in	  the	  dwelling	  (Data	  from	  2011	  Census)Pct_DomUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  to	  the	  residential	  sector?	  (%)Residential	  WaterUse_AnnualM3Annual	  water	  delivered	  to	  residential	  in	  cubic	  meters,	  calculated	  using	  total	  water	  consumption	  (TotalAnnualVol_M3)	  and	  the	  percent	  of	  water	  delivered	  to	  residential	  (Pct_DomUse)booleanHasResidentialData Indicates	  if	  the	  municipality	  submitted	  residential	  consumptionlpcd_res Residential	  water	  used	  percapita	  per	  day	  in	  liters	  (lpcd),	  it	  is	  calculated	  as	  the	  residential	  consumption	  (Residential	  WaterUse_annualM3)	  divided	  by	  the	  responding	  population	  (RespondingPop)	  divided	  by	  365Pct_DomUseSF What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  to	  the	  residential	  sector	  to	  Single	  Family	  dwellings?	  (%)Pct_DomUseMF What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  to	  the	  residential	  sector	  to	  Multi	  Family	  dwellings?	  (%)Pct_ICIUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  industrial/commercial/institutional	  sectors?	  (%)ICIWaterUse_AnnualM3 Annual	  water	  delivered	  to	  ICI	  in	  cubic	  meters,	  calculated	  using	  the	  total	  consumption	  (TotalAnnualVol_m3)	  and	  percent	  of	  water	  delivered	  to	  ICI	  (pct_ICIUse)Pct_OnlyIndUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  the	  industrial	  sector?	  (%)Pct_OnlyComUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  the	  commercial	  sector?	  (%)Pct_OnlyInstUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  the	  institutional	  sector?	  (%)Method	  ICI	  Breakdown What	  estimation	  method	  is	  used	  to	  determine	  the	  percentages	  of	  the	  total	  in	  the	  ICI	  sector?Pct_OnlyAgrUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  the	  agricultural	  sector?	  (%)Method	  Agr	  Breakdown What	  estimation	  method	  is	  used	  to	  determine	  the	  amount	  of	  water	  delivered	  to	  the	  agricultural	  sector?Pct_UnaccountedUse What	  percent	  of	  the	  total	  system	  water	  is	  unaccounted	  for?str_UnaccountedUse The	  municipality	  considered	  the	  unaccounted	  use	  included	  in	  the	  100%	  breakdown	  of	  usesMethod	  Losses What	  estimation	  method	  is	  used	  to	  calculate	  the	  percentage	  of	  total	  unaccounted	  water?Metering	  policy Which	  best	  describes	  your	  municipal	  water	  metering	  policy?MeteringPolicy_Res Categorical	  variable	  describing	  the	  metering	  policy	  for	  the	  residential	  sector.PctPopServedSFMeters What	  percentage	  of	  single-­‐family	  homes	  have	  water	  meters?strScopeSF-­‐SurveySummary Single	  Family	  Residential	  Pricing	  Policy,	  above	  50%	  it	  is	  considered	  that	  the	  municipality	  charges	  volumetricallyPctPopServedMFMeters What	  percentage	  of	  multi-­‐family	  homes	  have	  water	  meters?strScopeMF-­‐SurveySummary Multi	  family	  pricing	  policy.	  While	  multifamily	  units	  often	  have	  a	  meter	  for	  the	  entire	  complex,	  we	  counted	  multifamily	  homes	  as	  metered	  only	  if	  they	  lived	  in	  a	  municipality	  with	  a	  universal	  metering	  policy.	  Thus	  those	  multifamily	  homes	  without	  individual	  meters	  were	  not	  counted	  as	  metered.PctServedIndMeters What	  percentage	  of	  your	  industrial	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?PctServedComMeters What	  percentage	  of	  commercial	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?PctServedInstMeters What	  percentage	  of	  your	  institutional	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?PctServedAgrMeters What	  percentage	  of	  your	  agricultural	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?PctServedICIMeters What	  percentage	  of	  your	  industrial,	  commercial,	  and	  institutional	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?Year	  Metering	  Data Year	  for	  Data	  on	  Metering	  CoverageYear	  Metering	  Beginning When	  did	  your	  municipality's	  water	  metering	  policy	  come	  into	  effect?Effectiveness	  of	  metering On	  a	  scale	  of	  1	  to	  9,	  with	  1	  being	  extremely	  ineffective,	  5	  being	  neither	  effective	  nor	  ineffective,	  and	  9	  being	  extremely	  effective,	  how	  effective	  do	  you	  think	  your	  metering	  program	  has	  been	  in	  reducing	  water	  consumption?Metering	  to	  detect	  leaks Has	  your	  municipality	  used	  household	  metering	  data	  to	  detect	  leaks	  in	  the	  water	  system?Metering	  to	  evaluate	  conservation	  programsHas	  your	  municipality	  used	  household	  metering	  data	  to	  evaluate	  the	  impacts	  of	  water	  conservation	  programs?Study	  for	  URM	  in	  last	  5	  years 	  In	  the	  past	  five	  years,	  has	  a	  study	  been	  conducted	  on	  requiring	  universal	  residential	  water	  metering	  in	  your	  municipality?Author	  of	  the	  study If	  yes,	  who	  conducted	  the	  study?Disicentives	  for	  URM	  -­‐	  CommentsWhat	  are	  the	  main	  disincentives	  to	  adopting	  universal	  residential	  water	  metering	  in	  your	  municipality?Disicentives	  for	  URM Previous	  research	  has	  identified	  six	  primary	  reasons	  for	  not	  adopting	  universal	  residential	  metering	  programs.	  Which	  of	  the	  following	  six	  apply	  to	  your	  municipality?Main	  disicentive	  for	  URM Which	  of	  these	  is	  the	  primary	  reason	  for	  not	  adopting	  universal	  residential	  water	  metering	  in	  your	  municipality?Comments Any	  additional	  relevant	  infoVariable Name Question/DefinitionW a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a27Variable	  Name Question/DefinitionMunicipality Name	  of	  the	  municipalityIntMunicipalities_ID ID	  used	  in	  the	  2009	  Environment	  Canada	  reportintCensusID Stats	  Can's	  Census	  subdivision	  7	  digit	  codeSGC BC	  Stats	  id	  codestrCensusType The	  type	  of	  census	  subdivision,	  in	  short	  form,	  according	  to	  Stats	  CanintPopulation2013 Population	  in	  2013,	  according	  to	  BC	  StatsintPopulation2014 Population	  in	  2014,	  according	  to	  BC	  StatsRespondingPop This	  is	  the	  population	  served	  by	  the	  water	  system.	  We	  used	  the	  population	  (intPopulation2013	  or	  intPopulation2014)	  depending	  on	  the	  year	  in	  which	  data	  was	  reportedRespondingPop_2013 This	  is	  the	  population	  served	  by	  the	  water	  system	  with	  popluation	  data	  from	  2013.	  Used	  to	  calculate	  response	  rate.	  