1. 1
Christopher Matthews
11/14/10
ENVS 196
Water Conservation at University of California Santa Cruz
There is one element that is crucial for maintaining life on Earth, which is water.
Every human being on the planet requires an adequate amount of water for survival. Yet
in developed countries, people may not know where their potable water originates, how
much water they use on a daily basis, and potential water rights conflicts in their region.
The city of Santa Cruz, located in the state of California, instituted mandatory water
restrictions in 2009 due to concerns over water shortages. The San Lorenzo River in
Santa Cruz was flowing at 40% of its normal rate in the month of April and the Central
Coast region was facing a third consecutive dry year (Bookwalter 2009).
As a student at the University of California Santa Cruz, I had limited knowledge
of ongoing water conservation efforts in Santa Cruz County. At UCSC, I used water on a
daily basis with no knowledge of where UCSC got its water from or how many gallons of
water a student resident used in a day. It was not until I went to a restaurant in the city of
Santa Cruz, did I discover that customers had to request for a glass of water due to
mandatory water restrictions. It was then I realized that the quality of my life was directly
affected in a small way by a water shortage in Santa Cruz County. This led to my
increased interest in Santa Cruz’s conservation efforts and the issue of how UCSC
planned to conserve water in the face of increasing student enrollment.
The University of California Santa Cruz is the city’s largest water customer, using
approximately 5% of the entire water demand for the Santa Cruz water service area
(WES 2007). In the year 2006, the main campus used approximately 500,000 gallons of

2. 2
water a day, which totaled to 200 million gallons per year (WES 2007). Overall water
usage at UCSC had been steadily increasing since the mid 1980’s, due to increased
student enrollment, new building facilities, and intensive laboratory research (WES
2007). Since UCSC is the largest water utility customer in the city of Santa Cruz, it is in
UCSC’s interest to conserve water in light of severe water shortages the city may face in
the future. If UCSC does not make serious efforts to conserve water and there is a severe
drought in Santa Cruz County, UCSC would be forced to make severe and sudden
cutbacks that would affect the quality of life for its students, the surrounding vegetation,
and academic facilities. UCSC is motivated to conserve water by increasing the
efficiency of its existing water-usage facilities, which will result in saved money from
fewer utility bills. The conservation projects that UCSC has been implementing will
result in a 15% savings in annual water usage and save approximately half a million
dollars per year due to lower water, sewage, and energy bills (WES 2007).
My senior seminar paper will focus on and analyze the validity of three different
methods that UCSC could use to improve their management of storm water and
potentially re-use rainwater for water conservation purposes. Storm water is a viable
source of water that UCSC can effectively manage and possibly reuse in order to
conserve water and reduce their demand for potable water from the city of Santa Cruz. In
the process, this paper will give an overview of Santa Cruz water sources, UCSC’s water
demand history, UCSC’s storm water management program, information on grey water,
and how to effectively treat it. This paper will also contain data in the form of
topographic maps, graphs, and calculations that illustrate how UCSC uses water. This
paper will also contain excerpts from emails, interviews, and tours in order to show a

3. 3
wide range of expertise on the possibility of reusing storm water and how UCSC would
adjust to future water shortages in Santa Cruz County. This paper draws upon a vast
quantity of literature, including official reports from UCSC/City of Santa Cruz, the
Environmental Protection Agency, various books, news articles, and research articles.
Lastly, this paper will contain some photographs and illustrations that show current
storm-water management and conservation efforts that UCSC is implementing across the
campus.
There are three primary methods that UCSC could adopt to more effectively
manage rainwater and re-use rainwater for conservation purposes. UCSC could attempt to
capture grey water, run it through septic tanks, store it in settlement ponds, and then reuse
the grey water for irrigation purposes, not for human consumption. UCSC could capture
and reuse rainwater from impervious surfaces such as parking lots. This would help to
promote natural infiltration of water into the soil and improve storm water runoff. The
rainwater that is collected could be used for a new energy project such as solar cells or
for irrigation. Lastly, UCSC could build green roofs (bio roofs), which are layers of
vegetation installed on the top of buildings. Green roofs can collect rainwater and re-use
the water for facilities inside the building, such as for flushing urinals and toilets. UCSC
currently has bioretention areas and step pools in order to decrease and improve the
management of storm runoff water. When discussing these methods, UCSC’s current
attempts at conserving water and storm water management practices will also be
discussed in the paper.
A brief overview of the history of Santa Cruz County’s water sources is needed in
order to understand the rationale behind UCSC’s current efforts at water conservation.

