My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00515
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00515
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:27 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:59:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
FS0019X
Contractor Name
Turkey Creek Snowball Creek Project CWRPDA 1985
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
0
County
Archuleta
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
218
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 />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />currently serves the Fairfield/Pagosa area. Approximately 300 to 600 feet <br />of pipe would be required to connect the two districts. <br /> <br />The Archuleta Water Company surrounds Pagosa Springs and is supplied <br />water by Pagosa Springs. A copy of the water purchase agreement between <br />the two entities is included in Appendix E. The contract provides, among <br />other items, that Archuleta Water Company will be supplied with ..."potable <br />treated water meeting the applicable purity standards of the Department of <br />Health of the State of Colorado and the local and regional health <br />departments in such quantity as may be required by the purchaser...." The <br />specified rate of payment at the master meter is twice the rate for "in <br />town" consumers for the first 50,000 gallons per month and 1 1/2 times the <br />"in town" rate for the remainder. No numeric limit is set on the amount of <br />water to be delivered. <br /> <br />1.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RECONNAISSANCE REPORT <br /> <br />Reservoir sites on Turkey Creek and Snowball Creek were examined <br />during the reconnaissance study. Cost comparisons were made between the <br />Turkey Creek site and the Snowball Creek sites. The Snowball Creek site <br />was the least expensive site and was designated the preferred alternative. <br />The recommendations and conclusions found in the reconnaissance study are <br />repeated with some editing in the following paragraphs. <br /> <br />1. 4.1 General <br /> <br />From the information gathered for this report the physical features <br />and surroundings would not preclude construction at any of the sites on <br />Turkey Creek or Snowball Creek. The literature search performed on the <br />area geology reveals no major problems that could not be overcome in the <br />design stage. The preliminary water supply study indicates adequate water <br />to fill reservoirs at either site. <br /> <br />Several assumptions were made to quantitatively define water needs and <br />for the purpose of estimating costs. These items should be addressed in <br />the feasibility study. <br /> <br />1-5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.