Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Watermark Neil Kitchen C.Eng MCIPS – Project Leader.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Watermark Neil Kitchen C.Eng MCIPS – Project Leader."— Presentation transcript:

1 Watermark Neil Kitchen C.Eng MCIPS – Project Leader

2 Topics Background to Watermark Benchmarking Project Results Saving Potential Case Studies C0 2 Targets Lessons learned Future of the Project

3 Who runs Watermark is part of Office of Government Commerce (OGC) OGC is an executive agency of HM Treasury

4 If you do not know how much water you use, how can you begin to reduce it? QHow much is spent in the public sector on water and effluent services? AIt is estimated that a minimum of £600 million is spent in the UK by the public sector on water and effluent services

5 How did Watermark begin? Back in 1999 there were no central benchmarks for water consumption. Therefore establishing targets for water consumption was difficult. identified a need for central benchmarks

6 How did Watermark begin? Applied and was awarded Invest to Save (ISB) funding in early 2000 for 1 st April start. Project funding granted for 3 years. Project sponsors included OGC, DETR, DfEE and Wiltshire County Council

7 What is Watermark? A computerised water monitoring service that collects data to establish benchmarks for building types and organisations

8 Watermark Main Aims To produce reliable benchmarks for different building categories This included different factors that could possibly drive water consumption such as staff, visitors, hours of use, etc. To prove by efficient management water can be saved.

9 How did Watermark achieve its aims? By gathering water consumption data and building specific data it will generate a benchmark and investigate those factors that drive water consumption in different buildings. To prove water can be saved by efficient management a straightforward Monitoring and Targeting (M&T) system was run offering bill validation and regular reports.

10 Benchmarks

11 Benchmarks – some theory Based upon the EEBPP (now Action Energy) rationale. To establish a benchmark it is normal for a minimum of 50 sites complete with 2 years consumption data to be used.

12 What data is required? Consumption data Staff numbers Floor area Opening hours Visitor numbers Age of building Catering facilities Does the site have a swimming pool Does the site have garage facilities Does the site have any other processes that use water

13 Benchmarking – The Process Regression analysis is carried out to determine the most suitable primary driver. The water consumption is expressed as a specific consumption – total water consumption divided by the most appropriate driving factor Specific consumption for sites are grouped and plotted onto a graph – we would expect to see a bell shaped curve

14 Benchmarking – The Process Apply a T-Test to the data to ascertain other factors. Take the median as the typical benchmark and the upper quartile as the best practice point.

15 Benchmarking – as applied to Offices Data sample of 500 offices Regression analysis took place on staff numbers, floor area, opening hours and building age. Staff numbers was the most appropriate primary driver.



18 Benchmarking – as applied to Offices A T-Test was applied to catering facilities, showers, maintained grounds. No correlations were found. Resultant benchmark = 9.3 m3/staff/yr Best practice = 6.4 m3/staff/yr

19 Benchmarking – as applied to Offices Potential saving figures If all the offices in the data set of 500 achieved or bettered the benchmark of 9.3 m3/person/yr then approximately 467,000 m3 of water per year could be saved. Taking an average of 80p for the supply and the same for sewerage then this equates to £747,200 = average per site of £2,989

20 Benchmarking – How can I apply this to my organisation? Able to measure relative performance using established benchmark Establish your own benchmark if you have a number of offices Set targets for sites Target sites and assign resource to poor performing sites


22 Participating Organisations Over 300 individual organisations have submitted data on over 3200 sites. Including in Scotland: Forestry CommissionScottish Executive Scottish Prison ServiceTayside Fire Brigade NHS ScotlandEast Lothian Council Midlothian CouncilPerth & Kinross Council A number of museums, colleges & universities

23 Bill validation – what is it? Some water bills do have errors in them such as: Wrong tariffs applied Wrong account number and site Incorrect totals Meter readings that do not follow on from previous readings Duplicate bills Rateable values incorrectly levied Incorrect standing charges applied

24 Bill validation Results We have validated 986 water bills 2% have errors

25 Bill validation Results Errors have realised £54,691 in refunds to participants If these errors had gone un-noticed then the annual charge would be £287,328

