Intake siting for surface-water supply: Which combination of criteria should be satisfied when selecting the intake location?

Introduction / Context:
Correct intake location substantially reduces raw-water variability, sediment load, and pollution risk, improving treatment reliability and cost. This question tests standard siting criteria for surface-water intakes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• An existing river/lake source with potential pollution and sediment transport.
• A downstream water-treatment plant (WTP) that benefits from shorter conveyance.
• Meandering river morphology yielding deeper concave banks.

Concept / Approach:
Good siting minimizes contamination and sedimentation. Proximity reduces head losses and pipeline costs. Upstream placement with respect to discharges avoids direct pollution plumes. On meandering rivers, concave banks experience deeper flow and more consistent depths, reducing clogging from shoals/bars common on convex banks.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Planning manuals recommend data collection on bathymetry, sediment transport, and outfall mapping prior to intake finalization; pilot screens and model studies may be used.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Each single criterion is necessary but not sufficient; the comprehensive, correct choice is to satisfy all listed criteria simultaneously where practicable.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring future upstream developments; underestimating sediment dynamics; placing intakes in stagnant coves leading to algae and taste-odor issues.

Final Answer:
All of the above.