High-density rainwater harvesting

Nick Kelley








AGEC 606
Dr. Ron Griffin
May 07, 2013
High-density rainwater harvesting 2


Introduction
Rainwater harvesting is a practice that has existed for thousands of years
15
. While this
practice has wax and waned through the centuries and societies that have used it, the current state
of climate change and increasing presence of severe droughts in many areas of the world has
prompted a new interest in rainwater harvesting (RWH) over the past couple of decades.
There are numerous sources available that discuss the various facets of RWH, from the
different systems and components to the numerous (and almost exclusively) positive
consequences of this practice. This paper intends to highlight a specific RWH scenario, referred
to as high-density rainwater harvesting (HDRWH), and the potential negative effects of such a
scenario. In this report, HDRWH is defined and given context in relation to other RWH
scenarios. Some regulations regarding RWH, specifically in the United States, are summarized
along with related incentive programs and tax rebates. The potential negative downstream effects
of HDRWH are discussed and finally, an outlook on the potential future of a HDRWH scenario
is provided.

High-Density Rainwater Harvesting
Firstly, to allow for the analysis and discussion of high-density rainwater harvesting, the
term must first be defined. Here lies the first obstacle. The exact term high-density rainwater
harvesting has never been defined (at the time of this writing). In the realm of rainwater
harvesting, it seems, terms are often only loosely defined, if ever defined at all. In performing a
cursory web search for the string high density rainwater harvesting, only two results were
found, both referencing the same document: a case study about the integrated water management
of Cabbage Tree Creek in Brisbane, Australia
10
. In this document, high-density rainwater
High-density rainwater harvesting 3


harvesting is listed twice and is never defined or even compared to anything else to give some
sort of context. Performing extra searches for the string using other search engines and databases
yielded no further results of any significance.
In order to define HDRWH, a similar term must first be evaluated. Large-scale rainwater
harvesting (LSRWH) is a term that can be commonly found in the literature and resources
regarding rainwater harvesting, but unsurprisingly, is never strictly defined. Typically, LSRWH
is used to refer to two different scenarios, one of which appears synonymous with HDRWH. The
first scenario, unrelated to HDRWH, is that of a single rainwater harvesting (RWH) system that
is considered large. Any criteria for what makes a RWH system large is never given. From the
way the term is used for this scenario, large is usually assumed to be any system that is bigger
than a residential single-home RWH system
A
. Whether this is considered by the catchment area
of the system, the storage capacity, or both, is unknown. What the threshold between a standard
residential system and a large-scale system is, again, never defined. Usually, LSRWH is used
to refer to systems installed on commercial property, given that the area and building sizes are
often larger than the average house.
The second scenario that LSRWH can refer to is that of many individual systems
installed in a specified area, usually in the context of an area with higher population density such
as a city or suburban development. In this case, the size of the individual systems is not as
important as the number of systems in the area and this is where HDRWH comes in. For this
paper, HDRWH refers to a scenario in which a high percentage of rooftops in a specified area
have RWH systems. To illustrate, compare two identical suburban neighborhoods both having
exactly 100 homes, all of which are more or less the same size and shape. Say neighborhood A
has only 10 homes with RWH systems while neighborhood B has 90 homes with RWH systems.

A
But this can bring up the question, What if you have a big house?
High-density rainwater harvesting 4


The percentage, or density, of RWH systems in these two neighborhoods would be 10% and
90%, respectively. Neighborhood B would be considered a HDRWH scenario while
neighborhood A would not.
Now HDRWH must be further defined so that one can differentiate between low-density
and high-density scenarios. Ideally, more than two categories would be used, such as very low-
density, low-density, medium-density, high-density, and very high-density, but to keep things
simple we will consider only two categories. For this paper, high-density will be considered any
area having at least 70% of its rooftops utilizing RWH systems. This value is completely
arbitrary but it provides the ability to distinguish between potential high-density and low-density
scenarios. Additionally, one further stipulation must be made. In this paper, HDRWH implies
any urban or suburban area that is also near a watercourse (or drains into one) and typically
having downstream users present on that watercourse. This last criterion is important for
assessing possible negative effects on downstream users, which will be discussed later in this
paper.
Currently, there are no cities or suburbs that fit the criteria of HDRWH set forth in this
paper. There are communities that utilize a high percentage of rooftops for RWH, but have no
downstream users or even really a downstream at all. These communities are typically found
on islands where water is usually discharged directly into the sea. These places also do not have
to contend with legal or political obstructions of RWH since rain water may be their only local
source of fresh water. The island of Bermuda, for example, relies on RWH as it has no
freshwater streams or aquifers
7
. In fact, RWH is not only encouraged in these locales, but is
often mandatory by law. These types of communities are the exception to the scenario of
HDRWH defined here.
High-density rainwater harvesting 5


