CHICAGO, IL COLLABORATIVE
WATER PETAL
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGESM A Visionary Path to a Regenerative Future
AUGUST 2018
CHICAGO, IL COLLABORATIVE
THE CHICAGO COLLABORATIVE Advocating for Living Buildings that are regenerative in design and performance in Chicago, the local Collaborative aims to inspire cities around the world to do the same. The Chicago Collaborative aspires to play a key role in the transformation of our built environment that protects and respects our planet for future generations. Through collaborative efforts and events, the Chicago Collaborative seeks to advocate, educate and support local initiatives of the Living Buidling Challenge.
THE INTERNATIONAL LIVING FUTURE INSTITUTE The International Living Future Institute is a non-profit organization offering green building and infrastructure solutions at every scale—from small renovations to neighborhoods or whole cities. The mission of the Institute is to lead and support the transformation toward communities that are socially just, culturally rich and ecologically restorative. The Institute administers the Living Building Challenge the built environment’s most rigorous and ambitious performance standard. Cover Photo Credit: Unsplash
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2 INTRODUCTION 3 PETAL REQUIREMENTS
4
NATURAL RESOURCES
5
NET POSITIVE WATER TECHNOLOGIES
9
CALCULATING FOR NET POSITIVE
19
ECONOMIC FACTORS
21
POLITICAL FACTORS
25
SOCIAL & CULTURAL FACTORS
32
CONCLUSION 34 RESOURCES 35
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Living Building Challenge Collaborative Chicago would like to thank Collaborative research volunteers who worked together to produce this Water Petal Implementation Guide specifically for the Chicago region. The Collaborative would like to acknowledge the following contributors, without whom this document would not be possible: Matthew McGrane - Farr Associates Sachin Anand - dbHMS Tom Price - Conservation Design Forum Bethany Olson - Research Intern Stock photos are used with a Creative Commons license. Sources for all other images are cited in the images description or as part of the list of ‘Resource’ documents on page 35.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 2
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
INTRODUCTION
Since early in its history, the City of Chicago has been a vanguard of innovative approaches to water use and policy. The city was founded at a confluence of rivers, on the shores of Lake Michigan. In 1848, the Illinois and Michigan Canal was built, creating a critical connection between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River, spurring the city’s growth as a national economic center. In 1900, because of concerns for public health and water quality, the flow of the Chicago River was reversed. As a consequence of this bold action, the creation of Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal was named the ‘Civil Engineering Monument of the Millennium’. In 1922, the Cal-Sag Channel was completed, connecting the Little Calumet River to the Sanitary and Ship Canal, allowing high-volume shipping traffic to bypass downtown Chicago and connect directly to the Mississippi River. Lastly, started in the 1970s, the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (also known as the Deep Tunnel Project, or TARP) is currently one of the largest and most ambitious stormwater management infrastructure projects ever undertaken. TARP aims to reduce flooding in the Chicago metro area and mitigate the harmful impact of stormwater entering Lake Michigan during major storm events. Clearly, Chicago is quick to act in order to protect and capitalize upon its water resources. Chicago’s spirit and this ambition closely mirrors the optimistic vision of the Living Building Challenge (LBC) and its Imperatives. Specifically, with its vision for Net Positive Water, the LBC is on the leading edge in the push for innovative water strategies and policy worldwide. Now, it is again Chicago’s turn to take the lead. While water resources are currently abundant in the Chicago region, it does not mean they will continue to be in the future. With additional stresses on water resources from pollution, climate change, and population growth, the Great Lakes are even more critical to maintain as a vital resource to the future of the city, region, country, and contintent. Moreover, while necessary to protect public health in the last century, relying solely on large centralized municipal systems is now considered to make communities less resilient overall should these systems ever fail. Accordingly, the time to act is now. This guide is meant as a primer on water use and management in the Chicago region, describing resources and best practices, and pointing towards ways to navigate the economic, political, and social obstacles that go along with pursuing the Net Positive Water strategies advocated by the Living Building Challenge. With widespread adoption of water conservation strategies both locally and nationally, there are great examples of success that can be held up to assuage the potential fears of building owners, staff, and users. Such case studies can be found on the ILFI website. Although there are no Living or LBC Water Petal certified buildings in Chicago at the time of this publication, there are many best-in-class local examples of each of the components of a Net Positive Water system strategy that can be used as representations of what is already possible. If these strategies used across multiple projects are aggregated into a single project, the goal of Net Positive Water would be well within reach.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 3
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
PETAL REQUIREMENTS The following describes the Water Petal Requirements as outlined in the Living Building Challenge Water Petal Handbook v 3.1 May 2017. Project teams are encouraged to review the most up to date information on the International Living Future Institute’s website. • INTENT: To meet all water demands within the carrying capacity of the site and mimic natural hydrological conditions, using appropriately sized and climate-specific water management systems that treat, infiltrate, or reuse all water resources on site. • REQUIREMENT: Project water use and release must work in harmony with the natural water flows of the site and its surroundings. One hundred percent of the project’s water needs must be supplied by captured precipitation or other natural closed loop water systems, and/ or by recycling used project water, and must be purified as needed without the use of chemicals. All stormwater and water discharge, including grey and black water, must be treated on site and managed through reuse, a closed loop system, or infiltration. Excess stormwater can be released onto adjacent sites under certain conditions. • DOCUMENTATION: Water use must be documented over a 12-month performance period, with calculations required for actual water supply and use. To properly document water use, projects MUST have adequate metering equipment. RESOURCES & WATER USE The imperative is simple in concept; projects must balance available water resources with a project’s intended water use. To achieve Net Positive Water, properly treated and stored water resources must meet the water used during the occupation and operations of the building. As a quick gloassry of terms and uses that this document will return to in subequent pages: WATER RESOURCES Stormwater - Untreated rainwater that has fallen on the earth, and is available for collection, storage, and reuse. Groundwater - Water sourced from underground aquifers using localized wells Greywater - Water that has been used in plumbing fixtures (other than toilets or kitchen sinks); it is possible to use greywater for non-potable water uses or potable uses with proper treatment Blackwater - Water that has been used by flush toilets, urinals, and kitchen sinks that must be treated before being reused WATER USES • Uses where non-potable water may be utilized: Site Irrigation - Water used for landscaping Process Water - Water used in the operation of appliances and equipment Fire Sprinklers - Water used for fire protection Toilets & Lavatory - Water used for sanitation • Uses where only potable water may be utilized : Bath/Showers - Water used for occupant bathing. Kitchen or Janitor’s Sinks - Water used for food preparation, cleaning. WATER PETAL GUIDE | 4
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
NATURAL RESOURCES Before tackling the ‘nuts-and-bolts’ of pursuing a net positive water strategy, it is first important to understand the current context of water use and management in the Chicago region. By understanding the context, it will be easier to navigate the obstacles and take advantage of the opportunities which currently exist on the path to net positive. CHICAGO REGIONAL WATERSHED For the sake of this resource guide, the Chicago region is defined as the Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) including the 6 counties surrounding the city proper (Cook, Lake, DuPage, Kane, McHenry, and Will counties) - also referred to as Chicagoland. Within this region, the watershed consists of Lake Michigan; the Chicago, Calumet, Fox, Des Plaines, and Kankakee Rivers; and deep bedrock CambrianOrdovician aquifers. Chicagoland obtains its drinking water from Lake Michigan, inland surface waters (Fox and Kankakee Rivers), as well as ground water sources in more rural areas within the 6-county regional boundary. Municipal water for the City of Chicago is managed by the Chicago Department of Water Management and is treated by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Chicago (MWRD). The Chicagoland watersheds include 7 water reclamation plants, 554 miles of intercepting sewers with 430 controlled connections, 23 remote pumping stations, 109.4 miles of TARP with approximately 151 controlled connections, 5 Side Stream Elevated Pool Aeration (SEPA) Stations, and 32 retention reservoirs. The maintenance and operation of the District’s collection and treatment facilities are vast and expensive. The factors included in current utility operations costs are maintenance of infrastructure, construction and implementation of new infrastructural improvements, staffing, the processing of waste water, delivery of potable water, and the energy consumption to treat and deliver water to municipal consumer. These factors contribute to the pricing of potable water and sewage and stormwater treatment paid by the consumer.
Chicago 6 -county Metropolitan Region Watershed
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 5
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
REGIONAL SEWER & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The City of Chicago and much of Cook County are served by a combined sewer system where sewage and stormwater run in the same sewer to the wastewater treatment plant. In the remaining areas of the region, separate storm and sanitary sewer systems predominate. However, there are pockets of combined sewer systems in the older portions of some communities. There are 533 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Facilities in the 6 watersheds immediately surrounding Chicago. Businesses that discharge more than 1,500 gallons of wastewater (water from toilet and hand cleaning) must have NPDES permits. In addition, NPDES permits must be carried by businesses that generate water from any process industry: manufacturing, trade, or business. The definition also includes any solid, liquid, or gaseous waste; and all other substances whose discharge would cause water pollution or a violation of the effluent or water quality standards of the State. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) are charged with monitoring and auditing of NPDES permits and general regional wastewater and sewer treatment. The wastewater plants discharge to various streams and rivers around the region. None of the regional wastewater plants drain directly to Lake Michigan. However, under extreme circumstances, the gates at Lake Michigan are opened to allow the Chicago River to flow into Lake Michigan to reduce flooding. In areas of combined sewers, stormwater goes to the treatment plant until the capacity of the system is overloaded, resulting in combined sewer overflows (CSOs). CSOs discharge to the various river systems. In areas with separate sewer and stormwater systems, stormwater drains to various rivers, stream, lakes, wetlands, farm fields, etc. Currently, there is no comprehensive record of every storm sewer discharge. However, many communities have GIS mapping of their storm sewer systems. Under their NPDES permit, communities are required to have a record of all their larger storm sewer discharges. Separate storm sewer systems are the responsibility of the various municipalities and counties (for unincorporated areas). However, in many areas outside of Chicago city limits, various homeowners associations manage their own sewer and stormwater management systems. There are little to no records on the direct costs for managing or maintaining community storm sewer systems. There is even less information on the indirect costs such as flooding, water quality degradation, and stream bank erosion, making the economic case for decentralized water management harder to quantify.
Combined Sewer Diagram “CSO diagram US EPA” by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. “Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs.” Document No. EPA 833-R-04-001.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 6
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
REGIONAL RAINWATER RESOURCES Average annual precipitation is approximately 36 inches and occurs primarily as rainfall and snowfall. On average, the monthly precipitation is fairly uniform over the year. However, the occurrence of snowfall is generally limited to December through February or March. For reference, given a hypothetical 25,000 square feet (sf) of area, 1 inch in rainfall would equate to 15,600 gallons. Given an average annual precipitation of 36 inches, the same 25,000 sf area could potentially collect 561,600 gallons of rainwater per year. The amount of storage that would be required depends on both the supply and demand. The greater the demand and the smaller the supply, the more storage is needed to achieve a desired level of reliability in meeting the demand. The type of demand also matters. Irrigation demand that is greatest when there has been little rain; it will require the greatest amount of storage per gallon of demand.
