United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Program Operations (WH-547)
Washington, D.C. 20460
September 1981
430/9-81-019
4>EPA
The Role of
Conservation Districts and
the Agricultural Community in
Wastewater Land Treatment
Final Report
MCD-82
-------
The Role of
Conservation Districts
and the Agricultural
Community
in Wastewater
Land Treatment
Final Report
December 11, 1980
Prepared by the National Association of
Conservation Districts
December 11, 1980
Contents
1 Introduction
1 Why the Interest in Land Treatment?
2 Irrigation with Wastewater
3 Questions and Answers about
Wastewater Irrigation
3 Is Wastewater Irrigation Cost-effective?
4 What Kinds of Sites Should be Used?
4 Should Public or Private Land be Used?
5 What About Crop Yields?
5 How Can Both Private and Public Interests
be safeguarded?
5 What About Soil and Groundwater Con-
tamination and Health Hazards?
6 Case Studies of Wastewater Irrigation
6 Northglenn, Colorado
7 El Reno, Oklahoma
7 Clayton County, Georgia
8 East Windsor, New Jersey
9 Dickenson, North Dakota
9 Vandalia, Missouri
10 Lubbock, Texas
11 Federal Assistance
11 The Role of Conservation Districts
in Land Treatment
Appendices
14 I. Suggestions for Further Reading
14 II. Excerpts from Federal Law
16 III. Examples of Agreements Between
Landowners and Municipalities
Foreword
This paper has been prepared by the staff
of the National Association of
Conservation Districts as a contribution
toward clarifying the potential role of
conservation districts in sewage
wastewater application to land. We are
indebted to the many people who assisted
in its writing and review.
The initial data and materials for the
study were assembled, and the paper was
written py Wendell Fletcher.
Review and comments on the first draft
were contributed by Charles E. Fogg, SCS,
Washington, DC; Dr. William E. Larson,
SEA-AR, St. Paul, MN; John Snider, Jr.,
Selah, WA; A. C. Spencer, Executive
Director, Texas State Soil and Water
Conservation Board, Temple, TX; Lee
Stokes, Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare, Boise, ID; Richard Thomas, EPA,
Washington, DC.
Contributors on the NACD staff include
Robert E. Williams, Director of Special
Projects; Charles Boothby, Executive
Secretary; James E. Lake, Program
Specialist; and Robert E. Raschke,
Regional Representative. Word processing
was done by Donna K. Smith.
These people all contributed to the
amount and quality of the material in the
paper, but NACAD is responsible for the
conclusions reached and for any errors
that may become evident.
Neil Sampson
Executive Vice President
-------
Introduction
Why the Interest in
Land Treatment?
For many communities around the country,
disposing of municipal wastewater has
proven to be an expensive and difficult task.
The costs of building and operating conven-
tional sewage treatment plants are esca-
lating. At the same time. Federal and State
clean water standards are becoming more
stringent, requiring communities to provide
more advanced levels of wastewater
treatment than previously. As a result,
communities are looking for alternative
ways to do the job.
One of the most promising alternatives is
wastewater land treatment.* By applying
the wastewater to the land, rather than dis-
charging it into a river or other water body as
is the case with conventional treatment
systems, land treatment utilizesthe restora-
tive capacities of soil and plants to cleanse
the water, and to recycle wastewater nutri-
ents that would otherwise be a cause of
water pollution.
Asa result, land treatment not only cleans
up the water but also can help to achieve
other objectives besides wastewater treat-
ment. Many farmers around the country are
irrigating crops safely and effectively with
wastewater. Some communities use land
treatment to replenish groundwater. Others
water golf courses and parkland with waste-
water. The key concept involved is reuse of
resources that would otherwise be dis-
charged into water bodies.
Although simple in concept, land treat-
ment requires the active involvement of a
variety of professions not normally associ-
ated with sewage treatment.
Farmers, conservationists, agronomists,
foresters, soil and water resource special-
ists—all have a role to play in identifying the
most appropriate resource recycling objec-
tives of land treatment, and in the design
and actual implementation of a land treat-
ment program. Close coordination and
communication between these resource
managers or users and water pollution con-
trol specialists is thus essential.
How can this be achieved? The answer
will vary in each community, but, in many
areas, local soil and water conservation dis-
*Wastewater land treatment should not be
confused with the term conservation land treat-
ment, which refers to the installation of soil and
water conservation practices.
tricts can play an invaluable role. For over 40
years, these local units of Statejgovernment
have been working with land owners or
users and other government agencies to
achieve a variety of resource management
objectives on both private and public land.
As many communities have already dis-
covered, the local district is often ideally
situated to assist both landowners and
municipalities in assessing the potential of
wastewater land treatment.
This booklet is intended to help municipal
officials, on the one hand, and conservation
districts, local landowners and the agricul-
tural community recognize the opportuni-
ties for coordinated action on wastewater
management. Subsequent sections of the
report provide basic information about dif-
ferent land treatment technologies, with the
most attention given to wastewater irriga-
tion—the approach with most direct rele-
vence to agriculture. Brief case histories of
cooperative efforts between landowners
and municipalities are provided, many of
them involving the active participation of a
local conservation district. The concluding
sections describe recent federal incentives
for wastewater land treatment, and the po-
tential roles that soil and water conservation
districts could play in assisting communities
and landowners.
Land treatment is nothing new. The Romans
(and several other ancient cultures) used
running water to collect human wastes, and
sometimes applied this wastewater to the
land. For much of the nineteenth Century in
England, land treatment was considered the
only safe and reliable way to dispose of
wastes from newly developed sewer
systems. Several other European cities
(such as Berlin and Paris) relied on land
treatment during the mid-1800's. Mel-
bourne, Australia, has used land treatment
since the turn of the century. In many
European areas, however, land treatment
systems were phased out and replaced with
what are today called conventional sewage
treatment plants. As city populations grew,
competition for land and other factors
favored selection of conventional plants.
Although a few communities in this
country have been operating land treatment
systems since the late Nineteenth Century,
most favored other means of treatment that
could cheaply reduce health hazards in
municipal wastes. Thus, it was not until re-
cently—when water pollution control be-
came a major objective—that land treat-
ment began to be revived as an alternative to
conventional treatment. The major reasons
for this renaissance are:
More stringent federal and state water pol-
lution control requirements. To meet these
requirements, many communities are now
upgrading existing sewage treatment
facilities to provide more advanced treat-
ment, or are building new plants for the first
time. Although land treatment is more ex-
pensive than primary treatment (see box on
page 2}, it is often more cost-effective than
conventional treatment systems. Moreover,
when properly done, land treatment often is
the most effective way to cleanse waste-
water.
Recent federal legislation requires the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA} to be sure that communities have fully
studied land treatment (or other innovative,
alternative techniques) before making
grants for construction of new or expanded
facilities. Communities that do use such
techniques receive more favorable grant
conditions.
Interest in Reuse of Resources. The
secondary benefits of land treatment are
now receiving greater attention. Resource
constraints—limited water supplies in the
West, ever higher energy prices, escalating
fertilizer prices— have made recycling and
reuse of wastewater an attractive option.
