Water conservation and urban water supply planning

Material Information

Water conservation and urban water supply planning
Easley, Thomas
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
118 leaves : charts, form, maps ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Water conservation -- Colorado -- Denver Metropolitan Area ( lcsh )
Water-supply -- Colorado -- Denver Metropolitan Area ( lcsh )
Water conservation ( fast )
Water-supply ( fast )
Colorado -- Denver Metropolitan Area ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 109-112).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Thomas Easley.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
13503102 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1985 .E37 ( lcc )

Full Text

U1A7DD A7D3733
By Thomas Easley
A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements tor the Degree of Master of Planning and Community Development
University of Colorado at Denver
December 13, 1985

Chapter One: Introduction . Page 1
Chapter Two : Methodology and Literature Review . Page 5
Chapter Three: Conservation of Urban Water Supply . Page 10
Chapter Four: Values and Cost Effectiveness . Page 86
Chapter Five: Conclusions 98
Appendices: A Bibliography . Page 104
B Projection Data .... Page 108 C Delphi Forms...............Page 110


Problem Statement
The Denver metropolitan area of 1985 faces a dilemma common to most cities that have experienced rapid increases in growth. Stated simply, the problem is one of balancing the impacts of growth with sustenance of the quality of life that plays such a significant role in attracting new residents.
In the case of Denver, this dilemma is accentuated by the close proximity of the mountain ranges that rise so spectacularly from the Great Plains. With such a setting, it is little wonder that so many new inhabitants have been attracted to the Denver-Metro area. What does give one pause to think, however, is the paradox of how the economic bonanza of growth tends to subsume the very qualities that help attract new residents to begin with. It takes only one evening of sitting in an 1-25 traffic jam, peering through the infamous brown cloud and hoping tor a glimpse of even a faint silhouette of the mountains, for this irony to make itself obvious.
There is perhaps nothing more representative of this dilemma than the problem of how to provide water for an urban population that is expected to more than double during the next 50 years. On the one hand, metropolitan Denver faces a real shortfall in water supply in the near future. After 1986, the Denver Water Department anticipates that not enough water will be available to sell new water taps in suburban areas. But on the other hand, most of the best, cost-efficient, and least environmentally destructive sites for large reservoirs in the Denver area have already been developed in some manner. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that most of the water in Front Range streams has already been appropriated, making it necessary to depend upon either costly, controversial, and environmentally impactive trans-mountain diversions from Colorado's West Slope or upon excess water from wetter than average years to fill additional Front Range reservoirs.
Central to this controversy is the proposed Two Forks reservoir, which has been envisioned in one form or another since 1895, and has been controversial nearly as long. The dam site, located in a narrow canyon about 30 miles southwest of Denver just below the confluence of the North

and South Forks of the South Platte River, ". looks like a dam site designed by an engineering god," according to a Denver Water Department official (Verrengia, p.10). But the dam would inundate up to about 11,000 acres of a scenic canyon, 20 miles of the state's most productive trout fishing stream, thousands of acres of big game habitat, popular Whitewater boating areas, 60 homes, 12 businesses, and historically valuable sites (COE Appendix 5, 1985).
Understandably then, the Two Forks dam has been vehemently opposed by local residents, sportsmen, recreationists, and environmentalists, all of whom challenge the wisdom of destroying such a unique amenity within an hour's drive of most of the Denver-Metro population. These groups have long argued that smaller, less destructive projects in combination with an aggressive water conservation program could just as effectively, and possibly at less cost, fulfill Denver's water needs.
Two significant events in recent years have served to clarify the question of how to balance water supply development with quality of life factors. First is the 1979 Foothills Agreement, which grew out of litigation involving federal agencies, the Denver Water Board (DWB), and several environmental organisations. At issue were the Foothills Water Treatment Plant, Strontia Springs Dam (both recently completed southwest of Denver), and the DWB's future water supply plans. In the consent decree that provided the basis for settlement, it was agreed that the Foothills Project could proceed if the DWB would implement an expanded water conservation program and if an environmental impact statement (EIS) covering the entire proposed future water supply system would be prepared (COE Appendix 5, p.i).
As a result, the Systemwide EIS on the Metropolitan Denver Water Supply System (SEIS) was begun in 1982 under the direction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Originally scheduled for a July, 1984 completion date at a cost of $6.7 million, the SEIS was expanded in scope as the study progressed, and is now projected for completion in March, 1986 at a cost of approximately $26 million (Seeley, 1985). It is one of the most ambitious environmental impact statements ever tackled, and has provided much fuel for the continuing debate over the most satisfactory means to meet Denver's future water needs. Figure 1 illustrates the SEIS definition of the Denver Metropolitan area.
The second recent event that has affected resolution of the water supply question was the formation of the Governor's Metropolitan Water Roundtable in 1981. Formed by Governor Lamm to bring together various constituency groups for the purposes of examining metropolitan Denver's water needs and of establishing means to meet those needs, the

Roundtable has evolved into the principal sounding board for review of the SEIS as it develops.
Thesis Goals
Within the context of Denver's dilemma of how to balance water supply development with quality of life maintenance, this thesis focuses on two significant aspects of the controversy.
First, the role of water conservation as a means of meeting future water demands in the Denver-Metro region is examined. Relied upon is the author's premise that conserving water can contribute two pieces to the water supply puzzle: (a) it can result in delaying or even foregoing large, costly structural projects such as Two Forks; and (b) it can be a cost-effective source of water.
To test this premise, a scenario that depends heavily on an aggressive Denver area water conservation program is developed, and is then compared with six 50-year water supply scenarios that have been developed within the scope of the SEIS process. All six of these scenarios combine varying levels of projected conservation savings with varying mixes of structural projects to meet future demand, but none include a conservation program as ambitious as the author's. Calculations of costs and benefits of this seventh scenario play a primary role in this analysis.
The second aspect of the Denver water supply controversy that is addressed is the role of value orientations in determining cost-effectiveness. The primary basis for this discussion is the inescapable reality that value judgments must necessarily play an important role in decision-making on complex projects that generate significant and wide-ranging impacts. Or, in simpler terms, ". people will reach different conclusions about the same set of facts about impacts because their values differ" (McAllister, p.6).
The SEIS provides an ideal vehicle for demonstration of several aspects of value orientation. In reviewing the SEIS document that lays out the future water development scenarios and quantifies their impacts (COE Appendix 5, 1985), the reader is presented with the problem of how to evaluate impacts that are quantified in varying metrics (e.g., acres of wildlife habitat disrupted, numbers of households and businesses displaced, etc.). The members of the Roundtable, charged with the task of reaching consensus on the most satisfactory scenario, are faced with the same problem.

The thesis sheds light on this situation by attempting to quantify the value judgments of Roundtable participants by means of the Delphi technique (Dalkey, 1970). Through iterative pollings, five Roundtable participants representing the major involved constituencies were asked to give relative weights to ten major impact categories. Then the mean responses from the Delphi polling were used to assign weighted values to the impact categories. These weights were subsequently applied to cost-effectiveness calculations for each of the 50-year water supply scenarios.
Finally, the thesis utilizes the results of the water conservation and cost-effectiveness analyses to develop two sets of policy recommendations on the development of future urban water supply. The first set of recommendations addresses the Denver-Metro region's water needs to the year 2035. The second set, which suggests policies for future urban water supply on a generalized basis, is derived from the results of the Denver case study.
Thesis Organization
The main body of the thesis is organized as follows:
Chapter Two, Methodology and Literature Review, lists the thesis hypotheses, describes the data and their sources, and describes how the data will be applied in order to reach conclusions.
Chapter Three, Conservation of Urban Water Supply, examines the importance of water conservation in urban water supply decision-making; reviews the treatment of water conservation in the SEIS process; critiques the SEIS 50-year water supply scenarios; and designs a new scenario more heavily dependent on conservation, and quantifies its impacts, costs, and benefits.
Chapter Four, Values and Cost Effectiveness, identifies impacts common to all seven scenarios; demonstrates the use of the Delphi technique to obtain weighted values of impacts; and quantifies the cost-effectiveness of the seven scenarios, according to the weighted values of the impacts.
Chapter Five, Conclusions, makes policy recommendations on Denver's future water supply decisions, based on the thesis results, broadens the policy recommendations to urban water supply development in general, and comments on the methodology and results.


A. Thesis Hypotheses
The thesis is based on six hypotheses of expected findings. These hypotheses are directed towards urban water supply development for both the Denver-Metro area and urban areas on a generalized basis. Formulated by the author on the bases of observation of the Systemwide EIS process, familiarity with a wide range of water conservation literature, and personal judgment, the hypotheses are:
1) That shortcomings exist in the SEIS, in regards to Quantification of costs and impacts, both positive and negative, of water supply development options.
2) That the SEIS does not attribute enough water savings to water conservation methodologies that are considered in the six development scenarios.
3) That the six future development scenarios of the SEIS show conservation to be a cost-efficient supply source.
4) That a scenario that depends more heavily on water conservation than any of the six SEIS scenarios could be developed, and that the cost-effectiveness of such a scenario would compare favorably with the SEIS scenarios.
5) That personal bias resultant from value orientations, especially in regards to hard-to-quantify benefits and costs of certain water development impacts, affects individual preference for alternative development scenarios.
6) That by taking note of differing value orientations of the affected populace, decision-makers can identify and choose alternatives that accomplish the greatest social utility.
The thesis is structured to demonstrate the validity of the hypotheses. Chapter Three addresses Hypotheses 1-4 through examination and critique of the relevant SEIS documents and by construction of a seventh scenario to meet metropolitan Denver's 50-year water needs by way of strong dependence on water conservation methodologies. Chapter Four explores Hypotheses 5-6 by application of the Delphi technique to obtain decision-makers' value judgments on

water development impacts, and by applying those judgments to cost-effectiveness analysis. Chapter Five addresses Hypothesis 6 through translation of Chapters Three and Four results into specific policy recommendations on urban water supply development for both the Denver-Metro area and municipalities in general.
B. Methodologies and Literature Sources
In this section, methodologies and literature sources of data and concepts are described chapter by chapter. Referred to often in these descriptions is the general body of water conservation literature. This classification is meant to include the large number of books, periodicals, and government publications regarding water conservation that have appeared in recent years. For an indication of the scope of this literature, see the annotated bibliography prepared by this author (Easley, Oct. 1985).
Chapter Three Review
Chapter Three starts with a discussion of the importance of water conservation in urban water supply decision-making. Directed primarily towards the Denver-Metro region's water supply characteristics, it draws on several literature sources. Generalized concepts are based on readings from the general body of water conservation literature. More specific facts and figures are gleaned from local newspapers, Metropolitan Water Roundtable reports, Denver Water Department publications, SEIS documents, and local government publications, as well as the general body of literature.
The second section reviews the treatment of water conservation in the SEIS process. Relied upon entirely for this discussion are several SEIS documents. They not only address the concept on a generalized basis, but also screen specific conservation methodologies for further consideration, quantify costs and benefits of methodologies, construct potential water conservation programs for the Denver-Metro area, and explain how the water conservation programs are incorporated into the development of 50-year water supply scenarios for the region.
The third section of Chapter Three critiques the SEIS 50-year water supply scenarios. This task is accomplished by analyzing the validity of the scenarios in terms of quantification of costs, benefits, and impacts associated with the elements of the scenarios, with emphasis on the water conservation programs contained in each one. The evaluations must necessarily depend on the judgment of the

author, who bases the critique on information and data from the relevant SEIS documents, the body of literature, Denver Water Department publications, Roundtable reports, and analyses by the Environmental Caucus (one of the major Roundtable participants).
The final section of Chapter Three offers a seventh scenario for Denver's 50-year water supply program, based on a water conservation program that is more aggressive than any of the programs included in the SEIS scenarios. In order to construct the scenario, the author first designs a water conservation program that maximizes water savings without imposing undue hardships on water consumers. After quantifying the present value costs and benefits of the program, other non-structural and structural sources of water are built into the scenario in order to match projected Denver-Metro water demands to the year 2035. Finally, impacts of the scenario are quantified for ten categories, which are the same impact categories that are addressed in Chapter Four of the thesis. The categories are chosen on the bases of being: (a) representative of the spectrum of impacts, (b) quantifiable in ordinal terms, and (c) understandable in a non-ambiguous manner. Since the scenario must be capable of comparison with the six SEIS scenarios, it is quantified by the same methods that the SEIS documents utilize.
Literature sources for this section are the relevant SEIS documents, the body of water conservation literature, Roundtable reports, Environmental Caucus analyses, and economic analysis textbooks.
Chapter Four Review
Chapter Four, Values and Cost-Effectiveness, begins with a discussion of the role of value judgments in decision-making. It includes a generalized review of the concept of value in relation to natural resource development, based on textbook and periodical sources. Also described is the Delphi technique, a process which was developed by the Rand Corporation as a means of obtaining and processing expert judgments for the purpose of maximizing the accuracy of the resulting estimates. It was originally designed to utilize the consensus of a panel of experts to predict impacts of a specified action, but has since been applied to many other purposes, including quantification of value judgments. Books published by the Rand Corporation and a textbook are the source of the Delphi technique information.

The second section of Chapter Four demonstrates the use of the Delphi technique to obtain weighted values of impacts associated with the seven 50-year water supply scenarios addressed in Chapter Three. To accomplish this task, ten categories of impacts common to all seven scenarios are selected as described in the Chapter Three discussion above. Next the impacts of the scenarios are quantified for the categories and put into tabular form. Sources of these data are the SEIS documents and the author's calculations of the impacts of the seventh scenario, also developed in Chapter Three.
To demonstrate the Delphi technique, representatives of the five major Metropolitan Water Roundtable constituency groups (Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Denver, Denver Water Department, the West Slope, the Metropolitan Water Providers, and the Environmental Caucus) were asked to participate. Since the Roundtable is charged with the task of developing a consensus position on the most satisfactory means of meeting Denver's future water needs, it was anticipated that the selected Delphi participants would have a genuine interest in the results of the Delphi analysis.
The Delphi process is not complex. The five participants are mailed the table of quantified impacts along with a questionnaire, in which they are asked to rate the importance of each impact category according to their own values. The results are tabulated to produce a mean and range of values for each category, in a manner that protects the anonymity of the participants. Then, the results are mailed back to the participants, who are asked to review the results of the first round of responses, and then to again fill out the same questionnaire. (The theory of the Delphi process is that the second round of polling will produce more convergence on the mean of responses.) The results of the second round of polling are then tabulated to produce the mean of values assigned to the impact categories. These values become the weights assigned to the impact categories for use in cost-effectiveness analysis, described below.
Literature sources for formulation of the Delphi questionnaire are Rand Corporation books and several books on survey techniques.
The last section of Chapter Four consists of cost-effectiveness analysis of the seven scenarios, based on the weighted values produced by the Delphi technique. To perform these analyses, the impact data are first standardized into common units of measurement, since the impact categories have dissimilar metrics. Then the weighted impact category values are used to produce adjusted impact data for each scenario. The adjusted impact data are

summed to produce an effectiveness rating for each scenario. And finally, the effectiveness ratings are divided by present value costs for each scenario in order to produce effectiveness/cost ratios.
Data sources for the cost-effectiveness analysis are the SEIS documents and the author's Chapter Three calculations. Procedures for the analysis are derived from thesis advisor recommendations.
Chapter Five Review
Chapter Five consists of policy recommendations on Denver's future water supply decisions and on urban water supply development in general. The main sources of the recommendations are the results of the Chapters Three and Four analyses. As such, they consist of the author's judgment, backed up by the literature sources noted in the chapter summaries above.


