Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. The combination of well and river water described above would <br />require a capital investment of approximately $2,250,000 and an annual <br />operating and maintenance expense of about $70,000. A system utilizing <br />the well field only would require a capital investment of about <br />$1,483,000 with an annual operation and maintenance cost of approximately <br />$52,000. Of all the alternative plans submitted, the selected plan <br />would be the most expensive. The cost estimate for this plan is appended <br />hereto. <br />One of the alternative plans considered, but not included in the <br />report, was the construction of an infiltration gallery adjacent to <br />the river at about the same point from which a surface diversion is <br />contemplated in the selected plan (area C). If an infiltration gallery <br />could be operated successfully at this point, the total capital invest- <br />ment could be reduced by about $300,000 below the estimated cost of the <br />selected plan, and the operation and maintenance charges could be <br />reduced by about $24,000 annually, the latter cost being a very signifi- <br /> <br />cant item. <br /> <br />In addition to lower costs, and infiltration gallery would provide <br />water of a good quality "and would still produce water at a temperature <br />above freezing. Assuming that an infiltration gallery can be operated <br />successfully, this last option is the most attractive and is the one <br />favored by the board staff. It remains to be demonstrated as to whether <br />or not an infiltration gallery can be successfully operated in area C. <br />The board staff strongly believes that infiltration tests should be <br />conducted as soon as the weather permits. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-5- <br />