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.

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  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.  ii  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  iii  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  iv  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  v  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  vi  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  vii  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  viii  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 3  TABLE 4.8: ROSSLAND: WATER SAVINGS IN HOTELS/MOTELS (M )........................................................ 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 3  TABLE 4.22: ROSSLAND: SUMMARY OF SAVINGS: M 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  ix  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  x  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 3  FIGURE 4.19: ROSSLAND: SUMMER IRRIGATION SAVINGS FROM 5 M 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  xi  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 3  FIGURE 5.11: INVERMERE: SUMMER IRRIGATION SAVINGS FROM 5 M 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  xii  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  xiii  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.  xiv  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 2  m -square metres 3  m - 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  xv  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).  1  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, 1  which feed tributaries and recharge groundwater and underground aquifers.  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 2  continue to change the ways people derive their livelihood in the region. 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.  2  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.  3  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 3  improvement.  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, 4  including water reduction.  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 5  conserving water and energy. 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 6  strategies in urban communities. However, relatively little research has been done in mountain resort  4  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 9  on their water supplies; 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 12  opportunity for improvement.”  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.  5  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 13  water is in short supply.  Brooks notes that the decentralized nature of DM implementation “includes methods that add 14  resilience to water systems to permit them to cope with shortage” —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 15  experiences, as well as strategies for implementing DM across Canada.  ‘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 16  integrity of aquatic ecosystems.  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.  6  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 18  mountain regions.  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 20  change in the Columbia Basin.  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, 21  and on human communities.  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  7  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 Victoria, B.C. Kelowna, B.C.  DM Strategy Rebate programs for water-efficient clothes washing machines, toilets and shower heads; irrigation rebate program Water metering, inclining block rate, and social marketing.  Austin, Texas  Education programs, rebates, audits, and regulations  Durham, Ontario * 1 housing development  Efficient clothes washers, dishwashers, toilets, showerheads, and landscape packages  Water Reduction Population increase of 8%, and water use reduction of 12% 20% reduction in residential consumption Population increase of 69% with 35% increase in water use (1984-2004) 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.  8  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, 27  policy measures and research to meet its target of a 10% reduction.  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 water29  efficient clothes washing machine.  ‘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 32  her expectations.  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  9  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 34  groups and geographic areas.. 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  Outdoor water use Hot water heater Clothes Washer Cold Hot Total: *Toilet  Percent Conservation  40%  20% 3.1% 23.1% -  15% 2.5% 17.5% -  17  9.2%  42 6 48 10.5  41% 38% 41% 11.3%  10  *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 highperformance 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  Sub-metered study homes  Indoor Fall-Spring  Non sub-metered study homes  Conservation Litres/ capita/day 66  Outdoor Summer Indoor Fall-Spring  24 43  Outdoor Summer  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.  11  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, 39  between 326 and 343 lcd. averaging 440 lcd.  38  while the typical Canadian consumes  British Columbians are among the highest water users in the country,  40  12  Figure 2.1: Cross-country comparison of average household water use  .$/&&2)/01#$-')/3(*$"&/1'/4'*5%$*6%'7/0&%7/8,' 9*#%$'0&%' B/9C-DE$$  **'$  83=2/9$  *!'$  @=2,A/$  *&)$  ./01#$-'  1>/0/,$$  #(($  ;/.?/=92,03$5#(((6$  #*"$  ;<=>2:$$  ##)$  8.29:$  #'($  172-,$5*%%"6$  #&'$  42,202$5#(()6$  !#%$  +,-./0$1.2./3$  !"#$ ($  '($  *(($  *'($  #(($  #'($  !(($  !'($  )(($  )'($  !"#$%&'(%$')*("#*+,*-'  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  13  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 47  greater population.  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. 49  Tate noted that DM “is currently in its infancy in Canada.”  48  In 1990,  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  14  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; 53  3) Structural and 4) Operational.  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  15  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. Operational and management tools eg. best management practices, water audits, metering, xeriscaping, supply upgrades, water re-use programs, watershed protection, emergency response plans.  Consultation, negotiation, information sharing Voluntary restrictions 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 55  water conservation.  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 56  partnered with Polis on a number of publications , and the Gordon Foundation has been instrumental 57  in supporting research in this field.  The soft path compliments centralized physical infrastructure with water efficient technology, metering and price incentives, lower cost community-scale systems, decentralized and transparent 58  decision-making, and environmental protection.  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 59  using low-impact development designs for new and infill developments. These 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  16  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 62  relating to implementing the soft path in practice.  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 63  may also be valuable in agricultural application. 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 3  3  translates to 120 m /person/year, or 312 m /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 65  20%, and the bathroom 65% of water use (Figure 2.2).  17  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.S  66  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 pre69  defined thresholds) could save 32% on indoor and 32% on outdoor use.  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  18  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 submetering) 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.  19  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 Xeriscaping (bylaws)  10-40% 20% 32-50% _  10-40% 20% 32-50% 50%  Rainwater Harvesting Rainwater harvesting and xeriscaping  up to 40%  Water efficient fixtures (bylaws) -Low-flow toilets, showerheads, and waterefficient 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  33-50% 35%  -Efficient washing machines Effective water pricing  up to 45% 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%  50% _  65%  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.  20  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 80  goals and objectives for effective DM programs are critical , 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 81  must effectively communicate the value of water , and also share information with the public on 82  program effectiveness, fairness, and enforcement.  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 84  effects on the provision of “ecosystem services”.  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 85  charge more for progressively larger volumes of water used.”  Cantin et. al. provide a useful  overview of economic instruments, and stress the importance of developing clear conservation and/or efficiency objectives.  86  21  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.  22  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, 88  particularly during the nighttime and higher summer temperatures.  While the Basin’s average temperature varies considerably, the average Basin temperature o  has increased by 1.5 C over the last century. The Pacific Northwest experienced higher temperatures o  by 0.8 C 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 o  average global temperature rise of about 0.6 C 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  23  Table 2.3: Climate changes in the Columbia Basin/Southern B.C. Interior Climate Changes in the Columbia Basin/ Southern B.C. Interior Temperature  o  Average temperature has increased by 1.5 C over the past century— o  0.4 C greater than the B.C. Interior average; more than twice the o  average global temperature rise of about 0.6 C 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  24  2.3.4 Water Supply Thirty percent of the annual flow for the CRB comes from mountain snowpack and glaciers, 90  which feed tributaries and recharge groundwater and underground aquifers.  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 92  considered necessary to sustain the minimum spawning and rearing habitat for fish.  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 95  quality, biology, and connectivity.  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).  25  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 97  visitors.  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  3  In 2007, the RMOW consumed 4,760,617 m , 3% less from 2006.  26  Water consumption data suggests that August usage exceeds peak winter use in January by 3  more than 50,000 m . 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 3  m ). 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 3  municipal water; in 2006, 36,000,000 million gallons (136,234 m ) 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  27  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. 104  contrast, 2007 per capita use was at 237 Lcpd—a dramatic reduction of more than half.  103  In  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 108  expand, and the potential for water shortages will likely increase.”  This is consistent with what is  being observed in Rossland and Invermere.  28  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 113  systems.  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,  29  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 118  recently been forced to use recycled water. 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  30  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.  31  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 20072035. 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 Elevation Permanent population (2006) Permanent population trend Demand management measures  West Kootenays, B.C. 1,020 m (3,300 ft) 3,278 decreasing Water restrictions, metering new developments and commercial use Topping, Hanna, Murphy Creeks  East Kootenays, B.C. 859 m (2,818 ft) 3,002 increasing Water restrictions, metering residential and commercial since 2002 Goldie Creek; developing Athalmer’s groundwater and considering Lake Windermere Paddy Lakes reservoirs  Municipal water supply Water storage Primary tourism activities  Reservoirs-Star Gulch, Ophir Creek Skiing, golf  Golf, skiing, lake-side recreation  32  Data availability  Tourist-driven population increase  Some residential metering; flow volumes from treatment plant; some hotel occupancy rates; ski visitor data Winter (small summer flux for golf, biking)  Residential metering; flow volumes from Paddy Ryan Lakes reservoirs; 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 (200206), 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.  