Has	  a	  water	  provider Does	  your	  jurisdiction	  obtain	  its	  drinking	  water	  from	  another	  local	  municipality	  or	  regional	  water	  provider	  (water	  district)?Water	  provider Name	  of	  that	  municipality/regional	  provider?TotalAnnualVol_M3 Total	  annual	  water	  delivered	  by	  the	  municipality	  in	  cubic	  metersbooleanHasTotalData Indicates	  if	  the	  municipality	  submitted	  total	  consumption	  valuelpcd_tot Total	  water	  use	  percapita	  per	  day	  in	  liters	  (lpcd)	  calculated	  with	  TotalAnnualVol_M3	  and	  RespondingPopyear Year	  of	  the	  data	  submitted	  by	  the	  municipalityintSizeGroup The	  municipal	  population	  size	  groups	  using	  the	  population	  of	  2013.	  It	  uses	  the	  same	  categories	  that	  Environment	  Canada:	  1-­‐population	  less	  than	  1,000;	  2-­‐population	  1,001-­‐1,999;	  3-­‐Population	  2,000-­‐4,999;	  4-­‐	  Population	  5,000-­‐49,999;	  5	  population	  50,000-­‐499,999	  and	  category	  6	  has	  a	  population	  over	  500,000.	  IntResConecServedWDS How	  many	  residential	  connections	  are	  served	  by	  this	  water	  distribution	  system?	  (#)PctPopServedWDS What	  percent	  of	  the	  residential	  population	  is	  served	  by	  this	  water	  distribution	  system?	  (%)PctSF What	  percent	  of	  residents	  in	  your	  municipality	  live	  in	  Single	  Family	  Homes?	  (Data	  from	  Census	  2011)PctMF What	  percent	  of	  residents	  in	  your	  municipality	  live	  in	  multi-­‐family	  homes?	  (Data	  from	  Census	  2011)intAvgDwelling Average	  persons	  in	  the	  dwelling	  (Data	  from	  2011	  Census)Pct_DomUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  to	  the	  residential	  sector?	  (%)Residential	  WaterUse_AnnualM3Annual	  water	  delivered	  to	  residential	  in	  cubic	  meters,	  calculated	  using	  total	  water	  consumption	  (TotalAnnualVol_M3)	  and	  the	  percent	  of	  water	  delivered	  to	  residential	  (Pct_DomUse)booleanHasResidentialData Indicates	  if	  the	  municipality	  submitted	  residential	  consumptionlpcd_res Residential	  water	  used	  percapita	  per	  day	  in	  liters	  (lpcd),	  it	  is	  calculated	  as	  the	  residential	  consumption	  (Residential	  WaterUse_annualM3)	  divided	  by	  the	  responding	  population	  (RespondingPop)	  divided	  by	  365Pct_DomUseSF What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  to	  the	  residential	  sector	  to	  Single	  Family	  dwellings?	  (%)Pct_DomUseMF What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  to	  the	  residential	  sector	  to	  Multi	  Family	  dwellings?	  (%)Pct_ICIUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  industrial/commercial/institutional	  sectors?	  (%)ICIWaterUse_AnnualM3 Annual	  water	  delivered	  to	  ICI	  in	  cubic	  meters,	  calculated	  using	  the	  total	  consumption	  (TotalAnnualVol_m3)	  and	  percent	  of	  water	  delivered	  to	  ICI	  (pct_ICIUse)Pct_OnlyIndUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  the	  industrial	  sector?	  (%)Pct_OnlyComUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  the	  commercial	  sector?	  (%)Pct_OnlyInstUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  the	  institutional	  sector?	  (%)Method	  ICI	  Breakdown What	  estimation	  method	  is	  used	  to	  determine	  the	  percentages	  of	  the	  total	  in	  the	  ICI	  sector?Pct_OnlyAgrUse What	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  	  to	  the	  agricultural	  sector?	  (%)Method	  Agr	  Breakdown What	  estimation	  method	  is	  used	  to	  determine	  the	  amount	  of	  water	  delivered	  to	  the	  agricultural	  sector?Pct_UnaccountedUse What	  percent	  of	  the	  total	  system	  water	  is	  unaccounted	  for?str_UnaccountedUse The	  municipality	  considered	  the	  unaccounted	  use	  included	  in	  the	  100%	  breakdown	  of	  usesMethod	  Losses What	  estimation	  method	  is	  used	  to	  calculate	  the	  percentage	  of	  total	  unaccounted	  water?Metering	  policy Which	  best	  describes	  your	  municipal	  water	  metering	  policy?MeteringPolicy_Res Categorical	  variable	  describing	  the	  metering	  policy	  for	  the	  residential	  sector.PctPopServedSFMeters What	  percentage	  of	  single-­‐family	  homes	  have	  water	  meters?strScopeSF-­‐SurveySummary Single	  Family	  Residential	  Pricing	  Policy,	  above	  50%	  it	  is	  considered	  that	  the	  municipality	  charges	  volumetricallyPctPopServedMFMeters What	  percentage	  of	  multi-­‐family	  homes	  have	  water	  meters?strScopeMF-­‐SurveySummary Multi	  family	  pricing	  policy.	  While	  multifamily	  units	  often	  have	  a	  meter	  for	  the	  entire	  complex,	  we	  counted	  multifamily	  homes	  as	  metered	  only	  if	  they	  lived	  in	  a	  municipality	  with	  a	  universal	  metering	  policy.	  Thus	  those	  multifamily	  homes	  without	  individual	  meters	  were	  not	  counted	  as	  metered.PctServedIndMeters What	  percentage	  of	  your	  industrial	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?PctServedComMeters What	  percentage	  of	  commercial	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?PctServedInstMeters What	  percentage	  of	  your	  institutional	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?PctServedAgrMeters What	  percentage	  of	  your	  agricultural	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?PctServedICIMeters What	  percentage	  of	  your	  industrial,	  commercial,	  and	  institutional	  water	  connections	  are	  metered?Year	  Metering	  Data Year	  for	  Data	  on	  Metering	  CoverageYear	  Metering	  Beginning When	  did	  your	  municipality's	  water	  metering	  policy	  come	  into	  effect?Effectiveness	  of	  metering On	  a	  scale	  of	  1	  to	  9,	  with	  1	  being	  extremely	  ineffective,	  5	  being	  neither	  effective	  nor	  ineffective,	  and	  9	  being	  extremely	  effective,	  how	  effective	  do	  you	  think	  your	  metering	  program	  has	  been	  in	  reducing	  water	  consumption?Metering	  to	  detect	  leaks Has	  your	  municipality	  used	  household	  metering	  data	  to	  detect	  leaks	  in	  the	  water	  system?Metering	  to	  evaluate	  conservation	  programsHas	  your	  municipality	  used	  household	  metering	  data	  to	  evaluate	  the	  impacts	  of	  water	  conservation	  programs?Study	  for	  URM	  in	  last	  5	  years 	  In	  the	  past	  five	  years,	  has	  a	  study	  been	  conducted	  on	  requiring	  universal	  residential	  water	  metering	  in	  your	  municipality?Author	  of	  the	  study If	  yes,	  who	  conducted	  the	  study?Disicentives	  for	  URM	  -­‐	  CommentsWhat	  are	  the	  main	  disincentives	  to	  adopting	  universal	  residential	  water	  metering	  in	  your	  municipality?Disicentives	  for	  URM Previous	  research	  has	  identified	  six	  primary	  reasons	  for	  not	  adopting	  universal	  residential	  metering	  programs.	  