Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A non-statistical analysis of total outdoor gallons used by the various study groups in <br />relation to gallons needed to replace ET showed that: <br /> <br />The 2004 group as a whole fell short of replacing the ET rate by 2.6 million gallons in the <br />pre-inspection year (2003). In 2005, this group fell short of replacing ET by a little more <br />than 2.6 million gallons (a difference of approximately 56,000 gallons, or 2%.) It was <br />observed that 2/3 of the 2004 group were watering below ET prior to the inspection. <br /> <br />The 2005 group as a whole watered beyond ET requirements by 5.8 million gallons in the <br />pre-inspection year (2004). In 2006, this group still irrigated beyond ET requirements, <br />but by 2.3 million gallons less. This is a 39% reduction in water use, and approximately 7 <br />acre feet of water saved. It was observed that 2/3 of the 2005 group were watering above <br />ET prior to the inspection. <br /> <br />The cost of conducting the number of inspections in the 2005 group (751) was <br />approximately $57,000. Current estimates for the cost of infrastructure associated with <br />the development of water range from $12,000 to $17,000 per acre foot (at a minimum). <br />This would indicate that this conservation program is a cost effective method to meeting <br />water supply needs. <br /> <br />Additional Considerations <br />The findings of this analysis can play an important role in helping water providers decide <br />which properties to target for irrigation inspection programs such as Slow the Flow <br />Colorado, as well as which alternative or additional water conservation measures, <br />incentives or programs could be considered. <br /> <br />Based on the results of this analysis, the reduction of water use attributed to programs <br />such as Slow the Flow Colorado will depend greatly on whether or not participants are <br />over-watering prior to receiving an inspection. However, without comparing water <br />consumption to landscape size, it is impossible to know if a participant is over-watering. <br />A common misconception is that if a property is using a large amount of water or has a <br />large landscape, the property is most likely over-watering. However, a trend was <br />observed during the course of this study that actually indicated the opposite. That is to <br />say that the larger properties tended to be less likely to be over-watered. Nonetheless, <br />even if these large properties are watering the correct amount given their landscape size <br />and the ET rate, they still might be categorized as a "high water user." <br /> <br />Therefore, it is possible that alternative initiatives such as limiting the amount of turf that <br />can exist in new landscapes, reducing the amount of turf in existing landscapes, and <br />implementing xeric alternatives to turf would be helpful in water conservation measures. <br /> <br />Another finding observed during this analysis was the role that drought and mandatory <br />watering restrictions had on outdoor water use. The 2002 drought prompted many cities <br />along the Front Range to implement mandatory watering restrictions. As can be <br />expected, during 2002 water use was considerably lower than average for most <br />properties. However, a "roll-over affect" or "drought shadow" was observed in the year <br /> <br />31 <br />