Laserfiche WebLink
would also likely allow the District to meet potential future treatment regulation <br />requirements as the District grows. Once treated, the water would be delivered to the <br />pipeline that was historically utilized for the supply and pumped to the to the distribution <br />system. With this option, the injection point is such that the Canterbury Tunnel water <br />supply does not flow through the upper zones of the distribution system. <br />Our opinion of the total budget required for Alternative No. 2 is $2,820,00. Details on the <br />estimated budget are provided in Appendix D. • <br />4.6. ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON <br />A comparison of some of the key decision criteria associated with the alternatives <br />developed for this feasibility study is provided in Table No. 5 below. <br />TABLE 4 <br />ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY <br />Expected <br />Minimize Reliable <br />Project Environmental � Freezing Future <br />Alternative Descri tions Bud et Social Im act Problems O erations <br />No Action No Structural - Moderate No Low <br />Modifications <br />Alternative Pump Station $2,520,000 Minimal Yes High <br />No. 1 & Pipe to <br />Evans Gulch <br />Alternative Pump Station $2,820,000 Moderate Moderate High <br />No. 2 & Pipe to <br />Existing <br />Canterbury <br />Wet Well <br />The final decision of the appropriate alternative is up to the District. Wheeler <br />recommends that the District consider Alternative No. 1 because it most effectively <br />meets the design criteria for the project in an economical manner. <br />Specifically, the alternative is preferred to Alternative No. 2 for the following reasons. <br />__J W. W. Whealer ond Associotss, Ine 5/19/2010 Final <br />— 1 Wctar Resources Enginaan Page 17 <br />