Final_Water_Document

Multi Unit Complex Water Conservation Study
City of Saskatoon
Timothy Andrews
MBA 992

Multi Unit Water Conservation: City of Saskatoon
July 17, 2009
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Background and Literature Review 2
2.1 Canada: Supply and demand 2
2.2 Water usage characteristics and statistics 2
2.3 Municipal water usage by sector statistics 2
2.4 Residential end usage statistics 2
2.5 Water conservation and efficiency initiatives 3
2.6 Saskatchewan 3
3.0 Successful Implementations 5
3.1 The City of Regina, Saskatchewan 5
3.2 The City of Vernon, British Columbia 5
3.3 Additional nationwide implementation notes 6
4.0 Challenges Facing Water Conservation Initiatives 8
5.0 Methodology 9
6.0 Water Use Trends and Analysis 10
6.1 Structure type 10
6.2 Unit count 11
6.3 Location of MUC 12
7.0 Capital Cost Analysis and Paybacks 14
8.0 Survey Results and Validations 15
9.0 Individually Metering Units 16
10.0 Conclusion and Recommendation 17
11.0 Appendices
Appendix A – High rise trends Excel Template
Appendix B – Low rise trends Excel Template
Appendix C – Unit trends Excel Template
Appendix D – Area trends Excel Template
Appendix E – Discounted cash flows Excel Template
Appendix F – Rebated discounted cash flows Excel Template
Appendix G – Interview questions Excel Template

July 17, 2009
Executive Summary
The topic of water conservation is of great interest to a variety of individuals and organizations
throughout Canada. However, the majority of studies examining water usage trends, initiatives and
usage rates historically have omitted and overlooked water usage characteristics within multi unit
complexes (MUC).
The primary objective of the study is to gain a deep understanding of water usage in MUC complexes,
and also understand and develop potential initiatives which may encourage both unit tenants and
management to reduce water consumption throughout the MUC. In drawing conclusions, a detailed
cost/ water volume analysis of retrofitting units has been undertaken.
The following study characterizes historical data of 37 high and 634 low rise MUC`s over a 3 year period,
provided by the City of Saskatoon into 3 distinct categories:
- Structure Type
- Unit Count
- Location
High rise structures have seen a decrease in water usage over the previous 2 years (-3.90% and -4.16%)
on both a per unit and total basis, while low rise structures saw an increase in volumetric water usage
from 2006 to 2007 (4.52%), followed by a decrease in usage over the 2007 to 2008 ( -2.04%) period.
Concerning trends among varying unit counts, conclusions are that MUC`s with fewer units tend to use
more water on a per unit basis than MUC`s with larger unit counts. Additionally, when examining
historical trends over the 3 year time frame, water usage for each unit grouping is relatively consistent.
Finally, when examining water usage data as it relates to location of MUC, though areas with high levels
of MUC complexes attract the majority of total MUC allocated water, the analysis indicates that high
quantities of water to an area does not correspond with high levels of per unit usage. In fact, an inverse
relationship exists between total water to an area and per unit usage throughout the City of Saskatoon.
For example, Nutana, the Central Business District and City Park account for the greatest amount of
total water, yet on a per unit basis tend to consume less water than the per unit average of 2.63%.
Conversely, the Airport Business area, Westmount and King George regions account for the least
amount of total water to their region, yet with the exception of the Airport Business area use a higher
per unit amount than the average of 2.63%.
In regards to retrofitting MUC units in an attempt to reduce water usage while providing a positive net
present value of cash flows, an MUC with a per unit consumption volume of 6,213 cubic feet (which
retrofits to 3,292 cubic feet) will break even (Appendix E). Should non-retrofitted volume fall from 6,213
cubic feet, NPV will be negative. Conversely, should non-retrofitted volume rise, NPV will be positive.
In surveying 8 MUC’s throughout Saskatoon in an effort to garner a greater understanding of water
usage characteristics and traits, a variety of notable conclusions have been derived. The MUC’s surveyed
indicated that water conservation is simply not a priority at this point, though may be in the coming
years. In addition, the majority of MUC’s have indicated that they do include water billings in tenants

July 17, 2009
rent, and believe that by doing so water usage remains the same, or may be slightly higher than if billing
each tenant individually for water.
However, the majority of MUC’s surveyed seem to indicate that they have not experienced, and do not
anticipate social backlash from residents should water saving appliances be installed in their complex.
The city of Saskatoon may wish to consider a variety of options going forward as it relates to water
conservation initiatives and the potential water plant capital expansion. In particular, the most viable
appears to be partnering with the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority (SWA) to offer rebates to those
who wish to install low flow, water conservation appliances including toilets, faucets and fixtures.
Currently, a $50 rebate is offered through SWA for any resident of the province who resides in a
detached, or multi unit complex dwelling, when converting from a high volume toilet (13 liters or higher)
to a dual flush (or 6 liter or less per flush) toilet.
In partnering with the SWA, the cost to MUC management may be lowered by $50 per toilet. By
reducing costs to management from $615 to $565, the required per unit consumption volume necessary
to make retrofitting profitable over the 20 year timeframe falls from 6,213 cubic feet to 5,708 cubic feet.
The reduction in volume required allows a greater number of MUC’s to retrofit units and receive a
positive payback (positive NPV).
A significant volume savings by the owner or tenant translates into a reduction in the total cost of clean
water produced by the city, on a large scale possibly assisting in deferring the capital plant expansion.

