Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />Points of Connection and Meterina <br /> <br />As future irrigated areas develop, a point-of-connection (abbreviated POC) will be made <br />on the Highland Ditch transmission pipe system. From this point-of-connection, the <br />developer will design and install, to the Highland Ditch Company specifications, a <br />distribution system to provide irrigation water to all desired areas (parks, open spaces, <br />streetscapes, schools, and residential lots). Once the developer has installed the <br />secondary supply distribution system in the development, it could be turned over to the <br />company for future operation and maintenance. Alternatively, Highland Ditch could <br />maintain and manage the primary transmission system, while the water users <br />(developers I HOAs I or municipalities) develop and maintain the distribution system <br />needed to supply water to users. In the case of a new development, the distribution <br />would be designed by and paid for by the developer, not the canal company. <br /> <br />Figures 4 and 5 show conceptual point of connection details for a raw water connection <br />at a residential lot or at other discrete open space areas such as parks or streetscapes. <br />Secondary water supply that is delivered to a point of connection can either be metered <br />or un-metered, as shown in Figures 4 and 5 respectively. Whether or not the POC is <br />metered will ultimately be determined by the canal company; as the POC provides the <br />foundation for the canal company to develop revenues from water fees. <br /> <br />There are real implications to the decision to meter or not meter customer water use in a <br />secondary supply system. An aspect of the revenue generated from a project will in part <br />depend on the rates that are charged for water use, whether they are flat in the case of <br />no meters or consumption-based in the case of meters. <br /> <br />A preference for metering or no metering is primarily dependent on the site specific <br />conditions and goals of the project. There are also sound institutional or political aspects <br />to the question. The perceived benefits and drawbacks of each method should be <br />weighed accordingly. The following section examines some of the issues associated with <br />metering or not metering secondary supply systems. <br /> <br />Some benefits to metering include: <br />· The cost per unit of water is the same for all customers and is perceived as <br />equitable. <br />· The direct connection between the amount of water used and the cost of the <br />water provides an incentive for customers to conserve water. <br />· Metering can provide a benchmark for comparative water use over the long-term. <br />· The ability to meter water use provides a drought mechanism tool that can be <br />used with tiered pricing (e.g. the more you use, the more you pay assuming such <br />an approach is desirable). <br /> <br />Some benefits to not metering include: <br />· Meter failure, the cost of the meters, and the expense associated with reading, <br />maintaining, and upgrading meters is not an issue if meters are not used, <br />· A flat water rate may encourage outdoor water use and thus growth in <br />community aesthetics. <br /> <br />Aqua Engineering, Inc. <br />November 8, 2004 <br /> <br />Canal Modernization Feasibility Study <br />-17 - <br />