HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Conservation and Efficiency Plan 2023
mu
City of Bozeman
February 15, 2023 Prepared by:
Water Conservation and
Efficiency Pla n
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................................................................4
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS........................................................................................................................................6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................................................7
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................7
Program Overview ...............................................................................................................................................................7
Program Implementation......................................................................................................................................................8
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................10
1.1 Overview of City of Bozeman Water System and Demand Management .................................................................10
1.2 Project Background ...................................................................................................................................................12
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Plan.......................................................................................................................................12
1.4 Plan Development .....................................................................................................................................................13
2 ANALYSIS OF WATER DEMAND .....................................................................................................................................15
2.1 Information Review and Data Collection Methods.....................................................................................................15
2.2 Production vs. Consumption......................................................................................................................................16
2.3 Consumption by User Category ................................................................................................................................16
2.4 Historical and Current Conservation Programs .........................................................................................................18
3 CONSERVATION MEASURE EVALUATION ....................................................................................................................21
3.1 Screening of Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................................21
3.2 Conservation Measures Evaluated............................................................................................................................24
3.3 Conservation Measures Analysis ..............................................................................................................................28
4 CONSERVATION PROGRAM EVALUATION ...................................................................................................................31
4.1 Measure Selection for Conservation Program Alternatives .......................................................................................31
4.2 Conservation Program Analysis ................................................................................................................................32
4.3 Recommended Program ...........................................................................................................................................36
5 WATER CONSERVATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE ........................................................................37
5.1 Monitoring Progress ..................................................................................................................................................37
5.2 Track and Update for New Codes and Emerging Technologies................................................................................37
5.3 Proposed Implementation Schedule..........................................................................................................................38
5.4 Five-Year Implementation Recommendations...........................................................................................................40
5.5 Staffing Needs...........................................................................................................................................................40
6 NEXT STEPS AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................42
6.1 Next Steps.................................................................................................................................................................42
6.2 Conclusions...............................................................................................................................................................43
7 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................................44
APPENDIX A – HISTORICAL MONTHLY WATER USE PER ACCOUNT TYPE....................................................................45
APPENDIX B – DSS MODEL OVERVIEW..............................................................................................................................49
APPENDIX C – PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS WITH AND WITHOUT PLUMBING CODE SAVINGS ............................52
C.1 Projected Baseline Demand......................................................................................................................................52
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 2
C.2 Estimated Plumbing Code Savings ...........................................................................................................................52
C.3 National Plumbing Code............................................................................................................................................54
C.4 Key Baseline Potable Demand Inputs, Passive Savings Assumptions, and Resources ...........................................55
APPENDIX D – DSS MODEL MEASURE ANALYSIS, METHODOLOGY, PERSPECTIVES, AND ASSUMPTIONS ............60
D.1 Water Reduction Methodology ..................................................................................................................................60
D.2 Present Value Analysis and Perspectives on Benefits and Costs .............................................................................60
D.3 Measure Cost and Water Savings Assumptions .......................................................................................................61
APPENDIX E – INDIVIDUAL CONSERVATION MEASURE DESIGN INPUTS AND RESULTS ............................................63
Water Loss.........................................................................................................................................................................63
Tiered Rate Structure for MF .............................................................................................................................................64
AMI and Customer Water Use Portal.................................................................................................................................65
Capital Project – Retrofit City Medians with Drought Tolerant Landscaping and Efficient Irrigation ..................................66
Capital Project – Upgrade City Facility Irrigation Systems .................................................................................................67
Dedicated Irrigation Meters & Irrigation Account Rate Structure........................................................................................68
Impact Fee Credit...............................................................................................................................................................69
Financial Incentives for Irrigation and Landscape Upgrades .............................................................................................70
Landscape Conversion or Turf Removal Rebate ...............................................................................................................71
Capital Project – HE Fixture Installation in Gov't Bldg. ......................................................................................................72
School Building Retrofit......................................................................................................................................................73
CII High Efficiency Washer Rebate....................................................................................................................................74
Water Budget-Based Billing and Water Budgeting.............................................................................................................75
Efficient Fixture Giveaway..................................................................................................................................................76
Residential Efficiency Fixture Incentive Program...............................................................................................................77
Residential Water Use Surveys .........................................................................................................................................78
Low Income Direct Installation Rebates and Leak Repair Assistance ...............................................................................79
Public Education ................................................................................................................................................................80
Contractor Efficient Outdoor Use Education and Training Programs.................................................................................81
Xeriscape Demonstration Gardens ....................................................................................................................................82
Require HE Toilets, Showerheads, Faucets, Urinals in New Development .......................................................................83
Fixture Retrofit on Resale or Name Change on Water Account.........................................................................................84
Require Irrigation Designers/Installers Be Certified ...........................................................................................................85
Mandatory Water Efficiency Offsets...................................................................................................................................86
Landscape Ordinance – Tier 3...........................................................................................................................................87
APPENDIX F – CONSERVATION ANALYSIS RESULTS.......................................................................................................88
APPENDIX G – EXAMPLES OF LOCAL OUTREACH INITIATIVES ......................................................................................94
Social Media Examples......................................................................................................................................................94
Online Examples................................................................................................................................................................95
Print Ad Examples..............................................................................................................................................................98
APPENDIX H – COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER CONSERVATION MEASURE SURVEYS SUMMARY AND RESULTS......99
Water Conservation and Efficiency Plan Community Engagement Summary ...................................................................99
City of Bozeman Water Conservation Plan Survey Results.............................................................................................102
APPENDIX I – WATER ADEQUACY CODE .........................................................................................................................128
APPENDIX J – NET BLUE WATER OFFSET PILOT STUDY...............................................................................................130
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1. City of Bozeman Historical and Projected Demand ............................................................................ 9
Figure 2-1. Consumption by Customer Category in Start Year ............................................................................. 17
Figure 3-1. City of Bozeman Measure Screening Criteria ..................................................................................... 22
Figure 3-2. Conservation Program Cost of Savings per Unit Volume.................................................................... 30
Figure 4-1. Selected Conservation Program Measures.........................................................................................32
Figure 4-2. Conservation Program Per Capita Water Savings............................................................................... 33
Figure 4-3. Estimated Conservation Program Utility Costs and Staffing............................................................... 33
Figure 4-4. City of Bozeman Historical and Projected Demand ............................................................................ 35
Figure 4-5. Selected Program Details....................................................................................................................36
Figure 5-1. Conservation Measures Implementation Schedule (2020–2040) ...................................................... 39
Figure 5-2. Estimated Conservation Program Utility Costs and Staffing for the Recommend Program .............. 41
Figure B-1. DSS Model Main Page......................................................................................................................... 49
Figure B-2. Sample Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary ............................................................................................. 50
Figure B-3. DSS Model Analysis Locations in the U.S. ........................................................................................... 50
Figure B-4. DSS Model Analysis Flow .................................................................................................................... 51
Figure C-1. DSS Model Overview Used to Make Potable Water Demand Projections ......................................... 53
Figure C-2. City of Bozeman Potable Water System Demands ............................................................................. 54
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Data Inventory for City of Bozeman.....................................................................................................15
Table 2-2. City of Bozeman's Active Water Conservation Measures ....................................................................18
Table 3-1. Community Stakeholder Surveys and Number of Responses..............................................................21
Table 3-2. Capital Projects Implementation Schedule and Water Savings ........................................................... 23
Table 3-3. City Operations Water Use Optimization Measures Implementation Schedule and Water Savings .. 23
Table 4-1. Conservation Program Benefit-Cost Ratios.......................................................................................... 32
Table 4-2. City of Bozeman Potable Water System Demands for Years 2025–2040 in AFY ................................. 34
Table 4-3. City of Bozeman Potable Water System Demands for Years 2025–2040 in GPCD ..............................34
Table C-1. City of Bozeman Potable Water System Demands for Years 2025–2040 in AFY .................................53
Table C-2. City of Bozeman Potable Water System Demands for Years 2025–2040 in GPCD..............................54
Table C-3. List of Key Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 56
Table C-4. Key Assumptions Resources................................................................................................................. 57
Table F-1. Estimated Conservation Measure Costs and Savings........................................................................... 89
Table F-2. Conservation Program Estimated Costs and Water Savings ................................................................ 93
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 4
Table H-1. Community Stakeholder Conservation Measure Surveys Overview ................................................. 101
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 5
CII
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
F degrees Fahrenheit
acct account
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure
AWE Alliance for Water Efficiency
AWWA American Water Works Association
AWWARF American Water Works Association
Research Foundation
CAGR compound annual population
growth rate
Commercial, Industrial, and
Institutional
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
COM Commercial
DSS Model Least Cost Planning Decision Support
System Model
DU Distribution Uniformity
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ET Evapotranspiration
FTE full-time equivalent
GIS Geographic Information System
GPCD gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
GPDA gallons per day per account
gpf gallons per flush
gpm gallons per minute
HE high efficiency
HET high efficiency toilet
IA Irrigation Association
IAPMO International Association of
Plumbing and Mechanical Officials
ILI Infrastructure Leakage Index
INS Institutional
IWRP Integrated Water Resources Plan
LI Landscape Irrigation
MF Multi-Family
MSMT multi-stream, multi-trajectory
MSU Montana State University
MWM Maddaus Water Management
N/A not applicable
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
NRW non-revenue water
Plan Water Conservation Plan
psi pounds per square inch
R Residential
REUWS Residential End Uses of Water Study
SF Single Family
UARL Unavoidable annual real losses
WUE Water Use Efficiency
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Executive Summary is to briefly describe the City of Bozeman’s (City’s) Water Conservation
and Efficiency Plan (Plan). The evaluation process and assumptions used to develop this Plan, as well as
recommendations for future implementation, are included in this section.
Introduction
This Plan will enable the City to project long-range demands, identify attainable conservation goals, develop
strategies, and raise awareness through the identification and prioritization of conservation measures. The
Plan sets measurable targets regarding existing and future conservation initiatives through a cost-effective
suite of water conservation measures1 that will help meet future water needs. The Plan also includes
implementation and monitoring strategies to aid the City in establishing and administering effective
conservation initiatives to achieve program goals.
By combining new initiatives with existing programs as part of a comprehensive strategy for sustainable
management of water supplies, the City’s conservation activities proposed within this Plan are expected to
save an estimated 4,435 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water.
Program Overview
Beginning in 2020, Maddaus Water Management Inc. (MWM) conducted a conservation technical analysis for
the City. The purpose of the analysis, as well as the foundation of the development of this Plan, was four-fold:
The planning process included analyzing conservation measures and programs using the Least Cost Planning
Decision Support System Model (DSS Model), developed by MWM. A screening of more than 140 measures,
directed at existing customers and new development, was conducted following the methodology presented in
the American Water Works Association Manual of Practice, M52 Water Conservation Programs – A Planning
Manual (AWWA, 2017).
1 Though “demand management measure” is not a term used in this report, it is relevant to note that it is essentially the
same as the term “water conservation measure.” So, in this report, “demand management” and “water conservation” are
used interchangeably.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 7
Program Implementation
The City’s Current Conservation Program scenario (referred to herein as Program A) consists of 11 measures,
including measures that focus on indoor and outdoor efficiency for both Residential (RES) and Commercial,
Industrial, and Institutional (CII) customers.
The City’s Recommended Program (referred to herein as Program B) has 18 measures and expands on the
Current Conservation Program’s foundation by including 7 additional measures soon to be implemented; they
are generally cost-effective and save significant amounts of water. The additional measures in Program B
include the following:
•Capital Project – Retrofit City Medians with Drought Tolerant Landscaping and Efficient Irrigation
•Impact Fee Credit
•CII High Efficiency Washer Rebate
•Low Income Direct Installation Rebates and Leak Repair Assistance
•Require Irrigation Designers/Installers Be Certified
•Mandatory Water Efficiency Offsets
•Landscape Ordinance – Tier 3
The benefits of the City’s Recommended Program measures include:
•Alignment with the City Utility Department’s goal of providing residents with the sustainable
foundation to thrive by delivering quality services and public infrastructure through efficient and
fiscally responsible practices.
•Alignment with the guiding principle to improve local water supply reliability.
•A long-term plan that models a cost-effective means to manage water supplies.
•Alignment with AWWA’s G480 standard which includes the following voluntary requirements:
o Dedicated staff for conservation initiative (point of contact)
o Conservation and efficiency planning
o Integrated resources planning
o Water shortage or drought plan
o Public information and education
o Water waste ordinance
o Universal metering and source water metering practices
o Non-promotional water rate
o Monthly billing based on metered use
o Clear definition of water use units in gallons or liters
o Landscape efficiency program
o Water loss control program
•Actions that support objectives outlined in the Bozeman Strategic Plan, 2013 Integrated Water
Resources Plan, 2020 Climate Plan, and 2020 Bozeman Community Plan.
Program C, which includes all 25 measures modeled, adds several more measures making it the most
expensive suite of measures as well as the one that will achieve the most water savings.
In addition to active conservation, this analysis investigates plumbing code savings, also known as passive
savings. When developing the baseline water demand, the DSS Model accounts for savings due to plumbing
codes. Modeling plumbing codes represents the change of fixtures to be efficient over time. Modeling and
quantifying these savings helps to analyze the future GPCD. Plumbing code elements include current local and
federal standards for retrofits of items such as toilets, showerheads, faucets, and pre-rinse spray valves. At this
time, the plumbing code is conservative and only includes the currently adopted legislation. Based on recent
history in the U.S. and Montana, as well as a continual movement toward more efficient devices, it is likely that
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 8
more codes and efficient practices will be adopted in the future. If more standards are approved, they could
yield additional water savings.
The following figure presents historical and projected demand for the City with and without plumbing code
savings in AFY.
Figure ES-1. City of Bozeman Historical and Projected Demand
All line types shown in the legend are presented in the graph. However, Program B and Program C demand scenarios
are close in value and therefore may be somewhat indistinguishable in the figure.
Recommendations for future water conservation measure implementation begin with actively tracking
measure participation, projected water savings (including per capita water use reductions), program costs, and
benefits. Each year the City should develop a work plan to ensure the City is on track to meet its conservation
goals. This work plan should prioritize measures that contribute the most to meeting the per capita water use
targets and include a review of the staffing required to adequately support program needs. If necessary,
consider outsourcing to gain enough program support. Lastly, pursue funding opportunities such as state and
federal grants as appropriate, retain strategic partnerships, and encourage stakeholder participation as the
program evolves.
Future implementation options include pursuing a statistically valid water conservation awareness study to
inform program development and ensure the implementation schedule included in the Plan aligns with
customer understanding and awareness of local water conservation efforts. Also consider using AMI
consumption data to monitor water usage and identify instances of non-compliance with regulatory measures.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 9
1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides an overview of the City of Bozeman’s (City) water system, the purpose and scope of the
Water Conservation and Efficiency Plan (Plan), and a project background of the steps used to complete the
Plan.
1.1 Overview of City of Bozeman Water System and Demand Management
The City of Bozeman, located in Gallatin County, Montana, provides water service to approximately 14,500
metered connections, in which 73% represent single family homes and 18% represent multi-family residences.
Total annual metered production during the 2020 calendar year was approximately 6,822 acre-feet (AF).
Irrigation demands increase substantially during summer months (May through September), in which 50% of
total residential water use goes into lawns and landscapes. The average annual water demand from 2016–
2020 was 120 GPCD (based on metered production).
The City relies on snowpack and surface water for its water supply, receiving 80% of its water from the Gallatin
Mountains and 20% from developed springs in the Bridger Mountains. Furthermore, the City is in a closed
basin as it pertains to new water rights, making it exceptionally challenging to develop additional water
supplies to meet growing demands.
The City’s Water Conservation Division, under the Utilities Department, was developed after the adoption of
the 2013 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP), which recommends alternatives for generating additional
water supplies to meet projected future demands through new supply development and demand management
initiatives. Ultimately, the IWRP recommends that water conservation measures reduce the City’s projected
50-year water supply gap by 50%.
To date, the Water Conservation Division has implemented various incentive and education-based program
measures, with a primary focus on voluntary water conservation measures, specifically. This includes rebates
for indoor and outdoor water efficient fixtures, free devices and other incentives, technical assistance, and
informational resources.
In 2017, the City adopted its first Drought Management Plan, which outlines four stages of drought
declarations and temporary response measures to reduce demand during the declared drought, providing the
City with a tool to ensure water availability for essential uses when water supplies are stressed. The Drought
Management Plan was updated in 2022 to reflect changes to the City’s drought reserve and surcharge rates,
drought declaration process, and drought monitoring procedure.
Permanent outdoor watering restrictions, which limit outdoor watering of lawns and landscapes to three days
per week only during the most efficient times of day, became effective on June 16, 2022. The implementation
of these restrictions marks the City’s first notable regulatory change in effect year-after-year to ensure water
use efficiency in the community.
Climate
The climate in the City is typically characterized by short, warm, mostly clear summers and freezing, snowy,
partly cloudy winters. Annual precipitation averages about 16 inches,2 while annual ETo in the region is 39
inches.3 Throughout the year, the temperature typically varies from 13 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to 83°F and is
rarely below -7°F or above 93°F.4
2 https://www.usbr.gov/gp/agrimet/station_bozm_bozeman.html
3 https://www.usbr.gov/gp/agrimet/station_bozm_bozeman.html
4 https://www.bestplaces.net/climate/city/montana/Bozeman
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 10
With a historical average of 16 inches of precipitation annually, the City is considered drought prone. The
greater Bozeman area has experienced numerous drought events in the past, and future projections indicate
more climate variability, including earlier peak runoffs; more precipitation in the form of rain than snow; and
hotter, drier summers – likely stressing the City’s water supply.
In 2017, extreme drought caused extensive impacts to agriculture in Montana and neighboring states.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for
Environmental Information (NCEI), “Field crops including wheat were severely damaged and the lack of feed
for cattle forced ranchers to sell off livestock” and “Montana in particular was affected by wildfires that
burned in excess of 1 million acres.”5
In 2021, extremely hot and dry weather patterns emerged in Southwest Montana and persisted throughout
the summer, impacting the City’s local water supplies. Local streamflow levels reached historical lows, and the
volume of water available for use in Hyalite Reservoir dropped due to low inflows and likely increased usage by
shareholders.6 As a result, the City declared a stage 2 drought. Outdoor watering of lawns and landscapes was
limited to two days per week, and only during the most efficient times of day. As a result of drought-related
water conservation efforts, system wide water demand was reduced by 23%.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Climate Change Viewer, temperatures in Gallatin County are
expected to increase between 2.89F and 3.46F from 2025 to 2049.7 The City’s 2019 Climate Vulnerability
Assessment identified average annual temperature increases between 4.5F and 6F from 2040 to 2069. The
Assessment goes on to state, “in the modeled scenarios, the timing of precipitation (e.g., winter versus spring
and summer) and the form in which it will occur (e.g., rain versus snow) is anticipated to shift. This
combination of increasingly warmer days with variable precipitation results in interrelated, indirect local
climate impacts. For example, decreased snowpack may lead to more severe droughts in the summer and a
susceptibility to wildfire risk in the watershed… The heightened susceptibility to wildfire could reduce the
amount and quality of water available along with damaging ecosystems and infrastructure, limiting city-wide
services available to address the impacts… As snowpack is particularly sensitive to warming trends, a decline in
snowpack volume with shifts toward earlier snowmelt will impact management and allocation of local water
resources, especially considering Bozeman’s limited water storage.”
The City’s 2020 Climate Action Plan sets mitigation goals including a 26% reduction in emissions by 2025 (in
comparison to 2008), 100% clean electricity by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050.
5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).
(2022). U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, DOI: 10.25921/stkw-7w73. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
6 City of Bozeman. (2021). Drought Monitoring Tool.
7 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (n.d.). National Climate Change Viewer. https://www.usgs.gov/tools/national-climate-
change-viewer-nccv
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 11
Demographics
The City has been experiencing high growth for the past seven years, at a rate of approximately 4% annually.
From 1990 to 2016, the number of single-family homes in Gallatin County grew by 150%, with the majority
being in the Bozeman area. Most housing is single family homes (55%), followed by multi-unit (43%), and some
mobile homes. Likely reflective of the local university, Montana State University (MSU), the median age in the
City is 27.8, and 58.7% of the population has a bachelor’s degree or higher. The median household income is
$55,569. However, nearly 18% of the population lives below the poverty line.8
1.2 Project Background
For nearly a decade, the City has experienced high growth and anticipates that this growth will continue well
into the future. Since the City relies on snowpack and surface water to meet water demands, it faces imminent
challenges in addition to the continued population growth, such as being drought prone, increasing climate
variability, and issues surrounding the allocation of additional water rights. The City is aware of the
importance of developing new water conservation goals and strengthening current ones to create a new
water supply in the hopes of addressing these challenges.
As such, the City initiated this project with the goal being to develop a Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan
over a minimum 10-year planning period. The Plan will guide the City’s water conservation program
development to achieve the demand reduction target outlined in the 2013 IWRP and other program
objectives. The Plan provides an assessment of existing program measures, identifies cost-effective program
measures for future consideration, sets measurable targets for existing and future conservation initiatives, and
provides an implementation and monitoring plan to establish and administer cost-effective conservation
initiatives to achieve program goals.
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Plan
The intention of this Plan is to systematically evaluate and quantify a long-term water conservation strategy
for the City’s service area extending through the year 2040. Through the identification and prioritization of
conservation measures, the Plan enables the City to project long-range demands, identify attainable
conservation goals, develop strategies, and raise awareness. By combining new initiatives with existing
program measures, this comprehensive strategy and slate of conservation activities will contribute to a more
sustainable management of water supplies for the Bozeman community.
This Plan incorporates the Water Conservation Division’s goals and objectives to protect and enhance water
resources through conservation to meet the IWRP’s 50-year demand reduction target through:
•Establishing and strengthening the community’s water conservation ethic by
o Utilizing a variety of methods to raise awareness as to the value of water, ways to conserve,
and to encourage participation in initiatives, and
o Providing equitable distribution of resources and incentives for all customer classes.
•Ensuring adequate water supplies are available to meet current and future demands, in times of
drought, for emergency response and long-term drought mitigation by
o Implementing data driven decision making, and
o Developing and implementing mechanisms to track current demand patterns, forecast future
demands, and evaluate and modify program elements as needed.
8 U.S. Census Bureau (2020). American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from Census Reporter profile page
for Bozeman, MT. http://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US3008950-bozeman-mt/
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 12
In addition, the Plan is intended to serve as a guide for the City regarding future water use efficiency and
conservation investments and activities. It includes a functional implementation plan to establish and
administer cost-effective conservation measures.
Based on a preliminary analysis of the 25 individual measures, three programs (Programs A, B, and C) were
designed by the City. Each of the three programs were evaluated to determine the net effect of running
multiple program measures together over the 21-year analysis period (2020–2040).
1.4 Plan Development
The Plan development included review of past documentation and data analyses. The City provided the
following data as requested by MWM:
• Prior year(s) monthly water use data for the different classes of water users
• Complete descriptions of past, present, and proposed future conservation programs including
historical annual participation rates and costs to the utility
• Estimated staff costs for measures and measure budgets
• Results of any independent analyses of water savings resulting from prior and current City programs
• Historical and projected water system service area population, employment, and growth projections
through the year 2040 (or other suitable end year) along with maps of the water system, and study
area(s)
• Customer characteristics and data needed to characterize water conservation measures such as the
number of facilities or businesses of a particular type
• Projected baseline water demand without additional water conservation
The City worked closely with MWM to compile extensive historical data on the region, utility, conservation
measures, production, consumption, weather, and various census data points. Together, these formed the
foundation for MWM’s DSS Model, which prepares long-range water demand and conservation water savings
projections.9 More detailed information about the DSS Model can be found in the appendices of this Plan,
including a description of the assumptions, analysis, and methodology used.
Based on the analysis of current water use patterns, and considering characteristics of the service area, a list of
more than 140 potential conservation measures was compiled and evaluated. The evaluation included
9 The DSS Model is an “end-use” model that breaks down total water production (water demand in the service area) to
specific water end uses, such as plumbing fixtures and appliance uses. It uses a bottom-up approach that allows for multiple
criteria to be considered when estimating future demands, such as the effects of natural fixture replacement, plumbing
codes, and conservation efforts. It also may use a top-down approach with a utility prepared water demand forecast.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 13
measures directed at existing accounts as well as new development measures to make new residential and
business customers more water efficient.
During the program measure evaluation process, the City utilized its “Engage Bozeman” framework to solicit
input from the public to arrive at a list of 25 program measures to be selected for a detailed economic analysis
and incorporation into the Plan. Detailed information about the public engagement process can be found in
Appendix H of this Plan. Assumptions and results for each of the 25 individual measures and three programs
(Programs A, B, and C) are described in detail in this Plan.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 14
2 ANALYSIS OF WATER DEMAND
This section describes the data collection and review process; production and consumption, including weather
normalization; and the City’s historical and current conservation programs.
2.1 Information Review and Data Collection Methods
A thorough collection and review of information relevant to this effort was conducted by MWM and entered
into the City’s Excel-based Data Collection Workbook. To help streamline the process, MWM initially entered
data into the workbook from readily available sources prior to sending the file to City staff for updating and
review. This included an inventory of data such as historic water use, climate trends, and demographics (Table
2-1). MWM also reviewed demand projection analyses, any available and relevant information from the City’s
Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping data queries, and other service area characterization data
previously developed for the City.
Table 2-1. Data Inventory for City of Bozeman
Data Type Data Source(s)
Water Purchase and
Consumption Data
• Data collection workbooks with monthly consumption data
• Customer classifications and number of connections
• 2013 Integrated Water Resources Plan
• 2017 Water Facility Plan Update
• Daily plant production
• Monthly metered consumption by customer class
Non Revenue Water • 2017 Water Facility Plan Update
Historical and Projected
Demographics
• 2020 Community Plan
• Recent population and employment projections
• Historical population
Climate and Weather Data
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data
• Bureau of Reclamation Agrimet (Bozeman) data
• 2019 Climate Vulnerability Assessment & Resiliency Strategy
• 2020 Climate Plan
• 2017 Drought Management Plan
• History of droughts/wet years/abnormal years
Land Use and Irrigation Data • Parcel size
• Ground cover type raster
Housing and Economic Data
• Census 2010 and 2020
• Economy information available from the Montana Department of
Labor and Industry, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census Bureau
• Taxable property assessment data
Cost Data • Avoided Operations & Maintenance and Capital Costs
• Water Loss Control Program Costs
Conservation Activity • City of Bozeman conservation records (costs and water saved)
Existing Demand Models
and Future Projections
• Existing strategic and master planning documents
• Reports describing current demand projection methodology
Integrated Water Resources Plan • 2013 Integrated Water Resources Plan
-
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 15
Additionally, using the provided consumption and account values from the City, MWM and City staff confirmed
the number and types of customers within the service area. Several follow-up actions of data review were
conducted between City staff and MWM to compile all relevant and valuable information and to identify the
unique customer categories to be tracked.
Data from each customer category was analyzed separately. Monthly production data from 1999–2020 was
reviewed. Based on the City’s water billing system, residential water use was broken down into single family,
multi-family, and low-income categories. Historical data was segregated into indoor and outdoor water use by
customer type using the monthly billing data. Non-residential categories of use were analyzed separately.
Average daily water use was expressed on a gallons-per-day-per-account basis.
2.2 Production vs. Consumption
MWM analyzed historical consumption versus production data provided by City staff to calculate a non-
revenue water (NRW) percentage to use for modeling. The average 2015–2019 data was used to calculate a
NRW of 12.6%. Some amount of NRW, specifically the unavoidable annual real losses (UARL), is inherent in any
water distribution system. A water distribution system audit and data validation identifies the volume of NRW.
The City completed a water distribution system audit, level 1 validation, and real loss component analysis in
2022. This project provides the City with additional, detailed information about NRW real losses and provides a
suite of recommendations to reduce real losses.
2.3 Consumption by User Category
The City has a variety of customer categories utilized in its billing system. This Plan has organized users into
Single Family Residential, Multi-Family, Commercial, Commercial Special, Industrial, Government, Government
Special, Montana State University, Low Income and New Single Family Residential. All new single-family
accounts grow in the New Single Family Residential customer category, whereas the Single Family Residential
assumes no growth. Approximately 40% of total annual water use occurs in single family homes followed in
magnitude by multi-family connections (24% total annual use) and commercial connections (21% total annual
use).
Figure 2-1 illustrates the water usage breakdowns within the City based on water use data provided in the data
workbook. An average of years 2012–2017, with the exception of industrial (which used years 2018–2019 due
to available data), was used to calculate the average breakdown of customer water use.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 16
Figure 2-1. Consumption by Customer Category in Start Year
Weather Normalization
There is a strong correlation between outdoor water use and weather patterns. Hot, dry weather generally
leads to higher outdoor water use, whereas cool, wet weather leads to lower outdoor water use. As such, it is
difficult to accurately compare outdoor water use savings from one year to the next, as well as project future
savings, without accounting for annual fluctuations in weather. A weather normalization analysis may be
performed to represent annual outdoor water use savings more accurately by effectively removing the year-
to-year variability in weather patterns, allowing for an ‘apples to apples’ comparison of outdoor water
demands from one year to the next. MWM used information provided in the data collection process to
conduct a weather normalization analysis for the City. MWM reviewed local climate data and explored various
weather normalization methodologies. The City and MWM decided to use an industry standard approach of 3-
5 years of temperature, precipitation, ET, and water demand data to perform the analysis. This selected
approach was a straightforward option that used local climate data to average monthly water use based on
customer class over the 5-year period to reduce the impacts of weather for any single year. An Excel-based
review of historical dry, wet, and normal years was conducted and confirmed by the City. The following
patterns were revealed:
• 2000–2006: Drought. The Bozeman area experienced moderate to extreme drought during several
months between 2000 and 2006.
• 2018–2019: Cooler and wetter than normal. A review of customer consumption indicated there was a
notable decrease in outdoor water use.
• 2012–2017: Normal weather. This period for weather data is representative of more normal years,
which allows for a baseline average gallons per day per account (GPDA).
These observations are incorporated into the conservation savings analysis to the extent that years 2017 and
2018 were selected as the basis for the indoor/outdoor water use profile representing both one dry and one
wet year. After reviewing historic evapotranspiration rates MWM selected the period from 2012-2017 to be
used in the DSS Model to represent ‘weather normal’ data, as these years represented typical weather
patterns for Bozeman. Water demand data for each customer class was also selected during this time frame to
be used in the weather normalization analysis. An average of monthly account consumption based on
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 17
customer class for years 2012–2017 was used to determine the total water use per account per day for each
customer class. In this way, the outdoor demand projection with and without conservation savings is weather
normalized, as it is based on historical average values that consider year-to-year fluctuations in weather. The
goal of this task was to accurately reflect past outdoor water use trends by taking into consideration variations
in year-to-year weather in order to track and project future water use trends and savings from outdoor
conservation measures. Thus, the percent of water assumed indoors and outdoors for a given account is based
on weather normalized inputs.
2.4 Historical and Current Conservation Programs
MWM analyzed the water conservation potential for the City’s existing conservation program measures by
performing a benefit-cost analysis. This included a thorough evaluation of avoided utility and customer costs,
utility and customer benefits, estimated water savings in AFY, demand reduction as GPCD of each measure,
and cost savings per unit volume of water. The current conservation program is listed as “Program A” in the
DSS Model.
Existing conservation efforts at the City, prior to this Plan, included various incentive and education-based
program measures, with a primary focus on voluntary water conservation measures specifically. This included
rebate incentives for indoor and outdoor water-efficient fixtures, free devices and other incentives, technical
assistance, and informational resources. Table 2-2 lists participation levels for the City’s active water
conservation programs over the past five fiscal years.
Table 2-2. City of Bozeman's Active Water Conservation Measures
Program Measure Description Participation
Numbers
High Efficiency
Toilet Rebate
The City issues rebates for the installation of high efficiency toilets.
Toilets must have the WaterSense® label. Rebate amounts differ for
new construction and retrofitting old fixtures.
826
High Efficiency
Showerhead
Rebate
The City issues rebates for the installation of high efficiency
showerheads. Showerheads must have the WaterSense® label.
Rebate amounts differ for new constructions and retrofitting old
fixtures.
82
High Efficiency The City issues rebates for the installation of high efficiency clothes
Clothes Washer washers. Clothes washers must meet CEE Tier specifications. Rebate 765
Rebate amounts differ for new construction and replacing old appliances.
Showerhead Swap
Out
The City offers free high efficiency showerheads for customers who
trade in their old, less efficient showerheads. 226
The City offers rebates for the installation of weather-based
Weather Based
Irrigation Controller
Rebate
irrigation controllers. Controllers must have the WaterSense® label.
Rebate amounts differ for new construction and retrofitting old
controllers. Weather-based controllers use local weather and
landscape conditions to make decisions about irrigation duration
129
and frequency to better match plant water demands.
The City offers rebates for the installation of rain sensors for
irrigation systems. Rain sensors override the irrigation system when
Rain Sensor Rebate a certain amount of rain has fallen. When the sensor dries, the 78
system resumes normal functionality. Rebate amounts differ for
new construction and retrofit projects.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 18
Program Measure Description Participation
Numbers
The City offers rebates for the installation of multi-stream, multi-
trajectory (MSMT) nozzles which deliver water more efficiently than
MSMT Sprinkler
Nozzle Rebate
standard fixed spray nozzles. The lower precipitation rate of MSMT
nozzles is beneficial for the City’s “clayey” soils, and the larger water 201
droplets are less likely to be lost to evaporation and wind drift.
Rebate amounts differ for new construction and retrofit projects.
The City offers rebates for the installation of drought tolerant
Drought Tolerant
Plant Rebate
perennials and shrubs, which use 75% less water than turfgrass
once established. The City publishes a list of over 100 plants that 104
qualify for the rebate program.
Drip Irrigation
Rebate
The City offers rebates for the installation of drip irrigation, which
delivers water directly to plants – targeting the roots and
minimizing water lost to evaporation and wind drift.
32
Turf Removal
Rebate
The City began offering rebates for the removal of high water use
turfgrass in April 2022. Pre-approval is required, and a minimum of
100 square feet of turfgrass must be removed.
48
Community Events
and Presentations
The City regularly participates in community outreach events
including local farmers markets and presentations at local schools
and Montana State University.
8,171
The City hosts free water wise landscaping webinars that teach
Public Education
Workshops
residents how to evaluate and transform landscapes into ‘mini
watersheds’ by incorporating water smart vegetation and irrigation 527
techniques.
Free Water Saving
Kits
The City offers water-saving kits to water customers including fix-a-
leak, summer savings, brush better, shower better, and sprinkler
system assessment kits.
243
Trained City staff analyze customer sprinkler systems to help
Sprinkler System
Assessments
identify opportunities for water efficient upgrades or repairs and
provide guidance on proper irrigation schedule run times specific to 362
the site location.
Dropcountr provides a free water use portal for the City’s water
Dropcountr Water
Use Portal
customers. The online portal translates water use data from meters
into actionable information that can help customers set water use 2,554
reduction goals and allows customers to receive leak alerts.
Demonstration
Gardens
The City has installed water efficient demonstration gardens
throughout town to help showcase and educate residents on design
and potential water savings.
50,000
visitors per
year
Commercial Water
Use Assessments
The City offers free commercial site visits and assessments that can
help businesses identify water-saving improvements that are tied
directly to dollar savings.
6
Public School
Curriculum
The City partners with educational groups to help implement the
Bozeman Water Conservation and Stormwater Management
curriculum throughout elementary schools in the community.
1,501
Drought Rates
The City implemented a drought reserve and surcharge rate to
provide financial security for the utility when revenues are
decreased due to drought-related watering restrictions and to send
All water
customers
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 19
Program Measure Description Participation
Numbers
a price signal to customers to reduce outdoor water usage during
times of shortage.
Permanent Outdoor
Water Use
Restrictions
The outdoor watering of lawns with overhead spray irrigation is
limited to three days per week and only during the most efficient All water
customers
times of day (not between 10am and 8pm).
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 20
3 CONSERVATION M EASURE EVALUATION
This section details the screening process, the analyzed conservation measures, program measure assumptions
and inputs used in the DSS Model, the City’s water conservation capital improvement plan (CIP), City
operations water use optimization practices, and future water efficient growth policies.
3.1 Screening of Conservation Measures
The City’s goal was to develop a Plan that would result in the greatest efficiency of program administration,
the lowest cost of implementation, and the greatest water savings. The measures in the Plan would also need
to be designed to address water conservation across all relevant customer categories and ensure that the
program would be equitable among community members. The screening process undertaken with the City’s
staff and public input yielded 25 measures for further evaluation.
The experience of many utilities has shown there is a reasonable limit to how many measures can be feasibly
implemented at one time. Programs that consist of a large number of measures are historically difficult to
implement successfully. Therefore, prioritization of measures is important both as an outcome of this planning
effort and as the program is implemented. The approach to program implementation is viewed as a “living”
process where opportunities may arise and be adopted as new technologies become available. Program
timelines can also be adjusted, with the recognition that doing so may impact the savings objectives.
