20140929Juengling Direct.pdf

GOPY
Dean J. Miller (ISB No. 1968)
Chas. F. McDevitt (ISB No. 835)
Celeste K. Miller (ISB No. 2590)
MoDEVITI & MILLER LLP
420 West Bannock Street
P.O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, D 83702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
i [e-mail]
chas@mcdevitt-miller. com
ck@mcdevitt-mill er. com
Attorneyfor United Water ldaho Inc.
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT
APPLICATION OF UNITED WATER
IDAHO NC., AND BRIAN SUBDTVISION
WATER USERS ASSOCIATION FOR
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE Ai\D NECESSITY NO.
143; APPROVAL OF AI\ AGREEMENT
FOR CONNECTION AIID TRANSFER OF
WATER SYSTEMS; APPROVAL OF
RATES AND CHARGES
f:fCI,i':'
i!l:,SIP 29 ili lC' 53
li;,:ii;,.:; i ;l
rj I il-l L -.; .-'-',..,'.,i - *
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Case No. UWI-W-14-01
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RICHARD JUENGLING
September 29,2014
1Q.
2A.
3Q.
4A.
5
6
7
8Q.
9
l0 A.
1l
t2 a.
13 A.
t4
15
l6
t7
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
a.
A.
a.
Please state your name and address.
Richard Juengling, 5885 South Eastwood Place, Boise,Idaho.
Please describe your education and employment background.
I have a bachelor's degree from the University of Wisconsin (1975). I am
currently semi-retired, having worked in managerial positions in Idaho State
government for 15 years after having worked in a variety of non-profit and county
governmental positions in Idatro and Wisconsin since 1975.
What is your position with Brian Subdivision Water Users Association
(BSwuAX
I am a founder and the president of the Brian Subdivision Water Users
Association. I also reside in the Brian Subdivision.
Please describe the Brian Subdivision.
The subdivision was originally platted in 1961. It is located along Warm Springs
Avenue near the intersection with Highway 21. It is outside the limits of Boise
City in Ada County, Idaho. The subdivision has 48 homes, most of which were
constructed in the 1960's and 1970's.
Please describe the facilities that provide domestic water service within the
subdivision.
The system serves 46 of the 48 homes within the subdivision. It consists of two
wells, one of which is located within a well house, approximately 3200 feet of
pipelines, several valves, plus meters, service lines and meter boxes for 46 homes.
The wells are both 70 - 80 feet in depth.
Please describe the history of the operation ofthe water system.
Juengling, Di 1
United Water ldaho Inc.
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
A.For many years the system was operated by the developers of the subdivision and
later became Brian Water Company, which was a regulated public utility. In
20l3,the owner of Brian Water Company determined he was no longer
financially capable of operating the utility company. That same year BSWUA was
formed and a Water System Transfer Agreement was signed transferring the
system to BSWUA. The Idaho Public Utilities Commission cancelled Brian
Water Company's certificate of public convenience in Case No. BRN-W-12-02.
Please describe the history of BSWUA providing domestic water service to the
Brian Subdivision.
In February of 2011 the prior owner of the water system was informed that
routine testing indicated the water being delivered by the system was
contaminated and that he was required by law to correct the situation. Between
that time and February of 2013, the prior owner made limited progress with
identiffing any solution that would be approved by the Departrnent of
Environmental Quality. His only conclusion was that he could not afford to solve
the problem. Consequently, over several additional months he made efforts to sell
the system to operators of other small water systems, who eventually declined.
He also tried to sell the system to the homeowners (through BSWUA) but we
were not willing to pay his asking price. Finally, on February 4,2013, BSWUA
acquired the system from him for $1.00 and began operating the system.
BSWUA immediately hired a licensed operator, took over complete responsibility
for operation and began making inquiries with experts for ways to eliminate the
Juengling, Di 2
United Water ldaho Inc.
8Q.
9
10 A.
11
t2
t3
t4
15
t6
t7
l8
l9
20
2t
22
I contamination from our water. BSWUA has operated the system as a non-profit
2 corporation since that date.