July 17, 2009
1
1.0 Introduction
As part of a larger initiative to explore water conservation alternatives, the City of Saskatoon has begun
to investigate conservation alternatives for multi-family residences. Although a significant amount of
conservation information is available for single-family residential customers, less information is available
for multi-family residences.
This study explores a wide array of avenues in an effort to further understand the water usage,
consumption and habits of multi-unit complex (MUC) inhabitants. Results and conclusions are primarily
derived from comprehensive analysis of current data in conjunction with MUC management interviews
and surveys.
The primary objective of the study is not only to garner a deeper understanding of water usage in MUC
complexes, but also understand and develop potential initiatives which may encourage both unit
tenants and management to reduce water consumption throughout the MUC. In coming to such
conclusions, a detailed cost/ water volume analysis of retrofitting uni ts has been undertaken.
Throughout the course of the study, a variety of research questions are addressed; chief amongst those
being the relevance of MUC characteristics in relation to water usage. Such defining characteristics
include the number of units in the complex, the location of the complex and the structure type of
complex (high or low rise).
The results of this study will be helpful in developing water conservation alternatives for the Water
Treatment Plant Long-Term Capital Development and Expansion Plan.

July 17, 2009
2
2.0 Background and Literature Review
2.1 Canada: Supply and Demand
Canada is a nation blessed with a wide array of natural resources, not the least of which is an abundance
of natural water sources. However, as demand for water across the nation continues to increase,
pressure on municipalities to meet such demand is continually mounting.
In response, government municipalities are taking steps to manage such an increase, as opposed to the
traditional method of searching for additional sources of water supply. Searching for supply sources has
provided neither an affordable or sustainable approach to water conservation strategy. Demand
management, by means of water conservation methods, restrictions and legislations has proven to be
an efficient and cost effective strategy in reducing water consumption. Additionally, incorporating water
efficient applications while keeping costs to a minimum is a popular method which municipalities are
examining in managing the increased pressure on municipal infrastructure.
2.2 Water Usage Characteristics and Statistics
Canadians have the unfortunate distinction of being extremely high consumers of water, placing second
highest per capita in urban water usage behind the United States. i On average a Canadian resident’s
daily water usage is 343 litres per person. ii
Specifically, as of 2005, the five main water usages in Canada are as listed below in descending order by
gross water usage:
- Thermal Power Generation (%60)
- Manufacturing (%18.5)
- Municipal (%9.5)
- Agriculture (%8)
- Mining (%4)iii
2.3 Municipal Water Usage by Sector Statistics
As of 2004, municipal water use by sector across Canada is as follows:
- Residential (%56)
- Commercial/Industrial (%31)
- Leakage (%13)iv
2.4 Residential End Usage Statistics
- Toilets (%40)
- Showers and Baths (%35)
- Laundry and Dishes (%20)
- Cooking and Drinking (%5)v

July 17, 2009
3
2.5 Water Conservation and Efficiency Initiatives
Environment Canada classifies water efficiency initiatives under the following four categories:
Structural
- Includes the metering of residential units, installation of flow control devices and fixtures, water
recycling systems, wastewater re-use, advanced process technologies and municipal plant
improvements.
Operational
- Includes leak detection and repair, water usage restrictions, plant improvements and the
elimination of combined sanitary storm sewers to reduce loadings on sewage treatment plants.
Economic
- Includes the implementation of rate structures, pricing policies, incentives via rebates and tax
credits as well as additional sanctions including fines.
Socio-political
- Includes public education efforts, information training and regulatory codes and by-laws.
2.6 Saskatchewan
The province of Saskatchewan is home to nearly 7% of all fresh-water in Canada, equating to roughly
1.5% of all the freshwater in the world. However, despite the affluence of fresh-water, the province
faces numerous challenges in meeting consumer demand for such fresh-water.
Overseen by the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, the province of Saskatchewan’s Water
Conservation plan was released on November 6, 2006. The plan emphasizes government leading by
example, while partnering with communities, agriculture, industry and public education to bring greater
attention to water conservation in a social, environmental and economic context. The Vision for the
plan is described as below:
“Saskatchewan’s water is preserved and used to enhance public health, improve the standard of living
and strengthen the economic vitality of the province while protecting the environmental diversity that
water provides.” vi
Specifically, to support the sustainable allocation of water, the plan will:
- Employ appropriate water reuse and use reduction options when constructing or modifying
SaskWater operated water and wastewater facilities
- Work towards 100 percent metering of all municipal domestic water use

