• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Executive summary
 Program implementation
 Statistical analysis
 Program costs
 Exhibits






Title: Water conservation and water consumption in Spring Hill, Florida
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WC08719810/00001
 Material Information
Title: Water conservation and water consumption in Spring Hill, Florida
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Florida Water Services Corporation
Publisher: Florida Water Services Corporation
Publication Date: 2000
 Subjects
Subject: Water conservation - Spring Hill (Fla.)
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WC08719810
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Conserve Florida Water Clearinghouse
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

WC08719810 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
    Executive summary
        Page 1
    Program implementation
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Statistical analysis
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
    Program costs
        Page 35
    Exhibits
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
Full Text






Water Conservation and Water Consumption in
Spring Hill, Florida



Final Report
To The
Southwest Florida Water Management District


An analysis of the effectiveness of indoor water
conservation devices and water use using survey data and
Measuring water usage before and after installation

A joint project of Florida Water Services and The Coastal
River Basin Board of the Southwest Florida Water
Management District

From
Florida Water Services Corporation
P.O. Box 609520

-VyFIorida
Water
6J S" ER VICES
Orlando, Florida 32860-9520
1-407-880-0058

HD 04257
1694
F525

IMAGED
G 'o -.,


~










Table of Contents

Executive Sum m ary........................................................................................................ 1
O verview ............................................................................................................. 1
C conclusion .......................................................................................................... 1
Program C osts..................................................................................................... 1
Program Implementation........................................................................................... 2
Preliminary Steps ........................................................................................... 2
Public Education......................................................................................... 2
Low-Flow Toilet Program.......................................................................... 2
Indoor Plumbing Retrofit Program ............................ ........................... 2
Statistical Analysis ...................................................................................... 3
C ost................. ....................................................................................................... 3
Public Education Program.............................................................................. 4
Indoor Plumbing Retrofit Program ............................................... ............. 4
Statistical Analysis of Indoor Retrofit Program and
Low-Flow Toilet Rebate Program ................................................ ............. 5
Statistical A nalysis........................................................................:........................... 7
Resume of Christopher McCarty, Ph.D......................... ............. ............ 8
Resume of Edward W. Neu....................................................................... 12
Overview............................. ........................ ................ 18
Overview of Analysis...................................... ................................ .......... 19
Analytic File Description........................................................................... 20
Table 1. Percent Match for Different Surveys.............................. .......... .. 21
Table 2. Matches Between Various Data Sources ......................................... 22
Table 3. Matches Between Various Data Sources for Those with
Separate Irrigation Accounts................................................................ 22
Household Demographics.......................................................................... 22
Figure 1. Percentage of Snowbirds in Residence By Month........................... 23
Patterns of Water Use................................................................................ 24
Figure 2. Total Water Consumption by Month............................... .......... 24
Figure 3. Water Comsumption by Month..................................... ........... ... 25
Houseold Infrastructure ................................................................................... 25
Figure 4. Percent of Homes by Home Type .................................... .......... 26
Figure 5. Decade in which Spring Hill Homes were Constructed.................. 26
Figure 6. Distribution of Houses by Square Footage....................................... 27
Figure 7. Distribution of Lot Sizes.............................. ............................. 27
Figure 8. Percentage of Household with Specific Water
Consuming Features............................................................................ 27
Figure 9. Percentage of Homes with Previously Installed
Water Saving Devices ............................................................................... 28
Figure 10. Percent Distribution of Age of Houses When
Device Was Installed........................................................................... 29
Figure 11. Percent Distribution of Years Device Has Been Installed............... 29
Household Irrigation ................................................................................. 30
Things to Keep in Mind............................................................................. 30
Differences Between Card and Phone Survey Data....................................... 30










Table Of Contents Continued


Differences in Treatm ent and Control Design.................................... ........... 31
Table 4. Comparison of Treatment and Control Group On
Selected Attributes................................................... ......................... 32
Figures 12. Com prison of Indoor W ater U se................................................ 32
W ho Installed the Kit?....................................................................................... 33
Low Flow Toilets ...................................... ....................... 33
Conclusion and Recom m endations ..................................................... ........ .... 33
Program Costs ............................................................................................................. 35
Exhibits
Exhibit A .................................................................................................... 36
Exhibit B........................................................................................................... 38
Exhibit C.................................................................................................... 39
Exhibit D .................................................................................................... 40
Exhibit E ........................................................................................................... 41
Exhibit F ........................................ ................. .............. ............................ 42
Exhibit G............................................................... ..................................... 43
Exhibit H ............................................................... ................................... .. 45
Exhibit I..................................................................................................... 46
Exhibit J................................................................ ..................... .......... ..... 47
Exhibit K ........................................................................................................... 48
Exhibit L ............................................................................ ...................... 49
Exhibit M ......................................................................................................... 50
Exhibit N ........................................................................................................... 52
Exhibit 0................................................................ .................................... 54
Exhibit P ............................................... .......... ................... ................ 55
Exhibit R........................................................................................................... 56
Exhibit S .......................................................................................................... 57
Exhibit T ........................................ ........................................... ................ 58
Exhibit U ............................................................... ..................................... 59
Exhibit V..................................................... ................................................. 60









EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Overview

Florida Water Services Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Florida Water) and the Coastal River
Basin Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (hereinafter referred to as
SWFWMD) entered into a Cooperative Funding Agreement (SWFWMD #P728) for a special 1997-
1998 water conservation program for Florida Water's Spring Hill service territory.

Spring Hill, in Hernando County, is Florida Water's largest single service area. The territory
includes approximately 24,000 residential and 6,500 commercial customers. The historical billing
analysis of Spring Hill customers indicated that the residential customers consume 2.7 billion
gallons of water annually. More significantly, 25 percent of the residential population consume 2/3
of the water.

7,500 high-volume single-family residential and multi-family consumers were specifically targeted
and were the major focus of the program.

The program included pre-implementation surveys of Spring Hill customers to ensure proper
customer selection, water usage impact of indoor plumbing retrofit kits and measurable reductions
in water usage because of the installation of low-flow toilet replacements. The program also
encompassed a public education program including press releases, advertising, bill notices and
conservation seminars.

The water conservation kits and low-flow toilets were distributed to different customer groups.

Conclusion

Use of the indoor water conservation kits resulted in a usage drop of approximately 550 gallons (15)
percent per month.

Following installation and use of low flow toilets, customers with indoor accounts showed a
reduction in water use of 689 gallons a month, or 19 percent.

Program Costs

The total cost of this program ended up as $173,612.77. The largest single item was the 12,356
retrofit kits at a cost of $6.60 each, totaling $81,549.60 paid to VOLT VIEWtech, Inc. The low
flow toilet portion of this program ended up under budget because the demand for the rebate was
less than expected. A complete breakdown of the Program costs can be found on Page 35.









PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION


Preliminary Steps

Prior to the announcement of the program to the customers, initial research and identification of the
7,500 highest indoor water users was necessary. To identify this group, the Company went beyond
monthly consumption levels. Two separate individual customer surveys were utilized. The first
survey was to obtain demographics, i.e. age of home, residential living seasonality, number of
persons in households, income levels, number of fixtures, prior use of water saving devices and lot
size. The second survey was designed to separate those customers that use considerable water for
irrigation from the selected group.

Once the 7,500 high indoor water users were identified, the selected customers were separated
randomly, but evenly, into two distinct groups. One group of 3,750 customers were asked to install
the indoor retrofit kits and utilize them for a period of six months prior to the distribution of the kits
to the remaining 3,750 high-end users. The water usage of the group with kits was compared to the
group who had not yet installed the kits for a period of several months.

Public Education

The press release announcing the beginning of the program was sent to the area media on September
30, 1997. A letter announcing the program was sent to each Spring Hill customer. Three
conservation seminars were held for customers in the area. Customers receiving the indoor
plumbing retrofit kits were notified in advance by postcard. The low flow toilet rebate was
communicated through the press, letter and bill notices.

Low-Flow Toilet Program

Customers who replaced older commodes with low flow toilets were provided rebates of $100, as
a credit against their water bills. The number of toilet rebates was was originally planned at 250.
This program was conducted through Florida Water's Spring Hill customer service office.
Customers were allowed up to two low flow toilet rebates per household. The availability of the
rebates was communicated through publicity, individual letters to customers and two separate bill
notices. Individuals had to present to Florida Water's customer service representatives a bill for
purchase of a low flow toilet and proof of installation by a certified installer. They then received
a $100 rebate certificate, which they sent in with their bills. When the certificate was received, a
$100 credit was placed on their account. The customers who responded numbered 146.

Indoor Plumbing Retrofit Program

Florida Water contracted the Tampa Office of VOLT VIEWtech, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
VIEWtech), an experienced conservation program implementation company, to distribute the kits,
do follow-ups on installation and conduct telephone surveys on the results. The kits distributed were
sufficient to covet all the indoor plumbing of a three-bedroom, two-and-one-half bath, the









predominant home size in the Spring Hill area. The distribution was directed to the top 7,500 indoor
water users who consume 2/3 of the area's water usage. These users had to be identified through
questionnaires designed to eliminate high irrigation users.

VIEWtech's role in this program included procuring the water conservation devices, providing for
delivery, installing devices when requested, following up on installations and doing a telephone
survey to assure installation. Water usage and demographic analysis was done by a statistics Ph.D.
at the University of Florida, with the assistance of graduate students.

Each kit included two low-flow showerheads, three bathroom faucet aerators, one kitchen faucet
aerator, three toilet displacement bags, 1 dye tablet, 1 roll of Teflon tape, installation instructions,
SWFWMD Post Card Order Form for conservation booklets and postage paid customer installation
notification card.

In addition to the general communications efforts of press release, seminars, letters and bill notices,
customers were individually notified by VIEWtech approximately one-week prior to kit delivery
of the program, delivery time frame and given a telephone number for more information.

Identifying the customers to be included in the two groups took considerable time. Two separate
surveys were distributed, one to get demographics and the second to separate high indoor vs.
outdoor water users. The first phase was to distribute 3,750 customers as the control group.
Following the six-month time frame for the control group, VIEWtech completed a telephone survey
and distributed the remaining 3750 kits to the second group of high indoor water users.

Delivery of the first 3,750 kits began in November 1997 and lasted approximately six weeks.
Because the responses from the high-end customers did not meet the 3,750 number, random
selection from other non-irrigating customers completed this group. Return postcards indicated that
approximately 96 percent of the kits were immediately installed and 3 percent were going to be
installed in the near future. Distribution to the second half of the customers began in June 1998,
allowing approximately six months of data of the control group who had already installed the kits
to be compared to the other high end residential indoor water users.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis of the data collected both for the water savings because of the indoor
plumbing retrofit kits and the low flow toilet rebates was completed by the Director of the Bureau
of Economic and Business Research Survey Program and the University of Florida and the Manager
of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, Bureau of managed Health Care, Office of
Managed Care Financial and Data Analysis.

Cost

Total Program cost was $173,612.77.









Public Education Program


The initial press release was issued September 30, 1997, following the surveying and identification
of customers. A personal letter from the President of Florida Water announcing the program was
sent to each Spring Hill customer.

Florida Water held three separate Water Conservation Seminars in Spring Hill. Prior to these
seminars, announcements were made to the local media and notices were placed on customer's bills
(sample bill notice attached). The seminars included presentations on Xeriscape and Outdoor Water
conservation by the SWFWMD, indoor water conservation by Florida Water, care of native Florida
plants and raffle drawings for native Florida plants. Each attendee received an indoor plumbing
water retrofit kit.

The seminars were held at the Spring Hill Civic Association building on Monday, October 6, .1997
(10 a.m. to 12 noon); Thursday, January 22, 1998 (1 p.m. to 4 p.m.), and Tuesday, May 12, 1998
(6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.) Special care was taken to have them on different days of the week and
different times of the day to attract diverse audiences. Agendas for each of these seminars and list
of attendees are in the exhibit section.

Indoor Plumbing Retrofit Program

Volt VIEWtech was contracted by Florida Water Services to provide water saving retrofit kits and
their distributions. The kits included a special conservation message, a return postcard regarding
installation and installation instructions. The kits were distributed to customers identified by Florida
Water as high use customers through two separate surveys. An equal number of high use customers
(3,750) were held as a control group for distribution some months after the first group received their
kits. The water usage of the control group was compared to the first distribution group to measure
the reduction of usage, if any, which occurred in the first group.

The contract was awarded to VIEWtech on May 16, 1997. The list of customers selected through
the survey process was delivered to VIEWtech on disk. VIEWtech sorted the data for delivery and
ordered the kits as per the program's specifications.

