Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Meeting Water Demand Without Gunnison Water <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />conservation is uneven and not as aggressive as other areas in our region. We can do <br />much more. <br /> <br />Rate Structures <br /> <br />Many Front Range urban water providers have now implemented inverted rate <br />structures to communicate to their customers that the more they consume, the higher <br />the cost they impose on the provider. While we have not completed our analysis of <br />the rate structures of Front Range water providers, we have not yet come across one <br />that is as effective as that of the Irvine Ranch Water District in California. We <br />describe it here to give an idea of the power of rate structures to encourage cost-effec- <br />tive water conservation. <br /> <br />The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) sets a base allocation for each proper- <br />ty based on historic use, landscape area, number of residents, evapo-transpiration <br />(ET) rates, crop coefficients and irrigation efficiency. For customers who exceed their <br />base allocation by 50%, rates are doubled; by 50-100%, rates are quadrupled; by more <br />than 100% rates are eight times higher.'" There are rewards as well as penalties. If a <br />customer manages to use less than 40% of the base allocation, a 25% discount is <br />awarded. The IRWD has found their rate structure to be "very defensible" and a <br />means to nurture positive working relationships with their customers.'" Perhaps <br />most importantly, this rate structure reduced residential water use by 19% during its <br />first two years.'" We know of no rate structure in Colorado that has produced such <br />results over a sustained period of time. Indeed, our initial review of rate structures <br />suggests that they are too flat to make much of a differenee, especially among high- <br />income/high-water using customers. <br /> <br />Rebates <br /> <br />Some Front Range providers, including Aurora and Boulder, offer incentives <br />for residents to replace turf with xeriscape. Most providers do not. And, strangely, <br />there are still municipalities and Home Owners Associations that force residents to <br />pour water on water-using turf through bluegrass-only covenants. In Colorado we <br />could do much more to reduce outdoor water use. Regional leaders do. For example, <br />El Paso, Texas, offers $1.00 per square foot of grass replaced with water-efficient land- <br />scapes. El Paso's program led to replacing almost 1 million square feet of grass and <br />saved over 20 gallons per square foot removed each watering season. "" <br /> <br />Most urban water providers in Colorado offer no direct incentives to their cus- <br />tomers to install drip instead of sprinkler-based irrigation. Neither do they offer <br />incentives to increase the efficiency of indoor water-use other than inverted rate <br />structures. And there are still urban water providers who do not regulate outdoor <br />water use to reduce waste through such measures as restricting application of water <br />use to the cooler hours of the day. <br /> <br />Rules/Ordinances <br /> <br />Most Front Range providers-Aurora being a notable exception-do not use <br />their regulatory powers to regulate landscaping to save water. By contrast, <br /> <br />Gunnison Basin Water <br /> <br />. 41 . <br />