OCR Text |
Show Central Utah Water Conservancy istrist (CUWCD) Board Members ceived a large welcome last Monday i they listened for over three hours to cal sentiment concerning con-ruction con-ruction of a water treatment plant to rve the area. The hearing was called this week, ter a Dec. 30 CUWCD meeting in em where the board was unable to cide where to locate the proposed eatment plant for the Ashley Valley. At the Vernal meeting the Uintah Dunty Courthouse was filled to ipacity. In support of the proposed treatment ant at the Doc's Beach location, Alvin ay, Uintah Water Conservancy istrict. told the CUAVCD "time costs oney, therefore the contract between intah Water Conservancy District and ;ntral Utah Water Conservancy istrict should be signed as ithorized." The Uintah Water Conservancy istrict has already approved the eatment plant and is waiting for L"VCD to approve it. Also in support of the treatment ant. Mayor Sam Snyder told the JWCD board that it has been the titude of the city to look out for older ;ople in the community so they will )t be pushed out of their homes Kause of high utility bills. "To not face added expenses from st and pursuant to a unanimous otion by the council. I reemphasize ernal City's support for a treatment ant to the Vernal area." the mayor dd. He also told the board that the city in support of the CUWCD building the treatment plant." "Any further delay will only add to the cost of the plant," Mayor Snyder said. LeVar Richens, Bureau of Reclamation, then presented three reasons why the Doc's Beach site tor the treatment plant has been recommended: recom-mended: the State Board of Health has labeled Ashley Springs unapproved for direct filtration treatment, it would provide adequate water for fish down stream, and it would supply water for more than one source. Ashley Springs, Steinaker and Red Fleet. Nelson Marshall, consultant engineer to the Maeser and AVWSID and president of a local engineering firm, showed the board several maps illustrating the location of water tanks and site for water tanks in the valley. The maps also show the area a treatment treat-ment at 5.800 feet elevation, Doc's Beach, and 6.200 feet elevation, Ashley Springs, treatment plant would serve. Marshall said that he disagrees with the publicized figure that 5 percent of the population would have to have water pumped from the Doc's Beach site plant. "We've known all along that you would have to pump to more than that," Marshall told the board. Since you don't pump to areas, but to water tanks, more than 50 percent of the valley would have to be pumped to because the Doc's Beach site is too low-to low-to service several water tanks in the area, Marshall said. "I can't see a time that we won't pump over 50 percent," Marshall said. "unless we abandon our tanks." "There is no argument with this site," Marshall concluded, "as long as there is not an argument with pumping." pum-ping." Rus Vernon, an engineer for Uintah Engineering, then presented his summary of the costs of pumping at the currently proposed CUWCD treatment plant. He concluded that per connection, con-nection, pumping costs, using current commercial rates for the distribution pumping and BuRec rates for the Tyzack pumping, are estimated to be approximately $15.60 and $6.30 respectively for a total of $21.60 per year. These figures greatly differ with Carl Carpenter, UWCD engineer, who stated at the meeting that it would be $5.52 per connection per month which would be the cost if the treatment plant were in operation today. Representing the canal companies in the area, Wayne Batty, said that he 'didn't vote to drink Red Fleet water,' but to use it on exchange." He also said that it is not every community that can capitalize on gravity flow for their water needs. Lyle McKeachnie then commented that the CH2M Hill engineering report upon which the site location of the treatment plant is based didn't treat distribution and storage after the water leaves the treatment plant. "The treatment plant may be adequate for Vernal City, but not the entire Valley." Lee Rosenhan addressed the board (Continued on Page 3) r . y- 1 If ' N - v. "1 r , 1 ENGINEER NELSON MARSHALL, right, points to map showing where treatment plants at Doc's Beach and Ashley Canyon would service the valley. He made the presentation during a CUWCD meeting here. CUWCD hearing (Continued from Page 1) by saying that the cost of the Red Fleet project could be paid be selling the water industry rather than for culinary purposes. Rosenhan said the Orem treatment plant is presently costing 6 cents per 1,000 gallons for treatment, where through a private company it would be 65 cents per 1,000 gallons and the people would own the plant. Many other opinions were expressed at the meeting including some in support of the Doc' Beach location for the treatment plant because it would not jeopardize the Brown Trout habitat in Ashley Creek. Others contested drinking Red Fleet water because of possible contamination from the phosphate plant owned by Chevron Industries Inc. and located several miles up Brush Creek from Red Fleet. In response to a question by Douglas Lawson, Maeser Water Improvement District, as to how much the cost of Red Fleet water would be, Lin Ludlow, CUWCD, said that the Bureau of Reclamation would have to answer that in that CUWCD is separate. Karl Carpenter said that the total cost including Red Fleet water pumping pum-ping and treatment would be 21.5 cents per 1,000 gallons, if direct filtration treatment is used. Bob Gilbert of the State Board of Health then said the direct filtration had been ruled out for treatment of Ashley Creek water, but it is still a possibility with Red Fleet and Steinaker, but studies would have to be done if direct filtration is approved. Direct filtration treatment eliminated a step in conventional treatment thus substantially cutting the cost of a treatment plant. The CUWCD has built direct filtration treatment plants in Duchesne and Orem. Norman Fletcher, manager of the Ashley Valley Water and Sewer Improvement Im-provement District, presented to the board a statement from AVWSID against the treatment plant. The fact sheet was not signed by any member of the AVWSID and four of five members of the board later said they hadn't seen the fact sheet before it was presented and disagreed with many of the things written in it. (For further details on the fact sheet see other story in this issue.) |