water conservation policy approaches for the city of white bear … · water conservation policy...
TRANSCRIPT
Water Conservation Policy Approaches
For The City of White Bear Lake
ESPM 4041W Problem Solving for Environmental Change
University of Minnesota -
College of Food, Agricultural and
Natural Resource Sciences
Report 6/9
Prepared by:
Sabrina Kabitz
Caralie Randolph
Kalia Lee
Madeline Steffel
December 6, 2019
ii
iii
Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. v
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ vi
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2
2014 Water Conservation Report For The City of White Bear Lake .......................................... 2
Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 4
White Bear Lake Vision Statement .............................................................................................. 4
Class Vision Statement ................................................................................................................ 4
Water Conservation Policy Report Vision Statement ................................................................. 5
Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 5
Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Site Description ........................................................................................................................... 6
Research Techniques .................................................................................................................. 7
Preliminary Survey ................................................................................................................. 7
Secondary Survey .................................................................................................................... 7
Water Consumption Analysis .................................................................................................. 8
Comparative Case Studies ...................................................................................................... 9
Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Water Consumption Analysis .................................................................................................... 11
Secondary Survey Results ......................................................................................................... 14
Environmental Awareness and Outreach ................................................................................. 16
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 16
Case Study: City of Ramsey, Minnesota ........................................................................ 16
Case Study: City of Chanhassen, Minnesota ........................................................................ 17
Case Study: City of Elk River, Minnesota ...................................................................... 17
Case study: Earth Scope and Social Media .......................................................................... 18
Irrigation Policies of White Bear Lake and Nearby Cities ....................................................... 21
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 21
Metropolitan Council Case Study of Twin Cities Metro ....................................................... 22
iv
Smart Water Metering............................................................................................................... 24
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 24
Residential vs. Industrial Meters .......................................................................................... 25
Cost ....................................................................................................................................... 25
Case Example: Minneapolis, Minnesota .............................................................................. 26
Case Example: Pemberton, British Columbia ...................................................................... 27
Options ......................................................................................................................................... 30
Option 1: Establish an Environmental Awareness and Outreach Program ............................ 30
Option 2: Maintaining the Current Irrigation Policies of White Bear Lake ............................ 31
Option 3: Implementing Smart Water Metering Infrastructure ................................................ 31
Short Term: Mandatory Smart Metering in Selected Government Buildings....................... 31
Long Term: Residential Smart Metering .............................................................................. 32
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 34
References .................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix A: Preliminary Water Conservation Survey ............................................................. 39
Appendix B: Secondary Water Conservation Survey................................................................ 40
Appendix C: Water Consumption and Precipitation Table ...................................................... 42
List of Figures
Figure 1. Recorded water levels of White Bear Lake 2009 to 2019 ............................................... 3
Figure 2: Map of White Bear Lake ................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3. Total water consumption 2007 to 2018 ......................................................................... 11
Figure 4. Relationship between average rates and water consumption per year .......................... 12
Figure 5. Relationship between average precipitation and water consumption per year .............. 13
Figure 6. Survey results on Irrigation Policy ................................................................................ 14
Figure 7. Survey Results on Water Conservation Promotion ....................................................... 14
Figure 8. Survey Result of Interest in Educational Programs ....................................................... 15
Figure 9. Survey Results for Awareness Program ........................................................................ 15
Figure 10. Preliminary Survey Results about Household Water Consumption............................ 24
List of Tables Table 1. Overview of Comparative Case Study Methodology ....................................................... 9
Table 2. Current approaches, strengths and weaknesses of current cities .................................... 19
Table 3. Irrigation Policies for Metropolitan Area cities in focus ................................................ 22
Table 4. American Water Works Association Meter Costs .......................................................... 26
Table 5. Estimated Water Savings from Metering........................................................................ 28
Table 6. Capital Costs for Metering Implementation ................................................................... 28
Table 7. Meter Implementation Costs for Six Government Buildings ......................................... 32
Table 8. Estimated Water Savings from Smart Metering ............................................................. 33
Acknowledgments
We would like to express gratitude to the City of White Bear Lake in aiding us through our
reassessment of the Water Conservation Policy written in 2014. We would especially like to
thank Ellen Hiniker, the City Manager, who directed us and supported us in our project. We
would also like to thank Jennifer Morse, the Utility Billing Clerk, who provided us valuable
information that made this project possible, and Kara Coustry for helping us reach interested
residents of the City of White Bear Lake. We would like to thank Pat Igo, who let us reach out
the members of “White Bear Lake Life” on Facebook, and the members of “White Bear Lake
Life” who provided us valuable information. And finally, we would like to thank the residents of
White Bear for their feedback and contribution to our project and a sustainable future.
1
Executive Summary
The conversation about water conservation has evolved. In 2013, the City’s namesake lake was
at an all-time low, sparking concern over groundwater conservation. Today, the White Bear Lake
levels are nearing its historic high. This report aims to explore options to improve White Bear
Lake’s water conservation efforts and focuses on providing the City of White Bear Lake with
recommendations for adopting policies and programs that will continue to promote water
conservation and ensure the sustainability of groundwater in the City for future generations.
A handful of methods were utilized to compile this report, including preliminary and secondary
surveys, comparative case study review, and an analysis of City water consumption trends over
time. Based upon this research we have identified the following recommendations for the City:
• Water Conservation Awareness: The City of White Bear Lake would be suitable for a
water conservation awareness program. Nearby Cities in Minnesota have implemented
successful water conservation awareness programs. This can be a cost-effective approach
that helps generate resident support while avoiding negative backlash of approaches to
reducing water consumption that may require the city to increase tax rates or place
restrictions on resident activities.
• White Bear Lake Irrigation Policy: The City of White Bear Lake should maintain its
current irrigation policy as it matches current scientific recommendations and has
majority public support. Versus other nearby cities, it does follow the scientific
recommendations.
• Smart Metering: The City of White Bear Lake has potential for smart metering in its
government and residential buildings due to space in government buildings for smart
metering and infrastructure investments for residential expansion that would be in place.
Smart metering provides real-time data of water consumption and would provide an
educational component for residents who don’t understand their monthly water usage.
2
Introduction
Water is one of, if not the most, valuable resource in the world yet it is a resource that is not
unlimited. Even in Minnesota, the state that is home to over 10,000 lakes, the demand for
groundwater resources topples over the limited supply available in our many lakes, streams, and
wetlands (Freshwater Society, 2013). The City of White Bear Lake (the City) is one of many
Minnesota municipalities that has been affected by these limitations. The City itself is a hotspot
for swimming, kayaking, and other outdoor recreational activities. Located on one of the largest
lakes in the St. Paul-Minneapolis metropolitan area, White Bear Lake’s water levels are always
fluctuating due to factors such as natural weather events, extended and/or shortened seasons, and
current groundwater use (MN DNR, 2019a). In a city where water is always the forefront, the
conservation of it may seem obvious. In Minnesota, groundwater is the source for roughly 75%
of the state’s drinking water and almost 100% of crop irrigation (MN DNR, 2018). The City of
White Bear Lake is no exception to these trends and is vulnerable to shifts in weather patterns
and natural events.
2014 Water Conservation Report For The City of White Bear Lake
Prior to this report, the ESPM 4041W class of 2014 provided seven reports to the City of White
Bear Lake, all with a series of recommendations for future city policies pertaining to the
respective reports’ topics. One of those reports was on Water Conservation and the steps the City
should take in regard to saving water.
