Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 5 of 8 · from the scan, no model involved
pact upon the Washington water supply well.
To fiirther back up my contention is the fact that the well, which is a public supply well thus requiring rigorous quality testing, has had no signs of contamination in the past. Rush River flows through cattle grazing land as well through other agriculturally active areas where fertilizers and pesticides are probably used, and most certainly receives runoff from these areas, yet the well passed the Health Department quality testing.
Based upon the above reasoning, the introduction of treated water from the proposed home for the elderly, into Rush River, should not effect the quality of the water being produced from the Washington water supply well.
One of the other concerns expressed was the effect the operation of the facility would have upon the water supplies located up river. Because these supplies are most certainly located up gradient from the facility and are isolated by some distance, I can very positively say they will not be affected either in water quality or quantity.
The final concern to be examined relates to Rush River itself. When it is reasoned that the maximum average daily flow from the treatment plant will be less than 10 gallons per minute, it follows that the effect to the water quality of Rush River will be negligible. Therefore, livestock and other animals drinking water from Rush River should not be effected by the proposed water treatment plant discharge.
Over all, the hydrogeologic impact of the proposed facility should be negligible.
If you have any questions concerning this letter please contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Sitler
Hydrogeologist
Editor’s Note: A copy of Jeffrey Sitter’s resume is available for inspection in the Rappahannock News Office.
89.3%