“2013 Annual Report” by Debra Shore, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. http://www.debrashore.org/pdf/shore2013report.pdf
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER RESOURCES In addition to rainwater resources, per LBC requirements, water may be sourced from groundwater captured on-site. In Chicagoland, groundwater is a widely accepted water source for rural areas outside of the major cities (Chicago & suburbs, Aurora, Elgin, Joliet). Per the Prairie Research Institute Illinois State Water Survey, a large portion of the 6-county area contains major sand and gravel aquifers, as well as major shallow bedrock aquifers (<500 feet underground). These aquifers can be counted on to provide between 50,000 and 200,000 gallons of water per day per square mile. Overall, groundwater resources should be carefully considered along with rainwater resources in determining a site’s overall water carrying capacity. WATER PETAL GUIDE | 7
Lostant Keithsburg
Altona
Rio
North Henderson
Seaton
STARK La Fayette
Oneida
Alexis Henderson
Little York
41°
Camp Grove
Toulon
Victoria
Wataga
Buckingham Herscher
Campus
Lacon
Toluca La Rose
Hopewell
Williamsfield
Knoxville
Emington
Cornell
Rutland
Clifton
Minonk
Dunlap
Brimfield
St. Anne
Chebanse
Cabery
LIVINGSTON
Washburn
Chillicothe
Kirkwood
Biggsville
Kankakee
Reddick
Odell
Princeville
Galesburg
Monmouth
Dwight Wenona Varna
Sparland
KNOX Oquawka
Sun River Terrace
Wilmington
Magnolia
Henry
MARSHALL
Wyoming
Pontiac
Flanagan
Kempton
Beaverville Martinton
Ashkum
Saunemin
Benson
Donovan
Cullom
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018 PEORIA
St. Augustine
Peoria Farmington
Creve Coeur
Glasford
FULTON
Bushnell
Colchester
Cuba
East Dubuque
90°
Orangeville
Galena
MCHENRY
LAKE
JO DAVIESS
Illinois Community Water Supply Wells
Lena
Roscoe
40° 40°Dakota
Machesney Park Loves Park
Hanover
Savanna
Chadwick
42°
PIKE
Polo
Thomson
< 50,000
Milledgeville
Dixon
Morrison
Colona
Atkinson
HENRY
Orion Reynolds
Deep25Bedrock Wells 12.5Buda 50Bureau
0
Cambridge
Neponset
New Windsor
Alpha
North Henderson
Seneca
Marseilles
Grand Ridge
STARK La Fayette
Alhambra
Greenville
Alexis
Henderson
Little York
Toulon
Victoria
Wyoming
Lacon
Manteno
CLAY
Williamsfield
Knoxville
Kirkwood
Biggsville
Dunlap
Brimfield Maquon
WARREN
Stronghurst
Elmwood Yates City St. Augustine
HENDERSON
London Mills
Fairview Prairie City
La Harpe
Norris
Good Hope
Canton
Case Study
FULTON
Bushnell
Cuba
Macomb
HANCOCK
Colchester
Bryant
Smithfield
MCDONOUGH Table Grove Industry
Ipava
Waynesville
Easton
Astoria
Lima
Mason City
Rushville
Well Locations Greenview
Petersburg
Mt. Sterling
ADAMS
Quincy
Chandlerville
Beardstown
Mound Station
40° 40°
CASS
BROWN
Virginia
Tallula
Arenzville
Versailles
MORGAN
Perry Kinderhook Hull
Barry
Aquifers Illinois State Geological Survey 1994. Scale 1:500,000.
SANGAMON
Blue Mound
SCOTT
Edinburg
Roodhouse Farmersville
White Hall
GREENE
CALHOUN Kampsville
Eldred
Wenona
MACOUPIN
Carrollton
Ogden
Nokomis
Indianola
Ivesdale
Broadlands
Bement
Allerton
Longview
Pesotum
Macon
Newman
Brussels
JERSEY Grafton
Vandalia
BOND
Bethalto
Hamel
East Alton Wood River
Sand and Gravel Wells Hartford
Shallow Bedrock Wells
37° 89°
Scale 1:750,000 (1 inch 0
Dalton City
Metcalf
DOUGLAS
Arthur
Lovington
Brocton
EDGAR
Hindsboro
MOULTRIE
Paris
Redmon
Vermilion
Kansas
Ashmore
COLES
Findlay
Charleston Westfield
In keeping with the FPDCC’s ecological conservation mission, the Rolling Knolls Pavilion is completely off-grid from municipal water supply and stormwater infrastructure. 100% of the water used in the building is generated from an on-site well and treated to potable standards, with all waste treated by a septic 39° field located in the former fairway. Stormwater from parking lots, roofs, and landscape areas is directed to a dry creek landscape feature where it is directed away from the building to be infiltrated on-site, offsetting the building’s water use and recharging the local groundwater aquifer and adjacent riparian wetland. Since no water is reused directly, the system does not require special consideration from local health or building jurisdictions outside of the initial on-site UV treatment of the water retrieved from the well. Windsor
Marshall
Strasburg
Martinsville
Stewardson
CLARK
Casey
Toledo
Sigel
Greenup
Montrose
Hutsonville
CRAWFORD
Willow Hill
Newton
Flat Rock
Birds
Olney
CLAY
Troy
MARION
CLINTON
Caseyville
Salem
Carlyle
Aviston
Germantown Bartelso
LAWRENCE
Calhoun
Iuka
St. Francisville
Cisne
Belleville
ST. CLAIR
Mount Erie
Allendale
WASHINGTON
St. Libory
Waterloo
Nashville
WAYNE
WABASH
Bone Gap
Jeffersonville
Fayetteville
Lawrenceville
Claremont
RICHLAND
St. Jacob
Dupo
is has abundant buried groundwater reserves that supply millions of gallons of dwater per day for public, agricultural, and industrial/commercial use. These ers are unevenly distributed throughout the state. Fortunately, surface water or a ination of groundwater and surface water is available to meet required needs in cases where groundwater resources are marginal.
Palestine
Robinson
Louisville
Collinsville
Major Deep Bedrock Aquifers (> 500 feet)
JASPER
Iola
Maryville
Major Shallow Bedrock Aquifers (< 500 feet)
Dieterich
EFFINGHAM
Ste. Marie
Greenville
Edwardsville Glen Carbon
Deep Bedrock Wells
Alhambra
MADISON
Roxana
Major Sand and Gravel Aquifers
r aquifers are capable of yielding at least 70 gallons per minute to wells and cover st 50 square miles. Areas delineated indicate three types of major aquifers: sand ravel, shallow bedrock (major units within 500 feet of ground surface), and deep ck (units greater than 500 feet from ground surface). Unlike the boundaries of her aquifers, the southern boundary of the deep bedrock as delineated across central is is an estimated 2,500 milligrams per liter total dissolved solids concentration dary, not a physical boundary. Colored symbols represent the aquifer in which the s completed: sand and gravel, shallow bedrock, or deep bedrock. However, not all munity wells are located within a major aquifer. Wells classified as deep bedrock
Cairo
EDWARDS
Fairfield
Albion
JEFFERSON
Mount Carmel
Bellmont
Keensburg
Mt Vernon
MONROE
Grayville
Maeystown Red Bud
Ruma
HAMILTON Carmi
PERRY RANDOLPH Steeleville
38°
Percy
Cutler
McLeansboro
Pinckneyville
WHITE
FRANKLIN
38° Norris City
Benton
90°
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 8
New Haven
Chester
GALLATIN JACKSON
Murphysboro
Ridgway
WILLIAMSON Marion
SALINE Harrisburg
Shawneetown
Old
88°
5
10
20
Chrisman
Hammond
FAYETTE
County Seats
map depicts community water supply wells in relation to the major aquifer systems nois. A community water supply is defined as "a public water system which serves st 15 service connections used by residents or regularly serves at least 25 residents least 60 days per year." Only community wells classified as active in the ISWS c-Industrial-Commercial Survey database for the Year 2003 are shown.
Ridge Farm
Hume
Effingham
39°
H. Allen Wehrman GIS: Kathleen J. Bro
Teutopolis
Fillmore
Communities
Brookport
The Rolling Knolls Pavilion, located in Elgin, IL, transforms a former golf course clubhouse into a new welcoming, wayfinding, and event space for the new Forest Preserve of Cook County nature site.
Beecher City
Hillsboro
University of Illino http://w
Metropolis
Mound City
37°
Camargo
Tuscola
Atwood
CUMBERLAND
Kane
Sidell
MASSAC
Villa Grove
Herrick
Witt
Jerseyville
Batchtown
Joppa
40°
Oreana
Cowden
MONTGOMERY
Tamms
Thebes
Illinois Departme http://d
Karnak
PULASKI
Fairmount
PIATT
Tower Hill
Carlinville
Illinois Water http://www.sw
ALEXANDER
Fithian
Homer
Mattoon
Ohlman
Raymond
Golconda
Olmsted
Shelbyville
Harvel
Chesterfield
Hardin
Urbana
Monticello
Cerro Gordo
Derek Wi Illinois Sta http://ww 217
Elizabethtown Rosiclare
Belknap
Champaign
SHELBY
Morrisonville
Waggoner
91°
Vienna
Sadorus
Forsyth
POPE
JOHNSON
Danville
Cisco
CHRISTIAN
Palmer
Hillview
HARDIN
UNION Jonesboro
Mahomet
White Heath
Argenta
88°
VERMILION
Royal
CHAMPAIGN
Sullivan
Nebo
Cobden Alvin
Thomasboro
De Land
Weldon
Assumption
Taylorville
Pearl
Potomac
Moweaqua
Milton
Pleasant Hill
Old Shawneetown
Rossville
Rantoul
Mansfield
Shawneetown
Harrisburg
Marion
Hoopeston
Grand Tower
Gifford
Bethany
Stonington
Winchester
Pittsfield
Paxton Rankin
SALINE
WILLIAMSON
Murphysboro
Elliott
Fisher
Farmer City
Ridgway
Wellington
ON-SITE WELL & SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Warrensburg
Mount Auburn
South Jacksonville
Griggsville
PIKE New Canton
JACKSON Loda
Saybrook
DeWitt
Illinois State Water Survey, Illinois Water Inventory Program 1978 - 2003. Elkhart MENARD Maroa Mt Pulaski data for year 2003. Public Industrial-Commercial-Survey (PICS) selected Scale 1:24,000. Latham Athens
Jacksonville
Bluffs
GALLATIN
Cissna Park
FORD Gibson City
Arrowsmith
Riverton Communities Niantic Information Decatur Dawson Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Illinois Geographic System, MACON 1996. Point Springfield locations are approximately the center of the communities. Scale 1:500,000.
Plainville
Baylis
Anchor
New Haven
Buckley
Melvin
90°
Pleasant Plains
Meredosia
Payson
Sibley
Kenney
LOGAN
Middletown Broadwell
38° Norris City
Benton
Milford
Chester
Bellflower
MODIFIED GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM THEMES
Oakford
WHITE
FRANKLIN
IROQUOIS
Thawville
Roberts
Clinton
Lincoln
Browning
Mendon
McLeansboro
Woodland
Strawn
Ludlow
Wapella
Carmi
Sheldon
Pinckneyville
Percy
Onarga Steeleville
38°
DEWITT
New Holland
SCHUYLER
Ursa
HAMILTON PERRY Watseka
Gilman CrescentCutler City
Fairbury
Colfax
Keensburg
Grayville
Donovan
RANDOLPH
Forrest
Atlanta Lambert Conformal Conic NAD27Hartsburg projection based on standard parallels 30° and 45°.
