EVALUATION OF DENVER'S
WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Prepared By:
Gene R. Reetz, Hydroloqist (Evaluation Team Leader)
Dean R. Chaussee, Supervisory Environmental Engineer
Cecelia Forget, Environmental Protection Specialist
Jack W. Hoffbuhr, Deputy Director, Water Management Division
Garrett B. Voerman, Environmental Protection Specialist
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
December 1982
-------
Evaluation of the Denver Water Department's
Water Conservation Program
The controversy surrounding the construction of the Foothills Water
Project was settled by the 1979 "Foothills Consent Decree." That Decree
mandated the following responsibilities to the Regional Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII:
1) Monitor the water conservation program of the Denver Water Board;
2) Evaluate Denver's progress and good faith efforts to attain the
water conservation goals set forth in the decree; and
3) Recommend conservation goals for 1984 and 1989.
Water conservation goals established by the Decree were based on the best
information available at the time, but subsequent findings show that the base
average used to calculate the goals was inaccurate. The average water use for
the base period (1968-1977) was computed to be 209 gallons per capita per day
(GCD). Goals of a 3% reduction by 1982, and a 5% reduction by 1984 were then
established. The Denver Water Board was thus expected to meet a 203 GCD limit
by January 1, 1982, and a 199 GCD limit by January 1, 1984.
The original base (209 GCD) was found to be inaccurate because the
results of 1980 census showed that the population served had been over-
estimated. Table 1 indicates the original figures and the revised figures
using the correct population data. Based on this information, the actual
water usage for the base period is 219 GCD and the goals become 212 GCD for
January 1, 1982 and 208 GCD for January 1, 1984, (3& and 5% reductions as
specified in the Consent Decree).
Table 1
Denver Water Use
(GCD)
Original
Consent
Year(s) Decree
Corrected
Using 1980
Population
Adjusted
Consent Decree
Figures
1968-77 (ave.) 209
219
219
1978
249
1979
224
1980
1981 (1/1/82) 203
244
227
212 (3% reduction)
1983 (1/1/84)
199
208 (5% reduction)
-------
As shown by Table 1, actual water use for Denver's service area in 1981,
based on the correct data, was 227 GCD. This indicates that the Denver Water
Board failed to meet the goals established in the Decree. However, these
figures fail to take into account dominant factors that directly influence
water use - precipitation and temperature. The use of a fixed GCD goal is
misleading in that it may give the appearance of conservation during wet years
and of lack of conservation during dry years. What should be measured is
conservation, not rainfall.
A realistic analysis of water use and the setting of future goals should
take into account the effects of temperature and precipitation. Therefore,
consideration should be given to using the concept of a normalized demand,
i.e., demand calculated through analysis of historical weather and water use
data in the future to measure the progress of the Denver Water Board in
meeting its water conservation goals. Based on 20 years of historical weather
data and using regression analysis, the calculated (normalized or anticipated)
demand vs. the actual usage is shown in Table 2:
Table 2
Actual Usage Vs. Anticipated Water Use
(GCD)
Year
Actual Usaqe
Anticipated Demand
% Chanqe
1978
249
251
-1%
1979
224
225
0%
1980
244
253
-4%
1981
111
245
-7%
Average annual percentage for 1973-1981 = -3%.
The calculated usage is the water use that might have occurred given only
the actual population, temperature, and precipitation. In other words, factors
such as conservation efforts are not considered. Thus, while the goal stated
in the Decree (even using the more accurately calculated goal of 212 GCD) was
not met, the average annual percentage reduction, based on the difference
between actual usage and normally anticipated usage {-3%), did realize the
goals of the Decree.
The Regional Administrator recommends that the success of the Denver
Water Board's conservation efforts be measured by comparing actual versus
anticipated water usage employing five-year running averages. However,
progress of the program will be evaluated each year.
Using this approach, actual water usage from 1978-81 averaged 3% less per
year than would have been expected given actual weather conditions and historic
water use patterns. Therefore, the Regional Administrator recommends that the
January 1, 1984 goal represent an average annual reduction of 6% from antici-
pated demand (using the "normalized" demand analysis) for calendar years 1979
through 1983. This reflects an additional annual savings of 3% over the 3%
achieved from 1978 through 1981.
-------
The Regional Administrator also recommends that the goal for January 1,
1989 represent an average annual reduction of 11% from anticipated demand for
calendar years 1984 through 1988.
The Regional Administrator further finds and determines that the Denver
Water Board has made progress and shown good faith effort to achieve the goals
established by the Decree. The Regional Administrator urges the Board to
accelerate their conservation efforts and keep this agency informed of their
program on a continuing basis.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Foothills Consent Decree 2
EPA Evaluation Process 2
Acknowledgments 3
CHAPTER II - DENVER'S INSTITUTIONALIZED WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM 4
Program Development 4
Program Elements 5
Expenditures 14
CHAPTER III - WATER CONSERVATION GOALS 15
Water Use Measurement 15
Denver Water Use Trends 15
Future Water Use 19
Additional Water Use Factors 20
Consent Decree Goals 20
CHAPTER IV - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21
Conclusions 21
Recommendations 21
APPENDIX A - WATER CONSERVATION IN OTHER COMMUNITIES 24
APPENDIX B - DENVER WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM EXPENDITURES 29
APPENDIX C - WATER CONSERVATION BIBLIOGRAPHY 30
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared by EPA in partial fulfillment of its
responsibilities as specified in the 1979 "Foothills Consent Decree." This
Decree was an out-of-court settlement agreement among numerous litigants
involved in the Denver Water Board's Foothills Project.
Background
The Foothills Project consists of Strontia Springs Dam in Waterton Canyon,
a 3.4 mile diversion tunnel, and a water treatment plant. In reviewing the
DWB's application for a right-of-way permit across federally managed land, the
Department of the Interior determined that an Environmental Impact Statement
was required by Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). In addition to the NEPA requirements, right-of-way permits were
required from both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service,
and a "404" Dredge and Fill Permit was required from the Corps of Engineers.
The Foothills Project generated considerable controversy over the
environmental impacts, the adequacy of consideration of alternatives,
efficiency of water use in Denver, potential impacts on development patterns
and subsequently, on ambient air quality in Denver. The original draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was released in January 1976 but was
determined to be of insufficient scope to comply with NEPA requirements.
A second draft EIS was issued in August, 1977 but still did not resolve
many of the concerns raised earlier. The final EIS was released in February,
1978 but was still considered inadequate by EPA and consequently, was referred
to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). CEQ basically concurred with
EPA and recommended that the special use permits not be issued and that the
EIS be withdrawn as inadequate.
In response to concerns about the issuance of the required permits, the
City and County of Denver, through the Denver Water Board, and the Homebuilders
Association of Metropolitan Denver filed suit against the Secretary of the
Interior and several agencies (including EPA), organizations and individuals
in order to require issuance of the permits. (City and County of Denver, et.
vs. Cecil D. Andrus, et. al.) A counter suit was filed by opponents of
the Foothills Project in Federal District Court in Washington (National
Wildlife Federation, et. al., Plaintiffs, vs. Secretary of the Department of
the Interior, et. al., Defendants).
These two suits were settled out of court in February 1979 through the
signing of the Foothills "Consent Decree", also referred to as the Foothills
"Settlement Agreement". In signing the Consent Decree document, the litigants
basically agreed to permit the Foothills project to proceed and that, among
other requirements, a water conservation program would be implemented by the
Denver Water Board.
-1-
-------
Foothills Consent Decree
The Foothills Consent Decree and accompanying stipulations cover a broad
array of issues which were raised during the course of the debate over the
Foothills Project. Of specific interest to this report are the settlement
conditions relative to water conservation.
Denver's responsibi1ities for water conservation as stated in the Consent
Decree are:
5. a. ...Denver will further institutionalize conservation
measures into its activities. Denver has agreed to develop and
intends to implement a conservation program and, no later than
the 56th day after the dismissal of the claims herein, will
present to its water users the conservation program, which
program may be revised by Denver from time to time, and which
is designed to reduce present average annual consumption within
Denver and its treated water contract service area from 209
gallons per capita per day (gcd) to a goal of 203 gcd by
January 1, 1982 and to a goal of 199 gcd by January 1, 1984.
b. In 1984 after the evaluation called for in subparagraph
5.C., a further reduction goal in the range of 3 to 5% (from
the goal of 199 gcd) to be sought in the five years subsequent
to January 1, 1984 will be finally determined according to the
procedures set forth in subparagraph 5.c. In 1989, again
following the subparagraph 5.c. evaluation of progress and, in
view of the then existing situation, a further reduction to be
sought in the ensuing 10 years will be finally determined
according to the procedures set forth in subparagraph 5.c. The
parties presently estimate this figure to fall in the range of
5 to 10%.
The Environmental Protection Agency's requirements are to monitor and
evaluate Denver's Water Conservation program and to recommend conservation
goals:
5. c. The Regional Administrator of Region VIII of the EPA shall
assume primary responsibility for monitoring the above
conservation program. At the end of each of these periods
(January 1, 1982, January 1, 1984, January 1, 1989), the
Regional Administrator of the EPA shall evaluate Denver's
progress and good faith efforts to attain the goals set forth
in subparagraphs 5.a. and b., and recommend the 1984 and 1989
goals. In the event of disputes between EPA and Denver, the
Army Corps of Engineers (Omaha District Engineer) shall be the
final administrative arbitrator, with its findings being
subject to judicial review.
