UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO
Greywater Recycling: A Household Method to
Conserve Community Freshwater Resources
Situational Analysis
Katie Keefe
2/15/2013
1
General Overview
A finite amount of fresh water exists on the planet that is continually recycled within a closed loop system
called the hydrological cycle. While there may appear to be a large amount of water on the planet, only
2.5% of it exists as freshwater and only 1.4% is directly accessible in the form of surface and ground
water for human consumption, including domestic, agricultural and industrial uses (USGS np). What
limited freshwater supplies we have are dwindling from an ever-increasing demand for water. Supplies
decrease when the amount extracted from the water resource – lake, river, reservoir, stream, and aquifer –
exceed the rate at which water is replaced in those resources through the natural hydrological cycle.
Other reasons for dwindling supplies of freshwater include climate changes, which alter the hydrological
system; inefficient irrigation of agricultural land; population growth; land development and construction;
destruction of watersheds, and inefficient or wasteful extraction and use of freshwater (Jurkowski 4-7).
What water does remain within the earth’s freshwater reserves is increasingly becoming polluted from
human-based activities (EPA np).
Water use statistics for the U.S. reveal that in 2005, 44.2 billion gallons of freshwater were withdrawn for
public supplies (Kenny et.al. 1). Freshwater supplied to the public for domestic use accounts for about
5% of freshwater extraction (Kenny et.al. 1). Freshwater that is treated to drinking water standards is
used domestically for a variety of functions other than drinking, such as personal hygiene, food
preparation, dishwashing, clothes washing, irrigation of lawns, plants and gardens and cleaning activities.
The total amount of freshwater used in the U.S. in 2005 for domestic purposes was 349,000 million
gal/day (Kenny et.al. 8). Recent studies find that on an individual level, Americans can consume up to
100 gallons of water per day and that a family of four uses up to 400 gallons per day with 27% of the
total water used for flushing toilets and water closets (EPA WaterSense np). When considering both
outdoor and indoor uses of drinking water during the summer months, the use rate can jump an additional
100 gallons per day for that same 4-person household (National Academies np). The figure below from
the Alliance for Water Efficiency website shows how the indoor water use breaks down:
1
2
A comprehensive strategy is needed to conserve water and to increase the sustainability of freshwater
ecosystems. If we are to ensure the availability of freshwater for all of its desired uses – agricultural,
industrial, commercial, domestic, and recreational and ecosystem services – measures must be taken to
reduce consumption, protect existing resources, and appropriately allocate water treated for drinking
purposes. One method of conserving domestic water at the household level is the re-use of previouslyused drinking water for purposes that do not require highly treated water.
Regional Impact Study
Freshwater Demand
According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s Report, “Managing
Water under Uncertainty and Risk,” the U.S. consumes more water per capita per day than any other
industrialized and developing nation in the world, extracting and consuming two and a half times more
water per person than any European Nation (p. 23). As U.S. economic development, industrial
expansion, and agricultural and population growth continue, the demand for freshwater to support these
functions is likely to increase as well. The price American consumers pay for water is fairly low when
compared to other industrialized nations and it is believe this may be a primary reason for its
overconsumption. Water in general tends to be under-valuated as an economic commodity, which helps
contribute to wasteful practices (UNESCO p.25).
As noted by Brown in the article “Projecting freshwater withdrawals within the U.S.,” some regions of
the United States, especially the southeast, will experience above-average increases in the projected water
withdrawal rate for the country (1). Domestic and public consumption of freshwater within the Southeast
region of the U.S. is projected to reach 6 billion gallons per day (Bgd) per capita by 2040, representing a
2
3
6% increase from current use levels (Brown 1). At least 36 states have already anticipated local, regional,
or statewide water shortages in 2013, even under non-drought conditions (EPA).
The population of North Carolina is projected to grow by 7% over the next 15 years. Locally, Buncombe
County’s population is projected to grow by 14% during that same time period (NCOSBM np). The City
of Asheville’s existing freshwater distribution system provides over 21 million gallons of drinking water
to approximately 125,000 people on an average daily basis. Buncombe County’s distribution systems and
private wells provide water to an additional 120,000 people (Arcadis 46-47). The Metropolitan Sewerage
District provides wastewater services, including treatment and discharge, for both the city and county.
With projected population growth, city and county systems will be required to supply an additional
35,000 customers with drinking water by 2030. The MSD wastewater system will likewise be required
to handle wastewater flows from 35,000 public works customers. The North Carolina Water Supply Plan
for 2010 observes “Meeting future water supply needs, including in-stream flow needs, will
require a determined effort by local governments, water users, and state government working in
partnership” (p.1-1).
