EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Last year the university spent $794,000 on water, an increase from $708,000 for FY 1993. This increase was largely due to the addition of new campus facilities. As the university continues to expand, the water bill will rise accordingly. The university has never had an official water conservation program, however, as water consumption increases responsible water use will become a concern. The water use task force collected university data on water consumption and cost per sector. The highest consumer was identified to be the residential facilities. A case study of an undergraduate dormitory provided revealing information regarding studentsí attitudes towards water conservation, and, importantly, an estimate for savings the university could obtain if the present retrofitting process is accelerated and further monitored. Recommendations include 1) continuing the university policy of replacing broken toilets and shower heads with low-flow devices, 2) adding bathroom sinks to the list of retrofitted fixtures, 3) increasing student awareness of water conservation issues through a water-saving campaign, and 4) investigating the water usage associated with laboratories, kitchens, laundry facilities, landscaping, and fountains.
INTRODUCTION
Due to the high average rainfall of the area, water conservation has not been an issue of great concern in the state of New Jersey or, more generally, on the East Coast. Many Northeasterners consider their water supply to be unlimited. Although water may seem like a renewable resource, in fact only 2.5 percent of the total water on earth is suitable for drinking. Furthermore, only 0.01 percent of the total amount of drinkable water is readily accessible. In other words, the world's supply of fresh water is indeed limited, and steps must be taken to conserve that supply. This situation is exacerbated by the presence of other environmental stressors, such as global climate change and acid rain. Global climate change may decrease the rainfall in many areas, and direct contamination of the water supply often makes it totally unusable.
In addition to being environmentally sound, water conservation can also pay off economically. The university has already recognized this to a large extent. For the past two to three years, the university has been replacing broken shower heads and toilet fixtures with water-efficient models. The savings in the water bill multiply each year. The Maintenance Department does not feel that low-flow devices on sinks are useful, for it believes people tend to use sinks for reasons other than washing, (e.g. filling a water container). Therefore, it is the departmentís opinion that low-flow faucets would not significantly reduce water use. The Maintenance Department estimates that at the present time, 5% of toilets and 10% of showers have been retrofitted to higher water efficiencies. Completing this retrofitting process will thus lead to considerable additional savings. In accordance with the 1992 National Energy Efficiency Act, the toilets currently purchased by the university use 1.6 gallons of water per flush. New shower heads purchased by the university consume 2.5 gallons per minute, which also meets the national guideline. Retrofitting did not cost more than previously used hardware, a further incentive to enthusiastically pursue retrofitting and increase savings.
OVERVIEW
Princeton Environmental Reform Committee's Water Use Task Force conducted three investigations of water conservation options for the university to reduce the amount of water used on campus. The survey was limited to residential water use, although the total water used by the university was divided into categories and the usage calculated in each (see attachments)2. Figure 6.1 shows that residential areas consumed the highest percentage of water during the time period examined. For this reason, the analysis on water use was confined to this area.
Figure 6.1 Campus Water Use April 1994. (Source: Facilities Business Office)
Student Survey
Central to this study was the investigation of methods by which to increase student awareness of water conservation issues. A survey was conducted to ascertain the attitudes and lifestyles of students in regards to water use. Witherspoon Hall is a five-story undergraduate dormitory housing 136 students, primarily freshmen and sophomores. There are 4 bathrooms per floor on floors two through five, two large bathrooms in the basement and a kitchen on the main floor. Thirty student residents of Witherspoon Hall completed a survey which asked them the following questions (answers follow in italics):
1. What is your average shower time in minutes per day (inc. all showers of the day)?
The estimated average shower time per day was 12.5 minutes.
2. When you are using bathroom facilities, are you conscious of the amount of water you are consuming?
30% of students responded that they do not think about how much water they are using when in the bathroom.
3. Do you turn the water off during activities at the sink such as brushing your teeth?
30% of students responded that they do not turn off the water while brushing their teeth or doing other activities at the sink.
4. What would you guess is the number of gallons you use in the shower each day?
The average guess for gallons used per day in the shower was 26.4 gallons per student.