33  Table 3.2: Climate stations  Climate stations Location Rossland Maclean Rossland City Yard Warfield RCS Castlegar Kootenay National Park Cranbrook  Latitude 49.1 49.08 49.11 49.3  Longitude -117.8 -117.8 -117.4 -117.63  Elevation (m) 1085 1039 567 495  Identifier 1146874 1146870 71401 71884  50.63 49.61  116.06 -115.78  900 940  1154410 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 MannWhitney 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  34  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  35  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 3  outdoor irrigation supplemented with rainwater collection from a 5 m 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 19851995 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:  36  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, 2  2 122  the average roof size was estimated at 155 m while average lawn size was 200 m .  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.  37  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.  38  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 Elevation Permanent population (2006) Permanent population trend Demand Management Measures  West Kootenays, B.C. 1,020 m (3,300 ft) 3,278 decreasing Watering restrictions, metering new developments and commercial use Topping, Hanna, Murphy Creeks Reservoirs-Star Gulch, Ophir Creek Skiing, biking, hiking, golf Some residential metering; flow volumes from treatment plant; some hotel occupancy rates; ski visit data Winter (small summer flux for golf, biking)  Municipal Water Supply Water Storage Primary Tourism activities Data Availability Tourist-driven population increase  39  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  40  128  Increasing the permanent population is a goal for the City.  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 buildout.  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  41  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 130  20 years.  According to the 2006 Tourism Review, room revenues at hotels, motels and other 131  establishments in the Kootenay region increased by 7.8% from 2005 figures.  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%.  42  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).  43  Figure 4. 3: Rossland average hotel/motel occupancy 2001-2008.  0/..1+%2'+3"#+4"'/$$)*+%$,'5667869' )!"#  !"#$"%&'($$)*+%$,'  (!"#  '!"#  &!"#  %!"#  $!"#  !"# *+,-./#  01/+,2#  0344./#  5677#  -"+./%' 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) Occupancy Season rates Winter 66% Spring 30% Summer 24% Autumn 37% Total Average  39%  # people/day  # people/season  193  17,370  85  7,811  69  6,315  106  9,651  453  41,147  113  10,287  44  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  2-&3."-%*+-4*"!"#$"%&'&('"(#"5*,"5*'#+(" '#"#$  !"#$"%&'&('")*+",-."  '###$  &"#$  &##$  %"#$  %##$  !"#$ (##()#*$  (##*)#+$  (##+)#"$  (##")#,$  (##,)#!$  (##!)#%$  /&0(*+"1*-+" -./.0/$123$456$  7.82539-./.0/$123$456:$  45  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  2'3)4/5)6'//)&-$7"&/)'&)8"9)8"/*#&) ($!"#  !"#$"%&'(")*+),-+&)./"#/)  (!!"#  '!"#  &!"#  %!"#  $!"#  !"# $!!%)!*#  $!!*)!&#  $!!&)!+#  $!!+)!'#  0-%&"#)1"'#/) ,-.#/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.  46  Figure 4.6: Day tickets per season: local vs. non-local  4&'"()*+,(-"5,1"-,&-#06".#*&."7-8"0#09.#*&."" &(#((('  !"#$"%&'"()*+,(-"-#.%"  +(#((('  *&#"$)'  $(#((('  !(#!!)'  *+#$&)'  "(#((('  **#+&,'  !(#(((' ""#*)!'  ""#((+'  !((&-(,'  !((,-(%'  "(#(!)' *(#((('  !"#$%&'  (' !(($-(+'  !((+-(&' /)0(,1"2,&-#0"3,&1" .'/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  47  new 18-hole golf course is expected to attract a different summer crowd. A proposal for another 18hole 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  48  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 140  accumulation and precipitation.  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 rd  1st and 3 period, as well as the 2  nd  rd  and 3 period (Figure 4.8). A significant increase in extreme  49  rd  maximum summer temperatures was also seen between the 1st and 3 period, as well as the 2  nd  and  rd  3 period (Figure 4.9). st  Winter precipitation has decreased significantly between the 1 and 2 the 1  st  nd  periods, as well as  rd  and 3 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  3)445(*67+8&"%*9+(**0(5+$5%-('#+ '!"  '!!"  &#!" &!" &!!" %!"  %!!"  $#!"  !"#$%&%'('%)*+,--.+  $!"  %!!+"  %!!*"  %!!'"  %!!%"  %!!!"  $))+"  $))*"  $))'"  $))%"  $))!"  $)++"  $)+*"  $)+'"  $)+%"  $)+!"  $),+"  $),*"  $),'"  $),%"  $),!"  !" $)*+"  /#-&#"('0"#+,1.+  %#!"  $!!"  ($!" #!"  (%!"  !" 2#("+ -./01"234567"899:" AB/3"<0B"-497"8>?@:" C6=4038<40="-497"8>?@::"  ;403" AB/3"<6="-497"8>?@:" C6=4038AB/3"<0B"-497"8>?@::"  <40="-497"8>?@:" C6=4038-./01"234567"899::" C6=4038AB/3"<6="-497"8>?@::"  50  Figure 4.9: Rossland: Summer annual climate  3)445(*67+80--#"+(**0(5+$5%-('#+ '!"  &!!"  &#" %#!"  %!"  $#!"  $#" $!!" $!" #!" #"  %!!)"  %!!'"  %!!%"  %!!!"  $((*"  $(()"  $(('"  $((%"  $((!"  $(**"  $(*)"  $(*'"  $(*%"  $(*!"  $(+*"  $(+)"  $(+'"  $(+%"  !" $(+!"  !" $()*"  /#-&#"('0"#+,1.+  %!!" %#"  !"#$%&%'('%)*+,--.+  &!"  2#("+ ,-./0"123456"7889" ?5;3/27,-./0"123456"78899"  :3/;",386"7<9" ?5;3/27:3/;",386"7<99"  =>.2":/>",386"7<9" ?5;3/27=>.2":/>",386"7<99"  =>.2":5;",386"7<9" ?5;3/27=>.2":5;",386"7<99"  51  Figure 4.10: Rossland: Annual winter climate  )#!"  %!!"  )$!"  $!!"  )%!"  #!!"  )&!"  !"#$%&%'('%)*+,--.+  $!!+"  $!!("  $!!&"  $!!$"  $!!!"  #**+"  #**("  #**&"  #**$"  #**!"  #*++"  #*+("  #*+&"  #*+$"  #*+!"  &!!"  #*,+"  !"  #*,("  '!!"  #*,&"  #!"  #*,$"  (!!"  #*,!"  $!"  #*(+"  /#-&#"('0"#+,1.+  3)445(*67+8**0(5+9%*'#"+$5%-('#+  !" 2#("+ -./01"234567"899:" @6<4038-./01"234567"899::"  ;40<"-497"8=:" @6<4038;40<"-497"8=::"  >?/3";0?"-497"8=:" @6<4038>?/3";0?"-497"8=::"  >?/3";6<"-497"8=:" @6<4038>?/3";6<"-497"8=::"  4.4 WATER SUPPLY 2  Three watersheds encompassing a catchment area of 20 km 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  52  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  53  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 142  water licenses for the entire year far exceeds Rossland’s demand.  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 3 Yield (m /year)  7-day/5-year Low Flow 3 (m /year) 1,250-1,310 -  Winter Demand 3 (m /year) 2,710 3,570 6,200  Summer Demand 3 (m /year) 4,650 6,120 6,550  Estimate Yields 4,800 3,800 5,000 5000 persons and RMV development 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  54  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  55  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. 146  The following assumptions were made: 1.  2.  Leakages account for: a.  City: 15% of water use  b.  Red Mountain: 5% of water use  Commercial and institutional use: 3  a.  City: Approximately 380 m year round  b.  Red Mountain: Commercial use is 40 m in the winter, and 19 m the  3  3  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 147  "unaccounted for" water is usually between 20 to 30% of production.  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  56  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.  57  Figure 4.14: Rossland: Red Mountain average daily per capita use (2001-2007)  20&&,)1+3.2%+.4051#)"1.)6%$)7%.+)",-.*%$.()*"#).5&%.89::;<9::=>. #!!!" '&!!" '%!!"  !"#$%&'()*"#)'+)",-.  '$!!" '#!!" '!!!" &!!" %!!" $!!" #!!" !" ()*+,-"  ./-)*0"  .122,-"  3455"  /%)&01.  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.  58  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.  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  Rossland: City vs. Red Mountain summer water use per capita 3000  Summer water use (lcd)  2500  2000  1500  1000  500  0 Average  Red 25th pct  50th pct  City 75th pct  MEAN  59  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 3  the mean (1,140 lcd ) and median (1,070 m ). 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 Rossland: City vs. Red Mountain winter water use per capita 3000  Summer water use (lcd)  2500  2000  1500  1000  500  0 Average  Red 25th pct  50th pct  City 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).  60  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 City core hotel/motel  33,192 17,370  100 52  Non city-core hotel/motel Red Mountain  15,822 5,670  48 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 3  to constitute the same per capita use (0.34 m ) 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) City Per Water capita use (cu use % non-local 3 People m/d) (m /c/d), ski visits Overnight visitors required at Red Mountain each day to have same per capita use as City core Residents (current) Total  63 72 135  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  61  forthcoming. Thus, estimates were based on geographic information using Google Earth and an 2  estimated total of 100 acres for the entire area, of which 35% (14 hectares, or 14165 m ) 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 148  Rossland.  3  3  It appears between 2,500 m and 3,300 m of water are used per ha/year, with a 3  difference of over 10,000 m during a dry year (Table 4.6). Table 4.6: Rossland: Golf course irrigation requirements  Rossland: Golf course irrigation requirements Normal Year IR Golf Course IR for irrigated area Precipitation (m) Precipitation for irrigated area (m) IR remaining (no overwatering) Typical 20% overwatering Estimated irrigation applied  Dry Year IR Golf Course IR for irrigated area Precipitation (m) Precipitation for irrigated area (m) IR remaining (no overwatering) Typical 20% overwatering Estimated irrigation applied Difference  Golf course (m3) 0.38 91,440 0.17  m3/hectare/year  m3/month  m3/day  3,810  18,288  590  40,800  1,700  8,160  263  50,640 10,128 60,768  2,110 422 2,532  10,128 2,026 506  327 65 16  m3/hectare/year  m3/month  m3/day  3,810  762  25  25,440  1,060  212  7  66,000 13,200 79,200 18,432  2,750 550 3,300 768  550 110 660 154  18 4 21 5  Golf course (m3) 0.38 91,440 0.106  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  62  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)  34((5"678&9/**$%&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"67&:"#$%&/($&);<<=>;<<?,& '!(!"  '#!!!!"  &#(!"  '!!!!!"  &#!!!!"  &!(!"  %#!!!!" %!(!" %!!!!!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -$*.$%"#/%$&)01,&  &!!!!!" %#(!"  $#(!" $#!!!!" $!(!"  $!!!!!"  #(!"  #!!!!"  !(!"  !" %!!$"  +,-./"01."234"56"  %!!%"  %!!&"  7.,8"9.5:"2!6"  %!!'" 2$"%&  %!!#"  ;"7,<"9.5:"2!6"  %!!)"  %!!*"  ;"7=8"9.5:"2!6"  63  Figure 4.18: Rossland: Summer precipitation and water use (2001-2007)  41((5"267&89**$%&0%$./0/#"#/12&"26&:"#$%&9($&);<<=>;<<?,& %#!(!"  '#!!!!"  '!!!!!" %!!(!"  &#!!!!"  $#!(!" %#!!!!"  %!!!!!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -%$./0/#"#/12&)**,&  &!!!!!"  $!!(!" $#!!!!"  $!!!!!"  #!(!"  #!!!!"  !(!"  !" %!!$"  %!!%"  %!!&"  %!!'" 3$"%&  +,-./"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 3  100,000 m for all of Rossland, or 300 lcd. 3) An increase of 1 °C above the extreme maximum temperature of 32°C corresponds with a 3  27,027 m 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 3  m 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.  64  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 Climate Water use Mean X Max X Min Total Summer Monthly Daily Temp Temp Temp Precip average average average (Juneper capita Aug) (2006 census) Hot vs. Cool (°C) (°C) (°C) (mm) (m3) (m3) (m3) Hotter summers (2003,2007) 19.2 36.0 3.6 105.5 377,737 125,912 1.25 *Cooler summers- NONE 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 Recent year closest to "normal" temperatures (2005) 17.0 32 5 194 261,643 87,214 0.87 Difference between hotter and "closest normal" (hotternormal) 2.2 3.9 -1.1 -88.7 116,094 38,698 0.38  Daily average per capita + tourists (m3) 1.23 n/a n/a  0.85  0.38  Dry vs. wet Drier summers (2003,2007) Wetter summers (2004) "Normal" summer average (1969-2007) Recent year closest to "normal" precipitation (2006) Difference between drier and "closest normal" (driernormal) Difference between "closest normal" and wetter (normalwetter) Difference between drier and wetter (drier-wetter)  19.2 18.4  36.0 33.5  3.6 3.5  105.5 377,737 201.9 296,032  17.0  32.1  4.7  194.2 n/a  18.6  35.3  5.5  172.8 331,113  0.6  0.7  -1.9  -67.3  0.2  1.8  2.0  0.7  2.5  0.1  125912 98,677 n/a  1.25 0.98 n/a  1.23 0.96 n/a  110,371  1.10  1.08  46,624  15,541  0.15  0.15  -29.1  35,081  11,694  0.12  0.11  -96.4  81,705  27,235  0.27  0.27  * The average mean temperature between 2001-2007 was 18 C.  65  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 3  Ontario Water Works Association estimates that the price tag for adding an extra 1,000 m 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 3  system could amount to 0.8 kg of greenhouse gas for every 1 m 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  66  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 streamflow.  