Moreover, economic changes have made it
more feasible for both municipalities and
landowners to utilize wastewater as a re-
-------
What Other Land Treatment Techniques
Are Used
Rapid-Infiltration. This technique
allows recovery of renovated wastewater
or groundwater recharge. The
wastewater is spread in basins overlying
highly permeable soils (sand or loamy
sands). The soil serves as a filter which
removes suspended solids and some other
wastewater const it utents. Percolating
rapidly through the soil, much of the
water eventually reaches the
groundwater, where it can be recovered
through wells or underdrains, or left to
recharge the acquifier. The recovered
water can be used for crop irrigation, or
industrial uses. If left in the ground, the
water can help maintain groundwater
levels, and, in some coastal areas,
protect against salt water intrusion.
Because rapid-infiltration does not
generally employ vegetation to remove
nutrients, careful management and
monitoring is needed to ensure against
nitrate contamination of the groundwater
In high concentrations, nitrates are toxic.
Overland Flow. Under this method, the
wastewater is sprayed on the upper
reaches of vegetated, slowly permeable
soil. The water is renovated by the
action of the soil and vegetation as it
descends in a thin film down the slope,
and is collected in ditches near the
bottom for either discharge into a stream
or reuse. This method results in a high
level of nitrogen and biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) removal, both of which
affect water quality. Thus, eventual
discharge into the stream is not
considered a major problem. Because of
soil impermeability, little or no effluent
reaches the groundwater.
Vegetation (usually water-tolerant
grass species) is an essential component
of this approach—both in terms of
preventing erosion of the slope and
removing nutrients. The grass can be
harvested as a forage crop. With careful
management, overland flow can be used
on slopes that might otherwise be
marginal for crop production, but should
not be used on slopes with a grade over
6 percent. Site preparation costs can be
high because of the need to construct
terraces or drainage systems. If applied
under freezing weather conditions, the
wastewater may run off frozen slopes
without renovation or purification.
Therefore, storage lagoons may be
necessary.
Several other kinds of land treatment
approaches are currently being studied.
Wetlands—marshes, bogs, peatlands,
and swamps—are considered particularly
promising, because of their abilities to
reduce BOD and remove suspended
solids and nutrients. In areas with
adverse soil conditions, subsurface
filters or soil mounds may also be used.
growth because of inadequate sewage
treatment systems. In circumstances
where conventional treatment and
discharge is not adequate to protect water
quality, wastewater irrigation may be the
best solution.
Enhancement of Recreational Values.
Wastewater irrigation also has been
used to achieve recreation or amenity
objectives. These may not always
provide a direct economic return, but can
help achieve desirable social and
environmental goals. Some communities
treat greenbelts and parkland with
wastewater. Over 70 communities
around the country water golf courses
with it. Wastewater can also be applied
to lawns, highway median strips, and
other "amenity" lands. These uses
generally result in greater public
exposure to wastewater, and therefore,
more stringent pretreatment is usually
required before the land is treated with
the effluent than is the case with many
crop uses.
Enhancement of water recreation and
fishing is sometimes an indirect benefit
of wastewater irrigation. Water
recreation opportunities in many areas
have been diminished because of
discharge of municipal effluents. Even
with conventional biological treatment,
enough nutrients are discharged into the
water to cause excessive plant and algae
growth in many areas. This can force
changes in fish species, and make the
water less appealing for recreation.
Because land treatment virtually|eliminates
discharge into the water, improved water
quality—often at less expense than other
advanced treatment systems—results.
Communities such as Muskegon, Michigan;
Greenville, Maine; and El Reno, Oklahoma
have discovered the water recreation
benefits of land treatment.
Other Benefits. Land treatment can also
be used to help in the reclamation of
surface mined land, restore marginal
land to productive use, and achieve
community growth management
objectives. It can also help achieve
energy conservation objectives: compared
to other advanced treatment systems, it
generally requires far less energy to
operate.
Because there are many potential uses
for wastewater irrigation, defining
community goals and objectives is
important. In all cases, however, these
secondary objectives must be consistent
wjth the primary purpose of wastewater
irrigation— preventing water pollution.
This requires close coordination between
water pollution control specialists and
resource managers to assure that all
objectives are met.
Question and
Answers about
Wastewater Irrigation
Each community that is considering
wastewater irrigation (or other land
treatment approaches) needs to ask and
answer for itself a number of questions
about the technique. Wastewater
irrigation is a proven treatment approach
that is used in many parts of the world.
But it is not necessarily the right
solution to every community's
wastewater treatment problem.
Moreover, land treatment systems need
to be carefully designed to meet both
water pollution control objectives and
agricultural or other land use and water
resource objectives.
Adapting land treatment to the
individual needs of the community
requires a great deal of involvement
from diverse groups. Because the
situation in each community is different,
no two communities will come up with
exactly the same program. But most
share common concerns:
Is Wastewater Irrigation Cost
Effective?
The answer will depend upon the
circumstances in each community, but
in general, wastewater irrigation
compares favorably in cost with most
other advanced treatment systems.
In most areas, the primary cost of a
wastewater irrigation system is likely to
be land. Wastewater irrigation requires
more land than all other means of
wastewater treatment, including other
methods of land treatment. In urban
areas, especially, it may be difficult to
assemble large enough quantities of
land at affordable cost for wastewater
irrigation. Land availability can also be a
problem. It is cheapest to irrigate with
wastewater in close proximity to the
collection and storage facilities, but this
may not always be possible. Thus,
transmission facilities may need to be
installed. Pretreatment and storage
facilities are also needed,.as well as
irrigation equipment, and where
necessary, underdrains, catchments and
other drainage facilities.
While land costs can be high,
operation and maintenance costs are
generally much lower than is the case
with other advanced systems, or
conventional treatment. In many areas,
operation and maintenance costs can be
off-set even further through economic
returns from crop production.
Because of the funding provisions of
recent Federal legislation, the distinction
between capital costs and operation and
maintenance costs is especially
important. The 1977 Clean Water Act
authorizes Federal grants covering 85
percent of the capital costs of
-------
What About Crop Yields?
Wastewater is valuable for irrigation and
as a supply of plant nutrients. As a result,
irrigation generally results in higher crop
yields than non-irrigated farming on
equivalent land, and in many areas,
compares favorably with other sources of
irrigation water since high crop yields can
often be achieved with limited amounts of
commercial fertilizer.
Municipal wastewater contains useful
quantities of phosphorus, nitrogen, and
potassium. According to one estimate,
about 700,000 tons of phosphorus,
800,000 tons of nitrogen and 4,700 tons
of potassium are discharged into the
nation's streams each year from domestic
sources. This would be equivalent to
between 10 and 15 percent of the
country's current fertilizer consumption
for these nutrients if they could be fully
recaptured.
The nutrient constitutents and value of
wastewater varies from place to place,
as do the nutrient uptake capacities of
plants. Thus, careful monitoring is
needed to be certain that an optimal
balance between wastewater irrigation
rates and plant uptake capacities is
achieved.