Delivery of the kits to VIEWtech was on October 9, 1997. At that time a postcard was sent to all
delivery customers notifying them of the delivery to take place up to 4-6 weeks in the future. A
phone number for VIEWtech was listed on the card for the customer to call if the kit did not arrive
by the expected time. Kit distribution to the first group began on October 14, 1997 and was
completed on November 21, 1997.









VIEWtech received Customer Installation Notification Cards through May 29, 1998. A summary
of the customer responses is attached. VIEWtech attempted to call all customers for which they had
phone numbers to perform a phone survey. The phone survey (attached) began on March 1, 1998
and the results reported on May 29, 1998. A summary of the phone survey responses and phone
survey is discussed below.

No major problems were encountered during the first phase of the kit delivery program. A few
customers called to say their kit had been stolen or was otherwise missing. Most of these were from
customers who had been away. Less than five customers called as late as March.

For the six months following kit distribution, water usage of this group was monitored.

The second phase of the delivery to the control group began on April 6, 1998 with the ordering of
the kits. On June 10, 1998, a postcard (attached) was sent to all delivery customers notifying them
of the delivery to take place up to 4-6 weeks in the future. Again, a phone number for VIEWtech
was listed on the card for the customer to call if the kit did not arrive by the expected time. Actual
kit distribution to the control group began on June 12, 1998. Do to a return mail postage card error,
kit distribution was suspended until July 28, 1998, when it recommended. Completion of the
delivery was during August 1998.

The responses of the first distribution group to the post cards and telephone survey indicated that
95 percent of those surveyed had installed their retrofit kits. Twenty-two percent of the initial group
returned survey cards, and two hundred sixty-four telephone surveys were completed.

Statistical Analysis of Indoor Retrofit Program and Low-Flow Toilet Rebate Program

The statistical analysis of the water usage of the control group compared to the water usage of the
group which installed retrofit kits was completed by the University of Florida.

The initial survey to all Spring Hill customers was administered to gain information regarding the
demographics of Spring Hill customers. Specifically, the study was aimed at determining why a
small portion of the customer base consumes the majority of water sold. In addition 24-months of
usage by each customer at the Spring Hill facility was studied.

Residential customers were classified as either low or high users, based on their historic
consumption. They were also classified as indoor or outdoor users. The indoor users included those
customers who a) said they do not water their lawn, b) have a separate irrigation account, or c) have
an irrigation well. All other users were classified as outdoor users.

A preliminary analysis of the data revealed that the main difference between the high and low water
users was the indoor/outdoor variable. In other words, the high users were those whose
consumption included both indoor and irrigation usage. Conversely, the low users were those users
whose consumption included only indoor usage.









A high percentage of Spring Hill customers -- 40 percent -- could be classified as indoor users. The
study was based on this group since it involved indoor plumbing retrofits. The demographics of this
group are not significantly different from those in the outdoor group with respect to any other
variable, except irrigation usage. It appears that in Spring Hill, a customer's irrigation consumption
does not have any bearing on his/her indoor consumption. Since this is the case, the indoor savings
can be applied to the outdoor group as well as absolute savings. It cannot be calculated on a
percentage basis.

Customers were advised by letter and bill notices that the low-flow toilet rebates were available.
They were issued only to those who replaced older higher-water using commodes with the low-flow
toilets. Upon proof of purchase and installation by a certified installer, customers received a $100
rebate certificate (Attached), which, when mailed with their bill to Florida Water, was credited
against their account. A maximum of two low-flow toilet rebates was allowed per residential
household.

The head of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research Survey Program at the University of
Florida analyzed the consumption differences between the control group and the first group to
receive indoor plumbing retrofit kits. A similar analysis was done for a sample of those who
installed the low flow toilets.


















An analysis of the effectiveness of indoor water conservation
devices and water use using survey data collected by Florida
Water Services. This project was co-funded by a grant from the
Southwest Florida Water Management District

Chris McCarty, Ph.D., The Director of the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research Survey Program, University of Florida.

Edward Neu, Manager, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration,
Bureau of Managed Health Care, Office of Managed Care Financial and
Data Analysis.
January 20, 1999











VITA


CHRISTOPHER MCCARTY


HOME ADDRESS: OFFICE ADDRESS:
3726 NW 7th Ave. 221 Matherly Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32607 University of Florida
Telephone (352) 336-6979 Gainesville, Florida 32611
e-mail ufchris@ufl.edu Telephone (352) 392-4767 x332

SUMMARY:
Extensive experience with economic, demographic and survey data. Managed survey operations, including survey
design, sampling design and analysis. Skilled in the design and programming of data collection systems, data base
management and statistical analysis. Research interests in the areas of social networks, collective labor, and interest
group formation. Consulting experience with USAID in Ghana, Cameroon and Jamaica; extensive experience in rural
Mexico. Speak, read and write Spanish.

EDUCATION:
1992 Ph.D. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Major in Applied Anthropology. Title: "Perceived
Clique Definition in Ego-Centered Networks".
Minor in Agricultural Economics.
1985 MA University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Major in Cultural Anthropology. Title:
"Development Among the Otomi of the Mezquital".
1980 BA West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia. Major in Sociology/Anthropology.

EMPLOYMENT:
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Director. Bureau of Economic and Business Research Survey Program. Initiated program to do funded research
projects. Design questionnaires, sampling strategies, and set budgets. Analyze survey results, write reports and
make recommendations to clients. Communicate statistical results to media. 7/92 present.

Associate in Research. Bureau of Economic and Business Research Survey Program. Reorganized survey
program. Designed software and hardware platform for computerized data collection. Developed management
plan to train and monitor interviewers. 9/90 6/92.

Research Analyst, Bureau of Economic and Business Research Economic Forecastin Program. Maintained state
and metropolitan economic forecasting models. Ran simulations and generated reports for quarterly publication.
2/87 8/90.











Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Tallahassee, Florida
Programmer Analyst, Children, Youth and Families Data Unit. Evaluated data collection process for several child
welfare programs and implemented more efficient collection procedures. Analyzed results of data collection and
prepared reports. 2/86 1/87.
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Half-time graduate assistantships involving programming, statistical analysis or database development from 1979
to 1986 in various medical research departments.

PUBLICATIONS:
H.Russell Bernard, Peter D. Killworth and Christopher McCarty. "INDEX: An Experiment in Social Structure."
Social Forces 61:99-133 (1982).

Aaron Podolefsky and Christopher McCarty "A Technique for Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis."
American Anthropologist 85:886-890 (1983).

Peter D. Killworth, H. Russell Bernard and Christopher McCarty. "Measuring Patterns of Acquaintance." Current
Anthropology 25:381-397 (1984).

H. Russell Bernard, Peter D. Killworth, Michael J. Evans, Christopher McCarty and Gene A. Shelley. "Studying
Social Relations Cross-Culturally." Ethnology 27:155-179 (1988).

H. Russell Bernard, Peter D. Killworth, Christopher McCarty and Gene A. Shelley. "Comparing Four Different
Methods for Measuring Personal Social Networks." Social Networks 12:179-215 (1990).

Peter D. Killworth, H. Russell Bernard, Christopher McCarty and Gene A. Shelley. "Estimating the Size of
Personal Networks." Social Networks 12:289-312 (1990).

Christopher McCarty. "Determining Sample Size for Telephone Surveys." Cultural Anthropology Methods (1994).

Christopher McCarty. "How to Contract for a Survey." Cultural Anthropology Methods (1995).

Gene A. Shelley, H. Russell Bernard, Peter D. Killworth, Eugene Johnsen and Christopher McCarty. "Who Knows
Your HIV Status? What HIV+ Patients and Their Network Members Know About Each Other." Social Networks
17:189-217 (1995).

Eugene Johnsen, H. Russell Bernard, Peter D. Killworth, Gene A. Shelley, and Christopher McCarty. "A Social
Network Approach to Corroborating the Number of AIDS/HIV+ Victims in the US." Social Networks 17:169-187
(1995).

Mary Ann Burg, Christopher McCarty and David Denslow. "Advance Directives: Population Prevalence and
Demand in Florida" Journal of the Florida Medical Association 82:811-814 (1995).

Christopher McCarty. "The Meaning of Knowing as a Network Tie." Connections 18:20-31 (1996).

Stanley K. Smith and Christopher McCarty. "Demographic Effects of Natural Disasters: A Case Study of Hurricane
Andrew." Demography 33:265-275 (1996).

Christopher McCarty, H. Russell Bernard, Peter D. Killworth, Eugene Johnsen and Gene A. Shelley. "Eliciting
Representative Samples of Personal Networks." Social Networks 19:303-323.

Peter D. Killworth, Eugene Johnsen, Christopher McCarty, Gene A. Shelley and H. Russell Bernard. Estimation of
Seroprevalence, Rape and Homelessness in the U.S. Using a Social Network Approach. Social Networks 20:23-50.

Peter D. Killworth, Christopher McCarty, Eugene Johnsen, Gene A. Shelley and H. Russell Bernard A Social
Network Approach to Estimating Seroprevalence in the United States. Evaluation Review 22:289-308.












COURSES TAUGHT:
Marketing Research, 1992, 1996
Quantitative Geography (selected lectures), 1983.

LANGUAGES:
Speak, read and write Spanish
Beginning level French, Russian, Bulgarian

FIELD EXPERIENCE:
Two months on Navajo Reservation in 1978; two months in Bulgaria in 1984; total of one year in various rural areas
of Mexico over a ten year period.

CONSULTING:
USAID project in Cameroon concerning accounting databases for an agricultural university. USAID project in
Jamaica concerning database for agricultural research organization.
USAID project in Ghana concerning post election democracy survey.

RESEARCH SKILLS:
Design, collection and analysis of statistical data. Command of descriptive and inferential statistics, including
multivariate techniques. Hands on experience with the design and maintenance of survey samples for both telephone
and face-to-face interviews. Knowledge ofprocedures for text analysis.



























1.











COMPUTER SKILLS:
Full command of SAS, SPSS/PC and several economic forecasting packages; working knowledge of FORTRAN and
PL1. Extensive experience with VM/CMS, and MVS/TSO environments. Expertise with both IBM-compatible and
Macintosh computers and a variety of PC software. LAN installation (Apple LAN and Novell Ethernet LAN).
Programming of computerized interview instruments using CLIPPER and Visual Dbase. Design and implementation
of computerized telephone surveys. Knowledge of Mapinfo and GIS.

REFERENCES:
H. Russell Bernard, Professor of Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, 1350 Turlington Hall, University of
Florida, Gainesville FL, 32611 (352) 392-2031

Stanley K. Smith, Professor of Economics/Director, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 221 Matherly
Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville FL, 32611 (352) 392-0171

David Denslow, Distinguished Service Professor of Economics, 340 Matherly Hall, University of Florida,
Gainesville FL, 32611 (352) 392-0171

Mary Ann Burg, Assistant Professor, Department of Community Health and Family Medicine, PO Box 103588,
University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32610-3588 (352) 395-8073

Ed Neu, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, Bureau of Managed Health Care Data Analysis Unit,
2727 Mahan Drive: Bldg #1 Rm 311 Tallahassee, FL 32308 (850) 414-9443











Edward W. Neu
5381 Appledore Lane
Tallahassee, FL 32308
Home: (850) 668-3658
Work: (850) 414-9443
Employment History

Manager, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, Bureau of Managed Health Care,
Office of Managed Care Financial and Data Analysis (02/96 present)
Development of measurement, financial analysis, and capitation rates for Medicaid
HMOs
Development of report cards for commercial and Medicaid HMOs
Managed commercial HMO Satisfaction Survey of over 24,000 recipients
Analysis of service utilization, financial performance, and other quality and access
indicators for Medicaid prepaid health plans.
Policy and financial analysis of proposed managed care related legislation
Creation of the mandatory assignment system for Medicaid HMOs
Agency advisor on managed care financial analysis, management information systems,
capitation rates, and quality of care measurement.
Review managed health care data and information systems at Medicaid contracted
health plans.
Managed HMO receiverships
Create and deliver presentations on issues relating to the financial analysis and quality
measurement in managed care.

Senior Management Analyst, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, Office of
Medicaid Program Development (08/95 2/96)
Analysis of Medicaid Programs to develop and operate cost-saving reforms in the
Florida Medicaid Program.
Advise program development staff in matters of statistical research and other data
based evaluation and policy research.
Developed AHCA policies on Exceptional Claims Reduction, Transportation Reform,
Community Mental Health Reforms, Evaluation of Healthy Start Program, Prepaid
Mental Health Pilot Project.

Senior Health Policy Analyst, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, Office of
Health Policy (2/93 8/95)
Development and implementation of the Florida Health Care and Insurance Reform Act
of 1993
Developed participation model for Florida Health Security program with RAND
Corporation, Medimetrix, and the Urban Institute
Assisted in the development of the Florida Health Security Program Federal Medicaid
Waiver
Developed an analytic database of Accountable Health Partnerships (AHPs) rates
Lead analyst in the Florida initiative to standardize health care claims forms and
promote electronic filing of health care claims
Appointed Evaluator of Medicaid Fiscal Agent proposals
Evaluated Pricing and Market Impact of Community Health Purchasing Alliances
(CHPAs).











