AppendixE

• Basin: Statewide
• Title: SWSI Phase 1 Report - Appendix E
• Date: 11/15/2004
• Author: CWCB
• SWSI - Doc Type: Final Report

TABLE 14
SAVINGS AS A PERCENT OF BASELINE DEMAND
1995 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
City of San Diego
Baseline mgd 198.5 219.1 245.1 269.7 295.2 320.9 344.7
Passive savings 2.2 6.4 14.8 22.2 29.8 37.4 44.9
% savin s 1.2% 3.4% 7.1 % 9.9% 12.2% 14.3% 16.2%
From 2000 0.0% 3.7% 6.5% 8.8%
Eu ene, Ore on
Baseline m d 30.0 36.3 44.2 51.3 56.3 60.5
Passive savin s 0.3 0.8 1.9 3.1 4.2 5.1
% savings 0.9% 2.2% 4.3% 6.1 % 7.5% 8.5%
From 2000 0.0% 2.1 % 3.9% 5.3%
labama-Coosa-Talla oosa - A alachicol a-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basins
Baseline m d 1,666.7 1,770.2 2,009.9 2,074.3 2,062.8 2,249.0
Passive savin s 11.7 34.1 81.1 124.8 162.0 240.0
% savin s 0.7% 1.9% 4.0% 6.0% 7.9% 10.7%
From 2000 0.0% 2.1 % 4.1 % 6.0%
Lee Count , Florida
Baseline m d 63.2 86.8 104.6 118.8
Passive savin s 1.9 4.5 6.7 8.4
% savin s 3.0% 5.2% 6.4% 7.0%
From 2000 0.0% 2.2% 3.4% 4.0%
Orange Water and S ewer Authority, Carrboro NC
Baseline m d 7.7 8.9 10.6 12.3 14.1 15.8 17.5
Passive savin s 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.0
% savin s 0.0% 2.7% 5.6% 7.8% 9.4% 10.7% 11.7%
From 2000 0.0% 2.9% 5.1 % 6.7%
Considering the time advantage of the San Diego conservation savings, the
average expected percent reduction in baseline water demand from passive
savings for these five study areas would be about:
Year 2000 2010 2020 2030
Expected Savings 2.5% 5.0% 7.0% 8.5%
Increase above 2000 0% 2.5% 4.5% 6.0%
Year 2000 water use data was used to develop the SWSI baseline demand
forecast. Thus, the SWSI baseline demand forecast is reflective of the water
conservation (both passive and active) effect in the year 2000. Conservation
adjustments to the SWSI baseline demand forecast should reflect future
V. Conservation Impacts on SWSI Water Demand Forecast 35