Measurement of Shower Output
In order to compare the students' estimations to their actual water use, the output of six Witherspoon showers was measured and an average value obtained in units of gallons per minute. The Witherspoon showers are here assumed to be fairly representative of all Princeton residential showers. The results are shown in Table 6.1.
| shower | 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| output | 4.25 |
4.00 |
2.00 |
2.50 |
3.50 |
3.50 |
3.29 |
Table 6.1 Shower output in gallons per minute.
-The cost of water is $1.53/ ccf (one hundred cubic feet), 1 ccf = 769 gallons
-Of the 30 people interviewed, the estimated average shower time was 12.5 minutes (3.29 x 12.5 = 41.1 gallons per shower).
The first part of this study illustrates student attitudes toward issues of water use and conservation. Ultimately, the attitudes of the student body will determine the degree to which the water bill can be lowered. The drastic underestimation of the amount of gallons used per average shower (26.4 gallons as compared to the actual value of 41.1 gallons) is indicative of a certain lack of awareness. This information can then be used to calculate an estimation of the money that would be saved by retrofitting all of the residential bathrooms on campus with low-flow water devices.
Assuming that 41.1 gallons is the average shower water use for the 136 students in Witherspoon, and taking the average shower output value to be 3.29 gallons per minute, the total number of gallons used in the building for showers equals 5,623 gallons. This leads to a total cost of $11.19 per day. If the university were to retrofit all of the Witherspoon showers, with 2.5 gallon/minute shower heads, the cost of showers for the building would be $8.50 per day. This is a total savings of 24%.
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Continue the policy of replacing broken toilets/shower heads with low-flow devices.
The university should also consider instituting a more active replacement policy in order to save more money and be environmentally conscious. Showers and toilets need not be the only devices retrofitted; as the survey shows, students do tend to leave sinks running, even when they are not being used productively. This shows that sinks should also be considered for retrofits. Presently, the Business Office is responsible for processing water bills. Closer monitoring of water consumption would provide convincing evidence for the increased savings that retrofittings would incur. The Maintenance Department is currently responsible for the purchase of hardware. Additional testing and research into "student proof" water-efficient hardware on their part will also contribute to great potential savings.
6.2 Increase student awareness of water conservation issues.
One part of the project was dedicated to creating a spreadsheet detailing the amount of water used in each dorm per person per day. (see attachments) Merely posting this information in each dorm and residential college may be adequate to raise students' awareness and may even create a competitive spirit between dorms and colleges, leading to an attitude shift and reduction in water use. Perhaps it would be beneficial to formally create a competition, offering a communal prize (new TV, carpeting, cable TV) to the dorm or dorms with the lowest per capita water use in conjunction with an "Eco-Olympics" event. The Maintenance Department has voiced its support for this idea and even offered to fund the prize, knowing that a competition would likely lead to a savings in energy and water bills.
This study has focused on the residential use of water and how both low-flow bathroom fixtures and increased student awareness can reduce the amount of water used by the university. However, the data for total water used by the university shows that there are other sectors of the Princeton community which could significantly lower their water consumption. The laboratories, kitchens, laundry facilities, landscaping, and fountains are a few examples of areas not directly addressed here but of crucial importance to the overall use of water at Princeton. Issues of water use in labs include lack of recirculation devices; in landscaping, the absence of ecologically favorable species; in kitchens, the absence of water efficient dishwashing appliances.
REFERENCES
Contacts
Princeton University Business Office (Mr. Carter, water bills)
Princeton University Maintenance Department (Mr. Smart, bathroom fixtures)
Elizabethtown Water Company (Princeton's water supplier) 1-800-272-1325
New Jersey Bureau of Water Supply and Planning (609) 633-1179
Task Force Members
Sarah Finkelstein '98, coordinator Sarah Rollet '96
Graham Bullock '98
This material may be used for educational and non-profit use. Commercial use of this information is prohibited without written consent. Copyright © 1995, Princeton Environmental Reform Committee, Princeton University.