3
Figure 1. Recorded water levels of White Bear Lake 2009 to 2019
As Figure 1 shows, lake levels had been progressively declining over time from 923.3 ft. in
2006, to 920.2 ft in 2010, to 918.9 ft, the lowest water level in the lake’s recorded history, in
2013 (MN DNR, 2019a). This deteriorating lake level was attributed to over-withdrawal of the
aquifer that supplies the lake (Bunnell et. al, 2014). In 2012, the White Bear Lake Homeowners
Association and the White Bear Lake Restoration Association filed a lawsuit against the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) asserting that the department was
infringing the state’s water sustainability standards. The associations claimed that the low lake
levels the City had been experiencing was the outcome of the MN DNR allowing surrounding
communities to overuse the groundwater for drinking water. As those were the conditions and
considerations of the prior report, the respective research was tailored to respond to those
conditions.
In August of 2017, the Ramsey County District Court sided with the White Bear Lake
Associations and ordered that the MN DNR make changes to existing water extraction permits
4
held within a five mile radius of the City and for the department to complete a groundwater
water analysis to decipher if additional changes were necessary (MN DNR, 2018). A 2018 report
by the MN DNR concluded that while groundwater use played a part in the decreasing lake
levels, groundwater use in White Bear Lake is in tune with the state’s sustainability standards.
As Figure 1 shows, conditions have changed since 2013. The lake level currently stands at 925.1
ft (MNDNR, 2019a). This is closer to the historic high of 926.7 ft. in 1943 than the historic low
of 2013 (MNDNR, 2019a).
Scope
Now that conditions in White Bear Lake have changed, research must be directed to respond to
these new conditions. This means the scope of the research is less focused on how to make lake
levels rise and more focused upon what the City of White Bear Lake can do to continue to
encourage sustainable groundwater use and ensure the conservation of this valuable resource into
the future. This research has been directed towards providing recommendations regarding water
conservation practices that will contribute to the ecological, economic and social sustainability of
the City’s water resources.
White Bear Lake Vision Statement
“White Bear Lake will be responsive to the physical, safety and environmental requirements of
its citizens through innovative leadership, planning and civic management. The Mayor, City
Council and city employees will ensure the availability of a broad range of cost-effective
services, emphasizing a personalized approach that accommodates the special needs of
individuals and neighborhoods and utilizes available public and private resources.”
Class Vision Statement
“These reports represent the collaborative work between University of Minnesota students, the
City of White Bear Lake, and engaged community members. Through interdisciplinary research
and public interest, we aim to foster a safe and environmentally aware city. The options provided
serve as a feasible guide to promote further environmental resilience and sustainable growth for
the community and future generations.”
5
Water Conservation Policy Report Vision Statement
“Through cooperation and collaboration with the City of White Bear Lake, sustainable water
conservation policies will be refined for both the urban and residential areas of the City. The
policies will be curated to accommodate long-term goals, allowing for adaptability and
awareness for future water conditions.”
Objectives
• To comprehend past and current water consumption trends of the City of White Bear
Lake for future action
• To understand the City of White Bear Lake residents’ participation and perception of
water conservation practices and policies
• To provide the City of White Bear Lake with water conservation policy options that
associate with the three pillars of sustainability: ecological, economic, and social to
provide a sustainable outcome
6
Methods
Site Description
The location of the City of
White Bear Lake brands it
as an aquaphile’s paradise.
Situated in both Ramsey
and Washington counties,
the City is home to several
lakes of varying sizes, with
White Bear Lake being its
most well-known feature
for numerous recreational
activities (Figure 2)
(Minnesota Compass,
2019). These include
biking, walking, kayaking,
boating, bird-watching,
fishing, and more. The
City’s downtown, up-north
atmosphere serves as a
popular attraction for tourists, and also current residents. It is located within 15 miles of both
Minneapolis and St. Paul and is surrounded by a dozen more well-known Minnesota cities
(Ramsey County, 2018). The City’s limits stretch from concrete freeways to natural reservoirs,
appealing to anyone looking to visit or stay for a while.
With an estimated population of 25,932 people, White Bear Lake has shown that it’s
comfortable, inviting atmosphere is quite desirable (Minnesota Compass, 2019). Data from
Figure 2: Map of White Bear Lake
7
Minnesota Compass shows that a majority of the employees working in the City work in the
healthcare and social assistance field. Nearly half of City residents fall into the middle-class
category, and that is out of about 10,000 households (Minnesota Compass, 2019). The City
prides itself as being an established, solid city where families can live comfortably, and
education can be accessed by residents or those living nearby.
Research Techniques
Preliminary Survey
A preliminary survey was constructed to gauge general public opinions and awareness of water
conservation in the City, as well as opinions on current water policy. The survey was formatted
as six statements that required respondents to check a box that reflected their level of agreement
with the given statement, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (See Appendix
A). An “additional comments” section was also included for further elaboration or insight. On
Saturday, September 14th, 2019, two group members attended White Bear Township Day, a
public event at Polar Lakes Park in the City of White Bear Lake. They spent approximately two
hours (2PM - 4PM) canvassing the event for voluntary participants who live in the City to
consent to the anonymous paper survey. Of the approximately 75 individuals who were asked,
fourteen surveys were completed resulting in a 18.67% response rate. The majority of
respondents were older Caucasian females. Survey results were recorded in a Google Sheets
table where participant answers were analyzed and compared. This survey helped to identify
common themes and opinions that informed the design of the second online survey to be
distributed more widely to City citizens.
Secondary Survey
Based off of the results from the preliminary survey and information gathered from the 2014
report analysis and a literature review, a second survey was created. The purpose of the survey
was to gather data on public attitudes towards the themes that were deemed as important from
the analysis of the preliminary survey. Formatting was similar to the preliminary survey, five
statements were proposed that asked respondents to rate their viewpoints on the statement,
ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. A sixth statement was also included that
8
asked respondents to check boxes that reflected personal efforts to conserve water, as well as an
“additional comments” section for further elaboration or insight (See Appendix B).
The survey was created on Google Forms so that it could be electronically dispatched to reach a
wider demographic of the public. On October 22, 2019, the survey link was posted on the official
White Bear Lake Facebook page and to a private Facebook group called White Bear Lake Life.
The survey was open for responses until November 5th, 2019. From October 22, 2019 to
November 5th, 2019, 73 people responded to the survey. Respondents were not asked to disclose
personal information (i.e. names) to ensure their anonymity and encourage accurate results. A
single demographics question was included to ensure respondents resided in the City or they felt
as it was their home. Reponses were analyzed and compared using Google forms.
Water Consumption Analysis
Informal communication through email with Jennifer Morse provided information on how water
consumption works in the City. Conservation with Ms. Morse helped narrow and guide the
research on possible options for the City of White Bear Lake.
Water consumption reports for the City were also provided (See Appendix C). Yearly total water
consumption for the City of White Bear Lake and outdoor water use from recorded irrigation
water lines from 2007-2018 was listed. As part of our analysis, our team investigated potential
factors that may influence water consumption trends in the City over time. We hypothesized that
city water rates and/or precipitation may influence water consumption. To test these hypotheses,
we compared City water consumption data with data on both precipitation and the amount the
City charged for water during that same time period. We first compared annual water
consumption data against corresponding yearly water rates. Second, we compared outdoor water
use over time with data on precipitation trends in Ramsey County over time (See Appendix C) to
understand the relationship between yearly water consumption and yearly precipitation.