Searching for known densities or percentages of buildings with RWH systems in a
particular city has given no useful results. Either these numbers are not known or they are not
well documented or publicized. Various searches of scientific literature and internet sources have
yielded no known communities with a HDRWH scenario. Such a scenario does not currently
appear to exist. However, with many states in the US offering incentives and rebates for
installing RWH systems and some cities even requiring their installation by law, coupled with
the increasing effects of climate change on regional precipitation patterns and water
consumption, it is not implausible that HDRWH will someday become a reality. Until then,
potential consequences of HDRWH discussed in this paper, and many LSRWH projects that
currently exist, are purely hypothetical but are considered possible in the event of an actual
HDRWH scenario.

Regulations
While HDRWH scenarios do not currently seem to exist, there are cities with regulations
in place that require the installation of RWH systems in new buildings. If a HDRWH scenario
ever does become a reality, it will most likely be through the enacting of regulations and laws
requiring the installation of RWH systems. These regulations will most likely be in response to
water scarcity issues, though in some areas water quality may be the driving factor.
Remaining within the US where water rights and laws vary from state to state, there are
several cities of significance that have put into place regulations requiring that new buildings
have RWH systems installed. The specifics of these regulations, similar to state-level laws, vary
from city to city. This section will summarize the regulations of Tucson, AZ, and Santa Fe, NM,
to illustrate the current trend and possible future of RWH in the US.
High-density rainwater harvesting 6


The city of Tucson, Arizona, adopted an ordinance
B
in 2008 (and enacted in 2010)
stating that new commercial projects must receive at least 50% of their irrigation water from
harvested rainwater. The first such regulation of its kind in the US, the ordinance goes on to
stipulate that eligible properties must also [] prepare a site water harvesting plan and water
budget, meter outdoor water use and use irrigation controls that respond to soil moisture
conditions at the site
3
. However, the requirement of 50% is waived during periods of drought.
New Mexico is considered to have passed some of the most progressive RWH policies and
regulations in the US
6
. Among them is the water harvesting ordinance
C
enacted in Santa Fe
County. This ordinance not only requires RWH systems be installed in new commercial projects
like the Tucson ordinance, but also includes residential projects and further specifies RWH
systems criteria. The following list, taken from the Water Conservation Projects and Programs
page of the Santa Fe County website
13
, summarizes the criteria for new residential and
commercial projects:
Residences 2,500 ft
2
of heated area or less must utilize rain barrels, cisterns, or other
catchment basins.
Residences 2,500 ft
2
of heated area and greater must install an active rainwater catchment
system comprised of cisterns
o Cisterns must be buried or partially buried.
o Cisterns must hold 1.15 gallons per ft
2
of residential heated area; this figure can
be adjusted based on landscaping, but not eliminated.
o Landscaping must be watered by a pump and drip irrigation system connected to
cisterns.