An important step in updating the City’s Water Conservation Program included identification of new measures
that may be appropriate and the screening of these measures to a short-list for detailed economic evaluation
(benefit-cost analysis). A thorough screening process is necessary to scale a reasonable short-list of measures
for evaluation in the DSS Model. This evaluation was specific to factors that were unique to the City’s service
area, such as water use characteristics, economies of scale, and demographics. The overall initial list of more
than 140 potential water conservation measures was drawn from MWM and City experience and a review of
what other water agencies with innovative and effective conservation programs were implementing at the
time.
During the program measure evaluation process, City staff scored and evaluated each of the 140 measures
based on quantifiable water savings, technology availability and market maturity, service area match,
customer acceptance, equity, and additional service area benefits. Through this process, the list was reduced
to 49 measures. At this point in the process, the City utilized its “Engage Bozeman” framework to solicit input
from the public to arrive at a final list of 25 program measures to be selected for a detailed economic analysis
and incorporation into the Plan. The City developed customized surveys for five stakeholder groups to capture
the voice of specific groups affected by this Plan and inform the City as to which program measures would be
of greatest benefit to members of the community. The surveys were available to the public from June 29–July
16, 2021. Table 3-1 shows the number of responses from the targeted groups; Appendix H contains a
description of the engagement process as well as full results from the surveys.
Table 3-1. Community Stakeholder Surveys and Number of Responses
Stakeholder Group Targeted # of Responses
Residential 354
Property Management 14
Landscapers 22
Community Developers 47
Businesses 16
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 21
In this measure screening update, City staff considered the results of the survey responses outlined in Table 3-
1 when evaluating whether a measure should be included in the DSS Model. More details on the measure
screening inputs and results can be found in Appendix E.
Figure 3-1. City of Bozeman Measure Screening Criteria
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 22
Capital Improvement Plan Development
As part of the conservation measure screening task, MWM worked with City staff to develop a CIP by
identifying potential projects, upgrades, and equipment that could increase water efficiency. MWM and City
staff developed and evaluated a list of projects that could be implemented by the City at a reasonable cost of
no more than $50,000 per project. Each project has an estimated water savings (AFY) and demand reduction
(GPCD) as well as total project cost. The DSS Model benefit-cost approach was utilized to prioritize project
scheduling.
Projects that were considered included replacing turf medians with water efficient landscaping, installing
weather-based irrigation controllers and efficient irrigation equipment in City-owned facilities, and retrofitting
City-owned buildings with water efficient faucets, toilets, and urinals. These were incorporated into the DSS
Model analysis as three separate capital projects. The implementation schedule of these capital projects is
shown in Table 3-2. Capital projects in Program B are recommended for implementation. The elements and
results of the CIP are presented alongside the other measures in the sections that follow.
Table 3-2. Capital Projects Implementation Schedule and Water Savings
Total Total
Measure Program(s) Schedule
(years)
Measure
Savings
Measure
Savings
(AFY) (GPCD)
Capital Project –Retrofit City
Medians with Drought Tolerant B, C 2027 25.5 0.28
Landscaping and Efficient Irrigation
Capital Project –Upgrade City Facility
Irrigation Systems A, B, C 2023–2026 25.5 0.29
Capital Project –High Efficiency (HE)
Fixture Installation in Government C 2025–2034 49.6 0.53
Building
City Operations Water Use Optimization
Potential operational improvements that would optimize City water use efficiency for City-owned assets were
identified. These improvements are presented in Table 3-3. The water savings in AFY from the DSS Model were
used to quantify water savings for individual measures to help determine any necessary GPCD reductions by
customer class. The elements and results of the City water use optimization improvements are presented
alongside the other measures in the sections that follow.
Table 3-3. City Operations Water Use Optimization Measures Implementation Schedule and Water Savings
Measure
A, B, C 2022–2040 2,657.9
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 23
Total
Measure
Savings
(GPCD)
Total
Measure
Savings
(AFY)
Schedule
(years) Program(s)
AMI and Customer Water Use Portal A, B, C 2020–2040 984.1 10.99
Water Loss 28.50
Future Water Efficient Growth Policies
Policies that would reduce the water use associated with new development projects (growth) were identified.
These policies are presented in Table 3-4. The water savings in AFY from the DSS Model were used to quantify
water savings for individual measures. The elements and results of the City water efficient growth policies are
presented alongside the other measures in the sections that follow.
Table 3-4. Future Water Efficient Growth Policies Implementation Schedule and Water Savings
Measure Program(s) Schedule
(years)
Total
Measure
Savings
(AFY)
Landscape Ordinance Tier 3 B, C 2024-2040 10600.9
Impact Fee Credit B, C 2025–2033 718.3
Mandatory Water Efficiency Offsets B, C 2033–2040 8061.9
Require HE Toilets, Showerheads,
Faucets, Urinals in New Development C 2040-2040 26.85
3.2 Conservation Measures Evaluated
Table 3-5 describes the 25 measures selected for analysis in the measure screening. The list includes devices or
programs that can be used to achieve water conservation, methods through which the device or program can
be implemented, and the distribution method or mechanism that can be used to activate the device or
program.
Table 3-5. Conservation Measure Descriptions
–
Measure Name Description
Tiered Rate
Structure for MF
Residential
AMI and Customer
Water Use Portal
Tiered rates for multi-family (MF) residential customers. Existing rates would change to
create an incentive to use less water. Modifications could include creating multiple
tiers and increasing the rates in the upper tiers to increase the incentive to reduce
landscape watering.
Retrofit water distribution system with Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) meters
and associated data collector network capable of providing continuous consumption
data to utility offices. Improved identification of customer leaks is a major conservation
benefit. Some of the costs of these systems are offset by operational efficiencies and
reduced staffing as regular meter reading and time spent opening/closing accounts are
accomplished without the need for physical or drive-by meter reading. This also
enables enhanced billing options and the ability to monitor unauthorized use (such as
use or tampering with closed accounts or irrigation occurring outside of permitted
watering windows). Customer service is improved as staff can quickly access
continuous usage records to address customer inquiries. Optional feature includes
online customer access to their usage, which has been shown to improve accountability
and reduce water use. The City is on track to complete AMI retrofits in 2027.
A water use portal such as Dropcountr, which shows water use at an hourly timescale
for customers with AMI meters and sends leak alerts, allows for customers to set billing
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 24
Measure Name Description
Water Budget
Based Billing and
Water Budgeting
Residential
Efficiency Fixture
Incentive Program
Residential Water
Use Surveys
Low Income Direct
Installation Rebates
and Leak Repair
Assistance
Fixture Retrofit on
Resale or Name
Change on Water
Account
Work with the real estate industry to require that a certificate of compliance be
submitted to the utility verifying that a plumber has inspected the property and
efficient fixtures were either already in place or were installed before close of escrow.
Capital Project HE
Fixture Installation
in Gov t Bldg.
Direct installation of high efficiency (HE) faucets, toilets, urinals, and showerheads in
City facilities.
-
–
'
thresholds and see how water use compares to more efficient neighbors. Customers
without AMI capability can also see water use in Dropcountr; however, it will only be
displayed on a monthly timescale. These customers will not benefit from leak alerts,
nor will they benefit from setting billing thresholds.
Consideration should be given to improve communication pathways between AMI
meters and data collectors by expanding the system of collectors throughout the City
and considering the use of cellular data. If all AMI meters are able to consistently
communicate with data collectors, the City would benefit from being able to eliminate
the need for drive-by reads thus reducing the costs associated with staff time.
Develop individualized monthly water budgets for all customers. Water budgets are
linked to a rate schedule where rates per unit of water increase when customers go
above their budgets or decreases if they are below their budgets. Budgets are based on
size of the irrigated area and average indoor use estimates. These rates have been
shown to be effective in reducing landscape irrigation demand (DeOreo, 2016;
Dziegielewski, 2000). This would require a rate study and capable billing software.
Utility would provide various rebate incentives for the installation of high efficiency
indoor plumbing fixtures.
Provide a rebate or voucher for the installation of a high efficiency toilet (HET, toilets
flushing 1.28 gpf or less). Rebate amounts would reflect the incremental purchase cost
for up to 2 toilets.
Provide a rebate for the installation of high efficiency showerheads (2.0 gpm or less).
Provide a rebate for efficient clothes washers to single family and multi-family homes.
It is assumed that the rebates would remain consistent with relevant local and federal
regulations (Department of Energy, Energy Star) and only offer the best available
technology.
Provide free indoor and outdoor water surveys for single family and multi-family
residential customers. Target those with high water use and provide a customized
report to owner. Includes giveaway of efficient showerheads, aerators and toilet
devices. This measure is combined with sprinkler system assessments in which
irrigation systems are evaluated for signs of needed repair and opportunities to
increase system efficiency, and customized watering schedules are developed.
Provide a direct installation rebate program for toilets, high incentive amount for
clothes washers, and leak repair assistance. Customer leaks can go uncorrected at
properties where owners are least able to pay repair costs. These programs may
require that customer leaks be repaired, but either subsidize part of the repair and/or
pay the cost with revolving funds that are paid back through water bills over time.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 25
Measure Name Description
School Building
Retrofit
School retrofit program wherein schools receive a grant to replace fixtures and upgrade
irrigation systems.
CII High Efficiency
Washer Rebate
Offer rebate for commercial grade clothes washers. Target high-use facilities such as
laundromats, hotels, etc.
Efficient Fixture
Giveaway
Require HE Toilets,
Showerheads,
Faucets, Urinals in
New Development
Mandatory Water
Efficiency Offsets
Capital Project
Retrofit City
Medians with
Drought Tolerant
Landscaping and
Efficient Irrigation
–
–
Provide free 1.15 gallons per minute (gpm) or lower pre-rinse spray valves for
commercial kitchen facilities.
Provide free HE fixtures, including showerheads, faucets, aerators, pre-rinse spray
valves, soil moisture meters, leak repair kits, and hose nozzles to all customer classes.
Require developers to install HE toilets, lavatory faucets, kitchen faucets, and
showerheads in all new development projects.
IAPMO Green Building Supplemental Code is 1.5 gpm for residential lavatory faucets,
0.5 gpm for non-residential lavatory faucets, 1.8 gpm for kitchen faucets, 2.0 gpm for
showerheads, 1.28 gpf for toilets, and 0.125 gpf for urinals.
Consideration should be given to state code requirements which may prohibit or limit
local municipalities from requiring the installation of plumbing fixtures that exceed
efficiency requirements in the state-adopted plumbing code.
This measure is modeled after the Net Blue water offset framework. The intent of this
measure is to require developers to offset a portion, or all, of their estimated water
demand from new development with efficiency projects.
The City has already implemented a program supporting voluntary water offsets for
new developments as part of its water adequacy requirements. See Appendix I and J
for more information about the Net Blue framework and the City’s current water offset
policy.
Retrofit turfgrass street medians with drought tolerant landscaping and efficient
irrigation to serve as an example of Best Management Practices for the community and
to reduce water use.
Capital Project
Upgrade City
Facility Irrigation
Systems
Perform irrigation system audits to document existing irrigation system components
and retrofit with multi-stream, multi-trajectory (MSMT) nozzles, weather-based
irrigation controllers, soil moisture sensors etc. as needed. Include recommended
watering schedule to reduce overwatering.
Dedicated
Irrigation Meters &
Irrigation Account
Rate Structure
Require dedicated irrigation meters be installed for all new commercial and multi-
family residential customer classes. An irrigable area threshold would be set indicating
when an account would be required to have a separate irrigation meter.
Impact Fee Credit
The purpose of an impact fee credit is to promote non-turf landscaping in some area of
a customer's property (e.g., front yard of residential home) and more water efficient
device installation indoors. A credit amount would be established to offset a portion or
all of the cost a developer might incur through impact fees from installing the more
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 26
Measure Name Description
Financial Incentives
for Irrigation and
Landscape
Upgrades
Landscape
Conversion or Turf
Removal Rebate
Landscape and
Irrigation
Contractor Efficient
Outdoor Use
Education and
Training Programs
Xeriscape
Demonstration
Gardens
–
Require Irrigation
Designers/Installers
Be Certified
expensive landscaping or fixtures. Any drought tolerant plants would be included in the
utility's recommended water smart plant list, or other City-approved plant list.
This would apply to all SF, MF, CII customers with landscapes and provide rebates for
substantive landscape retrofits and the installation of water efficient upgrades. Rebates
contribute towards the purchase of selected types of irrigation equipment upgrades
(weather-based irrigation controllers, MSMT nozzles, rain sensors, drip irrigation).
Landscape plant conversion and turf removal is not part of this measure.
Provide a per-square-foot incentive to remove turf and replace with low-water-use
plants or permeable hardscape. Landscape conversion could include conversion of turf
to low-water-use turf alternative varieties. Rebate based on dollars per square foot
removed and capped at an upper limit for SF, MF, and CII.
Utility would offer, organize, and sponsor a series of educational workshops or other
means for educating landscapers and contractors in efficient landscaping and irrigation
principals. Utilize guest speakers, native demonstration gardens, and incentives (e.g.,
nursery plant coupons).
Classes would include those such as Irrigation Association (IA) classes/certifications,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper
course, etc.
Provide additional demonstration gardens showcasing drought tolerant landscaping
and efficient irrigation so the community has local resources available to see these
types of products and plants.
Require contractors be trained/certified in order to design and perform work on
irrigation systems in the City. Certification might be through the IA or specialized
training provided by the utility.
Tier 3 of a prescriptive landscape ordinance measure would:
•Restrict turfgrass installation to 35% of total landscaped area – SF
•Restrict turfgrass installation to 20% of total landscaped area – MF
•Restrict turfgrass installation to 20% of total landscaped area – COM
Additionally, for SF, MF, and Commercial (COM) customer classes the following would
apply:
•Landscape Design Standards
o Require adequate topsoil depth and quality
o Require adequate mulch depth on bare soil
o Require submittal of soil quality lab test documentation
o Require drought tolerant vegetation for parkland, right-of-way
•Irrigation Design Standards
o Detailed irrigation plan required for parkland and plan review projects
demonstrating head-to-head coverage, hydrozoning, and low-flow drip for
trees/perennials/shrubs
o Prohibit overhead spray in areas less than ~8 feet wide
o Irrigation operation and maintenance plan (including schedule for
establishment and post-establishment)
•Irrigation Performance Standards
o Adequate operating pressure
Landscape
Ordinance Tier 3
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 27
Measure Name Description
Water Loss
Public Education
o Weather-based controller
o Rain/soil moisture sensor
o Nozzle maximum application rate of ~1.25 inches/hour
• Large Landscape Requirements
o Irrigation submeters required
o Flow sensor required
o Separate irrigation rate structure for all irrigation submeters
In conjunction with system accounting (maintaining a thorough annual accounting of
water production, sales by customer class and quantity of water produced but not
sold), include audits that identify and quantify known legitimate uses of non-revenue
water (NRW) within the distribution system to determine remaining NRW losses. Goal
would be to lower the Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) and NRW every year by a pre-
determined amount based on cost-effectiveness. These programs typically pay for
themselves based on savings in operational costs; saved rate revenue can be directed
toward system repairs/replacement and other costs.
Utilize a range of printed and digital materials to raise awareness of conservation
measures available to customers, including incentive programs offered by the utility.
This could include newsletters, bill stuffers, water smart indoor and outdoor guides,
brochures/rack cards, newspaper ads, signs at retailers, radio ads, boosted social media
posts and accompanying imagery. Provide a variety of conservation information on the
City’s website and through production of videos.
Conduct presentations at various community venues, MSU, local public schools. Have
booths at community events such as famers markets, Catapalooza, etc. This measure
would also include educational resources that are provided for free at events (shower
timers, kids’ activity books and pencils).
Contract services to support public educational initiatives, such as working with Green
Gardens Group and Montana Outdoor Science School are also included. Also consider a
program initiative with focused action like the “Take Control of your Controller”
Campaign for a targeted social media-based campaign.
Information about the DSS Model analysis approach to measure unit costs, water savings, and market
penetrations can be found in Appendix D. Actual measure inputs used in the DSS Model to evaluate the water
conservation measures selected by the City can be found in individual measure screenshots in Appendix E.
3.3 Conservation Measures Analysis
MWM conducted an economic evaluation of each selected water conservation measure using the DSS Model.
Appendix F presents detailed results regarding how much water each measure will save through 2040, how
much each measure will cost, and the cost of water saved per unit volume if the measure were to be
implemented on a stand-alone basis (i.e., without interaction or overlap from other measures that might
address the same end use[s]). Dollar savings from reduced water demand was quantified annually and based
on avoided costs provided by the City.
While each measure was analyzed independently, it is important to note that few measures operate
independently. For example, the AMI and Customer Water Use Portal measure may lead to a Landscape
Conversion or Turf Removal Rebate, and Efficiency Fixture Incentive Program measures go hand-in-hand with
Residential Water Use Surveys and Public Education.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 28
It should be noted that the water savings from Public Education are not double counted with other
conservation measures. As a result, the costs appear significantly higher for Public Education than for other
measures due to the minimal water savings estimated for the high staff time investment. However, other
measures certainly would be less effective or possibly infeasible without an active public outreach program
since customers would be less aware of conservation measures and participation would likely plummet.
Figure 3-2 presents a comparison of each measure’s cost of water saved per unit volume.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 29
Figure 3-2. Conservation Program Cost of Savings per Unit Volume
Costs are rounded to the nearest $10.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 30
4 C ONSERVATION PROGRAM EVALUATION
This section provides a summary of which measures were included in each of the three conservation programs
as well as which program the City selected to implement. The three programs were designed to illustrate a
range of various program measure combinations and resulting water savings. The following key items were
taken into consideration during measure selection for Programs A, B and C:
• Existing conservation measures
• Capital improvement measures
• New and innovative measures
• Measure equitability among customer categories
• Customer demographics
In addition, this section identifies and prioritizes the conservation programs and projects by cost-effectiveness
and quantifiable water savings.
4.1 Measure Selection for Conservation Program Alternatives
MWM developed an economic analysis to show the true cost of conducting conservation. The City’s existing
conservation program was evaluated, then two additional, increasingly aggressive programs were developed
for the City to consider.
Using the data gathered, MWM created a list of all potential program concepts that were appropriate for the
City’s service area. Factors for determining which measures should be in each program included budgeting,
feasibility to implement the program, and the time at which each measure would need to be introduced to
promote conservation efforts. Programs also needed to address water conservation across all relevant
customer categories.
These program scenarios were not intended to be rigid but rather to demonstrate the range in savings that
could be generated if selected measures were run at the same time. When programs were analyzed, any
overlap in water savings (and benefits) from individual measures was considered to provide a total combined
water savings (and benefits). Each program is described below:
• Program A: Current Measures. Current conservation program with no changes; includes 11 measures.
• Program B: Recommended Measures. In addition to existing efforts, includes more customer-centric,
extended programs in indoor and outdoor efficiency as well as commercial efficiency, capital
improvement, and regulatory measures; includes 18 measures. This is the program that was selected
by the City for implementation.
• Program C: All Modeled Measures. In addition to all those above, includes expanded indoor
residential efficiency requirements, including tiered rate structure for MF customers and water
budget-based billing; includes all measures modeled in this effort for a total of 25 measures.
Figure 4-1 presents the City’s conservation measure program scenarios, indicating which measures were
selected and modeled within each program. Each program builds on the program before it, so the measures
included in Program B include all measures listed in Program A and B, and Program C includes all measures
listed in Program A, B, and C.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 31
Figure 4-1. Selected Conservation Program Measures
4.2 Conservation Program Analysis
Table 4-1 shows the benefit-cost ratios for conservation Programs A, B and C. Each program’s present value of
water savings and utility costs as well as cost of water saved can be found in Appendix F.
Table 4-1. Conservation Program Benefit-Cost Ratios
Conservation Program Water Utility Benefit-Cost
Ratio
Program A with Plumbing Code 1.84
Program B with Plumbing Code 3.43
Program C with Plumbing Code 3.09
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 32
Figure 4-2 shows the per capita water savings for Programs A, B and C.
Figure 4-2. Conservation Program Per Capita Water Savings
40
35
30
25
2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 GPCD 20
15
10
5
0
Program A Savings (GPCD) Program B Savings (GPCD) Program C Savings (GPCD)
All line types shown in the legend are presented in the graph. However, Program B and Program C demand scenarios
are close in value and therefore may be somewhat indistinguishable in the figure.
Figure 4-3 shows estimated conservation program utility costs and staffing for Programs A, B, and C.
Figure 4-3. Estimated Conservation Program Utility Costs and Staffing
Program A Staff Program B Staff Program C Staff
Program A Dept. Utility Costs Program B Dept. Utility Costs Program C Dept. Utility Costs
900,000.00 6.5
6.0 800,000.00 Annual Utility Program Costs, $/year 700,000.00
600,000.00
500,000.00
400,000.00
300,000.00
200,000.00
100,000.00
-
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
-FTE Staff 20242025202620272028202920302031203220332034 City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 33
Staffing levels in Figure 4-3 include existing conservation program staff, however, it is important to note that
these numbers have not been weight averaged or stepped based on salary, nor do they represent any
additional duties expected of staff. For example, these hours may not accurately reflect the total amount of
time dedicated to providing unrelated customer service, employee break periods, processing paperwork or
addressing other programmatic or utility needs.
Tables 4-2 and 4-3 show the water system demands for the City of Bozeman. Demand is shown in
5-year increments in acre-feet in Table 4-2 and GPCD in Table 4-3. Table 4-2 and Figure 4-4 include demand
with and without plumbing code as well as projected demand with plumbing codes and three active
conservation program scenarios; Figure 4-4 also includes historical demand.
Table 4-2. City of Bozeman Potable Water System Demands for Years 2025–2040 in AFY
AFY 2025 2030 2035 2040
Baseline Demands 8,070 9,530 11,240 13,250
Plumbing Code Savings 140 320 510 730
Demands with Plumbing Code Savings 7,930 9,210 10,730 12,520
Conservation Program A Savings 300 470 680 910
Demands with Plumbing Code and Conservation
Program A Savings 7,630 8,740 10,050 11,610
Conservation Program B Savings 420 970 2,120 3,700
Demands with Plumbing Code and Conservation
Program B Savings 7,510 8,240 8,610 8,820
Conservation Program C Savings 420 980 2,130 3,780
Demands with Plumbing Code and Conservation
Program C Savings 7,510 8,230 8,600 8,740
All numbers in the above table are rounded to the nearest 10 AFY.
Table 4-3. City of Bozeman Potable Water System Demands for Years 2025–2040 in GPCD
GPCD 2025 2030 2035 2040
Baseline Demands 116 117 118 119
Plumbing Code Savings 2 4 5 7
Demands with Plumbing Code Savings 114 113 113 112
Conservation Program A Savings 4 6 7 8
Demands with Plumbing Code and Conservation
Program A Savings 109 107 105 104
Conservation Program B Savings 6 12 22 33
Demands with Plumbing Code and Conservation
Program B Savings 108 101 90 79
Conservation Program C Savings 6 12 22 34
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 34
Demands with Plumbing Code and Conservation
Program C Savings
108 101 90 79
Figure 4-4 presents historical and projected water demand in AFY given multiple scenarios. Plumbing code
elements include current local and federal plumbing code standards for retrofits of items such as toilets,
urinals, showerheads, faucets, and clothes washers.
Figure 4-4. City of Bozeman Historical and Projected Demand
All line types shown in the legend are presented in the graph. However, Program B and Program C demand scenarios
are close in value and therefore may be somewhat indistinguishable in the figure.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 35
4.3 Recommended Program
The City has been refining its water use efficiency program
measures since 2015. Seeing the need for more up-to-date and
expansive measures to meet further water use reductions, the City
has elected to implement Program B (Figure 4-5) as the most
forward-thinking, comprehensive option, which includes 18 of the
measures modeled in this planning effort and represents a
thoroughly robust program with the highest benefit-cost ratio.
Measures that have been analyzed and included in the Plan are
more likely to be implemented as well as deemed eligible for
funding and outside partnerships. Program B provides a full range
of measures, builds goodwill with partners, and is equitable by
providing benefits for all categories of City customers.
Figure 4-5. Selected Program Details
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 36
5 W ATER CONSERVATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND
SCHEDULE
This section presents an overview of the conservation planning options for the service area including data
monitoring strategies, implementation recommendations, scheduling, and staffing needs.
5.1 Monitoring Progress
Each year the progress made toward meeting the Plan’s targeted water savings will be analyzed. It is
imperative to track activities and water demand for this analysis.
The City tracks rebate and incentive program information in its GIS Rebate Viewer application and Microsoft
Excel, which includes but is not limited to capturing the following information:
• Customer information such as name, address, account number, water customer class
• Rebate product information such as type (including make and model), quantity, unit water savings
• Cost information such as rebate amount
• Number and type of rebates or other incentives issued (including water savings details for rebates
such as efficiency level of clothes washers installed through incentive program)
• Number of turf removal rebates including square footage of turf removed.
The City also tracks and evaluates estimated water savings achieved through its sprinkler system assessment
program and number of people reached through outreach events and presentations. As the City continues to
implement new Water Use Efficiency (WUE) program measures, it is recommended to continue utilizing a
tracking database (Excel spreadsheet) to understand program effectiveness and support data-driven decision
making.
For future measures, such as those in Program B, recommendations for tracking and monitoring are as follows:
• Prepare an annual performance plan in concert with the budget planning process.
• Set up a method to store and manage new measure participation, cost, and compliance, especially for
measures that relate to code changes (landscape ordinance) and impact fees (impact fee and
mandatory offsets) to gauge successes and identify areas that need improvement.
• Review plan goals in the DSS Model annually and update measure participation or other elements that
are refined through experience.
• Track water use to ensure the plan is on target to meet water use reduction goals. Use input from City
staff and the annual work planning process as the forum to amend the plan, budget, staffing,
contracting, implementation timing, etc. to stay on schedule.
• Work with appropriate City departments to ensure enforcement is occurring with the Landscape
Ordinance – Tier 3 measure, Impact Fee Credit measure, Mandatory Water Efficiency Offsets measure,
and the Require Irrigation Designers/Installers be Certified measure.
• Develop outreach and marketing plans as part of each measure’s implementation plan. Identify
measure and general program outreach techniques that engage customers (e.g., use actual customer
testimonials in outreach materials and presentations).
5.2 Track and Update for New Codes and Emerging Technologies
It can be challenging to track the changes in the consumer marketplace for the vast array of water-using
appliances and plumbing fixtures in both the residential and commercial sectors. The following are some
options for tracking the latest in national standards and building codes as well as technologies and emerging
trends in customer preferences:
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 37
• Have staff member(s) voluntarily participate on the AWWA Water Conservation Division’s committees
with attendance at the Annual Conference Committee meetings and conference calls, in particular the
Water Efficiency Programs and Technology Committee.
• Monitor the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) for updates or changes to National Standards and
Codes as well as opportunities to comment on future national changes to codes and regulations.
Frequently, AWE has performance testing results posted on its websites that provide particularly
useful information to consumers.
• Continue being a WaterSense® Partner. Track the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
WaterSense® posts on new technologies and updated equipment lists.
• Monitor performance information that may also be available through Consumer Reports or
Consortium for Energy Efficiency (http://www.cee1.org).
• Attend the WaterSmart Innovations Conference (https://www.watersmartinnovations.com/) and
other water efficiency-related conferences for exposure to the vendors participating in the exhibition
and to gather information on emerging trends in water conservation programs.
• Leverage the City process for adopting new building codes and regulations -especially building codes,
to help implement proactive changes in future development in the City’s service area.
• Maintain and use a network of 10-20 key contacts at progressive utilities to inquire about new
technologies (e.g., through known contacts or new contacts made at conferences).
• Host events with other partner utilities and applicable stakeholders on related water loss control
programs or conservation measures.
• Conduct surveys every three years with other water utilities to gain insight on programs and product
testing.
Emerging products may be worthy of pilot programs and could be attractive for grant funding projects through
agencies like the U.S. EPA or U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. However, use caution when adopting new
technologies that have yet to be adequately researched or evaluated.
5.3 Proposed Implementation Schedule
Figure 5-1 presents an implementation schedule for Program B measures through 2040. A detailed description
of each of these 18 measures can be found in Table 3-4.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 38
Figure 5-1. Conservation Measures Implementation Schedule (2020–2040)
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 39
5.4 Five-Year Implementation Recommendations
Recommendations to assist with implementation over the next five years:
• Track any upcoming state or federal regulations regarding residential, CII, landscape, and water loss
management.
• Consider launching pilot studies for new measures.
• Consider soliciting and tracking community input and feedback via an online or phone survey or at
outreach and education events.
• Consider pursuing a statistically valid water conservation awareness study. The last study was
completed in 2014 at the inception of the Water Conservation Program. It would benefit the City to
reassess the community’s awareness in order to inform program development and ensure the
implementation schedule included in the Plan aligns with customer understanding and awareness of
local water conservation efforts.
• Prioritize measures that contribute the most to meeting the per capita water use targets and are
relatively easy to operate with limited staff.
• Consider pursuing a detailed analysis of mandatory water use efficiency offsets (scheduled for
implementation in 2033), which yields the greatest water savings of all measures evaluated, to better
understand the wide array of program measure costs, determine a reasonable lifetime for the
measure (saturation), and ensure a smooth program implementation.
• Consider working with the largest 100 water using customers to reduce water use.
• Develop an annual work plan for each plan year as soon as the budget is adopted (or in concert with
the budget planning process).
• Form partnerships and apply for grants where appropriate.
• Outsource to gain enough staff support to administer the expanded programs (as needed).
• Develop analytical tools to track water use by customer class and overall per capita water use,
adjusted for the weather and external factors as discussed in section 2.3.1.
• Consider using AMI consumption data to monitor water usage and identify instances of non-
compliance with regulatory measures.
• Use the analytical tools annually to help decide on priorities for the following plan year.
• Set up a database to store and manage measure participation, cost, and other data to gauge successes
and areas that need improvement/added attention.
• Annually update the plan to ensure the City is on track to meet conservation goals. This includes
updating actual measure participation, projected water savings, and expected per capita water use
reductions.
5.5 Staffing Needs
As part of the analysis, staffing needs for each of the conservation programs was considered. For the
recommended program to be implemented, the City of Bozeman will need to increase their full-time
equivalent (FTE) staff from 3 to 5 in 2024, and gradually increase to 5.28 FTEs by 2025, and 5.8 FTEs by 2033. It
is important to note that these numbers have not been weight averaged or stepped based on salary, nor do
they represent any additional duties expected of staff. For example, these hours may not accurately reflect the
total amount of time dedicated to providing unrelated customer service.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 40
Figure 5-2. Estimated Conservation Program Utility Costs and Staffing for the Recommend Program
Program B Staff Program B Dept. Utility Costs
800,000.00 7.0
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
-
100,000.00
200,000.00
300,000.00
400,000.00
500,000.00
600,000.00
700,000.00
FTE Staff Dept. Utility Costs 20232024202520262027202820292030203120322033 Funding Opportunities, Partnerships, and Stakeholder Group Participation
The City has strong partnerships with other regional public agencies, neighboring utilities, and regional
stakeholder groups that provide program support, such as support for outreach, building customer awareness,
and maximizing participation. The City will continue to pursue future state and federal grants as appropriate,
as well as maintain these existing partnerships.
Each measure in the recommended water use efficiency program has both common and unique funding
sources and partnership opportunities, as well as potential implementation obstacles including legal barriers.
In some cases, these matters can be identified in advance, but some cannot.
Partnership opportunities and funding sources may include the following:
• City water use efficiency and public outreach budgets
• Existing and new regional, county, and statewide partnerships such as waste management authorities
and Green Business Certification organizations
• State and federal grants
• Local schools/university students or student organizations
• Local community organizations with an interest in water efficiency such as resource conscious
gardening groups/advocates and green jobs advocates
• Partnerships with energy and sewer utilities
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 41
6 NEXT STEPS AND CONCLUSIONS
Current conditions have encouraged the City to choose Program B for implementation. However, water use is
very dynamic and responds to changes in population, economy, weather, climate, efficiency of devices, and
types of industry. As the City’s community evolves, water use and weather pattern changes may necessitate
adjustments to measure implementation targets and schedules. This may include, expanding upon or scaling
back various program components and measures to increase efficiency, improve benefit-cost ratios, adopt
better technology or methods, or meet budget and staffing restrictions. Whether additional measures become
necessary would be dependent on several factors including potential future drought conditions, compliance
with the annual aggregate water use objectives as provided by the City, the City’s ability to support new and
more innovative programs, community growth, and the City’s ability to develop additional water supplies.
With individual measures clearly defined and water saving objectives and customer target goals measurable,
the City has quantifiable performance goals to track on both an individual measure and overall program level.
6.1 Next Steps
Next steps in Plan implementation include the following:
• Engage in the processes to update the Montana Drought Response Plan and any other water efficiency
or water loss legislation. The City should consider reviewing state documents, submit written
comments as needed, and participate in public workshops and stakeholder groups.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the permanent outdoor water use restrictions, which became effective
on June 16, 2022, and consider making adjustments as needed.
• Continue to monitor local water supplies and engage in drought monitoring, including updating the
2022 Drought Management Plan as needed.
• Review program staff needs and hire accordingly to adequately support program needs.
Suggestions for Future DSS Model Updates
With the level of investment in both capital projects that may be deferred due to this program and
investments in the program itself, City staff should be ready with an answer to the question: “How much water
has been saved and at what cost?” In addition, due to the need for ongoing water conservation efforts to
maintain and attain more water savings, the City will need to track program water savings, costs, and benefits
(i.e., cost savings).
The following two types of updates are envisioned for the DSS Model:
• Annual or more frequent model updates for monitoring costs and water savings – The conservation
measure worksheets can be used to track actual activities and compare them to the planned activities
defined as part of the model development for this program. It is recommended that this update be
done in conjunction with the development of an annual work plan and budget. At minimum, it should
happen every 3-5 years, but more frequent updates are recommended as the City expands and
improves upon its data.
• Recalibration of the model – The DSS Model has a base “year” of 2020. Depending on water demand
and account growth rates, it is advisable to update the base year as soon as a complete year of
comprehensive data is available, and on a 5-year basis thereafter. This update requires reviewing
historical demand trends, future population and demand forecasts, fixture models calibration, new or
updated conservation measures, and cost and water savings assumptions.
Specific triggers for updates may include:
• Significant changes to cost associated with water production (more than 10-20% energy or chemical
cost increase or decrease would modify the “savings worksheet” and change the benefit-cost ratios).
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 42
• Significant change in population or number of accounts for one of the customer categories (more than
a 5% shift).
• Significant changes to water system balance (e.g., more than 10% change in water losses or other
parameter in the Demands Section of the DSS Model).
• An updated valuation of the cost for developing additional water supplies, including infrastructure
costs and the costs for purchasing additional water rights.
• New codes or regulations that affect natural replacement rates of fixtures.
• Alternatives for staffing versus outsource contracting or other changes to the cost of implementation
of a conservation measure (change to conservation measure worksheet only).
• New technologies for conservation measures being considered (change or addition of new
conservation measure worksheet).
• Any other change in conservation measures (i.e., updates to the measure worksheets can be changed
or modified at any time without altering the water system balance worksheets or affecting fixture
model calibration).
6.2 Conclusions
Following is a summary of the water conservation analysis findings:
• More than 65% of the City’s service area water use is associated with residential water use.
Consequently, residential conservation programs will produce the most savings. The remaining 35% of
the City’s service area water use is associated with commercial, industrial, government, Montana State
University water use. In conjunction with plumbing codes, Program B (the Recommended Program)
saves 33% of projected demand in 2040 when compared to demands in 2040 without plumbing codes
or active conservation. From the utility standpoint, the average cost of water saved for Program B is
$379/ AF, which is less than the avoided cost of water at $1,645/AF. Therefore, this program has the
potential to reduce per capita water use in a cost-effective manner based on the implementation level
of the plan.
• Conservation is the least expensive means of meeting future water supply needs for the area. The
implementation of these conservation measures should reduce per capita water use and has the
potential to defer the need for further infrastructure expansion. Water savings in the year 2040 are an
estimated 4,435 AF/yr. While the conservation actions identified can have a significant cost, the costs
are even higher to not participate in conservation and instead rely on engineering solutions to address
increased demand. Furthermore, with climate change, long-term drought, and challenges associated
with the delivery of imported water, without conservation, additional water supplies may not be
available to meet future increases in demands.
• Through the DSS Model analysis, the City identified fixture costs, applicable customer classes, time
period of implementation, measure lifespan, administrative costs, end uses, end-use savings per
replacement, and a target number or percentage of accounts per program year.
• Creating expanded water conservation efforts appears to be a feasible and cost-effective means of:
o Meeting City conservation/water use reduction targets
o Managing existing water supplies in a more sustainable manner
o Planning for sustainable future growth incorporating water efficiency
• Based on the analysis, the City has selected to implement Program B, with 18 measures, a utility
benefit-cost ratio of 3.43 and a cost of water saved of $379/AF versus the estimated avoided cost of
water of $1,645/AF.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 43
7 REFERENCES
All links below were accessed in July 2022 unless otherwise indicated.
