Laserfiche WebLink
Section 2 <br />Conservation and Efficiency Technical Roundtable <br />Responses to "How much do you think Colorado <br />Springs Utilities should spend to promote water <br />conservation?" are shown in Table 2-3. <br />Approximately 70 percent of the respondents <br />(shaded rows) thought that Colorado Springs <br />Utilities should charge between $0.50 and $150 <br />per month for promoting water conservation. <br />Table 2-3 "How Much Do You Think Colorado Springs Utilities <br />Should Spend to Promote Water Conservation?" <br />"'~- <br />More than $2 per customer/mo. 26 9% <br />Between $1 and $1.50 per customer/mo. 52 17% <br />Between $0.50 and $1 per customer/mo. 80 27% <br />No more than $0.50 per customer/mo. 79 26% <br />Should not spend anything at all 43 14% <br />Figure 2-1 shows responses to the question: "How <br />important should each of the following be to <br />Colorado Springs Utilities in influencing how <br />customers use water?" Both mandatory and <br />voluntary programs were equally supported by <br />60 percent of residential users, while commercial <br />users were slightly less supportive of mandatory <br />programs. Promoting conservation through <br />conservation oriented rate structures had less <br />support by both residential and commercial <br />customers when compared to mandatory and <br />voluntary conservation programs. <br />Figure 2-1 <br />"How Important Should Each of the Following Be to <br />Colorado Springs Utilities in Influencing How Customers <br />Use Water?" <br />The following comments were made by TRT <br />members on Questions 3 CSC 4: <br />~ Municipalities' willingness to charge higher <br />prices for water to promote conservation must <br />also be considered. For Glenwood Springs, there <br />is a difference between citizen's ideas and where <br />the City Council is going with certain programs. <br />There is also a minority of opponents to <br />conservation who are very vocal. <br />~ Lifeline services similar to ones implemented in <br />the energy crisis during the 1970s could be used <br />to increase the implementation of conservation <br />through pricing. Under this philosophy, the <br />amount of water needed for basic indoor water <br />user would be priced to be affordable by all <br />customers, regardless of income, and higher <br />conservation water rates would only be <br />implemented on water use above this basic <br />"lifeline" water use. <br />~ The Ad Council may be willing to provide pro- <br />bono support for public education on water <br />conservation and this should be investigated. <br />2.3.4 Institutional and Legal <br />Considerations (Question 4 <br />Subcommittee) <br />In April of 2004, the Metro Mayors Caucus <br />(MMC) began drafting a Memorandum of <br />Understanding (MOU) on Water <br />Conservation and Stewardship. Signed by 28 <br />jurisdictions and endorsed by 16 <br />organizations, the MOU establishes a <br />common understanding among mayors of the <br />importance of water to all aspects of life and <br />commerce in Colorado and expresses the <br />intent of the signing jurisdictions to enhance <br />the stewardship of the water resource within <br />their jurisdictions in a number of specific <br />ways. <br />After the signing of the MOU on January 22, <br />2005, the Caucus teamed with the Colorado <br />WaterWise Council to draft best <br />management practices (BMPs) for Water <br />Conservation. The BMPs were a direct <br />outgrowth of the commitment within the <br />2-14 FINAL DRAFT <br />Voluntary Programs Mandatory Programs Rate Structures <br />^ Residential ^ Commercial <br />