B
Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Ordinance No. 10597
C
Santa Fe County Ordinance No. 2003-6
High-density rainwater harvesting 7


For commercial properties, the criteria are similar to residences of 2,500 ft
2
of heated and
greater, requiring that an active rainwater harvesting system be installed.
Cisterns must be buried, partially buried, or enclosed within an insulated
building/structure.
Cisterns must hold 1.5 gallons per ft
2
of roofed area; this figure can be adjusted based on
landscaping but not eliminated.
Both Arizona and New Mexico use the doctrine of prior appropriations when it comes to
surface water
6
and both clearly allow RWH, even enforcing its practice in certain municipalities.
Many other states also allow the practice of RWH though currently none appear to include the
more aggressive regulations found in Tucson and Santa Fe. Such states include Illinois, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington,
among others
8
. These states are noted for having established some form of legislation, policy, or
program specifically regarding rainwater harvesting. Rainwater harvesting may be practiced
legally in other states but they may have no official laws or regulations defining or concerning
such practices. Typically, wetter states do not have significant water scarcity issues and so the
subject of rainwater harvesting may not be an important one. However, these states may have
significant water quality issues, in which rainwater harvesting can provide decreases in
downstream pollution due to reduction in stormwater runoff
9
.
One exception to the list of prior appropriations states friendly to RWH is Colorado, in which
rainwater harvesting was previously considered illegal but has recently adopted new legislation
allowing RWH under very specific circumstances. In 2009, Colorado passed two laws loosening
the restrictions on RWH. In particular, Senate Bill 09-080 allows for a residential RWH system
High-density rainwater harvesting 8


only if the residence is not connected to a domestic water system that serves more than three
single-family dwellings
6
. Additionally, this water may only be used for 1) ordinary household
purposes, 2) fire protection, 3) the watering of livestock or domestic animals, and 4) the
irrigation of up to one acre of gardens and lawns. Clearly this law is only useful for those being
supplied by well water in rural areas and is not meant for suburban or urban populations. It also
stipulates that rainwater may only be harvested from the rooftop of the residence; no other
catchment areas may be built or used.
Colorados restrictiveness regarding RWH is due to the states water laws, which essentially
considers precipitation to be already appropriated to senior rights holders as this water will
eventually contribute to stream flow in some form
6
. Maybe Colorado is being overbearing and
paranoid when it comes to the actual downstream effects of RWH, or maybe they are protecting
their water rights holders from the possible consequences of a future HDRWH scenario.

Incentives
Among the states friendly to RWH, most of them also include some form of incentive to
encourage the use this practice. These incentives are typically in the form of credits or rebates
that offer taxpayers a percentage of the cost of installing a new RWH system up to a certain
dollar amount.
Starting in 2007, the state of Arizona provides a one-time credit of 25% of the cost of a
system up to $1000
6
. There is a state budget limit of $250,000 annually for the tax credit
program and as of 2010 the state had yet to reach this limit, indicating there is still room for
growth in the RWH market in Arizona.
In Texas, rainwater harvesting equipment and supplies are exempt from sales tax
14
. At
the municipal level, the City of Austin may provide a rebate of up to $500 for residential
High-density rainwater harvesting 9


customers installing a RWH system, while commercial users may receive a rebate of up to
$40,000. In San Antonio, the San Antonio Water System will rebate up to 50% of the cost of
installing water-saving technology, including RWH systems to commercial, industrial, and
institutional users. However, these projects must remain in service for at least 10 years and water
use data from before and after installation must be provided to determine if conservation goals
are met.
The city of Portland, Oregon provides a discount of up to 100% off of on-site stormwater
management charges if the property owner manages stormwater runoff in a way that helps to
[] protect rivers, streams and groundwater from the damaging effects of stormwater runoff.
1
. This discount applies to both residential and commercial properties in which residential
properties must manage runoff from rooftops only while commercial properties must include
paved areas as well. Stormwater management techniques include disconnecting downspouts and
directing roof drainage to landscaped areas, installing soakage trenches, rain gardens, or rain
barrels
2
.
Rainwater harvesting tax credits shorten the return on investment (ROI) period, however,
this period can vary greatly depending on the size and cost of the RWH system installed, local
precipitation patterns, cost of municipal water, the efficiency of the RWH system (leaks,
evaporation rates), and the uses of the system (outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, laundry).
In a study performed in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, Spain
4
, it was found that
harvested rainwater was frequently underused in the sample systems. Initial capital costs were
usually perceived as high but were lower per household in multi-family buildings. The cost per
household for a 20 m
3
system used for landscape irrigation in a multi-family building was
estimated at about 633 ($827 US) per household, compared to 8,864 ($11,581 US) for a
High-density rainwater harvesting 10


