What is the Water Efficiency and Conservation State Scorecard? An assessment of state-level laws related to water efficiency and conservation for all 50 states Result of a 16 question survey (with sub-questions) A database of state laws A collaborative effort of AWE and ELI

Goal of the State Scorecard Generate awareness and interest in state laws as a means to promote water conservation and efficiency Highlight strong laws that can be foundational for other states Identify opportunities Motivate states through regular updates Create friendly competition among states

History of the State Scorecard AWE has been working to identify and raise awareness around state-level laws that encourage water conservation and efficiency for nearly a decade 2009 survey 2012 State Scorecard Report 2017 State Scorecard Report

Why a Five-Year Update? Five years is enough time to realize legal changes (good or bad) Maintain healthy competition among states to improve and/or update laws Expanding resource offerings If AWE maintains regular updates, there can be encouragement before the next update

Primary Topics Covered State Agency(s) in Charge of Water Conservation Standards for fixtures and appliances Toilets Showerheads Urinals PRSVs Clothes Washers Water loss Conservation as a condition to permitting Drought planning Conservation planning

Primary Topics Covered Financial assistance Technical assistance Metering Volumetric billing Conservation pricing

Updates to the Survey and Report Survey topics are generally the same Many are expanded and some are new Q8 - 2012: Does the state have any regulations or policies for water utilities regarding water loss in the utility distribution system? Q8 - 2017: Also asks about application of the law, acceptable leakage, audit requirements, leak detection and correction etc. New! Climate Change Resiliency section States received a separate grade Utah got 8 points (C+), average was 7 points but there were 22 D’s Out of 28 points for resiliency

Grading Expanded questions = More points Project team tried to maintain question weighting in line with 2012 report No review of program implementation, only laws on the books Points were awarded only for enforceable laws currently in place 40 points to 75

Grades - Conservation & Efficiency In the water conservation and efficiency survey, the 50 states earned an average of 19 points (C grade) 2 “A” grades (California and Texas) 17 “B” grades 14 “C” grades 17 “D” grades

Grades—Conservation & Efficiency

Comparing 2012 and 2017 Grades The conservation and efficiency grades for 27 states went up, while the grades for 6 states went down

Findings Most grades that improved increased by one step There have been notable developments in states with low scores Progress also continues to be made by the top-scoring states The bar continues to be raised by leading states

Findings Plumbing Fixture and Appliance Standards A few states made improvements in this category Drought Planning Requirements Only 19 states require suppliers to create and/or implement drought plans Of the 6 states that made strides in this area, 4 were in the Southeast

Findings Funding The number of states offering financial support for urban water conservation projects (from sources other than State Revolving Funds) decreased from 22 states in 2012 to 18 states in 2017

Findings Metering and Billing 31 states have some kind of requirement for metering connections 11 states have volumetric billing requirements, 3 more than in 2012 8 states require water suppliers to implement rate structures that send a conservation signal

Utah’s Results 26 points (average was 19) “B-” (up from a C+ in 2012) Ranked in top 16 out of 50 Tied with CT and NC Progress made in Water loss Volumetric Billing and Rates

Utah’s Results Full or Nearly-Full Points Awarded Water Conservation/Efficiency Plans Financial Assistance Technical Assistance (got a shout out in the highlights section) Metering Volumetric Billing Conservation Rate Structures

Utah’s Results Opportunities Standards for fixtures and appliances Drought planning Water loss Conservation a condition of a water right permit

6 Steps to Improving Scores Identify areas of your state’s low scoring in the Scorecard report Match areas of low scores with your own state needs Where appropriate, develop legislative or regulatory amendments similar to those states who scored highly in those areas Consult with AWE for example language

6 Steps to Improving Scores Find a legislative or regulatory advocate for championing your changes Encourage water efficiency stakeholder support for the changes among utility, plumbing, irrigation, and environmental stakeholders Don’t give up! It often takes several tries (ask Colorado!) Next AWE State Scorecard revision will be in 2022

Full Report Available Online

Grading—Resiliency In the climate resiliency survey, the 50 states earned an average of 7 points 2 “A” grades (California and Oregon) 17 “B” grades 9 “C” grades 22 “D” grades

Grades—Resiliency

Findings—Resiliency Points were awarded to resiliency plans and laws if their effect was to mitigate the impacts on water resources of conditions associated with climate change Even if the word “climate” never appeared in the language, a plan or law could still fall within the Scorecard’s consideration Despite the broad spectrum of plans that could be considered, only roughly half of the states have plans that received credit

Findings—Resiliency Plan strategies vary significantly from vague recommendations to specific objectives Only 6 states require regular updates (every five years or fewer) Only 3 states have guidance or provisions in place requiring action on the part of water or wastewater systems to plan for climate change related drought, flooding, and system stability and capacity

Findings—Combined Only 11 states received some combination of “A”s and “B”s for both conservation and efficiency laws and climate resiliency plans and/or laws: California Colorado Connecticut Massachusetts Minnesota New Hampshire North Carolina Oregon Rhode Island Washington Wisconsin