Laserfiche WebLink
<br />::.'. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />. .._n____.~...:.....,,--...:-.- <br />, <br /> <br />, determined the actual water savings with "real life" watering practices. In the study, landscape <br />'water use was compared between 50 new home owners that amended their soil with comirtercial <br />compost, and 30 new home OVlners that did not amend their soil. All homes were metered and <br />all homeowners received the same educationalliteraiure on efficient landscape watering. <br /> <br />, Contrary to the study's hypothesis, the results show that people who amended their soil actually <br />,applied more water (an average of 25% more) to their landscapes. There are several possible <br />explanations for this result, which will be detailed in the upcoming report. An executive <br />summary of the report will be distributed to water board and city council members. <br /> <br />WATER DEMAND <br /> <br />Section 2 of the Demand Management Resolution includes specific, quantified goals for reducing <br />the city's per capita water use. Attachment C consists of tabulated data for city's per capita <br />peak and average day water use for the past 35 years, including 1994. The page following the <br />table includes two graphs of the same data. The attachment shows that the 1994 per capita <br />average daily water use increased from 1993 by about 9%, after a five year downward trend: <br />The attachment also illustrates an increase in the per capita peak day water use during 1994, by <br />about 2% from 1993. <br /> <br />It is essential to note that none of the data for these two graphs has been adjusted for weather. <br />Unquestionably, a primary factor related to fluctuating per capita annual water use is weather. <br />At least a partial explanation for the downward trend in per capita water use from 1989 to 1993 <br />was the relatively cooler and wetter weather. Conversely, the warmer temperatures and less <br />frequent rainfall during the 1994 lawn watering season is no doubt a factor in the increased per <br />capita water use for 1994. <br /> <br />Water conservation is certainly another major factor. This includes people changing their water <br />use habits, either as a result of the City's efforts, or more generally from our society at-large, <br />with the increase in water conservation messages and information about various droughts. Other <br />than the change in water use habits, people are using less water as_a!~sulLQ.f.lhJl_installation,of- . <br />_ _ __ _ __ _ _ "hard .fixes;" SIlGR-as -fOOr-e-water=efficienrprtlfulJing tlxtur~ - - <br /> <br />The challenge is to determine how much of that drop ,in water use is due to weather and how <br />much of it is due to water conservation, We need to be able to eliminate or "normalize", as best <br />as possible, the variable of weather so that we can better assess the effect of water conservation <br />efforts relative to our demand management goals. Corrective actions could then be taken, as <br />necessary . <br /> <br />Water Utility staff is continuing to develop a mathematical model that can be used to determine <br />the city's water usage with the weather effect normalized. Since the city's most significant water <br />conservation efforts, including metering, began in early 1991, a base period of 1987 to 1990 will <br />be used for comparisons. Preliminary results lead staff to believe that per capita water use has <br /> <br />7 <br />