Our project involves 7 buildings around a university quadrangle site. In order to reduce irrigation water consumption, our design strategy is to reduce the area of irrigation by only irrigating the turf grass areas that will be exposed to high foot traffic. In all other landscape areas, we are using low-maitenance native plants and providing no irrigation.Our calculations will show that total irrigation water consumption has been reduced by more than 50% versus a Baseline Scenario that irrigates all landscape areas on the site.WE 1.1 states that the goal of this credit is to reduce potable water used for landscape by 50%. But the criteria only lists two methods for achieving this goal - high efficiency irrigation technology or recycled rain/site water. Our design strategy achieves the 50% reduction goal by limiting the quantity of area irrigated. Is there any reason this strategy would not count for this LEED credit?
The strategy you propose could be achieved by virtually any project simply by manipulating the area for irrigation and is not acceptable to earn this credit. This is especially true in a campus situation where LEED project boundaries are sometimes difficult to define. This credit was intended to encourage the use of high efficiency irrigation equipment or the use of non-potable water for irrigation purposes only. The calculation methodology for this credit is explained in the LEED v2.1 Reference Guide (May 2003) beginning on page 84. This methodology requires that planting types should correspond and landscape areas and other factors should not change between the design and baseline cases. In your situation the area of turfgrass which will not be irrigated should be excluded from the design and baseline calculations. Applicable Internationally.