My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C150073 Executive Summary
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
C150073 Executive Summary
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/13/2010 3:33:07 PM
Creation date
4/23/2009 10:05:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C150073
Contractor Name
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District - Water Activity Enterprise
Contract Type
Grant
Water District
14
County
Pueblo
Bill Number
SB 01-157
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
Feasibility Evaluation of the Arkansas Valley Pipeline <br />Water Works! Committee <br />July 2003 <br />necessary pipeline appurtenances, and 16 million gallons of reinforced concrete water storage <br />tanks located along the alignment. When costs for water treatment plant construction, plus <br />operation and maintenance costs for all facilities are included, the estimated Net Present Value of <br />the proposed Arkansas Valley Pipeline project is approximately $235 million. <br />Water Treatment Evaluations and Project Cost Estimates <br />The Arkansas Valley Pipeline could be configured to deliver either raw or treated water. <br />A variety of factors will influence the decision-making on which type of water to be delivered, <br />including: <br />• Capital and operation and maintenance cost differences between the two types of <br />systems. <br />• Preferences of the individual water supply entities for treated water versus raw water. <br />• Issues of local versus regional control of the water treatment element of water supply <br />operations. <br />There are three basic options available for water delivery to entities in the Lower Basin: <br />Option 1 - Water is treated at a conventional filtration plant at the upstream end of the <br />Arkansas Valley Pipeline so that treated water is delivered to all end users. This system <br />also would allow entities currently using groundwater of good quality and/or treated <br />surface water to blend local supplies with Arkansas Valley Pipeline supplies. <br />2. Option 2 -Raw water is delivered and treated at local treatment facilities. This would <br />allow entities to blend raw water from local sources with Arkansas Valley Pipeline <br />supplies prior to treatment. <br />3. Option 3 - A "No-Action" alternative in which the water suppliers downstream from <br />Pueblo would continue to utilize their existing sources of supply, but would upgrade their <br />existing water treatment plants and facilities to meet new standards, primarily the <br />radioactivity MCLs. <br />Advantages of an upstream central water treatment plant (Option 1) include: expected lower <br />costs per unit of water treated due to economics of scale and easier maintenance and <br />administration of treatment operations. Potential disadvantages include: loss of local water <br />supplier control; the likely need for additions of disinfectants in the pipeline at intermediate <br />locations to maintain quality; and the need fora "high-end" conduit system to protect water <br />quality. (A raw water delivery system might be built to lesser standards because treatment is <br />provided at the points of end use so that leakage into the pipeline would be of lesser concern.) A <br />GEI Consultants, IIIC. Ot 284 03-07-21 feasibilty report executive summary <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.