Alliance for Water Efficiency. (2016). The Status of Legislation, Regulation, Codes & Standards on Indoor
Plumbing Water Efficiency. http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/Codes-Standards-White-Paper.aspx
American Water Works Association (AWWA). (2017). M52 Water Conservation Programs – A Planning Manual,
2nd Edition. https://www.awwa.org/Store/Product-Details/productId/61841578
City of Bozeman Engage Bozeman Plan. (2021).
https://www.bozeman.net/home/showpublisheddocument/11461/637622797246270000
Consortium for Efficient Energy website. www.cee1.org
DeOreo, W.B. (2016). Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 -4309. Denver, Colorado: AWWA Research
Foundation. https://www.waterrf.org/research/projects/residential-end-uses-water-version-2
Dziegielewski, B. (2009). Residential Water Use in Northeastern Illinois Estimating Water-use Effects of In-fill
Growth versus Exurban Expansion. Prepared for the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.
https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/14452/NE+IL+Residential+Water+Use.pdf/9a07c0d8-3733-
48c3-94f6-abaa5bad1477
Dziegielewski, B., J. C. Kiefer, W. DeOreo, P. Mayer, E. M. Opitz, G. A. Porter, G. L. Lantz, and J. O. Nelson.
(2000). Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water. Denver, Colorado: AWWA, Research Foundation and
American Water Works Association with Cooperation of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Catalog No.90806.
264 pp. ISBN 1-58321-035-0. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WC13511002/00001
GMP Research, Inc. (2019). 2019 U.S. WaterSense Market Penetration Industry Report, commissioned by
Plumbing Manufacturers International.
https://www.safeplumbing.org/files/safeplumbing.org/documents/misc/7-1-19-WaterSense-2019-Report.pdf
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information
(NCEI). (2022). U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, DOI: 10.25921/stkw-7w73.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Energy Division. (1998). “Bern Clothes Washer Study, Final Report,” prepared
for U.S. Department of Energy. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc691712/
Plumbing Efficiency Research Coalition. (2012). The Drainline Transport of Solid Waste in Buildings, PERC Phase
1 Report, Table 2-A: Water Consumption by Water-Using Plumbing Products and Appliances – 1980–2012.
http://www.map-testing.com/assets/files/PERC%20Report_Final_Phase%20One_Nov%202011_v1.1.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census Data web page. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-
census/data/datasets.2010.html
Ibid. (2020). American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from Census Reporter Profile page for
Bozeman, MT. http://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US3008950-bozeman-mt/
U.S. Congress. Energy Policy Act of 1992; amended in 2005. https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-
congress/house-bill/776/text/enr; https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-policy-act;
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr6enr.pdf
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (n.d.). National Climate Change Viewer. https://www.usgs.gov/tools/national-
climate-change-viewer-nccv
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 44
APPENDIX A – HISTORICAL MONTHLY WATER USE PER
ACCOUNT TYPE
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 45
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 46
Zero values in the above graph are due to billing issues.
Negative values in the above graph are due to billing corrections.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 47
Zero values on the above graph are due to billing issues.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 48
-
APPENDIX B – DSS MODEL OVERVIEW
Water
Demand
Projection
Development
Water
Demand
Breakdown by
End Use
Impact of
Water
Efficiency
Measures on
Each End Use
Benefit Cost
Analysis and
Conservation
Program
Selection
Total Demand
Reductions
from
Conservation
DSS Model Overview: The Least Cost Planning Decision Support
System Model (DSS Model) is used to prepare long-range, detailed
demand projections. The purpose of the extra detail is to enable a
more accurate assessment of the impact of water efficiency
programs on demand and to provide a rigorous and defensible
modeling approach necessary for projects subject to regulatory or
environmental review.
Originally developed in 1999 and continuously updated, the DSS
Model is an “end-use” model that breaks down total water
production (water demand in the service area) to specific water end
uses, such as plumbing fixtures and appliances. The model uses a
bottom-up approach that allows for multiple criteria to be
considered when estimating future demands, such as the effects of
natural fixture replacement, plumbing codes, and conservation
efforts. The DSS Model may also use a top-down approach with a
utility-prepared water demand forecast.
Demand Forecast Development and Model Calibration: To forecast
urban water demands using the DSS Model, customer demand data
is obtained from the water agency being modeled. Demand data is
reconciled with available demographic data to characterize water
usage for each customer category in terms of number of users per
account and per capita water use. Data is further analyzed to
approximate the split of indoor and outdoor water usage in each
customer category. The indoor/outdoor water usage is further
divided into typical end uses for each customer category. Published
data on average per capita indoor water use and average per capita
end use is combined with the number of water users to calibrate the
volume of water allocated to specific end uses in each customer
category. In other words, the DSS Model checks those social norms
from end studies on water use behavior (e.g., flushes per person per
day) are not exceeded or drop below reasonable use limits.
Passive Water Savings Calculations: The DSS Model is used to
forecast service area water fixture use. Specific end-use type,
average water use, and lifetime are compiled for each fixture. Additionally, state, and national plumbing codes
and appliance standards are modeled by customer category. These fixtures and plumbing codes can be added
to, edited, or deleted by the user. This process yields two demand forecasts, one with plumbing codes and one
without plumbing codes.
Active Conservation Measure Analysis Using Benefit-Cost Analysis: The DSS Model evaluates active
conservation measures using benefit-cost analysis with the present value of the cost of water saved ($/Million
Gallons or $/Acre-Feet). Benefits are based on savings in water and wastewater facility operations and
Agency Info Edit
Model Setup Edit
Production Edit
Consumption Data Edit
Historical Demographics Edit
Growth Projections Edit
Data Collection Hide
Base Year Profile Edit
NRW Edit
Regression Data Edit
End Uses Edit
Codes and Standards Edit
Water Demand Scenario Edit
Service Area Calibration Edit
Demand Projections Edit
Demand Analysis Hide
Settings and Targets Edit
Avoided Costs Edit
Conservation Measures Edit
Program Scenarios Edit
Final Check Edit
Conservation Analysis Hide
Tables and Figures Edit
Results Hide
Figure B-1. DSS Model Main Page
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 49
maintenance and any deferred capital expenditures. The figures on the previous page illustrate the processes
for forecasting conservation water savings, including the impacts of fixture replacement due to existing
plumbing codes and standards.
Figure B-2. Sample Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary
Measure
Present
Value of
Water Utility
Benefits
Present
Value of
Community
Benefits
Present
Value of
Water Utility
Costs
Present
Value of
Community
Costs
Water Utility
Benefit to
Cost Ratio
Community
Benefit to
Cost Ratio
Five Years of
Water Utility
Costs 2020-
2025
Water
Savings in
2030 (afy)
Cost of
Savings per
Unit Volume
($/af)
AMI Full AMI Implementation $3,976,434 $16,635,194 $1,566,069 $5,893,340 2.54 2.82 $320,000 133.764878 $324
RESHECWResidential Rebates for HECW $139,312 $365,447 $95,879 $200,665 1.45 1.82 $50,325 5.124572 $824
WC Water Checkup $7,648,165 $30,288,419 $6,005,949 $7,665,564 1.27 3.95 $1,382,995 239.652915 $877
IRREVALIrrigation Evaluations $1,589,488 $1,589,488 $1,918,184 $4,332,779 0.83 0.37 $443,824 98.051821 $646
CIIRebCII Water Survey Level 2 and Customized Rebate $910,720 $3,313,109 $915,904 $2,581,185 0.99 1.28 $193,725 18.753753 $1,055
NOZZLFree Sprinkler Nozzle Program $277,886 $277,886 $329,386 $455,933 0.84 0.61 $103,145 23.005687 $680
MULCHMulch Program $80,739 $80,739 $287,676 $287,676 0.28 0.28 $66,932 4.554625 $2,000
LDS Water Conserving Landscape and Irrigation Codes $1,055,819 $1,055,819 $350,316 $7,979,608 3.01 0.13 $78,568 46.098525 $161
PRV Pressure Reduction Valve Rebate $102,170 $193,972 $49,161 $132,223 2.08 1.47 $37,818 8.503521 $425
LEAK Leak Detection Device Rebate $174,130 $847,416 $306,843 $1,288,743 0.57 0.66 $80,053 6.065394 $1,895
UHET Ultra-High Efficiency Toilet Rebate $538,624 $538,624 $405,529 $761,556 1.33 0.71 $362,736 16.287780 $921
Conservation Measures
Benefit Cost Analysis
Benefit Cost Analysis
Next B/CDIPGENSCHLanSPRRAIRAIHOTOIUHEUHELEAPRVLDSMUNOCIIRIRRWCRESAMIConserPrevio
Review Data
Util Cost Five Year Start Year Water Savings Year Units
Benefit Cost Analysis
Model Use and Validation: The DSS Model has been used for over 20 years for practical applications of
conservation planning in over 300 service areas representing 60 million people, including extensive efforts
nationally and internationally in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
Figure B-3. DSS Model Analysis Locations in the U.S.
The DSS Model can use one of the following: 1) a statistical approach to forecast demands (e.g., an
econometric model); 2) a forecasted increase in population and employment; 3) predicted future demands; or
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 50
4) a demand projection entered into the model from an outside source. For the City, baseline demand was
developed based on an increase in residential population. The following figure presents the flow of
information in the DSS Model Analysis.
Figure B-4. DSS Model Analysis Flow
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 51
APPENDIX C – PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS W ITH AND
W ITHOUT PLUMBING CODE SAVINGS
This section presents baseline water demands with and without the plumbing code; details regarding the
national and state plumbing codes; and key inputs and assumptions used in the DSS Model, which is used to
prepare long-range, detailed demand projections. This rigorous modeling approach is especially important if
the project will be subject to regulatory or environmental review.
C.1 Projected Baseline Demand
The assumptions having the most dramatic effect on future demands are: 1) the natural replacement rate of
fixtures; 2) how residential or commercial future use is projected; and 3) the percent of estimated real water
losses. As described in the previous section, baseline customer category water use was determined using
2017–2017 historical monthly water use, with the exception of industrial water use using 2018–2019 monthly
water use due to data.
C.2 Estimated Plumbing Code Savings
The DSS Model forecasts service area water fixture use. In the codes and standards part of the DSS Model,
specific fixture end-use type (point of use fixture or appliance), average water use, and lifetime are compiled.
Additionally, state and national plumbing codes and appliance standards for toilets, urinals, showers, and
clothes washers are modeled by customer category. This approach yields two distinct demand forecasts
related to plumbing code savings: 1) with plumbing codes and 2) without plumbing codes. Plumbing code
measures are independent of any conservation program and are based on customers following applicable
local, state, and federal laws, building codes, and ordinances.
Plumbing code-related water savings are considered “passive” and reliable long-term savings and can be
depended upon over time to help reduce overall system water demand. In contrast, water savings are
considered “active” if a specific action unrelated to the implementation of codes and standards is taken by the
utility to accomplish conservation measure savings (e.g., offering turf replacement rebates). The DSS Model
incorporates the following items as a “code,” meaning that the savings are assumed to occur and therefore are
“passive” savings:
• The Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 (amended in 2005)
• 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) (IAPMO)
The following figure conceptually describes how plumbing codes using “fixture models” are incorporated into
the flow of information in the DSS Model.10 The demand projections, including plumbing code savings, further
assumes no active involvement by the water utility, and that the costs of purchasing and installing replacement
equipment (and new equipment in new construction) are borne solely by the customers, occurring at no direct
utility expense. The inverse of the fixture life is the natural replacement rate expressed as a percent (i.e., 10
years is a rate of 10% per year).
10 Fixture models are used in the DSS Model to track individual plumbing devices and their water savings as they change
and become more efficient over time.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 52
Figure C-1. DSS Model Overview Used to Make Potable Water Demand Projections
The DSS Model makes water demand projections using a multi-level process.
Tables C-1 and C-2 show the water system demands for the City in acre-feet in 5-year increments over the 21-
year modeling period (2020–2040). Figure C-2 illustrates demands in graphical format. Both the table and the
figure include historical (baseline) demand as well as demand with and without plumbing code.
Table C-1. City of Bozeman Potable Water System Demands for Years 2025–2040 in AFY
AFY 2025 2030 2035 2040
Baseline
Demands 8,070 9,530 11,240 13,250
Plumbing
Code Savings 140 320 510 730
Demands with
Plumbing
Code Savings
7,930 9,210 10,730 12,520
All numbers in the above table are rounded to the nearest 10 AFY.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 53
Table C-2. City of Bozeman Potable Water System Demands for Years 2025–2040 in GPCD
GPCD 2025 2030 2035 2040
Baseline Demands 116 117 118 119
Plumbing Code Savings 2 4 5 7
Demands with Plumbing Code Savings 114 113 113 112
Figure C-2. City of Bozeman Potable Water System Demands
C.3 National Plumbing Code
The Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992, as amended in 2005, mandates that only
fixtures meeting the following standards can be installed in new buildings:
• Toilet – 1.6 gal/flush maximum
• Urinals – 1.0 gal/flush maximum
• Showerhead – 2.5 gal/min at 80 pounds per square inch (psi)
• Residential faucets – 2.2 gal/min at 60 psi
• Public restroom faucets – 0.5 gal/min at 60 psi
• Dishwashing pre-rinse spray valves – 1.6 gal/min at 60 psi
Replacement of fixtures in existing buildings is also governed by the Federal Energy Policy Act, which mandates
that only devices with the specified level of efficiency (as shown above) can be sold as of 2006. The net result
of the plumbing code is that new buildings will have more efficient fixtures and old inefficient fixtures will
slowly be replaced with new, more efficient models. The national plumbing code is an important piece of
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 54
legislation and must be carefully taken into consideration when analyzing the overall water efficiency of a
service area.
In addition to the plumbing code, the U.S. Department of Energy regulates appliances, such as residential
clothes washers, further reducing indoor water demands. Regulations to make these appliances more energy
efficient have driven manufactures to dramatically reduce the amount of water these machines use. Generally,
front-loading washing machines use 30-50% less water than conventional models (which are still available).
In this analysis, the DSS Model forecasts a gradual transition to high efficiency clothes washers (using 12
gallons or less) so that by the year 2025 that will be the only type of machine available for purchase. In
addition to the industry becoming more efficient, rebate programs for washers have been successful in
encouraging customers to buy more water efficient models.
Given that machines last about 10 years, eventually all
machines on the market will be the more water efficient
models. Energy Star clothes washers have a water factor of
6.0 or less – the equivalent of using 3.1 cubic feet (or 23.2
gallons) of water per load. The maximum water factor for
residential clothes washers under current federal standards
is 6.5. The water factor equals the number of gallons used
per cycle per cubic foot of capacity. Prior to the year 2000,
the water factor for a typical new residential clothes washer
was around 12. In March 2015, the federal standard
reduced the maximum water factor for top-and front-
loading machines to 8.4 and 4.7, respectively. In 2018, the maximum water factor for top-loading machines
was further reduced to 6.5. For commercial washers, the maximum water factors were reduced in 2010 to 8.5
and 5.5 for top-and front-loading machines, respectively. Beginning in 2015, the maximum water factor for
Energy Star certified washers was 3.7 for front-loading and 4.3 for top-loading machines. In 2011, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency estimated that Energy Star washers comprised more that 60% of the
residential market and 30% of the commercial market (Energy Star, 2011). A new Energy Star compliant
washer uses about two-thirds less water per cycle than washers manufactured in the 1990s.
C.4 Key Baseline Potable Demand Inputs, Passive Savings Assumptions, and Resources
The following table presents the key assumptions and references that are used in the DSS Model in
determining projected demands with plumbing code savings.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 55
Table C-3. List of Key Assumptions
Parameter Model Input Value, Assumptions, and Key References
Model Start Year for
Analysis 2020
Water Demand Factor
Year (Base Year)
Customer Category Breakdown: 2012–2017, except 2018–2019 for
industrial. Indoor Basis: 2017–2018, 2018–2019 for industrial.
Population Projection
Source
Based on average compound annual population growth rate (CAGR) from
2000–2020 of 3.16%
Starting with 2020 actual census population
Employment
Projection Source May 2019 Bozeman Area Labor Report
Avoided Cost of Water $1,645/AF (based on future avoided capital expansions)
Parameter Potable Water System Base Year Water Use Profile
Customer Categories Start Year
Accounts
Total Water
Use
Distribution
Demand
Factors
(gpd/acct)
Indoor Use
%
2020
Residential
Indoor
Water Use
(GPCD)
Single Family
Residential 9,960 40% 214 49% 42
Multi-Family 2,503 24% 520 77% 42
Commercial 1,066 21% 1,061 71% N/A
Commercial Special 113 2.2% 1,037 33% N/A
Industrial 1 1.1% 57,135 71% N/A
Government 48 1.5% 1,709 29% N/A
Government Special 9 0.3% 1,756 41% N/A
Montana State
University 19 9% 23,983 59% N/A
Low Income 155 0.4% 145 54% N/A
New Single Family
Residential 1 0% 292 33% N/A
Total/Avg 13,875 100% N/A 74% N/A
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 56
Table C-4. Key Assumptions Resources
Parameter Resource
Residential End Uses
Key Reference: AWWA Research Foundation (AWWARF) Report “Residential End
Uses of Water, Version 2 -4309” (DeOreo, 2016).
Table 2-A. Water Consumption by Water-Using Plumbing Products and Appliances
-1980–2012. PERC Phase 1 Report. Plumbing Efficiency Research Coalition. 2013.
http://www.map-testing.com/content/info/menu/perc.html
Model Input Values are found in the “End Uses” section of the DSS Model on the
“Breakdown” worksheet.
Non-Residential End
Uses, percent
Key Reference: AWWARF Report "Commercial and Institutional End Uses of
Water” (Dziegielewski, 2000 – Appendix D: Details of Commercial and Industrial
Assumptions, by End Use).
Model Input Values are found in the “End Uses” section of the DSS Model on the
“Breakdown” worksheet.
Efficiency Residential
Fixture Current
Installation Rates
U.S. Census, Housing age by type of dwelling plus natural replacement plus rebate
program (if any).
Key Reference: GMP Research, Inc. (2019). 2019 U.S. WaterSense Market
Penetration Industry Report.
Key Reference: Consortium for Efficient Energy (www.cee1.org).
Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section of the
DSS Model by customer category fixtures.
Water Savings for
Fixtures, gal/capita/day
Key Reference: AWWARF Report “Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 -
4309” (DeOreo, 2016).
The City supplied data on costs and savings; professional judgment was made
where no published data was available.
Key Reference: California Energy Commission, Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and
Faucets, Report # CEC-400-2014-007-SD, 2014.
Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section on the
“Fixtures” worksheet of the DSS Model.
Non-Residential Fixture
Efficiency Current
Installation Rates
Key Reference: 2010 U.S. Census, Housing age by type of dwelling plus natural
replacement plus rebate program (if any). Assume commercial establishments
built at same rate as housing, plus natural replacement.
California Energy Commission, Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and Faucets,
Report # CEC-400-2014-007-SD, 2014.
Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section of the
DSS Model by customer category fixtures.
Key Reference: AWWARF Report “Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 -
Residential Frequency
of Use Data, Toilets,
Showers, Faucets,
Washers,
Uses/user/day
4309” (DeOreo, 2016). Summary values can be found in the full report:
http://www.waterrf.org/Pages/Projects.aspx?PID=4309
Key Reference: California Energy Commission, Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and
Faucets, Report # CEC-400-2014-007-SD, 2014.
Key Reference: Alliance for Water Efficiency, The Status of Legislation, Regulation,
Codes & Standards on Indoor Plumbing Water Efficiency, January 2016.
Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section on the
“Fixtures” worksheet of the DSS Model and confirmed in each “Service Area
Calibration End Use” worksheet by customer category.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 57
Parameter Resource
Non-Residential
Frequency of Use Data,
Toilets, Urinals, and
Faucets, Uses/user/day
Key References: Estimated based on AWWARF Report "Commercial and
Institutional End Uses of Water” (Dziegielewski, 2000 – Appendix D: Details of
Commercial and Industrial Assumptions, by End Use).
Key Reference: California Energy Commission, Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and
Faucets, Report # CEC-400-2014-007-SD, 2014.
Fixture uses over a 5-day work week are prorated to 7 days.
Non-residential 0.5gpm faucet standards per Table 2-A. Water Consumption by
Water-Using Plumbing Products and Appliances -1980–2012. PERC Phase 1
Report. Plumbing Efficiency Research Coalition, 2012. http://www.map-
testing.com/content/info/menu/perc.html
Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section on the
“Fixtures” worksheet of the DSS Model and confirmed in each “Service Area
Calibration End Use” worksheet by customer category.
Residential Toilets 2%-4%
Non-Residential Toilets 2%-3%
Residential Showers 4% (corresponds to 25-year life of a new fixture)
Residential Clothes Washers 10% (based on 10-year washer life).
Key References: “Residential End Uses of Water” (DeOreo, 2016) and “Bern
Clothes Washer Study, Final Report” (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1998).
Natural Replacement
Rate of Fixtures
(percent per year)
Residential Faucets 10% and Non-Residential Faucets 6.7% (every 15 years). CEC
uses an average life of 10 years for faucet accessories (aerators). A similar
assumption can be made for public lavatories, though no hard data exists and
since CII fixtures are typically replaced less frequently than residential, 15 years is
assumed. CEC, Analysis of Standards Proposal for Residential Faucets and Faucet
Accessories, a report prepared under CEC’s Codes and Standards Enhancement
Initiative, Docket #12-AAER-2C, August 2013.
Model Input Value is found in the “Codes and Standards” green section on the
“Fixtures” worksheet of the DSS Model.
Residential Future
Water Use Increases Based on Population Growth and Demographic Forecast
Non-Residential Future
Water Use Increases Based on Employment Growth and Demographic Forecast
Fixture Estimates
Determining the current level of efficient fixtures in a service area while evaluating passive savings in the DSS
Model is part of the standard process and is called “initial fixture proportions.” MWM reconciled water
efficient fixtures and devices installed within the City of Bozeman service area and estimated the number of
outstanding inefficient fixtures.
MWM used the DSS Model to perform a saturation analysis for toilets, urinals, showerheads, faucets, and
clothes washers. The process included a review of age of buildings from census data, number of rebates per
device, and assumed natural replacement rates. MWM presumed the fixtures that were nearing saturation
and worth analysis would include residential toilets and residential clothes washers.
In 2014, the Water Research Foundation updated its 1999 Residential End Uses of Water Study (REUWS).
Water utilities, industry regulators, and government planning agencies consider it the industry benchmark for
single family home indoor water use. This Plan incorporates recent study results which reflect the change to
the profile of water use in residential homes including adoption of more water efficient fixtures over the 15
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 58
years that transpired from 1999 to 2014. REUWS results were combined with City historical rebate and billing
data to enhance and verify assumptions made for all customer accounts, including saturation levels on the
above-mentioned plumbing fixtures.
The DSS Model presents the estimated current and projected proportions of these fixtures by efficiency level
within the City’s service area. These proportions were calculated by:
• Using standards in place at the time of building construction;
• Taking the initial proportions of homes by age (corresponding to fixture efficiency levels);
• Adding the net change due to natural replacement; then
• Adding the change due to rebate measure minus the "free rider effect.”11
Further adjustments were made to initial proportions to account for the reduction in fixture use due to lower
occupancy and based on field observations. The projected fixture proportions do not include any future active
conservation measures implemented by the City. More information about the development of initial and
projected fixture proportions can be found in the DSS Model “Codes and Standards” section.
The DSS Model is capable of modeling multiple types of fixtures, including fixtures with different designs. For
example, currently toilets can be purchased that flush at a rate of <1.0 gpf, 1.28 gpf or 1.6 gpf. So, the DSS
Model utilizes fixture replacement rates to determine what type of fixture should be used for a new
construction installation or replacement. The replacement of the fixtures is listed as a percentage within the
DSS Model. A value of 100% would indicate that all the toilets installed would be of one particular flush
volume. A value of 75% means that three out of every four toilets installed would be of that particular flush
volume. All the Fixture Model information and assumptions were carefully reviewed and accepted by City staff.
The DSS Model provides inputs and analysis of the number, type, and replacement rates of fixtures for each
customer category (e.g., single family toilets, commercial toilets, residential clothes washers). For example, the
DSS Model incorporates the effects of the 1992 Federal Energy Policy Act on toilet fixtures. A DSS Model
feature determines the “saturation” of 1.6 gpf toilets as the 1992 Federal Energy Policy Act was in effect from
1992–2014 for 1.6 gpf toilet replacements. Further consideration and adjustments were made to replacement
rates to account for the reduction in fixture use and wear, due to lower occupancy and based on field
observations.
11 It is important to note that in water conservation program management the “free rider effect” occurs when a customer
applies for and receives a rebate on a targeted high efficiency fixture that they would have purchased even without a rebate.
In this case, the rebate was not the incentive for their purchase but a “bonus.” Rebate measures are designed to target
customers needing financial incentive to install the more efficient fixture.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 59
A PPENDIX D – DSS MODEL MEASURE ANALYSIS,
METHODOLOGY, PERSPECTIVES, AND ASSUMPTIONS
Throughout the planning process, the City and MWM conducted more than 20 meetings, primarily in an effort
to complete the DSS Model, which is robust for each of the 25 measures modeled. In the model, the City
identified fixture costs, applicable customer classes, time period of implementation, measure life,
administrative costs, end uses, end-use savings per replacement, and a target number or percentage of
accounts per program year.
D.1 Water Reduction Methodology
Each conservation measure targets a particular water use, such as indoor single family water use. Targeted
water uses are categorized by water user group and by end use. Targeted water user groups include single
family residential; multi-family residential; commercial, industrial, and institutional; and so forth. Measures
may apply to more than one water user group. Targeted end uses include indoor and outdoor use. The
targeted water use is important to identify because the water savings are generated from reductions in water
use for the targeted end use. For example, a residential retrofit conservation measure targets single family and
multi-family residential indoor use, and in some cases specifically shower use. When considering the water
savings potential generated by a residential retrofit, one considers the water saved by installing low-flow
showerheads in single family and multi-family homes.
The market penetration goal for a measure is the extent to which the product or service related to the
conservation measure occupies the potential market. The market penetration goal identifies how many
fixtures, rebates, surveys, and so forth that the wholesale customer would have to offer or conduct over time
to reach its water savings goal for that conservation measure. This is often expressed in terms of the number
of fixtures, rebates, or surveys offered or conducted per year.
The potential for error in market penetration goal estimates for each measure can be significant because the
estimates are based on previous experience, chosen implementation methods, projected utility effort, and
funds allocated to implement the measure. The potential error can be corrected through reevaluation of the
measure as the implementation of the measure progresses. For example, if the market penetration required to
achieve specific water savings turns out to be different than predicted, adjustments to the implementation
efforts can be made. Larger rebates or additional promotions are often used to increase the market
penetration. The process is iterative to reflect actual conditions and helps to ensure that market penetration
and needed savings are achieved regardless of future variances between estimates and actual conditions.
In contrast, market penetration for mandatory ordinances can be more predictable with the greatest potential
for error occurring in implementing the ordinance change. For example, requiring dedicated irrigation meters
for new accounts through an ordinance can assure an almost 100% market penetration for affected properties.
The City is constantly examining when a measure might reach saturation. Baseline surveys are the best
approach to having the most accurate information on market saturation. This was considered when analyzing
individual conservation measures where best estimates were made. MWM was not provided with any baseline
surveys for this analysis, but discussions were held with the City regarding what the saturation best estimates
were within its service area.
D.2 Present Value Analysis and Perspectives on Benefits and Costs
The determination of the economic feasibility of water conservation programs involves comparing the costs of
the programs to the benefits provided using the DSS Model, which calculates the cost effectiveness of
conservation measure savings at the end-use level. For example, the model determines the amount of water a
toilet rebate program saves in daily toilet use for each single-family account.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 60
Present value analysis using present day dollars and a real discount rate of 3% is used to discount costs and
benefits to the base year. From this analysis, benefit-cost ratios of each measure are computed. When
measures are put together in programs, the model is set up to avoid double counting savings from multiple
measures that act on the same end use of water. For example, multiple measures in a program may target
toilet replacements. The model includes assumptions to apportion water savings between the multiple
measures.
Economic analysis can be performed from several perspectives, based on which party is affected. For planning
water use efficiency programs for utilities, perspectives most used for benefit-cost analyses are the “utility”
perspective and the “community” perspective. The “utility” benefit-cost analysis is based on the benefits and
costs to the water provider. The “community” benefit-cost analysis includes the utility benefit and costs
together with account owner/customer benefits and costs. These include customer energy and other capital or
operating cost benefits plus costs of implementing the measure beyond what the utility pays.
The utility perspective offers two advantages. First, it considers only the program costs that will be directly
borne by the utility. This enables the utility to fairly compare potential investments for saving versus supplying
increased quantities of water. Second, revenue shifts are treated as transfer payments, which means program
participants will have lower water bills and non-participants will have slightly higher water bills so that the
utility’s revenue needs continue to be met. Therefore, the analysis is not complicated with uncertainties
associated with long-term rate projections and retail rate design assumptions. It should be noted that there is
a significant difference between the utility’s savings from the avoided cost of procurement and delivery of
water and the reduction in retail revenue that results from reduced water sales due to water use efficiency.
This budget impact occurs slowly and can be accounted for in water rate planning. Because it is the water
provider’s role in developing a water use efficiency plan that is vital in this study, the utility perspective was
primarily used to evaluate elements of this report.
The community perspective is defined to include the utility and the customer costs and benefits. Costs
incurred by customers striving to save water while participating in water use efficiency programs are
considered, as well as benefits received in terms of reduced energy bills (from water heating costs) and
wastewater savings, among others. Water bill savings are not a customer benefit in aggregate for reasons
described previously. Other factors external to the utility, such as environmental effects, are often difficult to
quantify or are not necessarily under the control of the utility. They are therefore frequently excluded from
economic analyses, including this one.
The time value of money is explicitly considered. Typically, the costs to save water occur early in the planning
period whereas the benefits usually extend to the end of the planning period. For this reason, a planning
period of 10 years or longer is used because costs and benefits that occur beyond 10 years have little influence
on the total present value of costs and benefits. The value of all future costs and benefits is discounted to the
first year in the DSS Model (the base year) at the real interest rate of 3.01%. The DSS Model calculates this real
interest rate, adjusting the current nominal interest rate (assumed to be approximately 6.1%) by the assumed
rate of inflation (3.0%).
The formula to calculate the real interest rate is:
(nominal interest rate – assumed rate of inflation) / (1 + assumed rate of inflation)
Cash flows discounted in this manner are herein referred to as “Present Value” sums.
D.3 Measure Cost and Water Savings Assumptions
Appendix E presents more detail on the assumptions and inputs used in the City’s DSS Model to evaluate each
water conservation measure. Assumptions regarding the following variables were made for each measure:
• Targeted Water User Group End Use – Water user group (e.g., single family residential) and end use
(e.g., indoor or outdoor water use).
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 61
• Utility Unit Cost – Cost of rebates, incentives, and contractors hired to implement measures. The
assumed dollar values for the measure unit costs were closely reviewed by staff and are found to be
adequate for each individual measure. The values in most cases are in the range of what is offered by
other water utilities in the region.
• Retail Customer Unit Cost – Cost for implementing measures that is paid by retail customers (i.e., the
remainder of a measure’s cost that is not covered by a utility rebate or incentive).
• Utility Administration and Marketing Cost – The cost to the utility for administering the measure,
including consultant contract administration, marketing, and participant tracking. The mark-up is
sufficient (in total) to cover conservation staff time, general expenses, and overhead.
Costs are determined for each of the measures based on industry knowledge, experience, and data provided
by the City. Costs may include incentive costs, usually determined on a per-participant basis; fixed costs, such
as marketing; variable costs, such as the cost to staff the measures and to obtain and maintain equipment; and
a one-time set-up cost. The set-up cost is for measure design by staff or consultants, any required pilot testing,
and preparation of materials that are used in marketing the measure. Measure costs are estimated each year
through 2040. Costs are spread out depending on the length of the implementation period for the measure
and estimated voluntary customer participation levels.
Lost revenue due to reduced water sales is not included as a cost because the water use conservation
measures evaluated herein generally take effect over a long span of time. This span is sufficient to enable
timely rate adjustments, if necessary, to meet fixed cost obligations and savings on variable costs such as
energy and chemicals.
The unit costs vary according to the type of customer account and implementation method being addressed.
For example, a measure might have a different cost for a residential single-family account than for a residential
multi-family account, or for a rebate versus an ordinance requirement or a direct installation implementation
method. Typically, water utilities have found there are increased costs associated with achieving higher market
saturation, such as more water efficiency surveys per year. The DSS Model calculates the annual costs based
on the number of participants each year. The general formula for calculating annual utility costs is:
• Annual Utility Cost = Annual market penetration rate x total accounts in category x unit cost per
account x (1+administration and marketing markup percentage)
• Annual Customer Cost = Annual number of participants x unit customer cost
• Annual Community Cost = Annual utility cost + annual customer cost
Data necessary to forecast water savings of measures include specifics on water use, demographics, market
penetration, and unit water savings. Savings normally develop at a measured and predetermined pace,
reaching full maturity after full market penetration is achieved. This may occur 3–10 years after the start of
implementation, depending upon the implementation schedule.
For every water use efficiency activity or replacement with more efficient devices, there is a useful life. The
useful life is called the “Measure Life” and is defined to be how long water use conservation measures stay in
place and continue to save water. It is assumed that measures implemented because of codes, standards, or
ordinances (e.g., toilets) would be “permanent” and not revert to an old inefficient level of water use if the
device needed to be replaced. However, some measures that are primarily behavior-based, such as residential
surveys, are assumed to need to be repeated on an ongoing basis to retain the water savings (e.g.,
homeowners move away, and the new homeowners may have less efficient water using practices). Surveys
typically have a measure life of about five years.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 62
APPENDIX E – INDIVIDUAL CONSERVATION MEASURE
DESIGN INPUTS AND RESULTS
Water Loss
2040 $25,000
Targets
2040 10.1%
Water Savings (afy)
2040 317.184717
Overview
Name Water Loss
Description Results
In conjunction with system accounting
(maintaining a thorough annual accounting of
water production, sales by customer class and
quantity of water produced but not sold),
include audits that identify and quantify known
legitimate uses of non-revenue water in order
to determine remaining non-revenue water
losses. Goal would be to lower the
Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) and non-
revenue water every year by a pre-determined
amount based on cost-effectiveness. These
programs typically pay for themselves based on
savings in operational costs (and saved rate
revenue can be directed more to system
repairs/replacement and other costs).
Average Water Savings (afy)
126.565576
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility
Years to Complete Backlog 20
Abbr 1
Category 2
Measure Type
Community $391,935
Benefit to Cost Ratio
3
Time Period
First Year 2022
Backlog Costs
Total Backlog Work Costs $500,000
Utility 8.75
Community 8.75
$3,431,066
Community $3,431,066
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $391,935
Utility
2020 $0
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
Utility $147
Comments
Total GPCD Reduction 3.0
Target
• Start Year: 2022
• Annual Target is <10% leakage, decreasing ILI
• Annual Budget: $25,000 for professional audit
services
• The $25k for professional services will come
from the conservation budget. Additional
funding to implement infrastructure
improvements will come from the operations
budget.
Costs
Maintenance Costs
Annual Maintenance Costs $25,000
2024 $25,000
2025 $25,000
2026 $25,000
2021 $0
2022 $25,000
2023 $25,000
2031 $25,000
2032 $25,000
2027 $25,000
2028 $25,000
2029 $25,000
2039 $25,000
Projected NRW Percent
2020 12.6%
2021
2036 $25,000
2037 $25,000
2038 $25,000
2033 $25,000
2034 $25,000
2035 $25,000
2030 $25,000
2025 12.1%
2026 11.9%
2027 11.8%
12.6%
2022 12.5%
2023 12.3%
2024 12.2%
2031 11.3%
2032 11.1%
2033 11.0%
2028 11.7%
2029 11.5%
2030 11.4%
2037 10.5%
2038 10.3%
2039 10.2%
2034 10.9%
2035 10.7%
2036 10.6%
2021 0.000000
2022 9.535745
2023 19.674150
Total Savings
2020 0.000000
80.449008
2029 94.847081
2024 30.443780
2025 41.874404
2026 53.997044
2039 291.286143
2036 221.108062
2037 243.301415
2038 266.676599
2033 161.124122
2034 180.066948
2035 200.046069
2030 110.074780
2031 126.170159
2032 143.172850
2027 66.844021
2028
Units
Water Loss
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 63
Tiered Rate Structure for MF
Price Elasticity
-0.08 -0.05 -0.16
Utility Costs
Annual Maintenance Cost $9,000
Consumer Price Index
Annual Increase 2%
Rate Study Cost $20,000
Rate Study Frequency (every # yrs.)5
Overall Indoor Outdoor
Community $68,754
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Community 0.65
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
Utility $831
Utility 0.65
2037 1.0 4%2037 11.571351
2020 0.0 0%
2037 $9,000 $0 $9,000
2021 $0 $0 $0
2022 $0
2023 $0 $0 $0
2024 $0
Overview
Name Tiered Rate Structure for MF
Results
Tiered rates for MF customers. Existing rates
would be changed to create an incentive to use
less water. Modifications could include
adjusting the tiers, or adjusting the rates in the
upper tiers, to increase the incentive to reduce
landscape watering.