Employment History (continued)


Contracted Consultant, Florida Office of Statewide Prosecution (10/92 12/95, part-time)
Development and Implementation of the Statewide Prosecution Case Tracking and
Defendant Database System. This system is a multi-user system, which operates over
the FDLE network.
System design and analysis, including joint application development sessions to
identify user requirements
System presentation and walkthrough at state wide prosecution meeting for all
statewide prosecution staff

Contracted Consultant, Florida Office of the Attorney General (10/89 10/92)
Development, Modification, and Performance of the Annual Legal Services Survey.
This is an annual survey mandated by the legislature.
System design and development of data management and reporting systems for survey
data

Systems Project Analyst, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, Comprehensive
Health Planning (12/89 2/93)
Performed business analysis of all health care regulatory functions
Lead designer and project manager of a statewide information system
System development using the STRADIS structured development methodology and the
Prokit Workbench CASE tool
Novell network procurement, installation, configuration, troubleshooting and
administration
Supervision and technical support for several programmers and analysts developing
distributed database applications in Clipper and C programming languages
Interview users and user groups to understands agency operations and develop system
specifications (JAD sessions)
Statistical data analysis and report writing

Microcomputer Specialist, Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center (4/88 12/89)
Design and development of networked application programs using Clipper and C
Local Area Network implementation and administration
Hardware and software troubleshooting
System specification and procurement
User support and product evaluation

Planner II, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Children, Office of
Research and Development, Children, Youth and Families (2/87 4/88)
Design and development of information systems
Statistical analysis, interpretation, and support
Computer equipment selection and acquisition
User support and training

Program Evaluator, Archways, Fort Lauderdale (1/86 2/87)
Automation of Medicaid billing and documentation
Supervise Quality Assurance and Client Record Staff
Evaluation and reporting of agency performance and compliance
Founding member ARTS Consortium Evaluation Committee










Employment History (continued)


Computer Systems Consultant, American Mini Systems (6/85 12/85)
Microcomputer system planning and installation
Hardware troubleshooting and repair
Custom computer software
Office automation planning and software support

Data Analyst, Department of Psychiatry, University of Florida (6/84 6/85)
Design and development of IBM-PC based optical scanner data acquisition system
Data management and analysis (SAS, SPSS, BMDP, IMSL)

Instructor, Department of Psychology, University of Florida (Part-time 8/84 12/84)
Taught Applications in Behavior Modification and Behavior Therapy

Research Technician, Department of Nephrology, University of Florida (8/82 6/84)
Design, construction, and maintenance of electronic and electro-mechanical laboratory
equipment
Microcomputer Programming (BASIC, 6502 Assembler)
Analysis and reporting of experimental data (SAS, SAS/Graph, SPSS)

Education

(1979-1982) Bachelor of Science in Psychology, University of Florida. Minor in Statistics.

(1983-1985) Completed 65 hours of graduate course work in Psychology, Statistics, and
Computer Science at the University of Florida. All course work toward the
Ph.D. in psychology has been completed.

Skills and Experience

Health Policy Research
Public presentation of health policy issues in Medicaid and in particular Medicaid
Managed Care
Project Management
Legislative bill analysis, policy and fiscal impact.
Analysis and improvement of claims and transaction processing systems
Technical and analytic writing, research articles, and reports
Design and management of information systems development projects using
structured development methodologies
Communication network installation, configuration, and operation
Data entity relationship modeling and data flow diagrams, JAD Sessions
Use of Computer Assisted Software Engineering products
Use of statistical software and spreadsheets for data analysis and reporting
Twelve years experience with relational database design
Thirteen years experience with microcomputer database application development
Graphical and statistical analysis of data










* Extensive experience with Microsoft office and related products. Complex
spreadsheets modeling database processing, desktop publishing and Web page
development.
* Programming languages: APL, BASIC, C, Clipper, SAS, SPSS, dBASE, PL/1,
QUICKJOB,
* Research design and data analysis











References


Douglas M. Cook
Director
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration
2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32308
(904) 922-5527


Kate Morgan
Chief, Bureau of Managed Health Care
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration
2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32308
(904) 922-6830


H. Robert Sharpe
Chief, Medicaid Program Development
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration
2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32308
(904) 922-7356


Jeff Gregg
Chief, Office of Health Policy
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration
2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32308
(904) 922-5860


Melanie Hines
Statewide Prosecutor
Office of Statewide Prosecution
2020 Capital Circle SW
Erwin Building Suite 300
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904) 487-2807









Ed Neu is the manager of Managed Health Care Analysis for the State of Florida. This office is
responsible for the measurement of HMO performance including service utilization and quality
of services as well as the monitoring of financial performance. The office monitors both
commercial and Medicaid contracted HMOs.

Mr. Neu has an exceptional background in quantitative health policy research, having worked in
the Office of Health Policy and for the Medicaid program development office. Mr. Neu was a
primary analyst on the 1993 and 1994 Florida Health Plans, the development and evaluation of
the Community Health Purchasing Alliances (CHPAs), and the Florida Health Security 1115
Medicaid 1115 demonstration waiver.

He has developed several information and program evaluation systems for a variety of
organizations including the Florida Office of the Attorney General, the Office of Statewide
Prosecution, Children's Mental Health Program, and the Florida Supported Employment
program. He is a graduate of the University of Florida and has an extensive background in
program evaluation and quantitative research. He has worked on research and development
projects including human behavioral pharmacology, human behavioral time allocation,
residential mental health programs, hospital administrative and patient care systems, health
facility regulation, and a wide variety of specific health policy and program analysis studies.









Overview


Florida Water Services (FWS) of Orlando received a grant from the Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD) to conduct a study of the effectiveness of indoor water
conservation promoting devices and water use among its customers. It has long been known that
the majority of water usage for a water utility is generated by a relatively small number of
customers. Although it is suspected that much of the high consumption is explained by outdoor
use, research has suggested that conservation techniques targeting primarily indoor use can
reduce water usage with virtually no loss of service to the customer. Promoting the adoption of
these conservation techniques has proven to be a difficult task.

FWS collected data for one year in order to answer three questions. First, what are the
household characteristics of high end versus low end users? Are there characteristics aside from
indoor and outdoor use that would explain high end use? These answers are considered
important for determining policy on water use restrictions during times of water shortage.

Second, are there differences between those who adopt water conservation techniques and those
who do not? When customers adopt water conservation techniques, how much of an impact does
it have on water use?

Third, does the installation of water conserving devices save water? If so, do some devices save
more water than others?

FWS selected Spring Hill Florida (approximately 31,000 households) as the site for the study.
Spring Hill was selected because it has a high percentage of customers who can be identified as
primarily indoor water users (roughly 40%), and because it is covered both by FWS and by the
SWFWMD. The study was designed as follows:

1. Mail a questionnaire to all Spring Hill customers to gather demographic information about
the household and to solicit volunteers to receive a conservation kit that included indoor
water saving devices such as low flow showerheads, aerators for sinks and toilet tank bags
(see attachment 1).

2. Select a sample from those who volunteered to receive the kit in response to the mail survey.

3. Randomly assign respondents to a treatment or a control group. This was designed to assess
the effects of the use of the conservation kit while controlling for outside influences such as
weather conditions.

4. Send respondents in the treatment group a conservation kit to install along with a card to
return indicating whether or not they had installed it (see attachment 2).

5. Six months later send respondents in the control group a conservation kit to install along with
a card to return indicating whether or not they had installed it. This six-month period where
the treatment group had the kit and the control group did not allows the comparison of
persons using the kit with those who did not while controlling for outside influences such as
weather conditions.









6. Conduct a telephone survey of randomly selected customers who received the kit (see
attachment 3). This sample would be free of the self-selection bias of those who volunteered
to return the card.

7. Provide customers, at their request, a rebate for low-flow toilets. Given the expense of low-
flow toilets the sample size for this component of the project was kept to a minimum.

If successfully implemented this design would provide data to determine the types of households
that would install a kit and whether the installation made a difference. However, as is often the
case with surveys, there were complications. Specifically, the response to the initial survey was
lower than expected at 5,056. And of those who returned the survey, fewer than expected
volunteered to install the kit.

A second survey was designed (see attachment 4) to solicit more volunteers to receive the
conservation kit. Again, fewer customers than expected returned the survey and volunteered for
the program.

Since the SWFWMD had provided approximately 7,500 kits and only 2,786 customers had
volunteered for the program from Survey 1 and Survey 2, FWS randomly chose additional
customers for the program. These additional kits were sent to 1,229 customers whose indoor use
could be separated from their outdoor use because they had a separate account for irrigation
water. An additional 3,485 customers were selected because they had the highest average use
after eliminating the highest two and lowest two usage months in a 24 month period.

Of the roughly 7,500 kits that were sent, only 469 (6 percent) returned the enclosed card and of
those 448 indicated that they had installed the kit. About eighty percent of card data were linked
to the consumption and other data using all available information (see Table 1).

A telephone survey was administered in order to increase the sample size of the treatment and
control group data and to get more detailed information about what components of the kit were
installed. There are responses from 211 of these telephone surveys in this data set (see
attachment 4).

Of the roughly 7,500 kits that were sent, data about who installed the kit exists for 646
customers. These data come from one of two sources, the stamped self-addressed card included
with the kit and/ the telephone survey. Most of the analysis will be based on this set of 646
customers.

Overview of Analysis

There are several complexities encountered when these data are analyzed. The reader is
encouraged to keep these issues in mind when reviewing this analysis. These issues can
introduce a bias in the results. Some of this bias is the non-response bias inherent in all survey
data, that is, you don't know what the people who didn't respond would have said. In addition
are the following points:

1. The overall data file consists of all Spring Hill customers receiving service at any time during
the period of the study. Some customer records do not cover the entire period as they moved









out or moved into Spring Hill while the study was ongoing. Other records represent
irrigation accounts alone.

2. The sample of those who received a kit consists of a mix of respondents, some who were
volunteers from the general Spring Hill population and others who were assigned a kit. We
would expect different rates of installation for those who volunteered to participate versus
those who were sent a kit without volunteering. Secondly, the additional sample who were
sent kits without volunteering consisted of a mix of high end users and indoor users rather
than a random sample of customers.

3. Those who did not install the kit were less motivated to return the card than those who did
install the kit. In order to answer the question "Who installs the kit?" we do not want to limit
the analysis only to those who returned the card.

Because of these constraints the data will be used as follows:

1. The overall data set will be used to describe patterns of water use and to define categories of
usage. All average water use calculations include only months with non-zeros values, so if a
customer had zeros for six months of the two year period the denominator would be 18 rather
that 24. Irrigation accounts were combined in the same customer record as the household
accounts allowing the indoor and outdoor water use to be analyzed separately for customers
with separate irrigation accounts.

2. Data from Survey 1 will be used to determine what household characteristics are associated
with higher or lower water usage.

3. The data from customers who completed both the telephone survey and Survey 1 are used to
assess any differences in household characteristic and demographics between customers who
installed the conservation kit and those who did not.

4. Data from the phone survey and the cards combined with water consumption data are used to
assess the effects of the conservation kit on water consumption. The water consumption of
the control and treatment groups can be compared controlling outside influences such as
weather conditions. Phone survey data are used to assess the effect of the installation of the
conservation devices on water consumption within the household before and after the kit is
installed.

Analytic file description

The primary data set contained two years worth of monthly water consumption data for every
Spring Hill water customer. These data were used to analyze water consumption patterns. The









mail surveyswere readily matched to the consumption data using the customer's account number.
The data from the phone and the card survey were matched via phone numbers, customer name,
and through manual review. The results of these matching procedures are summarized in Table
1.
Table 1. Percent match for different surveys.
Cards Phone Survey Survey I Survey 2
Total possible completions 7,500 650 31,000 26152
Number received that were usable 608 259 5056 2899
Percent usable 8% 40% 16% 11%
Number not matched to usage data 139 49 3 1
Useable Observations 469 210 5053 2898
Percent Matched 77% 81% 100% 100%
Percent of possible completions 6% 32% 16% 11%

Survey 1 was completed by 5,056 respondents. This data set is the source for household
demographics and such information as what water saving devices are currently installed. This is
a large and representative sample, assuming there was little or no bias associated with who
returned the survey and who did not. A test of the difference between the mean water
consumption of those who completed Survey 1 and those who did not reveals no significant
difference (p=.001). The mean consumption for those who completed Survey 1 was 10,629
compared to 7,842 for those who did not Thus the Survey 1 sample is biased towards high
water users. Nevertheless, the analysis of household demographics and household infrastructure
is fairly complete.

