My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9450
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9450
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 11:01:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9450
Author
Land and Water Fund of the Rockies.
Title
Gunnison Basin Water
USFW Year
2003.
USFW - Doc Type
No Panacea for the Front Range.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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
Meeting Water Demand Without Gunnison Water <br />Clothes washers comprise the second largest indoor water use. New horizon- <br />tal axis machines are now available that use 509/o less energy and 30-50% less water <br />than traditional models.16' Offering rebates toward the purchase of these machines <br />could also have significant impact on the build-out demands of the Front Range. <br />Showerhead replacement programs also have reaped great savings in Seattle and else- <br />where.1 ' <br />An EPA and Seattle-funded study showed that replacing conventional toilets <br />and washing machines in residences with water-efficient versions would reduce per <br />capita indoor household water use by 37% at low costs."' In the Denver Metro area, a <br />37% reduction in indoor residential water use would reduce indoor water use by <br />between 50,000 and 100,000 in 2030. <br />d. Incentives to Save Water <br />There are many incentives that can encourage urban water users to conserve <br />water, whether outdoors or indoors. They fall into four broad categories: <br />(1) Water rate structures that communicate the costs that an urban water <br />provider can avoid if water is conserved. The most common rate <br />structure of this nature is inverted rates, in which water users pay <br />more per unit of water as their demands increase. <br />(2) Rebates from water providers to encourage water users to enhance their <br />water use efficiency. Examples include cash payments by water <br />providers: to help customers buy down the cost of water-efficient <br />appliances like dishwashers and washing machines; to replace <br />bluegrass turf with lower water-using plants; and to encourage <br />customers to replace older, higher water-using toilets in buildings <br />existing before 1992 with more efficient toilets. <br />(3) Rules/Ordinances that require that customers alter their behavior, such <br />as by watering only during certain hours. <br />(4) Public education, such as through bill inserts, model xeriscape gardens <br />and public service announcements. <br />If all Metro area water providers were already implementing these incentives <br />and still forecast a demand of 877,000 AFA in 2045, it would be reasonable to con- <br />tend that there is not much more water that can be saved in the metro area beyond <br />what is already assumed in long-run water demand forecasts. But it is clear that we <br />have only just begun to encourage residential users to conserve water in the metro <br />area. <br />The Land and Water Fund will soon finish a study of water use efficiency by <br />water providers across the southwest. Cities under review include several water <br />providers on Colorado's Front Range. We have reviewed the Water Conservation Act <br />of 1991 and what it tells us about how serious the State is about promoting water use <br />efficiency. On the basis of what we know so far, Colorado's attention to urban water <br />- 40 - The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.