Laserfiche WebLink
water management area is to be constructed by 2015, and the aquifer storage and recovery wells <br />could improve reliability during drought conditions. <br />Cons: Since this would be a different technology it would take different <br />membranes; a lengthy pipeline; available quantities still need to be determined by SJRWMD; <br />much of Fellsmere's water management area had already been committed to SunAg; the <br />reconnection of C-25 and the Upper Basin project discussion are on hold; source water will <br />require protection from contamination; and the Aquifer storage and recovery are subject to <br />permitting uncertainties. <br />(3) SURFICIAL AQUIFER (shallow wells) <br />Pros: There is adequate and available supply, it would cost less than the current <br />technology because it is less salty, requiring less energy to convert it, and there is no anticipated <br />impact on Upper Floridan Aquifer wells. <br />Cons: Since this would be a different technology, it would take different <br />membranes, production rates would be lower because it is a shallow well, land acquisition is <br />required for well sites, well field protection concerns, a highly variable water quality, high <br />maintenance and the impact on adjacent homeowner wells. <br />(4) SEAWATER DESALINATION (ocean or boulder zone) <br />Pros: Unlimited water availability. <br />Cons: It is the most expensive technology because it is energy intensive, it would <br />be a different technology requiring different membranes, and it could require a feasibility study. <br />C. COST ESTIMATES FOR EACH OPTION <br />Dr. Gleason, through a PowerPoint presentation, provided a cost comparison <br />analysis for each alternative water supply and explained how the treatment costs had been <br />equalized on the basis of what it would cost to produce a thousand gallons of drinking water. He <br />4 <br />June 21, 2007 <br />ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPY <br />MASTER PLAN PUBLIC WORKSHOP <br />