UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Water demand management and adaptations for mountain resort communities in the Canadian Columbia Basin Lepsoe, Stephanie 2009

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2009_fall_lepsoe_stephanie.pdf [ 5.91MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0067210.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0067210-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0067210-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0067210-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0067210-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0067210-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0067210-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0067210-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0067210.ris

Full Text

 WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT AND ADAPTATIONS FOR MOUNTAIN RESORT COMMUNITIES IN THE CANADIAN COLUMBIA BASIN  by  STEPHANIE LEPSOE  B.P.A.P.M (Hon), Carleton University, 2004    A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  (Resource Management and Environmental Studies)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITSH COLUMBIA (VANCOUVER)  May 2009  © Stephanie Lepsoe, 2009   ii ABSTRACT  Mountain resort communities need to consider how they will adapt to the increasing demand for domestic water from a growing, often seasonal, population; and to the prospects of climate change. This investigation evaluated domestic water use in Rossland and Invermere: Two resort communities in the Columbia Basin that both face water supply concerns resulting from excessive use and increased climatic variability.  The study examined historic and current water use, then developed scenarios of future domestic water demands that take into consideration possible growth and water conservation, or demand management (DM) options. Indoor and outdoor conservation strategies evaluated for domestic and tourism-related use included metering with an increasing block rate, a DM “package” of fixtures/appliances, and rainwater collection. The study does not involve an economic analysis, nor does it examine the values driving water use and consumption. It focuses on DM as it relates to potential water savings through conservation. The primary methods used involved collecting and correlating current water use and climate data, and estimating potential savings from various conservation strategies, both now and in the future.  The results confirmed that when domestic consumption is isolated from other sectors, domestic per capita water consumption in both communities remains very high: The average annual consumption for Rossland was 483 litres/capita/day (lcd), while Invermere used 353 lcd.  Outdoor water use during the summer resulted in an increase of 50% for Rossland and 40% for Invermere. Future water demands were modelled using scenarios for no conservation versus conservation strategies. The results showed that conservation could accommodate an extra 5,000 people in Rossland and 2,500 people in Invermere, without increasing supplies.  This study reinforces the argument that, rather than searching for new water sources or expanding water storage capacity, immediately reducing water consumption is an effective option for sustainable resource use, and will lessen the effects of climate change. The research also highlights the need for better record keeping and/or data collection in four main areas: water consumption (demand) and river flows/ aquifer recharge rates (supply) at the municipal and watershed levels; tourist activity in towns that are tourism-dependent; and high altitude climate information.   iii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT…..………………………………………………………………………………………………….ii TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………………….iii LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………….……………………..ix LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………………….....xi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………………………………..xiv ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………….xv CHAPTER 1:  INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………....1 1.0  OVERALL OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH ........................................................................... 1 1.1  THESIS ORGANIZATION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2  RESEARCH CONTEXT.............................................................................................................. 1 1.3  RESEARCH QUESTION AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................ 3 1.4  PREVIOUS STUDIES................................................................................................................. 6 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………………....12 2.1  WATER USE ............................................................................................................................ 12 2.2  WATER CONSERVATION ....................................................................................................... 13 2.2.1  WATER CONSERVATION FOR DOMESTIC USE ............................................................................ 17 2.2.2  METHODS AND INCENTIVES TO CONSERVE WATER .................................................................... 19 2.2.3  CHALLENGES TO EFFECTIVE DSM ............................................................................................ 20 2.3  CLIMATE CHANGE.................................................................................................................. 22 2.3.1  OBSERVATIONS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA ................................................................................... 22 2.3.2  OBSERVATIONS FOR THE COLUMBIA BASIN................................................................................ 23 2.3.3  IMPACTS ON WATER IN THE COLUMBIA BASIN ............................................................................ 24 2.3.4  WATER SUPPLY....................................................................................................................... 25 2.4  CASE STUDIES OF WATER AND CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION IN OTHER MOUNTAIN RESORT COMMUNITIES............................................................................................................... 26 2.4.1  RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER, B.C. (RMOW)................................................................ 26 2.4.2  ASPEN, CO ............................................................................................................................. 27 CHAPTER 3:  METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………………………….32 3.1  CASE STUDY SITES: SELECTION AND LOCATION.............................................................. 32 3.2  POPULATION AND TOURISM................................................................................................. 33 3.3  CLIMATE .................................................................................................................................. 33  iv 3.4  DOMESTIC WATER USE......................................................................................................... 34 3.4.1  ROSSLAND .............................................................................................................................. 34 3.4.2  INVERMERE ............................................................................................................................. 35 3.5  GOLF COURSES ..................................................................................................................... 35 3.6  WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIES ............................................................................... 36 3.6.1  INDOOR APPLIANCES AND FIXTURES ......................................................................................... 36 3.6.2  OUTDOOR IRRIGATION AND RAINWATER HARVESTING ................................................................ 36 3.7  SCENARIOS ............................................................................................................................ 38 CHAPTER 4:  ROSSLAND CASE STUDY………………………………………………………………...39 4.1  BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................ 39 4.1.1  POPULATION............................................................................................................................ 40 4.1.2  HOUSING................................................................................................................................. 41 4.2.  TOURISM ................................................................................................................................ 41 4.2.1  INFORMATION GATHERED......................................................................................................... 42 4.2.2  OCCUPANCY RATES AND REVENUES......................................................................................... 42 4.2.3  SEASONAL TOURISM ................................................................................................................ 42 4.2.4  WINTER................................................................................................................................... 45 4.2.5  SUMMER TOURISM................................................................................................................... 47 4.2.6  TOURISM TRENDS.................................................................................................................... 48 4.3  CLIMATE .................................................................................................................................. 49 4.4  WATER SUPPLY...................................................................................................................... 52 4.5  WATER USE ............................................................................................................................... 54 4.5.1  CURRENT RESIDENTIAL WATER USE......................................................................................... 55 4.5.2  CITY CORE.............................................................................................................................. 56 4.5.3  RED MOUNTAIN ....................................................................................................................... 57 4.5.4  CITY-RED MOUNTAIN COMPARISON .......................................................................................... 58 4.5.5  TOURISM: GOLF....................................................................................................................... 61 4.5.5  CURRENT WATER USE AND CLIMATE ........................................................................................ 62 4.6  AGGRESSIVE DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ....................................................... 66 4.6.1  WHY REDUCE DOMESTIC WATER USE ...................................................................................... 66 4.6.1.1  ECONOMIC INCENTIVE........................................................................................................... 66 4.6.1.2  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................... 66 4.6.1.3  CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION ............................................................................................. 67 4.7  TOURISM ................................................................................................................................. 67 4.7.1  GOLF ...................................................................................................................................... 67 4.7.2  ACCOMMODATION.................................................................................................................... 68 4.7.2.1  LOW-FLOW FIXTURES ........................................................................................................... 68  v 4.7.2.2  RAIN BARRELS FOR HOTELS.................................................................................................. 68 4.8  INDOOR DOMESTIC WATER SAVINGS FROM VARIOUS ADAPTATION MEASURES........ 70 4.8.1  LOW FLOW FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES .................................................................................... 71 4.8.1.1  TOILETS ............................................................................................................................... 71 4.8.2.2  SHOWERS ............................................................................................................................ 71 4.8.2.3  WASHING MACHINES............................................................................................................. 72 4.9  OUTDOORS: REDUCING PEAK DEMAND ............................................................................. 73 4.9.1  IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................... 73 4.9.2  OVER-WATERING .................................................................................................................... 74 4.9.3  RAINWATER COLLECTION ......................................................................................................... 75 4.9.4  CLIMATE CHANGE: IRRIGATION ................................................................................................. 77 4.9.5  CLIMATE CHANGE: STORMS AND FOREST FIRES........................................................................ 80 4.9.6  METERING, INCREASING BLOCK RATE, LEAKAGE REPAIR ........................................................... 81 4.10  FINDINGS FOR DOMESTIC WATER USE AND SAVINGS ................................................... 82  4.10.1  NON-SUMMER……………………………………………………………………………………….82 4.10.2  SUMMER ............................................................................................................................... 83 4.10.3  SAVINGS SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 85 4.11  RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 86 4.12  SCENARIOS FOR DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND ............................................................... 87 4.12.1  SCENARIO 1: FULL BUILD-OUT ............................................................................................... 89 4.12.2  SCENARIO 1A: FULL BUILD-OUT WITH NO CONSERVATION ......................................................... 89 4.12.3  SCENARIO 1B: FULL BUILD-OUT WITH AGGRESSIVE DM PACKAGE.............................................. 91 4.12.4  SCENARIO 1C: FULL BUILD-OUT WITH METERING AND INCREASING BLOCK RATE....................... 92 4.12.5  SCENARIO 1D: FULL BUILD-OUT WITH MAXIMUM WATER SAVINGS............................................ 94 4.12.6  COMPARISON OF WATER SAVINGS.......................................................................................... 96 4.12.7  SCENARIO 2: INFILL AND SLOWER GROWTH ............................................................................ 96 4.12.8  SCENARIO 2A: SLOWER GROWTH WITH NO CONSERVATION ..................................................... 97 4.12.9  SCENARIO 2B: SLOWER GROWTH WITH DM ............................................................................. 98 4.12.10  SCENARIO 2C: SLOWER GROWTH WITH METERING AND IBR .................................................. 99 4.12.11  SCENARIO 2D: SLOWER GROWTH WITH MAXIMUM SAVINGS ................................................. 100 4.12.12   SCENARIO 2: COMPARISON OF WATER SAVINGS................................................................. 101 4.12.13  CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... 103 4.13.1  TOURISM SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 103 4.13.2  GENERAL STRATEGIES......................................................................................................... 104 4.13.3  CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION ............................................................................................ 105 CHAPTER 5:  INVERMERE CASE STUDY………………………………………………………………106 5.1  BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................... 106  vi 5.1.1  POPULATION.......................................................................................................................... 106 5.1.2  HOUSING............................................................................................................................... 107 5.2  TOURISM ............................................................................................................................... 107 5.2.1  INFORMATION GATHERED....................................................................................................... 108 5.2.2  REVENUES ............................................................................................................................ 108 5.2.3  WINTER................................................................................................................................. 109 5.2.4  SUMMER ............................................................................................................................... 109 5.2.5  TOURISM TRENDS.................................................................................................................. 109 5.2.6  WATER-TOURISM LINK ........................................................................................................... 110 5.3 CLIMATE................................................................................................................................. 110 5.4  WATER SUPPLY.................................................................................................................... 112 5.5  WATER USE .......................................................................................................................... 113 5.5.1  CURRENT RESIDENTIAL WATER USE....................................................................................... 113 5.5.2  DOI ...................................................................................................................................... 114 5.5.3  TOURISM: SKIING................................................................................................................... 116 5.5.4  TOURISM: GOLF..................................................................................................................... 116 5.5.4.1  GOLF WATER USE .............................................................................................................. 117 5.5.5  CURRENT WATER USE AND CLIMATE ...................................................................................... 119 5.6  AGGRESSIVE DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ..................................................... 123 5.6.1  WHY REDUCE........................................................................................................................ 123 5.6.1.1  ECONOMIC INCENTIVE......................................................................................................... 123 5.6.1.2  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 124 5.6.1.3  CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION ........................................................................................... 124 5.7  TOURISM ............................................................................................................................... 125 5.7.1  GOLF .................................................................................................................................... 125 5.7.2  ACCOMMODATION.................................................................................................................. 125 5.7.2.1  LOW-FLOW FIXTURES ......................................................................................................... 125 5.7.2.2  RAIN BARRELS FOR HOTELS................................................................................................ 126 5.8  INDOOR DOMESTIC WATER SAVINGS FROM VARIOUS ADAPTATION MEASURES...... 128 5.8.1  LOW FLOW FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES....................................................................... 129 5.8.1.1 TOILETS .............................................................................................................................. 129 5.8.2.2  SHOWERS .......................................................................................................................... 129 5.8.2.3  WASHING MACHINES........................................................................................................... 130 5.9  OUTDOORS: REDUCING PEAK DEMAND ........................................................................... 131 5.9.1  IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................... 131 5.9.2  OVER-WATERING .................................................................................................................. 132 5.9.3  RAINWATER COLLECTION ....................................................................................................... 133 5.9.4  CLIMATE CHANGE: IRRIGATION ............................................................................................... 135  vii 5.9.5  CLIMATE CHANGE: STORMS AND FOREST FIRES...................................................................... 138 5.9.6  METERING WITH INCREASING BLOCK RATE.............................................................................. 139 5.9.7  LEAKS................................................................................................................................... 139 5.10  FINDINGS FOR DOMESTIC WATER USE AND SAVINGS................................................................ 140 5.10.1  NON-SUMMER...................................................................................................................... 140 5.10.2  SUMMER ............................................................................................................................. 141 5.10.3  SAVINGS SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 143 5.11  RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 145 5.12  SCENARIOS FOR DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND ........................................................................... 146 5.12.1  SCENARIO 1: FULL BUILD-OUT SCENARIO COMPARISON: CONSERVATION VS. DM .................. 147 5.12.2  SCENARIO 2: SLOWER GROWTH SCENARIO COMPARISON: NO CONSERVATION VS. DM .......... 149 5.12.3  SCENARIOS COMPARISON AND SUMMARY.............................................................................. 151 5.13  CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 153 5.13.1  TOURISM SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 153 5.13.2  GENERAL STRATEGIES......................................................................................................... 154 5.13.3  CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION ............................................................................................ 154 CHAPTER 6:  COMPARISON……………………………………………………………………………...155 6.1  ROSSLAND-INVERMERE COMPARISON............................................................................ 155 6.2  DOMESTIC WATER CONSUMPTION AND SAVINGS.......................................................... 156 6.2.1  ANNUAL ................................................................................................................................ 157 6.2.2  SUMMER ............................................................................................................................... 159 6.2.3  NON-SUMMER........................................................................................................................ 160 6.3  TOURISM ............................................................................................................................... 162 6.4  SCENARIOS .......................................................................................................................... 164 6.5  SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 166 CHAPTER 7:  INTEGRATED DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION…………………………………….166 7.1  SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 166 7.2  SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RESULTS ................................................................................. 167 7.2.1  SCENARIOS ........................................................................................................................... 168 7.3  RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 168 7.4  WIDER CONTEXT: CONSIDERATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES......................................... 170 7.4.1  PROPITIOUS POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT: 33% BY 2020 ............................................................. 170 7.4.2  COMMUNITY PLANS................................................................................................................ 171 7.4.3  ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................. 172 7.5  LIMITATIONS AND DATA WEAKNESSES ............................................................................ 172 7.5.1  TOURISM............................................................................................................................... 172 7.5.2  GOLF .................................................................................................................................... 172  viii 7.5.3  WATER USE .......................................................................................................................... 172 7.5.4  CLIMATE................................................................................................................................ 173 7.6  FURTHER LINES OF INQUIRY.............................................................................................. 173 REFERENCES CITED………………………………………………………………………………………175 INTERNET SOURCES......................................................................................................................... 175 LITERARY SOURCES......................................................................................................................... 178 APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………………………………..185 APPENDIX  A:  CHAPTER 4 ......................................................................................................... 185 APPENDIX 4.1:  WATER LICENSES HELD BY THE CITY OF ROSSLAND .................................................. 185 APPENDIX 4.2:  SEASONAL WATER USE PER CAPITA......................................................................... 186 APPENDIX 4.3:  SIGNIFICANCE TESTS ............................................................................................... 188 APPENDIX 4.4:  CLIMATE DATA......................................................................................................... 189 APPENDIX 4.5:  CLIMATE AND WATER USE CORRELATION.................................................................. 191 APPENDIX 4.6  CLIMATE DATA AND WATER USE................................................................................ 193 APPENDIX  B:  CHAPTER 5 ......................................................................................................... 198 APPENDIX 5.1:  WATER LICENSES HELD BY DISTRICT OF INVERMERE ................................................ 198 APPENDIX 5.2:  MANN-WHITNEY-WILCOXON SIGNIFICANCE TESTS..................................................... 199 APPENDIX 5.3:  KOOTENAY PARK ANNUAL CLIMATE .......................................................................... 200 APPENDIX 5.4:  CLIMATE AND WATER USE CORRELATION.................................................................. 202 APPENDIX 5.5:  CLIMATE DATA AND WATER USE............................................................................... 204 APPENDIX 5.6:  PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT............................................. 209   ix  LIST OF TABLES  TABLE 1.1: FOUR COMMUNITY DM STRATEGIES .................................................................................... 8 TABLE 1.2:  WATER SAVINGS FOR DURHAM STUDY GROUP.................................................................. 10 TABLE 1.3:  TOTAL CONSERVATION OF SUB-METERED AND NON SUB-METERED HOMES IN STUDY GROUP. 11 TABLE 2.1: HARD VS. SOFT WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES ............................................................ 16 TABLE 2.2:  DOMESTIC WATER CONSERVATION METHODS AND SAVINGS................................................ 20 TABLE 2.3:  CLIMATE CHANGES IN THE COLUMBIA BASIN/SOUTHERN B.C. INTERIOR ............................. 24 TABLE 3.1:  MOUNTAIN RESORT COMMUNITY ATTRIBUTES .................................................................... 32 TABLE 3.2:  CLIMATE STATIONS .......................................................................................................... 34 TABLE 4.1:  ROSSLAND CHARACTERISTICS.......................................................................................... 39 TABLE 4.2:  VISITORS PER SEASON (2007).......................................................................................... 44 TABLE 4.3: ESTIMATED YIELDS AND DEMANDS FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ................................... 54 TABLE 4.4:  ACCOMMODATION VS. NON-LOCAL DAY TICKETS (WINTER 2007) ........................................ 61 TABLE 4.5:  ESTIMATES OF OVERNIGHT VISITORS AT RED MOUNTAIN (WINTER 2007)............................ 61 TABLE 4.6:  ROSSLAND: GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 62 TABLE 4.7:  ROSSLAND: EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION ON SUMMER WATER USE......... 65 TABLE 4.8:  ROSSLAND: WATER SAVINGS IN HOTELS/MOTELS (M3)........................................................ 68 TABLE 4.9:  RAINWATER REPLACEMENT FOR TOILETS IN LARGE HOTEL/MOTEL....................................... 69 TABLE 4.10:  TOTAL SAVINGS FOR HOTELS.......................................................................................... 70 TABLE 4.11:  SAVINGS FROM LOW-FLOW TOILETS ................................................................................ 71 TABLE 4.12:  CONVERTING TO LOW-FLOW SHOWERHEADS ................................................................... 72 TABLE 4.13:  ROSSLAND: CONVERTING TO LOW-FLOW WASHING MACHINES .......................................... 73 TABLE 4.14:  ROSSLAND: IRRIGATION SAVINGS FROM NOT OVER-WATERING.......................................... 75 TABLE 4.15:  ROSSLAND: IRRIGATION SAVINGS FROM DOMESTIC RAINWATER COLLECTION..................... 76 TABLE 4.16:  "NORMAL" VS. DRIER CLIMATE FOR SUMMER AND SEPTEMBER ......................................... 77 TABLE 4.17:  DRIER SUMMER: IRRIGATION SAVINGS FROM DOMESTIC SUMMER RAINWATER COLLECTION. 78 TABLE 4.18:  ROSSLAND: NORMAL VS. DRIER SUMMER WATER DEMAND COMPARISON ........................... 79 TABLE 4.19:  ROSSLAND: NORMAL VS. DRIER SEPTEMBER WATER DEMAND COMPARISON...................... 80 TABLE 4.20:  ROSSLAND: NON-SUMMER: TOTAL WATER SAVINGS WITH DM PACKAGE (LCD) .................. 83 TABLE 4.21:  ROSSLAND: SUMMER: TOTAL WATER SAVINGS WITH DM PACKAGE (LCD) .......................... 84 TABLE 4.22:  ROSSLAND: SUMMARY OF SAVINGS: M3 AND GARAGE EQUIVALENTS .................................. 86 TABLE 4.23: SCENARIO 1: FULL BUILD-OUT........................................................................................ 89 TABLE 4.24:  FULL BUILD-OUT WITH NO CONSERVATION ....................................................................... 90 TABLE 4.25:  FULL BUILD-OUT WITH AGGRESSIVE DM.......................................................................... 91  x TABLE 4.26:  FULL BUILD-OUT WITH METERING AND INCREASING BLOCK RATE ....................................... 93 TABLE 4.27: FULL BUILD-OUT WITH MAXIMUM WATER SAVINGS ............................................................. 95 TABLE 4.28: INFILL AND SLOWER GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................. 97 TABLE 4.29:  ROSSLAND SCENARIO 1 AND 2 SUMMARY TABLE............................................................ 103 TABLE 5.1:  INVERMERE CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................... 106 TABLE 5.2:  INVERMERE: GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS .................................................. 118 TABLE 5.3:  INVERMERE: EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION ON SUMMER WATER USE...... 123 TABLE 5.4:  INVERMERE SEASONAL OCCUPANCY RATES ..................................................................... 126 TABLE 5.5:  INVERMERE: WATER SAVINGS IN HOTELS/MOTELS AND VACATION RENTALS ....................... 126 TABLE 5.6:  INVERMERE: RAINWATER REPLACEMENT FOR TOILETS IN LARGE HOTEL/MOTEL ............... 127 TABLE 5.7:  INVERMERE: TOTAL SAVINGS FOR HOTELS....................................................................... 128 TABLE 5.8:  INVERMERE: CONVERTING TO LOW-FLOW TOILETS........................................................... 129 TABLE 5.9:  INVERMERE: CONVERTING TO LOW-FLOW SHOWERHEADS ................................................ 130 TABLE 5.10:  INVERMERE: CONVERTING TO LOW-FLOW WASHING MACHINES ....................................... 131 TABLE 5.11:  INVERMERE: IRRIGATION SAVINGS FROM NOT OVER-WATERING....................................... 133 TABLE 5.12:  IRRIGATION SAVINGS FROM DOMESTIC RAINWATER COLLECTION ..................................... 135 TABLE 5.13:  INVERMERE: NORMAL VS. DRIER CLIMATE FOR SUMMER AND SEPTEMBER ....................... 136 TABLE 5.14:  DRIER SUMMER: IRRIGATION SAVINGS FROM DOMESTIC RAINWATER COLLECTION ............ 136 TABLE 5.15:  INVERMERE: NORMAL VS. DRIER SUMMER WATER DEMAND COMPARISON ........................ 137 TABLE 5.16:  INVERMERE: NORMAL VS. DRIER SEPTEMBER WATER DEMAND COMPARISON................... 138 TABLE 5.17:  INVERMERE: RESIDENTIAL LEAK REDUCTION.................................................................. 140 TABLE 5.18:  INVERMERE: NON-SUMMER: TOTAL WATER SAVINGS WITH DM PACKAGE (LCD) ............... 141 TABLE 5.19:  INVERMERE SUMMER: TOTAL WATER SAVINGS WITH DM PACKAGE (LCD)........................ 142 TABLE 5.20:  INVERMERE: SUMMARY OF SAVINGS: M3 AND GARAGE EQUIVALENTS .............................. 144 TABLE 5.21: ASSUMPTIONS FOR SCENARIOS ..................................................................................... 146 TABLE 5.22:  COMPOSITION OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS .................................................................... 147 TABLE 5.23: SCENARIO 1: FULL BUILD-OUT: NO CONSERVATION VS. DM............................................. 148 TABLE 5.24:  SCENARIO 2: SLOWER GROWTH: NO CONSERVATION VS. DM ......................................... 150 TABLE 5.25:  DISTRICT OF INVERMERE: SCENARIO 1 AND 2 SUMMARY TABLE ...................................... 152 TABLE 6.1: ROSSLAND-INVERMERE COMPARISON.............................................................................. 155 TABLE 6.2: NUMBERS FOR RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATES .......................................................................... 156 TABLE 6.3:  SCENARIOS: WATER SAVINGS (M3/YEAR)........................................................................ 165 Appendices correspond with chapter numbers TABLE 4.30: WATER LICENSES HELD BY THE CITY OF ROSSLAND ...................................................... 185 TABLE 4.31:  ROSSLAND CLIMATE SIGNIFICANCE TESTS..................................................................... 188 TABLE 5.26:  WATER LICENSES HELD BY DISTRICT OF INVERMERE..................................................... 198 TABLE 5.27:  INVERMERE CLIMATE SIGNIFICANT TESTS ...................................................................... 199 TABLE 5.28:  PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR SCENARIOS 1 AND 2 ............ 209  xi LIST OF FIGURES  FIGURE 1.1:  MAP OF COLUMBIA BASIN................................................................................................. 2 FIGURE 2.1:  CROSS-COUNTRY COMPARISON OF AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD WATER USE ............................. 13 FIGURE 2.2:  INDOOR HOUSEHOLD WATER USE BY ACTIVITY ................................................................. 18 FIGURE 4.1:  ROSSLAND PERMANENT POPULATION 1991-2006............................................................ 40 FIGURE 4.2:  ROSSLAND CITY HOTEL/MOTEL OCCUPANCY RATES.......................................................... 43 FIGURE 4. 3: ROSSLAND AVERAGE HOTEL/MOTEL OCCUPANCY 2001-2008........................................... 44 FIGURE 4. 4:  DAILY AVERAGE NUMBER OF VISITS TO RED RESORT....................................................... 45 FIGURE 4.5:  DAY VS. PASS TICKETS AT RED RESORT.......................................................................... 46 FIGURE 4.6:  DAY TICKETS PER SEASON: LOCAL VS. NON-LOCAL........................................................... 47 FIGURE 4.7:   NON-RESIDENT PROPERTY OWNER PLACE OF RESIDENCE................................................ 48 FIGURE 4.8:  ROSSLAND: SPRING ANNUAL CLIMATE ............................................................................. 50 FIGURE 4.9:  ROSSLAND: SUMMER ANNUAL CLIMATE ........................................................................... 51 FIGURE 4.10:  ROSSLAND: ANNUAL WINTER CLIMATE........................................................................... 52 FIGURE 4.11: ROSSLAND WATERSHED MAP ....................................................................................... 53 FIGURE 4.12:  ROSSLAND: SEASONAL AVERAGE WATER USE (TOTAL) ................................................... 55 FIGURE 4.13:  ROSSLAND: CITY AVERAGE DAILY PER CAPITA USE  (2001-2007).................................... 57 FIGURE 4.14:  ROSSLAND: RED MOUNTAIN AVERAGE DAILY PER CAPITA USE (2001-2007) .................... 58 FIGURE 4.15:  ROSSLAND CITY VS. RED MOUNTAIN SUMMER WATER USE PER CAPITA ........................... 59 FIGURE 4.16:  ROSSLAND CITY VS. RED MOUNTAIN WINTER WATER USE PER CAPITA ............................ 60 FIGURE 4.17:  ROSSLAND: SUMMER TEMPERATURES AND WATER USE (2001-2007)............................ 63 FIGURE 4.18:  ROSSLAND: SUMMER PRECIPITATION AND WATER USE (2001-2007) ............................... 64 FIGURE 4.19:  ROSSLAND: SUMMER IRRIGATION SAVINGS FROM 5 M3 TANK........................................... 75 FIGURE 4.20:  ROSSLAND: WATER SAVINGS WITH METERING, IBR, AND LEAKAGE REPAIR ...................... 81 FIGURE 4.21  ROSSLAND: SUMMER WATER SAVINGS PER CAPITA: CURRENT VS. DM PACKAGE............... 85 FIGURE 4. 22:  ROSSLAND SCENARIO 1: AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND WITH NO CONSERVATION .................. 91 FIGURE 4.23:  ROSSLAND SCENARIO 1: AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND WITH DM.......................................... 92 FIGURE 4.24:  ROSSLAND SCENARIO 1: AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND WITH METERING/ IBR ........................ 94 FIGURE 4.25:  ROSSLAND SCENARIO 1: AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND WITH MAXIMUM SAVINGS.................... 95 FIGURE 4.26:  ROSSLAND SCENARIO 1: STRATEGY COMPARISON......................................................... 96 FIGURE 4.27:  ROSSLAND SCENARIO 2A: AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND WITH NO CONSERVATION ................. 98 FIGURE 4.28:  ROSSLAND SCENARIO 2B: AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND WITH DM........................................ 99 FIGURE 4.29:  ROSSLAND SCENARIO 2C: AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND WITH METERING AND IBR .............. 100 FIGURE 4.30:  ROSSLAND SCENARIO 2D: AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND WITH MAXIMUM SAVINGS................ 101 FIGURE 4.31:  ROSSLAND SCENARIO 2: STRATEGY COMPARISON....................................................... 102 FIGURE 5. 1:  INVERMERE PERMANENT POPULATION (1991-2006)..................................................... 107 FIGURE 5.2:  ACCOMMODATION REVENUE (2007).............................................................................. 109  xii FIGURE 5.3:  KOOTENAY PARK ANNUAL SUMMER CLIMATE ................................................................. 111 FIGURE 5.4: KOOTENAY PARK ANNUAL WINTER CLIMATE.................................................................... 112 FIGURE 5.5:  INVERMERE: METERED WATER USE BY SECTOR ............................................................. 114 FIGURE 5.6:  INVERMERE: SEASONAL WATER USE LCD (2003-2007) .................................................. 115 FIGURE 5.7:  INVERMERE WATER USE LCD (2003-2007) .................................................................... 116 FIGURE 5.8:  INVERMERE: GOLF COURSE WATER USE:  APPLIED VS. REQUIREMENT ............................. 117 FIGURE 5.9:  INVERMERE: SUMMER TEMPERATURES AND WATER USE (2003-2007) ............................ 120 FIGURE 5.10:  INVERMERE: SUMMER PRECIPITATION AND WATER USE (2003-2007) ............................ 121 FIGURE 5.11:  INVERMERE: SUMMER IRRIGATION SAVINGS FROM 5 M3 BARREL .................................... 133 FIGURE 5.12:  INVERMERE: SUMMER WATER SAVINGS PER CAPITA: CURRENT VS. DM ......................... 142 FIGURE 5.13:  BUILD OUT: CURRENT WATER USE VS. DM................................................................... 149 FIGURE 5.14:  SLOWER GROWTH: CURRENT WATER USE VS. DM........................................................ 151 FIGURE 5.15:  SCENARIOS COMPARED: CURRENT WATER USE VS. DM................................................ 152 FIGURE 6. 1:  PER CAPITA ANNUAL AVERAGE WATER USE COMPARISON .............................................. 158 FIGURE 6.2:  COMMUNITY-WIDE AVERAGE ANNUAL WATER USE COMPARISON...................................... 158 FIGURE 6. 3:  COMMUNITY-WIDE SUMMER WATER USE COMPARISON................................................... 159 FIGURE 6.4:  PER CAPITA SUMMER WATER USE COMPARISON............................................................. 160 FIGURE 6.5:  COMMUNITY-WIDE NON-SUMMER WATER USE COMPARISON............................................ 161 FIGURE 6.6:  PER CAPITA NON-SUMMER WATER USE COMPARISON ..................................................... 162 FIGURE 6.7: TOURISM: AVERAGE NUMBER OF TOURISTS (DAILY) ........................................................ 163 FIGURE 6.8:  TOURISM: AVERAGE WATER USE PER GUEST (LCD) ........................................................ 164 FIGURE 6.9:  SCENARIOS: DOMESTIC WATER USE, CURRENT VS. DM.................................................. 165  Appendices correspond with chapter numbers  FIGURE 4.31:  ROSSLAND CITY VS. RED MOUNTAIN WINTER WATER USE PER CAPITA .......................... 186 FIGURE 4.32:  ROSSLAND CITY VS. RED MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER USE PER CAPITA........................... 186 FIGURE 4.33:  ROSSLAND CITY VS. RED MOUNTAIN SUMMER WATER USE PER CAPITA ......................... 187 FIGURE 4.34:  ROSSLAND CITY VS. RED MOUNTAIN FALL WATER USE PER CAPITA ............................... 187 FIGURE 4.35:  ROSSLAND: SPRING ANNUAL CLIMATE ......................................................................... 189 FIGURE 4.36: ROSSLAND: SUMMER ANNUAL CLIMATE ........................................................................ 189 FIGURE 4.37:  ROSSLAND: FALL ANNUAL CLIMATE ............................................................................. 190 FIGURE 4.38:  ROSSLAND: WINTER ANNUAL CLIMATE ........................................................................ 190 FIGURE 4.39:  ROSSLAND: SUMMER WATER USE AND PRECIPITATION (2001-2007) ............................. 191 FIGURE 4.40:  ROSSLAND: SUMMER WATER USE AND X-MAX TEMPERATURE (2001-2007) .................. 191 FIGURE 4.41:  ROSSLAND: SUMMER WATER USE AND MEAN TEMPERATURE (2001-2007) .................... 192 FIGURE 4.42:  ROSSLAND: SPRING PRECIPITATION AND WATER USE (2001-2007)............................... 193 FIGURE 4.43:  ROSSLAND: SPRING TEMPERATURE AND WATER USE (2001-2007) ............................... 193  xiii FIGURE 4.44:  ROSSLAND: SUMMER PRECIPITATION AND WATER USE (2001-2007) ............................. 194 FIGURE 4.45:  ROSSLAND: SUMMER TEMPERATURE AND WATER USE (2001-2007 .............................. 194 FIGURE 4.46:  ROSSLAND: FALL PRECIPITATION AND WATER USE (2001-2007) ................................... 195 FIGURE 4.47:  ROSSLAND: FALL TEMPERATURES AND WATER USE (2001-2007) ................................. 195 FIGURE 4.48:  ROSSLAND: WINTER PRECIPITATION AND WATER USE (2001-2007) .............................. 196 FIGURE 4.49:  ROSSLAND: WINTER TEMPERATURES AND WATER USE (2001-2007)............................. 196 FIGURE 5.28:  KOOTENAY PARK ANNUAL SPRING CLIMATE ................................................................. 200 FIGURE 5.29:  KOOTENAY PARK ANNUAL FALL CLIMATE ..................................................................... 201 FIGURE 5.30:  INVERMERE: SUMMER WATER USE AND PRECIPITATION (2003-07) ................................ 202 FIGURE 5.31:  INVERMERE: SUMMER WATER USE AND X-MAX TEMPERATURE (2001-07) ..................... 203 FIGURE 5.32:  INVERMERE: SUMMER WATER USE AND MEAN TEMPERATURE (2001-07) ....................... 203 FIGURE 5.33:  INVERMERE: WINTER PRECIPITATION AND WATER USE (2003-2007) ............................. 204 FIGURE 5.34:  INVERMERE: SPRING PRECIPITATION AND WATER USE (2003-2007).............................. 205 FIGURE 5.35:  INVERMERE: SUMMER PRECIPITATION AND WATER USE (2003-2007) ............................ 205 FIGURE 5.36:  INVERMERE: FALL PRECIPITATION AND WATER USE (2003-2007) .................................. 206 FIGURE 5.37:  INVERMERE: WINTER TEMPERATURE AND WATER USE (2003-2007).............................. 207 FIGURE 5.38:  INVERMERE: SPRING TEMPERATURES AND WATER USE (2003-2007) ............................ 207 FIGURE 5.39:  INVERMERE: SUMMER TEMPERATURES AND WATER USE (2003-2007) .......................... 208 FIGURE 5.40:  INVERMERE: FALL TEMPERATURES AND WATER USE (2003-2007) ................................ 208    xiv  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  I owe heartfelt appreciation to many people for their contribution to this research paper. Sincerest gratitude goes to my supervisor, Hans Schreier, for his priceless support, advice and wholehearted encouragement from start to finish. Thank you Steven Fritsch, Gordon Crystal, Bill Worobets, Keith Wahlstrom, Deanne Steven, Mike Thomas, Michael Maclatchy, Stacey Lightbourne, Stewart Spooner, Michelle Laurie, Bill Mickelthwaite, Ken Holmes, Brian Nickerak, Elaine McDermid, Christine Andison and Don Thompson for their critical contributions. Without their sharing information and expertise from their municipalities, and perspectives as consultants, city staff, and concerned citizens, this thesis would have taken an entirely different form.  Thank you to Sandra Brown, Linda Nowlan, and Kindy Gosal for sharing their time and expertise. Many thanks to Les Lavkulich for his external review.  Thanks to Hans’ “Water Group”— a passionate, engaging group of students he and Sandra have mentored throughout our studies, including former students Oh Iwata and Trudy Naugler. Their technical proficiency, sense of humour and overall support helped to propel me through some of the most trying parts of this project.  Thank you to the faculty, staff, and fellow students in the department of Resource Management and Environmental Studies who helped navigate logistics.  I am grateful for financial support from SSHRC and the Pacific Leader’s Fellowship of the B.C. Government.  And finally, I owe tremendous appreciation to Derek, June, Granddad, Chris, Dan, Kristine, Elsa and Patricia for helping me to maintain perspective and strength to keep battling upstream.      xv ABBREVIATIONS  °C- degrees celsius B.C.