2008-11-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 full engineering analysis of the borings. He does not believe that any members of the four boards want to revisit the James River pipeline alternative in order to stay within the goal of the community water supply planning process, which is related to keeping the water supply in this community’s watershed. Ms. Sally Thomas, Board of Supervisors, agreed on having an expert panel review the Ragged Mountain Dam design. She said she feels there is also agreement about not revisiting the James River pipeline, and there were sediment issues with some of the other pipeline options. The cost of dealing with sedimentation would need to be factored in when considering the various options. The 9-mile SFRR pipeline would offer pre-treatment to remove the silt before the water is pumped to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, thereby preventing the water supply from silting up and making this option a long-range bargain. The SFRR pipeline is also the most environmentally-friendly alternative as it would have a positive impact on the Moormans River. Dr. Brown asked Mr. Norris to clarify his comments about the SFRR Pipeline route as to whether he mean that it is contingent upon a Western Bypass being built or it would it be taking advantage of VDOT’s bypass route. Mr. Norris clarified his comments to mean that the pipeline is planned along the right-of-way for the Western Bypass. There might be some other alternatives that the City has not heard about to this point. Mr. Rooker said that when this alternative was being considered, one of the options involved routing the pipeline down Georgetown Road, which he feels was feasible. It would also entail more impairment of traffic and other activities in that area than the current planned route. He said he believed there was also a third possible option for the pipeline route. Dr. Brown he did not want the group to get stuck on the idea that the pipeline was contingent upon the bypass being built. Mr. Frederick said RWSA does not believe that the construction of the SFRR pipeline was contingent upon the building of the bypass. Mr. Huja said he feels the study of the pipeline estimates are linked to the Ragged Mountain Dam project, since there would be no way to fill up the reservoir without the pipeline. Mr. Gaffney suggested that the group reach agreement at this time about moving this item forward, but there will also be a vote on this issue along with the other consensus items at the conclusion of the meeting. Concerning the conservation item, Mr. Gaffney commented that RWSA only has two customers, which are the City and the ACSA. RWSA does not have a lot of control over the amount of water that its customers conserve, but those two entities have a lot of ability to affect the conservation efforts of their customers. He suggested that the conservation study be moved to those two organizations so they can work together to improve conservation efforts in this community. Mr. Gaffney said that considering how water conservation might affect the community water supply plan and the demand study, feedback from the City and ACSA will be needed as to how it might impact the demand aspect of the permitting process by DEQ and the Corps. Mr. David Slutzky, Board of Supervisors, said that the demand analysis has already been reviewed by the regulatory agencies. There might be some new thoughts on how to expand the efforts, but he cannot envision that the figures will be dramatically different enough to change the process. Mr. Norris said the City is not concerned about whether it is RWSA, the City or ACSA who lead this effort, but wants this analysis performed and reflected in the demand projections based on reasonable practices that can be implemented in this community.