EPA-600/8-80-036
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/8-80-036
AugustljjSO
Research and Development
Guidelines for
Water Reuse
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields
The nine series are.
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2 Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the "SPECIAL" REPORTS series. This series is
reserved for reports targeted to meet the technical information needs of specific
user groups. The series includes problem-oriented reports, research application
reports, and executive summary documents. Examples include state-of-the-art
analyses, technology assessments, design manuals, user manuals, and reports
on the results of major research and development efforts
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/8-80-036
August 1980
GUIDELINES FOR WATER REUSE
by
John F. Donovan
John E. Bates
Camp Dresser and McKee Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Contract No. 68-03-2686
Project Officer
John N. English
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
Disclaimer
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Preface
Planning for
Multiple-purpose Reuse
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
favors the beneficial reuse of wastewaters, recogniz-
ing that the planned reclamation and reuse of waste-
water is consistent with EPA's mandate for prudent
management and use of our nation's water. The
perceived benefits in water reuse are several
• Conservation of water, saving highest-quality
freshwater supplies for those purposes that require
it;
• Recycling of nutrients in wastewater for benefi-
cial use in agricultural and urban irrigation;
• Practical cost and energy savings that can often
be achieved by both governmental entities and
users of the reclaimed water;
• Reduction in the discharge of pollutants to
watercourses;
• Realization of other public priorities, such as
preservation of open space for its aesthetic and
recreational value;
• Encouragement of industrial recycling, greatly
reducing projected industrial water use and dis-
charge problems associated with industrial waste-
water.
During the past decade, EPA has taken definite
steps to encourage consideration of water-reuse
opportunities as an integral part of wastewater-
facilities' development in cities and towns across the
country. EPA has, for example, pressed vigorously for
the land treatment of wastewater to take advantage
simultaneously of soils' treatment properties and the
nutrient value in wastewater for agricultural crops.
Since passage of PL 92-500 in 1972, EPA has
administered the construction grants program
providing funding for water-pollution control facili-
ties and related systems which encourage reuse of
wastewater nutrients through revenue producing
projects. In response to a 1979 Presidential directive,
EPA and three other agencies have cooperated in a
joint task-force effort to identify specific measures to
encourage water conservation and reuse.
EPA has supported preparation of these Guide-
lines for Water Reuse to assist municipalities in consid-
ering and planning for implementation of programs
for the nonpotable reuse of municipal wastewaters.
The manual is intended to provide municipal leaders
with thorough discussion of the technical, economic,
financial, legal, and public-involvement issues likely
to be encountered in developing a reuse program
A broad range of nonpotable reuse options—
agricultural, urban (such as in dual distribution
systems), water recharge, industrial and recrea-
tional—are explored.
As it relates to reuse of wastewaters for agri-
cultural purposes, this Guidelines' focus has purposely
been limited to "multiple-purpose" applications.
Under proposed EPA guidelines ("Strategies for
Funding of Multiple-Purpose Projects," Office of
Water and Waste Management, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, June 1979), multiple-purpose
projects are defined as projects that accomplish a
water pollution control objective and at least one
other acceptable purpose. The other acceptable
purposes can include treatment and agricultural or
industrial consumption. Under proposed EPA
-------
Foreword
The Environmental Protection Agency was created
because of increasing public and government con-
cern about the dangers of pollution to the health and
welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul
water, and spoiled land are tragic testimony to the
deterioration of our natural environment. The
complexity of that environment and the interplay
among its components require a concentrated and
integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first
step in problem solution, and it involves defining the
problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory develops new and improved technology
and systems for the prevention, treatment, and
management of wastewater and solid and hazardous
waste pollutant discharges from municipal and
community sources, for the preservation and treat-
ment of public drinking water supplies, and to
minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and
aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one
of the products of that research, a most vital com-
munications link between the researcher and the
user community.
These Guidelines for Water Reuse were prepared as
part of this laboratory's research program to assist
municipalities in considering and planning for
implementation of the non-potable uses of municipal
wastewaters as part of wastewater-facilities develop-
ment in our nation.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
funding guidelines, all elements of a multiple-
purpose project may be eligible for at least some
degree of federal funding.
By way of comparison, single-purpose projects
are designed solely to satisfy requirements for a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. There already exist clear technical
guidance and funding policy on virtually every
aspect of single-purpose projects, including land-
treatment projects. In fact, a single-purpose land-
treatment project not only is eligible for up to
75-percent Federal Construction Grants Program
reimbursement, but also, by definition, constitutes
an innovative and alternative project eligible for
additional financial incentive under the Clean Water
Act of 1977, PL 95-217.
Land treatment of wastewater, as a cost-effective
means of meeting an NPDES permit requirement, is
a single-purpose application, while a wastewater-
reuse project using effluent that has been treated to a
point suitable for discharge to a waterway is a
multiple-purpose project. The distinction may be
important to readers of these Guidelines. For multiple-
purpose reuse— for example, for development of a
water-reclamation and irrigation reuse system in
which the primary purpose is optimum agricultural
use of the reclaimed water (as opposed to a com-
bined treatment and reuse of the wastewater by
applying it to soils at specified rates)—guidance is
less clear, precedents fewer, and prospects for EPA
funding uncertain
At this writing, EPA is finalizing its criteria for
funding of multiple-purpose projects. The Agency's
intention is to maximize the public benefit of funds
that have been made available by Congress,
attempting to balance the Agency's water-pollution
control mandate with pressing priorities for conser-
vation and reuse of wastewater.
