2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

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

8. Updates to the Survey and Report
Survey topics are generally the same
Many are expanded and some are new
Q : Does the state have any regulations or policies for water utilities regarding water loss in the utility distribution system?
Q : 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Grades—Conservation & Efficiency

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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

19. 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

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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Full Report Available Online

25. 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

26. Grades—Resiliency

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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