There is the question of whether those who sent in the card that accompanied the indoor water
conservation kit are different than those who did not in terms of consumption. Of those who
returned the cards, indicating that they installed the kit, the average consumption was 16,800
versus 17,515 for those who did not return the card. This is not a significant difference, which is
encouraging. Recall that the group who received the kits was biased towards high end users (see
Overview).

The telephone survey data describe when the kit was installed, and what components of the kit
were installed. Unfortunately the sample size was small and there was significant loss due to
mismatches with the utilization data.

The real losses due to non-response and mismatching are seen when we attempt to combine
information from the various sources. The best data will have a match with Survey 1 and the
telephone survey. As can be seen from Table 2 the losses are severe. For example, only 59
cases from the completed telephone survey match with Survey 1. And 162 cards were returned
that could be matched to Survey 1.











Table 2. Matches between various data sources.
Survey 1 Survey 2 Phone Cards
Survey 1 5053
Survey 2 1275 2898
Phone 59 60 210
Cards 162 182 35 469


The problem is magnified when we want to exclude outdoor water use. As is described below,
outdoor water use accounts for the highest percentage of water use overall and varies more
widely than indoor use. Thus there is reason to look only at those cases where we can exclude
outdoor use, that is customers with a separate irrigation account. Table 3 is formatted like Table
2, but only includes those with a separate irrigation account.


Table 3. Matches between various data sources for those with separate irrigation accounts.
Survey 1 Survey 2 Phone Cards
Survey 1 375
Survey 2 97 199
Phone 27 15 94
Cards 22 10 20 78


Household demographics


Florida has a population of residents who are only in the state for part of the year, usually the
winter months. These "snowbirds" have a significant impact on the total water consumption in
an area. Spring Hill "snowbirds" were identified from the Survey 1 and Survey 2 data as people
who said they were seasonal (versus year-round) residents. They account for about 6.5 percent
of the total population. Survey 1 conducted by FWS was distributed to all Spring Hill residents at
one time in November. Data from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the
University of Florida (BEBR) have found that statewide the proportion of "snowbirds" is
approximately 3.9 percent. Thus, Spring Hill would appear to have a higher snowbird
population than the state average.










Figure 1. Percentage of Snowbirds in Residence by Month


100% ,_7. -,,

9)0

80%












10% _-.


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


Like the state, the snowbird population in Spring Hill peaks in January and is at its lowest in July
and August (Figure 1). Average usage is much higher for year-round residents than for seasonal
residents. This is no doubt due to the fact that snowbirds primarily live in Florida during the
winter months when water consumption is at its lowest and are gone during the winter months
when it is at its peak. Given that snowbirds represent a significant proportion of Survey 1, the
analysis must take them into consideration

The average household size in the Survey 1 sample is 2.2 persons per household compared to
2.37 for Hernando County (which contains Spring Hill) and 2.47 for all of Florida according to
the BEBR Population Program for 1997. This suggests that Spring Hills' population may contain
a higher percentage of retirees than Hernando County or Florida.

Income categories reported by respondents on Survey 1 were compared to Florida income data
from the BEBR monthly survey. This survey tracks the opinions of approximately 1,000
Floridians a month, many of whom come from Hernando County. For June to November of
1998 the percent of respondents from Hernando County with household incomes less than
$50,000 is 92 percent from Survey 1 and 69 percent from the BEBR survey. This suggests that
either the BEBR overestimates income, which is common on telephone surveys, or that Survey 1
underestimates income, or that Spring Hill has a lower average income than other areas of
Hernando County which woulKTbe consistent with the fact that Spring Hill has a larger
percentage of retirees than Hernando County.











Patterns of Water Use

Analysis of the data does reveal a pattern of use across the year as is illustrated in Figure 2. Over
the two-year period prior to the distribution of the conservation kits, total consumption averaged
slightly more than 8,000 gallons per month (standard error = 55). Consumption peaks in both
years between June and July at approximately 10,000 gallons per month, and is at its minimum
in February at about 7,600 gallons per month. Otherwise the pattern of use was quite variable
depending upon outside influences such as weather conditions for that year.





Figure 2. Total Water Consumption by Month


7-I


00
-o :- ': -. -.. "



Au Se Oct No De Ja Fe Ma Apr Ma Ju J
9- p- -9 v- o- n- b- r- -96 y- n- -
95 5 5 95 96 96 96 96 96


\.-..,. ,"






i/ /. ....




ul Au So Oct No De Je Fe Me Apr Ma Ju Jul
)6 g- p- -96 v- o- n- b- r- -97 y- n- -97
96 96 96 96 97 97 97 97 97


Figure 3 demonstrates that outdoor irrigation accounts for the majority of water consumption and
for most of the variability. The line representing household consumption for those with a
separate irrigation account shows a pattern of steady use with little variability from month to
month. Indoor consumption averages about 3,600 gallons per month, less than half the average
level of outdoor use. Given that the conservation kit targets indoor water use, the entire benefit
of the kit must come from this 3,600 gallons.


12,000


10.000


8,000


i 6,000


I 4,000


2.0











Figure 3. Water Consumption by Month


14.000 .....
14,000



110,00 /
I4 JVI
a..- -M,



4,000
-, brg. tion Acount Consumption
2,000 -, '. -Tont Consuu n for Households without a separate Irigadlon count.
S "., -3- Non-rigalion c umpti wfth separate irrigation account
0 .,- .. c ...'- .. e.y
Au Se Oct No De Ja Fe Ma Apr Me Ju -96 p- -96 o- n- b- r- -97 y- n- -97
g- p- -5 v- n- b- r- -96 y- n- 96 96 g 6 96 97 97 97 97 97
95 95 96 95 96 96 9 96 06


One thing becomes immediately clear. There is far more variation in outdoor usage than indoor
usage. The standard deviation for outdoor usage for those with irrigation accounts is 8,363
compared to 2,273 for indoor usage. The standard deviation for those without an irrigation
account is 8,970.

The data suggest that those who are high users exhibit more variability in usage than low users.
We defined three categories of usage: low (less than 5,000 gallons a month), medium (5,000 to
10,000 gallons a month) and high (more than 10,000 gallons a month). Half of the customers
were low users (standard deviation = 1,204), 22 percent were medium users (standard deviation=
1,434) and the remaining 28 percent were high users (standard deviation = 7,907). By far the
highest variability in use comes among the high users.

Low variability can be interpreted as customers more in line with real water needs. High
variability can be interpreted as an indication of some users who are doing something more with
their water than most users. This is undoubtedly outdoor irrigation.

Household infrastructure

The composition of home types in the Spring Hill sample is virtually unvarying. This is due to a
bias introduced by limiting the study to residential accounts and eliminating multifamily
accounts. Multifamily accounts were eliminated from the Spring Hill sample because they are
master metered, therefore, no meaningful individual apartment data could be gathered.
According to the results from Survey I over 97 percent of the houses in the sample are one-story
detached. The number of apartments and mobile homes, significant in other areas of Florida, is
virtually non-existent in the Spring Hill sample. These results are therefore applicable to one-
story detached houses rather than other types of houses. Conservation programs may work











differently for people living in apartments or mobile homes where there is often little or no
outdoor water use.


Figure 4. Percent of Homes by Home
Type
Mobile Home Apartment Duplex
0% 1% Other%
0%
Two Story House
1%


1960s 1960.
0.1% 2


/ 199I0 1970s
S20% 18%
..-. t.
L


Figure 5. Decade in which Spring Hill Homes were


Over half of all homes in Spring Hill were built in the 1980s (see Figure 5). And less than 20
percent are older than 20 years. Most homes are between 1,000 and 2,500 square feet (see
Figure 6) with nearly 40 percent between 1,500 and 2,000 square feet. Lot sizes vary widely,
mostly between 5,000 and 25,000 square feet (a half acre), with the mode between 10,000 and
15,000 or a quarter acre lot (see Figure 7). Nearly 90 percent of all homes occupy less than 30
percent of the lot and over 70 percent occupy less than 20 percent, leaving 70 to 80 percent for
landscaping.


















<1000 sq ft
% l


Over 26,000
6%


2500-2999 sq
10%


Figure 6. Distribution of Houses by Square Footage


20,000-24,N99 sq ft












Figure 7. Distribution of Lot Sizes


Figure 9 shows the distribution of households with items that tend to account for higher water
usage. Virtually all homes have a washing machine and more than 80 percent have a
dishwasher. While few have ajacuzzi (10 percent) over 40 percent have a swimming pool.



Figure 8. Percentage of Household with Specific Water Consuming
Features


-' 4

.4.


4


0%
Dishwasher


Washing Machine Swimming Pool


Prior to the conservation program initiated by FWS several homes already had some water
saving devices (see Figure 10). Low flow showerheads are the most common conservation


Jacuzzi


f0


Over 3000 sq ft
5%


< 5,000 sq Rt
2%


-~-----











device with nearly 60 percent of all households already using them. Over 40 percent report
having aerators installed on sinks, and far fewer report having water saving toilet devices or low
flow toilets.




Figure 9. Percentage of Homes with Previously Installed Water
Saving Devices
70%

0 0% .
i ; ,
s0%

60% _------- ;,--- 0 --






10%

0% -_-__

Low flow showerhead Aerator Low flow toilet Tank with water saving
device


An examination of the combination of water saving devices revealed that 34 percent of those
surveyed have none of the four water-saving devices. This is clearly where the conservation kits
would have the largest impact. Six percent of the sample has all four devices, 13 percent of
those surveyed have the aerators alone, 13 percent have aerators and low flow showerheads, and
12 percent have aerators, low flow showerheads and low flow toilets.











Figure 10. Percent distribution of age of house when device
was installed







If




A9 dN 1 -41
/ O '.: N __ \en iDkrl-
^ .. ^ -^ ^ ^ -T i ( tr
im -------------_^- ^._ ---- J -----

w ----------------------------


Figure 11. Percent distribution of years device has been
installed
,


2D%L
j, ____
I~ ~ ----






S10- 15- 20-
.fy...D.I -24


Figure 11 reveals that most homes with low flow showerheads and aerators had them installed
when the home was built. Toilet tank water saving devices, and to a lesser extent low flow
toilets, were usually installed later. This is again illustrated in Figure 12 which shows that
conservation devices associated with toilets tend to have been installed more recently than low
flow showerheads and aerators.

A regression analysis of the responses to Survey 1 was used to determine whether significant
differences in water usage could be accounted for by these four devices. A regression analysis is
useful for determining which variables explain the variation in usage and to make certain that the
variation moves in the direction we would expect. The model revealed that, as expected, outdoor
irrigation and household size offered the best explanation of water usage. Low-flow toilets were
the only devices that significantly affected water usage and its significance was weak.

Assuming that the variance due to outdoor irrigation introduced confounding effects, we
repeated the analysis with the household usage data for those with separate irrigation accounts.
This allows us to examine the effects of water-saving devices without the effects of outdoor
irrigation. The same model as was described above produced significant effects for number of
people in the household and the year the home was built. The more people in a household the
more water that is consumed and the older a home the more water is consumed. All the water
saving devices except low flow showerheads were insignificant, indicating that they did not
account for more or less water usage. Homes with low flow showerheads tended to have higher
indoor water consumption than homes without the device. The mean indoor usage for homes
with low flow showerheads was 3,700 gallons per month compared to 3,300 gallons per month
for those without this device.

The analysis thus far indicates that many households already have the devices included in the
conservation kit installed in their homes. Comparison of those homes with the devices and those
without suggest that even with the devices installed water saving is negligible if existent at all.
Indeed, low flow showerheads appear to result in higher water consumption. One explanation for
this could be that people with low flow showerheads tend to take longer showers, however, data
were not available to confirm this.










Household Irrigation

Of the respondents in Survey 1, 84 percent stated that they water their lawn. Only about five
percent of customers in Spring Hill have separate irrigation meters. Of those who water their
lawns, about 30 percent have irrigation wells. This means that 54 percent of the households use
irrigation water from FWS.

According to the survey, 86 percent of those who irrigate their lawns have in-ground sprinkler
systems. Of those with sprinkler systems, 84 percent have an automatic timer, 11 percent have a
manual timer, five percent have a rain sensor. Virtually none have in-ground systems without
some form of timer.

Things to keep in mind when interpreting the analysis

The pattern of water consumption revealed by the descriptive data make two things clear:

1. Most of the variability in water consumption is due to outdoor irrigation (See Figure
3). Indeed, when outdoor irrigation is removed, there is much less variability in mean
water usage. Efforts to reduce indoor usage do not target the main source of water
usage.