In many areas, the nutrients in the
wastewater may be in just about the
right proportion for good crop yields. But
in some areas, fertilizer supplements
may be needed to achieve optimal
results and to maximize economic
return. Muskegon County, Michigan, for
example, irrigates over 4,000 acres with
wastewater which is low in nitrogen
content. (This is because of low nitrogen
levels in industrial wastewater that is
discharged into the county system.)
Moreover, the site, comprised of glacial
till and sandy soil, is of poor quality for
crop production. The county, therefore,
supplements wastewater nitrogen with
additional nitrogen fertilizer in order to
assure optimal corn production.
Despite the poor soil at the Muskegon
site, corn yields increased quickly after
the program began in 1974. Before
irrigation, yields were about 28 bushels
per acre; by 1975, with irrigation, they
had approximated the county average of
65 bushels per acre. Yields between 65
and 80 acres a bushel are now routine.
Muskegon estimates that the value of the
nutrients as fertilizer is over $110,000
per year.
The constituents of wastewater vary,
but all contain salts which can
accumulate in the soil and retard plant
growth. In some areas, the quality of
wastewater for irrigation may actually be
better than standard irrigation supplies.
But in other areas, special management
practices may be needed to minimize
effects on the soil. The effects of salt
build up on crop production will depend
not only on its concentration in the
wastewater, but also the kind of soil,
whether the crop is relatively salt
tolerant, and the experience of the
operator in managing salt problems.
Farmers need assurance that
wastewater delivered to them for
irrigation is of good quality. This means
that municipalities need to take pre-
cautions to be sure that salt concentra-
tions are within acceptable limits for
irrigation, and that toxic materials and
other pollutants are removed before
delivery to the farmer.
How Can Both Private and Public
Interests be Safeguarded?
In working out the details of wastewater
irrigation, special care needs to be taken
to assure that the system meets both
pollution control and agricultural
objectives.
One especially important concern is
the rate of wastewater application.
Municipalities continually produce
wastewater, but farmers only irrigate
when the circumstances are right for
agriculture. Ways around this problem
include construction of storage
reservoirs (sometimes by the city,
sometimes by the farmer, sometimes by
both) to hold excess water, or alternative
disposal arrangements when there is a
disjunction between the city's need to
dispose of the water and the farmer's
ability to accept the water for good
irrigation practices.
For farm operators, a major concern is
the quality of the wastewater for
irrigation. Careful monitoring by the city
is needed to guard against changes in
municipal wastewater constituents that
could adversely affect crop yields and
soil conditions on irrigated sites. When
problems do arise, appropriate measures
need to be taken to maintain the quality
of the wastewater. Most agreements
between cities and landowners require
the city to deliver wastewater that is
suitable for crop irrigation.
To protect both public and private
interests, a long term agreement is
ususally desirable. This gives both
municipalities and landowners a basis
for effective planning.
These are normally matters that can
be resolved relatively simply through
close interaction between the
community and the landowner.
Agreements generally spell out the
landowner's responsibility for helping to
meet public objectives in water quality
management, and the community's
responsibility for assuring that the
quantity and quality of the wastewater
delivered will be right for the
landowners needs.
What About Soil and Ground water
Contamination and Health Risks?
No major health or contamination
problems have been reported among
those communities currently using land
treatment, and most studies have
concluded that a properly designed and
operated wastewater irrigation system is
likely to pose less environmental and
public health probems that most other
treatment technologies. But it is not risk
free.
Pathogens and viruses are one
potential problem. Domestic wastewater
contains organisms which can cause
disease if left unchecked. As with
conventional methods of wastewater
treatment, chlorination or other control
of indicator organisms is usually
employed in land treatment, and other
practices can be employed to minimize
contact between humans and disease
organisms.
For example, more stringent
precautions need to be taken when
wastewater is used to grow vegetable or
fruit crops which may be consumed
without washing or cooking, than for
processed food or fodder crops. Some
communities (and states) avoid ths
problem altogether by only permitting
wastewater irrigation to be used for
production of grain and forage crops.
Another concern is that irrigation
workers or people living near land
treatment sites could contract diseases.
When wastewater is sprayed, a portion
of the liquid is turned into aerosols—tiny
particles of airborne water that can carry
disease organisms. Most of the disease
organisms quickly die off, but there is a
chance of inhalation of pathogens by
humans. Although the extent of nsk has
yet to be established, disinfection, buffer
zones around the site, avoidance of
sprinklers that create an overly fine mist,
and not spraying in high winds are
among the measures that could reduce
whatever level of risk there is.
One frequently voiced concern about
land treatment is that it might lead to
build up of heavy metals or trace
elements (such as cadmium, lead,
mercury arid zinc) in the food chain or
groundwater. All municipal wastewater
contains such elements in small
concentrations; when industrial wastes
are discharged into the municipal
-------
used the solution to one problem—municipal wastewater
disposal—to help solve other problems. All have one thing
in common: a great deal of interaction betwen public officiate,
landowners, and others to work out an effective program.
El Reno, Oklahoma
El Reno, a town of abut 25,000, is
another example of a western town that
has adopted an innovative land treatment
plan. The approach is intended to help the
city achieve multiple objectives—water
conservation, improved municipal water
supplies, and encouragement of agricultural
production—in addition to effective
wastewater treatment.
Like many western towns. El Reno has
had to contend with serious water
quality and water supply problems. New
growth was intensifying competition for
water, and in turn was affecting the
quality of water supplies for domestic
and agricultural use.
Prior to adopting a land treatment
approach, the city employed conventional
secondary treatment of wastewater. The
effluent was discharged into the nearby
North Canadian River, which in turn had
become highly polluted. The pollution
was a matter of growing concern. The
North Canadian, and its downstream
reservoirs, proided municipal water for
Oklahoma City, 25 miles from El Reno,
and was significant for recreational use.
Moreover, the shallow alluvium of the
river recharged the aquifier which
provided ground water supplies for El
Reno itself, several downsteam
municipalities, and irrigation agriculture.
Faced with State and Federal
requirements to provide higher levels of
wastewater treatment. El Reno began to
assess its options in the early 1970s, with
the help of a consulting firm .specializing
in sanitary engineering/goundwater
geology, and irrigation agriculture. After
thorough assessment/El Reno opted for an
approach which, in the words of the
consulting firm, considers the total water
resource situation of the river valley.
The key element in El Reno's program
is an agreement with a local farmer,
worked out after considerable negotiation
(see box), whjch involves a kind of "swap"
of groundwater for wastewater. Under the
contract, the farmer will irrigate 465 acres
of his land with El Reno wastewater for a
20 year period.
The city is delivering its wastewater
after pretreatment in a series of storage
lagoons. The wastewater is to be suitble
in quality for irrigation, and the city is
responsible for monitoring to assure
such standards are met. The city is also
furnishing center-pivot irrigation sprinklers,
all water lines, pumping equipment and
power for transporting the wastewater to
the farmer's irrigation site—located two
miles from the storage lagoons.
In return, the farmer is transfering to
the city groundwater rights under the
465 acres to guard against future
overdrafts of the Canadian River aquifer.
