Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- - <br />TABLE 4-5 <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />REPORTED WATER SAVINGS THROUGH COMBINATIONS OF WATER CONSERVATION UNITS AS SHOWN IN TABLE 4-4 <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />References <br /> <br />Remarks <br /> <br />Minimal Combination <br />of Practices <br /> <br />Moderate Combination <br />of Practices <br /> <br />A9gresive combination <br />of Practices <br /> <br />Highly Extensive <br />combination of Practices <br /> <br />Regional Water study by <br />the Denver Regional <br />council of Gov. <br />June 3, 1986 <br /> <br />Metro Denver Water Supply <br />EIS (Draft) <br />December, 1986 <br /> <br />Water Conservation plan <br />1986 <br /> <br />~ <br />I <br />.... <br />N <br /> <br />City of Aurora-Dept. of <br />Utilities-A Plumbing <br />Retrofit Program for <br />Water Conservation <br />November, 1985 <br /> <br />Implement Units 1 and 2 <br />7.97 gpcd (3.8%) <br /> <br />Program l(Pl) Units 4 and <br />8; .89 gpcd (0.5%) <br /> <br />NC <br /> <br />Units 1 (Note El. 3, 4 <br />(Notes F, G). 7 (Note H) <br />6% <br /> <br />Impleaent Units 1, 2. 3, <br />4 plus metering <br />12.5 gpcd 15.9%1 <br /> <br />Progra. 2 (P2) units 4, <br />8, with metering and high <br />level of ET Reduction; <br />4.46 gpcd (2.5\) <br /> <br />Proposal 1 (projected) <br />Units 1 (existing code <br />and new codes, retrofit), <br />2, 4 (lawn size) (Note G) <br />(reductions and mgmt. of <br />Ig. turf areas), 6. <br />savings=19 gpcd (1990), <br />28 gpcd (2010) <br /> <br />NC <br /> <br />lapleaent Units 1, 2, 3, <br />4 plus ~tering and high <br />public participation <br />19.64 gpcd (9.2\) <br /> <br />prograa 3 IP3) Same as p2 <br />but expand restrictions; <br />9.82 gpcd (5.5\) <br /> <br />proposal 2 (projected) <br />saae as proposal 1 plus <br />(Note H) rate change to <br />unifo~ charge basedon <br />marginal cost. <br />Savings=33 gpcd (1990), <br />42 gpcd (2010) <br /> <br />NC <br /> <br />He <br /> <br />progra. 4 (P4) Same as P3 <br />but expand measures and <br />make aanditory; 12.59 <br />gpcd 17.1\) <br /> <br />NC <br /> <br />NC <br /> <br />Based on total demand <br />est. of 212.5 gpcd prior <br />to implementation and a <br />pop. est. of 3,000,000 <br />both in 2010. <br /> <br />Based on projections to <br />2010 est. demand=177.94 <br />gpcd prior to <br />implementation and est. <br />pop. of 2,581,000 <br /> <br />NC <br /> <br />13,000 kits sent - 58% <br />households implemented <br />kits w/toilet bags, <br />shower head restrictors, <br />rain guage, and leak <br />detection dye tablets <br /> <br />Notes: <br /> <br />A Retrofitting plans <br />B Implement plumbing codes <br />C Natural replacement <br />D Implement in new constructioin <br />E Installation of kits sent out by City water departments <br />F With water restrictions <br />G Lawn size reduction <br />H Residential <br />I Water quality <br />J Industrial <br />K Reduction of plant cover to 50-70% of lawn <br />L Double price of water <br />M Increasing block rate <br />N Uniform charge based on marginal cost <br />o Xeriscopic landscapes (hydrophobic plant cover) <br />NC = Not considered <br />