Albion
Mt Vernon
Danforth
Piper City
Forest Preserve of Cook County Elgin, IL
MASON
Havana
Fairfield
Mount Carmel Bellmont
Martinton
Red Bud
Chatsworth
EDWARDS
JEFFERSON
Beaverville
Ashkum
Ruma
Delavan This map was funded in part by the Environmental Protection Trust Fund andDowns the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. TheArmington technical content of the map is the responsibility McLean Le Roy of the authors. The user assumes all liability for the interpretation and use of the map. San Jose Heyworth Emden
Plymouth
Kempton
Maeystown
41°
Nashville
Cullom
Chenoa
Allendale
WABASH
Bone Gap
Jeffersonville
WAYNE
St. WASHINGTON Anne
Chebanse St. Libory
Clifton
Saunemin
Eureka
Washington
Fayetteville Herscher
Cabery
Rolling Knolls Pavilion
Lewistown
Carthage
Pontiac
Mount Erie
Kankakee
Waterloo
Benson
Peoria of yielding at least 70 gallons per minute to wells and cover Major aquifers are East capable at least 50 square miles. indicate three types of major aquifers: sand Lexington CreveAreas Coeur delineated Deer Creek Congerville and gravel, shallow North bedrock of ground surface), and deep Pekin (major units within 500 feet Goodfield bedrockMapleton (units greater than 500 feet Unlike the boundaries of Mortonfrom ground surface). Carlock Glasford Towanda TAZEWELL Cooksville the other aquifers, the southern boundary of the deep bedrock as delineated across central Pekin Mackinaw Danvers Tremont Kingston Illinois is an estimated 2,500 milligrams per liter total dissolved solidsNormal concentration Mines boundary, not a physical boundary. Colored symbols represent the aquifer in which the MCLEAN well is completed: sand and gravel, shallow bedrock, or deep bedrock. However, not all South Pekin community wells are located within a major Minier aquifer.Stanford Wells classified Bloomington as deep bedrock Ellsworth Manito Hopedale may also draw water from the shallow bedrock aquifers. Green Valley
Farmington
Avon
St. Francisville
Cisne
Belleville
MONROE
LIVINGSTON
This map depicts community water supply wells in relation to the major aquifer systems WOODFORD in Illinois. A community water supply is defined as "aRoanoke public water system which serves Metamora at least 15 service connections used by residents or regularly serves at least 25 residents Germantown Hills for PEORIA at least 60Peoria daysHeights per year." Only community wells classified as active in the ISWS Public-Industrial-Commercial Survey database for the Year are shown. Gridley Secor 2003 El Paso Peoria
Iuka
Momence
Bartelso
Sun River Terrace
Emington
Cornell
LAWRENCE
Calhoun
Salem
Carlyle
Germantown KANKAKEE
ST. CLAIR
Lawrence
Claremont
RICHLAND
Aviston
Campus
Odell
Toluca
Olney
MARION
CLINTON
Buckingham
La Rose groundwater per day for Hopewell public, agricultural, and industrial/commercial use. These Rutland aquifersPrinceville are unevenly distributed throughout the state. Fortunately, surface water or a combination of groundwater and surface water is available to meet required needs in Washburn Minonk most cases where groundwater Chillicothe resources are marginal. Flanagan
Galesburg
Monmouth
Birds
Beecher
Peotone
© Illinois State Water Survey
Caseyville
Reddick
Varna
Sparland
Wataga
KNOX
Oquawka
Flat Rock
Crete
St. GIS Jacob -- Kathleen J. Brown 2/17/04
Dupo
Dwight
Newton
Monee
Troy
Collinsville
Wenona
Palestine
Robinson
Ste. Marie
“ISWS Publications Series: Maps” by the Illinois State Water SurveyMARSHALL Prairie Research Institute. Jan 2011 http://www.isws.illinois.edu/docs/ 41° Illinois has abundant buried groundwater reserves that supply millions of gallons of maps.aspFile:CSO_diagram_US_EPA.jpg Oneida
CRAWFORD Willow Hill
Louisville
Maryville
South Wilmington
JASPER
Iola
Manhattan
Elwood
Gardner
Ransom
Lostant
Magnolia
Henry
Camp Grove
Hamel
WILL
Hutsonville Dieterich
EFFINGHAM
Vandalia
Sauk
Forest 2204 Griffith Dr. Village FrankfortIL 61820 BOND Champaign, Richton www.sws.uiuc.edu Steger Park
Braidwood
Braceville
Kinsman Leonore
Greenup Montrose
Effingham
Edwardsville
Glen Carbon
Diamond
Mazon
Tonica
Casey
Toledo
Sigel
Beecher City
Fillmore
MADISON
Channahon
Roxana
Carbon Hill
GRUNDY
Standard
McNabb
Stewardson
Herrick
Witt
Mokena Arbury Hills New Lenox Illinois State Water Survey Park
Shorewood Rockdale
Bethalto
East Alton Wood River
Naplate
Oglesby Cedar Point
PUTNAM Major Deep Bedrock Aquifers (> 500 feet)
Altona
Rio
Grafton
Morris
Granville Major Shallow Bedrock Aquifers (< 500 feet)
Galva
Bradford
Seaton
Peru
Spring Valley
Hennepin
Bishop Hill
Woodhull
MERCER
75
Junction
Tiskilwa
Major Sand and Gravel Aquifers
Kewanee
Cowden
Joliet
Hartford
Miles 100
CLARK
Teutopolis
Ottawa North Utica
Martinsville
CUMBERLAND
FAYETTE
LASALLE
La Salle
Marshall
Strasburg
Lockport
Minooka
Seatonville De Pue
Princeton
Charleston Westfield
Tower Hill
Ohlman
Hillsboro
Romeoville
Plainfield
Newark Brussels
Verm
Ashmore
Windsor
Nokomis
MONTGOMERY Lemont
Yorkville
Dover
Wyanet
Andover
Mendota
Sheffield
Matherville
39°
Mattoon
SHELBY
Carlinville
JERSEY KENDALL
Batchtown
Paris
Redmon Kansas
Jerseyville
Leland
EDGAR
COLES
Shelbyville
Wenona
COOK
Raymond
Montgomery
Arlington
Cherry BUREAU Sand and Gravel 1:730,000 Wells Malden Ladd 1 inch equals 11.521465 miles Shallow Bedrock Wells Dalzell
Mineral
Annawan
Sherrard
Viola
La Moille
County Seats Manlius
Geneseo
ROCK ISLAND
Plano
Sandwich
Somonauk
Van Orin
Communities
Carbon Cliff Coal Valley
Hardin
Earlville
Silvis
Chesterfield
Sugar Grove
Sublette
Ohio
Walnut
MACOUPIN
Oswego
West Brooklyn
counties
Tampico
Port Byron
MOULTRIE
Findlay
Morrisonville
Harvel
Aurora
Hinckley
Paw Paw
Chrisman Metcalf Brocton
Waggoner
DUPAGE
Warrenville
Carrollton
Ridge Farm
Hume
Hindsboro
Sullivan
Chicago
Wheaton
Batavia
Kampsville
Newman
DOUGLAS
Arthur
Lovington Bethany
Assumption
CHRISTIAN
Palmer Farmersville
W. Chicago Geneva
Kane
Compton
Glendale Heights
St. Charles White Hall Elburn
Eldred
42°
Taylorville
South Elgin
GREENE
Shabbona
Amboy
Dalton City
Moweaqua
Waterman
LEE
1,000,000 - 3,000,000 Harmon
Prophetstown
Erie
Cordova
Milan
Lee
Atwood
Macon
Stonington
HillviewPark
CALHOUN
Camargo
Tuscola
Hammond
Roodhouse
Maple
Kalb
Cortland
Sidell
Allerton
Villa Grove
Edinburg
DEKALB
91°
3,000,000 - 5,000,000
Andalusia
PearlDe Nebo Malta
300,001 - 400,000
Rock Falls Lyndon
Rock Island
Pleasant Hill
Steward
Franklin Grove
200,001 - 300,000
Sterling
Albany
WILL
Creston
Rochelle
Ashton
150,001 - 200,000
Broadlands Longview
Pesotum
MACON
Blue Mound
Bartlett
KANE
100,000 - 150,000 WHITESIDE
Fulton
Indianola Ivesdale
Bement
Decatur
Burlington
Sycamore
Hillcrest
Fairmount
PIATT Cerro Gordo
Elgin
Milton
Fithian
Mount Auburn
Winchester
Pittsfield
Other Sources Preferred
COOK
SCOTT Genoa
New Canton
Springfield
SANGAMON
Barrington
Carpentersville
Jacksonville Gilberts
Hampshire
Argenta Oreana
Forsyth
Niantic
Dawson
Ogden Homer
Riverton
Algonquin
South
Oregon
Rapids City
Keithsburg
MORGAN
Kingston
Kirkland
Urbana
Sadorus
Latham
Warrensburg
Tower Lakes Cary
Jacksonville
Griggsville
Valley
Island Lake
Huntley Bluffs
HullStillman
Forreston Estimated Potential Yield Byron of Mt Carroll Lanark Sand and Gravel Aquifers OGLE CARROLL Mount Morris (gallons per day per square mile)
Mt Pulaski
Waukegan
Tallula Hainesville
Pleasant Plains
Danvil Champaign
Monticello
Cisco
Maroa
Wauconda LAKE
Crystal Lake Lakewood
Union
Perry
91°
Aledo
Meredosia
Marengo
Belvidere
Baylis
Morristown Barry Davis Junction
Kinderhook
Leaf River
DUPAGE
Joy
Cherry Valley
Athens
Lakemoor
Mahomet De Land White Heath
Elkhart
VERMILION
Royal
CHAMPAIGN
DeWitt
Clinton
Petersburg
Virginia
Alvin
Thomasboro
Mansfield
Kenney
LOGAN
Middletown Broadwell
MENARD
Fox Lake
Woodstock
Arenzville
Farmer City
DEWITT
New Holland
Lindenhurst
Chandlerville
Rossville Potomac
Rantoul Gifford
Weldon
McHenry
CASS
MCHENRY
Versailles
Plainville
Shannon
KANE
New Boston
Grove
Rockford
Payson
German Valley
Wonder Lake
Beardstown
BROWN
BOONE Winnebago
Pearl City
Harvard
Hoopeston
Rankin
Fisher
Wapella
Lincoln
Poplar Mt. Sterling
WINNEBAGO ADAMS
Quincy
Pecatonica Freeport
Waynesville
Oakford Greenview
Capron Mound Station
STEPHENSON
Stockton
Elizabeth
Durand
Davis
Rock City Cedarville
Wellington
Loda
Paxton
Elliott
Bellflower
Antioch
Richmond Hebron
Rockton
FORD Gibson City
Saybrook
Le Roy
Heyworth
Mason City
Browning
Rushville
South Beloit Mendon
Ursa
Cissna Park
Atlanta
Hartsburg
88°
Astoria
Winslow
Warren
Buckley
Melvin
Ludlow
McLean Emden
MASON
SCHUYLER
Apple River
Anchor
Ellsworth
Downs
Armington San Jose
Easton
Lima
Scales Mound
Colfax
Arrowsmith
Bloomington
Delavan
Ipava
Havana
89°
Cooksville
Normal
Stanford
Minier
Hopedale
Green Valley
Lewistown Table Grove
Plymouth
Towanda
MCLEAN
Manito
Illinois Community Water Supply Wells Industry
Milford Roberts Sibley
Carlock Danvers
South Pekin
Bryant
IROQUOIS
Strawn
Congerville
Mackinaw
Tremont
Woodland
Onarga
Fairbury Thawville
Goodfield
Morton
TAZEWELL Pekin
Kingston Mines
Smithfield
MCDONOUGH
Carthage
Estimated Potential Yield of Sand & Gravel Aquifers Map Illinois State Water Survey
Mapleton
Canton
Macomb
HANCOCK
Chenoa
Gridley
El Paso
Crescent City
Lexington
Deer Creek
North Pekin
Norris
Good Hope
Secor
Eureka
Washington
Sheldo
Watseka
Gilman
Piper City
Forrest
East Peoria
Fairview Prairie City
La Harpe
Chatsworth
Germantown Hills
Peoria Heights
London Mills Avon
Roanoke
Metamora
Elmwood
Yates City
HENDERSON
Danforth
WOODFORD
Maquon
WARREN
Stronghurst
MAP SE
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
NET POSITIVE WATER TECHNOLOGIES With a basic overall understanding of the Chicago region’s water use and management patterns, coupled with information regarding the available rain and groundwater resources, it is now important to consider the current best-in-class technologies available to meet the net positive water supply and demand requirements. First, it is important for project teams to understand the typical water use intensity (WUI) of their project’s program type. It is then important for the project team to take steps to decrease the intensity of this water use demand using current best-in-class appliances and fixtures. Lastly, project teams must seek out water reuse technologies that can take advantage of on-site water resources to zero-out a project’s overall water balance.