During the past ten to fifteen years, the concept of water conservation has received an ever-increasing amount of attention, not only in the United States, but also worldwide. This trend is largely attributable to the economic reality that water conservation methodologies have, in many cases, become more cost efficient than the traditional structural sources in meeting water demand. This chapter examines the role of water conservation in planning metropolitan Denver's water supply.
To do so, the concept is explored in general terms, followed by a review and critique of the manner in which water conservation has been approached in the SEIS process. The chapter concludes with presentation of a 50-year metro Denver water supply scenario that is heavily dependent on water conservation methodologies.
A. Nature of Water Conservation In Urban Water Supoly Decision-making.
In order for a detailed discussion of water conservation to be meaningful, it is first necessary to define the concept. As a recent study of Front Range water use (Colorado Front Range Project, 1981) points out, water conservation has been defined from three different perspectives:
* Increasing the size and regularity of the total pool of water that can be diverted for use. This view is the older, more traditional one, and is exemplified by the name of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, whose primary mission has been to oversee the storage of water and to manage the supply.

* Efficiently vising water that is diverted, consequently reducing unproductive uses of water and stretching water further. This more recent perspective is the general meaning that is applied in this study.
* Maintaining watershed carrying capacities. This more holistic viewpoint means keeping ecosystems in balance to avoid silting and flooding, to maintain stream flows adequate for fisheries and wildlife, and to sustain water productivity of forests and soils.
One consultant to the Corps of Engineers (Baumann, 1984), after reviewing various definitions of water
conservation in the United States over the years, concluded that all lacked either precision or consistency. He formulated a concise definition that has been adopted by the Corps, and that has been chosen for use in this study:
"Water conservation is any beneficial reduction in water use or water losses."
In applying the definition to a water management practice, two tests must be met:
* It conserves a given supply of water through reduction in water use or water loss.
* It results in a net increase in social welfare, i.e., the resources used have a lesser value than those saved.
Importance and Benefits of Water Conservation
The Metropolitan Water Roundtable's Conservation Committee (Metropolitan Roundtable, 1985) addresses the importance of water conservation in general terms:
"Water conservation is not the solution to the natural aridity in which we have chosen to settle and grow, but it is the presumption upon which that problem should be solved. It is not a threat to the lifestyles of our citizens, rather it is a precept upon which our continuing lifestyles depend."
One authority (Baumann, 1984) explains the growing interest in the efficient use of water in more practical terms:
* New reservoir sites have become increasingly scarce.
* Concern for environmental quality and environmental impacts of water development has grown.

* Groundwater resources are frequently inadequate to meet the demands of urban areas.
* The political, economic, and institutional problems associated with interbasin transfers of water have proliterated.
* The real costs of water supply have risen dramatically during the last decade.
Another author (Blackwelder, 1982) approaches the
benefits associated with water conservation from the standpoint of economic gain. He writes that improvements in the efficiency of water use produce a wide range of savings in:
* Consumers' water purchases.
* Energy used to heat water.
* Energy used to pump water supplies through the distribution system.
* The amount of chemicals used to purify water.
* Operating costs for sewage treatment plants.
* Not having to enlarge sewage treatment systems
* Not having to build or enlarge reservoirs prematurely.
To put the potential of urban water conservation in perspective, it is useful to explore some of the gross numbers of water usage at the federal, state, and local levels.
While the categories in Tables 1 and 2 are slightly different, a comparison of water use by consuming sector at the Colorado and national levels seemingly indicates a relatively small potential for conservation of urban uses of water in Colorado.
Water Usage Summary
Table 1
Estimated 1980 Water Demand by Consuming Sector U.S.
Consuming Sector
Water Demand (%)
43.5 8.5
. 5
Source: Blackwelder, 1982

Table 2
Estimated 1980 Water Demand by Consuming Sector Colorado
Consuming Sector
Domestic Municipal
- Rural
Water Demand (%) 94.7 2.3 2.7 3
Source: Denver Water Department, 1980
Obviously, since nearly 95% of water usage in Colorado is devoted to the agricultural sector, the greatest potentials for conservation lie within that sector. However, the transfer of water from the agricultural sector to the domestic sector faces two formidable obstacles imposed by Colorado water law.
The first obstacle is the concept of consumptive use, which plays an important role in determining the allocation of agricultural water under Colorado's prior appropriation system of water law. While an agriculturalist withdraws a certain amount of water according to the priority of use assigned him, downstream appropriators depend on unused portions of upstream withdrawals (known as return flow) for fulfillment of their downstream rights. And since any water conserved by more efficient use could reduce the amount of return flow, downstream appropriators would have a correspondingly reduced amount of water available to them. As a result, case law has confirmed that historical return flows must be maintained, even if it means wasteful water management.
Second, Colorado water law dictates that whenever an appropriator effectively increases the flow of a river by way of conservation measures (e.g., by cutting down streamside vegetation that consumes large amounts of water), that increased flow belongs to the river. Hence, an agriculturalist could neither use water conserved in such a manner (known as salvage water), nor could he sell it for domestic purposes.
Further discussion of agricultural water conservation is not pursued in this study, since the chosen topic is urban water conservation. A wide body of literature Is available to the reader who wishes to pursue the subject further.

Table 3 shows the breakdown of water demand by consumer type at the local level, which is regarded in this study to be the SEIS demand area (see Figure A).
Table 3
Estimated 1982 Water Demand by Consumer Type SEIS Demand Area
User Type Water Demand (%)
Single Family 65
Multi-family & Mobile Homes 14 Industrial/Commercial 16
Public 5
Source: COE Appendix 5, 1985
In the SEIS demand area, there is a wide seasonal fluctuation in water demand, since the largest consuming sector, single family, typically uses 40-603$ of its total annual water demand for outdoor irrigation purposes during the summer months.
Indeed, Colorado's semi-arid climate contributes to the challenge of meeting water supply demands. It is estimated that on the average, 13% of the nation's precipitation falls in the Rocky Mountain West, which represents 41% of the land mass of the continental U.S. (Fischer, p.2). Just 12-16 inches of precipitation can be expected to fall in the Denver-Metro area in an average year (Colorado Front Range Project, 1981). Nonetheless, Denver area homeowners persist in the tradition of planting and maintaining urban landscapes that feature non-native trees, shrubs, and grasses that consume roughly three times the amount of water that is available naturally.
Table 4 indicates the nature of domestic indoor uses of water, demonstrating the large amount of water demand devoted to toilets (40%), and baths and showers (30%).
In view of the large share of area water demand attributable to irrigation, toilets, and showers, it is not surprising that many of the water conservation programs either proposed or already in place locally focus on saving water in these areas.

Figure A

Colorado Water Conservation Issues
Summarized below are the main issues that have surfaced in connection with water conservation in the metro Denver area. They are separated into five main categories: legal/institutional, financial, environmental, sociological, and political issues.
1) Legal/institutional Issues
* Water conservationss effect on water rights:
This issue is broached briefly in the section above on agricultural water rights. In addition to inhibiting transfer of agricultural water to domestic uses, the concept of return flow also limits the amount of water that water suppliers might potentially recycle.
This aspect of Colorado water law dictates that a priority water right holder within a particular basin is entitled to an adjudicated amount of water only once, with all water not consumed returned to the stream. However, the situation is different when water has been diverted from one basin to another. In that case it is deemed already consumed relative to its place of origin, and therefore not subject to return flow considerations.
Hence, the amount of water available for recycling is limited to that part of the supply imported from other basins, estimated to be about one-third of the 1985 supply for the SEIS demand area (COE Appendix 4, 1985). For example, in 1976 the Denver Water Department (DWD) imported about 57% of its water supply (Morris, 1980); recycling opportunities would have been limited to this amount.
This whole situation has been rendered even more complicated by the apparent contradiction of two legally binding agreements to which the DWD is party. On the one hand, the Blue River Decree of 1956 mandates that Denver make full use of its existing transmountain diversions, including reusing it to the greatest extent possible. But on the other hand, the Consolidated Ditch Agreement of 1940 stipulates that any water the DWD uses can go through its system only once. Some sort of legal reconciliation is obviously necessary before Denver can recycle its transmountain diversions.
Another water rights issue is the effect of water conservation on a water supplier's ability to retain undeveloped water rights. Under the priority doctrine, a water right is first established by intent of the

appropriator to divert and apply water to a beneficial use, coupled with a demonstration of the intent by some open physical act in furtherance of the appropriator's plan of use. If the appropriator does not pursue this plan with "due diligence," the right can be considered abandoned. Thus, water suppliers are wary of the potential of water conservation to delay action on future projects, thereby raising the possibility of abandonment of rights due to lack of diligence.
For a comprehensive look at the nature of Colorado water law's disincentives to conserve water, the reader is urged to read an article by two former Environmental Defense Fund lawyers (Pring and Tomb, 1974).
* Abundance of water in the Colorado River Basin:
The 1922 Colorado River Basin Compact allocates the flow of the Colorado River to each of the states it flows through. Today, Colorado water developers are anxious about the state's failure to develop about 800,000 acre feet of that entitlement, because of a fear that once downstream states start using a portion of Colorado's entitlement, it may never be available again for use in Colorado. Since water conservation would delay construction of water projects that would use part of this entitlement, many Colorado water suppliers fear that future structural options to meet water demand would be foregone if conservation was to be seriously pursued.
* Responsibility and legal jurisdiction:
In order for several water conservation programs that have been proposed for the SEIS demand area to be effectively implemented, appropriate ordinances must be passed. In areas where municipal water utilities' service areas correspond with municipal boundaries, this situation causes little difficulty beyond the resolution of political disputes within the municipality. However, 41 of the 70 plus water suppliers in the SEIS demand area must rely upon unrelated political jurisdictions with boundaries differing from those of the water supply districts to pass such ordinances (COE Appendix 4, 1985). The result is a jurisdictional quagmire.
In addition, even water suppliers whose jurisdictions correspond to municipal boundaries may be hamstrung in efforts to enact water conservation measures due to existing regulations. For example, pricing policies are often used to stimulate water conservation, yet the DWD is mandated to charge equitable rates based on costs of supply.

Consequently, an inverted block pricing structure, which increases rates as usage goes up for each customer, might be judged as inconsistent with the equitability and cost of service requirements (COE Appendix 4, 1985).
* Uncertainty of benefits of water conservation:
Many water suppliers are wary of the difficulties of predicting accurately the amounts of water that might be saved by way of water conservation measures, thereby rendering plans to meet future water demand less certain. Therefore they are hesitant to forego the construction of traditional sources of supply until the results of water conservation programs can be better established by means of actual application of measures.
2) Financial Issues
* Financial efficiency of methods of meeting demand:
As has been pointed out (Colorado Front Range Project, 1981), the most cost efficient water storage and diversion projects have already been built in Colorado. But since about 85% of Colorado's population lives along the Front Range and about 70% of Colorado's water originates on the West Slope, and since most Front Range streams are already over-appropriated, then future water projects to satisfy Front Range demand must necessarily be primarily supplied by West Slope water by means of expensive trans-mountain diversions.
On the other hand, many water conservation methodologies exhibit high benefit/cost ratios, making investments in such measures more financially efficient than structural solutions to meeting water demand. This subject is explored in depth in Section D of this chapter.
* Financial responsibility to recoup costs:
The issue of assignment of costs to cover financing of water conservation measures is complex. Should individual homeowners pay for water meters, plumbing retrofits, and water-efficient landscaping, or should costs be spread among all rate-payers? Or, should new customers shoulder the burden, since they are responsible for creating new demand? Inevitably, political considerations play a large part in resolving these sticky policy issues.

Establishment of rate structures:
Table 5 indicates the present distribution of rate structures for single family households in the SEIS demand area.
Table 5
Rate Structures for Publicly Supplied Single Family Households
Rate Structure Customers in Demand Area(%)
Flat Rate (Unmetered) 30
Constant Rate 27
Declining Block Rate 22
Increasing Block Rate 21
Total 100
Source: COE Appendix 4, 1985
It is widely recognized that increasing block rate structures stimulate water conservation (Flack, 1977; Blackwelder, 1982; COE Appendix 4, 1985), but some economists argue that constant or even declining block rates can be more economically efficient (DWD, 1980; Mann, 1982). Presently, metro Denver's main supplier, the DWD, charges flat rates to unmetered customers and declining block rates to metered customers. (Since 1957, all new DWD customers have been required to have meters.) To add to the uncertainty, water suppliers may be legislatively restricted as to types of pricing policies they may adopt.
3) Environmental Issues Impetus for consideration:
The Foothills Consent Decree is a 1979 out-of-court settlement between federal agencies, the Denver Water Board (DWB), and environmental litigants who were protesting DWB's Foothills Project, which involved the Foothills Water Treatment Plant and Strontia Springs Dam, both recently completed southwest of Denver. In the consent decree, it was agreed that the Foothills Project could proceed if DWB would implement an expanded water conservation program and if a Systemwide EIS would be produced. Most of Denver's existing water conservation programs and the SEIS are direct results (COE Appendix 4, 1985).