2. Many households have already installed the items included in the conservation kit.
This is particularly true for low-flow showerheads. Reductions in water usage due to
the kit may be due only to one or two of the items that have not already been
installed. This will yield smaller changes than the case where all four devices have
been installed.

Differences: Card and Phone Survey Data

As was mentioned before, the entire data set containing customers who were sent kits is of
limited use because we do not know if they installed the kit, and if they did when they installed
the kit. Thus we will concentrate on the card data and the phone survey data. Although we will
present tests for differences on overall consumption, the most fruitful analyses will come from
focusing on indoor water use alone from the small set of customers who have separate irrigation
accounts.

From the card data we have reports from customers that they installed the kit, although we don't
know when they installed it and which components they installed. The following analyses are
based on a paired t-test of the differences between the means before and after kit installation.
For the card data it is necessary to make assumptions about when the kit was installed. The card
data show no significant differences when examining overall consumption, and no significant
differences for indoor use of those with separate irrigation accounts before and after installation
for overall consumption.
The telephone survey data were randomly chosen. Thus we have examples of those who
installed the kit and those who did not with less of a self-selection bias than would be typical of
the card data. They give us the best reading as to what percentage of the kits were installed and
which components were installed. The drawback is that the sample size was quite small.










The phone survey data suggest that 80 percent of the customers installed the kit. This is a telling
finding as it contrasts strongly with the card data. Of the nearly 7,500 kits that were delivered,
608 cards were returned, and 430 were useable and indicated that the kit had been installed. This
represents about 6 percent of the kits that were sent out. Thus the phone survey data would
suggest that roughly 74 percent of those who were sent a kit, installed the kit but refused to
return the card. This discrepancy gives us reason to doubt the validity of either the phone data or
the card data. Our suspicion is that there were telephone refusals that were not reported that may
represent customers who did not install the kit. '

Looking at overall water consumption before and after for the phone data we find no significant
differences by paired t-test. Looking at indoor users only is difficult since there are only 23
phone survey respondents who have separate irrigation accounts. However, those data suggest
no significant difference either.

Using the paired t-test there was one combination of data sets that did reveal a significant
difference. That finding came from the 18 customers who had responded to the phone survey
and who had sent in a card. For those there was a significant drop in water use (345 gallons a
month) after the kit was installed.

Differences: Treatment and Control Design

Customers who were sent conservation kits were randomly assigned to one of two groups, a
treatment and a control. The treatment group was sent the kit prior to 12/97 and the control
group was sent their kit after 5/98. This arrangement allowed for the comparison of water
consumption of similar households during the same weather conditions. We eliminated all
customers from the treatment group who had not indicated on the phone survey or the return card
that they had installed the conservation kit. This left us with a treatment data set of customers
who had installed the kit (n=126) and a control data set of customers who had not yet received
the kit during the period 12/97 to 5/98 (n=241).

Table 4 compares the two groups for some demographic variables and household characteristics
that might account for higher or lower water use. The two data sets appear to be quite similar, as
they should since they were randomly assigned. The notable differences are in showers, tubs and
installation of pools. Since pools are probably filled from outdoor water supplies and this is
indoor use only, this difference should not affect the results.














Table 4. Comparison of Treatment and Control group on selected attributes.

Characteristic Treatment Group Control Group
Percent households >1500 sq. ft. 64 69
Percent of households built in the 1990s 20 24
Percent of households with 2 occupants 65 65
Percent of households with 3 sinks 48 49
Percent of households with 2 toilets 78 80
Percent of households with 2 showers 70 55
Percent of households with two tubs 43 24
Percent of households with a pool 26 43


The average consumption for the period 12/97 to 5/98 can be compared between these two
groups. Any differences should be attributed to the installation of the devices since the time of
year was the same for all customers in the analysis. In contrast, the analyses in the section above
reflect comparisons of the same households over time. Thus differences in water consumption,
either higher or lower could be due to differences in weather conditions.

Figure 12. Comparison of Indoor Water Use


10000


9000
BmOO


7000

6000

5000

4000

3000


2000

1000


*~t: ,: .1: y

-' 'I.6
'.


-_ 1*


I
F

I ___________


Control Group


Treatment Group


A t-test of mean indoor consumption between the Treatment and the Control group reveals a
significant difference at the p=.05 level. The actual difference is a reduction of 564 gallons a
month. This is a large difference. The weak p-value may be due to the small sample size
relative to the variance. With a larger sample we would expect a stronger difference, although
the magnitude of the difference may still be approximately 564 gallons a month, or 15 percent of
the average.


1


-
I


I:, L
I '

M 4


I~
I










Who installed the kit?


Again, the discrepancy between the card data and the phone survey data raise questions as to
what percentage of those who were sent kits actually installed them. Although we may never
know how many of the kits were actually installed, we do have a good idea as to what
components were installed and the characteristics of the households where they were installed.

Of those who installed at least one component of the kit, 92 percent had none of the components
installed beforehand. As was mentioned above, roughly 34 percent of those who returned
Survey 1 had none of the components installed. Thus the conservation program will be most
successful among the roughly 34 percent of all households that have none of the components
installed.

Of people who installed any part of the kit, 60 percent installed all parts, 22 percent installed
everything but the tank device. The remaining 18 percent installed one or two components with
no discernable pattern. As will be seen below, most of the people who installed the kit had none
of the devices installed previously. In terms of which components were installed, the set of
components were a good choice.

Although an analysis of before and after water usage by configuration of components installed
would have been ideal, the sample from the telephone survey was too small to warrant such an
approach to the analysis. For example, limiting the analysis to indoor users who had responded
to the telephone survey and who reported installing the showerhead alone left four customers.
While we are confident that we can detect an overall drop in water use among indoor users in the
treatment/control design, we are not confident that we can show this by component configuration
with the data available.

Low Flow Toilets

Sixty six customers received low-flow toilets from FWS as part of a rebate program. The
program was voluntary. Data for these customers were examined to determine whether there
were differences in water consumption after the toilet installation.

As with the other conservation devices, the analysis of all customers showed no reduction in
water use, while the analysis of customers with indoor accounts (n=9) showed a significant drop"
in water use of 689 gallons a month, or 19 percent of indoor water use. The inclusion of outdoor
water use in this analysis so overwhelms the data that the effects of low-flow toilet installation
are masked. It is worth noting that the low-flow toilet program was not part of the
treatment/control design. Thus the lower water usage found among the nine indoor users was
found despite differences in weather patterns between the two years.

Conclusion/Recommendations

Based on these results it does appear that there are some savings in water usage that can be
attributed to the kit and to the installation of low-flow toilets. This conclusion comes from the
analysis of treatment/control data for indoor users where a drop in usage of approximately 550
gallons (15 percent) a month was recorded. It should be noted that this was from a very small









sample that tended to be high end users. However, the fact that the savings of 550 gallons per
month came exclusively from indoor use is encouraging.

There is also some evidence that low-flow showerheads alone may actually result in a slight to
moderate increase in water usage. This was difficult to isolate since the data on which items had
been installed came from the telephone survey where the sample was relatively small, and few of
those customers had separate indoor and outdoor irrigation meters. Further, the telephone survey
data were only collected for those in the treatment group, making it impossible to test for
changes in water use while controlling for weather pattern differences across the two years..

If the SWFWMD chooses to go ahead with the distribution of conservation kits, the kits should
be targeted to owners of older homes where the likelihood of having water-saving devices
installed is lower. The data do not show a drop in water use among households that installed
only one component.

If the SWFWMD is reluctant to implement a wider program based on these results and would
like to pursue further research, we have the following recommendations. First, it is clear that the
analysis should be limited to customers with separate meters for indoor and outdoor use. The
wide variance in outdoor use creates too much noise to pick up differences in indoor use when
they are aggregated. However those with separate meters for outdoor use tend to be those that
use the most water.

The design of a future study would depend on the focus of the SWFWMD. If the focus is high
end users then a sample of those with separate irrigation accounts could be drawn. If the focus is
all users then it would make sense to draw a sample of all users and provide separate irrigation
meters for those that do not have them. In either case a sample of approximately 500 users
would be sufficient to demonstrate the effects of the conservation devices. Each of the 500 users
should be assigned to a combination of conservation devices and installation should be verified,
in contrast to the current study where users installed parts of the kit as they wished.

A telephone follow-up to each household would provide verification that a device was or was not
installed. The SWFWMD may want to consider compensating users for their participation,
although this raises concerns about affecting their consumption behavior










Program Costs


Preparation:


Program Planning and Implementation:
Carlman Booker Reis Public Relations
Kirk Martin Agreement Review
Marilyn Dorsey Seminars
Gloria Wisehart Survey Input
Tony Isaacs Financial Analysis
Judy Fields Surveys and Statistical Design
Ida Roberts Overall Supervision
Carlyn Kowalski Seminars
TOTAL

Printing & Mailing:
Survey 1 (26,000 printed & mailed)
Survey 2 (26,000 printed & mailed)
Printing Surveys
Announcement Letter to Customers
Press Release
Final Report Printing & binding (50 copies)
TOTAL

Low Flow Toilet Rebates
146 @ $100 each
Administration & Visual Checks
TOTAL


Seminars
Advertising & Notices
Travel Expenses
Gift Conservation Kits
Xeriscape Plant Door Prizes
Conservation Books
Hall Rental
Xeriscape Project


Indoor Plumbing Retrofit Program
12.356 Kits @ $6.60
Follow Up Costs
Statistical Analysis (Univ. of Fla)


TOTAL


TOTAL


GRAND TOTAL


$ 5,000.00
$ 2,269.40
$ 506.00
$ 406.80
$ 6,023.08
$ 7,061.54
$ 5,194.88
$ 2.500.00
$28,961.70


$ 8,320.00
$ 8,320.00
$ 2,400.00
$ 8,320.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 2,800.00
$32,660.00


$14,600.00
$ 5,000.00
$19,600.00


$ 300.00
$ 376.02
$ 599.00
$ 156.80
$ 111.76
$ 27.98
$ 500.00
$2,071.47


$81.549.60
$ 3.770.00
$ 5,000.00
$90,319.60

$173,612.77









EXHIBIT A


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACTS:
Ida M. Roberts or Tracy Smith, Florida Water Services, (407) 880-0058
Carolyn Reis, CBR PR, (407) 834-7777

FLORIDA WATER SERVICES AND SWIFTMUD
TEAM UP TO PROMOTE RESIDENTIAL WATER CONSERVATION
Three-fold effort includes workshops, plumbing retrofits and a conservation study

Spring Hill, FL (September 30, 1997) Florida Water Services and the
Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWIFTMUD) are launching a
Spring Hill Water Conservation program that will include workshops, plumbing
retrofits and an extensive conservation study. The cooperative program is to
assist in curbing heavy demands on Florida's precious water resources. The
average SWIFTMUD resident uses 132 gallons of water each day; including up
to 60 gallons for a shower and up to 10 gallons to wash a sinkful of dishes.

The first free water conservation workshop will take place on Monday, October 6,
1997 from 10:00 a.m. to noon at the Spring Hill Civic Association, 1202 Kenlake
Avenue. The workshop will feature presentations on waterwise landscaping, low-
flow retrofit plumbing devices and other water conservation tips. Also, the first
250 customers to prove they have installed a 1.6 GPF low-flow toilet since the
inception of the program will receive a $100 rebate. A letter will appear in each
customer's next bill with more information or customers can call (800) 432-4501
or the Spring Hill office at (352) 683-2715. Other workshops are scheduled for
1998.

In addition, a test group of 7,500 Florida Water customers will participate in a
study to' determine the savings which can be achieved from residential water
conservation efforts. The group represents Florida Water's largest residential
indoor water users in Spring Hill selected from historical water usage statistics
and surveys completed by more than 26,000 customers. Each test customer will
receive a water conversation kitsufficient to completely retrofit a three bedroom,
2 Y2 bath home, including low-flow shower heads, faucet aerators, toilet
displacement bags and installation instructions.

more -


Water Conservation Workshop









Page Two


Why water conservation? "The addition of 6,000 new residents to Florida each
week has increased the use of water for direct human needs to more than 60
million gallons per day," said Frank Sanderson, Florida Water's western regional
manager. "Research shows that using devices such as low-flow shower heads
and faucet aerators, the average household can save up to 15 gallons per day
for manual dishwashing and up to 2,600 gallons a month using a 7 % minute
shower."

Florida Water Services has more than 30 years of experience in providing
services to the state's citizens and communities such as the treatment and
distribution of potable drinking water treatment of wastewater. Currently, more
than 500,000 Floridians in 25 counties rely on Florida Water Services, making it
the largest privately-owned water and wastewater service company in the State.
Florida Water Services is also a strong proponent of protecting and preserving
the state's natural water resources, and is deeply involved in conservation and
education efforts.