How does indoor water use vary among buildings?
How does in business act
There is a wide variation in water use among buildings in Portfolio Manager. Total water use and water use intensity (WUI) in gallons per square foot vary greatly based on the type of building. As expected, the buildings in which people live as well as work, such as Senior Care, Hotels, Hospitals, Multifamily Housing, and Residence Halls have the highest WUI.
WUI offers an easy types of buildings. H individual type it is measures of busine variation in indoor w the context of their median Hospital use
TYPICAL WATER USE PER BUILDING TYPE
Different building typologies require different intensities of water use, depending on the differing patterns of occupation and operation per building type. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Energy Star® Data Trends database shows WUI for commercial and institutional entities based on gallons per square foot of interior space per year (gal/ sf/yr). Not surprisingly, buildings with high occupant intensity and continuous hours of operation (residences or hospitals for example) have a much higher WUI than buildings with limited staffing and hours of operation such as retail buildings or warehouses. High WUI building types include senior care facilities (60 gal/sf/yr), hotels (53 gal/sf/yr), hospitals (50 gal/sf/yr), and multi-family housing (42 gal/sf/yr). Low WUI building types include warehouses (<5 gal/sf/yr), retail (8 gal/sf/yr), and K-12 schools (10 gal/sf/yr). An understanding of the typical WUI per project type and size will give designers a ballpark estimate of whether net positive water may be feasible given the project’s available water resources.
Median Water Use Intensity
70 60
50 40 30
20 10 0
Number of Buildings
Water Use intensity (gal/ft2)
Median Water Use Intensity
50 40 30
“Energy Star Water Use Tracking Data Trends” by the US EPA. Oct 2012 http://www. energystar.gov/ia/ business/downloads/ datatrends/DataTrends_ Water_20121002. pdf?2003-40fb
20 10
0
s
Each individual building type displays a range of WUI values.WATER PETAL GUIDE 1,200 This variation may result from differences in business activity, 1,000
| 9
P 1
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
HOSPITAL & RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPOLOGIES Hospital and residential occupancy types have the greatest WUI because the number of fixture uses per occupant is significantly higher due to the duration of anticipated occupancy. In these types of buildings, it is not unreasonable for occupants to be in the building 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Below, see the anticipated number of fixture uses per occupant per day for residential projects. TOILET USES LAVATORY USES SHOWER USES KITCHEN SINK USES
5 water closet uses per day (No urinal use) 5 (Note typical residential sinks have a much longer duration than a typical commercial restroom lavatory) 1 (8 minutes typical duration) 4 (60 sec duration each)
It is worth noting that these types of occupancies typically will not have urinals, meaning they cannot take advantage of significant water use reduction from waterless urinals for a significant percentage of male toilet uses. In addition, there are types of equipment and appliances, including dishwashers and washing machines, that are exclusive to these program types that must be accounted for in a project’s overall water use calculation. COMMERCIAL TYPOLOGIES Commercial water use varies greatly relative to program type. Again, this is directly attributable to the number of occupants and the building’s typical hours of operation. Unlike residential or hospital uses, commercial buildings often have transient occupant loads and limited hours and days of operation. Accordingly, the anticipated number of fixture uses in a commercial building is a fraction of residential uses, dramatically impacting a project’s overall WUI. Unlike a hospital or residential building, an office building is likely to only contain occupants for 10-12 hours a day, and operate 250 days a year on average. Not surprisingly, per the EPA’s findings, a typical office can anticipate a WUI of 12 gal/ sf/yr, which is roughly 30% of the WUI of a typical residential project. In addition, these types of projects do not need to anticipate significant water use due to showering or food preparation. The one outlier to this rule-of-thumb are food service buildings (restaurants) which have an anticipated WUI of 220 gal/sf/yr due to the water required for cooking and cleaning for high-intensity food preparation. The anticipated number of fixture uses per occupant for commercial projects is as follows: EMPLOYEE (FTE)
VISITORS
RETAIL CUSTOMER
TOILET USES
3 female/1 male
0.5 female/0.1 male
0.2 female/0.1 male
URINAL USES
0 female/2 male
0 female/0.4 male
0 female/0.1 male
LAVATORY USES
3
0.5
0.2
SHOWER USES
0.1
0
0
KITCHEN SINK USES
1 (15 second duration)
0
0
Depending on the intended program use, process loads from appliances and mechanical equipment will also need to be taken into account in terms of the project’s overall water budget.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 10
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
BEST IN CLASS APPLIANCES & FIXTURES To the benefit of project’s pursuing high performance water reduction strategies, low and ultra- low-flow fixtures are now somewhat ubiquitous in the marketplace. Accordingly, there are many great choices for high performing fixtures that are easy to source, especially within Chicagoland. TOILETS Current best-in-class low-flow toilets and flush valves are typically 1.1 gallons per flush (gal/flush). These toilets represent a 30% water use reduction from the industry standard baseline. These types of fixtures can be easily sourced from major fixture manufacturers, including Sloan, Zurn, TOTO and American Standard. Dual-flush toilets are also readily available on the marketplace. These fixtures contain separate flush valves for solid and liquid waste. A solid waste flush will typically use 1.11.6 gal/flush, while a liquid waste flush uses 0.8 gal/flush. Combining the savings from solid and liquid half-flushes, dual-flush toilets can reduce water use by about 40% over an industry standard baseline fixture. For the optimal use of both low-flow and dual flush toilets, the flush valve and toilet need to match and be capable of low-flow operations. Although there are many options in terms of valves, it is recommended that valves be automatic and hardwired so as to avoid the cost and maintenance associated with battery replacement. Composting toilets, at 0.05 gal/flush, are available on the marketplace and represent the current best practice relative to water use reduction. Composting toilet systems work by separating liquid and solid waste and processing on-site waste. Composting toilets control the moisture content of waste products and circulate oxygen to foster appropriate bacteria to break down solid waste. In addition, unlike traditional toilets, composting toilets rely on negative pressure venting systems to remove odors. Compostable waste products must be processed on-site, with the intent that composting toilets are not attached to the municipal waste stream. Accordingly, these fixtures require regular maintenance and the appropriate capacity for on-site waste storage. Consequently, building owners must have a clear understanding of what is required to keep this fixture in the best working condition for its useful life. The use of composting toilets in high intensity use types, such as multifamily residential, should be thoroughly evaluated to ensure the project can accommodate the increased space needed for infrastructure and that operations staff are aware of the increased time to manage these systems.
“Schematic of Composting Chamber” Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., Lüthi, C., Reymond, Ph., Zurbrügg, C. - Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies - (2nd Revised Edition). Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Duebendorf, Switzerland December
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 11
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
URINALS Similar to standard toilets, low-flow urinals are also readily available on the market from most major fixture manufacturers including Sloan, Zurn, TOTO and American Standard. Current best-in-class low-flow urinals require 0.125 gal/flush, representing a 75% reduction from industry standard urinals, and 92% reduction from a typical water closet. In addition, zero-flush urinals are also available on the market, but similar to composting toilets, these fixtures require regular monitoring and maintenance to perform at optimal levels. This requires a commitment from the building owner that these types of fixtures will be properly maintained to ensure proper performance. As noted previously, the ability to use urinals versus typical water closets in residential/hospital buildings represents a significant opportunity for overall reductions in water use intensity. SHOWERS Code compliant showerheads typically use 2.5 gallons per minute, with industry standard fixtures available that use 2.2 or 2.0 gallons per minute. Current best-in-class shower heads from manufacturers including Moen and Symmons can provide a flow-rate of 1.25 gallons per minute (gal/min). In addition to the proper valves, these fixtures require an aerator to achieve this ultra-low-flow rate. JANITOR’S SINKS Janitor’s sinks and daily uses are all based on the building’s overall maintenance and operations plans. The City of Chicago requires a faucet with an elevated vacuum breaker. Unlike other fixtures where there are multiple satisfactory options, in Chicago, the standard janitor sink fixture is a Chicago Faucet 911-CP with a standard flow rate of 2.0 gal/min. The strict adherence to this specific fixture is a point for future advocacy in order to provide a wider range of higher-efficiency options. APPLIANCES Although relatively minor in terms of the overall WUI of a building, specification of highperformance appliances such as dishwashers and washing machines can be critical to a project’s overall net positive water goals. Current best practice is to use ENERGY STAR certified appliances. For washing machines, a full-sized ENERGY STAR machine uses an average of 13 gallons per load, saving 43% over the 23 gallons used by a standard machine. As an added bonus, ENERGY STAR qualified washing machines extract more water during the spin cycle, providing further energy savings when using a clothes dryer. ENERGY STAR washing machines are available from manufacturers such as Samsung, LG and GE. Similarly, while the water use per cycle of a dishwasher varies depending on duration and size of load, ENERGY STAR dishwashers can save 15% more water than a standard model. ENERGY STAR dishwashers are available from manufacturers such as Kenmore, KitchenAid, and Bosch. For more information on ENERGY STAR products see: https:// www.energystar.gov/products.
