Laserfiche WebLink
2.3.1 M&tl Water Conservation and <br />Efficiency Measures <br />(Results from the Subcommittees) <br />In order to address the questions in a logical <br />sequence, the subcommittees chose to first focus <br />on the projected savings opportunities from <br />various water conservation strategies/measures. <br />Utilizing many recent studies, papers, and real-life <br />water utility experiences, the Question 2 <br />subcommittee compiled a set of water savings and <br />costs that can be expected from a specific suite of <br />conservation measures, if successfully <br />implemented. These were presented to and <br />reviewed by the full TRT. <br />Conservation Measures Identified <br />The TRT developed a list of M~eI conservation <br />measures. The list below does not represent anall- <br />inclusive list, but provides examples of potential <br />conservation measures. <br />Projected Long-Term Savings from <br />Conservation and Efficiency Measures <br />A matrix of potential conservation water savings <br />from the implementation of various measures was <br />developed. Conservation savings as used in this <br />report is defined as the quantity of water that can <br />be achieved by reducing existing and/or future <br />water demand. The TRT conservation savings <br />matrix (Table 2-1) reveals there is significant <br />potential for additional water use reduction by <br />Colorado M~eI water providers through the <br />implementation of many measures. Some of these <br />measures are programs, while others represent <br />policies that would be implemented by the water <br />provider or land use governing authority. <br />Section 2 <br />Conservation and Efficiency Technical Roundtable <br />The level of penetration, which can be defined as <br />the extent to which the conservation measure is <br />implemented or adopted, is the most sensitive <br />variable that affects the amount of reduction in <br />water demand (conservation) that may be <br />achieved. For example, low flow toilets can be an <br />effective conservation method, but if no resident <br />installs the fixture (0 percent penetration) then no <br />savings will be realized. Similarly, if more <br />customers than anticipated adopt conservation <br />measures, then greater water savings may be <br />achieved. This point is central to the debate over <br />how far conservation measures can go in reducing <br />current and future water demand. <br />The greatest single potential for water savings is <br />turf replacement. This measure alone accounts for <br />approximately 40 percent of the total potential <br />savings. For example, in evaluating turf <br />replacement, a statewide savings of 125,000 to <br />210,000 AFY was based on 25 percent of single <br />family residences having no more than 60 percent <br />turf in their landscape by 2030. In highly <br />urbanized areas, such as the Denver metro area, <br />new residential development by 2030 may have <br />both smaller lot sizes and significantly less <br />bluegrass in the overall landscape mix. Rural and <br />suburban residential development and higher <br />income areas, as seen on the West Slope and <br />Douglas, El Paso, Larimer, and Weld counties on <br />the Front Range may, however, continue to have <br />larger lots and extensive bluegrass landscaping. <br />Residential lot sizes are generally a function of the <br />housing market and usually cannot be controlled <br />to a meaningful level by local water providers. <br />FINAL DRAFT 2-5 <br />