Which	  of	  the	  following	  six	  apply	  to	  your	  municipality?Main	  disicentive	  for	  URM Which	  of	  these	  is	  the	  primary	  reason	  for	  not	  adopting	  universal	  residential	  water	  metering	  in	  your	  municipality?Comments Any	  additional	  relevant	  infoVariable Name Question/DefinitionB C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 628Variable	  Name DefinitionINTMUNICIPALITIES_ID ID	  used	  in	  the	  2009	  Environment	  Canada	  reportintCensusID Stats	  Can's	  Census	  subdivision	  7	  digit	  codeMUNICIPALITY Name	  of	  the	  municipalityBylawNumber	  or	  name	  of	  the	  bylaw(s)	  that	  were	  used.	  It	  usually	  is	  the	  water	  related	  bylaw	  and/or	  the	  fee	  related	  bylawintBylawYear Year	  of	  the	  bylaw	  that	  were	  usedintFeeYear Year	  of	  the	  fee	  usedstrScopeSFThe	  bylaw	  specifies	  a	  Volumetric	  pricing	  structure	  (Metered),	  a	  Flat	  pricing	  structure	  (Not	  metered)	  or	  both	  for	  Single	  Families	  dwellingsstrScopeMFThe	  bylaw	  specifies	  a	  Volumetric	  pricing	  structure	  (Metered),	  a	  Flat	  pricing	  structure	  (Not	  metered)	  or	  both	  for	  Multi	  Families	  dwellingsRespondingPopThis	  is	  the	  population	  served	  by	  the	  water	  system.	  It	  used	  intPopulation201X	  according	  to	  the	  year	  of	  data	  for	  each	  municipality	  and	  according	  to	  the	  percent	  of	  the	  population	  served	  by	  the	  water	  system	  (PctPopServedWDS)Pct_DomUseWhat	  percent	  of	  total	  annual	  water	  distributed	  by	  your	  system	  is	  delivered	  to	  the	  residential	  sector?	  (in	  %)PctSF What	  percent	  of	  residents	  in	  your	  municipality	  live	  in	  Single	  Family	  Homes?PctMF What	  percent	  of	  residents	  in	  your	  municipality	  live	  in	  multi-­‐family	  homes?strFeeUnit Unit	  used	  in	  the	  charge	  of	  the	  bylawstrMeteredFeeTypeSFType	  of	  fee	  for	  metered	  single	  family	  users:	  Just	  consumption	  or	  they	  also	  have	  a	  base	  chargeintMeteredSFBillingPeriodBilling	  period	  for	  metered	  single	  family,	  in	  case	  where	  the	  household	  is	  billed	  quarterly	  but	  charged	  monthly	  it	  was	  used	  monthlybooleanMeteredSFMinimumThe	  metered	  fee	  for	  single	  family	  dwellings	  considers	  a	  minimum	  charge	  which	  is	  the	  least	  amount	  to	  be	  paid	  in	  each	  billing	  cycle,	  even	  if	  no	  consumption	  is	  done:	  false=no,	  true=yesintMeteredSFMinimum The	  minimum	  charge	  fee,	  the	  amount	  given	  here	  is	  for	  the	  billing	  periodbooleanMeteredSFBaseThe	  metered	  fee	  considers	  a	  base	  charge	  which	  is	  an	  amount	  to	  be	  paid	  in	  addition	  to	  any	  volumetric	  charge:	  false=no,	  true=yesstrMeteredSFBase Name	  in	  the	  bylaw	  to	  the	  base	  chargeVariable Name Definitionstr t r SF as a 	  i 	  t 	   yla 	  t 	  t 	   as 	  c argintMeteredSFBase0to5_8 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  up	  to	  5/8"	  or	  17mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase3_4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  3/4"	  or	  18-­‐19-­‐20	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase1 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1"	  or	  25-­‐26	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase5_4 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1	  1/4"	  or	  32	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase6_4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1	  1/2"	  or	  38-­‐39-­‐40	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase2 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  2"	  or	  50-­‐51	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase10_4 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  2	  1/2"	  or	  64	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase3 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  3"	  or	  75-­‐76	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  4"	  or	  100-­‐101-­‐102	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualstrMeteredSFAdditional Name	  in	  the	  bylaw	  to	  additional	  fee	  besides	  minimum	  and	  baseintMeteredSFAdditional The	  additional	  charge	  fee,	  the	  amount	  given	  here	  is	  annual,	  unless	  otherwise	  statedstrMeteredSFFeeComment Comments	  on	  the	  fee	  for	  metered	  SFstrMeteredSFBlockTypeThe	  type	  of	  block	  charge	  that	  metered	  users	  in	  single	  family	  are	  facing:	  CUC-­‐Constant	  unit	  charge;	  IBR-­‐Increasing	  block	  rate;	  DBR-­‐Decreasing	  block	  rateintMeteredSFCUCm3Customers	  are	  charged	  a	  uniform	  amount	  per	  unit.	  This	  is	  the	  constant	  amount	  per	  cubic	  meterintMeteredSFBRLimit1Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  first	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredSFBRFee1m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  first	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredSFBRLimit2Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  second	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredSFBRFee2m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  second	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredSFBRLimit3Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  third	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredSFBRFee3m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  third	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredSFBRLimit4Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  fourth	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreBC Municipal Pricing DatabaseW a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a29Variable Name DefinitionstrMeteredSFBase Name	  in	  the	  bylaw	  to	  the	  base	  chargeintMeteredSFBase0to5_8 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  up	  to	  5/8"	  or	  17mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase3_4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  3/4"	  or	  18-­‐19-­‐20	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase1 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1"	  or	  25-­‐26	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase5_4 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1	  1/4"	  or	  32	