Photo courtesy of Farr Associates
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 12
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
BEST IN CLASS INFRASTRUCTURE
While high-efficiency fixtures can reduce the overall water use demand of a project, highperformance water management infrastructure is necessary to optimize the available water supply to meet this demand. These infrastructure strategies are intended to maximize the efficiency of available on-site natural resources, as well as effectively manage and repurpose water for multiple uses once it enters the system. Both capture and reuse strategies are required to meet the net positive water goals of the Living Building Challenge. (Note: Discussion of the code implications for each of these systems follows in the section on Political Factors on page 25.) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES The Living Building Challenge 3.1 Imperative I-05 Net Positive Water requires that all on-site stormwater must be either reused or infiltrated within the project boundary. Accordingly, stormwater management infrastructure strategies that promote retention and infiltration are critical to meeting the requirements of the imperative.
Case Study
Johnson Controls Glendale, WI
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The renovation of the Glendale campus of Johnson Controls features the largest concentration of LEED Platinum buildings on one site in the world. The 33-acre site design featured the historic preservation of the conference center, renovation of two buildings, and the design of two building additions. Parking lots all feature porous pavers that allow rainwater to be collected in landscape amenity features, absorbed, and naturally filtered on-site. The site design features a 32,000 cistern buried underground for the collection of rainwater from the building’s green roofs for reuse in the campus’s greywater system. Through the use of high-efficiency plumbing fixtures and rainwater harvesting, the campus’s water usage has been reduced by 595,000 gallons a year.
Photo courtesy of Johnson Controls
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 13
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
BIORETENTION SYSTEMS Bioretention systems go by several names, including bioswales, bioinfiltration systems, and rain gardens. These names generally refer to the same type of feature with minor variations in the design. Bioretention systems are composed of a surface of engineered soil, typically underlain by a gravel storage layer with or without an underdrain. The engineered soils have relatively high permeability to allow runoff water to pass through the surface, yet sufficient organic content and soil to provide a growing medium for plant material. Bioretention systems can be installed in a variety of contexts including parking lot islands, street planters, street swales, building planters, and residential rain gardens. Often, residential rain gardens with relatively little drainage area are constructed without a gravel storage layer and underdrain. The performance of bioretention systems depends on the drainage area, sub-grade soils, and storage volumes in the surface depression and the gravel drainage layer. With drainage areas in the range of 10:1 and storage equal to approximately 1.5 inches of runoff over the drainage area, bioretention systems can reduce annual runoff volumes by 35% and reduce peak flows by up to 80% over low permeability clay soils. When constructed on higher permeability soils, runoff retention can approach 100%. In addition to the runoff volume reduction benefits, properly designed bioretention systems can provide significant water quality, habitat, and beautification benefits. GREEN ROOFS In many ways, green roofs are very thin and lightweight bioretention systems. Like bioretention systems, they have a soil layer and a drainage layer. Unlike bioretention systems, green roofs typically only receive direct rainfall and do not receive significant stormwater from adjacent areas. Depending on the thickness of the growing media and the type of drainage system, green roofs can be ultra-lightweight, extensive, semi-intensive, or intensive. The saturated weight of lightweight extensive green roof systems is in the range of 15 to 20 pounds per square foot (lb/sf). Semi-intensive systems weigh up to 40 lb/sf, and full intensive rooftop gardens can weigh much more. The runoff reduction performance of green roofs varies greatly with the thickness of the growing media and type of drainage. In addition to the runoff volume reduction benefits, green roofs provide significant habitat and beautification benefits. In Chicago, a minimum of 50% of a projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total roof area is required to have a green roof in order to participate in the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Green Permit Program.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 14
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
PERMEABLE PAVING Permeable pavement systems can be constructed with several types of material, but the common trait is a pavement surface that allows rainwater runoff to pass through it rather than off it. For streets and daily use parking lots, the most applicable systems are constructed using interlocking concrete pavers, porous concrete, or porous asphalt. Beneath the pavement surface is a layer of open-graded stone that serves as the structural base as well as temporary storage of rainwater runoff. The temporarily stored rainfall runoff infiltrates into the sub-grade and/or slowly drains into the storm system via underdrains. The need for an underdrain depends on the sub-grade soils and the volume of runoff to be managed. For typical permeable paving systems constructed on low permeability clay soils that do not receive excessive volumes of off-site runoff, annual runoff volumes can be reduced 50% to 70% and peak flow rates can be attenuated 80% to 98%. With higher permeability sub-grade soils, runoff retention can reach 100%. In addition to runoff reduction benefits, permeable pavement systems can provide significant water quality benefits including reductions in thermal impacts and loading of sediments, chloride loads, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons. To be effective, the void spaces in permeable paving must be regularly cleaned out in order for surface water to continue to infiltrate. Building owners should be aware that on-going maintenance is required to ensure performance. RAINWATER HARVESTING Cisterns and other large vessels can be used to capture treated stormwater and roof runoff for non-potable water uses or potable water uses where allowed by local jurisdictions. Although rainwater harvesting cisterns and stormwater detention facilities are both designed to temporarily store stormwater runoff, the two systems have competing goals. The goal for a rainwater harvesting system is to always have water available for the intended use within the building while the goal for a stormwater detention facility is to always be empty so the storage is available to detain the next storm event. For these reasons, water harvesting cistern storage cannot be used to meet stormwater detention requirements in most jurisdictions. However, smart control systems as described later in this section can often be used to optimize the storage for both uses. In addition, separate strategies for rooftop rain capture and general site stormwater management can be employed depending on anticipated water use needs of the building and the intensity of precipitation events. Depending on the architect and owner’s preference, cisterns can become design features that are prominently displayed within a project. August 2011
VENTILATION 1
START
RAINWATER CATCHMENT (ROOF)
2
VENTILATION
MUNICIPAL MAKE-UP WATER
FILTER/ DIVERSION -Vortex -Solenoid -First flush
AIR GAP
Indoor Use
3 WATER STORAGE Holding Tank
4
6
FILTER
DAY TANK
8
FINISH
“Rainwater Harvesting System Diagram” Water Reuse Handbook. Public Building Commission of Chicago. August 2011. http://www.pbcchicago. com/pdf/WaterReuse. pdf
7 BOOSTER PUMP
OVERFLOW DRAIN
FINISH
Outdoor Use (Irrigation System)
Public Building Commission o
Water Reu Tools and Strategies: Rainwater Harvesting
Sample Rainwater Harvesting System Diagram.
5 PURIFICATION
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 15
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATORS There are also systems on the market that provide on-site separation and treatment of stormwater pollutants. Hydrodynamic Separators (HDS) separate and treat stormwater by running collected stormwater through a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;swirl concentratorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; which promotes gravitational separation of solids, which settle on the chamber floor. The swirl chamber is able to remove fine particulate down to 50 microns in size. After exiting the swirl chamber, a baffle wall traps hydrocarbons and other floating items. The water then moves to a flow control chamber where the capacity and flow is determined by project -specific requirements. The HDS systems can be used for inlet and outlet protection, stormwater quality control, and pretreatment for on-site filtration and bioretention. The solids collected in the swirl and floatable chambers need to be cleaned out on a regular basis to maintain systems performance.
Vortechs Hydrodynamic Separator. Contech Engineered Solutions www.contech.com
SMART CONTROL SYSTEMS Smart control systems combine stormwater storage systems with electronic controls that open and close valves to control the release of water from storage. Using smart control systems, the same storage facility can be used for water harvesting and stormwater detention. Smart controls can also be used to provide delay in the release of stormwater until well after a storm event is over. The delay reduces the load on combined sewer system reservoirs and the potential for CSOs.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 16
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
WATER REUSE STRATEGIES If water is to be used for purposes that may include human contact (such as washing or in toilets) it must be purified until it is safe to reuse. Water reuse purification systems can use a combination of natural and mechanical means such as UV filtration, reverse osmosis, and biofilters to remove pathogens. Purified water may be stored on-site for a longer duration because bacteria growth is minimized by the filtration process. Storage tanks for water reuse systems often contain 2 sensors: (1) to alert when tank level is high and further water is not needed, and (2) when tank levels are low and need to supplemented. The best-in-class program types for efficient water reuse are buildings with a large number of shower uses including dormitories, hotels, recreation centers, and certain commercial buildings. These building types are able to realize significant water use savings using a greywater system because the water used for showering, which is one of the highest intensity water uses, can be captured and reused, effectively zeroing out the water use of other water demand fixtures such as toilets. GREYWATER RECYCLING
August 2011
Greywater is water that has been used in plumbing fixtures such as baths, showers, and sinks. Greywater treatment systems require an on-site storage tank, either below grade or vertical inside or outside of the building, as well as a number of filters, valves, and pumps to circulate water through the system. Greywater may be repurposed for non-potable water uses such as surface or sub-surface irrigation without treatment, or potable use with sufficient treatment as the jurisdiction allows. Greywater used for irrigation should not be contaminated by non-degradable chemicals such as artificial soaps, detergents, bleaches or salts, as these compounds inhibit seed germination and degrade soils. In nonpurification systems, water should not be stored for more than 24 hours before use due to the fact that bacteria can quickly propagate in a non-filtered system, limiting the overall capacity of the system. VENTILATION OVERFLOW TO SEWER
1
START
GREYWATER SOURCE
2 INITIAL FILTER
3 FILTER
MUNICIPAL MAKE-UP WATER DOSING LOOP 4 PURIFICATION SYSTEM
TREATED NON-POTABLE WATER TO WATER CLOSETS & URINALS
AIR GAP 5 STORAGE TANK
OVERFLOW DRAIN
7
FINISH
6 BOOSTER PUMP
REQUIRED SIGNAGE
“Greywater Harvesting System Diagram” Water Reuse Handbook. Public Building Commission of Chicago. August 2011. http://www.pbcchicago. com/pdf/WaterReuse. pdf
PIPE COLORED/ LABELED AS NON-POTABLE
LEGEND
Blackwater systems take wastewater from fixtures that produce organic wastes (toilets and kitchen sinks) and process this water for reuse in toilet flushing or irrigation. There are two principle blackwater systems, aeration-based and wetland-based systems. Aeration systems use accelerated aerobic and anaerobic decomposition to remove bacteria and particles from blackwater. These systems typically include the following components:
Water Reuse Handbook Tools and Strategies: Greywater System Design
Public Building Commission of Chicago : 23
Sample Greywater System Diagram. BLACKWATER SYSTEMS
Potable Water Greywater Sanitary Treated Water
• SEPTIC TANK for anaerobic bacteria to settle • AERATION CHAMBER where air is injected into the chamber causing the tank to churn both waste and bacteria WATER PETAL GUIDE | 17
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
• SLUDGE SETTLING CHAMBER for separation and settlement of solid waste and water • PURIFICATION CHAMBER for UV sterilization, chlorination, or ultra-filtration of water prior to it being reintroduced into the system Wetland Based Blackwater systems, such as Living Machines, rely on natural processes to breakdown waste and filter blackwater. Components of this type of system include: • ANAEROBIC SETTLING TANK to remove large solids from blackwater • BIOFILTER to reduce odors and initially filter blackwater • SERIES OF AEROBIC TANKS containing a variety or algae, organisms, hydroponic plants, etc. to help process and remove fine particles and unwanted bacteria • PURIFICATION CHAMBER utilizing UV sterilization, chlorination, or ultra-filtration of water prior to it being reintroduced into the system Note, while there are septic and aeration-based systems allowed in rural areas, to date there are currently no blackwater systems intended for water reuse in a building successfully implemented in the Chicago metro region.
