Comment

The District should weigh the economic benefits of a scalable, state-of-the-art WRRF system upgrade with innovative wastewater recycling and re-use options against the illusion of certainty offered by direct-discharge

Response

MBR is the scalable, state-of-the-art WRRF. That is all that is moving forward at this time. The District will continue to develop reuse alternatives and is not implementing direct discharge at this time.

Comment

In fact, it appears that community feedback – including that made by key ratepayers within the District – favoring innovative wastewater treatment and disposal alternatives that protect and improve the local environment condition without resorting to a direct-discharge to the Gallatin, was never a meaningful consideration underpinning the draft Report’s foci.

Response

The District has evaluated “innovative” wastewater treatment and disposal alternatives, these are described in the Report. And the selection of MBR for construction does “protect and improve the local environment condition without resorting to a direct-discharge to the Gallatin. The only wastewater treatment process proposed by a ratepayer was Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge, which as explained and shown in the November 27th presentation, produces a worse-quality effluent than MBR, with a larger footprint and higher cost. It does not make sense given the site constraints at the existing WRF.