July 17, 2009
4
- Develop methods to track other water usage to provide a better understanding of consumption,
efficient use and sustainable allocation and the ability to track progress towards conservation
targets
- Improve data collection and reporting tools on water rights issues
- Prohibit bulk water exports
- Require regular reporting on progress and plan implementation
- Demonstrate efficient water use at government facilities across the province
- Apply the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) program to the construction of
government buildings and apply LEED principles to renovations of existing buildings
- Work to include water conservation measures in environmental reporting at all registered ISO 14000
SaskPower facilities and when investing in new technologies at power generating facilities
- Create a Water Conservation Officer position with the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority to co-ordinate,
monitor and develop water conservation initiatives, and introduce water conservation
targets and reporting within the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority’s Performance Plan
- Revise water allocation policies to encourage water conservation, address in-stream flow needs and
encourage sustainable water-based economic development.
Additionally, the water conservation plan put forth by the province considers an array of pricing
considerations. They are as listed below:
- Respect the fact that water is essential for life by not charging municipal, domestic or irrigation
users for water itself
- Encourage a pricing structure that charges all water users the full cost of supplying water including
treatment and infrastructure as well as maintenance and other improvements associated with those
works
- Encourage full cost pricing for recipients of provincial water infrastructure grants
- Work with industry, environmental groups, municipalities and others to promote the use of water
efficient fixtures and appliances
- Review the current fee structure related to issuing water rights
Such considerations are of utmost importance in devising strategies which are aimed at soliciting a
particular reaction. As with water usage pricing, historically rising water prices to consumers have rarely
impacted consumer usage. While coupling this fact with the ideology that water is essential for life and
not charging municipal, domestic of irrigation users for water itself but for the cost of supplying and
treating such water.
Along with the development and actions of city’s water conservation plan, a toilet retrofit gran t program
also provides further incentive to Saskatchewan residents to convert to low flow toilets. The $50 rebate,
funded by the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority is provided upon completion of a retrofit evaluation
offered through SaskEnergy.

July 17, 2009
5
3.0 Successful Implementations
3.1 The City of Regina, Saskatchewan
The City of Regina established a water conservation plan in 1988, primarily driven as a means by which
to delay a $40 million expansion of its water treatment plant. The program consists of a variety of
avenues by which the city promotes water conservation to its residents, including, displays at home and
garden shows, water conservation tips listed on resident’s water bills, and a voluntary outdoor watering
schedule by which residents are encouraged to water their land only 1 day a week.
Results from the City of Regina’s plan have been overwhelming positive; average daily water usage is
down %20, while peak water usage is down %25.
3.2 The City of Vernon, British Columbia
Vernon, British Columbia is continuing to benefit from a variety of water conservation initiatives which
have saved the city millions of dollar over the previous 20 years.
In 1992 the city implemented water metering for all residential units. Examining water usage trends
over the 1992 – 2002 time periods indicates water usage reduction of over 30% amongst residential
units in Vernon. Specifically, the city charges a base rate of $15.00 per quarter, and a usage charge of
$0.465 (as of 2002) per cubic meter for all consumption. All meters are read each quarter, with the
January to March quarter determining sewer charges for the coming year.
In addition to the pricing structure implemented by the City of Vernon, a toilet rebate program
beginning in September 2000 has proven to be tremendously successful. All Vernon residents who
reside in homes constructed prior to 1998 have been encouraged to convert to 6 litre flush toilets
(Vernon implemented a 6 litre toilet bylaw in 1998 for all new construction) with the incentive being a
$75 rebate upon the return of the old toilet. Of note, the rebate is not exclusive to residential dwellings,
but industrial, commercial and institutional complexes as well.
The first 11 months of the rebate program resulted in roughly 3,000 toilets being replaced throughout
Vernon.
As well as the aforementioned metering and rebate structures, Vernon promotes water conservation
and efficient usage in a variety of additional means. Examples include:
- Permanent alternate day sprinkling regulations
- Distribution of locally made water wise brochures
- Promotion of drought tolerant plants for landscaping, with demonstration gardens and lists of
plants
- Monthly article in local newspaper
- Continuous water-wise tips on local radio
- Production of Planet Water booklet used in Grade 4 school science program
- Visits to elementary school classrooms
- Free distribution of low flow showerheads, toilet flappers, aerators, and dye tablets to detect to ilet
leaks

