Loveland Indoor Retrofit Final Report

• Project Type: Ag/Muni Grant
• Contract/PO #: C153622
• Applicant: City of Loveland
• Project Name: Indoor Water Use Assessment and Retrofit Project
• Title: Indoor Water Use Assessment & Retrofit Project Final Report
• Date: 11/1/1994
• County: Larimer
• Water Conservation - Doc Type: Final Report

indoor water usage for the audit group as a whole, per household and per capita. The per
capita water use is based on an average of 3.1 persons per household.

Table 5. Water use for the audit group
(in gallons)

Per capita
Per per day Per Audit group Audit group
household (based on 3.1 household per year
per day persons per per year per day (projected)
household)
Average pre-audit 236.6 76.3 86,359 123,032 44,906,680
indoor water usage
(winter quarter
1992)
Average post-audit 189.5 61.1 69,]67.5 98,540 35,967,] 00
indoor water usage
(winter quarter
1993)
Decreased indoor 47.] 15.2 ]7,]91.5 24,492 8,939,580
water use (1993 vs.
1992)

Estimates for the general population of Loveland

Potential indoor water savings for Loveland's population in general, if retrofit de-
vices were installed, was based on the water savings from the audit group. The gen-
eral population used for the analysis included all residential water accounts except
for those with winter quarter water use that was zero for 1992 or ] 993 and those
whose daily water use was in excess of 800 gallons per day, indicating the account
may be that of an apartment building. With these exclusions, there remained 12,406
of the 13,260 accounts in the general population.

Preliminary analysis of the change in water use by the audit group indicated that the
higher the water use, the greater the percentage savings after the retrofit devices
were installed. To account for this bias of high water use in the audit group, the
group was divided into seven subgroups based on average daily water use. The aver-
age change in water use from 1992 winter quarter to 1993 winter quarter was calcu-
lated for each subgroup and extrapolated to predict the change for the general
population in the corresponding subgroup. Table 6 shows the subgroup definitions
and the number of taps in the audit group and the general population. Table 6 reveals
that the general population contains a larger proportion of taps in the lower water use
subgroups than does the audit group.

10