My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.1. ERMUSR 01-11-2011
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Utilities Commission
>
Packets
>
2003-2013
>
2011
>
01-11-2011
>
4.1. ERMUSR 01-11-2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2011 11:42:11 AM
Creation date
1/10/2011 11:42:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
ERMUSR
date
1/11/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4.8.4 Challenges and Other Considerations <br />An alternative source for lawn water may be feasible for a single development or a large water user. <br />A local well, installed in the surficial aquifer, or an intake in a retention basin, could provide non- <br />potable water. On a City-wide scale, such a system seems impractical. <br />4.9 Water Conservation <br />4.9.1 Description <br />Elk River Municipal Utilities already employs water-conservation measures. Water conservation is <br />most directly applicable Co lawn sprinkling because this is the largest use of water during the <br />summer. More stringent water-conservation measures could be employed to further reduce summer <br />water demand, such as a permanent ban on irrigation and sprinkling, requirements for drought- <br />resistant plantings, etc. Amulti-tier cost of water is another alternative, whereby the cost per 1000 <br />gallons increases proportional to use. We understand that Elk River Municipal Utilities is planning <br />on a three-tier program. <br />4.9.2 Technical Feasibility and Reliability <br />Severe and permanent water-conservation measures are difficult to enforce and are widely unpopular. <br />Cheating would Likely be widespread. Enforcement would be an issue. Multi-tier cost of service is <br />generally only moderately effective unless unit costs increase substantially. <br />4.9.3 Cost <br />Additional costs would be realized for enforcement and education. Cost savings would likely be <br />realized overall for the utihty by deferring future capital expenditures for wells and treatment. <br />4.9.4 Challenges and Other Considerations <br />Very stringent water conservation measures have generally been proven to be unpopular. Land <br />owners expect to be able to obtain nearly unlimited quantities of water at a low price. Water demand <br />is generally very inelastic in that substantial increases in the cost of water generally does not deter <br />use because it is still considered a bargain. Ordinances that require changes to landscaping to reduce <br />water consumption, such as xeriscaping, require community and political acceptance. Short-term <br />bans on sprinkling are typically acceptable during droughts but are typically tolerated only once or <br />twice. <br />P:\Mpls\23 MN\71\2371105 Water Supply Alternative Study\FinalDeliverables\Altematives_Report_finel.doc 35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.