* Water quality:
Water conservation can reduce impacts of domestic water supply on water quality. Salinity, a major issue in the
Colorado River Basin, is exacerbated by municipal
withdrawals of water supplies, which serves to increase concentrations of solids in the affected streams. Urban water conservation results in diminished withdrawals, thereby easing the salinity problem. Also, reduced sewage treatment loads resultant from water conservation practices lead to less pollution from effluent discharges.
* Reduction in impacts from water supply projects:
Water conservation can reduce or eliminate environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of water supply projects. For example, the proposed Two Forks reservoir would have a capital cost of $337 million, but would require $220 million to mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife alone, according to testimony delivered by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) at a recent DWB meeting. On the other hand, an effective water conservation program could eliminate the need for Two Forks. A smaller alternative on the North Fork of the South Platte at Estabrook could be built at a capital cost of $364 million, with fish and wildlife mitigation costs at $58 million, according to the DOW. This study generates a scenario heavily dependent on conservation that would eliminate the need for either one.
In addition, the wide-ranging environmental impacts associated with complex transmountain diversions, such as those that would help fill Two Forks or Estabrook, could also be significantly reduced as a result of reduced demand resultant from effective water conservation programs.
4) Sociological Issues
* Changes conservation: in lifestyle as a perceived result of water
People who are critical about the efficacy of water
conservation programs often refer to potentials of a
diminished quality of life due to changes in lifestyle necessitated by water conservation measures. If one regards substitution of landscaping materials that are more tolerant of semi-arid climates for the existing dependence on relatively water consumptive materials (e.g., bluegrass lawns) as degradatory to quality of life, then this

assertion might be taken seriously. Otherwise, this author finds that most other water conservation methodologies merely require paying closer attention to the efficient use of water. This may mean elimination of practices such as hosing off sidewalks and driveways, running dishwashers and clothes washers without full loads, and over-watering lawns, but one would have to stretch the imagination to regard such limitations as seriously affecting lifestyles.
Exceptions would be stringent measures necessitated by droughts. In those cases, serious limitations on water usage such as water rationing, penalty pricing, and mandatory restrictions of use could definitely be regarded as actions that diminish the quality of life.
* Population growth issues:
Local organizations such as the Metropolitan Water Providers and the Metropolitan Homebuilders Association often punctuate statements at public hearings with the assertion that growth is dependent on assured supplies of water, which cannot be guaranteed by dependence on water conservation. Several studies however (Lord, 1982; Colorado Front Range Project, 1981), as well as local experience, disprove the claim that growth follows water; instead, water tends to follow growth.
The prediction of population growth has been a controversial issue in the SEIS process. Water suppliers have predicated their support for large water supply projects such as Two Forks on optimistic growth projections such as those employed by the SEIS (COE Appendix 2, 1985). Water conservation advocates have countered by maintaining that growth projections are an imperfect science at best, and that recent slower growth trends render the SEIS projections unrealistically high. They advocate a combination of reliance on conservation and a series of smaller structural projects that can better track actual growth.
* Incentives for water conservation:
Experience indicates that human nature requires some sort of incentives in order for the general public to embrace water conservation seriously. While ordinances and pricing policies can partially fulfill this function, voluntary reductions in use must depend on other incentives. Perceived shortages in supply are perhaps the most effective incentive, leading local water conservation advocates to criticize large water supply projects such as Two Forks, which would create a substantial surplus in the years

following construction (COE Appendix 5). It is reasonable to believe that sellers of water would, in such a case, encourage water consumption in order to guarantee repayment of construction bonds.
Political Issues
Federal incentives:
Federal legislation and initiatives established during the 1970's have helped to stimulate the adoption of water conservation techniques. The Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) is perhaps the most significant. It uses the "carrot and stick" approach by making federal grants for municipal water and sewage treatment contingent upon local efforts to reduce expenditures for such facilities through water conservation (EPA, 1981). Its industrial discharge regulations have, in many cases, made it more cost efficient for industrial water users to conserve or to recycle process and cooling water prior to treatment before discharge.
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-523) has also encouraged water conservation. Its drinking water standards have increased treatment costs dramatically since their adoption, especially following 1978 amendments setting limits on trihalomethane (Sharpe, 1978). These increased treatment costs contribute to adoption of more cost effective water conservation measurtes. Another program set up by the Act is the assignment of grants to finance studies on recycling of water to drinking water standards (EPA, 1981). Denver's one million gallon per day Reuse Demonstration Plant (now completed and undergoing testing) is the beneficiary of one such grant (Verrengia, 1984).
* Statewide politics:
Unlike states such as California, Minnesota, and Massachusetts, where statewide laws have contributed significant gains to water conservation efforts (Blackwelder, 1982), Colorado lags far behind in statewide water conservation initiatives. Much of this situation can be attributed to the traditionally conservative state legislature, which tends to depend on local control and the marketplace for water conservation decisions.
For example, bills that would give agriculturalists incentive to institute water conservation practices have been overwhelmingly killed in committee during the last two sessions of the Colorado legislature.

* Denver-Metro politics:
Since local politics are the primary arena for water conservation decision-making, adoption of local conservation measures is inexorably tied up in metrowide political considerations. In the center of the political spotlight is the Denver Water Board (DWB), whose five members, as policy-and decision-makers for the Denver Water Department, control much of the destiny of metro Denver's future water supply. Since its establishment in 1918, the DWB has been diligent in pursuing and maintaining water rights for future development. But since the Poundstone Amendment in 1974 essentially closed out annexation options for Denver, the DWB's decisions in recent years have focused on selling water to suburbam communities and suppliers. Nonetheless, Denver still holds the water rights for nearly all of the future structural supply options investigated in the SEIS. As a result, the DWB sits squarely in the driver's seat as far as choice of reservoir sites goes. Significantly, Mayor Pena has appointed three of the five current DWB commisioners, and his administration's input into DWB decision-making must be regarded as influential.
Local water politics are fractionated by the proliferation of water supply entities. Over 70 districts, companies, and municipalities are responsible for water service in the SEIS demand area (COE Appendix 2, 1965). As a result, suburban water providers have found it difficult to amass political clout when it comes to local decisionmaking. To remedy that situation, 43 of the suburban suppliers have formally established the Metropolitan Water Providers. That organization's most significant act has been to enter into the Metropolitan Water Agreement with the DWB. This pact is essentially the vehicle for funding of a major new South Platte reservoir, generally assumed by the Providers to be Two Forks. Under terms of the agreement, the Providers are obligated to pay 80% of the development and maintenance costs of the reservoir, and also 80% of the SEIS. The other 20% is assigned to the DWB.
This arrangement has been questioned by Denver citizens who are concerned about its financial implications. They argue that since Denver is precluded from growing much, it is financially risky for its citizens to take on 20% of the obligations of a huge, costly project such as Two Forks, especially if metrowide growth fails to generate the new tap fees that are largely counted upon to pay off the construction costs. A local columnist (Carroll, p. 97) argues that Denver should be getting something in return, such as ". suburban support for a host of peculiarly Denver burdens: the area's only public housing agency, public hospital, major library, cultural attractions, and so

forth." At least one of the DWB Commissioners, Monte Pascoe, has been heard uttering similar remarks at recent DWB hearings and meetings.
Another siginificant aspect of local politics is the Governor's Metropolitan Water Roundtable. Formed by Governor Lamm in 1981 to gather diverse interest groups in one forum to discuss metrowide water needs and plans, the Roundtable has evolved into the major sounding board for the development of the SEIS. Five major interest groups participate in the Roundtable: the Metropolitan Water Providers, the Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Denver, the Denver Water Department, the Environmental Caucus, and the West Slope. Representatives of these groups are recognized by the Corps of Engineers (COE) as effective spokespersons, and they have been responsible for many of the decisions that have affected development of the SEIS. However, charged with the task of reaching consensus on the best form of metro Denver's near term and long term water supply system, they have been unable to agree on the compromises that would accomplish that mission. According to one of the Roundtable participants (Weaver, 1985), two of the major sticking points are construction of Two Forks and the amount of water savings that can be reliably credited to conservation.
Local Water Conservation Programs
As in most areas of the nation, Front Range
municipalities have displayed varying levels of commitment to water conservation. Significant progress has been made in reduction of per capita consumption. Table indicates
that in the seven county SEIS demand area, per capita consumption dropped nearly 22% from 1974-82, while household consumption dropped 17%.
Part of a metrowide study (Colorado Front Range
Project, 1981) was devoted to a survey of conservation programs being employed by the 20 largest Front Range municipalities. While the 1981 survey date makes the information somewhat outdated, Figure 1 summarizes the extent of adoption of 15 water conservation techniques. Since that time, several municipalities have adopted more ambitious measures.
There are several unique programs in existence locally. Some of the most notable are: *
* Denver has adopted several. The ET (evapotranspi-ration) program uses the media to advise residents of daily recommended irrigation requirements for bluegrass lawns. As

_______FIGURE 1________________
LOVELAND X X X X f x> X* X X* X X x
Source: Colorado Front Range Project, 1981

a drought contingency measure, the every third day/three hour mandatory irrigation restriction in 1977 reduced seasonal demand by about 21% (Miller, 1980). The DWD has also implemented a demonstration Xeriscape (the conservation of water through creative landscaping) project, and is now evaluating a one million gallon per day demonstration recycling plant that produces potable water from sewage.
* Aurora has gained national attention for its restrictions on lawn sizes for new households. (Aurora, 1984 ) .
* Colorado Springs recycles water for irrigation use in city parks, center boulevard strips, and golf courses. (Colorado Front Range Project, 1981).
* Castle Rock plans to implement a dual water supply system, wherein potable water and recycled "gray" water for other uses will be delivered via separated piping systems to individual consumers (COE Appendix 4, 1985).
Since the DWD distributes about 64% of the water in the SEIS demand area, it is instructive to note its present water conservation program. As stated above, the 1979 Foothills Consent Decree required the DWB to implement an expanded water conservation program. While several of the resultant proposed measures have not been acted upon (COE Appendix 4, 1985), most of the elements of todays DWD water conservation program arose from this mandate. They include:
* Public information and education, including public service announcements, brochures, demonstration xeriscape and water-efficient home, trade show booths, and public school programs.
* Leak detection program, which uses sonic testing equipment to detect leaks in the distribution system.
* Required metering in new homes.
* Demonstration recycling plant.
* Pressure reduction in the distribution system.
* ET program.
* Distribution of retrofit devices (i.e., shower flow restrictors and faucet aerators) to customers, now discontinued.
B. Water Conservation and the SEIS Process
In the SEIS process, water conservation is regarded as one of the supply options that might be used to meet some portion of future demand. This section summarizes the SEIS

process, identifies the SEIS documents relevant to water conservation, and comments on the manner in which water conservation is addressed in the SEIS documents.
The SEIS Process
The requirement for a Systemwide EIS originated in 1979 with the Foothills Consent Decree, which resolved disputes over Denvers now completed Foothills Water Treatment Plant and Strontia Springs Dam on the South Platte River. One of the settlement provisions required that federal agencies analyze future water development projects for the Denver metro water system in order to determine cumulative effects of additions to the supply system.
Three main goals were envisioned for the SEIS (COE, 1982) :
* Evaluation of the Denver metro area's future water needs and currently available water yield.
* The development of alternatives to meet those needs.
The study of the social, economic, environmental, and institutional impacts of each of the selected alternatives developed by the SEIS.
Eegun in 1982 and initially scheduled for a July, 1984 completion date, the SEIS is being prepared under the direction of the COE. The cost of the SEIS, originally set at $6.7 million, is being funded by the DWD and 43 Water Providers who are signatories to the Metropolitan Water Development Agreement. This agreement is essentially the mechanism established to finance the construction of a major reservoir (assumed to be Two Forks by the Providers) on the South Platte River.
Two Forks has long been controversial in Colorado, and it was the specter of its construction that spurred conservationists to press for the Systemwide EIS. Sized at up to 1.1 million acre feet that would initially yield about 98,000 acre feet of usable water per year, this reservoir would cause widespread environmental disruption, not only at the site, but also as far downstream as Nebraska, and also across the Continental Divide, where several future projects are contemplated to add to the yield of Two Forks by means of transmountain diversions (see Figure 2). Two of these West Slope water collection systems, East Gore and Eagle-Piney, would infringe upon the existing Eagles Nest Wilderness in the Gore Range. Another source of conservationists concern is the Williams Fork Collection

Water Supply System

System (proposed for diversion of water to Gross Reservoir near Boulder), which could interfere directly with the proposed Williams Fork Wilderness Area, north of Loveland Pass.
The SEIS was originally scheduled for completion in mid-1984. However, unforeseen delays, especially in compilation of the SEIS future demand document (COE Appendix 2, 1985) forced a restructuring of the SEIS process, largely due to the urging of the Providers, 80% funders of the SEIS. The Providers, concerned about delays in water projects due to delayed release of the Final SEIS, are anxious to commence project construction because of perceived water shortages in the near future. (The DWD1s public position is that it will cut off additional suburban water taps in 1987.) As a result, the SEIS has been expanded in scope to include several site specific studies on water projects being considered as alternatives in the SEIS. The inclusion of the site specific analyses will enable the Providers and the DWD to proceed more expeditiously on construction proposals once the renamed Systemside/Site Specific EIS is completed, now projected to be March, 1986. Delays and scope expansion have hiked the cost of the SEIS to about $26 million.
Three documents that have been produced within the context of the SEIS process address water conservation in some detail: Draft Appendix 2, Future Water Demands, Draft Appendix 4, Water Conservation, and Draft Appendix 5, Development and Evaluation of Water Supply Scenarios. The treatment of water conservation in each is reviewed below.
Future Water Demands
The SEIS future water demand document (COE Appendix 2, 1985) projects the population increase in the SEIS demand area up to the year 2035, and predicts the resultant water demand (see Table 6). It is relevant to the topic of water conservation in two ways. First, it establishes the framework in which conservation techniques must be considered (i.e, some combination of future water conservation savings and other means to increase supply must add up to at least the level of projected water demand). Second, the model that is utilized to predict demand is also employed in the SEIS water conservation document (COE Appendix 4, 1985) to predict the results of certain conservation measures, such as pricing policy.
That model, called the Use Factor Water Demand Model (see Table 7), incorporates a two-tiered approach to water demand forecasting. First, it disaggregates water use into five sectors (single family metered, single family flat

Water Demand Forecasts
Year Population Unconstrained Demands (Acre-feet)
1980 1,436,810 314,000
1990 1,779,590 414,000
2000 2,208,950 515,000
2010 2,581,320 599,000
2035 3,000,302 703,000
Source: COE Appendi 5, 1985

Use Factor Water Demand Model
District Demand (Gallons per Day)=
SFM Use Factor of x (Number of SFM Households) + 630 x (Number of SFF Households)
+ 217 x (Number of MF Households)
+ 45 x (Number of Employees)
+ 14 x (Population)
- 17
SFM = Single Family Metered SFF = Single Family Flat Rate MF = Multi-Family
In Which:
f = 478 + 427 (A]-A) 141 (dP^dP) + 3.59 (I1-I)rJ + 31.5 (HH-|-HH)rHH
And Where:
A + Systemwide Mean Lot size of SFM Households (= .241 Acres)
A-j = District Mean Lot size of SFM Households dP Systemwide Mean marginal price for SFM households (= $1.17/1000 gal.)
dP-j = District Mean Marginal price for SFM households I = Systemwide Median household income excluding SFF (= $20,600)
I-j = District Median Household income excluding SFF
HH = Systemwide Mean Household size excluding SFF (= 2.71 people)
HH-j = District Mean Household size excluding SFF
rj = 1.67 = income adjustment to reflect only SFM households
r^H = 1.25 = household size adjustment to reflect only SFM households
Source: COE Appendix 5, 1985

rate, multi-family, industrial/commercial, and public), and assigns a daily use factor for each sector based on historic data. Then values for each variable are projected for the years 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2035 for each water supplier district. These are then summed for all districts, yielding the projected water demand at a given time for the entire SEIS demand area.
Second, it fine tunes the single family metered sector demand for each water supplier district by taking into account differences in district characteristics. These differences are encompassed in average lot size, marginal price, and household size and on median household income. Derivation of the adjustment factors for this sector, as well as for the use factor constants for all five sectors, was based on data from several surveys focused on historical use from 1974-82.
Generally, the water demand document is a good attempt at forecasting future demand. However, basic flaws in its construction and its application tend to result in overestimates of future demand.
* Model construction flaws:
Less than half of water demand is modeled to take account of changing future conditions, leaving the majority of future demand based on 1974-82 figures. Isolation of single family accounts for only 42% of total demand, based on 1974-82 data. This means that 58% of future demand does not take into account future conditions that could easily change demand in the other four sectors. For example, the document projects household size to decline by roughly half a person by 2035, yet the multi-family and single family flat rate uses per household are held constant. The Environmental Caucus estimates that for the multi-family sector alone, application of a constant use factor results in a year 2035 over-estimation of 25,000 acre feet of water (Luecke, 1985). It is not hard to envision future conditions that would warrant lowering the industrial/commercial and public use factors, also.
This failing can be largely attributed to lack of historical data for the single family flat rate, multifamily, industrial/commercial, and public users of water.
There is also a failure to address water use differences between Denver and the suburbs. For example, public uses of water are listed as 5.3 to 9.5 gallons per capita per day (g.c.d.) outside the City of Denver, and from 19.8 to 24.4 g.c.d. inside Denver. Similarly, data on single family metered homes indicate significantly lower