3 Q. Are there existing public health concems regarding the water quahty provided by
4 the water system?
5 A. Yes. The drinking water provided by the system does not meet drinking water
6 standards for maximum contaminant levels (MCL) for nitrate. Through routine
7 water testing, nitrates began showing up at significant levels lr,2007. Between
8 2007 and 2010, nitrate levels bounced up and down seasonally, but continued
9 climbing. In 2011, nitrate levels skyrocketed and have remained above maximum
10 contaminate levels ever since. A chart of nitrate levels over time is attached hereto
l1 as Exhibit 5. Nitrates above MCL can cause death in infants.
12 a. Has the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) required that steps be
13 taken to remedy the existing non-compliance?
14 A. Yes. DEQ has required BSWUA to enter into a Consent Agreement for the
15 remediation of the nihate hazard.
16 a. Have BSWUA and its predecessor, Brian Water Company, investigated ways to
17 remedy the existing non-compliance?
l8 A. Yes. In 2012Bian Water Company commissioned an engineering analysis by
19 Jesse Chan, P.E. A copy of the report is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. That
20 analysis recommended connecting to United Water as the most reliable and cost
2l effective method of delivering safe drinking water to the subdivision. BSWUA
22 explored altemative measures through consultation with other engineers and
23 various drinking water experts at the Department of Environmental Quality, and
Juengling, Di 3
United Water Idaho Inc.
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
t2
l3
t4
15
t6
t7
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
a.
by studying the engineering report from another contaminated community water
system.
Based on the Chan report and on your own investigation do you believe the nitrate
problem can be remedied by modification or improvements to the existing
system?
No. Those investigations made it clear that we had three options: drill tvro new
wells, install a treatment facility, or connect to United Water. While drilling new
wells appears simple, it poses a significant problem. More than one expert has
told us that if we drill new wells, we may still end up with nitrates, and if we drill
deep enough to avoid nitrates, we will very likely pick up arsenic and/or fluorides
due to the nature ofthe geology in our vicinity. Regarding the treatment option,
none of the people we consulted felt that treatment was a viable solution. In fact,
I do not believe the Department of Environmental Quality would approve a
treatment option in our case.
Have you engaged in discussions with United Water Idaho about the possibility of
connecting the BSWUA system to the United Water system?
Yes. These discussions cofilmenced in December of 2012 and have been ongoing
since then. After studying the other options, we believe this is the only feasible
option forthe Brian Subdivision.
Have BSWUA and United Water reached an agreement for connection of the
systems?
Yes. We have executed an Agreement for Connection and Transfer of Water
Systems, which accompanies the Application filed in this case.
Juengling, Di 4
United Water Idaho Inc.
a.
A.
a.
A.
I Q. Please describe the key provisions of the Agreement.
2 A. Under the Agreement, United Water will install pipelines extending from its
3 existing pipelines, to and through the Brian Subdivision. Existing meters and
4 service lines for the existing 46 homes will be replaced. BSWUA will give the
5 water rights for the two existing wells to United Water. BSWUA will retain the
6 well lot (for a future home site or park) and will decommission the existing wells.
7 a. Have the members of BSWUA voted to approve the connection with United
8 Water?
9 A. Yes they have. On December 5,2013 a vote was taken by written ballot and there
10 was a unanimous vote of all homeowners present. This vote was taken after
I I notices were hand-delivered to each homeowner/resident, noting the date and time
12 of the meeting and explaining thatthe purpose of the meeting was to vote whether
13 BSWUA should enter into an agreement to connect with United Water and to turn
14 our system over to them. Of the 46 homes, 26 were represented at the meeting and
15 the vote was 26 for and 0 opposed.
16 a. In your opinion, is the Agreement in the best interests of the residents of the Brian
17 Subdivision?
18 A. Yes it is.
19 a. Please explain the basis of your opinion.
