My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Audit of Major Commercial & Irrigation Water Accounts
CWCB
>
Water Conservation
>
Backfile
>
Audit of Major Commercial & Irrigation Water Accounts
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/26/2011 2:56:54 PM
Creation date
4/13/2007 12:03:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Conservation
Project Type
General OWC
Applicant
Town of Castle Rock
Project Name
Commercial & Irrigation Water Audit
Title
Audit of Major Commerical and Irrigation Water Accounts
Date
6/29/2006
County
Douglas
Water Conservation - Doc Type
Final Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
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 />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Audits of Major Commercial and Irrigation Water Accounts <br />Town of Castle Rock <br /> <br />Section 2 <br />Audit Methodology <br /> <br />Auditing Individual Accounts <br />The audits were conducted at the nine commercial accounts and ten irrigation accounts <br />identified and selected by the Town based on actual water use data from 2004 and 2005 <br />(see Table 1). The audit methodology included the following activities: <br /> <br />. Contact the entity and schedule a site visit <br />. Identify the landscape irrigator (person or firm) and conduct phone interview <br />. Conduct site visits, when access was allowed <br />. Review past water usage from 2004 and 2005 based on Town records <br />. Evaluate influences to water use (e.g., major indoor water uses, irrigation needs, etc.) <br /> <br />Based on the results of the audit, an evaluation of water saving options and alternatives <br />was made for each account. Typically, the water savings options involved placement of <br />more water efficient landscape, however, in some cases where outdoor water use is <br />limited, or non-existent, other types of water saving measures were identified, as <br />appropriate. <br /> <br />Finally, the cost of the water efficiency improvements were developed and compared to <br />the future cost of water based on current water usage, expected water savings and the <br />capital cost of the improvement. In this way, the expected payback period for each <br />recommended water efficiency measures could be estimated. <br /> <br />One of the most important, albeit unexpected outcomes of this project was related to the <br />identification of water use changes being planned or ongoing at each of the facilities or <br />accounts being audited. Most of the water users that were interviewed were aware of the <br />changing water policies of the Town, thanks in part to the outreach and educational <br />efforts of the Utilities Department. To this point, numerous entities that were interviewed <br />divulged that they are in the process of implementing substantial changes to their outdoor <br />water use - mainly through changing their landscape material or irrigation practices (e.g., <br />improving their irrigation technology) or both. Although the outcome of those changes <br />are not captured in the past two years of water use, some discussion is provided to <br />indicated expected water savings and the related cost implications, where possible. <br /> <br />Water Budgets and Future Cost of Water <br />To estimate the pay back period for proposed water efficiency improvements, an estimate <br />of future water pricing was established using a water budget approach. In this approach, <br />a water budget was developed for each account, where possible, based on average <br />wintertime water use (which should represent normal indoor water use) and estimated <br />summertime outdoor water use. Summertime outdoor water use was estimated based on <br />irrigated acreage and 80% of the expected evapotransporation (ET) of Kentucky <br />bluegrass planted in that acreage for the particular water year. Monthly ET for each of <br /> <br />2-1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.