WSP02032 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.1) ...\ T~is is not ~~c pl~cc to explain how the Denv~r W~te= aoard arr~ved at its bloa~ed consumption esti~ates ~or 1990, but obviously no siqniiicant conservat~on program ~as con- sidered. 3ear in Qind that the ~i~res are for par person consunption _ p09ulatlon growth lS not a factor in this ?articular method o-f deter;7\:.nlng tbe effectivenass of a conservation program. l.;hile variat1.ons from the 1967 - 76 ex- perience are shmm in the above table for both peak day ana annual usage, the fact that on a few very hot summer days demand skyrockets far above t~e av~rage will actual- ly have insignificant effect upon total annual deQanc. The true measure of a con- servation prog=~m must be the savinqs ac~iev- ed t~roughout an e~t~re year. This lS because a conservation 9rogram lito rninil'71i.:e future denands and i::lpacts on federal resources" ~"'ill have to ::'e a program ......hieh wJ..ll defer or ~ini~ize t~e mountai~ dams and diversion structures ',lhich Jenver Hill need in the future, and facilities for supplies must be o~sed o~ proJections of annual needs - not what ~ight hap~en on a single d~y. ?ar<lda~~icillly, '"h:..le the ef:ecti'Jeness of a conservatior. progr~n Qust be measured by references to annual consumption, annual con- sumption is actually most readily controlled by controlling hot summer day l:Iatering. The reason is that daily use oi ~ater ior bathing, toilet flushing, and the like ~s relatively constant throughout the year ane is very difficult to regulate._Summertime lawn water- ing, on the other hand, ~onsumes roughly 40% of the total water used by the average resi- .dential customer dur~ng the course of a full year. It is generally recognized that it is in unrestricted iawn ~atering, particularly by unmetered custo~e=s, that the greatest waste occurs. '::'hus i': ::'5 ~n l:J.',m ~vater:.ng that the greatest potenc~ul for savings c~n be found, and ~ith ~~ni~um ~nconvenience to the public. ~ ~lde =a~~e of tec~niq~~s ha3 been ~ro- posed for achievl~g SU~~ertime cor.5ervat~on. Clearly, conse=vation programs ~hich suppress , , ~a5te in luwn Natering, but have minimal effect on other ~ab~ts, should be the pre- ferred type. A public preference ~~ght be arranged 1n this order: 1. Public education 2. Universal metering 3. La~m '....atering restrictJ.ons 4. Pricing techniques 5. Plumbing code changes . It is noteworthy that in 1977 J.n Znglewood, Colo., which is completely sur- rounded by the Denver '(later Board serv:..ce a~ea, achieved ~'later savinG'S voluntarily through public awareness Hh~ch 'ilere almost as great uS Denver's compulsory savings. It is also noteworthy that the Water Board's own estJ.mate of the sa~ings to be achieved by universal metering is greater than S~~ of the 1967 - 76 annual consumption ger per- son. Agreement on terminology is di=ficult, ~ut if conservation goals are defined by reference to percentage reductions fro~ the 1967 _ 76 annual consum;?tion per person fig- ure, then descriptive words can ac~uire specific ~eanings and can be related to known ~d,~roposed progra~s. tar example: DEFTIrITlmTS Type of oroq:-Clffi ?eductions ~n annual ~saqe below 1967-76 -5% "Hinimal" '~Hoderate" "St=ong" "Severe" -10% -15~ -20:: The 1977 9rog~am ~ould be designated "~oderate" since, as already noted, it pro- duced savJ..ngs of -lO~~ per )erson on an annual bas~s. Another comparison may be ~ade ~~th per person consumption in the 1967 - 76 :;,eriod .1:1. Boulder, Colo., Hhich was 160 gallon~ per day ~er [.lersor'.. A "severe" reduction of -20~~ for custOF.lers ~n Den.Jer would still leave ger person consu~ptJ..on at 166 gallons - slightly above Boulder's. ~ "Drast~c'l conserv~tion progr&~ is not in sight for ~enver at all and no attempt is made to define one. 2 - 00691