20 A. As stated above, we have explored the options of drilling two new wells or
2l installing water treatment systems. Neither of those options appears to be a
22 realistic solution for the water contamination problems in our subdivision, either
23 because ofthe technological constaints identified earlier, or financially. The
Juengling, Di 5
United Water ldaho [nc.
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
a.
A.
Brian Subdivision is an older subdivision occupied primarily by families of
modest means. Under our agreement with United Water, we have agreed to pay
up to 10% of the cost of the pipeline construction, and 100% of the services,
setters and meters. While this portion of the cost will present a serious burden for
many of the subdivision residents, it is still a better choice than to invest heavily
in questionable well drilling or treatment systems that may quickly fail.
Does that conclude your testimony?
Yes it does.
Juengling, Di 6
United Water Idaho Inc.
=o
=:rEll
%
\&
\-lg.'
\
%,"\
%o,
%1*
\u
\v?
\"o
-\
-\
\?s
Ja
%
'%^*
,\
\b
?a
%a,?o
?a
no^
v?
%t*
rg
E*
hJ(
Eo
=*TN
Eoortr1t
'qLo'9o *
qq
'%
\
%"*
\
"qt'q
\
%""
%'u)
\qt
'%
\,
qa,
'19)
\
\
Brian Water C6rporauon - Facility
Plan
Boise, ldaho
Brian Water Gorporation
Prepared By:
Jesse Ghan, P.E.
Diane Baconguis, P.E.
Brian Water Corporation Facility plan
Level of Study
This techuical document provides the altematives of the appraisal level
engineering evaluation for bringiag Brian Water Corporation into compliance
with IDAPA 58.01.08. This facility plaa will identi$ the alternatives from which
the homeowners will choose apreferred altemative that will meet drinking water
standards of nitate minimum contamiuant level (MCL) and teatrnent
requirements, where appropriate.
lntroduction and Background
Brian Water Company (BWCJ entered into a consent order (amended date
March 7,Z0LZ) with the Idaho Deparhmentof Envlronmental Qualrty. BWCts
a community public water system (System) that serves forty six (46) homes,
refer to Appendlx A-1 and A-2. The system currently supplies driuking water
to the homeowners that does not meet the drinking water standards for
nitrae. Samples staked ftom the system show nitrate levels that exceed the
MCL of 10 mllHgrams per liter (mS/L).
Existing Condltlons
Brian Subdivislon is located nearthe intersecdon oflMarm SpringsAvenue
and Highway 21. It is outside the llmlts of the City of Boise ln Ada County,
Idaho, The subdivision is flanked bythe Boise River to the west and Hammer
Flats to the east. The subdivtslon has 48 homes The remainder of the homes
has individual wells. Most of the homes in the subdivision were built in the
1970s, while others were bullt earlier in the 1960s.
Brian Water Company senres drinHng water to 46 of the 48 homes ln Brlan
Subdivision It is deemed unltkely that addltional homes will be served by
the drinking water system. The community drinldng water system has two
wells located in parcel legally desoibed as Lot ZBlockZ,refer to Appendlx A-
2. It is our undersiandlng that well #1 has a flow capacity of approximately
110 cfs and has a depth of 75 feet and well #2 has a flow capacity of 110 ds
and a depth of 80 feet Both wells are contained in a well house. The wells
have no metering devlces. Information onthe capacityand depth of thewells
ls based on the well drillerrs.reportand an approximafion setforth bythe
BWC's operator. The proximity to agrtcultural lands and the relafively
Brian Water Corporation Facility Plan
Page t
a
)
)
)
)
)
)
,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
I
I
'shallow depth of the wells has led to an increase ln the nitrate levels of the
sources beyond the allowabld MCL.
There are two homes that are not connected to the PWS. One home on 5890
Boven Drlve has a 150-foot well, refer to Appendix A-2. Nitrate levels at the
well were at0.6 mg/L,refer to Appendix C-3 and C-4. Another home on 6199
Brlan Way has a 200+-foot well with nitrate levels at 0.2 mg/L, refer to
AppendixA-2 and C-5. The drillreports of theseiirdividualwells are
included ln Appendix C-7 and C-8. The data from the well driller{s reports of
these homes prove usefullnterms of how deep newwellswouldhave to be
drilled if BWC choosesto drilltwo completelynewsources.
