FACTORS INFLUENCING RESIDENTIAL WATER USE
IN THE DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA
4V\ "v
Environmental Protection Agency
Denver, Colorado
by
R. W. Beck and Associates
June 1972
-------
-li 5 7^
OUTLINE OF REPORT
1%
¦521
FACTORS INFLUENCING RESIDENTIAL WATER USE
IN THE DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA
Section and Subsection Titles
Page
No.
SCOPE OF WORK
CONCLUSIONS
Economic Level Effect on Residential Water
Consumption
Climatological Effect on Residential Water
Consumption
Unmetered vs. Metered Effect on Residential
Water Consumption
DISCUSSION (FACTORS EFFECTING RESIDENTIAL
WATER CONSUMPTION)
Characteristics of Study Area
Economic Level
Pin *-»-* -a 4' r\ 7 /-» n"?
A £)¦*"
Unmetered vs. Metered
Water Use Trend
Suggested Further Studies
APPENDIX
Table I - Characteristics of Residential Study Areas
Table II - Average Quarterly Consumption -
Unmetered vs. Metered
Table HI - Average Consumption - Unmetered vs.
Metered
Table IV - Climatological Effects on Residential
Water Consumption
• Table V - Climatological Effects on Residential
Water Consumption
Table VI- Water Use Trends
Figure 1 - Location of Residential Study Areas
Figure 2 - Location of Residential Study Areas
Figure 3 - Water Consumption By Economic Level of
Customer - Unmetered vs. Metered
2
3
4
5
6
7
VwV
i
-------
7 7\7 TP 7 T T TT 7\7 p T 7\T n T? r^QTT^, VV\7rT,T A T ^.rAT^T? TTC T7»
* s-»x- » vj >.v ^_jOiUa—/i > J. in i < m ii i o_vi\ o j. /
IN THE DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA
SCOPE OF WORK
This study provides an insight on how the use of water by residential
customers in the Denver area and Cottonwood Water District area (located
on the east edge of Denver) are effected by three of the major factors in-
fluencing water consumption. The factors considered in a limited way are:
(1) Economic Level of the Consumers, (2) Climatological Conditions and
(3) Metered vs. Unmetered Water Service.
CONCLUSIONS
Economic Level Effect on Residential Water Consumption
The analyses indicate that the economic level of metered customers
does effect the amount of water consumption, but the economic level of
the unmetered customers did not effect the use of water. The metered
middle income study area used an average annual amount of water which
was more than 28% greater than that of the low-middle income metered
customers. For the came period the middle income metered customers
use an average of 40% more water for sprinkling than the low-middle
metered customers. The low-middle income unmetered customers used
more water than the unmetered middle income customers. This could
probably be attributed to the slightly larger lawns per dwelling of the
low-middle income unmetered customer as compared to the middle income
unmetered customers.
Climatological Effect on Residential Water Consumption
This study indicates that for the Cottonwood Water District metered
study area the water consumption varies with the amount of precipitation
and the degree days heating. For both areas, the sprinkling consumption
decreased as the precipitation increased. The sprinkling consumption in-
creased as the degree days of heating decreased.
Unmetered vs. Metered
This study indicates that while metered and unmetered customers use
similar amounts of water for domestic purposes, the metered customers
use much less sprinkling water than unmetered customers.
-1-
-------
DISCUSSION OF FACTORS EFFECTING WATER USE
This study compares factors effecting water use in two unmetered
sections of differing economic levels in Denver with two sections of two
similar areas in the nearby Cottonwood District in Aurora, which has
water meters. Since it is difficult to obtain accurate water consumption
data in unmetered areas, this study uses data from two unmetered Denver
areas which had previously been developed for a Johns Hopkins study.
The study period is for the years 1966 through 1968. The two unmetered
Denver areas are identified as 11th and Glencoe and 5th and Tennyson and
are shown on Figures 1 and 2 at the end of this report. The characteristics
of the areas are discussed in the next section.
A survey of Metropolitan Denver was made to find two metered
residential communities which were similar to two unmetered Denver
areas. The main obstacle encountered in selecting comparable areas was
obtaining easily available data for the study period.
