Laserfiche WebLink
<br />following the drought in which mandatory watering restrictions were no longer in effect. <br />For example, in 2003, two-thirds of households analyzed were watering below the ET <br />rate. However, in 2004, that number dropped to only one-third of households watering <br />below the ET rate. In other words, a general trend was observed in which water use <br />tended to increase with each year after the drought. The irrigation inspection program <br />effectively reduced the water use of households watering above the ET rate in the years <br />following the drought. Though the severe restrictions did result in reduced water use, the <br />success of Slow the Flow Colorado provides the basis for efficiency as a means of water <br />conservation, rather then solely relying on severe restrictions to meet water use reduction <br />or conservation goals. <br /> <br />Another outcome to consider is that households watering below ET prior to the <br />inspection tended to increase water use after the inspection (the trend was to water closer <br />to actual ET rates, without watering above ET rates). Nonetheless, these customers still <br />received valuable information from the inspection regarding Best Management Practices <br />and efficient water use. The urban landscape has many environmental and community <br />benefits, such as reducing the "heat island" effect and filtering storm water. Through <br />Slow the Flow Colorado customers can help maximize the benefits of the urban <br />landscape by maintaining healthy lawns and using water as efficiently as possible. <br /> <br />Problems seen in residential irrigation systems occurred in both contractor and <br />homeowner installed systems. In almost all cases maintenance problems contributed to <br />inefficient water use, or water waste. Improper design was also widely seen and posed a <br />much larger burden on the homeowner to finance and complete changes that would <br />improve upon efficiency. Landscape ordinances prior to installation could be an effective <br />tool in addressing this problem. <br /> <br />Future Studies <br />The effects of this irrigation inspection program should be monitored in future years to <br />determine whether or not water use trends coincide with the results of this study. If <br />possible, it would be beneficial to look at whether or not participants who reduced their <br />landscape water use continue in this manner beyond the post-inspection year. Due to the <br />volume of data collection and analysis involved in studying the effectiveness of this <br />water conservation program, it is recommended that a similar study commence in January <br />of 2009. This time frame allows for the availability of two full years of water record data <br />for the 2006 audit participants. <br /> <br />Other phases of the irrigation inspection procedure should also be considered and <br />evaluated for effectiveness. There is the potential to increase the number of participants <br />who tal<e action on recommendations made during an irrigation inspection by developing <br />or utilizing qualified contractor services to make minor or major repairs to the system <br />during or shortly following the inspection with the homeowner's consent. Currently, to <br />maintain the CRC' s unbiased, independent status, auditors cannot recommend a specific <br />irrigation company to our clients. Instead, the auditors inform the client about what <br />qualities they should 1001< for in a contractor and also refer them to the Irrigation <br />Association, an organization that provides a database of certified landscape and irrigation <br /> <br />32 <br />