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase6_4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1	  1/2"	  or	  38-­‐39-­‐40	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase2 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  2"	  or	  50-­‐51	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase10_4 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  2	  1/2"	  or	  64	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase3 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  3"	  or	  75-­‐76	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredSFBase4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  4"	  or	  100-­‐101-­‐102	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualstrMeteredSFAdditional Name	  in	  the	  bylaw	  to	  additional	  fee	  besides	  minimum	  and	  baseintMeteredSFAdditional The	  additional	  charge	  fee,	  the	  amount	  given	  here	  is	  annual,	  unless	  otherwise	  statedstrMeteredSFFeeComment Comments	  on	  the	  fee	  for	  metered	  SFstrMeteredSFBlockTypeThe	  type	  of	  block	  charge	  that	  metered	  users	  in	  single	  family	  are	  facing:	  CUC-­‐Constant	  unit	  charge;	  IBR-­‐Increasing	  block	  rate;	  DBR-­‐Decreasing	  block	  rateintMeteredSFCUCm3Customers	  are	  charged	  a	  uniform	  amount	  per	  unit.	  This	  is	  the	  constant	  amount	  per	  cubic	  meterintMeteredSFBRLimit1Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  first	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredSFBRFee1m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  first	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredSFBRLimit2Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  second	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredSFBRFee2m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  second	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredSFBRLimit3Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  third	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredSFBRFee3m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  third	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredSFBRLimit4Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  fourth	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredSFBRFee4m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  fourth	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredSFBRLimit5Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  fifth	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredSFBRFee5m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  fifth	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredSFBRLimit6Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  sixth	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredSFBRFee6m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  sixth	  block	  per	  m3strMeteredSFSSAmount Shows	  the	  multiplier	  or	  specific	  seasonal	  chargestrMeteredSFSSConditions Explain	  when	  the	  seasonal	  multiplier	  occursstrMeteredSFFeeComment2 Additional	  comments	  regarding	  the	  volumetric	  rates	  or	  the	  seasonal	  surplusstrMeteredFeeTypeMFType	  of	  fee	  for	  metered	  multi	  family	  users:	  Just	  consumption	  or	  they	  also	  have	  a	  base	  chargeintMeteredMFBillingPeriodBilling	  period	  for	  metered	  multi	  family,	  in	  case	  where	  the	  household	  is	  billed	  quarterly	  but	  charged	  monthly	  it	  was	  used	  monthlybooleanMeteredMFMinimumThe	  metered	  fee	  for	  multi	  family	  dwellings	  considers	  a	  minimum	  charge	  which	  is	  the	  least	  amount	  to	  be	  paid	  in	  each	  billing	  cycle,	  even	  if	  no	  consumption	  is	  done:	  false=no,	  true=yesintMeteredMFMinimum The	  minimum	  charge	  fee,	  the	  amount	  given	  here	  is	  for	  the	  billing	  periodbooleanMeteredMFBaseThe	  metered	  fee	  considers	  a	  base	  charge	  which	  is	  an	  amount	  to	  be	  paid	  in	  addition	  to	  any	  volumetric	  charge:	  false=no,	  true=yesstrMeteredMFBase Name	  in	  the	  bylaw	  to	  the	  base	  chargeintMeteredMFBase0to5_8 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  up	  to	  5/8"	  or	  17mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase3_4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  3/4"	  or	  18-­‐19-­‐20	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase1 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1"	  or	  25-­‐26	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase5_4 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1	  1/4"	  or	  32	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase6_4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1	  1/2"	  or	  38-­‐39-­‐40	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase2 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  2"	  or	  50-­‐51	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase10_4 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  2	  1/2"	  or	  64	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase3 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  3"	  or	  75-­‐76	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualB C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 630Variable Name DefinitionintMeteredSFBRFee4m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  fourth	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredSFBRLimit5Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  fifth	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredSFBRFee5m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  fifth	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredSFBRLimit6Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  sixth	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredSFBRFee6m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  sixth	  block	  per	  m3strMeteredSFSSAmount Shows	  the	  multiplier	  or	  specific	  seasonal	  chargestrMeteredSFSSConditions Explain	  when	  the	  seasonal	  multiplier	  occursstrMeteredSFFeeComment2 Additional	  comments	  regarding	  the	  volumetric	  rates	  or	  the	  seasonal	  surplusstrMeteredFeeTypeMFType	  of	  fee	  for	  metered	  multi	  family	  users:	  Just	  consumption	  or	  they	  also	  have	  a	  base	  chargeintMeteredMFBillingPeriodBilling	  period	  for	  metered	  multi	  family,	  in	  case	  where	  the	  household	  is	  billed	  quarterly	  but	  charged	  monthly	  it	  was	  used	  monthlybooleanMeteredMFMinimumThe	  metered	  fee	  for	  multi	  family	  dwellings	  considers	  a	  minimum	  charge	  which	  is	  the	  least	  amount	  to	  be	  paid	  in	  each	  billing	  cycle,	  even	  if	  no	  consumption	  is	  done:	  false=no,	  