The Southwest Florida Water Management District is charged with managing
and protecting the water, water supply and water related resources within the
southwest portion of the state. Cooperatively funded conservation projects, such
as this Spring Hill project, are only one of the many tools utilized by the District in
meeting this charge. You may contact the District directly at 800-423-1476 to
learn more about the vital role it plays in keeping the waters of Florida safe and
available for the future generations of Floridians.
###










EXHIBIT B


October 1997

Dear Spring Hill Customer:

Florida Water Services, along with the Southwest Florida Water Management District,
are initiating a special incentive rebate program to encourage you to reduce your water
consumption. It involves 250 rebates of $100 each for the purchase and installation of
low-flow toilets in Spring Hill.

This program, which includes honoring the installation of up to two (2) low-flow toilets
per qualifying single-family household, is part of a more extensive cooperative water
conservation program in your area. This portion of that joint program will continue until
250 rebates are awarded.

To qualify for this program you must install a low-flow toilet that uses no more than 1.6
gallons of water per flush.

Once you have installed the low-flow toilet, submit your paid receipt for the purchase and
installation of the device by a certified installer to Florida Water's Spring Hill Customer
Service Office. Our customer service representatives will verify that you are a qualified
customer, and you will receive a rebate certificate for the amount of your receipt up to the
rebate limit of $100. Just send in your certificate with your next bill, and we will apply a
credit to your account.

For more information about the conservation rebate program, please call the Spring Hill
office or our toll-free number at 1-800-432-4501.

Sincerely,



Ida M. Roberts
Manager, Conservation








EXHIBIT C


CONSERVATION WORKSHOP



Spring Hill residents are invited to a special Florida Water Services conservation
workshop Monday, October 6, 1997 at the Spring Hill Civic Association, 1202
Kenlake Avenue, Spring Hill, Florida from 10:00 a.m. 12:00 Noon.

The workshop will feature presentations from local experts on waterwise
landscaping, low-flow plumbing retrofit devices and other water conservation tips.
Florida Water Services will also give away a retrofit kit to each of its customers,
one per household, that attend.








:7Florida
tE Water
jSa J S E R V I C E S


EXHIBIT D





SPRING HILL WATER AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM
October 6, 1997
10:00 a.m. 12:00 Noon


I. Welcome
Ida Roberts Conservation Manager, Florida Water Services

II. Planning a Water Wise Landscape
Klaus Geyer Horticulturalist, Hernando County Co-op
Extension Service

III. Indoor Water Conservation
Carlyn Kowalsky Environmental Attorney, Florida Water Services

IV. Drawings for Door Prizes












40

Florida Water Services Corporation / PO. Box 609520 / Orlando. Florida 32860-9520 / Phone 407/880-0058
Woate, Fo-t Fri~ma'4 Fuitluw





EXHIBIT E


SPRING HILL WATER AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM
NAME ADDRESS CITY ZIP CODE

/1g #' 7S'Sre S/ C?/*r c 544y At_ (- ___)e //"/ L / (
(R1ffIk SON -5 /l-)f>^ 1^1^^ C/ dCs f/^ rz-E Sf___c \ b/^
"^. A.q,, '^c^^^ Y ^ry dl6^________^ 7' 7 /y a





0O6 /I7/? L5_2--- y .5- _
1e /o RA i_ ? p o I -

on MllcV ^ ^ /o _3 ____.9 oc __ / 3< y^


^"<^~ ~ ~ /?WK /v k< ^/?^^s-^^c<> o l^ /d.









EXHIBIT F


SPRING HILL WATER AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM

Thursday, January 22, 1998
1:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m.



I. Welcome
Ida Roberts Conservation Manager, Florida Water Services


II. Conservation and Xeriscape
Kathy Foley, Water Resources Analyst-Southwest Florida
Water Management District


III. Indoor Water Conservation
Ida Roberts Manager, Public Affairs-Communications, Florida
Water Services


IV. Care of Native Florida Plants
Ben Mercadante- Owner/Partner of Hickory Hill Nursery


V. Drawing





EXfItBIT G

SPRING HILL WATERAND CONSERVATION PROGRAM
NAME ADDRESS CITY ZIP CODE

-Tod /V A) VHk # 1-2-- !/ t C.= ? / / 7 1/C_ S*_________- ye

P .7L K /17/ /ulE Mag &A 5 VR 3
I'3 ]f/_ _T__.__/_ __/// L, 3_____
P R .6 3-i Soqf~ o 54h .,.- [-.if 3 t6k




0/6 v4a
4 ,/ otf y 6- j .__ _T 7 _O.S



*.,, ,e,- // / r / 7 o_ S-. 1." P o ,
JEoe' (/' ^ //y GAdv AOe'. ~f 1 ^r4 3




Sr ./.- / Jp A c o a
'o-r Y/ YRL SrfL0 5i-4/_I ) _____ _
AV An A Y/- w/ty ptyJ__


^c^ ^ ^ u ~ e /I-^// ^T i __









SPRING HILL WATER AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM
NAME ADDRESS CITY ZIP CODE






// --9/ u r -









EXHIBIT H


SPRING HILL WATER AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Tuesday, May 12, 1998
6:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m.



I. Welcome
Ida Roberts Conservation Manager, Florida Water Services


II. Conservation and Xeriscape
Kathy Foley, Water Resources Analyst-Southwest Florida
Water Management District


III. Indoor Water Conservation
Ida Roberts Manager, Public Affairs-Communications, Florida
Water Services


IV. Care of Native Florida Plants
Ben Mercadante- Owner/Partner of Hickory Hill Nursery


V. Drawing






EY 'BIT .I1
___ ___ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 5- -// A y __ ___ __ __ __


SPRING HILL WATEM AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM


NAME ADDRESS CITY ZIP CODE






^A/AX /- .biLJ.n,,o 1 ( I/ e 2,| g ,/ 5 .__//_. 3W ),
' 9-/'A I- 2 ^ /4z&i A"Z1 rDlc = cLL? S.c ___ ___^ __




. 4 yf,'tog. t FyA / J6/4b. syod
o iti ,c R3 t c6A -G 0. 63

Id 110'A 4" & .3 CI
M.S-^ c keg VS3-
AU O7C s/^ A/lzuc d2gt .__ _c^
*>%






EXHIBIT J


Water and Money Saver Kit
Three Easy Ways to Conserve Water and Save Money
VReduce flow from showers
VReduce flow from faucets
VUse less water per flush
This water conservation kit is compliments of the Southwest Florida Water
Management District/Coastal Rivers Basin Board and Florida Water Services and is
part of a special Spring Hill water conservation program. Use this kit to save water,
energy and money!!!!



IS7FIorida
,*** Water
Q;O I ER VICES









EXHIBIT K




Water and Money Saver Kit

Three Easy Ways to Conserve Water and Save Money


VReduce flow from showers

VReduce flow from faucets

VUse less water per flush


This water conservation kit is compliments of the Southwest Florida Water

Management District/Coastal Rivers Basin Board and Florida Water Services and is

part of a special Spring Hill water conservation program. Use this kit to save water,

energy and money!!!!








yCRFi idaE


SWater
hS E R V i C E S

__ ^______


f wJ
*. C1 C)
* 3A <
1 5-CA
CD C
CA

I C ,-
=rC

CD
2 !R
Ul

CL


CD
Mo



o- C
C)
F r L





0. 5 2


3C
CL
M



CU)
CL
CL
3.
x



C,'


8
48 i


C W
0 (0

0 0"
0
J :3
CD
=r
;0 - 0) CD

W >
Ah- CO 0
I- 3D C 3
o S ,o c



0) 7R
0 C) 0



0
= C3

TO '< CA
Co



tom
4s 4
na'
o CD
C)


0.

.0.
02 (A re



o0 .0
CAC 0)





t So
8 CD
C- f




tj CL
Cc
^ o Ca


to
3




N~ CL



C S-
CD
i CA
-s CA w
~ 00.


0.
C) C


1


dsanl
v
\ r;




ep- 15-e


EXHIBIT L


NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY
IF MAILED
IN THE
UNITED STATES


MMAHIMMAMI~i


BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST-CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO. 618 ORLANDO FL
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE


VIEWtech Florida Water Services
1311 N. Westshore Blvd. Suite 214
Tampa Florida 33607


iFlorlda
S-Water
-., S* Vicf ES
Partners mn W.ter Ceonrv(den
Florida Water Services and the Southwest Florida Water Management District/
Coastal Rivers Basin Board have provided this conservation kit to help you save
water, Please complete and return this card so we can better plan for the future.
Please check one:


I have installed my water conservation kit.

I plan to install my water conservation kit in the future.
I do not plan on installing my water conservation kit.


NAME


STREET ADDRESS

PHONE NUMBER

If you have any questions please call us at (813) 288-8805


.H 1






EXHIBIT M


1Southern States Utilities


November, 1996


Dear Valued Customer:

You can make a difference!

Southern States Utilities and the Southwest Florida Water Management District/Coastal Rivers
Basin Board (SWFWMD) are jointly sponsoring a water conservation project specifically for the
Spring Hill service area. You can assist us in this project by filling out and returning this survey.
Your answers will be kept confidential and will help us understand the water use patterns of our
customers. This will allow us to plan ways of more effectively using water, which is a scarce
natural resource.

Please return the completed survey, along with your monthly payment, in the enclosed
return address envelope.

SSU and SWFWMD appreciate and thank you for your cooperation in this matter!

Name

Account No.

Please answer all questions to the best of your ability. If you are not able to answer a question,
leave it blank, complete the remaining questions and return the survey in the enclosed return
address envelope. Thank you!

I. What year was your home built?_

2. How many people live in your home on a permanent basis?
How many in each age group?
Under 3 3-12 13-18 19-40 40-65 Over 65

3. Are you a Seasonal___ or Year-Round resident ?
If Seasonal, which rionths do you typically spend in Spring Hill?

4. In which range does your annual household income fall?
Under $15,000_ $15,001 $25,000_ $25,001 $50,000
$50,001 $75,000 Over $75,000
OVER, PLEASE







5. How many of each of the following fixtures & appliances do you have in your home?
Sink(s) Dishwasher
Toilet(s) Washing Machine
Shower(s) Pool
Tub(s) Jacuzzi

6. Are any of the showers in your home currently equipped with low-flow showerheads?
Yes No_ If yes: How many? When were they installed?

7. Are any of the faucets in your home currently equipped with low-flow aerators?
Yes_ No__ If yes: How many? When were they installed?

8. Are any of the toilets in your home low flow toilets?
Yes No If yes: How many? When were they installed?

9. Are any of the toilet tanks in your home currently equipped with water saving devices?
Yes No If yes: How many? When were they installed?_

10. How large is your lot? (in sq. ft.)
How large is your home (in sq. ft.)
What is the layout of your home? One-story house two-story house
mobile home__ apartment duplex

11. Do you water your lawn? Yes No
If yes:
Do you have a separate irrigation account? Yes No
Do you have an irrigation well? Yes No
Does your home have an in-ground sprinkler system? Yes No
If yes: Automatic timer_ or Manual timer
and /or an Automatic rain shut-off device
How many days per week do you water your lawn?
Summer: <1 day/wk 1 day/wk 2 days/wk _3 days/wk >3 days/wk
How many minutes per day?
Autumn: <1 day/wk _1 day/wk 2 days/wk 3 days/wk >3 days/wk
How many minutes per day?
Winter: _3 days/wk
How many_minutes per day?
Spring: <1 day/wk I day/wk 2 days/wk 3 days/wk >3 days/wk
How many minutes per day?

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey, on behalf of
SSU, the Southwest Florida Water Management District/Coastal Rivers Basin
Board and the Environment! 51






WFlorida
E Water
I J S E R V I C E S


EXHIBIT N
FREE WATER CONSERVATION
RETROFIT KIT OFFER!!!!


irida Water Services Corporation (Florida Water) and the Southwest Florida Water Management District/Coastal Rivers Basin
.ard (SWFWMD) are co-sponsoring a free water conservation retrofit program for the residents of Spring Hill. If you would like to
be eligible to receive a free retrofit kit, just take a few moments to complete the form below (be sure to complete both sides). Of those
customers responding, 7,500 will be selected to receive kits! In order to participate, you must answer all applicable questions (your
customer number is located in a blue box on the upper right hand corner of your statement ). Please return the form in the enclosed
yellow envelope along with your bill payment.
Florida Water and the SWFWMD thank you in advance for your help in saving and protecting our precious water resources!

Customer Number Last Name as it appears on your account (please print)


1) Are you a Year-Round_
2) Do you have a lawn? Ye


or Seasonal resident?
:s No
** OVER PLEASE **


fFlorida
___Water
Q JSER VICES


FREE WATER CONSERVATION
RETROFIT KIT OFFER!!!!


