In March 2017, the federal government announced a $2.5 billion contract with an Australian company to build a new type of water treatment plant for the city of Salt Lake City, Utah.
The plant is expected to cost $6 billion, and will have an annual capacity of 15 million gallons per day.
The water treatment system will replace an older system that was only capable of treating a fraction of the city’s water needs.
A similar system in New York City, where it will replace one that’s been operating for almost 40 years, costs $7 billion.
The system is designed to remove lead and other pollutants from the water, and it also removes arsenic, fluoride, and other chemicals that are harmful to human health.
But the new system isn’t meant to be used on every home, and its operators aren’t required to treat the water.
In a recent report, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that the new technology was not safe.
“The water quality in Salt Lake is among the worst in the country and it is not meeting federal requirements for lead, arsenic, mercury, and particulate matter,” said the report by the Office of the Inspector General.
The EPA found that the water treatment process for the new plant “has a number of deficiencies that are not expected to be addressed through existing standards.”
The EPA concluded that: The new water system, which is expected start operating in 2019, will have only modest benefits compared to the existing water treatment systems that have been installed in Salt City.
While the EPA has not determined how the system will address water quality issues and corrosion, the agency has not yet determined the cost of remediation, which the company said it expects to be in the range of $3.5 to $5 billion.
While Salt Lake’s water quality is among some of the worst around the country, it is one of the few places in the world where the water is treated with this new system.
The company has said that it expects the new facility to treat 1.5 million gallons of water per day, which would be enough to treat all of the 1.3 million residents who use the city.
“If it meets federal standards, it will be very good for the environment and for our residents,” said Gary O. Saylor, a professor of water resources management at the University of Utah.
“It’s not something that will affect every household.”
Saylor told me that, although the new treatment system is not yet installed, it has the potential to be one of those solutions that can be adopted to address local water quality concerns.
“I think it’s going to be a big help in Salt Valley,” he said.
But how much will it cost?
“I don’t know yet, because it’s been announced in such a way that it’s still very unclear what the cost is going to cost, but it will probably be much more than $6-7 billion,” Saylor said.
“There’s some uncertainty in the cost.
You can’t say what it will cost.
It may cost as little as $2,000 per gallon, but we don’t really know what the actual cost will be.”
The Environmental Protection Board is currently evaluating the EPA’s report, and if it’s the result of a misunderstanding or a mistake, the EPA is likely to have to change its recommendation.
“We are not sure yet how this new water facility will be managed, and we have no idea what it is going be cost effective at,” Siles said.
The new plant will replace the existing one in Salt Park, Utah, and has been operating since the early 1990s.
It was built at a cost of $6.7 million, and was completed in 2015.
But because the new plants are not subject to the federal Lead and Copper Rule, it’s unclear what would happen to the current facility, or what kind of benefits it would provide.
In an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune, John E. Miller, the Salt Park mayor, said that the EPA didn’t address any of the issues with the previous water treatment facility.
“At no time did they ever address our concerns that we would have to replace it with this water treatment unit, because that is not in the plan,” Miller said.
Miller said that, because the EPA said it would “evaluate the costs of a similar plant in New Orleans, the new unit is likely cheaper than the current system in the city.”
In fact, Miller said, the city has paid $2 million to install a new water tower and is considering using that money to repair the old one.
Miller told me he was skeptical of the EPA report because it was so broad and it did not consider any specific areas of concern.
“When I was looking at the report, I was just like, ‘Oh my God, that’s so wrong,'” he said, noting that he has received many emails from residents who say the EPA should have included more specific water quality guidelines