4. 4
The city of Santa Cruz’s drinking water supply is entirely from local water sources within
Santa Cruz County; surface water accounts for approximately 95% of the total water
supply (City of Santa Cruz Water Sources). The San Lorenzo River provides
approximately 47% of the total water supply for Santa Cruz County each year (City of
Santa Cruz Water Sources). Such a high dependence on the San Lorenzo River for water
means that Santa Cruz would be vulnerable to potential droughts if dry winter seasons
occur. In a dry winter season, the winter precipitation rate would decrease, which means
that the total stream discharge from the San Lorenzo River would dramatically lower.
Santa Cruz County has faced two serious droughts in the past, one from 1976-1977 and
one from 1987 to 1992 (Water Shortage Contingency Plan). In the 1976-77 drought, the
total annual discharge in the San Lorenzo River dropped to approximately 10,00 acre-feet
compared to the average annual discharge of 93,00 acre-fee or 30 billion gallons per year
(WSCP). The city of Santa Cruz estimates that if a drought of similar severity occurred
today, the water system would only be able to meet half of Santa Cruz’s normal water
requirements in the 2nd
year of the drought (WSCP). Thus the city of Santa Cruz has
adopted a water shortage contingency plan to prepare for such a scenario. University of
California Santa Cruz has also followed suit by implementing water conservation
measures.

5. 5
Image 1: San Lorenzo River- Taken by Christopher Matthews
A brief overview of how UCSC allocates its water resources is needed in order to
identify the best targets for conservation measures on campus. There is a peak demand
for water towards the end of the summer when students return to campus because the
irrigation demand is quite high during the dry fall season (UC Santa Cruz Water
Efficiency Survey). The Santa Cruz region has a Mediterranean climate, where the
relatively short wet season occurs in the winter, in a five-month period between
November and March (WSCP). The five largest annual demands for water at UCSC by
category are: academic, dining, irrigation, mechanical, and residential. This paper will
focus on residential areas and irrigation areas, which historically have made up roughly
45.55% and 26.23% of UCSC’s annual water demand respectively (UC Santa Cruz Water

6. 6
shortage Plan 2009 Season-Appendix C). We will explore alternative methods that UCSC
could adopt to meet their water demands from these two sectors instead of traditionally
buying water from the city of Santa Cruz. Note that the water rate in January 1st
, 2009
was $5.61 per 1,000 gallons and the sewer rate was $7.31 per 1,000 gallons (UCSC
WES). These rates were higher than normal and may continue to increase, which makes
conservation measures appealing.
One potential conservation measure would be for UCSC to use greywater from
residential sites, store it in a settlement pond, treat the water, and reuse that water for
strictly irrigation purposes. According to a State Water Resource Control Board report in
1980, greywater is defined as “all waters generated in the household which do not contain
toilet wastes.” However, even though greywater does not contain toilet wastes, it may
contain noninfectious toxic agents, such as pesticides and solvents (SWRCB 1980).
According to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for Safe Use of Wastewater,
Excreta, and Greywater, the main hazard would be faecal cross-contamination, where the
greywater could be contaminated from activities such as washing diapers, child care, and
showering. This could lead the growth of pathogenic bacteria, such as Legionella and
Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the water source (WHO 2006). This method would only use
greywater for irrigation purposes and not for human consumption. In addition, this
greywater would not be used to irrigate the UCSC farm, due to the potential health
hazards that organic compounds could have on crops that humans would later eat.
The primary health concerns in this conservation method would be the effect of
greywater on the vegetation and humans and potential leaks from storing greywater.
Greywater could increase the heavy metal and organic matter content of the soil and the

7. 7
groundwater, and could later impact plants or even humans if left untreated (WHO 2006).
The next challenge in this conservation method is to find a way to effectively treat
greywater from residential sites. The 2006 WHO report states that the most common
pretreatment unit for greywater would be a septic tank. Septic tanks work by “holding
wastewater in the tank and allowing settleable solids to settle to the bottom while
floatable solids (oil and grease) rise to the top” (EPA Septic System Tank 2000). The
septic tank removes the vast majority of the solid waste, but it does not treat for
pathogens. Septic tanks usually cost $1.00 to $4.00 per gallon (EPA Septic System Tank
2000), which means that UCSC would have to install several septic tanks that would cost
thousands of dollars to pre-treat greywater from residential areas. Septic tank systems are
prone to system failure if not properly maintained or constructed (Environmental Effects
of Septic Tank Systems EPA). UCSC would have an additional responsibility of
continually maintaining the septic tank systems to ensure that there are no pollution
problems and that the soil is not overloaded with organic chemicals arising from a
leakage.
After pre-treating the greywater, UCSC would need a secondary treatment option,
which could be a sand filter, settlement pond, bio filter, or a conventional biological
treatment. A wastewater stabilization pond combined with conventional biological
treatment would allow UCSC to store greywater that could later be used for irrigation
purposes. According to a 1978 conference on the Performance and Upgrading of
Wastewater Stabilization Ponds, “ponds have been used because operation is simple,
operating costs are low, and land is available.” UCSC would have to build multiple
settlement ponds or a storage system to hold the greywater, and then later divert it for

