PROJ01898 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'.) qq ( Gain oI: LOSS :;.-- Annual ~ybaC~ $12,'750 91,900 p o \ole I: T.ncom~ * + $ 6 , 4 50 / y't \ " _10,300/YI: Hyd'toelect'tiC poweI: - - ,,50 KW 500 KW K. t. t.i I i \ $19,200(1) 81,600(2) (1) AsSumes .08/KWH and yea< a<ound use. (2) ASSumes .04/KWH and 170 day use. It appea<s that the hyd<oelect<iC units will be cost effective fo< the smalle< unit. However, a more in-depth analysiS by a consultant that specializes in hydroelect<ic power is I:ecommended. WATER WELLS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLY The preliminarY analysiS indicated that it maY be feasible to develop a water supplY from either existing or new wells. Most of the water wells in the Norwood area are either in shalloW alluvium or DaKota sandstone. p<oduction of theSe wells is limited. It appears that the maximum production that could be expected from a well is 50 to 75 gpm. The primary purpose of the water wells would be to provide a supplemental water supplY, ThiS supplY would be partiCula<lY valuable if there waS a b<eaKdown in the main supplY line, 0< an interruption in the Gurley system. It could alsO be an important supplY of water in winter. Another advantage of water wells is that it will requi<e onlY minimal treatment, p<obablY diSinfection with chlorine. Disadvantages of a water well system are: 1. It is a sepa<ate sou<ce of water and therefore, must be tested separatelY from the main supplY, AS indicated, testing can be expensive. 2. All of the water from the well must be pumped. 3. It is another facility to maintain, i.e., a chlo<inator must be checKed dailY. 4. It is difficult to predict the long term reliable supplY of a water well. occasionallY, production tends to droP off with long term pumping. Four wells we<e listed in pa<agraph 7 of section 1 and are shown on the attached map. Estimated p<oduction based on verbal information from owne<s is as folloWS: 62