Laserfiche WebLink
<br />':) , <br />dl <br /> <br />TUESDAY <br /> <br />MARCH 24, 1981 <br /> <br />Disadvantages <br />I. Water quality subject to possible industrial spills from <br />upstream plants. <br />2. Corps of Engineers will require payment for additional flow <br />augmentation. <br />3. Possible objection by DuPont on grounds of Riparian Doctrine. <br />4. Does not allow for source mixing of water with existing <br />Beaver Creek water to maintain stable treatment operations. <br />5. When heavily used could cause a minor taste or odor problem <br />to some citizens. <br /> <br />-. <br /> <br />4. Intake on Leatherwood Creek. This alternative would involve an intake <br />and pumping station on Leatherwood Creek which would pump water to <br />the existing filter plant. <br /> <br />Total Capital Cost <br />Estimated Annual O&M Cost <br /> <br />$2,121,000 <br />165,000 <br /> <br />Advantages <br />I. Low capital cost. <br />2. Transmission main could be constructed in power line right-of-way. <br /> <br />Disadvantages <br />1. Reliability of source extremely suspect. <br />2. Lacks storage to carryover during low flow periods when 4 mgd <br />not available. <br />3. Requires large pumps due to length and static head. <br />4. Approximately 29,000 feet of pipe to maintain. <br />5. Future upstream construction could pose possible contamination <br />from spills. <br /> <br />5. New jointly owned city-county water treatment plant. This alternative <br />would involve the construction of a new intake, pumping station, and <br />filter plant in the vicinity of Philpott. The facility would be jointly <br />owned by the city and the county, and would furnish finished water to <br />both jurisdictions. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Total Capital Cost . . . . . <br />Estimated Annual O&M Cost <br /> <br />.$10,266,000 <br />300,000 <br /> <br />Advantages <br />I. Unlimited raw water availability and extremely high reliability <br />of source. <br />2. Good quality of water. <br />3. Allows for unexpected rapid industrial and residential growth. <br /> <br />Disadvantages <br />I. Capital cost is extremely high based on available flow allocation <br />proposals and construction cost estimates. <br />2. Corps of Engineers will require payment for additional flow augmentation. <br />3. Possible objection by DuPont to usage by city on grounds of Riparian Doctrine. <br />4. Relatively high operation and maintenance costs. <br />5. Does not fully utilize recent expansion of filter plant. <br />