Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Water Agreement according to information supplied in 1983. Figure 1 in <br /> <br />the draft Task 2 technical appendix will be reviewed to ensure that the <br /> <br />outer boundaries represent the service areas of the entities which are <br /> <br /> <br />party to the Metropolitan Water Agreement. <br /> <br />UNCONSTRAINED DEMAND <br /> <br />Summary of Comments <br />Several people questioned the validity of assuming unconstrained <br />demand for the purposes of model development and demand forecasting. <br />There was a concern that the factors which are held constant in an <br />unconstrained situation, all of which have an acknowledged effect upon <br />water demand, had been excluded from consideration in the analysis. <br /> <br />Response <br /> <br />Unconstrained demand represents a hypothetical situation in which <br /> <br />water prices and the level of conservation activities are held constant <br /> <br />at their present levels and the influences of weather upon demand are <br /> <br />assumed to be equal to long-term averages. Adoption of this assumption <br /> <br />for the purposes of model development allows future manipulation of <br /> <br />these variables to produce the demand projections that would result <br /> <br />assuming several different pricing and conservation options. <br /> <br />THE HISTORICAL DATA BASE <br /> <br />Summary of Comments <br /> <br /> <br />A number of the comments dealt with the accuracy or adequacy of <br /> <br />the historical data base from which the water demand models were <br /> <br />developed. Concerns included the relatively small size of the data <br /> <br />base represented in the 1983 Regional Water Study (1974 through 1982), <br /> <br />the biases of the various data bases examined for the purpose of <br /> <br />7 <br />