Records of the Aurora water system, which was originally to have
been used, required a difficult and time consuming process to gather basic
data for the study period. After contacting many of the water districts in
the region and making a physical survey of the areas where data would be
available, it was decided the Cottonwood Water District provided two resi-
dential groups v/hich rnest closely paralleled those unmetered areas used
in Denver. The two Cottonwood Water District areas have been designated
as 11th and Quentin and 13th and Vaughn and are shown on Figure 2 at the
end of this report. The characteristics of these two areas are further
discussed below.
Characteristics of the Study Areas
The two areas in Denver are residential with no commercial or in-
dustrial customers located within their boundaries. There are approxi-
mately 200 homes in each study area. The 11th and Glencoe area is
classified middle income and 5th and Tennyson is classified low-middle
income. The general physical characteristics such as lot size, home
value, and type of home construction of each residential grouping are
quite uniform. Both are served by sanitary sewers. A more specific
list of these characteristics is found on Table I at the end of this report.
The 11th and Glencoe area is bounded by 13th Avenue on the north,
Glencoe Street on the east, Hale Parkway on the south, and Eudora Street
on the west. This is a well-cared for, middle class area of one- and
two-story brick homes. The lawns are very well-maintained and liberally
landscaped with shrubbery.
-2-
-------
The 5th and Tennyson area is bounded "by West 5th Avenue on the
north, Quitman Street on the east, West 1st Avenue on the south, and
Utica Street on the west. This is a lower-middle income area of primarily
one-story wood frame structures. The lawns are also well-maintained.
The other two study areas are located near the east edge of Denver
in the Cottonwood Water District. The District has approximately 1,714
residential customers and 60 commercial customers. Customers are
billed quarterly. Water is supplied by the Denver Water Department.
The two metered study areas served by the Cottonwood Water
District are residential, with no commercial or industrial customers
located within their boundaries. There are approximately ZOO homes in
each study area. The 11th and Quentin area is classified as middle income
and 13th and Vaughn is classified as low-middle income. The general
physical characteristics such as lot size, home value and type of home
construction of each area was quite uniform. Both are served by sanitary
sewers. A more specific list of characteristics is found on Table I at
the end of this report.
The 11th and Quentin area is bounded by 11th Avenue on the north,
Scranton Street on the east, Hoffman Boulevard on the south, and Quentin
Street on the west. Similar to its sister area in Denver, it is a well-
maintained area of one-story brick homes and nice lawns. The lots are
slightly larger than the Denver area,
The 13th and Vaughn area is bounded by 13th Avenue on the north,
Wheeling Street on the east, Toledo Street on the south and Vaughn Street
on the west. This is a low-middle income area of primarily neat, one-
story wood frame structures with nice lawns.
Economic Level
This study considers two economic levels of water consumers to
determine the effect of this factor on water consumption. The Denver
areas were classified as middle income and low-middle income in the
Johns Hopkins Study. The Cottonwood Water District areas were categor-
ized using information received from a physical survey and the discounted
average market value of the homes as supplied by the Arapahoe County
tax assessor. The average discounted market value of the houses in the
Cottonwood area (see Table I) is slightly higher than the average house
market values used in the Johns Hopkins Study for the Denver unmetered
areas. The homes in the low-middle income Denver area are valued much
lower than their counterparts. No explanation is available, although the
outward appearances are very similar. The physical survey of the Denver
-3-
-------
unmefcered residences and Cottonwood metered residences showed these
two groups to be comparable in lot size, house size, an type of house
construction. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, the two
metered Cottonwood Water District areas were considered to provide
a good comparison with the two Denver unmetered areas.
Table III shows the effect that the economic level of the customer
has on water consumption. The middle income metered customer used
more water for both domestic and sprinkling purposes than the low-middle
income metered customers. The table shows an average annual water use
of 434 gallons per day per dwelling unit (gpd/du) for the middle income
metered customers and 338 gpd/du for the low-middle income metered
customers, a difference of 96 gpd/du. The level of income appears to be
significant in determining the overall amount of water used in metered
areas.
