SouthPlatteComments22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. II Data for Denver, Boulder, Centennialt and Grand Junction are summarized immediately below . ). (as derived from data supplied by water providers in our survey): Utility Denver Water City of Boulder Centennial Water & Sanitation District City of Grand Junction County City and County of Denver Boulder COWlty Douglas County Mesa County 2001 S'Vste.... Wide M&I use rate 205 gpcd 180 gpcd 191 gpcd 232 gpcd Note~. These data were derived directly from raw data provided by the water provider3~ Also note that the service area populations of these districts tend to be one of the largest in their respective counties, if not the largest With the exception of Grand Junction, the M&I water use rates in Table 1...1 of the March 24 Memo are notably higher than these data. This apparent "across the board" high use (particularly in the less populous Colorado counties) appearing in Table 1-1- raise serious doubts as to whether the data therein should be used for projecting future demands and subsequent future supply needs. -4 The apparent consumption. disparity mentioned above may result from the effect of large industrial uses in municipalities with relatively low populations. With the exception of the Front Range, Colorado is a largely rural state. The system-wide M&I water use rates in smaller communities are -very sensitive to the effect of industrial uses in these towns (e.g., the effect of a large canning factory in a small rural town). Generally speaking, in these cases, the disproportionately high industrial use of such facilities have less population to "spread" itself over, thus resulting in a very high system-wide M&I use figure~ If these high per capita water use rates are used to derive future demand projections, M&I future demand estimates are likely to be artificially high. It appears that the SWSI methodology assumes that large industrial uses in these smaller communities will increase proportionately with municipal population growth. We believe this assumption is questionable and should be reconsidered. Industrial land use in these communities does not necessarily correlate to population in these communities. We recommend that any assumed county M&I water use rate that exceeds 300 gpcd be reassessed for industrial bias and potential data flaws. We also recommend that these disproportionate industrial uses be decoupled from th~ other municipal uses in the communities and counties with relatively low population figures. (2) "Passive" conservation savings should include additional items. The SWSI-estimated "passive" conservation savings percentages (to be used in demand forecasting) are too low 11 and fail to capture other significant sources of passive savings.. The estimated passive savings percentages proposed to be used in SWSI demand projections are as follows (from page 8 of the Memo): Year Expected Savings 2000 0% 2010 2~5% 2020 4.5% 2030 6.0%