My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005-238f
CBCC
>
Official Documents
>
2000's
>
2005
>
2005-238f
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2016 9:56:26 AM
Creation date
9/30/2015 8:56:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Official Documents
Official Document Type
Agreement
Approved Date
07/12/2005
Control Number
2005-238F
Agenda Item Number
7.EE.
Entity Name
St. Johns River Water Management District
Subject
Alternate Water Supply- Cost sharing program
Contract #S1341AA
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
5054
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
SJRWMD Alternative Water Supply Construction Cost-Sharing Application Form 2004-2005 <br /> pilot project, clearly distinguish the water savings of the pilot project from the future fi &scale <br /> project. Also, for reclaimed water system extensions, clearly described how the watersavings was <br /> determined. <br /> Cost per million gallons per day (mgd) $1 ,216f700, 00 <br /> Example Calculation 23 X75 <br /> Total construction cost for Project A (should be the same as listed in B . 1) 338,365 <br /> Amount of alternative water supply developed with Project A (mgd) 0.326 mgd 1` <br /> (Explain how this was estimated.) <br /> Dollar cost per mgd for Project A: $338,365 divided by 0.326 mgd $927,027/mgd <br /> 6c. If applicable, will the project have meters for individual users or efficient zone manigement via <br /> meters? Yes o_ L <br /> Provide explanation or describe other methods used for managing the alternative water supply <br /> efficiently . <br /> EVALUATION FACTORS related to question 11-6: <br /> a. Will water from this project directly and effectively take the place of an existing or p oposed <br /> higher quality water source? b. Will the project be cost-effective? c. Will the project use the new <br /> alternative water supply efficiently? 0-20 points. Based on rater's assessment of the effectiveness and <br /> efficiency of the project at saving potable water and apparent relative cast-effectiveness. Becausfp of the great <br /> variation in types of projects, calculations of cost-effectiveness for widely dissimilar projects, such as urban <br /> reuse and agricultural freeze protection ponds, will not be directly compared. <br /> Does the project contribute to recovery of violated minimum flows or levels? This will determined <br /> for you by SJRWMD staff. 0-10 points. Yes = 10; no = 0. <br /> A-5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.