EBOM-2009 WEc3: Water Efficient Landscaping 1-5 points

The intent of this credit is to alter planting details to eliminate the use of potable water for landscape irrigation as much as possible. Project teams tend to interpret "landscape" as any vegetated space on the project site. However, some projects also include growing space for food in an urban agriculture or community garden setting. This is not "landscape" in the usual sense, and the normal water use reduction measures aren\'t appropriate when the land is being used productively. In LEED for Homes, an existing LEED Interpretation clarifies that growing space should be exempted entirely from the calculations for the Homes version of this credit (do not include in the numerator or denominator). See LI 2736. I request that this LI be extended to all LEED rating systems, since growing space is potentially a component of many project types.

This question is regarding the applicability of a process water re-use and treatment system for WE credits 1.1-3.2. Our coastal project is proposing the use of a ground-coupled open-loop heat rejection system with a side-stream desalination plant. The system draws non-potable brackish water from the ground, rejects heat from cogeneration and HVAC systems into the water and returns the rejected process water to the ground. The water is not potable source water (e.g. sourced from potable watersheds such as lakes and rivers) and stringent environmental regulations are in place with regard to pumping rates / volume, and quality of the return water. Approximately 10% of the rejected process water flow is diverted for re-use in the building. The diverted water is treated using a reverse osmosis desalination system. The treated water will be used onsite for irrigation and conveyance. Benefits of this system include a reduced impact on the already taxed local potable water supply, reliability of water source, and environmental benefit due to on site treatment and re-use. We believe we should be able to take credit for the municipal water savings resulting from this system, provided that energy use from the system is included in energy calculations. Please provide guidance for credit applicability.

Are calculations based on annual irrigation water use acceptable to earn the credit if it is demonstrated that annual water savings of 50% or greater, due to the use of a weather tracking controller and periods of no irrigation, can be achieved?

The intent of this credit is to alter planting details to eliminate the use of potable water for landscape irrigation as much as possible. Project teams tend to interpret "landscape" as any vegetated space on the project site. However, some projects also include growing space for food in an urban agriculture or community garden setting. This is not "landscape" in the usual sense, and the normal water use reduction measures aren\'t appropriate when the land is being used productively. In LEED for Homes, an existing LEED Interpretation clarifies that growing space should be exempted entirely from the calculations for the Homes version of this credit (do not include in the numerator or denominator). See LI 2736. I request that this LI be extended to all LEED rating systems, since growing space is potentially a component of many project types.

The project is a renovation of a part of a student residence hall, which is part of a large university campus facilities program. Thus, drip irrigation is not proposed due to its higher maintenance requirements. The Reference Guide provides only two methods of irrigation in order to calculate efficiency: spray and drip. Spray irrigation is rated at 62.5% efficient while drip irrigation is rated at 90.0%. We feel there are more than just two options to calculate irrigation efficiency (IE) as it pertains to this credit. Not all at-grade irrigation equipment should be generalized as "spray" irrigation. There are fixed-arc spray heads, which have efficiencies as suggested by USGBC, and there are rotary heads that are more efficient. Rotary heads can provide a greater radius of coverage and dispense water at a lower precipitation rate. For the larger turf areas at this site, rotary heads provide higher uniformity. We can prove with credit submittal documentation that the IE of rotating sprinkler heads at a minimum is 75.0%. Rotary heads will not cover all turf areas; the remainder will have to be covered by fixed-arc spray heads. We are partitioning water consumption calculations in the design case by irrigation method and assigning the appropriate IE to each. Shrub areas are proposed with fixed-arc spray heads. The fixed-arc spray heads proposed have a pressure-regulating feature that reduces pressure at the nozzle to an optimum level. Fixed-arc spray head nozzles are designed to dispense a certain amount of water over a given area. A properly pressurized spray head and nozzle issues water droplets that are sized so as to not be affected by wind and sun and throw the proper distances. When pressure is too high, water droplets become finer (mist) and the spray patterns become distorted from slight breezes. This effect decreases efficiency, requiring longer irrigation times and more water to be dispensed in order to obtain the proper net result. Not all heads have the pressure-regulating feature. Heads that do contain this feature regulate pressure to their optimum of 30 psi. 60-psi pressure at the spray heads is available. Per the manufacturer\'s data (to be submitted), water consumption with pressure regulation is 71.0% of standard fixed-arc designs. Rotary heads do not have this feature and require the full 60-psi available. Irrigation controls are intended to automatically adjust watering times based on local climate conditions. Conventional controllers are set to turn irrigation on at the same time everyday for the same duration. The campus utilizes a central control system with weather station to manage irrigation duration. Evapotranspiration (ET)-based controllers receive central control signals and adjust irrigation times based on daily weather. Rain sensors enhance water savings further by suspending the daily irrigation cycle depending on how intense rainstorms are. The irrigation engineer calculates that an ET-based controller dispenses only 61.1% of the water used by a system with typical controls in the month of July at our location (to be submitted). In the spirit of controller efficiencies as suggested in the Reference Manual, we request that the USGBC allow us to expand the credit calculation analysis to include the efficiencies and reductions expected by specifying rotating heads, pressure-regulating heads, and ET-based controlling. Our project will have at least a 53.6% reduction in potable water consumption during the month of July compared to typical irrigation system with the same landscaping scheme.