My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C150073 Final Feasibility Study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
C150073 Final Feasibility Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/13/2010 3:33:07 PM
Creation date
4/23/2009 10:05:54 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.
/
183
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 />June 2003 <br />3.3.3.3 Conclusions <br />Based on our knowledge of the number of golf courses and the extent of parks and other <br />open space irrigation in Arkansas River valley municipalities east of Pueblo, there are a <br />limited number of wastewater reuse opportunities that could likely generate a positive return <br />on investment. We recommend that each water provider should investigate the specific non- <br />potable water use characteristics of its customers to quantify the potential water demand <br />reductions that could be realized through a wastewater reuse effort. <br />3.4 Water Treatment <br />3.4.1 Background <br />The Arkansas Valley Pipeline could be configured to deliver either raw water or treated <br />water. The type of water delivered will eventually be decided to the satisfaction of a <br />majority of the participating water providers. There will be a variety of factors that enter into <br />this decision-making, including: <br />• Capital and operation and maintenance cost differences between the two types of <br />water systems. <br />• Preferences of the individual water supply entities for treated water versus raw water. <br />(These preferences may be related to cost, recent investments in local treatment <br />facilities, existing sources of supply, desire to blend local supplies with the new <br />water, etc.) <br />• Issues of local versus regional control of the water treatment element of water supply <br />operations. <br />Black & Veatch's study (Black & Veatch, 1972) of the proposed Arkansas Valley Pipeline <br />concluded that it would be more economical to transport treated water through the pipeline. <br />However, due to the socioeconomic and technical changes that have occurred since the <br />period of that study, we performed an evaluation of four apparent options available for water <br />delivery to the participating entities: <br />Option 1 -Water would be treated at a conventional filtration plant at the upstream end <br />of the proposed pipeline so that treated water is delivered to all end users (Figure 3.1). <br />This system also would allow entities currently using groundwater of good quality <br />and/or treated surface water to blend local supplies with supplies from the proposed <br />pipeline (Figure 3.2). <br />31 <br />GEI Consultants, 1nC. 01284 03-06-30 Feasibility Evaluation Final <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.