The farmer is also responsible for
applying the wastewater to his land—
which will save the city an estimated
$5,000 to $10,000 a year in application
expenses. In addition, the farmer has
agreed to pay the city $5,000 per year
for nutrients in the wastewater and for
use of city supplied and installed center
pivot spray irrigation equipment. The
farmer can expand wastewater irrigation
to additional land at his own expense,
but, in return, must convey additional
groundwater rights to the city.
Building Cooperation with Landowners
What steps can the community take to
assure early landowner involvement in
wastewater irrigation programs? The
specifics will vary in each case, but El
Reno and the consulting firm the city
hired worked out an approach designed
to meet both the community's and the
landowners needs.
When El Reno, Oklahoma began to
develop its program in the early 1970s,
the city was undecided about the best
approach to follow—land acquisition,
lease arrangements, or contracts with
local landowners. It hired a consulting
firm to explore these alternatives, and
propose a workable system.
Early in the planning process,
discussions with local farmers were held
to determine who was interested in
wastewater irrigation, what they thought
the best approach would be, and any
concerns they had about using
wastewater for irrigation. This was
followed up with further discussion with
seriously interested landowners once the
project reached the design phase. To
help the city and the farmers in these
discussions, Frank Gray, a Lubbock,
Texas farmer (see page 10) with over 40
years of experience in wastewater
treatment, met with local farmers.
The city then requested landowners to
submit proposals. After selecting the
proposal that met the city's objectives to
the greatest degree, further negotiation
was undertaken before a final contract
with the farmer was approved. The
consulting firm noted that "the meetings
with farmer groups promoted an
atmosphere of competition which forced
the contract approach to be the best
method for securing the land areas."
This seems to be borne out by the
agreement ultimately reached between
the farmer and the city, which provides a
mixture of responsibilities on the part of
the two parties, as is detailed above.
Clayton Gouty, Georgia
A ^suburb of Atlanta, Clayton County is
using wastewater to irrigate forest land.
Georgia's ninth largest county in terms
of population, the County began to
assess alternative systems for cleaning
up wastewater in the early 1970's, when
it became apparent that new growth
would so add to effluent discharges that
the county would not be able to meet
State water quality standards. The
situation was compounded by the fact
that the county derived most of its potable
water from streams which also received
municipal effluents.
Faced with the possibility that a no-
growth strategy would be necessary if
conventional treatment were used, the
county opted for wastewater irrigation—
an approach which would not only result
in zero discharge into the water, but
could also help augment local water
supplies.
Clayton was able to benefit from the
experience and good results of an
experimental land treatment system,
established in 1973 on the Uncoi State
Park in the Blue Ridge mountains about
100 miles north of Atlanta. The Uncor
project was intended to demonstrate the
feasibility of land treatment on steep
forested slopes in the southern
Appalachians, and to develop guidelines
for the design of similar systems in the
area. The Uncoi experiment, applying
wastewater from park visitor facilities,
proved successful: data after three years
showed a 98.7% reduction in
phosphorus; 78 percent reduction in
calcium and a 90 percent reduction in
potassium. The system's effectiveness in
reducing nitrogen was less certain.
Clayton's irrigation program takes
place on a 3,500 acre, moderately steep
site, most of which is forested with
loblolly pine, with grass at the bottom of
the slope. A forest management program
has been adopted to maintain hydrologic
conditions, and also to maintain rapid
growth of trees, which will be harvested
on a 20 year rotation. Because young
trees are more effective in recycling
nitrogen, this short rotation should not
only provide an economic return, but
also make the system more effective in
reducing pollution. Experience in other
areas that have used wastewater to
irrigate forestland suggests that rapid
growth in yields can occur. This is
effective from a wastewater
management point of view, and also
increases returns from the land.
-------
Dickenson, North Dakota
Vandalia, Missouri
Dickenson, North Dakota, is a small
town of about 13,500 that serves as a
primary service center for agriculture and
ranching, and is the site of one of the
major cattle auctions in the Northern
Great Plains. The town has been using
wastewater irrigation since 1958. This
system was expanded in 1972, because
of population growth associated with
increased energy development in the
area, and again (in 1977) to install,
among other things, a 58 acre winter
storage lagoon. Three quarters of the
1977 modifications were paid for by a
grant from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; the remainder, by the
town.
Dickenson provides its wastewater
effluent to a farmer adjacent to the facility,
who uses it for crop irrigation (primarily
alfalfa). The irrigation system involves two
center-pivot irrigation systems (each
involving 98 acres) and flood irrigation on
another 18 acres, which is leased to the
farmer by the city but has been developed
for irrigation purposes by the farmer.
Application rates average between 16 and
22 inches per year.
The city and the farmer have entered
into a cooperative agreement, designed
to meet both public and private
objectives. The city assumes energy
costs associated with pumping the
wastewater, while the farmer agrees to
receive the wastewater, subject to
reasonable controls required for good
farming practices. If the city wishes to
irrigate to drain its lagoons, it assumes
labor costs, and responsibility for
possible damages from negligence. The
farmer is authorized to irrigate at any
time, with approval of the local water
superintendent, but in such cases
furnishes his own labor.
Because the Dickenson project has
been in operation for over 17 years, it
has been the subject of detailed study by
EPA. (See box on below.) The agency
concluded tht use of wastewater for
irrigation at Dickenson has had several
long term beneficial effects, and noted
that "alf parameters observed for the
groundwater, soils and plants support
the continued use and longevity of the
test site, for continued effluent irrigation
crop benefits, and for continued effluent
irrigation crop benefits, and for continued
wastewater reclamation.
Long-Term Effects of Wastewater Irrigation of Treatment Sites
What are the long term effects of
wastewater irrigation on the soil and
groundwater? To help answer that
question, the EPA has been conducting
field research at several sites around the
country that have used wastewater
irrigation for several years.
In Dickenson, North Dakota, which has
been conducting wastewater irrigation
since 1958, EPA concluded that "an
analysis of the waters, soils and plants
indicated that the use of wastewater for
irrigation resulted in several long term
beneficial effects." The agency found no
evidence that coliform bacteria were
contaminating the grass crop on the site.
There was some evidence of higher
levels of metafs in the grass, but this
was well within the normal range for the
species. Toxic metals were absent from
the effluent, groundwater and irrigated
crop. As for nutrients there was
evidence of increased concentrations of
nitrogen and phosphorus in the test site
soils as compared to a control site.
Somewhat more nitrogen filtered
through to the groundwater than was
the case on the control site. The study
estimated that the irrigation site could
effectively remove phosphorus from the
effluent for over 100 years without
significant problems.
At Tooele, Utah, which has been
using wastewater irrigation since 1957,
EPA also found no evidence of
significant long term problems. Soils
analyses indicated no accumulation of
nitrogen, lead, zinc, copper, chromium,
nickel or soluble salts as a result of
wastewater application. The treated site
did have concentrations of available
phosphorus that were five to six times
greater than the control site to a soil
depth of 10 feet. But, the study
concluded that "no harmful effects on
soils, crops, or water quality" have
occurred from land application of
secondary effluents on the site in the 20
year period.