- British Columbia B&B- Bed and breakfast CRB- Columbia River Basin CRD- Capital Region District DM-demand management DOPR- dwellings occupied by permanent residents ET-evapotranspiration EU-equivalent units FP-Fixture Package FP-fixture package: 10 L/min low-flow shower heads, 6L toilets and 69L/load washing machines GHGs- Greenhouse gas emissions IBR- increasing block rate IPCC- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IR-irrigation requirement Kgs- kilograms L-litre Lcd- litres/capita/daily Lhd litres/household/daily m2-square metres m3- cubic metres (1000 litres of water = 1 cubic meter) OCP- Official Community Plan OECD- Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development PCIC- Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (University of Victoria) SFRP- single family residential property SFU- single family unit X-max- extreme maximum temperature X-min- extreme minimum temperature   1 CHAPTER 1:  INTRODUCTION   1.0  OVERALL OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH  This research focuses on domestic water use in two mountain resort communities. It looks at historic and current use, then develops scenarios of future domestic water demands that take into consideration increased climatic variability, along with possible growth and water conservation options. Reducing water consumption is emphasized as an effective option for sustainable resource use, rather than searching for new sources or embarking on expensive expansion of water storage capacity. The study does not involve an economic analysis, nor does it examine the values driving water use and consumption.  1.1  THESIS ORGANIZATION  Chapter 1 introduces the research context, specific questions and objectives. It outlines the justification for this investigation and briefly reviews the relevant literature to this study. Chapter 2 provides background information to climate change, climate change adaptation, and water demand management/conservation; the primary focus is on Canada, British Columbia, and the Columbia Basin. Chapter 3 details methods used for data collection, analysis, and scenario development. Chapters 4 and 5 present the community case studies of Rossland and Invermere. Each study provides community-specific information on climate and population, current water use for domestic and tourism, and potential reductions under three water conservation scenarios. Each case study concludes with a set of recommendations for integrating water demand management into climate change adaptation strategies. Chapter 6 offers a comparison of the two communities, drawing out similarities and differences in their approach to water management. The final chapter is a discussion of the results, along with potential application for other communities wanting to carry out similar initiatives to address water demand management and climate change adaptation.  1.2  RESEARCH CONTEXT  The Columbia River Basin (CRB) spans roughly 671,000 square kilometers in the South East region of B.C., and Northwest area of Washington and Oregon, U.S. The Canadian portion of the Columbia River constitutes approximately 800 km of the 2000 km, and flows through the mountainous Kootenay region of B.C (Figure 1.1).   2 Figure 1.1:  Map of Columbia Basin    Source: Selkirk College Geospatial Research Centre http://www.sgrc.selkirk.ca/imf5_2/imf.jsp?site=cbt_water   Competing users and uses for water of the CRB--- including human settlements and recreation, hydro-electric development, and fish and wildlife populations—require effective water management to balance multiple human and ecological objectives.  Thirty percent of the annual flow for the CRB comes from mountain snowpack and glaciers, which feed tributaries and recharge groundwater and underground aquifers.1 Higher summer and winter temperatures; reduced mountain snowfall and snowpack; longer, drier summers; sudden heavy rains-- the effects of climate change in the Basin have been, and will continue to change the ways people derive their livelihood in the region.2 Planning for future social, economic, and environmental sustainability requires sound management of not only water, but also land activities and development that impact water quality and quantity.   3 Faced with aging infrastructure, fluctuating populations from seasonal migration, increased demand for outdoor recreational activities, and uncertainty over a changing climate, mountain municipalities are determining how to best meet current demand for water while planning for the future. Reducing water consumption and effectively managing watersheds that supply municipal water are critical components of any sustainability plan. Due to scope, time, and data constraints, the research focuses largely on water demand management, not supply. It looks at a range of options for reducing water consumption at the commercial tourism and household levels, and builds on the following observations from the literature: 1) Climate change will result in increased variability and therefore any adaptation strategy must involve adaptive management; 2) Managing water demand is more effective than maximizing supply. This research investigates the hypothesis that the best source of “new” water is water conservation;  The two case study communities of Rossland and Invermere within the Canadian Columbia Basin were chosen in order to compare differences in current water use, seasonal population variation, and effect of population/growth trends. Both are mountain communities experiencing summer stress on water supplies that are highly sensitive to climate change impacts. Rossland and Invermere are relying heavily on summer and winter recreation, are desirable retirements communities, and have limited options for economic diversification.  1.3  RESEARCH QUESTION AND OBJECTIVES  The primary research question is this: how can mountain resort communities in the Columbia Basin reduce their water consumption given various growth scenarios and in light of increased climatic variability?  The investigation has the following specific objectives:  Objectives  • Identify how climate change could impact domestic water demand; • Evaluate and compare current and future seasonal water demand in two mountain communities; • Develop different scenarios and determine water requirements by 2035 considering “business as usual” growth/water use vs. alternative growth strategies, water conservation, and climate change; • Evaluate the effect of different water conservation strategies and provide the communities with a range of options to arrive at a sustainable water use policy.   4 Feasibility  From the outset, it is recognized that substantial planning and expense would be involved to implement many of the proposed conservation strategies. The report is not intended to outline financing mechanisms or detail the economic feasibility of the options, though clearly funding is a concern for many communities. The purpose of this investigation is to demonstrate potential savings from various interventions that, at the very least, can serve as a point of reference to help decision makers to prioritize current water problems, and incorporate practical water savings strategies and fixtures into future developments. As a starting point, communities should be aware of the following initiatives that are geared to help communities implement the types of changes outlined in this report.  1) Towns for Tomorrow: Municipalities with populations up to 15,000 and regional districts can apply for funding to develop and enhance local infrastructure. Eligible projects include those relating to water, wastewater, tourism, community development, and environmental energy improvement.3  2) Green Cities Awards: “profile leading-edge communities, and provide them with the funds to invest further in initiatives that make their environment even greener and healthier for their citizens.” Up to $500,000 per year is being provided to local governments in several categories, including water reduction.4  3) Federal economic stimulus for “Greening”: there is mounting pressure on the federal government to include significant green initiatives in its economic stimulus package. A consortium of organisations, including the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, the Forum for Leadership on Water (FLOW), the University of Victoria's POLIS project on Ecological Governance, and the Alliance for Water Efficiency, has proposed a water infrastructure plan. It recommends investments be made in repairing and upgrading existing infrastructure, restoring green infrastructure, and conserving water and energy.5 Municipalities can help pressure the government to make this type of funding available.  However, in order to qualify for these support programs, communities must evaluate the current status and use of their water resources before decisions can be made as to what the best options are: to conserve water, improve infrastructure, or consider expansion of supplies.  Justification  There is considerable literature on water demand management (DM) and conservation strategies in urban communities.6 However, relatively little research has been done in mountain resort  5 communities that are affected by large seasonal influx of tourists in summer, winter, or both. The following 5 points identify what is unique in this particular research and why it is important:  (1) Mountain resort communities in the Columbia Basin are among the highest water users in Canada.7 (2) Mountain regions are among the areas more sensitive to climate change impacts.8 (3) A significant number of communities in the Columbia Basin are facing growing summer stress on their water supplies;9 some are experiencing two stress peaks during the winter and summer low-flow periods. (4) Changing climatic conditions will likely exacerbate water stress in the future.10 (5) Increasingly, mountains may become summer destinations of choice for city dwellers facing hotter, and in some cases, extreme summer temperatures. This could put further pressure on mountain water supplies at a critical time during the hydrological cycle.  In light of these trends, improving the water use efficiency in the Basin is of particular importance for future planning and as part of climate change adaptation. In this regard, water conservation is one of the easiest and most cost effective ways to reduce water stress. This research directly addresses two recommendations in the PCIC (2007) report: to 1) “Document past changes in human water use/consumption; and 2) Develop scenarios for future human water use.”11 While this research was underway, the provincial government released its Water Smart initiative in which it outlines its target to make water use in B.C. 33% more efficient by 2020:  “Government will help sectors improve the way water is used by: education, revising our regulations and building codes, provision of economic and regulatory incentives (e.g. encouraging and labeling water efficient fixtures, mandating purple pipes for water collection and re-use, and pricing if conservation measures are not sufficient), and working with sectors that have great opportunity for improvement.”12  This study will directly help to clarify priority actions for government to achieve its target in mountain resort communities.  Definition  David Brooks provides the working definition for DM used in this study:  Any method—whether technical, economic, administrative, financial or social—that will accomplish one (or more) of the following five things:  1) Reduce the quantity or quality of water required to accomplish a specific task.  6 2) Adjust the nature of the task or the way it is undertaken so that it can be accomplished with less water or with lower quality water. 3) Reduce the loss in quantity or quality of water as it flows from source through use to disposal. 4) Shift the timing of use from peak to off-peak periods. 5) Increase the ability of the water system to continue to serve society during times when water is in short supply.13  Brooks notes that the decentralized nature of DM implementation “includes methods that add resilience to water systems to permit them to cope with shortage”14—critical characteristics for adapting to climate change.  Unless otherwise specified, “savings” throughout this study refers to water reductions from various measures, and not economic savings.  1.4  PREVIOUS STUDIES  A range of studies address aspects of water demand management and climate change adaptation in the Columbia Basin. Following are several reports that help provide the context for this investigation; they are referenced later in the thesis in more detail, but first a brief overview:  Water Demand Management  Water demand management is not new. Despite the frequency of discussion and reports on this subject in Canada, it remains to be mainstreamed throughout water policy. Tate discusses DM in depth, developing the theme for various sectors, including municipal, and examines international experiences, as well as strategies for implementing DM across Canada.15   ‘Developing Water Sustainability Through Urban Water Demand Management’ (2004) by Oliver Brandes and Tony Maas provides background on issues related to urban water demand management and the obstacles impeding a transition to a demand management approach. With a main focus on federal action, the study identifies possibilities and actions for all levels of government to move toward sustainable water use in Canada’s urban centers, and offers the ‘soft path’ concept for water as an approach to allocate water in such as way as to balance all the anthropocentric uses of water and the integrity of aquatic ecosystems.16   In his Water Use Efficiency For the Kootenays, Ells offers a compendium of information on water use efficiency and conservation strategies at the local and regional level in the Kootenays.  7 Building on past government surveys, it offers a regional perspective on the extent and effectiveness of water use efficiency strategies, and compares Kootenay municipalities with more advanced strategies across the province. The report explores barriers to demand side management (DSM or DM) in the Kootenays, and considers potential strategies, tools, methods and sources of assistance to communities to help achieve efficient water use and conservation.17  Climate Change and Adaptation   In its Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) brought attention to a number of general observations concerning effects of climate change for mountain regions.18 The European Environmental Agency’s Climate Change and Water Adaptation Issues assesses the need for water resource policies and regulations across Europe to adapt to climate change, evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of current policies and regulations, and outlines activities and progress across European countries.19 To date, no such compendium exists for Canada, although Natural Resources Canada’s Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network (C-CAIRN) (now closed) produced a number of reports that deal with water and climate change in the Columbia Basin.20 In 2002, the B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection undertook an investigation Indicators of Climate Change for British Columbia, outlining climate change drivers (minimum and maximum temperatures, precipitation and snow), implications for freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems (glaciers, timing and volume of river flows, growing degree days), and offered projections for future impacts on marine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems, and on human communities.21   Regional studies carried out by the University of Victoria’s Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC) and other scientists have confirmed that some of the global trends identified by the IPCC are demonstrable in the Columbia Basin. Preliminary Analysis of Climate Variability and Change in the Canadian Columbia River Basin: Focus on Water Resources is the most comprehensive overview of climate change, impacts, and adaptation possibilities to date.22   Its corollary pamphlet, Climate Change in the Canadian Columbia Basin: Starting the Dialogue lays out the findings and encourages citizens to think and talk about the conclusions, and help determine ways to individually and collectively “live safely, reduce vulnerabilities and risks, and take advantage of opportunities created by new climate conditions”.23   Numerous consulting firms, notably Golder, Urban Systems and Associated Engineering have undertaken important research that shapes discussion around climate change and water in the case study communities. Specifically, they help to develop growth strategies, and try to assess water use and potential new sources.24  8   Finally, through the Columbia Basin Trust’s Communities Adapting to Climate Change Initiative, communities in the Columbia Basin area are developing community-specific adaptation measures based on their vulnerabilities, priorities, and adaptive capacities. To date, Elkford and Kimberley have been involved with this program and new communities are expected to join in the future.25  Example Communities   Many communities have experimented with DM strategies and met with varying levels of success. Several communities are discussed below as to how and why they have been successful; specifically, what has been done and how much water has been saved (Table 1.1). A broader overview of DM options are further discussed in Chapter 2.  Table 1.1: Four community DM strategies  Community/ Case Study DM Strategy Water Reduction  Victoria, B.C.  Rebate programs for water-efficient clothes washing machines, toilets and shower heads; irrigation rebate program Population increase of 8%, and water use reduction of 12% Kelowna, B.C. Water metering, inclining block rate, and social marketing.  20% reduction in residential consumption Austin, Texas Education programs, rebates, audits, and regulations Population increase of 69% with 35% increase in water use (1984-2004) Durham, Ontario * 1 housing development Efficient clothes washers, dishwashers, toilets, showerheads, and landscape packages 22.3% reduction in residential consumption  The Capital Region District (Victoria) on B.C.’s Vancouver Island, Kelowna, B.C, and Austin, Texas, USA, are cities that have met with a fair degree of success in water DM. While the cities receive very different amounts of precipitation, they both face similar pressures from rapidly increasing population growth and associated development. In both cases, it appears that success can be attributed to the following factors: availability of a minimum of data to understand the water problem (e.g. that peak demand for water corresponds with the lowest periods of precipitation); political will; employing various methods simultaneously; and allocation of sufficient resources to achieve clear objectives.   9 Capital Regional District  In Greater Victoria, water conservation practices and programs have accommodated an 8% increase in population between 1998 and 2007 with a reduction in per person consumption of 12%.26  With a population of 319,000, the CRD commenced a water conservation program in 1994. Many of the campaigns have been aimed at households, which represent 70% of the CRD’s clients. Average year-round domestic use is 380 l/c/d, while average winter domestic use is 281 l/c/d. As of November 2004, the water demand management plan makes use of education, financial incentives, policy measures and research to meet its target of a 10% reduction.27 Its three main campaigns are outlined below. These incentives are based on CRD data indicating that 64% of the annual water use in a typical residence is for indoor purposes, with 36% used outdoors May- September; and that the bathroom constitutes 76% of total indoor water use, with the toilet being the highest single water user (40%).28  ‘Smart Wash Rebate Program’: offers homeowners a $125 rebate to install a high water- efficient clothes washing machine.29  ‘Water Wise Fixture Replacement Program’: offers homeowners, property managers and plumbers $75 per bathroom rebate for installing water efficient toilets and showerheads.30  ‘Irrigation Rebate Program’: offers rebates of $25 on automatic rain shutoff devices or rain sensors, and a $50 rebate on irrigation controllers with a 365-day calendar.31  Because the Department does not possess the authority to pass bylaws affecting plumbing standards or land development requirements, it has targeted voluntary efforts of households. Deborah Walker, Demand Management Coordinator for the Capital Regional District Water Services, suggested that the rebate programs have been so successful, the demand for rebates far exceeding her expectations.32 In addition, the CRD developed a teacher’s supplement to the Grade 2 Water curriculum, gives workshops on native plant gardening and efficient irrigation, has several demonstration sites, community “Water-Wise” displays and promotional items such as native plant seeds and dye tablets for leak detection, and oversees numerous water restriction bylaws.33  Kelowna, B.C.  Between 1998 and 2006, Kelowna introduced a number of measures that, combined, achieved a 20% reduction in the City’s average residential water consumption.  The most effective measure was water metering combined with an inclining block rate that is adjusted annually. The new rate system was  10 introduced after a year of “mock billing where customers continued to pay the flat rate, but were able to see how much their consumption would cost under the new metered rate.  This gave residents the opportunity to find and fix leaks, and adjust their behaviour. The second most effective strategy involved dividing the city into 17 "demand areas" and targeting education efforts to specific customer groups and geographic areas..34  Austin, TX.  Between 1984 and 2004, the City of Austin grew 69%, from a population of 466,100 to 789,000 residents. However, a combination of reclamation and conservation efforts-- education programs, rebates, audits, and regulations-- resulted in an increase in water pumping of only 35% during this same time.35  Durham, Ontario: Study of new housing development.  Between October 2006 and August 2007, a study involving 175 homes was undertaken to quantify potential water, energy, CO2 and gas savings resulting from home builders including efficient appliances, fixtures and landscape designs in their new development packages. New homes built with water (and energy) efficient clothes washers, dishwashers, toilets, showerheads, and landscape packages had an average water savings of 22.3% or 132 litres/day/household (L/D/H). Water sub meters were installed on the water heater inlet (to record total hot water used), clothes washer hot and cold supply, dishwasher, and front and rear outdoor hose bibs. Water savings from conservation is recorded in Table 1.2.  Table 1.2:  Water savings for Durham Study Group  Source  Control  % of total indoor/ outdoor demand Study % of total indoor/ outdoor demand Conservation L/D/H Percent Conservation  Outdoor water use     40% Hot water heater   17  9.2% Clothes Washer Cold Hot Total:  20% 3.1% 23.1%  15% 2.5% 17.5%  42 6 48  41% 38% 41% *Toilet - - 10.5 11.3%   11 *Toilets: All new homes built in Ontario are required to install toilets that flush with a maximum of 6 litres of water. The difference perceived is between “builder-grade” toilets that offer marginal performance (causing people to flush multiple times or hold the handle down more often), and high- performance 6 L toilets and High-Efficiency Toilets (with flush volume of maximum 4.8 L).  As indicated in Table 1.3, sub-metered homes saved about 66 lcd of indoor use between fall and spring, and about 24 lcd during the summer on outdoor use. In the non sub-metered study homes, indoor Fall-Spring conservation was 43 lcd, while outdoor conservation in the summer was actually more, at 39 lcd.  Table 1.3:  Total conservation of sub-metered and non sub-metered homes in study group  Home Type Season Conservation Litres/ capita/day Sub-metered study homes   Indoor Fall-Spring  Outdoor Summer 66   24 Non sub-metered study homes Indoor Fall-Spring  Outdoor Summer 43   39  The researchers acknowledge that while efficient fixtures and appliances accounted for some of the conservation (45%), “More than half of the water savings achieved in this project appears to be from changes in participant lifestyle and habits vs. improvements in technology. These results are very positive and indicate that the potential to reduce water and energy demands is even greater than we anticipated.”36   The next chapter further explores approaches to water conservation and investigates where the most water savings can be made.   12 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND   2.1  WATER USE  Urban water use depends on a number of variables, such as climate, habits and patterns of water use by the population, efficiency of public supply services, economic instruments (e.g. rate structures), and technological changes (e.g. water efficient fixtures and alternative sources). Residential water use is not evenly distributed over time, as households use more water during dry and hot periods. In resort communities, seasonal variations in population due to tourism also influences the amount of water used at specific times.37  As indicated by Figure 2.1, Canada ranks as the second highest user of water per capita among OECD countries, behind the United States. Environment Canada suggests that Canadians use three times more water than the average German, and greater than eight times as much as the average Dane. Canada’s water use increased by 25.7% between 1980 and 2001—five times higher than the average OECD increase of 4.5%. In fact, Canada’s per capita water consumption is 65% above the OECD average. The average European consumes 150 lcd, 38 while the typical Canadian consumes between 326 and 343 lcd.39 British Columbians are among the highest water users in the country, averaging 440 lcd.40   13  Figure 2.1:  Cross-country comparison of average household water use  !"#$ !#%$ #&'$ #'($ ##)$ #*"$ #(($ *&)$ *!'$ **'$ ($ '($ *(($ *'($ #(($ #'($ !(($ !'($ )(($ )'($ +,-./0$1.2./3$ 42,202$5#(()6$ 172-,$5*%%"6$ 8.29:$ ;<=>2:$$ ;/.?/=92,03$5#(((6$ 1>/0/,$$ @=2,A/$ 83=2/9$ B/9C-DE$$ !"#$%&'(%$')*("#*+,*-' . / 0 1 #$ -' .$/&&2)/01#$-')/3(*$"&/1'/4'*5%$*6%'7/0&%7/8,' 9*#%$'0&%'  Adapted from Environment Canada and the European Environmental Agency.41 No year indicates year unknown.  2.2  WATER CONSERVATION  During hot, dry summer days, many resort municipalities experience peak daily demand that is 1.3-3 times higher than an average winter day.42 Traditionally, Canadian municipalities have initiated their own water conservation strategies during times of water shortage such as hot summer dry spells. Conservation was seen as a necessary interim measure, but the predominant perception among planners and water users was of “unlimited supply.” However, a number of factors have challenged this thinking: rising costs of infrastructure upgrades, water treatment and processing of stormwater and wastewater; costs associated with finding and developing new sources of water (the Canadian Association of Municipalities estimate of $8-10 billion for water infrastructure upgrades);43 changing, often more stringent regulations for water quality; greater understanding of, and in some cases regulations over in-stream requirements for ecosystem services and aquatic life.44  14  Climate change concerns (discussed in Chapter 1) have also amplified a growing awareness of water wastage among Canadians, and underscored the importance of using water with greater mindfulness. Many water experts assert that cost-effective conservation of 20-50% is “readily achievable”.45  A 1998 province-wide survey on practices throughout B.C. municipalities indicated that the most common conservation tools are mandatory restrictions, metering programs and communication tools like media announcements and water bill supplements. Rossland and Invermere have metering for some sectors, along with mandatory restrictions that do not seem to be consistently enforced. Enabling tools like standards are not commonly used.46   Water conservation has been characterized in a number of ways: 1) Demand side management; 2) “Hard” vs. “soft” approaches; and more recently, 3) the Soft Path—all moving towards a more integrated approach to water management. While the terms water “conservation” and “efficiency” are sometimes used interchangeably, it is worth noting the difference: Conservation refers to keeping water in ecosystems to maintain ecological services. Efficiency relates to the productivity of water for a particular purpose, such as a production process. Efficiency can result in conservation, but this is not always true, especially when efficiency gains are used to accommodate demand for a greater population.47  Demand Management  Water demand management (often referred to as “demand side management” or DSM) has been implemented in other sectors such as transportation and energy, and operates as a complimentary approach to supply management. While the traditional engineering approach has been to expand supply, demand management looks at ways to reduce consumption in the first place through increased efficiency of use.  Demand management strategies aim to protect water resources by: improving allocation of water among competing users and uses, protecting water quality, promoting the efficient and effective use of water, minimizing waste and loss, and pricing water appropriately. In short, DM attempts to increase the productivity of water and match water delivery with the needs of end users.48 In 1990, Tate noted that DM “is currently in its infancy in Canada.”49 Unfortunately, nearly 2 decades later, perhaps 80% of Canadian communities still do not have serious DM strategies in place.50 Rossland and Invermere are among these communities. Water efficient techniques and technologies are equally beneficial to rural, private wells and septic disposal systems, and to central, urban water and sewer systems.51  15   A well planned DM strategy can help a community do the following: • Prepare for uncertainty associated with climate change; • Postpone infrastructure capital costs for both supply and wastewater systems; • Make more water available for other beneficial uses such as recreation and  agriculture; • Lower chemical use, emissions, and energy costs required for treatment and  pumping • Encourage and enable households to lower their utility bills; • Promote and demonstrate a water ethic and commitment to sustainability;  • Protect the natural functioning of aquatic and riparian habitats.52   DM measures are often classified into four general categories: 1) Socio-political; 2) Economic; 3) Structural and 4) Operational.53 Alternatively, they are frequently referred to as “hard” and “soft.” The Polis Project on Ecological Governance seeks to move beyond the “hard” and “soft” categorization of DM measures, and has developed a Soft Path framework in concert with Friends of the Earth. Below is a brief description and comparison of these approaches. Effective DM strategies incorporate elements from all of these approaches.  Hard vs. Soft  Sometimes referred to as “hard” vs. “soft” conservation measures, there is a spectrum of strategies and tools to promote efficient use of local water resources. “Hard” measures are more restrictive and include legal, economic and financial, operational and management tools. “Soft” measures are more subtle, usually related to consultation, negotiation and information sharing initiatives; they can include voluntary restrictions, education, community ‘lead by example’ programs, and planning tools (Table 2.1).54   16 Table 2.1: Hard vs. soft water conservation measures  Hard vs. soft water conservation measures Hard  Soft  Legal tools eg. regulations, mandatory restrictions, bylaws More subtle, focus on perception and behaviour Economic and financial tools eg. pilot studies for metering, season and volume adjusted rates, fines for excess use, subsidies for best practices. Consultation, negotiation, information sharing Voluntary restrictions Operational and management tools eg. best management practices, water audits, metering, xeriscaping, supply upgrades, water re-use programs, watershed protection, emergency response plans. Education and community “lead by example” programs and tools.  Soft Path   The “soft path” is widely known for its use in the energy sector, a term developed and promoted by Amory Lovins and colleagues at the Rocky Mountain Institute. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security further expanded the soft path to include water conservation.55 Here in Canada, the concept has been further developed and applied by Oliver Brandes, David Brooks and colleagues at the University of Victoria’s Polis Project on Water Governance, as well as Robert de Loe at the University of Waterloo. Friends of the Earth has partnered with Polis on a number of publications56, and the Gordon Foundation has been instrumental in supporting research in this field.57   The soft path compliments centralized physical infrastructure with water efficient technology, metering and price incentives, lower cost community-scale systems, decentralized and transparent decision-making, and environmental protection.58 The soft path emphasizes distributed or decentralized water, stormwater, wastewater, and reuse technologies. These include rain barrels; point of use water treatment and water conservation appliances; stormwater retention rain gardens and cisterns for on-site filtration; using grey water (stormwater and wastewater) for irrigation and toilet flushing; advanced onsite or cluster wastewater systems in rural or suburban unsewered areas; and using low-impact development designs for new and infill developments.59These approaches have a lighter environmental footprint than traditional “hard” piping systems and treatment plants, and rely on integrating various sectors of water supply, use, treatment, and reuse or disposal. The soft path depends on protecting and managing water near the point of use, and uses natural environmental processes such as assimilative and treatment capacity.60 Significantly, the soft path approach defines water not as an end product, but as a service or means to achieve certain tasks (like cleaning, food  17 preparation, and maintaining a garden).61   Because municipalities already have a lot of “sunken costs” from decades of prior investment in traditional infrastructure, they can be reticent to entertain a new approach to water management and delivery. However, a growing body of case studies is helping to overcome some of the challenges relating to implementing the soft path in practice.62 Nelson suggests that substantial costs savings can be gained by reducing dependence on the “hard path” solutions, as 70% of these costs are in underground piping systems. Localised capture of water and treatment, reuse, and disposal of wastewater can help to restore aquifers, wetlands, streams and habitat. Nutrients from wastewater may also be valuable in agricultural application.63  2.2.1  Water Conservation for Domestic Use  Where can the greatest daily savings be made in domestic use of water, and how much can we reduce the daily consumption by using different conservation strategies (litres or % of daily or annual use)? Conservation measures rely on both technological improvements and behavioral change.  Household water consumption accounts for 11.5% of water use in Canada. Environment Canada estimates the average Canadian daily domestic use per person is 329 litres (2004), which translates to 120 m3/person/year, or 312 m3/year per household.64 According to Environment Canada, the biggest domestic users of water are showers, toilets, clothes washers and dishwashers, and watering lawns in the summer time. Inside the home, the kitchen accounts for about 10%, laundry 20%, and the bathroom 65% of water use (Figure 2.2).65    18 Figure 2.2:  Indoor household water use by activity  !"#$ !%#$ &%#$ '%#$ "#$ ()*+,-.$/01$2/3)$ 4*56,3$768.)$ 9/801-:$ ;53<),0$/01$=-50>50?$ @6,/050?$   Gleick’s calculation of domestic indoor water use in California is similar in many categories, but indicates less use for the bathroom (showers only 22% California vs. Canada’s 35% for shower and bath) and washing machine (14% California vs. 20% Canada); Gleick also includes 12% loss from leaks in California, a figure that parallel’s Environment Canada’s estimate of 13%, and the American Waste Water Association’s figure of 13.7% for the U.S66  Consequently, major conservation in domestic water use can come from seven key areas: toilets, showers, drips, leaks, taps, water efficient appliances and xeriscaping. 67 DeOrea et. al. suggest that converting to low-flow fixtures and appliances alone can reduce water consumption to 150 lcd.68 Neale contends that water meter installation and billing with an increasing block rate structure (where volume-based water charges increase when water use exceeds pre- defined  thresholds) could save 32%  on indoor and 32%  on outdoor use.69  However, it is important to remember that domestic use constitutes 11.5 % of overall freshwater water use, while manufacturing and agriculture consume 12.4% and 9.6% respectively. For mountain resort communities, the tourism sector is significant. Therefore, any comprehensive water conservation plan must take into account effective measures for reducing water consumption in these other sectors as well.70   19 2.2.2  Methods and Incentives to Conserve Water  The most effective water conservation strategies involve a combination of methods and incentives, both “hard” and “soft”. These methods should be combined with an understanding that because demand for drinking, personal hygiene and food preparation often amounts to less than 1/3 of total domestic water use, water reuse and recycling schemes have great, un-tapped potential.71 The “4 Rs” provide a baseline for conservation efforts: Reduce, Retrofit, Repair, and Reuse. The following tools address ways of implementing the 4Rs.   Universal metering: a critical step in any water conservation program, metering (and sub- metering) allows residents to be directly responsible for their own water consumption. In some cases, metering and education can lower consumption even when realistic water pricing is not implemented.72 Meters combined with pricing strategies that reward efficient and reduced water use, such as volume-based pricing instead of flat rate, are extremely effective in valuing water as a resource.73 Canada Housing and Mortgage and Housing Corporation reports a 1994 study where metered households used an average of 263 lcd, while non-metered households used roughly 430 lcd.74 De Loe suggests that metering makes a greater contribution to water use reductions than water use restrictions.75  The potential of domestic water conservation methods and savings are summarised below (Table 2.2). These numbers, adapted from Neale, Brandes, Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation, and Environment Canada, 76 should be considered along with the findings from the Durham, Ontario housing development study outlined in Chapter 1.   20 Table 2.2:  Domestic water conservation methods and savings  Domestic water conservation methods and savings Method  Indoor Savings Outdoor Savings Public Education 10%  10% Fixing Leaks (up to 35% savings in aging infrastructure) 5-10% 5-10% Metering with no change in pricing structure Metering with constant unit charge Metering with increasing block rate 10-40% 20% 32-50% 10-40% 20% 32-50% Xeriscaping (bylaws) _ 50% Rainwater Harvesting Rainwater harvesting and xeriscaping up to 40% 50% Water efficient fixtures (bylaws) -Low-flow toilets, showerheads, and water- efficient appliances (3100 l/y/h with 35% reduction) - Low flow shower heads can reduce by up to 65% -108 l per 6 min shower; saving 40,000 L per person/year  -Efficient washing machines 33-50% 35%    65%    up to 45% _ Effective water pricing 20%+ 20%+ Newer technologies and modest pricing reforms 20-30% 20-30% Reusing Recycling Up to 50% for toilets 50% Promoting water-sensitive urban design (limit sprawl and lawns; promote green infrastructure and water-wise land use policies) _ 50%  Adapted from Neale (2005), Brandes (2006),Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation, Environment Canada, Campbell (2004). 77  2.2.3  Challenges to Effective DSM   While Ells listed many water conservation interventions in the Columbia Basin such as lawn watering restrictions, information bulletins in local papers, and metering, personal communication with water managers in several communities between 2007-08 suggested that some of these strategies were either no longer in effect, or had never been effectively implemented across communities.78 Discussions with consultants and city staff in various communities throughout the Basin indicate that the primary reasons for lack of implementation include lack of political will and inadequate resources.  21 Communities in the Basin are not alone in facing these challenges.79  Lack of Meters   Municipalities without water utility metering have difficulties determining consumption rates, quantifying reduction and percentage reductions. Municipalities typically retain only administrative control over water demands like placing restrictions on sprinkling and lawn watering. Sometimes water managers rely on reservoir storage levels as indictors of when to implement restrictions, and estimates provide the only information on water reductions from conservation initiatives.” Specific goals and objectives for effective DM programs are critical80, yet extremely difficult to develop and monitor in the absence of meters.  Public Perception and Value of Water/Effective Pricing   Canadians have been used to subsidized water, paying only a portion of the actual cost of providing and treating water. When a cross-country, cross-city comparison is made, the numbers are telling:   Thus it becomes a challenge when water managers and utilities introduce a payment scheme where more costs are recovered: Consumers question why they are paying more for using less water. Experience suggests that in concert with developing water conservation strategies, water managers must effectively communicate the value of water81, and also share information with the public on program effectiveness, fairness, and enforcement.82 Information sharing between water users and providers, as well as better information gathering by water utilities is critical.83   Determining the “value of water” is difficult. Costs should include the non-monetary implications of supplying and disposing of water; costs that are increasingly being quantified by assessing their effects on the provision of “ecosystem services”.84   Because demonstration of cost savings to consumers is important, a price structure that provides the right incentive is critical. While a review of price structures and economic incentives is beyond the scope of this paper, in their summary of Dalhuisen et. al’s 2003 meta-analysis of 64 studies, Atwood et. al (2007) conclude that “water demand was sensitive to pricing structures that charge more for progressively larger volumes of water used.”85 Cantin et. al. provide a useful overview of economic instruments, and stress the importance of developing clear conservation and/or efficiency objectives.86   22 Cost  While metering is a critical first step, small communities often feel the cost of introducing meters is prohibitive. Ells 2005 presents an in-depth discussion of rational and costs associated with metering.87   Communities concerned with the costs associated with water conservation should look at the growing number of case studies that demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of water efficiency. In Durham, utility savings (from water, gas, and electricity) were expected to be more than $200 year, with a payback period calculated at 3.4 years. Again, it’s clear that promoting cost-effective conservation strategies--for any resource-- requires a pricing structure that rewards conservation.  Tourism  Another challenge when developing a DM strategy in a tourism-driven community is to differentiate between domestic and tourism-driven use, permanent resident use versus tourist use. The tourism industry has much to gain from installing water-efficient fixtures and appliances as a first step, as these do not depend on modified behavior.  2.3  CLIMATE CHANGE  2.3.1  Observations for British Columbia  B.C’s physical and biological systems are being affected by climate change. Between 1895 and 1995, average temperatures have warmed by 0.6 C on the coast, 1.1 C in the interior, and 1.7 C in the north. Changes in other aspects of climate, such as air, wind,  precipitation and the water cycle have accompanied atmospheric warming. Rivers and lakes are becoming ice-free earlier in the spring, while at least two of B.C.’s major glaciers have retreated by more than 1 kilometre each. Average coastal sea surface temperatures are higher by 0.9 to 1.8 degrees C, while average sea levels have risen by 4-12 cms along most of the coast. Reduced snow pack in Southern B.C is expected, along with an earlier spring meltwater runoff on many snow-dominated rivers. In addition, lower summer stream flows and soil moisture are expected in some regions, along with continued glacial retreat and disappearance in Southern B.C. Loss of some wetland and alpine ecosystems is anticipated, along with weather conditions conducive to fires and pest outbreaks occurring more frequently. Changes in the intensity and/or frequency of coastal storms, rainfall, drought, flooding, and other extreme weather events are also projected.   23 2.3.2  Observations for the Columbia Basin   Warmer summer and winter temperatures; reduced mountain snowfall and snowpack; longer, drier summers; sudden heavy rains-- the effects of climate change are being felt in the Basin, and will continue to change the ways people derive their livelihood in the region.  A study carried out in 2007 by PCIC entitled Climate Change in the Columbia Basin: Starting the Dialogue sets the stage for understanding climate change and its implications in the Columbia Basin. The report’s key findings show that the region will experience higher winter temperatures, particularly during the nighttime and higher summer temperatures.88   While the Basin’s average temperature varies considerably, the average Basin temperature has increased by 1.5oC over the last century. The Pacific Northwest experienced higher temperatures by 0.8oC over the past 100 years, with rising temperature increases in the Canadian portion of the Columbia Basin surpassing those of the Pacific Northwest. Temperatures were more than twice the average global temperature rise of about 0.6oC over the 20th century.   The 1990s was the warmest decade of the past 1,000 years across the globe. The warming experienced in the Basin over the past 100 years has mainly occurred in the last 30-50 years. In addition, the greatest temperature increase is at the low end with winter minimums increasing the most. This pattern indicates Basin warming more from increasing nighttime low temperatures, than from increasing daytime highs: Summers are becoming slightly warmer, while winters are becoming significantly warmer. The authors suggest that the Basin has become “less cold” instead of “warmer”.  Table 2.3 demonstrates the various findings for climate change in the Columbia Basin/ Southern B.C Interior   24 Table 2.3:  Climate changes in the Columbia Basin/Southern B.C. Interior    Climate Changes in the Columbia Basin/ Southern B.C. Interior Temperature Average temperature has increased by 1.5 oC over the past century— 0.4 oC greater than the B.C. Interior average; more than twice the average global temperature rise of about 0.6 oC over the 20th century.  1990s was the warmest decade of the past 1,000 years  warming over the past 100 years has mainly occurred in the last 30-50 years  winter minimums increasing the most  warming more from increasing nighttime low temperatures, than from increasing daytime highs  Summers are becoming slightly warmer, while winters are becoming significantly warmer Snow Reduced mountain snowfall and snowpack  Retreating and disappearing glaciers Precipitation Increased intensity and frequency of extreme precipitation and drought events Hydrology Altered quantity and timing of peak stream flows Lower summer baseflow flows and soil moisture Earlier freshet  Source: PCIC, B.C. Ministry of Land, Environment (Weather, Climate and the Future”)  2.3.3  Impacts on Water in the Columbia Basin  Extreme precipitation events, as well as changes in summer low flow volumes and snow levels are of specific concern to mountain resort communities in the Columbia Basin.  