Figure 1. Location of Brian Subdiviston on Warm Springs Avenue.
Brian Water Corporation Facility Plan
Evaluation of Alternatives
Rejected Alternatlves
Several alternatives were considered to heat or replace the existing ddnkif,g water
sources. One alternative that was considered, but rejected, is to drill one well to a
minimum depth of I50 feetbelow ground surface. Provided that the new well
produces water that meets drinking water staadards, water from that source would
be used to blend with the nitrate-contaminaled water from ttre two existing
sources. This alternative has up-front uncertalnties in cost to the homeowners.
BWC would have to drill a test well to a depth of at least 150 feet to detemoine the
capaclty of the source asd to test for water quality. If the test well indicates that
the hole will have to be drilled deeper due to insufficient yield or nitrate or poor
.beyond the cost of a test well. [n addition, should the new well bq subject to
mahtenance or repair indefiniteln homeowners would bo subject to contaminated
water ftom the remaining soluces or Brian Water Corporation would be required
to inform homeowners of the potential of consuming high nitate laden water
ftom the elisting wells during the renovation or lnaintenance of the new n ell.
Another alternative was to drill deeper through the existing wells, but was
rejected duo to the age of the existing wells. It is assumed that g6s saisting wolls
are of questionable condition. AIso, ttrere needs to be a redundant soirce at all
times.
Finally, tho last altemative thatwas consideredbutrejected was to install an ion
exchange _unit or a reverse osmcsie systgm in each home. The reasons for
sliminating these alternatiVes include cost. More imFortantly, the installation of
individual teatmentunits puts tho burdeu on the homeowner to purchase a unit
that will range from $400 to $1,500. It would also put &e e. xpense on the
ihdividual homeowner to recharge a unit which is one of the major costs of
q4intenance and operation. Lastly, ion exchange and reverse osmosis units also
require constant monitoring of the unit to ensure that they are producing "cleatr"
water, a task that should not be the rasponsibility of BWC, not'the homeowner.
Refer to Appendix C-9 through C-171 for reference information.
For the remainder of this section, tie viable altematives to mitigating or replaciirg
the existing drinking water system will be descTibed. The following.alternatives
wero analyzed:
o Cornect to existing public drinking water systemo Incorporate ionization teatment at the sourceo Drilltwonew wellso Iocorporate RO system at each house, for information only (FIO)
Brian Water Corporation Facitity Plan
Page 3
The engineer's preferred alteorative will be given; however, it does trot mean that
the BWC will bhoose the preferred alternative. BWC and Brian Subdivision have
the option to discard altematives or selectively choose alternatives to develop into
a detailedpredesign.
Connect to Exlsting Public Drinking W.ater System
The majority of the residences in the city of Boise are ,.*i."4 Uy United lVater
Idaho (UWI). Connection to UWI is an option that would require no
maintenance and operational efforts once the homeowners of Brian Subdivision
are connected. As an exiSting drinking water system, UWI monitors the water
quality and ensures. adequate pressure and quantity of water to tle customers they
service. IIW[ also has the technical, financial, and managerial capacity to
maintain their drinking water system. However, the nearest water mainto Bdan
Subdivision is located approximately 7,600 feet away. Assumiig the installation
of an f-inch pipeplus apump station to maintain adequate pressure, the cost to
extend the water would be approximately $400,000 at minimum, refei to
AppendixE-2.