8. 8
irrigation purposes. The costs of implementing such a system would be high, since this
method would require planning, sophisticated systems, conventional treatment, and
extensive piping in order to re-use greywater. This greywater would be used for irrigation
only for months of peak demand, since the landscape areas would be naturally irrigated
by rainfall during the winter months.
It is difficult to accurately compute the potential savings of implementing a grey
water reuse system. The total amount of irrigation water used in 2009, not including
agriculture usage, was 38,520,000 gallons of water used annually or roughly 19% of the
total annual water demand for UCSC (Table 1). For the sake of discussion, if 20% of that
irrigated water came from greywater, then UCSC would have re-used approximately
7,704,000 gallons of water annually, which is a substantial amount of water saved. Since
UCSC did not buy this water from the city of Santa Cruz, we can calculate an extremely
rough estimate of how much UCSC saved on its water rate bills. Since the water rate in
2009 was $5.61 per 1,000 gallons, UCSC would have saved approximately $43,219.44
on water usage annually (Table 2). Keep in mind that this cost-saving calculation is a
very rough approximation to give the reader an idea of how UCSC could save money by
reusing water. This calculation does not factor in the maintenance needed for the pipes,
septic tanks, settlement ponds, and the biological treatment, which would lower the
potential savings.
Table 1:
The following data can be found in Appendix C of the UC Santa Cruz Water shortage
Plan 2009 Season

9. 9
Irrigation (% of total UCSC
water usage)
Subtract Agriculture (% of
total UCSC water usage)
Irrigation that can safely
reuse grey water
26.23% 6.97% 19.26%
Total UCSC water usage
(measured in gallons per
year) Multiply by 19.26%
Obtain total amount of
irrigated water (measured
in gallons per year
200,000,000 0.1926 38,520,000
Table 2:
The following data can be found by looking at the previous figures obtained in table 1
as well as the UC Santa Cruz Water Efficiency Survey
Total amount of irrigated
water (measured in gpy) Multiply by 20%
Obtain theoretical amount of irrigated
water that reuses grey water (gpy)
38,520,000 0.2 7,704,000
Theoretical amount of
reused irrigated
water/1000
Santa Cruz water rate in
2009 (measured per 1,000
gallons)
Amount saved by UCSC not paying the
Santa Cruz water rate
7704 $5.61 $43,219.44
There are numerous obstacles and disadvantages to re-using greywater from
residential areas. First, the costs of implementing extensive plumbing systems and
modern conventional treatment systems would be very expensive. Brent Haddad,
Professor of Environmental Studies at UCSC, said in an email that “A large expense
would be to redo plumbing to divert greywater to irrigation or toilet flushing or other

10. 10
uses. When penciled out, these costs almost never make sense.” An extensive cost-benefit
analysis could be conducted for further research in this area, although from an initial
outlook, reusing greywater seems cost-prohibitive. In order to justify implementing such
an expensive system, one would have to show that the savings accumulated in a short
period of time (0-5 years) would more than make up for the initial cost.
Another major obstacle with reusing greywater would be health concerns. In an
email exchange, Brent Haddad said, “There can be no margin of error in mixing post-
toilet water with water that will be used without further treatment, even watering plants.
The risk to human health is too high. So greywater systems have to include only those
uses that do not provide a microbial dose to the water.” It would very difficult for UCSC
to implement a sophisticated greywater treatment system that could safely remove
virtually all of the pathogens, solid wastes, and faecal cross-contamination prevalent in
the water. Additional challenges would arise, as UCSC would have to find a way to
safely store and then remove solid wastes from the vicinity of the campus.
There could be strong opposition to reclaimed water usage by the student body
and parents at UCSC. In California, “prior to the 1976-1977 drought emergency, it was
illegal in every county in California to utilize greywater due to a lack of use, study, and
fear of the potential health hazards posed by its use”(SWRCB 1980). This means that
only 34 years ago, reusing greywater from residential areas would have been an
unthinkable proposition. The state water resources board lists seven major reasons for
opposition to uses of reclaimed water: psychologically repugnant, lack of purity, can
cause disease, bodily contact undesirable, undesirable chemicals added, taste and odor
problems, and cost of treatment unreasonable. I could not imagine how UCSC could

11. 11
justify how students would be exposed to odors/smells from nearby water treatment
facilities and would be playing in athletic fields that have been irrigated with treated
greywater. The only possible scenario in which this greywater treatment system could be
accepted is if the entire state of California suffered such a severe drought that Santa Cruz
County ran dangerously low on potable water supplies.
Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to conduct a survey of how students
would feel about greywater being used for irrigation purposes, especially for the East
Field. Such a survey would have a large sample area of at least 50 or more random
students that use the East Field on an active basis. Care should be taken to avoid students
that you are already associated with in order to avoid bias. Potential questions would
range from asking students about current quality of the grass used at the East Field to
reusing greywater for irrigation. There could be five different types of responses to the
questions that could be quantified: yes, relatively confident, indifferent, relatively
skeptical, and no. This survey would be time consuming, but it would be interesting to
see how the student population reacts to greywater usage.
I believe that reusing greywater for irrigation purposes is not a viable water
conservation measure that UCSC could take. This would take extensive planning on
UCSC’s part that would involve a cost-benefit analysis, panels, public debate, and a long
and difficult process of obtaining the necessary permits for construction of treatment
facilities from various government agencies. Planning such a complex greywater
treatment system would most likely take years and a large investment that simply isn’t
viable considering the financial crisis that the UC campuses are facing at this time. There
are too many unanswered questions regarding health issues, costs, savings, and exactly