-2-
-------
EPA Evaluation Process
To comply with requirements in the Consent Decree that EPA evaluate
Denver's "progress and good faith efforts" to attain the water conservation
goals and also to recommend goals for 1984 and 1989, an Evaluation Team was
formed with representatives from the Environmental Assessment Branch, Drinking
Water Branch, and the State Programs Management Branch. The Office of
Regional Counsel was also involved on an ad hoc basis.
Litigants in the Foothills Consent Decree were notifed by telephone and
also by letter from the Regional Administrator that EPA was commencing the
required evaluation. Key local and State political leaders were similarly
notified. Participation in the evaluation was solicited; however, responses
were generally limited to a request to be "kept informed" on the results of
the evaluation.
The principal thrusts of the evaluation centered on a review of status of
the individual elements in Denver's Institutionalized Water Conservation Plan
(discussed in Chapter II) and an examination of water use information
(discussed in Chapter III). Information was obtained through numerous
meetings with appropriate staff from the Denver Water Department.
To obtain broader background knowledge on municipal water conservation
programs and opportunities, a literature review was made. In addition, a
number of communities along the Front Range and selected metropolitan areas in
the West were contacted regarding their water conservation activities
(summarized in Appendix A).
There are several current, ongoing activities which are relevant to EPA's
evaluation responsibilities. In the interest of sharing information and
avoiding unnecessary duplication of efforts, the Evaluation Team contacted the
Denver Water Board Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), the Governor's Metro-
politan Water Roundtable, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. The CAC was
established as a condition of the Consent Decree to provide citizen input to
Water Board Activities. A "Water Conservation-Landscaping Task Force" was
formed by the CAC, and the development of the "E-T" program (see Chapter II)
came primarily from that group. The Roundtable effort is an attempt to
formulate a "consensus" plan for meeting water needs in the Metropolitan
area. A "Water Use Efficiency and Recycling Task Group" prepared a report to
the Roundtable on water conservation opportunities.
Lastly, the Corps of Engineers has accepted the lead in preparing a
"Systemwide Environmental Impact Statement" on the cumulative effects of
future water development proposals of the Denver Water Board. Preparing this
assessment is also a stipulation in the Settlement Agreement. Although this
effort is just beginning, it is anticipated that water conservation will be an
integral element of the Systemwide EIS.
-3-
-------
Acknowledgments
As noted previously, the major portion of the evaluation effort centered
around information and data obtained from the Denver Water Department (DWD).
Numerous meetings were held with DWD staff and the Evaluation Team very much
appreciates the professionalism, openness, and patience of the DWD staff in
assisting EPA in carrying out its responsibilities. In particular, the Evalu-
ation Team acknowledges the assistance of John Wilder, Conservation Officer;
and R. D. Wiley, Manager of General Planning; and Mary Martin, Planner. The
information provided by the DWD staff was critical to this report, however,
EPA alone bears responsibility for contents.
-4-
-------
CHAPTER II
Denver's Institutionalized Water
Conservation Program
The information in this chapter was provided by Denver Water Department
(DWD) staff members through a series of information-gathering meetings with
the EPA Evaluation Team. These meetings were held between May and August,
1982. The Evaluation Team obtained information on the status of each element
in the program in terms of content, implementation, timing, and effectiveness.
The conservation plan elements are addressed in the order in which they appear
in the Institutionalized Water Conservation Program as written in 1979.
Program Development
Imnediately after the Settlement Agreement, a task force was formed,
consisting of representatives from the Denver Water Department (DWD), the
Office of Water Resources and Technology (OWRT), the Denver Regional Counsel
of Governments (DRCOG), the Denver Planning Office, and the Colorado Depart-
ment of Natural Resources. This task force was charged with developing the
conservation program for the DWD. The DWD staff briefed EPA in June 1979, on
the Water Conservation Plan. EPA indicated in a letter dated June 20, 1979
that it had briefly reviewed the executive summary of the Draft Water Conser-
vation Plan and supported the concepts presented therein. The Plan was
presented to and adopted by the Water Board on June 20, 1979. The complete
Plan was then submitted to EPA. Executive Summaries were distributed to
several entities (e.g., DWD suburban contract customers, state legislators,
planning offices, building department, and numerous city agencies). The major
elements of DWD's Water Conservation Plan are listed in Table II-1.
Table II-l
Denver Water Department's Institutionalized Water Conservation Program:
I. Education and Public Information
A) Ongoing TV and Printed News Media Program
B) Daily Watering Graph (E-T Program)
C) RTD Mobile Program
D) Silent Salesman for Building Owners and Managers
E) Real Estate Package for Home Buyers
F) Demonstration House
G) Plumbing Fixture and Appliance Rating System
H) School Poster Contest
I) Denver Parks Department Notice and Sign Program
J) Water Bill Consumption Program
K) DWD In-School Teacher Program
L) Reassignment of Water Use by Class
II. Retrofit Program
III. Code Regulations and Provisions
IV. Leak Detection Program
V. Pressure Reduction Program Analysis
VI. Universal Metering
VII. Filter Plant Water Measurement
VIII. Denver Water Department Successive Use Program
IX. Conservation through Rate Modification
-5-
-------
Program Elements
I. Education and Public Information
The Denver Water Department's stated purpose with respect to public
education has been to develop a conservation "ethos" rather than impose
"quick-fix solutions". The primary approach for accomplishing this has been
an emphasis on the economic benefits of water conservation.
A. On-Going TV and Printed News Media Program
The Water Board has chosen not to buy TV time, and therefore, has had to
rely on Public Service Announcements (PSAs) to convey their message. The
primary reason for not buying advertising time has been the Water Board's
concern over customer reaction about the propriety of such expenditures. The
Water Department does not have a schedule for TV, radio, or newspaper ads for
the coming year. They "play it by ear" and "take what they can get" due to
lack of funds allocated to purchase advertising time.
"Water Follies", an animated "short" film depicting instances of common
water wastage and conservation practices is one of the primary audio-visual
materials distributed by the DWD. The DWD has developed several public
service "spots" from the film. The film has been purchased by some stations
(and HBO) and EPA. It was not possible to accurately determine how often the
film has been shown or the extent of exposure the PSAs have had. DWD has
produced other films including the "ECH^ONERGY House" (1979) which was
essentially a tour of the house and grounds and a discussion of the relevant
water and energy conservation features.
DWD has developed radio "spots" or "drop-ins" (PSA's) and distributed
them to all Denver-area radio stations for use at their discretion. DWD has
distributed the Fred Arthur song on water conservation to the top 15 radio
stations in Denver. These messages were aired by some stations, but the
frequency of air time is unknown.
DWD staff have appeared on KHOW this year for a talk and phone-in program
which was subsequently divided into several short segments for future use.
They also appeared on the Peter Boyle Talk Show (KOA radio). Additional TV
and radio programs promoting water conservation include the use of horticul-
tural experts Herb Gundell and Gerry Niederkorn. The Evapo-Transpiration
program (see Section 1(B): Daily Watering Graph) went into effect last year
and, in general, the news media have been very cooperative in advertising the
program.
DWD distributes conservation messages including information on E-T with
customers' water bills six times per year. The DWD distributes brochures on
Xeriscape and the E-T program to all nurseries and stores selling plants, lawn
and garden equipment, and landscaping materials. Articles have been published
on Xeriscape (see Section XI) and the Water Department's role in the Home and
Garden Show, in "Colorado Green", the Associated Landscape Contractors of
Colorado (ALCC) publication (Spring, 1982). These brochures were also distrib-
uted at the Home and Garden Show, the ECH2ONERGY II demonstration home and
the Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado trade show.
-6-
-------
The low cost-no cost program was a state-wide effort sponsored by the
Department of Energy with support from DWD and the Public Service Company of
Colorado. It consisted of mailing information and water flow restrictors
state-wide, following a three-week TV and printed news media promotion. This
mailing was preceded by an advertising campaign where additional flow restric-
tors were placed in some grocery stores the weekend before Thanksgiving 1980.
PSC did much of the mailing and DWD did participate in financing (amount
unspecified). Many units (e.g., multifamily and condominiums) apparently did
not receive the restrictors and there was no follow-up on the program.
Therefore, there is no measure of its effectiveness.
The Water Department provides flow restrictors free to the public, at
trade shows, home and garden shows, upon the purchase of watering permits and
when conducting educational meetings. They are also distributed in cooper-
ation with the PSC energy audit and are available at the Water Department upon
request.
B. Daily Watering Graph (The E-T Program)
The initial concept for developing the daily watering graph was to divide
the service area into several reporting areas and have water department employ-
ees (volunteers) report moisture data every day so that rainfall calculations
could be made and passed on to citizens through the news media. The process
was found to be too complex and cumbersome and was abandoned as impractical.