Another EPA sponsored study
compared wastewater land treatment
sites in Lubbock, Texas (see page 33)
and Bakersfield, California. Parts of both
sites had been irrigated with wastewater
for over 35 years at the time of the
study. The study concluded that, with
the exception of phosphorus
concentration, "soil chemical properties
were not markedly affected by the
sewage effluent.
sewage effluent irrigations. Long-term
irrigations with sewage effluent have
caused very little changes in the chemical
composition of plants grown on the
site." The report did note that, on both
.sites, unacceptble concentrations of
nitrates in grAjndwaters was a
possibility. But this problem could be
corrected by effluent storage during the
winter months.
Vandalia provides an example of how
changing economic conditions have
made wastewater irrigation a more
attractive benefit for farmers. In 1957,
the City of Vandalia purchased about 30
acres of farmland from I.E. Kohl, a local
farmer to build a sewage lagoon. Kohl
was displeased about the action at the
time, in part because of the loss of 30
acres of good farmland, in part because
of concern about odor. In practice,
however, the sewage lagoon has turned
out to be a good neighbor. Not only have
undesirable odors not occurred, but
Kohl's right to outflow or overflow water
from the lagoon has provided economic
benefits.
Initially, Kohl used the outfall to water
his livestock—not for irrigation. By
1974, however. Kohl had concluded that
rising land costs and increasing costs of
crop production justified irrigation. After
assessing other sources of irrigation
water. Kohl concluded: 'The city sewage
lagoon appeared to be a valuable
untapped source of water and I decided
to try it."
Kohl invested about $28,000 in
equipment to bring 240 acres of corn
under irrigation—at an average
equipment cost of $116 per acre. His
investment appears to have been
justified. In his first three years of
irrigation. Kohl's corn yields on irrigated
land averaged 103 bushels per acre,
while dry land yields were 59 bushels
At $2.35 per bushel, the 1977 corn
price, gross returns on the irrigated land
were $103 an acre above those on dry
land.
Kohl's initial success led him to
expand the system, in order to bring
another 160 acres under irrigation. He
has built, at his own expense, a 200
acre foot storage reservoir which will be
filled with wastewater previously
discharged into the stream during the
winter months by the city. The storage
reservoir, covering 20 acres of his own
land, cost Kohl $38,000 in construction
costs. Because the additional irrigation
land is located a mile from the storage
reservoir. Kohl also spent another
$21,000 for pipelines and to obtain
easements from two neighboring farms.
Since Kohl's reservoir will help the
city meet the zero discharge goal of
Federal water pollution control laws, the
city is constructing a 900 foot pipeline
from the sewage lagoon to Kohl's
reservoir.
-------
Federal Assistance
The Role of
Conservation
Districts in Land
Treatment
The current "push" towards land
treatment owes its origin in part to
requirements and incentives provided by
Federal water pollution control programs
administered by the U.S. Environmental '
Protection Agency. Two major acts, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 and the Clean
Water Act of 1977 are especially
important (see Appendix II for the
relevant provisions). The 1972
Amendments established the basic
strategy for water pollution control
while the 1977 Clean Water Act
provided mid-course adjustments almost
always needed in major programs.
The 1972 Act established a goal of
"zero discharge" of effluent into the
nation's water bodies by 1985. To meet
this goal, the Act, among other things,
established a m ajor program of
construction grants and loans to assist
municipalities in upgrading sewage
treatment facilities. As part of the
construction grant program, the 1972
Act encouraged localities to look into
"innovative and alternative
technologies" (such as land treatment)
as one way to keep costs down and still
accomplish water quality objectives.
The 1977 Clean Water Act focuses
increased emphasis on these "innovative
alternative" methods through a variety of
requirements and incentives by specifying,
among other things, that:
• EPA will not make grants for
construction, acquisition, improving or
extending treatment works unless the
applicant demonstrates that innovative
and alternative methods have been
"fully studied and evaluated."
• Federal grants for innovative and
alternative methods will cover 85
percent of construction costs, rather
than just 75 percent as is the case for
conventional facilities. Moreover,
alternative and innovative techniques
will be given priority over conventional
techniques if cost analysis reveals that
total costs over the life of the facility is
not more than 15 percent greater than
costs of conventional treatment.
The Federal grant provisions allow
communities to use part of their grant to
purchase land for both storage of
wastewater prior to its application and
for purchase of land that is an integral
part of the treatment system. EPA has
decided that, in situations where leasing
land or easements to land will be more
cost effective then fee simple
acquisition, grant funds can be used for
this purpose. However, in such cases,
special precautions need to be taken to
assure that leases or easements are not
prematurely terminated, and that
conditions of the lease will be met. EPA
has noted that, in situations where
water or nutrients are of value, options
such as sale or donation of effluents
should be used rather than leasing or
land acquisition.
• As a condition for receiving grants,
communities are to analyze open space
and public recreation potential of lands,
waters and rights of way which are part
of proposed projects. They are also to
consider processes and techniques
which reduce total energy consumption.
Land treatment frequently results in
lower energy expenditures, and open
space benefits.
The Act also recognized the special
problems faced by small communities
and rural areas in meeting clean water
objectives. In the past, rural areas have
often been overlooked, or pressured into
building high volume conventional
facilities. The 1977 Act included several
provisions designed to assist such areas.
Among them:
• States with rural populations
exceeding 25 percent are to set aside
four percent of their grant fund for
alternative techologies employed by
communities of 3,500 or less, or for
highly dispersed sections of larger
communities.
• Communities under 25,000 can
combine project design and construction
phases for projects with costs under $2
million (or, in some cases, S3 million) in
order to save money, reduce delays and
facilitate planning.
• EPA, at the request of such
communities, can provide technical and
legal assistance in administering and
enforcing contracts for planning,
designing and constructing facilities.
Wastewater irrigation provides a classic
case where the objectives of national
policy—assuring cost-effective control of
water pollution—can help achieve a
variety of local objectives, both public
and private. For these objectives to be
met, however, the active participation of
farmers, landowners, soil and natural
resource specialists, conservationists
and other segments of the public is not
only essential in gaining overall approval
of a program, but also in the actual
implementation of the program itself.
The need for continuing involvement
of a variety of people not used to
working with each other is thus one of
the key challenges of wastewater
irrigation. How can this be assured? The
answer will differ in each community,
but in many areas that already have or
are considering wastewater land
treatment programs, local soil and water
conservation districts have played an
important role. Districts, which are local
units of state government, have a long
history of working with landusers and
the public to achieve national or state
resource managment objectives in a way
that is consistent with private needs (see
box on page 12).
Over the years, as natural resource
management and environmental
objectives have broadened, districts have
expanded their programs to include
other components besides soil and water
conservation objectives. They have, for
example, become deeply involved in the
effort to develop plans to reduce water
pollution stemming from agricultural
non-point pollution, first called for under
Section 208 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972. Other areas of district involvement
include coastal zone management,
surface mine reclamation, urban
conservation, and numerous
'other activities. Working with
landowners and land users to achieve a
total soil and water conservation
program is a fundamental characteristic
of all district activities.
