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

“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.