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) 3  suggest that 14,165 m 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.  67  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 3  2007 were over 8,600 m . 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. 3  Table 4.8: Rossland: Water savings in hotels/motels (m )  3  Rossland: Water savings in hotels/motels (m ) # People  Shower  *13L Toilet  **Washing Machine  Total Savings 3 (m )  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  31,205  2,060  1,311  3,214  6,584  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  41,147  2,716  1,728  4,238  8,682  18,313  1,209  769,153  1,886  3,864  Total 2007  Total 2008 Winter  * 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  68  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 2  approximately 12,000 sq ft. (3,658 m ) Table 4.9 suggests that a hotel with these characteristics could 3  meet all the water demand for 6L toilets and still have some water (nearly 500 m ) remaining for outdoor use. Table 4.9: Rainwater replacement for toilets in large hotel/motel  Rainwater replacement for toilets in a large hotel/motel 2 Roof size (m ) 3,658 3 Total annual precipitation (m ) 0.82 3 Water storage possible (m ) 1,975 Water needed for DM Toilets (2007) 3 (m ) 1,481 Water remaining for outdoor use 3 (m ) 494 % Savings for indoor use 29+ By converting showers, toilets, and washing machines to low-flow varieties, over 8,500 m  3  3  can be saved annually; when rainwater replaces toilet use, savings increase to over 10,000 m per year (Table 4.10).  69  Table 4.10: Total savings for hotels Total annual savings for hotels (2007 figures) DM (6L) use  13L use Source  m  3  m  3  Savings m  3  Showers  5,185  2,469  2,716  Toilets  3,209  1,481  1,728  Washing Machine  7,077  2,839  4,238  15,471  6,789  8,682  Total  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 lowflow shower heads, toilets and washing machines) and outdoor irrigation (rainwater collection of 5 3  m ). 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.  70  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 3  were to convert their toilets, 127,600 m would be saved over a year. When combined with savings of 3  4,600 m from houses built between 1986-1996 converting 13L to 6L toilets, Rossland’s total annual 3  savings from converting domestic toilets is 132,287 m (Table 4.11). Table 4.11: Savings from low-flow toilets  Rossland: Converting to low-flow toilets  Toilets *Total number of households *Water used per flush (litres)  20L toilet 1,215 20  13L toilet 70 13  6L toilet  Water used per household/day (litres) Water used per household/year (m3) Total all households use/year (m3) Annual savings all households from converting 20L and 13L (m3)  288 105,120 127,721  187 68,328 4,783  86 31,536 111  127,615  4,672  0  Annual savings all households (m3)  132,287  6  *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 19862006, 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 3  amounts to an 18 % savings, over 71,000 m per year.  71  Table 4.12: Converting to low-flow showerheads  Rossland: Converting to low-flow showerheads Showers Conventional Efficient Savings Number of total households 1,355 *Water used per 6 min 126 60 66 shower (conventional)(litres) Water use per 302 144 158 household/day (litres)  % Used  % Saved  Water use per 110 53 58 household/year (m3) Savings per household/day 144 48 (litres) Savings per household/year 53 (m3) Annual savings all 71,219 households (m3) * 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.  52  4.8.2.3 Washing Machines Washing machines normally consume about 20 % of indoor water use. Each household in 3  Rossland could save about 200 litres per week, or more than 11 m per year by switching to a lowflow, front-load washing machine, a savings of 60%. Overall, the City could save roughly 14,500 m  3  per year (Table 4.13).  72  Table 4.13: Rossland: Converting to low-flow washing machines  Rossland: Converting to low-flow washing machines Washing Machines Conventional Efficient Savings % Used Number of total households 1,355 *Water used for conventional washing machine (litres) 172 69 103 40 Water used per 344 138 206 household/week (litres) Water used per 18 7 11 household/year (m3) Savings per 206 household/week (2x)(litres) Savings per household/year 11 (m3) Annual savings all 14,515 households (m3) * Based on estimation of between 121 and 223 litres per load and 40% reduction  % Saved  60  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  73  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 m  2  Average lawn size: 200 m Average roof size: 155 m  2  2  Maximum surface parcel coverage: 220 m  2  154  Number of single family units (SFUs) 1164 (based on 2006 Census). 2,  Lawn size was estimated to be approximately 200 m or about 36% of the average lot size of 2 155  550 m .  Roof size was calculated by determining 70% of the maximum surface parcel coverage of 2  3  a lot (220m ), or 28% of the average lot size. Summer lawn IR per SFU was estimated to be 43 m , 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 m  2  3  lawn are 43 m 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%: 3  using 312 lcd (an extra 118 lcd) instead of 194 lcd. This amounts to 35,385 m of water lost throughout the City over the summer, or enough water to fill 330 single car garages.  74  Table 4.14: Rossland: Irrigation savings from not over-watering  Irrigation savings from not over-watering Summer (June- Month 3 3 Aug) (m ) (m )  Irrigation required per SFU Irrigation used per SFU Excess watering % over-watering currently  Day 3 (m )  Lcd  All SFUs 3 (m /day)  All SFUs 3 (m /summer)  43  14  0.465  194  630  57,960  70 26  23 9  0.749 0.284  312 118  1,015 385  93,345 35,385  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 3  35% of their irrigation requirements with a 5 m rain tank (Figure 4.19), lowering lcd demand for irrigation to 127. 3  Figure 4.19: Rossland: Summer irrigation savings from 5 m tank Rossland: Summer irrigation savings from 5 m3 tank  Water collected 5 cu m barrel  35% Irrigation still required from City  65%  15 cu m/ 67 lcpd  28 cu m/ 127 lcpd  75  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 3  3  irrigation from 48,647 to 31,355 m each summer: a savings of 17,292 m -- 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)  76  25  0.82  341  955  87,841  34  11  0.37  152  426  39,194  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  *Total water requirement Natural Precipitation Irrigation required from City  *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.  76  3  This estimation is conservative because it does not include the 5 m 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  Precipitation (m) ET IR (m)  Normal (1968-2007) 0.16 20 0.38  Drier (2003) 0.106 20 0.38  Normal (1968-2007) 0.069 2 0.04  Drier (2002) 0.043 4 0.08  3  Under this scenario, summer IR per household is 55 m , or 246 lcd (Table 4.17). If rain is evenly distributed throughout the summer, Rossland residents could cover at least 20% of their 3  irrigation requirements (49 lcd) with a 5 m rain barrel, reducing lcd required from the city to 197 lcd . 3  3  Overall, the city would supply 50,722 compared to 63,402 m , a savings of 12,680 m .  77  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  *Total water requirement Natural Precipitation Irrigation required from City Potential water collection (unlimited storage) Irrigation still required from City % Irrigation from rainwater (unlimited storage) 3 Water collected 5 m barrel Irrigation still required from City  % Irrigation from rainwater with 5 cu m barrel  Summer (JuneSept) 3 (m )  Month 3 (m )  Day (m )  Lcd  Per day 3 (m )  Per summer 3 (m )  76 21  25 7  0.82 0.23  341 95  955 266  87,841 24,439  55  18  0.59  246  689  63,402  11  4  0.12  49  136  12,500  44  15  0.47  198  553  50,902  20  20  20  20  20  20  11  4  0.12  49  138  12,680  44  15  0.47  197  551  50,722  20  20  20  20  20  20  3  *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 3  3  3  3  extra 14,755 m provided, with the City now supplying 63,402 m instead of 48,647 m . If 5 m rain 3  barrels are used, however, 20% (12,680 m ) can be saved.  78  Table 4.18: Rossland: Normal vs. drier summer water demand comparison  Rossland: Normal vs. drier summer water demand comparison Per SFU Summer (June-Aug) 3 (m )  *Total water requirement Natural Precipitation Irrigation required from City Potential water collection (unlimited storage) Irrigation still required from City % Irrigation from rainwater (unlimited storage) Water collected 5 cu m barrel Irrigation still required from City % Irrigation from rainwater with 5 cu m barrel  Per capita  All SFUs  lcd  Per summer (m )  3  Normal  Dry  Normal  Dry  Normal  Dry  76 34  76 21  341 152  341 95  87,841 39,194  87,841 24,439  42  55  189  246  48,647  63,402  17  11  78  49  20,048  12,500  25  44  111  198  28,599  50,902  41  20  41  20  41  20  15  11  67  49  17,292  12,680  27  44  122  197  31,355  50,722  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 3  September is twice that of a “normal” month, and would require 7,738 m of water from the City. A 5 3  3  m rain barrel for each household can meet 66% of IR, reducing the City’s provision to only 2,612 m .  79  Table 4.19: Rossland: Normal vs. drier September water demand comparison  Rossland: Normal vs. drier September water demand comparison Normal  *Total water requirement Natural Precipitation Irrigation required from City Climate Change *Total water requirement Natural Precipitation Irrigation required from City Water collected 5 cu m barrel Irrigation still required from City % Irrigation from rainwater with 5 cu m barrel  Per SFU Month 3 3 Day (m ) (m ) 8 14 -6  Per capita Lcd  0.25 106 0.46 192 NO IRRIGATION REQUIRED  All SFUs Per day Per month 3 3 (m ) (m ) 296 536  8,880 16,081  IRRIGATION REQUIRED 15 9  0.51 0.29  212 119  592 334  17,759 10,022  7  0.22  92  258  7,738  4  0.15  61  171  5,126  2  0.07  31  87  2,612  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 3  more water will have to be collected in the Spring. Ultimately, storage capacity larger than 5 m may  80  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  60((7"1-8&!"#$%&("931:(&;3#<&2$#$%31:=&>?6=&"1-&7$"@":$&%$,"3%&)7+-.& '##$  *##$ "*#$  !"#$%&'($&)*+,-.&  "##$  "#%$  +##$ &(+$  &##$  (+*$ (##$  ()#$ !"#$  !"#$  !+'$ !!!$  !##$ %*"$  %&'$  %##$  !!!$  %&'$ %%%$  %(+$  %%%$  )##$  #$ ,-../01$23/$  4/1/.506$789$$  9/:;5./<$=/;>3$  4/1/.3?$789?$./:;5.3$  /01('2,#301&'1-$%&45&(+$1"%30(& @501/.$  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 158  determining possibilities for reducing pressure.  81  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 3  eliminate over-watering and use rainwater from a 5 m 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 3  198 from 360 lcd, for a savings of 45% or 162 lcd (Table 4.20). The City saves 220 m each day; over 3  the entire summer (92 days), the City saves nearly 60,000 m .  82  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 Current DM Savings % Used person/day (lcd) Showers *Toilets Washing Machines Other Total (all uses) Water use per household/day Total all households/nonsummer (273 days) 3 (m )  % Savings  Total  126 120 20 117 383  60 36 8 117 221  66 84 12 0 162  48 30 40 100 58  52 70 60 0 42  100 100 100 100 100  919  530  389  58  42  100  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 3  savings of 45% or 347 lcd . The City saves more than 89,000 m over the entire summer (92 days).  83  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  84  Figure 4.21 Rossland: Summer water savings per capita: current vs. DM package  !  32&&,)0+4.5677%$.8)#%$.&)1"09&.*%$.()*"#)4.