Comment

“Through the Big Sky Sustainable Water Solutions Forum (BSSWSF), the greater Big Sky Community expressed clear goals favoring innovative water resources management… …In stark contrast, the Report’s emphasis on WRRF Upgrades only as necessary to achieving the ability to discharge to surface waters lacks consideration and is troubling considering the two years invested in the BSSWSF by the District’s General Manager and severage District Board Members…”

Response

1. The BSSWSF focused on snow-making as one of the avenues for the District to achieve effluent water balance. As the report explains, that alternative is not in the District’s control.

2. The statement “The Report’s emphasis on WRRF upgrades only as necessary to acheiving the ability to discharge to surface waters.” Again, this indicates that the authors of the conservation group letter did not read the full report, especially the three chapters on snowmaking, subsurface disposal, and additional irrigation (respectively).

3. The Gallatin River Task Force has formally voted to support Phase 1.

Comment

The conservation letter references “disposal of at least 160 mgy” (million gallons per year).

Response

As stated on multiple occasions and in the CDR, There is no intent to dispose of 160 mgy annually to the Gallatin. This is an approximate, proposed discharge permitting goal, to cover potential emergency discharges in the event of a reuse pipeline or large reservoir failure. The estimated need for disposal to the Gallatin River, if needed and at full build-out of the District, is 70 mgy (See Figure 2 of the Executive Summary).