Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS COM'mmt <br /> <br />1 ' he Committee reported that all <br />District water treatment plants <br />were producing treated water of <br />exceptional quality, The finished <br />product averages near .04 NTU. which is <br />well below allowable amounts. <br />The Committee approved a contract <br />with the engineering firm of CH2M-HiIl <br />to prepare a report covering the emer- <br />gency repairs of the Olmsted Flow Line. <br />The Board of Directors discussed plans <br />for the 67 ~IG additional sWrage at <br />Jordan Terminal Reservoir site. <br />The District assisted the Duchesne- <br />Strawberry \Vater Users in a study to <br />determine the need for additional work at <br />certain diversion facilities on the <br />Duchesne River canal system. Contracts <br />for the Murray \Vhite canal section of the <br />Duchesne River Canal Rehabilitation <br />Program were awarded. <br />A screen and raking structure for the <br />Olmsted intake from the Provo River was <br />put in place to alleviate debris clogging <br />the conveyance of the water to the Utah <br />Valley Water Treatment Plant and <br />Jordan Aqueduct Reservoir. <br />The Committee recommended to the <br />Board that the contract for the final <br />designs and specifications for the Olmsted <br />Tunnel Project be approved. <br />The Committee recommended to the <br />Board continued investigations of the <br />salinity control measure on Utah Lake, <br />with a letter to the State of Utah reque~ <br />ting the governor to sponsor a Utah Lake <br />\Vater Quality Study. <br />The Engineering Committee amhori:ed <br />staff to advertise for an engineering firm <br />to prepare the designs and specifications <br />for the Trial Lake Dam and Dike. <br />A contract for Schedule I and II of the <br />Murray \Vhite Canal rehabilitation was <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />~'{urray White Canal rehabilitation was <br />awarded, and construction was to begin <br />early in 1989. <br />A contract for Olmsted Tunnel was <br />awarded by the Board of Directors which <br />allowed the contractor to begin obtaining <br />proper clearances and permits in precon- <br />struction activities. Four agreements were <br />entered into by the Board with Provo <br />City which addressed the acquisition of <br />right-of-way, placement of tunnel spoils, <br />mitigation of existing pipeline, and the <br />provisions for impacts on Provo City <br />Springs by the tunnel construction. <br />The Committee reviewed a study of the <br />Levan area. It assesses the irrigated areas <br />and irrigation practices. The study also <br />defines the need for Project water and <br />how the District could assist citi:ens in <br />the Levan area. <br />The Committee directed staff to become <br />involved in the Sevier River Management <br />Study and to assist the various entities <br />conducting the study in whichever matter <br />they deem necessary. <br /> <br />CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT <br />ANNUAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT REPORTS <br />1989 <br /> <br />The lotal Project and Non.Project municipaJ and <br />industrial water delivenes in 1969 were 19,033.05 acre <br />feet as shown in the table below. <br />Areas Total Acre Feet Delivered <br />Duc:hesne Valley WTP <br />PrOject water treated <br />Non-project water treated <br />Ashley Valley WTP <br />Jensen Un~ Protect water treated <br />Vernal Unit Project water treated <br />Non-project water treated <br />UtahValleyWTP <br />Non-project water lreated <br /> <br />404,0 <br />376.85 <br /> <br />959.0 <br />910.0 <br />1,141.7 <br /> <br />15,241.5 <br /> <br />TOTAL 19.033.05 <br />