Water Conservation Benefits of Long‐Term Residential Irrigation Restrictions in Southwest Florida

Abstract

Long-term watering restrictions for single-family residential customers in southwest Florida coincided with lower irrigation. Irrigation demand (landscape water applied) was estimated from monthly water billing records of approximately 127,250 customers from 1998 to 2010. Mean monthly irrigation demands under restrictions that limited irrigation to two days/week and one day/week were calculated for each customer and summed to yield annual irrigation demands. Annual irrigation demand was 13% lower (9.8 versus 11.3 in./year), while the irrigation required by the landscape as a result of weather conditions was 3% higher (25.7 versus 25.0 in./year) under the more stringent restrictions. The majority of customers irrigated less than their landscape required. High irrigators (those irrigating above what their landscape required) irrigated 20% less (10.2 in./year) under the more stringent conditions, indicating that those who irrigated most had the highest conservation potential. Additional conservation potential existed for high irrigators, whose irrigation demand exceeded landscape requirements by 56% under one day/week restrictions.A literature review of residential irrigation water restrictions in the United States and an analysis of more than a decade of continuous water restrictions in the Tampa Bay area of southwest Florida are presented in this study. The summaries and results can be used to inform decisions about residential landscape watering restrictions in the study area, which contains 11.5% of Florida's population, as well as outside utilities contemplating restrictions as a conservation measure.

Curbing the Summer Surge: Permanent Outdoor Water Use Restrictions in Humid and Semiarid Cities

“…In this text, water production designates the total volume of treated, potable water delivered to the water distribution network and is distinct from water consumption , which refers to water consumed by individual customers as derived from billing data. Though several studies of water use restrictions rely on water consumption data for a subset of homes within a given city (Boyer et al, 2018; Castledine et al, 2014; Coleman, 2008; Halich & Stephenson, 2009; Jacobs et al, 2007; Mini et al, 2015), we have opted here to follow the example of other large‐scale studies (Chini & Stillwell, 2018; Kenney et al, 2004) and base our analysis on water production rates and its per‐capita corollary, water demand , because of the following: a)This data set provides greater temporal precision (daily or hourly time steps) than billing data (generally available at time steps of 2 months or more), providing opportunity for analysis of the relationship of climate and water use at fine temporal scales. This temporal precision is especially useful when trying to understand the relationship of water use with heatwaves and/or stochastic rainfall events (Maidment & Miaou, 1986).…”

Public Water Waste Reporting: Contextual Correlates and Conservation Outcomes

“…Sometimes characterized as “market‐based approaches,” prices can be used to regulate water demand with increasing‐block tariffs, seasonal pricing, or rebates for efficiency (Bennear et al., 2013). Regulation, also called the prescriptive or “command‐and‐control” approach, principally consists of technology standards and restrictions on outdoor water use (Boyer et al., 2018; Olmstead & Stavins, 2009; Wichman et al., 2016). Public communication campaigns can also be used to influence water consumption behavior (e.g., Lamm et al., 2016).…”

“…Existing research on conservation focuses mainly on the effects of adopting conservation instruments on water consumption, leaving aside the process of implementation (e.g., Boyer et al., 2018; Kenney et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2013; Mansur, 2012). It might be reasonable to attribute the impact of pricing to its adoption, as the implementation of pricing is straightforward and involves few additional administrative costs; encouraging conservation through pricing does not require active monitoring, so long as water consumption can be measured through metering.…”

Minimum water requirements of cool‐season turfgrasses for survival and recovery after prolonged drought

“…About 68% of total turfgrass area is composed of residential lawns (Milesi et al., 2009). To conserve water, water restrictions are usually imposed by limiting irrigation to specific hours within a day and/or days within a week, regardless of dynamics in weather or the water requirements of turfgrass (Boyer, Dukes, Duerr, & Bliznyuk, 2018). Unfortunately, such strategies can inadvertently result in overwatering, and the effectiveness of water restrictions has been little studied (Boyer et al., 2018).…”

“…To conserve water, water restrictions are usually imposed by limiting irrigation to specific hours within a day and/or days within a week, regardless of dynamics in weather or the water requirements of turfgrass (Boyer, Dukes, Duerr, & Bliznyuk, 2018). Unfortunately, such strategies can inadvertently result in overwatering, and the effectiveness of water restrictions has been little studied (Boyer et al., 2018). When water is severely restricted or even prohibited for irrigation during prolonged drought, stressed turfgrass may fail to recover thereafter, resulting in significant reestablishment costs and a loss of environmental benefits (e.g., cooling effects, reductions in airborne dust and soil erosion, etc.…”