July 17, 2009
6
- Sponsorship of water related projects at Science Fair
- Annual shopping center display
- Appearance on local radio talk show during drinking water week
- Free water audits in homesvii
3.3 Additional Nation Wide Implementation Notes
Ontario
- 1996 Ontario Building code requires the installation of 6 litre toilets in all new construction
- The city of Toronto offers a $60 or $75 rebate to any multi-residential resident who replaces their
current water guzzling toilet with a 6 litre toiletviii. Similar rebates exist in Thunder Bay and Guelph
Ontario.
- In 2001 the municipality of Waterloo, Ontario instituted a rainbarrels program designed at reducing
water usage throughout the summer months. The annual budget for the program is $225,000. A
rainbarrel is able to supply an additional source of water by collecting rainwater from downspouts
and storing it until the water is required. Upon commencement of the program, 6000 barrels were
offered to the public at a subsidized rate of $20.00; demand was such that all barrels were sold
within a 3 hour window. ix
Alberta
- Canmore, Alberta has set a goal of reducing water consumption by 20% per capita by 2012. In doing
so, the town has retroactively implemented a toilet rebate program encouraging home owners to
switch to dual flush or 6 litre toilets. In addition to the town’s rebate initiative, all municipal fixtures
are to be retrofitted to comply with more water friendly x
- In 2000, Camrose, Alberta conducted a large scale water conservation campaign to educate
residents of the town on a variety of water conservation practices. Though relatively low budget,
and solely focusing on education of town residents, the project was deemed a great success. xi
- Located in Calgary, Alberta, the Sarcee Meadows condominium complex is comprised of 380 units,
while being home to nearly 1,000 residents and 615 high volume toilets. In 2005, as part of the City
of Calgary’s Multi Unite Residential Toilet Rebate pilot project program, Sarcee Meadows replaced
40% (250) of the buildings old water guzzling toilets with low flow models, realizing a water usage
decrease of roughly 10%. Savings on the water bill associated with the move to low flow toilets was
estimated at between 10% and 12% for the 250 replaced, equating to roughly $17,000.
After factoring in the $50 per toilet City rebate which was applied to water bill, Sacree Meadows
saved an estimated $115 per toilet on their water bill over the course of the year. Going forward,
should Sarcee Meadows replace the rest of their 615 high water usage toilets, anticipated total
savings could reach as much as $70,000.
Management has noted that the project was feasible in great part because of the City rebate, which
allowed the toilet replacement project to operate at an accelerated pace. In addition, resident
feedback has been extremely positive, with 86% of resident’s respondents rating the new toilets as
“good to excellent.”xii

July 17, 2009
7
British Columbia
- The city of Kamloops currently strives to reduce water usage by residents during peak periods by
15%. Unwilling to introduce metering to residents, the city has taken a unique approach with its
WaterSmart program. Introduced in 1992, residents are allowed to water their lawn or garden on
alternate days depending on whether they have an odd or even address. Fines for not complying
begin at $100 per offense.

July 17, 2009
8
4.0 Challenges Facing Water Conservation Initiatives
Historically Canada has some of the lowest water prices in the world. As homeowners may only notice
slight increases in total price with increased water use, price savings alone may not be sufficient in
encouraging homeowner to diminish water consumption. In fact, water conservation literature has
indicated that as water prices increase, consumption patterns tend to remain the same, or only slightly
decrease. xiii
However, Canadians are becoming more aware of environmental trends, concerns and sustainable
development concepts. In offering easily accessible initiatives such as toilet rebate programs, a variety
of municipalities have found high levels of success in promoting the conservation of water resources.
When considering user acceptance, the majority of MUC`s believe that a transition to more water
friendly appliances would not result in a negative backlash, with the possible exception being some
negativity with low flow showerheads. Additionally, MUC`s which currently use low flow toilets and
appliances such as The Saskatoon Tower, have not received tenant complaints.
Unfortunately, the majority of MUC`s surveyed do not list water conservation as a current priority,
though many indicate that it will be a priority in the future.