Extreme precipitation events can overwhelm stormwater and sewage infrastructure, as well as de-stabilise slopes and flood wells. They can also jeopardize the quality of some drinking water supplies. Lower summer river flows can also put at risk drinking water quality, threaten fish stocks, and increase potential for conflicts between water users such as communities, fisheries, agriculture, power generation and other industries. Finally, warmer winters may lead to shorter ski seasons for low elevations ski resorts; at worst, resorts could be left without any snow at all. 89   25 2.3.4  Water Supply   Thirty percent of the annual flow for the CRB comes from mountain snowpack and glaciers, which feed tributaries and recharge groundwater and underground aquifers.90 Water supplies for many communities in B.C. and the Basin are directly proportional to snow accumulation and precipitation, variable natural processes subject to changing climatic conditions. Surface water supplies nearly 80% of the communities in the region. Ells notes: “Even a slight climate change could mean less  snowpack and earlier spring melt leading to less water in the summer. Even if winter precipitation is higher, a larger proportion may fall as rain, resulting in spring floods followed by low summer water levels.”91  Despite federal and provincial restrictions concerning minimum flow requirements for fish in streams, some communities continue to draw water during long, hot summers. The combined effects of climate change and a revision of low-flow requirements will make it necessary for communities to revise their water uptakes during the summer.   In the past, a provisional operating rule of 10% of mean annual discharge (MAD) was considered necessary to sustain the minimum spawning and rearing habitat for fish.92 Ells (2005) notes:   “From a water shortage perspective, waterways with periods of low flows less than 10% of the mean annual discharge will most likely be facing more immediate concerns of quality and quantity during the dry and even normal summer-fall seasons, as well as issues of effects on fish and aquatic ecosystems.  For communities that currently have stressed supply systems in the summer, alternative and innovative means for implementing water use efficiency programs will be an essential part of municipal water utility planning.”93  The B.C. Ministry of Environment (MoE) is currently reviewing and updating its low-flow requirements. Significantly, they are meant to recognize the importance of providing not just minimum flows, but also flow variability that mimics the natural flow regime over the four seasons—a holistic approach clearly presented by Postel and Richter in their “Rivers for Life”.94 The MoE regulations are incorporating 5 components for assessing the waterflow requirements for species and ecosystems, as identified by the Flow Council of North America. These include hydrology, geomorphology, water quality, biology, and connectivity.95  These revised water requirements for ecosystems may affect licenses held by mountain communities, possibly by introducing monitoring that will make it more difficult to withdraw more than the licensed amount during summers (not an uncommon practice).   26 2.4  CASE STUDIES OF WATER AND CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION IN OTHER MOUNTAIN RESORT COMMUNITIES.  How are mountain communities in other parts of the world dealing with climate change and their water resources?  From the Rocky Mountains in Canada and the US, to the European Alps, a growing number of studies document how mountain regions are especially sensitive to the impacts of climate change. In theory, water conservation has long been acknowledged as an integral component of ‘sustainability’; but it has gained renewed importance in the context of climate change adaptation, as models project increased variability of precipitation across Europe and North America. 96 Case studies of water conservation/ demand management measures in mountain resort communities are few. Much of the focus of activities around water and climate change in these regions appears to be more concentrated on adaptation to water-related extreme events, specifically flooding and slope stability. Where water conservation does enter discussion, it is usually with reference to snowmaking for ski resorts and irrigation for golf courses—important water-reliant activities.  SKI INDUSTRY CASE STUDIES  2.4.1  Resort Municipality of Whistler, B.C. (RMOW)   The Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW) currently relies on surface water from three creeks (21-Mile, Agnew and Blackcomb) and groundwater from twelve wells. In an effort to reduce dependency on surface water, the municipality is currently developing other groundwater sources. RMOW provides water to approximately 10,000 permanent residents and a population equivalent of 27,331 people due to dramatic population fluctuations. About 31% (49, 122) of bed units in the RMOW are allocated for hotels and other tourist accommodations servicing over two million annual visitors.97 Another large percentage of Whistler residences are vacant most of the year, second homes that are only used on weekends and holidays.98   Metering was started in the mid nineties, and all new buildings are now required to have one. Because the RMOW does not monitor meters or collect separate data for residential and commercial use, per capita consumption is unknown. However, if November is taken as the low season baseline where (a) the majority of water users are permanent residents (few tourists), (b) irrigation is not a factor for commercial or domestic use and (c) commercial use is also lower due to fewer tourists, it appears that per capita daily consumption is 814 litres—still much higher than the national average.99 In 2007, the RMOW consumed 4,760,617 m3, 3% less from 2006.   27  Water consumption data suggests that August usage exceeds peak winter use in January by more than 50,000 m3. This alone suggests that, despite summer watering restrictions, irrigation demands are extremely high.  While the RMW is not actively pursuing DM policies, the ski operator Whistler Blackcomb (owned by Intrawest) is.  In 2005, Whistler Blackcomb (WB) adopted a number of measures to conserve water and improve water quality. These include the following: • Installing water filters on many taps throughout the resort facilities to eliminate the use of bottled water. • Installing a new snowmaking pipe that is lined to prevent corrosion and sediment contribution to watercourses. • Replacing snowmaking reservoir liners to reduce leaks. • Creating a maintenance program to monitor and fix leaks, thus reducing water and energy waste. • Installing waterless urinals in its main on-mountain lodge (the Roundhouse). • Installing low-flush toilets in several huts. • Creating a water management group including staff members from senior management, management and supervisory levels. The group employs the Natural Step framework as a basis for planning water initiatives from 2006 through 2008.100  2.4.2  Aspen, CO  Aspen mainly relies on surface water from Castle and Maroon creeks originating in the White River National Forest, a designated wilderness area. Aspen’s location at the top of the headwaters means there is minimal opportunity for contamination from upstream sources. Like Rossland, Aspen’s water rights date back as far as the 1880s, and snowmelt supplies most of the water. Unlike Rossland and Invermere, however, Aspen stores treated water: 4 tanks store 9.66 million gallons (36, 556,633 m3). Along with the potable municipal water supply system, the City manages a pressurized, untreated water system that serves a school campus, two municipal parks, and provides water for snowmaking at Aspen Highlands. Water for snowmaking on Aspen Mountain is provided by treated municipal water; in 2006, 36,000,000 million gallons (136,234 m3) were used for this purpose.101  Residential/ Commercial  In the face of significant growth and added water demand for snow making on Aspen Mountain, system improvements combined with effective DM strategies have enabled Aspen to use as much water now as it was in the 1960s, despite having twice as many water connections.102   28 Leaks, miscalculated meters, and unaccounted taps made up 55% of the city’s water use that did not show up from measuring homes and businesses. The mid 90s saw the greatest spike in usage and system losses: roughly 820 Lcpd were consumed during the peak year of 1993.103 In contrast, 2007 per capita use was at 237 Lcpd—a dramatic reduction of more than half.104 Metering staff was hired, pipes were fixed, and leaks in both the system and individual service lines were detected and fixed. Public works director, Phil Overeynder, notes: “Most importantly, we established an outcome measure for every member of the water staff, clearly establishing the goal of reducing the amount of unaccounted water.” Another significant upgrade involved burying shallow pipes deeper underground to prevent them from freezing as easily. In the past, the city had provided free water to homeowners who were encouraged to keep water running to prevent lines from freezing.  The Utilities Efficiency Manager for the city suggests that changes in the building industry that require low-flow fixtures have also been extremely effective DM strategies. Along with commercial and residential metering, the city has also initiated a residential toilet rebate program, sub-metered multi-family dwellings, and put in place strong economic incentives to monitor and conserve water use.  Water rates are consistently revised to encourage conservation, and customers receive a customized water budget based on the irrigated lot area and the number of water using fixtures. Increasing block rate charges apply to water in excess of the “budgeted amount”. As a result of the rate system, annual water use in 2006 dropped by 22% when compared to the previous decade.105  Aspen also levies hefty charges for unmetered commercial and residential developments. There is a 9 month “construction rate” that applies to new developments; if a meter is not installed by the end of this period, the rate shoots up to the unmetered rate-- which is 5-6 times more expensive. These types of price incentive “wake people up”, and have helped to reduce unmetered buildings and excess summer irrigation.106  The city’s permanent population is around 6,000, skyrocketing to between 25-50,000 people during peak tourist events in the summer and winter.107 Aspen does not track residential versus tourist water consumption, but metering of commercial and residential buildings such as hotels, lodges, and B&Bs would allow it to estimate seasonal use.  With respect to climate change and future water demands, a 2005 report by the Aspen Global Change Institute notes that expanding snowmaking area and capabilities will be considered.  The report also points out that, “Even with controlled growth, municipal services will need to continue to expand, and the potential for water shortages will likely increase.”108 This is consistent with what is being observed in Rossland and Invermere.  29  The American National Ski Areas Association (NSAA), of which Aspen is a member, has also initiated a number of climate change adaptation programs. The NSAA adopted a climate change policy in 2002, and launched “Keep Winter Cool” in 2003, a program in partnership with the Natural Resources Defense Council that highlights measures by ski resort operations to reduce their carbon footprint.109 Their 2005 “Sustainable Slopes: The Environmental Charter for Ski Areas” offers a “framework for resorts across North America to implement best practices, assess environmental performances and set goals for improvement.” With regard to water, it acknowledges: “Water is an important resource for ski areas as well as the surrounding natural environments and communities, and should be used as efficiently and effectively as possible.” To this end, the Charter outlines principles for optimizing efficiency of water use for snowmaking, for landscaping and summer activities; maximising water conservation in ski facilities; striving to exceed water quality-related requirements governing ski area operations; and managing wastewater in a “responsible manner” 110 Each principle outlines a number of “options for getting there”. The NSAA also maintains The Green Room, an environmental database for the ski industry that highlights environmental initiatives at various resorts. It monitors projects relating to water use for snowmaking, resort facilities, landscaping and summer activities, water quality and wastewater management.111  Golf and hospitality  Golf is a key activity for many resorts, and is increasingly being promoted as an opportunity for mountain communities to diversify away from winter tourism. However, its substantial irrigation demands make it a highly water-intense activity. Added to water requirements for the sport alone is pressure from real estate development and the hospitality sector: more tourists require more water. Initiatives in the industry are focusing on both adaptation and mitigation.   Here in B.C., Summerland Hills claims it is the first resort in the province to have been approved for membership in the Audubon International Signature Program, a program designed to facilitate environmentally sensitive property management for new developments.112 Meanwhile, the Sun Rivers Golf Resort in Kamloops is aiming to be a leader in adaptation and mitigation. Calling itself “Canada’s first geothermal community”, the development includes a golf course, 2000 homes, a hotel, village centre and community amenities designed for year round residence and vacation homes. But what sets the development apart is its geoexchange technology and dual water systems.113  The Audubon-certified Fairmont Green Partnership provides an example of an initiative designed to “minimize the impact of hotel operations on the environment by addressing key issues including waste management, water and energy conservation, habitat protection, purchasing,  30 employee and guest education and community outreach.” Among its activities, Fairmont publishes The Green Partnership Guide, a “going green” handbook for the hospitality industry, is investing in green power, and landscaping with endemic species. Pioneered in Canada, the program is expanding across the US and internationally.114  Since the late 1980s, the US Golf Association (USGA) has recognised that the future of the industry is intimately linked to sound water management. Current concerns over climate change have reinforced this earlier perception. As a consequence, the USGA is promoting water conservation measures in all aspects of golf operations. Specifically, it focuses on use of more water-efficient grasses, new irrigation technologies, best management practices (BMPs) for irrigation, alternative irrigation water sources, and golf course design concepts that reduce water. The Association asserts that upwards of 2000 golf courses “participate in the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses, which educates course personnel about water conservation and protection, and provides recognition to courses that take significant steps to conserve water.”115   Golf Environment Europe released a study, “Scottish Golf Climate Change Report,” in which it examined impacts for greens, green approaches and fairways, tees, rough, and bunkers. Based on principles of best practice advanced by the R & A, 116 it suggests management strategies targeting species selection/promotion, disease and pest management, fertiliser management; and, importantly, water management of drainage and irrigation.117  Meanwhile, a new variation of golf course in Spain’s Andalucia region highlights “a quiet revolution…with the potential to mitigate some of the worst effects of global warming or desertification wherever there are shortages of water.” Built on scrub land, the golf course at Benalup does not require constant irrigation with fresh water, as a polymer is mixed with the soil to help it retain nutrients and water. The course is perennially green, and about 900 native olive trees and cork oaks were successfully transplanted there. Known as TerraCottem, the polymer was developed by Willem Van Cotthem, a Belgian professor at the University of Ghent to aid reforestation in arid regions of Africa. TerraCottem expands by soaking up water, then slowly releasing moisture and nutrients. This enables growth of the microscopic root hairs that assure survival of trees and plants over prolonged periods of drought. This approach has attracted attention from golf resorts in Costa Rica that have recently been forced to use recycled water.118  Summary  Demand management can significantly reduce pressure on water resources in mountain resort communities where water use often exceeds that of other rural communities.  Mountain resort communities have large outdoor water use requirements from golf courses, and will increasingly rely  31 on snowmaking given climate change variability. These activities need special consideration because their water demand is greatest when surface resources are under the most stress during low flows in late summer and early winter.  32 CHAPTER 3:  METHODOLOGY  In order to address the research questions in Chapter 1, this study used available data to evaluate current use and develop future scenarios. The first step in this research was to collect historic and current climate and water use information in order to establish a baseline from which conservation and adaptations strategies could be developed.  The goal then was to explore future water demand scenarios under a range of development/population growth and water management approaches. The scenarios focused on how population growth/ development and climate change might affect residential water demand for mountain resort communities, and how specific water management policies and practices could contribute to a climate change adaptation strategy.  Impact of Population change and climate change on residential water use  Future residential water demand scenarios were created for two communities in the Columbia Basin. The scenarios took into consideration current water demand, various water conservation strategies, population change, and climate change-related temperature increases. “Full build-out” and “Slower growth” scenarios were modeled using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets for the period 2007- 2035. All 2-dimensional graphs were made using SPSS or Excel.  3.1  CASE STUDY SITES: SELECTION AND LOCATION   Two mountain resort communities were selected in order to compare and contrast the effects of climate change, and approaches to management of water and population flux in the Columbia Basin. The characteristics of the two communities, Rossland and Invermere, are presented in Table 3.1  Table 3.1:  Mountain resort community attributes  Community Rossland  Invermere  Location West Kootenays, B.C. East Kootenays, B.C. Elevation 1,020 m (3,300 ft) 859 m (2,818 ft) Permanent population (2006) Permanent population trend 3,278 decreasing 3,002 increasing Demand management measures Water restrictions, metering new developments and commercial use Water restrictions, metering residential and commercial since 2002 Municipal water supply Topping, Hanna, Murphy Creeks Goldie Creek; developing Athalmer’s groundwater and considering Lake Windermere Water storage Reservoirs-Star Gulch, Ophir Creek Paddy Lakes reservoirs Primary tourism activities Skiing, golf Golf, skiing, lake-side recreation  33 Data availability Some residential metering; flow volumes from treatment plant; some hotel occupancy rates; ski visitor data Residential metering; flow volumes from Paddy Ryan Lakes reservoirs; Tourist-driven population increase Winter (small summer flux for golf, biking) Summer (small winter flux for skiing)  3.2  POPULATION AND TOURISM  Population data was gathered from the Canadian Census and B.C. Statistics. Population projections are based on numbers provided in the communities’ Official Development Plans, as well as estimates generated from consultants’ reports.  In both communities, an attempt was made to quantify visitors using hotel/motel occupancy rates. Chambers of Commerce and other tourism-related agencies were contacted, including ski hills, individual hotels, motels, property management/rental agencies, and B&B /lodge owners in an effort to determine visitor use. However, data proved scarce, either due to lack of collection; or inaccessibility of data, or unwillingness of entities to share “sensitive” information. Where local data was not provided, regional revenues from hotels, motels and vacation rentals kept by Tourism B.C. were used. First, the percentage of regional monthly revenue for each community was determined based on their respective numbers of hotels, motels, and vacation rentals. Second, revenues were broken down by the average room cost rate per night ($123 in 2006 according to Tourism B.C.) to estimate the number of people per night. These estimates were then used to determine current water use and potential indoor savings under various DM strategies.  3.3  CLIMATE  Climate data for both Rossland and Invermere was retrieved from Environment Canada’s National Climate Archive.119 Consistent climate data at recording stations was not available up to the present, thus several stations were used (Table 3.2). In the case of Rossland, climate data was considered from Rossland Maclean (1968-1990), Rossland City Yard (1990-2006), Warfield (2002- 06), and Castlegar (1966-2007). Because Castlegar had the most reliable climate record, this information was used to extrapolate to Rossland. In the case of Invermere, data from 1969 to February 2007 was gathered from Kootenay National Park West Gate climate station. The rest of 2007 was extrapolated from Cranbrook weather data.  34  Table 3.2:  Climate stations  Climate stations Location Latitude Longitude Elevation (m) Identifier Rossland Maclean 49.1 -117.8 1085 1146874 Rossland City Yard  49.08 -117.8 1039 1146870 Warfield RCS 49.11 -117.4 567 71401 Castlegar 49.3 -117.63 495 71884 Kootenay National Park 50.63 116.06 900 1154410 Cranbrook 49.61 -115.78 940 1152102  The following were selected as indicators to measure for climate change (monthly): • Extreme maximum temperature (X-Max) (°C); • Extreme minimum temperature (X-Min) (°C); • Precipitation (mm) • Mean temperature (°C).  Data was organized by season: Winter (December-February); spring (March-May); summer (June-August); and fall (September-November). Graphs were generated using Excel, and the Mann- Whitney and the Wilcoxon significance tests (SPSS-program) were used to evaluate difference, trends and significance within the data.120 Results were compared, and found to be consistent with findings from PCIC, IPCC, and other work generated by Canadian research organizations.  Average annual summer temperatures and precipitation (1969-2007) were used to determine a “normal” year based on the historical record. A “current normal” year was chosen from the years where water use data was available, and this “current normal” year was used to compare temperature, precipitation and water use from hotter and cooler summers, as well as drier and wetter summers. Estimates were made to determine how much more water is used (lcd) when temperatures increase by 1 °C, as well as when precipitation drops by a factor of 10 mm.  3.4  DOMESTIC WATER USE  3.4.1  Rossland  Each community provided water use data in different forms. Hand-written daily water log sheets from Rossland’s water treatment plant between 2000-2007 were compared with estimates developed by consultants.  With only 15% of buildings in Rossland metered, consumption is indirectly  35 estimated by the City’s treatment plant and pump station data. Where possible, metered data was especially helpful for estimating commercial and institutional use, along with tourism-related use for larger accommodations.  The above flow and metered data was combined with population data and estimates for the number of visitors to arrive at a litres per capita per day figure for both Rossland City and Red Mountain. Data ambiguities regarding usage at Red Mountain made those estimates less reliable, but there is greater confidence in the values calculated for the City core. Total water supply was graphed against temperature and precipitation data to evaluate seasonal changes in water use.  3.4.2  Invermere Annual meter billing information for 2002-2007 was used along with meter readings from Paddy Ryan Lakes and data manipulated by consultants. Because meters are read twice a year in the spring and fall, monthly and seasonal use could not be determined from meter readings. Instead, seasonal residential usage was determined as a percent of the monthly Paddy Ryan Lakes (PR) outflow. Annual metered residential volume was divided by the population to determine the average monthly usage, and the number of residential connections was compared to the population (# connections* 2.4 to get number of households)—all in an attempt to determine reasonable lcd use. Consultants’ reports relating to transportation and development were also used.  3.5  GOLF COURSES  Data on water pumping and irrigation was obtained from one golf course near Invermere, and estimates based on irrigated area were made for another course outside of Rossland.   Water use was compared (Invermere) or estimated (Rossland) based on the Irrigation Advisory Association of B.C’s evapotranspiration rates for turfgrass (Equation 1), as well as summer precipitation data from Environment Canada. It was then determined how much water was theoretically needed under current climate conditions to water the lawns for the five month period from May through September, and how much water was likely being used with a minimum of 20% overwatering, typical of golf courses.  These numbers were then compared with irrigation requirements and theoretical water application for a dry summer in an attempt to simulate future summer requirements.  Equation 1: Irrigation requirement for turfgrass  IRT =  (ET x crop coefficient x allowable stress)/ irrigation system efficiency = inches   36 3.6  WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIES  Strategies included converting conventional 20L and 13L toilets, showerheads and washing machines to low-flow varieties, as well as using rainwater for toilets in hotels.  At the household level, two types of estimates were performed to get a sense of water saving potential in terms of litres per capita per day (lcd). The first was based solely on a set of indoor fixtures or Fixture Package (FP) including low-flow showerheads, toilets and washing machines; and outdoor irrigation supplemented with rainwater collection from a 5 m3 barrel. As noted in Chapter 2, these uses account for the majority of domestic water use. The second set of calculations involved using the current lcd for all uses (as estimated from flow/ meter data) to help better determine the actual percent reduction at the household level when all uses and leaks are considered.  3.6.1  Indoor Appliances and Fixtures  Estimations for savings from low-flow toilets, showerheads and washing machines were made using conservation estimates from a wide variety of sources (see footnote 33 Chapter 2). Calculations were based on 100% adoption rates for DM to indicate the maximum possible savings. Information on age of housing from StatsCan was used to categorise toilet type, assuming no replacements had been made.  Dwellings built before 1985 were likely to have 20 L toilets, while those built between 1985- 1995 were likely to have 13 L. Houses built after 1995 were not included in the water savings calculation for indoor low-flow fixture replacement, as it was assumed newer housing was built with more efficient fixtures.  Conservation calculations were based on average household size (2.4 for both communities) and number of households (census data). Toilet savings assumed 6 flushes per day; shower savings assumed 6 minute showers per person in a household --a conservative time estimate; and washing machine savings were based on a calculation of 2 loads per week. Estimations of litres per capita per day (lcd) calculations for washing machines were based on # litres per load/7. 121  3.6.2  Outdoor Irrigation and Rainwater Harvesting  Based on the literature review and estimates from consultants, it was assumed that irrigation constituted 40% of summer water use for single family units (SFUs). Using flow/meter data, per capita outdoor water requirements were estimated in the following way:   37 Equation 2: Per capita irrigation actually applied  [# litres per lawn per summer (June-August)/ 123 (# days in 4 months)]/2.4 (# people per household).  At the household level, outdoor irrigation requirements (IR) for grass and potential for rainwater collection were estimated based on average lot, roof, and lawn sizes. In both communities, the average roof size was estimated at 155 m2 while average lawn size was 200 m2.122  The number of SFUs and number of “dwellings occupied by permanent residents” (DOPR, a census term) were used to ascertain total domestic use and savings at the community level. In Invermere, SFUs were chosen instead of DOPRs in order to discount households that would not be irrigating (e.g. those living in condominiums/ apartments).  Calculations for outdoor water use in Rossland, however, estimated the percentage of “total private DOPRs” that are SFUs, in an attempt to exclude both households that are not irrigating, and SFUs primarily occupied during the winter. Calculations were based on bylaw requirements for minimum parcel sizes and maximum allowable coverage for single family dwellings.  For rooftop rainwater harvesting, it was also assumed that not all water would be captured by barrels due to losses in the system (e.g. evapotranspiration and slope/ design of roofs requiring several water capture points); thus 66% capture efficiency was used.  Irrigation requirements were estimated based on the Irrigation Advisory Association of B.C.’s evapotranspiration rates for turfgrass (Equation 1 above), and climate data from Environment Canada.  The following estimations were performed: 1) Current water use for a normal versus dry summer; 2) Current overwatering based on IR; 3) Percent of summer IR that could be met with rainwater in a normal summer and normal September; 4) Percent of summer IR that could be met with rainwater during a dry summer and dry September. 5) For hotels/motels, percent of water use for toilets potentially derived from rainwater.  Year-round water collection and savings potential from rain barrels for large hotels/ motels was calculated based on occupancy rates for 2007, a roof size of approximately 12,000 sq ft.123, and average annual precipitation.   38 3.7  SCENARIOS  Official Community Plans (OCPs) and development reports provided a framework for scenario development for population, tourism, and water use in both communities.124 Due to differences in data availability and water monitoring, scenarios are not identical, but do provide a basis for comparison. Scenarios were designed largely based on models developed by other professionals in the field, and adapted to include various water DM strategies. The “no conservation” water use baseline used lcd for a hot summer, and seasonal averages for non-summer use. The average family size was assumed to be 2.4 (census). Four scenarios were compared between communities: Full build-out with no conservation; full build-out with DM; slower growth with no conservation; slower growth with DM. Because Rossland does not yet have meters, a metering with increasing block rate scenario was developed, as well as a “maximum savings” scenario that incorporated the most effective conservation strategies in the three development areas of the City core, Red Mountain, and Redstone.   39 CHAPTER 4:  ROSSLAND CASE STUDY   Preliminary note  The updated 2008 Official Community Plan (OCP) was approved during the time of writing. Consequently, the author acknowledges that some of her estimates and assumptions may not entirely reflect the new OCP (e.g. design guidelines), and at times, the numbers are different due to differences of interpretation. There is a discrepancy in population data reported in various studies commissioned for the City, including the OCP and Rossland Community Profile, both of which cite B.C Stats yet report higher numbers. The study presented here uses figures directly from B.C Stats..  4.1  BACKGROUND  The City of Rossland is located at 1,020 metres (3,300 ft.) in the Monashee and Selkirk mountain ranges in south-central B.C., and lies within the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. Restructuring during the 1990s at the major local employer, Teck Cominco, galvanized the historic mining town to capitalize on Red Mountain as a ski destination. Fluctuations in global commodity prices and production further galvanized the city to develop its winter and summer tourism of skiing and mountain biking. The City expanded its municipal boundary in 1991 to include lands in the city’s watershed and resort developments at the base of the Red Mountain ski hill. This expansion gave the city greater control over development and an ability to manage competing interests between the historic town centre (referred to throughout as City core, or City) and new construction at the base of the hill.125 Table 4.1 recaps community attributes from Chapter 3.  Table 4.1:  Rossland characteristics  Community Rossland  Location West Kootenays, B.C. Elevation 1,020 m (3,300 ft) Permanent population (2006) Permanent population trend 3,278 decreasing Demand Management Measures Watering restrictions, metering new developments and commercial use Municipal Water Supply Topping, Hanna, Murphy Creeks Water Storage Reservoirs-Star Gulch, Ophir Creek Primary Tourism activities Skiing, biking, hiking, golf Data Availability Some residential metering; flow volumes from treatment plant; some hotel occupancy rates; ski visit data Tourist-driven population increase Winter (small summer flux for golf, biking)  40  4.1.1  Population  Rossland’s population fluctuates due to summer and winter tourism. However, there is a general downward trend in permanent residence population, a reflection of rural-urban migration, lower birth rates, and aging population. According to B.C. Stats, Rossland’s 2006 population was 3278, a decrease of nearly 10% from 2001 census (Figure 4.1).  Figure 4.1:  Rossland permanent population 1991-2006   * Refers to years when the census was carried out.  A declining population does not tell the entire story, however: new resort-related development catering to non-resident property owners has continued expanding at an increasing rate.  Long-term plans of developers suggest that new development over the next two decades will continue “at fairly high levels of activity” despite projections of limited to stagnant population increases during this timeframe.” 126 The OCP projects between 20 and 32 new units per year will be built, while the Development Yield Update Report suggests that between 50 and 91 units could be built within 20-36 years, depending on the planning horizon. Development Impact / Cost Benefit Assessment Report (2006) indicates future development at 98 units per year (between 2006 and 2009), averaging 70 units per year for planned and completed developments. 127  41   Increasing the permanent population is a goal for the City.128 Reports carried out for Rossland in the past several years offer conflicting population and development projections, including the following:  Population:  • The permanent population will drop from 3,357 to roughly 2,241 over the next 20  years, with the peak population, including visitors, being 6,263 by 2026 (Draft Official Community Plan 2008) • The total permanent population combined with seasonal population will be 5172 in 2027 (with 1% growth); or 5738 (with 1.5% growth) (Official Community Plan 2008). • The total permanent plus seasonal resident population will be 5,200, with a peak  population, including visitors and temporary residents, of 18,700 (Strategic Sustainability Plan). This figure is based on the number of new housing units approved in the old OCP and the allowed number of bed units.   Timing of Growth:  • The Strategic Sustainability Plan indicates full build-out in 20 to 30 years. • The new OCP growth assumptions suggest about 100 years to reach full build-  out.  4.1.2  Housing            Housing prices rose 32% between 2001 and 2005, largely due to the sale of Red Mountain resort in 2004. Before this time, housing was considered “relatively affordable” in comparison with other Kootenay communities. According to the 2006 census, 82% of the 1,656 occupied dwellings in Rossland were occupied by their “usual residents,” 10% less than the provincial average of 92%. Single detached houses account for 86% of the occupied private dwellings, while apartments constitute about 9%.129  4.2.  TOURISM  What are the tourism trends and how does tourism currently affect Rossland’s seasonal water supply fluctuations? To what extent will tourism determine Rossland’s future infrastructure requirements? How can the City best plan to minimize the impact of tourism on its surrounding water  42 resources, reduce costly infrastructure upgrades, and incorporate aspects of climate change adaptation into tourism-related policies?  4.2.1  Information Gathered  Tourism in Rossland appears to be poorly monitored. Numbers of overnight guests and occupancy rates for accommodations in Rossland were difficult to find. With the exception of 1 lodging, accommodation owners declared they a) did not have this information; b) did not have it in an easily accessible form (e.g. would have to compile paper records); c) were not willing to share it. Consequently, the following analysis is based on estimates from incomplete data pertaining to occupancy rates, room revenues for hotels/motels, and ski lift tickets and passes in the winter.  4.2.2  Occupancy Rates and Revenues  Tourism revenue in the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary has increased over the past 20 years.130 According to the 2006 Tourism Review, room revenues at hotels, motels and other establishments in the Kootenay region increased by 7.8% from 2005 figures.131 Tourism revenue in the Kootenay Boundary increased by 14.8% between 2005 and 2006.132  4.2.3  Seasonal Tourism  It appears that occupancy rates mainly reflect tourism in the winter, but non-winter occupancy rates are also highly affected by other activities in the community such as festivals/events and contracts at Cominco. As seen in Figure 4.2, average winter occupancy rates for hotels/motels did not exceed 50% between 2000 and 2004, while summer dropped by half between 2001 and 2007. A sharp increase is noticed after 2004 (when Red Mountain changed ownership), but even in the height of ski season and despite several excellent snow years, occupancy rates barely reached 70%.   43 Figure 4.2:  Rossland city hotel/motel occupancy rates  !"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!"# )!"# *!"# +!"# %!!$# %!!%# %!!&# %!!'# %!!)# %!!*# %!!+# ! "" # $ % & "' () % *+ ,( -+%)( ./,,0%&1(23*'((/""#$%&"'()%*+,(4'('+%)(%&1(,+%,/&( ,-./01# 231-.4# 256601# 7899#  Average winter occupancy during this period was slightly above 50%, summer occupancy was 34%, while the off-season averaged 26% (Figure 4.3).   44 Figure 4. 3: Rossland average hotel/motel occupancy 2001-2008.  !"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!"# )!"# *+,-./# 01/+,2# 0344./# 5677# ! " #$ " % &' ( $$ ) * + % $, ' -"+./%' 0/..1+%2'+3"#+4"'/$$)*+%$,'5667869' 89-67#:;;316,;<#=>./62.#"#  Table 4.2 illustrates how occupancy rates for 2007 translate into visitor numbers per day and per season. Without occupancy data for vacation rentals, lodges, B&Bs, or second homes, it is difficult to get a sense of broader occupancy trends and seasonal population variations.  Table 4.2:  Visitors per season (2007)  Visitors per season (2007) Season Occupancy rates # people/day # people/season Winter 66% 193 17,370 Spring 30% 85 7,811 Summer 24% 69 6,315 Autumn 37% 106 9,651 Total  453 41,147 Average 39% 113 10,287   45 4.2.4  Winter  The Kootenay Rockies region accounts for 32% (571) of the province’s ski runs, with Red Mountain making up 5%.133 Skiing is the primary tourist activity that draws people to Rossland from outside the region. In an effort to understand how many tourists are using the facilities/ staying overnight—and thus drawing on Rossland’s water--, data was collected with respect to ski lift tickets and occupancy rates for hotels in town.134 The following assumptions were made:  1) Most season pass holders are locals (living within 1.5 hours of Rossland and not likely staying overnight in hotels/motels). 2) Day pass holders who are locals (living within 1.5 hours of Rossland) would not be staying overnight 3) Non-local day pass holders would stay overnight.  The non-local day pass holders would likely show up in data relating to hotel/motel occupancy rates, helping to indicate tourism-related water consumption.  Figure 4. 4:  Daily average number of visits to Red Resort  !"#$ %##$ %"#$ &##$ &"#$ '###$ '#"#$ (##()#*$ (##*)#+$ (##+)#"$ (##")#,$ (##,)#!$ (##!)#%$ ! "# $" % &' &( '" ) * +" , - . " /&0(*+"1*-+" 2-&3."-%*+-4*"!"#$"%&'&('"(#"5*,"5*'#+(" -./.0/$123$456$ 7.82539-./.0/$123$456:$   46 Figure 4.4  illustrates that overall visits per day have increased since 2004. These numbers reflect visitors over the entire ski season, from December to March and sometimes early April, spread over an average of 112 operating days per season.  Figure 4.5:  Day vs. pass tickets at Red Resort  !"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!!"# ($!"# $!!%)!*# $!!*)!&# $!!&)!+# $!!+)!'# ! " #$ " % &' ( " )* +) ,- +& ). /" #/ ) 0-%&"#)1"'#/) 2'3)4/5)6'//)&-$7"&/)'&)8"9)8"/*#&) ,-.#/0123/4#-4#"#56#/5/-7#/0123/4# 8-4434#-4#"#56#/5/-7#/0123/4#  Figure 4.5 illustrates that ski passes still account for more than half of all visits. While day tickets have risen as a percentage of total tickets, they still account for less than 50% of overall ticket sales.  47 Figure 4.6:  Day tickets per season: local vs. non-local  !"#$%&' "(#(!)' ""#*)!' ""#((+' **#+&,' *+#$&)' *&#"$)' !(#!!)' (' *(#(((' !(#(((' "(#(((' $(#(((' +(#(((' &(#(((' !(($-(+' !((+-(&' !((&-(,' !((,-(%' ! "# $" % & ' "( )* + , (- "- # .% " /)0(,1"2,&-#0"3,&1" 4&'"()*+,(-"5,1"-,&-#06".#*&."7-8"0#09.#*&."" .'/0'1/123/453'657'894:;8<'=;>'<;5</1' .'/0'3/453'657'894:;8<'=;>'<;5</1'   Figure 4.6 indicates an increase in sales from non-locals.  This data suggests the following: 1) Pass holders still account for the majority of visits; 2) Day ticket visits are increasing from local and non-local visitors; 3) Approximately half the non-local day ticket holders in the 2007/08 season could have stayed overnight in hotels/motels in Rossland (Table 4.2).  Trends in ticket sales help support other information relating to expected future growth from tourism. In the absence of detailed tourism/occupancy rate data, increases in non-local day tickets may be a helpful indicator of overnight visitors. Based on this information, it appears that the peak winter demand for water will continue to grow with more visitors.  4.2.5  Summer Tourism  There is a move to make Rossland a year-round destination by further developing summer tourism. The area’s extensive network of mountain biking trails draws visitors in the summer, and a  48 new 18-hole golf course is expected to attract a different summer crowd. A proposal for another 18- hole golf course and associated residences was passed in the summer of 2008. For a number of reasons the developer chose not to move ahead with the course development, but it appears that Council is not opposed to resort development under certain conditions. Chapter 5 provides greater detail on general golf trends in B.C.).  4.2.6  Tourism Trends  An analysis of recent tax rolls suggests a growing trend toward ownership of single family residential properties (SFRPs) by non Rossland residents.  An increase from 13%  in 2000 to 24% in 2006 was noted for SFRPs in the City core (an increase of 187 units). At the Red Mountain base, non-resident ownership increased from 10% in 2000 (1 unit), to about 70% in 2006 (118 units). Figure 4.7 suggests that the large majority of non-resident property owners have been, and continue to reside elsewhere in B.C. Ownership among people from the US, Ontario, Alberta and Australia is growing, but still constitutes a much smaller contingent of non-resident property owners. 135  Figure 4.7:   Non-resident property owner place of residence  !" #!" $!!" $#!" %!!" %#!" %!!!" %!!&" %!!#" %!!'" ! "# $ %& ' $ ( )$ %" *$+," -.(/,$%&'$(0"1,.1$,02".3($,"14+)$".5",$%&'$()$"" ()"*+,-./0" 12" 34,5/6+" 789,/5:65" 7:;./,5"  Like many industries, tourism is affected by many external factors, making it difficult to project into the future. Because the US accounts for the single largest source of foreign visitors in the  49 province, changes south of our border can have a dramatic effect on tourism. American visitor numbers has been declining each year since 2001 and continued to drop (-6.5%) in 2006. Changes in exchange rates, travel restrictions (e.g. passport requirements), costs of travel (e.g. gas prices, carbon taxes) and expendable income (reduced due to the credit crisis in the US) all effect people’s holiday choices. Of all these factors, the credit crisis and economic slowdown are impacting the housing market, as many American would-be second home-buyers are choosing to be more conservative with their spending.   Fundamentally, winter tourism will depend on snow. As alluded to in Chapter 2, it is difficult to generalize projections for snowfall, the extent of snow cover, and snowpack development for the Columbia Basin because these variables are highly dependent on local conditions and topography. Despite local uncertainty, winters are expected to warm, with greater precipitation and more of it in the form of rain than snow. While this seems especially the case for lower elevations, a general continuation of snowpack decline is projected.136  4.3  CLIMATE  Rossland’s moderate climate is characterised by warm summers and cool winters with heavy snowfall.137 The City receives about 2000 hours of sun annually, and wind is rare. Annual snowfall in the downtown core averages 3,700 mm,  while 3 kms away at the base of the ski resort, annual snowfalls can exceed 7,500 mm ( 25 feet). Average summer temperatures vary from highs of 25 C to lows of 11C. It is uncommon for winter days to be colder than -9C, while the average winter high is 3C.138 In 1959, Alderman Wadeson noted, “At the meteorological station in the City at elevation 3305 ft (1007m) fifty years of record show an average precipitation of 743 mm).139  Trend lines are shown, but the record is too short to draw conclusions apart from those suggested by longer range climate models, which predict greater variability and uncertainty with snow accumulation and precipitation.140 The Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon test for significance was used to identify significant climatic changes during the period 1969-2007. Climate data was split into three time periods (below) and compared to each other. Time periods were partially based on regional observations taking into consideration the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifts:  Period 1) 1969-1976 Period 2) 1977-1997 Period 3) 1998-2007  For spring, a significant increase in extreme minimum temperatures was noted between the 1st and 3rd period, as well as the 2nd and 3rd period (Figure 4.8). A significant increase in extreme  50 maximum summer temperatures was also seen between the 1st and 3rd period, as well as the 2nd and 3rd period (Figure 4.9).  Winter precipitation has decreased significantly between the 1st and 2nd periods, as well as the 1st  and 3rd  period; a significant increase in extreme minimum temperatures was also noticed (Figure 4.10), while no significant changes were noted for autumn Appendix 4.3:  Significance Tests ). Climate data for all seasons can be found in Appendix 4.4: Climate Data.  Figure 4.8:  Rossland: Spring annual climate  !" #!" $!!" $#!" %!!" %#!" &!!" &#!" '!!" (%!" ($!" !" $!" %!" &!" '!" $ ) * + " $ ) , ! " $ ) , % " $ ) , ' " $ ) , * " $ ) , + " $ ) + ! " $ ) + % " $ ) + ' " $ ) + * " $ ) + + " $ ) ) ! " $ ) ) % " $ ) ) ' " $ ) ) * " $ ) ) + " % ! ! ! " % ! ! % " % ! ! ' " % ! ! * " % ! ! + " ! "# $% & %' ( '% ) * +, - - .+ /# - & # "( '0 "# +, 1 .+ 2#("+ 3)445(*67+8&"%*9+(**0(5+$5%-('#+ -./01"234567"899:" ;403" <40="-497"8>?@:" AB/3"<0B"-497"8>?@:" AB/3"<6="-497"8>?@:" C6=4038-./01"234567"899::" C6=4038<40="-497"8>?@::" C6=4038AB/3"<0B"-497"8>?@::" C6=4038AB/3"<6="-497"8>?@::"   51 Figure 4.9:  Rossland: Summer annual climate  !" #!" $!!" $#!" %!!" %#!" &!!" !" #" $!" $#" %!" %#" &!" &#" '!" $ ( ) * " $ ( + ! " $ ( + % " $ ( + ' " $ ( + ) " $ ( + * " $ ( * ! " $ ( * % " $ ( * ' " $ ( * ) " $ ( * * " $ ( ( ! " $ ( ( % " $ ( ( ' " $ ( ( ) " $ ( ( * " % ! ! ! " % ! ! % " % ! ! ' " % ! ! ) " ! "# $% & %' ( '% ) * +, - - .