In the meantime, the Citizens' Advisory Committee Water
Conservation/Landscaping task force chairman, Nick Schmidt, in consultation
with CSU horticulturalists, helped develop an agricultural Evapo-Transpiration
(E-T) model for blue grass lawns. The program was first implemented in the
Denver area in 1981. The calculated E-T rate is made available to all media
via "Newswire Denver". Channel 9 also agreed to distribute copies of the DWD
bulletin, "The Water Wise Way to a Healthier Lawn," which explains the E-T
system. In 1981, the Water Department printed 50,000 copies of this brochure
and reordered 50,000 for 1982. This year nurseries, contract water distrib-
utors, landscape companies, homebuilders, show homes, and realtors will all
get the E-T and Xeriscape brochures. They were also distributed this year at
the Home and Garden Show, the ECH2ONERGY II demonstration home and the
Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado trade show. Eventually these
brochures will also be distributed to local government agencies responsible
for approving subdivisions.
E-T program information is available on CSU sponsored "teletips" which is
a service providing free horticultural information. An explanation of the E-T
program was also included in the water bills of all 230,000 DWD service
customers this year. The E-T program was designed for blue grass and is not
directly applicable to other types of vegetation. As a result of some misap-
plications of E-T, the DWD modified the "Water wise" brochure to indicate that
trees and bushes need a deep root irrigation.
The E-T system has been credited with contributing to the twelve percent
reduction in summer water use in 1981. It should be noted that the water sav-
ings were noticed in all customer classes but were most pronounced in the flat
rate customer class. (Report to the Roundtable, Water Use Efficiency and
Recycling Task Group.)
-7-
-------
C. RTD Mobile Program
The Regional Transportation District (RTD) was contacted in 1979 relative
to carrying water conservation messages on the outside of their buses. RTD
told DWD they could not give special consideration to any group for advertising
and that the back advertising panel on the buses was reserved for transporta-
tion issues. The matter was dropped until this year when RTD indicated that a
waiver of their rules might be possible. RTD apparently told DWD they could
advertise for water conservation provided: (1) the advertisement was generic
enough to apply in the entire RTD service area, and (2) there was adequate
regional interest by water utilities. DWD developed a proposed poster after
soliciting and obtaining the support of the other 43 metro water suppliers.
RTD apparently took DWD's water conservation idea and transformed it into a
general statement about conserving natural resources. This was unacceptable
to DWD, and the project was dropped. Advertising inside the bus was con-
sidered too expensive for the number of people reached. The Water Board
believes that it would be difficult to justify such costs when they feel the
conservation message can be delivered to their customers more economically
through other methods.
D. Silent Salesman
The Silent Salesman Program (i.e., the provision of stickers or tags
promoting water conservation) for building owners and operators has not yet
gone into effect. DWD has developed the art work for a set of stickers (which
would be placed on walls and mirrors) and plans to approach building managers
beginning this year. DWD will begin with government buildings, motels/hotels,
public buildings, (e.g., Stapleton Airport) and apartment houses.
DWD has approached some nurseries with the idea of tagging stocks of low
water consuming plants. The nurseries are not opposed to the concept, but
would like some idea as to the acceptability by the consumer, of this type of
vegetation in the Denver area. As a result, no tags have yet been placed on
nursery stock.
E. Real Estate Package for Homebu.yers
In 1980, over 90% of the metro home builders, in cooperation with DWD and
PSC, sponsored a conservation program for new home buyers. This program rates
a home and gives conservation credits based on the homes construction and
plumbing equipment. Mortgage lenders then allow the home buyer financial
credit toward loan qualification, based on the estimated cost savings from
conservation. There are no statistics on the number of homes sold under this
program. The Denver Board of Realtors has been approached by DWD about extend-
ing the program to resales and they are apparently receptive to the idea but
feel this is not the appropriate time to implement the program since the
industry is currently rather depressed.
-8-
-------
F. Demonstration House
The first ECHoONERGY home was shown in late summer to fall of 1979 to
approximately 30,000 people. The house was a joint venture among PSC, DWD and
the Denver Metro Homebuilders Association. The home included minimum grass
landscaping, low flush toilets, low-flow shower heads, low water use dish and
clothes washers, and all the latest state-of-the-art conservation devices. As
a result of this and other initiatives, PSC now includes a water use survey as
part of their home energy audit. They also distributed shower flow
restrictors and the brochure, "Forty-four Ways". ECH2ONERGY II," open to the
public in the Spring of 1982, incorporated all internal water-saving devices
and appliances and had a zoned and metered (for demonstration only) irrigation
system. Three different grass types and low use sprinkler systems were used.
(ECH2ONERGY II closed at the end of June 1982 and was visited by
approximately 40,000 people). The water use monitoring results for the
different types of vegetation will be provided early in 1983.
G. Plumbing Fixture and Appliance Rating System
The DWD worked with plumbing suppliers in the area and promoted the
concept of supplying only water saving plumbing fixtures to builders and
plumbers. DWD maintains that only water saving fixtures are now available in
the Denver metro area. Therefore, it has been considered unnecessary to
establish a program to rate plumbing fixtures for their conservation potential.
An attempt was made to rate the water conservation potential of washing
machines and dishwashers. However, most of this equipment is coded and the
code number changes yearly. Consequently, the DWD abandoned the appliance
rating system as unworkable. The DWD encourages buyers to ask for water
saving appliances through talks and literature.
H. School Poster Contest
Begun in the Summer of 1978, the school poster contest is conducted every
other year as a means of fostering conservation awareness. This contest
covers grade levels six through twelve. The posters are displayed at the DWD
offices and at shopping centers.
Another special award program to encourage water conservation is the
"Great Gildersleeve" award. In 1982, this award was presented to Nick Schmidt
for his work on the E-T program. These awards are only given when the DWD
feels that a citizen deserves recognition for an especially noteworthy
contribution to water conservation.
I. Denver Parks Department - Signs and Non-Potable Water Use
This program element consists of identifying, for the public, the source
of park irrigation water and reducing water waste. DWD indicated that the
Denver Parks Department has been very cooperative with their sign program
(begun in 1930) as well as efforts to reduce water waste.
-9-
-------
The Parks Department has problems with watering the median strips on a
number of city streets. DWD found that high volumes of vehicular traffic,
vandalism, curb contour and other conditions often develop water waste prob-
lems between the time the staff turns on the sprinkler and when they return to
shut it off. They would like to eliminate vegetation on some of the narrower
median sections and are interested in changing the irrigation systems to under-
ground and/or drip irrigation where possible. DWD is testing these systems at
Xeriscape. Switching to new irrigation systems may be hampered by budget
constraints. All parks were metered as of last year.
J. Water Bill Consumption Program
This program element consists of an inclusion in the bimonthly water bill
comparing the water consumption of the current blling period with that of the
same period for the previous year. It was implemented as of the Spring of
1982 and is available to metered customers only. The expectation by DWD is
that this information will be used by the customer to modify habits and reduce
consumption. This information could also be helpful to owners and managers of
multi-family type dwelling units by alerting them to the presence of system
leakage.
K. DWD In-School Teacher Program
The DWD employs a fully certified teacher in its community affairs office
to teach school children the "why" of water conservation, and discuss all the
issues surrounding water in Colorado (e.g., the water cycle, East slope/West
slope controversy, water treatment). School visits are made by invitation
only and many schools have been visited numerous times. From 1976 to June 1,
1982, 35,092 students, representing 225 schools in 14 districts, have received
water conservation education. Most requests for talks come from schools
outside of Denver. DWD also makes contacts through the Teacher Newsletter and
through "Water News", the DWD bill insert.
The Water Department also conducts summer bus tours of the elements of
their system located near the Denver Metro area. One of the tours is for
teachers only. DWD staff will talk to any group about water conservation.
The staff often volunteer to meet with neighborhood groups, community college
classes, or appear at special interest group functions for presentations.
L. Reassignment of Water Use by Class
This element of the water conservation program is intended to identify
water use by sector or class (e.g., residential, commerical, industrial) in
order to design a specific program analysis for each specific class of
customer. Water suppliers initially followed the rate classification system
established nine years ago by the Denver Metro Sewer System. This classifi-
cation is based upon sewage BOD and has led to some misclassifications of
water users. The customer classification system began in February 1981.
Developing the necessary data base will take 2-3 years.
-10-
-------
II. Retrofit Program
The retrofit of city buildings with water-saving devices began two years
ago and has been completed wherever possible. All city buildings, hospitals,
city shops and 7200 units of public housing have been retrofitted with shower
flow restrictors and, in some cases, sink faucet aerators. The DWD has no
data yet on water savings from the Retrofit Program.
The federal government buildings have not been retrofitted. The DWD
hopes to approach the federal agencies through the Federal Regional Council
beginning in the Fall of 1982. The State has been contacted. The Retrofit
Program is expected to be complete within two years.
DWD checked on sending out water conservation kits (separate from the
no-cost/low-cost program) and found some communities were dissatisfied with
the public acceptance of the kits available. Therefore, the DWD decided
against buying conservation packages. It does advertise flow restrictors at
public talks and DWD "44 Ways" advises customers on retrofit. Approximately
250,000 restrictors have been distributed. The program for assisting the
elderly and handicapped with retrofitting their homes has not materialized.
DWD has worked with a few building managers (e.g., University of Denver,
Condominium Associations) and plant engineers on leak detection and
retrofitting programs.
III. Code Regulations and Provisions
The revision of code regulations and provisions has not been pursued
because of the multitude of governmental jurisdictions in the service area and
the legal and political difficulty in addressing the retrofitting of existing
residences. Additionally, DWD assumes that since newer buildings will be
fitted with water-saving devices, there would be no need for ordinances. The
Denver Building Department has been approached concerning planning and zoning
changes to regulate lot sizes and landscaping. However, DWD feels there is
little possibility for lot size or landscaping size requirements in the future
due to the political atmosphere and the great number of areas over which the
DWD has no control.
