DENVER—Some of the biggest water providers along Colorado’s populous Front Range have adopted conservation measures that could delay or eliminate the need for more water sources, according to a new report by an environmental group.
Denver, Aurora, Boulder and Colorado Springs got high marks for taking water-saving steps in the report released Thursday by Boulder-based Western Resource Advocates, an environmental law and policy group.
The report, “Front Range Water Meter,” profiles water use in 13 communities based on information from the state, city reports and ordinances and interviews with city officials.
While praising some communities for water rates that reward lower use, the report suggests ways others could cut consumption and waste.
“It’s certainly not a prescription for how to manage water; it’s saying ‘Here are some of the steps cities have taken,'” said Taryn Hutchins-Cabibi, a water policy analyst with Western Resource Advocates and the report’s lead author.
Many of the communities, stretching from Colorado Springs to Fort Morgan on Colorado’s northeastern plains, are looking at increasing their water supplies. Hutchins-Cabibi said they might be able to delay or eliminate the need for more sources through conservation.
The Front Range, with the bulk of the state’s population, gets a significant share of its water from the South Platte River and the less populous western half of the state via tunnels and pipelines. An ongoing drought and population growth have aggravated conflicts over water.
“Conservation is typically the most cost-effective way of acquiring the most water,” Hutchins-Cabibi said.
Aurora, with a population of roughly 300,000, got the highest score in the report, 72 out of a possible 100. Denver Water, which serves about 1.1 million customers and is run by a board appointed by the Denver mayor, was next with 68 points, followed by Boulder with 66 and Colorado Springs with 60.
The rankings take into account water rates, water loss, conservation funding and efficiency. Other cities in the survey were Evans, Louisville, Erie, Longmont, Broomfield, Loveland, Berthoud, Fort Lupton and Fort Morgan.
The report said pricing plans that charge more as usage increase are a good incentive to conserve and keep water affordable to lower-income consumers.
Loveland, a quickly growing city of nearly 59,000 north of Denver, is among those that charge the same regardless of individual use.
“As a result, high-volume use customers in these cities have no price incentive to conserve water,” the report said.
Ralph Mullinix, director of Loveland’s water and power department, said the city bases its rates on what it costs to deliver water to customers. He said he believes charging higher rates for higher water use penalizes low-income customers.
Instead, Mullinix said, Loveland has chosen to educate customers about conservation and encouraged landscaping that doesn’t need as much water.
Last year, Loveland was about in the middle of the pack for single-family residential use at 123 gallons per person per day. Colorado Springs consumed the least, 96 gallons.
Water use declined by more than 15 percent between 2000 and 2006 in Aurora, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, Loveland and Erie. Fort Lupton was the only city whose per capita use rose during that period: by 40 gallons per person per day, or 39 percent.
Technology to detect leaks, breaks in lines and other waste helped reduce losses, the report said. Less than 5 percent of the water in the Broomfield, Berthoud, Denver and Aurora systems couldn’t be accounted for last year.
But Louisville, Loveland and Fort Lupton couldn’t account for at least 13 percent of the water in their system, according to the report. The utilities didn’t collect revenue on that water.
———
On the Net:
Western Resource Advocates, “Front Range Water Meter”