Following is a list of district "action
potentials" which has been developed to
show the range of activities relevant to
wastewater land treatment which
municipalities and individuals might
wish to consider.
11
-------
What specific services can
districts provide to municipal
officials and landowners?
Soil and Natural Resource Information
and Analysis:
• Provision of soils information needed
to interpret the potential suitability of
cropland, forests, range and other land as
sites for wastewater land treatment.
• Provision of inventories on wind and
water erosion and sediment delivery.
• Provisioh of information about
adapted plants or crops for each type or
group of soils.
• Provision of technical abililty for
interpreting alredy existing data.
• Ability to coordinate resource
management professionals to bring
together the necessary technical
expertise to determine acceptability of
sites.
Design of a Wastewater Irrigation
Program:
• Identifying and assessing options and
alternative uses for wstewater land
treatment.
• Meeting with landowners to
determine their interest and concerns
about wastewater land treatment.
• Designing a wastewater land
treatment program that meets soil,
water and other conservation objectives.
• Advising and assisting wastewater
treatment agencies about ways to
incorporate resource data and objectives
into wastewater land treatment
programs.
Technical Assistance to Landowners
and Communities.
• On-site assistance to land users
and/or communities in developing a
wastewater land treatment program that
meets their individual needs, water
quality objectives and the needs of the
land.
• Assistance to land users, including
information about the potential of the land
for wastewater irrigation, limitations or
risks associated with
wastewater application on their land,
and alternative conservation practices
necessary to protect and maintain land
quality and productivity.
• Assistance in using wastewater land
treatment as a means to reclaim or
stabilize surface mined areas and
marginal land.
• Engineering assistance {through the
Soil Conservation Service) on grade
stabilization, terraces, surface and
subsurface drainage practices, and other
necessary improvements to meet water
pollution control and soil and water
conservation objectives.
• Assistance to land users for the
installation and maintenance of
conservation practices and resources
that meet the objectives of the land user
and in turn achieve water quality and
other resource objectives.
• Technical assistance to landowners
and communities in designing, laying out
and checking the construction of
terraces, surface and subsurface drains;
in selecting plant varieties for
wastewater irrigation that meet the best
combination of public and private
objectives; in identifying seeding
methods and cultural practices to
establish grass or trees as planned; and
in solving problems that arise in
managing cropland, woodland and other
land as wastewater irrigation takes
place.
Monitoring and Follow-up
• Assisting with monitoring of the
effects of wastewater irrigation on plants
and crops, the soil, and on the quality of
wastewater.
• Identifying potential problems arising
from wastewater land treatment.
• Suggesting changes in land
management practices to deal with any
problems that arise.
• Coordinating and/or conducting
research related to the effects of
wastewater irrigation on crops, soils,
water and the land.
OutOut-Reach Activities
• Coordinating with local, state and
federal agencies, universities, and others
involved in wastewater irrigation
projects.
• Undertaking public information and
education projects.
13
-------
8. FRICO shall remain free from any
obligation to divert water to Northglenn until
such time as the total consideration to which
FRICO is entitled under this Agreement is
existing and capable of immediate
implementation by FRICO. Furthermore, FRICO
retains the right to discontinue the diversion of
water to Northglenn in the event that
Northglenn should fail to satisfy its obligations
under this Agreement.
9. It is expressly recognized and understood
that the Cities of Thornton and Westminster
have commenced condemnation actions against
FRICO and its stockholders, describing Standley
Lake and the water rights which are referred to
in this Agreement, which actions are now
pending in the District Court in and for
Jefferson County, Colorado. Northglenn
acknowledges that it makes this Agreement
with full knowledge of the limitations and
restrictions imposed upon FRICO by such
pending condemnation actions.
10. All administrative and legal expenses
incurred pursuant to satisfying the terms and
conditions of this Agreement shall be borne by
Northglenn and in addition, Northglenn agrees
to pay within thirty (30) days after billing from
FRICO all administrative and legal expenses up
to a maximum of $2,000 incurred by FRICO In
the negotiation and preparation of this
Agreement and related agreements. Northglenn
further agrees, if requested in writing by FRICO
to do so, to assume the defense of any
litigation against FRICO as a consequence of its
entering into this Agreement and to bear all
costs directly associated with any such
litigation holding FRICO harmless for the same.
However, in any litigation commenced against
FRICO as a consequence of its entering into
this Agreement, counsel representing both
FRICO and Northglenn shall have the right to
participate.
11. At no time, as a result of this
Agreement, does Northglenn acquire any
appropriate rights to the water provided by
FRICO pursuant to this Agreement. It is
expressly recognized and understood, however,
that in order to effectuate the intent of the
parties to this Agreement, the shareholders of
the Standley Lake division of FRICO may desire
to cause the creation of an interest in their
water rights in favor of the City of Northglenn.
Any agreement which may be entered into
between the shareholders and the City of
Northglenn shall be consistent with the terms
and conditions of this Agreement and
subsequent addendum thereto.
12. It is expressly recognized and understood
that this Agreement shall in no way operate or
be construed as a conveyance or assignment of
any water rights to Northglenn; rather
Northglenn agrees to contract with individual
FRICO shareholder for the purpose of securing
the right to divert and use the water which is
contemplated to be exchanged pursuant to this
Agreement. During the period in which
Northglenn is seeking to obtain the contractual
rights to the quantity of water required to
satisfy its needs as described in this
Agreement, as well as after such contractual
rights have been secured, FRICO agrees that is
will take all steps necessary to insure the
successful implementation of the water
exchange system contemplated and described
in this Agreement.
13. If by March 2, 1977, Northglenn fails to
provide FRICO written evidence of its financial
capability to construct or acquire the water
supply and all structures necessary to
implement this Agreement and the exchange of
water contemplated, this Agreement shall
automatically terminate and be of no force and
effect excepting only as to those obligations of
the parties incurred under the terms hereof
prior to March 2, 1977, which prior obligations
shall remain binding upon the respective
parties.
14. Northglenn agrees to commence
acquisition and construction of the facilities
required to satisfy the terms and provisions
hereof by September 2, 1977 and the failure of
Northglenn to commence construction of
facilities as herein provided shall automatically
terminate all of Northglenn's rights and
privileges hereunder.
15. The term of this Agreement shall
commence on September 2, 1976, and shall be
in effect and binding upon the parties for so
long as Northglenn shall be in compliance with
each of the terms and conditions hereof.
16. If Northglenn requests and agrees to
bear all expenses incident thereto, the parties
shall immediately begin preparing an
addendum to this Agreement setting forth in all
necessary detail the structural and operational
principles of the proposed water exchange
Agreement.
17. If, as a result of FRICO making and
entering into this Agreement, any change in
FRICO's tax status pursuant to Article X,
Section 3, of the Colorado Constitution occurs
to FRICO's disadvantage, then Northglenn
agrees to assume all FRICO obligations arising
directly from the change in its tax status.
