Laserfiche WebLink
<br />pagosa springs Pipeline Company <br />DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY <br />CWCB...January 8, 1996 <br /> <br />C. Why this Alternative was Selected: <br /> <br />1. Alternatives considered: <br /> <br />a. Don't build the project. <br /> <br />b. Construct an 8" pipeline, from the Town's Geothermal <br />Control Building to the south side of the San Juan River <br />crossing Centennial Park and the New Footbridge. <br /> <br />2. Evaluation of Alternatives: Q are positive factors. G are <br />negative factors. <br /> <br />a. Don't build the project: <br /> <br />Q The Company will incur no expense for the delivery of <br />raw water to the commercial uses. <br /> <br />G The Town will continue to be involved in litigation <br />and usable geothermal water will continue to be <br />discharged into the river. <br /> <br />G The Shareholders will continue to search for <br />additional geothermal resources. <br /> <br />G A framework to resolve future geothermal issues will <br />not be developed. <br /> <br />The alternative is feasible but does not solve any of the <br />communi ty' s geothermal issues. It also leaves the <br />community subject to additional over utilization of <br />geothermal water. <br /> <br />b. Construct an 8" pipeline, from the Geothermal Control <br />Building the south side of the San Juan River. <br /> <br />Q The Town will be able to provide geothermal water to <br />the south side of the river and resolve some litigation <br />issues. <br /> <br />Q The Town will be able to lease water to generate <br />revenues for the pipeline company. <br /> <br />Q The Community will have the ability to utilize the <br />geothermal water in a more efficient manor. <br /> <br />7 <br />