My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Southwest - Goodman Point Pipeline Environmental Assessment_Final Env & Eng Report
CWCB
>
WSRF Grant & Loan Information
>
Backfile
>
Southwest - Goodman Point Pipeline Environmental Assessment_Final Env & Eng Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2012 12:23:15 PM
Creation date
5/16/2007 8:51:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
WSRF Grant Information
Basin Roundtable
Southwest
Applicant
Goodman Point Water Association
Description
Goodman Point Water Association Environmental Report - Preliminary Engineering Report
Account Source
Basin
Board Meeting Date
3/13/2007
Contract/PO #
08000000075
WSRF - Doc Type
Final Deliverable Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
97
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />hours a day while Alternative 3 power costs are estimated at $7,200 annually to operate <br />one 7.5-hp pump 24-hours a day. <br /> <br />Maintenance costs include regular maintenance on the tank and pumps and distribution <br />system repairs. Labor costs include those for reading meters, collecting samples, regular <br />operation of valves and hydrants, and emergency response. Maintenance costs are <br />estimated at $18,500 annually and were estimated by the Montezuma Water Company. <br /> <br />The total annual operation and maintenance costs are thereby estimated at approximately <br />$22,820 per year for Alternative 2 and $25,700 per year for Alternative 3. These costs <br />will be recouped by MWC through customer rate charges. <br /> <br />H. Advantages/Disadvantages l?f the Alternatives <br />Both of the alternatives examined for the proposed proj ect will satisfactorily meet all the <br />design criteria presented above. The only difference between the alternatives is the <br />locations of the water storage tank and the booster pump station, as well as a small <br />segment of the water line. Both alternatives have similar environmental impacts, <br />operation and maintenance costs, and will efficiently serve the community. <br /> <br />The advantage of Alternative 2 is that site work is limited to one site for both the water <br />storage tank and the booster pump station. This will reduce constmction costs for the <br />water storage tank and booster pump station, as well as reduce land requirements. The <br />primary disadvantage of Alternative 2 is that the booster pump station requires a backup <br />power generator in case of emergencies that is also a disadvantage due to the increased <br />costs and maintenance required. <br /> <br />Advantages of Alternative 3 include providing service through gravity, which eliminates <br />the necessity of a generator. This option, however, is only viable if the water storage <br />tank can provide sufficient operating pressure for all residences. To accomplish this, the <br />water storage tank would have to be elevated at approximately ninety-five feet (95') high. <br /> <br />Goodman Point Water Association - Preliminaty Engineering RepOli <br /> <br />16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.