usage in homes outside Denver. When assigning use factors, the model calibrators accounted for these differences by weighted averages, based on 1974-82 figures. However, given the great disparity in future growth between Denver and the suburbs (made more certain by the Poundstone Amendment), these relative weights will be inapplicable in the future. It would have been more appropriate to produce separate forecasts for Denver demand and suburban demand.
* Model application flaws:
The validity of the model application results rests upon the accuracy of the population projections that are plugged into it. The general approach used to determine population projections was to choose forecasts up to the year 2035 for the seven county area within which the SEIS demand area lies, extrapolate these results to obtain projections for each water supplier, and then total the projections assigned to the individual water suppliers. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) was relied upon heavily for all of these tasks. However, since DRCOG had officially adopted projections up to the year 2010 only, the COE (with DRCOG assistance) generated additional projections out to the end of the planning period (i.e., the year 2035).
The population projections exhibit two significant weaknesses. First, the document uses the 1982 DRCOG population policy projections, on the basis that the lower 1984 projections had not officially been adopted at the time the SEIS demand projections were prepared. (One of the DRCOG planners who is heavily involved in the production of its projections told this author, anonymously for obvious reasons, that the delay in the adoption of the 1984 DRCOG policy projections was a conscious political decision aimed at influencing the outcome of the SEIS process).
The Environmental Caucus calculated the effects of using the outdated projections (Luecke, 1985), and concluded the result was to over-estimate 2035 demand by about 65,000 to 80,000 acre feet.
The second serious weakness in Appendix 2 population projections is that they are not consistent with current trends. Two news articles (Gavin, p. 9; Delsohn, p. 1-A) reveal that Colorado's growth rate has slowed considerably. Mid-183 to mid-1984 figures show that while there was a population increase of 1%, there was a loss of 1000 people due to emigration. To put this in perspective, Reid Reynolds, the state demographer, is quoted as saying that an average of 43,000 people per year immigrated Into the state between 1970 and 1982. Reynolds' revised unofficial

estimates now reduce Front Range estimated population gains to the year 2000 by about 25%, or about 300,000 people. By contrast, the DRC0G projections are based on increasing growth rates through the 1980's.
Another article (Weber, p. 1-B) approaches the Denver area growth slowdown from a business standpoint. Reasons given for the unexpected growth rate decline include: the rising cost of living has discouraged new residents; the energy boom was an aberration; in-migration has slowed because the baby-boomers have aged beyond their mobile years; and key industries such as agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and tourism are facing stiff international competition. Since the 1984 DRC0G projections are driven by employment, this documented decline in business growth indicates that even the newer DRCOG projections are probably too high.
Obviously, this author feels that there is a distinct possibility that the SEIS water demand figures are overestimated. Clearly, there is no accurate way to predict the future, yet crucial decisions regarding the future form of the metro Denver water supply must rely on such projections. Consequently, the form of water conservation programs and their projected savings must also rely upon these predictions. While these projections may prove to be errant, one thing is certain: water conservation measures are much more efficient at tracking actual growth patterns than structural water supply projects.
SEIS Water Conservation Analysis
At this time in the SEIS process, the water conservation analysis is divided into two parts. Since the savings that might be attributed to water conservation have been one of the most controversial issues in the development of the SEIS, the COE has had some difficulty in producing an official draft document. Instead, it has been only able to issue preliminary drafts. This study addresses the last two of those drafts.
This situation is indicative of the time restraints that the COE is facing. Because of the COE's attempts to adhere to an already-delayed schedule for production of the SEIS, the agency has forced itself to take some shortcuts. As a result, the document that constructs and evaluates 50-year water supply scenarios (see discussion of Appendix 5 below) relies on a water conservation draft that is not the most current. Indeed, the most current draft was released for review after Appendix 5 was printed and distributed. This problem is not insignificant, since Appendix 5 utilizes

water conservation programs, analyses, and projected savings that are substantially different from those contained in the
latest preliminary differences. draft. Tables 8 and 9 illustrate the
In order to take account of this discrepancy, this
study takes a dual approach. In the following comments on the Appendix 4 treatment of water conservation, the older programs and calculations included in Appendix 5 are addressed. However, in Section D of this chapter, wherein an alternative 50-year water program heavily dependent on conservation is presented, the author relies on some data from the newer version of Appendix 4.
The COE's analysis of water conservation as a component of 50-year water supply scenarios is divided into three main tasks: screening of potential water conservation measures, quantification of costs and benefits associated with the selected measures, and identification of four alternative water conservation programs that might be implemented in the SEIS demand area. Following are brief descriptions of, and this author's comments on, each of the three main tasks.
* Screening of potential water conservation measures:
Table 10 represents the list of water conservation measures that was screened in the document. Figure 3 is a list from the COE's manual on evaluation of water conservation (Baumann, 1980). Apparently, some preliminary screening occurred, without explanation, in reaching the Table 10 screening list. Not included are all of the COE's educational measures, plus metering (a mistake, since metering is evaluated in Appendix 4), meter maintenance, system rehabilitation, economic incentives, low flow faucets, swimming pool covers, distribution of retrofit kits, hook-up moratorium, rationing, and banned wasteful practices.
The measures that were included in the screening process were subject to three main criteria: applicability, technical feasibility, and institutionally practical. This author finds that while the criteria may be appropriate, their definition leads to misleading conclusions about the water savings that can be realized through comprehensive water conservation programs.
For example, in order for a measure to be considered technically feasible, it must be quantifiable. The result is that a number of potentially effective measures are eliminated from further consideration, simply because it is

Comparison of Water Conservation Measures Evaluated (with projected ranges of savings 1000 acre feet/year)
Appendix 5
2010 Savings 2035 Savings
Water Conservation Draft 2010 Savings 2035
Universal Metering 9.5-17.5
Residential ET 2.0-10.0
Lawn Restrictions 4.9-11.3
I/C Retrofitting 9.4-10.4
Leak Detection 11.5-21.0
Xeriscape 1.5
Other Minor Items 4.1
6.4- 13.7 2.0-13.3
6.5- 14.7 8.9-11.2
Universal Metering Residential ET Lawn Restrictions I/C Retrofit & ET Leak Detection Residential Retrofit Pricing Policy
9.4 6
7.2 8
9.2-22.5 12.0'
1.0-1.1 0.9'
3.4-20.4 4.2'
1.0-2.0 0.6
5.4-26.9 6.3
Comparison of Water Conservation Programs (with projected savings 1000 acre feet/year)
2035 Savings 5.0
31.8 55.5
Appendix 5
2035 Savings
Continue Existing Programs 3.7
Low Penetration Voluntary Programs 16,8
High Penetration Voluntary Programs 71.0
Mandatory Programs 77.5
Water Conservation Draft
Continue Exsiting Programs Increase Benefits with Moderate Customer Imposition Maximize Net Benefits Maximize Conservation
29.5 1.0 25.4 1.2
Sources: COE Appendices 4 and 5, 1985

Table 10
Possible Conservation Measures
Device or Measure Regulation
Low flow toilets
Low flow shower heads
Low flow appliances
Air Conditioning recycling
Pressure reduction valves
Hot water line insulation
Thermostatic mixing valves
Gray water systems
Wastewater recycling
Indoor leak detections Ftepair
Time limitation for professional leak repair
Restrict lawn size
Low water use landscaping
Irrigation application methods
Irrigation system automation Irrigation scheduling Evapotranspiration program Car wash water recycling Systemwide leak detection repair
Pricing policies
- X
- X
- X
X -
_ X
_ X
Source: COE Appendix 4, 1985

Figure 3
Illustrative Lists of Water Conservation Measures
Meter Maintenance Pressure Regulation Leak Detection and Repair System Rehabilitation Pricing (Conservation Oriented) marginal cost pricing seasonal peak load pricing uniform unit pricing demand charges summer surcharge excess-use charge increasing unit hook-up fees penalty charges Economic Incentives rebates tax credits subsidies penalties
Implementing Water-Saving Devices Devices For New Construction shallow trap toilet pressurized tank toilet vacuum toilet incinerator toilet pressurized flush toilet wastewater recycling toilet oil flush toilet freeze toilet packaging toilet composter toilet dual flush toilet micropore toilet premixed water system water recycling system compressed air toilet
Federal and State Laws and Policies Local codes and Ordinances
plumbing codes for new structures retrofitting resolutions sprinkling ordinances changes in landscape design reduction in lawn sizes increases in impervious area planting of low-water using pla water recycling hook-up moratorium Restrictions Rationing by fixed allocation variable percentage plan per capita use
Retrofit devices water closet inserts water dams
toilet flush adapters flush valve toilets shower mixing valves shower flow-control devices air-assisted showerheads pressure-reducing valves toilet inserts facet aerators faucet flow restrictors spray taps
pressure balancing mixing valves hot water pipe insulation swimming pool covers low water-using dishwashers low flush toilets thermostatic mixing valves minuse showers low flow showerheads low water-using clotheswashers Devices for landscape irrigation moisture sensors hose meters sprinkler timers
Distribution of Water Conservation kits Free distribution and installation of water-saving devices Distribution of leak detection kits Reuse of water works facility washwater
prior use bases
Determination of Priority uses
restrictions on private and public recreational uses restrictions on commercial and institutional uses banned wasteful practices car washing pool filling landscape irrigation watering with hand-held hose only scheduled irrigation

Figure 3 (cont.)
Direct Mail Pamphlets leaflets posters bill inserts newsletters handbooks buttons
bumper stickers News Media radio/TV ads movie
newspaper articles radio announcements Personal Contact speaker programs slide show booths at fairs customer assistance Special Events school talks slogan/poster contests posters around town billboards displays reminder items decals
serving water on request in restaurants county fair exhibit
Source: Baumann, Ann, 1980

hard to quantify projected savings implementation.
Another requirement is that a measure may not have already been implemented in the planning area in order to survive the screening. This ignores a potentially significant fact: while a measure may be implemented already, it might be implemented more efficiently. For example, the plumbing industry has voluntarily started manufacturing relatively low flow toilets and shower heads, and so plumbing code establishment is ruled out as a potential conservation measure. However, several studies (Flack, 1977) indicate that even lower flows are possible with equipment that has already been developed.
As a result of the COE's screening process, out of 45 possible applications of 17 differnet measures, only 11 pass the screening tests. Yet the application of many of those eliminated could add substantially more savings, especially code establishment, faucet retrofit, pressure reduction valves, leak detection and repair at point of use, gray water systems, and recycling. The recycling option, particularly, holds great promise for the future; the document rejects it because the DWD's demonstration recycling plant has not been fully tested.
* Quantification of costs and benefits of conservation measures:
A substantial portion of Appendix 4 is devoted to analysis of the costs and effectivenes of the 11 water conservation measures that survive the screening process. In Section D of this chapter, the individual measures are described and evaluated in detail. Therefore, only generalized comments are offered here.
On the whole, the COE's method of analysis is sound, presumably because it follows well laid out procedures established specifically for the COE's use (Baumann, 1980). Instead, the major flaws in the analysis are due to the manner in which data are selected for use in the methodology.
The first of these is in the calculation of foregone costs as a benefit of water conservation measures. In establishing the monetary benefits of the measures, only those savings resultant from foregoing or postponing construction of water supply projects are considered. Ignored are the substantial savings in energy consumption and wastewater treatment that also result from increased levels of water conservation. One authority (Koyasako, 1980), after studying the results of water conservation

brought on by the 1977 drought In California, concluded that benefits exceeded costs of reduced wastewater flows by three times. Another (Betchart, 1982) maintains that a 20% decrease nationally in per capita water use would have produced energy savings equivalent to 260,000 barrels of oil per day in 1980, or 3-4% of the nation's oil imports and 9% of the 1980 national trade deficit.
Even the foregone costs that are calculated are understated. The Two Forks project is used to quantify the foregone costs, but only the capital costs ($337 million) are included in the analysis. Yet the Division of Wildlife (DOW) estimates additional mitigation costs for fish and wildlife alone at about $220 million. And, even though other water projects that would fulfill demand beyond that fulfilled by Two Forks are much more costly, they are assumed to have unit costs equal to those of Two Forks.
The over-all result is that the quantification of foregone costs ($480 per acre foot) in the document should be regarded as a lower limit. Actual foregone costs should be much higher, and consequently, the benefits of water conservation are seriously understated.
Establishment of water conservation programs:
Appendix 4 concludes by presenting four alternative water conservation programs for the SEIS demand area. These programs assign projected water savings from various combinations of six of the 11 water conservation measures that survived the screening process.
Table 9 illustrates the elements included in the four programs and their projected savings. Program One is designed to represent the continuation of existing programs. Program Two assigns the low end of expected water savings from implementation of the measures, while Program Three assumes more optimistic results from the same measures. Program Four is meant to reflect a situation in which mandatory compliance to the measures is established, as opposed to the essentially voluntary adoption of measures envisioned in the other three programs.
The calculations of savings from the programs are misleading for several reasons. Most significantly, the four programs are limited to various levels of implementation of only six measures. And, as discussed in Section D of this chapter, most of the measures could be improved or expanded in ways that would increase the projected savings. The effect is to leave the reader of the document with the very misleading impression that the

Program Four savings of 77,500 acre feet are the best that can be hoped for.
Water Conservation in 50-Year Supply Scenarios
Probably the most significant SEIS document that has been produced to date is Draft Appendix 5: Development and
Evaluation of Water Supply Scenarios. It synthesizes most of the preceding SEIS documents into seven alternative scenarios that could meet the projected Denver-Metro area water demand to the year 2035. The scenarios contain varying levels of demand reduction due to water
conservation, based on incorporation of the water
conservaton programs developed in Appendix 4. The manner In which water conservation is addressed in these scenarios is discussed in Section C of this chapter, immediately following.
C. Review of SEIS Water Supply Scenarios
Essentially the culmination of the SEIS process, Draft Appendix 5: Development and Evaluation of Water Supply Scenarios, synthesizes the results of several other SEIS documents. These prior documents established the safe yield capacity of the existing water supply system, the population and water demand projections through the year 2035, the expected yields of specific water supply projects, and the water savings expected from water conservation practices and normal replacement of plumbing fixtures in existing structures.
As the document points out, no single water source or management measure could satisfy the demands in excess of the existing water supply system capability over the next 50 years. Therefore, various combinations of water supply sources are formulated, along with general social, economic, and environmental impacts expected from implementation of the scenarios. Four different levels of projected savings from conservation programs are utilized in the development of the scenarios.
The remainder of this section describes the 50-year scenarios, identifies the conservation components, and comments on the COE's methodology of quantifying costs, benefits, and impacts of the scenarios.