The uncertainty over EPA funding of reuse
projects should not, itself, cloud the outlook for reuse
projects. In some cases, the intangible benefits of
reuse outweigh pure cost considerations, and, in
many others, the value to the user(s) of reclaimed
water as a resource is such that availability of addi-
tional funding becomes less relevant in evaluating
the project's merits. Some of the case histories
presented in these Guidelines illustrate instances in
which the opportunity to use reclaimed water for
beneficial purposes, without EPA construction
grants, presented compelling alternative direction to
water and wastewater managers and municipal
leaders.
-------
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has identified an immediate short-term objective of
developing a wastewater-reuse Guidelines document
that will significantly increase interest in and assist
implementation of wastewater reuse for nonpotable
purposes: irrigation and agriculture, industrial,
recreation, and nonpotable domestic use. The
Guidelines have been developed to make water man-
agers and resource planners aware of proven reuse
possibilities and to alert the guidelines user to EPA's
encouragement and support for the water-reuse
approach.
Following a step-by-step approach provided in
the Guidelines, the water manager and resource
planner will have addressed the principal areas of
concern in water-reuse programs, including techno-
logy, economics, legal issues, institutional arrange-
ments, markets, and public information. The nature
of these areas of concern is examined so that the
Guidelines user can estimate the complexity of the
implementation problem and the effort required to
overcome it. Case histories provide insight into
actual reuse experience for similar communities, and
the result to the user of the Guidelines is a clear pre-
liminary indication of the feasibility of wastewater
reuse in the community.
The Guidelines are designed to show that water
reuse may represent an effective problem-solving
measure for a community or region. The Guidelines
user is led through a flow sequence diagram that
shows how the Guidelines can be used to establish the
viability of reuse on a case-by-case basis. The follow-
ing issues are addressed in various chapters of this
resource document: identifying sources of reusable
water; identifying water reuse applications; inven-
torying water use and cost for potential users; esti-
mating transportation and storage costs; dewatering
water quality requirements; estimating costs of
additional treatments; determining cost allocation
and user charges; institutional, legal, and financial
considerations; identifying health agencies and
procedures; marketing the resource; meeting
dependability requirements; identifying financing
mechanisms; supporting public-information activi-
ties; and taking steps toward implementing a pro-
gram.
This document is submitted in fulfillment of
Contract No. 68-03-2686 by Camp Dresser &
McKee Inc. under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The Guidelines
were completed in March 1980.
-------
Table of Contents
Disclaimer / ii
Foreword / Hi
Preface: Planning for
Multiple-Purpose Reuse , iv
Abstract, vi
Table of Contents, vi i
Table of Conversion Factors , ix
Acknowledgments, x
I. Introduction, i
A Rationale for Reuse, 1
Why Water Reuse? Who Would Be Interested?, 1
Where Does Reuse Begin?, 3
Practical Concerns in Reuse Planning, 3
Is Reclaimed Water Safe?, 3
Who Takes The Initiative?, 4
Who Pays?, 4
Contents of the Reuse Guidelines, 4
References, 4
1. Overview—A Planning Approach, 5
Step-by-Step Guidelines, 5
Phased Approach, 5
Preliminary Investigations, 5
Screening of Potential Markets, 6
Detailed Evaluation of Selected Markets, 7
Public Involvement and
Steps Toward Implementation, 10
References, 10
2. The Technical Issues, 11
Sources of Reclaimed Water, 11
Locating the Sources, 11
Characterizing Sources, 13
The Market for Reclaimed Water, 15
Locating Markets, 15
Requirements for Reclaimed Water, 17
Water Quality for Reuse , 2 2
Rationale for Water-Quality Standards, 22
Nonpotable Urban Reuse, 24
Agricultural Reuse , 28
Recreational and Environmental Reuse , 31
Groundwater Recharge, 37
Industrial and Large-Scale Commercial Reuse, 41
Environmental Impacts, 45
Land Use, 45
Economic, 46
Quality Assurance, 47
Reliability In Treatment, 47
Safety in Conveyance and Distribution, 4 8
References, 52
vi i
-------
3. The Economic Issues, 53
Estimating the Costs of Freshwater Supply, 5 3
Present Costs, 53
Projected Costs, 53
Estimating the Costs of Reclaimed Water, 55
Additional Wastewater Treatment Costs, 56
Conveyance/Distribution Costs, 60
Storage Costs, 63
Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation, 63
Example of Estimating Costs, 6 4
Treatment, 64
Conveyance, 64
Storage, 65
Summary of Costs , 65
References, 65
4. The Legal and Institutional Issues, 66
Identifying Legal Issues, 66
State Statutes, 65
Enabling Legislation, 68
Water Rights, 70
Franchise Law, 72
Case Law, 72
Regulatory Agencies, 73
Identifying the Organizations
and Their Regulations, 73
The Review Procedures, 75
Guidelines for Implementation, 7 5
References, 77
5. Financing a Reuse Program, 78
How to Begin, 78
Operating Budget and Cash Reserves, 79
Property Taxes, Special Assessments,
ana Existing User Charges, 79
Federal and State Grant Programs, 8 0
EPA Sources, 80
Other Federal Sources, 81
State Support, 81
Contacting Funding Agencies, 82
Municipal Bond Issues, 83
User Charges, 83
References, 86
6. Public Involvement
in Reuse Planning, 87
Why Public Participation?, 8 7
Source of Information, 87
Informed Constituency, 87
Defining "The Public", 88
Gauging Public Acceptance, 88
Involving the Public in Reuse Planning, 90
Clean Water Act Requirements
for Public Participation, 91
A Case In Point, 93
References, 94
Appendices, 95
A. Research Needs for
Nonportable Water Reuse, 95
B. State and Federal
Environmental Agencies, 97
State Environmental Agencies , 97
Regional Headquarters, Federal EPA, 102
C. Basis of Costs, 103
V1JL1
-------
Table of Conversion Factors
Multiply
Acres
Ac re- ft
Acre-ft
cu ft
cu ft
cu ft
cu ft/second
c u ft/second
cu ft/second
cu yd
°F'
ft
gal
gal, water
gpm
gpm
hp
in
Ib (mass)
mil gal
mil gal
mgd
mgd
miles
sq ft
tons (short)
By
43,560
325,851
1,234
28.32
0.03704
7.481
0.6463
448.8
1.98
0.765
0 555 (°F-32)
0.3048
3.785
8.345
0.06308
5458
0.7457
254
0.4536
3,785
3.07
3,785
1.55
1.609
0.0929
907.2
To Obtain
ft-'
gallons
m3
1 (liters)
cuyd
gallons
mgd
gpm
acre-ft
m3
°c
m
1
Ib, water
1/8
m3/d
Kw
mm
kg
m3
acre-ft
m'/d
cu ft/second
km
m2
kg
IX
-------
Acknowledgments
Guideline', for Water Reuse was prepared under the
direction of Mr. Paul W. Prendiville, officer-in-
charge. Principal authors were Mr. John E Donovan
(project manager), Mr. John E. Bates, and Mr.