single-family building. The low cost of water in the area also increased the theoretical payback
periods. At a price of 1.01/m
3
of municipal water (approx. $5/1000 gal), payback periods in a
single-family household were essentially unattainable, but a higher water rate of 3.22/m
3
(about
$16/1000 gal) saw payback periods from 33 to 43 years, depending on system size and assuming
a 0% discount rate
D
. It was also found that payback periods decreased if the rainwater was used
for outdoor irrigation instead of indoor uses in single-family households. As for multi-family
dwellings, shorter payback periods were possible with a higher water rate, indoor water use only,
and a discount rate of 0%, with payback periods in the range of 21 to 26 years.
Other sources, mainly RWH system suppliers, often cite shorter payback periods.
According to Ecozi, a UK provider of rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling systems, the
payback period on a residential system is about 15 years depending on initial capital cost, and
commercial systems can see returns in as little as 3 years
5
, though how these numbers were
calculated is never mentioned. They also state that RWH offers shorter payback periods than
most other sustainable technologies.

Downstream Water Quantity
One of the areas with the least amount of knowledge or research regarding the up-scaling
of RWH is that of possible negative downstream effects. Much of the publicized material
supporting RWH states only positive downstream effects such as reduced flooding and pollution
from stormwater runoff
9
. However, this material is often published by companies or
organizations that either sell RWH systems or are trying to obtain funding for RWH projects. But
in their defense, the RWH scenarios they often refer to are not large enough to cause observable

D
Domenech and Sauri mention that since RWH provides positive environmental and social benefits, choosing
a discount rate that matches the interest rate would undervalue its benefits. In their analysis, a social
discount rate of 0% was chosen as well as a more conventional rate of 4% for comparison.
High-density rainwater harvesting 11


negative downstream effects with regards to water quantity. Even hypothetical scenarios often
disregard this aspect and only focus on water savings and stormwater reduction at the harvesting
site. At the scales and densities of current RWH implementation, local watersheds do not see any
harm downstream of the where RWH occurs, at least not anything significant enough to warrant
more research on the matter. But what if a city located along a watercourse were to install RWH
systems on 75% of its rooftops? This question is central to HDRWH scenarios.
The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) conducted analyses of the potential
water savings of several hypothetical RWH densities in eight US cities: Atlanta, GA; Austin,
TX; Chicago, IL; Denver, CO; Fort Myers, FL; Kansas City, MO; Madison, WI; and
Washington, DC
9
. They modeled two scenarios looking at the volume of rainwater that could be
captured if different percentages of rooftops were utilized for RWH. The first scenario involved
capturing and using all of the first inch of rainfall from each storm event throughout a year and is
the least conservative of the two scenarios studied (the second scenario involved capturing and
using only some of the first inch of rainfall). In their model, RWH densities of 25%, 50%, and
75% were used (though the term high-density rainwater harvesting is never mentioned). In
their findings, a HDRWH scenario of 75% and capturing only the first inch of rainfall would
divert roughly anywhere from 31 to 51% of all rooftop runoff annually. Diverting one-third to
one-half of rooftop runoff would surely have an impact on downstream water quantity, and if
more than the first inch of rainfall from each storm event was captured, these percentages of
diverted rainwater would increase. And like all the other literature discussing RWH, nowhere
does the NRDC mention any potential negative impacts on downstream water quantity
E
.