The largest share of freshwater in North Carolina comes from surface water sources. In Western North
Carolina, where Buncombe County is situated, surface water reserves supply two-thirds of the freshwater
for the community (Arcadis 2). Data from the USGS showed that the French Broad River basin has
supplied up to 200 million gallons of freshwater per day to Buncombe County residents and businesses
(NC State Water Supply Plan, French Broad Basin n.p.). Demand for water from local water supply plan
systems in Buncombe County is projected to exceed 57 million gallons per day by 2020, supplying
341,792 persons by the year 2020, a 53% increase over 1997 levels (NCWSP n.p). In 2000, demand for
water exceeded 80% of the available freshwater supply for six of the nine local water supply systems in
the region. These local water supply systems must find an additional 1.5 million gallons of water per day
by 2010 to ensure water demand does not exceed 80% of supply capacity (NCWSP, French Broad River
Basin, n.p.)
State of Freshwater Resources
Nationally, water resources are under stress from overconsumption, development, climate change effects
on hydrological cycles, ecosystem alterations, point source pollution and non-point source pollution (EPA
2010. These stressors also impact water resources within the state of North Carolina and on watersheds
within Buncombe County. Impacts from climate change are altering the dynamics of the hydrological
cycle, causing increased severity of storms, more extreme rainfall events, longer droughts, lower snow
packs, and earlier spring melts, as well as warming waters, sea level rise and ocean acidification (EPA).
3
4
Freshwater resources along the coasts face risks from sea level rise which can cause seawater intrusion
into freshwater aquifers. In addition, as more freshwater is removed from rivers for human use, saltwater
will move farther up rivers from coastal estuaries (EPA). These climate change affects will directly
impact North Carolina’s coastal and inland watersheds.
According to the EPA’s 2010 Report, “Strategy to Protect America’s Water,” more than half of the
streams and more than 40% of the nation’s lakes are contaminated with medium to high levels of the
pollutants nitrogen and phosphorus (EPA). Nitrates and phosphorous are insidious water pollutants that
enter freshwater resources from agricultural runoff, storm water runoff and wastewater treatment
discharges. These chemicals can cause algal blooms that remove available oxygen from the water,
thereby effectively strangling the aquatic organisms within that ecosystem. These pollutants degrade the
freshwater ecosystem making it less resilient to the effects of climate change, decreased water levels and
other pollution sources. Additionally, violations of the safe drinking water level for nitrates have doubled
in the past eight years across the nation (EPA). Since wastewater treatment technologies are limited in the
amount of nutrients that can be removed from wastewater, decreasing the amount of wastewater entering
freshwater resources is an important component in mitigating this pollution source.
North Carolina is not immune to the challenges facing watersheds throughout the nation. The overall
effect of rising consumption rates, expanding development, imprudent use of highly treated drinking
water, increased wastewater discharges and ecosystem impairment are likely to have detrimental effects
on the future health, security and availability of freshwater resources within the state. As detailed in the
EPA Report on Water Resources, the costs associated with treating and transporting water are rising as
some communities look to increasingly remote or degraded sources to ensure supply (EPA np).
Factors Contributing to the Current Water Supply Problems
Within the U.S., water delivered via pipes to households and businesses arrived with the onset of
industrialization and vast public works efforts to build water and wastewater infrastructures. At the time
that most municipal water and sewer infrastructures were built, the concept of water conservation was not
integrated into system design (Cimons 1). Freshwater resources were commonly thought to be abundant
and inexhaustible. As scientific and ecological information regarding the limited availability of
freshwater and information on human freshwater consumption rates was collected, the design of water
supply and sewage systems was not modified to distribute highly treated potable water more efficiently.
Additionally, minimal investments in system upgrades, maintenance and repairs have been made since
initial construction (Cimons 1). According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 240,000 water main
4
5
breaks occur each year, causing billions of dollars of treated water to be lost and resulting in overflows of
sewer water that contaminate surface waters and cause outbreaks of disease (Walton, 2010).