2036 3.9%1.9%
Description
2039 3.9%1.9%
2040 3.9%1.9%
2037 3.9%
Comments
Planned Rate Increases
Change
Year
Price Incr
(%)
Price Incr
Adjusting for
Inflation
Customer Class
Customer Class 2
Time Period
First Year 2035
Abbr 2
Category 2
Measure Type 5
2035 3.9%1.9%
1.9%
2038 3.9%1.9%Utility $68,754
Average Water Savings (afy)
3.940306
Utility $44,808
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Community $44,808
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
2020 $0 $0 $0
First Year of Rate Study 2035
First Year Index 1.0
> Start year 2035
> Per Bozeman 2019 COSA/rate study, MF price
elasticity peak and off-peak overall avg @ -
0.075. Indoor elasticity of -0.05 based on
Washington County Water Conservancy District,
Utah (WCWCD) 2021 rate study. Likely NOT
accurate since Bozeman uses unmetered wells
for MF irrigation.
> $20K rate study per Bozeman staff and
previous rate study costs and $9K/yr.
maintenance per WCWCD 2021 rate study costs.
> Bozeman would enact rate increases annually,
but for design purposes assume average
increase every year. An average 1.9% increase
for MF rates from 2019-2024 was assumed
above annual inflation. Adjusting future price
increase is based off of known current
information for potential future rate increase.
Costs
Utility Customer
Total
(Community)
0.0000002020
Projected Price Index
Price Index
Cumulative Index
Increase
2034 $0 $0 $0
2035 $29,000 $0 $29,000
$0 $0
2026 $0
2029 $0 $0 $0
2030 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0
2023 0.0 0%
2024 0.0 0%
2026 0.0 0%
2033 0.000000
2027 0.000000
2028 0.000000
2029 0.000000
2024 0.000000
2025
2026 0.000000
0.0 0%
2030 0.0
$0 $0
0.0 0%
$0 $0
2030 0.000000
2031 0.000000
2032 0.000000
2021 0.0 0%
2022 0.0 0%
2040 $29,000 $0 $29,000
2038 $9,000 $0 $9,000
2031 $0 $0 $0
2032 $0 $0 $0
2036 $9,000 $0 $9,000
2033 $0 $0 $0
2039 1.1 8%
2025 $0
2039 $9,000 $0 $9,000
2027 $0 $0 $0
2028 $0 $0 $0
2036 1.0 2%
2033 0.0 0%
2034
0%
2027
2028
0.000000
2038 1.1 6%
0.0 0%
2031 0.0 0%
2032 0.0 0%
0.0 0%
2025 0.0 0%
2034 0.000000
2035 3.739146
2040 1.1 10%
2035 1.0 0%
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2038 15.672493
2039 19.902572
2040 24.265922
2021 0.000000
2022 0.000000
2023 0.000000
2036 7.594935
2029
Add Rate Increase
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Units
Tiered Rate
Structure for MF
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 64
AMI and Customer Water Use Portal
####################
####################
############
####################
####################
####################
####################
######
##########
####################
########
####################
####################
####################
##########
########
########
####################
############
Abbr 3
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name AMI and Customer Water Use Portal
INGGSMSU#####
Time Period
First Year 2020
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 21
MF $225.00 $500.00 1
Measure Life
Permanent #####
Years 15
Repeat
C $225.00 $500.00 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
R $225.00 $500.00 1
G $225.00 $500.00 1
GS $225.00 $500.00 1
CS $225.00 $500.00 1
IN $225.00 $500.00 1
Markup Percentage 10%
Description
Customer Classes
RMFCCSNew_SF $225.00 $500.00 1
Administration Costs
MSU $225.00 $500.00 1
LI $225.00 $500.00 1 GGSMSULINew_SFToilets LINew_SFEnd Uses
RMFCCSINBaths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process
$2,461,181
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $481,541
Community $1,454,351
Comments
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
46.859732
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $1,338,233
Community
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Utility $489
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 2.78
Community 1.69
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
C Internal Leakage 90.0%45.0
CS Internal Leakage 90.0%34.7
R Internal Leakage 90.0%14.1
MF Internal Leakage 90.0%53.9
GS Internal Leakage 90.0%72.2
MSU Internal Leakage 90.0%1,403.7
IN Internal Leakage 90.0%4,077.4
G Internal Leakage 90.0%50.1
MF Irrigation 5.0%99.8
C Irrigation 5.0%242.4
LI Internal Leakage 90.0%10.6
R Irrigation 5.0%91.2
G Irrigation 5.0%942.1
GS Irrigation 5.0%806.6
CS Irrigation 5.0%537.9
IN Irrigation 5.0%11,943.3
R External Leakage 90.0%7.7
MF External Leakage 90.0%8.4
MSU Irrigation 5.0%7,260.7
LI Irrigation 5.0%54.9
IN External Leakage 90.0%1,145.2
G External Leakage 90.0%84.5
C External Leakage 90.0%21.7
CS External Leakage 90.0%48.3
LI External Leakage 90.0%4.6
New_SF Internal Leakage 90.0%13.0
GS External Leakage 90.0%72.4
MSU External Leakage 90.0%696.2
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.0.600%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
New_SF Irrigation 5.0%162.3
New_SF External Leakage 90.0%13.7
2020 $18,731 $1,873 $20,604
2021 $19,260 $1,926 $21,186
Costs
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2024 $20,949 $2,095 $23,044
2025 $21,548 $2,155 $23,703
2022 $19,805 $1,981 $21,786
2023 $20,368 $2,037 $22,405
2028 $23,464 $2,346 $25,811
2029 $24,144 $2,414 $26,559
2026 $22,167 $2,217 $24,384
2027 $22,805 $2,281 $25,086
2032 $26,317 $2,632 $28,949
2033 $27,088 $2,709 $29,797
2030 $24,846 $2,485 $27,330
2031 $25,570 $2,557 $28,127
$3,043 $33,469
2034 $27,884 $2,788 $30,672
2035 $28,705 $2,870 $31,575
2040 $33,221 $3,322 $36,544
Targets
R MF C
2038 $31,329 $3,133 $34,462
2039 $32,260 $3,226 $35,486
2036 $29,552 $2,955 $32,507
2037 $30,427
2021 60 15 7 1 0
New_SF Total
2020 60 15 6 1 0 0 0
CS IN G GS MSU LI
0 0 0 1 2 86
0 1 0 83
0 0 0 1 3 8820226016710
0 0 0 1 5 9120236016710
0 0 0 1 7 9320246017710
0 0 0 1 8 9620256018810
0 0 0 1 10 9920266018810
0 0 0 1 12 10120276019810
0 0 0 1 14 10420286019810
0 0 0 1 16 10720296020910
0 0 0 1 18 11020306020910
0 0 0 1 20 11420316021910
0 0 0 1 23 117203260221010
0 0 0 1 25 120203360231010
0 0 0 1 27 124203460231010
0 0 0 1 30 128203560241110
0 0 0 2 32 131203660251110
0 0 0 2 35 135203760251110
1 0 0 2 38 139203860261210
1 0 0 2 40 143203960271210
1 0 0 2 43 148204060281310
2021 7.418447
2022 11.316483
2023 15.345813
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2020 3.647609
58.263030
2027 32.862744
2028 37.614784
2029 42.525633
2024 19.510668
2025 23.815413
2026 28.264554
> Retrofit system with AMI meters and associated network capable of providing continuous consumption data to
Utility offices. Improved identification of system and customer leaks is a major conservation benefit. Some of the
costs of these systems are offset by operational efficiencies and reduced staffing, as regular meter reading and
those for opening and closing accounts are accomplished without the need for physical or drive-by meter reading.
Also enables enhanced billing options and ability to monitor unauthorized use (such as use/tampering with closed
accounts or irrigation if time of day or days per week are regulated). Customer service is improved as staff can
quickly access continuous usage records to address customer inquiries. Optional features include online customer
access to their use, which has been shown to improve accountability and reduce water use. A ten year change-out
would be a reasonable objective.
> Dropcountr water use portal which shows water use at an hourly timescale for customers with AMI meters, as well
as sends leak alerts, allows for customers to set billing thresholds, and see how water use compares to neighbors
and efficient neighbors. Customers without AMI capability can also see water use in Dropcountr, however it will
only be displayed at a monthly timescale - these customers will not benefit from leak alerts nor will they benefit
from setting billing thresholds.
• Utility Cost: Based on Dept. measure annual cost of ~$19.2K. Though Bozeman pays $1.35 per meter for Dropcountr, with a
total budget of $36,000/year, with a start year of 14,230 accounts, the cost is ~$19.2K. Utility cost per meter increase, as the
targets are only assumed accounts that have and fix leaks. Not included in the cost: $170 per AMI Meter upgrade with 800
retrofits a year. This is $136k/year through 2025. However this is coming from operations budget, therefore not included in the
utility cost. Costs for AMI infrastructure, such as additional gateways to transmit water use data, will come from operations
budget.
• Admin Markup: Per Dropcountr data provided by Bozeman, admin time includes customer Dropcountr inquiries, water use
research, QAQC, and meeting preparation. Average time spent in summer is ~25-35 hours/month, and the average time spent
in winter is ~20-25 hours/month. With an average annual time spent of ~60 hours. Fully staff burden rate is $29.92/hr. Average
annual admin cost if 60 hours X $29.92 = $1,795.20.
Admin cost updated to be a percentage to represent 1 hour of staff time per account.
• Customer Cost: Assumed average cost for leak repair
• End Use Water Savings: AMI savings based on significant reductions to leakage and irrigation end uses. Savings based on San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) case study per Julie Ortiz ppt at 2019 Peer-to-Peer “AMI: Everything you need to
know to run a successful program." Savings are estimated to be 20%-50% on leakage, assumes average of 30% (internal and
external) with a potential additional 5% savings on all other end uses due to behavioral changes, 5% savings to irrigation. For
this measure, water savings increased to 90% on leak end use since ONLY leaking customers are targeted, not all.
• Targets: Approx. based off of Dropcountr/Neptune meter data leak alerts and adjusted to meter data backfilling/meter
communication lag.
2039 82.069818
2040 84.799664
2036 74.381091
2037 76.863155
2038 79.425204
2033 63.861961
2034 69.646992
2035 71.976511
2030 47.600407
2031 52.844389
2032
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
AMI and Customer Water Use Portal
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 65
Capital Project – Retrofit City Medians with Drought Tolerant Landscaping and Efficient
Irrigation
####################
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2020 0.000000
• Utility Cost: Costs for installation of project will likely
come from Streets budget, therefore not included in the
utility cost.
Per Bozeman staff, a budget of approx. ~$15k for design
cost for the Valley Center median project.
• Admin Markup: Assumes 1% admin cost
• Customer Cost: No customer costs
• End Use Water Savings: Savings assumes measure
targets GS account with only irrigation end use. Assume
the median project will be approximately 28,619 square
feet to yield an average annual savings of 20.7 gal/sq.ft.
x 28,619 sq.ft. =592,393 gal/yr/site on average (or 1,622
gpd/site).
• Targets: Only City water median project is the Valley
Center project. Therefore only one project. Not
including well irrigated sites as model is potable water
only.
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2020 $0 $0 $0
Targets
GS Total
2020 0 0
Overview
Name Capital Project - Retrofit City Medians with Drought Tolerant Landscaping and Efficient Irrigation
INGGSMSULINew_SFTime Period
First Year 2027
Last Year 2027
Measure Length 1
Abbr 4
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Markup Percentage 1%
Description
Retrofit turfgrass street medians with drought
tolerant landscaping and efficient irrigation to
serve as an example of Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to the community and reduce water use.
Customer Classes
RMFCCSGS $15,000.00 $0.00 1
Administration Costs
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
End Uses
RMFCCSINShowers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process GGSMSULINew_SFToilets
Comments
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
1.212077
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $33,510
Community
Pools
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 2.51
Community 2.51
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$33,510
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $13,365
Community $13,365
GS Irrigation 1,622.0 806.6
Targets
# of Accts Targeted/Yr.1
Utility $525
End Use Savings Per Replacement
Savings GPD/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
2022 $0 $0 $0
2023 $0 $0 $0
2021 $0 $0 $0
2026 $0 $0 $0
2027 $15,000 $150 $15,150
2024 $0 $0 $0
2025 $0 $0 $0
2030 $0 $0 $0
2031 $0 $0 $0
2028 $0 $0 $0
2029 $0 $0 $0
2034 $0 $0 $0
2035 $0 $0 $0
2032 $0 $0 $0
2033 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0
2036 $0 $0 $0
2037 $0 $0 $0
2021 0 0
2022
2040 $0 $0 $0
2038 $0 $0 $0
2039 $0
2025 0 0
2026 0 0
0 0
2023 0 0
2024 0 0
2029 0 0
2030 0 0
2027 1 1
2028 0 0
2033 0 0
2034 0 0
2031 0 0
2032 0 0
2039 0 0
2040 0 0
2023 0.000000
2024 0.000000
2025 0.000000
2037 0 0
2038 0 0
2035 0 0
2036 0 0
1.818115
2030 1.818115
2031 1.818115
2026 0.000000
2027 1.818115
2028 1.818115
2038 1.818115
2039 1.818115
2040 1.818115
2035 1.818115
2036 1.818115
2037 1.818115
2032 1.818115
2033 1.818115
2034 1.818115
2029
2021 0.000000
2022 0.000000
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Capital Project -Retrofit City Medians with
Drought Tolerant Landscaping
and Efficient Irrigation
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 66
Capital Project – Upgrade City Facility Irrigation Systems
####################
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
2037 1.646328
2038 1.646328
2037 $0 $0 $0
2038 $0 $0 $0
2037 0 0 0
2038 0 0 0
2035 0 0 0
2036 0 0 0 2036 1.646328
2033 1.646328
2034 1.646328
2035 1.646328
2030 1.646328
2031 1.646328
2032 1.646328
2027 1.646328
2028 1.646328
2029 1.646328
2024 0.411582
2025
Total Savings (afy)
2020 0.000000
Water Savings
0.823164
2026 1.234746
2021 0.000000
2022 0.000000
2023 0.000000
0 0
2031 0 0 0
2032 0 0 0
2033 0 0 0
2034 0
2029 0 0 0
2030 0 0 0
2027 1 1 2
2028 0 0 0
2025 1 1 2
2026 1 1 2
2023 0 0 0
2024 1 1 2
2031 $0 $0 $0
2032 $0 $0 $0
2029 $0 $0 $0
2030 $0 $0 $0
2036 $0 $0 $0
2033 $0 $0 $0
2034 $0 $0 $0
2035 $0 $0 $0
2027 $21,000 $651 $21,651
2028 $0 $0 $0
2025 $21,000 $651 $21,651
2026 $21,000 $651 $21,651
2023 $0 $0 $0
2024 $21,000 $651 $21,651
2021 $0 $0 $0
2022 $0 $0 $0
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2020 $0 $0 $0
G GS Total
2020 0 0 0
• Utility Cost: $8k per system to complete all upgrades identified in an audit and convert to CICS. Plus $20k total for labor (~ $2,500 per site). Total Utility cost of $10,500
• Admin Markup: Assumes an average of 11 hours per project, with approx. 6 hours for field audit and 5 hours for office time. Assumes admin time is at the Water Conservation
Technician fully burdened rate of $29.92. This is ~$330 per project and can vary (less time/more time) depending on the project.
• Customer Cost: No cost to customer
• End Use Water Savings: The water savings are based on the following from the 2018 Landscape Rebate Water Savings Study from Valley Water:
> The annual water savings for replacing timer-based automatic irrigation controllers with weather-based irrigation controllers with rain shut-off devices were statistically
significant each year following conversion, incrementally increased each year following conversion, and were on average 9 gal/ft2/yr. or an average of 27%
> The annual water savings for replacing old sprinklers with high-efficiency nozzles was 1,243 gal/unit/yr. on average or an average of 15.3%
>Annual savings for replacing old sprinklers with high-efficiency nozzles including pressure regulation and/or check valves were significant in the first year following
conversion, saving 1,661 gal/unit/yr. on average, or an average of 18%.
> Total average irrigation savings is 20.1%
> Soil moisture sensor savings may be 20% of irrigation use based on more than 10 California site water use reports conducted over multiple months in years 2015-2017 as
provided by Brian Holland www.sustainablewatersavings.com. Studies show a range of 20%-60% savings for trained soil moisture sensor device installation and site
management. A lower savings estimate is assumed for layperson usage and non-drought normal planning years. The manufacturer claims device batteries last 10-12 years.
> Leakage: assumes 10% leakage savings from updating and monitoring of equipment.
• Targets: total of 8 facilities in time period.
• Start year: 2024 based on availability of funding.
Comments
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Costs
Targets
# of Accts Targeted/Yr.1
Targets
G Irrigation 20.1%942.1
G External Leakage 10.0%84.5
GS External Leakage 10.0%72.4
Utility $3,076
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$34,097
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $78,495
Community $78,495
0.43
Community 0.43
Pools
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process
End Uses
RMFCCSINGS Irrigation
1.215147
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)LINew_SFToilets
20.1%806.6
Utility $34,097
Community
GGSMSUBenefit to Cost Ratio
Utility
1
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Time Period
First Year 2024
Last Year 2027
Measure Length 4
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
G $10,500.00 $0.00
Overview
Name Capital Project - Upgrade City Facility Irrigation Systems
INGGSMSUResults
Average Water Savings (afy)
Customer Classes
RMFCCSLINew_SF2021 0 0 0
2022 0 0 0
Abbr 5
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Markup Percentage 3%
Description
Perform irrigation system audits to document existing
irrigation system components and retrofit with MSMT
nozzles, weather based irrigation controllers, soil moisture
sensors etc. as needed. Include recommended watering
schedule to reduce overwatering.
GS $10,500.00 $0.00 1
Administration Costs
2039 1.646328
2040 1.646328
2039 $0 $0 $0
2040 $0 $0 $0
2039 0 0 0
2040 0 0 0
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Capital Project
-Upgrade City Facility Irrigation Systems
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 67
Dedicated Irrigation Meters & Irrigation Account Rate Structure
####################
############
##########
############
############
############
############
######
########
############
##
############
############
############
##
##
##
############
##########
2021 0.000000
2022 0.000000
2023 0.000000
2020 0.000000
2028
2024 0.000000
2025 0.000000
2026 0.000000
2035 2.930842
0.913326
2032 1.393057
2027 0.000000
2039 5.232634
2036 3.478160
2037 4.043817
2038 4.628429
2033
0.000000
2029 0.000000
2030 0.449142
2031
1.888857
2034 2.401266
2039 62 31 3 0 1
0 92
2038 60 30 3 0 1 0 95
2037 59 29 3 0 1
0 98
2036 57 28 3 0 1 0 89
2035 55 27 3 0 1 0 86
2034 53 26 3 0 1 0 84
2033 52 25 3 0 1 0 81
2032 50 25 3 0 1 0 78
2031 49 24 3 0 1 0 76
2030 47 23 2 0 1 0 73
2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
2039 $5,109 $920 $6,029
Targets
2037 $4,790 $862 $5,652
2038 $4,947 $890 $5,837
2035 $4,491 $808 $5,299
2036 $4,638
IN
$835 $5,473
2033 $4,210 $758 $4,968
2034 $4,348 $783 $5,131
2031 $3,947 $710 $4,657
2032 $4,076 $734 $4,810
2029 $0
2021 0 0
$0 $0
2030 $3,822 $688 $4,510
2027 $0 $0 $0
2028 $0 $0 $0
2025 $0 $0 $0
2026 $0 $0 $0
2020 $0 $0 $0
2023 $0 $0 $0
2024 $0 $0 $0
2021 $0 $0 $0
2022 $0 $0 $0
G External Leakage 1.5%84.5
GS External Leakage 1.5%72.4
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total G GS Total
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)MF C CS
CS External Leakage 1.5%48.3
IN External Leakage 1.5%1,145.2
MF External Leakage 1.5%8.4
C External Leakage 1.5%21.7
G Irrigation 3.0%942.1
GS Irrigation 3.0%806.6
CS Irrigation 3.0%537.9
IN Irrigation 3.0%11,943.3
MF Irrigation 3.0%99.8
C Irrigation 3.0%242.4
Utility $1,343
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Utility 0.92
Community 0.22
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$41,168
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $44,601
Community $189,974
Comments
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
1.581744
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $41,168
Community
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets Benefit to Cost Ratio
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process GGSMSULINew_SFToilets
End Uses
RMFCCSINCCSINGGSMSUAdministration Costs
Markup Percentage 18%
Description
This measure would require that dedicated irrigation meters be installed for all
new customer classes except R, NEW SF, MSU, and LI. An irrigable area threshold
would be set indicating when an account would be required to have a separate
irrigation meter.
G $52.00 $200.00 1
GS $52.00 $200.00 1
CS $52.00 $200.00 1
IN $52.00 $200.00 1
MF $52.00 $200.00 1
C $52.00 $200.00 1
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Time Period
First Year 2030
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 11
Abbr 6
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Dedicated Irrigation Meters & Irrigation Account Rate Structure
Customer Classes
RMFLINew_SF2040 5.857088
• Utility Cost: Cost for the meter will come from the operations department budget,
not water conservation. This measure will only be targeting new accounts and not
retrofitting. Because a rate study would be included as part of this measure, an
assumed conservation dept. utility cost of $15,000 is included for the rate study.
Assumes rate study would be every 5 years, therefore $15k x 3 (2030, 2035, 2040) =
$45k over time period of the measure - distributed annually. This breaks outs to an
annual cost of ~$4,100 for the 11 year time period.
• Admin Markup: minimal for water conservation dept. tracking only (occasional).
Assumes approx. 200 hours of staff time to set up an average rate of $38.39/hr. which
is an average between Water conservation manager (fully burdened cost = $46.86/hr.)
and water conservation technician (fully burdened cost = $29.92/hr.).
Most of the staff time is assumed to be during the start up of the program. This time is
spread out through the length of the measure.
• Customer Cost: Cost for checking leaks, etc. There will be no cost to customer for
the meter.
• End Use Water Savings: Using variance program and Aurora program estimates that,
on average, customers are 15% over budget or "expected" water use. Customers will
become slightly more efficient on average due to the cost of being inefficient so
assume 1.5%-3% savings. Minimal savings are assumed to avoid a double count with
the Landscape Ordinance measure.
• Targets: This measure is not a retrofit measure and is only targeting new accounts.
45% of new development is targeted.
Costs
2040 $5,277 $950 $6,226 2040 64 32 3 0 1 0 101
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.45.000%
Only Affects New Accts TRUE
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Dedicated Irrigation Meters & Irrigation Account Rate Structure
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 68
Impact Fee Credit
####################
##########
####
##########
##########
##########
##########
####
####
##########
######
##########
##########
##########
######
######
######
##########
####
MF Wash Down
MF Car Washing
MF External Leakage
C External Leakage
CS External Leakage
C Cooling
CS Cooling
LI Toilets
New_SF Toilets
LI Lavatory Faucets
New_SF Lavatory Faucets
LI Showers
• Utility Cost: No conservation department cost. There would be an
impact fee credit, likely the same amount as the customer cost to
install the more efficient fixtures and landscaping (warranting the
credit).
• Admin Markup: Admin of the program is ~4 staff hrs. per account
for compliance ($29.92/hr. is the fully burdened water
conservation cost, assuming 15% of new MF, C, and CS, LI, and
NEW_SF accounts are participating).
• Customer Cost: Customer cost represents the impact fee with
20% "credit" removed. The average 2020 impact fee for residential
properties (SF, RES, Duplexes, Townhomes, and ADUs) was $6,902.
The average 2020 impact fee for commercial properties was $9,884.
The customer cost displayed in this model is the impact fee MINUS
20% assumed credit.
• End Use Water Savings: Overall savings across all end uses is 20%
• Targets: Assumes 15% of new accounts would participate.
• Time Period: As this measure sunsets, the "Mandatory Offsets"
measure will begin. Start year 2025 - hiring/conducting an impact
fee study fiscal year 2022, so a credit would likely be adopted by
2025.
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
2039 60.831997
2040 54.806135
2036 61.185411
2037 61.063232
2038 60.945547
2033 61.583076
2034 61.444875
2035 61.312480
2030 39.344478
2031 46.548602
2032 53.958776
2027 18.875319
2028 25.513772
2029 32.334875
2024 0.000000
2025 6.123842
2026 12.413842
2021 0.000000
2022 0.000000
2023 0.000000
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2020 0.000000
0
2040 0 0 0 0 0 0
2039 0 0 0 0 0
0
2038 0 0 0 0 0 0
2037 0 0 0 0 0
0
2036 0 0 0 0 0 0
2035 0 0 0 0 0
85
2034 0 0 0 0 0 0
2033 17 8 1 1 57
80
2032 17 8 1 1 56 83
2031 16 8 1 1 54
75
2030 16 8 1 1 52 77
2029 15 7 1 1 51
70
2028 15 7 1 1 49 73
2027 14 7 1 1 48
66
2026 14 7 1 1 46 68
2025 13 6 1 1 45
0
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0
2023 0 0 0 0 0
0
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0
2021 0 0 0 0 0
LI New_SF Total
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0
2040 $0 $0 $0
Targets
MF C CS
2038 $0 $0 $0
2039 $0 $0 $0
2036 $0 $0 $0
2037 $0 $0 $0
2034 $0 $0 $0
2035 $0 $0 $0
2032 $1 $9,086 $9,087
2033 $1 $9,086 $9,087
2030 $1 $9,086 $9,087
2031 $1 $9,086 $9,087
2028 $1 $9,086 $9,087
2029 $1 $9,086 $9,087
2026 $1 $9,086 $9,087
2027 $1 $9,086 $9,087
2024 $0 $0 $0
2025 $1 $9,086 $9,087
2022 $0 $0 $0
2023 $0 $0 $0
2020 $0 $0 $0
2021 $0 $0 $0
Costs
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.15.000%
Only Affects New Accts TRUE
LI External Leakage 20.0%4.6
New_SF External Leakage20.0%13.7
LI Car Washing 20.0%2.6
New_SF Car Washing20.0%7.8
LI Wash Down 20.0%2.6
New_SF Wash Down 20.0%7.8
LI Pools 20.0%1.3
New_SF Pools 20.0%3.9
LI Irrigation 20.0%54.9
New_SF Irrigation 20.0%162.3
LI Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets20.0%9.7
New_SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets20.0%11.9
LI Other 20.0%3.4
New_SF Other 20.0%4.1
LI Baths 20.0%2.0
New_SF Baths 20.0%2.5
LI Internal Leakage 20.0%10.6
New_SF Internal Leakage20.0%13.0
LI Clothes Washers 20.0%12.9
New_SF Clothes Washers20.0%15.8
LI Dishwashers 20.0%0.9
New_SF Dishwashers20.0%1.2
14.9
New_SF Showers 20.0%18.2
5.2
6.4
19.1
23.3
46.6
103.4
21.7
48.3
4.8
8.4
MF Pools 20.0%2.4
4.8
C Irrigation 20.0%242.4
CS Irrigation 20.0%537.9
CS Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets20.0%22.4
MF Irrigation 20.0%99.8
MF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets20.0%49.2
C Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets20.0%48.3
C Other 20.0%37.5
CS Other 20.0%20.8
MF Baths 20.0%10.2
MF Other 20.0%17.0
C Internal Leakage 20.0%45.0
CS Internal Leakage 20.0%34.7
CS Kitchen Spray Rinse 20.0%17.4
MF Internal Leakage 20.0%53.9
CS Process 20.0%48.6
C Kitchen Spray Rinse 20.0%37.5
CS Clothes Washers 20.0%52.1
C Process 20.0%105.1
MF Clothes Washers 20.0%65.5
C Clothes Washers 20.0%112.6
C Dishwashers 20.0%45.0
CS Dishwashers 20.0%20.8
CS Showers 20.0%31.3
MF Dishwashers 20.0%4.8
MF Showers 20.0%75.7
C Showers 20.0%67.6
C Lavatory Faucets 20.0%56.8
CS Lavatory Faucets 20.0%26.3
CS Urinals 20.0%20.8
MF Lavatory Faucets 20.0%26.5
CS Toilets 20.0%52.1
C Urinals 20.0%45.0
MF Toilets 20.0%96.8
C Toilets 20.0%150.1
Utility $97
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 13.74
Community 0.36
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
End Use Savings Per Replacement
$1,220,446
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $69,679
Community $3,396,050
Comments
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
34.204107
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $957,338
Community
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process
$5,521.98 1 GGSMSULINew_SFToilets LINew_SFEnd Uses
RMFCCSINCCSINGGSMSUMF $0.01 $5,521.98 1
The purpose of an impact fee credit is to promote non-turf
landscaping in some area of a customer's property - might be the
front yard of residential homes. It is also designed to promote
more water efficient device installation indoors. A credit amount
would be established to offset any cost a developer might incur
from installing the more expensive landscaping or fixtures. Any
plants would come off the utility's recommended xeriscape/low
water plant list. This measure also includes indoor water use.
C $0.01 $7,907.46 1
CS $0.01 $7,907.46 1
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $9,086
Description
LI $0.01 $5,521.98 1
New_SF $0.01
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2033
Measure Length 9
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Abbr7
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
NameImpact Fee Credit
Customer Classes
RMFMeasure Life
Permanent #####
Years 15
Repeat #####
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Impact Fee Credit
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 69
Financial Incentives for Irrigation and Landscape Upgrades
####################
##########
####
##########
##########
##########
##########
####
##
##########
######
##########
##########
##########
######
######
######
##########
####
Comments
1.3962902020
MFR
10113502020$17,831$3,791$14,0412020
• Utility Cost: The City's outdoor rebate amount is dependent on if the account is new construction or a retrofit.
> WBIC: up to $250 for retrofit and up to $150 for new construction
> HE Nozzles: up to $5/nozzle (min of 5) for retrofit and up to $3/nozzle (min of 5) for new construction
> Rain Sensors: Up to $50 for retrofit and up to $30 for new construction
> Drip irrigation equipment: Up to $250 for both retrofit and new construction
> Utility unit cost is derived by average number of annual rebates from 2017 - 2020, with a higher utility cost for CII/MF, assuming that they would purchase more HE nozzles and sq. ft. of drip area.
• Admin Markup: Assumes admin time spent processing outdoor rebates is 2.5 hours/week. This is ~130 staff hours annually processing outdoor rebates. Admin time assumes 130 hours a year at fully burdened rate for water
conservation technician ($29.92/hr.). 130 x $29.92 = ~$3,900 annually.
• Customer Cost: Customer costs per account will vary significantly based on devices.
• End Use Water Savings: The water savings are based on the following from the 2018 Landscape Rebate Water Savings Study from Valley Water:
> The annual water savings for replacing timer-based automatic irrigation controllers with weather-based irrigation controllers with rain shut-off devices were statistically significant each year following conversion,
incrementally increased each year following conversion, and were on average 9 gal/ft2/yr. or an average of 27%
> The annual water savings for replacing old sprinklers with high-efficiency nozzles were 1,243 gal/unit/yr. on average. or an average of 15.3%
>Annual savings for replacing old sprinklers with high-efficiency nozzles including pressure regulation and/or check valves were significant in the first year following conversion, saving 1,661 gal/unit/yr. on average, or an average
of 18%.
> Total average irrigation savings is 20.1%
> Soil moisture sensor savings may be 20% of irrigation use is based on more than 10 California site water use reports conducted over multiple months in years 2015-2017 as provided by Brian Holland
www.sustainablewatersavings.com. Studies show a range of 20%-60% savings for trained soil moisture sensor device installation and site management. A lower savings estimate is assumed for layperson usage and non-drought
normal planning years. The manufacturer claims device batteries last 10-12 years.
• Targets: Per historical outdoor rebate data provided by Bozeman staff, annual average number of outdoor rebates for both retrofit and new build from 2017 - 2020 is ~50. This excludes HE nozzles, as it is assumed accounts that
get one set of outdoor rebate devices will likely get nozzles as well. Targets increased in the model, as the City would like to target more accounts. NEW_SF accounts not included as they should already have proper landscape
and irrigation equipment per the landscape ordinance measures.
2039 16.176557
2035 15.465497
2036 15.634844
2037 15.809683
2032 14.988706
2033 15.142593
2034 15.301469
2029 14.555439
2030 14.695279
2031 14.839652
2026
2028 13.035384
2023 5.659117
2024 7.106057
2025 8.566702
2038 15.990193
2021 2.804643
2022 4.225451
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
10.041497
2027 11.530900
74
2039 50 23 1 0 1 75
2038 50 22 1 0 1
73
2037 50 21 1 0 1 73
2036 50 21 1 0 1
71
2035 50 20 1 0 1 72
2034 50 19 1 0 1
70
2033 50 19 1 0 1 71
2032 50 18 1 0 1
69
2031 50 18 1 0 1 69
2030 50 17 1 0 1
68
2029 50 17 1 0 1 68
2028 50 16 1 0 1
67
2027 50 16 1 0 1 67
2026 50 15 1 0 1
0 1
66
2025 50 15 1 0 1 66
2024 50 14 1 0 1
$4,506 $21,194
1 0 1 64
65
2023 50 14 1 0 1 65
2022 50 13 1
64
2021 50 13
2039 $17,349 $4,684 $22,034
2038 $17,122 $4,623 $21,745
$4,396 $20,676
2037 $16,901 $4,563 $21,465
2035 $16,481 $4,450 $20,931
2036 $16,688
2033 $16,086 $4,343 $20,429
2034 $16,280
2031 $15,715 $4,243 $19,957
2032 $15,897 $4,292 $20,189
2029 $15,366 $4,149 $19,515
2030 $15,537 $4,195 $19,733
2027 $15,038 $4,060 $19,099
2028 $15,199 $4,104 $19,303
2025 $14,731 $3,977 $18,708
2026 $14,882 $4,018 $18,900
2024 $14,584 $3,938 $18,521
2021 $14,170 $3,826 $17,996
2022 $14,304 $3,862 $18,166
FALSE
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
Only Affects New Accts
Targets
CS IN LI Total
LI Irrigation 20.1%54.9
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.0.500%
CS Irrigation 20.1%537.9
IN Irrigation 20.1%11,943.3
Utility $348,144
Community $532,466
R Irrigation 20.1%91.2
MF Irrigation 20.1%99.8
Utility $1,396
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Utility $336,346
Community
Pools
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process GGSMSULINew_SFToilets
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.97
Community 0.63
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$336,346
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
End Uses
RMFCCSINCCSINGGSMSULINew_SFAdministration Costs
Markup Percentage 27%
Description
For SF, MF, CII customers with landscape, provide a Smart Landscape
Rebate Program with rebates for substantive landscape retrofits or
installation of water efficient upgrades; Rebates contribute towards the
purchase of selected types of irrigation equipment upgrades (weather-
based irrigation controllers, MSMT nozzles, rain sensors, drip irrigation).
Rebate for residential accounts and up to 50% more for commercial
customers. Landscape conversion and turf removal is not part of this
measure.
IN $300.00 $300.00 1
LI $200.00 $100.00 1
MF $300.00 $300.00 1
CS $300.00 $300.00 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
R $200.00 $100.00 1
Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 10
Repeat FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2020
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 21
Abbr8
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
NameFinancial Incentives for Irrigation and Landscape Upgrades
Customer Classes
RMFResults
Average Water Savings (afy)
11.873091
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
2040 16.3689662040$17,584 $4,748 $22,332 2040 50 23 1 0 1 76
2023 $14,442 $3,899 $18,341
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Financial Incentives for Irrigation and Landscape Upgrades
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 70
Landscape Conversion or Turf Removal Rebate
####################
############
######
############
############
############
############
######
####
############
######
############
############
############
######
######
######
############
######
82.834546
2039 88.471188
2040 94.211569
C Irrigation 25.0%242.4
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
56.093031
2034 61.259474
2035 66.513839
2036 71.859085
2037 77.298267
31.482741
2029 36.250658
41.093098
2031 46.012565
2032 51.011651
2023 8.678877
2024 13.108994
2025 17.602281
2026 22.160859
2027 26.786923
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2020 0.000000
2021 0.000000
2022 4.309874
2 142
2 143
2 145
2 146
2 148
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.1.000%
Costs
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2020 $0 $0 $0
Targets
R MF C CS IN LI Total
2020 0
91.2
MF Irrigation 25.0%99.8
CS Irrigation 25.0%537.9
IN Irrigation 25.0%11,943.3
Comments
• Utility Cost: Assume rebate of $1/sq. foot of turf removed which equates to
approximately 25% of total project cost. Assume MF/CII utility costs ($2,000) and SF
costs ($450) are based on average irrigable area of 4,033 sq ft from the low size
assumptions workbook for landscape ordinance measures). Assume large sites have
more than one meter, therefore large sites can qualify for multiple rebates to make it
a worthwhile effort with a higher total site incentive value.