9
Comparative Case Studies
After an analysis of existing literature, a review of our preliminary survey results, and
conversations with White Bear Lake, several water conservation strategies that had potential for
the City were identified. These strategies included:
1. Focusing on reducing water demand through educating city residents
2. Evaluating White Bear Lake’s current irrigation policy
3. Investigating smart-metering options for the City
To understand how each of these strategies have been used by other cities interested in
promoting water conservation, a comparative case analysis for each strategy was conducted.
Comparative case studies were conducted using literature accessible to University of Minnesota
students and government documents. Each comparative case analysis uses a common
methodology, and each case study examined the strengths and weaknesses of each
policy/program under review as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Overview of Comparative Case Study Methodology
Strategy Case Study Case Study Selection
Water
Conservation
Education and
Outreach
• Ramsey, Minnesota
• Chanhassen, Minnesota
• Elk River, Minnesota
• EarthScope Program (Social
Media)
Each city was selected from their
participation in the Minnesota
GreenStep Cities program1 and/or
the University of Minnesota’s
Resilient Communities Project2
Irrigation Policy • New Brighton, Minnesota
• Roseville, Minnesota
• Vandais Heights, Minnesota
• Woodbury, Minnesota
• White Bear Lake, Minnesota
Each of these cities were featured
in a 2016 Metropolitan Council
Report on city energy efficiency
practices.
1 GreenStep Cities is a “voluntary challenge, assistance and recognition program to help cities achieve their
sustainability and quality-of-life goals” (GreenStep Cities, 2019) 2 The Resilient Communities project is a program designed to help cities or counties in Minnesota to “build
community capacity to adapt and thrive in the face of changing social, economic, and environmental conditions”
through interdisciplinary efforts with students and faculty at the University of Minnesota (RCP, 2019).
10
Smart-Metering • Minneapolis, Minnesota
• Pemberton, British
Columbia
Minneapolis was selected for
proximity to White Bear Lake and
for recentness of the project.
Pemberton was selected for
review of a finished project with
exact pricing. Pemberton was
selected for review of a finished
project with exact pricing.
11
Findings
Water Consumption Analysis
Total water consumption for the City of White Bear Lake has been gradually declining over the
last decade as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Total water consumption 2007 to 2018
City water consumption decreased by 28% between 2007 and 2018. To better understand factors
that may be contributing to this reduction in water use, we compared this data with information
we collected about White Bear Lake water rates and precipitation levels. Average water utility
rates over recent years were compared with water consumption totals from 2007-2018. Annual
precipitation rates for Ramsey County were also compared with water consumption rates.
12
Under further examination, the relationship between the average water rate and water
consumption is a moderate negative correlation as seen in Figure 4. Average water rates and
irrigation water use also has a moderate negative correlation. A negative correlation defines the
relationship as when one variable increase, the other decreases, so as average water rates
increase, water consumption decreases. According to Figure 4, average water rates only drive
water usage to a point, with no water usage going below 800,000 units (600,000,000 gallons) a
year.
Precipitation amounts and water consumption have an equally strong relationship as water
consumption and average rates do. Yearly water consumption and yearly precipitation amounts
indicated a moderate negative correlation between the two as seen in Figure 5. The relationship
between precipitation and irrigation consumption were the same.
Figure 4. Relationship between average rates and water consumption per year
13
Figure 5. Relationship between average precipitation and water consumption per year
Correlation does not mean causation. The moderate strength of the connection present in all the
relationships does not guarantee that the relationship between the two was accurately
represented. Future research may result in different conclusions. However, correlation predicts
the likelihood that there is a connection, and what strength it is. With the likelihood of water
consumption and water utility rates, and with the available amount of time and resources, is it
still possible to conclude that the average utility rate does play a role in the water consumption
within the City. However, based on examination of Figure 4, there is a limit to how much water
usage can decrease if solely reliant on water usage alone.
14
Secondary Survey Results
From October 22, 2019 to November 5th, 2019, 73 people responded to the survey. Of the 73
respondents, 84.9%
of respondents
support White Bear
Lake’s yard
irrigation policy
(Figure 6). The
current irrigation
policy proves to be
popular with the
respondents.
53.4% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the City of White Bear Lake is doing a good
job at promoting water quality (Figure 7).
Figure 6. Survey results on Irrigation Policy
Figure 7. Survey Results on Water Conservation Promotion
15
Only 31.5% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed to attend a water conservation educational
program in White Bear Lake (Figure 8). Most respondents were not interested in putting forward
the time to attend an educational program.
Figure 8. Survey Result of Interest in Educational Programs
However, 50.7% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they would appreciate an
informational pamphlet regarding water conservation practices (Figure 9). With these numbers, a
water conservation educational program would not be successful with the people of the City, but
a less invasive water conservation awareness program could be well-received.
Figure 9. Survey Results for Awareness Program
16
Environmental Awareness and Outreach
Overview
Cities can use awareness campaigns and outreach activities to disseminate environmental
information to targeted audiences. Organizations and agencies from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency to the Sierra Club to local governing bodies have had success
using environmental education and outreach to spread awareness and influence behavior and
attitudes related to issues such as water conservation. Such an approach aims to influence how
citizens, residents, companies, organizations, and governing bodies understand and relate to the
environment. In addition, greater environmental awareness and literacy could translate into more
policies that reflect a greater care towards the environment (Bjorkland & Pringle, 2001).
Although environmental awareness and outreach may be pivotal to changing behaviors and
actions towards the environment, effective implementation can be difficult. However, through
the comparative case study, further insight into possible best practices to implementing an
impactful environmental awareness and outreach program was provided.
In Minnesota, where natural resources are abundant and there are over 10,000 lakes, there have
been various efforts to enact change on how we treat our surrounding environment. There also
have been major efforts to change through environmental education, awareness, and/or outreach
campaigns directed at the public. The following case studies provide examples of water
conservation and outreach approaches that could be utilized by the City of White Bear Lake.
Case Study: City of Ramsey, Minnesota
Ramsey, located northwest of the Twin Cities in Minnesota, is a city that has participated in the
University of Minnesota’s Resilient Communities Project to promote water conservation through
environmental awareness and outreach. One approach the city has implemented is a water
conservation toolkit that is accessible through the city’s website.3 This website provides
resources that can aid residents in regulating their use of water such as alternative landscaping,
irrigation, grants, lawn care, etc. Additionally, Ramsey sends out bulletins on household water
conservation tips to residents via the local paper (Saunders et. al, 2018). Through the City’s
3 Ramsey Water Conservation Toolkit: https://www.ci.ramsey.mn.us/240/Water-Conservation
17
participation in the Resilient Communities Project, Ramsey has been given suggestions in
environmental awareness and outreach such as school-based environmental education, creative
environmental awareness strategies like creating video content, and social media based
environmental outreach.4
Case Study: City of Chanhassen, Minnesota
Chanhassen, located southwest of the Twin Cities, is a GreenStep city that has taken steps to
promote water conservation through environmental awareness and outreach. The city has
implemented a WaterWise program that provides free irrigation audits and landscaping rebates to
residents and businesses (Metropolitan Council, 2019). Through this program, Chanhassen also
offers informational packets, weekly e-newsletters, and events related to water (Metropolitan
Council, 2019). In addition to the WaterWise program, the city has encouraged environmental
awareness through providing educational materials and resources through their website5 on
utility bills, and in local municipal publications (Andersen et. al, 2015). As of 2017, Chanhassen
has also attempted to implement projects to promote stormwater reuse for irrigation (Hess et. al,
2017). Another project that Chanhassen has been working on is a cost sharing project with
homeowners to convert irrigated turf grass areas into “non irrigated native plantings or
stormwater features (i.e. rain gardens, buffer strips)” (Pinkalla, 2019).