true=yesintMeteredMFMinimum The	  minimum	  charge	  fee,	  the	  amount	  given	  here	  is	  for	  the	  billing	  periodbooleanMeteredMFBaseThe	  metered	  fee	  considers	  a	  base	  charge	  which	  is	  an	  amount	  to	  be	  paid	  in	  addition	  to	  any	  volumetric	  charge:	  false=no,	  true=yesstrMeteredMFBase Name	  in	  the	  bylaw	  to	  the	  base	  chargeintMeteredMFBase0to5_8 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  up	  to	  5/8"	  or	  17mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase3_4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  3/4"	  or	  18-­‐19-­‐20	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase1 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1"	  or	  25-­‐26	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase5_4 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1	  1/4"	  or	  32	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase6_4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1	  1/2"	  or	  38-­‐39-­‐40	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase2 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  2"	  or	  50-­‐51	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase10_4 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  2	  1/2"	  or	  64	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase3 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  3"	  or	  75-­‐76	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintMeteredMFBase4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  4"	  or	  100-­‐101-­‐102	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualstrMeteredMFAdditional Name	  in	  the	  bylaw	  to	  additional	  fee	  besides	  minimum	  and	  baseintMeteredMFAdditional The	  additional	  charge	  fee,	  the	  amount	  given	  here	  is	  annual,	  unless	  otherwise	  statedstrMeteredMFFeeComment Comments	  on	  the	  fee	  for	  metered	  MFstrMeteredMFBlockTypeThe	  type	  of	  block	  charge	  that	  metered	  users	  in	  multi	  family	  dwellings	  are	  facing:	  CUC-­‐Constant	  unit	  charge;	  IBR-­‐Increasing	  block	  rate;	  DBR-­‐Decreasing	  block	  rateintMeteredMFCUCm3Customers	  are	  charged	  a	  uniform	  amount	  per	  unit.	  This	  is	  the	  constant	  amount	  per	  cubic	  meterintMeteredMFBRLimit1Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  first	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredMFBRFee1m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  first	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredMFBRLimit2Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  second	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredMFBRFee2m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  second	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredMFBRLimit3Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  third	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredMFBRFee3m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  third	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredMFBRLimit4Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  fourth	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredMFBRFee4m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  fourth	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredMFBRLimit5Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  fifth	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredMFBRFee5m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  fifth	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredMFBRLimit6Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  sixth	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredMFBRFee6m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  sixth	  block	  per	  m3strMeteredMFSSAmount Shows	  the	  multiplier	  or	  specific	  seasonal	  chargestrMeteredMFSSConditions Explain	  when	  the	  seasonal	  multiplier	  occursstrMeteredMFFeeComment2 Additional	  comments	  regarding	  the	  volumetric	  rates	  or	  the	  seasonal	  surplusW a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a31Variable Name DefinitionintMeteredMFBase4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  4"	  or	  100-­‐101-­‐102	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualstrMeteredMFAdditional Name	  in	  the	  bylaw	  to	  additional	  fee	  besides	  minimum	  and	  baseintMeteredMFAdditional The	  additional	  charge	  fee,	  the	  amount	  given	  here	  is	  annual,	  unless	  otherwise	  statedstrMeteredMFFeeComment Comments	  on	  the	  fee	  for	  metered	  MFstrMeteredMFBlockTypeThe	  type	  of	  block	  charge	  that	  metered	  users	  in	  multi	  family	  dwellings	  are	  facing:	  CUC-­‐Constant	  unit	  charge;	  IBR-­‐Increasing	  block	  rate;	  DBR-­‐Decreasing	  block	  rateintMeteredMFCUCm3Customers	  are	  charged	  a	  uniform	  amount	  per	  unit.	  This	  is	  the	  constant	  amount	  per	  cubic	  meterintMeteredMFBRLimit1Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  first	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredMFBRFee1m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  first	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredMFBRLimit2Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  second	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredMFBRFee2m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  second	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredMFBRLimit3Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  third	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredMFBRFee3m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  third	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredMFBRLimit4Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  fourth	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredMFBRFee4m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  fourth	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredMFBRLimit5Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  fifth	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredMFBRFee5m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  fifth	  block	  per	  m3intMeteredMFBRLimit6Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  upper	  limit	  of	  the	  sixth	  block,	  this	  quantity	  is	  "units".	  A	  "-­‐"	  indicates	  it	  is	  from	  the	  last	  limit	  and	  moreintMeteredMFBRFee6m3 Customers	  are	  charged	  in	  blocks.	  