Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Plan Review Findings <br /> <br />./ Approved <br /> <br />Conditional Approval <br /> <br />Disapproval with Modifications <br /> <br />Plan review comments: <br />The Ft. Lupton water conservation plan appears to meet state statutory requirements and can be <br />approved once two missing elements (see above) are provided. Although the plan appears to <br />meet the letter of the law, the spirit of the statute is not satisfied because the Ft. Lupton plan <br />suggests a very modest savings reduction goal of 7%. Given the anticipated cost of proposed <br />infrastructure improvements and water rights purchases in Ft. Lupton ($16 - $20 million) some <br />of which could probably be substantially delayed or eliminated through conservation and <br />significant cost savings to Ft. Lupton rate payers, conservation would appear to be a desirable <br />option for more serious consideration. <br /> <br />A 7% reduction in forecast demand willlil<ely be accomplished (or exceeded) in the coming <br />years simply due to the natural replacement of old inefficient plumbing fixtures, appliances and <br />irrigation systems. Federal mandates such as the 1992 Energy Policy Act ensure that all new <br />fixtures will meet minimum conservation standards. Improved federal efficiency standards are <br />currently being proposed for implementation in 2014. The EP A WaterSense program is <br />expected to increase visibility and market share for efficiency products. Significant <br />improvements in irrigation efficiency are also likely to be accomplished. Given this, it is hoped <br />that Ft. Lupton will reconsider its' planning goals in future reviews of the conservation plan. It <br />is likely that cost effective conservation savings can be achieved in Ft. Lupton that might delay <br />or even eliminate costly infrastructure improvements. <br /> <br />Ft. Lupton's current rate structure (3 tier increasing blocl< rate for potable water) should <br />discourage water waste among residential customers with a large irrigation demand. Reducing <br />the size of block 1 (and possibly the cost of water within that block) could serve to encourage <br />more indoor efficiency while sending a more effective price signal about outdoor water use. <br /> <br />Approval of the Ft. Lupton plan is recommended. <br /> <br />This plan review was completed by Peter Mayer, P.E. of Aquacraft, Inc. Water Engineering and <br />Management (mayer@aquacraft.com). Thefinal review was completed and approved by Veva <br />McCaig. Questions about the review itself and the comments provided can be directed to Peter. <br />Questions about the plan review process and the statutory requirements can be directed to Veva. <br />