Laserfiche WebLink
<br />On' page 6, the Memo defines "pa~sive" and "active" conservation as' follows: <br /> <br />[Passiye water consen;ation ~av~",gs1_~"Qre].' water savings- that result from the impacts of <br />plumbing codes/-ordinances,' and standards that imprOve efficiency of water use4 These <br />conservation' . savings are called' <-ipassive " 'because water 'utilities do not activeljrfund~"'- <br />and implement programs that produce these savings. 'In contrast, water conservation' <br />savings resulting from utility-sponsored water conservation programs are'referred to as <br />'~active n savings. <br /> <br />The explanation of passive conservation that follows these definitions focuses solely on indoor <br />appliances 3D:d fix~es that are instal1e4 in response to local, state, and/or federal building <br />standards (e~g- the 199'2 EP Act). This conversion to water-efficient appliances and fixtures will <br />result from natural replacement of appliances in existing s~~~es. over time and initial <br />installation of appliances in new/future structures. <br /> <br />This approach overlooks other significant "passive" savings potential, i~cluding the examples <br />below: . <br /> <br />. Consistent with the SWSI definition of "passive," other municipal ordinances and <br />standards should be factored into the future savings estimates and demand forecasting. <br />S,o~e e~a~ples include ch':IDg~s in municipal ~o.nin~ ordinances, land use densities ~nd <br />-development - standards~ 'and-- urbano, landscaping ordinances. . . These are all policies - and <br />regulations enacted. by the municipality, not the uti.lity district or department. In rece~t <br />years, municipalities allover the region have begun to understand the important role:that <br />land use planning plays in water demand reduction. As we proceed farther into the 21 st <br />Century, more- and more cities throughout our region will ad.opt ordinances and standards <br />for future and- existing urban and suburban developments that maximize Xeriscaping, <br />minimize inefficient high-water-use plants, minimize landscaping coverage area, and/or <br />minimize lot sizes. Each year, more and more examples of such policy changes occur4 A <br />the state-wide level, the enactment of House Bill 03-1001 last year, which prohibits <br />future "bluegrass only" covenants, will contribute to future downward trends ,.in per capita <br />use~,...,.~Sj~br.,4ecreasing lot; size for new I development, lfl~.14~ljs occurring <br />throughout the state and, region, has a di~ect correlation with decreasing per capita <br />demand. See, e.g" , Smart Water pp. 98-99 (analyzing four-decade residential lot size <br />trends in Las Vegas, NY). <br /> <br />. Although it fits the SW.SI definition of "passive" conservation, current and future <br />technological advanceme~ts -in u~ban irrigation controllers are not addressed in the <br />Memo's explanation of passive conservation4 Failing to consider outdoor water savings <br />from technological gains leaves out another significant potential for passive water <br />savings in future years. Just in the _ past ,few yea~s, several new irrigation controller <br />designs have 'surfaced- on the market, ranging from ET -based irrigation controllers to soil <br />moisture sensors, all resulting in 'decreased outdoor water use. SWSIdemand projections <br />should assume similar advancements that improve the efficiency of urban landscape <br />irrigation will arise in the future and fit inside the definition of "passive" conservation. <br />