Laserfiche WebLink
Section 5 <br />Addressing the Water Supply Gap Technical Roundtable <br />Rural and suburban residential development and <br />higher income areas, as seen on the West Slope and <br />Douglas, El Paso, Larimer, and Weld counties on the <br />Front Range may, however, continue to have larger <br />lots and extensive bluegrass landscaping. <br />Residential lot sizes are generally a function of the <br />housing market and usually cannot be controlled to <br />a meaningful level by local water providers. <br />However, lot sizes can be influenced by the local <br />land use governments, particularly in the planning <br />and zoning process. Water utilities can also exert <br />influence in this area by developing a water tap fee <br />(also termed system development charge or water <br />resources and plant investment fee) structure that <br />takes into consideration lot size and the projected <br />demands that each new customer will place on the <br />system. <br />The Role of Water Conservation in Water <br />Supply Planning and Meeting the Gap <br />The role that water conservation can play in helping <br />address the gap identified in SWSI requires further <br />investigation and discussion. Implementing <br />additional conservation measures in some of the <br />major gap areas (Northern El Paso, Arapahoe, and <br />Douglas Counties) where water demand is primarily <br />supplied by non-renewable groundwater can reduce <br />rate of mining of the groundwater and extend the <br />useful life of the aquifers. This would result in a <br />reduction of future renewable water supplies <br />needed to meet future demands, but does not <br />provide a renewable water supply for these water <br />providers. Also, it would be inaccurate and <br />misleading to look at the potential statewide <br />conservation savings and arithmetically apply it to <br />the gap areas. This would assume that saved water <br />in other basins or other geographic areas can or <br />would be delivered to gap areas. There bas not been <br />any indication that water providers who achieved <br />future water conservation savings would be willing <br />to perpetually allocate saved water to other water <br />providers. In the event that water providers would <br />agree to permanently sell conserved water to the gap <br />areas, additional infrastructure would be needed to <br />store and deliver the conserved water. <br />During the Gap TRT, this topic was discussed <br />several times. In order to build on thematic <br />conservation alternatives, it would be useful to have <br />specific information on the source and estimated <br />quantity of supply that would be saved through <br />conservation/demand reduction. Without this <br />detailed information generalized assumptions can <br />be made but it will be difficult to fully evaluate the <br />strengths, implementation issues, and costs. <br />The implementation of M~eI conservation will <br />result in some reduction in wastewater and lawn <br />irrigation return flows. Even without additional <br />conservation, M~eI water providers will continue to <br />increase their use of legally consumable return <br />flows, whether from lawn irrigation or wastewater <br />efIluent. This will inevitably result in reduced <br />supplies to downstream agricultural users who have <br />benefited from these increased flows over the past <br />40 years, thus increasing their water supply gap. <br />The role water conservation can play in meeting <br />future water supply needs and the gap continues to <br />be debated and can generally be characterized in the <br />following manner. <br />It would be inaccurate and misleading <br />to look at the potential statewide <br />conservation savings and <br />arithmetically apply it to the gap <br />areas. This would assume that saved <br />water in other basins or other <br />geographic areas can or would be <br />delivered to gap areas. <br />Water providers recognize the important role that <br />conservation plays in reducing future demands. At <br />the same time, since conservation measures take <br />decades to fully implement, and given the fact that <br />there is uncertainty in the total amount of water <br />saving that can be achieved, water providers also <br />believe they must concurrently pursue structural <br />water storage and management projects to ensure <br />that future water needs are met. <br />Conservation and environmental interests believe <br />that conservation is cost-effective and should be <br />FINAL DRAFT 5-15 <br />