Strangely, the average annual water consumption of the low-middle
income unmetered customers was 123 gpd/du more than the middle income
unmetered customers. This difference is likely caused by greater sprink-
ling requirements for the larger lots of this low-middle income area.
Climatologica.1
"Climate io one of the major fnctors affecting sprinkling use, but it
has little effect on domestic use. Sprinkling requirements depend on
hydrologic factors which influence the growing of any crop. These factors
are precipitation, run-off, infiltration, root-zone storage, and evapotrans-
piration. To develop a relationship between sprinkling requirements,
precipitation and degree days of heating, the sprinkling requirement on a
quarterly basis for the two Cottonwood Water District areas was compared
to the total precipitation received in that .period. Table IV and V show the
amount of sprinkling compared to the amount of precipitation, temperature
extremes, and degree days of heating. The amount of water used for
sprinkling by the low-middle income metered customers and the middle
income metered customers was reduced during periods when precipitation
was above normal levels. If the season was particularly cool, as reflected
by a large degree days heating figure, the sprinkling consumption was reduced,
In 1967, the precipitation was significantly above the normal and degree days
heating were greater than for 1966 and 1968. As a consequence, there was
a drop in sprinkling consumption. The drop in 1967 sprinkling requirements
is much more severe for the middle income metered customers than for the
lLinaweaver, F. P., Jr., Beebe, James C. , and Slcrivan, Frank H.
Report V Phase Two Residential Water Use Research Project, The Johns
Hopkins University, 1966, page 33.
-4-
-------
low-middle income customers which may indicate that the middle income
customers are more willing to incur the added expense required to keep
their la%vns in better condition than that of a reduced maintenance level
satisfactory to the low-middle income customers. An additional factor
possibly attributing to this difference is the billing periods used for the hot
season. The middle income metered hot season was from mid-April to
mid-July. The low-middle income metered hot season was from mid-May
to mid-August which includes July and half of August which are sprinkling
months. The water use data available for the unmetered Denver areas was
a three year average rather than an annual figure and a meaningful analysis
of climatological effect on water use for the Denver areas could not be done.
Unmetered vs. Metered
Table II, III and Figure 3 have been developed to show the extent of
influence that metering has on water consumption. Conclusions drawn
from'this analysis have been substantiated by other studies. First, the
water consumption for the metered areas is much less than ,the unmetered
areas. Second, the amount of water used during the sprinkling season is
significantly lower for the metered areas as compared to the unmetered
areas. Third, the domestic use of water is not significantly influenced by
metering . Fourth, metering seems to have a greater effect in reducing
the water use by low-middle income families.
Table II shows ths average quarterly residential water consumption
per dwelling. The low-middle income unmetered consumers used more
water per dwelling in every quarter than the low-middle income metered
consumers. When comparing the data, caution should be used because the
months making up the quarters are slightly different. This becomes very
apparent for the middle income study areas. When comparing the middle
income unmetered period, mid-March to mid-June, with the middle income
metered period, mid-April to mid-July, it is found the middle income
unmetered customers use 594 gpd/du where the metered customers used
639 gpd/du. In this case the quarterly comparison may not be representa-
tive as the metered customers' period includes part of June and July which
are high sprinkling months.
The above problem is partly alleviated by grouping the data into
sprinkling and non-sprinkling periods as shown in Table III. In this tabu-
lation, both metered study areas use less water during both the sprinkling
and the non-sprinkling seasons. The non-sprinkling season water use
should be very comparable to the domestic water use plus leakage. The
greatest variation in water use occurs, of course, during the sprinkling
season, where the unmetered customers use significantly greater amounts
of water for sprinkling than the metered customers. Metering did not
-5-
-------
influence the ncn-sprinMmg period (domestic wa(er use) since both the
peH veulr' 8 «»e about the same amount of water
per dwelling. There is a larger variation between the low-middle income
non-sprinkling water consumptions. This may be caused in part by
greater leakage (poor maintenance) in the unmetered area as it is about
eight years older than the low-middle income metered area. The above
conclusions are very similar to those found by the Johns Hopkins Study
which states. Whether consumers are metered or on a flat rate basis
appears to have little influence on domestic use, but has considerable
influence on sprinkling use.
