C153701 Feasibility Study - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fort Morgan (City) currently operates fourteen wells to supply the water demands of its residents, businesses and industries. The existing ground-water supply is considered adequate with regards to available quantity, but the quality of the water is undesirable. Nitrate, uranium and adjusted gross alpha concentrations have exceeded primary (potable) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards at times, and dissolved constituents such as sulfates, manganese and total dissolved solids regularly exceed secondary SDW A standards. During the past twenty-five years, the City and its consultants conducted several water supply alternative studies to identify high quality water supplies that could replace the City's existing supply. From these prior studies, development of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) water as a supply source has been chosen as the preferred alternative. Fort Morgan is a participant in the Southern Water Supply Project (SWSP) which is sponsored by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD). The SWSP would supply the City with high quality C-BT water via a pipeline from Carter Lake. The City feels that the SWSP is the most feasible alternative available at the present time and plans to replace its existing ground water supply with C-BT water for all potable demands. Purpose The purpose of this feasibility study is to evaluate the various alternatives for siting of the water treatment plant and water storage facilities. These facilities include a raw water reservoir, a water treatment plant, elevated or ground level treated water storage tanks, and for some alternatives, a pumping station. The size and alignment of the pipeline that connects the major components was also analyzed. This feasibility study has been funded in part by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). The report will be submitted to the CWCB as partial fulfillment of the requirements for receiving construction funds for the raw water reservoir. Alternatives Discussed Several treatment and storage alternatives exist that could meet the water needs of the City. The different location of each of the alternatives results in varying capital, operation and maintenance costs. The alternative system layouts result from combinations of four components of the water supply system: 1) raw water reservoir, 2) water treatment plant, 3) treated water storage, and 4) pumping station. One or more of these components could be located at: MONTGOMERY WATSON Pagel