Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water And Sewer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants tell Alta council system limits growth, recommend 0.5M‑gallon emergency storage and pipeline upgrades
Summary
Consultants presented a water and sewer master plan concluding Alta faces a contract‑supply limit that would cap additional connections, identified storage and fire‑flow shortfalls, and proposed three pipeline projects plus roughly 0.5 million gallons of added storage; costs remain planning‑level and funding options including SRF loans were discussed.
Consultants who prepared Alta’s drinking‑water and sanitary‑sewer master plans told the Town Council on Dec. 10 that the town’s contract water supply will limit how many new connections the system can support unless the town secures additional water rights or a new source. They recommended adding emergency storage and a sequence of pipeline projects to improve resiliency and fire flow.
"This is important. We wanted to state this purpose is to give you specific direction to the town regarding decisions that you can make over the next 20 years to help you remain sustainable and to continue to deliver adequate quality drinking water to your customers," a consultant said during the presentation. The team said their analyses followed state Division of Drinking Water guidance and used hydraulic models paired with billing and SCADA data.
Why it matters: presenters reported Alta’s modeled peak‑day ERC (equivalent residential connection) demand at 257 gallons per ERC and equalization storage needs of 187 gallons per ERC. Because Alta effectively has no outdoor irrigation demand, ERC values are lower than statewide standards, but the town’s contractual water allocation creates a physical ceiling. Under the study assumptions, consultants said the town could reach its contract limit with roughly 30 additional ERCs unless new rights are procured.
Key technical findings and recommendations
- Source and build‑out: consultants flagged the contract supply and current allocations as the primary constraint on growth. They estimated an available remaining peak‑day average annual contract capacity of roughly 0.13 acre‑feet in recent years based on billing and SCADA records. The team cautioned that visitation and seasonal users can raise peak demand beyond averages.
- Storage shortfall: the review found existing storage and equalization volumes are insufficient to fully meet both daily fluctuations and fire‑flow needs. The consultants recommended adding approximately a 500,000‑gallon storage tank (described as "emergency storage" built into recommended sizing) to materially reduce the fire‑flow deficiency and provide operational flexibility. They noted smaller off‑the‑shelf tanks (e.g., ~180,000 gallons) would address part of the deficiency but not the full emergency need.
- Pipeline projects and hydraulic resiliency: modeling showed benefits from looping and upsizing certain distribution mains. The plan outlines three pipeline projects (including an already‑installed cross‑town pipeline that increases redundancy) and one storage project; upsizing a pipe from 6" to 8" in some areas and completing loop connections would increase hydrant fire flow and system redundancy.
- Data and operations: the team recommended more frequent SCADA reads (current master‑meter readings were roughly 1.18 days apart in the dataset used) plus additional flow meters and tank telemetry to reduce uncertainty in peak‑day vs average demand calculations and better inform operations.
Costs, schedule and funding
The presenters gave planning‑level cost ranges with a broad contingency (they cautioned +/-50% to +100% on early estimates). Council discussion focused on whether to phase work over a longer horizon (10–12 years) to reduce borrowing or accelerate projects using low‑cost financing. Staff and the consultants described the State Revolving Fund (SRF) as an available low‑interest loan program and noted possible grant opportunities; members weighed the trade‑offs between faster construction (and higher near‑term borrowing) and a stretched schedule relying more on pay‑as‑you‑go funding.
Council reaction and next steps
Council members pressed staff and the presenters on assumptions about ERC values, the effects of tourism and short‑term rentals on demand, and whether all proposed pipeline replacements are required or whether spot repairs and targeted TV inspections could defer some projects. Staff said capital recommendations will be folded into the 10‑year capital projects plan and prioritized; additional site‑level studies (e.g., tank‑site geotech and elevation studies) were recommended before committing to a final alignment and capacity.
The consultants concluded by asking for council direction on priorities and phasing; staff will bring the CIP‑level recommendations and funding options back for more detailed consideration and budgeting.
