Water Audit Report - Capitol Bldg

• Project Type: General OWC
• Title: Water Audit - Capitol Building
• Date: 1/1/1989
• Water Conservation - Doc Type: Reports

.-. .

6.

was considerably higher than 1990 and 1991 usage. Also, in a public building such as the
State Capital Building, visitor numbers could be much higher than estimated. Water usage
for irrigation could also be underestimated in this report. If unaccounted for usage is
attributable to either of these categories, associated savings in those areas would be
increased with recommended conservation strategies.

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
The Colorado State Capitol Building and the State Office Building were found to be well
maintained. Fixtures in the facilities are a combination of older and more modem types.
Water conservation opportunities were identified for both old and new fixtures, in addition
to savings that can be achieved in the landscape irrigation area.

It is recommended that the State of Colorado install retrofit measures in both flush-valve
and tank-type toilets, install 1.0 gpm faucet aerators in lavatory sinks, and make some
modifications to landscape irrigation practices. Table 4 lists water conservation
opportunities including associated costs/benefit analysis.

TABLE 4
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Conservation Cost Annual $ Savings Payback
Measure (W, S & E)
-
Flow Restrictors $1000 $1050 1. 0 years
(flush-valve toilets)
Toilet Dams (tank- $100 $275 0.4 years
type toilets)
1. 0 gpm faucet $100 $1550 0.1 years
aerators
Modify irrigation $0 $1700 immediate
practices
TOTAL $1200 $4575 0.3 years

The returns on investment for installing toilet retrofit devices, faucet aerators and reducing
irrigation to 30 inches per season are very cost effective. The payback of costs and labor
to install these devices would occur within the first few months following installation.
Irrigation modifications will provide immediate savings. The State should also investigate
other sewer billing options with Denver Wastewater.