Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2004 Watering Practices of Households Audited in 2006 as Compared to <br />Front Range Historical Evapotranspiration (ET) Rate <br /> <br />100 <br />80 <br />60 <br />40 <br />20 <br />o <br /> <br /> <br />I_ # of households I <br /> <br /><-100 -100 -80 to -60 to -40 to -20 to 0 to 20 to 40 to 60 to 80 to >100 <br />to -81 -61 -41 -21 -1 19 39 59 79 99 <br /> <br />0/0 Over/Under ET <br /> <br />As shown by the graphs, the watering trends of households audited in 2006 follow a <br />fairly normal bell curve, peaking somewhere between -40% to 0% ofET. The two <br />exceptions in both years, however, are the classes <-100 and >100. <br /> <br />Notable Conclusions <br /> <br />Less than 10% of all inspected zones were operating efficiently (had a DU 2:70 and <br />had correct pressure) <br /> <br />More than 4/5 of the zones inspected had an undesirable distribution uniformity <br /> <br />· The percentage of spray zones with an undesirable DU was consistently <br />higher than the percentage of rotor zones with an undesirable DU <br /> <br />Almost 2/3 of the zones inspected were not operating at proper pressure levels <br /> <br />· The percentage of spray zones that had improper pressure was two times <br />higher than the percentage of rotor zones that had improper pressure <br /> <br />Clay soil was the most common soil type, followed by loam. <br /> <br />About 1/3 of the properties visited had turf with shallow roots <br /> <br />98.7% (472/478) of mail-in evaluations indicated that the irrigation inspection either <br />met or exceeded their expectations <br /> <br />98.1 % (469/478) of mail-in evaluations indicated that the irrigation auditor <br />"displayed knowledge and sl<ills necessary to perform the inspection effectively." <br /> <br />These results were consistent amongst all cities <br /> <br />9 <br />