The 3TD water saving education and research project

Can the 3TD approach to water saving have a significant impact upon household water consumption, and will typical suburban households adopt the 3TD approach to water saving?

These are not questions that can be answered in the abstract. The goal of the 3TD water saving education and research initiative is to investigate, develop and promote the 3TD water-saving method. Dr. Geoff Syme, leader of the Society, Policy and Economy research theme, within the CSIRO Land and Water Division, provided the following endorsement of the 3TD water-saving education and research project:  

I think this project is a highly worthwhile one, earlier research by CSIRO on experimental changes in household water pressure has shown a considerable ability for householders to adapt to lower pressure. Flow has the potential to show similar adaptive properties. The proposed project using volunteers in the first instance will provide some invaluable information in relation to appropriate levels of service for flow for water utilities.

3TD a danger to health and appliances

 

The most serious objection to the 3TD trial was one first raised by Dr Kein Gan, Water Supply and Demand Manager and Yarra Valley Water, and later repeated by Ray Beaton, the Manager of YVW’s Water Resources Strategy in response to my 3TD proposal. Mr Beaton noted YVW’s concern that “despite any cautionary notices that may go with the (3TD) trial, such as turning down the stop tap gradually each week and checking the manufacturer’s minimum flow requirements for appliances, participants (in the trial) may not follow such instructions strictly”. Furthermore, “circumstances and water use behaviour may change in their home such that there is a real risk of scalding in the shower from over-reduced flows”. Thus, because of concern over damage to appliances and the risk associated with scalding, YVW declined to participate in conducting a trial of 3TD.

 

  

YVW’s health concerns represent a most serious objection to the 3TD proposal, but how valid are they? Statistics for the USA suggest that scalding burns are a significant problem and that most occur in either the kitchen or the bathroom. Would a low-flow water system increase the risk of an accident? It is possible for someone else to open a tap while another is in the shower and upset the balance of hot and cold water. This could be a problem if the water system was set at skin-peeling termperatures. However, such temperatures are a danger in the kitchen and the bathroom, irrespective of the water flow. The challenge is to persuade people to save money, energy and cut down the risk of injury by lowering the temperature on their hot-water heater. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission urges all consumers to lower their water heaters to 120 degrees Fahrenheit.  At this temperature burn experts suggest that “it would take 8 minutes of exposure to receive second degree burns and 10 minutes for third degree burns.” Obviously, this advice applies to low-flow and high-flow users. 

   

If low water flows are a danger to health then water authorities across Australia are putting the health of thousands of people at risk each year by imposing compulsory water flow restrictions (generally for for debt collection purposes, stop taps will be locked at 3 litres per minute or less - these restrictions are applied to thousands of Australians each year - as reported by the National Performance Report for Urban Utilities 2006-07, section 3.4). Why should it be OK for water authorities to impose extreme flow reductions at the meter tap but too risky to recommend customers trial even minimal flow reductions using the same metre tap? I emailed or spoke by phone to most major water Australian water authorities yet no authority that responded to my inquiries reported any instance of scalding through flow restriction, and those that did respond regarded this as a risk that customers were capable of dealing with. 

  

We live in an extremely litigious age and it is not unreasonable to expect an authority to exercise caution, but modern life presents many risks. While the water authorities should provide customers with warnings about the risk of scalding the real villain causing injury every year is excessive temperature in hot water services, not low water flows. In order to save water using the 3TD approach it is not necessary to select extremely low flow levels, and thus the meter tap is a water saving device with a risk potential, but only if it is mishandled. The same could be said for knives, cars and a myriard other things. With regard to health risks associated with low water flows, customers should be provided with practical information and encouraged to make their own decisions. The same principle applies to YVW’s concern over potential damage to appliances.

 

Most urban dwellers operate a range of appliances, which involve taking responsibility for maintenance and proper operation. Cars for example, come with instructions concerning regular servicing. It is up to the owners to ensure that their cars are serviced when required; it is not the manufacturer’s, the petrol companies’ or the Government traffic authority’s responsibility. We take for granted the right to choose the quality of the tires, oil and petrol that we purchase. Shouldn’t we be able to choose the water flow we use in our house? The current situation of high volume water flows is akin to running your car on deluxe premium grade petrol – most people, given the choice, might go for a slightly cheaper grade of petrol. In any case why not provide the information and let the customer make the decision?

 

 

Furthermore, when I asked all the major urban water authorities (and a number of regional authorities) to clarify when and how flow restriction was carried out, and whether they warned customers of any risks associated with the compulsory reduction of their water flow, only two authorities responded in the affirmative. However, they dealt with this risk by notifying customers to that effect (see Water Corporation’s warning notice here, and QWC’s warning notice, Appendix 6: IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT WATER FLOW RESTRICTORS, here). If that procedure is safe and responsible for compulsory flow restriction to 10 litres per minute, why would it not be equally responsible to provide a similar caution when advising customers that they too can achieve water savings by voluntarily restricting their water flow to 10 litres per minute? YVW is one of the few authorities that chooses not to utilize compulsory water flow restrictions for debt collection purposes. Its arguments against encouraging voluntary flow reduction deserve serious consideration, but we should also consider the case for voluntary flow reduction. 