Florida Water Services Corporation (Florida Water) and the Southwest Florida Water Management District/Coastal Rivers Basin
Board (SWFWMD) are co-sponsoring a free water conservation retrofit program for the residents of Spring Hill. If you would like to
be eligible to receive a free retrofit kit, just take a few moments to complete the form below (be sure to completeboth sides). Of those
customers responding, 7,500 will be selected to receive kits! In order to participate, you must answer all applicable questions (your
stomer number is located in a blue box on the upper right hand corner of your statement ). Please return the form in the enclosed
yelloww envelope along with your bill payment.
Florida Water and the SWFWMD thank you in advance for your help in saving and protecting our precious water resources!

Customer Number Last Name as it appears on your account (please print)


1) Are you a Year-Round__ or Seasonal


resident?


2) Do you have a lawn?


Yes No


** OVER PLEASE **


CyFlorida
01T Water
'g ab S E R V I C E S


FREE WATER CONSERVATION
RETROFIT KIT OFFER!!!!


Florida Water Services Corporation (Florida Water) and the Southwest Florida Water Management District/Coastal Rivers Basin
Board (SWFWMD) are co-sponsoring a free water conservation retrofit program for the residents of Spring Hill. If you would like to
be eligible to receive a free retrofit kit, just take a few moments to complete the form below (be sure to complete both sides). Of those
customers responding, 7,500 will be selected to receive kits! In order to participate, you must answer all applicable questions (your
customer number is located in a blue box on the upper right hand corner of your statement ). Please return the form in the enclosed
yellow envelope along with your bill payment.
Florida Water and the SWFWMD thank you in advance for your help in saving and protecting our precious water resources!

customer Number Last Name as it appears on your account (please print)
I) Are you a Year-Round or Seasonal resident?


2) Do you have a lawn?


Yes No 52

** OVER PLEASE **






.If your response to question 2 was "Yes," please continue and complete questions 3-5.
If your response to question 2 was "No," your form is now complete.

3). If you have a lawn, do you or another member of your household ever water it by sprinkler, irrigation system, or
hose?
(If an outside party such as a landlord or condominium association waters the lawn, please answer "No" to this
estion.)
Yes No, I/we never water the lawn

4) Do you have a separately billed irrigation meter? (This would be additional to the account for your residence and
would only measure the amount of water used for irrigation.)
Yes and the Customer Number for my irrigation account is _
No _

5) Do you have your own irrigation well that provides all the water you use to irrigate your lawn?
Yes No







If your response to question 2 was "Yes," please continue and complete questions 3-5.
If your response to question 2 was "No," your form is now complete.

3) If you have a lawn, do you or another member of your household ever water it by sprinkler, irrigation system, or
hose?
(If an outside party such as a landlord or condominium association waters the lawn, please answer "No" to this
question.)
Yes No, I/we never water the lawn

Do you have a separately billed irrigation meter? (This would be additional to the account for your residence and
would only measure the amount of water used for irrigation.)
Yes and the Customer Number for my irrigation account is
No

5) Do you have your own irrigation well that provides all the water you use to irrigate your lawn?
Yes No








If your response to question 2 was "Yes," please continue and complete questions 3-5.
If your response to question 2 was "No," your form is now complete.

3) If you have a lawn, do you or another member of your household ever water it by sprinkler, irrigation system, or
hose?
(If an outside party such as a landlord or condominium association waters the lawn, please answer "No" to this
question.)
Yes No, I/we never water the lawn

4) Do you have a separately billed irrigation meter? (This would be additional to the account for your residence and
would only measure the amount of water used for irrigation.)
Yes and the Customer Number for my irrigation account is
No

5) Do you have your own irrigation well that provides all the water you use to irrigate your lawn?
Yes No 53
53











EXHIBIT 0



E r Me PR VOICES
Pumrn in Water Cmarvation
Florida Water Services is coming to your neighborhood to help you save water.

In the next 4 to 6 weeks we will be distributing a free indoor water saving kit to
selected homes, including yours. These kits will be lef. at your door ready for
your installation. Kits will include water saving showerheads, faucet aerators,
toilet displacement bags and, a full set ofinstalatinn instrctions.

If you have any questions or you have not received your kit after 6 weeks please
call us at (813) 28-S05
Thank you for your efforts in saving water our most precious resource!

Fumrling pIovided by Florida Water Services
and the Southwout Florida Water Mangement Dixlrit /Coastal Rivers Basin Board








EXHIBIT P
Phone Survey

Date__ Interviewer

Phone Number Last Name

Customer Number

1) Are you a Year-Round or Seasonal resident?

2) Is your house a: Single Family home__ Condo/Apartment Attached home (duplex triplex etc)

3) Did you already have low flow showerheads in place? Yes No
If yes: How many?
Were the new ones installed? If yes: How many? When?
Are they still in place? Yes No

4) Did you already have low flow kitchen faucet aerators in place? Yes No
If yes: How. many?
Were the new ones installed? If yes: How many?_ When?
Are they still in place? Yes No

5) Did you already have low flow bathroom faucet aerators in place? Yes No
If yes: How many?
Were the new ones installed? If yes: How many? When?
Are they still in place? Yes No

6) Did you already have toilet displacement bags in place? Yes No
If yes: How many?
Were the new ones installed? If yes: How many? When?
Are they still in place? Yes__ No

7) How many persons occupy your home on a permanent basis?

8) Do you have a lawn? Yes No (If no end)

If you have a lawn:
Is it ever watered by sprinkler/hose, or is it only watered by rain?
Sprinkler/hose__ Rain only__ (If rain only end)

Do you have a separately billed irrigation meter? (This is an additional account that is billed according
to the amount of water used only for irrigation.)
Yes No (If no end)
If yes, what is the customer number for your irrigation account? Dont Know

Do you have an irrigation well that provides all the water for irrigating your lawn?'
Yes No









jyFloodda
~l ~Water
^ J E R V I C E S
%1 `4 %0u6' 74e


EXHIBIT R
FLORIDA WATER SERVICES
P.O. BOX 609520
ORLANDO, FL 32860-9520
Local Office Phone 1-352-683-2518 or Call Toll Free 1-800-432-4501


SE( S ADDRESS
950s JRTHCLIFFE BLVD


CURRENT CHARGES
PAST DUE AFTER
5/25/98


TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
$ 31.22


Bill Date 5/05/98
Location Number 1002030298
Plant Number 27001
WATER
Rate Code- 4RW
Billing Period 3/17/98 TO 4115/98
Days in Billing Period: 29
Meter Readings:
Present Previous Usage
820410 815430 4980 Gal
Meter Size: %" x "
Meter Number 07015434 1
Deposit $ .00
Connect Date 7/20/77

SEWER
Rate Code- 4RW
Connect Date 7/20/77















---.------- WATER USE ------------
Daily Average Water Use:
Current Month 172 Gal/Day
Same Month Last Yr 298 Gal/Day
%a.[ Av.ra Water CoSt. 31


VATER
IASE FACIUTY CHARGE
3ALLONAGE CHARGE
TOTAL WATER
SEWER
iASE FACILITY CHARGE
3ALLONAGE CHARGE
TOTAL SEWER
TOTAL CURRENT CHARGES
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE


4980 Gal @ $ .000970




4980 Gal @ $ .002300


4.22
4.83



10.72
11.45


9.05


22. 17
31.22

$ 31.22


EMERGENCIES CALL 1-352-683-2518
""CONSERVATION WORKSHOP
Spring Hill residents are invited to a special Florida Water Services conservation workshop
Tuesday, May 12, 1998 at the Holiday Inn (Weeki Wachee) 6172 Commercial Way, Spring Hill,
Florida from 6:00 7:30 p.m.
The workshop will feature presentations from local experts on waterwise landscaping,
low-flow plumbing retrofit devices and other water conservation tips. Florida Water
Services will also give away a retrofit kit to each of its customers, one per household,
that attend.


..-.., ._ .-,. ... .,-,-.-P-.Please bring ati bLw oApilA payin.parso n... ..Make-cbeckspayabla to -FLORIDA W&TEEEBV.S CES.

Jiy F /orida Please return this portion with payment Bill Date 5/05/98
--t- II TO CHANGE MAILING ADDRESS, CHECK CURRENT CHARGES
SER V C ES BOX AND ENTER ON THE BACK PAST DUE AFTER
*I1 6 S6(adl AuesW 5/25/98
Local Office Phone 1-352-683-2518 or Call Toll Free 1-800-432-4501
MAIL PAYMENTS TO:


CUSTOMER NUMBER


FLORIDA WATER SERVICES
P.O. BOX 911044
ORLANDO, FL 32891-1044


PLEASE SHOWAMOUNT
OF PAYMENT


DUE UPON RECEIPT


1,111111 I1,muIIII~smBI~ImII s1IIII.IIImIIIiss


5765


01 3029808270017000312291


CUSTOMER NUMBER









ffyforhda
_ Water
- 8 R ER VI C E S
7I fu dd 6' Aft


EXHIBIT S
FLORIDA WATER SERVICES
P.O. BOX 609520
ORLANDO, FL 32860-9520
Local Office Phone 1-352-683-2518 or Call Toll Free 1-800-432-4501


SF EE ADDRESS
95 .ORTHCLIFFE BLVD


CURRENT CHARGES TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
PAST DUE AFTER
1/26/98 $ 25.96


Bill Date 1/06/98
Location Number 1002030298
Plant Number 27001
WATER
Rate Code- 4RW
Billing Period 11/17/97 TO 12/16/97
Days in Billing Period: 29
Meter Readings:
Present Previous Usage
805460 802090 3370 Gal
Meter Size: %" x /"
Meter Number 07015434 1
Deposit $ .00
Connect Date 7/20/77

SEWER
Rate Code- 4RW
Connect Date 7/20/77


..---------- WATER USE ---------.
Daily Average Water Use:
Current Month 116 Gal/Day
Same Month Last Yr 138 Gal/Day
nD'lu A.uvraa Watar 'cst: t 36


VATER
BASE FACIUTY CHARGE
3ALLONAGE CHARGE
TOTAL WATER
SEWER
3ASE FACILITY CHARGE
3ALLONAGE CHARGE
TOTAL SEWER
TOTAL CURRENT CHARGES

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE


3370 Gal@$ .000970




3370 Gal @ .002300


4.22
3.27



10.72
7.75


7.49


18.47
25.96
$ 25.96


EMERGENCIES CALL 1-352-683-2518
ATTENTION: Drinking water in your community continues to meet all requirements of the federal
Safe Drinking Water Act A marketing company may have given you information indicating that your
drinking water is unsafe. The company making these unfounded claims is not affiliated with Florida
Water Services and we do not endorse their questionable sales tactics.
CONSERVATION WORKSHOP
Spring Hill residents are invited to a special Florida Water Services conservation workshop
Thursday, January 22, 1998 at the Spring Hill Civic Association, 1202 Kenlake Avenue, Spring
Hill Florida from 1:00 4:00 p.m.
The workshop will feature presentations from local experts on waterwise landscaping, low-flow
plumbing retrofit devices and other water conservation tips. Florida Water Services will also
give away a retrofit kit to each of its customers, one per household, that attend.


- ---- -PJease bdig-enticr billb-wh ayiroiperso M.akechacks payabla.h t .LOQBDAtWAIER-SEBVICES .

-=wFItRl ia Please return this portion with payment Bill Date 1/06/98
SW atr II TO CHANGE MAILING ADDRESS, CHECK CURRENT CHARGES
ZOJS E VICES BOX AND ENTER ON THE BACK PAST DUE AFTER
Wgt k .. P"4 16 1/26/98


CUSTOMER NUMBER


Local Office Phone 1-352-683-2518 or Call Toll Free 1-800-432-4501
MAIL PAYMENTS TO:

FLORIDA WATER SERVICES
P.O. BOX 911044
ORLANDO, FL 32891-1044


DUE UPON RECEIPT


PLEASE SHOW AMOUNT
OF PAYMENT


01 3029808270017000259658


CUSTOMER NUMBER


lollI IIIIIII II I I II II 111111 1 111 1 111 1 11 11 1 1 1 1










W5rHg eriofat

# 8 R V I C ES


EXHIBIT T
FLORIDA WATER SERVICES
P.O. BOX 609520
ORLANDO, FL 32860-9520
Local Office Phone 1-352-683-2518 or Call Toll Free 1-800-432-4501


SE 'E ADDRESS
95~ JRTHCLIFFE BLVD


CURRENT CHARGES TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
PAST DUE AFTER
9/22/97 $ 41.33


Bil Date 9/02/97
Location Number 1002030298
Plant Number 27001

WATER
Rate Code-4RW
Billing Period 7/22/97 TO 8/20/97
Days in Billing Period: 29
Meter Readings:
Present Previous Usage
787560 783810 3750 Gal
Meter Size: %" x %"
Meter Number 07015434 1
Deposit $ .00
Connect Date 7/20/77

SEWER
Rate Code-4RW
Connect Date 7/20/77















..---------- WATER USE ------------
Daily Average Water Use:
Current Month 129 Gal/Day
Same Month Last Yr 145 Gal/Day
railv Avarana Watar Corst St 34


VATER
ASE FACIUTY CHARGE
3ALLONAGE CHARGE

TOTAL WATER

3EWER
BASE FACIUTY CHARGE
3ALLONAGE CHARGE
TOTAL SEWER

rOTAL CURRENT CHARGES

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE


3750 Gal @ $ .000990




3750 Gal@$ .004110


6. 11
3.71



16. 10
15.41


31.51
41.33

$ 41.33


EMERGENCIES CALL 1-352-683-2518
CONSERVATION WORKSHOP
Spring Hill residents are invited to a special Florida Water Services conservation
workshop Monday, October 6, 1997 at the Spring Hill Civic Association, 1202 Kenlake
Avenue, Spring Hill, Florida from 10:00 a.m. 12:00 Noon.
rhe workshop will feature presentations from local experts on waterwise landscaping,
ow-flow plumbing retrofit devices and other water conservation tips. Florida
Nater Services will also give away a retrofit kit to each of its customers, one
Der household, that attend.