12. 12
how much water would be conserved to convince Santa Cruz county, the public, and the
student body of the validity of this method.
Even though reusing greywater for irrigation may not be a viable method, there is
a more direct way of conserving water. Over the past decade, UCSC has made enormous
progress in increasing the efficiency of their irrigation systems that results in a reduction
in water usage. According to “Conservation at UCSC: Physical Plant’s role in preserving
our natural resources and how you can help”, it states that, “Ground Services Assistant
Superintendent Roger Edberg, introduced a new system to the UCSC campus in January
2001 that is resulting in a significant reduction of water use on campus.” I contacted
Roger regarding how UCSC manages their irrigation systems and their response to water
shortages in Santa Cruz county. In an email exchange, Roger sates, “in 2000, we began
installing a system on campus that utilizes on site weather data and a radio
communication network to update irrigation schedules daily based on evapotranspiration
data (RainMaster Evolution Central Control).”
The RainMaster system has a “central computer, a weather station, and ‘satellite’
controllers in the field, with a (radio) communication system linking the three
components” (Conservation at UCSC). I had the opportunity to take a tour that showed
how the RainMaster system worked and locations of various weather stations and
controllers at UCSC. The RainMaster system has the ability to transmit information to
various controllers across campus with updates regarding weather, potential leakages, and
new irrigation schedules. For instance, a controller could send an alarm about a leakage
to the RainMaster system, and the valve for that broken irrigation pipe would
automatically shut-off. Information about that leakage, including the exact location and

13. 13
time, would be relayed to someone with the knowledge to fix it. There are various
weather stations stationed across the campus that give real-time data to irrigation
controllers, so that irrigation systems can turn on or shut off depending on the wind and
rain conditions of the day.
Image 2: Irrigation Controllers located throughout the UCSC campus- Taken by
Christopher Matthews
Interestingly, there is no set irrigation schedule for the various irrigation stations
on campus. Instead, different factors for each irrigated area are entered into the
RainMaster system, “such as soil type, slope, precipitation rate of the station, root zone
depth, etc. and the computer generates a new program daily based on calculated soil
water loss” (Conservation at UCSC). This increases the efficiency of irrigation systems at

14. 14
UCSC, as fields are irrigated with just enough water to allow it to naturally infiltrate the
soil and to avoid surface runoff. UCSC is also continually updating its irrigation systems
by increasing the distribution uniformity (DU). Distribution uniformity measures how
well a sprinkler head is able to equally allocate water to a certain area. For instance, a
sprinkler would have low DU, if it irrigated a certain section heavily, while another
section received very little irrigation. This area would have to be irrigated with excess
water in order to sustain the section that does not receive a lot of water from the sprinkler
head.
Image 3 and 4: Google Earth Images of the East Field at the UCSC campus to
demonstrate the improvements made in distribution uniformity in the irrigation systems
(next page). (October 7th
, 2007; October 1st
, 2009) The brown circles mark where the
irrigation heads are. Generally, greener fields with fewer brown patches indicate good
distribution uniformity.

15. 15
(October 7th
, 2007) Image 3: Satellite Image of East Field. Credit Goes to Google Earth.
(October 1st
, 2009) Image 4: Satellite Image of East Field. Credit Goes to Google Earth

16. 16
Image 5: One of many weather stations located on the campus of University of California
Santa Cruz-Taken by Christopher Matthews
It is impressive that UCSC has managed to conserve a significant amount of water
in a short period of time by increasing the efficiency of its irrigation systems. In an email
exchange, Roger said, “During the water use reduction of 2009, the campus as a whole
had a target overall reduction goal of 15% from the three previous years. This was mostly
achieved through reduction in irrigation water use, which was on the order of 25 to 35%.”
The campus has a wide variety of areas with different types of vegetation that demand a

17. 17
specific water flow rate from irrigation systems. The usage of satellite controllers, a
central computer system (RainMaster), and an irrigation specialist allows UCSC to
constantly update irrigation schedules to maximize efficiency. Despite the sudden and
significant reduction in irrigation water use, Roger said, “There was significant stress on
the turf and landscape, but most of it survived.”
A second method that UCSC could implement to conserve water would be to
capture rainwater from impervious surfaces such as parking lots or the top of buildings.
Brent Haddad states, “Parking lot runoff collects hydrocarbons, and would need
treatment to remove them, but this would be beneficial for both reuse and for not mixing
the hydrocarbons into the near-shore environment.” Treating parking lot runoff would
serve a dual purpose, as it would not only help conserve water but also treat storm water
to prevent contaminants from entering storm drains. One of the primary objectives of the
UCSC Storm Water Management Program, stated in the FAQ, is to “always be watching
for new opportunities to prevent storm water contamination.” Thus capturing and reusing
rainwater would not only conserve water, but also be in line with the objectives of UCSC
Storm Water Management Program.
UCSC would need to create some kind of storage capacity in order to capture and
maintain the quality of the storm water. This would be challenging, considering that the
Santa Cruz County rain season is relatively short. In an email exchange, Dan Blunk said,
“During the typical wet season, there is little to no need for irrigation. This means the
captured rainfall must be stored from October through May or June. This creates
challenges for creating storage capacity and for maintaining water quality.” UCSC would
have to construct a storage pond in order to hold water during the warmer parts of the

