Secondary (pressurized) irrigation
Pros: Could eliminate the need for long-term development of drinking water sources; most cost-effective over the long term.
Cons: Up-front cost is about $32 million, which would require a bond. Water used in pressurized systems is not drinkable.
Water treatment plant
Pros: Allows for better utilization of existing CUP water from American Fork River. Estimated cost is $12 million, substantially less than pressurized irrigation.
Cons: It would take at least three years to design and build a plant so other, immediate water sources would have to be developed. A treatment plant would likely provide for only 10 years of growth.
Pros: The city owns an approved, drinking-quality well on 600 East that could be reactivated for a relatively inexpensive boost to short-term water capacity.
Cons: To meet projected growth over the next 25 years, the city would need to double the number of active wells it owns from six to 12, which may not be possible.
Pros: By far the cheapest option. Conservation methods could stretch the current water supply for several more years.
Cons: Conservation alone will not be enough to solve the city's long-term needs.