+ /# - & # "( '0 "# +, 1 .+ 2#("+ 3)445(*67+80--#"+(**0(5+$5%-('#+ ,-./0"123456"7889" :3/;",386"7<9" =>.2":/>",386"7<9" =>.2":5;",386"7<9" ?5;3/27,-./0"123456"78899" ?5;3/27:3/;",386"7<99" ?5;3/27=>.2":/>",386"7<99" ?5;3/27=>.2":5;",386"7<99"  52 Figure 4.10:  Rossland: Annual winter climate  !" #!!" $!!" %!!" &!!" '!!" (!!" )&!" )%!" )$!" )#!" !" #!" $!" # * ( + " # * , ! " # * , $ " # * , & " # * , ( " # * , + " # * + ! " # * + $ " # * + & " # * + ( " # * + + " # * * ! " # * * $ " # * * & " # * * ( " # * * + " $ ! ! ! " $ ! ! $ " $ ! ! & " $ ! ! ( " $ ! ! + " ! "# $% & %' ( '% ) * +, - - .+ /# - & # "( '0 "# +, 1 .+ 2#("+ 3)445(*67+8**0(5+9%*'#"+$5%-('#+ -./01"234567"899:" ;40<"-497"8=:" >?/3";0?"-497"8=:" >?/3";6<"-497"8=:" @6<4038-./01"234567"899::" @6<4038;40<"-497"8=::" @6<4038>?/3";0?"-497"8=::" @6<4038>?/3";6<"-497"8=::"  4.4  WATER SUPPLY  Three watersheds encompassing a catchment area of 20 km2 provide Rossland’s current water supply: Topping, Hanna and South Murphy Creeks, north of the main City core along highway 3B (Figure 4.0-18). The timing of water availability is determined by snow melt, rain, and temperature. Most of the runoff occurs during the spring from snowmelt and rainstorms. Stream flows diminish during the summer and fall, and are considerably less than the City’s requirements during these times. Seasonal shortfall is met by water storage in the Star Gulch reservoir, and the Ophir Creek reservoir is nearing completion. The City projects that once Ophir Creek reservoir is complete and operating at “full pool”, the two reservoirs should provide enough water during a dry summer, up to about 10 years into the future. Expanding (raising) the reservoir will likely be necessary to accommodate an increased population after 10 years provided no conservation efforts are made.141  53 Figure 4.11: Rossland Watershed Map    Rossland’s licenses have been held for over 100 years, and thus have precedence over all other users. However, low-flow requirements and licenses held by other users (e.g. Teck Cominco on  54 Topping Creek) limits Rossland’s ability to increase takes or license amounts. Because there is no actual flow monitoring on Rossland’s creeks, estimations are based on extrapolations from nearby creeks considered to have similar characteristics. Mickelthwaite estimates that the total yield from water licenses for the entire year far exceeds Rossland’s demand.142 However, a 2007 technical assessment by Associated Engineering suggested there is “not sufficient water available from the three watersheds in the summer period (July through September/October) to meet the City’s current or future domestic demands during the summer…”.143 Appendix 4.1:  Water Licenses Held by the City of Rossland provides context for this assessment.  In Table 4.3, Associated Engineering summarises data on water consumption and estimated watershed yield from two reports produced by Urban Systems, Dobson Engineering, and Grainger Environmental Consulting in 2002.  Table 4.3: Estimated yields and demands from previous investigations   Average August Yield (m3/year) 7-day/5-year Low Flow (m3/year) Winter Demand (m3/year) Summer Demand (m3/year) Estimate Yields 4,800 1,250-1,310 - - 3,800 - - 2,710 4,650 5,000 - - 3,570 6,120 5000 persons and RMV development - - 6,200 6,550 2017 population* - - 4,200 8,000 Source: Technical Briefing 2007 Water Management for the Golf Club at Red Mountain  • The population was not specified • RMV-Red Mountain Ventures  In this thesis the discussion on supply is limited, but the readers can refer to Associated Engineering and Micklethwaite for a detailed analysis of water supply for Rossland.144  4.5  Water Use  Previous reports have estimated base use (November) at 520 lcd, with a peaking factor of 2.5 throughout the year.145  These reports suggest the greatest increase in demand—base X 3.5-- is seen during the summer, largely for irrigation. Water restrictions between mid August and mid September have helped to lower this. Mid-winter use can be base X 2 when taps are left running around the clock to prevent line freezes. These numbers include not only domestic use, but also commercial, institutional, and system leakages. When compared to flow data and population from  55 2001-2007 (not only domestic use but total demand divided among the population), base use in November is 530 lcd, with a July average of 1200 lcd.  Figure 4.12 depicts water use for Rossland between 2001-2007 (City core and Red Mountain). When flow meter data from the reservoir is combined with population and examined on a seasonal basis, it appears that winter use seems relatively stable, with greater fluctuations during the summer.  This difference is likely due to tourists and seasonal residents, as well as annual variations in summer temperatures that affect irrigation demand for residential, commercial and institutional users.  Figure 4.12:  Rossland: Seasonal average water use (total)    4.5.1  Current Residential Water Use  Residential water use for this study was estimated based on flow meter data from 2001-2007, and compared with estimates developed by consultants.  With only 15% of buildings in Rossland metered, consumption is indirectly measured by the City’s treatment plant and pump station data. As a consequence, these production records include not only domestic, commercial, and institutional water use, but also losses through leaks and firefighting. Considerable confusion existed over what  56 actually constituted “use” for Red Mountain: leakages, backflow to Red Mountain, backflows to the water treatment plant, water used at the plant for cooling ozonators and service water; and water run through lines to prevent winter freezing all confounded the picture. Where possible, metered data was especially helpful for estimating commercial and institutional use, along with tourism-related use for larger accommodations. No significant industrial use was identified.  The following assumptions were made:146  1. Leakages account for: a.  City: 15% of water use b.  Red Mountain: 5% of water use 2. Commercial and institutional use: a. City: Approximately 380 m3 year round b. Red Mountain: Commercial use is 40 m3 in the winter, and 19 m3 the   rest of the year. No significant institutional use was identified.  A note about leakages: While it is difficult to determine the extent of leaks in the absence of metering, the International Water Supply Association (IWSA) calculated the amount of lost or "unaccounted for" water is usually between 20 to 30% of production.147 Experience from other Canadian communities with older infrastructure systems suggest that municipal leakages can account for up to 40% leakages.  Domestic consumption for the City was calculated by subtracting commercial and institutional use. Domestic consumption for Red Mountain was calculated by subtracting commercial use, which varied by season.  4.5.2  City Core  The average annual domestic usage is 483 lcd, with seasonal variations depicted below in Figure 4.13. Summer average use is 780 lcd, both fall and winter is 370 lcd, and spring is 410 lcd   57 Figure 4.13:  Rossland: City average daily per capita use  (2001-2007)    4.5.3  Red Mountain  Many of the new developments in the Red Mountain base area are being constructed with low-flow fixtures. When combined with less need for irrigation and reduced leaks due to newer infrastructure, it would seem that water use per capita at Red Mountain would be substantially less than the City. Observations do not bear this out.  Current data collection makes it difficult to determine how water is allocated between domestic, tourism, commercial, and operational uses at Red Mountain, or even how much water is used in the general area. Based on estimations of permanent residents and seasonal commercial activity, it appears that per capita water use for the Red area is 3 times higher than the City during Winter, 5 times higher in the Spring; 2.5 times higher during the summer; and nearly 4 times higher during the Fall (Figure 4.14). While visitors and second home owners account for some of this difference, much of the difference also seems attributed to water for “refreshing” the reservoir, as well as water added to the volume of sewer pump station to prevent the sewage from going septic. One would expect highest water use in the winter to correspond with tourism from the ski season. This is not the case, however. That winter use appears to be the lowest suggests more analysis is needed to determine how water is being allocated at Red Mountain.  58  Figure 4.14:  Rossland: Red Mountain average daily per capita use (2001-2007)  !" #!!" $!!" %!!" &!!" '!!!" '#!!" '$!!" '%!!" '&!!" #!!!" ()*+,-" ./-)*0" .122,-" 3455" !" #$ % &' () * "# ) '+ ) ", - . /%)&01. 20&&,)1+3.2%+.4051#)"1.)6%$)7%.+)",-.*%$.()*"#).5&%.89::;<9::=>.   4.5.4  City-Red Mountain Comparison  Figure 4.15 indicates the variation is domestic use (lcd) between the City and Red Mountain during the summer.  59   Variation for Red Mountain ranges between 1,200 lcd and 2,400 lcd with a mean/median around 1,740; closeness of mean/median suggests that most users are around 1,740 lcd, that this average is not thrown off by many outliers (Note 1). City water use ranges from 600 lcd to 900 lcd, with a median/mean difference of 28 lcd. At first glance, the average appears far too low; however, the relatively small permanent population at Red Mountain compared to the City means that Red Mountain has little weighting on average use. Because visitor information for accommodation at Red Mountain was not available, per capita water use could change significantly.  Figure 4.15:  Rossland City vs. Red Mountain summer water use per capita  0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Average Red City S u m m e r  w a te r  u s e  ( lc d )  Rossland: City vs. Red Mountain summer water use per capita 25th pct 50th pct 75th pct MEAN  Note 1: Usefulness of Mean’s. Median in interpreting water use data Mean: the “average”, found by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of numbers. Means can be skewed by outliers—very large or small numbers that occur infrequently but ‘pull’ the overall average away from the middle.  Median: the middle value when numbers are arranged in order. This number can help determine if the average has been ‘pulled’ by outliers.  60 Variation is much greater for Red Mountain (Red) than the City core during all seasons perhaps due to greater variability in occupancy rates: permanent residents account for most water use for the City, while visitors and seasonal residents account for most water use at Red Mountain. Average winter use at Red ranges between 630 lcd and 1,850 lcd with a 70 litre difference between the mean (1,140 lcd ) and median (1,070 m3). This compares to a minimum of 350 lcd and maximum of 395 lcd in the City core, and a closer mean/median differing by 5 lcd (Figure 4.16). Appendix 4.2: Seasonal Water Use Per Capita indicates water use for all the seasons.  Figure 4.16:  Rossland City vs. Red Mountain winter water use per capita 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Average Red City S u m m e r  w a te r  u s e  ( lc d )  Rossland: City vs. Red Mountain winter water use per capita 25th pct 50th pct 75th pct MEAN * “Red” in the following graphs refers to Red Mountain.  Day ticket and accommodation data suggest that while 33,192 non-local day tickets were purchased during the 2007 ski season, hotels/motels only recorded 17,370 overnight stays. The difference (15,822) could be due to non-local day visitors who do not stay overnight; those who stay with friends; and those who stay in other accommodations such as rental lodges and B&B’s, some at the base of Red Mountain (Table 4.4).  61 Table 4.4:  Accommodation vs. non-local day tickets (Winter 2007)  Accommodation vs. non-local day tickets (Winter 2007)  # People/  season % Total Total non-local day tickets 33,192 100 City core hotel/motel 17,370 52 Non city-core hotel/motel 15,822 48 Red Mountain 5,670 17 Other (Friends', B&B, lodges) 10,152 31  Estimates for Red Mountain occupancy were based on the number of overnight visitors required daily to achieve the same per capita water use as the City core. Per capita consumption at Red Mountain should be even lower than the City given low-flow fixtures in the newer developments, thus “number of people” is likely a conservative estimate. As seen in Table 4.5, given a current residential population estimate of 72 people, 63 visitors per night would be required at Red Mountain to constitute the same per capita use (0.34 m3) as the City core. Under this scenario, approximately 17% of visitors are staying at the base of Red Mountain.  Table 4.5:  Estimates of overnight visitors at Red Mountain (Winter 2007)  Estimate of overnight visitors at Red Mountain (Winter 2007)   People Water use (cu m/d) City Per capita use (m3/c/d), % non-local ski visits Overnight visitors required at Red Mountain each day to have same per capita use as City core 63 Residents (current) 72 Total 135 46 0.341 17  4.5.5  Tourism: Golf  Rossland does not provide water for irrigation for the golf course downstream. However, because the course is a significant water user of Topping Creek, its water use could have a notable impact on water availability for downstream users in the watershed, especially during the low flow summer months. Information relating to development and/or water use for the golf course was not  62 forthcoming. Thus, estimates were based on geographic information using Google Earth and an estimated total of 100 acres for the entire area, of which 35% (14 hectares, or 14165 m2) was estimated to be terrain requiring irrigation. Irrigation requirements (IR) for turf grass were compared with irrigation requirements for golf courses in the Okanagan and adjusted to the precipitation data for Rossland.148 It appears between 2,500 m3 and 3,300 m3 of water are used per ha/year, with a difference of over 10,000 m3 during a dry year (Table 4.6).  Table 4.6:  Rossland: Golf course irrigation requirements  Rossland: Golf course irrigation requirements Normal Year Golf course (m3) m3/hectare/year m3/month m3/day IR Golf Course  0.38 IR for irrigated area 91,440 3,810 18,288 590 Precipitation (m) 0.17 Precipitation for irrigated area (m) 40,800 1,700 8,160 263 IR remaining (no overwatering) 50,640 2,110 10,128 327 Typical 20% overwatering 10,128 422 2,026 65 Estimated irrigation applied 60,768 2,532 506 16  Dry Year Golf course (m3) m3/hectare/year m3/month m3/day IR Golf Course  0.38 IR for irrigated area 91,440 3,810 762 25 Precipitation (m) 0.106 Precipitation for irrigated area (m) 25,440 1,060 212 7 IR remaining (no overwatering) 66,000 2,750 550 18 Typical 20% overwatering 13,200 550 110 4 Estimated irrigation applied 79,200 3,300 660 21 Difference 18,432 768 154 5  4.5.5  Current Water Use and Climate  The most obvious impact of climate on water demand is seen during the summer for irrigation. Summer water use between 2001 and 2007 indicates that higher water use corresponds with higher maximum temperatures (Figure 4.17) and lower precipitation (Figure 4.18). Water demand here is not represented on a per capita basis, but taken from the total water supplied to the City and Red Mountain; thus it includes residential, commercial and institutional (e.g. school yards  63 and public parks) demand, as well as leaks. Graphs depicting water use, temperature and precipitation for winter, spring and fall can be found in Appendix 4.6  Climate Data and Water Use.  Figure 4.17:  Rossland: Summer Temperatures and Water Use (2001-2007)  !" #!!!!" $!!!!!" $#!!!!" %!!!!!" %#!!!!" &!!!!!" &#!!!!" '!!!!!" '#!!!!" !(!" #(!" $!(!" $#(!" %!(!" %#(!" &!(!" &#(!" '!(!" %!!$" %!!%" %!!&" %!!'" %!!#" %!!)" %!!*" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& -$ * . $ %" #/ %$ &) 01 ,& 2$"%& 34((5"678&9/**$%&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"67&:"#$%&/($&);<<=>;<<?,& +,-./"01."234"56" 7.,8"9.5:"2!6" ;"7,<"9.5:"2!6" ;"7=8"9.5:"2!6"   64 Figure 4.18:  Rossland: Summer precipitation and water use (2001-2007)  !" #!!!!" $!!!!!" $#!!!!" %!!!!!" %#!!!!" &!!!!!" &#!!!!" '!!!!!" '#!!!!" !(!" #!(!" $!!(!" $#!(!" %!!(!" %#!(!" %!!$" %!!%" %!!&" %!!'" %!!#" %!!)" %!!*" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& - %$ ./ 0 /# " #/ 1 2 &) * * ,& 3$"%& 41((5"267&89**$%&0%$./0/#"#/12&"26&:"#$%&9($&);<<=>;<<?,& +,-./"01."234"56" 78-,9":/.3;<"2556"  Regressions comparing water use, temperature and precipitation offer four observations (see Appendix 4.5:  Climate and Water Use Correlation):  1) Precipitation and X-max temperature have a greater effect on water use than mean temperature. 2) A reduction of about 100 mm of rain corresponds with an increase in water use of about 100,000 m3 for all of Rossland, or 300 lcd. 3) An increase of 1 °C above the extreme maximum temperature of 32°C corresponds with a 27,027 m3 increase in water use for all of Rossland, or 90 lcd. 4) An increase of 1 °C above the average mean temperature of 17 corresponds with a 25,000 m3 increase in water use for all of Rossland, or 83 lcd.  Table 4.7 presents the effects of temperature and precipitation on summer water use in a slightly different way. The following observations can be made:  1) For the given seven year period, hotter summers were also drier summers. 2) There was little difference in per capita water use when comparing use by residents only and use including tourists.  65 3) An increase in mean temperature of 2.2°C, and an increase in extreme maximum temperature of 3.9 °C corresponds with an increase in water use of 380 lcd. 4) In a dry year, a decrease in precipitation of about 70 mm corresponds with an increase in water use of 150 lcd. 5) It is also worth noting that all summers between 2001-2007 had a mean temperature higher than the 1969-2007 average: 18 °C vs. 16.6 °C (see 4.3  CLIMATE).  Table 4.7:  Rossland: Effects of temperature and precipitation on summer water use  Rossland: Effects of temperature and precipitation on summer water use Mean Temp X Max Temp X Min Temp Total Precip Summer average (June- Aug) Monthly average Daily average per capita (2006 census) Daily average per capita + tourists Hot vs. Cool (°C) (°C) (°C) (mm) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) Hotter summers (2003,2007) 19.2 36.0 3.6 105.5 377,737 125,912 1.25 1.23 *Cooler summers- NONE n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a "Normal" summer average (1969-2007) 16.6 30.6 4.6 169.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a Recent year closest to "normal" temperatures (2005) 17.0 32 5 194 261,643 87,214 0.87 0.85 Difference between hotter and "closest normal" (hotter- normal) 2.2 3.9 -1.1 -88.7 116,094 38,698 0.38 0.38 Dry vs. wet Drier summers (2003,2007) 19.2 36.0 3.6 105.5 377,737 125912 1.25 1.23 Wetter summers (2004) 18.4 33.5 3.5 201.9 296,032 98,677 0.98 0.96 "Normal" summer average (1969-2007) 17.0 32.1 4.7 194.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a Recent year closest to "normal" precipitation (2006) 18.6 35.3 5.5 172.8 331,113 110,371 1.10 1.08 Difference between drier and "closest normal" (drier- normal) 0.6 0.7 -1.9 -67.3 46,624 15,541 0.15 0.15 Difference between "closest normal" and wetter (normal- wetter) 0.2 1.8 2.0 -29.1 35,081 11,694 0.12 0.11 Difference between drier and wetter (drier-wetter) 0.7 2.5 0.1 -96.4 81,705 27,235 0.27 0.27 * The average mean temperature between 2001-2007 was 18 C. Climate Water use    66 While seven years of data is not sufficient to make precise calculations, this time frame can still prove helpful in determining future water demand under various climate scenarios. This suggests that current climate trends could increase summer water use due to higher temperatures, longer growing seasons extending into September, and more frequent fires. One of the best adaptive management options for this is aggressive demand management.  4.6  AGGRESSIVE DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES  4.6.1  Why Reduce Domestic Water Use  4.6.1.1  Economic Incentive  The size/ capacity for many aspects of municipal water treatment and distribution systems is based on peak demand, i.e., during hot, drier periods in the summer. Most municipalities are able to meet peak demands over short time periods. However, peak demands that are extremely high or that last over longer time periods can dramatically draw down water storage, sometimes resulting in lower system pressures or jeopardising the city’s ability to fight fires.  A system designed for peak demand is under-used and over-sized the rest of the year. The Ontario Water Works Association estimates that the price tag for adding an extra 1,000 m3 of capacity is between $500,000 - $2 million, yet revenues from selling “peak day water” are far less than the cost of expanding infrastructure to accommodate growth during this time. Consequently, municipalities experiencing growth can save millions of dollars by cutting peak demand and the need for more infrastructure.149 Because peak demand is largely the result of summer irrigation by commercial and residential users, reducing water use at this critical time can be done relatively easily.  In light of growing pressure on local water supplies, where can Rossland realize the biggest savings in water use in the residential and tourism sectors? How can Rossland cut its peak demand?  4.6.1.2  Environmental Considerations  The environmental imperative is also important. Cutting water use will reduce water drawn from streams, lakes, and aquifers, leaving more water for other species and ecosystem services. In Ontario, it has been estimated that the energy savings from the water distribution and treatment system could amount to 0.8 kg of greenhouse gas for every 1 m3 of water saved.150 The calculations for B.C. would be less given that much of our energy is derived from hydro power, but the message remains: a home that reduces its summer irrigation by 100 litres a day would help lower GHG  67 emissions by about 7.4 kg each summer. If 1,000 households reduce their irrigation in this way, 7,400 kgs of GHG emissions—over 7 tonnes-- could be saved each summer.  4.6.1.3  Climate Change Adaptation  As mentioned in Chapter 2, increased annual temperatures are expected, along with higher annual precipitation, greater variability in precipitation, and drier summers. We are seeing earlier spring runoff and lower late summer stream-flows, with a predicted 20% reduction in peak stream- flow.151 The combination of higher summer temperatures, reduced summer precipitation and low runoff in the Columbia Basin will raise the potential for drought and forest fires. Communities are being encouraged to prepare their industries and domestic users for change, to “develop flexibility and prepare for surprises”. How can saving water help to off-set these effects? How can demand management help to prepare communities and enhance their flexibility? What possibilities exist for the tourism and residential sectors?  This section suggests that adopting low-flow fixtures for both tourism-related and domestic use will drastically cut consumption. Encouraging on-site capture and storage of rainwater will further enhance water storage capacity at the household/ hotel level, enabling individuals and industry to help meet their own water demand during the summer. Eliminating over-watering across sectors is also critical, resulting in significant water savings.  4.7  TOURISM  4.7.1  Golf  Irrigation use will not have a direct impact on water availability for the City because the golf course is downstream from Rossland. However, given climate change projections for longer, drier summers, and the need for communities to ensure they are not exceeding withdrawal limits for minimum low-flow requirements, it would be prudent for all users in the watershed to work to minimize excess.  Over-watering by 20% is not unusual for golf courses. Estimates above (Figure 4.0-30) suggest that 14,165 m3 could be saved each year from eliminating this excess. Golf courses should also re-consider the area they require to be green (as seen in Scotland, for example), and use native plants that do not require watering (xeriscape) around the course.   68 4.7.2  Accommodation  4.7.2.1  Low-Flow Fixtures  Visitor numbers from Tourism B.C. were combined with revenues from hotels/motels in Rossland to arrive at a general idea of numbers of people per night. Estimates based on this information were made to assess potential savings from converting conventional 13L toilets, showerheads and washing machines to low-flow varieties. As indicated in Table 4.8, total savings for 2007 were over 8,600 m3. Of this, about 40% of those savings occur in the winter during peak ski season, and 15% savings are realised during the peak summer low flow period.  Table 4.8:  Rossland: Water savings in hotels/motels (m3)  Rossland: Water savings in hotels/motels (m3)   # People Shower  *13L Toilet **Washing Machine Total Savings (m3) 2006 Winter 15,480 1,022 650 1,594 3,266 Spring 6,121 4,040 257 630 4,928 Summer 5,402 357 227 556 1,140 Fall 4,202 277 176 433 887 Total 31,205 2,060 1,311 3,214 6,584 2007 Winter 17,370 1,146 730 1,789 3,665 Spring 7,811 516 328 805 1,648 Summer 6,315 417 265 650 1,332 Fall 9,651 637 405 994 2,036 Total 41,147 2,716 1,728 4,238 8,682 2008 Winter 18,313 1,209 769,153 1,886 3,864 * Based on 6 flushes/ day, noting that not all water use will be at hotel. **1 load per person*172L  4.7.2.2  Rain Barrels for Hotels  Given that landscaping/lawn size around hotels/motels can vary considerably, it was decided that, rather than estimating the potential of rainwater collection for outdoor water use as done with  69 residential users discussed later in this chapter, rainwater collection for commercial purposes could be used primarily for toilets.  Year-round water collection and savings potential from rain barrels for large hotels/ motels was calculated based on occupancy rates for 2007, and a roof size of approximately 12,000 sq ft. (3,658 m2) Table 4.9 suggests that a hotel with these characteristics could meet all the water demand for 6L toilets and still have some water (nearly 500 m3) remaining for outdoor use.  Table 4.9:  Rainwater replacement for toilets in large hotel/motel  Rainwater replacement for toilets in a large hotel/motel Roof size (m2)  3,658 Total annual precipitation (m3)  0.82 Water storage possible (m3)  1,975 Water needed for DM Toilets (2007) (m3)  1,481 Water remaining for outdoor use (m3)  494 % Savings for indoor use 29+  By converting showers, toilets, and washing machines to low-flow varieties, over 8,500 m3 can be saved annually; when rainwater replaces toilet use, savings increase to over 10,000 m3 per year (Table 4.10).   70 Table 4.10:  Total savings for hotels  Total annual savings for hotels (2007 figures)   13L use DM (6L) use Savings Source m3 m3 m3 Showers  5,185 2,469 2,716 Toilets 3,209 1,481 1,728 Washing Machine 7,077 2,839 4,238 Total  15,471 6,789 8,682 Rain collection max possible: 1,975 Monthly toilet requirement 267 123 144 Monthly rain (if evenly distributed): 165 Total after using rainwater for toilets 13,491 5,308 10,410  These savings do not consider low-flow fixtures and/or rainwater collection in other aspects of the tourism industry such as ski lodges and restaurants. Significant savings could be gained here, too.  4.8  INDOOR DOMESTIC WATER SAVINGS FROM VARIOUS ADAPTATION MEASURES  Rossland can reduce its residential water consumption by about 43% by adopting an aggressive DM strategy. Domestic water savings were calculated in two ways: Calculation 1: Lcd consumption from flow data: estimates for commercial and institutional use were subtracted, and 40% of summer use was assumed for irrigation.  Calculation 2: Lcd based solely on a set of indoor fixtures or Fixture Package (FP) including low- flow shower heads, toilets and washing machines) and outdoor irrigation (rainwater collection of 5 m3). This combination of uses accounts for 81% of summer water use and 74% of water use the rest of the year.  Water lost through leaks and water used for other purposes (such as cleaning) account for the difference between calculations 1 and 2. This section will outline the calculations and findings for individual components, then will summarize the big picture at the end.   71 4.8.1  Low Flow Fixtures and Appliances  4.8.1.1  Toilets  Toilets typically make up 30% of indoor household use; by replacing a 20 L toilet with a 6 L toilet, this would bring the overall water use as a percentage of indoor use down to 18%.152 Replacing old 20 L toilets, typical in houses built before 1986, with newer 6 L flush can save 14 L/ flush. At 6 flushes/person/day, this is 84 lcd. If the average household size is 2.4, this equates to roughly 200 L/ household/day (84*2.4). If all of Rossland’s 1,215 households living in older houses built before 1986 were to convert their toilets, 127,600 m3 would be saved over a year. When combined with savings of 4,600 m3 from houses built between 1986-1996 converting 13L to 6L toilets, Rossland’s total annual savings from converting domestic toilets is 132,287 m3 (Table 4.11).  Table 4.11:  Savings from low-flow toilets  Rossland: Converting to low-flow toilets Toilets 20L toilet 13L toilet 6L toilet *Total number of households 1,215 70 *Water used per flush (litres) 20 13 6 Water used per household/day (litres) 288 187 86 Water used per household/year (m3) 105,120 68,328 31,536 Total all households use/year (m3) 127,721 4,783 111 Annual savings all households from converting 20L and 13L (m3) 127,615 4,672 0 Annual savings all households (m3) 132,287 *Based on assumption of 20L toilets in houses built before 1986; 13L in houses built between 1986-1996; Age of houses taken from 2006 Census; estimation for houses built between 1986 and 1996 based on 140 houses built between 1986- 2006, averaging 7 per year or 70 for 10 years.  4.8.2.2  Showers  Showers and baths constitute 35% of indoor water use. As seen in Table 4.12, if all households in Rossland were to substitute low-flow, 10 L/min showerheads in place of conventional 21 L/min shower heads, each household could save about 160 litres of water per day. City-wide, this amounts to an 18 % savings, over 71,000 m3 per year.   72 Table 4.12:  Converting to low-flow showerheads  Rossland: Converting to low-flow showerheads Showers Conventional Efficient Savings % Used % Saved Number of total households  1,355 *Water used per 6 min shower (conventional)(litres) 126 60 66 Water use per household/day (litres) 302 144 158 Water use per household/year (m3) 110 53 58 Savings per household/day (litres)   144 48 52 Savings per household/year (m3)   53 Annual savings all households (m3)   71,219 * Conventional estimate based on average of 21 L (average between 15 and 27 litres/ min). Low-flow estimates based on average of 10 L/min for low-flow (average between 9-11) Numbers for showers, toilets taken from CHMC.  4.8.2.3  Washing Machines  Washing machines normally consume about 20 % of indoor water use. Each household in Rossland could save about 200 litres per week, or more than 11 m3 per year by switching to a low- flow, front-load washing machine, a savings of 60%. Overall, the City could save roughly 14,500 m3 per year (Table 4.13).   73 Table 4.13:  Rossland: Converting to low-flow washing machines  Rossland: Converting to low-flow washing machines Washing Machines Conventional Efficient Savings % Used % Saved  Number of total households  1,355 *Water used for conventional washing machine (litres) 172 69 103 40 60 Water used per household/week (litres) 344 138 206 Water used per household/year (m3) 18 7 11 Savings per household/week (2x)(litres)   206 Savings per household/year (m3)   11 Annual savings all households (m3)   14,515 * Based on estimation of between 121 and 223 litres per load and 40% reduction  4.9  OUTDOORS: REDUCING PEAK DEMAND  Reducing summer irrigation is the key to cutting peak demand and avoiding infrastructure expansion. Based on a unit cost of infrastructure expansion of $1 per litre per day (e.g., to expand a system’s capacity by 1,000,000 litres per day would cost about $1 million), the Ontario Water Works Association calculates that a municipality growing by 10,000 new homes could save about $2 million in expansion costs if it is able to reduce  peak day demands by 200 litres per household. This savings is realised even if their overall summer water demand remains constant.153  Four of the most effective strategies for reducing summer peak demand include: 1) Eliminating over-watering; 2) Introducing a One-Day-per-week “conservation schedule”—and enforcing it; 3) Introducing conservation-based water rates (seasonally or year-round) with frequent billing (e.g. each month in the summer). Metering is necessary. 4) Harvesting rain water to irrigate gardens is the cheapest, easiest, most effective way to reduce summer irrigation demand.  4.9.1  Irrigation Requirements  The irrigation requirement for turf grass from June to August was calculated with the following equation using evapotranspiration (ET) rates for Castlegar (closest station to Rossland). The ET for  74 Rossland should be lower than for Invermere, hence adjust the ET based on elevation differences between Castlegar and Rossland  Equation 1: Irrigation requirement for turfgrass in Castlegar  IRT =  (ET x crop coefficient x allowable stress)/ irrigation system efficiency = inches IRT =  (20 x 0.75x 0.7)/0.7 =15 inches (x .0254) = 0.381 m.  Assumptions:  Average lot size: 550 m2 Average lawn size: 200 m2 Average roof size: 155 m2 Maximum surface parcel coverage: 220 m2  Number of single family units (SFUs) 1164 (based on 2006 Census).154  Lawn size was estimated to be approximately 200 m2, or about 36% of the average lot size of 550 m2.155 Roof size was calculated by determining 70% of the maximum surface parcel coverage of a lot (220m2), or 28% of the average lot size. Summer lawn IR per SFU was estimated to be 43 m3 , or 194 lcd. Calculations for outdoor water use in Rossland use 1164 units, representing the approximately 86% of total private dwellings occupied by usual residents that are SFUs, in an attempt to only capture people in Rossland in the summer (not SFUs primarily occupied during the winter).  4.9.2  Over-Watering  Over-watering is extremely common in communities, and exacerbated by automatic sprinkling systems that can apply up to 3.5 times the water required.156 Irrigation requirements for a 200 m2 lawn are 43 m3 for the three summer months, or approximately 194 lcd (Table 4.14). Based on Calculation 1 and summer usage of 780 lcd, it appears that SFUs are over-watering by about 60%: using 312 lcd (an extra 118 lcd) instead of 194 lcd. This amounts to 35,385 m3 of water lost throughout the City over the summer, or enough water to fill 330 single car garages.   75 Table 4.14:  Rossland: Irrigation savings from not over-watering  Irrigation savings from not over-watering  Summer (June- Aug) (m3) Month (m3) Day (m3) Lcd All SFUs (m3/day) All SFUs (m3/summer) Irrigation required per SFU 43 14 0.465 194 630 57,960 Irrigation used per SFU 70 23 0.749 312 1,015 93,345 Excess watering 26 9 0.284 118 385 35,385 % over-watering currently 61 61 61 61 61 61  4.9.3  Rainwater Collection  If rain is evenly distributed throughout the summer, Rossland residents could cover at least 35% of their irrigation requirements with a 5 m3 rain tank (Figure 4.19), lowering lcd demand for irrigation to 127.  Figure 4.19:  Rossland: Summer irrigation savings from 5 m3 tank Water collected 5 cu m barrel 35% 15 cu m/ 67 lcpd Irrigation still required from City 65% 28 cu m/ 127 lcpd Rossland: Summer irrigation savings from 5 m3 tank    76 Table 4.15 depicts detailed irrigation requirements for the summer (92 days). If rain is evenly distributed throughout the summer, Rossland residents could store enough water to cover at least 36% of their irrigation requirements. This would reduce the City’s provision of water for domestic irrigation from 48,647 to 31,355 m3 each summer: a savings of 17,292 m3 -- or nearly 13 metric tonnes of GHGs.  Table 4.15:  Rossland: Irrigation savings from domestic rainwater collection Rossland: Irrigation savings from domestic rainwater collection   Per SFU  All SFUs  Summer (June-Aug) (m3) Month (m3) Day (m3) Lcd Per day (m3) Per summer (m3) *Total water requirement 76 25 0.82 341 955 87,841 Natural Precipitation 34 11 0.37 152 426 39,194 Irrigation required from City 42 14 0.45 189 529 48,647 Potential water collection (unlimited storage) 17 6 0.19 78 218 20,048 Irrigation still required from City 25 8 0.27 111 311 28,599 % Irrigation from rainwater (unlimited storage) 41 41 41 41 41 41 Water collected 5 m3 barrel 15 5 0.16 67 188 17,292 Irrigation still required from City 27 9 0.29 122 341 31,355 % Irrigation from rainwater with 5 cu m barrel 36 36 36 36 36 36 *Where ET=20; IR=15 inches=0.381 m. "Water requirement" is the irrigation requirement without accounting for precipitation. It is the water "needed", not the actual water that people apply (typically people over-water their lawns). ** Where 66% of total precipitation that lands on a roof could be reliably captured.   77 This estimation is conservative because it does not include the 5 m3 collected in the spring and stored before summer irrigation is needed. Thus June would be irrigated with water collected in May; July would be irrigated with water collected in June, etc. If all summer rain could be captured, 41% of irrigation could be provided by rain barrels. These calculations are based on irrigation requirements for turfgrass, which is more water intense than vegetables or fruit.  Finally, these estimations for IR are extremely conservative because they represent water needed, not how much people are actually using to water their lawns. When over-watering is taken into consideration, the picture drastically changes.  4.9.4  Climate Change: Irrigation  Given the expectation of climate change leading to longer, drier summers, irrigation is expected to continue well into September. Past dry periods, like summer 2003, can help indicate what to expect in the future. Thus, precipitation data from summer 2003 and September 2002 (dry months) are used to estimate future IR for a longer, drier summer. IR was calculated using the same ET rate of 20 for June-August, but ET for September increased from 2 to 4 (Table 4.16).  Table 4.16:  "Normal" vs. Drier climate for summer and September  "Normal" vs. Drier climate for summer and September   Summer Sept  Normal (1968-2007) Drier (2003) Normal (1968-2007) Drier (2002) Precipitation (m) 0.16 0.106 0.069 0.043 ET 20 20 2 4 IR (m) 0.38 0.38 0.04 0.08  Under this scenario, summer IR per household is 55 m3, or 246 lcd (Table 4.17). If rain is evenly distributed throughout the summer, Rossland residents could cover at least 20% of their irrigation requirements (49 lcd) with a 5 m3 rain barrel, reducing lcd required from the city to 197 lcd . Overall, the city would supply 50,722 compared to 63,402 m3, a savings of 12,680 m3.   78 Table 4.17:  Drier summer: irrigation savings from domestic summer rainwater collection  Rossland: Drier summer: irrigation savings from domestic summer rainwater collection  Per SFU  Per capita All SFUs  Summer (June- Sept) (m3) Month (m3) Day (m3) Lcd Per day (m3) Per summer (m3) *Total water requirement  76 25 0.82 341 955 87,841 Natural Precipitation 21 7 0.23 95 266 24,439 Irrigation required from City 55 18 0.59 246 689 63,402 Potential water collection (unlimited storage) 11 4 0.12 49 136 12,500 Irrigation still required from City 44 15 0.47 198 553 50,902 % Irrigation from rainwater (unlimited storage) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Water collected 5 m3 barrel 11 4 0.12 49 138 12,680 Irrigation still required from City 44 15 0.47 197 551 50,722 % Irrigation from rainwater with 5 cu m barrel 20 20 20 20 20 20 *Where ET=20; IR=15 inches=0.381 m. "Water requirement" is the irrigation requirement without accounting for precipitation. It is the water "needed", not the actual water that people apply (typically people over-water their lawns).  When comparing “normal” and drier summers expected under climate change (Table 4.18), drier summers will consume an extra 23%, or 57 lcd for irrigation. Over the summer, this results in an extra 14,755 m3 provided, with the City now supplying 63,402 m3 instead of 48,647 m3. If 5 m3 rain barrels are used, however, 20% (12,680 m3) can be saved.   79 Table 4.18:  Rossland: Normal vs. drier summer water demand comparison  Rossland: Normal vs. drier summer water demand comparison  Per SFU Per capita All SFUs  Summer (June-Aug) (m3) lcd Per summer (m3)  Normal Dry Normal Dry Normal Dry *Total water requirement  76 76 341 341 87,841 87,841 Natural Precipitation 34 21 152 95 39,194 24,439 Irrigation required from City 42 55 189 246 48,647 63,402 Potential water collection (unlimited storage) 17 11 78 49 20,048 12,500 Irrigation still required from City 25 44 111 198 28,599 50,902 % Irrigation from rainwater (unlimited storage) 41 20 41 20 41 20 Water collected 5 cu m barrel 15 11 67 49 17,292 12,680 Irrigation still required from City 27 44 122 197 31,355 50,722 % Irrigation from rainwater with 5 cu m barrel 36 20 36 20 36 20  As mentioned above in Table 4.40, precipitation data for September 2002 (an especially dry September), along with an increased ET rate were used to estimate IR for expected drier Septembers, and compared to the normal average precipitation. Table 4.19 indicates that IR for a “normal” September appears to be entirely met from total precipitation. However, IR for a drier September is twice that of a “normal” month, and would require 7,738 m3 of water from the City. A 5 m3 rain barrel for each household can meet 66% of IR, reducing the City’s provision to only 2,612 m3.   80 Table 4.19:  Rossland: Normal vs. drier September water demand comparison  Rossland: Normal vs. drier September water demand comparison Normal Per SFU Per capita All SFUs  Month (m3) Day (m3) Lcd Per day (m3) Per month (m3) *Total water requirement  8 0.25 106 296 8,880 Natural Precipitation 14 0.46 192 536 16,081 Irrigation required from City -6 NO IRRIGATION REQUIRED  Climate Change IRRIGATION REQUIRED *Total water requirement  15 0.51 212 592 17,759 Natural Precipitation 9 0.29 119 334 10,022 Irrigation required from City 7 0.22 92 258 7,738 Water collected 5 cu m barrel 4 0.15 61 171 5,126 Irrigation still required from City 2 0.07 31 87 2,612 % Irrigation from rainwater with 5 cu m barrel 66 66 66 66 66  4.9.5  Climate Change: Storms and Forest Fires  Preparation for more frequent extreme weather events seems prudent given climate change projections of increased precipitation with greater variability, both in frequency and intensity. A secondary water source such as rain tanks, at the household or communal level, builds resilience in two ways: by reducing demand on the municipal infrastructure; and providing a back-up supply in the event of storm overflow or damage to supply pipes.157  Longer, drier summers will increases the risk of forest fires. Fire management plans are in place in many communities where residential areas border forest. On-site water storage in rain tanks can help to reduce the impact of fire on residential areas by providing a ready source of water. Tanks can also help to reduce the impact of fire on water demand for the municipality. As a consequence, rain tanks should not only be considered for their irrigation purposes, but also as part of a broader fire management strategy. A minimal amount would be required to be left in the tank over the summer, while the rest could be used for irrigation. Where irrigation needs are low, such as multi-family units with little lawn, on-site storage can serve several residences. Climate change projections suggest that more water will have to be collected in the Spring. Ultimately, storage capacity larger than 5 m3 may  81 be more suitable for multi-family combined use for irrigation, back-up supply, and fire management, with communities sharing the cost of communal tanks.  4.9.6  Metering, Increasing Block Rate, Leakage Repair  Based on findings from other municipalities (outlined in Chapter 2), Rossland could save 30% by introducing metering with an increasing block rate (IBR) to all residential units. Based on the literature, leakages in infrastructure and homes are (conservatively) estimated to be about 20%, and assumed to be constant throughout the year. Reducing this by half (down to 10%) could likely be achieved from repairs: 90 lcd, with a 50% reduction down to 45 lcd. Figure 4.20 indicates that seasonal savings from these measures alone can reduce summer consumption from 780 to 468 lcd, about 40%. These numbers are based on flow data (Calculation 1).  Figure 4.20:  Rossland: Water savings with metering, IBR, and leakage repair !"#$ %&'$ !!!$ %%%$ ()#$ %*"$ !+'$ %(+$ "*#$ &(+$ "#%$ (+*$ !"#$ %&'$ !!!$ %%%$ #$ )##$ %##$ !##$ (##$ &##$ +##$ "##$ *##$ '##$ ,-../01$23/$ 4/1/.506$789$$ 9/:;5./<$=/;>3$ 4/1/.3?$789?$./:;5.3$ ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) *+ , - .& /01('2,#301&'1-$%&45&(+$1"%30(& 60((7"1-8&!"#$%&("931:(&;3#<&2$#$%31:=&>?6=&"1-&7$"@":$&%$,"3%&)7+-.& @501/.$ A:.506$ A-BB/.$ C;==$  Maintaining infrastructure and minimizing leaks are both critical for maintaining credibility when asking consumers to reduce their own water consumption. Many New Zealand councils have concluded that any serious water conservation plan starts with maintenance. This includes fixing leaks within the pipe network, developing programs that encourage end-users to fix leaks in their own homes, and determining possibilities for reducing pressure.158   82 4.10  FINDINGS FOR DOMESTIC WATER USE AND SAVINGS  Indoor water consumption could be reduced by 45% if all households were to be retrofitted with low flow toilets, showerheads, and water efficient washing machines. If each household were to eliminate over-watering and use rainwater from a 5 m3 barrel to water their lawns, outdoor summer water use would be cut by nearly 80%. In total, these measures would lead to a reduction of 45% for summer use, and 42% during the rest of the year.  City-wide savings for Rossland domestic use is based on 1,355 households for non-summer use, as consistent with the 2006 census, and do not account for households in new developments that will already be using some low-flow fixtures. Summer savings are based on 1165 single family units (SFUs) in an attempt to reflect only households using irrigation. Calculations below are based on 100% uptake of retrofits to demonstrate maximum possible savings. The methodology for toilets, showers and washing machine savings is outlined in Chapter 3, and are consistent for both Rossland and Invermere.  4.10.1  Non-Summer  When broken down by season, an aggressive DM strategy can reduce non-summer use to 198 from 360 lcd, for a savings of 45% or 162 lcd (Table 4.20). The City saves 220 m3  each day; over the entire summer (92 days), the City saves nearly 60,000 m3 .   83 Table 4.20:  Rossland: Non-Summer: Total water savings with DM package (lcd)  Rossland: Non-Summer: Total water savings with DM package Water use per person/day (lcd) Current DM Savings % Used % Savings Total Showers 126 60 66 48 52 100 *Toilets 120 36 84 30 70 100 Washing Machines 20 8 12 40 60 100 Other 117 117 0 100 0 100 Total (all uses) 383 221 162 58 42 100 Water use per household/day  919 530 389 58 42 100 Total all households/non- summer (273 days) (m3) 340,026 196,203 143,823 58 42 100 *Toilets were estimated at 20L/ flush ** Total households = 1,355 (2006 Census)  4.10.2  Summer  Table 4.21 and Figure 4.21 depict these savings when broken down by individual measures/fixtures: an aggressive DM strategy can reduce summer use to 433 from 700 lcd, for a savings of 45% or 347 lcd . The City saves more than 89,000 m3 over the entire summer (92 days).   84 Table 4.21:  Rossland: Summer: Total water savings with DM package (lcd)  Rossland: Summer: Total water savings with DM package(lcd) Water use per person/day (lcd) Current DM Savings % Used % Savings Total Showers 126 60 66 48 52 100 Toilets 120 36 84 30 70 100 Washing Machines 20 8 12 40 60 100 Outdoor Irrigation 194 194 0 100 0 100 ~ over-watering 118 0 110 0 100 100 ~ rain barrels 0 -67 67 0 100 100 Other 202 202 0 100 0 100 Total (all uses) 780 433 347 55 45 100 *Water use per SFU/day  1,872 1,039 833 55 45 100 *Total all SFUs/ summer (92 days) (m3) 200,693 111,340 89,353 55 45 100     85 Figure 4.21  Rossland: Summer water savings per capita: current vs. DM package  ! !"#$ !"%$ "%$ &!"$ #%$ &#$ '$ !"($ %$ )%$ !%%$ !)%$ "%%$ ")%$ &%%$ &)%$ *+,-./0$ 1,23.40$ 560+278$96:+27.0$ ;<4=,,/$>//28642,7$ !" #$ % &' () * "# ) '+ ) ", - . /0#%$1%0#"20. 32&&,)0+4.5677%$.8)#%$.&)1"09&.*%$.()*"#)4.(6$$%0#.1&:.;<.*)(=)9%. ?