If BWC chooses to connect to an existing drinking water (i.e. United Water
Idaho), they would need to provide a written agreement with 6[s gxisting water
system that provides a timeline of the connection to the existing distribution
system inBrian Subdivision Simitarto the remaining alternativos discussed in
this report, the cost to connept to an existing system would be a monumental
burden on &e homeowners. Each homeowuer would have to pay a minimnm of
$8,700 to constuct the lines and the booster pump that would allows them to
connect to the system.
lncorporate lon Exchange Unit at the Sources
Another alternative to remediating the niuate levels ip to install nitate removal
systems at the sources. The ion eichange unit works like a household water
softener. For nifrate removal, unit use5 a resin that exchanges chloride ions for
nitate (and sulfate) in the water. However, the resin only contains so much
chloride ions that is eventually depleted after so many gallons of water. The resin
is recharged of chloride ioirs using a concentated solution of sodium chloride.
BachrsCIhbrine from recharging thuuait will be inhigh nitate concentration aud
will require proper disposal, which is a large portion of the operation and
maintenancg costs.
Anotherdrawbackof an ion exchange systqmis that theresinprefers the sulfate
exchange. It is not certain if the BWC sources are high in sulfate. Water high in
sulfate would reduce the system's effectiveness. Once tho resin is saturated, it
releases nitrates in place of sulfates, which would increase the nitrate
Brian Water Corporation Facility Plan
Page 4
t.:,t l:''lil:. i
i :ii 'lri:l
,I
I lil
tii,l:
iii
I lr'
i.rl.
.L ;,
ii
:i !I
;'t,
J r1::
i:,1,r
ifiilr.'.i;il
i#tExhibit 6
Page 5 of 11
H
concdnfration in the water. Ion exchange also makes water conosive, but the
water can be neutralized. The drinking water qrcrator will need to be certified to .
operate and maintain an ion exchauge unit to ensure that the unit continues to
produce compliant water and will need to conduct continuous and ftequent
monitoring of nitrate levels. Finalln ioa sxshange is expensive and requires
maintenance
One study developed by the Minnesota Deparhent of Agriculture and the
Minnesota Deparhent of Health summarized the costs of several public water
systems that used ionization or reverse osmosis to remove nihate from the
drinking water system, refer to Appendix C-9 through C-L'IL. The study shows
that the cost per resident increases as the population served decreases. In their
exanrplg the largest public water system is Liucoln-Pipestone Rural Water, which
serves 4,100 peopla The construction cost of nitrate removal.added up to
$1,706,@0, which amounted to $416 perresident. The summary also included
the coit to produce every 1,000 gallons of clean water assuming alp-yew
amortization (without interest expe$e) plus annual operating costs, which was
$1.95 for the Lincoln-Pipestone iystem. The smallest public water system was
Clear Lake, which serves 435 people, Their construction cost of nitrate removal
was $412,39Q which was about $970 per resident. The cost to produce every
1,000 gallons of clean water was $4.38. For a very small 6spl61sigyr liko B\MC,
theso extrapolated costi would be much higher. Based on ttre Minnesota study, au
extrapolated constnrctioa cost is estimated to be $190,066, or $1,358 perresident
and the costto produce every 1,000 gallons of clean water wouldbe $7.20 refer
to Appendix D-3. At an estimated per capita use of 0.14 acre-feet (IfRE\ffi
report, 2010), the aonual water use of Bri-an Water is about 6.4 million gallons per
5rear. It would cost the BIVC customers an estimated $46,080 per year to produce
clean water from their existing sourc€s, or $329 per resident per year.