(6$$%0#.1&:.;<.*)(=)9%. &)%$  &!"$  &%%$  ")%$  !"#$%&'()*"#)'+)",-.  "%%$  !)%$ !"#$  !"($  !"%$  !%%$  )%$  #%$ "%$  &#$  '$  %$ *+,-./0$  1,23.40$  560+278$96:+27.0$  ;<4=,,/$>//28642,7$  /0#%$1%0#"20. ?<//.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 3  watershed during a dry year would be over 211,000 m —17 times the tourism-related savings from 159  hotels, and almost half domestic savings for Rossland.  3  Retrofitting large hotels with a DM package provides the most savings (8,682 m ) in the hospitality industry. On the domestic side, fixing leaks and metering saves the most water (214,904 3  3  m ), while a DM package also provides substantial savings (192,291 m ). Overall, Rossland could 3  save nearly 470,000 m , or more than 4,700 single car garages of water per year were it to adopt all of these practices.  85  3  Table 4.22: Rossland: Summary of savings: m and garage equivalents 3  Rossland: Summary of savings: m and garage equivalents Tourism annual water savings for Rossland  Source  Savings 3 (m )  1 car garage equivalent  Watershed level *Not overwatering one, 14 hectare golf course by 20% Not overwatering sixteen, 24 hectare golf courses by 20% (normal year) Not overwatering sixteen, 24 hectare golf courses by 20% (dry year) Rossland Indoor fixtures (DM package) for a large hotel Leaks for a large hotel Rain tank for a large hotel Tourism total for Rossland Domestic annual water savings for Rossland  Source Leaks and metering Indoor fixtures (DM package) Rain tanks Not overwatering Domestic total Overall Total (excluding golf course)  5,977  60  162,048  1,620  211,200  2,112  8,682 1,547 1,728  87 15 17  11,957  120  Savings 3 (m ) 214,904  1 car garage equivalent 2,149  192,291  1,923  17,292 35,385  173 354  459,872 471,829  4,599 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).  86  •  Because turf grass typically uses 35% more water than vegetables and 25% more water than 160  fruit converting lawn to growing vegetables and/or fruit instead could help conserve water. •  Existing single family residences, especially those at the forest-residential interface, should 3  install a 5 m rain tank. Underground rainwater cisterns should be considered for multi-family dwellings at the forest-residential interface. •  3  New developments should be designed with on-site rain collection of at least 5 m 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-Dayper-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  87  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.  88  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 Climate Population  Longer, drier summers Variable occupancy  Description Based on water use for summers 2003 and 2007 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.  89  Table 4.24: Full build-out with no conservation Full build-out with no conservation Variable Water Use Current (lcd) consumption (City)  Estimates for Red Mountain and Redstone  Domestic City Wide (annually) 3 (m )  Description 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 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 3  66%, 24%, and 10% of the respective total demand, which is just over 1 million m . 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 3  3  residents and irrigation in the City core-- is 4000 m ; winter peak is higher at 4800 m , 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.  90  Figure 4. 2: Rossland Scenario 1: Average daily demand with no conservation  Rossland Scenario 1: Average daily demand with no conservation  5000 Water demand (cu m)  4500 4000 3500 3000  Red Mountain  2500  Redstone  2000  City core  1500 1000 500 0 1  4  7  10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 Week  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 Water Use Aggressive Demand Management package (lcp)  City Wide (annually) 3 (m )  Description 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 Rossland City core: 437,439 (46% savings) Red Mountain: 271,110 (1% savings) Redstone: 104,155 (8% savings) Total: 812,704  91  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 3  3  combined (Figure 4.23),Winter peak (3,800 m ) is more than 1,000 m above summer peak (2,600 3  m ), 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  Water demand (cu m)  Rossland Scenario 1: Average daily demand with DM  5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0  Red Mountain Redstone City core  1  4  7  10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 Week  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.  92  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 Rossland City core increasing block rate • Summer + Sept: 546 structure (-30%) • Autumn: 259 (lcd) • Winter: 259 • Spring: 287 Red Mountain • 140 non-summer (base) • 162 summer Redstone • 210 non-summer (base) • 319 summer City Wide (annually) 3 (m )  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 3  winter peak are also reduced by 30%: Summer peak daily demand is 2,800m , while winter peak is 3  3,300 m . 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.  93  Figure 4.24: Rossland Scenario 1: Average daily demand with metering/ IBR  Rossland Scenario 1: Average daily demand with metering/IBR  Water demand (cu m)  5000 4500 4000 3500 3000  Red Mountain  2500  Redstone  2000  City core  1500 1000 500 0 1  4  7  10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 Week  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).  94  Table 4.27: Full build-out with maximum water savings Full build-out with maximum water savings Variable Description Water Use Aggressive DM Rossland City core package and leak • Summer + Sept: 375 repair for the City; • Autumn: 177 metering with an IBR • Winter: 177 at Red and Redstone; • Spring: 211 and elimination of Red Mountain over-watering and • 140 non-summer (base) introduction of rain • 153 summer barrels in all three Redstone areas. (lcd) • 210 non-summer (base) • 274 summer City Wide (annually) Rossland City core: 371,823 (54% savings) 3 (m ) 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%, 3  and 12% of the respective total annual demand (637,418 m ). 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 3  3  3  combined (Figure 4.25). Winter peak (2,800 m ) is now only 700 m above summer peak (2,100 m ). 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  Water demand (cu m)  Rossland Scenario 1: Average daily demand with maximum savings  5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0  Red Mountain Redstone City core  1  4  7  10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 Week  95  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  Annual water consumption (cu m)  Rossland Scenario 1: Strategy comparison 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000  Current  500,000  DM  400,000  Metering and IBR  300,000  Maximum savings  200,000 100,000 0 City Core  Red Mountain  Redstone  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.  96  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 3  3  Mountain (Figure 4.27). Peak demand is 3,300 m , or 1400 m 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 3  the respective total annual demand (862,033 m ). 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.  97  Figure 4.27: Rossland Scenario 2a: Average daily demand with no conservation  Water demand (cu m)  Rossland Scenario 2a: Average daily demand with no conservation  5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0  Red Mountain Redstone City core  1  5  9  13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 Week  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 3  peak demand is still slightly higher than winter peak, but the difference is approximately 200 m . 3  When compared to Full build-out with DM under scenario 1b, peak demand is about 1,600 m less (Table 4.23). Domestic demand in the City core, Red Mountain, and Redstone now constitute 82%, 3  13%, and 5% of the respective total annual demand (531,457 m ). 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.  98  Figure 4.28: Rossland Scenario 2b: Average daily demand with DM  Water demand (cu m)  Rossland Scenario 2b: Average daily demand with DM 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0  Red Mountain Redstone City core  1  4  7  10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 Week  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 3  demand exceeds winter peak by about 500 m . When compared to Full build-out with metering/IBR 3  under scenario 1c, peak demand is 1,000 m 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%, 3  and 3% of the respective total annual demand (603,423 m ). 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.  99  Figure 4.29: Rossland Scenario 2c: Average daily demand with metering and IBR  Water demand (cu m)  Rossland Scenario 2c: Average daily demand with metering and IBR  5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0  Red Mountain Redstone City core  1  5  9  13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 Week  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 3  are moderated, with summer exceeding winter by 200 m . When compared to Full build-out with 3  maximum savings under Scenario 1d, peak demand is 1200 m less, and occurs in the summer instead of the winter (Figure 4.25). Domestic demand in the City core, Red Mountain, and Redstone 3  make up 85%, 11%, and 4% of the respective total annual demand (438,222 m ). 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.  100  Figure 4.30: Rossland Scenario 2d: Average daily demand with maximum savings  Rossland Scenario 2d: Average daily demand with maximum savings 5000 4500 Water demand (cu m)  4000 3500 3000 2500  Red Mountain  2000  Redstone  1500  City core  1000 500 0 1  4  7  10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 Week  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.  101  Figure 4.31: Rossland Scenario 2: Strategy comparison  Rossland Scenario 2: Strategy Comparison  Annual water use (cu m)  900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000  Current  500,000  DM  400,000  Metering and IBR  300,000  Maximum Savings  200,000 100,000 0 City Core  Red Mountain  Redstone  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 3  water savings in terms of m and percentage savings.  102  Table 4.29: Rossland Scenario 1 and 2 summary table Rossland (lcpd)  Red Mnt (lcpd)  Redstone (lcpd)  Scenarios a-d  Scenario a Scenario b Scenario c Scenario d  Summer (Sept included) Fall 780 421 532 358  Scenario 1 Full Build-out  Total Total Rossland Total Red Redstone Overall City (m3) Mnt (m3) (m3) total (m3)  Scenario 1-a Scenario 1-b Scenario 1-c Scenario 1-d Scenario 2 Slow Growth Scenario 2-a Scenario 2-b Scenario 2-c Scenario 2-d  764,686 437,439 535,280 371,823  Winter 370 158 224 134  275,943 271,110 193,160 190,772  Spring 370 178 238 151  113,448 104,155 79,414 74,823  410 208 259 177  1,154,077 812,704 807,854 637,418  Total Total Rossland Total Red Redstone Overall City (m3) Mnt (m3) (m3) total (m3) 764,686 437,439 535,280 371,823  68,986 67,979 48,290 47,693  28,362 26,039 19,853 18,706  862,033 531,457 603,423 438,222  NonNonsummer Summer summer Summer 200 231 300 456 200 313 200 364 140 161 140 316 140 153 140 204 Savings Savings (m3) (%) 0 341,373 346,223 516,659  0.00 30 30 45  % less than Savings Savings Scenario 1 (same (m3) (%) intervention) 0 330,576 258,610 423,812  0 38 30 49  25 35 25 31  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.  103  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.  104  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.  105  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 Location Elevation Permanent population (2006) Permanent population trend Demand Management Measures Municipal Water Supply Water Storage Primary Tourism activities Data Availability Tourist-driven population increase  Invermere East Kootenays, B.C. 859 m (2,818 ft) 3,002 Increasing Metering residential and commercial since 2002 Goldie Creek Paddy Ryan Lakes system Lake-side recreation, golf, skiing Some residential metering; flow volumes from treatment plant; some hotel occupancy rates; ski visit data 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  106  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  107  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 168  vacation rentals.  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.  108  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.  