This	  is	  the	  fee	  for	  the	  sixth	  block	  per	  m3strMeteredMFSSAmount Shows	  the	  multiplier	  or	  specific	  seasonal	  chargestrMeteredMFSSConditions Explain	  when	  the	  seasonal	  multiplier	  occursstrMeteredMFFeeComment2 Additional	  comments	  regarding	  the	  volumetric	  rates	  or	  the	  seasonal	  surplusintFlatBillingPeriodBilling	  period	  for	  flat	  charged	  users,	  in	  case	  where	  the	  household	  is	  billed	  quarterly	  but	  charged	  monthly	  it	  was	  used	  monthlystrFlatBase Name	  in	  the	  bylaw	  to	  the	  base	  chargeintFlatBase0to5_8 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  up	  to	  5/8"	  or	  17mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase3_4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  3/4"	  or	  18-­‐19-­‐20	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase1 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1"	  or	  25-­‐26	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase5_4 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1	  1/4"	  or	  32	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase6_4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1	  1/2"	  or	  38-­‐39-­‐40	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase2 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  2"	  or	  50-­‐51	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase10_4 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  2	  1/2"	  or	  64	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase3 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  3"	  or	  75-­‐76	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  4"	  or	  100-­‐101-­‐102	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualstrFlatAdditional Name	  in	  the	  bylaw	  to	  additional	  fee	  besides	  minimum	  and	  baseintFlatAdditional The	  additional	  charge	  fee,	  the	  amount	  given	  here	  is	  annual,	  unless	  otherwise	  statedintFlatSF Quantity	  of	  the	  flat	  fee	  (annual)	  for	  single	  familiesintFlatSFMeteredQuantity	  of	  the	  flat	  fee	  (annual)	  for	  single	  families,	  when	  mandatory	  metering	  is	  on	  place	  but	  refusedintFlatSFx2Quantity	  of	  the	  flat	  fee	  (annual)	  for	  single	  Family	  plus	  "basement	  or	  laneway	  or	  secondary	  suite	  or	  other"intFlatSFx3 Quantity	  of	  the	  flat	  fee	  (annual)	  for	  single	  Family	  plus	  "any	  two	  of	  the	  former"intFlatMF Quantity	  of	  the	  flat	  fee	  (annual)	  for	  multi	  familystrFlatFeeComment Comments	  on	  the	  fee	  for	  flat	  usersB C  M u n i C i p l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 632Variable Name DefinitionintFlatBillingPeriodBilling	  period	  for	  flat	  charged	  users,	  in	  case	  where	  the	  household	  is	  billed	  quarterly	  but	  charged	  monthly	  it	  was	  used	  monthlystrFlatBase Name	  in	  the	  bylaw	  to	  the	  base	  chargeintFlatBase0to5_8 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  up	  to	  5/8"	  or	  17mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase3_4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  3/4"	  or	  18-­‐19-­‐20	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase1 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1"	  or	  25-­‐26	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase5_4 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1	  1/4"	  or	  32	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase6_4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  1	  1/2"	  or	  38-­‐39-­‐40	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase2 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  2"	  or	  50-­‐51	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase10_4 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  2	  1/2"	  or	  64	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase3 The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  3"	  or	  75-­‐76	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualintFlatBase4The	  base	  charge	  fee,	  for	  connection	  of	  4"	  or	  100-­‐101-­‐102	  mm.	  The	  amount	  given	  is	  annualstrFlatAdditional Name	  in	  the	  bylaw	  to	  additional	  fee	  besides	  minimum	  and	  baseintFlatAdditional The	  additional	  charge	  fee,	  the	  amount	  given	  here	  is	  annual,	  unless	  otherwise	  statedintFlatSF Quantity	  of	  the	  flat	  fee	  (annual)	  for	  single	  familiesintFlatSFMeteredQuantity	  of	  the	  flat	  fee	  (annual)	  for	  single	  families,	  when	  mandatory	  metering	  is	  on	  place	  but	  refusedintFlatSFx2Quantity	  of	  the	  flat	  fee	  (annual)	  for	  single	  Family	  plus	  "basement	  or	  laneway	  or	  secondary	  suite	  or	  other"intFlatSFx3 Quantity	  of	  the	  flat	  fee	  (annual)	  for	  single	  Family	  plus	  "any	  two	  of	  the	  former"intFlatMF Quantity	  of	  the	  flat	  fee	  (annual)	  for	  multi	  familystrFlatFeeComment Comments	  on	  the	  fee	  for	  flat	  usersW a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a33APPENDIX 3. NOTES ON DATA Municipality Variable NoteAbbotsford Loss	  (%) 14.6%	  unaccounted	  for	  water	  loss	  is	  for	  Abbotsford	  and	  Mission	  combined.Armstrong Year	  Metering	  Beginning April	  2014.	  First	  actual	  bill	  will	  be	  October	  2015-­‐March	  2016.Burnaby Portion	  distributed	  to	  Commercial	  (%)It	  is	  assumed	  that	  the	  25%	  reported	  for	  Commercial	  and	  Institutional	  is	  evenly	  divided	  between	  the	  two	  sectors	  (12.5)Campbell	  River intCensusID Census	  ID	  corresponds	  to	  Statistics	  Canada.	  EC	  2011	  reported	  a	  different	  value	  for	  same	  municipality.Campbell	  River Portion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  MF	  (%)MF	  is	  included	  in	  CommercialComox intCensusID Census	  ID	  corresponds	  to	  Statistics	  Canada.	  EC	  2011	  reported	  a	  different	  value	  for	  same	  municipality.Comox Conservation	  Strategies The	  response	  combines	  effort	  from	  municipality	  and	  the	  regional	  districtComox Year	  Metering	  Beginning Unsure	  if	  metering	  began	  in	  2008Courtenay intCensusID Census	  ID	  corresponds	  to	  Statistics	  Canada.	  EC	  2011	  reported	  a	  different	  value	  for	  same	  municipality.Courtenay Conservation	  Strategies Data	  collected	  from	  the	  Regional	  DistrictCourtenay Total	  volume	  delivered	  (original)Data	  collected	  from	  the	  Regional	  DistrictCourtenay PctPopServedWDS Assumed	  to	  be	  100%	  as	  in	  2009	  (Environment	  canada	  data)Cranbrook Portion	  distributed	  to	  Agr	  (%) Less	  than	  	  30%Cranbrook Portion	  of	  ICI	  metered	  (%) 175	  meters	  in	  ICI	  but	  only	  5	  are	  operation.	  Data	  not	  used	  nor	  trusted.Cumberland intCensusID Census	  ID	  corresponds	  to	  Statistics	  Canada.	  