Case Study: City of Elk River, Minnesota
Elk River, located northeast of the Twin Cities, is a GreenStep city that has put significant effort
in environmental education, awareness, and outreach. In 2008, the city launched Project
Conserve, that provided resources to aid residents in making their homes more energy efficient
and practicing energy and water conservation. The program consisted of four meetings that
focused on environmentally friendly measures that could be taken by residents (CERTs, 2019).
Over 200 households in the city were participating and had saved money through energy
efficiency and conservation (CERTs, 2019). While Project Conserve has been influential in
4 Resilient Communities Project reports on water conservation for Ramsey:
Will the Faucet Turn on? Water conservation strategies for Ramsey, Minnesota:
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/193464/14a-PA%205253-
Report.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Water Conservation in the City of Ramsey: https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/200042/14b-
SUST%204004-Report.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 5 Chanhassen Website: https://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/410/WaterWise-Water-Conservation-Program
18
engaging residents in energy efficiency and conservation, there has been less promotion of the
program since 2011 (Erikson, 2019). This lack of promotion could damage the momentum built
by the program and affect residents’ engagement and involvement with similar programs.
In addition to Project Conserve, the City of Elk River has implemented a point-based award
program, Energy City High Five program, that residents and businesses can compete in to be the
most environmentally friendly. The categories of possible actions to gain points are “waste
management, electricity conservation and lighting, heating, ventilation and cooling systems,
water conservation, employee or household initiatives, purchasing and miscellaneous” (Elk
River, 2017). The Energy City High Five program and Project Conserve are innovative
approaches to changing environmental behaviors and increasing awareness. However, although
the program covers various topics and incentivizes change to be eco-friendlier, it is limited with
the audience it can reach (residents with internet access and English fluency).
Case study: Earth Scope and Social Media
In our fast-paced society where technology is being rapidly developed or improved, almost
everyone uses social media. According to surveys conducted by Pew Research Center (2019),
72% of adults in the U.S. reported using at least one form of social media and 90% of adults
between the ages of 18 and 29 reported using social media. This high frequency of social media
makes environmental awareness and outreach via social media possible.
The EarthScope program provides an example of environmental education and outreach through
social media. EarthScope is a program that “seeks to better illuminate the structure and evolution
of the North American continent using a variety of seismic, geodic, and remote sensing
instrumentation.” (Bohon, Robinson, Arrowsmith, & Semken, 2013). Their approach consists
mostly of active, face-to-face education and outreach, but the EarthScope National office has
noticed the impact of social media use to their branding (Bohon, Robinson, Arrowsmith, &
Semken, 2013). Through their social media platforms, EarthScope has opened up the
conversation of science through interactions between social media followers about science
related articles. This approach has allowed them to reach a broader audience with outreach
activities (Bohon, Robinson, Arrowsmith, & Semken, 2013).
19
Table 2 summarizes the water conservation outreach and education activities undertaken by each
city and/or program and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
Table 2. Current approaches, strengths and weaknesses of current cities
Case Studies Current approaches Strengths Weaknesses
City of Ramsey
Water conservation toolkit
Allows residents to become more
aware in water conservation
without talking to a government
official if they are not
comfortable Allows residents to take action in
water conservation in their
households
Online toolkits and tips could
limit access to those without
internet access. Information is only available in
English which could limit non-
English fluent populations. Besides these two programs, there
is no other active environmental
awareness program to engage
residents.
Bulletins on household
water conservation tips Tips to conserve water are
accessible.
City of
Chanhassen
WaterWise program (irrigation audits and
landscaping rebates)
Increase resident involvement
through program Incentives encourage water
conservation
Besides online, there does not
seem to be other physical forms
of awareness or outreach. Only available in English
Informational packets,
weekly e-newsletters,
water events Lots of information available
Dissemination of information
relies on whether people read or
engage with material (online or
print). Only available in English
City of Elk
River
Project Conserve program (4 meetings facilitated by
city officials on eco
friendly measures, less
activity now)
Program increased resident
involvement and awareness on
energy efficiency and
conservation. Built personal connections
between residents and
government
Less activity in Project Conserve
due to its time commitment may
have decreased resident
involvement. Time intensive Only available in English
Energy City High Five
program (energy efficiency
and conservation)
Residents are incentivized to be
energy efficient and conserve.
Online access only could limit
access to those without internet
access. Only available in English.
Social media and
the EarthScope
program
Face-to-face
communication
It can build personal connections
between the organization and
people.
Face-to-face communication is
unclear.
20
Social media use
(science papers/links,
humor, shares on social
media)
Social media presence helps to
increase brand recognition and
informal education. Followers (those in and out of
science) can participate in
discussion of articles. Program offers possible structure
to implement other social media
based science education
awareness or outreach.
Involvement in discussion
requires owning a social media
account which some may not
have. The amount of knowledge
participants learned/gained is
unknown. There is a limited reach to
different audiences. Main
audience are people who believe
in science and are in the loop
about it. Only available in English
Environmental awareness and outreach efforts are effective in increasing awareness among
residents and businesses, yet while many environmental awareness and outreach initiatives have
been implemented, there has been limited information provided on their effectiveness and
possibilities in changing behavior (Bohon, Robinson, Arrowsmith, & Semken, 2013). Further
research needs to be conducted to create effective environmental education, awareness, or
outreach programs that change environmental behaviors.
However, since there has been limited research, a possible starting place to consider when
implementing an environmental awareness and outreach program could be strengthening the
familiarity and trust between organizations and people (Mase, Babin, Prokopy, and Genskow,
2015). A study was conducted in 2015 to find the trust and familiarity that people (both
agriculturalists and non-agriculturalists who lived in the Great Lakes region) had with
organizations that shared soil and water quality information. The results showed that people had
the highest trust with university extensions, Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs),
The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and state natural resources agencies
(Mase, Babin, Prokopy, and Genskow, 2015). Local governments were not a source that
participants often reported trusting for water quality information.
Additionally, the case study on social media explores the possibilities of expanding
environmental education, awareness, and outreach into online spaces to reach bigger audiences
farther from where we live. In Minnesota, these ideas could help various cities’ approaches to
21
increasing awareness on environmental issues and concerns, especially local governments like
the City of White Bear Lake. As cities in Minnesota continue to implement environmental
education, awareness, and/or outreach initiatives, it will create opportunities to finesse the
effectiveness of these programs and approaches to increase awareness and environmental literacy
among residents.