109  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  110  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 2  nd  rd  and 3 period (last 20 years), while summer precipitation increased between periods 1 and 2 (1969st  1997) (Figure 5.3). Mean winter temperatures increased significantly between the 1 and 2 as well as 2  rd  periods, st  and 3 (Figure 5.4). Spring also saw an increase in precipitation between the 1 and  periods, while no significant changes were noted for autumn (Appendix 4.3: Significance Tests). Figure 5.3: Kootenay Park Annual summer climate  #!"  ('!"  (*"  (&!"  (!"  &$!"  &*"  &#!"  &!"  &!!"  %*"  %'!"  %!"  %&!"  *"  $!"  !"  #!"  )*"  !"#$%&%'('%)*+,--.+  3))'#*(4+!("5+(**0(6+70--#"+$6%-('#+  %+'+" %+,!" %+,%" %+,&" %+,(" %+,#" %+,*" %+,'" %+,," %+,$" %+,+" %+$!" %+$%" %+$&" %+$(" %+$#" %+$*" %+$'" %+$," %+$$" %+$+" %++!" %++%" %++&" %++(" %++#" %++*" %++'" %++," %++$" %+++" &!!!" &!!%" &!!&" &!!(" &!!#" &!!*" &!!'" -&!!,"  nd  /#-&#"('0"#+,1.+  2  nd  nd  !"  2#("+ ./012"345678"9::;" @7=5149./012"345678"9::;;"  <51=".5:8" @7=5149<51=".5:8;"  >?04"<1?".5:8" @7=5149>?04"<1?".5:8;"  >?04"<7=".5:8" @7=5149>?04"<7=".5:8;"  111  Figure 5.4: Kootenay Park annual winter climate  3))'#*(4+!("5+(**0(6+7%*'#"+$6%-('#+ #!"  #!!"  '*"  '&!"  '!"  '%!"  *"  -#!!,"  #!!*"  #!!)"  #!!'"  '+++"  '++,"  '++*"  '++)"  '++'"  '+&+"  '+&,"  '+&*"  '+&)"  '+&'"  '+,+"  '+,,"  '+,*"  '+,)"  '+,'"  '+%+"  /#-&#"('0"#+,1.+  (*" ('!"  '#!" '!!"  ('*"  &!"  (#!"  !"#$%&%'('%)*+,--.+  '$!"  !"  %!"  (#*" $!"  ()!"  #!"  ()*" ($!"  !" 2#("+ ./012"345678"9::;" @7=5149./012"345678"9::;;"  <51=".5:8"" @7=5149<51=".5:8";"  >?04"<1?".5:8"" @7=5149>?04"<1?".5:8";"  >?04"<7=".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 3  belong to the DOI, amounting to 4,265,842 m 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  112  5.5 WATER USE Invermere started to implement universal metering for commercial and residential use in 1998. The project cost was estimated at $350,000, resulting in approximately 1.2 million litres per year in water savings.  174  Many residential and commercial meters had been installed by 2007, but the  DOI had yet to install meters for summer cabins. Summer water restrictions and bylaws are also common to curb overuse. 5.5.1 Current Residential Water Use Information for this section is derived from billing data from the DOI, as well as work carried out by Urban Systems. Figure 5.5 shows the breakdown of water use by sector, as well as unmetered use. Residential use accounts for between 35-47%, commercial varies between 9- 13%, and irrigation use averages less than 1%. Unmetered use is substantial: between 39- 52 % of water taken from Paddy Ryan Lakes is unaccounted for. Unmetered use includes irrigation by the DOI, which installed meters on its own irrigation for public parks and public green spaces in 2007 (data unavailable). It could also include water used for street cleaning, sewer rehabilitation, fire fighting, illegal connections, meter inaccuracies, accounting errors, in addition to water lost through leakages and/or breaks. use is compounded by the gravelly soils that do not hold much water.  175  Irrigation  176  113  Figure 5.5: Invermere: Metered water use by sector  2#3/1&/1/4*5/(/1/6*70(/1*%$/*89*$/:("1* (#'''#'''% ,''#'''% *''#'''% &+)#("'%  !"#$%&'()"#*+&,-*  "''#'''% !*"#,+)%  !(&#*&,%  &&*#*"!%  )''#'''% $''#'''% &''#'''%  "#*!)-!'%  *#"+,%  $#',&%  ('+#',+%  (#,,,%  (',#(()%  (()!&+-$%  "$#$((% !''#'''% +''#'''%  !""#"$$%  !&'#()&%  !*(#,'!-,'%  !(*#++*%  (''#'''% '% +''&%  +''$%  +'')%  +''"%  ./01*  ./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.  114  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, 177  spring is 295 lcd, summer average use is 500 lcd, while fall is 270 lcd.  Figure 5.6: Invermere: Seasonal water use lcd (2003-2007)  While the town has reduced consumption—30% by some accounts  178  --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.  115  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 179  town. The resort is designed to accommodate 6,000 sleeping units, and many more skiers daily.  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 181  Kootenay Rockies. Between 2000 and 2006, green fee rounds increased by 39%.  The East Kootenays (Columbia Valley) is one of the top destination regions for golf in the 182  province. In 2005, the region’s 8 courses injected $75 million into the local economy.  Many courses  are planning to expand development with hotels, commercial space, and residential units.  116  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 3  3  183  between 5,000 m and 7,300 m of water were used per ha/year (Figure 5.8).  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 3  3 184  size is between 4,000 m and 5,000 m .  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/"  117  * 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) IR Golf Course IR for irrigated area Precipitation (m) Precipitation for irrigated 3 area (m ) IR remaining (no overwatering) Typical 20% overwatering Irrigation expected Observed irrigation Observed difference (overwatering)  Dry Year (2003) IR Golf Course 1 IR for irrigated area Precipitation (m) Precipitation for irrigated 3 area (m ) IR remaining (no overwatering) Typical 20% overwatering Irrigation expected *Observed irrigation Observed difference (overwatering)  Golf course 3 (m ) 0.38 92,511 0.14  3  m /hectare/year  m month  m /day  3,810  18,502  597  33,994  1,400  6,799  219  58,517 11,703 70,221 160,119  2,410 482 2,892 6,594  11,703 2,341 578 1,319  378 76 19 43  101,602  3,702  740  24  Golf course 3 (m ) 0.38 92,511 0.08  m /hectare/year  m month  m /day  3,810  762  25  19,911  820  164  5  72,600 14,520 87,121 122,086  2,990 598 3,588 5,028  598 120 718 1,006  19 4 23 32  49,486  1,440  288  9  3  3  3  3  3  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.  118  A second course just outside the DOI boundary was developed in 2000, and land has been 185  allotted for expansion that would make it approximately 120 acres, or 48 hectares.  It draws water 186  from three wells near the Columbia River with a combined output of about 4 million litres per day. 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 187  and beyond.”  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.  119  Figure 5.9: Invermere: Summer temperatures and water use (2003-2007)  345$%*$%$6&7/**$%&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"48&9"#$%&/($&):;;+<:;;=,& *!)!"  '!!$!!!"  '!)!"  &#!$!!!"  &!!$!!!" %!)!" %#!$!!!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -$*.$%"#/%$&)01,&  &!)!"  !)!" &!!'"  &!!*"  &!!#"  &!!+"  &!!," %!!$!!!"  (%!)!"  #!$!!!"  (&!)!"  ('!)!"  !" 2$"%& -./01"230"45'6"  70.8"905:"4;<6"  =>/1"7.>"905:"4;<6"  =>/1"7?8"905:"4;<6"  120  Figure 5.10: Invermere: Summer precipitation and water use (2003-2007)  425$%*$%$6&78**$%&0%$./0/#"#/12&"29&:"#$%&8($&);<<+=;<<>,& '#!"  #!!$!!!" (#!$!!!"  '!!" (!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" '!!$!!!"  &!!"  &#!$!!!" %#!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -%$./0/#"#/12&)**,&  &#!"  &!!$!!!" %#!$!!!"  %!!"  %!!$!!!" #!" #!$!!!" !"  !" &!!'"  &!!("  &!!#" 3$"%& +,-./"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 3  35,000 m for all of Invermere, or 100 lcd. 3) An increase of 1 °C above the extreme maximum temperature of 34°C corresponds with a 3  30,000 m 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 3  15,000 m increase in water use for all of Invermere, or 54 lcd.  121  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).  122  Table 5.2: Invermere: Effects of temperature and precipitation on summer water use Invermere: Effects of temperature and precipitation on summer water use Climate Mean X Max X Min Total Summer Temp Temp Temp Precip average (JuneAug) Hot vs. Cool (°C) (°C) (°C) (mm) (m3) Hotter summer (2003) 18.9 37.0 5.0 82 429,687 Cooler summer (2005) 16.2 34.0 3.0 335 293,070 "Normal" summer average (19692007) 17.2 34.4 3.0 146 n/a Recent year closest to "normal" temperatures (2007) 16.8 35 2 87 361,520 Difference between hotter and "closest normal" (hotter-normal) 2.1 2.0 3.0 -5 68,166 Difference between cooler and "closest normal" (cooler-normal) -0.6 -1.0 1.0 249 -68,451 Difference between hotter and cooler (hotter-cooler) 2.7 3.0 2.0 -254 136,617 Dry vs. wet Drier summer (2003) 18.9 37.0 5.0 82 429,687 Wetter summer (2005) 16.2 34.0 3.0 335 293,070 "Normal" summer average (19692007) 17.2 34.4 3.0 146 n/a Recent year closest to "normal" precipitation (2004) 18.8 36.0 4.0 137 356,726 Difference between drier and "closest normal" (drier-normal) 0.1 1.0 1.0 -56 72,961 Difference between wetter and "closest normal" (wetter-normal) Difference between drier and wetter (drier-wetter)  Water use Monthly Daily average average per capita (2006 census) (m3) (m3) 143,229 1.56 97,690 1.06  Daily average per capita + tourists (m3) 1.29 0.88  n/a  n/a  n/a  120,507  1.31  1.08  22,722  0.25  0.20  -22,817  -0.25  -0.21  45,539  0.49  0.41  143,229 97,690  1.56 1.06  1.29 0.88  n/a  n/a  n/a  118,909  1.29  1.07  24,320  0.26  0.22  -2.7  -2.0  -1.0  198  -63,656  -21,219  -0.23  -0.19  2.7  3.0  2.0  -254  136,617  45,539  0.49  0.41  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  123  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 3  system could amount to 0.8 kg of green house gas (GHG) for every 1 m 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?  124  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).  125  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  2,245  204,425  Year total  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) Water savings Water savings from from converting to converting to low flow low flow Water savings from converting to toilets from *washing # People low-flow shower *13L toilets 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  126  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 3  *Total annual precipitation (m )  0.44 3  Monthly water storage possible (m )  89  Monthly water needed for DM Toilets 3 (2007) (m )  492  Monthly water needs for DM toilets met from rainwater * Calculated from 1969-2007 data  18  By converting showers, toilets, and washing machines to low-flow varieties, over 34,000 m  3  can be saved annually; when rainwater contributes toward toilet use, savings increase to over 35,500 3  m per year (Table 5.7). It is recognized that substantial planning and expense would be involved to 3  store 90 m 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.  127  Table 5.7: Invermere: Total savings for hotels  Invermere: Total savings for hotels (2007 figures) Current use 3  DM use m  Savings  3  m  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 m Monthly toilet requirement  1,066  m  3  Source  3  492  Monthly rain (if evenly distributed): 89 m  Total after using 60,690 26,659 rainwater for toilets * Toilet estimates based on 13 L for “current” use and 6L for DM use.  574 3  35,668  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 3  (rainwater collection of 5 m ). This combination of uses accounts for 81% of summer water use and 74% of water use the rest of the year.  128  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 3  living in older houses built before 1986 were to convert their toilets, more than 55,000 m would be 3  saved over a year. When combined with savings of 8,000 m from houses built between 1986-1996 converting 13L to 6L toilets, Invermere’s total annual savings from converting domestic toilets is over 3  63,000 m (Table 5.8). Table 5.8: Invermere: Converting to low-flow toilets  Invermere: Converting to low-flow toilets Toilets *Number of total households *Water used per flush (litres) Water used per household/day (litres) Water used per household/year (m3) Total all households use/year (m3)  20L toilet 750 20 288 105 78,840  13L toilet 223 13 187 68 15  6L toilet 223 6 86 32 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  129  3  21 L/min showerheads, each household could save about 160 litres of water per day, or 58 m 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  Number of total households  Efficient  Savings  % Used  % Saved  48  52  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  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 3  Invermere could save about 200 litres per week, or more than 11 m per year by switching to a low3  flow, front-load washing machine—a savings of 60%. Overall, the City could save 15,000 m per year (Table 5.10).  130  Table 5.10: Invermere: Converting to low-flow washing machines  Invermere: Converting to low-flow washing machines Washing Machines  Conventional  Efficient  Savings  % Used  Number of total households 1,420 *Water used for conventional 172 69 103 40 washing machine (litres) Water used per 344 138 206 household/week (litres) Water used per household/year (m3) 18 7 11 Savings per household/week 206 (2x)(litres) 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  % Saved  60  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.  