Figure 3 presents in graphic form the data of Table II. A line of
best fit has been plotted from the quarter use figures in order to put all
data on a common basis. Pictorially, this shows the variation in sprink-
ling use and the base, or domestic,use. The metered areas of bo^h
economic levels use less water per dwelling than either of the unmetered
classifications. It also indicates that when the cost of water is not a maior
"factor, such as when customers are on a flat rate, economic level of the
customer has much less effect on the amount of water consumption.
In a case study in Boulder titled the Demand for Water
Dynamic Conditions^ some conclusions regarding the long term effect of
whether a service is metered or unmetered were developed. Probably
the most significant conclusion of the Boulder study is that re=^«nfial
water use is reduced by the installation of meters/ and for *'
rt • *. 11 J * r r C teci&L 5>even
years after the installation of meters, the residential consumption re-
mained'at a lower level.
The Boulder study also concluded "The sprinkling behavior of Boulder's
water customers was markedly altered by the installation of meters Th
actual sprinkling use was greater than ideal under flat rates and less th*n 6
ideal under metered rates.11 ^
"Water Use Trends
Table VI indicates that our study period of 1966 through 1Q6S would
have relevance today and any conclusions that could be drawn from this
study would be valid today. The tabulation titled Denver Water Us*
I960 - 1970 shows how total water consumption per
capita per day (gped) have varied from I960 to 1970. While total water
consumption (which includes industrial, commercial and residential) has
^ ibid. , page 48.
3 The Demand for Water Under Dynamic Conditions: A Case Studv of
Boulder, Colorado, Steven Harold Hanke thesis for Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Economics, University of Colorado, 1969. Page iv.
-6-
-------
a definite upward trend, per capita use has r.o decided upw> ~1 .™d
¦Yearly variations are probably die primarily lo climatic c"ondi'tio"n7.'
In a much more limited way, the Table VI tabulation titled Cotta
ZSS±m*' .District ResidenttalStgd^Areas shows that no trendTdTif
for residential water consumption per dwelling £or the winter quar'ter for
the Cottonwood Water District study areas. The winter season was used
for the comparison to minimize the effect of weather on the use of water!
A current physical survey of all study areas indicated the present
r? eS!entl"U>' the as the study period
(1966 - 1968) Characteristics such as lot size, type of house construction
economic level of water consumers have remained very uniform within
each residential grouping and unchanged from 1966 to 1^72 The
characteristic which has changed is the age of the houses, but all areas
appear to have received adequate maintenance and have aged together so
that this has not become a significant factor.
Suggested Further Studies
This study indicates that water consumption of the unmetered
residential customers in significantly greater than the metered residential
customers. Since Denver is located in a semi-arid climate r-crion and *
due to the area's rapid population growth, the water consumption will be-
come an increasingly important consideration.
It is recommended that a. comprehensive study for the Denver area b
considered which would look at projected future water needs with and 6
without meters being added to unmetered areas, the economic and social
aspects of meter installation, and a more detailed study of the maior
factors influencing water consumption.
-7-
-------
APPENDIX
-------
TABLE I
CHARACTERISTICS OF RESIDENTIAL STUDY AREAS
I. WATER SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
Water System
Meter Siso
Norma! Pressure
Stiidv Area.
Served Dv
(Inches)
(osiV
Middle Income:
11th t- CiIciicoq
Denver
Ur.mctcrcd
3/4" - 5/8" (1)
93 (1)
11th Ji Oucntia
Cottonwood Water District
Motored
5/8" (1)
85 (3)
Low Middle Income:
5th fv Ter.nyaon
Denver
Unmetered
3/4" - 5/8" (1)
120 (1)
13th lr Vaughn
Cottonwood Water District
Metered
5/S" (3)
SS (3)
EC. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY AREA AS OF 1964
W&tcr System
Number of
Market Value per
Ago of Home
s Housing Density
Irrijatabte A rca
Study Area
Served By
Dwelling Units
Dwellint; Unit (Dollars)
(Years)
(Dwelling Unit/Acres)
(Acres / Dwcllirr Ui
Middle Income:
Ilt'n U Glcncoe
Denver
174 (1)
18.200 (1)
13
(15
4.43 (X)
.125 (1)
11th f. Qucn'irt
Cottonwood Water District
200
?.3, 022 (2)
12
(2)
4. 37
. 139
Low Middle Income!