July 17, 2009
9
5.0 Methodology
This study begins by examining the current state of multi-unit complexes (MUC) in Saskatoon through
categorization of such residences into the following relevant groupings:
- Structure Type – High or low rise
- Number of units in complex
- Location of unit – Area of town
Following categorization, an exhaustive study of water usage data has been undertaken with the
primary goal of the study being the determination of water usage rates within each category. This
element of the project involves the gathering and analysis of both primary and secondary source data.
Primary source data was obtained via interviewing and speaking with employees of the City of
Saskatoon. Questions included the following:
- Are you aware of any current trends in water conservation use?
- How does water use vary between detached and multi -residential dwellings?
- What current initiatives are being undertaken to promote water conservation?
- Do you foresee a demand for water conservation going forward?
- From the city’s perspective, are you willing to fund, or offer a rebate to MUC’s or owners to
promote further water conservation?
After relevant categorization and data analysis, the capital costs of retrofitting indoor plumbing fixtures
for each category were determined.
Based on the capital cost estimates, a cost/benefit analysis of water volume savings for the unit versus
the cost of retrofitting units was completed. In doing so, the payback period and discounted cash flow
assessment for retrofitting both units and complexes has been evaluated. Derived from such evaluation,
the potential savings to MUC management, as well as the city of Saskatoon has been estimated.
Additionally, social and personal costs and benefits have been examined. Specifically, accessibility of
product along with convenience, and willingness of consumers to adopt environmentally efficient
products throughout the home.
As various water reduction strategies may have financial benefits but low acceptability, or vice-versa,
final conclusions have been validated by surveying MUC`s . Questions to MUC management included the
following:
- Does your MUC currently employ water conservation appliances (toilets, faucets, etc)?
- What obstacles to do you view as being most prominent in making dwellings more water
conservation friendly?
- Are tenants of your MUC dwelling primarily renters or owners? Do you think this effects water
usage?
- Is water conservation a priority for your MUC now? Will it be in the future?
- Is the water bill paid by tenants or owners paid individually, or through condo or association fees?
Finally, options such as individual unit metering charges and water reduction incentives including
rebates have been evaluated.

July 17, 2009
10
6.0 Water Usage Trends and Analysis
Water usage trends and analysis in multi unit complexes is a sector of water conservation which has
been historically ignored and understudied. Because of this, consumption patterns, habits and
tendencies of MUC`s are relatively unknown.
The following analysis addresses and attempts to understand the consumption patterns and trends of
various MUC complexes throughout the city of Saskatoon.
Water usage data provided by the City of Saskatoon consists of volumetric data in cubic feet over a 3
year period from 2006 to 2008 for 37 high rise and 634 low rise MUC`s with various unit counts for each
unit. Additionally, each data set contained the accompanying address of the MUC.
Data classification into structure type, number of units and location of MUC produced the following
results and conclusions:
6.1 Structure Type
High rise structure usage amounts in cubic feet for the period 2006 to 2008 are as follows:
2006 2007 2008
Total 18,747,696.95 18,043,818.50 17,323,281.41
Per Unit 5,573.04 5,363.80 5,149.61
Percentage Change (Total) -3.90% -4.16%
Percentage Change (Unit) -3.90% -4.16%
Total unit count of 3,429 for all 37 high rise MUC`s
See Appendix A for detailed analysis
In examining the above, it is evident that water usage has decreased annually from 2006 to 2008 both in
total and on a per unit basis. However usage has fallen less than 4% over the period 2006 to 2007, and
just over 4% over the period 2007 to 2008.
Such discrepancies may be cyclical fluctuations in water usage, or may correlate with fluctuations in
local weather and temperature.
Low rise structure usage amounts in cubic feet for the period 2006 to 2008 are as follows:
2006 2007 2008
Total 83,184,255.94 87,121,632.45 85,377,740.22
Per Unit 6,070.96 6,358.32 6,231.04
Percentage Change (Total) 4.52% -2.04%
Percentage Change (Unit) 4.52% -2.04%
Total unit count of 13,702 for all 634 low rise MUC`s
See Appendix B for detailed analysis

July 17, 2009
Grouping Amount in Grouping Average Water Consumption per Unit (2006) Average Water Consumption per Unit (2007) Average Water Consumption per Unit (2008)
6-10 81.00 6,635.39 7,007.62 6,321.36
11-20 261.00 6,083.03 6,438.50 6,355.98
21 - 30 140.00 6,629.03 6,984.48 6,744.96
31 - 40 52.00 6,079.57 6,622.87 6,447.95
41 - 50 40.00 3,895.93 3,982.03 4,060.70
51-60 19.00 6,083.51 5,831.68 5,824.04
61-70 5.00 3,778.60 4,767.19 4,904.17
71-80 5.00 6,167.17 5,333.76 5,261.43
81-90 6.00 5,525.05 5,497.00 4,975.98
91-100 3.00 5,332.77 5,517.68 5,472.95
101-110 6.00 6,682.05 6,849.66 6,947.43
111-120 3.00 5,870.78 5,499.42 5,098.26
121-140 4.00 5,745.34 6,107.68 6,607.97
141 and up 8.00 5,840.71 5,555.71 5,149.43
Total 633.00 5,739.21 5,856.81 5,726.61
11
In examining the above, water usage amongst low rise structures increased from 2006 to 2007 both in
total and on a per unit basis (4.52%). However, water usage has fallen over the 2007 to 2008 period in
total and on a per unit basis (-2.04%).
In comparing usage between high and low rise structures, it is apparent that low rise structures, on a per
unit base, over the 3 year period use more water than high rise structures over the same period. A likely
cause of the additional water usage in low rise buildings is the presence of gardens, lawns and other
amenities, which though may exist in high rise structures, contribute to a higher per unit amount in low
rise MUC`s (i.e. same amount or even more amount of land in low rise MUC`s with fewer units).
6.2 Unit Count
In segregating data via unit count within the MUC, the following water usage volume is as below:
See Appendix C for detailed analysis
Please note: MUC’s with 1-5 units (inclusive) have not been accounted for in unit analysis.
In examining the data presented above, sampling size must be noted. Smaller MUC’s (in terms of unit
count) are more prominent in Saskatoon while larger MUC’s (60 units and up) are less prevalent in the
city.
It can be concluded that over the three year period from 2006 to 2008, smaller MUC’s to tend to use
more water per unit than larger MUC`s. For example, MUC`s with more than 141 units, over the 3 year
period use anywhere from 12% to 20% less water per unit than MUC`s with between 6 and 10 units.
Potential reasons for the discrepancy in water usage may be attributed to additional amenities in
smaller MUC’s (such as gardens, grass and lawns, etc), or may simply be a reflection in the discrepancy
in sample size.
Perhaps the most interesting comparison in the above chart is between the 31-40 units grouping, and
the 41-50 units grouping. With a relatively similar sample size, the 41-50 grouping uses much less water
(between 36% and 30% less) per unit than the 31-40 grouping over the 3 year period. Additionally, when
examining the next grouping, 51-60 units, water usage increases yet again to the 6,000 cubic feet per
unit level.