<//.74$ @9$  4.10.3  Savings Summary  As shown in Table 4.22, the greatest savings at the watershed level from the tourism sector is to ensure proper irrigation of golf courses so they are not overwatered. For illustrative purposes, if each of the 16 courses in the West Kootenays section of the Columbia River Basin (including Kootenay River tributary) averages 24 hectares and overwaters by 20%, annual savings for the watershed during a dry year would be over 211,000 m3—17 times the tourism-related savings from hotels, and almost half domestic savings for Rossland.159  Retrofitting large hotels with a DM package provides the most savings (8,682 m3) in the hospitality industry. On the domestic side, fixing leaks and metering saves the most water (214,904 m3), while a DM package also provides substantial savings (192,291 m3). Overall, Rossland could save nearly 470,000 m3, or more than 4,700 single car garages of water per year were it to adopt all of these practices.   86 Table 4.22:  Rossland: Summary of savings: m3 and garage equivalents  Rossland: Summary of savings: m3 and garage equivalents Tourism annual water savings for Rossland Source Savings (m3) 1 car garage equivalent Watershed level *Not overwatering one, 14 hectare golf course by 20% 5,977 60 Not overwatering sixteen, 24 hectare golf courses by 20% (normal year) 162,048 1,620 Not overwatering sixteen, 24 hectare golf courses by 20% (dry year) 211,200 2,112 Rossland Indoor fixtures (DM package) for a large hotel 8,682 87 Leaks for a large hotel 1,547 15 Rain tank for a large hotel 1,728 17 Tourism total for Rossland 11,957 120 Domestic annual water savings for Rossland Source Savings (m3) 1 car garage equivalent Leaks and metering 214,904 2,149 Indoor fixtures (DM package) 192,291 1,923 Rain tanks 17,292 173 Not overwatering 35,385 354 Domestic total 459,872 4,599 Overall Total (excluding golf course) 471,829 4,718 * It is recognised that Rossland does not provide water for nearby golf courses. This calculation is for illustrative purposes, to reflect on water usage within the entire watershed.  4.11  RECOMMENDATIONS  Outdoor Irrigation and Fire Protection  • Education about IR is needed to help drastically reduce over-watering • Households should be encouraged to minimize lawn coverage (xeriscape).  87 • Because turf grass typically uses 35% more water than vegetables and 25% more water than fruit converting lawn to growing vegetables and/or fruit instead could help conserve water.160 • Existing single family residences, especially those at the forest-residential interface, should install a 5 m3 rain tank. Underground rainwater cisterns should be considered for multi-family dwellings at the forest-residential interface. • New developments should be designed with on-site rain collection of at least 5 m3 per single family unit for outdoor use. • With their large roofs and extensive lawns that are maintained throughout the summer, schools would be an obvious start for rainwater collection and underground water cistern. • Implement and enforce a “conservation schedule” (vs. watering restriction) using One-Day- per-week (for particularly dry years), and Time-of-Day restriction (to eliminate water loss through evaporation). • Encourage proper use of automatic irrigation systems to prevent drastic over-watering.  Indoor  • Introduce a rebate program for low-flow fixtures in existing residences. • Introduce bylaws that require new developments to use only low-flow fixtures. • Encourage new developments to incorporate on-site storage. •  Encourage new developments to incorporate greywater recycling for indoor use once Provincial amendments to wastewater regulations allow for this.161  Overall  • Introduce metering and sub-metering for all residential, commercial, and institutional units with an increasing block rate • Fix leaks on main pipes and encourage end-users to fix their own; consider using a leak detection approach such as the Water Audit Method developed by the International Water Association/ American Water Works Association.162 • Assess the potential for reducing water pressure  4.12  SCENARIOS FOR DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND  Scenarios for domestic water demand for the City of Rossland, Red Mountain, and Redstone have been developed largely based on the Water Demand model developed by Ken Holmes, an engineer living in Rossland. Scenarios were based on a number of reports relating to water use and infrastructure, traffic, and development carried out for the City between 1997 and 2007, along with consultation with city staff. The limited metered data for both residential and commercial use was  88 taken into consideration, as was the broader body of literature relating to water use by sector and urban infrastructure. These scenarios attempt to make sense of inconsistencies in Rossland-specific reports relating to number of housing units, occupancy rates, population and water consumption. Ultimately, a design basis will be necessary to establish criteria for future investigations.  The key differences between this study and previous studies include: 1) Past studies look at water use as a whole, and attempt to project forward. This study attempts to isolate and project residential use. 2) The Holmes scenarios use 2.7 people/unit. This study uses 2.4, the average as given in the 2006 census 3) Past studies do not seem to account for leakage. This study assumes 15% leakage, a conservative estimate given the age of Rossland’s water infrastructure.  Without occupancy data for vacation rentals, lodges, B&Bs, or second homes, it is difficult to get a sense of broader occupancy trends and seasonal population variations.  Assumptions are largely based on observations of Rossland residents, as well as estimates of hotel/motel occupancy rates for the City core, Red Mountain and Redstone.  City bylaws requiring low-flow fixtures for new construction at Redstone and Red Mountain combined with newer water infrastructure means that estimates for water use in these regions is approximately half the City core, with a slight increase in the summer for irrigation. It is noted, however, that many of the dwellings at Redstone and Red Mountain are not single family residences and do not have need for much summer irrigation.  Assumptions  All scenarios assume 2.4 people per household for year-round residents, variable occupancy rates for visitors and seasonal residents, drier summers (based on 2003 and 2007 water use data); and depict water savings from various strategies under the above conditions. Water conservation scenarios assume uptake by all residents. While 100% uptake is unrealistic, it is an attempt to estimate maximum savings from each conservation measure. Scenario 1 is full build-out (maximum growth), while scenario 2 depicts slower growth. Tables included in Scenario 1 show lcd for each conservation strategy, and these lcd estimates remain constant for Scenario 2.   89 4.12.1  Scenario 1: Full Build-Out  The full build-out scenario shows maximum development and associated population growth with varying occupancy rates throughout the year (Table 4.23). A peak population of 18, 269 at Christmas was estimated, where visitors and temporary residents account for about 70% of this peak.  Table 4.23: Scenario 1: Full Build-Out  Variable  Description Climate Longer, drier summers  Based on water use for summers 2003 and 2007 Population Variable occupancy  Occupancy:  City core and Redstone: • 80% permanently occupied with 2.4 people/household  Red Mountain: • 10% occupied with 2.4 people/household; • Remainder has seasonal occupancy as follows: -100% Christmas and New Year -80% during US public holidays and winter -50% during remainder of ski season -20% summer -10% off-season (fall)  Total permanent residents: 4781 Total temporary residents and visitors: 12,950 Winter Maximum: 18,269 Off-season: 6130 Ratio of total to permanent residents: 3.8  Development Full build out • 2000 EUs approved in OCP for Red Mountain • 400 EUs approved in OCP for Redstone • 6 people allowed per EU at Red Mountain and Redstone • 400 potential “infill” units in existing city  4.12.2  Scenario 1a: Full build-out with no conservation  Scenario 1a assumes current levels of lcd for the City core, and estimated lcd for Red Mountain and Redstone as depicted in Table 4.24. Summer use for Redstone is 300 lcd base + 50% of homes using 312 lcd for watering in the summer (current irrigation use). Red Mountain is assumed to be using 200  lcd base + 10% of homes using 312 lcd for watering in the summer.   90 Table 4.24:  Full build-out with no conservation  Full build-out with no conservation Variable  Description Current (lcd) consumption (City)    Estimates for Red Mountain and Redstone Rossland City core • Summer + Sept: 780 • Autumn (Oct, Nov): 370 • Winter: 370 • Spring: 410 Red Mountain • 200 non-summer (base) • 231 summer Redstone • 300 non-summer (base) • 456 summer Water Use  Domestic City Wide (annually) (m3) Rossland City core: 764,686 Red Mountain: 275,943 Redstone: 113,448 Total: 1,154,077    On an annual basis, domestic demand in the City core, Red Mountain, and Redstone make up 66%, 24%, and 10% of the respective total demand, which is just over 1 million m3. On a seasonal basis, however, peak winter average daily demand at Red Mountain would exceed the City core due to an influx of tourists and seasonal residents around Christmas and New Years (Figure 4.22). This pattern reverses in the summer as irrigation demand increases in the City core (and Redstone), and fewer visitors/ seasonal residents remain.  Summer peak daily demand—driven largely by permanent residents and irrigation in the City core-- is 4000 m3; winter peak is higher at 4800 m3, driven by tourists and seasonal residents at Red Mountain. Peak demand at Red Mountain during Christmas and the New Year is about the same as the combined demand of the City core and Redstone at this time.  91 Figure 4. 2:  Rossland Scenario 1: Average daily demand with no conservation  0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 W a te r  d e m a n d  ( c u  m )  Week Rossland Scenario 1: Average daily demand with no conservation Red Mountain Redstone City core   4.12.3  Scenario 1b: Full build-out with aggressive DM package  Scenario 1b (Table 4.25) depicts an aggressive demand management package (low-flow fixtures, rain barrel, and no over-watering).  Table 4.25:  Full build-out with aggressive DM  Full build-out with aggressive DM Variable  Description Water Use Aggressive Demand Management package (lcp) Rossland City core • Summer + Sept: 441 • Autumn: 208 • Winter: 208 • Spring: 248 Red Mountain • 200 non-summer (base) • 213 summer Redstone • 300 non-summer (base) • 364 summer   City Wide (annually) (m3) Rossland City core: 437,439 (46% savings) Red Mountain: 271,110 (1% savings) Redstone: 104,155 (8% savings) Total: 812,704  92  Domestic demand in the City core, Red Mountain, and Redstone now constitute 54%, 33%, and 13% of the respective total annual demand (812,704). Seasonal fluxes continue, with demand at Red Mountain during the winter peak now almost 3 times as much as the City core and Redstone combined (Figure 4.23),Winter peak (3,800 m3) is more than 1,000 m3 above summer peak (2,600 m3), largely due to dramatic reductions in summer irrigation use and installation of indoor fixtures in the City core. An overall reduction of 30% can be achieved through DM compared to Scenario 1-a.  Figure 4.23:  Rossland Scenario 1: Average daily demand with DM  0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 W a te r  d e m a n d  ( c u  m )  Week Rossland Scenario 1: Average daily demand with DM Red Mountain Redstone City core   4.12.4  Scenario 1c: Full Build-Out with Metering and Increasing Block Rate  While the DM package above is extremely effective at reducing both overall use and peak summer demand in the City core, it appears that metering/IBR is more effective at reducing demand at Red Mountain and Redstone. Scenario 1c (Table 4.26) shows metering with an IBR structure.  One notes peak demand of 3,800 under DM, versus peak demand of 3300 with metering/IBR.   93 Table 4.26:  Full build-out with metering and increasing block rate  Full build-out with metering and increasing block rate Variable  Description Water Use Metering and increasing block rate structure (-30%) (lcd) Rossland City core • Summer + Sept: 546 • Autumn: 259 • Winter: 259 • Spring: 287 Red Mountain • 140 non-summer (base) • 162 summer Redstone • 210 non-summer (base) • 319 summer   City Wide (annually) (m3) Rossland City core: 535,280 (30% savings) Red Mountain: 193,160 (30% savings) Redstone: 79,414 (30% savings) Total: 807,854    On an annual basis, domestic demand in the City core, Red Mountain, and Redstone continue to constitute 66%, 24%, and 10% of the respective total demand, given that each region has reduced demand by 30% (Figure 4.24). Seasonal fluxes are the same as scenario 1a, but summer peak and winter peak are also reduced by 30%:  Summer peak daily demand is 2,800m3, while winter peak is 3,300 m3. Peak demand at Red Mountain during Christmas and the New Year is still about the same as the combined demand of the City core and Redstone at this time.  94 Figure 4.24:  Rossland Scenario 1: Average daily demand with metering/ IBR  0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 W a te r  d e m a n d  ( c u  m )  Week Rossland Scenario 1: Average daily demand with metering/IBR Red Mountain Redstone City core   4.12.5  Scenario 1d: Full Build-Out with Maximum Water Savings  This scenario considers full build-out with optimal savings for the City, Red Mountain, and Redstone: an aggressive DM package and leak repair for the City; and metering, IBR, elimination of over-watering and introduction of rain barrels at Red Mountain and Redstone. Overall, water consumption is reduced by 51% in the City core, 34% at Redstone, and 31% at Red Mountain (Table 4.27).   95 Table 4.27: Full build-out with maximum water savings  Full build-out with maximum water savings Variable  Description Water Use Aggressive DM package and leak repair for the City; metering with an IBR at Red and Redstone; and elimination of over-watering and introduction of rain barrels in all three areas. (lcd) Rossland City core • Summer + Sept: 375 •  Autumn: 177 •  Winter: 177 • Spring: 211 Red Mountain • 140 non-summer (base) • 153 summer Redstone • 210 non-summer (base) • 274 summer  City Wide (annually) (m3) Rossland City core: 371,823 (54% savings) Red Mountain: 190,772 (31% savings) Redstone: 74,823 (43% savings) Total: 637,418   Domestic demand in the City core, Red Mountain, and Redstone now constitute 58%, 30%, and 12% of the respective total annual demand (637,418 m3). Seasonal fluxes continue, with demand at Red Mountain during the winter peak now about 1.5 times as much as the City core and Redstone combined (Figure 4.25). Winter peak (2,800 m3) is now only 700 m3 above summer peak (2,100 m3). Winter peak is 42% less than Scenario 1a, while summer peak is half that of Scenario 1a. On an annual basis, this scenario represents a 39% reduction in water use from Scenario 1a of No Conservation, with the greatest savings of 51% realized in the City core.  Figure 4.25:  Rossland Scenario 1: Average daily demand with maximum savings  0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 W a te r  d e m a n d  ( c u  m )  Week Rossland Scenario 1: Average daily demand with maximum savings Red Mountain Redstone City core   96  4.12.6  Comparison of Water Savings  Figure 4.26 depicts water use from the 4 options under a full-build out scenario. The diagram suggests that while “maximum savings” results in the most reduction, significant gains can be realised from introducing other strategies. For example, a DM package would significantly reduce demand in the City core, but would have little effect for Red Mountain and Redstone, as these newer developments would already have low-flow fixtures. In contrast, metering with an IBR would effectively lower consumption by about 30% in all three areas. It is also worth noting that while metering can lower year-round demand, DM with rain barrels—including for the new developments-- can help to reduce the summer peak demand at the most critical time of the year.  Figure 4.26:  Rossland Scenario 1: Strategy comparison  0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 City Core Red Mountain Redstone A n n u a l w a te r c o n s u m p ti o n  ( c u  m ) Rossland Scenario 1: Strategy comparison Current DM Metering and IBR Maximum savings   4.12.7  Scenario 2: Infill and Slower Growth  Table 4.28 outlines the basis for Scenarios 2a-d, which still assume a focus on infill in the City core (1840 units), and 1/4 the development approved in the OCP for Red Mountain (500 EUs) and Redstone (100 EUs). An emphasis on infill was chosen because it reflects “best practices” in urban planning, and it seems likely that regardless of external trends in tourism and second home buying (Red Mountain and Redstone’s significant markets), development in the City core will proceed.  97  In contrast to full build out, visitors and temporary residents account for 57% of the winter maximum population that peaks at almost 9,000 around Christmas.  Table 4.28: Infill and slower growth characteristics  Infill and slower growth characteristics Variable Climate Drier summers  As above Scenario 1  Population Peak based on variable occupancy Variable occupancy as above Scenario 1  Total permanent residents: 3845 Total temporary residents and visitors: 5028 Winter Maximum (Christmas): 8873 Off-season (Nov 28): 4348 Ratio of total to permanent residents: 2.3   4.12.8  Scenario 2a: Slower Growth with No Conservation  Rossland’s summer peak demand is greater than its winter peak, due to fewer people at Red Mountain (Figure 4.27). Peak demand is 3,300 m3, or 1400 m3 less than full build-out (Figure 4.22). Domestic demand in the City core, Red Mountain, and Redstone now constitute 89%, 9%, and 3% of the respective total annual demand (862,033 m3). Demand at Red Mountain during the winter peak accounts for about 1/3 the City core and Redstone combined. Winter peak is 43 % less than Scenario 1a, while summer peak is 17% less than Scenario 1a. On an annual basis, this scenario represents 25% less water use from Scenario 1a.  98 Figure 4.27:  Rossland Scenario 2a: Average daily demand with no conservation  0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 W a te r d e m a n d  ( c u  m ) Week Rossland Scenario 2a: Average daily demand with no conservation Red Mountain Redstone City core   4.12.9  Scenario 2b: Slower growth with DM  As indicated below in Figure 4.28, DM helps to even out summer and winter peaks: Summer peak demand is still slightly higher than winter peak, but the difference is approximately 200 m3. When compared to Full build-out with DM under scenario 1b, peak demand is about 1,600 m3 less (Table 4.23). Domestic demand in the City core, Red Mountain, and Redstone now constitute 82%, 13%, and 5% of the respective total annual demand (531,457 m3). Demand at Red Mountain during the winter peak accounts for about 1/2 the City core and Redstone demand combined. Winter peak is 54% less than Scenario 1b, while summer peak is 27% less than Scenario 1b. On an annual basis, this scenario represents 34% less water use from Scenario 1b.  99 Figure 4.28:  Rossland Scenario 2b: Average daily demand with DM  0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 W a te r d e m a n d  ( c u  m ) Week Rossland Scenario 2b: Average daily demand with DM Red Mountain Redstone City core   4.12.10  Scenario 2c: Slower Growth with Metering and IBR  As seen with all metering/ IBR scenarios, Figure 29 suggests that both winter and summer peaks are moderated, though the variation between the two is greater than with DM. Summer peak demand exceeds winter peak by about 500 m3. When compared to Full build-out with metering/IBR under scenario 1c, peak demand is 1,000 m3 less, and occurs in the summer instead of the winter (Figure 4..24) Domestic demand in the City core, Red Mountain, and Redstone make up 89%, 8%, and 3% of the respective total annual demand (603,423 m3). Demand at Red Mountain during the winter peak accounts for about 1/3 the City core and Redstone demand combined. Winter peak is 42% less than Scenario 1c, while summer peak is 18% less than Scenario 1c. On an annual basis, this scenario represents 25% less water use from Scenario 1c.  100 Figure 4.29:  Rossland Scenario 2c: Average daily demand with metering and IBR  0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 W a te r d e m a n d  ( c u  m ) Week Rossland Scenario 2c: Average daily demand with metering and IBR Red Mountain Redstone City core   4.12.11  Scenario 2d: Slower Growth with Maximum Savings  Figure 4.30 displays the final scenario of slow growth with maximum savings (an aggressive DM package and leak repair for the City; metering with an IBR at Red and Redstone; and elimination of over-watering and introduction of rain barrels in all three areas). Both winter and summer peaks are moderated, with summer exceeding winter by 200 m3. When compared to Full build-out with maximum savings under Scenario 1d, peak demand is 1200 m3 less, and occurs in the summer instead of the winter (Figure 4.25). Domestic demand in the City core, Red Mountain, and Redstone make up 85%, 11%, and 4% of the respective total annual demand (438,222 m3). Demand at Red Mountain during the winter peak accounts for just under 1/2 the City core and Redstone demand combined. Winter peak is 46% less than Scenario 1d, while summer peak is 24% less than Scenario 1d. On an annual basis, this scenario represents 31% less water use from Scenario 1d.  101 Figure 4.30:  Rossland Scenario 2d: Average daily demand with maximum savings  0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 W a te r d e m a n d  ( c u  m ) Week Rossland Scenario 2d: Average daily demand with maximum savings Red Mountain Redstone City core   4.12.12   Scenario 2: Comparison of Water Savings  Figure 4.31 compares the 4 water use regimes under a Slower Growth scenario: current and estimated lcd use; an aggressive demand management package (low-flow fixtures, leak repair, rain barrel, and no over-watering); metering with IBR; and a maximum savings combination. Because Scenario 2 focuses on infill, per capita use for the City core is the same as Scenario 1 with 1,840 EUs. Similarly to Scenario 1, certain strategies are more effective for reducing water in some areas than others: DM would be highly effective in the City core, while metering/IBR would be more effective for Red Mountain and Redstone.   102 Figure 4.31:  Rossland Scenario 2: Strategy comparison  0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 City Core Red Mountain Redstone A n n u a l w a te r u s e  ( c u  m ) Rossland Scenario 2: Strategy Comparison Current DM Metering and IBR Maximum Savings    Table 4.29 summarises the scenarios. It depicts the lcd for the City core, Red Mountain and Redstone on a seasonal basis, as well as the water savings from each scenario, and the overall water savings in terms of m3 and percentage savings.   103 Table 4.29:  Rossland Scenario 1 and 2 summary table  Scenarios a-d Summer (Sept included) Fall Winter Spring Non- summer Summer Non- summer Summer Scenario a 780 370 370 410 200 231 300 456 Scenario b 421 158 178 208 200 313 200 364 Scenario c 532 224 238 259 140 161 140 316 Scenario d 358 134 151 177 140 153 140 204 Scenario 1 Full Build-out Total Rossland City (m3) Total Red Mnt (m3) Total Redstone (m3) Overall total (m3) Savings (m3) Savings (%) Scenario 1-a 764,686 275,943 113,448 1,154,077 0 0.00 Scenario 1-b 437,439 271,110 104,155 812,704 341,373 30 Scenario 1-c 535,280 193,160 79,414 807,854 346,223 30 Scenario 1-d 371,823 190,772 74,823 637,418 516,659 45 Scenario 2 Slow Growth Total Rossland City (m3) Total Red Mnt (m3) Total Redstone (m3) Overall total (m3) Savings (m3) Savings (%) Scenario 2-a 764,686 68,986 28,362 862,033 0 0 25 Scenario 2-b 437,439 67,979 26,039 531,457 330,576 38 35 Scenario 2-c 535,280 48,290 19,853 603,423 258,610 30 25 Scenario 2-d 371,823 47,693 18,706 438,222 423,812 49 31 Rossland (lcpd) Red Mnt (lcpd) Redstone (lcpd) % less than Scenario 1 (same intervention)   4.12.13  Conclusion  The “maximum savings” scenarios combining DM and metering/IBR conserves the most water under both full build-out and slow growth scenarios. Metering/IBR is the second best approach for full build-out, while DM is the second most effective strategy for slow growth. Options for water conservation vary in cost and effectiveness, but ultimately, water conservation strategies for Rossland will depend on the City’s priorities, perceived water stress, valuation of the various gains outlined in section 2.2. and vision of future development.  4.13.1  Tourism Summary  How does tourism currently affect Rossland’s seasonal water supply fluctuations?  It is difficult to determine the effect of tourism on water supply due to the lack of data surrounding tourism in Rossland. Water use per capita at Red Mountain appears to be several times higher than the city, but, as discussed, other factors apart from seasonal tourist use could help explain higher use.  It is also worth considering whether there are alternative methods to flushing that are less water-intense to prevent the Red Mountain area from going septic.   104 To what extent will tourism determine Rossland’s future infrastructure requirements?  Based on the maximum allowable units approved for Redstone and Red Mountain in the OCP, tourism will be a primary driver for future water infrastructure expansion, especially if serious conservation efforts are not in place. Scenarios 1 and 2 clearly show 2 distinct peak demand periods in the winter and summer, the winter being largely tourism-driven. Full build-out demonstrates winter peak demand at Red Mountain exceeding demand in the City and Redstone combined, even with maximum water savings in place.  How can the City best plan to minimize the impact of tourism on its surrounding water resources, reduce costly infrastructure upgrades, and incorporate aspects of climate change adaptation into tourism-related policies?  The 2008 OCP suggests Rossland’s intention to put measures in place to reduce the impact of future tourism-related development on water resources. Importantly, Rossland has decided not to provide water for snow making or golf course irrigation. The OCP also outlines “cost recovery” as an objective “for all major off-site services and infrastructure, including ….water,” as well as required metering for residential and commercial developments for both Red Mountain and Redstone.163 Metering with an IBR will help to meet the objective of cost recovery, especially where maintenance and operation are concerned. Xeriscaping and promoting “efficient use of water and reducing) water consumption wherever possible” are also important objectives.  While developments at Redstone are required to use “water efficient features”, the same conditions do not appear to exist for Red Mountain. The City should adopt an overall design guideline that requires any new development within the City boundaries to use water efficient technologies (see below under “General”).  4.13.2  General Strategies  How can the City best plan to minimize the impact of any development on its surrounding water resources, reduce costly infrastructure upgrades, and incorporate aspects of climate change adaptation into all development policies?  Stringent development guidelines requiring the adoption of water efficient fixtures and landscaping for all new and existing developments. Beyond the usual fixture package, rain barrels should be required for new developments, and encouraged for existing ones. Large institutions like schools, with large roofs and high irrigation requirements, should consider installing a rain cistern for irrigation purposes.  105  4.13.3  Climate Change Adaptation  Reducing overall water use and decentralizing water supplies for non-potable uses are two ways to increase local resilience to climate change uncertainty. On-site water storage will be especially important during longer, drier summers to help minimize fire hazards on properties adjacent to forests. Rainwater collection will also help the City to “minimise reliance on base creek flows”, as identified under the Water Policies section of the 2008 OCP.164 The City should consider incorporating on-site water storage into its Wildfire Hazard design guidelines, and encourage installation among existing properties close to forests. As with snow, water capture (gutters) and storage (cistern) should be taken into account in the planning, development, and operation of each new building.  A golf course proposal galvanized public awareness around water quality and quantity issues. Introducing progressive water conservation measures, as well as initiating a water quality monitoring program (e.g. a “Streamkeepers” group) would help to translate awareness into meaningful action, and also establish a quality baseline against which future development could be compared.   106  CHAPTER 5:  INVERMERE CASE STUDY   5.1  BACKGROUND  The District of Invermere (DOI) is located in the Columbia Valley of Southeastern British Columbia, near the headwaters of the Columbia River. At 859 meters, it is situated on the northwest shore of Lake Windermere, surrounded by the Rocky Mountains to the east and Purcell Mountains to the west. While the DOI receives some winter tourists bound for Panorama ski resort 18 kms away, the town is best known as a popular summer destination that largely caters to people from Calgary.  The DOI will often be referred to as “Invermere” throughout this report. The area in question refers to that within the municipal boundaries of the DOI and does not include land bordering the District owned by the Shuswap Band.  Table 5.1 recaps community attributes from Chapter 3.  Table 5.1:  Invermere Characteristics  Community Invermere Location East Kootenays, B.C. Elevation 859 m (2,818 ft) Permanent population (2006) Permanent population trend 3,002 Increasing Demand Management Measures Metering residential and commercial since 2002 Municipal Water Supply Goldie Creek Water Storage Paddy Ryan Lakes system Primary Tourism activities Lake-side recreation, golf, skiing Data Availability Some residential metering; flow volumes from treatment plant; some hotel occupancy rates; ski visit data Tourist-driven population increase Summer (smaller winter for skiing)  5.1.1  Population  The population of Invermere has grown at an average rate of about 2% since 1986. The town experienced a boom of 21.7% growth between 1991 and 1996; this slowed to 6.4% growth between 1996 and 2001 (Figure 5.1).165 The 2006 census indicates growth slowed to 5%, and a recent study conducted for the DOI projects a growth rate of 2.7% for the next 25 years.166   107 However, development pressures to construct approximately 5,500 new housing units translates into a tripling of the current population. While many of the new residents will be seasonal, they will still put pressure on water supplies during peak demand. Based on 2003-2007 data, the maximum value for highest usage in the summer is 1850 lcd while peak winter demand is 515 lcd— variation by a factor of 3.5. Invermere’s Official Community Plan (2001) outlined a low growth scenario with a permanent population of 3,545 by 2010. The high growth scenario projected a permanent population of 6,075 by 2010, and 8,130 by 2015. However, population projections in the OCP and various water studies do not appear to take into account the current development projects such as Castle Rock. Altogether, nearly 5,836 units are being proposed in Invermere. Over a 30 year period, this would amount to 195 units per year, far above the average of 53 units/year seen between 2000-2005. Figure 5. 1:  Invermere Permanent Population (1991-2006) !" #!!" $%!!!" $%#!!" &%!!!" &%#!!" '%!!!" '%#!!" $(($" $(()" &!!$" &!!)" ! " # $ %& '( " ) * +,&-* .)/,-0,-,*!"#$%&'(")*12332456678*  5.1.2  Housing  According to the 2006 census, 84% (1196) of the 1420 occupied dwellings in Invermere were occupied by their “usual residents,” 8% less than the provincial average of 92%. Single detached houses account for 72% of the occupied private dwellings, while apartments and duplexes together constitute about 22%.167  5.2  TOURISM   108 Tourism is expected to grow in the DOI region, and this raises a series of questions: What are the tourism trends and how does tourism currently affect Invermere’s seasonal water supply fluctuations? To what extent will tourism determine Invermere’s future infrastructure requirements? How can the DOI best plan to minimize the impact of tourism on its surrounding water resources, reduce costly infrastructure upgrades, and incorporate aspects of climate change adaptation into tourism-related policies?  5.2.1  Information Gathered  Censuses measure permanent population, but there appears to be no reliable tourism statistics to determine the seasonable influx of tourists in the DOI. Numbers of overnight guests and occupancy rates for accommodations in Invermere were difficult to find. Accommodation owners and property rental management companies declared they a) did not have this information; b) did not have it in an easily accessible form (e.g. would be difficult to determine Invermere-specific rentals, as the company covers a large region and the number of properties that are available vary month by month); and/or c) were not willing to share it. Consequently, the following analysis is based on estimates from incomplete data pertaining to room revenues for hotels (with 1-75 rooms), motels and vacation rentals.168  5.2.2  Revenues  Tourism revenue in the Kootenay Rockies region steadily grew between 2000-2006. From 2006 to 2007, revenue for the region increased by 10.3 %, with revenue in the East Kootenays growing by 5.4%.169 Without occupancy data for vacation rentals, lodges, B&Bs, or second homes, it is difficult to get a sense of broader occupancy trends and seasonal population variations.  Based on information available in the DOI business directory, it was estimated that Invermere represents roughly 13% of the hotels (with 1-75 rooms), motels and vacation rentals for the East Kootenay region. Monthly revenue information for the region was downscaled to Invermere. Figure 5.2 indicates seasonal revenues for Invermere and the East Kootenay region, with winter and summer peaks and lower tourist activity in the off-seasons.    109 Figure 5.2:  Accommodation revenue (2007)    5.2.3  Winter  The Kootenay Rockies region accounts for 32% (571) of the province’s ski runs, with the largest resort, Panorama, making up 7.2%.170 Skiing /snowboarding are the primary tourist activities that draw people to Invermere during the winter from outside the region. In an effort to understand how many tourists are using the facilities/ staying overnight, an attempt was made to collect data with respect to ski lift tickets and occupancy rates for hotels in town.171 Apart from a general note that most visitors stay overnight and are from areas beyond the day skier commute, detailed information was not made available.  5.2.4  Summer  As noted above with annual revenues, summer is the primary tourist season when people are drawn to Lake Windermere for summer recreation largely focused on water-based activities (swimming, boating, fishing). Local residents have suggested the population doubles in the summer, but reliable, year-round data is needed to confirm this.   110 5.2.5  Tourism Trends  Like many industries, tourism is affected by many external factors, making it difficult to project into the future. Because the US accounts for the single largest source of foreign visitors in the province, changes south of our border can have a dramatic effect on tourism. American visitor numbers has been declining each year since 2001, and continued to drop (-6.5%) in 2006. Changes in exchange rates, travel restrictions (e.g. passport requirements), costs of travel (e.g. gas prices, carbon taxes) and expendable income (reduced due to the credit crisis in the US) all effect people’s holiday choices. Of all these factors, the credit crisis and economic slowdown are impacting the housing market, as many American would-be second home-buyers are choosing to be more conservative with their spending.   Fundamentally, winter tourism will depend on snow. As alluded to in Chapter 2, it is difficult to generalize projections for snowfall, the extent of snow cover, and snowpack development for the Columbia Basin because these variables are highly dependent on local conditions and topography. Despite local uncertainty, winters are expected to warm, with greater precipitation and more of it in the form of rain than snow. While this seems especially the case for lower elevations, a general continuation of snowpack decline is projected.172  5.2.6  Water-Tourism Link   Because summer tourism is largely lake dependent, the DOI must manage competing interests for water. These include water for recreation, ecosystem services, and more recently, as a new source of drinking water. Climate change projections for warmer temperatures suggest higher evaporation rates combined with reductions in stream flows.   These natural changes by themselves will likely result in lower lake levels during the summer, effectively concentrating uses over a smaller water volume. It is also important for the DOI to consider how increasing groundwater withdrawals from nearby aquifers will impact the lake, both in terms of quantity: reduced groundwater flows into Lake Windermere; and quality: reduced groundwater flows could result in a larger temperature increase than climate change alone, jeopardizing suitable habitat for salmon and increasingly the likelihood of algae blooms.  5.3 CLIMATE  Invermere has a temperate, semi-arid climate characterised by warm summers and cool winters with heavy snowfall. The average winter temperature is around -6, and average summer temperature is around 17C, with highs in the upper 30s C. In the following graphs, trend lines are  111 shown, but the record is too short to draw conclusions apart from those suggested by longer range climate models, which predict greater variability and uncertainty with snow accumulation and precipitation (Hamlet et. al). The Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test for significance was used to identify significant climatic changes during the period 1969-2007. Climate data was split into three time periods (below) and compared to each other. Time periods were partially based on regional observations from the effects of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.  Period 1) 1969-1976 Period 2) 1977-1997 Period 3) 1998-2007  A significant increase in extreme maximum summer temperatures was noted between the 2nd and 3rd period (last 20 years), while summer precipitation increased between periods 1 and 2 (1969- 1997) (Figure 5.3). Mean winter temperatures increased significantly between the 1st and 2nd periods, as well as 2nd and 3rd (Figure 5.4). Spring also saw an increase in precipitation between the 1st and 2nd periods, while no significant changes were noted for autumn (Appendix 4.3:  Significance Tests).  Figure 5.3:  Kootenay Park Annual summer climate  !" #!" $!" %&!" %'!" &!!" &#!" &$!" (&!" ('!" )*" !" *" %!" %*" &!" &*" (!" (*" #!" % + ' + " % + , ! " % + , % " % + , & " % + , ( " % + , # " % + , * " % + , ' " % + , , " % + , $ " % + , + " % + $ ! " % + $ % " % + $ & " % + $ ( " % + $ # " % + $ * " % + $ ' " % + $ , " % + $ $ " % + $ + " % + + ! " % + + % " % + + & " % + + ( " % + + # " % + + * " % + + ' " % + + , " % + + $ " % + + + " & ! ! ! " & ! ! % " & ! ! & " & ! ! ( " & ! ! # " & ! ! * " & ! ! ' " - & ! ! , " ! "# $% & %' ( '% ) * +, - - .+ /# - & # "( '0 "# +, 1 .+ 2#("+ 3))'#*(4+!("5+(**0(6+70--#"+$6%-('#+ ./012"345678"9::;" <51=".5:8" >?04"<1?".5:8" >?04"<7=".5:8" @7=5149./012"345678"9::;;" @7=5149<51=".5:8;" @7=5149>?04"<1?".5:8;" @7=5149>?04"<7=".5:8;"  112 Figure 5.4: Kootenay Park annual winter climate !" #!" $!" %!" &!" '!!" '#!" '$!" '%!" '&!" #!!" ($!" ()*" ()!" (#*" (#!" ('*" ('!" (*" !" *" '!" '*" #!" ' + % + " ' + , ' " ' + , ) " ' + , * " ' + , , " ' + , + " ' + & ' " ' + & ) " ' + & * " ' + & , " ' + & + " ' + + ' " ' + + ) " ' + + * " ' + + , " ' + + + " # ! ! ' " # ! ! ) " # ! ! * " - # ! ! , " ! "# $% & %' ( '% ) * +, - - .+ /# - & # "( '0 "# +, 1 .+ 2#("+ 3))'#*(4+!("5+(**0(6+7%*'#"+$6%-('#+ ./012"345678"9::;" <51=".5:8"" >?04"<1?".5:8"" >?04"<7=".5:8" @7=5149./012"345678"9::;;" @7=5149<51=".5:8";" @7=5149>?04"<1?".5:8";" @7=5149>?04"<7=".5:8;"   5.4  WATER SUPPLY  Water for the DOI is currently supplied by Goldie Creek and stored in the Paddy Ryan Lakes reservoir system-- three artificial lakes west of the DOI. The lakes are contained in depressions and separated by earthen dams.  A total of 18 licenses are held for Goldie Creek, amounting to 6, 427, 453 m3  year.  Six belong to the DOI, amounting to 4,265,842 m3 annually (66% of total licenses), while 12 smaller licenses are held by individuals (Appendix 1 Table 5.62). Because flow data is not available for Goldie Creek, it is difficult to determine how licenses compare to actual flows during critical times of the year. However, the DOI is developing Athalmer’s groundwater and considering Lake Windermere as a source to help meet growing demand, especially during the summer peak. Planning consultants have suggested that the DOI strongly consider adopting a DM strategy to be more efficient using existing sources, and help delay infrastructure upgrade costs. Reducing outdoor use and managing the rate of development are also critical.173   113 5.5  WATER USE  Invermere started to implement universal metering for commercial and residential use in 1998. The project cost was estimated at $350,000, resulting in approximately 1.2 million litres per year in water savings.174 Many residential and commercial meters had been installed by 2007, but the DOI had yet to install meters for summer cabins. Summer water restrictions and bylaws are also common to curb overuse.  5.5.1  Current Residential Water Use  Information for this section is derived from billing data from the DOI, as well as work carried out by Urban Systems.  Figure 5.5 shows the breakdown of water use by sector, as well as unmetered use. Residential use accounts for between 35-47%, commercial varies between 9- 13%, and irrigation use averages less than 1%. Unmetered use is substantial: between 39- 52 % of water taken from Paddy Ryan Lakes is unaccounted for. Unmetered use includes irrigation by the DOI, which installed meters on its own irrigation for public parks and public green spaces in 2007 (data unavailable). It could also include water used for street cleaning, sewer rehabilitation, fire fighting, illegal connections, meter inaccuracies, accounting errors, in addition to water lost through leakages and/or breaks.175 Irrigation use is compounded by the gravelly soils that do not hold much water.176   114 Figure 5.5:  Invermere: Metered water use by sector  !""#"$$% !&'#()&% !(*#++*% !*(#,'!-,'% ('+#',+% (',#(()% "$#$((% (()!&+-$% *#"+,% $#',&% (#,,,% "#*!)-!'% !(&#*&,% !*"#,+)% &&*#*"!% &+)#("'% '% (''#'''% +''#'''% !''#'''% &''#'''% $''#'''% )''#'''% "''#'''% *''#'''% ,''#'''% (#'''#'''% +''&% +''$% +'')% +''"% ! " # $% & ' () " # *+ & , -* ./01* 2#3/1&/1/4*5/(/1/6*70(/1*%$/*89*$/:("1* ./0121314%.51% 63378927:/%.51% ;:0013<79=%.51% >15741/279=%.51% * Billed from October of the previous year to September of the current year. Adapted from Urban Systems (2005).  5.5.2  DOI  It was difficult to determine seasonal domestic use per capita because metered data was not available on a seasonal or monthly basis; and data from the Paddy Ryan Lakes intake, available on a monthly basis, did not correspond with metered data: roughly 47% of water was unaccounted for.  Given these uncertainties, domestic consumption was arrived at in the following manner:  1) Metered residential usage was determined as a percent of the monthly Paddy Ryan Lakes (PR) outflow; 2) Annual metered residential volume was divided by the population to determine the average monthly usage. 3) The number of residential connections was compared to the population (# connections* 2.4 to get number of households). When calculated this way, the population is larger, and this difference could be due to tourism.   115 When per capita consumption is estimated in this way, the average annual domestic usage is about 330 lcd, with seasonal variations depicted below in Figure 5.6. Winter average use is 240 lcd, spring is 295 lcd, summer average use is 500 lcd, while fall is 270 lcd.177  Figure 5.6:  Invermere: Seasonal water use lcd (2003-2007)    While the town has reduced consumption—30% by some accounts178--water use can still be curtailed. Figure 5.7 depicts water use per capita between 2004 and 2007. Consumption follows the predictable summer peak in July and August when use is double that of fall/winter.  116 Figure 5.7:  Invermere water use lcd (2003-2007)    5.5.3  Tourism: Skiing  Located 18 kms west of the town, Panorama Ski Resort is situated in the Toby Creek watershed. Access to the Resort is through the District of Invermere, and many resort staff live in town. The resort is designed to accommodate 6,000 sleeping units, and many more skiers daily.179 The proposed site for the year round Jumbo Glacier Resort is 55 km west of Invermere. Still highly controversial, it would have over 6,000 bed units and share the same initial access as Panorama.  5.5.4  Tourism: Golf   Tourism B.C. suggests that over the two year period between 2004-2006, B.C. attracted 839,000 golfers from Canada and 1.12 million from the US.  Of the Canadians, 306,000 were from Alberta and 272,000 were from B.C.. Nearly 25% of golf rounds were played by destination golfers who collectively spent $330 million on travel related to their golf activity.180 According to the Kootenay Rockies Golf Tracking Report (2006), about $81 million or 9% of the tourism revenues were generated from the 23 golf courses in the Kootenay Rockies. Between 2000 and 2006, green fee rounds increased by 39%.181   The East Kootenays (Columbia Valley) is one of the top destination regions for golf in the province. In 2005, the region’s 8 courses injected $75 million into the local economy.182 Many courses are planning to expand development with hotels, commercial space, and residential units.   117 5.5.4.1  Golf Water Use  As with Rossland, many golf courses are not using water provided by municipalities but rely on their own private (non-RDEK) water utilities. Consequently, a “watershed perspective”, effective communication and coordination among multiple private water providers is critical to ensure the sustainable management of water for the region.   Information relating to development and/or water use for golf courses was not forthcoming, and data was obtained from only one golf course with an irrigated area of 24 hectares. Irrigation requirements for turf grass were compared with IR for golf courses in the Okanagan basin, and 2007 precipitation data for Kootenay Park was used. Based on water use data from 2003-2007, it appears between 5,000 m3 and 7,300 m3 of water were used per ha/year (Figure 5.8).183 This range is considerably more than the irrigation requirements for the region, even during a drier summer with 20% overwatering (Table 5.2). It is also higher than the average water applied per hectare in Canada’s driest watershed, the Okanagan, where average water/hectare/year for a course of similar size is between 4,000 m3 and 5,000 m3. 184 A comparison between normal and dry years suggests that a water restriction must be in place: in contrast to an expected increase, less water was applied per hectare during 2003 than 2004 (Table 5.2).  Figure 5.8:  Invermere: Golf course water use:  applied vs. requirement !" #$!!!" %$!!!" &$!!!" '$!!!" ($!!!" )$!!!" *$!!!" +$!!!" ,%!!&" %!!'" %!!)" %!!*" ! " #$ % &' ( )% #* % ( )+ ,%()+ -./%)!%)%0+1234+&25)6%+7('%)+56%0+(8839%:+/6;+)%<59)%!%.'+ -./01".223405" 61147./489":0;<410=09/"   118 * Incomplete data set starting in July; extrapolated April-June use from 2004-2005 data.   