Municipalities will be forced to increase taxes, increase tax rates, or implement surcharges to pay for the
estimated $335 billion that will be needed to fix the country’s water infrastructure over the next few
decades (Walton 2010). Capital improvement expenditures for freshwater and wastewater distribution,
treatment and discharge systems will continue to rise with increasing demand for drinking water and
wastewater treatment. Additionally, the costs associated with wastewater treatment and discharge
monitoring will continue to rise with the projected increase in population and drinking water consumption
rates. Demand for water within the Buncombe County, Henderson County and Asheville regional water
supply plan systems exceeded 80% of supply capabilities in 2010. To meet rising demand, these
municipal water systems face costly upgrades to increase water intake, treatment and distribution
capabilities (DENR Division of Water Resources, n.p.)
Since water has historically been a relatively inexpensive commodity viewed by consumers as a limitless
public resource, the need to conserve water has not been viewed as a priority. Consumers have
historically paid very little for this resource and for the service of sewage treatment (Jurkowski 4). The
cost per volume of drinking water has been kept low through subsidies and public ownership of municipal
water supplies. Circle of Blue found during a survey of the nation’s water rates that a family of four, on
average, spends about $25 per month for all of its household water needs (Walton 2010). This undervaluation of water has created a lack of awareness among the public regarding the true costs of water and
the detrimental impact over-consumption has on freshwater resources. In fact, water conservation
measures are typically implemented only during times of extreme water shortfalls, such as droughts.
Figure 1: Typical household water delivery and discharge system; cost estimates).
Source: Pacific Institute, www.pac-inst.org
5
6
Since communities and ecosystems are not sustainable without adequate freshwater resources, options to
preserve the quality and quantity of existing water will need to be implemented. Municipalities are likely
to implement and enforce water use restrictions and rate hikes to limit consumption and to pay for
necessary infrastructure expansions. In some cases, local resource managers may be forced to restrict
recreational use of reservoirs, lakes and rivers within the community’s watershed. The possibility of use
restrictions and rate hikes could be reduced by improving water use efficiency.
The conundrum policy-makers face is the fact that the majority of voters are not in favor of tax hikes, rate
increases or switching from flat rates to metered systems to fund much-needed infrastructure
improvements and expansions to accommodate increased demand. Compounding the issue is the fact that
water remains a relatively inexpensive public service for most Americans, possibly impeding the push for
more efficient uses of freshwater. Decisions and policies made by elected officials regarding water
infrastructure, conservation and management practices often reflect the public’s complacency regarding
water use caused by a lack of awareness of impending water shortages and the true cost of water services.
However, the public’s awareness and understanding of the challenges facing freshwater resources and
how it impacts their daily lives and the health and stability of their communities is on the rise. A recent
public opinion poll conducted in the U.S. by Circle of Blue found that 56% of Americans are very
concerned about the lack of safe drinking water, 57% are very concerned about water pollution and 47%
are concerned about the lack of water for agriculture (Kellman, 2009). This shift in awareness will
eventually be reflected in a demand for technologies that reduce water consumption and for additional
water conservation policies from legislators.
Opportunity to Conserve Freshwater Resources
On average, up to 30% of a home’s potable water is used outdoors for watering lawns and gardens
(AAWA 2012). Inside the home, toilets use the most potable water, with an average of 20 gallons per
person per day flushed down the sewer (AAWA website 2012). Wastewater water from lavatory sinks,
bathtubs, showers and clothes washer is known as Greywater. Greywater, also commonly spelled
graywater, grey water, or gray water, refers to untreated household wastewater that has not come into
contact with “black water,” which is wastewater from kitchen sinks, dishwashers, toilets and urinals
(Lucy, et.al. p. 3). In the United States, up to 60% of a single-family’s wastewater discharge is comprised
of greywater (Erickson et.al. 2013). According to the Pacific Institute, the average person in the U.S.
generates up to 35 gallon of greywater each day (Allen, et.al 2012).
6
7
To offset the demand for freshwater while also reducing the amount of wastewater generated, many
municipalities have started to allow the recycling of greywater for non-potable purposes such as toilet
flushing, outdoor landscaping, non-food crop irrigation and aquifer replenishment (EPA 2010). By using
greywater for toilet flushing and landscape irrigation, a family of four can save up to 40,000 gallons of
potable water per year (The Greywater Guide, 2012). The utilization of greywater as a way to conserve
and recycle water is not necessarily a new concept. During the drought period of 1977-1978 and as an
incentive to use greywater, the State of California provided tax relief to those who chose to install
greywater systems for domestic use (Alkhatib, et.al. 2007). Other areas of the country affected by
droughts and water shortages have begun to promote the use of greywater systems as a means to conserve
freshwater resources. There are currently no federal regulations governing the use of recycled greywater.