IV. Leak Detection Program
In their leak detection program, the DWD uses a computer and other
equipment which is capable of locating the point of a leak within inches.
This operation has been functioning since June 1980. Because of its accuracy,
this process is also cost-saving by reducing unnecessary labor time and
efforts. DWD does issue notices of leak detection and does a follow-up
inspection. It is studying ways to detect/correct leaks in the raw water side
of its system.
The DWD's objective is to survey the entire 2,000 miles of its water
lines. From June of 1980 to June of 1982, they have completed about 400
miles. The estimates in Table 11-2 were provided by the DWD.
-11-
-------
Table 11-2
Leak Detection Program
Mi les
Surveyed
Water Saved Leaks Located Leaks
(Gallons) Non-visual Pin-point
1980
1981
1982
90
392
97
82,130,000
8,625,000
36
5
93
48
The amount of water saved is a "guesstimate", arrived at by measuring the
size of the leak and, through computer program based on a standard 10-day
projected flow, determining an estimate of water lost. The 10-day variable is
a standard projection but will not be used if actual time information is
available.
V. Pressure Reduction Program Analysis
In 1980 and 1981, the DWD contracted with Brown and Caldwell to look at
the effect of water pressure reduction on water use. The results of this
study should be available in 1983. In addition, DWD is conducting a more
detailed pressure analysis.
VI. Universal Metering
The Denver Water System encompasses approximately 88,000 unmetered resi-
dential services. A recent comparative study (DWD 3" Meter Study) of water
use in selected areas of the city indicates that 12,500 acre-feet of water
could be saved per year by metering Denver's flat-rate customers. However,
the Board believes a more accurate range is 6,000-10,000 acre-feet per year.
One of the major obstacles to the implementation of metering has been the
development of a financing arrangement. There are many options for paying for
meters, ranging from the customer making the total payment to the DWD assuming
the estimated $ 40 million cost. DWD feels that unmetered customers should be
reimbursed both for the meter installation and for the water they "free-up" as
a result of decreased consumption.
The DWD currently has an internal study underway on methods to pay for
metering. Meter installation is estimated to cost $400-1,500/home. The study
looks at how and from whom the money could be collected. One option is to
require meter installation upon resale of the home. It is estimated that this
would probably complete total metering in 8-11 years.
Any building conversions (from single family residences) or extensive
remodeling are noted by the Denver Building Department and passed on to DWD.
Meter installation is then required. The Conservation Program calls for meter-
ing historic buildings within 90 days of application for historic status. No
data is available on the status of this program.
DWD refused money which the State Legislature had appropriated as a low
interest loan for meter installation because the contract required that DWD
give up ownership and control of the meters (apparently in violation of their
city charter) and because the $5 million offered was only a small part of the
$40 million needed and was not available at one time.
-12-
-------
VII. Filter Plant Water Measurement
This element of the Conservation Plan was designed to examine the accur-
acy of the meters at the Marston Plant. There are currently three meters meas-
uring inflow to the plant and eight meters measuring outflow. DWD discovered
discrepancies (plus and minus) in water use measurements and suspected they
were not properly accounting for all water use in the plant (e.g., leaks,
storage, backwashings).
A plant survey was undertaken and errors in two of the meter recorders
were discovered. Low flows in the winter were primarily responsible for the
mistakes. DWD is currently trying to calibrate the meters at Marston so the
problem will be eliminated. They are also investigating the margin of error
in the meters. If greater accuracy is attainable, DWD will study the cost
effectiveness of replacing or modifying the meters.
The Moffat Plant had sonic meters installed last year and does not appear
to have a problem.
VIII. Successive Use Program
Under conditions of the Blue River Decree (1955) and Senate Document 80
(Construction Settlement on Dillon Reservoir), Denver was required to look at
successive use of water in its system. In 1969, the University of Colorado
received a grant from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration to
look at the possibility of starting a pilot reuse plant. In 1970, the pilot
was started and was funded for 10 years by the Denver Water Department.
In 1974, the need for a demonstration plant became evident and CH?M
Hill was retained to develop the design. In 1979, EPA awarded a $7 million
grant for design and construction (DWD is contributing $21 million) of the
successive use plant and health effects testing of the treated water. In
1978, construction of the Denver Water Reuse Demonstration Plant was begun.
Completion is expected by late 1983.
The earliest a full scale (100 MGD) reuse plant selling potable water for
consumption could be on-line would be in about 20 years. The DWD has con-
ducted four surveys of public reaction and over 50% of the persons surveyed ac-
cept the idea of potable reuse. The guarantee of water quality the same as the
present quality was very important to those surveyed. A major public education
effort will be needed to guarantee the acceptance of the treated water.
-13-
-------
IX. Conservation Through Rate Modification
It should be noted that in the absence of full metering, the use of rate
structure modifications to promote water conservation is limited. This
element of the conservation program was designed to examine the importance of
rate structure modifications on water use. The "philosophy" of the DWD is to
encourage conservation without adversely affecting lifestyles. DWD is con-
cerned that an immediate inverse rate structure would not accomplish the goal
of increased conservation unless a conservation ethic has already been estab-
lished. DWD staff claims that a rate increase of 2-3 times would be necessary
to see any real conservation because the water bill is such a small part of
the total monthly bill paid by most people. DWD believes that an increase of
such magnitude would be politically unacceptable. DWD has considered
time-of-year rate structures (increased summer rates) as a water conservation
measure or as a means of reducing peaks when the water restrictions are lifted
next year.
The present water rate schedules are divided into blocks. The width of
the blocks is set so as to (in effect) establish a flat rate for each customer
class. Industry has been given a declining block rate because its smoother
load characteristics help the functioning of the water system. The DWD is
continuing to look at a variety of rate structures including a flat volume
rate for metered residential customers. DWD did a survey to ascertain the
effect of not charging for the first 4,000 gallons and then imposing inverse
or double rates for additional water, in response to the Morris Study (Water
for Denver, An Analysis of Alternatives, 1980). The findings indicated that
in 80% of the cases apartment users would get free water and this "benefit"
would accrue to the wealthy as well as the poor. (It would not target poorer
families to receive this benefit as the Morris Study had suggested). The DWD
has not evaluated other combinations of providing "free" water and modifying
rate structures in order to ascertain the viability of such a system.
One change that was implemented in 1979 was a switch from a minimum bill
to a service charge bill. The minimum charge bill had charged a minimum
monthly fee to cover service and standby costs. The service charge bill
lowers the minimum monthly charge (it covers only service) and changes the
flat fee base gallonage from 11,000 to 1,000 gallons. The standby costs are
picked up as the customer pays for each 1,000 gallons used. This rate change
allows the customer to see some economic return for his/her conservation
efforts. This change was based upon a recommendation from the 1979 Black and
Veatch Study. In addition, the DWD instituted a new (higher) customer system
development charge (hook-up fee) which is a front-end fee covering new
supplies, treatment and storage,
X. Water Violation Enforcement
The criteria for determining water waste are somewhat subjective, but in
theory, the Water Board will tolerate no waste. The "water police" employed
by the Water Department consist of students (summer help), servicemen, and
occasionally, night dispatchers and load control personnel. There are three
shifts which patrol from 4:30 AM to 9:00 PM. The cases they investigate arise
almost exclusively from complaints received at DWD by phone. Unless the first
offense is grossly flagrant, the DWD water police will issue a warning. This
warning carries no penalties, it simply warns that a continued violation will
result in special charges being included in the next water bill. DWD has a
hotline number to call to report water wastage.
-14-
-------
XI. Xeriscape (The Conservation of Water Through Creative Landscaping)
The Xeriscape landscaping concept has been developed to encourage the use
of low water-using vegetation as a partial alternative to conventional lawns.
The DWD, after consulting with professional horticulturalists, established a
Xeriscape garden at its main office building and promotes public tours. The
Water Board has decided to use the Xeriscape concept in landscaping their
Water Reuse Plant.
XII. Expenditures
Expenditures for the conservation program as reported by DWD are as
follows:
1979 - $ 880,687
1980 - $1,894,249
1931 - $1,322,844
Total $4,097,780
Over three-fourths of this expenditure went for the successive use plant
and the repair of system leaks. A complete listing of these expenditures
appears in Appendix B.
-15-
-------
CHAPTER III
Water Conservation Goals
The Foothills Consent Decree specifies a reduction in the Denver water
use in gallons per capita per day as a measure of the effectiveness of the
Denver water conservation program. This appears, on the surface, to be a very
easy way to measure that impact. However, this "seemingly simple" method has
many complicating factors and all must be taken into account before comparing
the water use figures before and after the elements of the conservation
program have been implemented.
Water Use Measurement
Gallons-per-capita-per-day (usually designated as GCD or gpcd) has been
used for a number of years to generally describe a community's water use.
GCD is defined as the total amount of water produced for the community
and placed into the distribution system, divided by the total number of
persons being served by the water system. Before comparing the GCD's of
several water systems or the GCD's for several years on the same water system,
the following factors must be recognized:
Population - Accuracy is critical
Weather - Affects outdoor water use on lawns and other landscaping
Corrmuters - Use water but are not counted in the "Population"
Water Use Restrictions - Limits the amount used
Leakage - Some treated water may never reach the consumer but is
still included in the "water used" when calculating GCD.