26 Benchmarking Results The project has established benchmarks for the following building categories:  Offices  Prisons  Schools  Hospitals  Courts  Police stations  Colleges & Universities  Public loos  Museums & Art Galleries  Nursing homes  Coastguard stations

27 Benchmarking Results Analysis is being carried out on the following building categories:  Community Centres  Sports Centres  Libraries  Golf Courses

28 Benchmarking Results If all the establishments in these building categories were to achieve or better the typical benchmark then there are potential savings in the region of: £ 113 million Earlier we thought the annual bill for water services in the public sector was £600 million then the above figure equates to 18.8%

29 Actual Savings Derby University on one site alone have saved £38K = 68% of the overall water bill Derby university have saved in total £54K DfES – 5 offices have saved £5K since Sept 02 HM Treasury saved £21,768 = 56% of overall water bill – see case study

30 Results - Actual Case Studies

31 Case study – Parkhurst Prison

32 Survey and trade effluent application for laundry carried out Leak identified Fitted controls to remedy automatic continual flushing of urinals

33 Case study – Parkhurst Prison Total outlay = £5,125 Estimated savings = £60,000 Initial meter readings show a 30% saving from consumption a year ago.

34 Case study – HM Treasury Submitted a questionnaire and 2 yrs billing data. From this data it was obvious the building had problems. An action plan was formed between HM Treasury and the Watermark contractor. Contractor surveyed the building, fixed leaks, downsized meters & installed water saving equipment

35 Case study – HM Treasury

36 As previously stated HM Treasury saved £21,768 over an 18 month period and continue to enjoy a much smaller overall water bill.

37 Survey Results 57 surveys carried out to date on a variety of buildings Estimated savings = 377,000 m3/year Average payback = 11 months

38 C0 2 Targets A report was prepared for Watermark by BRE to investigate the impact of water efficiency measures on CO 2 emissions. This study focused on CO 2 emitted for the supply of water and the treatment of wastewater The results concluded that 0.404kg of C0 2 is produced for every cubic metre of water delivered and treated. This report is published on the website

39 Linking C0 2 with saving water Going back to the office data set. The average save per office is 1868 m3 This equates to 755 kg per year of C0 2

40 Lessons Learned

41 Water seems to be the forgotten utility. There are big savings to be made. It is relatively straight forward to make savings Normal savings in the region of 15~20% Payback under 12 months

42 Lessons Learned - Tips for Saving Water Take regular meter readings – daily/weekly, plot consumption on a spreadsheet with a graph, look for spikes Carry out bill validation – right tariff, right meter size Take overnight readings – establish a baseline consumption figure to discover leakage rates. Visual inspections - eradicate all forms of leakage – urinals, cisterns and taps Swimming pools – pool cover, rebate

43 Lessons Learned - Tips for Saving Water Carry out a water balance – does all water usage go down the drain. Laundries – industrial tariffs, recycling schemes Appoint a water champion – water awareness campaigns, signage Long term plan and budget for installing water saving devices and maintaining them.

44 Water Saving devices – payback periods Urinal controls – typical saving 30-80% - payback 0.1~1 year Volume control in cisterns – typical saving 15% - payback 0.2~0.5 year Percussion taps/spray taps/tap flow restrictors – typical saving 20-80% - payback 1~4 years + energy savings in hot water

45 The Future of the Project

46 ISB funding runs out 31/3/03 All benchmarking information and results will be made public via the watermark website ( and final project A range of fee paying services are available for those who want to save water.

47 Services Available Subscription service for bill validation and M & T reports Survey Work carried out on a capital only basis Water Services contract

48 Services Available What is a Water Services Contract?? PFI type contract The Watermark main contractor Adsm will install and maintain water saving equipment for a share of the save Based over 3 years Bill validation and M & T reports included Capped as a % of overall water bill

49 The Future Continue to log water consumption data that is submitted manually and via the website. The website now has an interactive tool. Continue to work with organisations to put water reduction strategies into place via the services mentioned previously.

50 Closing Comments Background information to the project Benchmarking – theory and practice Project results Case studies C0 2 Lessons learned Future of the project

51 Contact Details E-mail = Website =


53 Questions

Download ppt "Watermark Neil Kitchen C.Eng MCIPS – Project Leader."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google