Clark H. Rowell. Other Camp Dresser & McKee
personnel who prepared or reviewed portions of the
text or reviewed early drafts were Mr. Harvey O.
Banks, Mr. Paul R. Brown, Dr. Robert H. Culver,
Mr. Kenneth R. Henneman, Mr. A. A. Kalinske,
Ms. Margaret O. Reynolds, Mr. Ray von Dohren,
Dr. Richard L. Woodward, and Mr. David E Young.
The assistance of Ms. Carol B. McCarron and Ms.
Suzanne Belleville is gratefully acknowledged.
We wish to acknowledge the advice and sugges-
tions of EPA project officer Mr. John N. English. Dr.
Daniel A. Okun, project consultant, has provided
ongoing technical guidance and review of the Guide-
line-,, in addition to writing its Introduction and
Appendix A, "Research Needs for Nonpotable
Water Reuse."
We also wish to acknowledge the work of Mr.
Mike Franklin, who designed the graphic format of
the Guidelines, and Universal Typographies, Inc., for
typographic services.
The following individuals reviewed the Guidelines
in draft form and volunteered valuable information
and substantive suggestions for improving the focus
and content of this final version. Their assistance is
greatly appreciated. We would emphasize that their
review does not necessarily signify endorsement of all
recommendations and viewpoints expressed in the
Guidelines and that responsibility for the accuracy
and usefulness of the information contained herein
rests solely with Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
Dr. James Crook
California Department of Health Services
Berkeley, CA
Mr. John E. DeVito/Mr. John S. Gregg
Central Contra Costa County Water District
Concord, CA
Mr Lloyd C. Fowler
Santa Clara Valley Water District
San Jose, CA
Dr. Wiley E Home
Metropolitan Water District
Los Angeles, CA
Mr. Donald G. Larkin
East Bay Municipal Utilities District
Oakland, CA
Mr. Matthew Lovein
Irvine Ranch Water District
Irvine, CA
Mr. Vincent Patton
Office of Environmental Affairs
City of St Petersburg
St. Petersburg, FL
Mr. Anthony Skvarek
City of Pomona Water Department
Pomona, CA
Mr. H Will Stokes
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
Calabasas, CA
Dr. Richard E. Thomas
Municipal Technology Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Mr Myron Tiemens
Policy and Guidance Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Kurt L. Wassermann/Dr. Takashi Asano
Office of Water Recycling
California State Water Resources Control Board
Sacramento, CA
-------
Introduction
I
A Rationale for Reuse
WHY WATER REUSE?
WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED?
Many communities are, or soon will be, reaching the
limits of their available water supplies. By instituting
conventional conservation measures—water-saving
plumbing fittings, leak detection and reduction, and
innovative pricing policies—communities may be
able to defer for some years the need to develop
additional water resources, but urban growth and
development will inexorably press on existing sup-
plies. Additional water resources will be needed,
sooner or later.
But many communities do not have ready access
to additional sources of water. Available groundwa-
ter and surface waters have been fully allocated
(Figure 1-1). Even when new water sources are
available, they are inevitably more costly to develop
(even allowing for inflation) than existing supplies,
because the first supplies naturally exploited the
lowest-cost options. To develop additional supplies
requires going further, or shifting from groundwater
to surface waters, or using lower-quality or polluted
sources, all of which choices entail greater costs for
either transmission or treatment.
Tapping of polluted sources has potential effects
that go beyond the increased cost of additional
treatment. This sort of "indirect reuse" of polluted
water may expose people to health risks not asso-
ciated with protected sources. For, although the
development of modern water-treatment practices
has enabled us to draw water supplies from large
rivers that drain urban and industrial areas without
fear of typhoid, cholera, dysentery and other enteric
infectious diseases, the chemical revolution of the last
decades has created vast numbers of long-lasting
synthetic organic chemicals that pose a health threat
of their own. Some of these chemicals have been
identified as being carcinogenic, even in trace con-
centrations, when ingested over long periods of time.
These synthetic organic chemicals are not easily
monitored or removed in treatment processes. (The
health concerns associated with drawing upon
polluted sources apply even more forcefully to reuse
of wastewaters for potable purposes. Potable reuse is
not considered in this manual.)
