My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Drought & Water Management
CWCB
>
Drought Mitigation
>
DayForward
>
Drought & Water Management
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2010 3:24:05 PM
Creation date
4/29/2010 2:43:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Drought Mitigation
Title
What the Current Drought Means for the Future of Water Management in Colorado
Date
1/1/2003
Description
2002 Drought Impact Report
Basin
Statewide
Drought Mitigation - Doc Type
Reports
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
F. Effectiveness of Drought Plans <br />Water savings achieved by municipal providers' drought response measures varied from <br />basically zero effects to reductions of up to 75% of normal summer demand in the case of <br />Lafayette. Preliminary results from ongoing efforts to quantify actual demand reductions <br />suggest that municipal water providers will have reduced their normal demand by about <br />10% between May 1, 2002 and April 30, 2003. In most communities the public response <br />to efforts to reduce water use was widespread and positive. The following tables offer, <br />for both Front Range and West Slope municipalities, demand reduction targets and, <br />where available, estimates of actual reductions. <br />The results reported in the tables are in line with the findings of two University of <br />Colorado researchers who compared water consumption in Aurora, Boulder, the Denver <br />Water area, Fort Collins, Lafayette, Louisville, Superior, Thornton, and Westminster, <br />from May 1 to August 31, 2002 to consumption over the same time period in 2000 and <br />2001. Six of the providers studied (Boulder, Denver Water, Fort Collins, Superior, <br />Thornton, and Westminster) implemented voluntary restrictions on outdoor use, with five <br />(all but Thornton) eventually shifting to mandatory restrictions; the remaining three cities <br />used mandatory restrictions exclusively. Though their results are preliminary, they <br />found, as one might expect, the strictest regulations generally produced the greatest <br />savings; similarly, mandatory programs fared better than voluntary approaches. <br />26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.