Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~:-~~ SCH'MUESER I GORDON t MEYER <br />(\.. <br />'\~ ENG'INEERS b. SURVEYORS <br /> <br />Task 07: Produce Conservation Plan Document and Solicit Public Input <br /> <br />Scheduled completion: <br />Scheduled submission of 95% review: <br />Estilnated cOITIPJetion to date: <br /> <br />Apr. 18, 2008 <br />Feb. 15, 2008 <br />15% <br /> <br />Work on a document outline, template, and drafting ofjnitial sections has been completed. <br /> <br />Task 08: Project Management <br /> <br />Scheduled completion: <br />Estimated completion to date: <br /> <br />Apr. 18, 2008 <br />50% <br /> <br />Work to date has included coordination between City staff, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, and <br />CWCB. <br /> <br />Summary <br /> <br />General Progress <br />The project is moving alongwell~ and there has been very good prelinlinary support for the <br />projects froln both City staff and the stakeholders involved. Despite being slightly behind <br />schedule for the individual tasks, the overall COlnp letion date of Apri I 18wi 11 be met. <br /> <br />Challenges Encountered <br /> <br />. Significant additional effort than originally envisioned and budgeted was required to <br />document (essentially estimate) historical water use in Rifle. A key conservation goal to <br />come out of this project will be to improve system-wide water tracking. <br /> <br />. Infolmation on other water conservation plans has been relatively easy to find, in large <br />part due to previous efforts of the CWCB and the A WW A. Although good infonnation <br />on costs and success rates is available for large municipalities, very littleinformatioll is <br />available for Slllall., non-lnetropolitan areas. <br /> <br />. It has also been sobering to realize the very limited cost savings from water conservation <br />in Western Colorado. The current low cost for acquiring a firrTl water supply on the <br />Western Slope as compared to the Front Range is a significant challenge to economic <br />justification of water conservation here. While an acre-foot on the Front Range might <br />cost upwards of $15K, in western Colorado, this same volume in the Rifle area <br />COlTIlnands only about $lK, to $2K. Furthermore, since the consumptive portion of <br />indoor use is so small (5-10%) per the City's augmentation plan, reducing indoor use has <br />almost no net water supply benefit. Furthermore, the cost of electrical energy use is <br />extremely low. The City pays only about 1 cent per kW-hr. Power demand charges are <br />more significant, but these may not be significantly reduced if the City achieves 10 to <br />15% water conservation (since the same conlbination of large pUlnps may still need to <br />run for a short time, thus triggering equivalent demand charges). <br /> <br />. The only econonlic driver for water conservation in Rifle at this point in time is <br />deferment/reduction of capital costs associated with infrastructure. To this extent~ <br /> <br />SGM # 99055A-388 <br /> <br />Progress Report - 500/0 <br />