My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/23/1980
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1980
>
4/23/1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:48:52 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:23:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/23/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
135
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
APP 2 31980 FoaK: 43 FAA70 <br />Please note that, as presented in the Geraghty & Miller's summary, <br />Alternate No. 1 (Scenario II) is less costly than Alternate No. 2 <br />(Scenario III) for the testing program. The final requirements are <br />three production wells for the Phase I construction program. <br />Therefore, potential saving for Alternative No. 2 program is about <br />$16,100 plus additional inflation cost if the remaining (second and/or <br />third) production well is to be constructed in mid -year 1981. <br />We are recommending that the County proceed with the test program <br />based on Alternative No. 2 (Geraghty & Miller's Scenario III) <br />utilizing a production well for an observation well and constructing <br />the third production well during the last part of the te9t well program. <br />We will present the above and other findings and recommendations <br />in cdnjunction with the Test Well Program to the Commission on <br />April 23, 1980. <br />Please call if you have any -questions. <br />Sincerely, <br />Ralph E.`Eng, P.E. <br />For the Joint Venture <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE INQUIRED ABOUT THE DEPTH OF THE OBSERVA- <br />TION WELL, AND MR. TESSIER EXPLAINED THAT THE TYPE 3 OBSERVATION WELL <br />IS THE SAME DEPTH AS THE PRODUCTION WELL. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT <br />IT IS SO COSTLY IS THAT THE CASING HAS TO BE CEMENTED ALL THE WAY <br />BACK UP TO THE LAND SURFACE,AND SO IT IS ABOUT TWICE WHAT YOU HAVE <br />TO PAY FOR A REGULAR IRRIGATION WELL. <br />INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS ASKED IF THAT MONEY <br />IS RECOVERABLE WHEN WE HAVE THE GRANT, AND MR. ENG STATED THAT IT IS: <br />ALL OF THIS IS ALLOCATED IN THE BUDGET, INCLUDING THE ENGINEERING. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS INQUIRED WHETHER THE TEST WELL PROGRAM <br />WAS BEING CONDUCTED FOR US OR FOR THE ST. .JOHN'S WATER MANAGEMENT <br />DISTRICT. <br />MR. ENG EXPLAINED THAT IT IS ABOUT 20% FOR US AND 80% RE- <br />QUIRED BY THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. WE NEED TO DETERMINE WHAT <br />IS A SAFE PUMPING RATE FROM THESE WELLS AND THE QUANTITY OF FLOW WE <br />CAN OBTAIN: ALL THE TECHNICAL DATA IS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THE CONSUMP- <br />TIVE USE PERMIT FROM THE WATER DISTRICT. <br />116 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.