July 17, 2009
The remaining groupings sample size (61 and above) though relatively consistent, is simply too small to
draw definitive conclusions.
12
Finally, when examining average water consumption over the 3 year time frame for all unit groupings,
usage tends to be consistent with minor fluctuations year over year. Again, such fluctuations may be
attributed to cyclicality of water use, or changes in weather patterns, such as an unseasonably warm
summer.
6.3 Location of MUC
The third classification of MUC, location, (Appendix D) illustrates usage trends and disparities between
various geographic segments of the city of Saskatoon. In examining the table, notable data sets include
the following:
- The Central Business District accounts for 9.47% of total water to MUC’s in the ci ty, yet on a per unit
basis uses only 2.34% of water consumption
- The Nutana region accounts for 10.89% of total MUC water, yet on a per unit basis only uses 2.2% of
water consumption
- The North Park area accounts for only 0.7% of total MUC water consumption, yet on a per unit basis
accounts for %2.65
- Westmount MUC’s account for only 0.10% of total MUC water consumption, yet on a per unit basis
accounts for 3.8% of total water
- The three regions that account for the least amount of water are the Airport Business Area,
Westmount and King George. However, both the Westmount and King George area’s have a
relatively high per unit usage amount, 3.8% and 3.28% respectively
- The three regions that account for the most amount of water are Nutana, the Central Business
District and City Park. However, on a per unit basis each of three use a relatively low amount of
water (in the low 2%’s) compared to the per unit aggregate average of 2.63%.
- The three regions which use the least amount of water on a per unit basis are Wildwood (1.01%),
Airport District (1.47%) and Hudson Bay Park (1.57%) regions. Additionally, these three areas use
exactly 3.5% of total MUC water consumption.
- The three regions which use the greatest amount of water on a per unit basis are Brevoort Park
(3.31%), Westmount (3.80%) and Exhibition (5.38%). Additionally, these areas use 5.06% of total
MUC water consumption
- The College Park East area saw a large rise in water usage between 2006 and 2007, from 1,848,245
cubic feet in 2006 to 2,257,059 cubic feet in 2007.
- The Airport Business area experienced a total water usage drop from 122,260 cubic feet in 2006 to
84,402 cubic feet in 2007. The following year (2008), usage exceeded 2006 levels at 127,910 cubic
feet
In examining the classifications, it is obvious that areas with a high amount of MUC`s and accompanying
units will consume more total water than areas with fewer units. However, the data analysis indicates
that greater total water usage does not result in high per unit usage; in fact there seems to be
somewhat of an inverse relationship between total water to an area and per unit usage.

July 17, 2009
13
For example, as stated above, Nutana, the Central Business District and City Park account for the
greatest amount of total water, yet on a per unit basis tend to consume less water than the per unit
average of 2.63%.
Conversely, the Airport Business area, Westmount and King George regions account for the least
amount of total water to their region, yet with the exception of the Airport Business area use a higher
per unit amount than the average of 2.63%.