¦
5th U Tennyson
Denver
211 (1)
11.100 (1)
20
(1)
4.01 (1)
.133 (1)
13th & Vaughn
Cottonwood Water District
144
19.277 (2)
12
(2)
5. 01
.117
tU' CLIMATIC CHARACTERISTICS (NORMAL) (1)
Study Area
Water System
Served By
Nearest U. S.
Weather Bureau Station
Period
for Normal
Precipitation
Annual
(Inches)
Summer (4)
Temocrature °F
Anneal Sur.rr.i
Middle Income:
11th t: Gleacoe
Denver'
Denver W. B. A. P.
'1931 - 196.0
14.8
4.25
49.b 70.3
11th U Qucr.tin
Cottonwood Water. District
Denver W. B. A. P.
1931 - I960
14.8
4. 25
49. 5 70. 3
Low Middle Income:
5th ii Tennyson
Denver
Denver W. U. A. P.
1931 - 1960
14.8
4. 25
49. 5 70. 3
13th L Vaughn
Cottonwood Wator District
Denvor W, B, A. P.
1931 - 1960
14.8
4. 25
49. 5 70. 3
SEE NOTES ON FOLLOWING PACE
-------
1-2
TABLE I
CHARACTERISTICS OF RESIDENTIAL STUDY AREAS
NOTES
1. Linaweaver, F, P., Jr., Beebe, James C. , and Skrivan, Frank A.,
Data Report: of the Residential Water Use Research Project, The
Johns Hopkins University, (1966).
2, From Arapahoe County Assessors office.
3, From Cottonwood Water District, Aurora, Colorado.
4. Summer includes months of June, July and August.
-------
LL-l
TABLE II
AVERAGE QUARTERLY WATER CONSUMPTIONS--
. UNMETERED VS. METERED
Denver
11th & Glencoe
Mid-Dec to Mid-Mar
Mid-Mar to Mid-Jun
Mid-Jun to Mid-Sept
Mid-Sept to Mid-Dec
Middle Income
Unmetered Metered
Cottonwood Water
District
11th k Quentin
203(gpd/du)* ^90(gpd/du) Mid-Jan to Mid-Apr
594 639 Mid-Apr co Mid-Jul
909 574
374
229
Mid-Jul to Mid-Oct
Mid-O,ct to Mid-Jan
Low-Middle Income
Denver
uitmelered
5th Tennyson
Early Jan.fco Early Apr
Early Apr to Early Jul
Early Jul to Early Oct
Early Oct to Early Jan
332(gpd/du)
906
968
365
Cottonwood Water
Metered District
13 th & Vaughn
291(gpd/du) Mid-Feb to Mid-May
559 Mid-May to Mid-Aug
303 Mid-Aug to Mid-Nov
196 Mid-Nov to Mid-Feb
1
gpd/du = gallons per day per dwelling unit.
-------
III-l
TABLE III
Denver
AVERAGE WATER CONSUMPTIONS-
UNMETERED VS. METERED
Middle Income
11th & Glencoe
Unmetered
Metered
Cottonwood "Water
District
11th & Quentin
Average Non-Sprinkling
j Average Non-Sprinkling
Mid Sept to Mid Mar 288 (gpd/du) 260(gpd/du) Mid-Oct to Mid-A-
ipr
Average Sprinkling
Mid-Mar to Mid-Sept 752
Average Annual 520
607
434
Average Sprinkling
Mid-Apr to Mid-Oct
Average Annual
Low-Middle Income Cottonwood Water
Denver Unmetered Metered
5.th & Tennyson
Average Non-Sprinkling'
Early Oct to
sl,ctl iy
Average Sprinkling
Early Apr to
Early Oct
Average Annual
District
349 {gpd/du)
937
643
13th & Vaughn
Average Non-Sprinkling
. Mid-No*/ to
244 (gpd/du) Mid-Feb
431
338
Average Sprinkling
Mid-Feb to
Mid-Nov
Average Annual
^gpd/du = gallons per day per dwelling unit.