Each state is responsible for enacting regulations or setting guidelines concerning the use of greywater.
In other countries, the use of greywater recycling systems has proven to greatly reduce the consumption
of freshwater, thereby conserving these resources. In one of the driest, inhabited continents on the planet
– Australia – efforts to conserve and protect freshwater resources includes a $250 million National
Rainwater and Greywater Initiative from the central government that provides rebates for citizens who
install greywater systems (Chung and White 9). In Japan, all multi-family dwellings and commercial
structures greater than 30,000 m3 are mandated to install greywater systems for use in the flushing of
toilets, urinals and bidets (Chung 11). A study of a greywater pilot plant in Israel found that greywater
reuse for toilet flushing alone can reduce urban water demand by up to 10-25% (Friedler 194)
Nationally, the American Water Works Association estimates that using greywater for toilet flushing
alone has the ability to reduce water usage by 26.7% (American Water Works Association website 2013).
According to the 2006 North Carolina plumbing code, household greywater that is filtered and disinfected
by a greywater recycling system can be recycled for flushing of toilets or subsurface landscape irrigation.
This application of the plumbing code regarding greywater recycling systems is in line with the 2008
International Plumbing Code, which is used by both the City of Asheville and Buncombe County
Building Permits and Inspections divisions. The North Carolina Plumbing Code established
specifications for greywater recycling systems to protect public health and the environment.
A household greywater system typically consists of a separate, labeled piping system that diverts
greywater through some form of basic sedimentation and filtration system, then into a small collection
tank where it is distributed for flushing purposes or for use in subsurface irrigation. Piping systems from
toilets, kitchen sinks and dishwashers are plumbed directly to sewer to prevent cross-contamination of
7
8
greywater from these sources (Efrid 1). Modifying current water and wastewater distribution systems to
accommodate greywater recycling can be accomplished at the property level with installation costs
ranging from $500 for a small under the sink system to $3000 for a house-wide system that treats and
disinfects the recycled water (Efrid 1).
According to Matt Stone, Buncombe County Inspections Coordinator, a homeowner making any changes
or upgrades to a plumbed system must pull a permit to perform the work. If the homeowner indicates that
a greywater system will be installed, they will be required to meet with a plumbing inspector to make sure
that the system will meet the requirements specified in the NC Plumbing Code. Mr. Stone indicated that
there is no additional fee for the installation of a household greywater system.
The use of recycled gray water is one element of a comprehensive water conservation program to ensure
the security, stability and health of our state’s freshwater resources.
Target Audience
Communication efforts will be targeted toward two different groups within the City of Asheville and
Buncombe County:

existing homeowners; and

licensed general and plumbing contractors.
The first targeted audience was chosen because, as homeowners, they are the most likely to choose, pay
for and install water saving devices within the home. Included in this group are spouses, partners, and
family members within the house. I plan to identify these individuals and families using property records
and municipal records as well as membership information from neighborhood groups and community
centers.
The second targeted audience group, licensed general and plumbing contractors, was selected based on
the assumption that they are likely to be involved in new residential construction that may utilize water
saving technologies as a selling point or in the pursuit of LEED Green building certification. To reach
this audience group, I plan to utilize the Associated General Contractors and WNC Green Builders
Association to conduct identify and reach building trade contractors with the greywater message.
Audience demographics (NC State Office of Budget and Management)
General Public demographics
8
9
Population
Caucasian
African-
Hispanic
Female
Male
6%
51.9%
48.1%
American
Buncombe
241,419
89%
6%
County
7.9% of the population speaks a language other than English.
Household demographics
Total Units
Ownership Rate
Median
Median
Resident in
Property Value
Income
house more
than 1 year
Buncombe
100,000
66.2%
192,000
44,000
83.5%
County
When tailoring the message to the homeowner audience, it is important to note that 87.9% of the
population at large has at least a high school diploma and 37% have a bachelor's degree or higher, perhaps
facilitating understanding of the science behind water recycling systems. With thorough educational
outreach, it’s expected that this audience will be engaged in development of water conservation measures,
and will present questions, ideas and problems during the early dialogue stage of the communication
effort.
Potential Opportunities & Obstacles for Gray Water System Acceptance
The problem of water scarcity and the solution of decreasing the community’s water footprint should be
addressed now because the impact of overuse and pollution are already having a negative effect on the
watersheds within North Carolina (NCDENR np). In 2008, North Carolina suffered from the worst
drought in recorded history, which prompted the promulgation and passage of the Drought Management
Act. This law gives state and local governments expanded latitude to respond to conditions that directly
affect their freshwater supplies (SaveWaterNC np). With growing public awareness about the limited
supply of freshwater and the overall health of the state’s water resources, an opportunity presents itself to
both inform the public about the problem of water scarcity and persuade the public to consider the use of
greywater as an effective strategy for water conservation.