July 17, 2009
14
7.0 Capital Cost Analysis and Paybacks
Appendix E and Appendix F
In analyzing capital costs and payback periods for MUC`s complexes, the following assumptions have
been made:
- Residential rate of water is $2.15 per 100 cubic feet
- Residential rate applies to any MUC with less than 4 units
- Commercial rate of water is $1.69 per 100 cubic feet
- Commercial rate applies to any MUC with more than 4 units
- Toilet flush volumes are 35% of traditional toiletsxiv
- Shower volumes are 40% of traditional volumesxv
- Estimated life of toilets and showerheads is 20 years
- Total cost per retrofitting one units is $615.00
- Analysis is based on “per unit” volumes. Number of units in the MUC is accounted for in
determining volume per unit, therefore is not expressed in the ``discounted payback table ``
Based on the above, an MUC with a per unit volume of 6,213 cubic feet (which retrofits to 3,292 cubic
feet) will break even. Should non-retrofitted volume fall from 6,213 cubic feet, NPV will be negative.
Conversely, should non-retrofitted volume rise, NPV will be positive.
In addition to the above, should total costs per unit fall from $615 to $565 (perhaps through a SWA
toilet rebate), the volumetric break even quantity falls to 5,708 cubic feet. A lower required volumetric
rate will enable additional MUC`s to realize a positive NPV when retrofitting.

July 17, 2009
15
8.0 Survey Results and Validations
In surveying eight random MUC`s throughout the city of Saskatoon (Appendix G) in an effort to
determine perceptions, trends, conservation techniques, rental agreements and billing methods, a
variety of preliminary conclusions may be drawn.
MUC`s are generally not taking initiative to replace fixtures such as toilets and showerheads in an effort
to become more green, however when replacements are required (a new toilet for example), MUC`s are
often installing dual flush, water conserving toilets.
In regard to acceptance of water conserving appliances into the home, the majority of MUC’s believe
that social acceptance will not be an outstanding issue, with the possible exception being low flow
showerheads. Additionally, The Saskatoon Tower, which currently uses water conservation appliances,
has not encountered resistance to date.
In an effort to determine the correlation between water usage and payment (included in rent, paid
individually, condo fees, etc), the majority of MUC’s believe that having the water bill incorporated into
the rent charge either encourages additional water use, or has little effect. Also of note, the majority of
MUC’s incorporate the charge into the tenants rent bill. Therefore, should utility charges incurred by
the MUC increase throughout the year, such an increase is reflected in the tenants rent.
Unfortunately, for the majority of units served, water conservation is simply not a current consideration
or mandate. Though the MUC’s surveyed tend to agree that the water conservation is important, and
may be a consideration in the future, a mass transition to water conserving appliances is not in the
immediate future for any MUC surveyed.

July 17, 2009
16
9.0 Individually Metering Units
In an effort to directly make tenants and owners of MUC`s accountable for water usage, potential
solutions may include individually metering units. In individually metering units, each tenant would
receive a separate water bill, as opposed to including the water fee in condo or maintenance fees.
However, though individually metering units may result in a decrease of water usage both in each
separate unit and throughout the MUC, the additional costs will likely outweigh the savings.
In speaking with Colin Hoffman, Superintendent Water Meters, for the City of Saskatoon, Mr. Hoffman
indicated that by individually metering units’ water usage, additional costs of excavating, supplying and
installing separate curb stops and piping would be incurred; thus increasing the cost of unit
construction. Additionally, owners would then be responsible for not only monthly water bills, but also
monthly sewer charges.

July 17, 2009
17
Conclusions and Recommendations
In evaluating current and historical water usage characteristics of multi unit complexes throughout the
City of Saskatoon, a variety of trends have been identified.
- A decrease in water usage amongst high rise structures in the previous two years
- An increase followed by a decrease in water usage of low structures over the previous two year
period
- MUC’s with small unit counts tend to use more water per unit than MUC`s with larger unit counts.
This is likely attributed to additional amenities (such as increased lawn space, gardens, etc.) and per
unit water consumption spread out over fewer units (should green space remain the same or
increase)
- Areas with high unit count attract the majority of MUC allocated water, yet do not necessarily use
more water per unit than other areas. In fact, an inverse relationship seems to exist
In analyzing payback periods for the retrofit of units to water friendly appliances, the break even volume
per unit is 6,213 cubic feet. With a per unit cost of $615, many MUC’s may not be willing to retrofit an
entire unit with a payback period of 20 years. For example, an MUC with 40 units would be required to
finance $24,600 in year 1, to realize a break even 20 years later.
Payback periods of units are dependent on usage per unit, should non-retrofitted volume fall below
6,213 cubic feet per unit, the accompanying NPV is negative. However, should volume per unit rise
above 6,213 cubic feet per unit, NPV is incrementally positive.
When considering consumer acceptance, reception of water conservation appliances seems to have
relatively high acceptance. Many MUC’s view water conservation as an important consideration, one
which will continue to hold value as the scarcity of water mounts.
In conclusion, combining the payback period data with unit trends and following MUC surveys, an
opportunity exists for the city to decrease per unit water consumption. The majority of MUC’s surveyed
view water consumption as an important consideration going forward, however do not list it as a
current mandate. The opportunity to partner with the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, who
currently offer a rebate to those who retrofit their high volume toilet (13 liters or higher) to a dual flush
(or 6 liter or less per flush) toilet is a very viable option.
Such a partnership potentially saves each MUC $50 per unit, thus making retrofitting more attractive to
MUC management. In fact such a reduction reduces required volume per unit from 6,213 cubic feet to
5,708 cubic feet per unit. With a reduction in required volume to break even, additional MUC’s will
realize a positive payback over the 20 year period, while those with higher volumes will earn greater
returns.
To conclude, a significant volume savings by the owner or tenant translates into a reduction in the total
cost of clean water produced by the city, on a large scale possibly assisting in deferring the capital plant
expansion.

