My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:49 PM
Creation date
8/3/2009 10:57:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2G
Description
Related Reports
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Author
The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies
Title
Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
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 />a more advanced water conservation program than most other providers in the larger <br />metro area. If other area providers were included, the efficiency of water use in the <br />metro area, as measured by per capita consuxnption, would show even more room for <br />improvement. <br /> 190 <br />200 163 <br /> 142 127 130 149 <br />150 112 <br />100 I <br />50 <br /> <br />0 <br /> ` <br />? <br />_ <br />? <br />? G p <br />? Q N X <br />-E C <br />Q <br /> O <br />(D <br />? ? <br />C ? <br />0 <br />F- <br /> m D ? <br />2001 Single Family Residential Daily Per Capita Water Use. "' <br />As the above graph makes clear, Denver residents use considerably more water <br />per-capita than residents in several other southwestern cities.''° In 2001, Denver's <br />single-family residential (SFR) use was 163 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). By <br />comparison, in the same year El Paso had a SFR use of 127 gpcd. Tucson had an even <br />lower SFR use figure: 112 gpcd. We focus on the residential sector, and SFR use in <br />particular because it represents a large percentage of urban water demand and cities <br />have more consistent accounting data available for this sector than for others. <br />Importantly, cities that have lower per capita use than Denver have even hot- <br />ter average temperatures and sometimes receive half as much precipitation as <br />Colorado's Front Range. Yet they still have achieved excellent water efficiency as a <br />result of aggressive price structures, rebates and incentives, and landscape regula- <br />tions. The gap between Denver's performance and cities that have pioneered better <br />water efficiency means Denver has many options left to explore. <br />Following the lead of these cutting-edge cities, it is entirely reasonable to <br />believe that the Denver area could reap conservation savings of a minimum of anoth- <br />er 100,000-150,000 AFA over the next several decades through several avenues. <br />b. Outdoor Conservation Savings <br />In the Denver metro area outdoor uses comprise about 549/o of urban water <br />uses.159 Most of this water goes to irrigate bluegrass and other water-loving turf.'s° A <br />portion of this water can be conserved through more wide-spread use of urban <br />Xeriscape'`''. <br />Xeriscaping offers a much lower water-using alternative to bluegrass lawns. <br />Xeriscape incorporates seven principles to promote quality landscapes, water conser- <br />Gunnison Basin Water • 37 •
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.