Drill Two New Wells
The system modifications would be desiped using the following flows: total
consumption on a maximum day of 153 gallons per minute (GPI\O and a peak use
for an expected one-hour duration of 308 GPM exchiding fre flbws, refer to
Appendix D-2. The flows were calculated based on 46 homes, 2.47 houses per
acte and a factor of safety of 2, in .the abseoce of metered usage data from the
drinking uiater system. The design flow rates were estimated using the Design
Flows Calculation (dated 7/9/2007) spreadsheet provided by DEQ
BWC has an estimate from a local drilling aod pump company, refer to Appendix
E-5. The existiirg pumps have a capacity of 110 GPM, which we understand has
been adeErata The estimate was based on a 110 GPM standard or VED pump
system at $29 J34 or $32,645, respectively. This estimate is for one well. If this
well is not in operation, there must be another well that can provide the peak hour
demand flow, plus fire flows. BWC will be required to drill a secondwell of
Brian Water Corporatibn Facility Ptan
Page 5
Exhibit 6
Page 6 of 11
equal or greater capacity. The cost estimate provided will need to be revised for
dri[ing two wells that meet the peak houl demand of 308 GPlvI, plus what will be
reqnired for fire flows, unless the 110 GPM is authorized. If the wells do not
providc sufficient flow for fire suppressiort, Brian Water will need to install
etevated storage to cover the fue flow reErirement. Other concems that will need
to be addressed if B\ryC chooses to install two new wells and &e existing capaclty
pump is not authorized is thd water right. The drhkiog water standards require
more flow capacity than what the existing system provides. BWC will aeed to
request for sufficient water rights to meet the required capacity of the two new
wells. In addition, BWC will also need to request a waiver to drill in the same lot
as the existing wells as the current lot does mee't current setback requir€ments.
Other significant costs aot accounted for in this estimate are the operation and
maintenance costs to replace all of the mechanical parts of the drinking water
system. kr addition to having a redundant source, Brian Water will need to
provide a generator that is large enough to maintain power in the largest well and
provide an automatic transfer switch to the generator in the event of a power
outage to avoid service intemrption. A 2O-year life cycle cost analysis to replace
the two purnps, the generator, and other mechanical parts, in addition to the power
requirement to maintain at least one of the pumps year round is shown in Table I
below. In the long term, if the currend owner car uo longer manage or serve as
the drinking water operator of the system, the burden will be on the homeowners
to find ttre means to manage, operate, and-maintain the system.
Incorporate a Reverse Osmosis System in Each liome
(For lnformatlon Only)
The system is a multifaceted system that includes a reverse osmosis @O) system
that will remove 99 percent of most contaminants in the'water and70 percent of
any nitrate levels. The othei 30 percent will be cleaned up by the deionizgtion
canister filter whiqh wifl take place of a 'polish" carbon filter and will fit in one of
the bottomhousings of the RO system. Ttrere is a monitoriug system required
with an audible alarm to alert the homeowner of any problem associated with the
system. The alarm will plug into the system using a teo on the line going to the
faucet. A separate water line can be run to the reftigerator to supply clean water
to the reftigerator water dispensers. : '
This altemative is not considered due to yearly cost oi item showri in life cycle
costs below.
,...I
i. ll,i.i!;
,i i:;! i(.I !.!I irl l
{ ": l. ,':li;.liii .
,.,
.;i
,ii
:l
r .:'
',.i' itExhibit 6
Page 7 of 11
Brian Water Corporation Facility Plan
Page 6
Gost Estimate
Table I summarizes ttre initial cost of each alternative, the life expectancy, as well
as the aimuai cost for the life of each altemative.
Table 1. Cost Summary of all alternatives
Life cycle cost information is prepared as a decision making tool. The costs
indicate an altemative's cost per year for &e life of tho dte,rnbtive.
The cost estimate developed for this option is for the purpose of plar"'ing only
and is not intended to be at a the level reErired for construction.
Recommendation
All of these altematives willbe costly to the homeowners and it will irnpose
financial hardship on every single homeowner that is cunently being served by
Brian Water as the cost of any of these alteruatives will be passed on to them"
The ultimatc goal of this report is to ultimately provide recommendatioo for what
would be the most reliable alternative source of qafe and clean drinking water for
the homeowners at Brian Subdivision.
The recommended altemative is to connect to an existing drinking water, such as
Unit€d lVater Idaho. Firsg once the homqs in the subdivision are connected to the
system, the homeowners will have peace of mind that the quality of their water
will meet shict drinking standards and tlat they will always have adequate
presflre at the tap. Secon4 smaller drinking water systems are likely to have
more difficulty in meeting the increasingly stricterdrinking water standards.
