Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Results <br />Due to the different behaviors of the pre-inspection groups (households watering above <br />or below ET) it was very difficult to quantify the differences between the means for the <br />population as a whole. It was more informative to 1001< at the pre-inspection groups <br />separately. <br /> <br />When comparing the watering habits of properties that were watering above ET prior to <br />the inspection with their watering habits after the inspection, a statistically significant <br />reduction in water usage was observed. Results showed that in 2004 75% of participants <br />that watered at rates above ET prior to the inspection reduced their water usage after the <br />inspection. In 2005,79% of participants that watered at rates above ET prior to the <br />inspection reduced their water usage after the inspection. <br /> <br />When comparing the watering habits of properties that were watering below ET prior to <br />the inspection with their watering habits after the inspection, the trend was to use more <br />water. However, these properties still tended to water either at or below the ET rates. <br /> <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 meeting 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 /> <br />9 <br />