• Admin Markup: Assumes staff time to run the measure (including pre and post site
inspections).
• Customer Cost: Remaining cost to update landscape site
• End Use Water Savings: Water savings based Bozeman analysis that a typical
participant in this program removes 1,000 SF of turf and replaces it with drought
tolerant vegetation, they will reduce total outdoor water use by ~20%. If they
remove 1,500 SF, they will reduce use by 30%.
• Targets: NEW_SF accounts not included as they should already have proper
landscape and irrigation equipment per the landscape ordinance measures.
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
42.716168
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $1,167,822
Community $1,167,822
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $2,596,488
Community $20,569,483
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.45
Community 0.06
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
Utility $2,895MSULINew_SFEnd Uses
MSULINew_SFRMFRMFName
Measure Life
Permanent #####CCSINGGSCCSINGGSOverview
Landscape Conversion or Turf Removal Rebate
9
2
1
Customer Classes
Time Period
First Year 2022
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 19
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
R $450.00 $2,000.00 1
Years 20
Repeat #####
Fixture Cost per Device
IN $2,000.00 $18,000.00 1
Administration Costs
MF $2,000.00 $18,000.00 1
C $2,000.00 $18,000.00 1
LI $450.00 $2,000.00 1
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
$0 $0
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
R Irrigation 25.0%
LI Irrigation 25.0%54.9
Markup Percentage 10%
Description
Provide a per square foot incentive to remove turf and replace with low
water use plants or permeable hardscape. Landscape conversion could
include conversion of turf to lower-water-using turf varieties. Rebate based
on dollars per square foot removed, and capped at an upper limit for SF, MF
and CII.
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
CS $2,000.00 $18,000.00 1
$145,365
2023
Targets
2023 $126,709 $12,671 $139,380 12 1
2022 $124,117 $12,412 $136,529
2021 0 0 0 0 0
2022 100
100 27
2021 $0
2028 $140,998 $14,100 $155,098
2029 $144,143 $14,414 $158,557
2026 $135,005 $13,500 $148,505
2027 $137,953 $13,795 $151,748
2024 $129,385 $12,939 $142,324
2025 $132,150 $13,215
2032 $154,210 $15,421 $169,631
2033 $157,788 $15,779 $173,567
2030 $147,391 $14,739 $162,130
2031 $150,745 $15,075 $165,820
$17,331 $190,643
2034 $161,483 $16,148 $177,631
2035 $165,300 $16,530 $181,829
2038 $177,516 $17,752 $195,268
2039 $181,859
0
2024 100 28 12 1 0
2036 $169,241 $16,924 $186,165
2037 $173,312
0
2026 100
$18,186 $200,044
2040 $186,343 $18,634 $204,978
30 13 1 0
2025 100 29 13 1
0
2028 100 32 14 1 0
2027 100 31 14 1
0
2030 100 34 15 2 0
2029 100 33 15 2
0
2032 100 36 16 2 0
2031 100 35 16 2
0
2034 100 39 17 2 0
2033 100 38 17 2
0
2036 100 41 18 2 0
2035 100 40 18 2
2 0
2039 100 45 20 2
0
2038 100 44 20 2 0
2037 100 42 19 2
0
2040 100 47 21
2 149
2 151
2 153
2028
3 166
2030
3 168
3 170
3 173
2038
2 154
2 156
2 158
2 160
2 162
3 164
2033
0
0 0
2 141271110
0 0 0 0 0
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Landscape Conversion or Turf Removal Rebate
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 71
Capital Project – HE Fixture Installation in Gov't Bldg.
####################
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
Comments
• Utility Cost: Per "Facility Park Indoor" worksheet provided by City of Bozeman (9-22-2021), average number of toilets and urinals to be upgraded across facilities is ~4 toilets, and ~1
urinal. Per the Senior Center Retrofit Cost worksheet in the updated file (dated 11/23/2021), the project cost $9,359 for 15 toilets, 2 urinals, toilet seats, and installation material,
labor, diagnostic fee and permit. Scaled cost to average number of toilets/urinals to be replaced comes out to $2,717. Rounded utility cost to $3,000 to account for addition of
showerheads and faucets.
• Admin Markup: 10% admin time for conservation staff to facilitate this measure (inventory, checking, etc.) Approx. 10 hours of water conservation technician staff time per project.
• Customer Cost: No cost to customers.
• End Use Water Savings: Savings based off of Water Savings from Senior Center Plumbing Fixture Retrofit Project (toilets, urinals, faucets) provided by the City of Bozeman. Percent
change from pre- to post- retrofit was 41.44% savings.
> Toilets: Assumes 25% of old toilets are high flow (3.5 gpf) and 75% are 1.6 gpf. All toilets getting replaced with 1.28 gpf. (25% of toilets have 63% savings and 75% of toilets have 20%
savings, for total savings of 30%)
> Urinals: Assumes 1.0 gpf urinals replaced with pint urinals.
> Lavatory Faucets: Assumes 2.5 gpm faucets replaced with 0.5 gpm faucets.
> Showerheads: Assumes 2.5 gpm showerheads replaced with 1.8 gpm showerheads.
> Kitchen/Non-Lavatory faucets: Assumes 2.5 gpm faucets replaced with 1.0 gpm faucets.
• Targets: Based on the "Facility Park Indoor" worksheet provided by City of Bozeman (9-22-2021), approximately 30 City Owned indoor sites to be retrofitted over a 10 year period.
Can target 3 sites per year.
2039 4.314017
2040 4.314017
2036 4.314017
2037 4.314017
2038 4.314017
2033 3.882616
2034 4.314017
2035 4.314017
2030 2.588410
2031 3.019812
2032 3.451214
2027 1.294205
2028 1.725607
2029 2.157009
2024 0.000000
2025 0.431402
2026 0.862803
2021 0.000000
2022 0.000000
2023 0.000000
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2020 0.000000
2039 0 0
2040 0 0
2037 0 0
2038 0 0
2035 0 0
2036 0 0
2033 3 3
2034 3 3
2031 3 3
2032 3 3
2029 3 3
2030 3 3
2027 3 3
2028 3 3
2025 3 3
2026 3 3
2023 0 0
2024 0 0
0 0
2021 0 0
2022 0 0
2040 $0 $0 $0
Targets
G Total
2020
2038 $0 $0 $0
2039 $0 $0 $0
2036 $0 $0 $0
2037 $0 $0 $0
2034 $9,000 $900 $9,900
2035 $0 $0 $0
2032 $9,000 $900 $9,900
2033 $9,000 $900 $9,900
2030 $9,000 $900 $9,900
2031 $9,000 $900 $9,900
2028 $9,000 $900 $9,900
2029 $9,000 $900 $9,900
2026 $9,000 $900 $9,900
2027 $9,000 $900 $9,900
2024 $0 $0 $0
2025 $9,000 $900 $9,900
2022 $0 $0 $0
2023 $0 $0 $0
2020 $0 $0 $0
2021 $0 $0 $0
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
G Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 60.0%36.9
Targets
# of Accts Targeted/Yr.3
G Lavatory Faucets 80.0%43.3
G Showers 28.0%50.1
G Toilets 31.0%100.2
G Urinals 88.0%30.1
Utility $1,686
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.81
Community 0.95
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$79,816
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $83,620
Community $83,620
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
2.362438
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $67,522
Community
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process GGSMSULINew_SFToilets
End Uses
RMFCCSINShowers
Markup Percentage 10%
Description
Direct install high efficiency faucets, toilets, urinals
and showerheads in City facilities.
Customer Classes
RMFCCSG $3,000.00 $0.00 1
Administration Costs
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2034
Measure Length 10
Abbr10
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
NameCapital Project - HE Fixture Installation in Gov't Bldg.INGGSMSULINew_SFMethod:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Capital Project -HE Fixture Installation in Gov't Bldg.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 72
School Building Retrofit
####################
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
Overview
NameSchool Building Retrofit
INGGSMSULINew_SFAbbr11 CCSResults
Average Water Savings (afy)
Customer Classes
RMFC $5,000.00 $5,000.00 1
Administration Costs
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Fixture Cost per Device
Time Period
First Year 2030
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 11
Category
Comments
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
End Uses
RMFCCSINShowers
Dishwashers
2
Measure Type 1
Markup Percentage 3%
Description
School retrofit program wherein school
receives a grant to replace fixtures and upgrade
irrigation systems. Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
0.528181
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $14,264
Community
Pools
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets Benefit to Cost Ratio
Clothes Washers
Process GGSMSULINew_SFToilets
Utility 0.33
Community 0.22
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$19,049
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $43,372
Community $85,481
C Toilets 15.0%150.1
C Urinals 15.0%45.0
Utility $3,910
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
C Dishwashers 15.0%45.0
C Clothes Washers 15.0%112.6
C Lavatory Faucets 15.0%56.8
C Showers 15.0%67.6
C Internal Leakage 15.0%45.0
C Other 15.0%37.5
C Process 15.0%105.1
C Kitchen Spray Rinse 15.0%37.5
C Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 15.0%48.3
C Irrigation 15.0%242.4
C Cooling 15.0%46.6
2020 $0 $0 $0
2021 $0 $0 $0
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2021 0.000000
• Utility Cost: $5,000 utility cost assumes replacement of
high use toilets and some irrigation system
improvement (where applicable).
• Admin Markup: Assumes 3-5 hours of staff time, at the
water conservation technician's full burdened rate of
$29.92/hr. This would include pre- and post- inspections
and paperwork.
• Customer Cost: Assumes cost of installation and
remainder of devices.
• End Use Water Savings: Savings similar to CII survey
and incentive measures combined.
• Targets: Per Public Schools file provided by City of
Bozeman staff, there are 13 public schools in the service
area. Assumes 1 school targeted per year.
# of Accts Targeted/Yr.1
C External Leakage 15.0%21.7
Targets
2024 $0 $0 $0
2025 $0 $0 $0
2022 $0 $0 $0
2023 $0 $0 $0
2028 $0 $0 $0
2029 $0 $0 $0
2026 $0 $0 $0
2027 $0 $0 $0
2032 $5,000 $150 $5,150
2033 $5,000 $150 $5,150
2030 $5,000 $150 $5,150
2031 $5,000 $150 $5,150
$150 $5,150
2034 $5,000 $150 $5,150
2035 $5,000 $150 $5,150
2040 $5,000 $150 $5,150
Targets
C Total
2020
2038 $5,000 $150 $5,150
2039 $5,000 $150 $5,150
2036 $5,000 $150 $5,150
2037 $5,000
2023 0 0
2024 0 0
0 0
2021 0 0
2022 0 0
2027 0 0
2028 0 0
2025 0 0
2026 0 0
2031 1 1
2032 1 1
2029 0 0
2030 1 1
2035 1 1
2036 1 1
2033 1 1
2034 1 1
2039 1 1
2040 1 1
2037 1 1
2038 1 1
2022 0.000000
2023 0.000000
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2020 0.000000
0.000000
2028 0.000000
2029 0.000000
2024 0.000000
2025 0.000000
2026 0.000000
2039 1.670091
2040 1.832783
2036 1.177993
2037 1.342734
2038 1.506753
2033 0.678948
2034 0.846153
2035 1.012482
2030 0.171412
2031 0.341651
2032 0.510804
2027
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
School Building Retrofit
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 73
CII High Efficiency Washer Rebate
####################
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
Abbr 12
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name CII High Efficiency Washer Rebate
INGGSMSUResults
Average Water Savings (afy)
3.659664
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)LINew_SFDescription
Offer rebate for commercial grade clothes
washers. Target high-use facilities such as
laundromats, hotels, etc.
Customer Classes
RMFCCSC $500.00 $1,500.00 4
Administration Costs
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Time Period
First Year
End Uses
RMFCCSINMarkup Percentage 3%
2028
Last Year 2037
Measure Length 10
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Utility $101,734
Community
Pools
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process GGSMSULINew_SFToilets
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.38
Community 0.17
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$177,152
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $270,166
Community $1,057,055
C Clothes Washers 45.0%112.6
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.1.000%
Utility $3,515
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
FALSE
Costs
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
Water Savings
Comments
• Utility Cost: Rebated value of $500 per washer. Up to 4
washers rebated per site to include laundromats in the
service area. There are approx. 5. Assumes laundromats
would get more than 4, and other sites 4 or less.
• Admin Markup: Staff time to run program. Assumes ~2
hours per account rebate at conservation technician
fully burdened rate of $29.92/hr.
• Customer Cost: Commercial clothes washers cost
between $900- $2,500. Customer cost assumes average
cost of $2,000. Therefore the remainder of cost after
$500 rebate is $1,500.
• End Use Water Savings: Water savings between
conventional and Energy Star machines is 45% from
Energy Star commercial clothes washer website.
https://www.energystar.gov/products/commercial_clot
hes_washers
• Targets: targeting 1% of CI accounts.
2020 $0 $0 $0
2021 $0 $0 $0
Only Affects New Accts
2024 $0 $0 $0
2025 $0 $0 $0
2022 $0 $0 $0
2023 $0 $0 $0
2028 $28,074 $842 $28,917
2029 $29,057 $872 $29,929
2026 $0 $0 $0
2027 $0 $0 $0
2032 $32,216 $966 $33,182
2033 $33,344 $1,000 $34,344
2030 $30,074 $902 $30,976
2031 $31,127 $934 $32,060
$1,148 $39,410
2034 $34,511 $1,035 $35,546
2035 $35,718 $1,072 $36,790
2040 $0 $0 $0
Targets
C Total
2020
2038 $0 $0 $0
2039 $0 $0 $0
2036 $36,969 $1,109 $38,078
2037 $38,262
2023 0 0
2024 0 0
0 0
2021 0 0
2022 0 0
2027 0 0
2028 14 14
2025 0 0
2026 0 0
2031 16 16
2032 16 16
2029 15 15
2030 15 15
2035 18 18
2036 18 18
2033 17 17
2034 17 17
2039 0 0
2040 0 0
2037 19 19
2038 0 0
2022 0.000000
2023 0.000000
2024 0.000000
Total Savings (afy)
2020 0.000000
2021 0.000000
1.622464
2030 2.476530
2025 0.000000
2026 0.000000
2027 0.000000
2040 9.353202
2037 9.353202
2038 9.353202
2039 9.353202
2034 6.202364
2035 7.216726
2036 8.266592
2031 3.360489
2032 4.275385
2033 5.222304
2028 0.797280
2029
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
CII High
Efficiency Washer Rebate
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 74
Water Budget-Based Billing and Water Budgeting
####################
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
2040 16.0011672040$109,151 $7,641 $116,791 2040 100 47 72 218
2021 $0 $0 $0
2022 $0 $0 $0
Fixture Costs
Abbr 13
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Water Budget-Based Billing and Water Budgeting
Customer Classes
RMFLINew_SFCCSINGMeasure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 8
Repeat FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2028
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 13 GSMSUAdministration Costs
Markup Percentage 7%
MF $500.00 $50.00 1
New_SF $500.00 $50.00 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
R MSU$500.00 $50.00 1 LINew_SFToilets
End Uses
RMFCCSINResults
Average Water Savings (afy)
6.518884
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $173,161
Community
Pools
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Utility
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process GGSBenefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.17
Community 0.16
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$173,161
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $996,508
Community $1,089,640
R Irrigation 10.0%91.2
MF Irrigation 10.0%99.8
$7,279
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Costs Targets Water Savings
• Utility Cost: Water Budgeting software like
Waterfluence at $50 per site. Assuming a five-year
investment per site, unit cost is set at $500 per 10 year
site monitoring fee. Monitoring fee is adjusted to
account for accounts coming online over the program
duration.
• Admin Markup: ~1 hr. staff time per SF/MF/CII meter
targeted to run program ($38/hr. is average burdened
rate of Water Conservation Manager ($46.86/hr.) and
Water Conservation Technician ($29.92/hr.)).
• Customer Cost: Customer cost represents average cost
to implement any water savings actions done by
customers as a result of their budget.
• End Use Water Savings: Using variance program and
Aurora program estimates, on average, customers are
15% over budget or "expected" water use. Customers
will become slightly more efficient on average due to
the cost of being inefficient.
• Targets: 1% of accounts targeted annually will have
water savings
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.1.000%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
New_SF Irrigation 5.0%162.3
Targets
Comments
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Description
This measure would develop individualized monthly water
budgets for all customers. Water budgets are linked to a
rate schedule where rates per unit of water increase when a
customer goes above their budget, or decreases if they are
below their budget. Budgets are based on size of the
irrigated area and average indoor use estimates. These rates
have been shown to be effective in reducing landscape
irrigation demand (AWWARF Reports). Would require rate
study and capable billing software.
Admin Costs Util Total
2020 $0 $0 $0
2025 $0 $0 $0
2026 $0 $0 $0
2023 $0 $0 $0
2024 $0 $0 $0
$85,443
2030 $82,122 $5,749 $87,871
2027 $0 $0 $0
2028 $77,654 $5,436 $83,090
2033 $89,367 $6,256 $95,623
2034 $91,937
R MF
2025 0 0
2028 100 32
2031 100 35
2034 100 39
2029 $79,853 $5,590
New_SF Total
2031 $84,462 $5,912 $90,375
2032 $86,877 $6,081 $92,958
2020 0 0 0 0
2021 0 0 0 0
2022 0 0 0
2039 $106,054 $7,424 $113,478
2038 $103,052 $7,214 $110,266
$6,436 $98,372
2037 $100,142 $7,010 $107,152
2035 $94,587 $6,621 $101,208
2036 $97,322 $6,813 $104,134
0
2023 0 0 0 0
2024 0 0 0 0
0 0
2026 0 0 0 0
2027 0 0 0 0
24 155
2029 100 33 27 160
2030 100 34 30 164
34 169
2032 100 36 38 174
2033 100 38 42 179
46 184
2035 100 40 50 189
2036 100 41 54 195
2037 100 42 58 200
2038 100 44 63 206
2039 100 45 67 212
2020 0.000000
2021 0.000000
2022 0.000000
2038 15.160808
2039 15.574452
2035 13.994360
2036 14.371144
2037 14.759835
2032 8.395526
2033
Total Savings (afy)
0.000000
2027 0.000000
2028 1.592137
2023 0.000000
2024 0.000000
2025 0.000000
2026
10.212063
2034 12.077822
2029 3.226405
2030 4.904136
2031 6.626705
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Water Budget-Based Billing and Water
Budgeting
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 75
Efficient Fixture Giveaway
####################
##########
##
##########
##########
##########
##########
##
##
##########
########
##########
##########
##########
########
########
########
##########
##
Abbr14
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
NameEfficient Fixture Giveaway
INGGSMSULINew_SFResults
Average Water Savings (afy)
15.363863
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
R $10.05 $15.00 1
MF $10.05 $15.00 4
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Time Period
First Year 2020
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 21
Markup Percentage 1%
Description
> Provide free 1.15 gpm (or lower) spray nozzles for commercial
and possibly free installation for the rinse and clean operation in
restaurants and other commercial kitchens. Thousands have been
replaced in California going door to door; very cost-effective
because saves hot water.
> Utility would buy high efficiency showerheads and faucets,
aerators in bulk and give them away at Utility office or community
events.
> Utility would provide free high efficiency fixtures for. This may
include: HE showerheads, aerators, pre-rinse spray valves, soil
moisture sensors, hose nozzles
Customer Classes
RMFCCSNew_SF $10.05 $15.00 1
Administration Costs
C $35.00 $15.00 1
LI $10.05 $15.00 1
Comments
End Uses
RMFCCSINShowers
Dishwashers
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Utility $440,160
Community
Pools
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets Benefit to Cost Ratio
Clothes Washers
Process GGSMSULINew_SFToilets
Utility 21.28
Community 14.58
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$695,484
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $20,682
Community $47,689
R Lavatory Faucets 11.0%6.9
MF Lavatory Faucets 11.0%26.5
Utility $64
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
R Showers 40.0%19.8
MF Showers 40.0%75.7
C Lavatory Faucets 6.1%56.8
LI Lavatory Faucets 11.0%5.2
C Kitchen Spray Rinse 40.0%37.5
R Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 5.0%12.9
C Showers 40.0%67.6
LI Showers 40.0%14.9
LI Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 5.0%9.7
R Irrigation 5.0%91.2
MF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 5.0%49.2
C Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 5.0%48.3
5.0%54.9
New_SF Lavatory Faucets 11.0%6.4
MF Irrigation 5.0%99.8
C Irrigation 5.0%242.4
FALSE
Costs
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total LI New_SF
• Utility Cost: Based on the "Free Products" worksheet provided by City of
Bozeman (9-22-2021), a Leak Detection Kit costs $12.05, a Summer Savings
Tool Kit cost $9.65, a Shower Better Kit costs $4.23, and a Brush Better Kit
costs $10.79. Per the breakdown of the Leak Detection Kit, faucet aerator
costs $1.66. Utility Unit Cost is based on weighted average of kits. See "Free
Products" sheet. Increased cost for COM and MSU to account for PRSV (~$25).
1.5 nozzles can be found per CII account per Tso & Koehler 2005 report "Pre-
rinse Spray Valve Programs: How are they really doing?"
• Admin Markup: Admin time for this measure is included in survey and
outreach measures.
• Customer Cost: Assumes minimal cost for installation.
• End Use Water Savings:
> Lavatory Faucets: SF/MF/LI: Assumes 2.2 gpm aerators are replaced with 1.2
gpm aerators. Assumes only 25% are installed.
COM: Assumes 2.2 gpm aerators are replaced with 0.5 gpm. Fixture analysis
in green section, 60% of lavatory commercial aerators are already at 0.5 gpm,
but a remaining 32% are at 2.2 gpm. Therefore, it is assumed 32% of the
savings is taken in and that only 25% of those are actually installed.
> Kitchen Faucets: R, MF, LI, and COM assumes a 2.2 gpm aerator is replaced
with a 1.8 aerator. Assumes only 25% are installed.
> Showerheads: City gives away and "SWAP"s showerheads. They provide 1.5
gpm showerheads. Per the end uses in green section of model, majority of
showerheads in service area are 2.5 gpm. Therefore assumed savings for
showerheads is 40% with 100% installation rate. Assumes all are installed as
part of the SWAP program.
> City provides free "summer savings kit" which includes a hose spray nozzle,
rain gauge, drip gauge, and soil moisture sensor. Assumes conservative
savings from kit for irrigation.
> NEW_SF: New homes would only be required to have the flow rates
required by the state-adopted uniform plumbing code installed (1.6 gpf
toilets, 2.5 gpm SH, 2.2 gpm faucets), so there would still be opportunity to
see water savings and include participation from new SF homes. Therefore
same savings applied as RES and LI.
• Targets: based on the weighted average of what was given away in 2020
and 2021. Assumes the Sprinkler Kit was only given away to SF and LI accts in
the weighted average, and all other kits were giveaways to SF, MF, and LI.
See "Free Products" sheet. NEW_SF homes would only be required to have
the flow rates required by the state-adopted uniform plumbing code
installed (1.6 gpf toilets, 2.5 gpm SH, 2.2 gpm faucets), therefore there will
still be an opportunity to see water savings and include participation from
new SF homes.
New_SF Irrigation 5.0%162.3
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.0.360%
New_SF Showers 40.0%18.2
New_SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 5.0%11.9
LI Irrigation
2020 $863 $9 $871
2021 $888 $9 $897
Only Affects New Accts
Targets
R MF C
2021 2.480736
2024 $971 $10 $981
2025 $1,001 $10 $1,011
2022 $915 $9 $924
2023 $943 $9 $952
2028 $1,094 $11 $1,105
2029 $1,128 $11 $1,139
2026 $1,031 $10 $1,041
2027 $1,062 $11 $1,073
$13 $1,285
2030 $1,162 $12 $1,174
2031 $1,198 $12 $1,210
2034 $1,311 $13 $1,324
2035 $1,352
Total
2020 36 9 4 1 0 49
2032 $1,234 $12 $1,247
2033 $1,272
51
2022 36 10
2040 $1,574 $16 $1,589
2039 $1,526 $15 $1,542
$14 $1,365
2038 $1,481 $15 $1,495
2036 $1,393 $14 $1,407
2037 $1,436 $14 $1,451
4 1 2 52
2021 36 9 4 1 1
54
2024 36 10 4 1 4 55
2023 36 10 4 1 3
57
2026 36 11 5 1 6 58
2025 36 11 5 1 5
60
2028 36 12 5 1 8 62
2027 36 11 5 1 7
63
2030 36 12 5 1 11 65
2029 36 12 5 1 10
67
2032 36 13 6 1 14 69
2031 36 13 6 1 12
71
2034 36 14 6 1 16 73
2033 36 14 6 1 15
75
2036 36 15 7 1 19 78
2035 36 14 6 1 18
80
2038 36 16 7 1 23 82
2037 36 15 7 1 21
85
2040 36 17 8 1 26 87
2039 36 16 7 1 24
2022 3.744795
2023 5.027730
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2020 1.233256
10.391793
2028 11.800216
2029 13.239242
2024 6.331790
2025 7.659182
2026 9.012078
2039 29.834935
2040 31.767587
2036 24.367005
2037 26.136956
2038 27.958833
2033 19.345973
2034 20.973774
2035 22.646700
2030 14.710776
2031 16.216731
2032 17.761043
2027
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Efficient Fixture Giveaway
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 76
Residential Efficiency Fixture Incentive Program
####################
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
2029 39.834222
2030 43.669487
2026 28.148752
2027 32.072920
2028 35.968410
2023 16.218966
2024 20.220139
2025 24.197059
2020 4.083300
2021 8.148925
2022 12.194739202210027126
2023 100 27 127
2024 100 28 128
2020 100 25 125
2021 100 26 125
R MF Total
2025 100
2030 100 34 134
2029 100 33 133
29 129
2028 100 32 132
2026 100 30 130
2027 100 31 131
2030 $16,645 $3,329 $19,974
2028 $16,407 $3,281 $19,688
2029 $16,524 $3,305 $19,829
$3,259 $19,552
2024 $15,973 $3,195 $19,168
2025 $16,077 $3,215 $19,292
2026 $16,183 $3,237 $19,420
2027 $16,293
$18,931
2023 $15,873 $3,175 $19,047
2020 $15,590 $3,118 $18,708
2021 $15,681 $3,136 $18,818
MF Clothes Washers 11.3%65.5
Targets
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
• Utility Cost:
> Toilets: The City issues different rebate amounts
depending on the age of the toilet. $125/toilet installed
prior to 1996 (3.5 gpf), $50/toilet installed after 1996 (1.6
gpf), and $25 for new construction (new in 2021).
> Clothes Washers: $150 rebate for retrofits and $100
rebate for new construction.
> See "Measure 15 Calcs" sheet. Utility cost is a weighted
average of previous HET and HECW rebates.
> Average SH rebate of $15, but historically there have
been between 10 & 100 accounts participating in the
showerhead rebate measure, so only half this cost is
assumed per account targeted.
• Admin Markup: Staff time to process rebates.
• Customer Cost: Remaining cost of device
• End Use Water Savings:
> Toilets: Based on the historical toilet rebates of R and
MF toilets in the last 5 years, R was 34% Post-1996, and
MF was 64% Post-1996. Assumes pre-1996 rebates are a
3.5 gpf toilet being replaced by a 1.28 gpf toilet and post-
1996 toilets are 1.6 gpf toilets being replaced with a 1.28
gpf toilet. See "Measure 15 Calcs" sheet
> Clothes Washers: According to their website, ENERGY
STAR certified clothes washers use about 45% less water
than regular washers (assumes 23 gallon per load is
reduced to 13 gallon per load). Since only 1 of 4 MF units
is expected to replace their washer, assume 25% of the
45% savings.
> Showers: Historically there have been between 10 &
100 accounts participating in the showerhead rebate
measure, so assume 1/2 the savings from replacing >2.5
gpm showerheads with < 1.75 gpm showerheads on all
targeted accounts.
• Targets: NEW_SF excluded from this measure as the
new homes should already be equipped with efficient
fixtures.
Total Savings (afy)
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.1.000%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Costs Water Savings
R Showers 15.0%19.8
MF Showers 15.0%75.7
R Clothes Washers 45.0%17.1
R Toilets 49.0%25.3
MF Toilets 36.0%96.8
Utility $388
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Process GGSMSULINew_SFToilets
Utility $1,265,438
Community
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 3.59
Community 2.03
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$1,678,094
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $352,510
Community $824,633CCSINGGSMSU
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 20%
Description
> Utility would provide various rebate incentives
for the installation of high efficiency indoor
plumbing fixtures.
> Leak detection technology system that allows
for remote shutoff with a smart phone interface.
Target second homes that are vacant, which
could leak for extensive periods while left
unattended.
> Provide a rebate or voucher for the installation
of a high efficiency toilet (HET, Toilets flushing
1.28 gpf or less). Rebate amounts would reflect
the incremental purchase cost and have been at
least $80 (for up to 2 toilets).
> Provide a rebate for efficient washing machines
to single family homes and apartment complexes
that have common laundry rooms. It is assumed
that the rebates would remain consistent with
relevant state and federal regulations
(Department of Energy, Energy Star) and only
offer the best available technology.
> Provide a rebate to encourage homeowner to
purchase an efficient dishwasher (meeting
certain water efficiency standards, such as a limit
on the gallons/load) when replacing an existing
dishwasher.
R $127.50 $200.00 1
MF $115.50 $200.00 1
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Time Period
First Year 2020
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 21
End Uses
RMFCCSIN135
Abbr15
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
NameResidential Efficiency Fixture Incentive Program
Customer Classes
RMFLINew_SFResults
Average Water Savings (afy)
43.313118
2031 47.473452
Comments
2022 $15,776 $3,155
2032 $16,898 $3,380 $20,278 100 36 136 2032 51.265478
2031 $16,770 $3,354 $20,124
Targets
2031 100 35
2040 $18,085 $3,617 $21,702
2032
2033
2036
2039
2036 $17,455 $3,491 $20,946
2037 $17,605 $3,521 $21,126
2038 $17,760 $3,552 $21,312
2033 $17,031 $3,406 $20,437
2034 100 39 138
2035 100 40 140
2039 $17,920 $3,584 $21,504
2034 $17,168 $3,434 $20,601
2035 $17,309 $3,462 $20,771
2040 100 47 146
2037 70.141070
2038 73.916425
2039 77.697105
2040 81.485201
2037 100 42 142
2038 100 44 143
2033 55.048408
2034 58.824934
2035 62.597612
2036 66.368879
100 45 145
100 41 141
100 38 137
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Residential Efficiency Fixture Incentive Program
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 77
Residential Water Use Surveys
####################
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
CommentsSort of current measure. In 2021 offered sprinkler system assessments. No indoor surveys in 2021. Would not bring SHs, aerators etc. to sprinkler assessments.
• Utility Cost: Assume SH, aerators, toilet dye tabs, and other water-saving devices distributed per site @ ~$10/site for "kit" materials. Kits given away at these surveys include leak
detection kits and summer savings tool kits.
• Admin Markup: Per 2021 staffing of a full time summer intern and partial dedicated staff time in summer, approx. 8 hrs./survey @ average combined rate of ~$23/hr. includes, prep,
assessment time and follow-up.
> Late May to Early Sept (assume 3 months) = ~12 weeks. Assumes 40 intern hours/week @ short term fully burdened rate of $16.23 and 2 FTE's 20 hrs./week @ water conservation
technician fully burdened rate of $29.92.
960 hours/year for 116 surveys = 8 hours/survey including prep, assessment and follow-up. Approx. admin cost per survey is $191 based on rates.
> Due to the increase in number of surveys (double than what is currently happening), City will need an increase of more staff.
• Customer Cost: Minimal for device installation and assessment follow-up actions.
• End Use Water Savings:
Outdoor Savings:
> Based on Bozeman data from 2018-2021 we found that the average home that participated in this program saved 1,776 gallons/week during peak season (July – Aug) through the
implementation of the recommended watering schedule. This assumes that the participant adopted the recommended schedule. It does not include any water savings assumptions for
other retrofits or repairs that were recommended
Indoor savings assumes 25% of accounts install SH and aerators and use toilet dye tabs to reduce leaky toilets.
> Assumes 2.2 gpm aerators are replaced with 1.2 gpm aerators. Assumes only 25% are installed.
> City gives away and "SWAP"s showerheads. They provide 1.5 gpm showerheads. Per the end uses in the green section of model, the majority of showerheads in the service area are 2.5
gpm. Therefore, assumed savings for showerheads is 40%. Assumes 25% are installed.
> New_SF: assumes similar savings as RES, however irrigation savings are reduced as they should already have efficient savings per landscape codes. Per Bozeman: "data show that new
SF homes over-water landscapes, and these are the homeowners that generally need assistance from us."
• Annual Target: Bozeman will increase their current target to ~200/yr. Assumes some sites would receive sprinkler assessment only, some indoor survey only, and some a combination.
Per 4/12/2022 email from Bozeman, target 1.25% of accounts.
• Other: Will roll indoor and outdoor together.
• Additional Notes: As of 2021 two FTE's each spend 20 hours/week for sprinkler system assessments, plus a full time summer intern. Sprinkler assessments run May-Sept. Total
performed: 2016 - 24, 2017 - 42, 2018 - 65, 2019 - 61, 2020 - 91, 2021 - 116. Popular program with waitlist - need more staff support.
2037 $4,627 $37,000 $41,627
2038 $4,767 $37,000 $41,767 2038 44.171046
2039 45.4906902039$4,912 $37,000 $41,912 2039 125 57 84 265
2038 125 55 78 258
2035 125 50 62 236
2034
10
2037 42.89315620371255373250
2034
2029 125 41 34
125 39 25
2028 125
2033 $4,110 $37,000 $41,110
2034 $4,233 $37,000 $41,233
2031 $3,874 $37,000 $40,874
2032 $3,990 $37,000 $40,990
2035 $4,360 $37,000 $41,360
39.298494
2035 40.457991
2031 36.039860
2032 37.090419
2033 38.176306
2028 33.083568
2029 34.038606
2030 35.023698
2025 30.388859
2026 31.259674
Total Savings (afy)
2020 5.609583
2021 11.362922
125 38 21 184
125 34
17.266048
2023 23.325090
2024 29.546285
2027 32.157586
2022
37 18 179
Costs
2025 125
2026
2023
2024 35 14 174
Targets
7 165
2020 125 31 0 156
2025
125 48 57 230
200
2021 125 32 3 160
169
125
2030 125 43 38 205
2027
40 30
189
194
Water Savings
2033 125 47 52 223
2031 125 44 43 211
2032 125 45 47 217
2022 125 33
R MF New_SF Total
2029 $3,652 $37,000 $40,652
2030 $3,761 $37,000 $40,761
2027 $3,444 $37,000 $40,444
2028 $3,547 $37,000 $40,547
$40,345
2024 $3,155 $37,000 $40,155
2021 $2,892 $37,000 $39,892
2022 $2,977 $37,000 $39,977
$3,248 $37,000 $40,248
2026 $3,345 $37,000
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2020 $2,810 $37,000 $39,810
2023 $3,065 $37,000 $40,065
New_SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 7.0%11.9
New_SF Irrigation 15.0%162.3
New_SF Lavatory Faucets 11.4%6.4
New_SF Showers 10.0%18.2FALSE
New_SF External Leakage 50.0%13.7
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.1.250%
Only Affects New Accts
50.0%7.7
MF External Leakage 50.0%8.4
R Irrigation 25.0%91.2
MF Irrigation 20.0%99.8
R External Leakage
R Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 7.0%12.9
MF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 7.0%49.2
R Internal Leakage 1.0%14.1
MF Internal Leakage 1.0%53.9
R Showers 10.0%19.8
MF Showers 10.0%75.7
R Lavatory Faucets 11.4%6.9
MF Lavatory Faucets 11.4%26.5
$1,035
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 1.32
Community 1.39
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$1,043,723
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $719,661
Community $752,788
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
33.104240
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $953,503
Community
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Utility
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process GGSMSULINew_SFToilets LINew_SFEnd Uses
RMFCCSINCCSINGGSMSUAnnual Admin Costs $37,000
Description
Indoor and outdoor water surveys for SF and MF
residential customers. Target those with high
water use and provide a customized report to
owner. Includes giveaway of efficient shower
heads, aerators, toilet devices. This measure is
combined with sprinkler assessments.
MF $10.00 $5.00 5
New_SF $10.00 $5.00 1
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
R $10.00 $5.00 1
Administration Costs
#####
Time Period
First Year 2020
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 21
Fixture Cost per Device
67 243
Abbr 16
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Residential Water Use Surveys
Customer Classes
RMFMeasure Life
Permanent #####
Years 5
Repeat
2040 46.8533052040$5,060 $37,000 $42,060 2040 125 58 90 273
2036 41.6558482036$4,492 $37,000 $41,492 2036 125 51
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Residential Water Use Surveys
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 78
Low Income Direct Installation Rebates and Leak Repair Assistance
####################
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
Overview
Name Low Income Direct Installation Rebates and Leak Repair Assistance
INGGSMSULINew_SFResults
Average Water Savings (afy)
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 16
Abbr 17
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Markup Percentage 33%
Description
Provide direct installation rebate program for
toilets, high incentive amount for clothes
washers, and leak repair assistance. Customer
leaks can go uncorrected at properties where
owners are least able to pay costs of repair.
