Agenda - Council - 07/28/2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

200 180 160 140 a 120 a 100 u 80 a 60 40 20 0 1985 Richfield 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Figure 2. Historical Per Capita Water Use, 1990 - 2012, City of Richfield While there appears to be a downward trend in this data for many communities in the region, the trend is not obvious for many other communities. Figure 3 shows the same series of data for Maple Grove, where the trend in per capita water use is not as apparent. The causes of the downward trend in some communities are not clear currently, though it could be related to more effective water conservation, economic drivers (especially in commercial water use), and/or climate. The observed trends in water use warrant further study in order to understand the causes and how they could impact future water use. L 200 180 160 140 a 120 • 100 u 80 a 60 40 20 0 1985 Maple Grove ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■■ ■•■■!■■■ ■■■■■■ AA•AA • ♦A rAverage Daily Water Use Per Capita (gpd) ♦Average Winter Water Use Per Capita (gpd) Daily Water Use Per Capita ■Average (gpd) Winter Water Use Per Capita ♦Average (gpd) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Figure 2. Historical Per Capita Water Use, 1990 - 2012, City of Richfield While there appears to be a downward trend in this data for many communities in the region, the trend is not obvious for many other communities. Figure 3 shows the same series of data for Maple Grove, where the trend in per capita water use is not as apparent. The causes of the downward trend in some communities are not clear currently, though it could be related to more effective water conservation, economic drivers (especially in commercial water use), and/or climate. The observed trends in water use warrant further study in order to understand the causes and how they could impact future water use. L 200 180 160 140 a 120 • 100 u 80 a 60 40 20 0 1985 Maple Grove 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Figure 3. Historical Per Capita Water Use, 1990 - 2012, City of Maple Grove The regional per capita water use is presented in Figure 4. As a region, there is not a significant trend in per capita water use between 1990 and 2012. However, the winter water use per capita (representing indoor water use) is declining. This has been accompanied by an increase in outdoor water use over the same time period on a per capita basis. Since 2007, there could ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ AA•AA •MA14&4& rAverage Daily Water Use Per Capita (gpd) ♦Average Winter Water Use Per Capita (gpd) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Figure 3. Historical Per Capita Water Use, 1990 - 2012, City of Maple Grove The regional per capita water use is presented in Figure 4. As a region, there is not a significant trend in per capita water use between 1990 and 2012. However, the winter water use per capita (representing indoor water use) is declining. This has been accompanied by an increase in outdoor water use over the same time period on a per capita basis. Since 2007, there could