Presentation by Timothy Pannkuk, Associate Professor from Sam Houston State University, at the 2016 Gulf Coast Water Conservation Symposium.

1. City of Huntsville: Can
Applying Science to
Outdoor Irrigation
Defer Capitol Costs?
Dr.
Tim
Pannkuk
Associate
Professor
Sam
Houston
State
University

5. Introduction
▪ Municipal-­‐urban
water
use
in
TX
has
grown
to
2nd
largest
water
use
activity
▪ TWDB:
TX
population
to
increase
by
82%
from
2010
to
2060,
and
water
demand
to
increase
by
22%
▪ Water
supplies
are
predicted
by
decrease
by
about
10%
over
the
same
period
of
time!
▪ More
water
projects?
Plans
of
management?
▪ Conservation

6. Both
residential
landscapes
are
“water
efficient”

7. Evapotranspiration
(ET)
measurements
▪ Temperature,
wind
speed,
humidity,
light
à
ET
rate
▪ Precipitation?
▪ A
depth
of
water
loss;
a
depth
of
irrigation
water

8. Texas
ET
Network
Current
and
historical
stations
as
of
March
2016
http://texaset.tamu.edu/

10. Residential
Water
use
in
One
Huntsville
Neighborhood
▪ Approach
City
of
Huntsville
and
General
Manager
of
neighborhood
▪ Monthly
water
use
for
3
years
(2009-­‐11)
for
~
1229
households
▪ GIS
data
placed
into
ArcGIS
to
determine
irrigated
area
per
resident
▪ Indoor
use
(Nov,
Dec,
Jan,
&
Feb)

11. ArcGIS
Used
to
calculate
irrigated
area
of
each
lot.
Monthly
outdoor
usage
in
gallons
converted
to
a
depth
of
water.
Compare
outdoor
usage
to
ET
data

12. Lot
ID
Lot
Area
Building
Area
Paveme
nt
Area
Irrigation
Area
Bill
Date
Total
Consumption
outdoor
useage
depth
of
irrigation
(inches)
RET
rain
(inches)
Eto
-­‐
rainfall
Over
water
monthly
Over
water
(inches)
over
water
(gallon)
8
12200
3237
633
8329
20090210
12100
5660
1.10
2.66
1.06
1.6
0.00
8
12200
3237
633
8329
20090310
11900
5460
1.06
3.5
1.9
1.6
0.00
8
12200
3237
633
8329
20090408
21800
15360
2.97
3.97
4.85
0
2.97
8
12200
3237
633
8329
20090511
9600
3160
0.61
4.87
7.84
0
0.61
8
12200
3237
633
8329
20090611
31000
24560
4.76
5.66
2.68
2.98
1.78
8
12200
3237
633
8329
20090714
45200
38760
7.51
7.36
0.25
7.11
0.40
8
12200
3237
633
8329
20090811
41000
34560
6.69
7.47
3.51
3.96
2.73
8
12200
3237
633
8329
20090914
30000
23560
4.56
6.71
2.7
4.01
0.55
8
12200
3237
633
8329
20091013
13200
6760
1.31
3.86
5.56
0
1.31
8
12200
3237
633
8329
20091112
5100
0
0.00
3.18
9.68
0
0.00
8
12200
3237
633
8329
20091211
7400
960
0.19
2.17
1.87
0.3
0.00
8
12200
3237
633
8329
20100112
5400
0
0.00
1.54
5.48
0
0.00
11.35
58794

13. Results
▪ Average
yard
à
9330
ft2
▪ Average
monthly
usage
à
11,878
gal
▪ Average
indoor
usage
à
4302
gal
▪ 277
residents
(22.5%)
overwatered
by
at
least
50,000
gal
in
at
least
1
year.
▪ 148
residents
(12%)
overwatered
by
at
least
100,000
gal
in
at
least
1
year.
▪ Entire
neighborhood
overwatered
by
28.9
million
gal
in
both
‘09
&
’10.
▪ 21.2
million
gal
in
2011
during
drought!
▪ Note:
this
is
extra
water
or
“wasted
water”

14. More
Results
▪ Over
all
3
years
of
study,
65
residents
(5%)
overwatered
by
more
than
6’…

15. Conclusions
▪ Data
provided
conclusive
evidence
of
how
water
was
used
over
3
years.
▪ Income
data
by
residence
was
not
available.
▪ If
entire
neighborhood
had
irrigated
based
on
ET
data?
▪
Entire
city
would
have
conserved
enough
water
to
justify
not
building
a
new
well
in
2012
(~
$1.2-­‐1.5
million).
▪ How
to
convince
water
users
to
use
ET
data?

16. Questions?
5th
Annual
Gulf
Coast
Water
Conservation
Symposium
New
Frontiers
in
Water
Conservation
Houston,
Texas
March
9,
2016