18. 18
year. In addition, there would be very little to no additional rainfall from October to June,
since UCSC is subject to a Mediterranean climate. The water in the storage pond would
be subject to evaporation loss and water quality issues if not properly maintained.
Various sediments and liquids can contaminate rainwater that falls on impervious
surfaces. The 2009 UCSC Storm Water Management Plan lists various items that could
contaminate storm water. These include but are not limited to: sediment, organic matter,
oil, grease, litter, cleaning compounds, diesel paint, concrete, paint, petroleum products,
and water disinfecting agents (SWMP 2009). The most common sources of these
constituents are: parking lots, landscape areas, vehicle watching, construction project, and
trash like cigarette butts or soda bottles from littering (UCSC SWMP FAQ). However,
many of these pollutants such as pesticides and fertilizers are already controlled (UCSC
SWMP FAQ). Thus the treatment for storm water contaminants should be relatively
minimal, especially compared to the treatment needed for greywater described in the
previous water conservation method.
Collecting rainwater from impervious surfaces is a promising water conservation
method. There is potential to collect and store a large amount of water from impervious
surfaces. Dan Blunk states, “With our average annual rainfall of about 30 inches, each 50
square feet (about the footprint of an average car) of impervious surface generates just
under a thousand gallons of runoff. According to the 2009 UCSC SWMP, “rainfall levels
vary considerably on campus with elevation; the lower campus receives an average of 30
inches of rainfall annually, while the upper campus receives 40 to 45 inches.” There is a
significant difference in the amount of rainwater that the upper campus receives relative
to the lower campus. UCSC should build storage ponds near prominent upper campus

19. 19
impervious surface areas, such as the Northern Perimeter Parking Lot or the roofs of
Science Hill in order to maximize the amount of storm water captured.
Potential Sites for Green Roofs in Science Hill*(highlighted in blue); Potential sites for
rain gardens* (highlighted in green); Location of current Bioretention areas* (highlighted
in yellow); Location of step pools*(highlighted in brown): (Potential sites for capturing
rain water in parking lots*(highlighted in red)). Credit goes to UCSC GIS Lab

20. 20

21. 21
Image 6: Topographic Map of UCSC. Credit Goes to Brian Fulfrost, UCSC GIS
Coordinator
Capturing and reusing rainwater allows for students to be actively involved in a
water conservation project on campus. Brent Haddad states, “Capturing and reusing
rainwater runoff is an opportunity for student involvement, and should be seen as
available for energy generation, art projects, restoration studies, and other uses.” In fact,
the UCSC Storm Water Management Program has an internship program
(http://cleanwater.ucsc.edu/intern_and_volunteer_flyer.pdf). This could be a fantastic
internship opportunity for future students who wish to learn more about water
conservation and storm water runoff management. The Environmental Studies
Department could advertise this as a potential internship/research project where
environmental studies students would research ways to collect rainwater.
There are number of ways that UCSC could reuse the rainwater collected from
impervious surfaces. I did not have the opportunity to extensively research different
methods of reusing rainwater due to time limitations. However, a good place to start
would be to look at what other environmentally friendly colleges are doing with regards
to reusing rainwater. The storm water collected could be used for irrigation, bioretention
projects or a new energy source. UCSC could build a network of solar cells that could use
the treated storm water as a conduit for energy. UCSC could reuse the treated storm water
to grow rain gardens that will promote better water infiltration and greatly reduce soil
erosion. Rain gardens would help to promote biodiversity, wildlife, and sustainability
within the UCSC campus. Rain gardens would also help to negate the potential negative

22. 22
impacts that the UCSC Long Range Development plan would have on the surrounding
environment.
UCSC could reuse storm water collected from impervious surfaces to develop
year-round rain gardens. A rain garden “has come to mean something very specific,
namely a planted depression that is designed to take all, or as much as possible, of the
excessive rain water run-off from a house or other building and its associated landscape”
(Dunnett 2007). Rain gardens would consist of native plants within Santa Cruz County
and be composed of flower perennials, grasses, and shrubs in order to maximize
diversity. It’s important that the rain gardens be accessible to the student population, the
public, and children so that they can enjoy the sights. A rain garden could be used as a
tourist attraction for residents in Santa Cruz County as well as maintain UCSC’s status of
having one of the most beautiful college campuses in the world (Forbes.com). Dunnett
states, “Rain gardens promote visual and sensory pleasure. There is a theory that our
fascination with water is with us as a result of our evolutionary history…We are left with
an instinctive attraction to water in all its forms.”
A rain garden should be situated near the upper campus, since the majority of
residential colleges and academic facilities are located in the upper campus of UCSC. A
rain garden would be easier to access in the upper campus compared to a remote location
in the lower campus. A potential location for developing a rain garden would be in the
lower valley under the bridge that connects the Earth & Marine Sciences building and
Classroom Unit 1&2, since water would naturally flow down the valley. Safety is the
primary concern when developing rain gardens. One concern is “with harvested rainwater
is the possibility of diseases or harmful substances building up which might, for example,