Case Study Yannell House Chicago, IL DOMESTIC GREYWATER Yannell House, completed in 2009, was the first home in the Midwest designed to be Net-Zero Energy and LEED Platinum standards. The owner wanted to create a demonstration to show residential domestic greywater’s feasibility in the city. The original design included both rainwater and washing machine water reused for toilet flushing and irrigation. However, concerns from Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) about the linkage of the rainwater harvesting and greywater systems led to the two being subsequently separated. Washing machine water became the only source for water reuse for toilet flushing, requiring the addition of an agitator to the system per IDPH review. Rainwater harvested from the butterfly roof was then integrated as a separate system used solely for irrigation. Per requirements from the Committee of Standards and Tests, the owner committed to a maintenance agreement including changing of filters, refilling chlorine tablets, and replacing UV bulbs. At the time, the components of these parallel systems were designed from scratch featuring multiple components and manufacturers. Subsequent advances in comprehensive domestic greywater and rainwater systems design mean that the custom elements of the Yannell design can now easily be sourced off the shelf. These advanced systems will still require IDPH review and approval.
Photo courtesy of Farr Associates
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 18
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
CALCULATING FOR NET POSITIVE To confirm if it is possible to reach a net positive water goal, project teams must: 1. Calculate the project’s anticipated water use: • IRRIGATION - Calculate site irrigation demand based on plant species, irrigation schedules, and equipment. (Note: To meet net positive, native and drought resistant plants are highly recommended.) • DOMESTIC WATER - Multiply anticipated fixture uses per occupancy by the flush and flow rates of specified fixtures (See sections 3.1 through 3.3.) • PROCESS WATER - Include estimates for process water required for building equipment based on manufacturer’s product data. • FIRE SUPPRESSION - Calculate required volume for fire suppression per building code and local fire jurisdiction. 2. Calculate the project’s anticipated water resources • RAINWATER 1) Determine anticipated average precipitation/year (inches) utilizing local weather resources (www.weather.gov, or www.usclimatedata.com are valuable resources.) 2) Multiply by 0.95 to account for reasonable annual precipitation variation to determine adjusted precipitation/yr 3) Collection area (sf) x adjusted precipitation/year (inches) x 12 = Cubic feet 4) Multiply by 7.48 to convert cubic feet to gallons 5) Multiply by run-off coefficient (0.95) and anticipated efficiency of collection system (0.90) to determine Total Rainwater Resources 6) Determine applicable storage tank size based on seasonal variability. • GROUNDWATER 1) Consult local hydrological survey information to determine annual capacity of a ground well. 2) Determine applicable storage tank size. 3) Verify that the project will not over tax the groundwater source and an equal amount of water is being infiltrated through site landscaping and permeable surfaces to recharge the aquifer. • GREYWATER AND BLACKWATER REUSE SYSTEMS 1) Calculate the efficiency of fixtures contributing to greywater and blackwater systems per system specifications. • CONDENSATE 1) Consider reuse of condensate from mechanical equipment. If water resources exceed anticipated water use, (assuming collection areas and storage tank sizing are reasonable) it is possible for the project to achieve net positive water use goals.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 19
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
“Water Supply and Use Table” Living Building Challenge 3.1 Water Petal Handbook International Living Future Institute. May 2017.
Unlike other sustainable building standards which allow prescriptive modeling to verify certification, to document compliance with LBC Imperative I-05 Net Positive Water, project teams must be able to verify that the actual amount of water used by a project during a 12-month performance period is less than or equal to applicable supply sources. Accordingly, projects are required to submit a ‘Water Supply and Use Table’ tracking all water system inputs and outputs over the course of a full calendar year. To provide accurate numbers for each of the required inputs and outputs, adequate metering of equipment is required for both the supply and actual fixture use. In addition, to prove LBC compliance, project teams must provide stormwater calculations by the project engineer that demonstrate that the project works with natural water flows, based on a minimum 10-year storm event.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 20
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
ECONOMIC FACTORS From the examination of the available natural resources and the examples of highperformance water technologies outlined above, it is clear that the resources currently exist to make Net Positive Water a feasible goal for the Chicago region. However, widespread implementation of these strategies has been slow. The subsequent sections of this guide will address the current obstacles and challenges to implementing these strategies, and provide some guidance as to how to navigate these obstacles. The first set of challenges are associated with making the economic case for this approach to water use and management. COST OF WATER USE One of the largest impediments to the implementation of high-performance water strategies in the Chicago region is that any cost premiums associated with equipment and construction are difficult to offset because the current cost of water is very low. Based on actual utility rates collected from 2010-2015 among the nation’s 30 largest cities, Chicago has the 4th lowest water rates overall. In 2015, using a monthly bill based on a household of four using 100 gallons per day, Chicago’s average price of water and sewer rates were $91. This cost is a fraction of the highest costs nationally, such as Atlanta at $326 per month and Seattle at $310 per month. Not surprisingly, the cities with the largest costs for water often are cities that are investing heavily in water infrastructure due to resource scarcity or increased demand based on population growth. The city of Santa Fe, for example, recently invested $187 million on a pipeline to connect to the Rio Grande River, resulting in increased water rates for its citizens. Since natural resources including Lake Michigan, multiple rivers, and groundwater aquifers are abundant in the Chicago region, there currently is no premium associated with water sourcing. Also working to Chicago’s disadvantage is that municipal utilities do not currently charge a typical household or business for costs associated with stormwater management. Elsewhere in the country in cities such as Detroit, Philadelphia, and Denver, fees for stormwater management represent a significant percentage of overall water costs. Without a penalty for excessive stormwater discharge, there is no financial incentive for individuals in Chicago to invest in localized stormwater infrastructure and management strategies. Overall, the United States has seen a 41% increase in household water bills over a 5-year period. As cities update their infrastructure, coupled with water resources becoming increasingly more scarce in certain geographical areas, the cost of water is expected to continue to rise. As has been evident in California in recent years, at a certain point, water sourcing will no longer be exclusively a local issue. Accordingly, in the coming years, the Chicago region will no longer be immune to the costs associated with the use and management of its water resources. Consequently, it is important for water users in the Chicago region to begin to consider the ‘true cost’ of water use, and not simply the amount that shows up in their utility bills. The true cost of water is the notion that all the costs of water use, including production, scarcity, and environmental costs, are included in the pricing passed to the consumer.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 21
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
“The Price of Water: 2015” Circle of Blue. April 2015. http://www.circleofblue. org/waternews/wpcontent/uploads/2015/04/ WaterPricing2015map.pdf
Currently, water in the City of Chicago is inexpensive because the supply is plentiful. Chicago is part of the Great Lakes watershed that is considered ‘water rich.’ However, all of the costs for delivering and treating water are not accounted for in Chicago water bills. True-cost or full cost water pricing accounts for all the variables involved in potable water, stormwater, and sewage treatment. Aging infrastructure, energy costs, leaks, staffing, treatment costs, water quality, retail price, demand, water security, and peak demand capacity are all factors that contribute to the price of water. True cost pricing is more sustainable and often referred to as sustainable water rates. In Chicago, underpricing water results in inefficient water use, depleting our natural water resources. Not charging consumers for the true cost of water forces regional municipalities to independently fit-the-bill for new infrastructure as well as deal with the financial ramifications of the detrimental effects of flood events in an ad-hoc and often more expensive manner than if proper strategies would have been implemented in the first place. On the plus-side, Chicago is nearing the end of a 5-year plan to double water rates. The new revenue will help the city to double the rate at which it replaces old water pipes. All in all, if Chicago were to adopt a ‘true cost’ model for water use and management, it would be much easier to make the case for the implementation of high-performing fixtures and infrastructure necessary to make net positive water a feasible reality. Finally, accurately accounting for the true cost of water must not lose sight of the fact that maintaining access to clean water for all citizens is a priority. Accordingly, the true cost of water must take into account the affordability of service for citizens that may already struggle to pay their utility bills, potentially through tiered payment systems or demonstrated need-based financial assistance.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 22
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
COST PREMIUMS FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE FIXTURES While high-performance fixtures are broadly available in the market, there is a cost premium associated with these fixtures compared to industry standards. Depending on the specific model, low-flow or dual-flush toilet fixtures can cost 20-30% above baseline. Similarly, low-flow or waterless urinals currently carry a roughly 25% premium. These cost premiums are associated with additional valves or piping, as well as added costs associated with contractor familiarity. With the variable costs for water, the payback period for these type of fixtures are currently over 10 years, making the traditional return-on-investment economic case more difficult to make. However, with plumbing codes likely to increase the stringency of fixture performance in the years to come, low-flow or no-flow fixtures are likely to become the baseline from a cost perspective in the near future. INFRASTRUCTURE The cost of high performance stormwater management strategies (such as green roofs, permeable pavements, bioretention, and rainwater harvesting) is highly site specific. On greenfield sites with an abundance of low cost land, detention and infiltration basins that are land intensive but relatively inexpensive to construct will be most cost effective. However, on dense urban sites, where there is little available land and land prices are high, space efficient systems such as green roofs, permeable paving, and bioretention that allow dual use of space are cost effective. The other factor affecting cost is local regulations. In many stormwater ordinances, only sites above a certain size are required to provide stormwater management. Further, the required stormwater management is often based on the increase in runoff. Thus, if there is no increase in impervious cover, stormwater management is often not required. A notable exception to this is the City of Chicago that bases the required stormwater management on the proposed condition, regardless of the amount of runoff produced under pre-project conditions. However, even within Chicago, there are square footage thresholds below which no stormwater is required. Rainwater harvesting systems are one of the more expensive strategies for providing stormwater management and water supply due to regulatory requirements, the cost of treatment, and the somewhat competing goals of stormwater and water harvesting systems. Smart control systems can be used to improve the efficiency of storage systems to provide both stormwater and water supply storage and thus improve their return on investment.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 23
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