Table 5.2:  Invermere: Golf course irrigation requirements  Invermere: Golf course irrigation requirements Normal Year (2004) Golf course (m3) m3 /hectare/year m3month m3/day IR Golf Course  0.38 IR for irrigated area 92,511 3,810 18,502 597 Precipitation (m) 0.14 Precipitation for irrigated area  (m3) 33,994 1,400 6,799 219 IR remaining (no overwatering) 58,517 2,410 11,703 378 Typical 20% overwatering 11,703 482 2,341 76 Irrigation expected 70,221 2,892 578 19 Observed irrigation 160,119 6,594 1,319 43 Observed difference (overwatering)  101,602 3,702 740 24  Dry Year (2003) Golf course (m3) m3 /hectare/year m3month m3/day IR Golf Course 1 0.38 IR for irrigated area 92,511 3,810 762 25 Precipitation (m) 0.08 Precipitation for irrigated area  (m3) 19,911 820 164 5 IR remaining (no overwatering) 72,600 2,990 598 19 Typical 20% overwatering 14,520 598 120 4 Irrigation expected 87,121 3,588 718 23 *Observed irrigation 122,086 5,028 1,006 32 Observed difference (overwatering) 49,486 1,440 288 9 Difference between normal and dry year Expected additional irrigation in dry year (with 20% overwatering) 16,900 696 139 4 Expected additional irrigation in dry year (with NO overwatering) 14,083 580 116 4 * Irrigation estimates were made for 2003 due to an incomplete data set for this summer. These estimates suggest that less irrigation was applied during the dry summer of 2003 than "normal" summer 2004.  The dry summer of 2007 also had less irrigation than 2004 (40% less), possibly due to watering restrictions.  119   A second course just outside the DOI boundary was developed in 2000, and land has been allotted for expansion that would make it approximately 120 acres, or 48 hectares.185 It draws water from three wells near the Columbia River with a combined output of about 4 million litres per day.186 The actual size of the irrigated area was not made available, thus estimates for irrigation requirements cannot be made.   Although the second golf course is also outside the DOI, water use there will affect the overall water availability for other purposes, including recharge rates in aquifers. In a 2007 report, it was determined that this golf course would not need irrigation wells because the “Shuswap Creek Aquifer is sufficient to provide water to the proposed band member population within the Reserve until 2020 and beyond.”187  5.5.5  Current Water Use and Climate  The most obvious impact of climate on water demand is seen during the summer for irrigation. Summer water use between 2003 and 2007 indicates that higher water use corresponds with higher maximum temperatures (Figure 5.9) and lower precipitation (Figure 5.10). Water demand here is not represented on a per capita basis, but taken from the total; thus it includes residential, commercial and institutional (e.g. school yards and public parks) demand, as well as water unaccounted for (see 5.9.7  Leaks). Graphs depicting water use, temperature and precipitation for Winter, Spring and Fall can be found in Appendix 5.2:  Climate Data and Water Use.   120 Figure 5.9:  Invermere: Summer temperatures and water use (2003-2007)  !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '!!$!!!" ('!)!" (&!)!" (%!)!" !)!" %!)!" &!)!" '!)!" *!)!" &!!'" &!!*" &!!#" &!!+" &!!," ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& -$ * . $ %" #/ %$ &) 01 ,& 2$"%& 345$%*$%$6&7/**$%&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"48&9"#$%&/($&):;;+<:;;=,& -./01"230"45'6" 70.8"905:"4;<6" =>/1"7.>"905:"4;<6" =>/1"7?8"905:"4;<6"   121 Figure 5.10:  Invermere: Summer precipitation and water use (2003-2007)  !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" (!!$!!!" (#!$!!!" #!!$!!!" !" #!" %!!" %#!" &!!" &#!" '!!" '#!" &!!'" &!!(" &!!#" &!!)" &!!*" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& - %$ ./ 0 /# " #/ 1 2 &) * * ,& 3$"%& 425$%*$%$6&78**$%&0%$./0/#"#/12&"29&:"#$%&8($&);<<+=;<<>,& +,-./"01."23'4" 5/.6787-,-79:"2334"  Regressions comparing water use, temperature and precipitation offer four observations (see Appendix 5.4:  Climate and Water Use Correlation). Observations from water use and climate data suggest the following:  1)  Precipitation and X-max temperature have a greater effect on water use than mean temperature. 2)  A reduction of about 100 mm of rain corresponds with an increase in water use of about 35,000 m3 for all of Invermere, or 100 lcd. 3)  An increase of 1 °C above the extreme maximum temperature of 34°C corresponds with a 30,000 m3 increase in water use for all of Invermere, or 110 lcd. 4)  An increase of 1 °C above the average mean temperature of 16 °C corresponds with a 15,000 m3 increase in water use for all of Invermere, or 54 lcd.   122 Table 5.3 presents the effects of temperature and precipitation on summer water use in a slightly different way. The following observations can be made, where “R” and “T” signify “full time Residents” and “including Tourists” respectively:  1)  For the given five year period, the hottest summer was also the driest summer. 2)  For the given five year period, the coolest summer was also the wettest summer. 3)  An increase in mean temperature of 2.7°C, and an increase in extreme maximum temperature of 3°C corresponds with an increase in water use of 490 lcd (R) or  410 lcd (T). 4)  Based on average temperature, an increase in 1°C corresponds with an increase in water use of between 100 lcd (T) and 125 lcd (R). 5)  A decrease in precipitation of about 10 mm corresponds with an increase in water use of between 44 lcd (T) and 53 lcd (R).   123 Table 5.2:  Invermere: Effects of temperature and precipitation on summer water use  Invermere: Effects of temperature and precipitation on summer water use Mean Temp X Max Temp X Min Temp Total Precip Summer average (June- Aug) Monthly average Daily average per capita (2006 census) Daily average per capita + tourists Hot vs. Cool (°C) (°C) (°C) (mm) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) Hotter summer (2003) 18.9 37.0 5.0 82 429,687 143,229 1.56 1.29 Cooler summer (2005) 16.2 34.0 3.0 335 293,070 97,690 1.06 0.88 "Normal" summer average (1969- 2007) 17.2 34.4 3.0 146 n/a n/a n/a n/a Recent year closest to "normal" temperatures (2007) 16.8 35 2 87 361,520 120,507 1.31 1.08 Difference between hotter and "closest normal" (hotter-normal) 2.1 2.0 3.0 -5 68,166 22,722 0.25 0.20 Difference between cooler and "closest normal" (cooler-normal) -0.6 -1.0 1.0 249 -68,451 -22,817 -0.25 -0.21 Difference between hotter and cooler (hotter-cooler) 2.7 3.0 2.0 -254 136,617 45,539 0.49 0.41 Dry vs. wet Drier summer (2003) 18.9 37.0 5.0 82 429,687 143,229 1.56 1.29 Wetter summer (2005) 16.2 34.0 3.0 335 293,070 97,690 1.06 0.88 "Normal" summer average (1969- 2007) 17.2 34.4 3.0 146 n/a n/a n/a n/a Recent year closest to "normal" precipitation (2004) 18.8 36.0 4.0 137 356,726 118,909 1.29 1.07 Difference between drier and "closest normal" (drier-normal) 0.1 1.0 1.0 -56 72,961 24,320 0.26 0.22 Difference between wetter and "closest normal" (wetter-normal) -2.7 -2.0 -1.0 198 -63,656 -21,219 -0.23 -0.19 Difference between drier and wetter (drier-wetter) 2.7 3.0 2.0 -254 136,617 45,539 0.49 0.41 Climate Water use   While five years of data is not sufficient to make precise calculations, this time frame can still prove helpful in determining future water demand under various climate scenarios. The above graphs suggest that current climate trends could increase summer water use due to higher temperatures, longer growing seasons extending into September, and more frequent fires. One of the best adaptive management options for this is aggressive demand management.  5.6  AGGRESSIVE DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES  5.6.1  Why Reduce  5.6.1.1  Economic Incentive  The size/ capacity for many aspects of municipal water treatment and distribution systems is based on peak demand, i.e., during hot, drier periods in the summer. Most municipalities are able to meet peak demands over short time periods. However, peak demands that are extremely high or that  124 last over longer time periods can dramatically draw down water storage, sometimes resulting in lower system pressures or jeopardising the city’s ability to fight fires.  A system designed for peak demand is under-used and over-sized the rest of the year. The Ontario Water Works Association estimates that the price tag for adding an extra 1,000m3 of capacity is between $500,000-$2 million, yet revenues from selling “peak day water” are far less than the cost of expanding infrastructure to accommodate growth during this time. Consequently, municipalities experiencing growth can save millions of dollars by cutting peak demand and the need for more infrastructure.188 Because peak demand is largely the result of summer irrigation by commercial and residential users, reducing water use at this critical time can be done relatively easily.  In light of growing pressure on local water supplies, where can Invermere realize the biggest savings in water use in the residential and tourism sectors? How can Invermere cut its peak demand?  5.6.1.2  Environmental Considerations  The environmental imperative is also important. Cutting water use will reduce water drawn from streams, lakes, and aquifers, leaving more water for other species and ecosystem services. In Ontario, it has been estimated that the energy savings from the water distribution and treatment system could amount to 0.8 kg of green house gas (GHG) for every 1 m3 of water saved. The calculations for B.C. would be less given that much of our energy is derived from hydro power, but the message remains: a home that reduces its summer irrigation by 100 litres a day would help lower GHG emissions by about 7.4 kg each summer. If 1000 households reduce their irrigation in this way, 7400 kgs of GHG emissions—over 7 metric tonnes-- could be saved each summer.  5.6.1.3  Climate Change Adaptation  As mentioned in Chapter 2, increased annual temperatures are expected, along with higher precipitation, greater variability in precipitation, and drier summers. We are seeing earlier spring runoff and lower late summer stream flows, with a predicted 20% reduction in peak stream flow. The combination of higher summer temperatures, reduced summer precipitation and low runoff in the Columbia Basin will raise the potential for drought and forest fires. Communities are being encouraged to prepare their industries and domestic users for change, to “develop flexibility and prepare for surprises”. How can saving water help to off-set these effects? How can demand management help to prepare communities and enhance their flexibility? What possibilities exist for the tourism and residential sectors?   125 This section suggests that adopting low-flow fixtures for both tourism-related and domestic use will drastically cut consumption. Encouraging on-site capture and storage of rainwater will further enhance water storage capacity at the household/ hotel level, enabling individuals and industry to help meet their own water demand during the summer. Eliminating over-watering across sectors is also critical, resulting in significant water savings.  5.7  TOURISM  5.7.1  Golf  While generalizations cannot be made from the one golf course, it does raise an important question regarding the actual amount of (over) watering among the 7 other courses in the Columbia Valley watershed. Over-watering by 20% is not unusual for golf courses. Estimates above (Table 5.35) suggest that between 480 and 600 m3/hectare could be saved each year from eliminating this excess. Golf courses should also re-consider the area they require to be green, and use native plants that do not require watering around the course (xeriscape).  5.7.2  Accommodation  5.7.2.1  Low-Flow Fixtures  Visitor numbers from Tourism B.C. were combined with revenues from hotels (1-75 rooms), motels and vacation rentals in the East Kootenays to arrive at a general idea of numbers of people per night in Invermere. According to 2007 data, accommodation in Invermere accounts for about 13% of the total in the region.189 The number of rooms and revenues for Invermere were estimated, and the difference in revenues between seasons was applied as a ratio to estimate seasonal occupancy rates, using the provincial average occupancy rate for 2007 (67%) as a guideline (Table 5.4).   126 Table 5.4:  Invermere seasonal occupancy rates  Invermere Seasonal occupancy rates Season Occupancy % # people/day # people/season Winter 70 484 43,524 Spring 60 415 38,135 Summer 90 622 57,203 Autumn 40 276 25,147 Average 65 449 40,415 Year total  2,245 204,425  Estimates based on this information were made to assess potential savings from converting conventional 13L toilets, showerheads and washing machines to low-flow varieties. As indicated in Table 5.5, total savings for 2007 were over 34,000 m3. Of this, 27% of those savings occur in the winter and 35% savings are realised during the peak summer low flow period.  Table 5.5:  Invermere: Water savings in hotels/motels and vacation rentals  Invermere: Water savings in hotels/motels and vacation rentals (m3)  # People Water savings from converting to low-flow shower Water savings from converting to low flow toilets  from *13L toilets Water savings from converting to low flow *washing machines Total water savings 2007 Winter 43,524 2,873 1,828 4,483 9,184 Spring 38,135 2,517 1,602 3,928 8,047 Summer 57,203 3,775 2,403 5,892 12,070 Fall 25,147 1,660 1,056 2,590 5,306 Total 164,009 10,825 6,888 16,893 34,606 *Table based on assumptions of 1 washing load (172 L) per person and 6 flushes per day.  5.7.2.2  Rain Barrels for Hotels  Given that landscaping/lawn size around hotels/motels can vary considerably, it was decided that, rather than estimating the potential of rainwater collection for outdoor water use as done with  127 residential later in this chapter, rainwater collection for commercial purposes could be used primarily for toilets.  Year-round water collection and savings potential from rain barrels for large hotels/ motels was calculated based on occupancy rates for 2007, and a roof size of approximately 12,000 sq ft. Table 5.6 suggests that a hotel with these characteristics could meet 18% of its water demand for 6L toilets. Table 5.6:  Invermere: Rainwater Replacement for Toilets in Large Hotel/Motel  Invermere: Rainwater Replacement for Toilets in Large Hotel/Motel Roof size (square meters) 3,658 *Total annual precipitation (m3) 0.44 Monthly water storage possible (m3) 89 Monthly water needed for DM Toilets (2007) (m3) 492 Monthly water needs for DM toilets met from rainwater  18 * Calculated from 1969-2007 data  By converting showers, toilets, and washing machines to low-flow varieties, over 34,000 m3 can be saved annually; when rainwater contributes toward toilet use, savings increase to over 35,500 m3 per year (Table 5.7). It is recognized that substantial planning and expense would be involved to store 90 m3 per month. As noted in chapter 1, it may be unrealistic to introduce such changes to existing structures, and more cost-effective means may be found that achieve the equivalent or greater savings; however, these calculations are meant to indicate savings potential to help determine future water savings priorities.   128 Table 5.7:  Invermere: Total savings for hotels  Invermere: Total savings for hotels (2007 figures)  Current use DM use Savings Source m3 m3 m3 Showers  20,665 9,841 10,825 *Toilets 12,793 5,904 6,888 Washing machine 28,210 11,317 16,893 Total 61,668 27,062 34,606 Rain collection max possible: 1,062 m3 Monthly toilet requirement 1,066 492 574 Monthly rain (if evenly distributed): 89 m3 Total after using rainwater for toilets 60,690 26,659 35,668 * Toilet estimates based on 13 L for “current” use and 6L for DM use.  These savings do not consider low-flow fixtures and/or rainwater collection in other aspects of the tourism industry such as ski lodges and restaurants. Significant savings could be gained here, too.  5.8  INDOOR DOMESTIC WATER SAVINGS FROM VARIOUS ADAPTATION MEASURES  Invermere can reduce its annual residential water consumption by about 40 % by adopting an aggressive DM strategy. Domestic water savings were calculated in two ways:  Calculation 1:  Lcd consumption from flow data: estimates for commercial and institutional use were subtracted, and 40% of summer use was assumed for irrigation. Calculation 2:  Lcd based solely on a set of indoor fixtures or Fixture Package (FP) including low-flow shower heads, toilets and washing machines) and outdoor irrigation (rainwater collection of 5 m3). This combination of uses accounts for 81% of summer water use and 74% of water use the rest of the year.   129 Water lost through leaks and water used for other purposes (such as cleaning) account for the difference between calculations 1 and 2.This section will outline the calculations and findings for individual components, then will summarize the big picture at the end.  5.8.1  LOW FLOW FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES  5.8.1.1 Toilets  Toilets typically make up 30% of indoor household use; by replacing 20 L toilets with 6 L toilets, this would bring the overall water use as a percentage of indoor use down to 18%.190 Replacing old 20 L toilets, typical in houses built before 1986, with newer 6 L flush can save 14 L/ flush. At 6 flushes/person/day, this is 84 lcd saved each day. If the average household size is 2.4, this equates to a savings of roughly 200 L/ household/day (84*2.4). If all of Invermere’s 750 households living in older houses built before 1986 were to convert their toilets, more than 55,000 m3 would be saved over a year. When combined with savings of 8,000 m3 from houses built between 1986-1996 converting 13L to 6L toilets, Invermere’s total annual savings from converting domestic toilets is over 63,000 m3 (Table 5.8).  Table 5.8:  Invermere: Converting to low-flow toilets  Invermere: Converting to low-flow toilets Toilets 20L toilet 13L toilet 6L toilet *Number of total households  750 223 223 *Water used per flush (litres) 20 13 6 Water used per household/day (litres) 288 187 86 Water used per household/year (m3) 105 68 32 Total all households use/year (m3) 78,840 15 7 Savings from converting 20L to 6L toilets (m3) 55,188 8,186 0 Annual savings all households (m3) 63,374 *Based on assumption of 20L toilets in houses built before 1986; 13L in houses built between 1986-1996; and 6L toilets in houses built after 1996. Age of houses taken from 2006 Census; estimation for houses built between 1986 and 1996 based on 445 houses built between 1986-2006, averaging 22.25 per year or 222.5 for each 10 year period.  5.8.2.2  Showers  Showers and baths constitute 35% of indoor water use. As seen in Table 5.9, if all households in Invermere were to substitute low-flow, 10 L/min showerheads in place of conventional  130 21 L/min showerheads, each household could save about 160 litres of water per day, or 58 m3 per year—a savings of 52% for this use, or 18% overall.  Table 5.9:  Invermere: Converting to low-flow showerheads  Invermere: Converting to low-flow showerheads Showers Conventional Efficient Savings % Used % Saved Number of total households  1,420 *Water used per 6 min shower (conventional)(litres) 126 60 66 Water use per household/day (litres) 302 144 158 Water use per household/year (m3) 110 53 58 Savings per household/day (litres)   144 48 52 Savings per household/year (m3)   53 Annual savings all households (m3)   74,635 * Conventional estimate based on average of 21 L (average between 15 and 27 litres/ min). Low-flow estimates based on average of 10 L/min for low-flow (average between 9-11) Numbers for showers, toilets taken from CHMC.  5.8.2.3  Washing Machines  Washing machines normally consume about 20 % of indoor water use. Each household in Invermere could save about 200 litres per week, or more than 11 m3 per year by switching to a low- flow, front-load washing machine—a savings of 60%. Overall, the City could save 15,000 m3 per year (Table 5.10).   131 Table 5.10:  Invermere: Converting to low-flow washing machines  Invermere: Converting to low-flow washing machines Washing Machines Conventional Efficient Savings % Used % Saved Number of total households  1,420 *Water used for conventional washing machine (litres) 172 69 103 40 60 Water used per household/week (litres) 344 138 206 Water used per household/year (m3) 18 7 11 Savings per household/week (2x)(litres)   206 Savings per household/year (m3)   11 Annual savings all households (m3)   15,211 * Based on estimation of between 121 and 223 litres per load and 40% reduction  5.9  OUTDOORS: REDUCING PEAK DEMAND  Reducing summer irrigation is the key to cutting peak demand and avoiding infrastructure expansion. Based on a unit cost of infrastructure expansion of $1 per litre per day (e.g., to expand a system’s capacity by 1,000,000 litres per day would cost about $1 million), the Ontario Water Works Association calculates that a municipality growing by 10,000 new homes could save about $2 million in expansion costs if it is able to reduce peak day demands by 200 litres per household. This savings is realised even if their overall summer water demand remains constant.191  Four of the most effective strategies for reducing summer peak demand include: 1)  Eliminating over-watering; 2)  Introducing a One-Day-per-week “conservation schedule”—and enforcing it; 3)  Introducing conservation-based water rates (seasonally or year-round) with frequent billing (e.g. each month in the summer). 4)  Harvesting rainwater to irrigate gardens.  5.9.1  Irrigation Requirements  The irrigation requirement (IR) for turf grass from June to August was calculated with the following equation using evapotranspiration (ET) rates for Invermere.   132 Equation 2: Irrigation requirement for turfgrass in Invermere  IRT =  (ET x crop coefficient x allowable stress)/ irrigation system efficiency = inches IRT =  (17 x 0.75x 0.7)/0.7 =12.75 inches (x .0254) = 0.324 m.  Assumptions:  Average lot size: 555 m2 Average lawn size: 200 m2 Average roof size: 155 m2 Maximum surface parcel coverage: 222 m2 Number of single family units (SFUs):1028 (based on 2006 Census).  Lawn size was estimated to be approximately 200 m2, or about 37% of the average lot size of 555 m2.192 Roof size was calculated by determining 70% of the maximum surface parcel coverage of a lot (222m2), or 28% of the average lot size. Summer lawn IR per SFU was estimated to be 65 m3 , or 290 lcd. Calculations for the DOI as a whole use 1028 households, representing the approximately 72% of the total private dwellings that are single detached houses; this number attempts to capture use by year-round residents and those only spending the summer in Invermere.  5.9.2  Over-Watering  Over-watering is extremely common in communities, and exacerbated by automatic sprinkling systems that can apply up to 3.5 times the water required.193 Irrigation requirements for a 200 m2  lawn are 36 m3 for the three summer months, or approximately 159 lcd (Table 5.10). Based on an estimated summer usage of 500 lcd, it appears that households are applying 26% more than the water required, using an extra 41 lcd. This amounts to 9,260 m3 of water lost throughout the DOI over the summer.   133 Table 5.11:  Invermere: Irrigation savings from not over-watering  Invermere: Irrigation savings from not over-watering  Summer (June-Aug) (m3) Month (m3) Day (m3) Lcd All SFUs (m3/day) All SFUs (m3/summer) Irrigation required per SFU 36 12 0.38 159 393 36,137 Irrigation used per SFU 45 15 0.48 200 493 45,396 Excess watering     9 3 0.10 41 101 9,260 % over-watering currently   26 26 26 26 26 26  5.9.3  Rainwater Collection  If rain is evenly distributed throughout the summer, Invermere residents could cover at least 42% of their irrigation requirements with a 5 m3 rain tank, lowering demand to 75 lcd (Figure 5.11).  Figure 5.11:  Invermere: Summer irrigation savings from 5 m3 barrel   Water collected 5 m3 barrel 42% Irrigation still required from City 58% !"#$%&$%$'()*&&$%(+%%+,-.+/"(0-#+",0(1%/&(2(&3(4-%%$5(  134  Table 5.12 depicts detailed irrigation requirements for the summer (92 days). If rain is evenly distributed throughout the summer, the City’s provision of water for domestic irrigation could be reduced from 36,137 to 20,882 m3 each summer: a savings of 15,254 m3 -- or 12 tons of GHGs.  These estimations are conservative because they do not include the 5 m3 collected in the Spring and stored before summer irrigation is needed. Thus June would be irrigated with water collected in May; July would be irrigated with water collected in June, etc. Even if all summer rain could be captured, 42% of irrigation is the maximum that could be provided. These calculations are based on irrigation requirements for turfgrass, which is more water intense than vegetables or fruit.  Finally, these estimations for IR are extremely conservative because they represent water needed, not how much people are actually using to water their lawns. When over-watering is taken into consideration, the picture drastically changes.   135 Table 5.12:  Irrigation savings from domestic rainwater collection  Invermere: Irrigation savings from domestic rainwater collection  Per SFU  All SFUs  Summer (June-Aug) (m3) Month (m3) Day (m3) Lcd Per day (m3) Per summer (m3) *Total water requirement  65 22 0.70 290 715 65,802 Natural Precipitation  29 10 0.31 131 322 29,665 Irrigation required from City 36 12 0.38 159 393 36,137 **Potential water collection (unlimited storage) 15 5 0.16 67 166 15,228 Irrigation still required from City 21 7 0.22 92 227 20,909 % Irrigation from rainwater (unlimited storage) 42 42 42 42 42 42 Water collected 5 m3 barrel 15 5 0.16 67 166 15,254 Irrigation still required from City 21 7 0.22 92 227 20,882 % Irrigation from rainwater with 5 m3 barrel 42 42 42 42 42 42 *Where ET=17; IR=12.75 inches=0.324 m. "Water requirement" is the irrigation requirement without accounting for precipitation. It is the water "needed", not the actual water that people apply (typically people over-water their lawns). ** Where 66% of total precipitation that lands on a roof could be reliably captured.  5.9.4  Climate Change: Irrigation  Given the expectation of climate change leading to longer, drier summers, irrigation is expected to continue well into September. Past dry periods, like summer 2003, can help indicate what to expect in the future. Thus, precipitation data from summer 2003 and September 2001 (dry months) are used to estimate future IR for a longer, drier summer. IR was calculated using the same ET rate of 17 for June-August, but ET for September increased from 2 to 4 (Table 5.13).  136  Table 5.13:  Invermere: Normal vs. drier climate for summer and September  Invermere: Normal vs. drier climate for summer and September   Summer September  Normal (1968-2007) Drier (2003) Normal (1968-2007) Drier (2001) Precipitation (m) 0.15 0.08 0.03 0.02 ET 17 17 2 4 IR (m) 0.38 0.38 0.04 0.08  Under this scenario, summer IR per household is 60 m3, or 268 lcd (Table 5.14). If rain is evenly distributed throughout the summer, Invermere residents could cover at least 25% of their irrigation requirements (67 lcd) with a 5 m3 rain barrel, reducing lcd provided by the DOI from 268 to 201. Overall, the city would supply 45,569 m3 compared to 60,824 m3.  Table 5.14:  Drier summer: Irrigation savings from domestic rainwater collection  Invermere: Drier summer: Irrigation savings from domestic summer rainwater collection   Per SFU  Per capita All SFUs  Summer (June- Sept) (m3) Month (m3) Day (m3) Lcd Per day (m3) Per summer (m3) *Total water requirement  80 27 0.86 358 884 81,366 Natural Precipitation 20 7 0.22 91 223 20,542 Irrigation required from DOI 60 20 0.64 268 661 60,824 Potential water collection (unlimited storage) 10 3 0.11 46 114 10,507 Irrigation still required from DOI 49 16 0.53 222 547 50,316 % Irrigation from rainwater (unlimited storage) 17 17 17 17 17 17 Water collected 5 m3 barrel 15 5 0.16 67 166 15,254 Irrigation still required from DOI 45 15 0.48 201 495 45,569 % Irrigation from rainwater with 5 m3 barrel 25 25 25 25 25 25  137 *Where ET=21; IR=15.75 inches=0.4 m. "Water requirement" is the irrigation requirement without accounting for precipitation. It is the water "needed", not the actual water that people apply (typically people over-water their lawns).  When comparing “normal” and longer, drier summers expected under climate change, drier summers will consume an extra 40%, or 109 lcd (Table 5.15). Over the summer, this results in an extra 22,687 m3 provided by the City. If 5 m3 rain barrels are used, however, this number can be cut by 25%: instead of providing 60,824 m3, the City could supply 45,569 m3.  Table 5.15:  Invermere: Normal vs. drier summer water demand comparison  Invermere: Normal vs. drier summer water demand comparison  Per SFU Per capita All SFUs  Summer (June- Aug) (m3) lcd Per summer (m3)  Normal Dry Normal Dry Normal Dry *Total water requirement  65 80 290 358 65,802 81,366 Natural Precipitation 29 20 131 91 29,665 20,542 Irrigation required from DOI 36 60 159 268 36,137 60,824 Potential water collection (unlimited storage) 15 10 67 46 15,228 10,507 Irrigation required from DOI 21 49 92 222 20,909 50,316 % Irrigation from rainwater (unlimited storage) 42 17 42 17 42 17 Water collected 5 m3 barrel 15 15 67 67 15,254 15,254 Irrigation still required from DOI 21 45 92 201 20,882 45,569 % Irrigation from rainwater with 5 m3 barrel 42 25 42 25 42 25  As described above, precipitation data for September 2001, along with an increased ET rate were used to estimate IR for expected drier Septembers, and compared to the normal average precipitation. Table 5.16 indicates that a 5 m3 rain barrel can meet all IR for a “normal” September, saving the DOI about 1,000 m3. A drier September has an IR that is twice that of a “normal” month with only half the precipitation, requiring 11,760 m3 of water from the DOI. A 5 m3 rain barrel for each SFU can meet 17% of IR, reducing Invermere’s provision to 9,762 m3 for a savings of nearly 2,000 m3—not unsubstantial during a dry season when natural water levels will be at their lowest.   138 Table 5.16:  Invermere: Normal vs. drier September water demand comparison  Invermere: Normal vs. drier September water demand comparison Normal Per SFU Per capita All SFUs  Month (m3) Day (m3) Lcd Per day (m3) Per month (m3) *Total water requirement  8 0.25 106 261 7,833 Natural Precipitation 7 0.22 92 226 6,785 Irrigation required from DOI 1 0.03 14 35 1,049 Water collected 5 m3 barrel 3 0.11 47 116 3,470 Irrigation still required from DOI -2 -0.08 -33 -81 -2,422 % Irrigation from rainwater with 5 m3 barrel 100+ 100+ 100+ 100+ 100+ All irrigation needs met by rain barrel  Climate Change *Total water requirement  15 0.51 212 522 15,667 Natural Precipitation 4 0.13 53 130 3,906 Irrigation required from DOI 11 0.38 159 392 11,760 Water collected 5 m3 barrel 2 0.06 27 67 1,998 Irrigation still required from DOI 9 0.32 132 325 9,762 % Irrigation from rainwater with 5 m3 barrel 17 17 17 17 17  5.9.5  Climate Change: Storms and Forest Fires  Preparation for more frequent extreme weather events seems prudent given climate change projections of increased precipitation with greater variability, both in frequency and intensity. A secondary water source such as rain tanks, at the household or communal level, builds resilience in two ways: by reducing demand on the municipal infrastructure; and providing a back-up supply in the event of storm overflow or damage to supply pipes.194   139 Longer, drier summers will increases the risk of forest fires. Fire management plans are in place in many communities where residential areas border forest. On-site water storage in rain tanks can help to reduce the impact of fire on residential areas by providing a ready source of water. Tanks can also help to reduce the impact of fire on water demand for the municipality. As a consequence, rain tanks should not only be considered for their irrigation purposes, but also as part of a broader fire management strategy. A minimal amount would be required to be left in the tank over the summer, while the rest could be used for irrigation. Where irrigation needs are low, such as multi-family units with little lawn, on-site storage can serve several residences. Climate change projections suggest that more water will have to be collected in the Spring. Ultimately, storage capacity larger than 5 m3 may be more suitable for multi-family combined use for irrigation, back-up supply, and fire management, with communities sharing the cost of communal tanks.  5.9.6  Metering with Increasing Block Rate  It is estimated that Invermere reduced its water consumption by 30% when it introduced metering with an increasing block rate for commercial and residential units.195 Starting in the late 1990s, meters were installed over the course of several years. During the phase-in period, customers were billed under the old system but received bills indicating what their water bill would be under the new meter/IBR regime; this provided an opportunity for them to reduce usage before the new rates came into effect.  5.9.7  Leaks  Metering data combined with outflow from the Paddy Ryan Lakes intake suggests that a significant amount of water is not accounted for: between 2004 and 2008, unaccounted water averaged 47%. Some of this could be institutional use, used by the DOI for irrigation of public parks, for example. The primary leaks would be in the main lines (and not show up on residential metered data), but there are likely leakages at the household level as well. It is likely that some leaks at the household level have been addressed since metering was introduced; thus, on-site leaks are estimated at a constant 10% throughout the year (instead of 15% for Rossland). Reducing these by half would yield an extra 17 lcd. Table 5.17 indicates that savings from leak repair can reduce average annual consumption by 14,454 lcd.   140 Table 5.17:  Invermere: Residential leak reduction  Invermere:  Residential leak reduction    lcd Current use 330 10 % Leakage 33 Reduction to 5% (savings) 17 New total with 8% leaks 314  Savings per household/year (litres) 14,454  Maintaining infrastructure and minimizing leaks are both critical for maintaining credibility when asking consumers to reduce their own water consumption. Many New Zealand councils have concluded that any serious water conservation plan starts with maintenance. This includes fixing leaks within the pipe network, developing programs that encourage end-users to fix leaks in their own homes, and determining possibilities for reducing pressure.196  5.10  Findings for Domestic Water Use and Savings  Indoor water consumption could be reduced by 44% if all households were to be retrofitted with low flow toilets, showerheads, and water efficient washing machines. If each single family unit were to eliminate over-watering and use rainwater from a 5 m3 barrel to water their lawns, summer outdoor water use would be cut by 63%. In total, these measures would lead to a reduction of 49% for summer use, and 44% during the rest of the year.  Non-summer savings for DOI domestic use are based on 1,195 households, while summer savings are based on 1,028 households (single family units) in an effort to account for only those using irrigating.  These numbers reflect the 2006 census, and do not account for households in new developments that will already be using some low-flow fixtures. Calculations below are based on 100% uptake of retrofits to demonstrate maximum possible savings. The methodology for toilets, showers and washing machine savings is outlined in Chapter 3, and are consistent for both Rossland and Invermere.  5.10.1  Non-summer  When broken down by season, an aggressive DM strategy can reduce non-summer use to 150 from 270 lcd, for a savings of 44% or 120 lcd (Table 5.18). Over the entire non-summer part of the year (273 days), the City saves over 90,000 m3. “Other” use varies by season and no savings are estimated for this category.  141  Table 5.18:  Invermere: Non-summer: Total water savings with DM package (Lcd)  Invermere: Non-Summer: Total water savings with DM package Water use per person/day (lcd) Current DM Savings % Used % Savings Total Showers 126 60 66 48 52 100 *Toilets 78 36 42 46 54 100 Washing Machines 20 8 12 40 60 100 Other 46 46 0 100 0 100 Total (all uses) 270 150 120 56 44 100 Water use per household/day  648 360 288 56 44 100 **Total all households/non- summer (273 days) (m3) 211,400 117,445 93,956 56 44 100 *Toilets were conservatively estimated at 13L/ flush to account for 20L and 6L. ** Total households = 1,195 (2006 Census)  5.10.2  Summer  Table 5.19 and Figure 5.12 depict these savings when broken down by individual measures/fixtures: an aggressive DM strategy can reduce summer use to 255 from 500 lcd, for a savings of 49% or 245 lcd. Over the entire summer (92 days), the City saves 55,611 m3.   142 Table 5.19:  Invermere Summer: Total water savings with DM package (Lcd)  Invermere Summer: Total water savings with DM package (lcd) Water use per person/day (lcd) Current DM Savings % Used % Savings Total Showers 126 60 66 48 52 100 Toilets 78 36 42 46 54 100 Washing Machines 20 8 12 40 60 100 Outdoor Irrigation 142 142 0 100 0 100 ~ over-watering 58 0 58 0 100 100 ~ rain barrels 0 -67 67 0 100 100 Other 76 76 0 100 0 100 Total (all uses) 500 255 245 51 49 100 *Water use per SFU/day  1200 612 588 51 49 100 *Total all SFUs/ summer (92 days) (m3) 113,491 57,881 55,611 51 49 100 * Total single family units as a percentage (72%) of dwellings, or 1028 houses.  Figure 5.12:  Invermere: Summer water savings per capita: current vs. DM  !"#$ %&$ "'$ "''$ #'$ (#$ &$ !)"$ '$ *'$ !''$ !*'$ "''$ "*'$ +,-./01$ 2-34/51$ 671,389$:7;,38/1$ <=5>--0$?0039753-8$ !" # $ %&'()*()(+$,-**()$./0()$1/'2&31$4()$"/420/+$"-))(&0$'15$67$ @=00/85$ A:$   143  5.10.3  Savings Summary  As shown in Table 5.20, the greatest savings at the watershed level from the tourism sector is to ensure proper irrigation of golf courses so they are not overwatered: more than 77,000 m3 could be saved from the one course presented here. For illustrative purposes, if each of the 8 courses in the Columbia Valley averages 24 hectares and overwaters by 20%, annual savings for the watershed during a dry year would be over 100,000 m3—three times the tourism-related savings for the DOI.  At the municipal level, retrofitting large hotels with a DM package provides the most savings (34,606 m3) in the hospitality industry. On the domestic side, a DM package saves the most water (105,120 m3), while not overwatering and using rain tanks for irrigation together save over 28,000 m3. Overall, Invermere could save nearly 190,000 m3, or about 1,896 single car garages per year were it to adopt all of these practices.   144 Table 5.20:  Invermere: Summary of savings: m3 and garage equivalents  Invermere: Summary of savings: m3 and garage equivalents Tourism annual water savings for Invermere Source Savings (m3) 1 car garage equivalent volume of water Watershed level *Not over watering golf course presented here by 225% 77,384 774 Not overwatering 8 golf courses by 20% (normal year) 140,442 1,404 Not overwatering 8 golf courses by 20% (dry year) 174,241 1,742 District of Invermere Indoor fixtures (DM package) for a large hotel 34,606 346 Leaks for a large hotel 3,083 31 Rain tank for a large hotel (supplement toward toilet use) 1,062 11 Tourism total for DOI 38,751 388 Domestic annual water savings for Invermere Source Savings (m3) 1 car garage equivalent Indoor fixtures (DM package) 105,120 1,051 Leaks 17,273 173 Rain tanks 15,254 153 Not overwatering 13,165 132 Domestic total 150,812 1,508 Overall total (excluding golf course) 189,563 1,896 * It is recognised that the DOI does not provide water for nearby golf courses. This calculation is for illustrative purposes, to reflect on water usage within the entire watershed.   145 5.11  Recommendations  Outdoor irrigation and fire protection  • Education about IR is needed to help reduce over-watering. • Households should be encouraged to minimize lawn coverage and landscape with native, drought-resistant plants (xeriscape). • Introduce a minimum topsoil requirement for lawn coverage to avoid excessive water loss through gravely soils. • Because turf grass typically uses 35% more water than vegetables and 25% more water than fruit, converting lawn to growing vegetables and/or fruit instead could help conserve water.197 • Existing single family units, especially those at the forest-residential interface, could install a 5 m3 rain tank. Underground rainwater cisterns could be considered for multi-family dwellings at the forest-residential interface. • New developments could be designed with on-site rain collection of at least 5 m3 per single family unit for outdoor use. • With their large roofs and extensive lawns that are maintained throughout the summer, schools would be an obvious start for rainwater collection and underground water cistern. • Implement and enforce a “conservation schedule” using One-Day-per-week (for particularly dry years), and Time-of-Day restriction (to eliminate water loss through evaporation). • Encourage proper use of automatic irrigation systems to prevent drastic over-watering.  Indoor  • Raise the profile of the rebate program for low-flow fixtures in existing residences. • Introduce bylaws that require new developments to use only low-flow fixtures. • Encourage new developments to incorporate on-site water storage. Overall  • Investigate where significant losses from PR Lakes are occurring. • Expand metering and sub-metering to include all residential, commercial, and institutional units; this will also help clarify water use (above). • Read meters on a seasonal basis so people can better understand how their usage changes seasonally, and associate particular practices (e.g. irrigation) with their water bill. • Fix leaks on main pipes and encourage end-users to fix their own. • Assess the potential for reducing water pressure.   146 5.12  Scenarios for Domestic Water Demand  Scenarios for domestic water demand have been developed largely based on the Urban Systems report “Water Supply and Water Treatment Strategy” (March 2008). Two scenarios are used for this report: Development Option 1 and Development Option 3, which are presented here as “Slower Growth” and “Full Build-out”. These are based on the developments currently slated to go ahead. The “Full Build-Out” in this report differs from the Urban Systems “full build out” in that the one used here does not include the Grizzly Ridge Estates.198 Without occupancy data for hotels/motels, vacation rentals, lodges, B&Bs, or second homes, it is difficult to get a sense of broader occupancy trends and seasonal population variations. Consequently, occupancy rates are not included in these scenarios.  Unlike Rossland’s scenarios, Invermere’s do not include a metering/IBR or significant leak repair scenario because Invermere has already introduced metering, and based on this data, the most significant leaks are not at the residential level but more likely in the mains. Consequently, the DM package here includes fixtures and leak repair in the home.  Assumptions  Table 5.21 outlines the parameters for the two scenarios which project population, growth and water demand until 2035. Table 5.22 indicates the composition of the development options 1 (Slower growth) and 2 (Full Build-out).  Appendix 5.3:  Projected Population Growth and Development  Table 5.21: Assumptions for scenarios  Assumptions for Scenarios  People per Unit Single Family 2.67 Multi Family 2.3  Water usage *Actual ADD (lcd) 736 **ADD (lpcd) 500 ***Peak Factor 2.5 ****August Daily Peak (lcd) 1850 Winter Peak (Oct-Mar. lcd) 515  * Based on 03-04 water usage **Average daily demand: total volume of water produced divided by 365 days of the year, divided by the population. The number here (500) is assumed by the modeler.  147 ***Peaking factor: the ratio between the peak day and the average daily demand. The number here (2.5) is assumed by the modeler from Urban Systems. **** Based on 2004 water use data. While July reaches peak use, August is used here due to flows in the PR Lakes starting to drop, thus making August the critical month with the largest gap between available supply and demand.  Table 5.22:  Composition of development options  Composition of Development Options  Development Options Developments Full Build out (1) Slower Growth (2)  Castle Rock 2,092 2,092 West Side Park 531 531 Octagon Properties 1,453 Lake Windermere Resort 851 Lake Windermere Point 529 529 Heron Point 166 166 Pine Ridge 1,656 1,656 DL 4616 1,335  Adapted from Urban Systems March 2008  5.12.1  Scenario 1: Full Build-Out Scenario Comparison: Conservation Vs. DM  Table 5.23 outlines the basis for Scenario 1a and 1b, a comparison of current use vs. an aggressive demand management package (low-flow fixtures, rain barrel, no over-watering, leak repair). The full build-out scenario shows maximum development and associated population growth.199  Seasonal occupancy was not calculated, but the maximum population by 2035 would be 16,052 people, or 8,085 equivalent single family units.   148 Table 5.23: Scenario 1: Full build-out: no conservation vs. DM  Scenario 1: Full Build out: no conservation vs. DM Number of new units 8616 (Table 5.75) Population by 2035 16,052   Scenario 1a: No Conservation Scenario 1b: Aggressive DM   (current lcd) (lcd) Water Use Summer + Sept 500 255 Autumn (Oct, Nov) 270 Winter 240 Spring 295 non-summer average: 150 City-wide (annual m3) 1,911,492 1,186,443 Savings (m3)  725,049 % DM savings  38  Figure 5.13 compares current water use versus water use under an aggressive DM strategy in the Build Out scenario. By 2035 the savings is approximately 949,000 m3.   149 Figure 5.13:  Build out: current water use vs. DM    5.12.2  Scenario 2: Slower Growth Scenario Comparison: No Conservation Vs. DM  Table 5.24 outlines the basis for Scenario 2a and 2b, a comparison of current use vs. DM. It shows a slower rate of development and associated population growth. Seasonal occupancy was not calculated, but the maximum population by 2035 would be 12,413 people, or 4977 equivalent single family units. This scenario represents a 23% reduction (3639 people) in population from Scenario 1.   150 Table 5.24:  Scenario 2: Slower growth: no conservation vs. DM  Scenario 2: Slower growth: no conservation vs. DM Number of new units 4977 (Table 5.75) Population by 2035 12,413   Scenario 2a: No Conservation Scenario 2b: Aggressive DM   (current lcd) (lcd) Water Use Summer + Sept 500 255 Autumn (Oct, Nov) 270 Winter 240 Spring 295 non-summer average: 150 City-wide (annual m3) 1,478,156 917,476 Savings (m3)  560,680 % DM savings  38  By adopting an aggressive DM strategy under the slow growth scenario, the DOI could be saving over 700,000 m3 by 2035, or 38% of what it would supply given the same population demonstrating current consumption patterns (Figure 5.14 ).   151 Figure 5.14:  Slower growth: current water use vs. DM    5.12.3  Scenarios Comparison and summary  Figure 5.15 and Table 5.25 depict both scenarios for population and associated water use. Overall, it appears that the DOI can save over 900,000 m3 if it introduces an aggressive DM strategy under full build out, reducing use from about 2.5 million m3 to 1.5 million m3, or 38%. With slower growth, the DOI can save over 700,000 m3 with a DM strategy, reducing use from nearly 2 million m3 to just over 1 million m3 (38%). The difference between the 2 extremes of full build out with no conservation and slower growth with a DM strategy is significant: Scenario 2-b uses 48% of Scenario 1-a. It is also worth noting that slower growth with no conservation uses only 25% more water than full build-out with DM.  Under full build-out with current use, water use for the DOI reaches 1 million m3 by 2011; with DM, it’s not until 2020. Slower growth with current use reaches 1 million m3 by 2014; with DM, water use is still under 1 million m3 by 2035.   152 Figure 5.15:  Scenarios compared: current water use vs. DM    Table 5.25:  District of Invermere: Scenario 1 and 2 summary table  District of Invermere: Scenario 1 and 2 summary table Scenarios 1a-b Summer Fall Winter Spring Scenario a 500 270 240 295 Scenario b 343 178 Scenario 1 Full Build-out Total DOI (2035) Savings (m3) Savings (%) Scenario 1-a 1,911,492 Scenario 1-b 1,186,443 725,049 38  Scenario 2: Slow Growth Total DOI (2035) Savings (m3) Savings (%) % less than Scenario 1 (same intervention) Scenario 2-a 1,478,156 Scenario 2-b 917,476 560,680 38 23  153  5.13  CONCLUSION  Options for water conservation vary in cost and effectiveness, but ultimately, water conservation strategies for DOI will depend on Invermere’s priorities, political will, and vision of future development.  5.13.1  Tourism Summary  How does tourism currently affect the DOI’s seasonal water supply fluctuations?  It is difficult to determine the effect of tourism on water supply for the following reasons: 1)  There is not sufficient data on tourism numbers. Anecdotal evidence suggests the population more than doubles during the summer, but this is difficult to verify. 2)  While summer supply does increase, nearly half the water supplied (year-round) is unaccounted for. As a consequence, it is not possible to know. 3)  Meters are not read during times that allow for seasonal analysis.  To what extent will tourism determine Invermere’s future infrastructure requirements?  