The 50-Year Scenarios
Seven scenarios for supplying metro Denver's 50-year water needs are presented. They combine varying mixes of five main supply sources:
* Natural replacement and efficient plumbing:
The COE's analysis recognizes that a certain amount of water demand reduction will occur because of improvements in plumbing fixture technology. These savings are expected to occur, regardless of whether formal conseration programs are adopted or not. Since the unconstrained demand projections are based on 1974-82 data, the COE found it necessary to account for these expected natural demand reductions. The analysis divides it into two segments: savings from
replacement of plumbing fixtures in households built prior to 1980, and savings from installing more efficient plumbing in new homes.
* New conservation:
Four different water conservation programs are utilized in the scenarios: continuation of existing programs, low
penetration voluntary programs, high penetration voluntary programs, and mandatory programs. Various combinations of six different measures are included in these programs. These are the xeriscape demonstration program; the
evapotranspiration (ET) program; universal metering, accomplished through mandatory metering of currently unmetered homes; low water use landscaping, by way of restrictions in lawn sizes; promoted retrofit of industrial/commercial plumbing fixtures; and a leak
detection program for the water distribution systems. These programs are described more fully in Section D of this chapter.
* Near-term nonstructural:
This element recognizes that additional water can be procured from existing sources by means of management practices. Included are a complex water exchange involving water stored by Williams Fork, Green Mountain, and Dillon Reservoirs on the West Slope prior to transport to the Front Range; exchange of metro area area sewage effluent with water associated with South Platte water rights downstream of Denver (limited to quantities produced from transmountain diversion from the West Slope); purchase of water from the currently under-utilized Windy Gap Reservoir near Granby; and several other West Slope exchanges.

* Near term structural projects:
Included In this category are structural sources of water that would be built prior to the year 2035. These projects are culled from a list of different
possibilities that the SEIS process has identified as feasible future structural sources of water for the SEIS demand area.
* Future structural projects:
In this category, the same structural possibilities are chosen from for construction between the years 2010 and 2035 .
Tables 11 through 16 summarize the six 50-year scenarios that the SEIS establishes. It should be noted that Appendix 5 includes an additional scenario entitled "No Federal Action." A common element of all EIS's, this scenario theorizes what would happen if no future water projects that involve federal approvals were to occur. Since it does not meet the essential criteria of supplying the projected 50-year demand, it is not addressed further in this study.
The four water conservation programs are assigned in the six scenarios as follows. Continuation of existing programs: Scenario A-l. Low penetration voluntary programs: Scenario A-2. High penetration voluntary programs: Scenarios E-l, B-2, C-l, C-2. Mandatory program: No Federal Action.
Critique of Appendix 5
As might be expected from a document as ambitious as Appendix 5, a number of shortcomings are evident in its quantification of costs, benefits, and impacts of the 50-year supply scenarios. As it would be possible to develop a thesis around these flaws in and of themselves, this study notes only the major shortcomings.
* Difficulties associated with SEIS process timing:
The SEIS is already nearly two years behind the originally scheduyled July, 1984 completion date. As a result, the COE is feeling some pressure to finish it from various individuals and groups, especially the DWD and the Metropolitan Water Providers. Both are anxious to commence construction of an additional supply source, and as funders

Scenario A-l Summary
1000 Acre Feet Capital Cost
1990 2000 2010 2035 (Millions of 1985 $)
Unconstrained Water Demand 413.6 514.6 597.6 703.0
Natural Replacement Efficient Plumbing-New 0.7 1.3 1.9 3.8
Bldgs. 3.4 6.8 9.6 11.1
Adjusted Total Demand 409.5 506.5. 586.1. 688. 1
New Conservation
Universal Metering Low Water Landscaping ET Program I/C Retrofit Leak Detection 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Xeriscape .3 .9 1.5 1.7
Subtotal 2.3 2.9 3.5 3.7
Near-Term Nonstructural
Whis. Fk/Grn Mtn/Dillon Transmtn Effluent 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Exchange Windy Gap Purchase Other W.Slope Exchanges 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8
Subtotal 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8
Near-Term Structural
Two Forks 98.0 98.0 98.0 390.50
Wms. Fork Gravity 15.0 15.0 15.0 71.34
Straight Ck/Joint Use 22.0 22.0 22.0 43.23
East Gore Canal 59.0 59.0 420.50
Subtotal 135.0 194.0 194.0 925.57
Future Structural
Eagle/Piney/Colorado 80.0 1763.94
Enlarge Gross Res. 14.0 122.13
Subtotal 94.0 1886.07
Existing Utilized Supply 396.0 410.0 414.0 415.0
Total Water Supply 422.1 571.7 635.3 716.5
Net Water Balance 12.6 65.2 49.2 28.4
Total Capital Cost 2811.64

Scenario A-2 Summary
1000 Acre Feet Capital Cost
1990 2000 2010 2035 (Millions of 1985 $)
Unconstrained Water Demand 413.6 514.6 597.6 703.0
Natural Replacement Efficient Plumbing-New .7 1.3 1.9 3.8
Bldgs. 3.4 6.8 9.6 11.1
Adjusted Total Demand 409.5 506.5 586.1 688.1
New Conservation
Universal Metering Low Water Landscaping 3.3 9.9 9.9 8.3 17.24
ET Program 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7
I/C Retrofit Leak Detection .9 2.5 4.1 2.0
Xeriscape .3 , .9 1.5 4.8
Subtotal 6.5 15.3 17.5 16.8
Near-Term Nonstructural
Wms. Fk/Grn Mtn/Dillon Transmtn Effluent 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Exchange Windy Gap Purchase Other W.Slope Exchanges 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8
Subtotal 23.8 23.3 23.8 23.8
Near-Term Structural
Two Forks 113.0 113.0 113.0 390.50
Wms. Fork Gravity 15.0 15.0 15.0 71.34
Straight Ck/Joint Use Green Mtn Pumpback 22.0 22.0 119.0 22.0 119.0 43.23 554.48
Subtotal 150.0 269.0 269.0 1059.55
Future Structural
Existing Utilized Supply 396.0 410.0 414.0 415.0
Total Water Supply 426.3 599.1 724.3 724.6
Net Water Balance 16.8 92.6 138.2 36.5
Total Capital Cost 1076.79

Scenario B-l Summary
1000 Acre Feet
1990 2000 2010 2035
Unconstrained Water Demand 413.6 514.6 597.6 703.0
Natural Replacement Efficient Plumbing-New 4.4 13.1 21.8 21.8
Bldgs. 2.7 8.0 13.4 26.7
Adjusted Total Demand 406.6 493.5 562.5 654.5
New Conservation
Universal Metering 6.5 18.8 17.5 13.7
Low Water Landscaping 1.2 3.2 4.9 6.5
ET Program 2.0 6.0 10.0 13.3
I/C Retrofit 5.9 9.1 10.4 11.2
Leak Detection Xeriscape 4.2 12.6 21.0 26.3
Subtotal 19.8 49.7 63.8 71.0
Near-Term Nonstructural
Wms. Fk/Grn Mtn/Dillon Transmtn Effluent 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Exchange 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8
Windy Gap Purchase 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Other W.SI ope Exchanges 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Subtotal 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8
Near-Term Structural
Lstabrook 46.0 46.0
Wms. Fk Pumping 18.0 18.0 18.0
Projects of Others 3.0 5.4 5.4 12.0
Straight Ck/Jt. Use 20.0 20.0 20.0
Nonpotable Reuse 13.0 13.0
Subtotal 3.0 43.4 102.4 109.0
Future Structural
Enlarge Gross Res. 14.0
Cherry Ck Wells 2.0
Ground Water 20.0
Subtotal 36.0
Existing Utilized Supply 396.0 410.0 414.0 415.0
Total Water Supply 460.6 544.9 622.0 672.8
Net Water Balance 54.0 51.4 59.5 18.3
Total Capital Cost
Capital Cost ill ions of 1985 $)

Scenario B-2 Summary
1000 Acre Feet Capital Cost
1990 2000 2010 2035 (Millions of 1985 $)
Unconstrained Water Demand 413.6 514.6 597.6 703.0
Natural Replacement Efficient Plumbing-New 4.4 13.1 21.8 21.8
Bldgs. 2.7 8.0 13.4 26.7
Adjusted Total Demand 406.6 493.5 562.5 654.5
New Conservation
Universal Metering 6.5 18.8 17.5 13.7 17.24
Low Water Landscaping 1.2 3.2 4.9 6.5
ET Program 2.0 6.0 10.0 13.3
I/C Retrofit 5.9 9.1 10.4 11.2
Leak Detection Xeriscape 4.2 12.6 21.0 26.3
Subtotal 19.8 49.7 63.8 71.0 17.24
Near-Term Nonstructural
Wms. Fk/Grn Mtn/Dillon Transmtn Effluent 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Exchange 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8
Windy Gap Purchase Other W.Slope Exchanges 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 27.00
Subtotal 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.8 27.00
Near-Term Structural
Estabrook 46.0 46.0 46.0 272.00
Projects of Others 3.0 5.4 5.4 12.0
Straight Ck/Joint Use 13.5 22.0 22.0 22.0 43.23
Nonpotable Reuse 13.0 13.0 68.30
Grn Mtn Pumpback 119.0 119.0 554.48
Subtotal 16.5 73.0 205.4 212.0 938.01
Future Structural
Wms. Fork Pumping 18.0 78.65
Enlarge Gross Res 14.0 122.13
Subtotal 32.0 2TJ077B
Existing Utilized Supply 396.0 410.0 414.0 415.0
Total Water Supply 465.1 565.5 716.0 762.8
Net Water Balance 58.5 72.0 153.5 108c 3
Total Capital Cost 1455.03

Scenario C-l Summary
100C 1990 i Acre 2000 Feet 2010 2035 Capital Cost (Millions of 1985 $)
Unconstrained Water Demand 413.6 514.6 597.6 703.0
Natural Replacement Efficient Plumbing-New 4.4 13.1 21.8 21.8
Bldgs. 2.7 8.0 13.4 26.7
Adjusted Total Demand 406.6 493.5 562.5 654.5
New Conservation
Universal Metering 6.5 18.9 17.5 13.7 17.24
Low Water Landscaping 1.2 3.2 4.9 6.5
ET Program 2.0 6o0 10.0 13.3
I/C Retrofit 5.9 9.1 10.4 11.2
Leak Detection 4.2 12.6 21.0 26.3
Subtotal 19.8 49.7 63.8 71.0 T772T-
Near-Term Nonstructural
Wms. Fk/Grn Mtn/Dillon Transmtn Effluent 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Exchange 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8
Windy Gap Purchase Other W.Slope Exchanges 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 27.00
Subtotal 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.8 27.00
Near-Term Structural
Two Forks 113.0 113.0 113.0 390.50
Projects of Others 3.0 5.4 5.4 12.0
Straight Ck/Joint Use 13.5 22.0 22.0 22.0 43.23
Nonpotable Reuse 13.0 13.0 68.30
Subtotal 16.5 140.4 153.4 160.0 502.03
Future Structural
Wms. Fork Gravity 15.0 71.34
Subtotal 15.0 71.34
Existing Utilized Supply 396.0 410.0 414.0 415.0
Total Water Supply 465.1 632.9 664.0 693.8
Net Water Balance 58.5 139.4 101.5 39.3
Total Capital Cost

Scenario C-2 Summary
1000 Acre Feet Capital Cost
1990 2000 2010 2035 (Millions of 1985 $)
Unconstrained Water Demand 413.6 514.6 597.6 703.0
Natural Replacement Efficient Plumbing-New 4.4 13.1 21.8 21.8
Bldgs. 2.7 8.0 13.4 26.7
Adjusted Total Demand 406.6 493.5 562.5 654.5
New Conservation
Universal Metering 6.5 18.8 17.5 13.7 17.24
Low Water Landscaping 1.2 3.2 4.9 6.5
ET Program 2.0 6.0 10.0 13.3
I/C Retrofit 5.9 9.1 10.4 11.2
Leak Detection Xeriscape 4.2 12.6 21.0 26.3
Subtotal 19.8 49.7 63.8 71.0 17.24
Near-Term Nonstructural
Wms. Fk/Grn Mtn/Dillon Transmtn Effluent 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Exchange 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8
Windy Gap Purchase 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 27.00
Other W.Slope Exchanges 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Subtotal 41.8 41.8- 41.8 41.8 27.00
Near-Term Structural
Two Forks 113.0 113.0 113.0 390.50
Projects of Others 3.0 5.4 5.4 12.0
Straight Creek 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.23
Nonpotable Reuse 13.0 13.0 68.30
Subtotal 3.0 121.9 134.9 141.5 462.03
Future Structural
Cherry Creek Wells 2.0 .20
Ground Water 20.0 20.00
Subtotal 22.0 20.20
Existing Utilized Supply 396.0 410.0 414.0 415.0
Total Water Supply 460.6 623.4 654.5 691.3
Net Water Balance 54.0 129.9 92.0 36.8
Total Capital Cost 526.47

of the SEIS, are no doubt concerned about additional costs that could result from further delays. Consequently, Appendix 5 appears to have been released out of sequence, as several SEIS documents that are meant to be sources of data for Appendix 5 have not yet been completed.
This problem manifests itself in several ways. As already discussed, the water conservation programs and measures (and their projected savings) that are included in Appendix 5 are not the same ones as identified in the latest SEIS draft document for this element. Similarly, the costs, benefits, and impacts of the other water sources come from documents not yet released to the public. As a result, the reader of Appendix 5 is left with no way to verify the sources of these data, nor of the methodologies utilized to produce them.
* Water demand projections:
As discussed in Section B of this chapter, it is likely that the SEIS projections of water demand are overestimated due to flaws in the water demand model and to utilization of unrealistic population increase projections. Since the demand figures are the starting point for scenario formulation, this shortcoming must be regarded as crucial.
* Savings from water conservation measures:
The most significant aspect of this flaw consists of what is not included. Only six water conservation measures are evaluated, ignoring substantial water savings that would be possible from adoption of programs such as increase of marginal price of water, establishment of plumbing codes, and public education.
In addition, even the treatment of the six measures that are considered tends to under-estimate their potentials. In the natural replacement and efficient plumbing category, calculations are based on households only, leaving out savings that would correspondingly occur in the industrial/commercial and public demand sectors. For the program that promotes retrofit of existing plumbing fixtures, the opposite is true: only industrial/commercial is targeted, and households are ignored. Demand reductions from the ET program include only savings from single family homes, leaving out savings in the multi-family, industrial/commercial, and public sectors. The same is true for the lawn size restriction program. The leak detection measure covers only the distribution system, without considering the possibilities of leak detection at point of use.