Irrigation Policies of White Bear Lake and Nearby Cities Overview
Irrigation policies are a way that cities work to control and help regulate the amount of water
being used commercially, residentially, and sometimes agriculturally. These irrigation policies
can put restrictions or bans on when people are allowed to access and use their water source for
activities such as washing cars or watering their plants. Cities that are located in certain areas
where groundwater fluctuates, like White Bear Lake, have water use restrictions that can change
seasonally depending on precipitation. Several other communities surrounding White Bear Lake
rely on groundwater as their main source of drinking water, which is another reason why the
conservation and management of the resource remains a “top priority” amongst them (White
Bear Lake, 2019c). There are many lakes and ponds surrounding the City that are vulnerable to
factors such as rainfall variation and excessive groundwater pumping. These are all factors to
consider when creating an irrigation policy.
The history of fluctuating water levels of water bodies in White Bear Lake have sparked interest
and also concern about water conservation efforts. This has led community members to pay more
attention to their water use actions in their day-to-day lives (Met Council, 2016). This plays a
significant role in how the City as a whole works to conserve water. White Bear Lake’s current
water conservation ordinance “prohibits irrigation between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. every
day from May 1st through September 30th” in efforts to minimize the amount of water lost
through evaporation in the hottest times of the day in these warmer months (White Bear Lake,
2019c). If every resident followed this ordinance every summer, it is assumed that water usage
would decrease per household and water conservation goals would be met. Several nearby cities
22
have established similar irrigation policies to White Bear Lake with the same goal of wasting
less water.
Metropolitan Council Case Study of Twin Cities Metro
The Twin Cities Metropolitan Council (2016) summarized several studies regarding water use
efficiency in 21 cities (including White Bear Lake) within seven counties in the Twin Cities
metropolitan area. Building off this report, we chose four nearby cities to investigate further as
case studies: New Brighton, Roseville, Vadnais Heights and Woodbury. We also included Whtie
Bear Lake’s irrigation policy in the analysis. Table 3 summarizes the irrigation policies of the
five cities included in the cross-case analysis of irrigation policies.
Table 3. Irrigation Policies for Metropolitan Area cities in focus
City County Irrigation Policy
White Bear
Lake Ramsey/Washington Ordinance prohibits irrigation between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5
p.m. every day from May 1 through September 30.
Vadnais
Heights Ramsey Irrigation allowed on even numbered days of the week for
addresses ending in an even number, and odd numbered days for
addresses ending in an odd number. In effect from June 1 to
September 15.
New
Brighton Ramsey
Irrigation ordinance resembles Vadnais Heights (even/odd
schedule); in effect during “summer months”. Lawn watering is
to be avoided during peak demand hours of 4pm to 10pm on hot,
dry summer days.
Woodbury Ramsey Irrigation ordinance resembles Vadnais Heights (even/odd
schedule) but is in effect year-round. Lawn watering permitted
only before noon and after 5p.m. regardless of whether it is “your
day” to water.
Roseville Ramsey There are currently no restrictions, ordinances, or policies
regarding lawn watering and irrigation in place.
Results from the secondary survey conducted for this report show that 49.3% of respondents
strongly support White Bear Lake’s current irrigation policies (Figure 6). The awareness of
23
water-saving methods is an important part of water conservation, for there is also the willingness
to adopt practices and technologies that work to minimize water usage in communities across the
metro area. Vadnais Heights and New Brighton have similar lawn watering policies, which
include an even/odd ordinance stating that homes with addresses ending in an even number may
use their water source for outdoor activities on even calendar dates, and those with addresses
ending in an odd number may do so on an odd calendar day (Vadnais Heights, 2019; New
Brighton, 2019). There are also times of the day in the summer months where watering lawns is
prohibited, and both cities state that fines can and will be issued to homeowners who violate this
policy as a way to really cut back on water wasted (New Brighton, 2019). A strength to this type
of irrigation ordinance is that there is more control over when people are using water. With a set
schedule in place, it is projected that less water will be wasted or over-used. This is especially
important when watering in the summer months due to evaporation in higher temperatures. A
weakness of this ordinance is the same as any in that residents may choose not to follow the
schedule due to misinformation or time availability. To counter this potential weakness fines and
violations can be issued by city officials. The policies for each community mentioned apply to
every resident and no one is exempt from them in an effort to conserve water, yet Roseville, a
city fairly close to lakes and ponds, does not have any restrictions set in place.
Survey
The Metropolitan Council also set out to conduct several assessments on homeowners’ water
usage in 2016. Their goal was to collect data from those living in the metro area with irrigation
systems so that they could measure lawn watering practices and patterns as well as water use
patterns in general (Metropolitan Council, 2016). Homeowners were asked questions that
included information about their lawn watering practices and if they complied with their city’s
lawn watering ordinance. It was found that 8% of residents were not aware that their city had a
lawn watering policy (Metropolitan Council, 2016). Homeowner and community awareness play
a big role in potential water conservation management and practices, which is a large part of this
report as mentioned in a previous section.
24
Smart Water Metering As shown from the results of the preliminary survey, approximately half of respondents reported
that they were aware of how much water their household consumes per month (Figure
10). Results from the preliminary survey also showed that half of resident respondents were
neutral on their water conservation knowledge, with the next biggest chunk of 28.6% of
respondents reporting that were not confident in this knowledge (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Preliminary Survey Results about Household Water Consumption
These results show that a means to promote water conservation knowledge among residents and
a means to raise knowledge of water consumption would be beneficial to the City.
Overview
The smart water metering market made its debut in the early 2000s as a proactive service to help
water utility companies to obtain detailed and precise water consumption data (Cutler, 2011).
Smart meters are a product of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) technology. AMI
technology allows for an immediate two-way link for accessing data between meters and
utilities. Where traditional water meters have to be read manually either once or twice a month,
Smart meters can be read immediately and as frequently as the consumer pleases (Cutler, 2011).
Through the use of affiliated Smart apps, consumers access information on precisely when and
where water is being used and compare this to other users. Smart meters allow consumers to
access real-time data on their water usage and allow water leaks to be easily detected (Brears,
25
2019). This accessibility to information raises consumer awareness of water consumption which
can lead to the adoption of water conservation strategies to reduce usage if necessary. According
to the Alliance for Water Efficiency, Smart meters can aid in reducing between 15-30% of
monthly water consumption (Alliance For Water Efficiency, 2019).
Residential vs. Industrial Meters
Utilizing the right size meter for a building is crucial as meters differ in sensitivity based upon
their size and design. Installing the wrong type of meter can result in the meter not being able to
accurately read the amount of water consumed (Alliance For Water Efficiency, 2019). Lower
sensitivity for low flows can result in a loss of revenue if the meter cannot record total water
usage. The internal diameter of the selected water pipe establishes which size meter is best for a
given building. Residential metering usually requires a 5/8” meter for smaller homes and a 1”
meter for larger homes, as small commercial metering usually requires meters between 5/8” to
1.5” in size (Alliance For Water Efficiency, 2019). Both residential and small commercial can
use the positive-displacement meter design, as the design reads water flow accurately in small
buildings but impedes flow in larger facilities where high velocity is needed (Alliance For Water
Efficiency, 2019). Larger meters are less sensitive to small water volumes that are apparent in
the mechanism. A standard residential meter only picks up on water usage where the flow rate is
larger than one pint of water per minute.
