Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Data for Denver, Boulder, Centennial, and Grand Junction are summarized immediately below <br />(as derived from data supplied by water providers in our survey): <br /> <br />U tilitv <br />Denver Water <br />City of Boulder <br />Centennial Water & Sanitation District <br />City of Grand Junction <br /> <br />County <br />City and County of Denver <br />Boulder County <br />Douglas County <br />Mesa County <br /> <br />2001 System-Wide M&I use rate <br />205 gpcd <br />180 gpcd <br />191 gpcd <br />232 gpcd <br /> <br />Note~. These data were derived directly from raw data provided by the water providers~ Also note that the service <br />area populations of these districts tend to be one of the largest in their respective counties, if not the largest. <br /> <br />With the exception of Grand Junction, the M&I water use rates in Table 1-1 of the March 24 <br />Memo are notably higher than these data. This apparent "across the board" high use (particularly <br />in the less populous Colorado counties) appearing in Table 1-1 raise serious doubts as to whether <br />the data therein should be used for projecting future demands and subsequent future supply <br />needs. <br /> <br />The apparent consumption disparity mentioned above may result from the effect of large <br />industrial uses in municipalities with relatively low populations. With the exception of the Front <br />Range, Colorado is a largely rural state. The system-wide M&I water u~e rates in smaller <br />communities are very sensitive to the effect of industrial uses in these towns (e.g., the effect ofa <br />large" canning factory in a small rural town). Generally speaking, in these cases, the <br />disproportionately high'industrial use of such facilities have less population to "spread" itself <br />over, thus resulting in a very high system-wide M&I use figure. <br /> <br />If these high per capita water use rates are used to derive future demand projections, M&I future <br />demand estimates are likely to be artificially high. It appears that the SWSI methodology <br />assumes that large industrial uses in these smaller communities will increase proportionately <br />with municipal population growth. We believe this assumption is questionable and should be <br />reconsidered. Industrial land use in these communities does not necessarily correlate to <br />popul~tion in these communities4 <br /> <br />We recommend that any assumed county M&I water use rate that exceeds 300 gpcd be <br />reassessed for industrial bias and potential data flaws~ We also recommend that these <br />disproportionate industrial uses be decoupled from the other municipal uses in the communities <br />and counties with relatively low population figures. <br /> <br />(2) "Passive" conservation savings should include additional items. <br /> <br />The SWSI-estimated "passive" conservation savings percentages (to be used in demand <br />forecasting) are too low, and fail to capture other significant sources of passive savings. The <br />estimated passive savings percentages proposed to be used in SWSI demand projections are as <br />follows (from page 8 of the Memo): <br /> <br />Year <br />Expected Savings <br /> <br />2000 <br />00/0 <br /> <br />2010 <br />2.5% <br /> <br />2020 <br />4.5% <br /> <br />2030 <br />6.00/0 <br />