Laserfiche WebLink
Feasibility Evaluation of the Arkansas Valley Pipeline <br />Water Works! Committee <br />June 2003 <br />water system with multiple water sources. The primary disadvantage of the water supply <br />blending is the diminished quality of the blended water as compared to the quality of the <br />unblended Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water delivered through the pipeline. However, <br />although the quality of the blended water will be diminished as compared to Fryingpan- <br />Arkansas Project water, the quality of the blended water will be better than that of the local <br />water supplies. The extent of the water quality improvement from blending is highly <br />dependent on the blending ratio of the pipeline water with the local water. <br />The economic advantages that can be realized from blending water supplies are difficult to <br />estimate due to the economies of scale inherent in pipeline construction. For example, a 50 <br />percent reduction in the hydraulic capacity of a pipeline may result in only a 20 percent <br />reduction in the pipeline's construction cost. 'Therefore, the incremental improvement in <br />water quality is more expensive for blended water than it would be for an unblended supply <br />of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water. Despite these complications in comparing benefits and <br />costs, it is clear that delivering blended water will be less expensive than unblended <br />Fryingpan-Arkansas water through the Valley Pipeline. <br />3.3.2.3 Experience with Blending Water Supplies <br />The blending of water supplies has been practiced for many years, particularly in areas where <br />one water supply does not satisfy all safe drinking water standards and the cost of treatment <br />to remove offending contaminant(s) is excessive. If a higher quality water source is also <br />available, the blending of two supplies is often acost-effective method for providing a <br />finished water quality that satisfies drinking water regulations. <br />3.3.2.4 Conclusions <br />The benefits that can be realized through the blending of water supplies are highly dependent <br />on the quality of local water supply. It should be feasible for the pipeline to provide a <br />significant portion (53 percent) of the 18,200 ac-ft 2020 demand of the entities east of Pueblo <br />with Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water. If the blended ratio of Valley Pipeline water to local <br />water is relatively high (e.g., 90 percent Valley Pipeline water and 10 percent local supply), <br />then the economies of scale of pipeline construction will produce only marginal cost savings. <br />If the blended ratio of Valley water to local water is relatively low (e.g., 10 percent Valley <br />Pipeline water and 90 percent local supply), then the cost savings could be significant but the <br />improvement in finished water quality will be marginal. Considering the increasingly <br />stringent requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the initial cost-saving benefits of <br />blended water supplies may only be temporary as the required percentage of blending with <br />Valley Pipeline water increases to satisfy more stringent regulations. <br />29 <br />GEI Consultants, InC. 01284 03-06-30 Feasibility Evaluation Final <br />