My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C153321 Feasibility Study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
C153321 Feasibility Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2014 11:41:10 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:44:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153321
Contractor Name
Ridgway, Town of
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
60
County
Ouray
Bill Number
SB 78-69
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.
/
159
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
<br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />With respect to land and easements, it is felt that allowing <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />due consideration to property owners (i.e., raw water taps for stock and <br /> <br />stock pond, etc.) will help with land and easement purchases. Elimination <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />of line losses in transit (t96940.8 gpd) will give the Town more leniency <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />in water allowance. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />The remaining Alternates are listed below in order of their priority: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Alternate III - While not the best; Alternate III offers a.distinct <br />advantage in that 'it can continue in future years to. encompass the <br />features .of Alternates IV and IVa (revised). Drawbacks to this <br />Alternate are the poor quality and quantity of water which must be <br />treated. Also, the open ditch, Lake Otonowanda-and other features <br />of costly treatment will. significantly raise. operation and main- <br />tenance costs. The problem of access in winter is not eliminated. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Alternate IV - This Alternate is as advantageous as Alternate IVa <br />(revised), with respect to water quality and quantity, As noted <br />in the descriptive nature of this Alternate, it does leave the Town <br />with sole propriety to its water. Also, it eliminates the continual <br />strife and problems of water allocation. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Drawbacks to this Alternate are as follows: 1) The economic factor <br />of cost per capita ration. As noted in Chapter VIII, Financial <br />Program, the average monthly fee per residence far exceeds that <br />of Alternate I and the ability of the residents to'pay. 2) The <br />proposed'route still promotes inaccessibility in winter or bad <br />weather. Intake structures will be isolated during this time. <br />Compounding this is the problem of remoteness of lines and access <br />manholes should repairs be needed in the winter. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />If the Alternates IVa (revised), III or IV are not financially and <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />meritoriously acceptable, the Town looks in disfavor of even considering the <br /> <br />below listed Alternates: <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Alternate I - This Alternate offers a gravity system out. of East <br />Dallas Creek and better winter access, but'not the quality of water. <br />The quantity of water would not change by a change in point of diversion, <br />but the good spring water would not be available and hence, more treat- <br />ment would be necessary. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.