My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ02008
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
0001-1000
>
PROJ02008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:37 AM
Creation date
7/9/2007 8:43:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
FS0073FX
Contractor Name
Lamar, City of
Contract Type
Grant
Water District
0
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
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 />MeterinQ and Point of Connection <br /> <br />Secondary water supply that is delivered to a point of connection can either be metered <br />or un-metered. Conceptual schematics of the point of connection with and without <br />metering devices are shown in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. It should be noted that <br />the point of connection without metering devices (Figure 10) can be modified to include <br />a provision for future installation of a meter. <br /> <br />The preference of one method over another 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 will be unique to <br />a particular project and thus should be weighed accordingly. The purpose of this section <br />is to examine some of the issues associated with metering or not metering secondary <br />supply systems. <br /> <br />Some benefits to metering include: <br /> <br />· The cost per unit of water is the same for all customers and is perceived as <br />equitable, if the affordability of water is not an issue among different customer <br />income levels. <br />· A flat rate for water (no meters) subsidizes those who use more water by <br />providing a cheaper cost per unit of water (cost per unit of water is higher for <br />those who conserve). <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 no metering include: <br /> <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 (thus growth in community <br />aesthetics) for low income customers, who otherwise may not be able to afford <br />the increasing rates associated with metering. <br />· Metering tends to ignore the cost of water relative to the income level of the <br />users and therefore may not be equitable (those with lower incomes will pay <br />more per unit of water relative to those with higher incomes). <br /> <br />Aqua Engineering, Inc. <br />and Colorado State University <br />May 19, 2004 <br /> <br />Secondary Supply Feasibility Study <br />-33- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.