Public Use (parks, fire fighting, street washing etc.)- may not be
accounted for.
Denver Water Use Trends
Water from the Denver system is used in many ways. The following listing
by class provides an estimate of the percentage used in each category:
The Foothills Consent Decree utilized GCD figures which averaged Denver's
past water use. Based on these figures, projections were calculated for a
reduction in future water use. At the time of the Consent Decree, the Denver
water use over the previous ten years (1968 to 1977) was computed to be an
average of 209 GCD. Goals for water use were then established to be 203 GCD
by January 1, 1982 and 199 GCD by January 1, 1984. These figures represent a
3% and a 5% reduction, respectively.
Single Family Residence
Multi-Family Residence
Commercial & Business
Public Agencies
Parks
Industries & Construction
Water Loss & Fire Protection
58%
10%
7%
8%
6%
5%
6%
-16-
-------
Since 1978, when the Denver GCD was computed for the Consent Decree,
additional information has become available which indicates the original data
were inaccurate. The dominant factor affecting the original computation of
the GCD figures was the estimated population. Population figures were being
drawn from the 1974 report by the Denver Regional Counsel of Governments
(DRCOG) which used the 1970 census data and over-estimated the population
growth of the Denver service area. A comparison of the projected population
used and the adjusted population based upon the 1980 census, are shown in
Table III-l.
Table III-l
Population Projections
(Persons Served By Denver Water System)
Based on
Based on
Year
1970 Census
1980 Census
1968
710,000
1969
756,000
1970
768,000
1971
792,000
782,000
1972
812,000
795,000
1973
833,000
803,000
1974
879,000
808,000
1975
891,000
818,000
1976
904,000
813,000
1977
919,000
825,000
1978
935,000
830,000
1979
952,000
338,000
1980
971,000
846,000
1981
990,000
857,000
The Denver Water Board has recently made an attempt to more accurately
determine the population of the Denver Water System Service area. Using 1980
Census Block Data, the total population for the years between 1970 and 1980
were then estimated (See Table III-l). These estimates for Denver were not
projected on a straight line basis, but were based upon knowledge of Denver
growth patterns. The population estimates for suburban water districts served
by Denver were projected on a straight line basis. Table 111-2 shows the
adjusted GCD values and corresponding Consent Decree figures using the 1980
census data.
-17-
-------
Year(s)
1968-77
(ave.)
1978
1979
1980
1981
1984
Consent Decree
Figures*
209
203
199
Table III-2
Denver Water Use
(GCD)
Corrected
Using 1980
Population
219
249
224
244
227
Recommended
Adjusted
Consent Decree
Figures
219
212**
208**
*Based on erroneous 1974 population projections. The 1981 and 1984 figures
are goals based on 3% and 5% reductions from the 1968-77 average value,
respectively.
**Estimated values based on 3% & 5% reductions respectively from adjusted
1968-77 value.
The weather is one of the major factors affecting water use during the
irrigation months. The amount of precipitation received and the maximum
temperature reached each day obviously affects the amount of water customers
use to maintain green lawns and other outdoor vegetation.
In an attempt to account for this important factor in the GCD figures,
the DWD has calculated the monthly water demands by multiple linear regression
analysis. The equations include service area population, temperature and
precipitation as controlling variables and are based on twenty years of
historical data. These calculated GCD's better reflect the impact of other
factors, such as water restrictions, on the water use of the community. GCD's
calculated using this method are listed in Table 111-3.
Table III-3
Denver Water Use
(GCD)
Year
Actual Demand
Calculated
1978
248
251
1979
222
225
1980
243
253
1981
226
245
Demand*
* Indicates the calculated water use for the actual weather experienced during
that year. Based on 20 years of historical weather data using regression
analysis.
Regardless of the method of calculation, a trend of increasing per capita
meter use has occurred as indicated by Figure 111-1.
-18-
-------
HOSE III-!
KATE* USE « THE BOtYER SETCCt MEA
1960 1965 1970 1375 I960 1545
TEAR
Water use restrictions alone don't insure that the total amount of water used
by consumers will be reduced. For instance, in 1977 when Denver restricted
both the days and number of hours outdoor watering could take place, calcula-
tions suggest a 14% decrease in total water used during the year. However, in
the years 1978-1980 when only daily restrictions (watering every third day)
were imposed, the calculations show that very little water was saved. (See
Table III-4). It should be noted that the 3 day (circle, square, diamond)
watering restrictions were imposed to reduce daily peak water demand and were
not intended to be a water saving/conservation program. In 1981, however,
when the E-T Program was introduced, water savings (7.7%) were realized. This
indicates the importance of public education in any conservation effort.
Annual
Water Demand
Calculated
Actual
Water Saved
Percent Saved
Table III-4
Effects of Outdoor Water Use
Restrictions on Water Demands*
(in millions of gallons)
1977**
72,900
62,599
10,301
14%
1973
75,900
75,451
449
0%
1979
68,700
68,363
337
0%
1930
78,000
76,525
1,475
2%
1981
76,540
71,052
5,458
7.7%
*Taken from the Denver Water Department unpublished report "Outdoor Water
Use Restrictions" by the Planning & Water Resources Division (1982)
**Customers were restricted to only 3 hours of outdoor watering every third
day.
-19-
-------
Water use, measured on a GCD basis, is substantially higher within the
City of Denver than it is in surrounding suburban areas served by the Denver
Water Department. (See Table 111-5.) This may be due to a number of factors:
1. Heavier industrial water use in Denver,
2. Commuter impact in Denver (Commuters use water during the day but
are not counted as part of the "population" when calculating GCD),
3. Greater percentage of parks in Denver,
4. Full metering in suburbs,
5. Higher cost of water in suburbs.
Table III-5
Denver & Suburban Service Area Water Use
(GCD)
Year
Denver
Suburban Sei
1968
230
149
1969
224
150
1970
237
163
1971
245
161
1972
246
172
1973
243
176
1974
273
197
1975
259
178
1976
258
183
1977
230
176
1978
273
216
1979
247
191
1980
268
212
1981
247
201
Average
245
171
1968-77:
~Suburban Water Districts served under contract by Denver.
Future Water Use
In a 1981 report for the Denver Water Department, titled "Treated Water
Planning Study", Black and Veatch projected future per capita water use. Two
projections were made, one based on historic data and one based on conserva-
tion programs being in place. Assuming that the Denver Water Conservation
Plan would be somewhat successful in achieving a reduction in the GCD, they
projected water use to be 201 GCD in 1985, 208 GCD in 1990 and 197 GCD in
2000. Without conservation, the projected water demands were 219 GCD in 1985,
227 GCD in 1990 and 215 GCD in 2000. Black and Veatch and the Denver Water
Department both recognized that the estimated population figures (based on
1970 census) were a bit high, but they were the best estimates available at
the time. Though it is thought that the actual demand will be between the two
projections, the DWD plans future facilities based on the higher demand
thinking that the timing of the facilities may change as actual reductions in
demand occur.
-20-
-------
Additional Water Use Factors
The three-inch Meter Study provided an excellent opportunity to measure
actual residential 6CD consumption within the city. Although the use rates
varied widely, the study showed overall that metered customers in similar
housing situations were qenerally more conservative in their water use. For
example, in 1981 the use in metered areas was about 20% less than in similar
flat rate neighborhoods. In another trend analysis conducted by the DWD on
the use per account from 1960-1981, flat rate users were consistently higher
than metered users.
Consent Decree Goals
The problems of accuracy with the original Consent Decree Baseline GCD
have already been discussed in this chapter. Instead of the original 1968-1977
average of 209 GCD, the corrected figure would be 219 GCD (See Table 111-2).
Therefore, using the Consent Decree's suggested reductions of 3% and 5% for
January 1, 1982 and January 1, 1984, the projected values should have been 212
and 208 GCD, respectively. The summarized 1981 data show an actual water use
of 227 GCD. Therefore, the Denver Water Department fell short of the calcu-
lated goal of 212 GCD. However, the difference between the actual use of 227
GCD and the calculated demand of 245 GCD is a reduction of 18 GCD which may be
attributed to the combined impacts of the DWD's water conservation programs
(Sep Tables 111-3 & 111-4).
A realistic analysis of water use and the setting of future goals
should take into account the effects of temperature and precipitation.
Therefore, consideration should be given to using the concept of a normalized
demand, i.e., demand calculated through analysis of historical weather and
water use data in the future to measure the progress of the Denver Water Board
in meeting its water conservation goals. Based on 20 years of historical
weather data and using regression analysis, the calculated (normalized or
anticipated) demand vs. the actual usage is shown in Table 111-5:
Table 111-5
Actual Usage Vs. Anticipated Water Use
(GCD)
Year
Actual Usaqe
Anticipated Demand
% Chanqe
1978
249
251
-1%
1979
224
225
0%
1980
244
253
4%
1981
227
245
-7%
Average annual percentage for 1978-1981 = -3%.
The calculated usage is the water use that might have occurred given only
the actual population, temperature, and precipitation. In other words, factors
such as conservation efforts are not considered. Thus, while the goal stated
in the Decree (even using the more accurately calculated goal of 212 GCD) was
not met. the average annual percentage reduction, based on the difference
between actual usage and normally anticipated usage (-3%), did realize the
goals of the Decree.