Provided, however, that should this provision
be found to be void as contrary to law or as
outside the scope of Northglenn's Home-Rule
Authority, the illegality thereof shall not affect
any other provision of this Agreement. Provided
further that FRICO shall be released from any
obligation under this Agreement in the event
that Northglenn is prohibited by law from
assuming FRICO's tax obligations as contem-
plated by this provision.
18. The parties will work in cooperation with
one another and their respective supportive
staffs to insure the design, construction, and
operation of a system that will be mutually
accommodating and will preserve the intent of
the parties as evidenced by this Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
executed the foregoing Agreement in duplicate
original counterparts on the day first above
written.
Tuolumne Documents
Agreement
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into
this day of , 1976, between
Tuolumne County Water District No. 2, a
county water district, hereinafter sometimes
referred to as "Water District", and
hereinafter sometimes referred to as
"Landowners".
Witnesseth
WHEREAS, Water District is constructing and
will operate the North Tuolumne Basin
Wastewater Management Project, a regional
sewer system which will make available
reclaimed water which, as a result of treat-
ment, will be useable and valuable for
irrigation; and
WHEREAS,
own certain real property described
in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and shown on the
map attached hereto as Exhibit B, consisting of
acres more or less, and desire to take
delivery of certain quantities of the reclaimed
water for irrigation of approximately acres
of said lands;
NOW THEREFORE, TUOLUMNE COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 and
AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Delivery of Water for Irrigation:
Water District agrees to make available to
Landowners, each year during the irrigation
season, commencing at the beginning of the
1978 irrigation season, between (200)* and
(300)* acre feet of reclaimed water from its
North Tuolumne Basin Wastewater Project.
Landowners agree to take all of the water
made available and use the same that year by
irrigation upon the lands described in Exhibit A
attached hereto. The irrigation season shall be
from about April 15 to about October 15 of
each year.
•Sample quantities are given. Generally, the District will
guarantee a minimum quantity, but will have the right
to deliver, and the landowner must take, up to 1 1 /2
times the minimum quantity.
Section 2. Point of Delivery and Distribution:
The water shall be delivered by Water District
from its Outfall Pipeline at
and Owners will be responsible for conveying
the water from said location to the place of use
(including compliance in the conveyance of said
water with any applicable laws, regulations, or
orders of regulatory agencies having
jurisdiction).
Section 3. Price for Water:
Section 4. Rate of Delivery:
The water will be delivered through the irri-
gation season as nearly as practicable at a rate
corresponding to the irrigation requirement
curve prevailing in Western Tuolumne County
during the irrigation season. The dates and
hours and rates of delivery shall be fixed by the
Water District after prior consultation with the
Landowners, substantially in accordance with
the practices of other water or irrigation
districts which supply water for irrigation.
Section 5. Controls on Use of Reclaimed
Water:
a. Landowners acknowledge that criteria for
the use of reclaimed water from the standpoint
17
-------
Lease Agreement
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT made and entered
into this 31st day of May, 1974 between the
City of Santa Rosa, a municipal corporation and
charter city, hereinafter referred to as "CITY"
and WILFRED V. LAFRANCHI, EDWARD A
LAFRANCHI, ARTHUR L. LAFRANCHI and
ESTELLA M. MORETTI, hereinafter referred to
as "OWNERS"
Witnesseth
WILFRED V. LAFRANCHI, EDWARD A
LAFRANCHI, ARTHUR L. LAFRANCHf, and
ESTELLA M. MORETTI own certain real
property described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto, consisting of 275.26 acres more or less.
CITY is the owner and operator of the West
College Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant
facility located on the south side of West
College Avenue and west of Stony Point Road.
The West College Avenue Treatment Plant
generates effluent which the CITY must dispose
of in sewage treatment process. OWNERS are
willing to provide a pondaite of 10.89 acres of
real property, more or less, owned by them for
the construction of a pond and the storage of
sewage effluent as hereinafter set forth in this
Agreement.
THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Commencing May 1, 1974, the CITY may
use the land described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto for the purpose of constructing a pond
suitable for the storage of the sewage effluent
as set forth in this Agreement. Commencing
May 1, 1975 CITY may use the land described
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto for the storage
of the sewage effluent from the West College
Avenue Treatment Plant of the CITY.
2. It is mutually understood that the entire
cost of the construction of the pond and pond
supply pipelines, and the continued operation
of supplying effluent to the pond and
maintenance of said pond and the fence or
fences surrounding it, shall be at the sole
expense of the City of Santa Rosa. As soon as
reasonably possible after construction of the
pond, CITY shall also construct a fence
surrounding said pond sufficient in size and
quality to keep cattle from entering upon said
pond or pond area.
3. OWNERS agree that this Agreement is
binding as a covenant, condition, and restriction
on the land described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and runs with the land to any
subsequent owners.
4. OWNERS agree that the aforesaid land
may be used for the construction of a pond and
the storage of this sewage effluent as specified
herein at a per annum rental of SIX HUNDRED
AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($600.00) from the
CITY, payable annually in advance on the first
day of May of each year. Commencing May 1,
1979, and each year thereafter, the indicated
annual rental shall be increased or decreased
as a result of negotiations which both of the
parties agree to enter into and complete in
good faith, said adjustment to be based on any
changes in the reasonable value of said
property occurring up to that date.
5. This Agreement shall be in full force and
effect over the ten and one-half (10 Y2) year
period from May 1, 1974 through October 5,
1985. At the expiration of this Lease, the pond
shall become the property of the OWNERS but
the CITY shall not be obligated to provide
effluent to this pond beyond the term of this
Lease.
6. CITY agrees to deliver to the pondsite
described on Exhibit "A" of this Agreement an
amount of effluent sufficient to irrigate the
OWNERS' lands as per recorded prior
agreement between the parties dated
, 1974, covering the period from May 1
through October 15 of each year commencing
May 1, 1975 through October 15, 1985, unless
said delivery is prevented by act of God or by
order of a higher governmental authority. The
water will be discolored to a dark green color
but will not have an offensive odor, and the
coliform count and the heavy metals content at
point of delivery in the pond shall be at or
below the standards set by the North Coast
Regional Water Quality Board for the use
intended, and in any event not more than the
limits set out in the Agreement referred to
above.
7. OWNERS do hereby grant permission to
the City of Santa Rosa, acting through its duly
authorized agents, representatives, or
contractors to enter upon the aforesaid property
in order to perform all necessary labor and
installation of equipment and pipelines required
by this Lease Agreement and to maintain and
operate the system.
8. OWNERS shall not oe liable for any loss,
damage, or injury of any kind or character to
any person or property arising from any use of
the pondsite, or any part thereof, or caused by
any defect in any structure or other improve-
ment thereon or in any equipment or other
facility therein, or caused by or arising from
any act or omission of CITY, or of any of its
agents, employees, licensees, or invitees, or
occasioned by the failure of CITY to maintain
the pondsite in safe condition, or arising from
any other cause whatsoever, and CITY hereby
agrees to indemnify and hold OWNERS entirely
free and harmless from all liability for any such
loss, damage, or injury of other persons, and
from all costs and expenses arising therefrom.