Use of reclaimed water for nonpotable purposes,
therefore, offers the potential for exploiting a "new"
resource that can be substituted for existing sources.
By "source substitution"—replacing with reclaimed
water the potable water used for nonpotable pur-
poses—an increased population can be served from
an existing source. Development of new, costlier
sources that are quite possibly of poorer quality
becomes unnecessary. Source substitution is not a
new idea. More than 20 years ago, this concept was
endorsed by the United Nations Economic and
Social Council in its policy for planned water reuse.
"No higher quality water, unless there is a surplus of
it, should be used for a purpose that can tolerate a
lower grade."1
Figure 1-1. Areas facing water shortages by the year 2000.
-------
Another factor that tends to favor water reuse is
the effect of technological advances made in waste-
water treatment. Stringent water-pollution control
requirements have resulted in the construction of
wastewater-treatment plants that turn out effluents
of high quality, often "too good to waste." Many of
these plants incorporate costly nutrient-removal
processes, processes that are generally not necessary
if the effluent is to be reused. For urban irrigation,
for example, the nutrients are beneficial and should
not be removed.
To summarize, many factors tend to interest
communities in nonpotable reuse (see Figure 1-2).
Another situation which might call for consider-
ation of reuse, but in the long term, is that of a
community already drawing upon a polluted source
for potable supplies. Satisfying proposed water-
supply treatment standards that would require
installation of processes for removing synthetic
organics together with concomitant monitoring
might prove more costly than shifting to a protected
water source. If the protected source were limited in
yield, the demand upon the source could be cur-
tailed by nonpotable reuse of wastewaters. Reuse
might be promoted because it satisfies the conserva-
tion ethic, but it will only be widely adopted, and
successful, if it is economical.
IN COMMUNITIES WHERE.
• Freshwater supplies are limited/
• Freshwater supplies of good quality are limited by
surface- or groundwater pollution/
• New freshwater supplies must be developed at increasing
distance from and/or expense to the community/
• A single large water user or class of users can tolerate a
lower grade of water provided at reasonable costs/ and/or
• Receiving-water quality requirements are such that
costly wastewater-treatment facilities must be built...
...WASTEWATER REUSE MAY OFFER SOME
VERY REAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS:
• An increase in total available water supply/
• Conservation of highest-quality supplies for potable use
and other uses that demand that quality/
• Expansion of beneficial industrial/commercial/ agricultural
or recreational opportunities in your area/ and/or
• Obtaining of capital and operating economies in
your water management program.
Figure 1-2. Many factors favor water reuse, and can be seen behind the implementation
of reclamation/reuse throughout the United States.
-------
WHERE DOES REUSE BEGIN?
Nonpotable reuse has a long history, with "sewage
farms" (farmlands irrigated with raw wastewater) in
operation for more than a century in Europe. Large-
scale industrial reuse was initiated almost half a
century ago in the United States. In 1978, a study
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Interior Office
of Water Research and Technology identified over
500 reuse sites in the U.S., using a total of 680
million gallons per day (mgd) of reclaimed water2
In current reuse planning, the obvious place to
begin is with a large user. Industrial and agricultural
users fall into that category, as does irrigation of
some recreational lands. The next step would be to
serve many large users, including industrial, com-
mercial, and public enterprises, with a limited
nonpotable distribution system. This is the begin-
ning of a dual distribution system (see Figure 1-3 for
an example of one system in operation for over 50
years). A third step would be to serve the residences,
beginning with multifamily residential units and
finally serving individual homes.
Influent
Bar Screen (J[ [J)—*• Solids to Landfill
Commmutor
Parshall Flu
Activated
Sludge
Aeration
(Mechanical)
/ Automatic
Flow
^ Recorder
^Return Sludge
Q
Clanfierf
Lift Station
Sludge
Waste Sludge
Aerobic |-L,Supernatant
Sludge '
Digestion L
Lagoons
\Effluent
Dried Sludge
to Landfill
Clanfier
ICoal
J Filters
I I Reclaimed Water
1 1 'Stor
Q| Pumps
Chlorine
laimed W:
age (300,000 gal)
100,000 gal
| | Storage
Reclaimed Water Distribution
Figure 1-3. Process schematic for reclaiming water in Grand
Canyon Village, Arizona, where water reuse has been
practiced for over 50 years. Some 30,000 gpd of reclaimed
water is used in a dual distribution system for toilet flushing,
landscape irrigation, and occasional construction-site
washdown. (Source: Grand Canyon's Reuse System Since
1926. Water Reuse Highlights, AWWA Research Foundation,
Denver, Colorado, January 1978.119 pp.)
The nonpotable uses now practiced include
agricultural and landscape irrigation (including
multifamily, residential lawn irrigation), industrial
processing, cooling and recreation. Landscape
irrigation for individual residences and reuse for
internal fixtures, such as toilets, in industrial and
commercial buildings, recreational centers, and
residences, are still in their infancies, and will likely
be the last uses to be explored.
Practical Concerns
in Reuse Planning
IS RECLAIMED WATER SAFE?
A major advantage of nonpotable reuse lies in the
fact that chemical contaminants in the reclaimed
water cannot have much effect on health. The need
still exists, however, for control of infectious bacteria
and viruses to which the public might be exposed
through consumption of raw food crops irrigated
with inadequately-treated effluent, through exposure
to aerosols emanating from spray-irrigation devices
or industrial cooling towers, or through inadvertent
ingestion at a recreation area using reclaimed water.
