OCR Text |
Show la:: .. ' -tf'i note: Nine questions con-, con-, a water treatment facility in ((J )' were submitted to three local iM "ler officials: Karl Migliorl, Vernal r; Dan Turner, Maeser; and Lyle m Snchnie, Ashley Valley Water and at. Improvement District. Vntaes have been added for ", "rttatlon of their answers where W. at: : City By ni1 Karl MigUorl at Vernal City Council ly ' Vi!ts 'rom Karl Migliori, Vernal h iincilman: or why not will the treatment i! lHbe built by CUP for Vernal City ! J) 'he needs of the entity you tt ;Cl'P treatment plant) will satisfy 1" ynw1s of the valley-especially J it can use water from five !pi -TAshle' sPrings, Ashley Creek, Creek, Red Fleet Reservoir ,: einaker Reservoir. No matter iy growth in the next 30-40 years i , e t0 satisfy those needs lft T location. '" trtatment plants better i fnllre val'ey or is one i ilfbyouradvorum at already paid will meet all our T nn" PWCent of the Population of J1"? would the CUP treatment serve all the population of the ,W " :e!1,tand future. 95 percent !; "owing pressure and only J ineed extra pumping, such ;r(r,::aRe Hil1 and Coal Mine o I Mi,,,. ' hltmnl much water would have ri'i C.1111 the CUP treatment b'I "L,ild whatever size our ;f v,andafidtoitas demand SWi Same ad vorum tax V. " Wou'd be located on !': '"on. ' an inital cost of about i ')T1!!!r much wa,er would have l V' r"hthe CCP treatment r vilnAir Village Hills (30 t ' need buster pumping as it T01181 and Plltlcal 1 pC? selecti"8 a tv 'f M&est is t0 serve t s?1 W ,y as '"expensively as i i; for wst of the valley to !.l2rV?nents t0 their 1 i pay V. feels the developer " lor improvement them- 7. Why do engineers for the Ashley Valley Water and Sewer Improvement District and Vernal City disagree on water tanks, treatment, lines, etc? , Migliori didn't answer this question, but said that Uintah Engineering (engineers for AVWSID and former city engineers) is enacting legal action against the city to collect $42,000 which they claim the city owes them but the city can find no record of. 8. Has your entity confirmed financing of a treatment plant from some other source other than CUP? Migliori gave no answer to this question, but it is evident that the city hasn't. 9. Do you feel secure with CUP financing a treatment plant even though CUP could levy a tax in the valley to pay for a treatment plant elsewhere? Migliori said that with the CUP mill levy of 1.9 mills, they collect $120,000 in taxes yearly from the valley. Interest on a $6 million treatment plant would be over half a million dollars yearly, if the city didn't go with CUP, but got a loan of 12 percent. "So even if they doubled or tripled the mill levy to construct another treatment plant, we would be ahead." District By Lyle McKeachnie Ashley Valley Water and Sewer Improvement District Chairman Question: 1. Why or why not will the treatment plant to be built by CUP for Vernal Ver-nal City satisfy the needs of the entity you represent? Answer 1. a. First CUP is not the proper pro-per term. b. CUWCD is the entity purposed to build Vernal City a treatment plant through Uintah Water Conservancy District. c. The elevation (5.800 feet) is too low to energize the present distribution system. Major chances would have to be made and these major changes and modifications would cost in the millions. 1. Two transmission lines will be necessary to plug in the treatment plant into the present distribution system as it is now constituted. 2. A pump plant would be necessary to pump water 190 ft. lift, to the upper Maeser zone, another pump plant is planned to pump water from Steinaker Reservoir to the treatment plant site, then of course there would be the pumps to lift all the water (18000 ac. ft.) 400 feet high to get it over the buckskin hills from Red Fleet Dam to the treatment treat-ment plant, then of course if the 18,000 ac. ft. of water is taken from the primary (Jensen) users of Brush Creek, that must be replaced by pumping pump-ing it out of Green River with a 200 ft. lift. Now if I add correctly that would be pumping 18000 ac. ft. 400 ft. high once, 6000 ac. ft. 200 ft. high twice. Approximately Approx-imately X amount ac. ft. 190 ft. to the upper Maeser zone 3 times and likely X amount ac. ft. from Steinaker to treatment treat-ment plant 4 times. In my judgment from having pumped some water, after paying for the pumps, electric bill, operation & maintenance and replacing the pump system, "It would break the bank." I will discuss the water source later. Question: 2. Would two treatment plants better serve the entire valley or is one enough? Answer 2. Yes, two treatment plants would serve the area better. Two workers are always better than one. However, only one treatment plant is needed if it is properly located at the canyon site, at 6200 ft. elevation, 100 ft. lower than the spring, about 1 mile south of the spring on the present pipeline. No majofchange or modification has to be done, just hook it up to the present system. NO PUMPING! ! ! ! Just gravity flow as it always has. Question: 3. What percent of the population of the valley would the CUP treatment plant serve? Answer 3. It will serve only Vernal City, Ci-ty, about 40 percent of the valley's population. Maeser Water & Sewer Improvement District, Jensen Water Improvement District, Ashley Valley Water & Sewer Improvement District, several canal companies, and Ashley Valley Reservoir Reser-voir Co. have formed "Ashley Valley Culinary Water Association" and all others