Laserfiche WebLink
OPTION 4. A collection system discharging to a community drain - <br />field, is not an environmentally sound method of solving the Crystal <br />Bay sewer problem. If it were considered a safe method, costs would <br />be roughly equivalent to the cost of a sanitary sewer discharging to <br />the MWCC interceptor, but with a potential for unacceptable failure <br />and still requiring individual maintenance of septic tanks. <br />OPTION 5. Installation of holding tanks with off -site disposal, <br />is technically sound but economically prohibitive unless coupled with <br />many of the water -saving methods described under Options i and 3. <br />OPTION 6. Selective condemnation and demolition, would be a <br />potentially expensive alternative to requiring holding tanks. It is <br />unlikely that major gains in suitable drainfield area would be real- <br />ized under this process since drainfi.elds could generally not be <br />located over abandoned wells or in fill soils over old foundations. <br />Selective condemnation might be a consideration in redeveloping the <br />Crystal Bay area to a lower density; the feasibility of such an under- <br />taking is beyond the scope of this report. <br />OPTION 7. Installation of sanitary sewer, presents a long-term <br />solution to sewage problems in Crystal Bay at a cost of $10,850 per <br />unit plus connection and usage charges. With sewer, the need to <br />provide adequate area for a septic system is eliminated, offering <br />homeowners ar, increased ability to improve the livability of their <br />properties. <br />16 <br />