My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
17 (4)
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
17 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:36:09 PM
Creation date
4/1/2008 8:39:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/18/2008
Description
OWCDP Section - Presentation on the 2007 Drought & Water Supply Assessment
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
• There is discrepancy in drought planning between large urban providers and <br />smaller rural agencies. While most urban providers had a drought plan in place, <br />the majority of Colorado water providers consisting predominantly of smaller, <br />rural utilities had not developed a drought response plan. <br />The lack of drought response planning was an issue in all seven Colorado Water <br />Divisions. <br />Findings -Water Conservation Planning and Programs <br />• 48 percent of Colorado utilities either had a water conservation plan or were in <br />progress developing one. But a similar number of agencies (48 percent) did not <br />have a conservation plan on the books or in progress. <br />• It was small utilities that did not have a conservation plan. Only 8 percent of the <br />population resides in an area not covered by a conservation plan. <br />• Conservation planning activities have accelerated in recent years. More than 70 <br />percent of the existing and pending conservation plans in Colorado were <br />completed since 2004. <br />• Only 30 percent of respondents had a water conservation program budget, nearly <br />70 percent did not. <br />• The total utility funding for water conservation in Colorado in 2007 was <br />$11,224,500. However, $8,000,000 of this came from a single agency. <br />• The median conservation program budget was $25,000 so half of the programs <br />in the state had a budget smaller than $25,000. <br />• The importance of offsetting the increased demand of future growth through <br />conservation was rated at an average of 3.4 on a scale where 1 is not at all <br />important and 5 is extremely important. <br />• The most popular conservation program tool vas residential indoor audits and <br />leak detection. This type of program was implemented at 35 percent of the <br />responding agencies. Incentives for the purchase of efficient toilets were <br />implemented at 22 percent and showerhead and clothes washer programs at 17 <br />and 15 percent respectively. <br />Findings -Climate Change and Long Term Planning <br />• Sixty percent of the agencies surveyed had water supply master plans for raw <br />and/or treated water and 35 percent did not have such plans. This result was <br />identical to what was found in the 2003 survey. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.