-21-
-------
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
The DWD's Water Conservation Program reflects an effort to foster water
conservation. The program contains innovative concepts to develop a conser-
vation ethic which is essential to the goal of more efficient water use. In
particular, the DWD is to be complimented on its E-T and Xeriscape programs as
they both provide practical, cost-effective approaches to promoting water con-
servation. However, the over all program, as implemented thus far, is still
developing and continued emphasis is necessary for the goals of the program to
be fully realized. There is room for program expansion and improvement,
particularly in the areas of public education and awareness.
The DWD has not linked the elements in the Institutionalized Water Conser-
vation Plan to specific water conservation goals. The absence of this correl-
ation could make scheduling implementation of needed conservation measures
more difficult.
The DWD still has not published a schedule to progress toward the Board's
commitment to achieve 100% metering. Metering affords water management bene-
fits far beyond water conservation, but could save 12,000 to 19,000 AF/year
based on estimates from a variety of sources. However, the DWD feels the sav-
ings would be in the range of 6,000-10,000 AF/yr. The absence of total meter-
ing also limits DWD's ability to consider potential rate structure modifica-
tions which other communities have found useful for managing water supplies.
The baseline 209 gallons per-capita per-day (GCD) ten-year average water
consumption stated in the Consent Decree was based on inaccurate population
estimates which resulted in a goal in 1981 of 203 GCD. When corrected, the
actual 1981 goal should have been 212 GCD. The actual water use in the Denver
system in 1981 was 227 GCD. Measured against this recalculated goal it is ob-
vious that overall water consumption was not reduced, in spite of the water
conservation effort. However, if weather history and water use are considered,
the expected consumption would have been 245 GCD. This suggests that the water
conservation program may have resulted in an 18 GCD, or about a 7% reduction.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are presented in the interest of making
DWD's water conservation efforts more effective.
-22-
-------
Conservation Goals
o The goals in the Decree should take into account the effects of temp-
erature and precipitation. Therefore, it is recommended that the
success of the Denver Water Board's conservation efforts be measured
by comparing actual versus anticipated water usage employing five-year
running averages. However, progress of the program will be evaluated
each year. It is recommended that the January 1, 1984 goal represent
an average annual reduction of 6% from anticipated demand (using the
"normalized" demand analysis) for calendar years 1979 through 1983.
This reflects an additional annual savings of 3% over the 3% achieved
from 1978 through 1981. It is also recommended that the goal for
January 1, 1989 represent an average annual reduction of 11% from
anticipated demand for calendar years 1984 through 1988.
o In recognition of the limitations inherent in GCD figures, an ad hoc
group (with representatives from DWD, EPA, COE and the contractor
working on the Systemwide EIS) should evaluate alternative indices
for measuring water use and water savings. Such an effort would be
consistent with the Metropolitan Systemwide EIS currently being
prepared for DWD under the direction of the COE.
Evaluation
o The DWD should pursue a market survey approach to registering public
opinion of existing conservation activities, i.e., the E-T Program,
Xeriscape, and proposals for future conservation program elements.
Surveys can be utilized to determine the acceptance of the programs
and also solicit new ideas for water conservation.
o The DWD should evaluate (to the extent feasible) the impact that each
element of their conservation program has on water use in their
service area. For example, an element of this evaluation could
consist of installing water conservation devices in a selected area
and measuring before and after water consumption.
o The DWD should evaluate the linkage between elements in the Conser-
vation Plan and the water conservation goals. This evaluation should
describe how the specific elements will contribute toward achieving
water conservation goals and should permit a more systematic approach
for program implementation.
Public Awareness
o Since water conservation is an issue which extends beyond Denver, the
DWD should consider a regional, cooperative effort to further the
conservation ethic. Other communities also have recognized the
importance of water conservation and are making efforts to educate
the public. Regional or metro-wide activities could be jointly
sponsored to foster the conservation message (e.g., a regional water
awareness day, or bumper stickers fostering the conservation message)
through such organizations as the Urban Water Management Group, DRCOG
or the Metropolitan Water Development Group. Such a regional effort
would also have an impact on metropolitan commuters.
-23-
-------
o The future direction of the DWD's Water Conservation Program should
be to cultivate an on-going public awareness which will result in a
recognition of water conservation benefits. The benefits should
extend beyond financial considerations to include social and environ-
mental aspects. Consumers should be presented the "why's" as well as
the "how's" of water conservation so as to understand the rationale.
o As a means of improving its public awareness/public education effort,
the DWD should consider expanding its current program to include
greater utilization of Public Television, employment of-government
access channels on cable TV, more creative employment of commercial
TV public service opportunities, acquiring time and/or space in the
media, and utilization of consulting services to help develop and/or
implement public awareness/education programs.
Metering
o The DWB, working through the CAC, should actively develop a program
to implement their commitment to achieve full metering in the Denver
Service Area. This process could include a wide range of public
education/involvement activities to solicit input on alternative
approaches to financing the program.
Xeriscape
o The Xeriscape program could be made even more effective by a more
aggressive campaign to encourage the use of dry landscaping
(Xeriscape) in all residential areas. Promotion of Xeriscape would
be aided by the development of several Xeriscape projects in loca-
tions convenient to DWD customers, e.g., public facilities such as
parks, schools, fire stations, museums, and DWD facilities. The
establishment of a "Xeriscape of the Month" award should also be
considered.
o The DWD should enlist the aid of nurseries in promoting the use of
native landscaping. One method of accomplishing this could be to
coordinate the formation of a nursery co-op. A cooperative arrange-
ment would require limited financial investment from individual
companies while allowing for an adequate supply of low, water-use
vegetation and the use of combined resources to generate a new market
for the product.
-24-
-------
Retrofit
o The DWD should consider undertaking a comprehensive retrofit program.
Appropriate advertisement should precede the distribution of conserva-
tion kits and a follow-up survey should be used to assess the success
of the program. It is highly advisable to try this program in a
limited area (e.g., one service district) and to evaluate its impact
before expanding to the entire service area.
Program Review
o The DWD should revise and update its Institutionalized Water Conser-
vation Program and provide for a periodic program review (through the
Citizen's Advisory Committee) so that new, useful program elements
can be added and ineffective elements deleted in a timely manner.
o To comply with the Consent Decree requirement that EPA "monitor"
DWD's conservation efforts, periodic meetings between DWD and EPA
would be useful.
-25-
-------
APPENDIX A
WATER CONSERVATION IN OTHER COMMUNITIES
The criteria, "good faith effort", as stated in the Consent Decree, is
nebulous and subjective. In an effort to compensate for this condition by
providing a more objective frame of reference, a survey of water conservation
literature was conducted. In addition, several water suppliers, both in-state
and out-of-state were contacted to discuss their approaches to water conser-
vation. These efforts provided the Evaluation Team with a broader perspective
on municipal water conservation programs.
Overview of Conservation Programs
The key elements of water conservation programs include public education,
leak detection, metering, rate structure modifications, distribution of
water-saving devices, and restrictions to meet peak load demands.
Of the 18 water suppliers contacted, 15 provided varying degrees of public
education, 9 have either ongoing or periodic leak detection efforts, and 15
have implemented some form of rate modification. These modifications span a
range from fees based on lot size, to inverted rates, penalty rates, and
summer rates. Fifteen of the 18 have metered 100% of their system while one
system is partially metered. Eleven suppliers have at some time distri-
buted water saving devices. Most suppliers have these devices available upon
request, on an on-going basis. The devices generally consisted of shower and
faucet restrictors, toilet dams, toilet bags, and dye tablets to detect leaks.
Seven of the in-state suppliers have implemented use restrictions on a tempor-
ary basis, often as a one-time event. Several of the in-state suppliers are
familiar to some degree with the DWD's conservation program, particularly the
public education element. (See Table A-l).
Public education seems to be a basic component of many water conservation
programs. These educational programs range from newsletters to feature news
stories, publicity, and advertising. Most agencies draw heavily on existing
resources in the coimiunity. They utilize the full spectrum of media (i.e.,
radio, TV and print, public libraries) and local community events such as
county fairs and home & garden shows, to disseminate brochures and pamphlets,
as well as water saving devices. Conservation exhibits are displayed in
various public locations.
Several communities also have some type of water awareness program at all
levels in the schools. Most communities contacted felt that metering was an
essential management tool for any public water system as it allowed flexibility
for controlling water use. Most communities felt that the greatest water
savings could be obtained by concentrating on the reduction of outdoor use;
specifically lawn and garden watering. Several communities felt that public
surveys (both before and after conservation program implementation) were neces-
sary to effectively implement and properly readjust conservation programs.
Obviously, all communities have somewhat unique characteristics and a program
that may be appropriate for one community may not be suitable for another
community.
-26-
-------
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA)
The San Diego scoreboard (professional sports stadium scoreboard) has
been made available for Water Authority conservation messages. Two major
theatre chains have expressed interest in providing screen time for water
conservation Public Service Announcements. The business community is being
encouraged to develop in-house water awareness programs applicable to their
individual organizations.
A new concept to provide low water use plants for the area is being
proposed to local nurseries. They will form a co-op nursery by investing funds
or plant material. The objective is to limit investment in a newly developing
market and yet have sufficient low water-use plant material available. The
Water Authority's role will be coordinator and developer of marketing programs.
A weekly water report has been added to the weather report of one of the
local newspapers. Regular visibility for water conservation issues and activi-
ties is provided through a brief message or slogan which is direct, easily
understood and remembered. These messages reach some 722,000 consumers.
East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD)
The East Bay Municipal Utilities District of Oakland, California (EBMUD)
recognizes the importance of generating a voluntary public commitment to a
water conservation ethic. The incentive is based on an awareness of benefits
broader than personal, financial savings, including common benefits such as
the potential reduction or delay in future water supply projects, energy
savings for both the water system and customers, the efficient use of public
resources, and better preparation for any future water shortage emergency.
The District assumes a two-fold responsibility through communicating the
benefits of water conservation and providing specific information on methods
to reduce water use.
An initial survey was conducted to establish a data base of customer
attitudes, behavior, and preferences for water conservation. From this infor-
mation, a specific conservation program will be developed.
The Captain Hydro water conservation materials were originated to teach
water awareness in the schools at all grade levels. The State and other water
agencies nationwide use these materials. The District retained a consultant
to revise and update these educational materials.
The District also has an in-house conservation program. Efforts to con-
serve water include backwash reclamation at filter plants and wastewater
reclamation at the wastewater treatment plant. Low-use water landscaping has
been installed on District grounds and use of these landscape alternatives are
being encouraged for new city and county developments. Another water conser-
vation innovation by EBMUD is a handbook guide, ("Puddle Stopper's Handbook")
to basic home plumbing.
-27-
-------
Seattle Water Department
The Seattle Water Department has been involved in extensive follow-up to
their water conservation activities. They are surveying consumers to get
feedback on the public's level of awareness and cooperation with the water
conservation effort. These surveys have been designed both by the staff and
consultants.
In addition to the savings estimates, actual metered water consumption
data was analyzed for residents in the parts of Seattle where water
conservation kits were mailed during 1981. Households receiving the kits
consumed 20% less water than the control group.
The Water Department will supply up to 100 kits to multi-family unit
managers or apartment owners if they will commit to 100% installation.
Subsequent to installation, a 6-month and 12-month follow-up consumption
report will be provided for comparison purposes. Preliminary results indicate
up to 20% water savings.
An extension of these programs is a retrofit study involving several
sample areas. Household meters will be read to monitor monthly consumption
before and after retrofit. Phone follow-up will be done concerning the use of
the conservation kits. Computer correlations will be done to calculate the
amount of savings achieved through the retrofit program.
Los Angeles Department of Power & Water
The Los Angeles Department of Water & Power has a five-year Conservation
Plan. They too refer to instilling in the public a "conservation ethic".
They have mailed retrofit kits to all of their consumers. They have fore-
casted a total savings of 76,000 AF/year for the year 2000.
In addition to the commonly used approaches to water conservation, the
Department provides awards and related publicity to members of the business
and industry community whose conservation efforts have resulted in substantial
energy and water savings. Community and metropolitan newspapers, as well as
in-house publications are utilized for recognition of these firms.
A HUD sponsored water conservation study by Brown & Caldwell is underway.
The objective of the demonstration project is to measure the effectiveness of
conservation devices. Additional studies have been conducted by the Department
to determine water usage goals for commercial, high-rise, multi-family dwell-
ings and other consumers.
Evaluations are made of the effectiveness of on-going programs. In the
first part of 1980, the city was continuing to use about 5% less water than in
the pre 1975-77 drought period. The current total consumption is less than
that of 10 years ago despite population increases.
A penalty economics system has been implemented for both excessive and
prohibited uses, e.g., restaurants are prohibited from serving water unless it
is requested. Outside watering is prohibited between 10 AM to 4 PM. Viola-
tions of excessive use are responded to by letters and personal visits, both
of which include information on conservation and retrofit devices. An escal-
ating fine, the installation of a flow restrictor (at the consumer's expense),
and suspension of service are the penalties for repeated violations.
-28-
-------
Table A-l
CONSERVATION OVERVIEW
Coimiunity
(in-state)
Restrictions
Metering
Publi c
Education
Rate
Structure
Modification
Leak
Detec
Arvada
Yes
100%
No
Inverted Rate
Yes
Aurora
Yes
100*
Yes
Penalty Rate
Yes
Boulder
No
100%
No
Flat Rate
No
Colorado Springs
Yes
100%
Yes
10% Annual
Increase
No
Englewood
No
Partial
No
No
No
Fort Collins
Yes
No
Yes
Fee: Size of
lot
No
Greeley
Yes
Partial
Yes
Yes
Yes
Loveland
No
100%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Thornton
Yes
100%
Yes
Summer Rates
No
Westminister
No
100%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water
Saving
Devices
*N/A
Avai1 able
Upon Request
No
Di stributed
Low Cost/
No Cost
By Request
No
No
By Request
Distribution
by Request
* Not Avail able
-------
Comnunity
(Out-of-state) Restrictions Metering
Albuquerque No 100%
East Bay Yes 100%
Los Angeles Yes 100%
Phoenix Yes 100%
San Diego No 100%
Salt Lake City No 100%
Seattle No 100%
Tucson No 100%
Public
Education
Rate
Structure
Modification
Leak
Detection
Water
Saving
Devices
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Considered
Every 3 years
Di stribution
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Flat Rate
Yes
Not Yet
Yes
No
Yes
Distribution
Yes
Declining Block
to Straight Line
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Contracted
Distribution
Yes
Yes
Yes
By Request
-------
WATER CONSERVATION BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Water Works Association, Water Conservation Strategies. An AWWA
Management Resource Book. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association,
1980.
Baumann, Duane D., and Boland, John J., "Urban Water Supply Planning."
Water Spectrum. Fall 1980.
Black and Veatch/Consulting Engineers, "Report on Water Rates for Tucson
Water", 1932.
Black and Veatch, Report on Water Rates, Board of Water Commissioners, Denver,
Colorado, 1979.
Black and Veatch, Treated Water Planning Study, Prepared for the Board of
Water Commissioners, Denver, Colorado, 1981.
Board of Water Commissioners, 1980 Annual Report. Denver, CO: Denver Water
Department, 1980.
Board of Water Commissioners, Water Quality Report. Denver, CO: Denver Water
Department, December 1980.
Bureau of Land Management, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed
Foothills Project. Vols. I & II. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Burgess, Heidi, The Foothills Water Treatment Project: A Case Study of
Environmental Mediation. Boston, Mass.: Laboratory of Architecture and
Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Unpublished), December
1980.
City of Fort Collins Water Utilities Department, "Summary Informational Report
on Conservation and Metering": October 1980.
Cohen, Sheldon, and Wallman, Harold, Demonstration of Waste Flow Reduction
from Households. Environmental Protection Technology. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. EPA, September 1979.
Cole, Charles A., Water Conservation and Reuse. Middletown, PA: Pennsylvania
State University, ISRA.
Colorado Front Range Project, Water: Understanding the Future. (A Folio of
Discussion Papers and Background Resources). Denver, CO: Colorado
Front Range Project, September 1981.
Danielson, Robert E., Feldhake, Charles M. and Hart, William E., Urban Lawn
Irrigation and Management Practices for Water Saving With Minimum Effect
on Lawn Qua!ity. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Water Resources Research
Institute, April 1981.
-31-
-------
Denver Board of Water Commissioners, How Can the Denver Water System Serve
Metropolitan Area Growth? Denver, CO: Board of Water Commissioners,
October 14, 1981.
Denver Regional Council of Governments, Regional Water Study. Denver, CO:
Denver Regional Council of Governments, April 1978.
Denver Research Institute, University of Denver, Systems Analysis for
Wastewater Reuse, A Methodology for Municipal Water Supply Planning
in Water - Short Metropolitan Areas, Vols. I & II. Washington, D.C.:
Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, July 1975.
Denver Water Department, A Water Use Primer. Denver, Colorado: Denver Water
Department, October 14, 1980.
Denver Water Department, Outdoor Water Use Restrictions: Effects on Water
Demand and Implications for Planning, Draft, n.d.
Denver Water Department, Metropolitan Water Reguirements and Resources,
1975-2010. Vol. I. Prepared for the Colorado State Legislature
Metropolitan Denver Water Study Committee. Denver, CO: Denver
Water Department, January 8, 1975.
Denver Water Department, Metropolitan Water Requirements & Resources,
1975-2010. Vol. Ill: Secondary Study Area Appendix. Prepared for
the Colorado Legislature Metropolitan Denver Water Study Committee,
Denver, CO: Denver Water Department, January 8, 1975.
Denver Water Department, Staff Review of Water for Denver: Analysis of the
Alternatives. Denver, CO: Denver Water Department, 1980.
Denver Water Department, Tabulation of Water Rates - Denver Metropolitan Area
and Surrounding Communities. Denver, Colorado: Denver Water Department,
May 28, 1932.
Denver Water Department, Three-Inch Metering Program, October 1981.
DiNatale, Kelly N., An Assessment of Water Use and Policies in Northern
Colorado Cities. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Water Resources Research
Institute, March 1981.
Field Research Corporation, Response to the Water Conservation Kit -
Distribution Among Residents of Santa Clara County. San Francisco, CA:
Field Research Corporation, June - July, 1981.