Cost quantification:
Appendix 5 leaves much to be desired as far as identification of costs goes. The most serious flaw is in presentation of capital costs. Totally disregarded are the interest costs of repayment of construction bonds (except during construction), which would add substantial costs to large scale structural projects and high cost conservation measures.
In addition, costs for several scenario elements are not even calculated, with little explanation other than the costs are not available or are difficult to quantify.
* Impact quantification:
While it devotes a substantial amount of attention to scenario impacts, Appendix 5 falls short in including meaningful discussion. Not only is explanation of method of impact measurement totally absent, but also presentation of the impacts is confusing. For each scenario, East Slope and West Slope impacts are identified for 17 impact categories, but impacts from specific water supply projects are identified only randomly in the text.
Especially lacking in credibility is discussion of impacts on the West Slope. As the Environmental Caucus points out (Environmental Caucus, 1985) for example, the socioeconomic impacts resulting from Scenario A-l are described as moderately beneficial. Since that scenario would drain more than 250,000 acre feet of water annually from counties that are already stressed by transmountain diversions to the Front Range, it is apparent that the beneficial effect comes mainly from short-term construction jobs. As the Caucus puts it, "This approach ignores the fact that the economy of the West Slope is dependent on recreation, which in turn is dependent upon water for wilderness, fisheries, snowmaking, agriculture, etc."
* Mitigation:
Appendix 5 does an especially poor job in its treatment of mitigation. Not only are specific mitigation measures for each scenario unidentified, but also the mitigation costs are presented as wide ranges that practically render them meaningless. For example, Scenario A-l is assigned mitigation costs in the range from $35 million to $97.5 million, but nowhere are those costs broken down into components.

The document does go as far as stating that costs for mitigating salinity increases in the Colorado River Basin resultant from scenario elements are not included. In light of this fact, one must wonder what else is not included. For instance, Scenarios B-l and B-2 would require relocating the entire town of Bailey and the major highway that passes through it, but there is no way to ascertain if these substantial costs are included in the analysis.
D. Formulation of an Alternative Scenario
One of the principal hypotheses of this thesis is: "That a scenario that depends more heavily on water conservation than any of the six SEIS scenarios could be developed, and that the cost effectiveness of such a scenario would compare favorably with the SEIS scenarios."
This section demonstrates that claim by means of developing a metrowide conservation program that incorporates improvements in water conservation measures included in the programs, along with some new programs. These savings are then supplemented with a few structural and non-structural sources in order to satisfy the projected demand through the year 2035.
In formulation of Scenario D, as it is being entitled, it was necessary to include many of the basic assumptions that were made for construction of the six SEIS scenarios so that it could be easily compared with the SEIS quantifications of costs and benefits. Hence, it is assumed that the SEIS demand predictions are valid, and that the foregone costs associated with water conservation measures are limited to $480 per acre foot of water saved. Also, the same demographic data and costs are used for Scenario D measures that have elements in common with the SEIS measures. It should be repeated that many of these SEIS assumptions are challenged in other sections of this chapter. However, for purposes of comparison with SEIS scenarios, they are also used here.
This section proceeds with presentation of Scenario D water conservation measures, followed by selection of other supply sources, and concludes with comparisons to the six SEIS scenarios.
Natural Replacement and Efficicent Plumbing Conservation as an action that reduces demand includes

natural application of conservation measures such as retrofitting as equipment wears out (or is found inadequate) in existing structures, and as installing technologically improved plumbing fixtures that save water in new structures. These measures would be expected to occur regardless of whether formal water conservation programs are initiated or not.
In its calculations, the SEIS handles these actions by subtracting savings expected from them from the unconstrained total demand to get an adjusted total demand. To do so, it predicts replacement rates of toilets, shower heads, appliances, and faucets for households, and then establishes savings in usage from the retrofitted or new equipment.
Scenario D recognizes that natural replacement and efficient plumbing in new buildings will take place in the industrial/commercial (I/C) and public sectors, also. For calculations, it is assumed:
* That the SEIS calculations for the residential sector are valid.
* That replacement rates in the I/C and public sectors will be identical to those used in the residential calculations (see Table 17).
* That since employees in the public sector are included in the employment data used for the calculations, I/C and public savings can be calculated together.
* That based on SEIS figures, new toilets will save 1.5 gallons per flush (gpf) (5.4 3.9), that new showers will save 1.5 gallons per minute (gpm) (3.4 1.9), and that appliances will save .1 gallons per capita per day (gcd).
Table 18 summarizes the additional projected savings from this element. As in the case of the SEIS, no costs are assumed, since these expenses would be incurred as normal operating costs.
Retrofit Program
Since toilets account for about 28% of average residential indoor water use, and showers and baths about 26% (see Table 19), many efforts have been made nationwide to encourage retrofit of plumbing fixtures in existing buildings. Typically, free kits are distributed, including items such as shower flow restrictors, toilet tank volume displacement devices, faucet aerators, and dye tablets for

Natural Retrofit Replacement Rates
Device Year, Percent Replaced
1990 2000 2010 2035
Toilet 29 41 52 81
Shower Head 41 59 78 78
Appliances 41 59 78 78
Faucets 41 59 78 78
Source: COE Appendix 4, 1985
Industrial/Commercial and Public Components of Natural Retrofit
Component 1000 Acre-Feet Saved Per Year
1990 2000 2010 2035
Existing Plumbing-Old Households 4.4 13.1 21.8 21.8
Efficient Plumbing-New Households 2.7 8.0 13.4 26.7
Subtotal 7.1 21.0 35.2 48.5
Existing Plumbing-Old Businesses
and Public Agencies 1.0 1.3 1.8 6.3
Efficient Plumbing-New Businesses
and Public Agencies 1.3 1.2 .5 .3
New Total 9.4 23.5 37.5 55.1
Source: COE Appendices 4 and 5, 1985

Components of Industrial/Commercial Sanitary Use
Component Residential Indoor Use
Toilets 28
Shower/Bath 26
Appliances 22
Faucets 12
Leaks 22
Estimated Industrial/Commercial
Percent Sanitary Use (Gals/Emplo.yee/Day)
51 13.7
5 1.4
1 .3
21 5.7
22 5.9
Source: COE Appendix 4, 1985
Components of Industrial/Commercial Water Demand
Component Demand (Gal s./Empl oyee/Da.y) Percent of Total
Sanitary 27 60
Process/Cooling 9 20
Outdoor 9 20
Total 45 100
Source: COE Appendix 4, 1985

Residential Water Use, 1985
Sector Number of Persons Per Use Factor
Households Household (Gals/Unit/Day)
Single Family Metered 239,090 2.87 478
Single Family Flat 96,850 2.44 630
Multi-Family 226,400 2.32 217
Source: COE Appendix 2, 1985
Characteristics of Residential Water Use Category Assumptions Sector Usaqe
Non-Conserving Toilet 5.5 Gal/Flush x 4 trip/ FM SFF MF
Toilet Retrofitted with Dual Flush capita 3.25 Gal/Flush x 4 trip/ 63 54 51
Toilet purchased after 1980 day/capi ta 3.5 Gal/Flush x 4 trip/ 37 32 30
Non-Conserving shower day/capi ta 3.4 Gal/Min x 4.8 Min/ 40 34 32
Conserving Shower capita/day 1.9 Gal/Min x 4.8 Min/ 47 40 32
Retrofitted capita/day 26 22 21
faucet Saves .75 Gal/capita/day -2 -2 -2
Sources: COE Appendix 4, 1985; Flack, 1977.

detection of toilet leaks. When installed, such devices can effect significant savings, but several sources (Flack, 1977; Brown and Caldwell, 1984) report mixed results in success rates of installation. The SEIS includes only the I/C sector in the program it has devised.
Scenario D takes a much more aggressive approach. In order to solve the installation rate problem, it establishes a program for all use sectors, wherein every building built prior to 1980 would be required to undergo a "water audit" by utility department staff. This five year program assumes:
* That water audit teams would install water conserving shower heads, dual flush (low volume for liquid disposal and high volume for solid disposal) mechanisms on toilets, aerators on faucets, and repair toilet leaks at an average cost of $31 per household for equipment.
* That all buildings built prior to 1980 in the metro area could be covered by 27 teams (each with a vehicle) of two auditors in the residential sector and by 10 teams of two in the I/C and public sectors.
* That in the I/C and public sectors, employee units of five (as suggested by the SEIS) would have access to one toilet each, and 20 units would share one shower. Equipment costs are estimated at $11 per unit.
* That usage rates and calculations are in accordance with Tables 20 through 22.
* That after the one-time water audit, building owners will do their own retrofitting as equipment wears out in the future.
* That savings can be expected to decline over the years as buildings undergo the natural replacement process, and retrofit is no longer applicable.
* That there will be a 95% success rate in retrofitting.
Tables 23 through 24 show the results of the calculations.
Evapotranspiration (ET) Program
This measure is essentially an expansion of the existing ET program that has successfully been implemented in Denver (DWD, 1984). The program functions by

Demand Reductions From Retrofit
Device 1000 Acre Feet Saved in Given Year
1990 2000 2010 2035
Toilet Retrofit: SMF 4.7 3.9 3.2 1.3
MF 3.4 2.9 2.3 .9
Toilet Leak Detection: SFM, MF 1.9 0 0 0
Showerhead Retrofit: SFM 3.2 2.2 1.2 1.2
MF 1.5 1.0 .6 .6
Faucet Retrofit: SFM, MF .6 .4 .2 .2
I/C and Public Retrofit 3.8 3.1 2.5 1.0
Total 19.1 13.5 10.0 5.2

Costs of Retrofit Program
Year Average Cost During Present Worth Present
Interim Period ($/Year) Factor Value ($)
1985 9,608,400 3.992 38,356,733
1990 0 4.567 0
2000 0 2.115 0
2010 0 1.559 0
Total Present Value 38,356,733
Sources: COE Appendix 4 , 1985
Benefits of Retrofit Program
Demand Reduction Benefit in Average Benefit Present Present
Year in Given Year Given Year During Interim Worth Value
(1000 A.F./Yr.) ($/Year) Period ($/Year) Factor ($)
1985 0 0 4,584,000 3.992 18,299,30
1990 19.1 9,168,000 7,824,000 4.567 35,732.20
2000 13.5 6,480,000 5,640,000 2.115 11,928,60
2010 10.0 4,800,000 3,648,000 1.559 5,687,20'
2035 5.2 2,496,000
Total Present Value 71,6^7,30i
Sources: COE Appendix 4, 1985

establishing water needs for the typical Denver lawn on each day of the irrigation season and then publicizing the suggested watering requirement in the media. The SEIS's most current draft of the ET program revises the Appendix 5 water savings projections downward somewhat, based on more definitive calculations. It targets the single family and I/C sectors.
Scenario D builds on the new SEIS figures by including multi-family sector savings, also. This is based on Aurora's experience (COE Appendix 4, 1985), wherein it is
estimated that 35% of multi-family use is for outdoor irrigation. The analysis assumes:
* That the new SEIS figures on savings and costs are
* That as in the single family sector, about 12% of
outdoor irrigation use will be curtailed as a result of implementation of the program.
* That 50% of multi-family units will participate.
* That the program will require three staff people and
distribution of brochures in expenditures.
* That future housing will be constructed as Table 26 projects.
Tables 27 through 29 summarize the water savings, costs, and benefits associated with the Scenario D program.
Leak Detection
The SEIS includes a leak detection program modeled after Denver's and is directed towards SEIS estimates that on the average, water suppliers lose about 11% of their water to distribution system leakage. The Denver program uses teams equipped with sophisticated truck-mounted sonar equipment that can very effectively pinpoint leaks. The SEIS includes analyses of programs that cover the whole system in varying numbers of years.
Scenario D uses the SEIS program that includes two year sweeps of the system. It adds to the SEIS program by focusing on indoor leaks in a simple manner. Since about one in six toilets leaks up to about 24 gallons per day (Brown and Caldwell, 1984), a program element is included wherein water meter readers drop off leak detection dye tablets to individual ratepayers once a year. Th^ program assumes:

New Housing Units Constructed 1980-2035
Period Single Family Units Multi-Fami ly Units
Percent Number Percent Number
1980-90 57 115,290 43 86,970
1990-2000 51 83,750 49 80,470
2000-2010 51 103,750 49 99,680
2010-2035 45 82,600 55 100,970
Source: COE Appendix 4, 1985
Demand Reductions from ET
Sector 1000 Acre Feet Saved in Given Year
1990 2000 2010 2035
Single Family 4.9 6.2 7.2 8.3
Multi-Family 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.9
Industrial/Commercial .6 .8 .9 .9
Total 7.0 8.9 10.5 12.1

Implementation Cost of ET Program
Year Average Cost During Present Worth Present
Interim Period ($/Year) Factor Value ($)
1985 45,000 3.992 179,640
1990 45,000 4.567 205,515
2000 45,000 2.115 95,175
2010 45,000 1.559 70,155
2035 Brochures: 108,200
Total Present Value 658,685
Sources: COE Appendix 4, 1985
Benefits of ET Program
Demand Reduction Benefit in Average Benefit Present Present
Year in Given Year Given Year During Interim Worth Value
(1000 A.F./Yr.) (S/Year) Period ($/Year) Factor ($)
1985 0 0 1,680,000 3.992 6,706,560
1990 7.0 3,360,000 3,816,000 4.567 17,427,670
2000 8.9 4,272,000 4,656,000 2.115 9,847,440
2010 10.5 5,040,000 5,424,000 1.559 8,456,020
2035 12.1 5,808,000
Total Present Value 42,437,690

That the SEIS numbers on leak detection are valid.
* That costs of the toilet about $1.50 per household or dye tablets and repair parts.
* That there will be a 50% the dye tablets.
* That costs leaks are not doing business.
leak detection program average employee unit. Included are
participation rate in usage of
of repairing identified distribution system included, since they are a normal cost of
Tables 30 and 31 indicate the results when Scenario D's toilet leak detection element is added to the SEIS calculations.
Lawn Restrictions
The SEIS adopts the approach Aurora presently uses for this program. For new construction, regulations would be established covering lawn size limitations based on size of lots, along with low water use landscaping requirements for the rest of the lot. This is a relatively high cost program, due to projected increased costs of a low water use landscape. This assumption may be faulty, as the DWD in its 1986 conservation calendar (DWD, 1985) states that low water landscapes can be put in at roughly the same costs as traditional landscapes. Due to the potentially
controversial nature of such a program, the SEIS projects only 80% participation rates at best, even with a well-staffed enforcement crew.
Since the SEIS program targets only single family households in its program, Scenario D adds in the multifamily and I/C sectors, also. Assumptions include:
* The costs and benefits of the most current SEIS
calculations are valid for the single family sector, wherein 80% compliance with the regulations are assumed.
* In the multi-family sector, 35% of use is outdoor, and 45% savings from low water use vegetation can be assumed (COE Appendix 4, 1985).
* In the I/C sector, 20% of use is outdoor, and 45% savings result from low water plants.
* That 80% compliance can be expected in both the multifamily and I/C sectors.

