S2_ConservationEfficiency - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 2 Conservation and Efficiency Technical Roundtable The BMPs for Water Conservation identified by the MMC include: 1. Residential Indoor and Outdoor Water Use Conservation Programs 2. Commodity Rate Metering for New Connections and Existing Connection Retrofit 3. Landscape Water Conservation Policies and Programs for Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Properties and Public and Private Common Area Landscapes 4. School Education Program 5. Conservation Program for Commercial- Industrial-Institutional and Multi-Family Residential Accounts (Indoor) 6. Wholesale/Contract/Allotted Assistance Programs 7. Conservation Pricing Via Water Rate and Fee Structures 8. Water Waste Prohibitions and Enforcement Program 9. Water Conservation Coordination Table 2-5 City of Westminster Growth 10. Demand Reduction During a Water Crisis 11. Water Loss -System Audits and Leak Detection Programs City of Westminster Case Study The successes and challenges of implementing a water conservation program are partially illustrated in Tables 2-5 through 2-9, which provide a history of the implementation efforts related to the City of Westminster, Colorado's water conservation programs. The City of Westminster implemented a growth management program and conservation oriented water rates, tap fees, and landscape regulations in order to address water supply planning and water conservation issues. This history illustrates that implementation takes not only years, but decades and the coordination with and cooperation of policy makers, managers, developers, and multiple city departments. An important component to the success of the Westminster program is the cross departmental communication and coordination between the land use planners (Community Development Department) and the water utility planners (Public Works and Utilities Department). -Implementation Histo 1977 City implemented a growth management plan which Lawsuit filed by the Home Builders Association of Metro Denver does not allow utility taps (service commitments) to be (HBA) claiming that the City did not have the authority to limit utility allocated without adequate water and wastewater taps. Colorado Supreme Court confirmed the City's authority to capacities identified. regulate growth. 1978 - 2002 Given the limited number of taps available there was an A higher priority was placed on bluegrass landscape than xeriscape annual competition for service commitments (tap credits) design by the Community Development Department. The perception which included points for water conservation features. was that xeriscape was not as attractive and thus low water use landscaping was not heavily weighted in competition. 1996 A moratorium was placed on new service commitments Moratorium was strongly opposed by the development community. until additional water supplies and treatment capacity Developers claimed the city water allocation per service was added. Residential growth was exceeding the commitment was too high. The allocation was 0.43 AFY/single capacity of the Ciiy to develop and implement family residential unit. The HBA claimed they could construct homes sustainable and reliable water supplies at a rate to keep using 0.33 AFY. up with growth. 1996 A joint study of residential water use by City and HBA HBA agreed to fund 50%of the cost of the study through residential was conducted. A geographic information system (GIS) tap fee surcharge. database linking billing, parcel, tax assessor, and building permits was developed. Data-logging of residential uses was conducted. Prototype low water- using homes were constructed. 2-16 FINAL DRAFT