EC	  2011	  reported	  a	  different	  value	  for	  same	  municipality.Cumberland Total	  volume	  delivered	  (original)Includes	  Royston	  (308510	  m3)Delta Total	  volume	  delivered	  (original)Data	  collected	  from	  Metro	  VancouverDelta Year	  Consumption	  Data Year	  not	  reported.	  Assumed	  2013Gibsons Year	  Metering	  Beginning Residential	  in	  2009;	  ICI	  long	  term	  but	  recently	  more	  strictly	  implemented	  Greater	  Vancouver	  A intCensusID Census	  ID	  corresponds	  to	  Statistics	  Canada	  Greater	  Vancouver	  A	  however	  we	  only	  report	  data	  for	  the	  University	  Endowment	  Lands.B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 634CDelta Total	  volume	  delivered	  (original)Data	  collected	  from	  Metro	  VancouverDelta Year	  Consumption	  Data Year	  not	  reported.	  Assumed	  2013Gibsons Year	  Metering	  Beginning Residential	  in	  2009;	  ICI	  long	  term	  but	  recently	  more	  strictly	  implemented	  Greater	  Vancouver	  A intCensusID Census	  ID	  corresponds	  to	  Statistics	  Canada	  Greater	  Vancouver	  A	  however	  we	  only	  report	  data	  for	  the	  University	  Endowment	  Lands.Greater	  Vancouver	  A Municipality University	  Endowment	  Lands	  was	  surveyed.	  It	  is	  not	  a	  municipality	  but	  a	  part	  of	  Greater	  Vancouver	  AGreater	  Vancouver	  A Total	  volume	  delivered	  (m3) Excluding	  the	  University	  of	  British	  Columbia,	  UEL	  	  consumed	  613,972	  cubic	  meters	  in	  2014.	  UBC	  consumed	  4192462	  cubic	  metersGreater	  Vancouver	  A Portion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  (%)A	  "small	  portion"	  of	  the	  MF	  rate	  above	  goes	  to	  commercial	  useGreater	  Vancouver	  A 2013Population Only	  considers	  UEL	  and	  population	  data	  from	  2015Greater	  Vancouver	  A SGC The	  code	  is	  for	  the	  unicorporated	  areas	  of	  greater	  VancouverKamloops Portion	  distributed	  to	  Agr	  (%) Non	  PotableKamloops Portion	  of	  Agr	  metered	  (%) Metered	  only	  at	  intakeKamloops Year	  Metering	  Beginning Voluntary	  in	  2008.	  Mandatory	  in	  2011Kelowna Portion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  MF	  (%)MF	  includes	  strata,	  which	  may	  be	  SF-­‐type	  homes	  in	  strata	  properties	  (such	  as	  gated	  communities).Kelowna Portion	  distributed	  to	  ICI	  (%) MF	  also	  includes	  mixed-­‐use,	  as	  most	  mixed-­‐use	  water	  is	  supposedly	  residential.	  Maple	  Ridge Total	  volume	  delivered	  (original)Data	  collected	  from	  Metro	  VancouverMission Loss	  (%) 14.6%	  unaccounted	  for	  water	  loss	  is	  for	  Abbotsford	  and	  Mission	  combined.Nakusp Portion	  distributed	  to	  Ind	  (%) Industrial	  and	  Institutional	  are	  included	  in	  the	  same	  category,	  and	  amount	  to	  3%North	  Vancouver	  City PctPopServedWDS Assumed	  to	  be	  100%	  as	  in	  2009	  (Environment	  canada	  data)North	  Vancouver	  DistrictPortion	  of	  ICI	  metered	  (%) Churches	  are	  considered	  ICI	  but	  are	  charged	  a	  flat	  rateNorth	  Vancouver	  DistrictPortion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  MF	  (%)Could	  only	  provide	  %	  of	  service	  connections,	  of	  which	  94.3%	  are	  residential	  (92.9%	  SF,	  1.4%	  MF)	  and	  5.7%	  ICINorth	  Vancouver	  DistrictPortion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  (%)Could	  only	  provide	  %	  of	  service	  connections,	  of	  which	  94.3%	  are	  residential	  (92.9%	  SF,	  1.4%	  MF)	  and	  5.7%	  ICIPenticton Year	  Metering	  Beginning Metering	  started	  in	  the	  1960's	  (no	  specific	  year)Municipality Variable NoteW a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a35North	  Vancouver	  City PctPopServedWDS Assumed	  to	  be	  100%	  as	  in	  2009	  (Environment	  canada	  data)North	  Vancouver	  DistrictPortion	  of	  ICI	  metered	  (%) Churches	  are	  considered	  ICI	  but	  are	  charged	  a	  flat	  rateNorth	  Vancouver	  DistrictPortion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  MF	  (%)Could	  only	  provide	  %	  of	  service	  connections,	  of	  which	  94.3%	  are	  residential	  (92.9%	  SF,	  1.4%	  MF)	  and	  5.7%	  ICINorth	  Vancouver	  DistrictPortion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  (%)Could	  only	  provide	  %	  of	  service	  connections,	  of	  which	  94.3%	  are	  residential	  (92.9%	  SF,	  1.4%	  MF)	  and	  5.7%	  ICIPenticton Year	  Metering	  Beginning Metering	  started	  in	  the	  1960's	  (no	  specific	  year)Port	  Moody Portion	  distributed	  to	  ICI	  (%) 200	  ICI	  connections	  are	  metered.	  Powell	  River Total	  volume	  delivered	  (original)Residential	  &	  ICIPrince	  George Portion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  SF	  (%)The	  percentage	  is	  based	  on	  the	  sum	  of	  SF,	  Duplex,	  MF	  and	  Strata	  of	  22286	  connectionsPrince	  George Portion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  MF	  (%)2000	  MF	  and	  Strata	  connections.	  Prince	  George Portion	  distributed	  to	  Ind	  (%) Based	  on	  estimate	  of	  10%	  for	  commercial	  and	  industrial	  combinedPrince	  George Portion	  distributed	  to	  Comm	  (%)Based	  on	  estimate	  of	  10%	  for	  commercial	  and	  industrial	  combinedRichmond Portion	  distributed	  to	  ICI	  (%) ICI	  includes	  agriculturalRichmond Portion	  distributed	  to	  Agr	  (%) ICI	  includes	  agriculturalRichmond Portion	  of	  residential	  MF	  metered	  (%)9	  Townhouses,	  24	  Apartments	  are	  meteredSurrey Residential	  connections	  (#) Number	  of	  residential	  connections	  also	  includes	  ICISurrey Portion	  distributed	  to	  Comm	  (%)Some	  of	  the	  commercial	  may	  in	  fact	  include	  industrial	  usesVernon Year	  Metering	  Beginning Mid	  1990's,	  with	  agriculture	  following	  suit	  in	  2011Vernon Total	  volume	  delivered	  (original)Considers	  only	  domestic	  (including	  commercial).	  Agricultural	  is	  378930m3Whistler Portion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  SF	  (%)Assuming	  SF	  consumes	  double	  of	  MFWhistler Portion	  distributed	  to	  ICI	  (%) Further	  estimated	  breakdown:	  Hotels	  24.7%	  of	  total,	  Restaurants	  18.85%,	  and	  "Other"	  11.05%.	  	  Whistler Portion	  of	  residential	  SF	  metered	  (%)No	  accurate	  data	  on	  water	  meters	  as	  they	  are	  not	  currently	  used.	  