Laserfiche WebLink
Section 2 <br />Conservation and Efficiency Technical Roundtable <br />Potential Savings from Water Conservation <br />Measures <br />1. While most water providers have implemented <br />significant conservation, there are <br />opportunities to achieve even greater <br />conservation savings. In the first phase of <br />SWSI, it was estimated that providers across <br />the state have implemented permanent <br />conservation measures that will ultimately <br />reduce future demand in excess of 12 percent, <br />which would be included in the projected <br />overall savings presented below. Based on <br />information gathered by this TRT, it appears <br />that additional demand reduction can be <br />accomplished by a variety of measures. These <br />measures, if fully and successfully <br />implemented, represent a range of demand <br />reduction from 287,000 AF to 459,000 AFY by <br />2030. As with all options, there are significant <br />technical, engineering, legal, and institutional <br />challenges associated with how much demand <br />reduction can occur and how much this <br />demand reduction can be used to address <br />Colorado's future water supply need (see <br />Section 5). <br />2. The average cost to achieve these water <br />conservation savings is estimated to be <br />$10,600/AF. The more inexpensive measures, <br />i.e., the "low-banging fruit" cost as little as <br />$1,000 to $2,000/AF. This makes it a cost- <br />effective option for most providers. <br />Some water conservation measures, such as <br />sub-metering of multi-family housing and <br />reduction of irrigated turf areas, will be much <br />easier to implement with new development <br />than through the retrofit of existing <br />development. <br />4. Water conservation in most cases can reduce <br />or delay the need for additional water supply <br />development projects, reduce or delay the need <br />for water treatment plant expansions and <br />other utility infrastructure, and reduce <br />financing, operations, and maintenance costs. <br />Water conservation can potentially reduce <br />costs to the water user through reduced water <br />bills, energy savings, and reduced landscape <br />maintenance costs. However, the unit cost for <br />water may have to increase to recover lost <br />revenues in response to overall reduction in <br />water sales if additional customers are not <br />added or utility operating costs reduced. <br />6. The impacts of water conservation must be <br />factored in utility financial planning as it can <br />result in net revenue losses to the utility if <br />operating costs are not reduced, water rates <br />increased, or revenues maintained through <br />new sales to other users. <br />7. Many water conservation implementation <br />concerns are related to cost. As the potential <br />water savings matrix indicates, certain water <br />conservation measures are cost-effective when <br />compared against other options. <br />8. Utility managers and decisionmakers should <br />analyze the overall net financial impact of <br />water conservation on their utility operations. <br />Utility managers and decisionmakers should <br />analyze the potential benefits of implementing <br />water conservation measures that may allow <br />for the delay of water acquisitions or <br />infrastructure capital improvements against <br />the risks of delay of implementation of water <br />acquisitions or structural projects. <br />10. Another major implementation issue <br />surrounds citizens' and utilities' willingness to <br />develop and participate in conservation <br />programs. As noted in the Colorado Springs <br />Utilities' water customer survey, the past few <br />years have seen an increase in awareness of the <br />benefits of conservation and, as a result, an <br />2-24 FINAL DRAFT <br />