2008-11-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10 Dr. Palmer asked if there is some concern by City Council that the pipeline is not a viable option or that it would be more expensive than the Sugar Hollow pipeline. Dr. Brown responded that he thinks the pipeline is viable and is important to the water supply plan, but is conveying concerns by City residents. Mr. Taliaferro said his major concern is the cost of the South Fork pipeline project. Dr. Palmer asked if City Council is in agreement that a pipeline is a necessary component of the water supply plan and would they favor the Sugar Hollow pipeline because of its lower cost. Mr. Taliaferro said he does not know at this time if he would favor the Sugar Hollow pipeline. Mr. Rooker said there are other issues besides the cost of the pipeline. He said he feels the best way to fill the Ragged Mountain Reservoir is an important consideration when comparing the Sugar Hollow pipeline to the South Fork pipeline. If the costs are comparable, then the size of the watersheds and the length of time that it would take to fill the reservoir would be the deciding factors in the pipeline decision. He would agree that we need to determine if the cost of the pipeline project is reasonable and is based on valid information before undertaking the Ragged Mountain Dam project. He said he feels Ms. Palmer is suggesting that City Council is comparing the cost of replacing the Sugar Hollow pipeline versus constructing a new South Fork pipeline. He said he cannot understand the value of that comparison if the Sugar Hollow pipeline would not be a viable means to fill the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. Mr. Norris said the value is not so much for us as decision makers, but is for reassuring the public that this is the best plan. From the information that he has seen to date, he is convinced that the South Fork pipeline makes more sense than the Sugar Hollow pipeline for many reasons. Mr. Boyd said if we assume as a fact that this community will be moving forward with the Ragged Mountain Dam project, the reservoir will need to be refilled by either a pipeline from the South Fork or Sugar Hollow Reservoirs. He said he believes that any studies undertaken now will become just as suspect ten years from now as the studies conducted three years ago related to the Ragged Mountain Dam. He expressed concern about spending money now on a study that needs to be conducted closer to the time of the actual work. Dr. Brown said he would agree with Mr. Boyd’s comments if he was referring to an engineering study, but not about a group of experts that would review the data already collected. Mr. Boyd asked if the plan would be changed to the Sugar Hollow approach based on the recommendations of the expert panel. Mr. Rooker asked if it would even be viable to consider a plan where Ragged Mountain in an expanded state is filled up with a pipeline from Sugar Hollow and what would be the length of time to fill the reservoir if that plan were implemented. He said he does not think it makes sense to study an option that would not even be viable. Mr. Frederick said that the same computer modeling used to generate the safe yield figure has shown that with the projected 2020 demand data that the expanded Ragged Mountain Dam could be filled over a slower period of time during a drought with an 18-inch Sugar Hollow pipeline. RWSA has not confirmed that this could take place by 2055. He pointed out that an 18-inch Sugar Hollow pipeline is at best 4 million gallons per day pipeline. The 2055 plan projects that the Observatory Water Treatment Plant will have a 10 million gallons per day capacity. The viability of your treatment plant is only as good as the components that are filling it. If you cannot bring the water