AppendixE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

programs, such as the number of program participants, number of years of program implementation, targeted water use fixtures and behaviors, baseline water use, expected life of implemented change, etc. However, that information at the provider-level is much more detailed than the county- level demand forecast for SWSI. Thus, the level of conservation effort at the county-level is a subjective assessment. Table 15 provides a matrix of potential water conservation programs assuming increasing levels of implementation. The matrix offers potential levels of water conservation effort, from Level I to Level V representing increasing levels of implementation of future water conservation programs. Note that Level I corresponds with the adjustment for passive savings described in the preceding section. A list of conservation programs is shown with each level of effort to provide a representation of the varied levels of conservation program implementation effort. The programs actually implemented by any given water provider may vary from this list. Note that the listed types of programs are representative of long-term programmatic activities. That is, they are typically implemented over an extended period of time, and are expected to have long-term water savings impacts, not just short-term adjustments. Hence, these do not include temporary (short-term) conservation programs such as watering restrictions and prohibitions in response to drought and emergency conditions. The Level II conservation implementation assumed for this analysis consists of inetering of all customers and a leak detection program. It is assumed that the continuation of these programs into the future will maintain an estimated four percent reduction from the 2000 per capita water use, in addition to the percent reduction for passive conservation. Level II implementation is representative of the least a water provider should do to promote water conservation among its customers. For example, the Texas Water Development Board requires water providers applying for financial assistance to develop water conservation plans which must at a minimum address customer education, a conservation-oriented rate structure, a metering program and a leak detection program. If all water providers in Colorado were to implement the nine water conservation measures recommended by the Colorado Water Conservation Board for consideration in Colorado water conservation plans, all Colorado providers would be at the Level III program implementation. A potential percent reduction in future water demand is indicated for each programmatic level. The percent reduction ranges from zero in 2000 up to a maximum percent savings in 2030 for each level. The percent reduction for interim years can be interpolated and applied to the Level I water demand forecast. Note that the program levels are inclusive of lower level programs except for Level L Thus, the percent reductions are cumulative. For example, the Level IV percent reduction is inclusive of the Level III percent reduction, which is inclusive of the Level II percent reduction. The cumulative percent reduction is shown in parentheses in Table 15. V. Conservation Impacts on SWSI Water Demand Forecast 37