..... -.. ....-..--,.- ---Pease bringntr bil-wenayin pPrson -.. Makachacks paabla.ta .ELBIDA WAT.ER.SEBV1CES.

Fl loida Please return this portion with payment Bill Date 9/02/97
irtW ter CURRENT CHARGES
SS ER V I C E S PAST DUE AFTER
Local Office Phone 1-352-683-2518 or Call Toll Free 1-800432-4501
,,wt n ''tm K 9/22/97
MAIL PAYMENTS TO:
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE

FLORIDA WATER SERVICES $ 41.33
P.O. BOX 609516
CUSTOMER NUMBER ORLANDO, FL 32860-9516 DUE UPON RECEIPT

PLEASE SHOWAMOUN
OF PAYMENT _


l III 1, 1111 1111 loll11,111 111I s II. I l ll1111 Igo IIIII I


302980827001700041335


CUSTOMER NUMBER


I





EXHIBIT U



Under the special water conservation program in cooperation with the Southwest
Florida Water Management District, Florida Water still has $100 rebates available
for those that purchase and install low-flow toilets, which use no more than 1.6
gallons per flush. This program requires the installation of up to 2 per single
family household to replace older toilets. It does not include new construction
since law now requires low-flow toilets. A paid receipt showing both purchase and
installation by a certified installer should be taken to Florida Water's Spring Hill
customer Service Office. You will receive a rebate certificate. Send it in with
your next bill and a credit of $100 will be applied to your account.





EXHIBIT V


Spring Hill


e9aseJV~Uon~Bet~-


REBATE TYPE


1 L/Flow Toilet
2 L/Flow Toilet
3 L/Flow Toilet
4 L/Flow Toilet
5 L/Flow Toilet
6 L/Flow Toilet
7 L/Flow Toilet
8 L/Flow Toilet
9 L/Flow Toilet
10 L/Flow Toilet
11 L/Flow Toilet
12 LFlow Toilet
13 L/Flow Toilet
14 L/Flow Toilet
15 L/Flow Toilet
16 L/Flow Toilet
17 L/Flow Toilet
18 L/Flow Toilet
19 L/Flow Toilet
20 L/Flow Toilet
21 L/Flow Toilet
22 L/Flow Toilet
23 L/Flow Toilet
24 L/Flow Toilet
25 LFlow Toilet
26 L/Flow Toilet
27 L/Flow Toilet
28 UFlow Toilet
29 LFlow Toilet
30 L/Flow Toilet
31 L/Flow Toilet
32 L/Flow Toilet
33 L/Flow Toilet
34 L/Flow Toilet
35 LFlow Toilet
36 LFlow Toilet
37 L/Flow Toilet
38 LFlow Toilet
39 L/Flow Toilet
40 L/Flow Toilet
41 L/Flow Toilet
42 L/Flow Toilet
43 L/Flow Toilet
44 L/Flow Toilet


DATE


10/13/97
10/29/97
10/13/97
10/13/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
10/29/97
11/11/97
11/11/97
11/11/97
11/11/97
11/11/97
11/11/97
11/19/97
11/19/97
11/11/97
11/19/97
11/11/97
11/19/97
11/19/97
11/19/97
11/19/97
11/19/97
11/19/97
11/19/97


CUST #
24501
303121
410090
410090
303121
321750
292740
414680
369280
93781
93781
295781
823864
823864
93671
93671
66675
725601
725601
348170
348170
819870
819870
668971
834470
834470
610110
610110
296420
706321
329570
302475
63327
39446
400450
97895
367360
397330
401340
401340
756630
300070
300070
78000


CUSTOMER NAME
Richard Beddoes
Sherry Merrill
Wilson Beebe
Wilson Beebe
Sherry Merrill
August Shultz
Bertrand Walker
Edward Murray
Pruit
Charles Chapel
Charles Chapel
David Gardner
Bill Elisavitis
Bill Elisavitis
Brzezinski
Brzezinski
Peloquin
Botto
Botto
Fowler
Fowler
Chamberlain
Chamberlain
Gluch
Malherb
Malherb
Roth
Roth
Vega
Bello
McClellan
Moulton
LaFleur
Vega
Granger
Schwartz
Lewan
Zwierecki
Jones
Jones
Chesseman
Larkin
Larkin
Fregd


AMT
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00







Spring Hill


REBATE TYPE
45 L/Flow Toilet
46 L/Flow Toilet
47 L/Flow Toilet
48 L/Flow Toilet
49 L/Flow Toilet
50 L/Flow Toilet
51 L/Flow Toilet
52 L/Flow Toilet
53 L/Flow Toilet
54 L/Flow Toilet
55 L/Flow Toilet
56 L/Flow Toilet
57 L/Flow Toilet
58 L/Flow Toilet
59 L/Flow Toilet
60 L/Flow Toilet
61 LUFlow Toilet
62 L/Flow Toilet
63 L/Flow Toilet
64 L/Flow Toilet
65 UFlow Toilet
66 L/Flow Toilet
67 L/Flow Toilet
68 L/Flow Toilet
69 LFlow Toilet
70 L/Flow Toilet
71 L/Flow Toilet
72 L/Flow Toilet
73 L/Flow Toilet
74 LFlow Toilet
75 L/Flow Toilet
76 L/Flow Toilet
77 L/Flow Toilet
78 L/Flow Toilet
79 L/Flow Toilet
80 L/Flow Toilet
81 L/Flow Toilet
82 L/Flow Toilet
83 L/Flow Toilet
84 L/Flow Toilet
85 L/Flow Toilet
86 L/Flow Toilet
87 L/Flow Toilet
88 L/Flow Toilet
89 L/Flow Toilet
90 L/Flow Toilet
91 L/Flow Toilet
92 LFlow Toilet


DATE
11/19/97
11/19/97
11/19/97
11/19/97
11/19/97
11/20/97
11/20/97
11/20/97
11/20/97
11/20/97
12/8/97
12/8/97
12/8/97
12/8/97
12/8/97
12/8/97
12/8/97
12/8/97
12/8/97
12/8/97
12/22/97
12/22/97
12/22/97
12/22/97
12/22/97
1/7/98
1/7/98
2/2/98
1/7/98
2/2/98
2/2/98
2/2/98
2/27/98
3/13/98
3/13/98
3/24/98
3/24/98
4/13/98
4/13/98
4/13/98
4/13/98
4/13/98
4/13/98
4/13/98
4/29/98
6/18/98
6/18/98
6/19/98


lei ratioriRalateR


CUST #
414630
693540
414630
74165
354941
414680
713721
713721
312910
312910
52796
830378
297680
372290
372290
403100
390030
94049
94049
52217
103721
291660
380220
81654
81654
373720
412420
828916
44362
106073
106073
408620
714591
29392
29392
36525
36525
329450
992364
296420
105519
105519
98148
98148
794281
698921
698921
989043


CUSTOMER NAME
Murray
Bakker
Murray
Muriano
Bryant
Murray
Welch
Welch
Ciraulo
Ciraulo
Straight
Seaberg
Fabian
Antenucci
Antenucci
Van Horn
Griel
Modzelewski
Modzelewski
Gironda
Boyle
Baile
McRae
Quinn
Quinn
McRae
Jordan
Marrero
Over the Rainbow
Cavalier
Cavalier
Sirianos
Monis
Lombardo
Lombardo
Kelly
Kelly
Deforest
Varley
Vega
Smith
Smith
Cox
Cox
Brown
Amold
Amold
Bender


AMT
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00







Spring Hill


W06i iONi eIy


REBATE TYPE


DATE


----------


93 L/Flow Toilet
94 L/Flow Toilet
95 L/Flow Toilet
96 L/Flow Toilet
97 L/Flow Toilet
98 L/Flow Toilet
99 L/Flow Toilet
100 L/Flow Toilet
101 L/Flow Toilet
102 L/Flow Toilet
103 L/Flow Toilet
104 L/Flow Toilet
105 L/Flow Toilet
106 L/Flow Toilet
107 L/Flow Toilet
108 L/Flow Toilet
109 L/Flow Toilet
110 L/Flow Toilet
111 L/Flow Toilet
112 L/Flow Toilet
113 L/Flow Toilet
114 L/Flow Toilet
115 L/Flow Toilet
116 L/Flow Toilet
117 L/Flow Toilet
118 L/Flow Toilet
119 L/Flow Toilet
120 L/Flow Toilet
121 L/Flow Toilet
122 Void
123 L/Flow Toilet
124 L/Flow Toilet
125 L/Flow Toilet
126 L/Flow Toilet
127 L/Flow Toilet
128 L/Flow Toilet
129 L/Flow Toilet
130 L/Flow Toilet
131 L/Flow Toilet
132 L/Flow Toilet
133 L/Flow Toilet
134 L/Flow Toilet
135 L/Flow Toilet
136 L/Flow Toilet
137 L/Flow Toilet
138 L/Flow Toilet
139 L/Flow Toilet
140 L/Flow Toilet


9/30/98
9/30/98
9/30/98
9/30/98
10/22/98
10/22/98
10/22/98
10/22/98
10/22/98
11/10/98
11/10/98
11/10/98
11/10/98
11/10/98
11/10/98
11/10/98
11/10/98
12/8/98
12/8/98
12/8/98
12/8/98
12/8/98
12/8/98
12/8/98
12/8/98
12/8/98
1/11/99
1/11/99
1/11/99

1/11/99
1/11/99
1/11/99
1/11/99
1/11/99
1/11/99
1/11/99
1/11/99
1/11/99
1/11/99
2/8/99
2/8/99
2/8/99
2/8/99
2/8/99
2/8/99
2/8/99
2/8/99


CUST #
40294
40294
378940
343991
419491
107760
316100
333160
313090
333191
685141
402610
56496
388740
989114
378100
662721
110511
308891
308891
115360
72645
72645
118457
310800
95381
54914
77059
77059

61083
299200
305120
305120
301801
301801
85998
415801
97961
415870
97961
105561
57247
111556
111556
57247
89908
89908


CUSTOMER NAME
Greer
Greer
Freeman
Cloukey
Toney
Golembiewski
Smiley
Parry
Schrinner
Berry
Marino
Yurek
Hoey
Ware
Kay
Archibald
Lenza
Stackhouse
Larsen
Larsen
Southwell
Masters
Masters
Garbacki
Taub
Simmons
McNish
Lupis
Lupis

H. Smith
Ryan
Rodriquez
Rodriquez
Alkas
Alkas
Stegall
Gutknecht
Cook
Koening
Cook
Russo
Bowman
Flaherty
Flaherty
Bowman
Hill
Hill


AMT
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00

100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00







Spring Hill


e6~e~attoh~R~tm


REBATE TYPE
141 L/Flow Toilet
142 LFlow Toilet
143 L/Flow Toilet
144 LFlow Toilet
145 L/Flow Toilet
146 L/Flow Toilet


DATE
2/8/99
2/8/99
2/8/99
3/9/99
3/9/99
3/9/99


CUST #
79670
681231
681231
775551
77551
370470


CUSTOMER NAME


Hennessy
McKernan
McKeman
Schiliro
Schiliro
Panico


AMT
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
14,500.00






































0B-ol -oo4

04257

REPORT NAME:
WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER
AUTHOR & REPORT DATE:
FLORIDA WATER SERVICES
KEY WORD:

CART #/PG #:

215.1/REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS

Report belongs in
Storage Box
14363




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs