City Council Minutes 1992 06 02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hobbs: Yes. Aurora did a very small, inexpensive method of retrofitting. They provided packages to their people, which included a bag that could be filled with water to install in a flush toilet to displace some of the water, information on ET Systems, measuring devises, and gave rain gages out to people, so they would know how much water their lawn was getting. They had a test program in one part of the city. They did not go into replacing existing toilets with ultra low flow toilets, which Denver is now doing. That is a lot more expensive. Aurora felt that they got a pretty big "bang for the buck" with this. We looked at six different items. There is pressure leak reduction, which is something the City has been doing. Public education will probably give the City better "bangs for your buck". That's tuning into the radio stations, the newspaper, whatever media the City can use to get the message out that we should be conserving water. Most literature says you can get a 2% savings across the board. As far as modification as to price structure, we felt that it would be negligible inside the home, because there not sufficient water to used on price savings. There is savings to be used outside the home for your 2.5%. That's where people really notice their water bills. We looked at low flow devices that would produce 2% inside the home, 0% outside the home. We looked at an ET Program, where people tune into an ET Program and it tells them they need and have the water gage water accordingly, which is a 1.5% savings. Our program looked at 5% indoor, 6% outdoor and an overall total of 5.5%. Louisville has put in a increasing block rate structure, taken care of a lot of the pressure and leak reduction, there have been some 19