Methods for monitoring the presence of enteric
viruses are not yet standardized, and criteria have
not yet been established to define acceptable concen-
trations of such viruses. Bacterial standards that
have been developed are implicitly considered to be
surrogates for viral safety, even when waters are
drawn from highly polluted sources (and there is a
growing body of evidence that supports the validity
of this practice). Because safe levels of exposure are
not certain and because modes of transmission such
as inhalation of aerosolized viruses are poorly under-
stood, user and public safety is a prime concern in
reuse planning.
Another safety consideration involves the possi-
bility of cross-connections in a nonpotable water
distribution system associated with a potable system.
A sound historic basis for this question exists: in
early nonpotable systems using untreated water
drawn from polluted sources for firefighting, cross-
connections did occur and resultant outbreaks of
disease were recorded.
To date, very few states provide any guidance or
controls on design and operation of dual distribution
systems. Obviously, if reclaimed water were treated
to levels that closely approach or meet the bacterial
standards of the Environmental Protection Agency
Drinking Water Regulations, the rare instance of
-------
ingestion resulting from a cross-connection or inad-
vertent use should not pose a serious health problem.
In any event, sound plumbing practices—including
such features as backflow-prevention devices, where
necessary—and adequate regulations and enforce-
ment should mitigate the problem.
WHO TAKES THE INITIATIVE?
Water supply and wastewater disposal are functions
that are often managed separately and are highly
fragmented amongst communities. Local initiative
for water reuse can come from a water purveyor who
needs additional resources, or a wastewater-disposal
agency that seeks a more economical scheme for
wastewater management. A large water user might
explore reuse when conventional water supplies are
too expensive or when water rights are unavailable.
The initiative can come from many places, but
successful reuse will require the cooperation of water
supply, wastewater and regulatory authorities and
the public served. Implementation can be easier
where the water supply and wastewater-disposal
functions are integrated and where water manage-
ment in an area is regionalized.
WHO PAYS?
Financing of reuse facilities must be on a sound basis
to assure that adequate income is derived from the
sale of the nonpotable water to provide for the
facilities and their proper operation, including water-
quality monitoring. In many reuse operations, the
wastewater effluent has been considered a waste
product rather than a resource, and has been given
away free or with only a nominal charge. Such
waters are often of poor quality and have tended to
give reuse a bad name. Sound fiscal management of
a reuse program, which in many cases will include a
rational and equitable system of charging, will help
assure reliability of operation, because the customers
will then demand a satisfactory product and the
reuse agency will have the funds available to provide
the service.
Keeping in mind the desirability of financing
reuse systems through sale of reclaimed water, some
entities have pursued reclamation and reuse with
other objectives foremost: to promote desirable land
use, for example, or to improve water quality, or to
attract or retain local industrial growth. The financ-
ing arrangements in these situations might be quite
reversed, even while recognizing the intrinsic value of
the reclaimed-water product. In Santa Rosa, Cali-
fornia, where agricultural irrigation with 43,000
acre-feet per year of reclaimed water will constitute
the largest reuse system in the U.S., it was originally
proposed that farmers would be paid to accept the
reclaimed water, and, under the current plan,
farmers will be offered low-interest loans to develop
on-farm systems for distribution of the irrigation
waters.
Federal and state subsidies, through programs
such as those funded under the Clean Water Act of
1977 (PL 95-217), can provide financial assistance
for the planning, design and construction of pollu-
tion-control facilities. Under some circumstances,
such grants can be applied to the implementation of
reuse programs. But long-term financing should not
be dependent on such subsidies.
Contents of the Reuse Guidelines
These guidelines are intended to assist you in devel-
oping a systematic and thorough plan-of-study for
local applications of wastewater reclamation and
reuse technology. Major technical and non-technical
issues are identified and discussed, drawing on the
experiences which other municipalities and utility
districts have encountered in implementing their
own water-reuse programs. By using the guidelines
in a step-by-step approach recommended in Chapter
1, the user can complete a preliminary feasibility
study on reuse and—working with potential users,
other agencies, and the interested public—can make
determinations as to what reuse alternatives merit
closer evaluation in detailed engineering studies.
The remaining chapters deal with major issues
in reuse planning. Chapter 2 examines the technical
aspects of reuse: matching sources to markets.
Chapter 3 examines the economic issues: an analysis
of freshwater costs versus reclaimed-water costs. The
legal and institutional issues involved in any reuse
plan are discussed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 helps the
user to formulate a sound financial plan for the reuse
program. The issue of public involvement in reuse
planning, and the means of encouraging active
public participation, are discussed in Chapter 6.
References
1. UN Economic and Social Council. Water for Industrial Use
United Nations Report No. E/3058 ST/ECA/50, New York,
1958.
2 Culp/Wesner/Culp and M V. Hughes, Jr. Water Reuse and
Recycling, Vol I. Evaluation of Needs and Potential
OWRT/RU-79/1, prepared for the Department of Interior,
Office of Water Research and Technology, Washington, D C ,
April 1979
-------
Overview—A Planning Approach
1
Step-by-Step Guidelines
These guidelines for nonpotable water reuse describe
a step-by-step approach for investigating the possi-
bility of developing a new water resource in your
area. This resource—reclaimed water—is poten-
tially a valuable one, suitable for use in a variety of
ways. Throughout these guidelines, we have pre-
sented examples of communities that have chosen to
apply reclaimed water to their specific needs: for
urban irrigation, agriculture, residential use, land-
scape maintenance, industrial processing and cool-
ing, groundwater recharge, and recreation. The
experiences that these communites have faced in
implementing their reuse programs are as varied as
the applications themselves. One key goal of these
guidelines, therefore, is to outline a thorough, sys-
tematic approach to planning for wastewater reuse,
so that planners can make sound preliminary judg-
ments about the local feasibility of reuse—taking
into account the full range of important issues that
have been addressed in implementing earlier pro-
grams or that might be encountered in future pro-
grams.
