Laserfiche WebLink
Feasibility Evaluation of the Arkansas Valley Pipeline <br />Water Works! Committee <br />July 2003 <br />treated water system may need to operate at higher pressures if direct tie-in to local distributions <br />without booster pumping is desired. <br />Advantages of raw water delivery through the Arkansas Valley Pipeline and treatment at local <br />treatment facilities (Option 2) include: less additional capacity needed since most large water <br />users have existing treatment facilities; opportunities for use of raw water to satisfy non-potable <br />water demands, reducing the total volume of water that requires treatment; and local water <br />supplier control. <br />Preliminary cost estimates were prepared for the three treatment options to facilitate ranking of <br />the pipeline alternatives. T'he cost estimates indicated that there is not a significant difference in <br />construction and operation and maintenance costs between Option 1 -Upstream Water <br />Treatment and Option 2 -Local Water Treatment. The economy of scale advantage of Option 1 <br />is approximately equal to the use of existing facilities advantage of Option 2. Since there is not a <br />clear cost advantage between the two options, the additional flexibility provided to the water <br />entities by Option 2 was considered to be adequate to assume that raw water would be delivered <br />through the Arkansas Valley Pipeline. <br />Water treatment costs associated with a "No-Action" alternative (Option 3) have also been <br />estimated; however, the level of confidence for this estimate is below that for the other options. <br />Under this scenario, the anticipated costs of meeting future water treatment regulations by <br />utilizing existing sources of supply are estimated for the larger municipalities and water suppliers <br />in the Lower Basin. <br />Estimating water system treatment and supply development costs for small community water <br />systems presents a number of challenges. A small system may fail to fully assess its long-term <br />infrastructure needs, thereby underestimating the true financial costs to keep up with changing <br />regulations on drinking water. Also, failing wells and antiquated treatment plant equipment will <br />require replacement with the planning period established in this report. However, it is difficult to <br />assess this cost without a rigorous inspection of each community's water supply infrastructure, <br />which is beyond the scope of this study. <br />All communities must meet the state and federal primary drinking water standards through <br />treatment or source replacement. Less documented, however, is the potential burden placed <br />upon communities by high raw water concentrations of various unregulated water quality <br />constituents such as iron, manganese and hardness. These constituents often result in poor water <br />quality and the need for home treatment equipment. In addition, these constituents can cause <br />accelerated infrastructure decay and loss of tax base and economic impacts associated with <br />factories and businesses locating elsewhere. <br />-- ~ <br />GEI Consultants, I11C. 01284 03-07-21 feasibilty report executive summary <br />