Third, the cost to rnaintain and operate a drinking water system once all standards
. are met may be high when coosidering the long term need to replace parts and
pay staff. A smaller drinking water system wopld have to relay a higher shre of
those costs per household than a home that is cornected to a large drinking water
system. Also, it is likely that property values will rise with the peace of mind that
a conaection to a large, established drinking water system.
Brian Water Corporation Facility Plan.
pageT
!ltt
I
Exhibit 6
Page 8 of 1l
Nbmathrs TnitialGS Ubfuchry Armrral(hSre to Existiru IXnkine WaE St tul $4m.m 150 gz6t
hccrprate ImBctrmrc t&it at &e Sqrces $190.0m 5 $&m
eilTfrirIYerilWe[s $81.m n 4.0m
kocaoe ROSvs at horc€s (fo ffi mlv)$40.m0 2 20010
cq
ed
qte
cddddd
dlG.d
d'Gl i6;fi
GFI
GiclGI(FI :dl
silffii
ffi
$il
gi
H,i
Hi
f,
APPENDIX E
BRIAN WATER CORPORATION
FACILITY PIAN
COST ESTIMATES
UWICONNECNON
HIDDTESTON 2012 WELL COSTS
IDAHO WATER SOLUTIONS REVERSE OSMOS]S COSTS
HTDDLEsToN zou wrd/puMp cosrs
BRIAN WATER CORPORATION. FAC!|TIY PLqN
E-2
E-3 - E-4
E-5
E-5
NPPENDIX E
Exhibit 6
Page 9 of 11
E-l
UWl Connecffon Cost Estimat€
Cost/ft of 8' oloe leneth of olpe Eoost€r oumo and oumo house Total
Sso.oo 87,ffi0.w 07 szo,ooo.oo s400,m0.00
BR IAN WATER CORPORATION. FACLTTY PLAI'I APPENDIX E
Exhibit 6
Page 10 of 1l
E-2
i
!
I
li
MouoQh Hsretifiqs
1?4UNWn'6hin6h 8t
i&is.nbiil Hbhi6, Q q364?
208€&r-905s
rtr(ib1*,5ei-sd16
EdEq9,fr€6
ssszwubtbu.
Botb6, Ei 4376t*
20&5e'29-0dt
fax20S.3FB97€,S
JdSse.fhhin'
ablse,ftdiho
$9s:00
$zloo
Saazrjger'cs'
$187-e?
szr.ou-
Eadft
FLet
Fe6t'
Feet
.Eqitt.
Fgi:t
Faclt
f.hsler
Email;
REir
:1'
iqb
50:
.15C
1.20'10a
472-60t2.,
ichsrnsiditve;gdrd,
1-8'f $g 6om?nu,lit, $e[ fo["iliin W5.tei COrp. srittdtdiorr, Solsq tdirha
1?t! Dlrft d!'eF goiehp]e
. Bi BlitiF.t€f Bqf.ritrqF
q'ci'dul.
fff D.rtoes.tlqs
EISS Wetl.Sqte'an
StAJ-e ot B?Eb rcarilteo su*ae seat
Drtii$.qrroqr
$9,5q0,00
s4o0.d0
s4,9gbJo
$31+.is
SiTss:4ogtsoo:oo
, . $ii,sr.8-zs
*'Dritiiiril plicus are bAsod'ort currert't ifuel prlces.,Wb reservg the ilght io chargc.a rcassnahle;
fugl sgr. g.harqe fo coverfuel'prlcs fncrs;ses.*'
Tti nkyeu for rtreopy'ortunlrgt! Bti{.titi'p}Ojcct
earyOyler
.Hlddteston DrtlfiqgandFump Cir
Accepied SI. _ . Datg:- _
,ioJ4l2ti2.
APPENDXE
Exhibit 6
Page 11 of11
E-3 Estiinate.good 61 30'dqys
BRhN WAIERGORPOMTION - FACIUTY PL{I{