E
Admittedly, some of the cities in the study do not really have any downstream users as their water drains
directly into the sea or other large water body (Lake Superior in the case of Chicago). One could argue that
anyone pumping water out of these coastal discharge zones could be considered a downstream user, but that
would be with regards to water quality, not water quantity.
High-density rainwater harvesting 12


Not only are downstream users a consideration when it comes to HDRWH, but so is the
downstream itself. Instream flow is defined generally as the amount of water flowing through a
channel over specified amount of time. Many states have adopted legislation or programs to
consider the different instream flows required to support the various uses and users of water
along a watercourse. These include drinking water supply, recreation, navigation, hydropower,
wetlands conservation, water quality, and aquatic habitat support
16
. Depending on a number of
factors and conditions, each of these uses and users (if present) require different minimum
instream flows. Typically, human water uses are balanced with ecological considerations when
determining instream flow requirements. A water user such as a city must leave enough water in
the watercourse to support instream considerations further downstream such as aquatic habitat,
recreation, navigation, water quality
F
, etc.
While Colorado may be considered restrictive when it comes to RWH, they may be
considered progressive when it comes to instream flow protection. The Colorado Water
Conservation Board was established in 1973 and is the sole entity that may hold instream flow
rights
6
, providing significant protection to instream flows, something that many other states
have only recently begun to consider. With all the importance that Colorado puts on instream
flows and ensuring that every drop of water reaches its intended users, Colorado may never see a
HDRWH scenario. That does not discount other states, however, as determining instream flow
requirements for multiple uses along a single watercourse can prove difficult, including how
those uses are prioritized (irrigation, municipal drinking water, hydropower, etc). Every
watercourse is different as are the users along that watercourse. Everyone has different priorities
and they all claim theirs to be the most important. Perhaps significant establishment and

F
Water quality is not discussed in this paper as the main focus is on water quantity. However, there are many
sources that discuss the positive effects of RWH on water quality, and the negative effects of decreased
instream flows.
High-density rainwater harvesting 13


enforcement of instream flow requirements may inhibit future RWH projects, limiting the
theoretical RWH densities that a city may be able to obtain.

Outlook
Currently there are no regulations in place that require the retrofitting of RWH systems
into preexisting buildings, even in cities as progressive as Tucson and Santa Fe. However, there
are municipalities that do require the retrofitting of other conservation technologies such as low-
flow toilets, faucets, and showerheads. This is a possible next step for cities to take on the path to
a HDRWH scenario. Santa Fe County has a Commercial Retrofit Program, established in 2005,
that requires that all businesses upgrade to low-flow plumbing fixtures
13
. The San Antonio
Water System has a similar program for commercial, industrial, and institutional users to help
them upgrade equipment and practices in order to save water
11
. The program goes beyond
plumbing fixtures to include replacing water-cooled devices with air-cooled equipment,
capturing and reusing air conditioner condensate, cooling tower modifications, industrial laundry
equipment upgrades, and eliminating water-intensive phases of industrial processes. Similarly,
the city of San Francisco also has a program that provides aid to all non-residential water users
for retrofit projects
12
. Some specific upgrades they list include cooling tower pH controllers,
water efficient ice machines, medical equipment steam sterilizers, and dry vacuum pumps. While
these latter two programs are merely incentives that provide rebates for upgrades, Santa Fe
appears to be the closest to maybe someday requiring the retrofitting of older buildings with
RWH systems.
And while some cities are currently requiring the installation of RWH systems in new
buildings, those regulations have not been in place for very long. These cities were already of a
significant size by the time these regulations were enacted and further development may be slow.
High-density rainwater harvesting 14


However, since state water plans usually use planning horizons of several decades, older
buildings will eventually be destroyed and replaced with new buildings having RWH systems.
The NRDC takes an optimistic outlook on the growth of RWH in the US. They claim that RWH
densities of 50% are achievable in most cities and that by the year 2030, about half of the
buildings in the US will have been built after the year 2000, implying that about half of the
buildings in the US will have RWH systems
9
.