These programs may require that customer
leaks be repaired, but either subsidize part of
the repair and/or pay the cost with revolving
funds that are paid back with water bills over
time. Program will also include an option to
replace inefficient plumbing fixtures at low-
income residences.
Customer Classes
RMFCCSLI $360.00 $0.00 1
Administration Costs
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
End Uses
RMFCCSINDishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process GGSMSULINew_SFToilets
Comments
Outdoor
Cooling
1.825352
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $50,685
Community
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.72
Community 1.02
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$71,329
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $70,151
Community $70,151
LI Toilets 20.0%19.1
LI Lavatory Faucets 45.5%5.2
Utility $1,830
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
LI Clothes Washers 5.0%12.9
LI Internal Leakage 20.0%10.6
LI Showers 40.0%14.9
LI Dishwashers 5.0%0.9
LI Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 18.0%9.7
LI Irrigation 10.0%54.9
LI Baths 5.0%2.0
LI Other 5.0%3.4
Water Savings
• Utility Cost: cost of 1 toilet (~$300), 1 SH (~$15), 4
aerators per unit ($1.5 each = $6 total) as well as site
survey and fixture installation by contractor.
• Admin Markup: staff time to administer measure and
conduct water use survey. Assumes approx. 4 hours of
staff time at the fully burdened water conservation
technician rate of $29.92/hr.
• Customer Cost: none. City would work with the
customer to differ upfront costs of remaining cost of
device.
• End Use Water Savings: Assumes site survey and
upgrade of fixtures to HE: toilet (1.6 gpf replaced with a
1.28), SH (2.5 gpm replaced with a 1.5 gpm)and aerators
(Lavatory 2.2 gpm replaced with a 1.2 gpm; Kitchen 2.2
gpm replaced with 1.8 gpm).
• Targets: 5% of LI per year yields 75% of all LI over the
measure time period.
LI Car Washing 10.0%2.6
LI External Leakage 10.0%4.6
LI Pools 10.0%1.3
LI Wash Down 10.0%2.6
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.5.000%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Targets
LI Total Total Savings (afy)
2021 $0 $0 $0
2022 $0 $0 $0
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2020 $0 $0 $0
0
2020 0.000000
2025 $3,260 $1,076 $4,335
2026 $3,363 $1,110 $4,472
2023 $0 $0 $0
2024 $0 $0 $0
2029 $3,692 $1,218 $4,910
2030 $3,808 $1,257 $5,065
2027 $3,469 $1,145 $4,614
2028 $3,578 $1,181 $4,759
$4,449 $1,468 $5,917
2036 $4,590 $1,515 $6,104
$3,929 $1,296 $5,225
2032 $4,053 $1,337 $5,390
2023 0 0
2020 0 0
2021 0 0
2022 0
0.000000
2025 0.239469
2026 0.486504
2021 0.000000
2022 0.000000
2023 0.000000
2036 3.429602
2037 3.777446
2033 2.448705
2034 2.765553
2035 3.092413
2030 1.555216
2031 1.843830
2032 2.141563
2027 0.741346
2028 1.004241
2029 1.275444
2024
Costs
2038 $4,884 $1,612 $6,496
2039 $5,039 $1,663 $6,701
2033 $4,181 $1,380 $5,560
2034 $4,313 $1,423 $5,736
2031
2037 $4,735 $1,562 $6,297
2035
13 13
2031 11 11
2028 10 10
2029 10 10
2032 11
11
2036 13 13
2034 12 12
2035 12 12
2024 0 0
2025 9 9
2026
2038 4.13628120381414
9 9
11
2033 12 12
2030 11
2027 10 10
2037
2039 4.506456
2040 4.8883292040$5,198 $1,715 $6,913 2040 14 14
2039 14 14
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Low Income Direct Installation Rebates and Leak Repair Assistance
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 79
Public Education
####################
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
######
Utilize a range of printed and digital materials
to raise awareness of conservation measures
available to customers, including incentive
programs offered by the Utility. This can
include newsletters, bill stuffers, water smart
planting guides, brochures/rack cards,
newspaper ads, signs at retailers, radio ads,
boosted social media posts and accompanying
imagery. Provide a variety of conservation
information on the city web site, and
production of videos. Conduct presentations at
various community venues, MSU, local public
schools. Have booths at community events such
as famers markets, Catapalooza, etc. Also
consider a focused program initiative with
focused action like: “Take Control of your
Controller” Campaign for a focused social
media based campaign. This measure would
also include educational resources that are
provided for free at events (shower timers, kids
activity books, kids pencils). Contract services
to support public educational initiatives such as
working with G3 and MOSS are also included.
Abbr 18
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Public Education
Customer Classes
RMFLINew_SFMeasure Life
Permanent #####
Years 2
Repeat #####
Time Period
First Year 2020
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 21
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
R $14.00 $5.00 1
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 10%
Description
MF $14.00 $5.00 1
New_SF $14.00 $5.00 1
End Uses
RMFCCSINCCSINGGSMSUDishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process GGSMSULINew_SFToilets
Comments
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
104.446140
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $3,008,536
Community
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 1.35
Community 1.06
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$3,122,408
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $2,227,983
Community $2,951,354
R Toilets 0.3%25.3
MF Toilets 0.3%96.8
Utility $1,016
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
R Showers 0.3%19.8
MF Showers 0.3%75.7
R Lavatory Faucets 0.3%6.9
MF Lavatory Faucets 0.3%26.5
R Clothes Washers 0.3%17.1
MF Clothes Washers 0.3%65.5
R Dishwashers 0.3%1.2
MF Dishwashers 0.3%4.8
R Baths 0.3%2.7
MF Baths 0.3%10.2
R Internal Leakage 0.3%14.1
MF Internal Leakage 0.3%53.9
R Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3%12.9
MF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3%49.2
R Other 0.3%4.5
MF Other 0.3%17.0
R Pools 0.3%2.2
MF Pools 0.3%2.4
R Irrigation 5.0%91.2
MF Irrigation 5.0%99.8
R Car Washing 0.3%4.4
MF Car Washing 0.3%4.8
R Wash Down 0.3%4.4
MF Wash Down 0.3%4.8
New_SF Toilets 0.3%23.3
New_SF Lavatory Faucets 0.3%6.4
R External Leakage 0.3%7.7
MF External Leakage 0.3%8.4
New_SF Clothes Washers 0.3%15.8
New_SF Internal Leakage 0.3%13.0
New_SF Showers 0.3%18.2
New_SF Dishwashers 0.3%1.2
New_SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3%11.9
New_SF Irrigation 5.0%162.3
New_SF Baths 0.3%2.5
New_SF Other 0.3%4.1
New_SF Car Washing 0.3%7.8
New_SF External Leakage 0.3%13.7
New_SF Pools 0.3%3.9
New_SF Wash Down 0.3%7.8
Costs
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.50.000%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Targets
R MF New_SF
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2022 $92,125 $9,212 $101,337
2023 $94,680 $9,468 $104,147
2020 $87,248 $8,725 $95,973
2021 $89,649 $8,965 $98,613
2026 $102,838 $10,284 $113,122
2027 $105,731 $10,573 $116,304
2024 $97,315 $9,731 $107,046
2025 $100,033 $10,003 $110,037
2030 $114,971 $11,497 $126,468
2031 $118,247 $11,825 $130,072
2028 $108,716 $10,872 $119,587
2029 $111,795 $11,179 $122,974
2034 $128,712 $12,871 $141,583
2035 $132,422
Total
2020 4,980 1,252 1 6,232
2032 $121,628 $12,163 $133,790
2033 $125,114 $12,511 $137,626
2021 4,980 1,291 132
2040 $152,811 $15,281 $168,092
2039 $148,476 $14,848 $163,323
$13,242 $145,664
2038 $144,273 $14,427 $158,700
2036 $136,250 $13,625 $149,875
2037 $140,199 $14,020 $154,219
6,403
2022 4,980 1,332 269 6,580
2023 4,980 1,374 409 6,763
2024 4,980 1,417 554 6,951
2025 4,980 1,462 703 7,145
2026 4,980 1,508 857 7,346
2027 4,980 1,556 1,016 7,552
2028 4,980 1,605 1,180 7,765
2029 4,980 1,656 1,349 7,985
2030 4,980 1,708 1,524 8,212
2031 4,980 1,762 1,704 8,446
2032 4,980 1,818 1,890 8,688
2033 4,980 1,875 2,081 8,937
2034 4,980 1,935 2,279 9,194
2035 4,980 1,996 2,483 9,459
2036 4,980 2,059 2,693 9,732
2037 4,980 2,124 2,910 10,014
2038 4,980 2,191 3,134 10,305
2039 4,980 2,260 3,365 10,605
2040 4,980 2,332 3,603 10,915
2021 72.783780
2022 75.819066
2023 78.950003
2039 144.866436
2040 150.185072
2036 129.873244
2037 134.715379
2038 139.711517
2033 116.225298
2034
• Utility Cost: $75K/yr. for advertising and marketing +
$9K/yr. for green gardening classes for residents by a
contractor + $7K for MOSS Project WET + $1k for public
events and presentations for a total of approx. $92k/yr.
• Admin Markup: staff time to support classes,
marketing, etc. Approximately 235 hours annually.
Admin cost assumes average of fully burden rate for
water conservation manager ($46.86/hr.). and water
conservation technician($29.92/hr.) for an average of
$38.39/hr. The annual admin cost comes out to
~$9,022/yr.
• Customer Cost: some since there will be green
landscaping implementation costs by those customers
who attend the green gardening class.
• End Use Water Savings: Public info water savings range
is 0.1%-0.5% on each end use. Assumed the average of
0.25% with higher on outdoor since the green gardening
classes will result in higher savings for class attendees.
Since there is higher targeted outdoor education, higher
irrigation savings.
• Targets: 50% of residential accounts per yr.
120.632612
2035 125.180482
2030 103.805388
2031 107.815681
2032 111.954342
2020 35.655199
92.492107
2028 96.147348
2029 99.917211
2024 82.179664
2025 85.511210
2026 88.947894
2027
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Public Education
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 80
Contractor Efficient Outdoor Use Education and Training Programs
####################
##########
####
##########
##########
##########
##########
####
####
##########
######
##########
##########
##########
######
######
######
##########
####
R Irrigation 10.0%91.2
New_SF Irrigation 10.0%162.3
Targets
10.0%242.4
CS Irrigation 10.0%537.9
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
Utility $103
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
MF Irrigation 10.0%
2036 71.570233
2037 74.276569
2038 77.070150
2039 79.953794
2040 82.930408
2031 59.254646
2032 61.564023
2033 63.947828
2034 66.408465
2035 68.948413
2026 48.745231
2027 50.715954
2028 52.750174
2029 54.849941
2030 57.017371
2021 16.908606
2022 25.894350
2023 35.249646
2024 44.986399
2025 46.836020
86 9 228 1,015
89 9 248 1,045
92 10 269 1,075
75 8 152 904
81 9 189 958
83 9 208 986
78 8 170 931
2025 498 146 63 7 70 785
66 7 86 807
2023 498 137 59 6 41 742
2024 498 142 61 6 55 763
2021 498 129 55 6 13 701
2022 498 133 57 6 27 721
2024 $4,500 $1,344 $5,844
2025 $4,629 $1,344 $5,973
Targets
R MF C CS New_SF Total
2020 498 125 53 6 0 682
$5,482
2022 $4,255 $1,344 $5,599
2023 $4,376 $1,344 $5,720
Costs
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2020 $4,025 $1,344 $5,369
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2020 8.280880
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.5.000%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
99.8
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
54.674243
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $1,553,720
Community $1,553,720
Community $117,749
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 13.20
Community 13.20
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Overview
Contractor Efficient Outdoor Use Education and Training Programs
19
2
1
Fixture Cost per Device
CS $5.90 $0.00 1
Customer Classes
INGGSMSULINew_SFEnd Uses
ING$1,344 $6,105 2026 498 151
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
R $5.90 $0.00 1
MF $5.90 $0.00 1
C $5.90
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Name
Measure Life
Permanent #####
Years 5
Repeat #####
Time Period
First Year 2020
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 21 GSMSULINew_SFLifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $117,749
$0.00 1
New_SF $5.90 $0.00 1
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $1,344 CCSCCSRMFToilets RMFC Irrigation
Comments
2027 $4,898 $1,344 $6,242
2028 $5,040 $1,344 $6,384
498 1562027
2028 498 161
• Utility Cost: City hosts 1 class per year, and costs approx. $4,000 to host
one class. Additionally City pays $500 to QWEL annually.
> Utility cost per fixture is scaled to be utility fixture cost * targeted
accounts, therefore the annual cost is ~$4,500 (Class cost + QWEL cost)
• Admin Markup: Admin time includes 20 hours for the class, plus another
15 hours for class outreach, organization, etc. Assumes an average fully
burdened rate for water conservation manager ($46.86/hr.) and water
conservation technician($29.92/hr.) for an average of $38.39/hr. @ 35 hours
= $1,344
• Customer Cost: No cost to customer.
• End Use Water Savings: 10-15% savings since this is a participatory
education measure. It might be higher. Additional savings will be captured
under rebate measures, assuming contractor participation in those
measures.
• Targets: Assumes water savings from the educated contractors would
occur in large landscape sites, such as HOAs/Multifamily Properties and
Commercial Properties. Would like to reach 30 contractors annually.
Assumes the 30 contractors affects 5% SF, New_SF, MF and CII Accounts
annually.
2021 $4,138 $1,344
Description
Utility would offer, organize and sponsor a series of educational
workshops or other means for educating landscapers and
contractors in efficient landscaping and irrigation principals. Utilize
guest speakers, native demonstration gardens, incentives, such as
a nursery plant coupon.
Classes such as Irrigation Association classes/certifications, QWEL,
etc.
2026 $4,761
2029 $5,185 $1,344 $6,529
2030 $5,336 $1,344 $6,680
2029 498 166
68 7 102 830
70 7 118 854
73 8 135 879
2039 $6,926 $1,344 $8,270
2040 $7,132 $1,344 $8,476
2037 $6,533 $1,344 $7,877
2038 $6,726 $1,344 $8,070
2035 $6,163 $1,344 $7,507
2036 $6,345 $1,344 $7,689
2033 $5,817 $1,344 $7,161
2034 $5,987 $1,344 $7,331
2031 $5,491 $1,344 $6,835
2032 $5,651 $1,344 $6,995
498
2033 498 188
2034 193
2030 498 171
2031 498 176
2032 498 182
2035 498 200
2036 498 206
2039 498
2037 498
2038 498
106 11 360 1,2092040498233
226
212
219
96 10 291 1,107
1,140
102 11 337 1,174
99 10 313
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Contractor Efficient Outdoor Use Education and Training Programs
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 81
Xeriscape Demonstration Gardens
####################
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
Comments
• Utility Cost: One project every 5 years, which is approx. $75k/project for design and infrastructure. Museum garden project cost on the conservation budget is
$25k. Assumes similar utility cost. Since the project is assumed every 5 years, annual cost is ~$5,000.
• Admin Markup: minimal admin time.
• Customer Cost: assumes some cost to update landscaping.
• End Use Water Savings: Savings represent irrigation savings for those participants who take action by replacing turf with xeriscape or replacing irrigation
equipment. Conservative value as it is an estimate on who would be inspired. Assumes NEW_SF accounts would also be exposed, but with half the savings as they
should already have efficient landscaping if the landscape ordinance is adopted.
• Targets: Per Bozeman staff, there are currently ~ 50,000 annual Bozeman residents visiting the museum garden each year. Assuming 4 people per household, this
would be approx. 12,500 residential accounts visiting. Assuming in a future setting less people will be exposed to the garden, as the gardens would be standalone
and not required to walkthrough to access a museum. Assuming 50% would be exposed in new gardens, so 6,250 accounts. Assume 5% of these visitors (exposed
accounts) would take some sort of action which would be ~300 accounts. Including NEW_SF, but with half the savings assumption as existing accounts.
2039 23.235065
2035 20.970610
2036 21.510585
2037 22.067624
2032 19.447915
2033 19.939773
2034 20.447175
2029 18.060907
2030 18.508936
2031 18.971123
2026
2028 17.626602
2023 12.661405
2024 16.018406
2025 16.401892
2038 22.642265
6.182115
2022 9.383448
2039 299 202 501
2038 299 188 487
137 436
2031 299 102 401
2032 299 113 412
16.797496
2027 17.205601
2029 299 81 380
2030 299 91 390
2027 299 61 360
2028
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2037 299 175 473
2035 299 149 448
2036 299 162 460
2033 299 125 424
2034 299
2020 3.055057
2021
299 71 370
2025 299 42 341
2026 299 51 350
2023 299 25 323
2024 299 33 332
299 16 315
R New_SF Total
2020 299 0 299
2039 $8,011 $401 $8,412
$339 $7,118
2034 $6,969 $348 $7,317
2031 $6,417 $321 $6,738
2032 $6,595
Targets
2037 $7,575 $379 $7,954
2038 $7,790 $389 $8,179
2035 $7,164 $358 $7,523
2036 $7,366
2021 299 8 307
2022
$368 $7,735
2033 $6,779
$330 $6,925
2029 $6,076 $304 $6,380
2030 $6,244 $312 $6,556
2027 $5,756 $288 $6,044
2028 $5,914 $296 $6,210
2025 $5,456 $273 $5,729
2026 $5,604 $280 $5,884
$5,173 $259 $5,432
2024 $5,312 $266 $5,578
2021 $4,908 $245 $5,153
2022 $5,039 $252 $5,290
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.3.000%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
R Irrigation 10.0%91.2
New_SF Irrigation 5.0%162.3
$316
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 4.31
Community 0.62
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$497,501
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $115,505
Community $803,036
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
17.380029
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $497,501
Community
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Utility
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process GGSMSULINew_SFToilets LINew_SFEnd Uses
RMFCCSINMarkup Percentage 5%
Description
Provide additional demonstration gardens
showcasing drought tolerant landscaping and
efficient irrigation so that the community has
local resources available to see these
products/plants.
Customer Classes
RMFCCSNew_SF $16.00 $100.00 1
Administration Costs
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
R $16.00 $100.00 1
Measure Life
Permanent #####
Years 5
Repeat #####
Time Period
First Year 2020
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 21
Abbr 20
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Xeriscape Demonstration Gardens
INGGSMSU2040 23.8465982040$8,240 $412 $8,652 2040 299 216 515
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2020 $4,781 $239 $5,020
Costs
2023
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Xeriscape
Demonstration Gardens
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 82
Require HE Toilets, Showerheads, Faucets, Urinals in New Development
####################
##############
########
##############
##############
##############
##############
####
######
##############
######
##############
##############
##############
########
######
######
##############
########
Name
Overview
2
1
Customer Classes
MFCCSINGGSMSULINew_SFFirst Year 2040
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 1
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Markup Percentage 10%
Description
Require developers to install high-efficient toilets, lavatory faucets, kitchen faucets,
and showerheads.
IAPMO Green Building Supplemental Code is 1.5 gpm for residential lavatory faucets,
0.5 gpm for non-residential lavatory faucets, 1.8 gpm for kitchen faucets and 2.0 gpm
for showerheads, 1.28 gpf for toilets, 0.125 gpf for urinals.
MF $9.60 $250.00 3
C $38.39 $300.00 3
New_SF $9.60 $250.00 1
MSU $38.39 $300.00 3
LI $9.60 RRRequire HE Toilets, Showerheads, Faucets, Urinals in New Development
21
IN $38.39 $300.00 3
G $38.39 $300.00 3
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Time Period
Fixture Cost per Device
End Uses
2022 $0 $0 $0
2023 $0 $0 $0
$250.00 1
2020 $0 $0 $0
2021 $0 $0 $0
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
Administration Costs
2026 $0 $0 $0
2027 $0 $0 $0
2024 $0 $0 $0
2025 $0 $0 $0
$0
2028 $0 $0 $0
2029 $0 $0 $0
2034 $0 $0 $0
2035
2022
2025
2031
2037
$0 $0
2030 $0 $0 $0
2031 $0 $0 $0
2032 $0 $0 $0
2033
2040 $17,482 $1,748 $19,230
2039 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0$0
2038 $0 $0 $0
2036 $0 $0 $0
2037 $0 $0 $0
0 0
2021 0 0
MF C
2020 0 0
0 0
2024 0 0
2023 0 0
2028 0 0
2027 0 0
2026 0 0
0 0
2030 0 0
2029 0 0
2034 0 0
2033 0 0
2032 0 0
0 0
2036 0 0
2035 0 0
2040 143 72
2039 0 0
2038 0 0
IN G MSU LI New_SF Total
0 0 0 0 0 0MFCCSINGGSMSULINew_SFToilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Comments
• Utility Cost: Represents random inspections by utility staff to ensure validity of code
implementation. Assuming 1 hour for single family and 2 for MF/CII on average per site (door to
door). Since only a sample will be inspected, actual utility time represents 15 minutes for SF and
1 hour for MF/CII. Assume a typical unit has 2 toilets, 1 showerhead, 2 bath aerators, and 1
kitchen aerator replaced as needed. Non-residential units are assumed to have 1 urinal. Assume
multiple units per non-SF account. Average hourly rate of $38.39 is used. This is an average of the
water conservation manager fully burdened rate of $46.86 and the water conservation technician
fully burdened rate of $29.92
• Admin Markup: represents additional staff time to run measure (i.e. scheduling, coordinating
with planning, etc.)
• Customer Cost: Represents any fixture cost to comply with standards. CII cost accounts for
urinals as well. Cost is the difference in standard vs. efficient devices.
• End Use Water Savings: Savings from this code measure assume 2.2 gpm faucets, 2.5
showerheads, 1.6 gpf toilets and 1.0 gpf urinals are replaced with 1.2 gpm bathroom aerators, 1.8
gpm kitchen aerators, 1.8 gpm showerheads, 1.28 gpf toilets, and 0.125 gpf urinals.
• Targets: 100% of new accts (aka new development). Regular SF not selected, as all new SF
growth is in NEW_SF category.
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
1.278431
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $32,967
Community $42,766
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $13,440
Community $220,684
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 2.45
Community 0.19
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
Utility $501
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
MF Toilets 20.0%96.8
C Toilets 20.0%150.1
IN Toilets 20.0%6,116.1
C Urinals 87.5%45.0
IN Urinals 87.5%2,446.4
MF Lavatory Faucets 45.5%26.5
C Lavatory Faucets 45.5%56.8
49.2
C Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 18.2%48.3
IN Lavatory Faucets 45.5%3,082.5
MF Showers 28.0%75.7
C Showers 28.0%67.6
IN Showers 28.0%1,223.2
MF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 18.2%
TargetsCosts
New_SF Showers 28.0%18.2
New_SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 18.2%11.9
43.3
MSU Lavatory Faucets 45.5%1,212.8
LI Lavatory Faucets 45.5%5.2
G Showers 28.0%50.1
MSU Showers 28.0%1,403.7
LI Showers 28.0%
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
2029 0.000000
2020 0.000000
2021 0.000000
2022 0.000000
2023 0.000000
2024 0.000000
2028 0.000000
G Urinals 87.5%30.1
MSU Urinals 87.5%842.2
G Lavatory Faucets 45.5%
2025 0.000000
Total Savings (afy)
Water Savings
Only Affects New Accts TRUE
14.9
G Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 18.2%36.9
MSU Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 18.2%1,033.1
LI Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
G Toilets 20.0%100.2
MSU Toilets 20.0%2,807.3
LI Toilets 20.0%19.1
IN Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 18.2%2,625.8
New_SF Toilets 20.0%23.3
New_SF Lavatory Faucets 45.5%6.4
18.2%9.7
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.100.000%
0 0 0 0 0 0 2033 0.000000
2030 0.000000
2031 0.000000
2032 0.000000
2026 0.000000
2027 0.000000
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2034 0.000000
2035 0.000000
2036 0.000000
2037 0.000000
0 3 1 9 476 704
2038 0.000000
2039 0.000000
2040 26.847044
0 0 0 0
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Require HE Toilets, Showerheads, Faucets, Urinals in New Development
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 83
Fixture Retrofit on Resale or Name Change on Water Account
####################
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
####
2039 0.000000
2035 0.000000
2036 0.000000
2037 0.000000
2032 0.000000
2033 0.000000
2034 0.000000
2029 0.000000
2030 0.000000
2031 0.000000
2026
2028 0.000000
2023 0.000000
2024 0.000000
2025 0.000000
2038 0.000000
0.000000
2022 0.000000
2039 0 0 0
2038 0 0 0
0 0
2031 0 0 0
2032 0 0 0
0.000000
2027 0.000000
2029 0 0 0
2030 0 0 0
2027 0 0 0
2028
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2037 0 0 0
2035 0 0 0
2036 0 0 0
2033 0 0 0
2034 0
2020 0.000000
2021
0 0 0
2025 0 0 0
2026 0 0 0
2023 0 0 0
2024 0 0 0
0 0 0
R MF Total
2020 0 0 0
2039 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0
2034 $0 $0 $0
2031 $0 $0 $0
2032 $0
Targets
2037 $0 $0 $0
2038 $0 $0 $0
2035 $0 $0 $0
2036 $0
2021 0 0 0
2022
$0 $0
2033 $0
$0 $0
2029 $0 $0 $0
2030 $0 $0 $0
2027 $0 $0 $0
2028 $0 $0 $0
2025 $0 $0 $0
2026 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
2024 $0 $0 $0
2021 $0 $0 $0
2022 $0 $0 $0
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.4.210%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
R Showers 28.0%19.8
R Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 18.2%12.9
R Toilets 20.0%25.3
R Lavatory Faucets 45.5%6.9
MF Showers 28.0%75.7
MF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 18.2%49.2
MF Toilets 20.0%96.8
MF Lavatory Faucets 45.5%26.5
Utility $1,782
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Utility 0.69
Community 0.27
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$27,479
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $29,759
Community $100,229
Comments
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
0.795248
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $20,507
Community
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets Benefit to Cost RatioMSU
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process GGSMSULIToilets
1
MF $38.39 $100.00 3
End Uses
RMFCCSINNew_SFWork with the real estate industry to require a
certificate of compliance be submitted to the
Utility verifying that a plumber has inspected
the property and efficient fixtures were either
already there, or were installed, before close of
escrow.
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Time Period
First Year 2040
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 1
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 10%
Description
R $38.39 $100.00
Abbr 22
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Fixture Retrofit on Resale or Name Change on Water Account
Customer Classes
RMFLINew_SFCCSINGGS2040 16.700204
• Utility Cost: Represents random inspections by utility staff
to ensure validity of code implementation. Assuming 1 hour
for single family and 2 for MF on average per site, assuming
inspections are random. Assume a typical unit has 2 toilets, 1
showerhead, 2 bath aerators, and 1 kitchen aerator replaced
as needed. Assume multiple units per non-SF account.
Average hourly rate of $38.39 is an average of the water
conservation manager fully burdened rate of $46.86 and the
water conservation technician fully burdened rate of $29.92)
• Admin Markup: 10% cost represents staff time to
administer the measure.
• Customer Cost: Represent any fixture cost to comply with
standards.
• End Use Water Savings: Savings from this code measure
assume 2.2 gpm faucets, 2.5 gpm showerheads, 1.6 gpf
toilets and 1.0 gpf urinals are replaced with 1.2 gpm
bathroom aerators, 1.8 gpm kitchen aerators, 1.8 gpm
showerheads, 1.28 gpf toilets, and 0.125 gpf urinals.
• Targets: Target % percent of accounts is a conservative
assumption for recent resale and water account change
rates. Average resale rate for the service area from 2018 -
2021 is 4.21%. New_SF not included, as it is assumed new
housing would already have efficient fixtures in place.
2040 $38,708 $3,871 $42,579 2040 419 196 616
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2020 $0 $0 $0
Costs
2023
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Fixture Retrofit on Resale or Name Change on Water
Account
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 84
Require Irrigation Designers/Installers Be Certified
####################
##############
########
##############
##############
##############
##############
####
########
##############
######
##############
##############
##############
######
######
######
##############
########
4 1 360 1,214
Water Savings
2039 197.204717
2040 215.567188
Total Savings (afy)
33.980348
2029 46.206038
2030 58.905435
2031 72.093800
2032 85.786884
2033 100.000946
2034
2039 $9,043 $90 $9,134
2040 $9,312 $93 $9,405
Targets
2039 498 226 102 11 4 1 337 1,179
2040 498 233 106 11
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Name
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Time Period
First Year 2026
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 15
1
CS $7.67
R $7.67 $100.00 1
MF $7.67 $100.00 1
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
G $7.67 $100.00 1
GS $7.67 $100.00 1
New_SF $7.67 $100.00 1
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 1%
2022 $0 $0 $0
2023 $0 $0 $0
Require design/installation of irrigation systems by trained/certified contractors.
Certification might be through the Irrigation Association (IA) and/or specialized
training provided by utility. Model after program in Cary, North Carolina.
2021 $0 $0 $0
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs
2020 $0
Costs
2026 $6,216 $62 $6,278
2027 $6,395 $64 $6,459
2024 $0 $0 $0
2025 $0 $0 $0
2030 $6,966 $70 $7,036
2031 $7,169 $72 $7,241
2028 $6,579 $66 $6,645
2029 $6,770 $68 $6,838
2035 $8,047 $80 $8,128
2032 $7,378 $74 $7,452
2033 $7,594 $76 $7,670 GGSMSULINew_SFEnd Uses
2038 $8,782 $88 $8,870
2036 $8,285 $83 $8,367
2037 $8,529 $85 $8,615
2034 $7,817 $78 $7,895
Overview
Require Irrigation Designers/Installers Be Certified
23
2
1
Fixture Cost per Device
Customer Classes
RMFCCSINResults
Average Water Savings (afy)
75.024097
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $1,996,839
Community
Description New_SFToilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse RMFCCSINGGSMSULIC $7.67 $100.00
Internal Leakage
Baths
$1,996,839
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $91,321
Community $1,270,158
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 21.87
Community 1.57
$0 $0
% of Accts Targeted/Yr.5.000%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
Utility $58
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
CS Irrigation 10.0%537.9
$100.00 1
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Comments
Util Total R MF C CS G GS New_SF Total
• Utility Cost: WC would hold the trainings. Assumes they would host one IA class and two
QWEL classes each year, for a budget of about ~$8k/year.
• Admin Markup: Minimal allocation of additional staff time to enforce the measure.
• Customer Cost: Cost to customers represents more efficient system devices AND better
trained labor.
• End Use Water Savings: 10-15% savings since participatory education measure. Might be
higher. Additional savings will be captured under rebate measures, assuming contractor
participation in those measures.
• Targets: 10% of accounts would be affected by having certified landscapers. Assumes water
savings from the certified contractors would occur in large landscape sites, such as
HOAs/Multifamily Properties and Commercial Properties. Would like to reach 50 contractors
annually. Assumes the 50 contractors affects 5% SF, MF and CII Accounts annually (around ~1,000
properties)
This measures assumes costs and savings from rebates in other measures are not included /
double counted here.
• Time period: Starts in year 2026 per commission meeting direction on 2/15/22.
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2026 498 151 66 7 3 1 86 810
2027 498 156 68 7 3 1 102 834
2028 498 161 70 7 3 1 118 858
2029 498 166 73 8 3 1 135 883
2030 498 171 75 8 3 1 152 908
962
2031 498 176 78 8 3 1 170 935
2025 0.000000
2026 10.891426
2027 22.213585
2028
2035 498 200 89 9 4 1 248 1,049
2032 498 182 81 9 3 1 189
2020 0.000000
2021 0.000000
2022 0.000000
2023 0.000000
2024 0.000000
114.752771
2035 130.059686
R Irrigation 10.0%91.2
MF Irrigation 10.0%99.8
C Irrigation 10.0%242.4
G Irrigation 10.0%942.1
GS Irrigation 10.0%806.6
New_SF Irrigation 10.0%162.3
Targets
2036 498 206 92 10 4 1 269 1,080
228 1,019
2033 498 188 83 9 4 1 208 990
2034 498 193 86 9 4 1
2036 145.939576
2037 162.410902
2038 179.49272520384982199910413131,145
2037 498 212 96 10 4 1 291 1,112
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Require Irrigation Designers/ Installers Be Certified
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 85
Mandatory Water Efficiency Offsets
####################
########
####
########
########
########
########
####
####
########
####
########
########
########
####
####
####
########
####
CS Toilets
CS Urinals
CS Lavatory Faucets
CS Showers
CS Dishwashers
CS Clothes Washers
CS Process
CS Kitchen Spray Rinse
CS Other
CS Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
CS Irrigation
CS Cooling
New_SF Toilets
52.1
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
537.9
22.4
20.8
17.4
48.6
52.1
20.8
31.3
26.3
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
23.3
103.4
2028 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
2022
2025 0 0 0
2026 0 0 0
2027 0 0 0
2022 0 0 0
2023 0 0 0
2024 0 0 0
2028 $0 $0 $0
2027 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0
2026 $0 $0 $0
2024 $0 $0 $0
2025 $0 $0 $0
2023 $0
% of Accts Targeted/Yr
New_SF Pools 100.0%
90.000%
Only Affects New Accts TRUE
Costs
4.1
New_SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets100.0%11.9
New_SF Irrigation 100.0%162.3
C CS
2020 0 0 0
2021 0 0 0
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
2022 $0 $0 $0
MF
2020 $0 $0 $0
2021 $0 $0 $0
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
This measure is modeled after the Net Blue water offset
framework. The intent of this measure is to require
developers to offset a portion of their estimated water
demand from new development with efficiency projects.
Irrigation
62.62
Community 0.95
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
Utility $20
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
MF Toilets 100.0%96.8
C Toilets 100.0%150.1
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
100.0%
100.0%
20.8CCSINGGSGGSRMFEnd Uses
MSULINew_SFCS $0.01 $3,750.00 1
MF $0.01 $3,750.00 1
C $0.01 $3,750.00 1
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Time Period
First Year 2033
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 8
Fixture Cost per Device
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Name
MFCCSINOverview
Mandatory Water Efficiency Offsets
24
2 R1
Customer Classes
MSULINew_SFNew_SF $0.01 $3,750.00 1
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $26,986
Description
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Cooling
Comments
• Utility Cost: No cost to conservation budget.
• Admin Markup: Assumes 4 hours per account for
enforcement, communication, and inspections, using an
average hourly rate of $38.39, which is an average of the
water conservation manager fully burdened rate of
$46.86 and the water conservation technician fully
burdened rate of $29.92)
• Customer Cost: Cost to developer to install net zero
system (efficient fixtures and greywater devices) or
offset at another location. Customer cost of $3,750 per
account is derived from City's calculation of total cost to
offset 1 AF of water.
• End Use Water Savings: This measure would require
that 100% of demand from new development be offset
through efficiency projects prior to approval - effectively
eliminating demand associated with new development.
This could be achieved by partially reducing use onsite,
and/or completing retrofit projects offsite in order to
save the amount of water equal to the demand of the
new development. Therefore, the end use water savings
for this measure is 100%.
• Targets: Since mandatory measure, 90% of new
accounts for MF and CII properties (assumes not 100%
will comply)
• Time Period: This measure is intended to start up after
the "Impact Fee Credit" measure ends. Starts when
demand is expected to exceed supply.