Costs of Leak Detection Program
Year Average Cost During Present Worth Present
Interim Period ($/Year) Factor Value ($)
1985 2,126,100 3.992 8,487,400
1990 2,632,000 4.567 12,020,300
2000 2,974,500 2.115 6,291,100
2010 3,442,000 1.559 5,366,100
Total Present Value 32,164.900
Sources: COE Appendix 4 , 1985; Flack, 1977
Benefits of Leak Detection Program
Demand Reduction Benefit in Average Benefit Present Present
Year in Given Year Given Year During Interim Worth Value
(1000 A.F./Yr.) ($/Year) Period ($/Year) Factor ($)
1985 0 3,648,000 3.992 14,562,800
1990 15.2 7,296,000 8,424,000 4.567 38,472,400
2000 19.9 9,552,000 10,536,000 2.115 22,283,600
2010 24.0 11,520,000
12,864,000 1.559 20,055,000
2035 29,6 14,208,000
Total Present Value 95,373,800
Sources: COE Appendix 4, 1985; Flack, 1977

* That the program will require six part-time and two full time staff along with four vehicles. These would be in addition to the staff already identified in the SEIS.
Tables 32 and 34 illustrate the expected savings from from the lawn restriction program.
This program focuses on the 96,850 households in the SEIS demand area that are now un-metered. Most are in Denver, and were built prior to 1957, when Denver started requiring that all new structures have water meters. The SEIS includes costs for meters, installation, maintenance, and meter reading for a program wherein all meters would be installed from 1986-90. The benefits decline with time due to adjustments to account for metering that would have occurred even in the absence of the program (e.g., when old homes are extensively remodeled or rebuilt).
Scenario D builds on the program by recognizing that indoor leak detection and retrofitting could be performed at the same time as meter installation. Assumptions include:
* That the most current SEIS calculations of costs and
benefits of metering are valid.
* That retrofit costs and benefits can be calculated as in the retrofit program described above.
* That leak detection will be a one time only savings.
It assumes the 22% leakage average for households (COE Appendix 4, 1985) will be reduced 50% as a result of the
* That the leak detection will require six teams with
portable sonic leak detection devices.
Tables 35 through 37 summarize the benefits and costs of the Scenario D metering program.
A water pricing policy is not included in any of the Appendix 5 water conservation programs. This is unfortunate, since a wide range of literature notes that substantial water savings can be realized by means of pricing structures. As two experts explain (Hanke, 1971), utility managers have most often in the past applied average

Demand Reductions From Lawn Restrictions
Sector 1000 Acre Feet Saved in Given Year 1990 2000 2010 2035
Single Family 5.7 14.9 22.5 29.5
Multi-Family 1.4 2.5 3.0 3.1
Industrial/Commercial .6 1.1 .5 .3
Totals 7.7 18.5 26.0 32.9
Sources: COE Appendices 2 and 4, 1985; Morris, 1985

Cost of Lawn Restrictions
Year Average Cost During Present Worth Present
Interim Period ($/Year) Factor Value ($)
1985 5,646,000 3.992 22,539 ,000
1990 4,638,000 4.567 21,182 ,000
2000 3,846,000 2.115 8,134 ,000
2010 1,544,000 1.559 2,407 ,000
Total Present Value 54,262 ,000
Sources: COE Appendix 4 , 1985
Benefits of Lawn Restrictions
Demand Reduction Benefit in Average Benefit Present Present
Year in Given Year Given Year During Interim Worth Value
(1000 A.F./Yr.) ($/Year) Period ($/Year) Factor ($)
1985 0 0 1,848,000 3.992 7,377,000
1990 7.7 3,696,000 6,288,000 4.567 28,717,000
2000 18.5 8,880,000 10,680,000 2.115 22,588,000
2010 26.0 12,480,000 14,136,000 1.559 22,038,000
2035 32.9 15,792,000
Total Present Value 80,720,000
Sources: COE Appendix 4, 1985

Demand Reductions From Metering Program
Measure 1000 Acre Feet Saved 1990 2000 2010 2035
Meteri ng Leak Detection Retrofit Toilets Retrofit Showers and Faucets 13.5 12.5 10.9 6.9 2.7 0 0 0 1.7 1.4 1.2 .5 1.3 .9 .5 .5
Totals 19.2 14.8 12.6 7.9
Sources: COE Appendices 2 and 4, 1985; Flack, 1977.
cr> o in

Costs of Metering Program
Year Average Cost During Present Worth Present
1985 Interim Period ($/Year) Factor Value ($)
1990 7,654,210 3.992 30,555,600
2000 638,500 4.567 2,900,000
2010 621,500 2.115 1,300,000
2035 587,500 1.559 900,000
Total Present Value 35,655,600
Sources: COE Appendices 2 and 4, 1985; Flack, 1977
Benefits of Metering Program
Demand Reduction Benefit in Average Benefit Present Present
Year in Given Year Given Year During Interim Worth Value
(1000 A.F./Yr.) ($/Year) Period ($/Year) Factor (S)
1985 0 0 4,608,000 3.992 18,395,100
1990 19.2 9,216,000 8,160,000 4.567 37,266,700
2000 14.8 7,104,000 6,576,000 2.115 13,908,200
2010 12.6 6,048,000 4,920,000 1.559 7,670,300
2035 7.9 3,792,000
Total Present Value 77,240,300
Sources: COE Appendix 4, 1985

costs of supplying water in order to establish rates. Hence, the proliferation of flat (unmetered), constant, and declining block rate structures in the Denver area is explained (see Table 38).
These pricing structures are at variance with classic economic theory of supply and demand. In the Denver area, the requirements of outdoor irrigation take up about 50% of annual demand. Yet for DWD water customers, the declining block structure means that the more water used, the less is charged per 1000 gallons. The effect of this structure (as well as flat and constant rate structures) is that water customers who use less water (e.g., inner city customers with small lawns) end up subsidizing the high usage customers.
According to Hanke, "If summer users want more water, additional capacity must be provided. Summer water, in an economic sense, is high cost water. By not varying water rates to reflect those cost differences, investments are larger than economically justified. That is, peak demands, which are used to guide water utility investments, are not appropriately restrained by prices that reflect the peak load marginal costs."
Scenario D utilizes marginal cost and peak load economic theory to effect large savings in all water use sectors. For all users, the marginal cost is increased by 25% for the seven non-irrigation months, and 50% for the five irrigation months, in accordance with the tendency of price elasticity of demand to be of a greater magnitude for irrigation purposes. Such a practice is not without precedent in the region. In Dallas, water rates were raised 22% over the base price for the seven winter months and by 58% for the five summer months. Significant savings were realized (Rice, 1979). A DWD analyst is reported (Carroll, p.97) to have commented that such a program could be structured so that for the basic water requirements of consumers, prices could be lowered from current prices. This would serve to compensate for the increased revenue that would occur with higher marginal prices.
Other assumptions used for this analysis are:
* That for the single family metered sector, the Use Factor Model that is used to predict demand for the SEIS can be applied, since it accounts for increases in marginal price for this sector only.
* That all other sectors can be expected to react to marginal and seasonal price changes in the same manner as the single family metered sector. The implied price elasticity of -0.345 is not inconsistent with the body of

water conservation literature (Easley, 1985) for application to the other sectors. By applying the same percentage reduction as single family metered (12%), the Use Factor Demand equation constant multipliers can be modified to predict the expected savings from the pricing program for all sectors.
* That there will be no loss of consumer surplus if base prices are accordingly lowered. Also, the savings from reductions in wastewater treatment and energy costs that are associated with all of these programs, but are not accounted for in the SEIS analysis could be applied against any other perceived loss of consumer surplus.
* That the pricing program will not be instituted until 1990, for two reasons. First, it enables the metering program to be completed, ensuring the pricing program could be applied as equitably as possible. Second, such a program would be controversial enough to require several years of educational and political efforts to make it palatable enough for public acceptance.
* That the program would require the equivalent of two employees to handle billing, customer inquiries, and followup analysis.
Tables 39 through 40 indicate the substantial savings that could be realized with such a program, with minimal costs.
Plumbing Code Establishment
This program is intended to take account of technology improvements in plumbing fixtures and appliances. While the natural replacement and efficient plumbing in new buildings analyses above are designed to account for improved fixtures, they ignore the very real likelihood that even more savings will be realized as even more efficient fixtures and appliances become available. It is assumed that the pricing and educational measures included in Scenario D would help stimulate demand for such lower water usage equipment.
The inclusion of this measure in Scenario D greatly increases the total capital cost of the whole scenario package, since the water-saving showers and toilets that are envisioned cost substantially more than today's conventional fixtures. Indeed, this measure is the only one that exhibits a benefit/cost ratio that is less than one. This high cost would be partially offset by the tremendous

Rate Structures in SEIS Demand Area
Rate Structure Flate Rate Constant Rate Declining Block Rate Increasing Block Rate Total
Percent Single Family 30 27 22 21 100
Source: COE Appendix 4, 1985
Demand Reductions From Pricing Program
Sector 1000 2000 Acre-Feet 2010 per Year 2035
Single Family Metered 28.5 35.2 40.6
Single Family Flat ^ 5.3 5.3 5.3
Multi-Family 10.9 13.8 16.7
Industrial/Commercial 7.8 8.5 8.9
Public 4.9 5.8 6.7
Total 57.4 68.6 78.2
1/ Will be metered by 1990, but demographic differences require separation from Single Family Metered Sector.

Cost of Pricing Program
Year Average Cost During Present Worth Present
Interim Period ($/Year) Factor Value ($)
1985 0 3.992
1990 90,000 4.567 411,030
2000 90,000 2.115 190,350
2010 90,000 1.559 140,310
Total Present Value 741,690
Benefits of Pricing Program
Demand Reduction Benefit in Average Benefit Present Present
Year in Given Year Given Year During Interim Worth Value
(1000 A.F./Yr.) (S/Year) Period ($/Year) Factor ($)
1985 0 0 3.992
1990 0 0 13,766,000 4.567 62,915,000
2000 57.4 27,552,000 30,240,000 2.115 63,957,600
2010 68.0 32,928,000 35,232,000 1.559 54,926,700
2035 78.2 37,536,000
Total Present Value 181,799,300

reduction in wastewater loads and hot water energy costs that would result from it.
The assumptions that are employed are:
* Codes would be established on toilets, showers, and
appliances. Air-assisted toilets are already on the market that use 0.5 gallons per flush (Baker, 1981), at a cost $275 over today's conventional toilets. Baker also reports on successful usage of 0.5 gallon per minute air-assisted showers, at $220 over conventional installed costs. Dishwashers that use seven gallons per load (three gallons less than SEIS assumptions) and clothes washers that use 35 gallons (11 less than SEIS figures) are also already available. All of these are adopted for inclusion in a plumbing code. See Table 41 These shower and toilet costs are adopted, also, although the prices could be expected to drop due to efficiencies of scale in production and
* The code would be established in 1990.
* That 77% of homes have clothes washers and 43% have dishwashers, and there are 1.25 toilets and 1.25 showers per household (Brown and Caldwell, 1984).
* That the program would require four additional employees for code enforcement.
* That the savings associated with this program would be over and above the natural replacement and efficient plumbing calculations.
Tables 42 through 44 summarize the additional savings that would be realized from establishment of such a plumbing code.
Educational Program
The SEIS includes no savings due to educational programs. Several literature sources (EPA, 1981; N. Marin, 1977; Betchart, 1981) attribute savings due to educational efforts in the 5% range. Scenario D includes an educational program that is assumed to reduce demand after adjustment for natural replacement and efficient plumbing by 3%. This lower figure is used because many of the other mandatory measures in Scenario D could be expected to take up some of the benefits, and because the existing ET and Xeriscape programs are already reducing demand as educational programs. It is assumed that this eductional program will subsume the Xeriscape program.

Reductions From Plumbing Code Program -Residential Fixtures and Appliances
Toilets Showers Dishwashers Clothes Total Washers
Present Conserving Use (1985) 3.5 gal/ flush 1.9 gal/ min. 10 gal/load 42 gal/load
New Conserving Use (1990) .5 gal/ flush .5 gal/ min. 6 gal/load 32 gal/load
Use Frequency (Per capita/day) 4.0 flushes 4.8 min. .17 loads .23 loads
Demand Reductions (Gal/capita/day) 12.0 6.7 .7 2.3 21.7
Sources: COE Appendix 4, 1985; Baker, 1981; N. Marin County, 1977
Total Reductions From Plumbing Code Program
1000 Acre Feet in Year
Sector 2000 2010 2035
Residential Fixtures and Appliances 10.4 9.1 10.2
Industrial/Commercial and Public 1.3 .6 .3
Total 11.7 9.7 10.5

Costs of Plumbing Code Program
Year Average Cost During Present Worth Present
Interim Period ($/Year) Factor Value ($)
1985 0 3.992
1990 12,136,800 4.567 55,428,700
2000 13,566,500 2.115 28,693,100
2010 4,882,500 1.559 7,611,800
Total Present Value 91,733,600
Sources: COE Appendix 4, 1985; Baker, 1981; N. Marin County,1977
Beenfits of Plumbing Code Program
Demand Reduction Benefit in Average Benefit Present Present
Year in Given Year Given Year During Interim Worth Value
(1000 A.F./Yr.) ($/Year) Period ($/Year) Factor ($)
1985 0 0 3.992
1990 0 0 2,808,000 4.567 12,824,100
2000 11.7 5,616,000 5,136,000 2.115 10,862,600
2010 9.7 4,656,000 4,848,000 1.559 7,558,000
2035 10.5 5,046,000
Total Present Value 31,244,700
Sources: Appendix 4, 1985; Baker, 1981; N. Marin County, 1977

The assumptions are:
* A staff of ten will handle the educational duties,
which would include activities such as paid advertising, community outreach, additional programs in schools, aggressive speakers' bureau, general public relations, and special events and promotions.
* The program would have an operating budget of $1.5
million, increased to $2 million in the year 2000.
Tables 45 and 46 demonstrate potential benefits and costs of the educational program.
As EIS Appendix 4 points out, development
conseravtion programs consisting of multiple measures raises the issue of interactive effects of the measures on water savings. Since some measures target the same water usage practices for potential savings, it is logical to assume that the combination of the measures would not be simply additive. Instead, implementation of one measure could mean that less savings would be expected from the application of another measure.
For example, both the HT and the lawn restriction measures target outdoor irrigation. But when lawns are reduced in size, then there is less potential for the ET measure to have an effect.
Interactions need not be limited to two measures. For instance, the metering program, the pricing program, and the ET program would all reduce outdoor irrigation. Consequently, some adjustment would have to be made that would reduce the total savings associated with simultaneous application.
The SEIS approaches this problem with complex formulae that successively reduce factors with which the individual measures are calculated. In some cases, this is done for individual water districts, since characteristics sometimes alter the nature of the adjustment calculations.
Such complex calculations are beyond the scope 'of this thesis, since individual district characteristics are not available. Instead, the most current version of the SEIS Appendix 4 is depended upon. In that document, the most

Costs of Education Program
Year Average Cost During Interim Period ($/Year) Present Worth Factor Present Value ($)
1985 1,950,000 3.992 7,784,400
1990 1,950,000 4.567 8,905,600
2000 2,450,000 2.115 5,181,800
2010 2,450,000 1.559 3,819,600
2035 Total Present Value 25,691,400
Benefits of Education Program
Demand Reduction Benefit in Average Benefit Present Present
Year in Given Year Given Year During Interim Worth Value
(1000 A.F./Yr.) ($/Yea r) Period ($/Year) Factor ($)
1985 0 0 1,944,000 3.992 7,760,400
1990 8.1 3,880,000 4,292,000 4.567 19,601,600
2000 9.8 4,704,000 5,040,000 2.115 10,659,600
2010 11.2 5,376,000 5,808,000 1.559 9,054,700
2035 13.0 6,240,000
Total Present Value 47,076,300
Sources: N. Marin County, 1977; EPA, 1981; AWWA, 1980

ambitious conservation program has many elements in common with the program proposed here, inclusing metering, mandatory retrofits, ET, and increase in marginal price. Timing of application of those measures is similar in both programs, also. Therefore, calculations of interactions for the thesis program use the same percentage reductions for each time period as were used for the SEIS program.
Table 48 summarizes the costs, benefits, and adjusted demand reductions associated with application of the eight program elements described above.
Scenario D Construction
As is the case with the six SEIS scenarios, the conservation program described above can not meet projected demands by itself. However, the need for other supply sources is
reduced considerably. When the water balance for the time periods is calculated with only conservation elements ([Existing utilized supply] [unconstrained demand natural replacement and efficient plumbing conservation savings]), the following results occur:
1990 2000 2010 2035
Water balance 56.7 39.4 (9.8) (83.3)
Hence, there is no real need for additional water supply sources until after the year 2000. However, as the SEIS scenarios reflect, additional ncnstructural supplies are expected to come on line before 2000, regardless of the conservation programs. These include projects already scheduled by water suppliers in the SEIS demand area, the Williams Fork/Green Mountain/Dillon exchange, and other West Slope exchanges. Those sources were also deemed appropriate for inclusion in Scenario D, as this new scenario is entitled, as they simply represent good water management practices. They also represent a safety cushion against the eventuality that the proposed conservation program does not produce the demand reductions projected.
Beyond the year 2000, structural supply sources are added to Scenario D as needed. They are selected from the same list of possible sources as the SEIS employs, according to a few basic criteria:
* Capable of addition to total water supply in relatively small increments, in order to closely track actual demand.
* Can be implemented with minimal environmental degradation.

