Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. <br /> <br /> <br />8301 East Prentice Avenue, Suite 101' Englewood, CO 80111'(303) 741-6000 <br />Offices also located in Longmont and Estes Park, CO <br /> <br />December 8, 1988 <br /> <br />. --..... .' <br /> <br />DECO 9 '88 <br /> <br />Mr. G, Keith Eberhardt <br />Sr, Water Resources Engineer <br />Project Planning and Construction section <br />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />Dept. of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br /> <br />Re: Log Lane Village <br />RMC Reference No. 1101.001.00 <br /> <br />G9WFlM", IV.'" <br />F:t'\~~,';;"i/Al'IO'" <br />"^,\/,< <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Eberhardt: <br /> <br />With reference to your letter of November 17, 1988 to Mr. Kent Gumina of the <br />Department of Local Government comparing Option A (rehabilitated Log Lane <br />Village system) to Option B (Morgan County Quality Water District connection), <br />we wish to offer the enclosed letter of November 18, 1988 from MCQWD to Log Lane <br />Village, as well as the enclosed "Comparison Sheet". This information was not <br />available at the time the Impact Assistance application was prepared and, there- <br />fore, not included in the submittal requesting your recommendations. <br /> <br />As you can see, the initial capital outlay and monthly customer bill would be <br />increased substantially should Log Lane Village connect to the MCQWD system. <br /> <br />Much of the work descri bed in the Project Budget secti on of the app 1 i cati on <br />($254,000) will be required regardless of the source of water supply. For <br />example, most of tllis money will be used to decontaminate the distribution and <br />service lines, decommission two existing wells and replace the line valves. <br /> <br />The $254,000 requested for thi s project wi 11 improve the operabil i ty of the <br />system and eliminate the iron bacteria problem. The high total dissolved solids <br />will still be present in the water supply. Due to the limited availability of <br />funds, it was felt that it would not be feasibile at this time to include the <br />cost of treatment for TDS, An alternative addressing such a treatment option, <br />which would include all the work incorporated in the present Impact Assistance <br />application, but establishing a grant equal to that required for the MCQWD <br />alternate, is presented in the Comparison Sheet, The Reverse Osmosis process <br />shown has been included for rough comparison purposes only, as a detailed analy- <br />sis of possible treatment options was not included in the scope of our study. <br />The intent of this comparison is to indicate our belief that treatment can be <br />added in the future which would complement the previous efforts, would provide a <br />water within State primary and secondary limits, and which would be cost effec- <br />tive when compared to connecting to the MCQWD system. <br />