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
4.5.2 Technical Feasibility and Reliability <br />A surface-water intake and treatment system is a proven technology -examples include St. Cloud, <br />Minneapolis, and St. Paul. Reliability issues similar to those associated with existing surface-water <br />works may result during low-flow periods. <br />4.5.3 Cost <br />The cost of a plant to treat surface water depends on a number of factors, including capacity, whether <br />or not to include softening, availability of land, and the location and type of intake structure. The <br />Kraemer & Sons Inc. quarry in Burnsville is planning construction of a 4 million gallon per day plant <br />to treat quarry dewatering water (which is considered to be under the influence of surface water and <br />requires surface-water treatment). The estimated cost of that plant is approximately $13 million (and <br />does not include softening). A plant in Elk River that is capable of supplying between 8 and 12 <br />million gallons per day would likely be in the range of $20-million to $30-million, including intake <br />structures. As capacity increases, the cost per gallon treated would tend to go down. Thus, there <br />would likely be savings realized with a larger customer base. <br />4.5.4 Challenges and Other Considerations <br />Capital cost of implementation is likely the biggest obstacle for this alternative. The cost differential <br />for a small treatment plant compared to a large plant is not substantial. Therefore, per capita cost of <br />implementation could be reduced substantially if multiple communities combined resources to build <br />a single facility that would serve a large area. Risks associated with contamination and low flow <br />could be substantially reduced for Elk River with the continued maintenance of the existing well <br />system as a back-up water supply. Softening in the treatment plant would likely improve overall <br />water quality. Mixing of water from two sources (treated surface water and untreated groundwater) <br />could cause water-quality issues through a repetitive cycle of precipitation and dissolution in the <br />piping networks, leading to fluctuating water hardness, iron staining, and scaling. <br />4.6 Ranney Well and Treatment <br />4.6.1 Description <br />Ranney wells are horizontal collector wells advanced underneath the bed of river. In this case, one or <br />more collector well laterals would be advanced below the Mississippi River from a central caisson to <br />obtain Mississippi River water that has undergone some filtration through the river-bed bottom. <br />Treatment to surface-water quality standards would still be required because this water would be <br />considered "groundwater under the direct influence of surface water". However, some filtration steps <br />in the treatment process might be eliminated from the treatment plant by using Ranney wells. <br />P:\Mpls\23 MN\71\2371105 Water Supply Alternative Study\FinalDeliverables\Alternatives_Report_final.doc 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.