For larger buildings, such as schools and office buildings, meter size can range from 1.5” to 12”,
as meters of this size typically utilize the multi-jet or turbine design (Alliance for Water
Efficiency, 2019). These designs measure velocity of water as opposed to water volume because
facilities of a large size will usually need a handful of meters for water supplied to different
zones or for different uses. These meters can accurately read high water flows but are sensitive to
low flows that are less than 1 to 3 gallons per minute (Alliance for Water Efficiency, 2019).
Cost
The costs associated with purchasing a smart meter is dependent on the type of meter and the
location of which it is installed. Meter costs can also fluctuate based upon a company undergoing
the metering installation process for an individual or a community. The American Water Works
26
Association has established costs for basic meters that can be purchased for individual use which
is shown in Table 4.
Table 4. American Water Works Association Meter Costs
Location Cost per Unit New Installation Cost¹
Residential Homes Approx. $40 Approx. $180
Industrial Buildings Approx. $2,000+ Approx. $800+
¹New installation price is included for locations that have not previously been metered
The two cases below discuss cities that have already or in the process of completing a
community-wide smart metering project. Each of the cases mentioned underwent projects that
consisted of implementing smart metering in both residential and commercial locations.
Case Example: Minneapolis, Minnesota
In early 2018, the City of Minneapolis announced their Water Meter Replacement Project that
would work towards replacing and installing 100,000 water meters at both the residential and
commercial level (City of Minneapolis, 2019). Approximately 92,000 of the meters will be for
residential homes. Minneapolis partnered with Aclara, a manufacturing company that specializes
in smart infrastructure improvements, to complete the project which is estimated to take five
years to finish (City of Minneapolis, 2019). The city set out to replace meters due to the benefits
that Smart metering would bring to consumers. The new meters allow consumers to access more
water consumption data through high consumption alerts that can be dispatched through text or
email (City of Minneapolis, 2019). Meters will be able to be read hourly which allows the City to
plan and improve their water distribution system. For consumers, benefits and features include:
• Ability to compare current water consumption to consumption from the past week,
month, year etc.
• Informational videos to show customers how to identify leaks and fix small-scale
plumbing problems
• Hourly updates of meter reading
• Text/email services for notifications of possible leaks in the system
• Information on smart water usage advice
27
As of May 2019, the City is approximately 15% complete with the residential meter
replacements (Roper, 2019). Glen Gerads, Minneapolis’s director of water treatment and
distribution, has expressed that thus far in the project the biggest challenge has been coordinating
installation appointments with residents (Roper, 2019). A select group of residents have also
voiced concerns about the privacy invasion that is associated with the real-time readings as well
as about potential health effects that become apparent due to electromagnetic frequencies (Roper,
2019).
Case Example: Pemberton, British Columbia
In recent years, the Village of Pemberton has experienced both a rise in community population
and a more limited water supply capacity. Beginning in 2004, the Village began looking into
practices for reducing water consumption, specifically the practice of undergoing a community-
wide metering program (Earth Tech, 2007). In partnership with Earth Tech Incorporation, the
Village completed a cost-benefit analysis to see if a metering program would be beneficial. The
Village and Earth Tech highlighted four overarching reasons for implementing metering. The
first reason was equity, meaning that consumers were directly accountable for water usage and
only pay for what they use, initiating a financial incentive to conserve water. The second was
water efficiency and conservation, meaning that meters would aid in sustaining a water supply
for a longer period of time. The less water that the Village has to extract and distribute would
result in less environmental impacts, which would be more sustainable. The third was the
economic benefits, meaning that lower water usage would result in a reduced maximum daily
demand rate, which affects the amount of water needed for supply capacity. The fourth was
system management, meaning that meters would help the utility’s ability to detect and locate
leaks, identify faulty areas, efficiently manage flow and pressure, and locate areas of water loss
(Earth Tech, 2007).
The Village supplies water to both residential, commercial, and institutional buildings located
within the Village as well as to Pemberton North Irrigation District in the Squamish-Lillooet
Regional District. Earth Tech first looked over customer water data to detect where water losses
were occurring in the water system. They found four characterizations: distribution system leaks,
leaks on private property, unauthorized connections, and bulk meter inaccuracies (Earth Tech,
28
2007). From 2006 to August 2007, Earth Tech looked over the Village’s water production data to
estimate gross water consumption. Production information was gathered from pump run-time
records and the estimated maximum pumping capacity rate, which was established as 62.5 liters
per second in May 2007 (Earth Tech, 2007). From the pumping capacity rate, a total annual
water consumption was estimated for the village. This estimate was 786,335m³ (Earth Tech,
2007). Earth Tech projected that the metering program could result in a 10-20% reduction in
residential water usage (Earth Tech, 2007). Based upon the Village’s estimated total water
consumption of the prior year and Earth Tech’s usage reduction projections, it was then
estimated what that reduction would look like in liters. These estimations are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Estimated Water Savings from Metering
Estimated Annual Consumption
(2006)
Estimated Usage Reduction:
10%
Estimated Usage
Reduction:
20%
786,335m³ 78,643m³ 157,267m³
As mentioned by the American Water Works Association, cost of implementation for such a
program depends heavily on the installation location. Installing meters on property lines of a
building or home is favorable because the meter will reside within the boundaries of the water
system operator, instead of with the consumer (Earth Tech, 2007). Earth Tech projected these
external installations to cost $800 for meters with touchpads and $1000 for meters with radio
transmitters where internal installations will cost $275 for touchpad meters $400 for radio
transmitting meters (Earth Tech, 2007). Pemberton was looking to install a total of 949 meters,
846 residential, 98 commercial, and 5 institutional (Earth Tech, 2007). Table 6 showcases the
capital cost of the Village-wide installation. Price estimations were calculated by multiplying
Earth Tech’s projected cost for each type of meter with the number of locations that the Village
had outlined.
Table 6. Capital Costs for Metering Implementation
Radio Transmitter Meters Touchpad Meters
Internal
Installation
External
Installation
Internal
Installation
External
Installation
29
Residential
Properties
$338,400 $846,000 $232,650 $676,800
Commercial
Properties
$39,200 $98,000 $26,950 $78,400
Institutional
Properties
$2,000 $5,000 $1,375 $4,000
Total Cost $379,600 $949,000 $260,975 $759,200
30
Options
It would be in the interest for the city to consider the options below.
Option 1: Establish an Environmental Awareness and Outreach
Program
Environmental outreach has been shown to have a positive impact on awareness and
environmental literacy. In Minnesota, various cities have implemented successful environmental
awareness and outreach initiatives. In Ramsey, they implemented a water conservation toolkit
available via the city’s website. Ramsey’s involvement with the Resilient Communities Project
has also given potential approaches and ideas to the city. In Chanhassen, their WaterWise
program has increased the water conservation knowledge and engagement of residents and
businesses. In Elk River, Project Conserve and the Energy City High Five program engaged
residents and increased awareness of steps that could be taken by residents to be more energy
efficient and conserve resources. As seen through the comparative case study, environmental
awareness and outreach efforts would be beneficial in allowing residents of White Bear Lake to
know what is happening and the action steps they can take.