23. 23
infect children playing with that water” (Dunnett 2007). As long as the water is
continually circulated throughout the rain garden with the usage of pumps then the
vegetation should be able to naturally filter and clean the water (Dunnett 2007). Planting
rain gardens would promote natural infiltration and effectively manage storm water.
UCSC is continually experimenting with ways to improve their management of
storm runoff. Future projects include rain gardens, bioretention areas, and step pools.
There are currently bioretention areas located on campus at the Cowell Student Health
Center, the Long Marine Lab surrounding parking areas, and on the ocean side of the
Seymour Center. Bioretention is one of several Best Management Practices (BMPs)
utilized by UCSC to manage storm water. According to the EPA’s Guidance Manual for
Developing Best Management Practices, “Best management practices (BMPs) are
recognized as an important part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting process to prevent the release of toxic and hazardous chemicals.” In
this case, a BMP simply describes a method of water pollution control that reduces the
amount of contaminants, sediments, and erosion caused by storm water. According to a
“Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet: Bioretention” by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), “Bioretention utilizes soils and both woody and herbaceous plants to
remove pollutants from storm water runoff.”

24. 24
Image 7: Bioretention area located in front of the Cowell Student Health Center. Taken
by Christopher Matthews
Installing bioretention areas on the UCSC campus is a very cost-effective BMP.
The EPA “construction cost estimates for a bioretention area are slightly greater than
those for the required landscaping for a new development. Recently constructed 37.16
square meter (400 square foot) Bioretention areas in Prince George’s County, MD cost
approximately $500. These units are rather small and their cost is low” (Storm Water
Technology Fact Sheet: Bioretention). I do not have information as to the exact costs of
UCSC installing bioretention areas in various parts of the campus, but I would estimate
that it ranges from a few hundred to several thousand dollars. Compared to the other
methods previously discussed, this is a rather small cost.

25. 25
I believe that capturing and reusing rainwater from impervious surfaces is a viable
method that UCSC could undertake to conserve water. There is an abundant amount of
rainwater to be captured at UCSC. The rainwater would only be contaminated with
hydrocarbons and organic sediments, which could be readily treated by using
Bioretention areas, rain gardens, and storage ponds. The rainwater would pose much less
of a health risk compared to using greywater and the public would be more in favor of it.
The biggest challenge would be storing the water during the hotter months of the year
since UCSC is subject to a Mediterranean climate. I would propose that capturing and
reusing rainwater should be done on a small scale. This would allow for students to
participate and learn about water conservation methods as well as provide a test trial for
the validity of reusing water on campus.
A third method that UCSC could implement to conserve and reuse water would
be to build green roofs (bioroofs). In an email exchange with Courtney Trask, Storm
Water Programs Manager at UCSC, she said, “we have one project that has designed a
green roof but the project has not moved forward into construction.” This would be an
excellent time to discuss and analyze how UCSC could conserve water by constructing a
green roof, since this water conservation method could realistically be implemented by
UCSC. According to “Rain Gardens: Managing water sustainability in the garden and
designed landscape”, “Green roofs are simply roofs that have had a layer of vegetation
added to them. They are best known when used on a large scale: on schools, offices,
factories and other buildings.”

26. 26
At first glance, it may seem easy to write off a green roof as a serious water
conservation measure, since a green roof simply consists of a layer of vegetation on a
roof. However, Dan Blunk, Environmental Programs Manager at UCSC, said in an email
exchange, “one potential application that came from the study is capture of roof runoff
for use in flushing toilets and urinals.” Courtney Trask further elaborates stating, “the
green roof was designed to slow the storm water time of concentration, filter and treat
storm water and provide some infiltration.” In this particular instance, UCSC would
construct a green roof that would not only help with storm water infiltration, but also
reuse the water for toilets and urinals inside the respective building.
Rainwater that falls onto a roof will be readily absorbed and retained by the layer
of vegetation. This will help the roof “reduce(s) the amount of water available for run-off
and by storing it for a period before it runs off, it acts as a buffer between the weather and
drainage systems” (Dunnett 2007). According to the UC Santa Cruz Storm Water
Management Program FAQ, “storm water runoff occurs when rainwater falls on
impervious surfaces such as asphalt and buildings. Since it can’t sink into the surface, the
precipitation flows to the lowest point, collecting any contaminants, soil or debris in its
path.” Various Bioretention areas, step pools, future green roofs, and storm drains help to
protect the campus from erosion, flooding, and structural damage from storm-water
runoff.
Illustration of a potential green roof using a Google sketch-up model located on the
campus using Google Earth. The water lands on the roof, and then goes through a series
of pipes inside the building that will be used for toilets and urinals.

