I have seen many attempts by water agencies to try to get the contractor to be their “salesperson,” if you will, for educating the customer on how they should change their viewpoints and lifestyles so as to embrace radically different landscape and irrigation techniques. The only way this works is where the program is designed to put money in the contractor’s pocket. Seattle, Washington, has designed and implemented such a program. It is set up to include the contractor, not bypass him. Agencies would be well advised to study Seattle’s programs.

An example of failed efforts to cause an attitude shift in consumer’s minds is the “Brown is Beautiful” campaign that was instituted during the severe drought in Colorado a few years ago. It sounded good, but in the end people would look out the window at a dry dead landscape and say, “Hmm, brown is actually ugly.”

Picture yourself as a property manager for a large commercial office park. You make money by leasing properties. Your bonus each year is based on occupancy percentages. There are three other office parks in the area that you have to compete against. You know that you only have a few minutes initially to impress potential customers, and that some key factors are the beautifully landscaped entrance way and common areas in the office park. Get the picture?

Now what would your reaction be if someone tried to sell you on transforming your landscape to Xeriscape? Or they wanted you to make other changes that might alter the image of your beautiful lush green landscape? Think hard now, as a property manager, what would you say? Does the phrase “go pound sand” come to mind?

Ah, but wait a moment… what would you say if someone came to you with a proposal to spend $30,000 on changes to the landscape and irrigation system that would pay for itself in three years, and would not alter the appearance of the landscape to any noticeable degree? Now we’ve caught your attention.

For landscape and irrigation contractors, water conservation needs to be about business and numbers; the environmental benefits are icing on the cake.

The key item here is return on investment. If you want a customer to pay you to upgrade his irrigation system, or reduce the amount of turf, you will have to show him the cold hard numbers. For example, if the proposed changes will cost $20,000, and they could see a two-year pay back, then water and labor savings should equal $10,000 a year.

Let’s consider a 20-acre office park with five acres of irrigated landscape.

They currently pay $45,377 a year for water. Their consumption is 18151 ccf at $2.50 per ccf. You propose changes and upgrades that will save them 20% on their water bill. Therefore, after the changes are implemented, the consumption will drop to 14530 ccf. Multiply that by $2.50 and that equals $36,300 per year for water, which means a savings of $9,077 per year. If we divide the $20,000 capital expense to complete the upgrades by the annual savings of $9,077-- that equals a 2.2 year payback on their investment. After 2.2 years they then begin to realize annual savings of $9,077. I know of very few property managers who would not take a hard look at this type of a proposal.

There might be other savings as well. Less labor and fewer chemicals might also be factors, even interest on the money saved can come into play. All of these can be factored into the payback.

This requires you to obtain past water use records and the average annual ET rates for the area in question. Let’s look at some charts and tables that will help to illustrate how this return on investment is calculated.

Below is a table showing the past actual usage vs. potential usage if the site reduces its water use to meet a water budget. In this chart we are showing the customer their past and potential reduced usage in ccf, inches of ET, and dollars.

Actual Usage vs Potential Usage

Now if we look at the graph below it shows water costs at the site for actual past usage, potential water use according to a calculated water budget, and estimated water costs if selected conservation measures are implemented.

Past Usage, Potential Usage & Estimated Costs

Water Budget | Historic Use Totals | Actual Water Use Totals | Final Totals ROI

The table below shows how the water savings and return on investment were calculated. The estimated savings per measure were totaled and the payback for each measure was then averaged into an overall payback period. In this case the payback is 1.6 years

Water Savings & Return on Investment

Taking the time to collect and analyze this kind of data is what is required in order to make water conservation appealing to you as a contractor, and especially to the customer.

It has been my experience that many people, when pressured to reduce water use, will jump to extreme but simple conservation measures rather than take the time, effort and money to implement less drastic measures. They lack the understanding and financial motivation to do the analysis that we have seen here.

It’s time to show your customers the facts. They need to see that the hard numbers can result in less water use for them, and in turn, higher profits for you. If you are willing to learn the skills required and present the findings to your customers, you will be rewarded on your bottom line. As an industry, we can be responsible for seriously reducing water use and making a good living at the same time.

Are you ready to elevate your business to this level?