My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ACWWA 2007 WCPlan
CWCB
>
Water Conservation
>
Backfile
>
ACWWA 2007 WCPlan
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2015 11:55:30 AM
Creation date
3/23/2007 2:19:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Conservation
Project Type
Water Conservation Plan
Applicant
Arber Water, WasteWater & Reuse Engineers
Title
Arapahoe County Water and Wastewater Authority Water Conservation Plan
Date
11/1/2006
County
Arapahoe
Water Conservation - Doc Type
Complete Plan
Document Relationships
ACWWA 2007 WCPlan Approval Letter
(Message)
Path:
\Water Conservation\Backfile
ACWWA_WEPlanUpdate2016
(Message)
Path:
\Water Conservation\DayForward
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
166
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />ARAPAHOE COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY <br /> <br />6.2 COSTS AND WATER SAVINGS OF CONSERVATION OPTIONS <br /> <br />The costs and water savings for each of the groups of measures and programs were analyzed <br />using Worl(sheet 6-1 (Appendix A). In addition to Worl(sheet 6-1, an additional bacl(up sheet <br />was prepared for each group to document the estimated costs for each of the line items in each <br />group. Worl(sheet 6-2 (Appendix A) summarizes the cost effectiveness and net benefits of each <br />of the groups. <br /> <br />6.3 BENEFITS AND COSTS <br /> <br />Based on the information in Worl(sheets 6-1 and 6-2 the amount of water saved and the cost for <br />each group of measure and program could be easily compared. Group 5 (regarding leal( detection <br />and control) had the largest water savings of any group, but it also had the second highest cost. <br />Group 3 (regarding landscape) had the second highest water saving and the highest cost. The <br />showerhead giveaway program (Group 1) had the lowest amount of water saved, it also had the <br />lowest cost of the water saved by the measure, mal(ing it the most efficient. Groups 2 and 4 had <br />the same amount of water saved but the cost of Group 4 was larger than the cost of Group 2. <br /> <br />6.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA <br /> <br />The groups of measures and programs were evaluated based on a number of criteria. While cost <br />was an important factor in determining the measures selected for implementation, other factors <br />were considered as well. The non-monetary factors that were the most important in the <br />evaluation were ease of implementation, staff resources and capabilities, and timeliness of <br />savIngs. <br /> <br />6.5 SELECTION OF CONSERVATION MEASURES AND PROGRAMS <br /> <br />A worl(shop was held on March 2, 2006 to select the measures and programs that would be <br />implemented as part of this plan and to discuss the logistics of their implementation. The <br />participants of the worl(shop included members of the Authority's staff along with engineers <br />from Richard P. Arber Associates. The worl(shop was held at ACWW A's offices. <br /> <br />During the worl(shop Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were selected for implementation. (Group 3 was <br />selected with the landscape audits for large customers as a second tier of importance and will not <br />be implemented during this 10-year span but will be reconsidered for future implementation.) <br />The selection of conservation measures and programs is summarized in Worl(sheet 6-3 <br />(Appendix A). <br /> <br />Richard P. Arber Associates, Inc. <br /> <br />26 <br /> <br />ACWW A05 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.