Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Fish Creek Reservoir Expansion EIS <br />W&~~~<<::~~~~:12$:.-m?&.~:<::W~~~,.;.;$:.%.'?-:w.w::w,.}>>:"'r~~~~~'i;:: <br /> <br />4.4.2.3 Altlrnltivl C . Smllllr RlllfVoir Explosion <br /> <br />Socioeconomic Climate - As with Alternative A, the lack of water resources could potentially limit <br />growth in the future under Alternative C. As discussed previously, if water availability begins to <br />restrict growth, the cost of living in the community could increase. Additionally, under this <br />alternative, the community might have to rely upon water sources of lesser quality. <br /> <br />Public Safety - Under Alternative C, an early warning system would also be installed to warn the <br />community in the event of a dam failure. Furthermore, a remote control system would be installed <br />to allow the City to respond to uninitiated changes in dam operation. Potential flood impacts <br />associated with the Smaller Reservoir Expansion Alternative are greater than those associated with <br />the No Action, and less than those associated with the Proposed Action as discussed in Section 4.2. <br />However, the likelihood of dam failure would be reduced by the design and operation of the <br />reservoir. <br /> <br />Water Utility Rates - As discussed previously, Mt. Werner and the City have changed to metered <br />rate structures. No further rate changes beyond those discussed are anticipated for either the City <br />or Mt. Werner under Alternative C. <br /> <br />Reservoir Financing - A similar financing arrangement would be developed for Alternative C as that <br />discussed for Alternative B. Mt. Werner and the City would share in the total reservoir expansion <br />costs of approximately $4,200,000. This equates to a unit cost of approximately $4,600 per AF of <br />storage. While the overall cost of Alternative C is lower than the cost of Alternative B, the cost per <br />AF of storage is higher by approximately 77 percent. The water. storage capacity received by each <br />entity would be proportional to the share of the project for which each entity pays. Additional <br />water supplies would have to be developed, however, to meet the projected future demands of Mt. <br />Werner. Expenditures to date of approximately 0.7 million dollars {for design) would be lost. <br /> <br />Neither Mt. Werner nor the City would increase water rates or increase property taxes to pay for <br />Alternative C. Mt. Werner would pay for its portion of the $4,200,000 expansion through user fees <br />and a City rebate and the City would pay for its share through general fund sales tax revenues. <br /> <br />For both Mt. Werner and the City, this $1,800,000 difference between the proposed and smaller <br />reservoir expansions would be available for other purposes if Alternative C is selected. Mt. Werner <br />would likely utilize the money for the development of a different water supply source and/or the <br />construction of other capital improvement projects. Since the City's portion of the payment would <br />be coming from the general fund, the City Council would likely re-prioritize its capital improvement <br />projects. The money would not necessarily go towards water utility projects (Birch, 1992d). <br /> <br />4.4.3 Cumulative Impacts <br /> <br />With additional growth in the community, an eventual expansion of the water and wastewater <br />treatment facilities is likely under all three alternatives. With growth comes an increase in water <br />demand and the subsequent increase in wastewater loadings. These increases result in the need to <br />expand the capacity of treatment facilities. Other infrastructure, such as water distribution and <br />wastewater collection lines, may also require expanded capacity. <br /> <br />:e:;::<;;<;~~~~..:a..-v. *~:~~~~:%~;':':':';'>>;-:-M""''''_ ~'OC<V~&4:,~':?;:;:::r;$;:';-:;$';m;:m:::~:::-:<<:s.:::-:m~;;;::;~:;:;:.;~;~;:3';:.;::::< <br /> <br />Page 4-14 . Seplemm 1993 <br />