Comment

“the Report reflects a primary driver of WRRF upgrades emphasizes protecting ratepayers from spikes in fees, yet fails to provide any meaningful consideration of other available and proven upgrade technologies… …that would obviate the need for a direct-discharge to the Gallatin River.”

Response

1. Evidence is requested regarding other available and proven upgrade technologies that is more proven in providing a high quality effluent with a smaller footprint than MBR.

2. No treatment technology will obviate the need to have a direct discharge option for the District, as it is necessary for backup/emergency conditions at minimum.

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.