FUNDING & GRANT OPPORTUNITIES To offset some of the cost premiums associated with high performance fixtures and infrastructure, various city, state, and national incentives are in place to encourage sustainable water management. FEDERAL • The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program is a powerful partnership between EPA and the states that replaced EPA’s Construction Grants program. States have the flexibility to fund a range of projects that address their highest priority water quality needs. The program was amended in 2014 by the Water Resources Reform and Development Act. There are a multitude of funding opportunities for projects concerning water in a variety of ways. Most are for public organizations and local municipalities, but there is also funding for construction and private undertakings involving innovative water practices. www.epa.gov/cwsrf/learn-about-clean-water-state-revolving-fund-cwsrf#eligibilities • Grants.gov is an extensive and current listing of all grants and funding opportunities. It is a searchable database offering information on funding opportunities for many topics. http://www.grants.gov/search-grants.html?fundingCategories%3DENV|Environment STATE OF ILLINOIS • The State of Illinois EPA has historically offered a plethora of funding opportunities for projects pertaining to watershed management, water quality, water infrastructure, stormwater management, construction and sprawl, etc. However, the State of Illinois EPA is currently undergoing an update to its programming, so current funding opportunities are not yet listed. Since FY 2011 the Illinois Green Infrastructure Grant (IGIG) for Stormwater Management has funded 40 projects, totaling almost $20 million. These grants have been made available to local units of government and other organizations to demonstrate green infrastructure best management practices. Projects must be located within a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) or Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) area. Acres of permeable pavement parking lots and alleys, riparian zones and rain gardens, are techniques now in place to help restore, mimic, or enhance natural hydrology to protect and improve local water quality. http://www.epa.illinois.gov/topics/grants-loans/water-financial-assistance/igig/index CITY OF CHICAGO • The City of Chicago offers a permit expediting service for green infrastructure projects. In addition, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel launched a Green Stormwater Infrastructure initiative for the City, whereby the City announced its dedication to preparing for wetter climates. The City takes responsibility for instituting much of the new infrastructure, but where individual or private developments are concerned, the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Initiative requires stormwater capture on new developments and recommissioned LEED buildings. The expedited permitting process and new ordinances for new construction are currently the only incentive program available for innovative water developments. The City of Chicago currently offers no grants or funding for water initiatives for private developments.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 24
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
POLITICAL FACTORS On top of the economic obstacles, state and local building codes also present a challenge to project teams hoping to implement high-performance water use and management strategies in pursuit of Net Positive Water. The following is a discussion of the current state of the code in the region relative to water reuse and stormwater management strategies, and the ways these codes might affect project teams pursuing the LBC Net Positive Water Petal. PLUMBING CODE WATER REUSE The State of Illinois and the City of Chicago both have jurisdiction over plumbing code in the city of Chicago, including rainwater harvesting and greywater systems. The Illinois Plumbing Code (IPC) adopted by the State of Illinois and administered by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) sets minimum standards for plumbing systems within the State, Cook County, and City of Chicago. In their current configuration, neither the Illinois Plumbing Code (IPC) or Chicago Building Code (CBC) include water reuse standards. The IPC was updated in 2014, and while non-balloted initial drafts contained a ‘Green Plumbing’ section, this section was ultimately taken out of the final revision. Public health and safety is protected by the State Department of Health and the Committee on Building Standards and Tests (CST). The CBC requires only that potable water be supplied to plumbing fixtures that provide water for drinking; bathing or cooking; or processing food, medical, or pharmaceutical products (CBC 29 Section 18-29-602.2). In addition, the Public Sanitary Practice Code Section 895.20 requires that potable water be supplied to all plumbing fixtures unless ‘expressly permitted.’ Exterior rainwater harvesting for drip irrigation does not require state approval. However, cisterns are subject to review under State and City code, and may be required to be connected to municipal water for supplemental supply. In the absence of accepted standards, Section 820.400 (Minimum Sanitary Requirements for Bathing Beaches) of the Illinois Administrative Code (IAC) has been used at times to establish minimum treatment standards for rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse. This
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 25
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
standard requires removal of suspended solids, viruses, E. coli bacteria to <235 units per 100 mL, and fecal coliform bacteria to <500 colony-forming units per 100mL. In general, the CBC and IAC require design teams to document how a non-potable source can be used where water is not intended for human consumption. IDPH and the CST then evaluate if proposed systems reasonably align with safety standards on a case-by-case basis. The Definition of Variance from IPC 2014 states: The Department will consider variances to this Part when the applicant has provided documentation citing the particular portion of this Part for which a variance is sought and has provided justification sufficient, in the opinion of the Department, to demonstrate that the variance will not create a condition less protective than that portion of this Part addressed in the variance request. Issuance of variances to this Part is at the sole discretion of the Department and may not be delegated or assumed by any other authority identified in this Part. Variance authorizations may be conditioned as determined by the Department and are not precedential. IDPH and Chicago Department of Buildings Green Permit Program developed a jointreview strategy to reduce the time and number of steps involved in review of rainwater harvest systems. The IDPH is currently not seeking to propose rules on water harvesting or reuse. Instead, for each project seeking to employ water reuse strategies, the project must seek departmental review and issuance of conditional approvals by IDPH including: •
Application use of harvested water
•
Possible sensitivities at system’s address
•
Treatment of harvested water prior to use
•
Demand on harvested rainwater system (avoidance of stagnant water systems)
•
Testing conditions by tiered use and system specifications
•
Tested variables are continually reported to IDPH each month for public health monitoring
Outside the City of Chicago, where the International Building Code is applicable, the International Plumbing Code has a chapter on Greywater Recycling Systems (Chapter 13) which includes the following provisions: •
1301.7 Greywater only can receive waste discharge of bathtubs, showers, lavatories, clothes washers.
•
1301.10 Overflow for greywater reservoir must be connected to sanitary drainage system
•
1302.1 Capacity must be minimum of twice volume of water to meet daily flushing requirements supplied by greywater
•
1302.3 Potable Water supplied as source of make-up for greywater system for fixture use
•
1302.4 Greywater must be dyed blue or green to ‘warn’ building users that it is non-potable WATER PETAL GUIDE | 26
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
â&#x20AC;˘
1303.3 Make-up water not necessary for subsurface landscape irrigation
All in all, state and local codes do not present an explicit obstacle to the implementation of water reuse strategies. However, since comprehensive performance requirements are not codified, project teams must be prepared to prove their safety and effectiveness on a case-by- case basis, likely involving multiple reviews, inspections, and tests from state and local plumbing and public health agencies.
SYSTEM DESIGN
CITY/STATE REVIEW &
APPROVAL
Case Study
INSTALLATION
CITY/STATE
INSPECTION
& APPROVAL
TESTING &
APPROVAL
Adapted from Water Reuse Handbook. Public Building Commission of Chicago. August 2011. http://www.pbcchicago. com/pdf/WaterReuse. pdf
Keller Center University of Chicago Chicago, IL
RAINWATER HARVESTING The rainwater cistern at the Keller Center diverts 525,208 gallons of water per year from the municipal sewer system; enough water to fill the entire 4-story central atrium of the new home of the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago. The 25,000 gallon cistern tank located in the basement collects water from the roof for storage towards toilet flushing throughout the 125,000 square foot building. Visible from the central atrium, the cistern tank room is featured as a stop on the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sustainability tour, serving as an educational moment on water conservation for visitors. In the event of a heavy rainfall, overflow rainwater is averted to an exterior spout at the front entrance, highlighting water expressionism into a beautiful rain garden full of native plantings. The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) requires the first year after commissioning be monitored and reported, including monthly tests for E.coli and maintenance records. Keller received approval from IDPH to use rainwater to flush toilets. All water is distributed through purple pipe with signage at each fixture warning that this is not potable water and is not to be consumed.
Photo courtesy of Farr Associates
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 27
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
STORMWATER CODE The City of Chicago follows the ‘You change it, you buy it’ theory of stormwater regulation. In other words, if you disturb the area, the project must bring it up to current standards. This applies to any project that exceeds 7,500 square feet of impervious cover or 15,000 square feet of total disturbance. Projects below both these thresholds as well as single family residences are exempt from the ordinance. The ordinance has both a retention and detention requirement. The required retention volume is equal to 0.5 inches of runoff over the impervious area. The detention requirement is based on an allowable release rate that varies by location in the City based on the local and interceptor sewer capacity. Most of the suburban areas of the region follow the ‘You change it, you sustain it’ theory of regulation. In other words, projects are required to mitigate for the increase in impervious cover but are not required to mitigate for the area of impervious cover already present. Thus, as long as the impervious cover is not increased, no stormwater storage is required. The site disturbance thresholds vary from county to county, but most are no lower than 0.5 acres of additional impervious cover or 1.0 acre of total disturbance. Most of the areas outside Chicago also have both retention and detention requirements. The required retention volume varies from 0.75 inches to 1.25 inches of runoff over the impervious area. The detention requirement is based on allowable release rates. Portions of the region have dual release rates of 0.04 cubic feet per second per acre (cfs/acre) for the 2-year event and 0.15 cfs/acre for the 100-year event. Other areas of the region have a single release rate equal to 0.10 cfs/acre for the 100-year event. Most ordinances also have provisions for higher or lower release rates if a watershed-based plan shows that a different release rate should be used. All in all, relative to the LBC requirements for zero off-site stormwater run-off, current stormwater codes in the city and state do not preclude projects from pursuing the on-site infiltration options outlined in the section on Best-in-Class Infrastructure.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 28
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
LBC EXEMPTIONS
While there are no explicit code impediments to pursuing high-performance water strategies, since compliance is considered on a case-by-case basis, there is always the possibility that state or local jurisdictions will require projects to connect to municipal water supplies because of health or safety concerns. The LBC recognizes that regulatory requirements are a potential impediment to the full implementation of natural closed loop water strategies as prescribed by this Imperative. Accordingly, while encouraging project teams to advocate for changes to prevailing codes, there are exceptions in place which project teams may utilize to maintain the intent of the Imperative. These exceptions are current as of the LBC v3.1 Water Petal Handbook (May 2017). Please access the full exception list and documentation requirements available to project teams in the Water Petal Handbook available for download on living-future.org.
“Water Supply and Use Table” Living Building Challenge 3.1 Water Petal Handbook. International Living Future Institute. May 2017.
IO5-E1 4/2010 Municipal Potable Water Supply •
If health or utility regulations require a project to use municipal potable sources, it is allowed, but only for potable uses, including sinks, faucets, janitorial uses, and showers. Non-potable uses such as toilet flushing, clothes washing, irrigation, and equipment uses must use water sourced from the project site.
•
All non-potable uses must be sourced from within the project site.
IO5-E2 11/2012 Municipal Water for Fire Protection •
A connection to a municipal water supply is allowed for fire protection systems, as long as the connection is dedicated only for fire protection and does not supply water for any other uses.
IO5-E3 7/2009 Chlorine Disinfection •
Where required by authority having jurisdiction, chlorine disinfection is allowed, as long as it is the minimum required by code, with a 0.5 micron carbon block filter.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 29
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
IO5-E4 2/2010 Transects L5 and L6 Municipal Stormwater Connection •
For Transects 5 & 6 (Urban Center Zone & Urban Core Zone) where there is no adjacent downstream habitat, projects may propose managing less than 100% of water on-site by demonstrating that all other pathways for beneficial reuse have been exhausted including Evaporation Infiltration Beneficial Reuse.
IO5-E5 9/2008 Municipal Sewer Overflow Connections •
If health or utility regulations require an overflow connection to municipal sanitary sewer system, it is allowed if the team: • • •
Exhausts regulatory appeals Install manual valve control designed to remain closed Provide signed statement that overflow connection was not used during the performance period.
• IO5-E6 3/2015 Municipal Sewage Connections •
Projects in all Transects are allowed to connect to local municipal sewage treatment plants if all of the following conditions are met:
The treatment plant must: 1. Have a biologically based treatment process with no chemicals. 2. Be within 0.5 km of, and in the same watershed as, the project. 3. Treat water to tertiary levels and return water back to the project for use. The project must: 4. Have a balance of sewage going out and water returning from the plant. 5. Not overtax an existing combined sanitary/storm system. 6. Not be separated from the plant by a lift station. 7. Include in its energy production, both a prorated amount of energy (i.e., kWh per gallon) from the plant treatment system, and all pumping energy required to move the sewage/returned water to and from the project.
