WSP02032 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,.>-\. ., , , A WATER CONSERVATION GOAL FOR DENVER by John R. Bermingham Denver, Colorado June 16, 1978 Numerous 5tate~ents have oeen released recently whic~ support water conservation in the Denver a~ea, but none has set spec1fic goals or targets. The time to do this has now arrived. What follows suggests ter~in- ology and proposes a sgec1~ic ffi1nimal con- ~ervatlon pro~r~m sUltable for the next ten years. The matter has a ~~gh deg=ee of in- por~ar.ce. since both the Interlor und Agri- culture departments have issued decisions which will require conservation programs in the future. As inteq~al part3 of the dec15- ions o~ March 20, 1978, by whi=h those ~e- par~~ents gave their approvals for the foot- hi~ls project, each je~art~ent concluded that "a \,o,;ater con.:;er-";at1on pr-ogr-am for- the Denver region is imr~~~tl~e to mini~ize fu~ure demands a~d impacts on federal re- sources. " It deserves emphasis that the conser- v<<tion requirements come from the Interior an~ Agricultu=e departments, not ~he En- vironme~tal Protect~on Agency. The :ederal requirements for conser- vat~on state that qovern~cn~al permits in the ~uture will be condltioned on a show~ng "that an effecti'le ,....ater c::mservat~on program for the Denver region, with definite goals and time schedules for meeting those goals, has been imp!~:'tlented '_lith the suppor'!: of the C~ty of Denve=, che Denver Regional Counc~l of Governments, and the State of Colorado." Since the redera1 government is a necessary pa~ticipant in virtually all signi- ficant proposals for new supplies ~or the Denver reg1on, ~ conservation progra~ i~ the future ~s a certai~ty. Furt~er~ore, many lnd~viduals anc grou?s believe that conserva- ~ion is an a~propriate goal now. ~egardle~s of federal policy. - Discuss10ns of conservation programs to date have been beset with arguments over terminology. t-lhat is or is not "reasonable" or "acceptable" and what lS or 1S not "dras- tic" or "unacceptable" seems hopelessly en- tangled with pos1t~ons taken on whether or not the ~roposed Foothills treatment plant is necess~ry. Clearly, undefined emotional adJectives are worse t~an useless for de- scribing proposed conservation programs~ Specific figures are needed~ The number of gallons of water used per person in the Denver \-later 90ard service area, averaged over the most recent ten fear period during which no restraints of a~y sort were imposed, 1967 -1976, .1.S a suitable specific standard and the actual number of gallons used annually per person during this period, 208 gallons per day, is readily ascertainable from the Nater Goard's annual report. Terms can then be defined and comparisons made with relative ease. The :ollow1ng table, for example, com- pares the figures for the 1977 conservation program, which is still fresh in ~ind, with the 1967 - 1976 standard and also com9ares the per person c~nsu~ption figures which the Denver ~~ater 30ard supplied to t;le '::ed- eral government in justifi ~~~~ claim that ne~., treatment f Q. ,1 [It'ifs "'ar'~; ~J~r?r r:-Jtj? ". ,. needed: I:~. . ! J:; JUL 6 1978 Gallons Used Der P f"pn ~er Day bv Denver '.vater 30 - ""'ustorr.ers Period ilL A:":: peak:.,<j,~.I)Aj{tMtiH UF of vl'WuRAL2~Qms 1967 - 1976 average 541 208 362 187 -33% -10% 556 229 +21.% +10% 1977 ac-tual Variation from 1967-76 DWa proJection fer 1990 Variation from 1967-76 00680