Laserfiche WebLink
Section 2 <br />Conservation and Efficiency Technical Roundtable <br />There was general consensus that the <br />implementation of reduced turf areas would be <br />much easier to achieve with new development <br />rather than retrofitting existing developed areas. <br />There was not consensus, however, among the <br />TRT members on the actual savings that may in <br />fact be experienced by 2030 as a result of turf <br />replacement The primary area where there were <br />differences of opinion was not in the savings if <br />successfully implemented, but in the success of <br />achieving and maintaining the turf replacement <br />goals. Some TRT members suggested that if one <br />factors in a reasonably slow but steady landscape <br />conversion for existing residents along with the <br />potential of reduced bluegrass landscape of new <br />residences on a statewide basis, by 2030 it may be <br />that closer to 50 percent of single family residences <br />will have at most 60 percent turf in their <br />landscapes, resulting in somewhere between <br />250,000 and 423,000 AF of savings statewide. <br />Others stated that the desire to have residential <br />bluegrass landscaping for aesthetic preferences, <br />play areas for children and pets, plus the perceived <br />ease of maintenance and ability to control dust and <br />weeds, and reduce temperatures will result in the <br />continued prevalence of bluegrass or similar turf <br />landscaping in residential development. <br />Many water providers in Colorado can claim <br />water rights credit for lawn watering return <br />Successful implementation of water conservation <br />measures may represent other benefits to water <br />providers in addition to the value to the utility of <br />the water saved. These include: <br />~ Water loss reduction decreases water treatment <br />costs and water plant capacity needs. <br />~ Landscape changes may lower owner's <br />maintenance costs, such as mowing and <br />fertilizer applications and sprinkler <br />maintenance in addition to lower water bills. <br />~ Irrigation system efficiency improvements can <br />reduce damage to streets and parking lots from <br />saturation of subsurface under pavement. <br />~ Energy cost reductions by diminishing the <br />volume of heated water used indoors and <br />potential greenhouse gas emissions, depending <br />upon the source of energy (i.e., coal-fired power <br />plants). <br />~ Potential cost savings to customers if reduced <br />demand can reduce overall water system costs <br />or conserved water can be used for other <br />revenue-generating activities, such as new <br />customers. <br />~ The potential savings developed by the TRT are <br />dependent upon the successful and long-term <br />implementation of the various potential <br />measures. Implementation of some of these <br />measures will be dependent upon the enactment <br />of ordinances or regulations of the local land use <br />authority. Other water efficiency measures are <br />within the purview and control of the water <br />utility. Implementation issues are discussed <br />later in this section. <br />In the case of water districts and entities such as <br />Denver W ater that serve areas outside of the City <br />and County of Denver, regulations on plumbing <br />codes and landscaping standards are not within <br />the authority of the water provider. Other <br />measures, such as water conservation water rates <br />with steep rate increases for higher levels of water <br />use, are within the authority of water utilities such <br />as Denver Water, but depend upon the willingness <br />of the utility rate setting authority to implement <br />these measures. Many providers experience <br />support and opposition for new rates and rate <br />structures that reward conserving customers and <br />discourage high water use, but some level of <br />opposition from certain customers is to be <br />expected. <br />FINAL DRAFT 2-9 <br />