Castle Rock Teach by Example Final Report

• Project Type: Ag/Muni Grant
• Contract/PO #: C153616
• Applicant: Town of Castle Rock
• Project Name: "Teach by Example" - Water Conservation Make Over at Three Homes
• Title: "Teach By Example" Program Final Report
• Date: 6/1/1995
• County: Douglas
• Water Conservation - Doc Type: Final Report

TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK
"Teach By Example" Program Summary
Page 4

residences. The results of this retrofit were exciting. Homeowners were exceedingly
satisfied with the cleaning ability, and a bonus was that both households noted a decrease
in the amount of detergent required. Consistently, the washer reflected a savings/cost ratio
of between 7 - 15%. The cost of the washer, near $700, is relatively reasonable when
considering replacement of a current washer. The front loader costs around $100 more than
the cheapest washer. This is a great item to consider when replacing an existing appliance.
It is something that a homeowner would probably consider only when the family washer
no longer functions, or in an initial purchase situation. The savings of 10,000 gallons/year
for a family of four, will allow the machine to pay for its overage in over six years.

Next is a brief summary and explanation of results experienced at each household.

HOPKINS: 200 Johnson Drive

The front loading washer was rated to use a third of the volume of water as that of
a horizontal unit. This allowed a savings of nearly 28 gallons per load. To the Hopkins,
this meant a potential savings of over 10,000 gallons per year. At this rate, the Hopkins
could save between $10- 15 on their water bill in a year. The washer would then pay for
the overage of what a horizontal unit would cost in between 6.7 and 10 years. This
reflected at 10 - 15% savings/cost ratio.

The shower head was rated to use 3 gpm verses the 5 gpm units present. This saved
2 gpm. This should have saved the Hopkins 12,900 gallons per year in water, yielding a
return on its investment in under a year, and a savings/cost ratio of between 110-165%.

ULV replacement, according to water saving figures for these fixtures, should have
saved 3.5 gallons per flush for the Hopkins, which would reflect a savings of nearly 16,000
gallons of water in a year. The savings/cost ratio was between 12 - 19%, and each unit
would require 5.3 - 8 years to payJor itself.

Overall the Hopkins should have saved around 39.1 kgal/yr. at the water
consumption ratings for each device. They did achieve an interior savings of 15 kgal/yr.
This indicates that ratings for each device cannot be directly translated into water savings,
and are evidence of a best case scenario.

The Hopkins were curtailed for realizing the ultimate interior savings due to length
of showers, which averaged near 14 minutes, and by high toilet usage due to the 2 - 4 day
care children that were home during the day. The devices, especially the shower head,
saved them a great deal of water. The moral of the story here seems to be that if your
shower durations are going to be long, the shpwer head is well worth the investment; and
if you are going to flush, the UL V is still the best way to go. The washer received an "A +"
C.) performance, and was a highly recommended item.