Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Braunfels system, and to allow a more accurate allocation of capital <br /> and 0 & M cost to San Marcos for their portion of the plant. <br /> 2. The New Braunfels report evaluated several alternatives. For <br /> this study the two options reviewed were for San Marcos to purchase <br /> 1/2 of the plant to receive either 3 mid (million gallons per day) or <br /> 6 mid. The 3 mid option is less viable, because less than half of the <br /> total projected water demands for the City of San Marcos could be met <br /> by the year 1995. Consequently, a major portion of the demands would <br /> still have to be met by existing wells or other sources. Table 1 <br /> presents the opinion of probable project cost of the two alternatives <br /> and the cost presented by New Braunfels Report. <br /> TABLE 1 <br /> PROJECT COST NEY BRAUNFELS PLANT <br /> From New Braunfels <br /> VOLUME COST $/1000 gal Report $/1000 gal <br /> <br /> 3 mid 1.80 - 1. 90 1.01 <br /> 6 mid 1. 50 - 1. 60 .96 <br /> A substantial difference in, these costs is evident and is <br /> attributed to the inclusion of additional dedicated pipeline, pumping <br /> cost, and an increase in the estimated 0 & M cost, when compared to <br /> previous cost estimates. <br /> D. ALTERNATE RAY YATER SOURCE <br /> The San Marcos River offers an alternate source of excellen t <br /> quality water which could be treated wi th a plant in San Marcos, <br /> reducing project cost substantially. This reduction would be the <br /> result of considerably less transmission piping and reduced pumping <br /> 5 <br />