Based on the number of units approved for development (many intended as second homes and property rentals), tourism will be a primary driver for future water infrastructure expansion, especially if serious conservation efforts are not in place. Scenarios 1 and 2 both rely on expanding water infrastructure to include greater reliance on groundwater and/or Lake Windermere.  How can the DOI best plan to minimize the impact of tourism on its surrounding water resources, reduce costly infrastructure upgrades, and incorporate aspects of climate change adaptation into tourism-related policies?  Metering all commercial and residential units is an important first step, and it appears that water consumption has lowered since they were introduced. As outlined above, it is possible to reduce consumption even more by initiating a serious DM strategy for both indoor and outdoor use. Reducing consumption is the cheapest, most efficient source of ‘new’ water, and will postpone the need for infrastructure upgrades. Increasing summer meter rates for tourist-specific operations (e.g. hotels, motels) will help meet cost recovery objectives.   154 5.13.2  General Strategies  It is instructive to re-phrase the above question to reflect development in general:  How can the City best plan to minimize the impact of any development on its surrounding water resources, reduce costly infrastructure upgrades, and incorporate aspects of climate change adaptation into all development policies?  Stringent development guidelines and bylaws requiring water efficient fixtures and xeriscaping for all new developments should be adopted, and existing developments should be encouraged to replace existing fixtures with low-flow varieties. Voluntary measures and hoping for “conservation-minded” developers should not be relied on. Beyond the usual fixture package, rain barrels should be required for new developments, and encouraged for existing ones. Large institutions like schools—with large roofs and high irrigation requirements—should consider installing a rain cistern for irrigation purposes.  5.13.3  Climate Change Adaptation  Reducing overall water use and decentralising water supplies for non-potable uses are two ways to increase local resilience to climate change uncertainty. On-site water storage will be especially important during longer, drier summers to help minimize fire hazards on properties adjacent to forests. The DOI should consider incorporating on-site water storage into design guidelines relating to wildfire hazards, and encourage installation among existing properties close to forests. As with snow, water capture (gutters) and storage (cistern) should be taken into account in the planning, development, and operation of each new building.   Because Lake Windermere and the Columbia River provide much of the lifeblood for communities throughout the region, encouraging a “watershed approach” among all individual water utility operators and developers in the Columbia Valley will be increasingly important. As mentioned above, such an approach would include considering how increasing groundwater withdrawals from nearby aquifers will impact the lake and river, both in terms of quantity: reduced groundwater flows into Lake Windermere; and quality: reduced groundwater flows could result in a larger temperature increase than climate change alone, and jeopardize suitable spawning habitat for salmon. Findings from Wildsight’s water quality monitoring program could help prioritise areas for action.   155  CHAPTER 6:  COMPARISON   6.1  ROSSLAND-INVERMERE COMPARISON  Some of the major similarities and differences between the two mountain communities are summarised in Table 6.1.  Table 6.1: Rossland-Invermere comparison  Rossland-Invermere comparison Similarities Differences • Permanent population: between 3,000- 3,300 people.  • Elevation: between 900m and 1,020m._  • Seasonal average temperatures are similar, and both communities have seen a significant increase in their extreme maximum summer temperatures.  • Both communities have not experienced significant climatic changes during the fall.  • Both are mountain communities relying heavily on recreation as the main economic engine (skiing in winter, golf and other activities in summer). Both are airport accessible.  • Both communities rely on surface water and storage, and experience a peak summer demand, despite Rossland’s winter population increase.  • Both communities will likely have to rely on snow-making in the future, though Rossland is projected to have a greater snow reliability problem.  • Tourist numbers (accommodation and activities) in both communities are poorly monitored. • • Rossland receives nearly twice the annual rainfall of Invermere (835 mm versus 431 mm).  • Invermere has noticed a significant increase in spring precipitation and mean winter temperature.  • Rossland has experienced a significant increase in extreme minimum winter temperatures and a decrease in winter precipitation.  • Permanent population is stagnant/ declining in Rossland, but growing in Invermere.  • Groundwater resources are an option for Invermere but much more information is required  • Invermere has water meters for all residential and commercial buildings, while Rossland has only metered commercial and new residential developments. Metering seems to have reduced water use in Invermere, but it remains high, particularly in summer.  • Invermere’s higher summer recreation use (swimming, boating, fishing, golf) results in greater pressure on water use in the summer.   156  Rossland-Invermere comparison  Similarities Continued  • Both communities currently have high water use and are concerned about future supplies. • Both communities have high summer water demand.  • Water is poorly accounted for, and data is difficult to obtain.  • Both communities can drastically reduce their consumption through DM.   6.2  DOMESTIC WATER CONSUMPTION AND SAVINGS   This section compares annual, summer and non-summer use for the two communities, looking at current use and potential use with maximum savings. Comparisons depict both per capita use and savings, as well as total residential use and savings. Community-wide estimates are based on numbers for single family residences (summer use), households (non-summer use), and number of days for each seasonal period (92 days for summer vs. 273 days during the non-summer period) (Table 6.2).  Table 6.2: Numbers for residential estimates     “Maximum (Max) savings” is the estimate for the maximum water savings when various DM measures are combined. Metering is not considered in the savings potential for Invermere because it is already in place; savings have been realised as indicated by its lower per capita residential consumption. Rossland can reduce consumption from metering, but because the effects of metering are difficult to differentiate from the effects of the DM package outlined in this study, “max savings” here rely on the following DM measures: water efficient indoor fixtures (showerheads, toilets and Numbers for residential estimates  Summer (SFUs) Non-summer (households) Rossland 1,165 1,355 Invermere 1,028 1,195 # days 92 273   157 washing machines), a 5 m3 rain barrel for outdoor use, and leak repair. In the case of Rossland, a 30% reduction in the “other” category was estimated from metering, as the effect of metering can be clearly identified in this “activity.”   The following notes accompany all figures with asterisks beside the categories of “other” and “leaks”:  *On-site leaks are estimated at 10% for Invermere and 15% for Rossland with a 50% reduction with “max savings.” ** Other is reduced by 30% from metering for Rossland  6.2.1  Annual  Rossland’s per capita annual water use currently exceeds Invermere’s by about 50 m3/year: 176 m3 compared to 129 m3. With maximum savings, however, per capita consumption in both communities is reduced to about 66 m3/year (Figure 6.1). At the community level, Rossland can reduce its city-wide domestic use from about 575,000 m3 to 230,000 m3 (Figure 6.2). Overall, Rossland and Invermere can save 60% and 45% of their respective annual domestic water consumption. In theory, this means that Rossland could accommodate nearly 5,000 extra people without expanding its water supply. Invermere could accommodate nearly 2,500 extra.  158 Figure 6. 1:  Per capita annual average water use comparison  !" #!" $!" %!" &!" '!!" '#!" '$!" '%!" '&!" #!!" ()**+,-."" /-0123121"" ()**+,-."" /-0123121"" 45221-6" 7,8"*,09-:*" ! " # $% &' ( )( *+ & ,(*&%-.$)-&-//"-0&-1(*-2(&3-)(*&"+(&%4'.-*$+4/&  Figure 6.2:  Community-wide average annual water use comparison !" #!!$!!!" %!!$!!!" &!!$!!!" '!!$!!!" (!!$!!!" )!!$!!!" *!!$!!!" +,--./01"" 203456454"" +,--./01"" 203456454"" 7855409" :/;"-/3<0=-" ! " # $% &' ( )( *+ & !,''"-$)./0$1(&23(*24(&2--"25&02)(*&"+(&%,'62*$+,-&   159  6.2.2  Summer   Figure 6.3 indicates that residential water use for the city of Rossland is nearly twice that for the District of Invermere during the summer, or 87,000 m3 more. Per capita usage suggests that this difference noticed at the community scale is not only due to more SFUs in Rossland, but a greater consumption by each individual (Figure 6.4).  With maximum savings, the difference between the two communities would narrow to 24,500 m3. Rossland could reduce its summer domestic consumption by 60%, while Invermere could lower its use by 52%.  Figure 6. 2:  Community-wide summer water use comparison  !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '())*+,-"" .,/012010"" '())*+,-"" .,/012010"" 34110,5" 6+7")+/8,9)" ! " #$ %& ' ($ )& * + &, " - (& ./ 0 1& 23//'45#-675,$&('//$%&7"#$%&'($&83/9"%5(34& ::;5<01" :=0+>)" ;45-((1".1189+58(," ?+)<8,9"6+@<8,0)" A(8*05)" B<(C01)"   160 Figure 6.4:  Per capita summer water use comparison  !" #!!" $!!" %!!" &!!" '!!" (!!" )!!" *!!" +!!" ,-../012"" 314567565"" ,-../012"" 314567565"" 896651:" ;0<".04=1>." ! " #$ %& ' ( $ )& * + &, " - ( &. /0 , 1& 2$%&0"34#"&('55$%&6"#$%&'($&0753"%4(78& ??@:A56" ?B50C." @9:2--6"366=>0:=-1" D0.A=1>";0EA=15." F-=/5:." GA-H56."   6.2.3  Non-summer  Rossland’s non-summer residential use is 100,000 m3 more than Invermere’s, but with maximum savings this difference narrows to 5,500 m3 (Figure 6.5). Figure 6.6 indicates that with maximum savings, the per capita usage for both communities is closer to the European average of 150 lcd . Rossland and Invermere can reduce their non-summer usage by 60% and 55% respectively.  161 Figure 6.5:  Community-wide non-summer water use comparison  !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" (!!$!!!" )*++,-./"" 0.1234232"" )*++,-./"" 0.1234232"" 56332.7" 8-9"+-1:.;+" ! " #$ %& ' ($ )& * + , &- " . (& /0 , 1& 2300'45#.675-$&4346('00$%&7"#$%&'($&8309"%5(34& <<=7>23" <?2-@+" A-+>:.;"8-B>:.2+" C*:,27+" D>*E23+"    162 Figure 6.6:  Per capita non-summer water use comparison  !" #!" $!!" $#!" %!!" %#!" &!!" &#!" '!!" '#!" ()**+,-."" /-0123121"" ()**+,-."" /-0123121"" 45221-6" 7,8"*,09-:*" ! " #$ %& ' ($ )& * + , &- " . (& /0 , 1& 2$%&3"45#"&6768('00$%&9"#$%&'($&3704"%5(76& ;;<6=12" ;>1,?*" @,*=9-:"7,A=9-1*" B)9+16*" C=)D12*"   6.3  TOURISM  Invermere appears to experience a greater fluctuation in tourism than Rossland, averaging between 350 and 620 visitors per day throughout the year (Figure 6.7). At the height of summer, Invermere has over 600 visitors per day. Rossland’s daily visitor fluctuation ranges between 70 and 180 people, with winter peak nearing 200 visitors per day.  163 Figure 6.7: Tourism: Average number of tourists (daily)    Metering of commercial users seems to have reduced water consumption in Invermere, resulting in about 30% less usage per guest than in Rossland (Figure 6.8). Under current conditions, guests in Invermere use approximately 460 lcd while Rossland guests use 480 lcd. Hotel/motel operators in both locations can reduce their guests’ use to below 200 lcd. With DM, Rossland and Invermere could, respectively, accommodate an extra 50 and 200 guests without increasing water use.    164 Figure 6.8:  Tourism: Average water use per guest (lcd)    6.4  SCENARIOS  Regardless of the growth scenario chosen, both Rossland and Invermere can realize substantial savings from adopting an aggressive DM package for indoor and outdoor use (Figure 6.9). Invermere’s scenarios result in a greater population and number of development units than Rossland. With maximum savings, Rossland can save between 420,000 m3 and 517,000 m3 depending on the scenario, while Invermere can save between 560,000 m3 and 725,00 m3 per year (Table 6.3). In order of greatest to least savings, the greatest savings for a slow growth scenario for Rossland can be achieved through maximum savings, DM, then metering/IBR. Under full-build out, maximum savings is followed by metering/IBR, then DM. Invermere’s scenarios did not include metering and an IBR because these are already considered in current consumption rates. Thus DM for Invermere is also the Maximum Savings scenario.   165 Figure 6.9:  Scenarios: Domestic water use, current vs. DM    Table 6.3:  Scenarios: Water savings (m3/year)  Scenarios: Water use and savings (m3/year) Slower growth Build-out Slower growth Build-out Current consumption (Business as usual) 862,033 1,154,077 1,478,156 1,911,492 DM usage 531,457 812,704 917,476 1,186,443 Annual savings compared to current 330,576 341,373 560,680 725,049 Metering/IBR usage 603,423 807,854 n/a n/a Annual savings compared to current 258,610 346,223 n/a n/a Maximum Savings usage 438,222 637,418 n/a n/a Annual savings compared to current 423,812 516,659 560,680 725,049 Rossland Invermere    166 6.5  SUMMARY  Rossland uses 50% more water in the summer than during the rest of the year, while Invermere’s summer use exceeds its non-summer average by 40%. On an annual basis, Rossland’s domestic water consumption is 27% higher than Invermere’s, and the biggest difference may be attributed to metering.  Seasonal estimates show that while 40% of domestic summer water use in both communities is for outdoor purposes, Rossland’s per capita usage is 36% higher (112 lcd) than Invermere’s.  There is a negligible difference in per capita water use between Rossland tourists and residents, with similar potential for reduction: maximum savings can reduce usage by over 280 lcd. The difference between tourists and residents in Invermere is more pronounced, where tourists consume 107 lcd more than residents. Tourist consumption in Invermere can be reduced by 274 lcd.  The scenarios indicate that with no water conservation, a slower growth development pathway would consume 25% less water than a full build-out scenario for Rossland, and 23% less than full build-out for Invermere. Under both scenarios of slow growth and full build-out, Invermere could save 38% of annual water use with DM. Rossland ‘s slow growth scenario suggests the City could save nearly 50% more water with DM and metering/IBR than without conservation. Under full build-out, Rossland could save 45% with DM and metering/IBR. Based on these savings, Rossland could accommodate 5,000 extra people and Invermere 2,500 without requiring additional water.  Differences between the communities in terms of climate change impacts, possible new water sources, and pressure for development are not substantial enough to require different approaches to water conservation.  If maximum savings were achieved, Rossland could accommodate nearly 5,000 extra people without expanding its water supply, while Invermere could accommodate nearly 2,500 extra. The numbers presented here help to underscore the message that conservation should be the first point of consideration before new sources of water are exploited.  CHAPTER 7:  INTEGRATED DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION   7.1  SUMMARY  How can mountain resort communities in the Canadian Columbia Basin reduce their water consumption and adapt to climate change? To answer this primary research question, the investigation evaluated domestic water use in two resort communities in the Columbia Basin. I looked at historic and current use, then developed scenarios of future domestic water demands that take into  167 consideration increased climatic variability, along with possible growth and demand management options.  Demand management is an important strategy to address challenges associated with five main factors: a) limited water resources; b) increased climatic variability; c) current water shortages during dry summers; d) seasonal migration from tourism; and e) increased demand from population growth largely driven by demographic changes (retirement trends).  7.2  SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RESULTS  The study found that per capita domestic use in both communities is high, ranging between 350 and 480 lcd as an annual average, or between 24 and 154 litres greater than the Canadian average of 329 lcd. As outlined in Chapter 2, however, Canadian water consumption is extremely high compared with European countries, and can be easily reduced with a variety of demand management measures. Although metering has lowered consumption in Invermere, much more can still be achieved with DM to reduce use, particularly in the summer when both communities experience peak demand.  Both communities rely on surface water to meet their current needs, and face the prospect of greater seasonal flow variability with dwindling natural flows during longer, drier summers.  Both communities are considering expansion—either of storage capacity or new sources—to meet future demand, yet neither community has seriously embarked on a water demand management strategy. Development pressure in both Rossland and Invermere is largely generated from tourism and demographic transition. Invermere’s population increase is most noticeable in the summer, and Rossland’s in the winter; yet both experience peak demand in the summer. Because both tourism and seasonal water use are poorly monitored, it is difficult to determine the current contribution of tourism/ resort-related activity toward water use.  With DM strategies, the potential annual water savings for Rossland range from 274,000 m3 to 348,300 m3, while Invermere’s savings range between 165,700 m3and 183,600 m3.200 Assuming some overlap between savings induced by metering and DM, Rossland could save up to an additional 173,000 m3/year from metering.  In the tourism sector, hotels/motels converting to low-flow toilets and showerheads are the two most effective actions to reduce water needed from the municipality: Rossland could save 10,400 m3 per year, while Invermere can save 38,700 m3. These savings translate to Rossland and Invermere respectively accommodating an extra 50 and 200 guests without increasing water use. By far, the greatest savings at the watershed level in the tourism sector can be realised from not  168 overwatering golf courses. Conservative estimations suggest Rossland’s watershed could save 422 m3per hectare, or nearly 6,000 m3 annually for one 14 hectare course during a normal year. During a dry year, savings reach 550 m3 per hectare, or 7,790 m3 per course. Invermere’s watershed could save over 4,000 m3 per hectare, and over 100,000 m3 for one 24 hectare course.  7.2.1  Scenarios  Rossland   A slow growth scenario for Rossland resulted in a permanent population of 3,845 by 2035, with a winter peak reaching 8,870 including visitors. Metering/IBR combined with a DM package resulted in a maximum savings of 423,800 m3, while aggressive DM was the next best option with a savings of 330,500 m3. With either maximum savings or DM alone, Rossland could accommodate a slow-growth scenario without expanding its water supplies. In fact, Rossland would still be using less water than it is currently. Rossland’s full build-out scenario had a permanent population of 4,780 by 2035, with a winter peak of 18,270 including visitors.  Maximum savings from metering/IBR and DM package totaled more than 500,000 m3. Metering/IBR was found to be the second best option, with savings of 346,200 m3.  Invermere   By adopting an aggressive DM strategy, Invermere could save over 560,000 m3 under its slow growth scenario with a permanent population of 12,400 by the year 2035. Invermere’s full build-out population reached 16,000 with an annual savings of 725,049 m3 from aggressive DM compared to no conservation.  Evidently, both communities stand to reap significant savings from adopting an aggressive water conservation policy regardless of their desired growth paths. With DM and metering/IBR, Rossland could accommodate an extra 5,000 people. Invermere could accommodate an additional 2,500 people with DM without expanding water supply.  Even with conservation, however, full-build out is projected to require significant extra water resources that will become increasingly scarce in the summer due to climate change.  7.3  RECOMMENDATIONS  Rossland and Invermere could significantly reduce their water consumption and more effectively plan for future water needs if a number of actions were taken at the municipal, provincial, and federal  169 levels. Specifically, governments should initiate policy changes to establish a “Water Conservation Framework” that is consistent in its interpretation, implementation, and integration of water—and broader ecological—regulations.   Improve information gathering  1) Environment Canada and/or provincial agencies should re-activate a climate station in Rossland. High altitude monitoring will be increasingly important to understand the effects of climate change, and implications for mountain communities. 2) Installing flow meters on all creeks supplying community water. Reliable flow data is critical for proper management of the resource, and will be especially important to help understand the impact of climate change on mountain streams. 3) The Province and municipalities should develop better tracking and reporting mechanisms for tourism: information pertaining to number of tourists, their origin, and length of stay will be increasingly important for mountain resort communities to develop future programs, policies, and projections—for water, and other areas (e.g. economic impact of currency fluctuations). Looking to other tourism-intense economies could be a good starting point. 4) The Province should require all golf courses to report water use in a standardized format and make available their usage for local watershed management plans. Relying on “good will” is not sufficient for such major water users, and communities need access to information to make informed decisions regarding water resources in their watersheds. 5) Municipalities should introduce metering and sub metering with an increasing block rate structure and seasonal billing for all commercial, residential, and institutional sectors.  Indoor water use  6) The Province should incorporate the requirement for low-flow fixtures into its Building and Plumbing Codes. 7) The Ministry of Health and Ministry of Environment should amend their respective wastewater regulations to allow for small-scale water recycling. 8) Municipalities should introduce/ further promote low-flow fixture rebates for toilets and showerheads. Where possible, funding for rebates can replace funding that would traditionally be invested in supply infrastructure (eg. expanding storage capacity). 9) In the absence of regulation from the Provincial Building/Plumbing code, municipalities should introduce bylaws that require stringent conservation guidelines for new developments (eg. mandatory low-flow fixtures, rainwater collection); and consider a high “unmetered flat rate” to discourage delays installing meters.  170  Outdoor water use  10) Municipalities and Regional Districts need to educate people (home-owners, golf course managers) about IR to help reduce over-watering.  11) By integrating a “water conservation ethic” along with climate change adaptation measures into their OCPs and development guidelines, municipalities should do the following: a. Encourage new developments to incorporate on-site storage. b. Provide rebates and/or rain barrels for residential use, especially for those in the forest-residential interface. (A demonstration garden/ site can help promote the idea). c. Promote multi-family developments as a way to reduce outdoor lawn irrigation associated with single family units. d. Introduce a steep summer water rate above a minimum amount that will encourage homeowners to xeriscape, collect rainwater to irrigate lawns, or convert lawn to growing vegetables and/or fruit, which are less water-intense. The latter use could be charged an “agricultural rate”, and could also help communities meet some of their local food security objectives. e. Keep abreast of possible future changes in the building/plumbing codes that allow for small-scale greywater recycling for indoor use.   7.4  WIDER CONTEXT: CONSIDERATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES  How can water conservation be practically integrated into wider processes at the provincial and community levels?  7.4.1  Propitious Political Environment: 33% by 2020  The B.C. government has committed the province to reducing water use by 33% by 2020. Many of the targets outlined in its Living Water Smart Plan address policy areas that are beyond municipal jurisdiction (e.g. plumbing code, building codes), and these strategies should complement DM/ Soft Path planning that communities are engaging in. However as shown in this analysis, this 33% target is very conservative and can be easily met by metering, low flush toilets and outdoor water conservation. The Province suggests it will help sectors improve the way water is used through the following measures: education; revising B.C.’s regulations and building codes; providing economic and regulatory incentives (e.g. encouraging and labeling water efficient fixtures, mandating purple  171 pipes for water collection and re-use, and pricing if conservation measures are not sufficient); and working with sectors demonstrating opportunities for improvement.201   An analysis of the Living Water Smart Plan is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it appears that the government is on the right track to ensuring sustainable water resource management in the province. Many of these initiatives will directly benefit mountain resort communities. Specifically, communities may want to consider petitioning to have flow gauges installed in their community watersheds.  There is a clear need for better tracking and reporting of water use in communities to determine how much is being used, when, and by whom. Metering of all users, not just “large” water users (as is recommended in the Plan) is important to understand how to better manage water resources.  Single home use and domestic water licenses are excluded from its plan to meter all “large” users, but based on this report, municipalities should consider moving ahead with residential and commercial metering of all users for its own benefit of quantifying use and conservation measures.  It will be helpful for the provincial government to hear from municipalities concerning changes that will be beneficial for them. For example, changing the plumbing code to allow for rainwater use for toilets—especially for buildings where outdoor requirements are minimal (eg. commercial and industrial)—could expand the range of options available to developers to help municipalities meet conservation goals.  7.4.2  Community Plans  The growing awareness around climate change impacts and opportunities for adaptation and mitigation can serve as a window of opportunity for policy makers to pass progressive legislation that reflects a “systems approach” to management. At the watershed scale, this approach needs to consider water quantity and quality, and systems should be in place to monitor both so changes can be documented over time.  Water conservation should not only be incorporated into Official Community Plans, but also communities’ Watershed Management Plans. Such monitoring is also important to help address questions relating to land-water interactions, as well as surface water-ground water interactions.   172 7.4.3  Economic Considerations  While an economic analysis is beyond the scope of this study, economic factors largely determine which policy options are feasible. While DM strategies have their own costs, infrastructure upgrades can be several times more costly.  A sound starting point is developing an increasing block rate billing structure to send a strong market signal in favour of conservation. At the time of finishing this report, both Rossland and Invermere show intentions to implement an IBR and expand metering to cover all residential units. Municipalities should also ensure development cost charges not only cover the direct costs, but also help to off-set the cost of upgrading new infrastructure. Water needs to be priced to encourage conservation, and education campaigns are critical to avoid public backlash over “paying more for less.”  7.5  LIMITATIONS AND DATA WEAKNESSES  7.5.1  Tourism  Information scarcity relating to tourism numbers proved to be a major impediment to determining what share of water use to attribute to non-permanent residents. Information from certain golf courses, developers, and large ski companies was not made available on the grounds of “commercial confidentiality.” Consequently, some of these developments were not included in the study, but do have a (possibly significant) bearing on the overall water use for these communities. Records kept by tourism B.C. are not sufficient for detailed analysis, as they do not include accommodations apart from motels, hotels, and vacation rentals. In both Rossland and Invermere, anecdotal evidence suggests that at least half of the visitors prefer to stay in B&Bs, lodges and rental houses, none of which are tracked by B.C. Tourism statistics. As a consequence, the actual number of tourists in this study are significantly under reported.  7.5.2  Golf  A dearth of data for golf courses made these estimations unreliable, but point to the need for standardized reporting of such large water users.  7.5.3  Water Use  Estimating water use in the absence of meters proved difficult, as water use was then inferred indirectly based on water intake.  Even where information was collected, it is clear that some communities do not have a good understanding of their water infrastructure network and/or methodology for data collection and reporting.  173   In addition, some data was unreliable due to a flow meter that was broken for several months. General metered data is helpful for this type of study, but it is more useful to also have access to the actual users and their general location or location by sector, e.g. hotel, restaurant, lodge, resort development. While this information is considered confidential, it is especially helpful to be able to know who the user is/ general location (e.g. particular part of town) when trying to determine water use by sector and/or industry like tourism that has such poor record keeping.  7.5.4  Climate   Many climate stations in/around the case study areas have been discontinued. Consequently, climate data was extrapolated from other sites, sometimes up to 35 kms away and up to a 590 m difference in altitude. In the case of Rossland, evapotranspiration rates from Castlegar—the closest station tracked by the Irrigation Association of B.C. were used, but these rates may not be appropriate for Rossland.  7.6  FURTHER LINES OF INQUIRY  Energy-water link  Detailed study into the energy requirements for drinking and waste water storage, treatment, and transportation would be useful to determine the extent to which water conservation can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The few estimates in this study are based on research in Ontario, but B.C.-specific information that considers local hydro energy could be insightful. For example, Polis released a new report on energy-water linkages in Ontario as this thesis was coming to a close. It concluded that, “The energy savings associated with pumping 20% less water in 2029 could achieve a whopping 34% of the reported energy reduction potential for Ontario municipalities”.202 Such research could lead to a province-wide, water and energy rating system for appliances.  Rainwater collection and snowfall  Investigation into practical rainwater collection designs for residential and commercial buildings in areas of high snowfall would be useful.  Companies primarily based in the United States offer gutters marketed to withstand high snowfall. Given the general reticence to installing gutters in communities in the Basin, it seems demonstration of efficacy and education are needed to make the case for rainwater collection. This could also provide an economic opportunity for local manufacturers/suppliers.   174 Groundwater  Further investigation is needed into aquifer mapping, and determining capacity, vulnerability and recharge rates. As development proceeds in these mountain resort communities, so too will impervious surface cover increase.. In the absence of aquifer recharge rates, it is difficult to determine the effect of surrounding development and whether withdrawal rates are sustainable. Groundwater-surface water interactions are also poorly understood, but extremely relevant for the Columbia Basin. Regulations on groundwater extraction are long overdue.  Water supply  While water supply was not intended as a main focus of this study, understanding volume parameters determined by seasonal flow rates, water licenses, and instream flow requirements would be helpful to estimate water availability both now and in the future.  This report outlining current and possible future domestic demand should be combined with a supply analysis, such as that conducted by Micklethwaite (2008) for Rossland.  Irrigation requirements   More detailed information on crop water requirements for the specific mountain communities could be useful as concerns around local food security prompt Basin residents to produce more local food during the summer.  Risk assessment  Considerations around water and climate change adaptation for mountain resort communities go far beyond water demand management. Assessing risks relating to floods, fires, and other extreme weather events, sufficient snowfall for commercial ski operations, as well as water quality issues all constitute further lines of inquiry, and, ultimately, considerations for policy makers.  175 REFERENCES CITED  Internet sources  American Water and Energy Savers, Water Submetering: http://www.americanwater.com/wsubmetr.htm;  American Water Works Association: http://www.awwa.org  B.C. Government, Towns for Tomorrow: http://www.townsfortomorrow.gov.bc.ca.  B.C. Government, Green Cities Awards: http://www.greencitiesawards.gov.bc.ca. B.C’s Kootenays Golf courses: http://www.kootenays.worldweb.com/ToursActivitiesAdventures/GolfCourses/  B.C. Ministry of Environment, Living Water Smart: http://www.livingwatersmart.ca  B.C. Ministry of Environment, Water Stewardship: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/plan_protect_sustain/water_conservation/wtr_cons_strategy/current.ht ml#34  Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment (CCME): http://www.ccme.ca  Canadian Water and Wastewater Association: http://www.cwwa.ca  Capital Regional District Water Services, Demand Management. http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/conservation/demandmanagement.htm.  Capital Regional District Water Services, Irrigation Rebate Program. http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/conservation/rebates/irrigation.htm.  Capital Regional District Water Services, Smart Wash Rebate Program: http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/conservation/rebates/smartwash.htm.  Capital Regional District Water Services, Water Wise Fixture Replacement Program: http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/conservation/rebates/bathroom.htm.   176 City of Aspen, Water “Interesting Facts”: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/depts/58/interesting.cfm.  Columbia Basin Trust, Communities Adapting to Climate Change Initiative: http://www.cbt.org/Initiatives/Climate_Change/?view&vars=1&content=Whats_New&WebDynID=902  Environment Canada, Leak detection and repair: http://www.ec.gc.ca/WATER/en/manage/effic/e_leak.htm;  Environment Canada, Water conservation in the kitchen: http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/nttw/e_nttwi4.htm   Environment Canada, Water conservation in the outdoors: http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/nttw/e_nttwi7.htm, http://www.h2ouse.net/  Environment Canada, Water conservation—every drop counts: http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/FS/e_FSA6.htm  Environment Canada’s National Climate Archive: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/Welcome_e.html.  Fairmont Golf (March 2007) “The Grass is Always Greener on Fairmont's Audubon - Certified Sanctuary Courses”: http://www.fairmontgolf.com/content/news.aspx?l=0,1,3,185  Friends of the Earth Canada. Lexicon of Water Soft Path Knowledge: http://www.foecanada.org/WSP%20Lexicon/WSP%20Index%20web.htm  GeoExchange BC “Sun Rivers Resort Goes Geothermal”: http://www.geoexchangebc.ca/news.aspx  Global Development Research Centre, 49 Ways of Saving Water: http://www.gdrc.org/uem/water/49- ways.html  Golf Environment Europe (date unknown) “Scottish Golf Climate Change Report”: http://www.golfenvironmenteurope.org/technical.html#climate  Green Room (The): www.nsaa.org/nsaa/environment/the_greenroom/index.asp  H2Ouse Water Saver Home: http://www.h2ouse.net/  177  Keep Winter Cool: www.keepwintercool.org/skiareaaction.html  National Ski Areas Association, Sustainable Slopes: The Environmental Charter for Ski Areas: www.nsaa.org/nsaa/environment/sustainable_slopes  Neighbor City, Aspen Housing Demographics and Statistics: http://www.neighborcity.com/CO/Aspen/community-demographics/population/  Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Guidelines for designing a water conservation program: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watershedmgmt/cwp/view.asp?a=1435&q=524163;  POLIS Project on Ecological Governance: www.waterdsm.org  R&A (The) www.bestcourseforgolf.org.  Summerland Hill Golf Resort: www.summerlandhills.com/Audubon.html  Sun Rivers: http://www.sunrivers.com/geothermal/golf-geothermal-heating.shtml.  U.S. Golf Association: http://www.usga.org/turf/articles/environment/water/water_conservation.html  Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation: www.gordonfn.org  Whistler Blackcomb: http://www.whistlerblackcomb.com/mountain/environment/water.htm  Whistler Chamber of Commerce www.whistlerchamber.com   178  Literary sources  American Water Works Association, Water Audit Methodology: http://www.awwa.org/Resources/content.cfm?ItemNumber=588  Aspen Global Change Institute (2005), Climate Change and Aspen: An Assessment of Impacts and Potential Responses: http://www.agci.org/aspenStudy.html  Atwood, Christine; Kreutzwiser, Reid; de Lo, Rob (2007) Residents' Assessment of an Urban Outdoor Water Conservation Program in Guelph, Ontario Journal of the American Water Resources Association: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/902269/residents_assessment_of_an_urban_outdoor_water_c onservation_program_in/index.html  AWWA (2008) Communicating the Value of Water: An Introductory Guide for Utilities: http://www.awwarf.org/research/TopicsAndProjects/execSum/3113.aspx  B.C. Golf Association et al. (2006) Economic impact of the sport of golf in British Columbia.  B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (2004), “Weather, Climate and the Future: B.C.’s Plan” Victoria B.C. p.6-7.  B.C. Stats (May 2008), Tourism Room Revenue by Region, Annual 2007 (Preliminary), http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/busind/tourism.asp  B.C. Stats (June 2007), Tourism Industry Monitor Annual 2006: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/busind/tourism.asp#TRR  Beacon Pathway Ltd (August 2008), “Slowing the flow: A comprehensive demand management framework for reticulated water supply”, New Zealand, p. 12.  Bel-MK Engineering Ltd. (Jan 2005) Columbia Valley to Dry Gulch Servicing study.  Bernard Cantin, Dan Shrubsole and Meriem Aït-Ouyahia “Using Economic Instruments for Water Demand Management: Introduction” Canadian Water Resources Journal Vol. 30(1): 1–10 (2005).   179 Brandes, Brooks and M’Gonigle (2007), “Moving Water Conservation to Centre Stage”, Chapter 14 in Bakker, K. (Ed.), Eau Canada: The Future of Canada’s Water UBC Press, p. 285.  Brandes, O., T. Maas, and E. Reynolds (2006), Thinking Beyond Pipes and Pumps: Top 10 Ways Communities Can Save Water and Money, Polis Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria. http://www.waterdsm.org/pdf/ThinkingBeyond_lowres.pdf  Brandes, O. and Kriwoken, L., Changing Perspectives – Changing Paradigms: Demand management strategies and innovative solutions for a sustainable Okanagan water future. Prepared for the CWRA annual conference  “Water – Our Limiting Resource” February 23-25, 2005 p.4 Kelowna B.C.: www.waterdsm.org/Discussion%20Paper_files/CWRA_paper_feb05.pdf.  Brandes, O.M. and D.B. Brooks. (2005). The Soft Path for Water in a Nutshell. Published by Friends of the Earth, Victoria, B.C..  Brandes, O., Mass, T. (2004), Developing Water Sustainability Through Urban Water Demand Management POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria, B.C.. www.waterdsm.org/pdf/dev_sustainability_provincial04.pdf  Brooks, D. and Rose, G., (2004), Another Path Not Taken: A Methodological Exploration of Water Soft Paths for Canada and Elsewhere. Revised report, Friends of the Earth Canada, Ottawa.  Campbell, I. (2004), Toward Integrated Freshwater Policies for Canada’s Future, in Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network (C-CAIRN), B.C: http://www.c- ciarn.ca/bc_e.html  Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation (2002), Household guide to water efficiency. CHMC.  Canadian Water and Wastewater Association (2008), Clean Water, Green Jobs: A Stimulus Package for Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investments to the Federal Government: http://www.cwwa.ca/freepub_e.asp City of Aspen, “Aspen Reduces Water Usage” (December 26, 2007) Press Release: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/apps/news/news_item_detail.cfm?NewsItemID=833   180 de Lo, R., L. Moraru, R. Kreutzwiser, K. Schaefer, and B. Mills, (2001) Demand Side Management of Water in Ontario Municipalities: Status, Progress, and Opportunities. Journal of the American Water Resource Association 37(1):57-72.  DeOreo, W. B., Dietemann, A., Skeel, T., Mayer, P. W., Lewis, D. M., & Smith, J. (2001). Retrofit realities. Journal of the American Water Works Association, 93(3), 58-72.  Diane P. Dupont (2005) “Tapping into Consumers’ Perceptions of Drinking Water Quality in Canada: Capturing Customer Demand to Assist in Better Management of Water Resources Canadian Water Resources Journal Vol. 30(1): 11–20.  Dobson (2002), City of Rossland Water Management Plan.  Ells, Blair (2005), Water Use Efficiency and Conservation in the Kootenay Region of the Canadian Columbia River Basin, Canadian Columbia River Intertribal Fisheries Commission: www.ires.ubc.ca/projects/cbt/links/CCRIFC_wateruse.pdf  Environment Canada indicates that Canadians consume 343 l/c/d (date unknown); while Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation suggests Canadians use 326 l/c/d. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) (2000), Household Guide to water efficiency p. 2.  Environment Canada Municipal Water Use by Sector 2004: http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/images/manage/effic/a6f2e.htm  Environment Canada, “Comparison of Domestic Water Use among Development Nations”. Topic 4. Water Works! Chapter 4A: One resource – Many users: http://www.ec.gc.ca/WATER/en/info/pubs/lntwfg/e_chap4a.htm  European Environment Agency (2001), Indicator Factsheet, Households: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Sectors_and_activities/households/indicators/energy/hh07household.pdf  European Environmental Agency (2007) Climate Change and Water Adaptation Issues EEA Technical report No 2/2007: www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2007_2/eea_technical_report_2_2007.pdf  European Environmental Agency, Indicator: Water use in urban areas [2003.1001]: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Specific_media/water/indicators/WQ02e,2003.1001   181 Gleick P, Haasz D, Henges-Jeck C, Srinivasan V, Wolff G, Cushing K, Mann A.  (2003) “Waste Not, Want Not:  The potential for Urban Water Conservation in California” Oakland, Pacific Institute: www.pacinst.org/reports/urban_usage/waste_not_want_not_full_report.pdf ;  Gleick, P. (2003), Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the 21st Century. Science. Vol 302 p. 1524- 1528.  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007), Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report [1.3]  J. Kinkead, A. Boardley and M. Kin (2006),“An analysis of Canadian and other Water Conservation Practices and Initiatives, Issues, Opportunities and Suggested Directions.  Prepared for the Water Conservation and Economics Task Group Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment: http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/kinkead_fnl_rpt_2005_04_2.1_web.pdf  Julian Thornton, "Managing Leakage by Managing Pressure: a practical approach” IWA Taskforce: http://www.water-audit.com/Publications.htm  Kootenay Rockies Tourism Association (2005) Golf Tracking Report.  Kootenay Rockies Tourism Association (2006) Golf Tracking Report.  Lallana, C., Thyssen, N. (October 2003), European Environment Agency, Indicator Fact Sheet (WQ02e) Water use in urban areas [2003.1001]: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Specific_media/water/indicators/WQ02e,2003.1001  Leonard Doyle (29 April 2006) “Andalucia's pioneering golf course” The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/europe/andalucias-pioneering-golf-course-475988.html  Maas, C., (2009), “The Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-benefits of Water Conservation” Polis Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria, B.C. http://www.poliswaterproject.org/publication/91  Micklethwaite (2008) Rossland’s Water Resources “White Paper”.  Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (2002), Indicators of Climate Change for British Columbia 2002, Victoria, B.C env.gov.bc.ca/air/climate/indicat/pdf/indcc.pdf  182  National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Research in Construction, “Leak detection method for Plastic water distribution pipes”: http://irc.nrccnrc.gc.ca/ui/bu/leakdetect_e.html  Neale, T., J. Carmichael and S. Cohen. (2007), Urban water futures: A multivariate analysis of population growth and climate change impacts on urban water demand in the Okanagan Basin, BC. Canadian Water Resources Journal. 32(4): 315-330.  Neale, T. (Sept 2005), Impacts of Climate Change and Population Growth on Residential Water Demand in the Okanagan Basin, Master’s Thesis submitted to UBC: www.sgog.bc.ca/uplo/TNeale_Thesis_finalsubmission.pdf  Nelson, Valerie I.  (2007), A Soft Path water paradigm shift: federal policies to advance decentralized and integrated water resource infrastructure: www.sustainablewaterforum.org/fed/report.pdf  Ontario Water Works Association (June 2008) Outdoor Water use reduction manual, Toronto, Ontario.  Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (2006) Preliminary Analysis of Climate Variability and Change in the Canadian Columbia River Basin: Focus on Water Resources, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C  Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (2007) Climate Change in the Canadian Columbia Basin: Starting the Dialogue: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C www.pacificclimate.org/docs/publications/Columbia_Basin_Climate_Change_Dialogue_Brochure.pdf  Postel, Sandra and Richter, Brian (2003), “Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature, Chapter 2. Island Press.  Red Mountain Ventures (2007), Technical Briefing “Water Management for the Golf Club at Red Mountain.”  Resort Municipality of Whistler’s (RMOW) 2007 Annual Water System Monitoring Report  Schreier,H., S. Brown, L. Lavkulich, J. Wilson, T. van der Gulik, S. Tam,S.Lee, D. Nielsen. 2008. Integrating Blue, Green and Virtual Water: Comparing Irrigation Water Requirements for Different Land Uses in the Driest Watershed in Canada. Final Report: Water & Duncan Gordon Foundation, Toronto: http://www.gordonfn.org/resfiles/Virtual%20Water%20in%20the%20Okanagan%20Watershed%20Re  183 port.pdf  Shardul Agrawala (Ed) (2007) “Climate Change in the European Alps: Adapting Winter Tourism and Natural Hazards Management” OECD: http://www.oecd.org/document/45/0,3343,en_2649_34361_37819437_1_1_1_1,00.html  Sheltair Group (March 2007), Visions to Action Rossland Community Profile  Shuswap Indian Reserve (June 2004), Comprehensive Community Development Plan  Smart Growth on the Ground (2006), Foundation Research Bulletin: Greater Oliver, No 3, Water conservation.  