Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(l4 <br />.-1, ' <br />"-" <br /> <br />TUESDAY <br /> <br />MARCH 24, 1981 <br /> <br />With the selected alternative of placing an intake on the Smith River, <br />there remains the possibility of an industrial spill upstream that would <br />render this water supply useless for a period of time. However, the <br />HCPSA waste treatment plant now serves virtually all industries from <br />Town Creek south to Fieldale. In the design phase the city should <br />examine the possibility of monitoring the Smith River for spills. <br />Telemetry results of this monitoring would be read at the filter plant <br />so that the intake pumps at the river would be shut down until the <br />spill passes. This would reduce but not eliminate the possibility of <br />the spill reaching the filter plant. <br /> <br />The selected alternative has several other advantages besides low capital <br />cost over Alternatives I, 2, and 4. Although Alternatives 1 and 2 offer <br />the advantage of reliability of source, high water quality, and all will <br />meet water demand requirements to the year 2000, there are inherent <br />disadvantages in each. Alternative 1, placing a reservoir on Reed Creek, <br />requires the purchase of a large parcel of property and also will require <br />an involved permit and review process. Alternative 2, raising the existing <br />Beaver Creek reservoir and pumping from Reed Creek, will also require an <br />involved permit and review process and the purchase of some additional <br />land. Alternative 4, placing an intake on Leatherwood Creek, would <br />require large pumps with a high energy cost due to the static pumping <br />head and the quantity of water is somewhat suspect. <br /> <br />Recommendations <br /> <br />1. It is recommended that if the city limits itself to a 10 mgd water <br />source, transmission, and treatment system for the foreseeable <br />future, the proposed intake on the Smith River should be pursued <br />as it offers the most cost effective alternative both in terms of <br />capital and operation and maintenance costs. The city should <br />immediately approach the county for permission to install an <br />intake on the Smith River above Koehler. A water quality analysis <br />of the Smith River at this location should be made prior to or in <br />conjunction with a preliminary design. <br />2. Since 1 mgd of the city's projected 10 mgd at this time is allocated <br />for the county, the city should consider negotiating with the HCPSA <br />for the sale of this water. The City should also consider offering <br />to sell water in excess of 1 mgd to HCPSA until such time as the <br />city's needs require this excess. This would appear to be a <br />relatively inexpensive means by which the county could supply its <br />present water needs. This will allow expansion and growth of the <br />county's distribution system without the burden of large front <br />end capital sums. With the intake on the Smith River at Koehler <br />and the sale of water to the county, maximum utilization of the treatment <br />facility on Jones Creek is sooner realized. <br />3. Beyond the 20 year planning period studied in this report when the <br />city foresees a raw water and treatment requirement in excess of 10 <br />mgd, there could be two options available. One is to expand the <br />existing filter plant and increase the raw water transmission and <br />pumping capacity from the Smith River. This option would depend on a <br />