131  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 m  2  Average lawn size: 200 m Average roof size: 155 m  2  2  Maximum surface parcel coverage: 222 m  2  Number of single family units (SFUs):1028 (based on 2006 Census). 2,  Lawn size was estimated to be approximately 200 m or about 37% of the average lot size of 2 192  555 m .  Roof size was calculated by determining 70% of the maximum surface parcel coverage of 2  3  a lot (222m ), or 28% of the average lot size. Summer lawn IR per SFU was estimated to be 65 m , 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 193  sprinkling systems that can apply up to 3.5 times the water required. 2  Irrigation requirements for a  3  200 m lawn are 36 m 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 3  the water required, using an extra 41 lcd. This amounts to 9,260 m of water lost throughout the DOI over the summer.  132  Table 5.11: Invermere: Irrigation savings from not over-watering  Invermere: Irrigation savings from not over-watering Summer (June-Aug) 3 (m )  Month 3 (m )  Day 3 (m )  Lcd  All SFUs 3 (m /day)  All SFUs 3 (m /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  9  3  0.10  41  101  9,260  26  26  26  26  26  26  Excess watering % over-watering currently 5.9.3 Rainwater Collection  If rain is evenly distributed throughout the summer, Invermere residents could cover at least 3  42% of their irrigation requirements with a 5 m rain tank, lowering demand to 75 lcd (Figure 5.11). 3  Figure 5.11: Invermere: Summer irrigation savings from 5 m barrel  !"#$%&$%$'()*&&$%(+%%+,-.+/"(0-#+",0(1%/&(2(&3(4-%%$5(  Irrigation still required from City 58%  Water collected 5 m3 barrel 42%  133  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 3  3  reduced from 36,137 to 20,882 m each summer: a savings of 15,254 m -- or 12 tons of GHGs. 3  These estimations are conservative because they do not include the 5 m 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.  134  Table 5.12: Irrigation savings from domestic rainwater collection  Invermere: Irrigation savings from domestic rainwater collection Per SFU  All SFUs  Summer (June-Aug) 3 (m )  Month 3 (m )  Day 3 (m )  Lcd  Per day 3 (m )  Per summer 3 (m )  *Total water requirement  65  22  0.70  290  715  65,802  Natural Precipitation Irrigation required from City  29  10  0.31  131  322  29,665  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  21  7  0.22  92  227  20,882  Irrigation still required from City % 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).  135  Table 5.13: Invermere: Normal vs. drier climate for summer and September  Invermere: Normal vs. drier climate for summer and September Summer  Precipitation (m) ET IR (m)  Normal (1968-2007) 0.15 17 0.38  September  Drier (2003) 0.08 17 0.38  Normal (1968-2007) 0.03 2 0.04  Drier (2001) 0.02 4 0.08  3  Under this scenario, summer IR per household is 60 m , or 268 lcd (Table 5.14). If rain is evenly distributed throughout the summer, Invermere residents could cover at least 25% of their 3  irrigation requirements (67 lcd) with a 5 m rain barrel, reducing lcd provided by the DOI from 268 to 3  3  201. Overall, the city would supply 45,569 m compared to 60,824 m . 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 Per (JuneMonth Day Per day summer 3 3 3 3 3 Sept) (m ) (m ) (m ) Lcd (m ) (m ) *Total water requirement  80  27  0.86  358  884  81,366  20  7  0.22  91  223  20,542  60  20  0.64  268  661  60,824  10  3  0.11  46  114  10,507  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  Natural Precipitation Irrigation required from DOI Potential water collection (unlimited storage) Irrigation still required from DOI  136  *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 3  3  extra 22,687 m provided by the City. If 5 m rain barrels are used, however, this number can be cut 3  3  by 25%: instead of providing 60,824 m , the City could supply 45,569 m . Table 5.15: Invermere: Normal vs. drier summer water demand comparison  Invermere: Normal vs. drier summer water demand comparison Per SFU Per capita Summer (June3 Aug) (m ) Normal Dry  All SFUs  3  lcd Normal  Dry  Per summer (m ) Normal Dry  *Total water requirement Natural Precipitation Irrigation required from DOI Potential water collection (unlimited storage)  65 29 36  80 20 60  290 131 159  358 91 268  65,802 29,665 36,137  81,366 20,542 60,824  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  21  45  92  201  20,882  45,569  42  25  42  25  42  25  Irrigation still required from DOI % Irrigation from rainwater with 5 m3 barrel  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 3  precipitation. Table 5.16 indicates that a 5 m rain barrel can meet all IR for a “normal” September, 3  saving the DOI about 1,000 m . A drier September has an IR that is twice that of a “normal” month 3  3  with only half the precipitation, requiring 11,760 m of water from the DOI. A 5 m rain barrel for each 3  SFU can meet 17% of IR, reducing Invermere’s provision to 9,762 m for a savings of nearly 2,000 3  m —not unsubstantial during a dry season when natural water levels will be at their lowest.  137  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 Day Per day Per month 3 3 3 3 Lcd (m ) (m ) (m ) (m ) *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  9  0.32  132  325  9,762  17  17  17  17  17  Irrigation still required from DOI % Irrigation from rainwater with 5 m3 barrel  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  138  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 3  more water will have to be collected in the Spring. Ultimately, storage capacity larger than 5 m 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.  139  Table 5.17: Invermere: Residential leak reduction  Invermere: Residential leak reduction lcd 330 33 17 314  Current use 10 % Leakage Reduction to 5% (savings) New total with 8% leaks  14,454  Savings per household/year (litres)  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 3  were to eliminate over-watering and use rainwater from a 5 m 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 3  the year (273 days), the City saves over 90,000 m . “Other” use varies by season and no savings are estimated for this category.  140  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 Current DM Savings % Used person/day (lcd) Showers *Toilets Washing Machines Other Total (all uses) Water use per household/day **Total all households/non3 summer (273 days) (m )  % Savings  Total  126 78 20 46 270  60 36 8 46 150  66 42 12 0 120  48 46 40 100 56  52 54 60 0 44  100 100 100 100 100  648  360  288  56  44  100  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 3  savings of 49% or 245 lcd. Over the entire summer (92 days), the City saves 55,611 m .  141  Table 5.19: Invermere Summer: Total water savings with DM package (Lcd)  Invermere Summer: Total water savings with DM package (lcd) Water use per Current DM Savings % Used person/day (lcd) Showers 126 60 66 48 Toilets 78 36 42 46  % Savings 52 54  Total 100 100  Washing Machines  20  8  12  40  60  100  Outdoor Irrigation  142  142  0  100  0  100  ~ over-watering ~ rain barrels Other Total (all uses)  58 0 76 500  0 -67 76 255  58 67 0 245  0 0 100 51  100 100 0 49  100 100 100 100  *Water use per SFU/day  1200  612  588  51  49  100  *Total all SFUs/ summer 3 (92 days) (m )  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  %&'()*()(+$,-**()$./0()$1/'2&31$4()$"/420/+$"-))(&0$'15$67$ "*'$  "''$ "''$  !*'$  !"#$  !)"$ !"#$ !''$  %&$ *'$  #'$ "'$  (#$  &$ '$ +,-./01$  2-34/51$  671,389$:7;,38/1$ @=00/85$  <=5>--0$?0039753-8$  A:$  142  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 3  77,000 m 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 3  for the watershed during a dry year would be over 100,000 m —three times the tourism-related savings for the DOI. At the municipal level, retrofitting large hotels with a DM package provides the most savings 3  (34,606 m ) in the hospitality industry. On the domestic side, a DM package saves the most water 3  3  (105,120 m ), while not overwatering and using rain tanks for irrigation together save over 28,000 m . 3  Overall, Invermere could save nearly 190,000 m , or about 1,896 single car garages per year were it to adopt all of these practices.  143  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 3 (m )  1 car garage equivalent volume of water  77,384  774  140,442  1,404  174,241  1,742  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) Tourism total for DOI  1,062  11  38,751  388  Indoor fixtures (DM package) Leaks Rain tanks Not overwatering Domestic total  Savings 3 (m ) 105,120 17,273 15,254 13,165 150,812  1 car garage equivalent 1,051 173 153 132 1,508  Overall total (excluding golf course)  189,563  1,896  Watershed level *Not over watering golf course presented here by 225% Not overwatering 8 golf courses by 20% (normal year) Not overwatering 8 golf courses by 20% (dry year) District of Invermere  Domestic annual water savings for Invermere  Source  * 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.  144  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 3  m rain tank. Underground rainwater cisterns could be considered for multi-family dwellings at the forest-residential interface. •  3  New developments could be designed with on-site rain collection of at least 5 m 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.  145  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 198  used here does not include the Grizzly Ridge Estates.  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 Multi Family  2.67 2.3  Water usage *Actual ADD (lcd) **ADD (lpcd) ***Peak Factor ****August Daily Peak (lcd) Winter Peak (Oct-Mar. lcd)  736 500 2.5 1850 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.  146  ***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)  Castle Rock West Side Park Octagon Properties Lake Windermere Resort Lake Windermere Point Heron Point Pine Ridge DL 4616  2,092 531 1,453 851 529 166 1,656 1,335  Slower Growth (2) 2,092 531  529 166 1,656  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.  147  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 (current lcd)  Scenario 1b: Aggressive DM (lcd)  Water Use Summer + Sept  500  255  Autumn (Oct, Nov)  270  Winter  240  non-summer average: 150  Spring  295  City-wide (annual m3) Savings (m3) % DM savings  1,911,492  1,186,443 725,049 38  Figure 5.13 compares current water use versus water use under an aggressive DM strategy 3  in the Build Out scenario. By 2035 the savings is approximately 949,000 m .  148  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.  149  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 (current lcd)  Scenario 2b: Aggressive DM (lcd)  Summer + Sept  500  255  Autumn (Oct, Nov)  270  Winter  240  non-summer average: 150  Spring  295  Water Use  City-wide (annual m3)  1,478,156  Savings (m3) % DM savings  917,476 560,680 38  By adopting an aggressive DM strategy under the slow growth scenario, the DOI could be 3  saving over 700,000 m by 2035, or 38% of what it would supply given the same population demonstrating current consumption patterns (Figure 5.14 ).  150  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. 3  Overall, it appears that the DOI can save over 900,000 m if it introduces an aggressive DM strategy 3  3  under full build out, reducing use from about 2.5 million m to 1.5 million m , or 38%. With slower 3  growth, the DOI can save over 700,000 m with a DM strategy, reducing use from nearly 2 million m  3  3  to just over 1 million m (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 3  m3 by 2011; with DM, it’s not until 2020. Slower growth with current use reaches 1 million m by 3  2014; with DM, water use is still under 1 million m by 2035.  151  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  Scenario 1 Full Build-out  178  Total DOI (2035)  Scenario 1-a  1,911,492  Scenario 1-b  1,186,443  3  Savings (m )  Savings (%)  725,049  38 % less than Scenario 1  Scenario 2: Slow Growth  Total DOI (2035)  Scenario 2-a  1,478,156  Scenario 2-b  917,476  (same 3  Savings (m )  Savings (%)  intervention)  560,680  38  23  152  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.  153  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.  154  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 • Permanent population: between 3,0003,300 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. •  Differences • 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.  