Interaction Adjustments for Conservation Program
Year Sum For Independent Measures Adjustment For Interactions Net Demand Reduction
1990 76.3 11.4 64.9
2000 154.5 34.0 120.5
2010 172.6 36.3 136.3
2035 189.4 39.8 149.6
Source: COE Appendix 4, 1985

Summary of Costs, Benefits, and Demand Reductions of Conservation Program
Demand Reduction
Conservation Measure Cost (Million $) Benefit (Million $) Net Benefit (Million $) (1000 Acre Feet) 1990 2000 2010 2035
Retrofit 38.36 71.65 33.29 19.1 13.5 10.0 5.2
ET Program .66 42044 41.78 7.0 8.9 10.5 12.1
Leak Detection 32.16 95.37 63.21 15.2 19.9 24.0 29.6
Lawn Restrictions 54.26 80.72 26.46 7.7 18.5 26.0 32.9
Metering 35.66 77.24 41.58 19.2 14.8 12.6 7.9
Pricing .74 181.80 181.06 0 57.4 68.6 78.2
Plumbing Code 91.73 31.24 (60.49) 0 11.7 9.7 10.5
Education 25.69 47.08 21.39 8.1 9.8 11.2 13.0
Totals 279.26 627.54 348.28 76.3 154.5 172.6 189.4
Totals Adjusted for Interactions 64.9 120.5 136.3 149.6
Source: COE Appendix 4, 1985

* Implementation involves minimal barriers, institutional or otherwise.
Monetary costs are not excessive.
These criteria thinned the candidate list considerably, including large projects such as Two Forks and Estabrook. Since several other of the sources would depend on either Two Forks or Estabrook for storage of their yields, they were eliminated, also.
The components that were chosen for Scenario D are exhibited in Table 49. As can be seen, Scenario D maintains a positive water balance through the year 2035, but not an excessive one, which constitutes sound water managment practice. Such a surplus can be relied upon for the eventualities of a relatively dry year of precipitation and of less than expected savings from the conservation program.
Scenario D also meets the criteria listed above. The inclusion of groundwater as a future source helps substantially in the effort to include projects that can be added in small increments; wells can be drilled as needed. It should be noted that the cost of enlarging Gross Reservoir is relatively high (about $122 million for 14,000 acre feet of yield). Representatives of the Environmental Caucus anticipate that these enlargement costs could drop substantially when the construction technology of roller compacted concrete is improved in the future.
Figure 4 is a visual representation of Scenario D.
Comparison with SEIS Scenarios
To put Scenario D into perspective, it is viseful to compare it with the other SEIS scenarios. This can be done in several ways.
One important factor is the level of present value costs associated with the seven scenarios. As Table 50 indicates, Scenario D compares favorably with the SEIS scenarios, as it is low in the range of values. It should
be noted that mitigation costs are not included in these calculations, since they are presented so ambiguously in the SEIS documents. Scenario D should entail much lower mitigation costs, since structural sources are minimized.

Scenario D Summary
1000 Acre Feet Capital Cost
1990 2000 2010 2035 (Millions of 1985 $)
Unconstrained Water Demand 413.6 514.6 597.6 703.0
Natural Replacement Efficient Plumbing-New 9.4 23.5 37.5 55.1
Adjusted Total Demand 404.2 491.1 560.1 647.5
New Conservation
Universal Metering ET Program Lawn Size Restriction Pricing Retrofit Code Establishment Leak Detection Education
Subtotal 64.9 120.5 136.3 149.6 337.61
Near-Term Nonstructural
Wms. Fk/Grn Mtn/Dillon Transmtn Effluent 10.0 10.0 10.0 -
Exchange 13.8 13.8 13.8
Windy Gap Purchase Other W.SI ope Exchanges 9.0 9.0 9.0
Subtotal 32.8 32.8 32.8
Near-Term Structural
Nonpotable Reuse 13.0 13.0 68.3
Projects of Others 3.0 5.4 5.4 12.0
Subtotal 3.0 5.4 18.4 '25.0 68.3
Future Structural
Wms Fk Pumping 18.0 78.65
Enlarge Gross Res 14.0 122.13
Groundwater bubtotal 22.0 20.2
54.0 221.0
Existing Utilized Supply 396.0 410.0 414.0 415.0
Total Water Supply 463.9 568.7 601.5 676.4
Net Water Balance 59.7 77.6 41.4 28.9
Total Capital Cost 626.9

_ Figure 4

Table 50
Present Value of Scenarios Scenario Present Value
A-1 449,516.5
A-2 377,536.0
B-l 301,524.8
B-2 394,964.6
C1 312,024.8
C-2 294,057.5
D 310,699.4
Based on Q% discount rate, and SEIS present value calculation methodology.
Another means of comparing scenarios is by examining the water balance associated with each scenario for the benchmark time periods.
Table 51
Scenario Water Balances
Water Balance (1000 acre feet)
Scenario 1990 2000 2010 2035
A-1 12.6 65.2 49.2 28.4
A-2 16.8 92.6 138.2 36.5
B-l 54.0 51.4 59.5 18.3
B-2 58.5 72.0 153.5 108.3
C-l 58.5 139.4 101.5 39.3
C-2 54.0 129.9 92.0 36.8
D 59.7 77.6 41.4 28.9
Source: COE Appendix 5, 1985
Significantly, Scenario D maintains a comfortable margin of safety in water balance, while avoiding an extreme surplus. Some of the other scenarios, especially A-2, B-2, C1, and C-2 exhibit time periods when the water surplus is high. This situation could potentially result in overinvestment in supply sources, and could prove financially risky in the event that population does not grow as projected.
Also worthy of comparison are the impacts associated with the scenarios. Table 52 is a representation of impacts

Impact Category
Capital Costs ($100,000) Water Conservatior Savings (1000 A.F.) Household & Business Displacement (units) Land Use Value Decrease (1000 acres] Recreation User Days Increase (1000 days) Big Game Habitat (Winter ) (Range A.) Fisheries & Aquatic Life (Stream) (Miles ) Water Quality (Salinity ) (Inc. mg/1) Wetlands (Acres ) (Covered) Reliabilit (Index)^ (Value)
A-l 2689.6 3.7 72 16.8 . -14.0 4476 301 27.4 2145 194.9
A-2 1076.8 16.8 72 15.0 -38.6 4330 168 21.8 1860 239.9
B-l 648.7 71.0 147 9.0 56.0 2266 36 9.5 989 221.6
B-2 1183.0 71.0 151 12.4 68;0 2874 98 - 18.2 1274 211.5
C-l 617.6 71.0 68 13.4 -51.3 3722 106 11.4 1575 243.3
C-2 526.5 71.0 75 10.6 -77.6 1600 46 10.0 505 237.8
D 626.9 149.6 0 3.1 1.6 144 10 5.0 134 232.8
Source: COE Appendix 5, 1985.

in ten different categories that are common to all of the scenarios. It shows a significantly lower level of negative impacts for Scenario D than for any of the other scenarios.
Chapter 4, which follows immediately, contains a detailed discussion of cost effectiveness of the scenarios, using these same impact data. Based on establishing relative values of these impacts, it comprises a comprehensive comparison of the seven scenarios in terms of cost effectiveness.


"If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water."
- Loren Eiseley
"It looks like a dam site designed by an engineering god."
- Charles Jordan
"The greatest beauty is organic wholeness, the wholeness of life and things, the divine beauty of the universe. Love that, not man apart from that."
- Robinson Jeffers
"We're not being dammed because people need water, need it to drink, to cook, or bathe in, but to plant grass where it has never existed before, at the edge of the Great Plains."
- William Berger
"The need for an economical and reliable source of water to meet the future needs of the metropolitan area is of paramount concern to area home builders."
- Charles Austin
These quotes encompass the nature of the dilemma faced by those making decisions about the form metropolitan Denver's water supply will take during the next 50 years. Eiseley the naturalist (Jenkinson, 1981) and Jeffers the poet (Jeffers, 1969) emphasize the beauty of the undisturbed

natural world. Jordan (Verrengia, 1985), senior water adviser at the Denver Water Department, expresses the dam builder's viewpoint of the Two Forks dam site. Berger (Ditmer, 1985) is dismayed at the prospect of his 111 year old ranch being inundated in order to provide water for city dwellers. And Austin (Austin, 1985), president of the metropolitan homebuilders' organization, focuses on the need for reliable sources of water supplies to serve growth.
Such is the realm of human values that the Denver Water Board must consider as they strive to establish plans that meet their mandate to provide water for a growing city. On the one hand, large reservoirs can provide an assured supply (barring droughts) to meet present and future needs. But on the other hand, costs of reservoir development are high, and not necessarily based in monetary considerations. How does one place a dollar figure on the value of a gold medal trout fishery, flowing through a dramatic canyon less than an hour's drive from Denver? How can the value of a century-old family ranch be determined? And how can such values be balanced against the necessity of providing water for a burgeoning Denver population?
Without a doubt, then, Denver's water supply decisionmakers are faced wtih an extremely difficult goal: balancing quality of life factors with an assured urban water supply. The development of the Systemwide EIS is one means that has been chosen to facilitate those decisions. By laying out the monetary costs and benefits of various supply scenarios, the SEIS gives water providers an economic handle on implications of the scenarios, making it relatively easy to compare scenarios on these dollar terms. But the impacts of the scenarios (i.e., effects on wildlife, fisheries, water quality, displacement of homes and businesses, etc.) are quantified in non-monetary terms. The question becomes, then, one of determining the approach decision-makers should adopt for evaluation of these nonmonetary impacts.
This chapter strives to shed light on this dilemma. First, the concept of value is discussed in general terms. Next it describes the application of a process, called the Delphi technique, which establishes relative values for ten specific impacts of scenario development. Finally, these weighted values are applied to cost effectiveness analysis of the seven options, in order to identify the most desirable scenario.
A. The Concept of Value
In an excellent textbook on environmental planning (McAllister, 1982), the role of values in decision-making i6

effectively addressed. It is noted that there are two phases of evaluation: analysis and synthesis. Analysis is determined to be objective, since the estimation of impacts can be verified and agreed upon. But synthesis must necessarily be subjective, since formation of an integrated view involves assessment of the relative importance of the impacts to the whole. (See Figure 5.) Hence, the resultant preferred choice is a value judgment, and reflects an irrefutable fact: "People will reach different conclusions from the same set of facts about impacts because their values differ."
McAllister defines two main types of values. First are instrumental values, which are attached to the means of reaching an established goal. Instrumental values are subject to scientific inquiry, since systematic analysis can be used ". .to determine the cause-effect linkages between the means and the ends they are thought to promote. The more effective is a means for promoting a desired end, the higher should be its instrumental value. It can be concluded that values are not independent of facts, and, that facts can play a key role in shaping the validity of instrumental values."
By contrast, terminal values, which are attached to ends, rather than means, must be regarded as essentially subjective in nature. Examples of ends are health, job opportunities, income, esthetics, and the subject at hand, water supply.
In the reality of the day to day world, however, things are not sc clear cut. Ends can affect perceptions of means and their attendant instrumental values. And ends can in and of themselves be a means to a greater end.
Such terminology can be applied to the task of evaluating public actions such as providing urban water supplies. In the SEIS evaluation, a variety of alternative means (the seven scenarios) for solving the problem are addressed. Since each of the means has many components, each can, through cause-effect linkages, have many impacts, not only for the intended end of water supply, but also for unintended ends as well. Plans, then, are compared on the basis of the types and magnitudes of impacts they are expected to have on visible ends, and the terminal values attached to them.
The problem in the evaluation of the water supply end at hand is to establish quantifications of terminal values of some of the visible ends that might be expected to result from implementation of the water supply scenarios. That is, what sort of value should be placed on visible ends such as

Figure 5
Value Categories
Source: McAllister, 1982

loss of wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and displacement of homes and businesses? The next section describes a process for solving this problem.
B. Application of the Delphi Technique
The theory of balance is the basis of the assignment of values to impacts from water supply development. This theory maintains that people tend to seek balance in their attitudes toward people and objects (McAllister, 1982). For example, if people share similar opinions about the same subject, a state of balance is said to exist. But if they disagree, there will be a tendency to adjust attitudes, either towards the people, the object, or both, to achieve a state of balance.
This thesis utilizes a technique for value assignment that is based on the theory of balance. Called the Delphi technique, it was developed by the Rand Corporation as a means of obtaining and processing expert judgments for the purpose of maximizing the accuracy of the resulting estimates (Dalkey, 1972). It was originally designed to utilize the consensus of a panel of experts to predict future conditions or impacts of a given action; hence the name Delphi, after the famous Greek oracle, Applicaton has since been expanded to many other purposes, including determination of human values and facilitation of group judgments, as it is applied here.
The process itself is not complex. It essentially involves iterative administrations of a questionnaire to a panel of experts, until convergence on consensus is reached. The Delphi technique was applied to the thesis as follows.
Delphi Methodology
* The first task was to establish a panel of experts. In this case, it was deemed appropriate to utilize the Governor's Metropolitan Roundtable, since it fulfilled two primary criteria. First, it is comprised of experts on the issue of Denver's future water supply. And second, the experts have incentive to reach consensus, since they are charged with the task of adopting a common position as to the most satisfactory form of Denver's future supply. To date, they have been unsuccessful in this effort.
One representative from each of the major Roundtable participants (Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Denver, Denver Water Department, Metropolitan Water Providers, the West Slope, and the Environmental Caucus) consented to serve on the panel.