This is my official “Innovative Design Request” for an additional point for our irrigation well. It follows the required structure of all LEED for Homes credits:
| Innovation and Design Credit Request | |||
| Relevant category: | Water Efficiency | LEED-H Version #: | pilot vI.II |
| Provider: | Building Knowledge, Inc. | Priority: | High |
| Project: | Residence, Minneapolis, MN | Origination date: | 11/20/2010 |
| Project type: | Single family, detached, custom | Resolution deadline: | |
| Proposed intent: | The intent of our irrigation well was to reduce demand for central water supply by not using it at all for irrigation. Outdoor water usage accounts for 20%-30% of total water demand in the city of Minneapolis. By reducing the need for city water, the city saves energy and money on its entire supply, treatment, filtration, and distribution system. Any water saved that can be used for future needs helps the city move closer to its goal of becoming a “sustainable city” — an integral part of the Minneapolis plan. | ||
| Proposed measures: | Since our 1/3 acre property was extremely wet just below ground, we installed a 180 foot well that connects to our irrigation system. It also has a spigot to serve our extra watering or cleaning needs. We already have limited conventional turf and installed many drought-tolerant plants, as well as a high efficiency irrigation system. This is an additional water-saving measure. | ||
| Proposed metric: | total gallons per year | ||
| Verification / submittals: | Green Rater has verified that we have an irrigation well and spigot that supplies the water to our irrigation system. | ||
| Proposed benefits: | While the level of irrigation varies based on the amount of rain fall, I estimate that we use an average of gallons 33,574 per year — direct savings to the city’s water supply and our water bill. This estimate was calculated based upon the following assumptions:
While efficient irrigation systems can reduce overall demand, an irrigation well eliminates potable water demand for outdoor use. This Innovative Design Request is for one additional point. |
||
| Draft resolution: | To be completed by USGBC within 1-2 weeks. Draft recommendations are non-binding and subject to TAG review. | ||
| TAG resolution: | To be completed by the relevant TAGs within 2-4 weeks. | ||
| Other comments: | To be completed by relevant TAGs. | ||
We are not going to submit this Innovative Design Request for two reasons: first, we can only get 4 points maximum from Innovation and Design, and we already have 3.5 points from exemplary performance for both EA 9 (for having a water efficient clothes washer, we get 1.5 extra points), and WE 2 (for having a super efficient irrigation system, we get 2 extra points).
The second reason is that in studying for my LEED exams, I found out that LEED’s viewpoint on ground wells is that they are treated the same way as municipally supplied water. That philosophy does make sense from a water efficiency standpoint, since our water is coming from the ground (or river) in either case. However, by not using the water supplied by the city, we definitely are saving the city resources (energy to treat and distribute the water, e.g.). I’ll just have to be happy that we are saving money on our water bill, without getting any LEED points here.