Water Saving Technologies Study Outcome for the Ministry of Regional Municipalities,

Environment & Water Resources in Oman.

Dr. Bassam Hasbini, Dr. Yasmeen Al Lawati
Imbalances between increasing water demand and existing limited water resources are being
experienced in the Sultanate of Oman. During the last decade, water demand in all sectors has
increased dramatically as a result of high population growth, improvement in the standard of living,
efforts to establish self-sufficiency in food, and promotion of industrial development.
The deficit is being met through sea-water desalination and mining of groundwater resources. The
demographic growth rate, estimated at 1.9 % (2003 census), is contributing towards an increased
water deficit. An alternative for balancing such deficit would be to construct new desalination plants.
However, opportunities exist for reducing urban water use through water saving. This includes
water-saving devices as well as raising awareness amongst inhabitants.
In this context, The Ministry of Regional Municipalities, Environment and Water Resources retained
a consultancy firm to perform a study is to identify water saving technologies which could save 20
30% of domestic water use by the year 2020.
The first steps towards implementation of the terms of reference of the present study, involved a
literature review, market survey and selection of pilot sites. Daily monitoring of water use was
conducted for these sites to identify baseline water use parameters. Rigorous statistical analyses were
then performed to determine patterns and trends of water use and the statistical distribution of data.
Baseline have now been identified enabling proper statistical comparison with future water use data
to be collected following installation of Water-Saving Technologies (WST).
Subsequent steps involved installing selected WSTs and monitoring water use. The results of the
various analyses are used to calculate water savings and extrapolate results over the entire domestic
water use. The results are used to evaluate which of the devices has potentially the highest water
saving capacity. It is hoped that this information will form the basis for a much wider
implementation of these devices in the Sultanate of Oman.
Amount of water consumption per inhabitant ranged below 100 liters/day/inhabitant to about 350
l/day/inhabitant. The higher value was due mainly to a public use of the garden water. These figures
compare well with those in neighboring GCC countries. It is thought that water pricing and existing
awareness had beneficial effects on water consumption in Oman.
The study concluded that the most effective devices in saving water were sensor-activated taps
followed by self-closing taps followed by low-flow showerheads. Aerators were not effective as taps
come already equipped with aerators. Toilet bags were not effective as the bowl itself must be
originally designed to handle a low flush. A flush with a toilet bag was found ineffective in cleaning
the bowl and thus users flushed twice thus increasing water use rather than decreasing it. A similar
experience was encountered in dual flush cisterns.
From an economic perspective, the most effective device is the self-closing tap followed by low-flow
showerheads. Sensor-activated taps are not economical to install although they are quite effective in
saving water. They must be used frequently to justify cost.

| Water-Saving Technologies

INTRODUCTION
As reported in the Ministry of Housing Electricity and Water Statistical Book for the year 2003, the
total volume of water produced and distributed for domestic purposes from all resources throughout
Oman reached 20.5 billion gallons (93 million m3/year). The total daily volume of desalinated water
produced for domestic purposes in Muscat Governorate is 32.5 million gallons (148,000 m3/day)
from 5 desalination stations. In the year 2003, Average daily demand for water in the Muscat
Governorate was 42.2 million gallons (192,000 m3/day). Maximum daily demand for water in the
same Governorate was calculated at 51.3 million gallons (233,000 m3/day) and was recorded in
October while the minimum daily demand was calculated at 32.4 million gallons (148,000 m3/day)
reported in February. In Muscat Governorate the number of residential connections to the network
is 80,221 connections. Commercial and government connections in the same Governorate are
reported at 5,047 and 1937 connections respectively. As such, the annual volume of water consumed
by residential, commercial and government connections in the Muscat Governorate was reported at
4,337, 1,192 and 3,242 million gallons respectively (19.7, 53.4, and 14.8 million m3). Per capita
consumption of water is reported at 44 gallons per day (200 liters/day). This latter figure includes
water use for commercial and industrial purposes.
A saving of 20 percent in water consumption would save a total of 3,285 million gallons of water per
year for water users in Muscat. At 2 baiza per gallon, this would translate into an overall saving of 6.6
million RO per year for residents of Muscat. Knowing that the total number of connections in
Muscat is 87,205, each connection would thus save an average of 75 riyals per year.

WATER-SAVING TECHNOLOGIES
Average water use varies from 190 to 285 liters per day per person and breaks down as follows: toilet
42 %, bathing 32 %, laundry 14 %, kitchen 8 % and cooking 4 % (Al-Rumikhani 2001). Domestic
water use outdoors usually amounts to 50-60 % of total domestic water use. Water users can be
divided into two basic groups: system users such as residential users and system operators such as
municipalities. These users can choose from among many different water saving technologies (WST),
which fall into two categories:
1. Behavioral practices: practices based on changing water use habits
2. Engineering practices: practices based on modifications in plumbing, new fixtures, or water
supply operating procedures. These include:
Low-Flush Toilets. Conventional toilets use 13 to 19 liters or more of water per flush,
but low-flush toilets use only 6 liters of water. Since low-flush toilets use less water, they
also reduce the volume of wastewater produced (Pearson, 1993).
Low-Flow Showerheads. Showers account for about 20 percent of total indoor water
use. By replacing standard 17 liters-per-minute showerheads with 9.5 liters-per-minute
heads, which cost less than $5 each, a family of four can save approximately 75,700
liters of water per year (Jensen, 1991). Although individual preferences determine
optimal shower flow rates, properly designed low-flow showerheads are available to
provide the quality of service found in higher-volume models.
Faucet Aerators. Faucet aerators, which break the flowing water into fine droplets and
entrain air while maintaining wetting effectiveness, are inexpensive devices that can be
installed in sinks to reduce water use. Aerators can be easily installed and can reduce the
water use at a faucet by as much as 60 percent while still maintaining a strong flow.
| Water-Saving Technologies

Tests conducted in Saudi Arabia demonstrated that aerators can save as much as 40
percent of water use for ablution (Al-Rumikhani, 2001).
Self-Closing Taps. Self closing taps are particularly useful in sites visited by a large
number of people. These sites include mosques, shopping centers, hospitals etc In a
test for ablution, self closing taps were found to consume 3.8 liters of water at 20 psi as
compared to 6.3 for ordinary taps, a saving of almost 40 percent (Al-Rumikhani, 2001).
Pressure Reduction. Because flow rate is related to pressure, the maximum water flow
from a fixture operating on a fixed setting can be reduced if the water pressure is
reduced. For example, a reduction in pressure from 100 psi to 50 psi at an outlet can
result in a water flow reduction of about one-third (Brown and Caldwell, 1984).
Homeowners can reduce the water pressure in a home by installing pressure-reducing
valves.
Leak Detection: One way to detect leaks is to use listening equipment to survey the
distribution system, identify leak sounds, and pinpoint the exact locations of hidden
underground leaks. Adopting a water-balance approach can also be used to help detect
leaks in a system. Programs for finding and repairing leaks in water mains and laterals
(conduits) might be cost-effective in spite of their high initial costs. Leak detection
programs have been especially important in cities that have large, old, deteriorating
systems (RMI, 1991).
Pricing: Information and education promoting conservation do not appear to be
effective by themselves in achieving a conservation goal without at the same time
imposing significant price increases to provide a financial incentive to conserve water
(Martin and Kulakowski, 1991). Customers use less water when they have to pay more
for it and use more when they know they can afford it. However, most people consider
water to be a "free good" and are not willing to pay higher prices that reflect the true
costs associated with the water delivered to their homes. Rate structures have the
advantage of avoiding the costs of overt regulation, restrictions, and policing while
retaining a greater degree of individual freedom of choice for water customers. Several
price rate structuring alternatives are available for water system operators.
Index of Water Efficiency: An index of water efficiency, or "W-Index," can be used as
a device to evaluate residential water savings and as a way to motivate water users to
adopt water-saving practices. A W-Index can serve as a measure of the effectiveness of
water efficiency features in a home. The index provides a calculated numerical value for
each dwelling unit, which is derived from the number and kind of water-saving features
present, including indoor and outdoor water savers and water harvesting or recycling
systems. Architects, builders, appraisers, homeowners, water suppliers, or water
management agencies can use the W-Index as a basis for evaluating the water-saving
capability of any particular single- or multi-family dwelling unit (DeCook et al., 1988).
Typically, an overall W-Index rating of W-50 would be considered fair, W-80 good, and
W-110 excellent, based on a specific set of community water conservation goals
(DeCook et al., 1988).

OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of this study is to identify and test water saving devices and techniques and
evaluate their effect and applicability on the urban Omani community, in an attempt to achieve a
reduction of 20-30 % in urban water use by the year 2010. Specific objectives are as follows:

| Water-Saving Technologies

1. Performing an auditing study whereby prevalent water use patterns and causes of
heavy water use are identified.
2. Identifying various water saving techniques (WST) and procurement of samples
3. Installation of WST in selected urban locations and performing full water balance
study.
4. Evaluating the feasibility of WST, which includes availability, adaptability, economics
of installation, and overall effect on water saving.
5. Developing recommendations and procedures for implementing WST in new and
older establishments

METHODOLOGY

Thirteen pilot sites were selected with direct guidance and supervision from the Ministry of
Regional Municipalities, Environment and Water resources (MRMEWR). Factors considered
in this effort included representation, site visibility, recommendations from MRMEWR, as
well as others. Sites selected are the following:
Hospital:
Hotel:
Commercial building:
Restaurants:
Government Building:
Houses:
Health Club:
School:
Mosque:

Al Shatti Hospital
Holiday Inn
City Center
Automatic and Grill House
MRMEWR
Four private villas
Mallatan
Al Sahwa School
Al Araimi mosque

Readings were taken on a daily basis at the same time as of August 2005. Watermeters for
sites with defective meters were replaced. In a parallel effort, a full procurement list of watersaving technologies was prepared and tendered. Installed WSTs are illustrated in Figures 1
and 2.

Figures 1 and 2. Self-Closing taps in Al Araimi Mosque and Toilet Bag in a cistern
Monitoring resumed after installation of WSTs until September 2006. Devices installed in the
various sites are listed in Table 1.
| Water-Saving Technologies

Table 1. WSTs requirements for various sites

No

Description

Aerator

1
2
3
4

House I
House II
House III
House IV

7
6
6
4

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Al Shati'Hospital
City Center
Holiday Inn
Automatic Restaurant
Grill House
Al Araimi Mosque
Mallatan Health Club
MRMEWR Building
Al Sahwa School

15

Toilet
Bags

Low Flow
Showerheads

5
5

4
4
4
3

18
52

17

5
3

126

14
24
202

SelfClosing
taps

Sensor- Variable-load
activated
washing
taps
machines
2
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

70
126

2
4

Total
1

Dual
Flush
Toilet

14

8
14
24
31
157

4
6
281
5
28
163

32
112

33

Self-closing taps for Al Araimi mosque are wall mounted

Seasonality factors were accounted for using water consumption figures from OIFC for each
site in addition to collected data prior to installation of WST. Data from OIFC were analyzed
to calculate weekly water consumption figures for each site on a monthly basis. Obtained
figures are presented in Table 2.
Adjustment factors for water consumption were calculated as deviation from the average
weekly value for water consumption. This procedure was followed in the absence of ample
water consumption data to properly account for seasonality and to account for the variable
nature of water consumption. Adjustment factors are presented in Table 3.
Table 2. OIFC weekly water consumption data (m3)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Average
Standard
Deviation

Villa I
11.97
16.75
24.16
22.17
21.90
20.32
17.61
9.80
11.74
17.03
12.19
11.97
197.62
16.47
4.89

Villa II Villa III Villa IV Al Shatti City Centre Holiday Inn Automatic Grill House Al Araimi Al Sahwa
78.13
16.26
0.91
8.13
7.79
1,010.94
630.68
76.55
20.10
315.00
17.75
0.90
5.50
1,996.75
673.50
91.50
73.25
28.50
544.00
8.63
13.77
0.88
4.97
0.45
1,353.71
692.77
57.35
64.81
21.45
708.58
0.87
9.10
3.03
1,782.20
56.70
24.97
578.43
27.07
821.33
94.03
24.61
0.80
5.87
2.71
1,964.06
784.45
47.42
46.29
26.19
345.03
21.00
9.03
1.75
664.77
40.37
30.33
33.13
166.60
1.11
2,360.87
20.55
0.37
1.69
2,026.84
678.10
43.35
29.35
239.68
10.61
45.61
14.45
0.95
8.40
5.21
2,126.42
660.48
13.77
213.00
35.23
29.35
17.27
0.94
6.10
0.70
2,023.47
628.60
43.87
30.33
10.97
213.55
19.19
0.93
7.23
1.35
1,731.48
725.29
50.35
29.35
6.32
204.09
15.63
0.92
5.65
1,278.90
707.00
67.20
51.80
4.20
270.90
0.23
16.26
0.91
8.13
1.13
1,115.26
62.10
64.35
388.61
597.48
1.13
223.81 10.49
88.72
34.68
20,770.89
8,264.46
709.32
584.06
236.35
4,187.48
18.65
0.87
7.39
2.89
1,730.91
688.70
59.11
48.67
19.70
348.96
4.05

0.17

1.77

2.83

436.73

64.29

19.69

18.71

13.07

173.69

Comparison of water consumption data, to detect any increase or decrease in water

consumption was performed as follows: weekly water consumption data are adjusted for
seasonal variations using factors illustrated in Table 3. Mean water consumption before
installation of WST is compared against mean water consumption after installation of WST
| Water-Saving Technologies

using t-Test comparison of means for data sets with unequal numbers. Significance factor
was taken as 95 %.
Table 3. Adjustment factors for seasonal water consumption
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

Villa I
0.73
1.02
1.47
1.35
1.33
1.23
1.07
0.60
0.71
1.03
0.74
0.73

Villa II
0.87
0.95
0.74
1.45
1.32
1.13
1.10
0.77
0.93
1.03
0.84
0.87

Villa III
1.04
1.03
1.01
0.99
0.92
1.27
1.03
1.09
1.07
1.06
1.06
1.04

Villa IV
1.10
0.74
0.67
1.23
0.79
1.22
1.44
1.14
0.82
0.98
0.76
1.10

Al Shatti
2.70
2.98
0.16
1.05
0.94
0.61
0.59
1.80
0.24
0.47
0.08
0.39

City Centre
0.58
1.15
0.78
1.03
1.13
1.10
0.75
0.60
0.65
1.00
0.74
0.64

Holiday Inn
0.92
0.98
1.01
1.19
1.14
0.97
0.82
0.78
0.91
1.05
1.03
1.10

Automatic
1.30
1.55
1.30
1.59
1.20
0.68
0.73
0.60
0.74
0.85
1.14
1.05

Grill House
1.61
1.50
1.33
1.16
0.95
0.62
0.60
0.60
0.62
0.60
1.06
1.32

Al Araimi
1.20
1.45
1.09
1.27
1.33
0.80
0.85
0.70
0.56
0.32
0.21
0.20

Al Sahwa
0.90
1.56
2.03
1.66
0.99
0.48
0.69
0.61
0.61
0.58
0.78
1.11

The hypothesis tested was as follows:

H0 :
H1 :

before WST after WST

before WST > after WST

H0 means that average water consumption before installation of WST was less or equal to

that after installation of WST, i.e. no significant water savings. The alternative hypothesis is
the exact opposite indicating significant water savings. Results obtained indicated savings for
some sites and no effect for others as indicated in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of savings

Site
Al Araimi Mosque
Automatic Restaurant
Grill House
Al Sahwa School
Holiday Inn Hotel
MRMEWR
Mallatan Health Club
City Center
Al Shatti Hospital
House I
House II
House III
House IV

Saving %
41.1
41.2
43.9
75.9
11.0
48.0
16.4 *
10.2 *
27.9 *
0.04 *
-4.7 *
0.2 *
-2.1 *

*Savings are not significant

Water consumption figures per inhabitant as illustrated above varied mostly depending on
whether or not an outdoor water use existed. Results are as follows:
House I:
House II:
House III:
House IV:

180 260 liters/day

350 470 liters/day
80 100 liters/day
180 250 liters/day

| Water-Saving Technologies

Discussion of the Results and Limitations of the Study

The aforementioned consistent results indicate that overall WSTs are indeed significantly
effective in reducing water consumption. The most powerful devices include self-closing
taps, low-flow showerheads, and sensor-activated taps. Ineffective devices include aerators
and toilet bags. Aerators are ineffective because most modern faucets nowadays are already
equipped with aerators. Hence, installing additional aerators would not add any value in
terms of significant water savings. Toilet bags are ineffective because low-flush toilets are
specially designed whereby a low flush does clean the bowl. This is not the case for toilet
bags installed on conventional bowls which eventually cause the toilet user to flush at least
twice for effective cleaning and this may be one of the reasons for the houses inconsistent
results. Also the fact that the owners of the houses may claim that they are making greater
effort to conserve water although measurement of specific actions such as frequency of
laundry car washing and garden watering that habits are largely unchanged.
In contrast, self-closing taps did reduce water consumption drastically in several public places
and hence are recommended in mosques ablution rooms, restaurants, and schools. They are
also recommended in large shopping centers despite that their benefit was masked by the
presence of other ineffective devices in the City Center. Low-flow showerheads
demonstrated their benefit clearly in hotels and to a lesser extent in the Mallatan health club.
Sensor-activated taps are probably the most effective WSTs as they cut water consumption
significantly in the MRMEWR building. These should be installed wherever users can afford
their elevated costs like Banks, shopping malls and hotels.
It is strongly recommended that WSTs are used for all new public and commercial buildings
in Oman, although the study shows that Omanis are the lowest water consumers amongst
GCC countries. It is believed that the effectiveness of water saving may increase drastically if
self closing taps are used or low flow showerheads. Selection of WST should take into
account the cultural and religious values of the receiving people that was clearly reflected in
the. In discussions with household owners, a consistent pattern of answers were received
regarding the low flush toilets, that they ended up pressing the push button either twice (in
case of toilet bags) or both buttons in terms of the dual flush. Also in the selection of the self
closing taps for Al Araimi mosque, care was taken in the selecting the appropriate device in
terms of the time required for ablution, water flow rate and ease of use, in order not to cause
any frustration to the praying person. Therefore a Wall-mounted device with a slightly higher
flow and adjustable time features was chosen.
With all the positive and promising results reached, it is only fair to mention some drawbacks
of this study. To begin with the selection of the sites; it is in the opinion of the authors that
site selection should have been more confined to fewer similar or more representative
samples with a significant monitoring of many other factors besides water consumption. For
one, such study could have included occupancy as an affecting parameter. Unfortunately, it is
not possible to monitor occupancy of many of the sites. Equally important is to have
| Water-Saving Technologies

duplication amongst selected sites. For instance, having four houses produce the same results
proved beyond doubts that some WSTs are not effective in houses.
Secondly, only one type of WSTs should have been installed per site. Such an approach
would have allowed actual quantification of water savings per WST device. In the current
study this was not possible as the effect of some WSTs masked the effect of others making
any rational quantification of saving per WST device difficult.
The third drawback is the absence of historic water consumption data to allow for the proper
treatment of seasonality effects. Unfortunately, only one year data from OIFC was available
and this data had to be relied upon for calculation of correction factors.

ECONOMICS OF WSTS

As indicated in the previous paragraph, of all the devices tested, mainly three devices were
found to be effective in saving water. These devices are self-closing taps, low-flow
showerheads and sensor-activated taps. In addition, savings were observed in public places
and not in houses.
Although all three devices save water, it is important to compare these savings to installation
costs. An additional assumption was that taps and low-flow showerheads last for 5 years.
This means that savings must cover installation costs, for sites where retrofitting is needed, in
much less than five years to justify installation. The quantification of savings and their cost
comparison with that of installation is presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Water and cost savings in comparison with installation cost
Site
Al Araimi Mosque
Automatic Restaurant
Grill House
2
Al Sahwa School
Holiday Inn Hotel
MRMEWR
Mallatan Health Club
City Center
Al Shati Hospital
1
2

Average Consumption (m3)

Before WST
After WST
1.58
0.93
10.24
6.02
12.73
7.14
58.00
13.93
101.71
90.50
1.73
0.90
2.01
1.68
236.00
212.00
24.04
17.34

Difference Savings Savings

3
3
(m /yr)
(m )
%
0.65
41.1
237
4.22
41.2
1,540
5.59
43.9
2,040
44.07
76.0
11,899
11.21
11.0
4,092
0.83
48.0
303
0.33
16.4
120
24.00
10.2
8,760
6.70
27.9
2,446

Savings
(RO/yr)
157
1,017
1,347
7,853
2,700
200
79
5,782
1,614

Cost of
Recovery of
1
Installation (RO) Investment (yrs)
740
740
940
5,375
4,920
4,440
315
12,860
745

4.73
0.73
0.70
0.68
1.82
22.21
3.96
2.22
0.46

Includes cost of materials

A nine-months academic year was considered - savings are only an indication for this site due to absence of reliable data

The results presented in Table 4 provide five main conclusions as follows:

1. It is most economically beneficial to install WSTs in restaurants, schools and
hospitals.
2. It is economically beneficial to install WSTs in shopping centers, hotels and
health clubs
3. It is somewhat economically beneficial to install WSTs in mosques
4. Sensor activated taps do not justify their cost from a water-saving perspective.
There must be another purpose such as enhancing luxury appearance to justify
them. For this reason they did not justify their cost in government buildings.
However they may easily justifiable in shopping malls, Banks, and well
established national and international companies and offices based in Oman.
| Water-Saving Technologies

5. The cost per unit volume of water is indirectly proportional to the return on
investment. As such, doubling water tariffs would half the period needed to
return the investment in WST. Furthermore, water consumers might be
inclined to save even more water when faced with higher tariffs which confirms
assumptions that tariffs are the most effective water-saving tool.
An important parameter would have been water consumption per device. Such a parameter
would indicate the potential for saving for that particular device as the larger volume of water
dispensed, the larger are the resultant savings. For example, in restaurants, the devices
installed dispense more water and consequently save more water when compared to the
mosque. For this reason they recovered their cost in a shorter period of time. However in
this study, the determination of this parameter was not possible as more than one device were
installed per site and the negative effect of some devices masked the positive effect of others.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the study converge into the following recommendations:
For houses, effective measures include behavioral changes and water pricing.
Low-flow showerheads must be added as well.
For restaurants, self-closing taps must be used.
For shopping centers, self-closing taps must be used.
For hospitals, low-flow showerheads must be used.
For health clubs low-flow showerheads and/or self-closing taps must be used.
For mosques, wall-mounted self-closing taps must be used.
For schools, self-closing taps must be used
For Government buildings, self-closing taps must be used
For hotels, low-flow showerheads must be used
It seems that achieving a 20-30 % saving in water consumption using WSTs was an overambitious objective. The most important conclusion of this study is that WSTs alone are
certainly not effective in houses. A behavioral change coupled with a suitable pricing
structure is more effective in cutting water consumption. However, in Oman, water
consumption per capita is already conservative. For this reason, there isnt much room for
savings in water consumption in houses. However, commercial and public sites will save
water and cost if appropriate WSTs are used. As commercial water use is less than domestic
water use, such savings will probably be in the range of 10 15 % of overall water use
(including domestic).

| Water-Saving Technologies

REFERENCE
1. AWWA. n.d. Before the well runs dry. Vol. I. A Handbook for designing a local water
conservation plan. American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
2. Billings, R. B., and W. M. Day. 1989. Demand management factors in residential water
use: The southern Arizona experience. Journal of the American Water Works
Association 81(3):58-64.
3. Brown and Caldwell. 1984. Residential water conservation projects. Summary report
produced for U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy
Development and Research, Washington, DC.
4. Brown and Caldwell. 1990. Case studies of industrial water conservation in the San
Jose area. Report prepared for the City of San Jose, CA, and California Department of
Water Resources, Sacramento, CA.
5. California Department of Water Resources. 1992. Water audit and leak detection
guidebook. State of California Department of Water Resources Water Conservation
Office and American Water Works Association, California-Nevada Section.
6. City of Austin. n.d. Utility bill credits for ultra low flush tOilets. Environmental and
Conservation Services Department and Water and Wastewater Utility, Austin, TX.
7. Collinge, R. A. 1992. Revenue neutral water conservation: Marginal cost pricing with
discount coupons. Water Resources Research 28(3):617-622.
8. Cuthbert, W. R. 1989. Effectiveness of conservation-oriented water rates in Tuscon.
Journal of the American Water Works Association 81(3):65-73.
9. DeCook, K. J., K. E. Foster, and M. M. Karpiscak. 1988. The W-index for residential
water conservation. Water Resources Bulletin 24(6): 1295-1301.
10. Florida commission makes water conservation recommendations. 1990. Water Works
Journal 44(6):7.
11. Frederiksen, H. D. 1992. Drought planning and water efficiency implications in water
resources management. World Bank technical paper no. 185. The World Bank,
Washington, DC.
12. Grisham, A., and W. M. Fleming. 1989. Long-term options for municipal water
conservation. Journal of the American Water Works Association 81(3):33.
13. Jensen, R. 1991. Indoor water conservation. Texas Water Resources 17(4).
14. JMM Consulting. 1991. Water conservation analyses, evaluation, and long-range
planning study. Draft final report to City of San Jose, California. James M.
Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Walnut Creek, CA.
15. Karpiscak, M. M., R. G. Brittain, C. P. Gerba, and K. E. Foster. 1991. Demonstrating
residential water conservation and reuse in the Sonoran Desert: Casa Del Agua and
Desert House. Water Science and Technology 24(9):323-330.
16. Kirchhoff, M., and P. Nicholas. 1993. Planning for the future. South Florida Water
Management District 1992 annual report. South Florida Water Management District,
West Palm Beach, FL.
17. Kromm, D. E., and S. E. White. 1990. Adoption of water-saving practices by irrigators
in the High Plains. Water Resources Bulletin 26(6):999-1012.
18. Linaweaver, F. P., Jr., J. C. Geyer, and J. B. Wolfe. 1967. A study of residential water
use. Johns Hopkins University. Prepared for the Federal Housing Administration and
the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
19. Martin, W. E., and S. Kulakowski. 1991. Water price as a policy variable in managing
urban water uses: Tuscon, Arizona. Water Resources Research 27(2):157-166.
| Water-Saving Technologies

10

20. Nieswiadomy, M. L. 1992. Estimating urban residential water demand: Effects of price
structure, conservation, and education. Water Resources Research 28(3):609-615.
21. Pearson, F. H. 1993. Study documents water savings with ultra-low-flush toilets. Small
Flows 7(2):8-9,11.
22. RMI. 1991. Water efficiency: A resource for utility managers, community planners,
and other decision makers. The Water Program, Rocky Mountain Institute, Snowmass,
CO.
23. Schlette, T. C., and D. C. Kemp. 1991. Setting rates to encourage water conservation.
Water Engineering and Management 138(5):25-29.
24. Shepard, A. C. 1993, September 2. The new toilets Water-saving models are now the
law, but can they get the job done? The Washington Post, Washington Home Section,
p. 14.
25. USEPA. l991b. Fact Sheet: 21 water conservation measures for everybody. EPA
570/9-91-100. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,
DC.
26. Vickers, A. 1989. New Massachusetts toilet standard sets water conservation
precedent. Journal of the American Water Works Association 81(3):48-51.
27. Welsh, D. F., W. C. Welch, and R. L. Duble. 1993. Landscape water conservation . . .
xeriscape. Water Management Monthly.
28. Whitcomb, J. B. 1991. Water reductions from residential audits. Water Resources
Bulletin 27(5):761-767.
29. Wichelns, D., and D. Cone. 1992. Tiered pricing motivates Californians to conserve
water. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation March-April 1992:139-144.
30. Xeriscape tours now available at two district offices. 1993. Water Management
Monthly 2(4).
31. York, D.W., and J. Crook. 1990. Florida's reuse program paves the way. In Municipal
wastewater reuse, ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, pp. 6774. Washington, DC. EPA 430/09-91-022.

| Water-Saving Technologies

11