We have arranged these guidelines by issues,
devoting separate chapters to each of the technical,
economic, legal/institutional, financial, and public-
involvement considerations that a reuse planner
might face. You can use these guidelines, therefore,
either to find answers to specific questions about
reuse (e.g., how does one estimate the costs of con-
veying reclaimed water to a user), or to develop,
from scratch, a well-conceived program for studying
and determining the prospects for reuse in your area.
Phased Approach
Figure 1-1 illustrates a three-phased approach to
reuse planning that groups reuse-planning activities
into successive stages of preliminary investigations,
screening of potential markets, and detailed evalua-
tion of selected markets. Through all of these stages,
public-involvement efforts provide guidance to the
planning process, and from the very outset you will
be taking steps that will support project implementa-
tion, should reuse prove to be feasible. Each stage of
activity builds on previous stages until you have
enough information to develop a conceptual reuse
plan for your community and to begin negotiating
the details of reuse with selected users.
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS
This is a fact-finding phase, meant to rough out
physical, economic, and legal bounds to the waste-
water-reuse plan. You will be concerned primarily
with locating all potential sources of effluent for
reclamation and reuse and all potential markets for
this reclaimed water. You will also be identifying the
institutional constraints and enabling powers that
might affect a reuse plan in your area. This phase
should be approached with a broad view. Explora-
tion of all possible options at this early stage in the
planning program will both establish a practical
context for your plan and help to avoid creating
dead-ends in the planning process.
The questions to be addressed in this phase
include the following (shown in parentheses are the
chapters of this manual in which related issues are
discussed):
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND STEPS TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION
\
i i
PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATIONS
1 1
SCREENING OF
POTENTIAL MARKETS
DETAILED EVALUATION
OF SELECTED MARKETS
Figure 1-1. Phases of program planning typically used in pursuing local water-reuse opportunities.
-------
• What local sources of effluent might be suitable for
reuse? (Chapter 2)
• What are the potential local markets for reclaimed
water? (Chapter 2)
• What public-health considerations are associated
with nonpotable reuse, and how can these be
addressed? (Chapter 2)
• How would water reuse "fit in" with present use of
other water resources in the area? (Chapters 2 & 4)
• What are the present and projected user costs of
freshwater in the area? (Chapter 3)
• What existing or proposed laws and regulations
affect reuse possibilities in the area? (Chapter 4)
• What local, state or federal agencies must review
and approve implementation of a reuse program?
(Chapter 4)
• What are your legal liabilities as a purveyor of
reclaimed water? (Chapter 4)
• What sources of funding might be available to
support a reuse program in your area? (Chapter 5)
• What nonpotable-reuse system would attract the
public's interest and support in your area?
(Chapter 6)
The major task of this phase involves preliminary
market assessment, as represented in the second
question above. You will need to define the water
market, probably through discussions with water
wholesalers and retailers, and to identify major
water users in the market. Several regional urban
reuse studies in California have used a water-
demand figure of about 50,000 cubic feet per month
as the minimum level-of-use that defines "major"
water users.1-2 Initial contact by telephone and
follow-up letter will probably be necessary to deter-
mine what portion of total water use might be
satisfied by reclaimed water; that is, what portion of
each potential user's total water use is applied to
nonpotable functions, what quality of water is
required for each function and how use of reclaimed
water might affect the user's operations or discharge
requirements.
Obviously, it will be important, even at this early
stage, to develop good working relationships among
wastewater managers, water-supply agencies and
potential reclaimed-water users. Potential users will
be concerned with the quality of reclaimed water
and reliability of its delivery; they will also want to
know that you are fully cognizant of state and local
regulations that apply to use of reclaimed water, and
sensitive to constraints such as hookup costs or
additional wastewater-treatment costs that might
affect their ability to use the product.
SCREENING OF POTENTIAL MARKETS
The essence of this phase is a comparison between
the unit costs of freshwater to a given market and the
unit costs of reclaimed water to that same market.
On the basis of information gathered in your pre-
liminary investigations, you may already have
developed one or more "intuitive projects,"3 projects
that are obvious possibilities or that just "seem to
make sense." For example, if a large, water-using
industry is located next to a wastewater-treatment
plant, there exists a strong potential for reuse: the
industry has a high demand for water, and costs of
conveying reclaimed water would be low. But the
value of reclaimed water—even to such an "obvious"
potential user—will depend on:
• the quality of water to be provided, as compared to
the user's requirements;
• the quantity of water available, and the ability to
meet fluctuating demand;
• the effects of laws that regulate this reuse, and the
attitudes of agencies responsible for enforcing
applicable laws; and
• the present and projected future cost of freshwater
to this user.
These questions all involve detailed study, and it
lies beyond the capacities of most public entities to
apply the required analyses to every reuse possibility
in their areas. A useful first step is to identify a wide
range of candidate reuse systems that might be
suitable in the area and then to "screen" these
alternatives down to a handful of promising project
alternatives for detailed evaluation. In order to
establish the most complete list of reuse possibilities,
you should consider not only the different types of
nonpotable reuse that could improve use of water
resources in your area, but also such factors as:
• Different levels of treatment—if advanced waste-
water-treatment (AWT) is currently required prior
to discharge of effluent, there might be cost savings
available if a market exists for secondary effluent;
• Different project sizes—the scale of reuse can range
from conveyance of reclaimed water to a single
user to the general distribution of reclaimed water
for a variety of nonpotable uses;
• Different conveyance networks—different distribu-
tion routes will have different advantages, taking
better advantage of existing rights-of-way, for
example, or serving a greater number of users.
