NonBasicSpecificComments10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"~ Most of these "passive" zoning/development policy actions and technological advancements will directly affect outdoor water use (i.e4' urban -landscape irrigation). With outdoor water use acco~ting for a maj ority ,of urban use in many of the larger districts, ~ese municipal ordinances have ~,even greater poten~ia1 f<?r water ~avings than the aforerp.entio~ed indoor ,appliance/fixture repl~ce~ent. , Failure to. include water savings estimate~ from th~se additional p~sive con~.ervat~on measures would result in an artificially-low conservation savings estimate and, as a result, skew future demand projections. (3) Data reveal a steady downward trend in per capita water consumption. 'The Smart Water study and other data indicate :that in most cases system-wide M&I per capita wa~er use is decreasing at a substanti~lly faster rate than the SWSI passive projections 'listed i~ the Memo. We recommend further consideration and analysis be given to the passive conservation estimates in SWSI. The Smart Water report's Appendix B highlights changes in system~wide per capita consumption in several southwestern cities over the seven year period from 1994 to 2001. Many of the documented reduction rates ranged from 9% to 19% over this period. The table below summarizes this information (once again, as derived from data supplied by water providers in our survey): City 1994 M&I water n'se 2001 M&I water use Percent reduction (over 7.vrs.) Albuquerque, NM Boulder, CO Denver, CO E] Paso, TX Grand Junction, CO Highlands Ranch, CO Las Vegas,.NY Mesa,AZ PJtoenix, AZ TaylorsviUe, UT Tempe, AZ Tucson, AZ , 250 gpcd 219 gpcd 221 gpcd 207 gpcd 258 gpcd 185 gpcd 332 gpcd 204 gpcd 241 gpcd 252 gped 266 gpcd 169 gpcd . 20.5 gpcd 180 gpcd 205 gpcd 167 gpcd 232 gpcd 191 gpcd 302 gpcd 194 gpcd 237 gpcd 221 gp~d 309 gpcd 170 gpcd 18% 18% 7% 19% 10% (-3%) 9% 5% 2% 12% (~ 160,{,) (-1 %) These demand reductions are five to ten times faster than the SWSI passive reduction rates 4 While some of the system-wide use rate reductio~s in the Smart Water analysis resulted from "active" conservation in some of the . cities, significant per capita water use red~ctions even occurred in cities/districts that did not implement many active conservation measures during this time period. In other words, passive conservation (indoor and outdoor) likely has the potential to ~e much more significant than the initial SWSI analysis suggests (Memo, page 8). We feel that a di~parity of this degree warrants a closer look at conservation potential and demand projections by urban areas across Colorado.