-------
TABLE IV
CLIMATOLOGICAL EFFECT ON RESIDENTIAL WATER CONSUMPTION
ow Middle Income
1966
1967
ottonwood Water District
5th S; Vaughn
. Quarterly Water use
(1, 000's of gallons per
dwelling unit).
* Hot Season - Domestic
Water Use plus Leakage
(1, 000's of gallons per
' dwelling unit)*
• Hot Season-Sprinlcling
(1, 000's of gallons per
dwelling unit)^
, Total Precipitation in the
Season (in. ) ^
. Maximum Temperature
in the Season (°F)^
¦ . Amount Average Temp-
erature exceeds Normal
(°F)''
Cool Season^ Hot Season6 Cool Season Hot Season
1. Average Temperature
(°F)3
J. Degree-Days Heating ^
18. 7
21. 5
37. 1
1.25
81° (Oct)
+ 2. 6°
35.6o
2953
58.6
3. 52
+ 10. 7°
77. 2°
18.7
54. 0
.21.5
32. 5
2, 34
12. 31
1968
Cool Season Hot Season
16.8
58. 6
19. 3
39. 3
1. 10
4. 45
98° (July) 87° (Oct) 93° (July) 83° (Oct) 97° (July)
189
-0. 3°
32. 7°
1921
-3.9°
62. 6°
341
+0. 70
33. 7°
3079
-1. 1(
65.4°
238
SEE NOTES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
-------
TABLE IV
C LIMA TO LOGICAL EFFECT ON RESIDENTIAL WATER CONSUMPTION
NOTES:
^ Cool Season Times 1.15%. (Estimated)
o
Hot Season Line 1 minus Line 2.
^ From Climatogical Data - U. S. Department of Commerce.
Environmental Science Services Administration.
Environmental Data Service Volumes 52-55.
4 Normal Temperature: Hot Season 66. 5° F.
Cool Season 33. 0° F.
5 The Cool Season billing period extends from Mid-November to Mid-February.
^ The Hot Season billing period extends from Mid-May to Mid-August.
-------
TABLE V
CLIMATOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON RESIDENTIAL WATER CONSUMPTION
Middle Income
1966
1967
Cottonwood Water District
11th & Quentin
1. Quarterly water use
(1,000's of gallons per
dwelling unit).
2. Hot Season - Domestic
water use plus leakage
(1,000's of gaUons per
dwelling unit).
3. Hot Season - Sprinkling
(1,000's of gallons per
Dwelling unit)?
4. Total Precipitation in
the Season (in.) ^
5. Maximum Temperature
in the Season (°F)^
6. Amount Average Tempera-
ture exceeds Normal
(°F)4
7. Average Temperature(°F)^
8. Degree Days Heating 3
Cool Season- Hot Season Cool Season Hot Season
20. 7
1.93
81° (Oct)
+ 2. 1°
39.9°
2429
75. 3
23.8
51. 5
2.-51
98° (July)
+9. 5°
70. 1°
588
20. 2
30. 3
23.2
7. 1
z: 41
11. 93
87° (Oct) 93° (July)
-0. 5
37. 3V
2587
-3. 0°
57. 6°
774
1968
Cool Season* Hot Season
22. 4
1. 54
83° (Oct)
o;o°
37. 8°
2728
70. 6
25.8
44.8
2. 36
97° (July)
-1. 5°
59. 1°
714
SEE NOTES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
-------
TABLE V
CLIMATOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON RESIDENTIAL WATER CONSUMPTION
NOTES
1 Cool S eason Times 1. 15%. (Estimated)
^ Hot Season Line 1 minus Line 2.