9. The execution of the Agreement referred
to in Paragraph 6 above is a condition prece-
dent to the validity and effectiveness of this
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto
have set their hands and seal on the day and
year set forth above.
OWNERS
BY
Arthur L. Lafranchi
Wilfred V. Lafranchi
Edward A. Lafranchi
Estella M. Moretti
CITY OF SANTA ROSA,
A Municipal Corporation
Exhibit "A"
Being a portion of that parcel of land,
LaFranchi Land Co. to LaFranchi et al as
recorded February 19, 1968 in Official Records
of Sonoma County, Book 2315, Page 499, said
parcel being more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at a point on the Northerly line
of Guerneville Road at the Southwesterly
corner of that certain 19.19 acre tract
particularly described in the deed made by J.C.
Nathanson, et al to Jose S. Azevedo, dated
November 2, 1928 and recorded in Book 212,
Page 259 Sonoma County Records; thence
Westerly along the Northerly line of Guerneville
Road 646 feet more or less to the point of
beginning; thence North 460 feet; thence West
145 feet; thence N 7°32'32" E 373 feet; thence
N 89°53'12" W 417 feet; thence S 69°02'32"
W 315.81 feet; thence South 711 feet; thence
S 89°15'56" E 518 feet to the point of
beginning and containing 10.9 acres more or
less.
Ref: R-966
COPY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA]
1
COUNTY OF SONOMA ]
On May 31, 1974, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary public whose principal
place of business is in the County of Sonoma,
State of California, personally appeared
ARTHUR L. LAFRANCHI, WILDFRED V
LAFRANCHI, and ESTELLA M. MORETTI,
known to me to be the persons named in the
within instrument, and whose names are
subscribed thereto, and acknowledged to me
that they executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
my hand and affixed my official seal the day
and year in this certificate first above written.
OFFICIAL SEAL
Teresa Matott
signed
Notary Public in and for the
County of Sonoma, State of
California.
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA]
]ss
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA]
On , 1974, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public whose principal
place of business is in the County of Alameda,
Sate of California, personally appeared
EDWARD A. LAFRANCHI, known to me to the
the
BY
Mayor
19
-------
Appendix B
Appendix C
Copy of Resolutation 55-12
Adopted September 23, 1955,
by Regional Water Pollution
Control Board No. 8 Concerning
the Talbert Water District
WHEREAS, the Talbert Water District, whose
mailing address is 401 West Eighth Street
Santa Ana, California, on May 13, 1955 filed
an application with the Director of Water Pollu-
tion Control, County of Orange, for a permit to
dispose of sewage and industrial waste by
means of irrigation of lands within the said
District in the Talbert area of Orange County
subject to the provisions of Ordinance No 703
of the County of Orange, and
WHEREAS, this Board, under the provisions of
a cooperative procedure adopted jointly with
the County of Orange, considers the aforesaid
application to be a report of waste discharge as
required by Division 7, Water Code, State of
California, and
WHEREAS, in June 1952 the State Engineer
submitted a report to this Board entitled
"Effects of Excess Sewage Disposal from
Orange County Joint Outfall Sewer," said
report presenting findings of an investigation
into the geology, hydrology and water quality of
the general area proposed for sewage and
industrial waste disposal in the aforesaid
application, and
WHEREAS, other reports and documents are on
file at the Office of this Board presenting data
relative to the geology, hydrology and water
quality of the aforesaid area and to the quality
of the aforesaid sewage and industrial waste
and
WHEREAS, the project proposed by the
aforesaid application represents a culmination
of several years' effort to provide a usable
water supply for agricultural lands in an area
the quality of whose underlying ground water
supply has been destroyed or is threatened
with destruction by the invasion of ocean
water, and
WHEREAS, on June 22, 1955 this Board
reviewed the aforesaid application and in view
of the importance of the proposed project for
reclamation of sewage and industrial waste to
the economy of the lands within said District
stated that it had no objection to the project,'
subject to conditions to be agreed upon by the
Director of Water Pollution Control, County of
Orange, and representatives of other interested
btate and Orange County agencies, and
WHEREAS, field investigations have been
conducted by the staff of this Board and
numerous consultations have been held
concerning the aforesaid application between
representatives of the Talbert Water District
and the staffs of the Director of Water Control
County of Orange, the Orange County Health '
Department, the State Department of Public
Health, and State Division of Water Resources
and this Board, and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing this Board
finds that: (1) The proposed disposal of sewage
and industrial waste will be on lands west of
the Santa Ana River, south of Garfield Avenue
and east of Huntington Beach Boulevard in the
coastal portion of Orange County, such lands
being within the boundaries of the Talbert
Water District and comprising approximately
2250 acres of irrigable lands, the exact location
ot which is set forth in a map of the said
District on file with this Board. (2) The proposed
disposal area is underlain by deposits of Recent
a uvium and San Pedro formation. The Recent
alluvium contains two water-bearing aquifers
an upper semi-perched zone and a lower
Talbert zone.
Copy of Industrial Waste Permit No. 42 Issued
August 17, 1955, by Orange County Water
Pollution Ordinance No. 703 Concerning the
Talbert Water District
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 703 of the County
of Orange and all articles and sections
hereunder, an application has been received
and processed as required by said Ordinance.
Therefore a permit is hereby granted to Talbert
Water District whose mailing address is 401
West Eighth Street, Santa Ana and whose
street address is
to dispose of industrial waste subject to
provisions following within the unincorporated
areas of the County of Orange as follows: said
industrial waste shall be limited to sewage
effluent from County Sanitation District Plant
#1 and point of discharge shall be at the
eastern end of Yorktown Street in Talbert
Valley Lands.
All reports, letters and data pertaining hereto
not shown on the face of this permit shall be
considered a part of this permit as if they were
inscribed hereon. This permit is granted subject
to the following provisions:
1. This permit does not authorize any act or
acts forbidden by any law, rules, regulations or
orders of any public agency or county
department.
2. The provisions of this permit may be
changed, deleted or added to in accordance
with Section 403, Sub-paragraph (h) and
Section 104.
3. All "Regulations Relating to Cross-
Connections" and "Regulations on Use of
Sewage for Irrigating Crops" of the State
Department of Public Health shall be carried
out.
4. The pipe or pipes shall be of such
materials as are approved by the State
Department of Public Health.
5. The reservoir shall be constructed in such
a manner as to be readily emptied and cleaned.
6. The following materials shall not be in
excess of the amounts indicated:
a. Boron 1,00 ppm
b. Phenol 0.10 ppm
c. Hexavalent chromium 0.10 ppm
d. Fluorides _ 2.00 ppm
e. Chlorides 225.00 ppm
f. Bicarbonate 400.00 ppm
g. Sulphates 300.00 ppm
h. Soluble sodium shall not exceed
60% or - 420.00 ppm
8. Instrumentation shall be provided so that
the total dissolved solids shall not at any time
exceed 1200 ppm average from the outflow of
the reservoir. The electrical conductivity (EC X
106 @ 25°CV shall not be greater than 1800
4U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981—777-000/1109
-------
------- |