including Vernal City have been invited. Their purpose is to build a treatment plant and to provide culinary water with local control. Question: 4. About how much water would have to be pumped with the CUP treatment plant as proposed? Answer: 4. Answered in No. 1. Question: 5. What kind of treatment plant (capacity, location, cost, etc.) does your entity propose? Aaswer: 5. A. Full treatment. B. 10 million gallon per day for all in Ashley Valley including Jensen. C. On the present pre-sent pipeline coming from the spring as answered in No. 2. D. 4 million 700 thousand thou-sand dollars, 4 the cost of the Vernal City purposal. Our entity purposes that Ashley Valley Culinary Water Assoc. wherein, all represented, be the builder of the treatment plant, local control. Question: 6. What personal and political interests are involved in selecting a treatment plant? Answer: 6. The sole purpose and intent in-tent of the Bureau of Reclamation and the CUWCD is to gain control of our water and water rights, otherwise they would give the local people control of the project and once it was paid for it would become the property of the local people. There is no doubt a conspiracy to monopolize and to control the water of this area by: Bureau of Reclamation, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Uintah Water Conservancy District, Vernal City and some individuals in-dividuals in the State Department of Health. You read the contracts and you will agree. Question: 7. Why do engineers for the Ashley Valley Water and Sewer Improvement Improve-ment District and Vernal City disagree on ' water tank, treatment, lines, etc? Answer: 7. Vernal City's engineers have only been employed a short time, thus there are many things they are not aware of and also their interest is only in how the city can be served. Our engineers have grown up with the present water system. They know its history since 1900. They have learned from those that have built and operated it over the years. These engineers were also Vernal City's engineers until they would not yield to the political pressure put on them by the mayor and city manager, thus they were fired because they would not modify their professional profes-sional opinion. I am convinced that Nelson Marshall, Lanny Kay and Russ Vernon, are the most knowledgeable of any and all the aspects of our water, water supply and source, and culinary water system. They being local, gives them an increased in-creased interest in the future and who controls our destiny. Question: 8. Has your entity confirmed financing of a treatment plant from some other source other than CUP? Answer: 8. Yes, Ashley Valley Culinary Water Association does have a commitment that will fund the building of a treatment plant. Question: 9. Do you feel secure with CUP financing a treatment plant even though CUP could levy a tax in the valley to pay for Ueatment plants else where? Answer: 9. To have Liberty and Freedom we must control our own destiny and manage our own w ater and protect our water rights for you see Ashley Spring and Ashley Creek is the life blood to Ashley Valley. If the Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah Water Conservancy District gels control of our water we will be more than secure, we will be in chains forever. Maeser ' By Dan Turner Maeser Water Improvement District Question: 1. Why or why not will the treatment plant to be built by CUP for Vernal Ver-nal City satisy the needs of the entity you represent? Water (from the CUP treatment plant) is priced too high and Maeser would have to pump water to an anticipated an-ticipated population of double the size Maeser is now. Quesion: 2. Would two treatment plants better serve the entire valley or is one enough? Two plants will help provide more water for the valley. Two plants will not force those not subscribing to Red Fleet water an alternative source and price. Question: 3. What percent of the population of the valley would the CUP treatment plant serve? Approximately 80 percent. Question: 5. What kind of treatment plant (capacity, location, cost, etc.) does your entity propose? We support a 10 million gallon per day treatment plant located at the spring, spr-ing, costing $3.5 million. The plant is modular and would be smaller in the beginning, but could be added to as population grows. Question: 6. What personal and political interests are involved in selecting a treatment treat-ment plant? Ashley Valley District, Maeser Water and Jensen Districts and the seven canal companies are involved. Question: 7. Why do engineers for the Ashley Valley Water and Sewer Improvement Improve-ment District and Vernal City disagree on water tank, treatment, lines, etc.? The placement of the CUP treatment plant makes for the most differences with the city's decision to go with CUP. All or most differences are settled. Question: 8. Has your entity confirmed financing of a treatment plant from some other source other than CUP? Yes, Neptune Micro Flok & Contro Flo will put in our plant. Question: 9. Do you feel secure with CUP financing a treatment plant even though CUP could levy a tax in the valley to pay for treatment plants else where? No. Question: 10. Wells and Impact. Maeser has wells and well filings which will produce water that does not require treatment in quantity for 1440 additional homes. Maeser did not subscribe for CUP water because of availability of cheaper water from wells, both from treatment standpoint and original acquisition point. |