27. 27
Image 8: Sketch of a Green Roof design. Credit Goes to Sketchup and Google Earth.
One disadvantage of building a green roof is that the captured rainwater would go
directly through the sewer system. Dan Blunk says, “The disadvantage of this application
is captured rainwater is not allowed to infiltrate the land where it falls, but is shunted
directly to the bay via the sewage treatment plant.” Ironically, this method of reusing
water would cost UCSC additional money due to higher sewer bills. As of 2009, the
sewer rate for UCSC was $7.31 per 1,000 gallons (WES 2007 p. 4). But as stated earlier,
this method of collecting rainwater would probably generate only a few thousand gallons
of water, since the roof is only a few hundred square feet. In addition, UCSC would save
money due to lowered water utility rates, so the savings and costs would cancel each
other out. The primary concern here is that rainwater would not be allowed to naturally
infiltrate the soil and maintain the ground water supply. However, only one roof is
currently under consideration for the construction of a green roof. There would be a

28. 28
minimal impact on the ability of natural rainfall being able to infiltrate the soil at the
UCSC campus.
I believe that building green roofs to reuse water and improve storm water
management is the most viable method UCSC could undertake. A green roof has already
been designed and put under serious consideration by UCSC, which makes the
probability of its development the most likely out of all three methods. I also think that
developing a green roof is by far the most cost effective option, since it does not involve
creating large storage ponds, biological treatment, or extensive piping networks. The
construction of a green roof would provide the university with a study site for
environmental studies students to do research on the amount of water saved. It would also
further develop UCSC’s reputation as a green campus, according to the Sierra Magazine.
The first conservation method discussed in this paper is the least likely to be
implemented by UCSC in the near future. Capturing and reusing greywater from
residential sites on campus is an idea that sounds better in theory than in practice. The
costs, health concerns, and the challenges of storing water simply overweigh the potential
benefits of conserving water. The 2nd
conservation method of capturing and reusing
rainwater would be viable, but only a small scale. The main challenge would be creating
storage capacity to hold such a large amount of water for the duration of the year, since
UCSC has a Mediterranean climate. Lastly, the 3rd
conservation method of constructing a
green roof is the most viable method UCSC could take to reuse rainwater. There would
no storage capacity challenges, since the rainwater would be used immediately for
flushing toilets and urinals within the building.

29. 29
The most viable water conservation methods that involve reusing water would
have to be small in scale. Since UCSC has a Mediterranean climate, all of the rainwater
would occur in brief and intense periods during the winter season. It would be difficult to
find ways to store the water and to maintain its quality for the duration of the non-winter
seasons. A viable water conservation method would have to reuse and treat rainwater
relatively soon. Such water conservation methods should have opportunities for students
to be involved, whether it’s for research, teaching, or learning about water conservation.
One suggestion would be for the Storm Water Management Program to coordinate with
the Environmental Studies Internship office to initiate a water conservation internship
program for environmental studies students. This internship could consist of students
learning more about storm water management, how to reuse rainwater for clean energy
(i.e. solar cells), or promoting awareness of water conservation.
UCSC has made strong strides in conserving water over the past decade. They
have focused on reducing their existing water usage, which is more cost-effective and
practical than attempting to reuse large amounts of water. According to “Conservation at
UCSC: Physical Plant’s role in preserving our natural resources and how you can help”,
“In Fiscal Year 2000, UCSC’s water usage was approximately 0.2% greater than it’s
usage of 1987-88, a period during which enrolment grew by 25%.” In 2009, UCSC set a
15% reduction in overall water usage, which “While the 15% reduction target is clearly
achievable, it will require a diligent effort on the part of staff and campus units to
implement” (2009 UCSC Water Shortage Plan). UCSC has largely succeeded in keeping
their annual water consumption relatively constant in the face of future water shortages in
Santa Cruz County. It remains to be seen though, whether it’s possible for UCSC to

30. 30
significantly decrease their annual consumption from their annual consumption of 200
million gallons a year.
It was difficult to narrow the broad topic of water conservation to a specific thesis
that would follow the theme of the ENVS 196 seminar: community and environment. The
ENVS 196 class focused on environmental issues within the greater Monterey Bay area,
but I did not focus on areas outside of the UCSC campus such as Watsonville or Aptos,
due to traveling difficulties. I did more than enough research on water conservation, grey
water, and found several intriguing reports on how UCSC has been conserving water. I
could have spent more time communicating to representatives from the city of Santa Cruz
to see what their view was on UCSC’s water usage. I was fortunate enough to receive a
tour from Roger Edberg of the irrigation systems on campus.
I would like to thank the following for their contributions. Special thanks goes out
to: Brent Haddad, Dan Blunk, Courtney Trask, Barry Nickel, Roger Edberg and Chris
Lay for providing me with information on their views on water conservation, topographic
maps, and a tour of the UCSC campus’ irrigation systems. Thanks to Professor
Fitzsimmons of the Environmental Studies department for providing me with guidance
on the topic of water conservation and material for this research paper.
Finding a viable water conservation method that reuses water was a difficult
process since there are many variables to account for. My research paper initially focused
on the possibility of the campus reusing greywater for irrigation purposes. However, it
quickly became clear that the costs, health concerns, and storing water were all
overweighing the benefits of reusing greywater. Thus I broadened the topic of this paper
to include other methods of reusing water, as well as analyzing the validity of those

31. 31
methods for future reference. The audience for this paper would be fellow students,
faculty, and staff affiliated with the University of California Santa Cruz. Residents from
the city of Santa Cruz can also look at UCSC’s historical water usage in this paper. The
main purpose of the paper is to enlighten students and the public about water shortages in
Santa Cruz County and what the university is doing to conserve water.