In the comparative case study, it showed the differences and uniqueness in approaches that each
city used to fit their city’s needs. If the City of White Bear Lake plans to implement an
environmental awareness and outreach initiative, the City should further survey and involve
residents for input on what they would desire in an initiative and explore the different approaches
in different cities. Thus, the City of White Bear Lake should similarly create an approach or
program unique and well fit to their city.
31
Option 2: Maintaining the Current Irrigation Policies of White Bear
Lake
The data collected from both the Metropolitan Council’s Efficient Water Use Report and the
White Bear Lake Water Conservation Survey suggest that the City continue to implement their
lawn watering ordinance as it stands. There is not any existing data suggesting that by White
Bear Lake enforcing their irrigation policy, water is not being conserved nor used more. In fact,
the data shows that residents practice water conservation in their homes in more ways than one.
The recommendation of the Metropolitan Council’s report is that residents should avoid watering
their lawn during the peak warmest hours of the day, which is the policy that White Bear Lake
already has in place. Without data insinuating that water loss is not being minimized through
implementation of this lawn watering ordinance, there is not any solid evidence to abandon or
alter the policy at this time.
Option 3: Implementing Smart Water Metering Infrastructure
We recommend that White Bear Lake implement Smart water meters at both the residential (long
term) and commercial (short term) level. We recommend the City work with Aclara
Technologies for this project as they have proved to be successful so far in their meter
replacement project with Minneapolis and they are familiar with the metropolitan area. Smart
meters will provide more accurate and immediate water consumption data that will help the City
be more proactive when planning for water conservation. Smart metering will allow residents to
access their household’s water consumption data electronically whenever they please. It will also
allow them to compare consumption data from past weeks and months. This enables consumers
to be more confident in their knowledge regarding water conservation.
Short Term: Mandatory Smart Metering in Selected Government Buildings
Currently in White Bear Lake, public government buildings are either not metered or have an
outdated, nonfunctioning meter. From consulting with Jennifer Morse (White Bear Lake Utilities
Clerk) and Connie Taillon (White Bear Lake Environmental Specialist), six locations were
selected as priority buildings to be metered. These buildings include: City Hall, Public Safety,
32
Public Works, Fire Station 2, Water Treatment Plant, and the Sports Center. Utilizing the
potential meter prices shown in the Pemberton, British Columbia case study, Table 7 shows an
estimated capital costs for meter implementation. Estimated prices illustrated in Table 7 were
calculated by using Earth Tech’s projection for meter installation in Pemberton with the number
of buildings the City highlighted as priority implementation locations.
Table 7. Meter Implementation Costs for Six Government Buildings
Radio Transmitter Meters Touchpad Meters
Internal
Installation
External
Installation
Internal
Installation
External
Installation
Total Cost $1,811 $4,526 $1,245 $2,621
Long Term: Residential Smart Metering
Once commercial metering has been implemented long enough to be evaluated and deemed to
successfully reduce water consumption and promote water conservation, metering efforts should
progress to residential locations. In partnership with Aclara Technologies, the City should
enforce a community-wide meter replacement project. Following the Minneapolis water meter
replacement project guidelines, consumers should be notified about why the City is
implementing meters and what benefits it will bring to them. Consumers will not be charged for
the meters, they will only be required to schedule an appointment with the City for installation
by the selected third party. Table 8 shows an estimated annual water usage reduction for the City
in gallons. Reduction percentages were calculated by taking the 2018 total consumption in
gallons (See Appendix C) and applying a 10% and 20% reduction. This usage reduction was
utilized based off of Earth Tech’s projection of total usage reduction in Table 5. Earth Tech
projections are applicable to the City because their estimates were based off of assumption that
water rates are already well established. Since the City has fixed water rates for both residential
and commercial consumers, this projection can be used as a baseline for estimated water
reduction.
33
Table 8. Estimated Water Savings from Smart Metering
White Bear Lake Total Water
Consumption (2018)
Estimated Usage
Reduction: 10%
Estimated Usage
Reduction:
20%
652,502,250 gallons 65,250,225 gallons 130,500,450 gallons
34
Conclusion
The City of White Bear Lake has undergone several changes over the past five years that the
City required a new vision for water conservation. As a result of this report, the City now has
several options that it may undertake in improving its approach to water conservation. The
options listed here are not suitable for only White Bear Lake but are suitable for a plethora of
communities looking for ways to improve water conservation. Furthermore, the options listed
here are not the only options suitable for White Bear Lake. Rather, there are more options
available for White Bear that couldn’t be explored due to time and/or resource restraints. Future
research on other options is welcomed and encouraged.
35
References
Alliance for Water Efficiency. (2019). Revenue and Consumption Factors. Metering and
Submetering. Retrieved from
https://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/resources/topic/revenue-and-consumption-
factors
Anderson, K., Borth, B., Kaufmann, G., Mahanna, K., Myers, M., & Wenner, A. (2015). 2015
sustainability report. PDF. The Chanhassen Environmental Commission. Retrieved Nov
6, 2019 from
http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/2443/SustainabilityReport2015c
ompressed?bidId=
Bjorkland, R. & Pringle, C. M. (2001, April 1). Educating our communities and ourselves about
conservation of aquatic resources through environmental outreach. Bioscience, 51(4),
279-282. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0279:EOCAOA]2.0.CO;2
Bohon, W., Robinson, S., Arrowsmith, R., & Semken, S. (2013, July 2). Building an effective
social media strategy for science programs. EOS Trans. AGU, 94(27), 237-238.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2013EO270001
Brears R. (2019, May 30). Smart Water, Smart Metering. Smart Water Magazine. Retrieved
from https://smartwatermagazine.com/blogs/robert-brears/smart-water-smart-metering
Bunnell, Q., Johnson, A., Larson, S., Linnerooth, P., Murphy, T., & Seaman, K. (2014). The City
of White Bear Lake water conservation policy report. Retrieved from the University of
Minnesota College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences:
https://www.forestry.umn.edu/sites/forestry.umn.edu/files/Group6.pdf
CERTs. (2019). Elk River provides energy education, outreach and audits with Project Conserve.
Clean Energy Resource Teams. Retrieved Nov 6, 2019 from
https://www.cleanenergyresourceteams.org/elk-river-provides-energy-education-
outreach-and-audits-project-conserve
City of Minneapolis, MN. (2019, May 13). Minneapolis Water Meter Replacement Project.
Water Treatment & Distribution Services. Retrieved November 7, 2019 from
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/publicworks/water/watermeter
36
Christianson, D., Hansen, D., Kaufmann, G., Kircher, B., Mahannah, K., Myers, M., & Wenner,
A. (2012). 2012 Chanhassen sustainability report. PDF. City of Chanhassen Parks and
Recreation. Retrieved Nov 6, 2019 from
http://chanrec.com/DocumentCenter/View/771/2012-Chanhassen-Sustainability-
Report?bidId=
Cutler, S. (2011, October). Smart Water Metering Networks: An Intelligent Investment? Water
& Waste Water International. 26. 16-19. Retrieved from
http://login.ezproxy.lib.umn.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.ezp1.lib.umn.edu/docview/916333960?accountid=14586
Earth Tech (Canada) Inc. (2007, September). Village of Pemberton Cost-Benefit Analysis for
Water Metering. Retrieved November 7, 2019 from
https://www.pemberton.ca/public/download/documents/40827
Elk River. (2017, Nov 27). Energy City High Five Program. Retrieved Nov 7, 2019 from
https://www.elkrivermn.gov/1137/Energy-City-High-Five-Program
Erickson, A. (2019, Nov 7). Personal communication via email on updates to Project Conserve
and the Energy City High Five program in Elk River.