Cost Savings
9
10
The positive impact of greywater use on collective water demand and thus on infrastructure needs could
help reduce the need for large capital investments in water infrastructures and costs associated with
operation and maintenance. By decreasing overall flow of both potable water and sewer water, the costs
associated with installation of larger distribution lines, system upgrades and overall repairs to existing
water systems could be limited, saving the city and county treasuries valuable money.
Additionally, the use of greywater to irrigate plants, lawns, and trees within source property boundaries
has the potential to greatly reduce a household’s potable water and wastewater bills. Lucy Allen et al.
(year) even assert that by decreasing overall energy and water costs for the consumer, the use of gray
water could help meet a wide range of socio-economic needs within a community (Allen, Lucy, np).
On the flip side, the cost associated with greywater systems that are incurred by the homeowner –
installation, maintenance and repairs - pose a potentially significant obstacle to public acceptance of this
conservation measure. The initial cost of system installation depends on the type and complexity of the
greywater technology used. Unfortunately, under current conditions, these costs are borne by the
homeowner alone, even though the cost savings benefit the public community (Fiedler 231). This factor
may limit likely participants to those already concerned with environmental issues and those concerned
about the future availability of freshwater. To address this, public perceptions of fairness must be
addressed during the early phases of any communication strategy.
As suggested by Fiedler, et al. (2005), development of financial and/or tax-based incentive programs to
support the installation and use of greywater recycling systems will be critical to its success (p 224).
Several sources suggest this can be accomplished by measures such as rebates for installation, subsidies
per gallon of greywater reused, establishing a fund from which individuals can borrow the money needed
for greywater system installation costs at interest rates lower than available on the consumer finance
market, and property tax credits for households reusing greywater. Subsidies for potable water savings
and decreased wastewater generation could be easily tracked per household in Asheville and Buncombe
County, where water and sewer use is metered.
Water Savings
Implementing water conservation measures before resources are critically strained can help ensure that
those resources remain relatively healthy and resilient to stress placed on those systems from growth,
development and consumption. Helping citizens understand and accept the limits of freshwater resources
and the need to conserve and protect these resources for future generations is critical to gaining public
acceptance and use of greywater technologies. Garnering public support for a wide variety of water
10
11
conservation measures now can help agricultural, business, and residential water customers avoid strict
water use restrictions and water rate surcharges in response to future water shortages.
Besides the household-level savings in the amounts of drinking water consumed and wastewater
generated, recycling water for an additional use decreases the amount of freshwater that must be extracted
from reservoirs, lakes and streams for drinking water supply. This economic value is difficult to estimate
but can be conceptualized by focusing on the individual’s and the public’s dependence on aquatic
ecosystem services such as water, food, recreation and aesthetics. Surveying members of the public on
their use of ecosystem services and their willingness to pay for ecosystem services would serve to
measure the communities’ values and guide discussions on freshwater conservation. First and foremost,
the public must be made aware of the current freshwater crisis and be engaged in discussions on how best
to mitigate water scarcity at the community level.
Environmental awareness has been found to be a significant determinant in public acceptance of
greywater systems (Domenech and Sauri 60). In general, the percentage of Asheville and Buncombe
County residents that are concerned with the health of the environment and are already engaged in some
type of environmental conservation measure is relatively high. Mass transit, bike paths, solid waste
recycling and energy efficiency incentive programs were initiated by the city as early as 1997 and are
well utilized by the community (aschevillnc.gov 2010).
Complacency and Lack of Awareness
Complacency regarding water scarcity due to historically low costs of water and the naturally wet climate
of western North Carolina may also deter the public from accepting greywater use as a necessary strategy
in water conservation efforts. The County Inspections department does not maintain records pertaining to
household greywater installation but, since specific permits are not required; this is not a measure of
greywater system prevalence in the county (Stone, personal interview, 2/13/13). The possibility of lack of
awareness presents a potential opportunity to reach an audience that may be unfamiliar with this
technology in a way that will improve their knowledge and reduce the risk of “social refusal of the new
technology” (Domenech and Sauri 56). Additionally, given the relatively high education level of the
target population, providing an opportunity to engage with technology developers and qualified plumbers
regarding system operability and safety will be critical to building trust in the technology.
