My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.2. ERMUSR 02-12-2008
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Utilities Commission
>
Packets
>
2003-2013
>
2008
>
02-12-2008
>
5.2. ERMUSR 02-12-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2009 2:52:36 PM
Creation date
1/28/2009 2:44:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
ERMUSR
date
2/12/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4.0 Summary of Alternative Water Supply Options <br />This section summarizes various alternatives for future water supplies for Elk River Municipal <br />Utilities. Each alternative includes a brief description of the infrastructure, the availability and <br />reliability, the benefits, and the challenges of implementing the alternative. These alternatives are <br />described in the context of (1) likely increases in future water demand by the Utilities' customers and <br />(2) likely increases in water demand for surrounding areas. <br />4.1 Continued Use of Mt. Simon-Hinckley Wells <br />4.1.1 Description <br />The Mt. Simon-Hinckley Aquifer is a proven water supply in Elk River. Additional wells could be <br />installed to provide additional supply. Wells can be installed on an as-needed basis. Additional wells <br />would need to be balanced with the need for adding additional water treatment (principally for <br />removal of iron, manganese, and radium). Wells need to be located with a consideration for piping, <br />land availability, storage, and service area infrastructure. <br />4.1.2 Technical Feasibility and Reliability <br />The technical feasibility is high and the reliability of the alternative is high. The potential for wells to <br />become contaminated is low (because of the presence of the overlying Eau Claire Formation). If one <br />well becomes contaminated, it is unlikely that the entire system will be affected. <br />4.1.3 Cost <br />Capital costs include the cost of drilling a well and the piping, electrical, and control appurtenances. <br />Additional cost may include expansion of water-treatment facilities or the construction of a second <br />water-treatment unit. Capital costs are relatively low. Operation and Maintenance costs are generally <br />low. Well systems and treatment facilities need to be installed to meet peak summer capacity, which <br />is a multiple of base (winter) demand. This results in expenditures for parts of the well system that <br />are used for only a portion of the year. <br />4.1.4 Challenges and Other Considerations <br />As pumping in the Mt. Simon-Hinckley Aquifer increases (through a combination of new wells by <br />Elk River Municipal Utilities and growth in surrounding areas), the aquifer's storage may begin to <br />deplete (i.e. recharge is less than pumping). Additional wells may cause well interference effects that <br />result from the intersection of the drawdown cones of adjacent wells, thereby causing a reduction in <br />the capacity of an individual well. If pumping conditions begin to cause a depletion in storage, the <br />P:\Mpls\23 MN\71\2371105 Water Supply Alternative Study\FinalDeliverables\Alternatives_Report_final.doc 2g <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.