^ From Climatological Data - U. S. Department of Commerce.
Environmental Science Services Adminstration.
Environmental Data Service Volumes 52-55.
^ Normal Temperature : Hot Season 60. 6°F
Cool Season 37. 8°F
® Cool Season billing period extends from Mid-October to Mid-January
^ Hot Season billing period extends from Mid-April to Mid-July.
-------
TABLE VI
WATER USE TRENDS
Denver Water Use I960 - 1970*
Annual Total
Year
(Million Gallons!
Gpcd
I960
48, 206
215
1961
41, 497
184
1962
51,302
224
1963
52,592
225
1964
53,504
224
1965
44, 695
180
1966
53,872
214
1967
44,198
179
1968
54, 075
216
1969
55,149
211
1970
59,571
225
1. Source: Board of Water Commissioners, Denver, Colorado
Annuai statistical Report Year Ending December 31. 1970.
Cottonwood Water District Residential Study Areas
Quarterly Water Use
11th Quentin (Middle Income)
year Mid-Jan to Mid-Apr
1, 000 gal/dwelling unit
1967 48.9
1968 43.9
1972 46.9
13th Vaughn (Low Middle Income)
Year Mid-Feb to Mid-May
1, 000 gal/dwelling unit
1967 44.6
1968 42. 1
1972 43.4
-------
u
L
I
SCALE-MILES
FIGURE I
LOCATION OF RESiDEN
STUDY AREAS
IAL
N
A
f !
U
Xh'tti Tj...
>;3: 'fai' !r-
' h-J<- I ' •: ? ¦.
: EA'M''!'
i
r i
iIDGK%|
y>i 'j .-' ."-Tn
' Ip-^
1 :? ihy-j^ - ^ ^p7T- 1',1:::
.!Kl-|l-«1 fi U-UkJ p: =^ry? is l*u
- "H^:. H L-H -H Ifl Li * 1+-^*'*'. 11: >i-£sr.l /.! -A.', m T'rin'T \ vn^r5-1
^Vlvje'C*- . CO'u
ThkiTkKM-;vU:i^—ttK u/iox" (¦..r-^—
11
taSFpNifl W#sil53
f «GAL^'l^ljpKSA.'A'l l-:jj
fllfl I-! !•!¦¦ <:-:'
; Flfcil! LASflJSr"^
Tijj^q^-4^; nfer
.1 ?-• la-W l.i' $ S ? ^^..f^^yv^AJ-X/iiVcN/
j\ ^ iK;/J ^
V ; ••• ">. • .*• • •; • - 1 ,¦>•! ~ril | J; •.'.//" •••):' >*
-------
0
l_
SCALE -MILES
FIGURE 2
i LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL
STUDY AREAS
N
A
r.
u
Sfffcsy il 11ill ;h IT B'ifl ^ [ . .,jJP=^ ^-4-^
•"""""tiL u i lifei ~T]5~rz D-II
ltS^I-!-'?-7f¦ '•} lit § Kr_i!If ^ .;
^ '-• ;-v
^iVkH him.' I , J:l.q; Ifrrr-fef -j 8 I ' >•.»,> J. ••.fyr,mrl
11 N !r' I J i ¦:''r--:--' jTI3" ^ ii ~ !v ••••!• -•!»»»! j iT|
"1 I! M i j I } ' W* K'^T? •fiOj I \ s r;«Vi'«!sUl | j'
-J--,. ¦ '¦?«—j—i-l—:u-| LLL>;U-£=JkH__ !Tl \^, .... . ...S 1 :j . •<• 144
_>4 U j j I !"!U-44'4cL--^«'" j J |T| | j 1 M j T; ''i'j j~" i .'Hi. ! rl.yri! j t-.-- tu. ,-- - .¦
t ji9-tAv'/ jnji I j :,i I i.i I I i j I ' t I 5- I M, : : ' « * ¦••>?¦¦'*¦'?»3,'1 5"— ! . / r—
• ¦ ' Y Mn \ W '• JX
? tx' i - f i i^fe -;-4-? « . . ."
------- |