IO5-E7 7/2015 Periodic Large Events •
If a project hosts infrequent events (e.g., three to four days annually) that significantly exceed the facility’s typical volume of visitors, the project team may bring in portable toilets. The project’s sewer management system must be sized appropriately for the rest of the year.
IO5-E8 4/2017 Scale Jumping Within an Aquifer •
Scale Jumping within the aquifer is allowed for projects where all of the following conditions are met: 1.
Water capture and reuse, including rainwater harvest and greywater recycling, have been maximized (i.e. legally and technically). 2. Water use has been minimized (e.g. best-in-class fixtures and demandminimizing strategies). 3. Ground/well water is not accessible due to contamination, technical, or legal reasons. WATER PETAL GUIDE | 30
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
The project team must meet the following conditions: 1.
Provide a water balance showing that the extracted water, minus evapotranspiration and consumption, will infiltrate back into the aquifer. 2. Include all pumping energy in the energy balance for the project. 3. Make a persuasive case that the proposed off-site system is appropriately proximate to the project. IO5-E9 4/2017 Municipal Source Offset •
Connection to a municipal source is allowed for projects where all of the following conditions are met: 1.
Water capture and reuse, including rainwater harvest and greywater recycling, have been maximized (legally and technically). 2. Water use has been minimized (e.g. best-in-class fixtures and demand-minimizing strategies). 3. Ground/well water is not accessible due to contamination, technical or legal reasons. And the project team is able to do all of the following: 1. Make a persuasive case that connection to the municipal source is the most sustainable option. 2. Show that density, Transect, aquifer limitations, well salinity or contamination, climate, policy, or pollution levels may be contributing factors. 3. Implement water efficiency measures in nearby buildings/infrastructure to demonstrate net positive water. 4. Show that the resulting annual reduction in water use in the community offsets, at minimum, the project’s annual water use so that the municipal use in balance is zero.
Case Study
Park District Beach Houses Chicago, IL
RAINWATER HARVESTING The Chicago Park District’s 41st and Osterman Beach houses each feature 11 toilets and 4 urinals that are flushed with harvested rainwater. These systems are only used during the summer months. UV sterilization is utilized instead of chlorination for ease of maintenance. The system features a, 125 gallon ‘day tank’ that is above ground and highly visible, while the larger 2,000 gallon storage tanks are located underground. When reviewing the system, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) required modification of disinfection and filtration components as well as backflow prevention. The Committee of Standards and tests required a custom-fabricated air gap to keep harvested water out of the municipal supply.
Photo courtesy of Public Building Commission Chicago
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 31
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
SOCIAL & CULTURAL FACTORS While well-designed systems and advances in technology make the goal of net positive water mathematically attainable, there are still social and cultural impediments that must be overcome. BEHAVIOR The key to water conservation is reducing the overall demand for water by use. This can be difficult because it requires everyday behavior to change. Since the LBC calculates water use by actual use during the 12-month performance period (as opposed to modeled performance based solely on the design and anticipated fixture uses), occupants of a building have the ability to significantly impact their project’s water use balance. • CHALLENGE While high-efficiency fixtures mean less water used per flush/wash/shower, reducing the overall number of fixture uses per person has the most dramatic effect on water use. While some people have grown up accustomed to taking a ten-minute shower, or leaving the water running while brushing their teeth, in order to achieve net positive water, these behaviors need to change. • SOLUTION The best way to promote behavioral changes are to design them in. As opposed to having people ‘opt-in’ to a more water-conscious lifestyle, project teams should build these behaviors into buildings through automatic shut-offs for flow fixtures, dual-flush options for flush fixtures, and water reuse systems.
In addition, as discussed in the section on Economic Factors, adjusting water costs to the consumer to include comprehensive costs including production, transportation, scarcity, and environmental costs provides people a financial incentive to modify their behavior.
CULTURAL BIASES • CHALLENGE Moving away from centralized municipal systems may be difficult due to people’s embedded comfort and familiarity with the status-quo, compounded by historic fears about public health and safety. Municipal waste and water systems were initially implemented due to public health crises related to constant exposure to water-borne diseases and pollution. As the solution over the past century has been to ‘flush-away’ waste and stormwater, people do not understand new alternatives which retain onsite water and waste. In addition, economic and demographic biases that low-flow or decentralized waste management is somehow ‘less civilized’ are prevalent. • SOLUTION Education campaigns that address these biases head-on are important. Campaigns will vary depending on the particular biases in question, but explaining the latest technologies in water treatment, environmental regulation, and medical treatments can provide people with facts upon which to make their own decisions.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 32
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
While municipal systems were the state-of-the-art when they were initially implemented, the technologies discussed to achieve net positive water represent the current best practice. Environmental regulations as well as medical advances over the course of the past century have made health concerns related to on-site water treatment a thing of the past. Advances in technology, coupled with greater understanding of the science behind the ways natural systems are able to deal with water and waste have greatly expanded our ability to address these issues in a safe and cost effective way at the building scale.
In addition, in the face of recent catastrophic climate change events, centralized municipal systems can represent a risk in terms of a community’s capacity for resilience. As people begin to see the potential detrimental effects of ‘putting all of your eggs in one basket,’ the ability to source and manage water locally will inevitably become a positive alternative to the status quo. Visiting local sites that source and manage water locally can also help overcome biases by providing a positive example in context. FAMILIARITY • CHALLENGE Although these technologies have been around for many years, there inevitably will be people who are unfamiliar with how they work. This lack of familiarity from building owners, maintenance staff, and building users can be a real impediment to implementation. • SOLUTION Make it visible. Instead of burying both the infrastructure and information related to water use where only building engineers can find them, bring these features out into the open where they can be readily observed by building occupants. For stormwater and wastewater management strategies, consider making these systems irresistible design features of the project that occupants are encouraged to engage with. For fixtures and equipment, provide displays of metered water use, encouraging people to improve their water consumption. Finally, in addition to familiarity with the technologies, provide people with the appropriate information to make them familiar with the effect of their water use on local ecosystems and water bodies downstream. By understanding that water use doesn’t end with flushing a fixture, people will be more likely to consider the consequences of their water use decisions.
Photo courtesy of Public Building Commission Chicago
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 33
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
CONCLUSION The Living Building Challenge is the most rigorous sustainable building standard in the world. In its requirements for Net Positive Water strategies, it advocates for a comprehensive systems approach to the use and management of water resources. As has been seen throughout this guide, a systems approach is also what is required to navigate the various hurdles and bumps in the road on the way to Net Positive Water for project teams looking to pursue Petal or Living certification through the Living Building Challenge. Project teams must first understand the natural resources available, from rainwater to groundwater to water reuse. Then, those resources must be optimized through the use of best-in-class technology including high performance fixtures and infrastructure. Finally, project teams must negotiate the matrix of obstacles and concerns related to the costs, code compatibility, and social/cultural behaviors of building managers and occupants. All in all, a successful net positive water pursuit requires adept attention to all of these systems. Although there are no Living or Water Petal certified buildings in the Chicago region, there are many best-in-class examples of each of the components of a Net Positive Water system that can be used as examples. If these strategies used across multiple projects are aggregated into a single project, the goal of Net Positive Water would be well within reach. For successful examples of and Living and Petal-certified projects in other areas in the United States, see the ILFI website. Throughout its history, Chicago has never been one to shy away from a challenge. From reversing the flow of the Chicago River, to constructing the Deep Tunnel, to covering its City Hall with a green roof, Chicago has always acted aggressively when it comes to its water challenges. As pressures on water resources increase due to scarcity, pollution, population growth, and a changing climate, the time for Chicago to again make a visionary commitment to its water is now.
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 34
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
RESOURCES
Making the Switch - Transitioning Toward Integrated Water Management in Puget Sound http://living-future. org/includes/pdf/SustainablePath_MakingTheSwitch_Whitepaper8.pdf Maximum Performance (MaP) Testing map-testing.com/map-search.html Regulatory Pathways to Net Zero Water living-future.org/sites/default/files/reports/RegulatoryPathwaystoNetZeroWater.pdf US EPA WaterSense Website epa.gov/watersense Policy-Making for Healthy, Resilient Water Systems in the Puget Sound https://living-future.org/sites/default/files/web_Water_Policy_Brochure_low%20res.pdf Toward Net Zero Water - Best Management Practices for Decentralized Sourcing & Treatment http://livingfuture.org/sites/default/files/reports/TNZW_Final_LowRes_031711.pdf Water Independence in Buildings - Negotiating Water Reuse in Oregon https://living-future.org/sites/default/files/Achieving_Water_Independence_in_Buildings-1.pdf Decentralized Water Resources Collaborative http://www.ndwrcdp.org/research_project_DEC6SG06a.asp Water Environment Research Foundation http://www.werf.org/ City of Chicago Water Sewer Rates http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/water/provdrs/cust_serv/ svcs/know_my_water_sewerrates.html Price of Water 2015 http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/WaterPricing2015map.pdf http:// www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/WaterPricing2015graphs.pdf Public Building Commission of Chicago -Water Reuse Handbook http://www.pbcchicago.com/pdf/ WaterReuse.pdf PBC - Stormwater Management Guidelines http://www.pbcchicago.com/pdf/CampusParkStormwater_Final. pdf PBC - Site Development Guidelines http://www.pbcchicago.com/pdf/SiteDevelopmentGuidelines_ October2010.pdf CMAP - Water Supply Planning http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/livability/water/supply-planning City of Chicago http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/water/provdrs/cust_serv/svcs/know_my_ water_sewerrates.html http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/uploadedFiles/News/NewsArticles/ NewsArticleResources/ISAWWA-Water- Utility-Survey-Report-2012.pdf
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 35
Chicago Collaborative Water Petal Implementation Guide | August 2018
IL Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity http://www.illinois.gov/dceo/whyillinois/ KeyIndustries/Energy/Documents/Clean Water Energy Efficiency Initiative PY7 Final.docx Illinois EPA Grants http://www.epa.illinois.gov/topics/water-quality/watershed-management/nonpoint-sources/grants/index Illinois Energy Now http://smartenergy.arch.uiuc.edu/new-construction-incentive-program.html http://smartenergy.illinois.edu/ pdf/20142015DCEONewConstructionWord%20FINAL%20091114_Fillable.pdf City of Chicago Sustainable Development Policy http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/ Sustainable_Development/Publications/ GreenMatrix2011DHED.pdf Energy Star Portfolio Manager http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/downloads/datatrends/DataTrends_ Water_20121002.pdf?2003-40fb Pacific Institute Water Use Trends in US http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2015/04/Water-Use-Trends-Report.pdf Illinois State Water Survey Prairie Research Institute http://www.isws.illinois.edu/docs/maps.asp
WATER PETAL GUIDE | 36
living-future.org collaboratives.living-future. org/chicago/ August 2018
CHICAGO, IL COLLABORATIVE