Estimate	  that	  residential	  sector	  has	  3285	  water	  meters.Whistler Portion	  of	  ICI	  metered	  (%) Best	  guess	  on	  industrial	  is	  400	  water	  meters.Municipality Variable NoteB C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 636North	  Vancouver	  City PctPopServedWDS Assumed	  to	  be	  100%	  as	  in	  2009	  (Environment	  canada	  data)North	  Vancouver	  DistrictPortion	  of	  ICI	  metered	  (%) Churches	  are	  considered	  ICI	  but	  are	  charged	  a	  flat	  rateNorth	  Vancouver	  DistrictPortion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  MF	  (%)Could	  only	  provide	  %	  of	  service	  connections,	  of	  which	  94.3%	  are	  residential	  (92.9%	  SF,	  1.4%	  MF)	  and	  5.7%	  ICINorth	  Vancouver	  DistrictPortion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  (%)Could	  only	  provide	  %	  of	  service	  connections,	  of	  which	  94.3%	  are	  residential	  (92.9%	  SF,	  1.4%	  MF)	  and	  5.7%	  ICIPenticton Year	  Metering	  Beginning Metering	  started	  in	  the	  1960's	  (no	  specific	  year)Port	  Moody Portion	  distributed	  to	  ICI	  (%) 200	  ICI	  connections	  are	  metered.	  Powell	  River Total	  volume	  delivered	  (original)Residential	  &	  ICIPrince	  George Portion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  SF	  (%)The	  percentage	  is	  based	  on	  the	  sum	  of	  SF,	  Duplex,	  MF	  and	  Strata	  of	  22286	  connectionsPrince	  George Portion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  MF	  (%)2000	  MF	  and	  Strata	  connections.	  Prince	  George Portion	  distributed	  to	  Ind	  (%) Based	  on	  estimate	  of	  10%	  for	  commercial	  and	  industrial	  combinedPrince	  George Portion	  distributed	  to	  Comm	  (%)Based	  on	  estimate	  of	  10%	  for	  commercial	  and	  industrial	  combinedRichmond Portion	  distributed	  to	  ICI	  (%) ICI	  includes	  agriculturalRichmond Portion	  distributed	  to	  Agr	  (%) ICI	  includes	  agriculturalRichmond Portion	  of	  residential	  MF	  metered	  (%)9	  Townhouses,	  24	  Apartments	  are	  meteredSurrey Residential	  connections	  (#) Number	  of	  residential	  connections	  also	  includes	  ICISurrey Portion	  distributed	  to	  Comm	  (%)Some	  of	  the	  commercial	  may	  in	  fact	  include	  industrial	  usesVernon Year	  Metering	  Beginning Mid	  1990's,	  with	  agriculture	  following	  suit	  in	  2011Vernon Total	  volume	  delivered	  (original)Considers	  only	  domestic	  (including	  commercial).	  Agricultural	  is	  378930m3Whistler Portion	  distributed	  to	  residential	  SF	  (%)Assuming	  SF	  consumes	  double	  of	  MFWhistler Portion	  distributed	  to	  ICI	  (%) Further	  estimated	  breakdown:	  Hotels	  24.7%	  of	  total,	  Restaurants	  18.85%,	  and	  "Other"	  11.05%.	  	  Whistler Portion	  of	  residential	  SF	  metered	  (%)No	  accurate	  data	  on	  water	  meters	  as	  they	  are	  not	  currently	  used.	  Estimate	  that	  residential	  sector	  has	  3285	  water	  meters.Whistler Portion	  of	  ICI	  metered	  (%) Best	  guess	  on	  industrial	  is	  400	  water	  meters.Municipality Variable NoteW a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a37APPENDIX 4. TECHNICAL NOTE ON METERING COVERAGE CALCULATIONSFrom the raw data collected, a few calculations are necessary to estimate metering coverage rates per housing type for the province. To estimate metering coverage rates, we rely on the response to the question “What percentage of single family homes are metered?” which is reported in the variable name PctPopServedSFMeters. We adopted the same question as previous Environment Canada surveys, and asked the equivalent question for multifamily homes. First we multiply the total number of residential connections serviced by the percent residents that live in single family homes, as reported by Statistics Canada. This step makes the assumption that the proportion of residential connections in a municipality is similar to the proportion of the population distributed between single family and multifamily homes. Then, to move from a percentage value to an absolute value of single family homes with water meters, we then multiply the number of single family connections calculated in the previous step, with their response to our question regarding the percentage of single family homes metered.  This provides us with the total number of single family homes that are metered, the sum of which is 107,595 metered homes (36%). For multifamily homes, we followed the same procedure as above, but only include municipalities with universal metering policies. Here we assume that multifamily homes within a jurisdiction with a universal metering policy will also have individual metering, while multifamily units in a municipality without a universal metering policy are not individually metered. The sum of metered multifamily units is 62,882 (18%).However, there is some ambiguity with regard to how to interpret the variable PctPopServedSFMeters since the variable name implies a percent population while the question specifically asks for percent homes. While we can expect these two values to be similar, we are nevertheless making an assumption. More importantly, the ambiguity may lead to the calculation of different coverage rates for the province, since in one case the denominator is number of homes, while in another it the BC population. In future studies, this ambiguity should be clarified. We suggest rewording this question to ask for the total number of individually metered connections for single family homes and multifamily homes, rather than percentages.  Asking for the number of individual connections would also clarify if residents within multifamily homes are individually metered – also known as submetering. In some instances, we suspect that asking the question in percentage terms, rather than a total number of metered connections, led to underestimates of total metering coverage. For example, we suspect this may explain the low number of connections estimated in Vancouver. We also feel that reporting metering coverage rates in terms of percent connections to be preferable than percent homes or percent population. There are many BC residents that are not connected to the municipal service area, and therefore it would be unfair to expect utilities to meter those not connected to the network. B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 638APPENDIX 5: WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES BY MUNICIPALITYW a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a39B C  M u n i C i p a l  W a t e r  S u r v e y  2 0 1 640APPENDIX 5W a t e r  P l a n n i n g  l a bU n i v e r s i t y  o f  b r i t i s h  C o l U m b i a41Water Planning labSchool of community and regional Planningfaculty of aPPlied ScienceSuniverSity of britiSh columbiawww.wpl.scarp.ubc.ca

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52383.1-0300363/manifest

Comment

Related Items