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
383.902051
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $10,070,272
Community $12,149,589
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $160,818
Community $12,739,514
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility
C Urinals 100.0%45.0
MF Lavatory Faucets 100.0%26.5
56.8
MF Showers 100.0%75.7
C Showers 100.0%67.6
MF Dishwashers 100.0%4.8
C Lavatory Faucets 100.0%
45.0C Dishwashers 100.0%
MF Clothes Washers 100.0%65.5
C Clothes Washers 100.0%112.6
C Process 100.0%105.1
37.5
MF Baths 100.0%10.2
MF Other 100.0%17.0
C Other 100.0%37.5
C Kitchen Spray Rinse 100.0%
49.2
C Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets100.0%48.3
MF Irrigation 100.0%99.8
C Irrigation 100.0%242.4
MF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets100.0%
2.4
MF Wash Down 100.0%4.8
MF Car Washing 100.0%4.8
C Cooling 100.0%46.6
MF Pools 100.0%
New_SF Other 100.0%
New_SF Dishwashers 100.0%1.2
New_SF Clothes Washers 100.0%15.8
New_SF Baths 100.0%2.5
0
0 0
New_SF Total
0 0
0 0
0.000000
2026 0.000000
Total Savings (afy)
2020 0.000000
2021 0.000000
0.000000
18.2
New_SF Lavatory Faucets 100.0%6.4
New_SF Showers 100.0%
3.9
New_SF Wash Down 100.0%7.8
New_SF Car Washing 100.0%7.8
Targets
2029 $0 $0 $0
Water Savings
2029 0.000000
2027 0.000000
2028 0.000000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
2023 0.000000
2024 0.000000
2025
2030 $0 $0 $0
2031 $0 $0 $0
2032 $0 $0 $0
2033 $5 $26,986 $26,991
2034 $5 $26,986 $26,991
2035 $5 $26,986 $26,992
2036 $6 $26,986 $26,992
2037 $6 $26,986 $26,992
2038 $6 $26,986 $26,992
2039 $6 $26,986 $26,992
2040 $6 $26,986 $26,992
Targets
2029 0 0 0 0 0
2030 0 0 0 0 0
2031 0 0 0 0 0
2032 0 0 0 0 0
2033 103 51 5 345 504
2034 107 53 6 356 521
2035 110 54 6 367 537
2036 114 56 6 379 554
2037 117 58 6 391 572
2038 121 60 6 403 590
2039 125 62 7 416 609
2040 129 65 7 429 629
2030 0.000000
2031 0.000000
2032 0.000000
2033 209.647839
2034 425.061008
2040 1852.131339
2035 646.477941
2036 874.138956
2037 1108.286909
2038 1349.167790
2039 1597.031293
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Mandatory Water Efficiency Offsets
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 86
Landscape Ordinance – Tier 3
####################
########
####
########
########
########
########
####
####
########
####
########
########
########
####
####
####
########
####
2039 1193.174335
2040 1290.735434
2036 919.072745
2037 1007.444232
2038 1098.778241
2033 670.785799
2034 750.835191
2035 833.567458
2030 445.876908
2031 518.389650
2032 593.332074
2027 242.139968
2028 307.827211
2029 375.714891
2024 57.577510
2025 117.083155
2026 178.581671
2021 0.000000
2022 0.000000
2023 0.000000
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2020 0.000000
2040 129 72 8 370 578
2039 125 69 7 359 560
2038 121 67 7 348 542
2037 117 65 7 337 526
2036 114 63 7 327 509
2035 110 60 6 317 493
2034 107 58 6 307 478
2033 103 56 6 298 463
2032 100 54 6 288 449
2031 97 53 6 280 435
2030 94 51 5 271 421
2029 91 49 5 263 408
2028 89 47 5 255 396
2027 86 46 5 247 383
2026 83 44 5 239 371
2025 81 43 5 232 360
0 0
2021 0 0 0 0 0
2024 78 41 4 225 349
2023 0 0 0 0 0
2040 $578 $180,819 $181,396
2039 $560 $180,819 $181,379
$180,819 $181,312
2038 $542 $180,819 $181,361
2036 $509 $180,819 $181,328
2037 $526 $180,819 $181,344
2034 $478 $180,819 $181,297
2035 $493
Total
2020 0 0 0 0 0
2032 $449 $180,819 $181,268
2033 $463 $180,819
2022 0 0 0
$181,282
2030 $421 $180,819 $181,240
2031 $435 $180,819 $181,254
2028 $396 $180,819 $181,214
2029 $408 $180,819 $181,227
2026 $371 $180,819 $181,190
2027 $383 $180,819 $181,202
2024 $349 $180,819 $181,167
2025 $360 $180,819 $181,179
2022 $0 $0 $0
2023 $0 $0 $0
2020 $0 $0 $0
2021 $0 $0 $0
Targets
Enter Annual Targets Below
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total New_SF
Targets
MF C CS
CS Irrigation 115.9%537.9
New_SF Irrigation 33.0%162.3
MF Irrigation 138.7%99.8
C Irrigation 257.2%242.4
Utility $235
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 5.45
Community 2.83
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
$13,597,493
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $2,495,120
Community $4,805,122
Comments
• Utility Cost: Minimal utility cost. It is assumed utility
cost would be reimbursed by developers.
• Admin Markup: Fixed annual cost represents 5,548 staff
hours. Admin time assumes split 50/50 time for
education and outreach, set up, and tracking
effectiveness QAQC between technician rate and
manager rate. Additionally, admin time includes 100%
technician time for plan review, compliance inspection,
and follow up for building permit for BO projects, and
other building permit review and compliance inspections
for BPR projects.
Fully burdened technician rate is $29.92/hr. Fully
burdened water conservation manager rate is $46.86/hr.
It is assumed 3.12 FTEs will be needed.
• Customer Cost: Cost to comply with ordinance by
putting in proper landscaping.
• End Use Water Savings: savings are based on the
estimated annual irrigation water use per account. It is
assumed that MF and Commercial accounts will have a
turf limit of 20% of irrigable area (~2,884 sq.ft. of area for
MF and 6,551 sq.ft. of area for COM). It is assumed that
New_SF accounts will have a turf limit of 35% of irrigable
area (~ 1,412 sq.ft.) Water savings are calculated using the
percent difference of the current average turf and non-
turf area water budget to the 20% turf/ 80% non-turf
irrigable area budgets for MF and COM, and 40% turf/60%
non-turf irrigable area budgets. Savings inputs above the
average account type irrigation use reflects the much
higher irrigation use by new accounts. The average
account's average irrigation use volume is based on both
lower and higher water use by customer category
accounts. This measure targets the higher than average
water using accounts.
• Targets: Assumed 90% of new multi-family accounts
and 100% of new commercial and commercial special
accounts are targeted. Assumes 80% of "new" New_SF
accounts are targeted.
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
504.805546
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $13,597,493
Community
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Cooling
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Irrigation
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process GGSMSULINew_SFToilets LINew_SFEnd Uses
RMFCCSINCCSINGGSMSUAdministration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $180,819
Description
TIER 3 of a prescriptive landscape ordinance measure
would:
> Restrict turfgrass installation to 35% of total landscaped
area - SF
> Restrict turfgrass installation to 20% of total landscaped
area - MF
> Restrict turfgrass installation to 20% of total landscaped
area - COM
Additionally for SF, MF, and COM customer classes there
will be the following:
> Landscape Design Standards:
• Require 6" of topsoil - tilled w/ OM (4 cu yds./1,000 sq
ft. of landscape area)
• Require 3" mulch on bare soil (5% can be left uncovered
for habitat)
• Require submittal of soil quality lab test documentation
• Drought tolerant vegetation requirement for parkland,
ROW
> Irrigation Design Standards:
• Detailed irrigation plan required for parkland and Plan
Review (PR) projects
• Head to head coverage
• Hydro zoning
• Low flow drip for trees/perennials/shrubs
• No OH spray permitted in areas less than 10 ft wide
• Irrigation O&M plan (including schedule for
establishment and post-establishment)
• Irrigation performance requirement of 70% DU (verified
by certified 3rd party contractor)
> Irrigation Performance Standards:
• Adequate operating pressure
• Weather based controller
• Rain/soil moisture sensor
• Nozzle max. application rate of 1.25 in/hr.
> Large Landscape Requirements:
• Irrigation submeters required
• Flow sensor required
• Separate irrigation rate structure for all irrigation
submeters (more $$)
CS $1.00 $1,000.00 1
New_SF $1.00 $200.00 1
MF $1.00 $500.00 1
C $1.00 $1,000.00 1
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Time Period
First Year 2024
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 17
Abbr 27_L_OrdT3
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Landscape Ordinance - Tier 3
Customer Classes
RMFMethod:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View:View Units
Landscape Ordinance -Tier 3
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 87
APPENDIX F – CONSERVATION ANALYSIS RESULTS
This appendix presents benefit and cost analysis results for individual conservation measures and overall
conservation programs. Table F-1 presents how much water the measures will save through 2045, how much
they will cost, and the cost of saved water per unit volume if the measures were to be implemented on a stand-
alone basis (i.e., without interaction or overlap from other measures that might address the same end use or
uses). Savings from measures which address the same end use(s) are not additive; the model uses impact
factors to avoid double counting in estimating the water savings from programs of measures.12 This is why a
measure like Public Education may show a distorted cost in comparison to water saved. Most, if not all,
measures rely on public awareness. However, it is important to note that water savings are more directly
attributable to an “active” measure, like a toilet rebate, than the less “active” public education/awareness
measure that informs the community of the active measure.
Since interaction between measures has not been accounted for in Table F-1, it is not appropriate to include
totals at the bottom of the table. However, the table is useful to give a close approximation of the cost
effectiveness of each measure.
Cost categories are defined as follows:
• Utility Costs – Costs the City will incur, as a water utility, to operate a measure, including administrative
costs.
• Utility Benefits – The avoided cost of producing water at the identified rate $1,645/AF.
• Customer (Community) Costs – Those costs customers will incur to implement a measure in the City’s
conservation program and maintain its effectiveness over the life of the measure.
• Customer (Community) Benefits – The additional savings, such as energy savings resulting from reduced
use of hot water. These savings are additional as customers also would have reduced water bills (since the
Utility Costs and Benefits transfer to the customers).
• Community Costs – Includes Utility Costs plus Customer Costs.
• Community Benefits – Includes Utility Benefits plus Customer Benefits.
The column headings in Table F-1 are defined as follows:
• Present Value (PV) of Utility and Community Costs and Benefits ($) = the present value of the 21-year time
stream of annual costs or benefits, discounted to the base year.
• Utility Benefit to Cost Ratio = PV of Utility Benefits divided by PV of Utility Costs over 21 years.
• Community Benefit to Cost Ratio = (PV of Utility Benefits plus PV of customer energy savings) divided by (PV
of Utility Costs plus PV of Customer Costs), over 21 years.
• Five Years of Water Utility Costs ($) = sum of annual Utility Costs for 2023–2028. Measures start in the years
as specified for each measure shown in Appendix E. Utility costs include administrative costs and staff labor.
• Water Savings in 2040 (AFY) = water saved in acre-feet per year.
• Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/AF) = PV of Utility Costs over 21 years divided by the 21-year water
savings. The analysis period is 2020–2040. This value is compared to the utility’s avoided cost of water as
one indicator of the cost effectiveness of conservation efforts. Note that this value somewhat minimizes
the cost of savings because program costs are discounted to present value, but water benefits are not.
12 For example, if two measures are planned to address the same end use and both save 10% of the prior water use, then
the net effect is not the simple sum of 20%. Rather, it is the cumulative impact of the first measure reducing the use to 90%
of what it was originally, without the first measure in place. Then, the revised use of 90% is reduced by another 10% (10%
x 90% = 9%) to result in the use being 81% (90% -9% = 81%). In this example, the net savings is 19%, not 20%. Using impact
factors, the model computes the reduction as follows, 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.81 or 19% water savings.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 88
Table F-1. Estimated Conservation Measure Costs and Savings
Measure
Present
Value of
Water
Utility
Benefits
Present
Value of
Community
Benefits
Present
Value of
Water
Utility
Costs
Present
Value of
Community
Costs
Water
Utility
Benefit
to Cost
Ratio
Communit
y Benefit
to Cost
Ratio
Five Years
of Water
Utility
Costs
2023
2028
Water
Savings
in 2040
(AFY)
Water
Savings
in 2040
(GPCD)
Cost of
Savings
per Unit
Volume
($/AF)
Commercial
Capital Project HE
Fixture Installation
in Gov t Bldg.
School Building
Retrofit
$101,734 $177,152 $270,166 $1,057,055 0.38 0.17 $0 9.35 0.08
$32,967 $42,766 $13,440 $220,684 2.45 0.19 $0 26.85 0.24
Irrigation
–
–
'
–
–
Capital Project
Retrofit City
Medians with
Drought Tolerant
Landscaping and
Efficient Irrigation
$33,510 $33,510 $13,365 $13,365 2.51 2.51 $15,150 1.82 0.02 $525
Capital Project
Upgrade City $34,097 $34,097 $78,495 $78,495 0.43 0.43 $86,604 1.65 0.01 $3,076
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 89
CII High Efficiency
Washer Rebate
Require HE Toilets,
Showerheads,
Faucets, Urinals in
New Development
Mandatory Water
Efficiency Offsets
$67,522
$14,264 $19,049 $43,372 $85,481 0.33 0.22 $0 1.83 0.02 $3,910
0.95 $29,700 4.31 $1,686 0.04 $79,816 $83,620 $83,620 0.81
$10,070,272 $12,149,589 $160,818 $12,739,514 62.62 0.95 $0 1,852.13 16.64 $20
$3,515
$501
Present
er
ty
fits
Value of
Community
Benefits
Five Years Cost of Communit of Water Water Water
Measure
Value of
Wat
Utili
Bene
Utility
Costs
2023 –
2028
Savings
in 2040
(AFY)
Savings
in 2040
(GPCD)
Savings
per Unit
Volume
($/AF)
Facility Irrigation
Systems
Dedicated Irrigation
Meters & Irrigation
Account Rate $41,168 $41,168 $44,601 $189,974 0.92 0.22 $0 5.86 0.05 $1,343
Structure
Impact Fee Credit $957,338 $1,220,446 $69,679 $3,396,050 13.74 0.36 $27,260 54.81 0.49 $97
Financial Incentives
for Irrigation and
Landscape $336,346 $336,346 $348,144 $532,466 0.97 0.63 $93,569 16.37 0.15 $1,396
Upgrades
Landscape
Conversion or Turf $1,167,822 $1,167,822 $2,596,488 $20,569,483 0.45 0.06 $727,322 94.21 0.85 $2,895
Removal Rebate
Contractor Efficient
Outdoor Use
Education and $1,553,720 $1,553,720 $117,749 $117,749 13.20 13.20 $29,884 82.93 0.75 $103
Training Programs
Xeriscape
Demonstration $497,501 $497,501 $115,505 $803,036 4.31 0.62 $28,667 23.85 0.21 $316
Gardens
Require Irrigation
Designers/Installers $1,996,839 $1,996,839 $91,321 $1,270,158 21.87 1.57 $12,737 215.57 1.94 $58
Be Certified
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 90
Present
Water
Utility
Costs
Value of
Community
Costs
Benefit
to Cost
Ratio
y Ben
to Cos
Ratio
Water ent Value of Utility efit
t
Present Pres
Five Years Present Present Water Cost of Present Present Communit of Water Water Water
Measure
Value of
Water
Utility
Benefits
Value of
Community
Benefits
Value of
Water
Utility
Costs
Value of
Community
Costs
Utility
Benefit
to Cost
Ratio
y Benefit
to Cost
Ratio
Utility
Costs
2023 –
2028
Savings
in 2040
(AFY)
Savings
in 2040
(GPCD)
Savings
per Unit
Volume
($/AF)
Landscape
Ordinance –Tier 3 $13,597,493 $13,597,493 $2,495,120 $4,805,122 5.45 2.83 $724,738 1,290.74 11.60 $235
Residential
Tiered Rate
Structure for MF $44,808 $44,808 $68,754 $68,754 0.65 0.65 $0 24.27 0.22 $831
AMI and Customer
Water Use Portal $1,338,233 $2,461,181 $481,541 $1,454,351 2.78 1.69 $118,622 84.80 0.76 $489
Water Budget -
Based Billing and $173,161 $173,161 $996,508 $1,089,640 0.17 0.16 $0 16.00 0.14 $7,279
Water Budgeting
Efficient Fixture
Giveaway $440,160 $695,484 $20,682 $47,689 21.28 14.58 $5,057 31.77 0.29 $64
Residential
Efficiency Fixture $1,265,438 $1,678,094 $352,510 $824,633 3.59 2.03 $96,479 81.49 0.73 $388
Incentive Program
Residential Water
Use Surveys $953,503 $1,043,723 $719,661 $752,788 1.32 1.39 $201,257 46.85 0.42 $1,035
Low Income Direct
Installation Rebates
and Leak Repair $50,685 $71,329 $70,151 $70,151 0.72 1.02 $13,421 4.89 0.04 $1,830
Assistance
Fixture Retrofit on
Resale or Name
Change on Water $20,507 $27,479 $29,759 $100,229 0.69 0.27 $0 16.70 0.15 $1,782
Account
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 91
Five Years Present Present Water Cost of Present Present Communit of Water Water Water Value of Value of Utility Savings Value of Value of y Benefit Utility Savings Savings Measure Water Water Benefit per Unit Community Community to Cost Costs in 2040 in 2040 Utility Utility to Cost Volume Benefits Costs Ratio 2023 –(AFY) (GPCD) Benefits Costs Ratio ($/AF) 2028
Community & Education
Public Education $3,008,536 $3,122,408 $2,227,983 $2,951,354 1.35 1.06 $550,657 150.19 1.35 $1,016
System
Water Loss $3,431,066 $3,431,066 $391,935 $391,935 8.75 8.75 $125,000 317.18 2.85 $147
Additional information about the water reduction methodology, perspectives on benefits and costs, and assumptions about present value parameters and
measure costs/savings can be found earlier in this Plan in Appendix D.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 92
The following table shows each conservation program’s present value of water savings and utility costs, as well
as cost of water saved. See Appendix D for a more detailed explanation of present value.
Table F-2. Conservation Program Estimated Costs and Water Savings
Conservation Program
Water Utility
Present
Value of
Water
Savings
Water Utility
Present
Value of
Utility Costs
Water
Utility Cost
of Water
Saved
($/AF)
Program A with Plumbing Code $13,699,000 $7,451,000 $730
Program B with Plumbing Code $36,469,000 $10,621,000 $380
Program C with Plumbing Code $36,816,000 $11,901,000 $420
Costs presented in the table above are directly attributable to the City’s conservation department only.
Present value costs and savings are rounded to nearest $1,000.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 93
APPENDIX G – EXAMPLES OF LOCAL OUTREACH
INITIATIVES
Social Media Examples
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 94
Online Examples
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 95
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 96
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 97
Print Ad Examples
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 98
APPENDIX H – COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER CONSERVATION
M E ASURE SURVEY S SUMMARY AND RESULTS
Water Conservation and Efficiency Plan Community Engagement Summary
Program Measure Evaluation and Selection Process
To develop this Plan, a series of program measures were evaluated in collaboration with the City of Bozeman.
This evaluation was specific to the factors that were unique to the City’s service area, such as water use
characteristics, economies of scale, and demographics. The overall initial list of more than 140 potential water
conservation measures was drawn from MWM and the City’s experience, and a review of what other water
agencies with innovative and effective conservation programs were implementing at the time.
The City scored and evaluated each of these measures based on quantifiable water savings, technology
availability and market maturity, service area match, customer acceptance, equity, and additional service area
benefits. Through this process, the list was reduced to 49 measures.
After shortening the original list from 140 to 49 program measures, the City solicited input from the
community. Engaging the community during this portion of the Plan development process was crucial to
ensuring that the City develops programs that would be supported and widely adopted within the community.
Engage Bozeman and the Survey Development Process
In 2021, the City of Bozeman adopted and launched a community
engagement initiative called Engage Bozeman to gather input from the
community. Engage Bozeman strives to create opportunities and pathways
for residents to interact with the City by taking part in finding solutions and
contributing to decisions that affect them.
The first step of the Engage Bozeman process is to define the decision-
making process. This means identifying what decisions need to me made,
who will make them, and what information will be considered. To start the
community engagement process, the City evaluated these questions and
came to the following conclusions:
• The decision that needs to be made is what program measures will
undergo a detailed economic analysis and then be added into the
Plan.
• The decision makers will be City staff, MWM, City Management, and the City Commission.
• To make this decision, input from the public will be crucial to selecting program measures that will be
well received and widely adopted within the community.
The next step in the community engagement process was to define the level of engagement. To do this the
City utilized the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) engagement spectrum.13 The IA2P
engagement spectrum outlines the levels of engagement and helps determine how the community will
contribute to the process and what the expectations are for achieving a given level of engagement.
13 https://www.bozeman.net/home/showpublisheddocument/11461/637622797246270000
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 99
The City decided that somewhere between “consult” and “involve” was the desired level of public
participation. This was chosen on the basis that the public is not ultimately making the decision, but their input
is still valued and will be considered in the decision-making process. To get the public’s input, a suite of surveys
was developed to share with various stakeholders.
Developing the Surveys
The first step in developing the surveys was to identify key stakeholder groups that would be directly impacted
by the outcome of the Plan. The groups identified were residents, businesses, landscape and irrigation
contractors, developers, and property management companies.
The next step was to take the list of program measures being evaluated and identify which stakeholder groups
would either be impacted by the measure or would potentially be interested in voicing their opinion about the
measure. Once all the measures were aligned with corresponding groups, a customized survey was developed
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 100
for each stakeholder group. Each survey question was strategically and mindfully created to ensure that every
stakeholder would understand the measure. Each question corresponded directly with one or more program
measures. At the end of each survey, participants could elect to stay updated on the progress of the Plan.
Outreach and Results
To distribute the surveys to the various stakeholder groups the City utilized
existing stakeholder email lists and a variety of outreach methods. The
surveys were publicly available for 18 days (June 29–July 16, 2021). Direct
email lists were utilized for businesses, landscape and irrigation
contractors, developers, and property managers.
The survey targeting residents was advertised more heavily to include a
more diverse group of respondents. To accomplish this, the City utilized its
eNotification tool, which includes email lists for various City topics and
departments. The survey was also released on social media and through
word-of-mouth at local events such as the farmer’s market.
Coincidentally, the survey was made public as the City declared a stage 2
drought. This brought more attention to water conservation in general, and the local newspaper, the Bozeman
Daily Chronicle, wrote an article about the Plan development and linked the survey. After this was published,
there was a spike in resident survey submissions. In total, 453 people completed the surveys.
Information gathered from survey submissions was used to shorten the list of program measures from 49 to
25. These 25 program measures were selected for inclusion in the Plan and underwent a detailed benefit-cost
analysis.
Table H-1. Community Stakeholder Conservation Measure Surveys Overview
Stakeholder
Group Residents Businesses
Landscape
& Irrigation
Contractors
Developers Property
Managers
# of Survey 354 16 22 47 14 Participants
# of Survey 11 9 9 10 9 Questions
Direct email to City
email list members, Direct email,
Outreach social media, article local business Direct email Direct email Direct email Method(s) in the Bozeman Daily list serve
Chronicle, word-of-groups
mouth
The following pages contain the results from the suite of surveys.
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 101
City of Bozeman Water Conservation Plan Survey Results
The City of Bozeman is currently developing a water conservation plan that will guide the water conservation
program for the next 20 years. Input and feedback from local stakeholders is important to ensure that the plan
aligns with the goals and needs of the community. To obtain this input the City developed surveys for various
stakeholder groups. We appreciate you taking the time to take the resident survey and provide us with your
input.
The next step of the water conservation plan development process is evaluating program measures to determine
which measures will be included in the plan. The survey results will be utilized during this process by providing
valuable insight on which program measures the local community supports and opposes. However, the survey
results will not solely determine which measures are included in the plan. Other criteria such as achievable water
savings, available technology/market maturity, service area match, customer equity, etc. will all be considered
in determining which measures are included in the plan. A summary of the residents’ survey results is included
below.
Resident Survey Details
Number of Survey Participants: 354
Outreach Methods: Direct email to City email list members, social media, article in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle,
word of mouth
Survey Dates: 6/29/2021 – 7/16/2021
Part 1: Programs and Regulations
The water conservation plan will include recommendations for regulatory change, new programs and initiatives,
water rate changes, etc. Your input will help prioritize which of these initiatives are included in the plan. Of the
following, please indicate the level you would support or oppose the following programs and regulations.
(0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support)
Summary of Programs & Regulations
1. Programs dedicated to removing barriers for low income
1280
1593
1428residents to participate in water conservation programs.
2. Require the installation of high-efficiency toilets, lavatory
faucets, kitchen faucets, and showerheads in all new 1530
developments.
3. Require realtors to submit proof to the City that verifies a
plumber has inspected the property and efficient fixtures were
either already installed or were installed.
4. Require that the sprinkler systems in new commercial
developments and 5 or more unit residential properties have
weather-based controllers and high efficiency nozzles.
5. Develop water efficient landscape design standards for new 1615development projects.
6. Establish a school grant program for schools to retrofit
inefficient plumbing fixtures and outdoor sprinkler systems with 1473
more efficient products.
Overall score of each program measure
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 102
1. Programs dedicated to removing
barriers for low income residents to
participate in water conservation
programs. For example, some best
practice programs to be considered
include: direct installation toilet
rebate program, higher rebate
amount for clot
250
2. Require the installation of
high-efficiency toilets,
lavatory faucets, kitchen
faucets, and showerheads in
all new developments.
300
251
250 Number of Responses Number of Responses 192200
150
100 72
44 50 2112 11
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
3. Require realtors to submit
proof to the City that verifies a
plumber has inspected the
property and efficient fixtures
were either already installed or
were installed before the close of
escrow.
180 163
160
140
120
100
80 61
60 49
33 3140Number of Responses Number of Responses 200
150
100
46 50 2214 10 10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
4. Require that the sprinkler
systems in new commercial
developments and residential
properties with 5 or more units
have weather-based controllers
and high efficiency sprinkler
nozzles.
300 275
250
200
150
100
3650 20 12 102
0 0
17 19
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support 0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 103
5. Develop water efficient landscape
design standards for new
development projects. These
standards may include: climate
appropriate landscaping, turf ratios to
reduce the amount of high water use
turf grass in the landscape, water
smart plant selection,
350
291 300
6. Establish a school grant
program for schools to
retrofit inefficient plumbing
fixtures and outdoor
sprinkler systems with more
efficient products.
350
291 300 Number of Responses 250
200
150
100 Number of Responses 250
200
150
100
50 28 50 28 12 11 12 118 84 4
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support 0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
Part 2: Water Rates
The water conservation plan will include recommendations for changes to Bozeman's current water rate
structure. All of the water rate options being evaluated are designed to curb excessive outdoor water use by
sending price signals to customers.
Bozeman currently uses a tiered rate structure for single family customers that includes four tiers. This ensures
customers pay for the true cost of their usage and keeps the cost of water for essential uses to a minimum. As
water usage increases and moves into higher tiers, the per unit price of water increases.
Summary of Water Rates
7. Adopt tiered rates for commercial and multi-family units
(single family tiered rates will remain in effect). 1435
8. For commercial and large landscape accounts, install
irrigation-only water meters to measure outdoor water use
and create a billing rate specifically for irrigation.
1509
9. Develop monthly water budgets for outdoor water use.
Water budgets estimate how much water is needed to
maintain a healthy landscape. Water budgets would be
designed specifically for your landscape.
1208
Overall score of each program measure
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 104
7. Adopt tiered rates for
commercial and multi-family
units (single family tiered
rates will remain in effect).
250
214
200
8. For commercial and large
landscape accounts, install
irrigation-only water meters
to measure outdoor water
use and create a billing rate
specifically for irrigation.
250 231 Number of Responses 200
150
100
150
100 Number of Responses 52 4250 57
19 15 13 116 4
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support 0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
9. Develop monthly water budgets for outdoor water use.
Water budgets estimate how much water is needed to
maintain a healthy landscape. Water budgets would be
designed specifically for your landscape and would be
based on factors such as size of irrigate
160
50 35
29
13
40
66 63
134
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140 Number of Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 105
Part 3: Incentives and Resources
10. Which of the following rebates would you use (residential and
commercial)? Select all that apply.
High efficiency indoor fixtures and appliances (toilets,
faucets, showerheads, clothes washers)
Leak detection devices / flow sensors
Turf area conversions to water-smart plants (rebate per sq
foot)
Turf area conversions to permeable surfaces (permeable
pavers, mulch, etc.)
Turf area conversions to low water-using turf varieties
(rebate per sq foot)
Purchases of water-smart plants 238
171
172
215
206
255
Overall score of each program measure
11. What resources would you benefit the most? Select all that apply.
Sprinkler system assessments / outdoor water use surveys
School education programs / classroom outreach
Online water use portal to track your water use
(Dropcountr)
More water smart demonstration gardens around town
Free workshops and educational sessions about efficient
outdoor water use and landscape choices
Free indoor water use surveys to identify ways to increase
efficiency
Free efficient fixtures (faucet aerators, showerheads, hose
nozzles, etc.)
Educational resources and awareness campaigns (print
media, social media, bill stuffers, etc.)
City staff dedicated to working with developers and local
designers on water efficient development.
181
85
206
166
136
121
159
76
230
Overall score of each program measure
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 106
City of Bozeman Water Conservation Plan Survey Results
The City of Bozeman is currently developing a water conservation plan that will guide the water conservation
program for the next 20 years. Input and feedback from local stakeholders is important to ensure that the plan
aligns with the goals and needs of the community. To obtain this input the City developed surveys for various
stakeholder groups. We appreciate you taking the time to take the business survey and provide us with your
input.
The next step of the water conservation plan development process is evaluating program measures to determine
which measures will be included in the plan. The survey results will be utilized during this process by providing
valuable insight on which program measures the local community supports and opposes. However, the survey
results will not solely determine which measures are included in the plan. Other criteria such as achievable water
savings, available technology/market maturity, service area match, customer equity, etc. will all be considered
in determining which measures are included in the plan. A summary of the business’ survey results is included
below.
Business Survey Details
Number of Survey Participants: 16
Outreach Methods: Direct email
Survey Dates: 6/29/2021 – 7/16/2021
Survey Participants
Restaurant/Bar
33%
Retail
14%
Medical Services
5%
Gym/Exercise Facility
5%
Office
5%
Other
38%
Survey Participants
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 107
Part 1: Programs and Regulations
The water conservation plan will include recommendations for regulatory change, new programs and initiatives,
water rate changes, etc. Your input will help prioritize which of these initiatives are included in the plan. Of the
following, please indicate the level you would support or oppose the following programs and regulations.
(0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support)
Summary of Programs & Regulations
1. Require realtors to submit a certificate of compliance to the
City that verifies a plumber has inspected the property and 63efficient fixtures were either already installed or were installed
before close of escrow.
2. Require that the sprinkler systems in new commercial
developments and residential properties with 5 or more units
have weather-based controllers and high efficiency sprinkler
nozzles.
3. Develop water efficient landscape design standards for new
25
75development projects.
4. Require dedicated irrigation meters in multi-family and
commercial developments (new developments and renovation 70
projects), and large landscapes.
Overall score of each program measure
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 108
1. Require realtors to submit a
certificate of compliance to the City
that verifies a plumber has inspected
the property and efficient fixtures
were either already installed or were
installed before close of escrow.
12 11 11
10 Number of Responses Number of Responses 2. Require that the sp rinkler
systems in new commercial
developments and residential
properties with 5 or m ore units
have w eather-based controllers
and high efficiency sprinkler
nozzles.
18 16
16
8
6
4
2
2 1 1
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
3. Develop water efficient landscape
design standards for new development
projects. These standards may include:
climate appropriate landscaping, turf
ratios to reduce the amount of high
water use turf grass in the landscape,
water smart plant selection,
18 16
16
14
12
10
8
6 Number of Responses Number of Responses 14
12
10
8
6
4
2 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
4. Require dedicated irrigation
meters in multi-family and
commercial developments (new
developments and renovation
projects), and large landscapes.
14 13
12
10
8
6
4
4 2
2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support 0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 109
Part 2: Water Rates
The water conservation plan will include recommendations for changes to Bozeman's current water rate
structure. All of the water rate options being evaluated are designed to curb excessive outdoor water use by
sending price signals to customers.
Bozeman currently uses a tiered rate structure for single family customers that includes four tiers. This ensures
customers pay for the true cost of their usage and keeps the cost of water for essential uses to a minimum. As
water usage increases and moves into higher tiers, the per unit price of water increases.
Summary of Water Rates
5. Adopt tiered rates for commercial and multi-family units
(single family tiered rates will remain in effect). 64
6. For commercial and large landscape accounts, install
irrigation-only water meters to measure outdoor water use
and create a billing rate specifically for irrigation.
7. Develop monthly water budgets for outdoor water use.
Water budgets estimate how much water is needed to
maintain a healthy landscape. Water budgets would be
designed specifically for your landscape.
65
Overall score of each program measure
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan
68
110
5. Adopt tiered rates for
commercial and multi-family
units (single family tiered
rates will remain in effect).
12
10
10
6. For co mmercial and large
landscape accounts, install
irrigation-only water meters to
measure ou tdoor water use and
create a billing rate specifically
for irrigation.
14
12
12 Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses 8
6
4 3
10
8
6
4 2 22 1 2 1
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support 0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
7. Develop monthly water budgets for outdoor water use. Water
budgets estimate h ow much water is needed to maintain a healthy
landscape. Water budgets would be designed specifically for y our
landscape and would be based on factors such as size of irrigate
12 11
10
8
6
4
2
2 1 1 1
0
0
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
0 1 2 3 4 5
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 111
Part 3: Incentives and Resources
10. Which of the following rebates would you use (residential and
commercial)? Select all that apply.
Turf area conversions to water-smart plants (rebate per sq
foot) 8
Turf area conversions to permeable surfaces (permeable
pavers, mulch, etc.) 9
Turf area conversions to low water-using turf varieties
(rebate per sq foot) 6
Purchase of water-smart plants 9
Leak detection devices/flow sensors 10
Irrigation equipment (weather-based irrigation controllers,
irrigation nozzles rain sensors, drip irrigation equipment) 10
High efficiency indoor fixtures and appliances (toilets,
faucets, showerheads, clothes washers) 14
High efficiency commercial clothes washers 12
A standard rebate for commercial equipment (ice
machines, steamers, dishwashers, x-ray machines, etc.) 9
Overall score of each program measure
11. What resources would you benefit the most? Select all that apply.
Workshops and educational sessions
Sprinkler system assessments / outdoor use surveys
Online water use portal to track water use (Dropcountr)
Local certified water efficient landscapers (ex. the City
would host courses to certify local landscapers)
Indoor water use surveys to identify opportunities to
increase efficiency
Free efficient fixtures (faucet aerators, showerheads, hose
nozzles, etc.)
Educational resources and awareness campaigns (print
media, social media, bill stuffers, etc.)
City staff dedicated to working with developers and local
designers on water efficient development
Awards to showcase local projects
6
9
8
11
8
9
8
9
6
Overall score of each program measure
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 112
City of Bozeman Water Conservation Plan Results
The City of Bozeman is currently developing a water conservation plan that will guide the water conservation
program for the next 20 years. Input and feedback from local stakeholders is important to ensure that the plan
aligns with the goals and needs of the community. To obtain this input the City developed surveys for various
stakeholder groups. We appreciate you taking the time to take the development survey and provide us with
your input.
The next step of the water conservation plan development process is evaluating program measures to determine
which measures will be included in the plan. The survey results will be utilized during this process by providing
valuable insight on which program measures the local community supports and opposes. However, the survey
results will not solely determine which measures are included in the plan. Other criteria such as achievable water
savings, available technology/market maturity, service area match, customer equity, etc. will all be considered
in determining which measures are included in the plan. A summary of the development survey results is
included below.
Development Survey Details
Number of Survey Participants: 47
Outreach Methods: Direct email
Survey Dates: 6/29/2021 – 7/16/2021
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 113
Part 1: Programs and Regulations
The water conservation plan will include recommendations for regulatory change, new programs and initiatives,
water rate changes, etc. Your input will help prioritize which of these initiatives are included in the plan. Of the
following, please indicate the level you would support or oppose the following programs and regulations.
(0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support)
Summary of Programs & Regulations
1. Require the installation of high-efficiency toilets, lavatory
faucets, kitchen faucets, and showerheads in all new
developments.
2. Require realtors to submit a certificate of compliance to the
City that verifies a plumber has inspected the property and
efficient fixtures were either already installed or were installed
before close of escrow.
3. Require that the sprinkler systems in new commercial
developments and residential properties with 5 or more units
have weather-based controllers and high efficiency sprinkler
nozzles.
4. Develop water efficient landscape design standards for new
development projects.
5. Require the design and installation of sprinkler systems be
completed by water efficient certified contractors. The City
would host training to certify the contractors.
6. Require dedicated irrigation meters in multi-family and
commercial developments (new developments and renovation
projects), and large landscapes.
7. Local landscape ordinance for new development that would
aim to reduce outdoor water through the implementation of
landscape and irrigation performance and design standards,
including requiring a maximum applied water allowance for all
landscapes.
8. Develop an impact fee credit for developers that will offset
some of the costs associated with more expensive water smart
landscaping.
179
111
187
180
131
141
133
168
Overall score of each program measure
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 114
1. Require that the sp rinkler
systems in new commercial
developments and residential
properties with 5 or m ore units
have w eather-based controllers
and high efficiency sprinkler
nozzles.
2. Require realtors to submit a
certificate of compliance to the City
that verifies a plumber has
inspected the property and efficient
fixtures were either already
installed or were installed before
close of escrow.
14 30 12 12
12 24
2 Number of Responses 30 28
25 Number of Responses 25 Number of Responses Number of Responses 10
20
8 7 7
615 6 10
10
3
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
2
4
5 435
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
3. Require that the sprinkler
systems in new commercial
developments and residential
properties with 5 or more units
have weather-based controllers and
high efficiency sprinkler nozzles.
5
0
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
4. Develop water efficient landscape
design standards for new development
projects. These standards may include:
climate appropriate landscaping, turf
ratios to reduce the amount of high
water use turf grass in the landscape,
water smart plant selection,
30
2425
20
15
10
20
15
10 87 7
5 5 4 45
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support 0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
0
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 115
5. Require the design and
installation of sprinkler systems
be completed by water efficient
certified contractors. The City
would host training to certify the
contractors.
6. Require dedicated irrigation
meters in multi-family and
commercial developments (new
developments and renovation
projects), and large landscapes.