Freshwater Society. (2013, April). Minnesota's groundwater: Is our use sustainable? Retrieved
from http://freshwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Updated-MNs-Groundwater-
Paper-lo-res.pdf
Hess, D., Vasatka, D., Benbow, W., Chappell, B., Chappell, C., Popken, R., & Butcher, K.
(2017). Sustainability report 2017. PDF. The Chanhassen Environmental Commission.
Retrieved Nov 6, 2019 from
http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/5885/2017-Sustainability-Report
Mase, A. S., Babin, N. L., Prokopy, L. S., & Genskow, K. D. (2015, Aug 15). Trust in sources of
soil and water quality information: Implications for environmental outreach and
education. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 51(6), 1656-1666.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12349
Metropolitan Council. (2019). Water conservation toolbox case study: Chanhassen. PDF.
Retrieved Nov 6, 2019 from http://chanrec.com/DocumentCenter/View/771/2012-
Chanhassen-Sustainability-Report?bidId=
37
Metropolitan Council. (2016). Efficient Water Use on Twin Cities Lawn through Assessment,
Research, and Demonstration. Retrieved October 2019 from
https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Publications-And-Resources/WATER-
SUPPLY-PLANNING/Twin-Cities-Lawn-Irrigation-System-Surveys-And-Ass.aspx
Minnesota Compass. (2019). At-a-Glance Information about White Bear Lake. Retrieved Oct 8,
2019 from www.mncompass.org/profiles/city/white-bear-lake
Minnesota GreenStep Cities. (2019). Welcome to GreenStep Cities. Retrieved Nov 7, 2019 from
https://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/
MN DNR. (2018, Oct 17). DNR analysis: Current groundwater use is sustainable but does not
affect White Bear Lake. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved from
https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/gwmp/wbl-analysis.pdf
MN DNR. (2019a). Lake level report. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved
Sept 24, 2019 from https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showlevel.html?id=82016700
MN DNR. (2019b). White Bear Lake. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved
Sept 24, 2019 from https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/gwmp/wbl/index.html
MN DNR (2019c). MSL 1912: (ft). [Water level data of White Bear Lake from 1912 to 2019].
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved from
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showlevel.html?id=82016700
MPCA. (2019). The state of groundwater. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Retrieved Sept
26, 2019 from https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/state-groundwater
New Brighton. (2019) Official Website of New Brighton Minnesota - Tap Water. Retrieved
October 2019 from https://www.newbrightonmn.gov/tap-water
Pew Research Center. (2019, June 12). Social media fact sheet. Retrieved Nov 7, 2019 from
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/
Pinkalla, R. (2019, Nov 13). Personal communication via email on WaterWise program in
Chanhassen.
Ramsey County. (2018). About Ramsey County. Retrieved Oct 9, 2019 from
https://www.ramseycounty.us/your-government/about-ramsey-county
Roper E., (2019, May 25). Minneapolis replacing aging water meters. Star Tribune. Retrieved
November 7, 2019 from http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-replacing-aging-water-
meters/510431832/
38
RCP. (2019). About us. Resilient Communities Project. Retrieved Nov 7, 2019 from
https://rcp.umn.edu/home/what-is-rcp
Roseville. (2019). Roseville Water Conservation. Retrieved October 2019 from
https://www.cityofroseville.com/2021/Water-Conservation
Syme, G. J., Nancarrow, B. E., & Seligman, C. (2000, Dec 1). The evaluation of information
campaigns to promote voluntary household water conservation. Evaluation Review 24(6),
539-578. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0193841X0002400601
Vadnais Heights. (2019). Resident’s Guide for the City of Vadnais Heights. Retrieved October
2019 from https://www.cityvadnaisheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/296/Resident-
Welcome-Guide-PDF?bidId=
White Bear Lake. (2019a). About White Bear Lake. Received Sept 25, 2019 from
https://www.whitebearlake.org/ourcommunity/page/about-white-bear-lake
White Bear Lake. (2019b). History of White Bear Lake. Received Sept 25, 2019 from
https://www.whitebearlake.org/ourcommunity/page/history-white-bear-lake
White Bear Lake. (2019c). Water Conservation in White Bear Lake. Retrieved September 2019
from https://www.whitebearlake.org/ee/page/water-conservation
Woodbury. (2016). City of Woodbury: Lawn Watering Policy. Retrieved October 2019 from
https://www.woodburymn.gov/departments/environment/watering_restrictions.php
39
Appendices .
Appendix A: Preliminary Water Conservation Survey
White Bear Lake Water Conservation Survey University of Minnesota ESPM 4041
Check one box that matches your viewpoint on the statement given:
1. I am aware of how much water (gallons) my household consumes per month
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Neutral
2. I am ___________ with my city’s water irrigation policy
Highly Satisfied Dissatisfied
Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied
Neutral
3. I am aware of the tier system used for water utility in White Bear Lake
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Neutral
4. I care about water conservation in White Bear Lake
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Neutral
5. I am confident in my knowledge about water conservation
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Neutral
6. I want to learn more about water conservation efforts in White Bear Lake
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Neutral
Additional Comments:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
40
Appendix B: Secondary Water Conservation Survey
41
42
Appendix C: Water Consumption and Precipitation Table
Year
Total
Water
(Units)
Total Water
(Gal)
Total
Charges ($)
Total
Irrigation
(Unit)
Total
Irrigation
(Gal)
Total
Charges ($)
Precipitation
Amount (In.)
Total Average
Rate Per Unit
($/Unit)
Irrigation
Average Rate
Per Unit
($/Unit)
2007 1,213,622 910,216,500 1,246,725.64 99,364 74,523,000 85,287.61 30.76 1.0273 0.8583
2008 1,077,424 808,068,000 1,130,815.63 91,080 68,310,000 78,688.31 22.84 1.0496 0.8639
2009 1,124,952 843,714,000 1,173,297.53 96,141 72,105,750 82,657.32 23.32 1.0430 0.8598
2010 1,051,410 788,557,500 1,121,162.05 76,082 57,061,500 77,427.35 37.09 1.0663 1.0177
2011 993,491 745,118,250 1,085,780.29 70,699 53,024,250 80,424.30 35.16 1.0929 1.1376
2012 1,092,721 819,540,750 1,194,898.51 78,289 58,716,750 89,255.26 29.6 1.0935 1.1401
2013 985,374 739,030,500 1,086,073.55 62,803 47,102,250 72,345.08 35.88 1.1022 1.1519
2014 889,786 667,339,500 990,225.95 52,793 39,594,750 61,291.87 34.58 1.1129 1.1610
2015 874,590 655,942,500 974,647.50 77,840 58,380,000 89,396.24 33.89 1.1144 1.1485
2016 900,552 675,414,000 1,090,466.15 79,751 59,813,250 106,812.30 41.67 1.2109 1.3393
2017 881,068 660,801,000 1,311,822.25 61,749 46,311,750 94,653.02 34.06 1.4889 1.5329
2018 870,003.02 652,502,265 1,597,071.83 53,408 40,056,000 105,256.81 34.52 1.8357 1.9708