Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Kenney Et Al, JAWRA Draft, 2007

Kenney Et Al, JAWRA Draft, 2007

Ratings: (0)|Views: 16|Likes:
Published by Sky

More info:

Published by: Sky on Sep 18, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/05/2010

pdf

text

original

 
 Draft as Submitted to the Journal of the American Water Resources Association
1
R
ESIDENTIAL
W
ATER
D
EMAND
M
ANAGEMENT
:
 
L
ESSONS FROM
A
URORA
,
 
C
OLORADO
1
 
Douglas S. Kenney, Christopher Goemans, Roberta Klein, Jessica Lowrey, and KevinReidy
2
 
 ABSTRACT: Residential water demand is a function of several factors,some of which are within the control of water utilities (e.g., price, water restrictions, rebate programs) and some of which are not (e.g., climateand weather, demographic characteristics). Understanding which factorsinfluence demand, how much, and among which classes and sub-sets of customers can be tremendously valuable to water managers as part of  planning and drought management efforts. In this study of Aurora,Colorado, factors influencing residential water demand are reviewed during a turbulent period (2000-2005) featuring severe drought, frequent (and significant) pricing reforms, and several additional management interventions. Findings expand the understanding of residential demand in at least three salient ways: first, by documenting the interactionbetween price and outdoor water restrictions; second, by identifyingimportant differences in how price and restrictions influence demand among different classes of customers (i.e., low, middle and high volumewater users) and between pre-drought and drought periods; and third, indemonstrating how real-time information about consumptive use (via theWater Smart Reader) shapes customer behavior.
Key Terms: water conservation, drought, water pricing, water policy
1
Paper submitted (1/24/07) to the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA-07-0012-P).
2
Kenney (Deputy Director), Goemans and Klein (Research Associates), and Lowrey (ProfessionalResearch Assistant) are members of the NOAA-sponsored Western Water Assessment, housed at theUniversity of Colorado. Reidy is Water Conservation Supervisor for Aurora Water. Directcomments/inquires to Doug Kenney, UCB 401, Boulder, CO 80309-0401;douglas.kenney@colorado.edu.
 
 Draft as Submitted to the Journal of the American Water Resources Association
2
I
NTRODUCTION
 
A century ago, most western water issues focused on the pursuit of federally-funded (andconstructed) projects serving agricultural water demands through increased storage andconveyance facilities. Today, the landscape is dramatically different, as municipalitieshave emerged as the focal point of most water issues and decision-making, and as thescope of water management has come to focus on demands as well as supplies. In manycases, this municipal focus is on suburbs rather than core cities, as the suburbs often facethe strongest growth pressures coupled with the least robust supply systems—aconsequence of developing after core cities have already appropriated the most abundantand reliable local supplies. In these settings, the majority of water demands are typicallyfor single-family homes; consequently, one of the strongest management needs is tobetter understand and predict how these household demands are likely to respond both tomanagement interventions (such as price increases and outdoor water use restrictions)and exogenous factors (such as weather and demographic changes). This information isparticularly valuable in the context of drought planning and mitigation.C
ASE
S
TUDY
:
 
D
ROUGHT IN
A
URORA
,
 
C
OLORADO
 The investigation of residential water demand featured in this paper focuses on the Cityof Aurora, Colorado, a rapidly growing Denver suburb of approximately 309,000residents served exclusively by a single municipal provider: Aurora Water. Based on ouranalysis of billing records provided by Aurora Water, approximately 70-80 percent of deliveries in the utility’s service area are to residential customers, with single-familyhomes accounting for the bulk of these deliveries. Stretching supplies to meet demands inAurora has been a growing challenge for several decades, as rapid population growth,combined with limited opportunities to expand supply, have placed a premium ondemand management. In this respect, Aurora is similar to cities across Colorado’s FrontRange and much of the southwestern United States (Nichols and Kenney, 2003).In 2002, water officials along the Front Range were confronted with one of the worstdrought years on record (Pielke
et al
., 2005), threatening the adequacy of Aurora’s water
 