18 17
18 17 16
16 14 Number of Responses Number of Responses 14
12 10
10 8
8 6
6 4 Number of Responses Number of Responses 12
10 9 9
8
56
344 2 122
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support 0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
7. Local landscape ordinance for
new development that would
aim t o reduce outdoor water
through the implementation of
landscape and irrigation
performance and design
standards, including requiring a
maximum a pplied water
allowance for all landscapes.
8. Develop an impact fee cr edit
for developers that will offset
some of the costs associated
with more expensive water
smart landscaping.
25 23
20
1718
15
10
16
14
12
910 8 8 7 7 6
4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
8
6 5 34 12
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support 0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 116
Part 2: Incentives and Resources
10. Which of the following rebates would you use (residential and
commercial)? Select all that apply.
Irrigation equipment (weather-based irrigation controllers,
irrigation nozzles rain sensors, drip irrigation equipment)
Indoor fixtures and appliances (toilets, faucets,
showerheads, clothes washers)
Leak detection devices / flow sensors
Turf area conversions to water-smart plants (rebate per sq
foot)
Turf area conversions to permeable surfaces (permeable
pavers, mulch, etc.)
Turf area conversions to low water-using turf varieties
(rebate per sq foot)
Purchases of water-smart plants 23
19
18
20
27
30
36
Overall score of each program measure
11. What resources would you benefit the most? Select all that apply.
Online water use portal to track water use (Dropcountr)
Educational resources and awareness campaigns (print
media, social media, bill stuffers, etc.)
Free efficient fixtures (faucet aerators, showerheads, hose
nozzles, etc.)
Sprinkler System Assessments (outdoor water use surveys)
Indoor water use surveys to help identify ways to increase
efficiency
Awards to showcase local projects
Workshops and educational sessions
Workshops and education sessions geared toward
developers
City staff dedicated to working with developers and local
designers on water efficient development.
Local certified water efficient landscapers (ex. the City
would host courses to certify local landscapers).
26
13
25
22
12
11
20
16
24
13
Overall score of each program measure
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 117
City of Bozeman Water Conservation Plan Survey Results
The City of Bozeman is currently developing a water conservation plan that will guide the water conservation
program for the next 20 years. Input and feedback from local stakeholders is important to ensure that the plan
aligns with the goals and needs of the community. To obtain this input the City developed surveys for various
stakeholder groups. We appreciate you taking the time to take the landscaping community survey and provide
us with your input.
The next step of the water conservation plan development process is evaluating program measures to determine
which measures will be included in the plan. The survey results will be utilized during this process by providing
valuable insight on which program measures the local community supports and opposes. However, the survey
results will not solely determine which measures are included in the plan. Other criteria such as achievable water
savings, available technology/market maturity, service area match, customer equity, etc. will all be considered
in determining which measures are included in the plan. A summary of the landscape community survey results
is included below.
Landscape Survey Details
Number of Survey Participants: 22
Outreach Methods: Direct email
Survey Dates: 6/29/2021 – 7/16/2021
Survey Participants
Owner of
landscaping
company
23%
Owner of irrigation
company
16%
Employee of
landscaping or
irrigation company
13%
Landscape designer
19%
Landscape
architect
16%
Other
13%
Survey Participants
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 118
Part 1: Programs and Regulations
The water conservation plan will include recommendations for regulatory change, new programs and initiatives,
water rate changes, etc. Your input will help prioritize which of these initiatives are included in the plan. Of the
following, please indicate the level you would support or oppose the following programs and regulations.
(0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support)
Summary of Programs & Regulations
1. Require that the sprinkler systems in new commercial
developments and residential properties with 5 or more units
have weather-based controllers and high efficiency sprinkler
nozzles.
2. Develop water efficient landscape design standards for new
development projects.
3. Require the design and installation of sprinkler systems be
completed by water efficient certified contractors. The City
would host training to certify the contractors.
4. Require dedicated irrigation meters in multi-family and
commercial developments (new developments and renovation
projects), and large landscapes.
5. Local landscape ordinance for new development that would
aim to reduce outdoor water through the implementation of
landscape and irrigation performance and design standards,
including requiring a maximum applied water allowance for all
landscapes.
6. Develop an impact fee credit for developers that will offset
some of the costs associated with more expensive water smart
landscaping.
71
76
85
71
89
95
Overall score of each program measure
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 119
1. Require that the sprinkler
systems in new commercial
developments and residential
properties with 5 or more units
have weather-based controllers
and high efficiency sprinkler
nozzles.
16
14
2. Develop water efficient landscape
design standards for new development
projects. These standards may include:
climate appropriate landscaping, turf
ratios to reduce the amount of high
water use turf grass in the landscape,
water smart plant selection,
14
12
12
14 Number of Responses Number of Responses 12
10
8
6 4
4
2
2 1 1
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
3. Require the design and
installation of sprinkler systems be
completed by water efficient
certified contractors. The City would
host training to certify the
contractors.
8
7
7
6
6 Number of Responses Number of Responses 10
8
6 5
4
4
2 1
0 0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
4. Require dedicated irrigation
meters in multi-family and
commercial developments (new
developments and renovation
projects), and large landscapes.
12 11
10
8
6
6
4 3
5
4
3
4
2 2
2 2 1 2
1
0 0
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support 0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 120
5. Local landscape ordinance for new
development that would aim to
reduce outdoor water through the
implementation of landscape and
irrigation performance and design
standards, including requiring a
maximum applied water allowance
for all landscapes.
6. Develop an impact fee cr edit
for developers that will offset
some of the costs associated
with more expensive water
smart landscaping.
9
8
8
7 Number of Responses 6
5
4
3
2
1
6
5
4
3
2
1
5 Number of Responses Number of Responses 4
3 3
2
4 4 4
1 1
0
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support 0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
7. Develop monthly water budgets for outdoor water use. Water budgets estimate
how much water is needed to maintain a healthy landscape. Water budgets would be
designed specifically for your landscape and would be based on factors such as size of
irrigate
7
6
6
5
4
4
1
3 3
4
0 1 2 3 4 5
3
2
1
0
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 121
Part 2: Incentives and Resources
10. Which of the following rebates would you use (residential and
commercial)? Select all that apply.
Turf area conversions to permeable surfaces (permeable
pavers, mulch, etc.)
Turf area conversions to low water-using turf varieties
(rebate per sq foot)
Rain sensors
Purchases of water-smart plants
High efficiency irrigation nozzles
Drip irrigation 7
13
10
12
11
6
Overall score of each program measure
11. What resources would you benefit the most? Select all that apply.
Water smart landscaping classes (ex. Irrigation Association
classes) hosted by the City for local landscapers
Sprinkler system assessments / outdoor water use surveys
More demonstration gardens around town
Free workshops and educational sessions about efficient
outdoor water use and landscaping
Educational resources and awareness campaigns (print
media, social media, bill stuffers, etc.)
City staff dedicated to working with developers and local
designers on water efficient development
Awards to showcase local projects
8
9
10
5
11
9
9
Overall score of each program measure
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 122
City of Bozeman Water Conservation Plan Survey Results
The City of Bozeman is currently developing a water conservation plan that will guide the water conservation
program for the next 20 years. Input and feedback from local stakeholders is important to ensure that the plan
aligns with the goals and needs of the community. To obtain this input the City developed surveys for various
stakeholder groups. We appreciate you taking the time to take the property management survey and provide
us with your input.
The next step of the water conservation plan development process is evaluating program measures to determine
which measures will be included in the plan. The survey results will be utilized during this process by providing
valuable insight on which program measures the local community supports and opposes. However, the survey
results will not solely determine which measures are included in the plan. Other criteria such as achievable water
savings, available technology/market maturity, service area match, customer equity, etc. will all be considered
in determining which measures are included in the plan. A summary of the property management survey results
is included below.
Property Management Survey Details
Number of Survey Participants: 14
Outreach Methods: Direct email
Survey Dates: 6/29/2021 – 7/16/2021
Part 1: Programs and Regulations
The water conservation plan will include recommendations for regulatory change, new programs and initiatives,
water rate changes, etc. Your input will help prioritize which of these initiatives are included in the plan. Of the
following, please indicate the level you would support or oppose the following programs and regulations.
(0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support)
Summary of Programs & Regulations
1. Require the installation of high-efficiency toilets, lavatory
faucets, kitchen faucets, and showerheads in all new
developments.
2. Require realtors to submit a certificate of compliance to the
City that verifies a plumber has inspected the property and
efficient fixtures were installed.
3. Require that the sprinkler systems in new commercial
developments and residential properties with 5 or more units
have weather-based controllers and high efficiency nozzles.
4. Develop water efficient landscape design standards for new
development projects.
5. Require dedicated irrigation meters in multi-family and
commercial developments (new developments and renovation
projects), and large landscapes.
55
61
64
42
58
Overall score of each program measure
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 123
1. Require the installation of high-
efficiency toilets, lavatory faucets,
kitchen faucets, and showerheads in
all new developments.
2. Require realtors to submit a
certificate of compliance to the
City that verifies a plumber has
inspected the property and
efficient fixtures were either
already installed or w ere
installed before close of escrow.
9
8
8
7
7
6 6
6 Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses 5
4
3
2
2 2 2
5
4
3
3
2
2
1 1 1 1 1
0 0
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support 0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
3. Require that the sprinkler
systems in new commercial
developments and residential
properties with 5 or more units
have weather-based controllers and
high efficiency sprinkler nozzles.
4. Develop water efficient landscape
design standards for new
development projects. These
standards may include: climate
appropriate landscaping, turf ratios to
reduce the amount of high water use
turf grass in the landscape, water
smart plant selection, 12
10 10 910
9
8
7
6
5
4
3 2 2
8
6
4
2 2
22
1000 0 0
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support 0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
1
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 124
Number of Responses 5. Require dedicated irrigation meters in multi-family
and commercial developments (new developments
and renovation projects), and large landscapes.
4
3
2
1 0 0
0
2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
2
1
2
8
5
6
7
8
9
0 1
Part 2: Water Rates
The water conservation plan will include recommendations for changes to Bozeman's current water rate
structure. All of the water rate options being evaluated are designed to curb excessive outdoor water use by
sending price signals to customers.
Bozeman currently uses a tiered rate structure for single family customers that includes four tiers. This ensures
customers pay for the true cost of their usage and keeps the cost of water for essential uses to a minimum. As
water usage increases and moves into higher tiers, the per unit price of water increases.
Summary of Water Rates
6. Adopt tiered rates for commercial and multi-family units
(single family tiered rates will remain in effect).
7. For commercial and large landscape accounts, install
irrigation-only water meters to measure outdoor water use
and create a billing rate specifically for irrigation.
8. Develop monthly water budgets for outdoor water use.
Water budgets estimate how much water is needed to
maintain a healthy landscape. Water budgets would be
designed specifically for your landscape.
53
46
Overall score of each program measure
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan
54
125
6. Adopt tiered rates for 7. For commercial and large
commercial and multi-family landscape accounts, install
units (single family tiered irrigation-only water meters
rates will remain in effect). to measure outdoor water
use and create a billing rate
6 specifically for irrigation.
7
6
8 7 5 7 Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses 6
5
4
3
3 2
2
4
3
3
2
1 1 1 1 11 1 0 0
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support 0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
8. Develop monthly water budgets for outdoor water use. Water budgets
estimate how much water is needed to maintain a healthy landscape. Water
budgets would be designed specifically for your landscape and would be
based on factors such as size of irrigated area.
7
6
6
5
4
3
3
2 2
2
1
1
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 = Strongly Oppose, 5 = Strongly Support
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 126
I I
I I
I I
Part 3: Incentives and Resources
10. Which of the following rebates would you use (residential and
commercial)? Select all that apply.
Turf area conversions to low water-using turf varieties
(rebate per sq foot)
Purchases of water-smart plants
Leak detection / flow sensors
High efficiency sprinkler system equipment (weather-based
sprinkler system controllers, sprinkler nozzles, rain sensors,
12
11
10
11
5
13
drip irrigation equipment)
High efficiency Indoor fixtures and appliances (toilets,
faucets, showerheads, clothes washers)
Free efficient fixtures (faucet aerators, showerheads, hose
nozzles, etc.)
Overall score of each program measure
11. What resources would you benefit the most? Select all that apply.
Sprinkler system assessments / outdoor water use surveys
Online water use portal to track water use (Dropcountr)
Local certified water efficient landscapers (ex. the City
would host courses to certify local landscapers)
Free workshops and educational sessions about efficient
outdoor water use and landscape choices
Free indoor water use surveys
Educational resources and awareness campaigns (print
media, social media, bill stuffers, etc.)
City staff dedicated to working with developers and local
designers on water efficient development.
4
8
7
5
Overall score of each program measure
9
9
9
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 127
Sec. 38.410.BO. Water adequacy ..
A. Subject to .subsections B and C, pri:o•r to fin a I ajp;pnwa I IDy the r~iew autlhm ity of deve,lop m e,nt occurring
under this chapter or clhapte:r 10, the applicant m l!JSt offset tlhe e:ntire estimated incre;ase in annual municipal
water dem and att1rib11ta'ble t,o tl"le development pursuant: to subsection D.
B. Gompliance with tli"liiS section iiS triggered if tli"le es ti marted in orease in an nua I m uni:oipal water de,m and
attributalb le to tli"le develo;pm e nt ei,:oeeds 0.2.S. a ere-feet aflier accounting fo~ tli"le following items as they
re,larte t o tlhe dle-velopment:
L Our,r,ent avera,ge annual municipal metered wail:e;r demand;
2. Water demand o,fuets from a, IP rior payme,nt of casll-in-lieu o'f watJer rights;
3,_ Wate,r demand offsets from a, prior t ransfer o.f water rights into city ownership, and;
4. Wate;r demand offsets 'from an existing ·watJer adequacy ag;reement m s'imilarfy purposed document.
C. Gompliance with 1ihiiS section iiS deferred tor the following d,evelopments until tli"le occurrence of future
d~e,lopment iftlhe apjplicant reco:rds a notice o•f re,striction on futur·e development in a fo:nm acceptab le tJo
tlile review a,uthority with tlhe Gallatin County Cl,ert and Recorder.
L An annei,:ation tl"lat eiqpressly defe-rs tli"liiS section under an annexatiion agreement;
2. Individual lots ofa subdivision final plat 1Planned for future m ultipleJhol!JSehold development;
3,_ lndividua I lots of a subdivision fin a I plat IP la nned for future comm ercia I, industrial, or i nstitautJiona I
develo:pme.nt, or;
4. Future plilacSes of a, phased .site developme;nt
D. The city will determine the ecStimated increase in annual municipal water demand attributable to tlhe
development. The apjplicant must offse;t tlhe estimated increase in annual m1unicipal w ater demand
attributalb le to tlile develo,pm e nt tlilrough one or more of the following means:
L Transfer of waiter rights into city 011,mership tlhat are appurtenant to the land lb e,ing develo,ped, or other
water rights tllart maiy be• a111ailalb le for transfer, th art the oity de-tJermines t o lb e l!JSefu L
2. lmpleme,ntatio•n o.f onsite and/or offsite water efficiency and conservation measures that reduc.e the
estimarted annual municipal wa.tJer de,mand a,ttributa'b le to the development by one or m ore of the
following methods:
a,_ n sta llation of liliglil efficiency indoor w ater using fixtures, appliances, and products tl"lat a re more
watJer efficient 1ih an city-adopted plumbing codes or state or fed era I minlmu m standards.
b. rnsta llation of uniffigated, o~ minimally irri,gail:ed, drougjht resista l'lt o-r drought tole,rant
landscaping tlhat exceeds 1ihe minimum requirements of division .38.SSO o,f tihis cl"laptJer.
c. nsta llation of liliglil efficiency or watier con serving i rrigatio•n compo•ne ntiry th art eicceeds the
minimum require,ments of di111isi11m 38550 of tlilis dhapter.
d. Installation of non-ipotable wail:er !>U,pply systems for landscaping irrig·atio·n purposes.
e. Other w ater efficiency and conservation methods brnu,ght forward as 1part o.f tlhe development by
tlhe alP p licant tlilat tli"le review a u1ih ori.ty ma,y at its disoreti:o:n a pp rove.
3,_ Pa,yment to tl"le• city of caslh-i n -lieu of w·ate;r rights for tlhat tr.rtion of the estima,ted an nl!la I m unidpa I
water demand attributable to the development tlhat is no•t offset l!lndle.r s:ubsecti,ons D.1 and D.2.
(~pp. No. 11, Upd.rte SI
Page• I of 2
APPENDIX I – WATER ADEQU A CY CODE
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 128
E. Tlhe 1!111it cost for paymelllt of caslh-in-li e11 of wa er rights will be establiisliled lb,1{ city com mitSsion resohni:on _
Tlhe caslh-in-lieu of water rigjhts 1payment amoulllt provided by tlhe a1Pplicant l!mder S:l!lbsection D.3 ml!liSt be
calculated 11s:ing tlhe 1tmit cost effective on the date the payment its made to the city. The director of pl!lblk
worts mu.st d~p-0tsit all p ayments received under11hi.s sectiion, l!lpon reoe· t, in tlhe caslh-i11Hieu of water rights:
fiund.
F. Tlhe city manager maiv adop,t, and tro,m ·me to t ime amend, administrative procedl!lres to implement this
secti,on. Tlile-ad ministrative-procedures ma,v at a minimum include tlile-following mem:s:
1. Standard.s established by tlhe direct or of public·wort:s t10 dete:rmine tlhe estimated increatse in annual
municipal water demand attribl!ltab le to devefopment.
2. S,tandard.s established by tlhe direct or of public ·wort:s to determine water demand offsiet amol!lnt.s for
implementa io'n of water efficiency and conservation mea,su1res: and wa er rights t1ransferred illlto oity
ow;ners:hi;p
3,. Standards ,governing aoceptance of w ater rights transferred into ci,ty ow1nel"S!h i p.
4. Standa rd.s to es:tabl"is:lil and ,govern t!he-us:e ot wa er demand o,ffsets or,edits for that portion of demand
offs:e,ts p mvi ded by an applicant tlilat a1re in ell:oe-.ss ot the es:timarted inorea,se in an n l!la I m l!IIIIKlipa I wa,ter
demand attributable-to tlhe development.
5,. A IProues:s tlilat provides for ad minis:tr:atwe ap;pceals of de-termina,tfons: made b'l/ the review authority
under t hits section.
6. Specific oriteria, that it met may au 'h ori<ze the 1revie-w authority to w·ai111e, tlilits .section.
7. Standards.,govem ing accept ance of water right t1ransfer.s. and e.stablislhing water demand off.set credits
ma)' enable a, deferra I of pa)'ment of cas:h-in--llieu of water 1rigjhts provided that the a pplk ant records
witlil tlhe Ga lla ·111 Col!lnty Clert and Reco:rder an executed w ater adeql!laq agreement a'nd related
doouments: a,s ap,proved by the city attome)' .secl!lring tlhe amoulllt due.
1( Ord. No. :W4'3 , § 1, 9'-U-2020)
Editor's no,te(:s)-•Ord. o. 2043,, !i 1, adopted S~pt:. 17, 2020, repea ed tlile former,§ 38.410.130, and enacted a
new,§ 38.4. 0.130 as set O'Ut herein. The former§ 38.410.130 pertained to water rights and derived from the
or·.,inal CJOd1flcatlion ot this Uniliied Development Code.
(supp. No. u , u pdate, SI
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 129
BOZEMAN NET BLUE PILOT PROJECT
RNALREPORT
January 2021
PROJECT TEAM
Alliance for Water Efficiency
Environmental Law Institute
Dwight Merriam
Orion Planning + Design
APPENDI X J – NET BLUE WATER OFFSET P ILOT S TUDY
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 130
EXECUrrtVE SUMMARY
evelopment demand and the inherent impacts that acoompany it has never been higher,
es.peoially in areas of the lnte11Tiountain West where water supply is already strained. In Montana,
current and future growth is being ooncentirated in urban and suburban environments surrounding
the state's seven largest cities, as new residents move in with an expectat!ion that the public servioes
and infrast!ructure they are used to will be provided. Future growth projections anticipate greater
population shifts in the oomnng years. as more people are able to work remotely and the draw of
a clean environment and wide open spaces gains strength. The West, and particularly Montana,
is at a crossroads -find resilient ways to meet the ooming demand or risk the loss of irreplaceable
resources that susta in and support the high quality of life and economic opportunity driving growth
to begin with. Com mun ities are being forced to reevaluate more traditi anal approaches to planning
and pursue solutions that address multiple challenges -from carbon emissions to storm water
runoff. And as development continues to put pressurn on water supply, expand rmpervious surfaoe,
and oompound water quality problems, a new and holistJic approach to planning and regulation will
be neoessary to support growing populations and sustain economies in the future.
n 2014, the Alliance for Water Efficiency {AWE). along with partners at the Environmental Law
lnstJitJute and River Network. launched the , et Bli. : Water-Neutral Growth program. Net Blue
is an innovat!ive, industry~vetted approach to water neutrality for new development, helping
communities to grow sustainably despite water scarcity. It repreoonts a paradigm sh ift in the way
cities, counties, states, and regions plan for growth when resouroes are scarce or stJrained. To
adva nee th is approach into practice, the project team built a Net B llue Toolkirt with a model ordinance
that communitJies can tailor and customize to create a water demand offset approach meeting local
needs. Th is approach keeps water use at the same or reduced levells relat!ive to the rate at which
use was growing at the time of the ordinanoe's adopnion. The ooncept of uwater-neutral" growth is
achieved by integratJing land use plann ing and water management to require or incentivize water
use offsets that reduoe overall demand on water resouroes resulting from new development. In
addition to St!retching water supplies and decreasing the need for new infrastructure, this approach
can also help leave more water in watersheds for fish, wildlife, and recreation. A water-neutral
growth ordinance utilizes various smart water strategies in the offset process -ranging from water
efficiency to green i nfrastructJUre -to protect water for future diverse needs and users. The Toolkit
includes the following oomponents to help communities pursue a Net Blue approach and tailor it
to their speoific development review procedures, public processes, and unique challenges.
41111! A Model Ordinance Worksheet, a User's Guide, and Examples
41111! An Offset Methodology, User's Guide, and Sample Implementation
41111! Community Outreach materials for distribution, including a Net Blue Fact Sheet and FAQ's
2 I BOZEMAN NET-BLUE PILOT PROJECT
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 131
even communit ies in different regions throughout the United States were consulted to help
develop me model ordinance and the offset components, and to ensure the Net Blue program
is adaptable to many differnnt political cl imates, legal frameworks, and environmental challenges.
Its introduction accelerated a growing national! dialogue on the need to link water resources and
land use planning nationwide; it spurred the launching of the Water and Planning Network at the
American Pia nning Association.
AWE FINAL REPORT FINAL 13
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 132
PROJECT BACKGROUND
e City of Bozeman was chosen as a p ilot community to demonstrate the successful integration
of the Net Blue approach for a variety of reasons. Located in the heart of southwest Montana
outside Yellowstone National Paric, Bozeman is experiencing exponential growth amidst a
challenging water climate. In 2018 Bozeman was named the fastest-growing city of its size, with
projected growth adding approximately 27;000 people by 2045. Its position along the 1-90
corridor, proximity to outdoor recreation, amenable climate, and natural beauty create an attractive
environment for retirees and second homeowners as well as businesses seeking to attract employees
and a remote workforce interested in the 9uality of life and lifestyle Bozeman offers. As a result,
housing development has boomed over the past decade, cost of living has skyrocketed, and the
community has begun to feel the effects of unfettered grrowth on the natural environment-and on
water resources in particular.
Bozeman's naturally arid climate only contributes to tile strain growth and development has
placed on water resources. As climate change continues, Bozeman will see even less annual
precipitation than the average 17 inches received each year (compared to the U.S. average of 38
inches annually). For a community that relies on precipitation to bolster annual snow pack and
recharge the aquifer, this shift is especially concerning for future water supply. Bozeman sits at the
headwaters of the Missouri River, meaning there is no upstream water source to draw from; the
City relies wholly on snowmelt from Hyalite Creek, Sourdough Creek, and Lyman Spring to meet
current and future demand. With less precipitation forecast annually, average snow pa ck levels have
dropped. Warmer winters have exacerbated this problem, leading to earlier peak runoff conditions
as the snow pack melts each spring. Earlier runoff contributes to drier conditions throughout the
summer months, a product of increasing temperatures in an already arid climate.
41 BOZEMAN NET-BLUE PILOTPROJECT
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 133
ozeman's location within the Upper Missouri River Basin further complicates these issues. The
basin is "closed" to the allocation of future water rights, meaning current and future demand
resullning from populati:on growth must be accommodated using the re.souroes available today.
As demand oont!inues to grow due to new development and high outdoor water use, universal
measures to minimize consumption through offsets and efficiencies are not onry necessary for
Bozeman -they are critica l for the longevity of the region. Elected officials and community
leaders have long recognized the importance of planning for water resilience. Water adequacy
requirements have been in place since the 1980's when the first water adequacy ordinance was
adopted, followed by the adoption of a Water Adequacy Administra1!ive Procedures Manual. The
City adopted an Integrated Water Resources Pl!an in 2013 to balance water supply and demand as
the city continues to grow, followed by the development of a water conservation program in 2014.
In 2017, the city's fiirst Drought Management Pian was adopted to ensure rnJ iable water supplies a re
available for essential uses during times of shortage. With a recent update to the City's community
p lan and the development of a climate action plan aimed at policy change necessary to protect
natural resources and promote sustainable growth moving forward, the community is primed for
the successful integration of offsets using the Net Blue approach to assist in implement ing both
City p lans and policy.
PROJECT GOALS
his proj ect brought together a diverse team to assist the City of Bozeman in drafting a water
neutral ordinance using the Net Blue Toolkut and resources. The following goals were established
early on to ensure the project's overall success and reinforce project objectives through consistent
messaging when communicating with City leadership, diverse stakeholders, and to members of
the public less familiar with water issues in the community. By apprying the Net Blue approach in
Bozeman. the proj ect team hoped to:
■ lncree:e community-wide under:tanding of water-neutral development among diver::e
:takeholder group::, e::pecially tho::e individual: active in the con::truction and de::ign
community.
■ Broaden ::upport for water-neutral development by u::ing the Net Blue toolkit to align
the City': exi::ting Water Adequacy Ordinance and Admini::trative Procedure: Manual
with recently adopted policy including the City':: :trategic plan, community plan,
climate plan, and ongoing planning initiative::.
■ lncrea:e collaboration between water re::ource management ::taff and the City
planning department, reinforcing the interrelatedne::: of development review
and deci::ion-making to further po:itive outcome:: related to the protection and
con:;ervation of limited water re::ource::.
AWE FINAL REPORT FIN AL Is
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 134
PROCESS AND APPROACH
o provide llhe City of Bozeman with the
highest level of technical assistance to
accomplish project goals. the Alliance for
Water Efficiency brought together a diverse
team comprised of industry leaders from aoross
the country well-versed in water law, policy,
comprehensive planning and implementation.
and public outreach. Team members included:
• Mary Ann Dickinson, President and CEO
of the Alliance for Water Efficiency
• Bill Christiansen, Director of Programs for
the Alliance for Water Efficiency
• Adam Schempp, Senior Anorney at the
Environmental Law Institute
• Dwight Merriam, FAICP and Anomey at
Law, Advisory Committee member for
Net Blue
• Allison Mauch, AICP and Panner with
Orion Planning + Design
Each member of the team brought a unique
skill set and knowledge base to llhe project. The
A lliance for Water Efficiency led on direction
and coordination among team members,
handling day-to-day project management,
providing technical guidance on the Net Blue
offset methodology, and working with City
staff on draft revisions to the ordinance and
manual. Adam Schempp and Dwight Merriam
provided law and policy review throughout
the drafting process, offering insight on water
conservation and sustainability objectives
through interpretation of existing laws and
legal developments nationwide. Mr. Merriam
also provided a legal lens on how specific
water offsets and credits may be embraced or
challenged by the development community. As
a Montana resident and professiona I land use
planner working across the state and country,
A llison Mouch's role focused on the alignment
ofrecent p lanning and policy decisions made by
the City to better understand where adjustment
within the current development code was
61 BOZEMAN NET-BLUE PILOTPRO.IECT
051
l PROJECTTIMELINE
COMMUNITY DISCOVERY
Pilan, code and policy review;
develop detailed scope, project
s.trategy, and timeline
LQ_RDINANCE DEVELOPMENT ---
Draft revisions to the Water
Adequacy Ordinance; inter,nal
review, discussion, and revision
0 19 l INTERNAL STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
Convene City s.takeholders from the
Planning Department, Engineering
Department, and lega counsel to
present proposed revisions. and next
s.teps
8 2 lfQLICY PASSAGE
Approval and final adoption of
ordinance revis"ons by the ~lann·ng
Board, Zoning Commission, and City
Commission
20 I WATER ADEQUACY
~ANUAL UPDATE
Draft revisions to the Water
Adequacy Manual; internal review,
discu:ssion, and revision
2/20 l EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
Wonkshop with external stakeholder
to introduce the Net Blue approach
and proposed revisions to the
Manual
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 135
warranted. All team members assisted with outreach and the facilitation
of proactive discussions among both internal and external stakeholder
groups as the project moved forward.
n addition to members convened by AWE, City of Bozeman staff played
an integral role in the project team's success, bringing a deep knowledge
and understanding of the City's current efforts and future resource needs
to the table. Jessica Ahlstrom, Water Conservation Specialist, and Brian
Heaston, Engineer Ill, provided significant feedback and direction on the
successful incorporation of Net Blue into the Water Adequacy Manual
update, taking on much of the revisions themselves. Jessica served as the
team's primary contact with the City and specifically helped to shepherd
ordinance and manual updates through the public process.
he project was originally organized into three phases: community
discovery, ordinance development, and stakeholder engagement and
policy passage. As described below and shown by the timeline on the
previous page, these phases morphed throughout the project's lifetime
to accommodate the needs of the community and ensure a successful
final product.
he discovery phase kicked off in January 2019 with the fu ll team
convening virtually to discuss project roles and responsibilities,
anticipated timelines and schedule, and to determine next steps. During
the winter and spring of 2019 team members reviewed the City's current
community plan (known as a "growth policy" under state statute), Unified
Development Code, the Water Adequacy Ordinance and Procedures
Manual, and other related plans and policy documents for consistency
with Net Blue objectives and for obvious points of integration. Following
this comprehensive review, the team determined the best approach
for Bozeman would be to update the Water Adequacy Ordinance and
Procedures Manual first, incorporating select elements and methodology
from the Net Blue toolkit. Once the ordinance and manual were updated,
specific cross-references to the City's Unified Development Code could
be further expanded using the Net Blue model where appropriate, such
as site design standards for landscaping and stormwater management.
This approach was further supported by the City's policy on considering
updates to the unified development code on a bi-annual basis and in
conformance with established priorities; alternately, updates to the Water
Adequacy Procedures Manual can be done administratively, giving staff
time to introduce and coord inate future code amendments strategically
with planning staff, boards, and leadership, in conformance with the
established process and timeframes.
AWE FINAL REPORT FINAL
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 136
allowing team agreement on approach, the draftJing of revisions to the Water Adequacy Ordinance
got underiNay. Drafting continued through the summer of 2019 with the core objective of
hosting a meeting with key internal stakeholders that falll. This internal stakeholder meeting served
as a thorough introduction to the et Blue approach among a broader group of stakeholders
comprised of city p lanners and engineening staff along with legal counsel. On October 11, 2019,
project team members and internal stakeholders gathened at the City Planning Office for an in
depth workshop aimed at:
■ Highlighting the enefit of Net Blue e:: applied to the City of Bozeman
■ Reviewing option::, di::cu::::ing alternative::, and determining a preferred approach to
both ordinance end manual update::
■ Agreeing upon a ::ch dul and next ::tep:: to carr:,• the de::ired r vi::ion:; forward
The meetJing p:noved successful in answering these q uestLons and the team moved forward with
revisions to the Water Adequacy Ordinance as directed and supported by staff, with the objective
that draft revisions would be considered by the Planning Board, Zoning Commission, and City
Commission in early 2020.
ACCOMP ISHMENTS
e year 2020 brought forth signirficant challenges as well as accomplishments for the City and
the Net Blue team. After project delays related to the ongoing pandemrc that shuttered much
of the oountry through the spring, the proposed revisions to the Water Adequacy Ordinanoe were
moved forward in early July and approved by the City Commission on August 3, 2020. Following
approval, the team met virtual liy to discuss next steps and begin drafting revisions to the Water
Adequacy Procedures Manual, as decided upon the previous October. City staff took the lead
on draft revisions to the manual, with the Net Blue team providing review of the draft d ooument
as well as additional training and technical assistance on how specirfic on-site and off-site offset
measures could be incorporated effectJively into the City's methodology and calculations. The
City's community plan was also in the final stages of an update and adoption in the fall of 2020
while revisions to the manual were underway, so a thorough analysis of how the plan directly and
indirectly alligned wLth the Net Blue approach and ongoing water efficiency measures in both policy
and action was conducted.
draft of the Water Adequacy Procedures Ma nua I was completed in late November and introduced
to external stakeholders via webinar on December 11, 2020. Over sixty representatives from
the planning, design, engineering, development, and construction community took part in the
educa"bional webinar. The webinar was intended to familiarize those key stakeholder groups
who will use the offset measures in future development proposals with the Net Blue approach,
understanding potential ooncems and challenges from their point of view, and using the questions,
disoussioo, and feedback gleaned from this virtua l conversation to improve and finalize the draft
manual prior to adopt!ion. Feedback gained from part!icipants of the webinar was overwhelmingly
positive; while emphasis on cash-in-lieu payments was reduced in revisions to the manual, and on
site and off-site offset measures expanded, the applicability of these new requirements was not
only understood by those in attendance -but welcomed.
u I BOZEMAN NET-BlUE PILOT PROJECT
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 137
he AWE Net Blue Offset Methodology workbook was customized to meet the unique needs of
Bozeman. The project team worked with city staff to create an Excel-based calculator to estimate
the demand of new development and calculate onsite and offsite offsets. The comprehensive
demand calculator includes eleven different new connection types and allows for custom entries.
The offset calculator provides onsite offsets for indoor efficiency options and efficient irrigation
practices. There are nine conservation options that can be implemented for offsite offsets and
opportunities for custom conservation measures to be proposed. This tool will be a valuable
resource for the city to administer the ordinance and for developers to identify the most cost
effective opportunities to offset water demand via efficiency projects.
'he success of this pilot project will u imately be measured in the City of Bozeman's ability to
reduce the annual average water consumption of its residents through the use of offset credits,
water banking, and cash-in-lieu payments, all of which cannot be fully anticipated until the final
revisions to the Water Adequacy Procedures Manual have been embraced and adopted by City
leadership. However, the goals of this project were successfully met in that the City accomplished
the following with assistance from the Net Blue project team:
q • cy on wet r re:ourc
m d ::p cificelly
d • C help
coi:t em nd
ct.
■ A ne tool th t c n b u.. d by th city nd d v lo e:ti
•
of n w d v lopm nt nd c lcul on:i nd offoit r dem
d dr ft of the W ter Ad qu cy Procedur i; M nu I incorpor ting el m nt:;
t Blu ppro ch th t i: poi:ed for dopt1on m rly 2021
■ St ff own r.:h1p • ioni; nd m nd nt.. nd g n rel :upport from City
d p rtm nts n r:hip
■ Und mending, .. upport, end nthu:ie:m from xt rn I =tek hold ~ introduc d to th
r ft
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 138
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 139
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
s this pilot project reaches its conclusion, it is especially rewarding to see the Oty of Bozeman
moving towards final adoption of an updated Water Adequacy Procedures Manual that
effectively integrates elements of the Net Blue approach. To ensure its contiinued success,
the project team recommends that the City continue to pursue integrat i:on of water efficiency
measures in both policy and oode as fol'lows:
oat Adopt the final revisions to the Water Adequacy Procedures Manual in the first quarter of
2021. As described on the previous page, drawing the timeline out further will only frustrate
those stakeholders engaged in December 2020 and reduce the efficacy of the measures
over time. A quick adoption and immediate application will reinforce the importanoe of
these provisions ahead of the 2021 construction season.
oat Consider an update of the City's Integrated Water Resources Plan (2013) to recognize
Net Blue as an implementation strategy that can serve to unify the City's ongoing policy
direction on water efficiency and resource management.
oat Use the recently adopted Community Pian and the objectives and actions identified
through this process as being aligned with the Net Blue approach to guide amendments
to the Unified Development Code. Specifically, those implementation actions identified in
Chapter 4 of the Community Plan recommending updates to the City's land use regulations
in alignment with the Integrated Water Resources Plan. Such amendments should prioritize
building code improvements, site design and landscaping elements, and other aspects
appropriate for incorporation in the development code.
oat Continued staff coordination between planning, engineering, and water conservation on
development application review and recommendation should be emphasized.
AWE FINAL REPORT FINAL 11
City of Bozeman Water Conservation & Efficiency Plan 140