Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Note: <br /> <br />Analysis of projected water savings as derived in Tables 2 - 5 was conducted in <br />1989 prior to the implementation of the following water conservation programs: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Residential Water Audit Program. Over 3,000 households have participated in this <br />program since 1991. Participants have averaged an 11 % indoor reduction in water <br />usage. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ULV Rebate Program. Approximately 1,600 rebates have been issued by the City <br />to Arvada residents who have replaced their non-conserving toilet with an ultra-low <br />volume model. Participants have averaged a 13 % indoor reduction in water <br />consumption. All new construction requires the installation of UL V s. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Landscape Reimbursement Program. For 1993, Arvada initiated a program which <br />provides a partial reimbursement to property owners who install a City-approved <br />water conserving landscape. . <br /> <br />The long-term water savings results from the above programs still need to be monitored <br />and analyzed. Once the long-term effectiveness of these programs are assessed, the City <br />will be updating its water conservation projections. <br /> <br />Conservation as a Component of Water Supply <br /> <br />The existing water sources owned or controlled by the City form the base to which future water <br />projects are added. Table 3 illustrates the application of the water supply demand model to <br />Arvada's 1989 water supply, demand and storage characteristics. It is apparent from Table 3 <br />. . <br />that ample water supply exists for its water customers to endure the design drought. This type <br />of analysis was repeated for each 5,000 person increment of population increase. The projected <br />reduction in water demand from Arvada's water conservation program was treated as a supply <br />component in the supply and demand model. The projected date and population when additional <br />water supplies are needed are shown in Tables 4-A and 4-B, Without Water Conservation and <br />With Conservation, respectively. As shown in Table 4-A, Without Water Conservation, by the <br />year 2010 at a projected. population of 125,000, an additional raw water storage reservoir and <br />a. Qroj<<<:teguival~lIt.t9 Jb~ TWQ f9rks P[oj~t will be needed. By .the _y~ 2045, at a popu1ation. <br />of 145,000, a second Metro Water project of 3,830 acre-feet would be needed. However, <br />with water conservation, as shown in Figure 4-B, by the year 2030 at a projected population of <br />135,000, a project the size of Two Forks can be delayed 20 years if a raw water storage <br />reservoir can be constructed. By the year 2060, with conservation and at a population of <br />155,000, the second Metro Water Project c.an be delayed another 20 years and be one-fourth the <br />size of the project needed if no conservation is practiced. <br /> <br />The costs for developing the additional water supplies and surface storage, without and with <br />conservation, are summarized in Tables 5-A and 5-B respectively. In Table 5-A, Without Water <br />Conservation, the total cost of new water projects is about $44 million, but as shown in Table <br />5-B, With Water Conservation, the total cost of projects is reduced to about $32 million <br />including $2 million for conservation. The future Metro ProjeCt 2 is reduced in cost by about <br />$14 million. <br /> <br />-6- <br />