Flack, J. Ernest, "A Water Conservation Plan for Denver - A Report on the
Evaluation of Universal Metering in Denver, Colorado". Denver, CO:
Denver Board of Water Commissioners, September 1973.
Flack, J. Ernest; Weakly, Wade P., with Hill, Duane W., Achieving Urban Water
Conservation - A Handbook. Fort Collins, CO: Environmental Resources
Center, Colorado State University, September 1977.
-32-
-------
Flack, J. Ernest, Cutting City Water Demand. (Information Series No. 36)
Denver, CO: Colorado Water Resources Research Institute.
Flechas, Felix W., "The Effect of Metering and Price in Attaining Urban Water
Conservation in the Denver Metropolitan Area." Unpublished M.S. Thesis.
University of Colorado, 1980.
Gerlek, Steve, Water Supply Management Analysis and Alternative Development
for the South Platte River Basin: Vol. 2. Technical Appendix-Water
Supply Analysis of the South Platte River Basin. Omaha, NE: April 1977.
Hendricks, David W., et al, Water Supply Management Analysis and Alternative
Development for South Platte River Basin: Vol. I. Main Report, Water
Supply Demand Analysis 1970-2020 South Platte River Basin. Omaha, NE:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, June 1977.
Howe, Charles W. et al., Drought-Induced Problems and Responses of Small
Towns and Rural Water Entities in Colorado: The 1976-78 Drought.
Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Colorado State University.
June 1980.
Hubbard, Burt, "Board Goes Easy on Water Wasters". Denver, Colorado: Rocky
Mountain News, November 7, 1982.
Hubbard, Burt, "Denver Won't Tap Water Supply That's Right in Its Own Back
Yard". Denver, Colorado: Rocky Mountain News, November 8, 1982.
Hubbard, Burt, "Metering is One Touchy Subject for Both Residents and Board".
Denver, Colorado: Rocky Mountain News, November 8, 1982.
Hubbard, Burt, "Water Supply An Elemental Issue". Denver, CO: Rocky Mountain
News, November 7, 1982.
Janonis, Brian A., Water Supply Management Analysis and Alternative Development
for the South Platte River Basin: Vol. 3. Technical Appendix-Municipal
Water Demands 1970-2020 South Platte Basin. Omaha, NE: U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, April 1977.
Kim & McCuen, "The Impact of Demand Modification", Journal AWWA: February
1977.
Koyasako, Jimmy S., Effects of Water Conservation - Induced Waste Water
Flow Reduction - A Perspective. Sacramento, CA: State of California,
The Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources, Division of
Planning, June 1980.
Koyasako, Jimmy S., Effects of Water Conservation Induced Wastewater Flow
Reduction - A Perspective! Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, 1980.
Lord, William B.; Chase, James A.; Winterfield, Laura A., Evaluation of Demand
Management Policies For Conserving Water in Urban Outdoor Residential
Uses. Boulder, CO: Policy Sciences Associates, January 28, 1982.
-33-
-------
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, "Conservation Plan". January 1982.
Mann, Patrick C. and Schlenger, Donald D., "Marginal Cost and Seasonal
Pricing of Water Service." Journal AWWA, (January 1982), Pages 6-11.
Metropolitan Water Roundtable, Water Use Efficiency and Recycling Task Group,
Report to the Roundtable, 1982.
Miller, William H., "Denver's ECH2ONERGY Programs: A Boon to Homebuyers, a
Boost for Housing." Journal Awwa, (February 1981), Pages 80-85.
Miller, W. H., "Mandatory Water Conservation and TAP Allocations in Denver,
Colorado." Journal AWWA, (February 1978), Pages 60-63.
Milne, Murray, Residential Water Conservation. Davis, CA: California Water
Resources Center, University of California, March 1976.
Missouri River Basin Commission, Before the Well Runs Dry - Final Report -
Water Conservation Workshops Project. Omaha, NE: Missouri River Basin
Commission, September 1981.
Morris, John R. and Jones, Clive V., Water For Denver An Analysis of the
Alternatives. Denver, CO: Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., 1980.
New England River Basins Commission, Before the Well Runs Dry: A Handbook
for Designing a Local Water Conservation Plan. Boston, MA: New England
River Basins Commission, October 1980.
New England River Basins Commission, Before the Well Runs Dry: A Seven-Step
Procedure for Designing a Local Water Conservation Plan. Vol. II.
Boston, MA: New England River Basins Commission, July 1980.
New England River Basins Commission, Before the Well Runs Dry: Literature
Survey and Analysis of Water Conservation. Vol. I. Boston, MA: New
England River Basins Commission, July 1980.
North Marin County Water District, North Marin's Little Compendium of
Water Saving Ideas. Marin County: North Marin County Water District,
1976.
Office of Water Program Operations, Directory of Federal Programs Related to
Water Conservation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA', 1978.
PRx, Santa Clara County Water Conservation Campaign. Cupertino, CA: PRx
July 1981.
Renshaw, Edward F., "Conserving Water Through Pricing." Journal AWWA,
(January 1982), Pages 2-5.
Report of the Subcommittee on Urban Water Supply, The President's
Intergovernmental Water Policy Task Force. Urban Water Systems:
Problems and Alternative Approaches to Solutions. Washington, D.C.:
1981.
-34-
-------
Rondon, JoAnne, Landscaping for Water Conservation in a Semi-arid Environment.
Aurora, CO: City of Aurora, CO: 1980.
San Diego County Water Authority, Water Conservation Plan: March 1981.
State of California Department of Water Resources, Effects of Water
Conservation-Induced Waste Water Reduction - A Perspective: June 1980.
State of California Department of Water Resources, How to do a Residential
Retrofit Program (one in a series of Water Conservation Manuals): November
1981.
State of California Department of Water Resources, A Pilot Water Conservation
Program. Bulletin 191. Sacramento, CA: Department of Water Resources,
October 1978.
State of California Department of Water Resources, Water Action Plan For the
Russian River Service Area: May 1980.
The Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources, A Pilot Water Conservation
Program Appendix G, Device Testing Bulletin 191"! Sacramento, CA:
Department of Water Resources, March 1978.
The Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources, A Pilot Water Conservation
Program. Appendix H, Device Selection Bulletin 191. Sacramento, CA:
Department of Water Resources, March 1978.
Toups Corporation, Main Report for Characteristies and Problems of the Water
Supply System "^outh Platte River Basin. Omaha, NE: U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, March 1975.
Tucson Water Department, Serving You Today...Planning for Tomorrow:
Tucson, AZ: 1980.
University of Arizona, Water Conservation for Domestic Users. A Handbook
Prepared for the City of Tucson, Arizona: 1977.
Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission, The Water Conservation Challenge -
Symposium Proceedings. Minneapolis - St. Paul, MN: Upper Mississippi
River Basin Commission, May 10, 1978.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Selected Works in Water Supply and Water
Quality. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, April 1981.
U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources, An Annotated Bibliography on
Water Conservation. Carbondale, IL: Planning & Management Consultants,
Ltd., April 1979.
U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources, The Evaluation of Water
Conservation for Municipal and Industrial Water Supply - Procedures"
Manual. Carbondale, IL: Planning & Management Consultants, Ltd.,
April 1980.
-35-
-------
U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources, The Role of Conservation in
Water Supply Planning. Carbondale, IL: Department of Geography, Southern
Illinois University, April 1979.
U.S. Department of Commerce/National Bureau of Standards, Proceedings of the
National Water Conservation Conference on Publicly Supplied Potable Water.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.
U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, Consent Decree. Civil Action No.
77-W-305, February 1979.
U.S. EPA, Facility Requirements Division, Flow Reduction - Methods, Analysis
Procedures, Examples. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, March 1981.
U.S. EPA, National Water Conservation Conference on Publicly Supplied Potable
Water. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, April 14-15, 1981.
U.S. EPA, Proceedings - National Conference on Water Conservation and Municipal
Wastewater Flow Reduction. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, November 28-29,
1978.
U.S. EPA, Readings in Water Conservation. National Association of Counties
Research, Inc.
U.S. EPA, Water Supply - Wastewater Treatment Coordination Study - A Report to
Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, August 1979.
U.S. Water Resources Council, Bibliography of Water Conservation.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Water Resources Council, March 1981.
U.S. Water Resources Council, State Water Conservation Planning Guide.
Sacramento, CA: J.B. Gilbert and Associates Division, October 1980.
Voerman, Garrett, "Foothills Audit". (Unpublished Memo). Denver, CO:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region VIII, September 25, 1981.
Vranesh and Musick, "Municipal Raw Water Supply Through Water Conservation."
Boulder, CO: (Paper presented to public).
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, A Customer Handbook on Water-
Saving and Wastewater-Reduction. Hyattsville, MD: Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission, 1972.
Washington Surburban Sanitary Commission, Cabin John Drainage Basin Water-
Saving Customer Education and Appliance Test Program - Final and
Comprehensive Report. Hyattsville, MD: Washington Surburban Sanitary
Commission, February 14, 1973.
Wesely, Edwin F., Jr., Household Water Conservation - Why and How to Save
Water, Energy and Dollars. Potomac River and Trails Council.
White, Anne U., et al, Municipal Water Use in Northern Colorado: Development
of Efficiency-of-Use Criterion. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Water
Resources Research Institute, September 1980.
-36-
------- |