In screening the project possibilities, you will
probably identify as the pivotal question the
economic cost of each alternative. Chapters 2 and 3
provide general guidance on selecting and sizing
facilities for treatment, storage and distribution of
-------
reclaimed water in different types of reuse systems.
In addition, reconnaissance-level techniques like
those presented in Chapter 3 can help you to con-
sider both capital and operating costs for the treat-
ment, conveyance and storage requirements of each
candidate reuse system you have identified.
Beyond this comparison of the overall costs
estimated for each alternative, several other criteria
can be factored into the screening process. The East
Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) in Oakland,
California, used demonstrated technical feasibility as
one criterion, and the comparison of estimated unit
costs of reclaimed water with unit costs of freshwater,
as another1. East Bay Municipal Utility District
(EBMUD), also of Oakland, used an even more
complex screening process2 that included compari-
son of weighted values for a variety of objective and
subjective factors, such as:
• How much flexibility would each system offer for
future expansion or change?
• How much use of freshwater would be replaced by
each system'
• How complicated would program implementation
be, given the number of agencies that would be
involved in each proposed system?
• To what degree would each system advance the
"state-of-the-art" in reuse?
• What level of chemical or energy use would be
associated with each system?
• How would each system affect land use in the
area'-1
• How do the systems compare if projects receive
grant funding, and how if no such funding is
available (grant funding tends to favor capital-
intensive projects)?
Your review of user requirements, compared
with what you know to be available through
reclaimed water, could enable you to narrow down
the list of potential markets to a few selected markets
for which reclaimed water could be of significant
value
DETAILED EVALUATION
OF SELECTED MARKETS
The evaluation steps contained in this phase repre-
sent the heart of the analyses necessary to shape your
reuse program. Following the screening steps above,
you will have established a ranking of "most-likely"
projects, and you will know what the present
freshwater consumption and costs are for selected
potential users. In this phase, by looking in more
detail at the conveyance routes and storage require-
ments of each selected system, you will be able to
refine your preliminary cost estimates for delivering
reclaimed water to these users Funding options can
be compared, user costs developed, and a compari-
son made between the unit costs of freshwater and of
reclaimed water for each selected system. It will be
possible also to evaluate in more detail the environ-
mental, institutional and social aspects of each
project You will be addressing the following ques-
tions:
• What are the specific water-quality requirements
of each user? What fluctuation can be tolerated?
• What is the daily and seasonal water-use demand
pattern for each potential user3
• Can fluctuations in demand best be met by pump-
ing capacity or by storage? Where would storage
facilities best be located?
• If additional treatment of the effluent is required,
who should own and operate the additional-
treatment facilities?
• What costs will the users in each system incur in
tying-into the reclaimed-water delivery system?
• Will industrial users in each system face increased
treatment costs for their waste streams, as a result
of using reclaimed water? If so, is increased
internal recycling likely, and how will this affect
their water usep
• Will water customers in the service area allow
project costs to be spread over the entire service
area?
• What interest do potential funding agencies have
in supporting each type of reuse program being
considered? What requirements would they
impose on a project eligible for funding?
• Will use of reclaimed water force agricultural users
to alter irrigation patterns or to provide better
control of return flows?
• What payback period is acceptable to users who
must invest in additional facilities for on-site
treatment, storage or distribution of the reclaimed
water?
• What are the prospects of industrial source control
measures in your area, and would institution of
such measures reduce the additional-treatment
steps necessary to permit reuse?
• How "stable" are the potential users in each
selected candidate reuse system? Are they likely to
remain in their present locations? Are process
changes being considered that might affect their
ability to use reclaimed water?
-------
CASE STUDY:
Screening: One Agency's Approach
One of the most detailed screening processes yet
attempted on reuse alternatives is that completed in
1978 by the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA),
Hayward, California.
EBDA was formed in 1974 to handle wastewater
effluent disposal from two cities and three sanitary
districts. In 1983, EBDA facilities that are now under
construction will be in operation, including four
treatment plants (total capacity 50 mgd) and a revers-
ible-flow force main connecting the four plants along
a 20-mile corridor.
Recognizing the reuse possibilities of its treat-
ment/disposal system, EBDA initiated a fine-grained
survey of the urban reuse prospects. The principal
challenges in the effort were found to be (1) extract-
ing potentially viable reuse schemes from literally
thousands of possibilities, and (2) integrating the
survey and subsequent evaluation with other in-
terested agencies.
EBDA addressed the second challenge first. A
Reclamation Advisory Policy Committee was formed,
with representatives from two water districts, a re-
gional park district official, a representative from the
city where the EBDA outfall discharges to the Bay, two
representatives from industrial associations, two from
EBDA, and one interested private citizen. The Com-
mittee was charged with:
• reviewing program feasibility;
• judging program acceptability;
• resolving overlapping or conflicting responsibilities;
• keeping the public informed of the program's
progress; and
• recommending reuse policies to EBDA.
Then, with the help of a consultant, EBDA and the
committee initiated a 10-step screening process, as
follows:
1. In listing all possible types of reuse, EBDA
identified 65 possibilities.