32. 32
Citations:
Books:
Dunnett, Nigel, and Andy Clayden. 2007. Rain Gardens: Managing water sustainably in
the garden and designed landscape. Timber Press Inc, Oregon.
News Articles:
Bookwalter, Genevieve. “Dry Season: Mandatory water restriction in Santa Cruz could
be approved on Tuesday”. Santa Cruz Sentinel. 26 April 2009. 11/29/10.
<http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_12230635?source=most_viewed>
Electronic PDFs and Reports:
Binshtock, Avital and Michael Fox. “Sierra Cool Schools: The Third Annual List”. Sierra
Magazine. 2009. 11/29/2010.
<http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200909/coolschools/>
Draoulec, le Pascale. “The World’s Most Beautiful College Campuses.” Forbes.com.
March 1st
, 2010. 11/29/2010.
<http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/01/most-beautiful-campus-lifestyle-college_2.html>
City of Santa Cruz. “City of Santa Cruz Water Sources”. City of Santa Cruz:
Conservation. N/A. 11/29/10
<http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4299>
City of Santa Cruz Water Department. “Water Shortage Contingency Plan”. City of Santa
Cruz: Water Shortage Contingency Plan. March 2009. 11/29/10.
<http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=14601>
Maddaus Water Management and UC Santa Cruz. “UC Santa Cruz Water Efficiency
Survey: Final Report”. Good Neighbor Initiative-UC Santa Cruz. Dec. 2007. 11/29/10.
<http://ppc.ucsc.edu/cp/projects/9000-021/planning/WES.pdf>
UCSC Physical Plant. “Conservation at UCSC: Physical Plant’s role in preserving our
natural resources and how you can help”. UCSC Physical Plant: Utility Management.
Date: N/A/ 11/29/10.
< http://ucscplant.ucsc.edu/ucscplant/Utility_Distribution/Conservation-brochure.pdf>
UC Santa Cruz Storm Water Management Program. “Frequently Asked Questions”.
UCSC Storm Water Management Program. February 2010. 11/29/2010.
<http://cleanwater.ucsc.edu/faq.html>

33. 33
UC Santa Cruz Storm Water Management Program. “University of California Santa Cruz
Storm Water Management Plan”. UC Santa Cruz Storm Water Management Program.
June 2009. 11/29/2010.
<http://cleanwater.ucsc.edu/swmp/SWMP_Main_Document.pdf>
Water Use Curtailment Task Force. “UC Santa Cruz Water Shortage Plan 2009 Season:
Water Use Curtailment Task Force Report”. UC Santa Cruz-Conserving Water. May
2009. 11/29/10.
<http://www1.ucsc.edu/conserving_water/2009_water-shortage-plan.pdf>
World Health Organization (WHO). “Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta
and Greywater: Volume 4 Excreta and greywater use in agriculture”. Water Sanitation
and Health. 2006. 11/29/10.
< http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/gsuweg4/en/index.html>
Government Publications:
Ingham, Alan T. Residential greywater management in California. State Water Resources
Control Board, 1980. Sacramento, California, January 1980.
<http://cruzcat.ucsc.edu/search/t?SEARCH=Residential+greywater+management+in+Cal
ifornia&submit=Search&searchby=3>
Scalf, M.R. Environmental effects of septic tank systems. US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Robert S Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory. Ada, Oklahoma
1977.
<http://cruzcat.ucsc.edu/search~S5?/Xseptic+tank&searchby=1&SORT=D/Xseptic+tank
&searchby=1&SORT=D&SUBKEY=septic%20tank/1%2C15%2C15%2CB/frameset&F
F=Xseptic+tank&searchby=1&SORT=D&3%2C3%2C>
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Decentralized Systems Technology Fact
Sheet Septic System Tank. Office of Water Washington, D.C. , September 2000.
<http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/septic%5fsystem%5ftank.pdf>
United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Guidance Manual for Developing
Best Management Practices. Office of Water Washington, D.C. October 1993.
<http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0274.pdf>
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet:
Bioretention. Office of Water Washington, D.C. September 1999.
<http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/biortn.pdf>
Conference:

34. 34
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Performance and Upgrading of
Wastewater Stabilization Ponds. Proceedings of a Conference Held August 23-25, 1978
at Utah State University. Logan, Utah.
<http://cruzcat.ucsc.edu/search~S5?/Xwastewater+stabilization&searchscope=5&SORT=
DZ/Xwastewater+stabilization&searchscope=5&SORT=DZ&extended=0&SUBKEY=w
astewater%20stabilization/1%2C2%2C2%2CB/frameset&FF=Xwastewater+stabilization
&searchscope=5&SORT=DZ&2%2C2%2C>
Emails:
Blunk, Dan. “water conservation question.” Email to the author. 25 Oct. 2010.
Edberg, Roger. “UCSC irrigation question.” Email to the author. 11 Nov. 2010.
Haddad, Brent. “UCSC water re-use question.” Email to the author. 11 Oct. 2010.
Nickel, Barry. “UCSC GIS Map Question.” Email to the author 11 Nov. 2010.
Trask, Courtney. “rain garden/bioroof question.” Email to the author. 31 Oct. 2010.