Summary and Conclusions
High-density rainwater harvesting is currently a hypothetical scenario, though it that may
become a reality in the decades to come. For now, the possible negative impacts of HDRWH are
purely speculative.
Many states in the US currently allow and even encourage the practice of RWH. Some
cities, such as Tucson and Santa Fe, go so far as to require RWH systems be installed in new
buildings. These kinds of regulations, often enacted in the face of growing water scarcity, are
most likely the beginnings to a future HDRWH scenario.
As water scarcity issues (and water quality in some cases) continue to grow, states, cities,
and individual water users will continue to adapt and shift in order to meet freshwater demands.
These adaptations will include infrastructural changes as well as political and social changes.
Among these changes is the perception of rainwater harvesting and its potential benefits in water
conservation. Rainwater harvesting continues to struggle for acceptance in some areas while it is
required in others. The potential future for increased popularity and massive up-scaling of
rainwater harvesting seems possible in some areas, though such scenarios may have unforeseen
consequences. Currently, there is no thorough research or modeling regarding potential negative
High-density rainwater harvesting 15


consequences of high-density rainwater harvesting, especially on downstream users. This report
concludes that the possibility of such a scenario should be considered more likely than it
currently is, and that more research should be performed in effort to curtail possible future
complications.


High-density rainwater harvesting 16


References
1. City of Portland [Internet]. Portland (OR); c2013. Stormwater discount program; 2013 [cited
2013 May 02]; [about 2 screens]. Available from:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/41976
2. City of Portland [Internet]. Portland (OR); c2013. Technical assistance; 2013 [cited 2013
May 02]; [about 3 screens]. Available from:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/390681
3. City of Tucson [Internet]. Tucson (AZ); c2012. Sustainability in government - water
resources; 2013 [cited 2013 May 04]; [about 2 screens]. Available from:
http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/ocsd/sustainability-rainwater
4. Domnech L, Sauri D. A comparative appraisal of the use of rainwater harvesting in single
and multi-family buildings of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (Spain): social experience,
drinking water savings and economic costs. J Clean Prod. 2011;19:598-608.
5. Ecozi [Internet]. Warwick (UK): Ecozi Ltd. Rainwater harvesting advice; [cited 2013 May
04]; [about 7 screens]. Available from:
http://www.ecozi.com/advice/rainwaterharvesting.html
6. Gaston TL. Rainwater harvesting in the southwestern United States [research paper].
7. Government of Bermuda [Internet]. Water conservation; [cited 2013 May 03]; [about 2
screens]. Available from: http://www.bermuda-
ebusiness.bm/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=736&&activetab=TabCTRL_DropDownTa
bsGovernment1&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true
8. National Conference of State Legislatures [Internet]. National Conference of State
Legislatures; c2013. State rainwater harvesting statues, programs and legislation; 2012 [cited
High-density rainwater harvesting 17


2013 May 04]; [about 9 screens]. Available from: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/env-
res/rainwater-harvesting.aspx#co
9. National Resources Defense Council. Capturing rainwater from rooftops: an efficient water
resource management strategy that increases supply and reduces pollution. New York City
(NY): National Resources Defense Council; 2011 Nov.
10. National Water Commission (AU). Integrated resource planning for urban water - Cabbage
Tree Creek. Case study. Brisbane (AU): Marsden Jacob Associates (AU); 2011 Mar.
Waterlines Report Series No 41, Section 6.
11. San Antonio Water System [Internet]. San Antonio (TX); c2013. Large-scale retrofit rebate
program; [cited 2013 May 04]. Available from:
http://www.saws.org/Conservation/commercial/retrofit.cfm
12. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission [Internet]. San Francisco (CA); c2013. Grant
assistance for water efficient equipment retrofits; [cited 2013 May 04]; [about 2 screens] .
Available from: http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=512
13. Santa Fe County [Internet]. Santa Fe (NM); c2013. Projects and programs; [cited 2013 May
04]. Available from:
http://www.santafecountynm.gov/public_works/water_conservation/projects_and_programs
14. Texas Water Development Board (US). The Texas manual on rainwater harvesting. Third
edition. Austin (TX): Texas Water Development Board (US); 2005.
15. Texas Water Resources Institute. Rainwater harvesting: a new water source. Newsletter.
College Station (TX); 1997. Volume 3, Number 2. Available from:
http://twri.tamu.edu/publications/archive/
High-density rainwater harvesting 18


16. University of North Carolina [Internet]. Chapel Hill (NC): UNC-Chapel Hill; c2010.
Instream flows; [cited 2013 May 04]. Available from:
http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/Water/index.php/Instream_flow