Safety of Greywater
Public health concerns regarding greywater safety continue to be a primary concern of potential and
existing greywater users, both nationally and internationally. Several studies on the microbiological and
11
12
contaminant content of greywater processed in accordance with standards similar to those required by the
NC Plumbing Code show that greywater does not pose additional public health hazards when used for
subsurface irrigation and flushing of toilets (Maimon 3218). These studies and their results need to be
provided to the public during the early communication phase. As stated earlier, the target audience is
well educated and is very likely to understand the results provided by these studies. This campaign has
the opportunity to inform as well as hear feedback regarding the safety of greywater technologies.
As noted by Domenech and Sari (2010), the acceptance of greywater systems depends on the public
engaging in sustainability learning that develops new relational capacities between them and their
resources and between social-ecological systems (p.54). Thus, sustainability learning should play a role
in early dialoguing of water scarcity issues and human-water interdependence. If established early in the
communication process, affecting the public’s perception of greywater reuse and understanding of
sustainability will have an exponentially positive impact on public acceptance of water recycling systems.
The “ick” factor
The “ick” factor is another potential obstacle that can be overcome by educating the public about
innovations in greywater recycling technologies and about effectiveness at treating the once-used water.
Inviting greywater system manufacturer representatives to participate in educational seminars and
community meetings to present information about technologies, user data, research findings and safetyrelated information for their systems and to answer audience questions could be an effective strategy to
deal with this obstacle. Also, presenting case studies and actual user reports to the public may assuage the
more emotionally-based obstacles to greywater acceptance. It will be important to stress to the public that
the NC Plumbing Code establishes certain requirements for all systems to protect human health and the
environment. These requirements include labeling of greywater pipes and components, filtering,
disinfecting and coloring (dye) of greywater, and limiting the capacity of storage tanks to ensure rapid
turnover of greywater. These restrictions reduce the potential odor and bacterial growth that can occur
during long-period storage of untreated greywater.
Current Policy and Law
Gray water has often been viewed by policy-makers as a risky alternative to wastewater removal through
municipal treatment systems. The lack of knowledge about gray water technologies and applications by
public constituencies and policy-makers alike can impede demand for regulatory actions that facilitate
rather than hinder the installation of domestic gray water systems. In some instances, where regulations
governing gray water technology have come before public acceptance and demand for the technology, its
effectiveness as a conservation strategy has been limited (Domenech and Sauri 62).
12
13
Case studies of small pilot plant projects have been conducted during the past decade that have
emphasized the benefits of greywater use and have demonstrated the environmental and health safety of
the greywater effluent. These studies consistently show that with a properly tiered approach to gray water
treatment and application, the risk to environment and public health is minimal (Friedler 193).
Unfortunately, the public health implications of using greywater to irrigate edible crops remain a concern
with public officials in North Carolina. Such concerns include the presence of contaminants and nutrient
loads that may be detrimental to health if passed on to the edible portion of the crop (Lucy et.al. np). The
state plumbing code effectively manages these risks by regulating collection and application mechanisms.
Resources Available for Communication and Program Development
Based on readership statistics, both targeted audience groups are likely to read newspapers, neighborhood
newsletters and community journals (altweeklies.com n.p.); therefore, announcements for initial
stakeholder meetings and educational seminars placed in these forums may reach a broad spectrum of
participants. The Asheville Citizen-Times newspaper has a readership rate of 53.5% within Buncombe
County and a readership rate of 59.5% when combined with the Citizen-Times.com website. The
MountainXPress, a local Asheville weekly, is read by a diverse audience that includes a 21 percent
readership over age 60. Initial educational meetings/seminars and public forums could be announced on
the local public radio station’s community events calendar segment.
Additionally, identifying Homeowner Associations and Property Owner Associations (HOA and POA)
for neighborhoods of particular interest will be important. These resources will be included in outreach
efforts to promote the educational elements of this campaign. This also presents an opportunity for lateral
dialogue between association board members, concerned public members, homeowners and greywater
system promoters. Working directly with these associations may be critical to moving past public
acceptance of greywater use and into the desired public action of Greywater system installation and use.
HOA and POA may have restrictions on water reuse that will need to be investigated.