July 17, 2009
18
Appendix G - Interview Questions
1) Does your MUC currently employ water conservation appliances (toilets, faucets, etc)?
Do employ water conservation appliances throughout - Progressive Property Management
Yes, low flow toilets and appliances -Elite Property Management
Not sure – Penthouse Apartments - Boardwalk
Not sure how many, though replacement toilets are switching to water conservation - Palace Gates
Not sure - Lawson Village
Do not have water conservation appliances throughout - Chancellor Gate
Does not use water conservation appliances - Meadow Park Estates
Yes, employed throughout - Saskatoon Tower
2) What obstacles to do you view as being most prominent in making dwellings more water
conservation friendly?
Do not view any particular obstacles including social (tenant resistance) in making dwellings more water
conservation friendly – Progressive Property Management
Have not encountered any social obstacles –acceptance seems high – Elite Property Management
Haven`t heard any complaints - Penthouse Apartments, Boardwalk
Don`t think there should be a problem, maybe a few tenants complaining about lack of water usage-
Palace Gates
Somewhat upset, especially with low flow showerheads - Lawson Village
Maybe with shower, people like to complain. However toilets should have high acceptance - Chancellor
Gate
May depend, don`t see major negative backlash - Meadow Park Estates
Gone over well, no social backlash at all - Saskatoon Tower
3) Are tenants of your MUC dwelling primarily renters or owners? Do you think this effects water
usage?
Renters – Are unsure if this relates to water usage - Progressive Property Management
Renters – Does not believe this relates to water usage - Elite Property Management
Renters – Likely use more water – bill is included in rent - Penthouse Apartments, Boardwalk
Renters - Doesn`t believe this results in increased water usage - Palace Gates
Renters – Does result in increased water usage - Lawson Village
Rental – Does result in increased water usage - Chancellor Gate
Renters – Each renter pay`s for water individually- Meadow Park Estates
Renters – doesn’t really impact water usage - Saskatoon Tower
4) Is water conservation a priority for your MUC now? Will it be in the future?
Water conservation is not a mandated, top priority - Progressive Property Management
Not a priority – unsure if it will be going forward - Elite Property Management

July 17, 2009
19
Not that they know of - Penthouse Apartments, Boardwalk
Water conservation is somewhat of a priority, as current replacement toilets are water conservers -
Palace Gates
Yes it is a priority and will be going forward - Lawson Village
Will be in the future, but isn`t now - Chancellor Gate
Priority in the future, however is not now- Meadow Park Estates
Yes, and will be into the future- Saskatoon Tower
5) Is the water bill paid by tenants or owners paid individually, or through condo or association fees?
Paid by the owner of the building, reimbursed through condo-fees - Progressive Property Management
Depends on the complex and unit, though most units are covered with condo or association fees - Elite
Property Management
Included in rent - Penthouse Apartments, Boardwalk
Included in rent - Palace Gates
Included in the rent - Lawson Village
Included in the rent - Chancellor Gate
Included in rent - Meadow Park Estates
Included in rent - Saskatoon Tower
i Source: OECD 1999
ii Source: Environment Canada 2002
iii Source: Environment Canada
iv Source: Environment Canada
v Source: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Residential Water Conservation: A Review of Products,
Process and Practices
vi Saskatchewan Watershed Authority: Saskatchewan Water Conservation Plan
vii Source: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, City of Vernon Water Efficiency Program
viii City of Guelph: Multi Residential Rebate Program
ix Source: CMHC: Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario:
2001 Rainbarrel Program a Great Succes
x Town of Canmore: Rebates and Conservation
xi Source: CMHC: Camrose’s Water Conservation Campaign
xii City of Calgary: Multi Unit Residential Toilet Rebate Program success story
xiii Saskatchewan Watershed Authority: Saskatchewan Water Conservation Plan
xiv Source: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: Dual Flush Toilet Testing

July 17, 2009
20
xv Source: Natural Resources Canada: Better Water Use Means Bigger Savings

Final_Water_Document

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Final_Water_Document

Final_Water_Document