My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C150367 Feasibility Study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
C150367 Feasibility Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2024 4:43:23 PM
Creation date
10/9/2013 8:01:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
CT2015-007
C150367
Contractor Name
Lamar, City of
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
67
County
Prowers
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.
/
38
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
W II No. 25 <br />115 <br />Grundfos 150575 -3 (7.5 hp, 240 v, 3600 rpm motor) <br />W II No. 26 <br />140 <br />Future Well <br />W II No. 27 <br />290 <br />Grundfos 3005150 -3A w/ VFD (15 hp, 3600 rpm motor) <br />Willi No. 28 <br />200 <br />Can only operate 27 and 28 at same time in really wet yrs <br />Ad itional Future Wells <br />650 <br />Additional Future Wells <br />Total Flows <br />1,930 <br />ALI ERNATIVE B — REPLACE SOUTHERN RAW WATER TRANSMISSION LINE WITH DIP <br />The second alternative is similar to the first alternative; however, the transmission line will be <br />repl iced with DIP. DIP has been the industry standard for water mains since the mid 1960s. <br />Alth augh this alternative was explored, the cost of 14 -in6 and 16 -inch DIP is much more <br />expc nsive. The design criteria was the same, but the material for the 34,200 LF of pipe was DIP <br />CL 50. The cost per foot for the 14 -inch DIP was quoted at $46.00 and the 16 -inch was quoted <br />at $ 9.50. Due to the low pressure in the transmission line, the extra cost of a DIP, a higher <br />pres ure class, is not warranted. PVC offers superior corrosion resistance, ease of installation, <br />and substantially cheaper than DIP. For these reasons, Alternative B was eliminated. <br />ALT RNATIVE C — NO ACTION <br />The <br />year, <br />no- action alternative" cannot be considered a viable option due to poor condition of the <br />zg transmission main and lack of redundancy. The hundreds of ac -fl of lost water every <br />makes this project the most urgent water improvement project for Lamar. The superior <br />quality also allows Lamar to reduce water treatment costs by using more water from the <br />well field source. For these reasons alone, no- action cannot be considered a viable option. <br />City 04 Lamar Raw Water Feasibility Study — Colorado Water Conservation Board 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.