155  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  Numbers for residential estimates Summer (SFUs)  Non-summer (households)  Rossland  1,165  1,355  Invermere  1,028  1,195  # days  92  273  “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  156  3  washing machines), a 5 m 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 3  Rossland’s per capita annual water use currently exceeds Invermere’s by about 50 m /year: 3  3  176 m compared to 129 m . With maximum savings, however, per capita consumption in both 3  communities is reduced to about 66 m /year (Figure 6.1). At the community level, Rossland can 3  3  reduce its city-wide domestic use from about 575,000 m to 230,000 m (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.  157  Figure 6. 1: Per capita annual average water use comparison  ,(*&%-.$)-&-//"-0&-1(*-2(&3-)(*&"+(&%4'.-*$+4/& #!!" '&!" '%!"  !"#$%&'()(*+&  '$!" '#!" '!!" &!" %!" $!" #!" !" ()**+,-.""  /-0123121""  ()**+,-.""  45221-6"  /-0123121"" 7,8"*,09-:*"  Figure 6.2: Community-wide average annual water use comparison !,''"-$)./0$1(&23(*24(&2--"25&02)(*&"+(&%,'62*$+,-& *!!$!!!"  )!!$!!!"  !"#$%&'()(*+&  (!!$!!!"  '!!$!!!"  &!!$!!!"  %!!$!!!"  #!!$!!!"  !" +,--./01""  203456454"" 7855409"  +,--./01""  203456454"" :/;"-/3<0=-"  158  6.2.2 Summer Figure 6.3 indicates that residential water use for the city of Rossland is nearly twice that for the 3  District of Invermere during the summer, or 87,000 m 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 3  communities would narrow to 24,500 m . 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  23//'45#-675,$&('//$%&7"#$%&'($&83/9"%5(34& &#!$!!!"  !"#$%&'($)&*+&,"-(&./01&  &!!$!!!"  %#!$!!!" ::;5<01" :=0+>)" ;45-((1".1189+58(," ?+)<8,9"6+@<8,0)"  %!!$!!!"  A(8*05)" B<(C01)"  #!$!!!"  !" '())*+,-""  .,/012010"" 34110,5"  '())*+,-""  .,/012010"" 6+7")+/8,9)"  159  Figure 6.4: Per capita summer water use comparison  2$%&0"34#"&('55$%&6"#$%&'($&0753"%4(78& +!!"  *!!"  )!!"  !"#$%&'($)&*+&,"-(&./0,1&  (!!"  ??@:A56"  '!!"  ?B50C." @9:2--6"366=>0:=-1"  &!!"  D0.A=1>";0EA=15." F-=/5:."  %!!"  GA-H56."  $!!"  #!!"  !" ,-../012""  314567565""  ,-../012""  314567565""  896651:"  ;0<".04=1>."  6.2.3 Non-summer 3  Rossland’s non-summer residential use is 100,000 m more than Invermere’s, but with 3  maximum savings this difference narrows to 5,500 m (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.  160  Figure 6.5: Community-wide non-summer water use comparison  2300'45#.675-$&4346('00$%&7"#$%&'($&8309"%5(34& (!!$!!!"  '#!$!!!"  !"#$%&'($)&*+,&-".(&/0,1&  '!!$!!!"  &#!$!!!" <<=7>23"  &!!$!!!"  <?2-@+" A-+>:.;"8-B>:.2+" C*:,27+"  %#!$!!!"  D>*E23+" %!!$!!!"  #!$!!!"  !" )*++,-./""  0.1234232"" 56332.7"  )*++,-./""  0.1234232"" 8-9"+-1:.;+"  161  Figure 6.6: Per capita non-summer water use comparison  2$%&3"45#"&6768('00$%&9"#$%&'($&3704"%5(76& '#!"  '!!"  !"#$%&'($)&*+,&-".(&/0,1&  &#!"  &!!"  %#!"  ;;<6=12" ;>1,?*"  %!!"  @,*=9-:"7,A=9-1*" B)9+16*"  $#!"  C=)D12*"  $!!"  #!"  !" ()**+,-.""  /-0123121""  ()**+,-.""  45221-6"  /-0123121"" 7,8"*,09-:*"  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.  162  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.  163  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. 3  3  With maximum savings, Rossland can save between 420,000 m and 517,000 m depending on the 3  3  scenario, while Invermere can save between 560,000 m and 725,00 m 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.  164  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) Rossland Slower growth Build-out Current consumption (Business as usual) 862,033 1,154,077 DM usage 531,457 812,704 Annual savings compared to current 330,576 341,373 Metering/IBR usage 603,423 807,854 Annual savings compared to current 258,610 346,223 Maximum Savings usage 438,222 637,418 Annual savings compared to current 423,812 516,659  Invermere Slower growth Build-out 1,478,156 917,476  1,911,492 1,186,443  560,680 n/a  725,049 n/a  n/a n/a  n/a n/a  560,680  725,049 165  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  166  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 m 3  3  3 200  to 348,300 m , while Invermere’s savings range between 165,700 m and 183,600 m .  3  Assuming  some overlap between savings induced by metering and DM, Rossland could save up to an 3  additional 173,000 m /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 3  3  m per year, while Invermere can save 38,700 m . 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  167  overwatering golf courses. Conservative estimations suggest Rossland’s watershed could save 422 3  3  m per hectare, or nearly 6,000 m annually for one 14 hectare course during a normal year. During a 3  3  dry year, savings reach 550 m per hectare, or 7,790 m per course. Invermere’s watershed could 3  3  save over 4,000 m per hectare, and over 100,000 m 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 3  in a maximum savings of 423,800 m , while aggressive DM was the next best option with a savings of 3  330,500 m . 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 3  totaled more than 500,000 m . Metering/IBR was found to be the second best option, with savings of 3  346,200 m . Invermere 3  By adopting an aggressive DM strategy, Invermere could save over 560,000 m under its slow growth scenario with a permanent population of 12,400 by the year 2035. Invermere’s full build-out 3  population reached 16,000 with an annual savings of 725,049 m 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  168  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.  169  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  170  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.  171  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.  172  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 202  a whopping 34% of the reported energy reduction potential for Ontario municipalities”.  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.  173  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.  174  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.  175  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/49ways.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/  176  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  177  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).  178  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.cciarn.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  179  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  180  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  181  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  182  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.  183  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.  184  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 Water Licenses Held by the City of Rossland Creek License Amount 3 (m /day) Topping Hanna Murphy Connected Subtotal *Small springs Elgood West Little Sheep Creek  455 3430 455 4340 660 910 680  Available Subtotal  6590  *Considered impractical today due to highway and residential contamination Adapted from WF Micklethwaite 6/16/2008 p.13  185  Appendix 4.2: Seasonal Water Use Per Capita Figure 4.31: Rossland City vs. Red Mountain winter water use per capita Rossland: City vs. Red Mountain winter water use per capita 3000  2000  1500  1000  500  0 Average  Red 25th pct  50th pct  City 75th pct  MEAN  Figure 4.32: Rossland City vs. Red Mountain spring water use per capita  Rossland City vs. Red Mountain Spring water use per capita 3000  2500  Water use (lcd)  Water use (lcd)  2500  2000  1500  1000  500  0 Average  Red 25th pct  50th pct  City 75th pct  MEAN  186  Figure 4.33: Rossland City vs. Red Mountain summer water use per capita Rossland: City vs. Red Mountain summer water use per capita 3000  Water use (lcd)  2500  2000  1500  1000  500  0 Average  Red 25th pct  50th pct  City 75th pct  MEAN  Figure 4.34: Rossland City vs. Red Mountain fall water use per capita  Rossland City vs. Red Mountain Fall water use per capita 3000  Water use (lcd)  2500  2000  1500  1000  500  0 Average  Red 25th pct  50th pct  City 75th pct  MEAN  187  Appendix 4.3: Significance Tests Table 4.31: Rossland Climate significance tests Rossland climate significance tests* Winter Time periods  Spring  Summer  Significance level  Period 1 vs 2 1968-1976 vs 1977-1997  P= <0.05  n/s  n/s  P= <0.05  p=< 0.05  p=< 0.05  P= <0.05  p=< 0.05  p=< 0.05  Period 1 vs 3 1968-1976 vs 1998-2007 Period 2 vs 3 1977-1997 vs 1998-2007 n/s not significant * Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon test  188  Appendix 4.4: Climate Data Figure 4.35: Rossland: Spring annual climate  3)445(*67+8&"%*9+(**0(5+$5%-('#+ '!"  '!!"  &#!" &!" &!!" %!"  $!"  %!!"  $#!"  !"#$%&%'('%)*+,--.+  /#-&#"('0"#+,1.+  %#!"  !" $"  &"  #"  )"  *"  $$"  $&"  $#"  $)"  $*"  %$"  %&"  %#"  %)"  %*"  &$"  &&"  &#"  &)"  &*"  '$"  $!!"  ($!" #!"  (%!"  !" 2#("+ +,-./"012345"6778" ?@-1":.@"+275"6<=>8" A4;2.16:2.;"+275"6<=>88"  92.1" ?@-1":4;"+275"6<=>8" A4;2.16?@-1":.@"+275"6<=>88"  :2.;"+275"6<=>8" A4;2.16+,-./"012345"67788" A4;2.16?@-1":4;"+275"6<=>88"  Figure 4.36: Rossland: Summer annual climate  3)445(*67+80--#"+(**0(5+$5%-('#+ '!"  &!!"  &#" %#!"  %!"  $#!"  $#" $!!" $!" #!" #"  %!!)"  %!!'"  %!!%"  %!!!"  $((*"  $(()"  $(('"  $((%"  $((!"  $(**"  $(*)"  $(*'"  $(*%"  $(*!"  $(+*"  $(+)"  $(+'"  $(+%"  !"  $(+!"  !"  $()*"  /#-&#"('0"#+,1.+  %!!" %#"  !"#$%&%'('%)*+,--.+  &!"  2#("+ ,-./0"123456"7889" ?5;3/27,-./0"123456"78899"  :3/;",386"7<9" ?5;3/27:3/;",386"7<99"  =>.2":/>",386"7<9" ?5;3/27=>.2":/>",386"7<99"  =>.2":5;",386"7<9" ?5;3/27=>.2":5;",386"7<99"  189  Figure 4.37: Rossland: Fall annual climate  3)445(*67+8(55+(**0(5+$5%-('#+ '!"  '#!" '!!"  &!"  &#!" %!"  $!"  %#!" %!!"  %!!*"  %!!'"  %!!%"  %!!!"  $))+"  $))*"  $))'"  $))%"  $))!"  $)++"  $)+*"  $)+'"  $)+%"  $)+!"  $),+"  $),*"  $),'"  $),%"  $),!"  $)*+"  !"  !"#$%&%'('%)*+,--.+  /#-&#"('0"#+,1.+  &!!"  $#!"  ($!" $!!" (%!"  #!"  (&!"  !" 2#("+ -./01"234567"899:" @6<4038-./01"234567"899::"  ;40<"-497"8=:" @6<4038;40<"-497"8=::"  >?/3";0?"-497"8=:" @6<4038>?/3";0?"-497"8=::"  >?/3";6<"-497"8=:" @6<4038>?/3";6<"-497"8=::"  Figure 4.38: Rossland: Winter annual climate  )#!"  %!!"  )$!"  $!!"  )%!"  #!!"  )&!"  !"#$%&%'('%)*+,--.+  $!!+"  $!!("  $!!&"  $!!$"  $!!!"  #**+"  #**("  #**&"  #**$"  #**!"  #*++"  #*+("  #*+&"  #*+$"  #*+!"  &!!"  #*,+"  !"  #*,("  '!!"  #*,&"  #!"  #*,$"  (!!"  #*,!"  $!"  #*(+"  /#-&#"('0"#+,1.+  3)445(*67+8%*'#"+(**0(5+$5%-('#+  !" 2#("+ -./01"234567"899:" @6<4038-./01"234567"899::"  ;40<"-497"8=:" @6<4038;40<"-497"8=::"  >?/3";0?"-497"8=:" @6<4038>?/3";0?"-497"8=::"  >?/3";6<"-497"8=:" @6<4038>?/3";6<"-497"8=::"  190  Appendix 4.5: Climate and Water Use Correlation Figure 4.39: Rossland: Summer water use and precipitation (2001-2007) Rossland: Summer water use and precipitation (2001-07) 450,000  Water use (Rossland-all sectors)  400,000 350,000 300,000 y = -1067.8x + 502247 R! = 0.77645  250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 0  50  100  150  200  250  Precipitation (mm) Water use (m3)-Rossland all sectors  Water use-precipitation trend  Figure 4.40: Rossland: Summer water use and X-Max temperature (2001-2007) Rossland: Summer water use and X-Max temperature (2001-07)  Water use (Rossland-all sectors)  (#!$!!!" (!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" '!!$!!!"  y = 26669x - 581764 R! = 0.61799  &#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" %!!$!!!" #!$!!!" !" '&"  '&"  ''"  ''"  '("  '("  '#"  '#"  ')"  ')"  '*"  X-max temperature (C) X Max Temp (!)  Water use-X max temperature trend  191  Figure 4.41: Rossland: Summer water use and mean temperature (2001-2007)  Rossland: Summer water use and mean temperature (2001-07) (#!$!!!"  Water use (Rossland-all sectors)  (!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" y = 29269x - 194064 R! = 0.306  '!!$!!!" &#!$!!!" &!!$!!!" %#!$!!!" %!!$!!!" #!$!!!" !" %)"  %)"  %*"  %*"  %+"  %+"  &!"  &!"  Mean temperature (C) ,-./0"12/"34'5678229-:;"-99"2/<.802"  ,-./0"12/64/-:"./4=/0-.10/".0/:;"  192  Appendix 4.6 Climate Data and Water Use Figure 4.42: Rossland: Spring precipitation and water use (2001-2007)  &#!"  &#!$!!!"  &!!"  &!!$!!!"  %#!"  %#!$!!!"  %!!"  %!!$!!!"  #!"  #!$!!!"  !"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -%$./0/#"#/12&)**,&  41((5"267&80%/29&0%$./0/#"#/12&"26&:"#$%&;($&)<==>?<==@,&  !" &!!%"  &!!&"  &!!'"  &!!(" 3$"%&  +,-./"01."23'4"  &!!#"  &!!)"  &!!*"  5/.6787-,-79:"2334"  Figure 4.43: Rossland: Spring temperature and water use (2001-2007)  23((4"567&8.