A large contingent of artisans, crafts people, performing artists and art patrons live and work within the
City of Asheville and Buncombe County. Posting flyers or other forms of announcements at local
community art centers, wellness centers and recreational centers may be an effective method of spreading
the word for the early stages of Greywater System educational forums. Closely associated with this
population sector is a very strong “think globally, act locally” movement to address economic and
environmental challenges. Many businesses specifically advertise the sourcing of locally-produced goods
as a way to reduce their global environmental footprint and as a means to support the economic and
13
14
environmental sustainability of their community. A website that is interactive, visual and auditory in
nature will be created to educate the local community on the importance of water conservation, greywater
reuse, and greywater technologies, as well as to engage site visitors in efforts to promote household
greywater reuse.
Newsletters and flyers issued by WNC Green Builders Association to its members, as well as those from
RiverLink and RiverKeepers Alliance, are also a potential media source for initial public meeting and
educational announcements.
Given the highly educated, community-oriented and politically involved nature of the target audience, it’s
likely that messages from scientists, research findings, HOA/POA leaders, constituents and other
homeowners with practical experience will provide valuable sources of information. Identifying leaders
within the various associations and local conservation organizations for early-stage communication
efforts should take precedence to gain support of these leaders and establish pathways to members of each
group.
Funding
Incentives such as rebates, tax breaks, vouchers and conservation rate structures funded through the EPA
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) could be a potential source to tap for incentive program
funding. Many resources for developing educational programs and communication campaigns exist on
the EPA’s Water Sustainability website, as well. Funding of incentive programs for greywater system
installation and use will be an important component of public acceptance and use of this technology since
upfront costs are shouldered by the individual.
Potential sources of funding for outreach, education or program development include the nongovernmental organization, Save Water NC. This organization is associated with the State’s Division of
Water Resource Management and connects various NGOs, state agencies and local municipalities
together within the framework of water conservation. This organization has been utilized to promote
other types of water conservation movements within the state and provides local organizations with
sources for program funding. WNC Green Builders Association is an additional point of contact to
identify sources of funding for this project.
Summary
Diminishing freshwater resources and subsequent decreases in drinking water supplies are not just
national concerns. Freshwater supplies within North Carolina have dipped due to an extended drought,
population growth, development encroachment and continued pollution in recent years, all of which
14
15
decrease the amount and quality of water available to residents and businesses in this region. It is
imperative that additional conservation measures be taken by individuals at a local level to help mitigate
the risk of water scarcity and increase the community’s resiliency to water shortages. Individuals can
contribute to the preservation of freshwater resources for future generations by decreasing their
consumption rate and limiting the amount of wastewater they generate. This can be accomplished by
installing home greywater systems so that valuable water is not wasted, but is recycled for use where
highly treated drinking water is not necessary. Case studies of greywater systems across the globe have
demonstrated the public health and environmental safety of greywater reuse and shown that recycling
water is an effective way to limit the stress placed on freshwater reserves. The full impacts on human
health, economic stability and ecological systems from diminishing freshwater supplies have yet to be
seen. Preparing now to deal with the effects of water shortfalls by limiting our consumption of freshwater
is one way local citizens can have a positive influence at the state, national and global levels.
The public’s concern regarding water pollution and decreasing supplies of drinking water is on the rise,
making this an opportune time to communicate to homeowners measures that they can take to limit their
water footprint and increase their resiliency to water shortages. Innovations in greywater reuse systems
have made this technology more safe, accessible, and economically feasible for homeowners. The
residents of Buncombe County are concerned about environmental issues and have shown a propensity
toward action as demonstrated by their concerted support of the “buy local” movements for agricultural
products and manufactured goods. Tapping into the community’s desire for improved water resiliency in
the face of external economic and environmental stressors can prove beneficial in promoting the
installation and use of greywater systems by Buncombe County and Asheville residents. Greywater
systems will play a key role in community-wide water conservation efforts.
15
16
Bibliography
Alkhatib, R. Y., L. A. Roesner, and C. Marjoram. An Overview of Greywater Collection and
Treatment Systems. Www.engr.colostate.edu. Colorado State University, 2007. Web. 15
Feb. 2013.
Allen, Lucy, Juliet Christian-smith, and Meena Palaniappan. "Overview of Gray Water Reuse:
The Potential of Gray Water Systems to Aid Sustainable Water Management." Pacinst.org. Pacific Institute, 2010. Web. 20 Jan. 2013.