 Draft as Submitted to the Journal of the American Water Resources Association
3
supply. In response, Aurora Water implemented a variety of short and long-term demandmanagement programs over the next few years. Programs included: drought restrictions(i.e., limits on outdoor water use); incentive programs; introductions of new technologies;and multiple changes in billing structures and rates, culminating in the adoption of anincreasing block rate pricing structure with individualized (household-specific) block widths (i.e., the volume of water priced at a given rate level) based on water budgetsadjusted annually in response to consumption levels, water storage conditions, andrevenue considerations. A timeline of the key management interventions—i.e., thepricing and water restrictions policies—is provided in Figure 1. Collectively, these waterdemand efforts were highly successful, reducing total annual deliveries in 2002 and 2003by 8 and 26 percent, respectively, relative to average deliveries in the 2000-2001 period(Aurora Management Plan, 2005). The vast majority of these cutbacks came from thesingle-family home sector and occurred during the summer irrigation season.
Figure 1: Timeline of Pricing and Restrictions Policies
7-1 to 9-9;Lawn watering2 days perweek, two hoursper dayHouseholds face a fixed service cost (FC) plus a uniform per unitcharge (P1); all prices are shown per thousand gallons (TH Gal)In addition to FC, households face an increasing block rate structurefor all units consumed. Block widths are standardized across allhouseholdsIn addition to FC, households face an increasing block rate structurefor all units consumed. Block widths are
specific
to each household,based on average daily indoor consumption (ADIC) and an irrigationallowance (IA). Households receive a varying percentage of theirADIC and IA in each block depending on drought conditions.Single RateInc. Block Rate
Source: City of Aurora: Water Management Plan (2002-2004) and ratesall.txtprovided bythe City of Aurora Utilities Department.
5/1/027/6/0210/1/021/1/03
FC = 2.69P1=1.91FC = 2.87P1=2.04
5/3/03
FC = 3.30P1=2.34FC = 2.87P1=2.04
12/31/041/1/045/1/04
5/15 to 8/31;circle/square/diamondwatering restrictions9/1 to 10/14;Outdoor wateringlimited to 3 daysper week 10/15 to 4/30; Nooutdoor watering(except trees)5-1 to 6-30;Lawn watering2 days perweek, one hourper day9-10 to 10-31;Lawn watering2 days perweek, no timelimit5-1 to 10-31; Lawnwatering 2 days perweek, no time limitTH Gal3.036.259.20$
FC = 3.79
TH Gal2.685.908.85$
FC =3.30FC = 3.79
TH Gal3.345.016.68$TH Gal2.044.086.12$
FC = 2.87
Inc. Block Rate basedon Water Budgets* Block widths in diagrams not to scale** Rate structure type reflects the rate structure utilized during summer months
 
7-1 to 9-9;Lawn watering2 days perweek, two hoursper dayHouseholds face a fixed service cost (FC) plus a uniform per unitcharge (P1); all prices are shown per thousand gallons (TH Gal)In addition to FC, households face an increasing block rate structurefor all units consumed. Block widths are standardized across allhouseholdsIn addition to FC, households face an increasing block rate structurefor all units consumed. Block widths are
specific
to each household,based on average daily indoor consumption (ADIC) and an irrigationallowance (IA). Households receive a varying percentage of theirADIC and IA in each block depending on drought conditions.Single RateInc. Block Rate
Source: City of Aurora: Water Management Plan (2002-2004) and ratesall.txtprovided bythe City of Aurora Utilities Department.
5/1/027/6/0210/1/021/1/03
FC = 2.69P1=1.91FC = 2.87P1=2.04
5/3/03
FC = 3.30P1=2.34FC = 2.87P1=2.04
12/31/041/1/045/1/04
5/15 to 8/31;circle/square/diamondwatering restrictions9/1 to 10/14;Outdoor wateringlimited to 3 daysper week 10/15 to 4/30; Nooutdoor watering(except trees)5-1 to 6-30;Lawn watering2 days perweek, one hourper day9-10 to 10-31;Lawn watering2 days perweek, no timelimit5-1 to 10-31; Lawnwatering 2 days perweek, no time limit
 
5/1/027/6/0210/1/021/1/03
FC = 2.69P1=1.91FC = 2.87P1=2.04
5/3/03
FC = 3.30P1=2.34FC = 2.87P1=2.04
12/31/041/1/045/1/04
5/15 to 8/31;circle/square/diamondwatering restrictions9/1 to 10/14;Outdoor wateringlimited to 3 daysper week 10/15 to 4/30; Nooutdoor watering(except trees)5-1 to 6-30;Lawn watering2 days perweek, one hourper day9-10 to 10-31;Lawn watering2 days perweek, no timelimit5-1 to 10-31; Lawnwatering 2 days perweek, no time limitTH Gal3.036.259.20$
FC = 3.79
 
TH Gal3.036.259.20$
FC = 3.79
TH Gal2.685.908.85$
FC =3.30
 
TH Gal2.685.908.85$
FC =3.30
 
2.685.908.85$
FC =3.30FC = 3.79
TH Gal3.345.016.68$
FC = 3.79
 
TH Gal3.345.016.68$TH Gal2.044.086.12$
FC = 2.87
 
TH Gal2.044.086.12$
FC = 2.87
Inc. Block Rate basedon Water Budgets* Block widths in diagrams not to scale** Rate structure type reflects the rate structure utilized during summer months
 Enthusiasm regarding the success of the demand management program was temperedsomewhat by the inability to easily assess which of the simultaneously employed toolswere responsible for the observed declines, and subsequently, which reductions could

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->