Statistics Canada 2001 Census. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/fam/canada.cfm.  Statistics Canada. 2007. 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Released March 13, 2007: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/index.cfm?Lang=E  Tate, D.M, (1990), Water Demand Management in Canada: A State of the Art Review Social Science Series No. 23, Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa: www.ec.gc.ca/WATER/en/info/pubs/sss/e_sss23.htm  Toronto Works and Emergency Services (date unknown) “Chapter 2: The Water System”: www.toronto.ca/watereff/pdf/chap2.pdf  Tourism B.C. (2007), “Kootenay Rockies Profile: www.tourismbc.com/PDF/RegionalProfile_KootenayRockies_2007.pdf  Urban Systems (2007), Highway 93/95 Shuswap Indian Reserve Land Use and Transportation Study.  Urban Systems (2008), “District of Invermere water supply and water treatment strategy”.  Urban Systems (March 2007) Development Yield Update Report p.5.   184 Veritec Consulting Inc. (May 2008), Region of Durham Efficient Community Final Report, Mississauga Ont. p.12.  Vickers, A. (2002), “Handbook of Water Use and Conservation” Amherst, Waterplow Press: www.waterdsm.org/Discussion%20Paper_files/CWRA_paper_feb05.pdf.  185 APPENDICES  APPENDIX A:  CHAPTER 4 Appendix 4.1:  Water Licenses Held by the City of Rossland  Table 4.30: Water Licenses Held by the City of Rossland    *Considered impractical today due to highway and residential contamination Adapted from WF Micklethwaite 6/16/2008 p.13  Water Licenses Held by the City of Rossland Creek License Amount (m3/day)  Topping 455 Hanna 3430 Murphy 455 Connected Subtotal 4340 *Small springs 660 Elgood  910 West Little Sheep Creek 680 Available Subtotal 6590  186 Appendix 4.2:  Seasonal Water Use Per Capita  Figure 4.31:  Rossland City vs. Red Mountain winter water use per capita 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Average Red City W a te r  u s e  ( lc d )  Rossland: City vs. Red Mountain winter water use per capita 25th pct 50th pct 75th pct MEAN Figure 4.32:  Rossland City vs. Red Mountain spring water use per capita  0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Average Red City W a te r  u s e  ( lc d )  Rossland City vs. Red Mountain Spring water use per capita 25th pct 50th pct 75th pct MEAN   187 Figure 4.33:  Rossland City vs. Red Mountain summer water use per capita 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Average Red City W a te r  u s e  ( lc d )  Rossland: City vs. Red Mountain summer water use per capita 25th pct 50th pct 75th pct MEAN  Figure 4.34:  Rossland City vs. Red Mountain fall water use per capita  0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Average Red City W a te r  u s e  ( lc d )  Rossland City vs. Red Mountain  Fall water use per capita 25th pct 50th pct 75th pct MEAN   188 Appendix 4.3:  Significance Tests  Table 4.31:  Rossland Climate significance tests  Rossland climate significance tests*   Winter Spring Summer Time periods Significance level Period 1 vs 2 1968-1976 vs 1977-1997 P= <0.05 n/s n/s Period 1 vs 3 1968-1976 vs 1998-2007 P= <0.05 p=< 0.05 p=< 0.05 Period 2 vs 3 1977-1997 vs 1998-2007 P= <0.05 p=< 0.05 p=< 0.05  n/s  not significant * Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon test   189 Appendix 4.4:  Climate Data  Figure 4.35:  Rossland: Spring annual climate !" #!" $!!" $#!" %!!" %#!" &!!" &#!" '!!" (%!" ($!" !" $!" %!" &!" '!" $" &" #" )" *" $$" $&" $#" $)" $*" %$" %&" %#" %)" %*" &$" &&" &#" &)" &*" '$" ! "# $% & %' ( '% ) * +, - - .+ /# - & # "( '0 "# +, 1 .+ 2#("+ 3)445(*67+8&"%*9+(**0(5+$5%-('#+ +,-./"012345"6778" 92.1" :2.;"+275"6<=>8" ?@-1":.@"+275"6<=>8" ?@-1":4;"+275"6<=>8" A4;2.16+,-./"012345"67788" A4;2.16:2.;"+275"6<=>88" A4;2.16?@-1":.@"+275"6<=>88" A4;2.16?@-1":4;"+275"6<=>88"  Figure 4.36: Rossland: Summer annual climate !" #!" $!!" $#!" %!!" %#!" &!!" !" #" $!" $#" %!" %#" &!" &#" '!" $ ( ) * " $ ( + ! " $ ( + % " $ ( + ' " $ ( + ) " $ ( + * " $ ( * ! " $ ( * % " $ ( * ' " $ ( * ) " $ ( * * " $ ( ( ! " $ ( ( % " $ ( ( ' " $ ( ( ) " $ ( ( * " % ! ! ! " % ! ! % " % ! ! ' " % ! ! ) " ! "# $% & %' ( '% ) * +, - - .+ /# - & # "( '0 "# +, 1 .+ 2#("+ 3)445(*67+80--#"+(**0(5+$5%-('#+ ,-./0"123456"7889" :3/;",386"7<9" =>.2":/>",386"7<9" =>.2":5;",386"7<9" ?5;3/27,-./0"123456"78899" ?5;3/27:3/;",386"7<99" ?5;3/27=>.2":/>",386"7<99" ?5;3/27=>.2":5;",386"7<99"  190 Figure 4.37:  Rossland: Fall annual climate  !" #!" $!!" $#!" %!!" %#!" &!!" &#!" '!!" '#!" (&!" (%!" ($!" !" $!" %!" &!" '!" $ ) * + " $ ) , ! " $ ) , % " $ ) , ' " $ ) , * " $ ) , + " $ ) + ! " $ ) + % " $ ) + ' " $ ) + * " $ ) + + " $ ) ) ! " $ ) ) % " $ ) ) ' " $ ) ) * " $ ) ) + " % ! ! ! " % ! ! % " % ! ! ' " % ! ! * " ! "# $% & %' ( '% ) * +, - - .+ /# - & # "( '0 "# +, 1 .+ 2#("+ 3)445(*67+8(55+(**0(5+$5%-('#+ -./01"234567"899:" ;40<"-497"8=:" >?/3";0?"-497"8=:" >?/3";6<"-497"8=:" @6<4038-./01"234567"899::" @6<4038;40<"-497"8=::" @6<4038>?/3";0?"-497"8=::" @6<4038>?/3";6<"-497"8=::"  Figure 4.38:  Rossland: Winter annual climate !" #!!" $!!" %!!" &!!" '!!" (!!" )&!" )%!" )$!" )#!" !" #!" $!" # * ( + " # * , ! " # * , $ " # * , & " # * , ( " # * , + " # * + ! " # * + $ " # * + & " # * + ( " # * + + " # * * ! " # * * $ " # * * & " # * * ( " # * * + " $ ! ! ! " $ ! ! $ " $ ! ! & " $ ! ! ( " $ ! ! + " ! "# $% & %' ( '% ) * +, - - .+ /# - & # "( '0 "# +, 1 .+ 2#("+ 3)445(*67+8%*'#"+(**0(5+$5%-('#+ -./01"234567"899:" ;40<"-497"8=:" >?/3";0?"-497"8=:" >?/3";6<"-497"8=:" @6<4038-./01"234567"899::" @6<4038;40<"-497"8=::" @6<4038>?/3";0?"-497"8=::" @6<4038>?/3";6<"-497"8=::"  191 Appendix 4.5:  Climate and Water Use Correlation  Figure 4.39:  Rossland: Summer water use and precipitation (2001-2007) y = -1067.8x + 502247 R! = 0.77645 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 0 50 100 150 200 250 W a te r u s e  ( R o s s la n d -a ll  s e c to rs ) Precipitation (mm) Rossland: Summer water use and precipitation (2001-07) Water use (m3)-Rossland all sectors Water use-precipitation trend  Figure 4.40:  Rossland: Summer water use and X-Max temperature (2001-2007) y = 26669x - 581764 R! = 0.61799 !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" (!!$!!!" (#!$!!!" '&" '&" ''" ''" '(" '(" '#" '#" ')" ')" '*" W a te r u s e  ( R o s s la n d -a ll  s e c to rs ) X-max temperature (C) Rossland: Summer water use and X-Max temperature (2001-07) X Max Temp (!) Water use-X max temperature trend   192 Figure 4.41:  Rossland: Summer water use and mean temperature (2001-2007)  y = 29269x - 194064 R! = 0.306 !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" (!!$!!!" (#!$!!!" %)" %)" %*" %*" %+" %+" &!" &!" W a te r u s e  ( R o s s la n d -a ll  s e c to rs ) Mean temperature (C) Rossland: Summer water use and mean temperature (2001-07) ,-./0"12/"34'5678229-:;"-99"2/<.802" ,-./0"12/64/-:"./4=/0-.10/".0/:;"    193 Appendix 4.6  Climate Data and Water Use  Figure 4.42:  Rossland: Spring precipitation and water use (2001-2007) !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" !" #!" %!!" %#!" &!!" &#!" &!!%" &!!&" &!!'" &!!(" &!!#" &!!)" &!!*" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& - %$ ./ 0 /# " #/ 1 2 &) * * ,& 3$"%& 41((5"267&80%/29&0%$./0/#"#/12&"26&:"#$%&;($&)<==>?<==@,& +,-./"01."23'4" 5/.6787-,-79:"2334" Figure 4.43:  Rossland: Spring temperature and water use (2001-2007) !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '%#" '%!" '#" !" #" %!" %#" &!" &#" (!" (#" &!!%" &!!&" &!!(" &!!)" &!!#" &!!*" &!!+" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& -$ * . $ %" #/ %$ &) 0 ,& 1$"%& 23((4"567&8.%95:&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"56&;"#$%&/($& ,-./0"12/"34(5" 6/-7"8/49"3:5" ;<.0"6-<"8/49"3:5" ;<.0"6=7"8/49"3:5"  194 Figure 4.44:  Rossland: Summer precipitation and water use (2001-2007)  !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" (!!$!!!" (#!$!!!" !" #!" %!!" %#!" &!!" &#!" &!!%" &!!&" &!!'" &!!(" &!!#" &!!)" &!!*" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& - %$ ./ 0 /# " #/ 1 2 &) * * ,& 3$"%& 41((5"267&89**$%&0%$./0/#"#/12&"26&:"#$%&9($&);<<=>;<<?,& +,-./"01."23'4" 56-,7"8/.9:;"2334" Figure 4.45:  Rossland: Summer temperature and water use (2001-2007) !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" (!!$!!!" (#!$!!!" !" #" %!" %#" &!" &#" '!" '#" (!" &!!%" &!!&" &!!'" &!!(" &!!#" &!!)" &!!*" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& -$ * . $ %" #/ %$ &) 01 ,& 2$"%& 34((5"678&9/**$%&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"67&:"#$%&/($&);<<=>;<<?,& +,-./"01."23'4" 5.,6"7.38"2!4" 9"5,:"7.38"2!4" 9"5;6"7.38"2!4"  195 Figure 4.46:  Rossland: Fall precipitation and water use (2001-2007)  !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" !" #!" %!!" %#!" &!!" &#!" '!!" &!!%" &!!&" &!!'" &!!(" &!!#" &!!)" &!!*" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& - %$ ./ 0 /# " #/ 1 2 &) * * ,& 3$"%& 41((5"267&8"55&0%$./0/#"#/12&"26&9"#$%&:($&);<<=>;<<?,& +,-./"01."23'4" 5/.6787-,-79:"2334" Figure 4.47:  Rossland: Fall temperatures and water use (2001-2007) !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '&!" '%!" !" %!" &!" (!" )!" &!!%" &!!&" &!!(" &!!)" &!!#" &!!*" &!!+" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * +& ,$ ) - $ %" #. %$ &/ 0 +& 1$"%& 23((4"567&8"44&#$)-$%"#.%$(&"56&9"#$%&.($&/&:;;<=;>+& ,-./0"12/"34(5" 6/-7"8/49"3:5" ;<.0"6-<"8/49"3:5" ;<.0"6=7"8/49"3:5"  196 Figure 4.48:  Rossland: Winter precipitation and water use (2001-2007)  !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" !" #!" %!!" %#!" &!!" &#!" '!!" '#!" &!!%" &!!&" &!!'" &!!(" &!!#" &!!)" &!!*" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& - %$ ./ 0 /# " #/ 1 2 &) * * ,& 3$"%& 41((5"267&!/2#$%&0%$./0/#"#/12&"26&8"#$%&9($&):;;<=:;;>,& +,-./"01."23'4" 56-,7"8/.9:;"2334" Figure 4.49:  Rossland: Winter temperatures and water use (2001-2007) !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '&#" '&!" '%#" '%!" '#" !" #" %!" &!!%" &!!&" &!!(" &!!)" &!!#" &!!*" &!!+" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& -$ * . $ %" #/ %$ &) 0 ,& 1$"%& 23((4"567&!85#$%&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"56&9"#$%&/($&):;;<=:;;>,& ,-./0"12/"34(5" 67.0"8-7"9/4:"3;5" 67.0"8<="9/4:"3;5" 8/-="9/4:"3;5"  197  198  APPENDIX B:  CHAPTER 5 Numbering for tables and figures follows from Chapter 5.  Appendix 5.1:  Water Licenses Held by District Of Invermere  Table 5.26:  Water licenses held by District Of Invermere  DOI Licenses for Goldie Creek  Number Purpose Quantity Units M3 / year C059982 Waterworks Local Auth 306600000 GY 1,165,080 C060003 Storage 350 AF 431,718 C064859 Irrigation Local Auth 300 AF 370,044 C064859 Waterworks Local Auth 36500000 GY 138,700 C064860 Waterworks Local Auth 21000000 GY 79,800 C064861 Waterworks Local Auth 547500000 GY 2,080,500 Total    4,265,842 Private Licenses Number Purpose Quantity Units M3 / year C026458 Domestic 500 GD 694 C026458 Irrigation 20 AF 24,670 C04390 Irrigation 35 AF 43,172 C051365 Domestic 500 GD 694 C051365 Irrigation 72.6 AF 89,551 C051365 Domestic 500 GD 694 C051365 Irrigation 72.6 AF 89,551 C100245 Domestic 500 GD 694 C114193 Irrigation 150 AF 185,022 C114208 Storage 400 AF 493,392 C114230 Irrigation 500 AF 616,740 C114231 Storage 500 AF 616,740 Total Private    2,161,611 Total DOI and Private   6,427,453 GY= gallons/year. Conversion factor GY-M3 = 0.0038 AF=Acre feet per annum. Conversion factor AF-M3 =1233.48  199 Appendix 5.2:  Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Significance Tests  Table 5.27:  Invermere climate significant tests  Invermere climate significance tests*  Winter Spring Summer Time periods Significance level Period 1 vs 2 1968-1976 vs 1977-1997 n/s P= <0.05 p=< 0.05 Period 1 vs 3 1968-1976 vs 1998-2007 P= <0.05 p=< 0.05 n/s Period 2 vs 3 1977-1997 vs 1998-2007 P= <0.05 p=< 0.05 p=< 0.05  n/s  not significant * Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon test   200 Appendix 5.3:  Kootenay Park Annual Climate  Figure 5.28:  Kootenay Park annual spring climate  !" #!" $!" %!" &!" '!!" '#!" '$!" '%!" ()!" (#*" (#!" ('*" ('!" (*" !" *" '!" '*" #!" #*" )!" )*" $!" ' + % + " ' + , ! " ' + , ' " ' + , # " ' + , ) " ' + , $ " ' + , * " ' + , % " ' + , , " ' + , & " ' + , + " ' + & ! " ' + & ' " ' + & # " ' + & ) " ' + & $ " ' + & * " ' + & % " ' + & , " ' + & & " ' + & + " ' + + ! " ' + + ' " ' + + # " ' + + ) " ' + + $ " ' + + * " ' + + % " ' + + , " ' + + & " ' + + + " # ! ! ! " # ! ! ' " # ! ! # " # ! ! ) " # ! ! $ " # ! ! * " # ! ! % " - # ! ! , " ! "# $% & %' ( '% ) * +, - - .+ /# - & # "( '0 "# +, 1 .+ 2#("+ 3))'#*(4+!("5+(**0(6+7&"%*8+$6%-('#+ ./012"345678"9::;" <51=".5:8"9>;" ?@04"<1@".5:8"9>;" ?@04"<7=".5:8"9>;" A7=5149./012"345678"9::;;" A7=5149<51=".5:8"9>;;" A7=5149?@04"<1@".5:8"9>;;" A7=5149?@04"<7=".5:8"9>;;"   201 Figure 5.29:  Kootenay Park annual fall climate  !" #!" $!" %!" &!" '!!" '#!" '$!" '%!" '&!" #!!" ##!" #$!" #%!" #&!" (!!" (#!" ($!" )$!" )(!" )#!" )'!" !" '!" #!" (!" $!" ' * % * " ' * + ! " ' * + ' " ' * + # " ' * + ( " ' * + $ " ' * + , " ' * + % " ' * + + " ' * + & " ' * + * " ' * & ! " ' * & ' " ' * & # " ' * & ( " ' * & $ " ' * & , " ' * & % " ' * & + " ' * & & " ' * & * " ' * * ! " ' * * ' " ' * * # " ' * * ( " ' * * $ " ' * * , " ' * * % " ' * * + " ' * * & " ' * * * " # ! ! ! " # ! ! ' " # ! ! # " # ! ! ( " # ! ! $ " # ! ! , " # ! ! % " - # ! ! + " ! "# $% & %' ( '% ) * +, - - .+ /# - & # "( '0 "# +, 1 .+ 2#("+ 3))'#*(4+!("5+(**0(6+7(66+$6%-('#+ ./012"345678"9::;" <51=".5:8"9>;" ?@04"<1@".5:8"9>;" ?@04"<7=".5:8"9>;" A7=5149./012"345678"9::;;" A7=5149<51=".5:8"9>;;" A7=5149?@04"<1@".5:8"9>;;" A7=5149?@04"<7=".5:8"9>;;"   202 Appendix 5.4:  Climate and Water Use Correlation  Figure 5.30:  Invermere: Summer water use and precipitation (2003-07)  !"#"$%&'()&*"+"%,,%)-" ./"#")(-')01" )" 0)2)))" &))2)))" &0)2)))" ,))2)))" ,0)2)))" '))2)))" '0)2)))" %))2)))" %0)2)))" 0))2)))" )" 0)" &))" &0)" ,))" ,0)" '))" '0)" %))" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& -%$./0/#"#/12&)**,& 324$%*$%$5&6'**$%&7"#$%&'($&"28&0%$./0/#"#/12&)9::+;:<,& 34567"896":;'<"=>?67;676"4@@"96A5B79" 34567"C96$D76AEDE545EB>"576>F"    203 Figure 5.31:  Invermere: Summer water use and X-Max temperature (2001-07)  ! !"#"$%&'()"*"'$''+%" ,-"#"%.&$/01" %" &%2%%%" +%%2%%%" +&%2%%%" 1%%2%%%" 1&%2%%%" $%%2%%%" $&%2%%%" /%%2%%%" /&%2%%%" &%%2%%%" $/" $/" $&" $&" $3" $3" $'" $'" $0" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& -.#%$*$&*"./*'*&#$*0$%"#'%$&)1,& 234$%*$%$5&6'**$%&7"#$%&'($&"38&9:;".&#$*0$%"#'%$&)<==+:=>,& 45678"9:7";<$=">?@78<787"5AA":7B6C8:" 45678"D:7*)*<5)"67<E7856D87"687?F"  Figure 5.32:  Invermere: Summer water use and mean temperature (2001-07) !"#"$%$&'(")"*+,$'" -."#"/01+/+&" /" &/2///" '//2///" '&/2///" $//2///" $&/2///" 1//2///" 1&/2///" %//2///" %&/2///" &//2///" '," '*" '*" '+" '+" '3" '3" $/" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& -$".&#$*/$%"#'%$&)0,& 1.2$%*$%$3&4'**$%&5"#$%&'($&".6&*$".&#$*/$%"#'%$&)788+98:,& 45678"9:7";<1=">?@78<787"5AA":7B6C8:" 45678"D:7)<75?"67<E7856D87"687?F"   204 Appendix 5.5:  Climate Data and Water Use  Precipitation  Figure 5.33:  Invermere: Winter precipitation and water use (2003-2007)  !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" (!!$!!!" (#!$!!!" #!!$!!!" !" #!" %!!" %#!" &!!" &#!" '!!" '#!" &!!'" &!!(" &!!#" &!!)" &!!*" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& - %$ ./ 0 /# " #/ 1 2 &) * * ,& 3$"%& 425$%*$%$6&!/2#$%&0%$./0/#"#/12&"27&8"#$%&9($&):;;+<:;;=,& +,-./"01."23'4" 5/.6787-,-79:"2334"   205 Figure 5.34:  Invermere: Spring precipitation and water use (2003-2007)  !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" (!!$!!!" (#!$!!!" #!!$!!!" !" #!" %!!" %#!" &!!" &#!" '!!" '#!" &!!'" &!!(" &!!#" &!!)" &!!*" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& - %$ ./ 0 /# " #/ 1 2 &) * * ,& 3$"%& 425$%*$%$6&70%/28&0%$./0/#"#/12&"29&:"#$%&;($&)<==+><==?,& +,-./"01."23'4" 5/.6787-,-79:"2334" Figure 5.35:  Invermere: Summer precipitation and water use (2003-2007) !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" (!!$!!!" (#!$!!!" #!!$!!!" !" #!" %!!" %#!" &!!" &#!" '!!" '#!" &!!'" &!!(" &!!#" &!!)" &!!*" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& - %$ ./ 0 /# " #/ 1 2 &) * * ,& 3$"%& 425$%*$%$6&78**$%&0%$./0/#"#/12&"29&:"#$%&8($&);<<+=;<<>,& +,-./"01."23'4" 5/.6787-,-79:"2334"  206 Figure 5.36:  Invermere: Fall precipitation and water use (2003-2007)  !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" (!!$!!!" (#!$!!!" #!!$!!!" !" #!" %!!" %#!" &!!" &#!" '!!" '#!" &!!'" &!!(" &!!#" &!!)" &!!*" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& - %$ ./ 0 /# " #/ 1 2 &) * * ,& 3$"%& 425$%*$%$6&7"88&0%$./0/#"#/12&"29&:"#$%&;($&)<==+><==?,& +,-./"01."23'4" 5/.6787-,-79:"2334"  Temperature   207 Figure 5.37:  Invermere: Winter temperature and water use (2003-2007)  !" #!$!!!" %!$!!!" &!$!!!" '!$!!!" (!!$!!!" (#!$!!!" (%!$!!!" (&!$!!!" ('!$!!!" )%!*!" )+,*!" )+!*!" )#,*!" )#!*!" )(,*!" )(!*!" ),*!" !*!" ,*!" (!*!" (,*!" #!!+" #!!%" #!!," #!!&" #!!-" ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& -$ * . $ %" #/ %$ &) 01 ,& 2$"%& 345$%*$%$6&!74#$%&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"48&9"#$%&/($&):;;+<:;;=,& ./012"341"56+7" 81/9":16;"5<=7" >?02"8/?":16;"5<=7" >?02"8@9":16;"5<=7" Figure 5.38:  Invermere: Spring temperatures and water use (2003-2007) !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '!!$!!!" ('!)!" (&!)!" (%!)!" !)!" %!)!" &!)!" '!)!" *!)!" &!!'" &!!*" &!!#" &!!+" &!!," ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& -$ * . $ %" #/ %$ &) 01 ,& 2$"%& 345$%*$%$6&7.%849&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"4:&;"#$%&/($&)<==+><==?,& -./01"230"45'6" 70.8"905:"4;<6" =>/1"7.>"905:"4;<6" =>/1"7?8"905:"4;<6"  208 Figure 5.39:  Invermere: Summer temperatures and water use (2003-2007)  !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '!!$!!!" ('!)!" (&!)!" (%!)!" !)!" %!)!" &!)!" '!)!" *!)!" &!!'" &!!*" &!!#" &!!+" &!!," ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& -$ * . $ %" #/ %$ &) 01 ,& 2$"%& 345$%*$%$6&7/**$%&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"48&9"#$%&/($&):;;+<:;;=,& -./01"230"45'6" 70.8"905:"4;<6" =>/1"7.>"905:"4;<6" =>/1"7?8"905:"4;<6"  Figure 5.40:  Invermere: Fall temperatures and water use (2003-2007)  !" #!$!!!" %!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" '(!)!" '&!)!" '%!)!" !)!" %!)!" &!)!" (!)!" *!)!" &!!(" &!!*" &!!#" &!!+" &!!," ! " #$ %& ' ($ &) * + ,& -$ * . $ %" #/ %$ &) 01 ,& 2$"%& 345$%*$%$6&7"88&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"49&:"#$%&/($&);<<+=;<<>,& -./01"230"45(6" 70.8"905:"4;<6" =>/1"7.>"905:"4;<6" =>/1"7?8"905:"4;<6"  209 Appendix 5.6:  Projected Population Growth and Development  Table 5.28:  Projected population growth and development for Scenarios 1 and 2   Projected population growth and development for Scenarios 1 and 2  Development Options Population in Equivalent SFUs Year Population projection (based on historical trends) Percent Growth Build Out (1) Slower Growth (2) Build Out (1) Slower growth (2) 2005 3380 7.64% 3380 3380 1266 1266 2006 3470 2.66% 4088 4088 1531 1531 2007 3564 2.71% 4182 4182 1566 1566 2008 3659 2.67% 5167 5167 1935 1935 2009 3758 2.71% 5769 5769 2161 2161 2010 3859 2.69% 7576 6506 2837 2437 2011 3962 2.67% 8595 7191 3219 2693 2012 4069 2.70% 9267 7702 3471 2885 2013 4178 2.68% 10232 8250 3832 3090 2014 4290 2.68% 11309 8875 4236 3324 2015 4405 2.68% 12486 9333 4676 3496 2016 4524 2.70% 13324 9452 4990 3540 2017 4645 2.67% 14164 9573 5305 3585 2018 4770 2.69% 15008 9698 5621 3632 2019 4898 2.68% 15901 9826 5955 3680 2020 5030 2.69% 16282 9958 6098 3730 2021 5165 2.68% 16666 10093 6242 3780 2022 5303 2.67% 17053 10231 6387 3832 2023 5446 2.70% 17445 10374 6534 3885 2024 5592 2.68% 17840 10520 6682 3940 2025 5742 2.68% 18239 10670 6831 3996 2026 5897 2.70% 18643 10825 6982 4054 2027 6055 2.68% 19050 10983 7135 4113 2028 6218 2.69% 19462 11146 7289 4175 2029 6385 2.69% 19878 11313 7445 4237 2030 6556 2.68% 20298 11484 7602 4301 2031 6732 2.68% 20723 11660 7761 4367 2032 6913 2.69% 21016 11841 7871 4435 2033 7099 2.69% 21202 12027 7941 4504 2034 7289 2.68% 21392 12217 8012 4576 2035 7485 2.69% 21588 12413 8085 4649   210   1 Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC)/Columbia Basin Trust (July 2007), Preliminary Analysis of Climate Variability and Change in the Canadian Columbia River Basin: Focus on Water Resources, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C; Ells, B. (2005), Water Use Efficiency and Conservation in the Kootenay Region of the Canadian Columbia River Basin, Prepared for the Canadian Columbia River Intertribal Fisheries Commission. www.ires.ubc.ca/projects/cbt/links/CCRIFC_wateruse.pdf 2 PCIC (2007). 3 B.C. Government Towns for Tomorrow: http://www.townsfortomorrow.gov.bc.ca. 4 B.C. Government, Green Cities Awards: http://www.greencitiesawards.gov.bc.ca. 5 Canadian Water and Wastewater Association (2008), Clean Water, Green Jobs: A Stimulus Package for Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investments to the Federal Government, http://www.cwwa.ca/freepub_e.asp. 6 Water demand management is also referred to as demand side management in the literature. For the length of this thesis, demand management (DM) will be used. 7 The Kootenay region was compared with the national average, as well as other communities across Canada and the Province. 8 PCIC (2007); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007), Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report [1.3] (p.4). 9 Ells, B. (2005), Water Use Efficiency and Conservation in the Kootenay Region of the Canadian Columbia River Basin, Prepared for the Canadian Columbia River Intertribal Fisheries Commission. 10 PCIC (2007); IPCC (2007). 11 Ibid. 12 B.C. Ministry of Environment, Living Water Smart website: http://www.livingwatersmart.ca/business/becoming_efficient.html 13 Brooks, D. (2006) “An operational definition of water demand management”, Water Resources Development, Vol.22, No.4, 521-528, p.524. 14 Ibid. 15 Tate, D.M, (1990) Water Demand Management in Canada: A State of the Art Review Social Science Series No. 23, Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa. www.ec.gc.ca/WATER/en/info/pubs/sss/e_sss23.htm 16 Brandes, O., Maas, T. (2004), Developing Water Sustainability Through Urban Water Demand Management POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria, B.C.. www.waterdsm.org/pdf/dev_sustainability_provincial04.pdf 17 Ells (2005). 18 IPCC (2007) p.4.  211  19 European Environmental Agency (2007) Climate Change and Water Adaptation Issues EEA Technical report No 2/2007: reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2007_2/en/eea_technical_report_2_2007.pdf 20 Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network (C-CAIRN), B.C: http://www.c- ciarn.ca/bc_e.html 21 Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (2002), Indicators of Climate Change for British Columbia 2002, Victoria, B.C env.gov.bc.ca/air/climate/indicat/pdf/indcc.pdf 22 PCIC (July 2007). 23 Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (2007a) Climate Change in the Canadian Columbia Basin: Starting the Dialogue: www.pacificclimate.org/docs/publications/Columbia_Basin_Climate_Change_Dialogue_Brochure.pdf 24 Specific studies are not referenced as many are confidential. 25 Columbia Basin Trust, Communities Adapting to Climate Change Initiative: http://www.cbt.org/Initiatives/Climate_Change/?view&vars=1&content=Whats_New&WebDynID=902 26 Personal correspondence with Deborah Walker, Demand Management Program Capital Regional District Water Services, September 2008. 27 Capital Regional District Water Services, Overview of Services Provided by CRD Water Services: http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/conservation/index.htm. 28 Capital Regional District Water Services, Demand Management. http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/conservation/demandmanagement.htm. 29 Capital Regional District Water Services, Smart Wash Rebate Program: http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/conservation/rebates/smartwash.htm. 30 Capital Regional District Water Services, Water Wise Fixture Replacement Program: http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/conservation/rebates/bathroom.htm. 31 Capital Regional District Water Services, Irrigation Rebate Program. http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/conservation/rebates/irrigation.htm. 32 Presentation given by Deborah Walker, “Water Conservation in the Capital Region District”, at Water and Cities Conference in Vancouver, June 14 2006. 33 Capital Regional District Water Services, “Overview of Services Provided by CRD Water Services” http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/conservation/index.htm. 34 Personal correspondence with Neal Klassen, Water Smart Coordinator, City of Kelowna September 2008. 35 Personal correspondence with the Water Conservation Coordinator, Austin Water Utility, September 2008. 36 Veritec Consulting Inc. (May 2008), Region of Durham Efficient Community Final Report, Mississauga Ont. p.12.  212  37 Indicator: Water use in urban areas [2003.1001] http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Specific_media/water/indicators/WQ02e,2003.1001 Indicator Fact Sheet (WQ02e) Water use in urban areas Author: Concha Lallana, CEDEX; EEA project manager: Niels Thyssen European Environment Agency) October 2003 http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Specific_media/water/indicators/WQ02e,2003.1001 38 European Environment Agency (2001), Indicator Factsheet, Households: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Sectors_and_activities/households/indicators/energy/hh07household.pdf 39 Environment Canada indicates that Canadians consume 343 l/c/d (date unknown); while Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation suggests Canadians use 326 l/c/d. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) (2000), Household Guide to water efficiency p. 2. 40 Capital Regional District Water Services, Overview of Services Provided by CRD Water Services: http://www.crd.bc.ca/water/conservation/index.htm. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) (2000), Household Guide to water efficiency p. 2. 41 Image used in Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment: http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/kinkead_fnl_rpt_2005_04_2.1_web.pdf p.81; Environment Canada, “Comparison of Domestic Water Use among Development Nations”. Topic 4. Water Works! Chapter 4A: One resource – Many users http://www.ec.gc.ca/WATER/en/info/pubs/lntwfg/e_chap4a.htm; Environment Canada Water Conservation – Every Drop Counts http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/FS/e_FSA6.htm; European Environmental Agency, Indicator: Water use in urban areas [2003.1001]: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Specific_media/water/indicators/WQ02e,2003.1001  42 Vickers, A. (2002) “Handbook of Water Use and Conservation” Amherst, Waterplow Press. 43 Tate (1990, p.12); 44 Postel, Sandra and Richter, Brian (2003), “Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature”, Chapter 2. Island Press. 45 Brandes, Brooks and M’Gonigle (2007), “Moving Water Conservation to Centre Stage”, Chapter 14 in Bakker, K. (Ed.), Eau Canada: The Future of Canada’s Water UBC Press. p 285. 46 BC Ministry of Environment, Water Stewardship. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/plan_protect_sustain/water_conservation/wtr_cons_strategy/current.ht ml#34 47 Bernard Cantin, Dan Shrubsole and Meriem Aït-Ouyahia (2005), “Using Economic Instruments for Water Demand Management: Introduction” Canadian Water Resources Journal  Vol. 30(1): 1–10, p.4. 48 Brandes, O., T. Maas, and E. Reynolds (2006), Thinking Beyond Pipes and Pumps: Top 10 Ways Communities Can Save Water and Money, Polis Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria.  213  http://www.waterdsm.org/pdf/ThinkingBeyond_lowres.pdf 49 Tate (1990). 50 Bernard et. al. (2005), p.3. 51 Environment Canada http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/FS/e_FSA6.htm 52 Smart Growth on the Ground (2006), Foundation Research Bulletin: Greater Oliver, No 3, Water conservation p.4. 53 Brandes, O.M. and D.B. Brooks (2005), The Soft Path for Water in a Nutshell. Victoria, BC: The POLIS Project on Ecological Governance and Friends of the Earth Canada: www.waterdsm.org p.15); Environment Canada: http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/FS/e_FSA6.htm 54 Ells (2005); Brooks, D. and Rose, G., (2004), Another Path Not Taken: A Methodological Exploration of Water Soft Paths for Canada and Elsewhere. Revised report, Friends of the Earth Canada, Ottawa. 55 Gleick, P.(2003), Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the 21st Century. Science. Vol 302 p. 1524- 1528. 56 Friends of the Earth Canada. See link for a comprehensive list of soft path publications and case studies:  http://www.foecanada.org/WSP%20Lexicon/WSP%20Index%20web.htm 57 Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation www.gordonfn.org 58 Gleick, (2003). 59 Nelson, Valerie I.  (2007), A Soft Path water paradigm shift: federal policies to advance decentralized and integrated water resource infrastructure: www.sustainablewaterforum.org/fed/report.pdf 60 Ibid. 61 Brandes and Brooks (2005). 62 Friends of the Earth Canada (above). 63 Nelson (2007). 64 Average household of 2.6 people. Statistics Canada 2001 Census. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/fam/canada.cfm. Environment Canada’s 2004 figure is 329 litres/ person/ day. “Every Drop Counts” http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/FS/e_FSA6.htm 65 Waterlog is a useful tool for individual household calculations. http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/nttw/e_nttwia.htm. 66 Gleick, P. et al. (2003), Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California.  Oakland, California: Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security: www.pacinst.org  p. 6; Environment Canada, Municipal Water Use by Sector 2004 http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/images/manage/effic/a6f2e.htm; CHMC reference to AWWA Research Foundation Residential End Use of Water data p.10.  214  67 Information on domestic water use savings was gathered from the following sources: Refer to each for a detailed discussion of water conservation options. American Water and Energy Savers, Water Submetering: http://www.americanwater.com/wsubmetr.htm;  American Water Works Association htttp://www.awwa.org;  Canadian Water and Wastewater Association: http://www.cwwa.ca; Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment (CCME) http://www.ccme.ca; Environment Canada, Water Conservation in the Outdoors. http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/nttw/e_nttwi7.htm, http://www.h2ouse.net/ Environment Canada, Water Conservation in the Kitchen: http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/nttw/e_nttwi4.htm Gleick et. al.  (2003) ; Global Development Research Centre, 49 Ways of Saving Water: http://www.gdrc.org/uem/water/49-ways.html; H2Ouse Water Saver Home http://www.h2ouse.net/; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Guidelines for designing a water conservation program.: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watershedmgmt/cwp/view.asp?a=1435&q=524163;  Vickers, A. (2002). 68 DeOreo, W. B., Dietemann, A., Skeel, T., Mayer, P. W., Lewis, D. M., & Smith, J. (2001). Retrofit realities. Journal of the American Water Works Association, 93(3), 58-72. 69 Neale, T., (Sept 2005), Impacts of Climate Change and Population Growth on Residential Water Demand in the Okanagan Basin, Master’s Thesis submitted to UBC. p.46: www.sgog.bc.ca/uplo/TNeale_Thesis_finalsubmission.pdf. 70 J. Kinkead, A. Boardley and M. Kin, “An analysis of Canadian and other Water Conservation Practices and Initiatives, Issues, Opportunities and Suggested Directions.  Prepared for the Water Conservation and Economics Task Group Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2006. Available online: http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/kinkead_fnl_rpt_2005_04_2.1_web.pdf. 71 Brandes, O. and Kriwoken, L., Changing Perspectives – Changing Paradigms: Demand management strategies and innovative solutions for a sustainable Okanagan water future .Prepared for the CWRA annual conference  “Water – Our Limiting Resource” February 23-25, 2005 p.4 Kelowna BC: www.waterdsm.org/Discussion%20Paper_files/CWRA_paper_feb05.pdf. 72 This has been the case in Invermere, Kamloops, and Kelowna’s South East Kelowna Irrigation District. 73 Ells (2005); Neal (2003). 74 Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation (CHMC) (2000) “Household Guide to Water Efficiency” p.8. 75 de Loe, R., L. Moraru, R. Kreutzwiser, K. Schaefer, and B. Mills, (2001), Demand Side Management of Water in Ontario Municipalities: Status, Progress, and Opportunities. Journal of the American Water Resource Association 37(1):57-72  215  76 Neale, T., J. Carmichael and S. Cohen. 2007. Urban water futures: A multivariate analysis of population growth and climate change impacts on urban water demand in the Okanagan Basin, BC. Canadian Water Resources Journal. 32(4): 315-330; Brandes, Maas, Reynolds “Thinking Beyond Pipes and Pumps” Polis Project, University of Victoria, 2006; CHMC (2000) 77 Neale et. al. (2005); Brandes and Reynolds (2006); CHMC; Environment Canada http://www.ec.gc.ca/WATER/en/manage/effic/e_leak.htm; Campbell, I. (2004), Toward Integrated Freshwater Policies for Canada’s Future, in Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network (C-CAIRN), B.C: http://www.c-ciarn.ca/bc_e.html 78 Ells (2005), p.9,18 79 de Loe, et. al. (2001); Personal communications with water managers in Ontario between February and May 2007. 80 de Loe,et.al (2001). 81 AWWA (2008), Communicating the Value of Water: An Introductory Guide for Utilities http://www.awwarf.org/research/TopicsAndProjects/execSum/3113.aspx 82 Atwood, Christine; Kreutzwiser, Reid; de Loe, Rob (2007) Residents' Assessment of an Urban Outdoor Water Conservation Program in Guelph, Ontario Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Online: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/902269/residents_assessment_of_an_urban_outdoor_water_c onservation_program_in/index.html 83 Diane P. Dupont (2005) “Tapping into Consumers’ Perceptions of Drinking Water Quality in Canada: Capturing Customer Demand to Assist in Better Management of Water Resources Canadian Water Resources Journal  Vol. 30(1): 11–20. 84 Postal and Richter (2003)., pp. 5-12. 85 Atwood et. al summarizing this source: Dalhuisen, J.M., R.J.G.M. Florax, H.L.F. de Groot, and P. Nijkamp, 2003. Price and Income Elasticities of Residential Water Demand: A Meta-analysis. Land Economics 79(2):292-308. 86 Cantin et al. (2005). 87 Ells (2005), p.26. 88 PCIC (2007a). 89 BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Weather, Climate and the Future: BC’s Plan (2004), Victoria B.C. p.6-7. 90 PCIC (2007); Ells (2005). 91 Ells (2005), p.8 92 Mean annual discharge is the average flow in a waterway over a period of a year. Ells (2005), p.7. 93 Ibid. p.8 94 Postel and Richter (2003).  216  95 B.C. Ministry of Environment, Living Water Smart: http://www.livingwatersmart.ca/business/nature.html. 96 Aspen Global Change Institute (2005) “Climate Change and Aspen: An Assessment of Impacts and Potential Responses” http://www.agci.org/aspenStudy.html; Shardul Agrawala (Ed) (2007) “Climate Change in the European Alps: Adapting Winter Tourism and Natural Hazards Management” OECD. http://www.oecd.org/document/45/0,3343,en_2649_34361_37819437_1_1_1_1,00.html 97 Resort Municipality of Whistler’s (RMOW) 2007 Annual Water System Monitoring Report; Whistler Chamber of Commerce www.whistlerchamber.com 98 Ibid. 99 Calculations based on 296,952 cu m total water consumption for November. 296,952/10,000= 29, 6952 cu m/ person/ year = 29,6952/365=0.0814 cu m per capita/day. 100 Whistler Blackcomb: http://www.whistlerblackcomb.com/mountain/environment/water.htm 101 City of Aspen, Water “Interesting Facts.” http://www.aspenpitkin.com/depts/58/interesting.cfm. 102 City of Aspen, “Aspen Reduces Water Usage” (December 26, 2007) Press Release, Accessed Online Oct. 22, 2008: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/apps/news/news_item_detail.cfm?NewsItemID=833 103 In 1993, 1968 litres (520 gallons) per equivalent capacity unit (ECU) were consumed. Aspen uses an ECU as a standardized measurement for the water demand of a two bedroom, one bath home. When translated into household size of 2.4 people (as is the case for Rossland and Invermere), this equates to 820 Lcpd. 104 1997 usage levels: 150 gallons per ECU= 568 litres per ECU or 237 Lcpd when using 2.4 people per household. 105 City of Aspen, Water “Interesting Facts.” Accessed online Oct. 24, 2008: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/depts/58/interesting.cfm. 106 Personal communication with the Utilities Efficiency Manager for the City of Aspen, Oct. 23, 2008. 107 Neighbor City, Aspen Housing Demographics and Statistics: http://www.neighborcity.com/CO/Aspen/community-demographics/population/ 108 Aspen Global Change Institute (2005). 109 Keep Winter Cool www.keepwintercool.org/skiareaaction.html 110 National Ski Areas Association, Sustainable Slopes: The Environmental Charter for Ski Areas: www.nsaa.org/nsaa/environment/sustainable_slopes/ 111 The Green Room: www.nsaa.org/nsaa/environment/the_greenroom/index.asp 112 Summerland Hill Golf Resort: www.summerlandhills.com/Audubon.html 113 Unfortunately, the promotional material available online capitalized on the geothermal aspect and did not provide detail of what the dual water system entails. Sources: GeoExchange BC “Sun Rivers  217  Resort Goes Geothermal” http://www.geoexchangebc.ca/news.aspx; Sun Rivers: http://www.sunrivers.com/geothermal/golf-geothermal-heating.shtml. 114 Fairmont Golf (March 2007) “The Grass is Always Greener on Fairmont's Audubon - Certified Sanctuary Courses” http://www.fairmontgolf.com/content/news.aspx?l=0,1,3,185 115 US Golf Association: http://www.usga.org/turf/articles/environment/water/water_conservation.html 116 R&A: www.bestcourseforgolf.org. 117 Golf Environment Europe (date unknown) “Scottish Golf Climate Change Report” http://www.golfenvironmenteurope.org/technical.html#climate. 118 Leonard Doyle (29 April 2006) “Andalucia's pioneering golf course” The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/europe/andalucias-pioneering-golf-course-475988.html 119 Environment Canada’s National Climate Archive: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/Welcome_e.html. 120 The Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test is a non-parametric test used to determine whether two independent samples of observations (temperature or precipitation, in this case) derive from the same distribution. 121 Age of housing and type of toilet, number of flushes/day, washing machine usage/week, and length of shower was derived from the literature review for Chapter 2. 122  Estimates are based on municipal bylaws relating to maximum parcel coverage, and are further detailed in Chapter 4 and 5. 123 Roof size was estimated based on a discussion with the owner of a major Rossland hotel. Given the lack of information provided by hotels/motels in Invermere, roof size was estimated to be the same to allow for comparison. 124 OCPs are developed under the Local Government Act and serve as general statements of broad objectives and policies for local governments. Rossland updated its OCP in October 2008. 125 Sheltair Group, (March 2007), Visions to Action Community Profile. 126 Urban Systems (March 2007) Development Yield Update Report p.5 127 Ibid. 128 Official Community Plan (Oct 2008) p. 20. 129 Statistics Canada. 2007. 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Released March 13 2007 http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/index.cfm?Lang=E 130 B.C. Stats (May 2008), British Columbia Tourism Room Revenue by Region, Annual 2007 (Preliminary), http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/busind/tourism.asp 131 B.C. Stats (June 2007), Tourism Industry Monitor Annual 2006 http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/busind/tourism.asp#TRR  218  132 Tourism B.C. “Kootenay Rockies Profile (2007) www.tourismbc.com/PDF/RegionalProfile_KootenayRockies_2007.pdf 133 Ibid. 134 Note about data: derived from records kept by Red Resort and is not a complete data set. Seasons vary, but generally winters are logged from Dec 1-April 1. 135 Data and analysis obtained from City Councilor. Guest homes owned by Rossland residents were not included; many Red Mountain area properties still owned by developers were included, as many of their head offices are not in Rossland. 136 PCIC (2007), p.33. 137 Sheltair Group (March 2007). 138 Ibid. 139 Micklethwaite (2008) Rossland’s Water Resources “White Paper” p.10. Dobson also notes precipitation and temperature patterns between 1963-1990 as recorded at MacLean school: Average total annual precipitation is 908 mm, of which 422 falls as snow. Dobson (2002), City of Rossland Water Management Plan. Snow survey data is also available from about 1945 to the present for stations on nearby mountains of Old Glory and Record Ridge. 140 PCIC (2007). 141 Red Mountain Ventures (2007), Technical Briefing “Water Management for the Golf Club at Red Mountain.” 142 Micklethwaite (2008). 143 Associated Engineering for Red Mountain Ventures (2007), p.8. 144 Micklethwaite (2008). 145 Mickelthwaite refers to reports by Wadeson (Report on the City of Rossland Waterworks, 1959) and Gigliotti (The City of Rossland Water Supply Master Plan,1993) 146  Assumptions are based on the literature review, along with discussions with consultants and city staff. 147 National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Research in Construction, “Leak detection method for Plastic water distribution pipes” http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ui/bu/leakdetect_e.html (Accessed 22 January 2009). 148 Schreier et. al. (2008), Blue, Green and Virtual Water: Comparing Irrigation Water Requirements for Different Crops in the Driest Watershed in Canada, Prepared for the Gordon Foundation http://www.gordonfn.org/resfiles/Virtual%20Water%20in%20the%20Okanagan%20Watershed%20Re port.pdf 149 Ontario Water Works Association (June 2008) Outdoor Water use reduction manual, Toronto, Ontario; p.i 150 Veritec Consulting Inc. (May 2008).  219  151 PCIC (2007a). 152 6 is 30% of 20, so has reduced water use for toilets by 60%. 60% of 30% is 18%, so Indoor water use for toilets is now 18% of indoor water use, down from 30%. 153 Ontario Water Works Association (June 2008), p.12. 154 Households represents “Total private dwellings occupied by usual residents”. This number was used for Rossland because most of the seasonal visitors are in winter, and would not influence summer irrigation requirements. In contrast, Invermere’s seasonal peak is during the summer, thus single family units were used to indicate not only households or usual residents, but households where irrigation would be taking place. 155 Average roof and lot sizes for Rossland and Invermere were kept constant for comparison purposes: average roof size was 155 m2 while average lot size was 200 m2. 156 Ontario Water Works Association (June 2008), p.ii. 157 Beacon Pathway Ltd (August 2008), “Slowing the flow: A comprehensive demand management framework for reticulated water supply”, New Zealand, p. 12. 158 Beacon Pathway Ltd (August 2008); Julian Thornton, Managing Leakage by Managing Pressure: a practical approach, IWA Taskforce: http://www.wateraudit.com/Publications.htm. 159 Twenty four hectares seems to be the average size for courses in the Okanagan Basin; in the absence of data for the Kootenays, this number was used as an estimate. Golf courses for the West Kootenays taken from “B.C.’s Kootenays golf courses.” Creston was excluded. http://www.kootenays.worldweb.com/ToursActivitiesAdventures/GolfCourses/ 160 Schreier et al. (2008). 161 The Provincial Ministry of Health and Ministry of Environment have been considering amendments to their respective wastewater regulations that would allow for small-scale water recycling for projects with daily flows less than 22,700 litres. West Coast Environmental Law (April 2002) “Cutting Green Tape: An Action Plan for Removing Regulatory Barriers to Green Innovations”: http://www.wcel.org/wcelpub/2002/13724.pdf  162 American Water Works Association, Water Audit Methodology, http://www.awwa.org/Resources/content.cfm?ItemNumber=588 163 Rossland Official Community Plan (October 2008) Schedule G-Red Mountain Consolidated Base area sector plan, P.5; Schedule I Redstone Golf course resort area sector plan, p. 10. 164 Rossland Official Community Plan (2008) Section 14.3 “Water Policies”, p.35 165 Statistics Canada. 2007. 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Released March 13 2007 http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/index.cfm?Lang=E 166 Urban Systems (2008) “District of Invermere water supply and water treatment strategy” 167 Statistics Canada. 2007. 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Released March 13 2007. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/index.cfm?Lang=E  220  168 B.C Stats (May 2008). 169 Tourism B.C. “Kootenay Rockies Profile (2007). 170 Ibid. 171 Note about data: derived from records kept by Red Resort and is not a complete data set. Seasons vary, but generally winters are logged from Dec 1-April 1. 172 PCIC (2007), p. 33. 173 Confidential report undertaken by consultant. 174 Ells (2005). 175 Toronto Works and Emergency Services (date unknown) “Chapter 2: The Water System” www.toronto.ca/watereff/pdf/chap2.pdf 176 Urban Systems (2008) and personal correspondence with consultant. 177 Data based on Urban Systems (2007); water use data from 2003, 2004, 2005 up to Sept; Oct-Dec 2005, 2006 through to Mar 2008. Population data 2003,2004 from census. 2005-2008 growth function. Residential metered data was not available for 2003; this was estimated based on the average annual metered residential use (2004-2007) and determined as 41% of the Paddy Ryan Lakes outflow. 178 Ells (2005) referencing Brian McLaughlin speaking in 2003. 179 Urban Systems (2007), Highway 93/95 Shuswap Indian Reserve Land Use and Transportation Study. 180 B.C. Golf Association et al. (2006) Economic impact of the sport of golf in British Columbia. 181 Kootenay Rockies Tourism Association (2006) Golf Tracking Report. 182 Kootenay Rockies Tourism Association (2005) Golf Tracking Report. 183 Data obtained from golf course owner/operator. 184 Schreier et al (2008). 185 Shuswap Indian Reserve (June 2004) Comprehensive Community Development Plan, p.16. 186 Bel-MK Engineering Ltd. (Jan 2005) Columbia Valley to Dry Gulch Servicing Study. 187 Ibid. 188 Ontario Water Works Association (June 2008), p.i. 189 Data from 2006 was not used because it did not differentiate between hotels with 1-75 rooms and larger hotels, which could skew the proportion of accommodation in Invermere. 190 6 is 30% of 20, so has reduced water use for toilets by 60%. 60% of 30% is 18%, so Indoor water use for toilets is now 18% of indoor water use, down from 30%. 191 Ontario Water Works Association (June 2008), p.12. 192 Average roof and lot sizes for Rossland and Invermere were kept constant for comparison purposes: average roof size was 155 m2 while average lot size was 200 m2. 193 Ontario Water Works Association (June 2008), p.ii. 194 Beacon Pathway Ltd (August 2008).  221  195 Ells (2005), p.22. 196 Beacon Pathway Ltd (August 2008). 197 Schreier et. al. (2008). 198 Grizzly Ridge is not included because part of the area is outside the DOI, and it seems far away from being approved. 199 In contrast to the Urban Systems “full build-out” scenario, this one does not consider the Grizzly Ridge development because part of the area is outside the DOI, and it seems far away from being approved. 200 Estimates vary depending on whether calculations use per capita numbers from the census, or seasonal numbers relating to SFUs and households with an average of 2.4 people per household. 201 B.C. Ministry of Environment, Living Water Smart: http://www.livingwatersmart.ca/business/becoming_efficient.html 202 Maas, C., (2009), “The Greenhouse Gas and Energy Co-benefits of Water Conservation” Polis Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria, B.C.

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0067210/manifest

Comment

Related Items