Agenda - 05-03-2000-10a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 1201 to 1500 square feet, 1501 to 1800 square feet, and greater than 1800 square feet, there is a nearly straight-line increase in average water use: However, uaiike the OWASA study which showed a five- fold difference in water use between its smallest and largest home size ranges, the Efland analysis shows only an approximate thirty percent increase from the smallest to the largest home size ranges. There are a number of reasons why the Efland study has produced results that differ so drastically from those produced by the OSASA study. Among the most telling of these are that: 1) the largest homes in Efland are smaller and less elaborate than the homes in the OWASA service area and have fewer water- consuming devices such as lawn irrigation systems; and 2}Efland is still a primarily rural area which would typically be expected to exhibit more conservative water use practices than those of the urbanized OWASA service area. The primary implication of the Efland water use analysis is that a sliding fee scale based solely on a projected relationship between home size and system dernand/impact can provide a thirty percent difference between the bottom and tap of the scale. Based on a $1000 mid-range fee, homes falling in the lowest range would pay approximately $S50 while homes in the largest range will pay approximately $1150. Engineering staff are currently in the process of preparing a more formal reporting of this analysis, outlining the process of data collection and analysis, comparing the Efland report and outcome with the OWASA study, noting the problems of collecting Efland data and shortcomings in that data, etc. That report will be submitted to the BOCC later in March. A simple chart summarizing the relationship between water use and home size is attached to tbais memorandum. If T may provide additional information at this time, please advise.