   

 

Water Pressure, Flow reduction and household water consumption

 

  

Lowering water consumption through decreasing water-pressure is a proven water saving method. This has usually been accomplished by water authorities reducing the water pressure in the water-mains supply system. Using the collective approach a whole neighborhood will have its water pressure reduced by a uniform ammount. This saves water through reducing system leaks, and radically cutting down the incidence of burst water mains. However, typically this water saving strategy will have a minimal effect on household water flow and household water consumption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example, in South East Queensland the State Government and local councils are currently implementing a $90 million pressure and leakage management program. John Bradley, CEO of the Queensland Water Commission, has stated that a key element of this program is the reduction of excessive mains pressure. A Gold Coast trial of their pressure reduction program resulted in a 22 percent reduction in water consumption, at no inconvenience to residents. Mr Bradley argues that:

Because a program is already being implemented in SEQ using mains pressure reduction, encouraging SEQ residents to further turn down the stop-tap is not required and may result in poor water flow to the property. For this reason, the Commission declines to participate in the 3TD project. 

 

Mr Bradley's approach preserves the level of household water consumption, preserving revenue streams for water suppliers. It saves un-billed water wastage, but does not promote household water saving. It should come as no surprise that this approach to water-saving has been eagerly embraced by Australia's major water utilities. 3TD, on the other hand, reduces the revenue earning component of water consumption. Could there be an element of self-interest involved in the response of water utilities to 3TD? Mr Bradley's reason for not investigating the 3TD approach, the risk of poor water flow, ignores two vital elements of the 3TD method: first, the resident chooses their own flow, and second, our notion of what constitutes an 'adequate' water flow can vary a great deal.

 

One size does not fit all

 

 

 

One persons "poor water flow" may be another persons abundance; what one person regards as an abundance of riches may seem a pitiful situation to others. Across the worlds societies and cultures people demonstrate a great deal of flexibility in what they regard as a normal supply of water. Thus, while mains imposed pressure reduction is a way for water authorities to bring about an accross the board reduction in household water flow, it does not allow for individual diversity, or changing individual demands.

 

 

 

An alternative to the collective approach, promoted by the plumbing industry, is the retrofitting of water flow control devices within each individual household. These can be cheap inserts that choke the supply of water, or expensive pressure reduction valves. Most of these devices have the disavantage of fixing water flow at set levels. Why not encourage residents to choose their own water flow levels?

 

 

 

 

Variable flow control is the answer

 

The 3TD method takes advantage of a variable-flow control device already installed in every household: the meter tap. 3TD encourages each household to individually carry out their own flow-reduction program, using the meter stop-tap to adjust their household water-flow. The resident, not the water authority, chooses their water flow-rate. 3TD cuts across the 'water welfare' mentality and promotes individual responsibility for household water efficiency. It complements, rather than competes with the water efficiency initiatives that water authorities implement through leakage and pressure management policies in the broader system.

 

WA promotes the 3TD approach

 

Water efficiency is ultimately a joint effort, involving water suppliers and water users. Customers can and should be encouraged to become more water aware, and provided with the knowledge to become more efficient water users. Cindy Siano, the Water Efficiency Project Manager with Western Australia's Water Corporation's Water Efficiency Branch, has argued that "efficiency is now gaining recognition as a very cheap water source. Water that is not used domestically in the first place helps to ease the demands on the system." She notes that pilot projects run by Water Corporation, investigating the potential water savings that flow from behaviour change, have been very encouraging, and acknowledges the potential of the 3TD approach to behavior change. She states:

We intend to include the 3TD approach in our Waterwiseways brochure which incorporates water saving hints and tips. We will also brief our Communications division to use the 3TD method of saving water in the summer advertising campaign with an explanation of how turn the tap down gradually, how to measure the water pressure using a bucket and checking the water using appliances for minimum pressures. There may be other possibilities to include 3TD in other behaviour change pilots and trials we have planned and we will keep your water saving method in mind to incorporate with them.

 

 

Community-based water education and research

 

 

The 3TD approach to water saving is aimed at people who are enthusiastic about solving their community's problems in ways that benefit the whole community. The key to 3TD is the gradual change of household water flow-rates together with a change of attitude toward water. If the user does not embrace the idea of using less water then the program will not interest them. Hence 3TD involves a strong educational component, which aims to build awareness of the importance of water, and an appreciation of the community-wide benefits that flow from developing a more water-efficient life-style. Thus research and education are complementary components of the 3TD project. 3TD encourages ordinary householders to become involved in water research, participating through the 3TD project in developing new standards of water efficiency.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Next: 3TD water research