Altweeklies.com (2013). “Reinventing Journalism.” Retrieve from:
http//:altweeklies.com/aan/mountainxpress. Web 20 Mar. 2013
Arcadis, G.M. of North Carolina. “Impact Study of MSD Rate Payer of Proposed Merger: Phase 1
City of Asheville Water System”. Report, Metropolitan Sewerage District Buncombe
County (2012); p202. Web. 01 Feb 2013.
awwa.org –American Water Works Association Web: 05 Feb. 2013
Brown, Thomas. "Projecting U.S. Freshwater Withdrawals." Journal of Water Resources
Research 36.3 (2000): 769-80. Web. 3 Feb. 2013.
Cimons, Marlene. “Urban Water Infrastructure”. U.S. News and World Report November 10,
2011: 1-3 Web. 17 Feb 2013
Chung, Kevin, and Meredith White. Greywater Reuse: Understanding Greywater Reuse Systems
in the Current and Future Urban Contexts. Research Paper. Cornell University, 3 Dec.
2009. Web. 25 Jan. 2013.
Daily, Gretchen C., Susan Alexander, Paul R. Erhlich, and Larry Goulder. "Ecosystem Services:
Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems." Issues in Ecology 2
(1997): 1-20. Web. 14 Feb. 2013.
Domenech, L., and D. Sauri. "Socio-technical Transitions in Water Scarcity Contexts: Public
Acceptance of Gray Water Reuse Technologies in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona."
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2010): 53-62. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.
16
17
Efrid, George. “Plumb Green with Greywater: Reclaiming Greywater in North Carolina.”
www.wncgreenbuilders.com. 2009 Web: 01 Feb. 2013
Eriksson, E., E. Auffarth, A. M. Henze, M. Ledin, and K. Eilersen. "Household Chemicals and
Personal Care Products as Sources for Xenobiotic Organic Compounds in Grey
Wastewater." Water S.A. 29.2 (2003): 135-46. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
Friedler, E., and M. Hadari. "Economic Feasability of On-site Greywater Reuse Systems in Multistory Buildings." Desalination 190 (2006): 221-34. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
Friedler, E., R. Kovalio, and N. I. Galil. "On-site Greywater Treatment and Reuse in Multi-story
Buildings." Water Science & Technology 51.10 (2005): 187-94. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
"The Greywater Guide." Thegreywaterguide.com. Just Water Savers USA, 2012. Web. 20 Jan.
2013.
Jurkowski, Anne. “Drinking Water: Understanding the Science and Policy behind a Critical
Resource”. (2008) National Academy of Sciences: 24 p. Web. 10 Feb 2013
Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A. “Estimated
use of water in the United States in 2005”. (2009): U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344,
52 p. Web. 01 Feb 2013
Maimon, Adi, Tal, Alon, Friedler, Eran, Gross, Amit. “Safe On-Site Reuse of Greywater for
Irrigation – A Critical Review of Current Guidelines.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010):
3213-3220
North Carolina. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. “Water Supply Planning.”
NCDENR, 29 Aug. 2012. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.
North Carolina. Office of State Budget and Management. "County/State Population
Projections." NC. N.p., 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
Nolde, E. "Greywater Recycling Systems in Germany - Results, Experience and Guidelines."
Water Science and Technology 51.10 (2005): 203-10. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
Stone, Matt. Buncombe County Inspections Department. Personal Interview 5 Feb 2013.
United Nations. UN Environment, Social and Economic Development, “UN World Water
Development Report (WWDR4)”. UNESCO, 2012. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. “Funding Water Conservation
and Reuse with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.” EPA, June 1999. Web. 17 Feb.
2013
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. “2012 National Water Program Strategy.”
Water: Climate Change and Water. EPA, 8/20/12 web. 2 Feb 2013.
United State. Environmental Protection Agency. Science and Technology: Water. 2013
17
18
U.S. Geological Survey. “The USGS Water Science School”. U.S. Department of the Interior 2013.
Web. 01 Feb 2013
United States. Government Accountability Office. “Freshwater Supply: States’ Views of How
Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Shortages”. GAO,
July 2003. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.
USA. U.S. Geological Service. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005. By J. F.
Kenny, N. L. Barber, K. S. Linsey, and J. K. Lovelace. Vol. 1344. USGS Circular. Web. 5 Feb.
2013.
United Nations. United Nations Education Social “World Water Development Report 4:
Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk.” World Water Assessment Programme.
Vol 1: 2012 UNESCO. Web: 17 Feb 2013.
Walton, Brett. "The Price of Water: A Comparison of Water Rates, Usage in 30 U.S. Cities."
Circleofblue.com. 26 Apr. 2010. Web. 20 Jan. 2013.
18