%95:&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"56&;"#$%&/($& (#"  &#!$!!!"  (!" &#"  &!!$!!!"  %#"  %#!$!!!"  %!" #"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -$*.$%"#/%$&)0,&  &!"  %!!$!!!"  !" &!!%"  &!!&"  &!!("  &!!)"  &!!#"  &!!*"  '#"  &!!+" #!$!!!"  '%!" '%#"  !" 1$"%& ,-./0"12/"34(5"  6/-7"8/49"3:5"  ;<.0"6-<"8/49"3:5"  ;<.0"6=7"8/49"3:5"  193  Figure 4.44: Rossland: Summer precipitation and water use (2001-2007)  41((5"267&89**$%&0%$./0/#"#/12&"26&:"#$%&9($&);<<=>;<<?,& &#!"  (#!$!!!"  (!!$!!!" &!!"  '#!$!!!"  %#!" &#!$!!!"  &!!$!!!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -%$./0/#"#/12&)**,&  '!!$!!!"  %!!" %#!$!!!"  %!!$!!!"  #!"  #!$!!!"  !"  !" &!!%"  &!!&"  &!!'"  &!!(" 3$"%&  +,-./"01."23'4"  &!!#"  &!!)"  &!!*"  56-,7"8/.9:;"2334"  Figure 4.45: Rossland: Summer temperature and water use (2001-2007)  34((5"678&9/**$%&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"67&:"#$%&/($&);<<=>;<<?,& (!"  (#!$!!!"  '#"  (!!$!!!"  '#!$!!!"  '!"  &#!$!!!" &!" &!!$!!!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -$*.$%"#/%$&)01,&  '!!$!!!" &#"  %#" %#!$!!!" %!"  %!!$!!!"  #"  #!$!!!"  !"  !" &!!%"  +,-./"01."23'4"  &!!&"  &!!'"  5.,6"7.38"2!4"  &!!(" 2$"%&  &!!#"  9"5,:"7.38"2!4"  &!!)"  &!!*"  9"5;6"7.38"2!4"  194  Figure 4.46: Rossland: Fall precipitation and water use (2001-2007)  41((5"267&8"55&0%$./0/#"#/12&"26&9"#$%&:($&);<<=>;<<?,& '!!"  &#!$!!!"  &#!"  &!!$!!!"  %#!$!!!" %#!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -%$./0/#"#/12&)**,&  &!!"  %!!$!!!" %!!"  #!$!!!"  #!"  !"  !" &!!%"  &!!&"  &!!'"  &!!(" 3$"%&  +,-./"01."23'4"  &!!#"  &!!)"  &!!*"  5/.6787-,-79:"2334"  Figure 4.47: Rossland: Fall temperatures and water use (2001-2007)  23((4"567&8"44&#$)-$%"#.%$(&"56&9"#$%&.($&/&:;;<=;>+& )!"  &#!$!!!"  (!"  &!!$!!!"  %#!$!!!" %!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+&  ,$)-$%"#.%$&/0+&  &!"  %!!$!!!" !" &!!%"  &!!&"  &!!("  &!!)"  &!!#"  &!!*"  &!!+" #!$!!!"  '%!"  '&!"  !" 1$"%& ,-./0"12/"34(5"  6/-7"8/49"3:5"  ;<.0"6-<"8/49"3:5"  ;<.0"6=7"8/49"3:5"  195  Figure 4.48: Rossland: Winter precipitation and water use (2001-2007)  41((5"267&!/2#$%&0%$./0/#"#/12&"26&8"#$%&9($&):;;<=:;;>,& '#!"  &#!$!!!"  '!!" &!!$!!!"  %#!$!!!"  &!!"  %#!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -%$./0/#"#/12&)**,&  &#!"  %!!$!!!"  %!!" #!$!!!" #!"  !"  !" &!!%"  &!!&"  &!!'"  &!!(" 3$"%&  +,-./"01."23'4"  &!!#"  &!!)"  &!!*"  56-,7"8/.9:;"2334"  Figure 4.49: Rossland: Winter temperatures and water use (2001-2007)  23((4"567&!85#$%&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"56&9"#$%&/($&):;;<=:;;>,& %!"  &#!$!!!"  #" &!!$!!!" !" &!!&"  &!!("  &!!)"  &!!#"  &!!*"  &!!+" %#!$!!!"  '#"  '%!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -$*.$%"#/%$&)0,&  &!!%"  %!!$!!!"  '%#" #!$!!!" '&!"  '&#"  !" 1$"%& ,-./0"12/"34(5"  67.0"8-7"9/4:"3;5"  67.0"8<="9/4:"3;5"  8/-="9/4:"3;5"  196  197  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 C059982 Waterworks Local Auth 306600000 C060003 Storage 350 C064859 Irrigation Local Auth 300 C064859 Waterworks Local Auth 36500000 C064860 Waterworks Local Auth 21000000 C064861 Waterworks Local Auth 547500000 Total Private Licenses Number Purpose Quantity C026458 Domestic 500 C026458 Irrigation 20 C04390 Irrigation 35 C051365 Domestic 500 C051365 Irrigation 72.6 C051365 Domestic 500 C051365 Irrigation 72.6 C100245 Domestic 500 C114193 Irrigation 150 C114208 Storage 400 C114230 Irrigation 500 C114231 Storage 500 Total Private Total DOI and Private GY= gallons/year. Conversion factor GY-M3 = 0.0038 AF=Acre feet per annum. Conversion factor AF-M3 =1233.48  Units GY AF AF GY GY GY  M3 / year 1,165,080 431,718 370,044 138,700 79,800 2,080,500 4,265,842  Units GD AF AF GD AF GD AF GD AF AF AF AF  M3 / year 694 24,670 43,172 694 89,551 694 89,551 694 185,022 493,392 616,740 616,740 2,161,611 6,427,453  198  Appendix 5.2: Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Significance Tests Table 5.27: Invermere climate significant tests  Invermere climate significance tests* Winter Time periods  Spring  Summer  Significance level  Period 1 vs 2 1968-1976 vs 1977-1997  n/s  P= <0.05  p=< 0.05  P= <0.05  p=< 0.05  n/s  P= <0.05  p=< 0.05  p=< 0.05  Period 1 vs 3 1968-1976 vs 1998-2007 Period 2 vs 3 1977-1997 vs 1998-2007 n/s not significant * Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon test  199  Appendix 5.3: Kootenay Park Annual Climate Figure 5.28: Kootenay Park annual spring climate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Figure 5.29: Kootenay Park annual fall climate  3))'#*(4+!("5+(**0(6+7(66+$6%-('#+ $!"  ($!" (#!" (!!"  (!"  #&!" #%!"  #!"  #!!" '&!"  !"  )'!"  '%!" '$!"  !"#$%&%'('%)*+,--.+  ##!"  '!"  '*%*" '*+!" '*+'" '*+#" '*+(" '*+$" '*+," '*+%" '*++" '*+&" '*+*" '*&!" '*&'" '*&#" '*&(" '*&$" '*&," '*&%" '*&+" '*&&" '*&*" '**!" '**'" '**#" '**(" '**$" '**," '**%" '**+" '**&" '***" #!!!" #!!'" #!!#" #!!(" #!!$" #!!," #!!%" -#!!+"  /#-&#"('0"#+,1.+  #$!"  '#!" '!!"  )#!"  &!" %!"  )(!"  $!"  )$!"  !"  #!" 2#("+ ./012"345678"9::;" A7=5149./012"345678"9::;;"  <51=".5:8"9>;" A7=5149<51=".5:8"9>;;"  ?@04"<1@".5:8"9>;" A7=5149?@04"<1@".5:8"9>;;"  ?@04"<7=".5:8"9>;" A7=5149?@04"<7=".5:8"9>;;"  201  Appendix 5.4: Climate and Water Use Correlation Figure 5.30: Invermere: Summer water use and precipitation (2003-07)  324$%*$%$5&6'**$%&7"#$%&'($&"28&0%$./0/#"#/12&)9::+;:<,& 0))2)))" %0)2)))" %))2)))"  !"#"$%&'()&*"+"%,,%)-" ./"#")(-')01"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  '0)2)))" '))2)))" ,0)2)))" ,))2)))" &0)2)))" &))2)))" 0)2)))" )" )"  0)"  &))"  &0)"  ,))"  ,0)"  '))"  '0)"  %))"  -%$./0/#"#/12&)**,& 34567"896":;'<"=>?67;676"4@@"96A5B79"  34567"C96$D76AEDE545EB>"576>F"  202  Figure 5.31: Invermere: Summer water use and X-Max temperature (2001-07)  234$%*$%$5&6'**$%&7"#$%&'($&"38&9:;".&#$*0$%"#'%$&)<==+:=>,& &%%2%%%" !"#"$%&'()"*"'$''+%" ,-"#"%.&$/01"  /&%2%%%" /%%2%%%"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  $&%2%%%" $%%2%%%" 1&%2%%%" 1%%2%%%" +&%2%%%" +%%2%%%" &%2%%%" %" $/"  $/"  $&"  $&"  $3"  $3"  $'"  $'"  $0"  -.#%$*$&*"./*'*&#$*0$%"#'%$&)1,& 45678"9:7";<$=">?@78<787"5AA":7B6C8:"  !  45678"D:7*)*<5)"67<E7856D87"687?F"  Figure 5.32: Invermere: Summer water use and mean temperature (2001-07)  1.2$%*$%$3&4'**$%&5"#$%&'($&".6&*$".&#$*/$%"#'%$&)788+98:,& &//2///" %&/2///"  !"#"$%$&'(")"*+,$'" -."#"/01+/+&"  %//2///"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  1&/2///" 1//2///" $&/2///" $//2///" '&/2///" '//2///" &/2///" /" ',"  '*"  '*"  '+"  '+"  '3"  '3"  $/"  -$".&#$*/$%"#'%$&)0,& 45678"9:7";<1=">?@78<787"5AA":7B6C8:"  45678"D:7)<75?"67<E7856D87"687?F"  203  Appendix 5.5: Climate Data and Water Use Precipitation Figure 5.33: Invermere: Winter precipitation and water use (2003-2007)  425$%*$%$6&!/2#$%&0%$./0/#"#/12&"27&8"#$%&9($&):;;+<:;;=,& '#!"  #!!$!!!" (#!$!!!"  '!!" (!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" '!!$!!!"  &!!"  &#!$!!!" %#!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -%$./0/#"#/12&)**,&  &#!"  &!!$!!!" %#!$!!!"  %!!"  %!!$!!!" #!" #!$!!!" !"  !" &!!'"  &!!("  &!!#" 3$"%& +,-./"01."23'4"  &!!)"  &!!*"  5/.6787-,-79:"2334"  204  Figure 5.34: Invermere: Spring precipitation and water use (2003-2007)  425$%*$%$6&70%/28&0%$./0/#"#/12&"29&:"#$%&;($&)<==+><==?,& '#!"  #!!$!!!" (#!$!!!"  '!!" (!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" '!!$!!!"  &!!"  &#!$!!!" %#!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -%$./0/#"#/12&)**,&  &#!"  &!!$!!!" %#!$!!!"  %!!"  %!!$!!!" #!" #!$!!!" !"  !" &!!'"  &!!("  &!!#" 3$"%& +,-./"01."23'4"  &!!)"  &!!*"  5/.6787-,-79:"2334"  Figure 5.35: Invermere: Summer precipitation and water use (2003-2007)  425$%*$%$6&78**$%&0%$./0/#"#/12&"29&:"#$%&8($&);<<+=;<<>,& '#!"  #!!$!!!" (#!$!!!"  '!!" (!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" '!!$!!!"  &!!"  &#!$!!!" %#!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -%$./0/#"#/12&)**,&  &#!"  &!!$!!!" %#!$!!!"  %!!"  %!!$!!!" #!" #!$!!!" !"  !" &!!'"  &!!("  &!!#" 3$"%& +,-./"01."23'4"  &!!)"  &!!*"  5/.6787-,-79:"2334"  205  Figure 5.36: Invermere: Fall precipitation and water use (2003-2007)  425$%*$%$6&7"88&0%$./0/#"#/12&"29&:"#$%&;($&)<==+><==?,& '#!"  #!!$!!!" (#!$!!!"  '!!" (!!$!!!" '#!$!!!" '!!$!!!"  &!!"  &#!$!!!" %#!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -%$./0/#"#/12&)**,&  &#!"  &!!$!!!" %#!$!!!"  %!!"  %!!$!!!" #!" #!$!!!" !"  !" &!!'"  &!!("  &!!#" 3$"%& +,-./"01."23'4"  &!!)"  &!!*"  5/.6787-,-79:"2334"  Temperature  206  Figure 5.37: Invermere: Winter temperature and water use (2003-2007)  345$%*$%$6&!74#$%&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"48&9"#$%&/($&):;;+<:;;=,& (,*!"  ('!$!!!"  (!*!"  (&!$!!!"  ,*!" (%!$!!!" !*!" #!!%"  #!!,"  #!!&"  #!!-"  (#!$!!!"  )(!*!"  (!!$!!!"  )(,*!"  '!$!!!"  )#!*!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -$*.$%"#/%$&)01,&  #!!+" ),*!"  &!$!!!"  )#,*!" %!$!!!" )+!*!" #!$!!!"  )+,*!" )%!*!"  !" 2$"%& ./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)  345$%*$%$6&7.%849&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"4:&;"#$%&/($&)<==+><==?,& *!)!"  '!!$!!!"  '!)!"  &#!$!!!"  &!)!"  %!)!" %#!$!!!" !)!" &!!'"  &!!*"  &!!#"  &!!+"  &!!,"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -$*.$%"#/%$&)01,&  &!!$!!!"  %!!$!!!" (%!)!"  #!$!!!"  (&!)!"  ('!)!"  !" 2$"%& -./01"230"45'6"  70.8"905:"4;<6"  =>/1"7.>"905:"4;<6"  =>/1"7?8"905:"4;<6"  207  Figure 5.39: Invermere: Summer temperatures and water use (2003-2007)  345$%*$%$6&7/**$%&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"48&9"#$%&/($&):;;+<:;;=,& *!)!"  '!!$!!!"  '!)!"  &#!$!!!"  &!!$!!!" %!)!" %#!$!!!"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -$*.$%"#/%$&)01,&  &!)!"  !)!" &!!'"  &!!*"  &!!#"  &!!+"  &!!," %!!$!!!"  (%!)!"  #!$!!!"  (&!)!"  ('!)!"  !" 2$"%& -./01"230"45'6"  70.8"905:"4;<6"  =>/1"7.>"905:"4;<6"  =>/1"7?8"905:"4;<6"  Figure 5.40: Invermere: Fall temperatures and water use (2003-2007)  345$%*$%$6&7"88&#$*.$%"#/%$(&"49&:"#$%&/($&);<<+=;<<>,& *!)!"  &#!$!!!"  (!)!" &!!$!!!"  %#!$!!!"  %!)!"  !)!" &!!("  &!!*"  &!!#"  &!!+"  &!!,"  !"#$%&'($&)*+,&  -$*.$%"#/%$&)01,&  &!)!"  %!!$!!!"  '%!)!" #!$!!!" '&!)!"  '(!)!"  !" 2$"%& -./01"230"45(6"  70.8"905:"4;<6"  =>/1"7.>"905:"4;<6"  =>/1"7?8"905:"4;<6"  208  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 Population in Equivalent SFUs  Development Options  Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035  Population projection (based on historical trends) 3380 3470 3564 3659 3758 3859 3962 4069 4178 4290 4405 4524 4645 4770 4898 5030 5165 5303 5446 5592 5742 5897 6055 6218 6385 6556 6732 6913 7099 7289 7485  Percent Growth 7.64% 2.66% 2.71% 2.67% 2.71% 2.69% 2.67% 2.70% 2.68% 2.68% 2.68% 2.70% 2.67% 2.69% 2.68% 2.69% 2.68% 2.67% 2.70% 2.68% 2.68% 2.70% 2.68% 2.69% 2.69% 2.68% 2.68% 2.69% 2.69% 2.68% 2.69%  Build Out (1) 3380 4088 4182 5167 5769 7576 8595 9267 10232 11309 12486 13324 14164 15008 15901 16282 16666 17053 17445 17840 18239 18643 19050 19462 19878 20298 20723 21016 21202 21392 21588  Slower Growth (2) 3380 4088 4182 5167 5769 6506 7191 7702 8250 8875 9333 9452 9573 9698 9826 9958 10093 10231 10374 10520 10670 10825 10983 11146 11313 11484 11660 11841 12027 12217 12413  Build Out (1) 1266 1531 1566 1935 2161 2837 3219 3471 3832 4236 4676 4990 5305 5621 5955 6098 6242 6387 6534 6682 6831 6982 7135 7289 7445 7602 7761 7871 7941 8012 8085  Slower growth (2) 1266 1531 1566 1935 2161 2437 2693 2885 3090 3324 3496 3540 3585 3632 3680 3730 3780 3832 3885 3940 3996 4054 4113 4175 4237 4301 4367 4435 4504 4576 4649  209  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.  210  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.  211  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.  212  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.  213  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  214  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).  215  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  216  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  217  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).  218  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 2  2  purposes: average roof size was 155 m while average lot size was 200 m . 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  219  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 2  2  purposes: average roof size was 155 m while average lot size was 200 m . 193  Ontario Water Works Association (June 2008), p.ii.  194  Beacon Pathway Ltd (August 2008).  220  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.  221  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0067210/manifest

Comment

Related Items