2. In order to screen the list down to those types
most feasible in the project area, EBDA compared
the types of reuse both to current and anticipated
regulations of the State's Department of Health
Services, and to the experience obtained in other
parts of the country in each type of reuse. A set of
priority ratings was established to quantify the
comparisons, with rankings one through five
ranging from "(1) demonstrated cost-effectiveness
and viability" and "(2) cost effective with moderate
institutional viability"... down to "(5) not viable in
California without a technological breakthrough."
Only those reuse types assigned to priorities 1 and
2 were selected for further study; these included
landscape and agricultural irrigation, industrial use,
and wildlife enhancement.
3. A total of over 1,000 sites in the 200-square-mile
area were identified as possible locations for the
priority reuse applications.
4. Of the 1,000 possible priority uses, those that
would use less than ten acre-feet per year were
deemed uneconomical and dropped from the list.
5. Sample groups among those remaining were
selected in order to establish flow/quality
requirements and to determine their interest.
6. The list was redrafted; approximately 350 potential
users remained in active consideration after Step 5.
7. The remaining potential users were screened in
terms of flow volume, distance from source
(Figure 1-2), and cost of service. EBDA assumed
"minimum" additional treatment (filtration,
chlorination), peak flow rates for irrigation users,
conveyance velocities of 4-7 feet per second,
power costs of $0.04AWh, ENR of 2900 and 40
years' amortization at 7% interest, capital and
O&M annual costs of $20 per acre-foot per year
for filtration and chlorination, and $15 per acre-
foot per year for pumping. Only those potential
users whose costs would be less than $250 per
acre-foot were retained for consideration, as this
cost was considered to be competitive with
freshwater costs at this degree of approximation.
8. The list was redrafted; 140 potential users
remained.
9. Preliminary system layouts and piping cost esti-
mates were prepared on each of the 140 candi-
dates; where unit costs of pipeline alone
amounted to more than $200 per acre-foot, the
candidate was eliminated from further consider-
ation, as total costs of additional treatment, piping,
pumping, and O&M would be prohibitive.
10. Eighteen feasible projects were identified. These
included six industrial users, three agricultural
users, two golf courses, six parks and three fresh-
water marshes, using a combined total of more
than 13,000 acre-feet per year.
EBDA also established a Technical Advisory Com-
mittee, with representatives from each EBDA member
agency and the two water districts providing technical
guidance and crucial information. The policy and
technical advisory committees have continued to
work closely with a liaison representative from the
State Office of Water Recycling as planning proceeds
toward implementation.
-------
300AF/YR
1,000
2JOOO 3,000 4,000 5,000 6POO
7,000
8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000
DISTANCE FROM NEAREST ADJACENT USER (FEET)
Figure 1-2. Cost curves used by East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) showing estimated incremental unit cost to serve a
user from neighboring users. Curves like this one helped EBDA to screen reuse possibilities in its region from about 1,000
candidate locations down to about 18. In this curve, it is seen that delivery of reclaimed water over distances of more than
one mile can be economical for large-scale users. (Source: Murphy, D.F. and G. Lee. East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA)
Reclamation/Reuse Survey. In: Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium, Vol. 2, AWWA Research Foundation,
Denver, Colorado, 1979. pp. 1086-1098.)
While the EBDA screening process is more highly
detailed than many reuse planners will need for their
purposes, the Authority found that the benefits of its
high credibility among the public and public officials
justified the $170,000 survey cost. A Clean Water Act
grant helped fund the EBDA survey.
As is apparent, many of these questions can be
answered only after further consultation with water-
supply agencies and prospective users. Both groups
will certainly seek more detailed information from
you, as well, and you should be prepared to share
with them the preliminary findings made in the first
two phases of effort.
Source: Murphy, D.F. and C. Lee East Bay Dischargers Authority
(EBDA) Reclamation/Reuse Survey In Proceedings of the Water
Reuse Symposium, Vol 2. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver,
Colorado, 1979. pp. 1086-1095
Your detailed evaluations should lead to a pre-
liminary assessment of technical feasibility and costs.
Comparison among alternative reuse programs will
be possible, as well as preliminary comparison
between these programs and alternative water
supplies, both existing and proposed. In this phase,
economic comparisons, technical optimization steps,
and environmental-assessment activities leading to a
conceptual plan for reuse might be accomplished by
working in conjunction with appropriate consulting
organizations.
-------
Public Involvement and
Steps Toward Implementation
In many examples of reuse, the seller has thought of
the effluent, or reclaimed water, as nothing more
than a waste to be disposed of.4 These guidelines
adopt a "second-generation" approach to reuse—
and this approach starts with recognition of
reclaimed water as a resource, a usable and saleable
product5 There are mutual "needs" to be satisfied:
you have a product that you would like to sell, the
potential reuser has a legitimate use for reclaimed
water, and the general public stands to derive some
benefit from supporting a reuse program.
Toward this end, the phases of reuse planning
described above should be accompanied by ongoing
activities of public involvement and steps toward
implementation. These activities are related: your
initial contact with potential users of reclaimed
water represents both public involvement and an
early step toward project implementation. You will
be informing the potential user of your interest in
implementing a program of reuse, indicating to the
user why you believe such a program might make
sense in your area, and soliciting the user's interest
and any information the user can provide.
Some agencies planning reuse programs have
made this type of initial contact by telephone or
personal visit and have followed up with written
expressions of interest to encourage further involve-
ment. Some have also organized formal advisory
committees comprised of individuals from public
agencies and various interest groups, in order to take
advantage of the additional areas of expertise and
broad range of viewpoints represented among the
committee members. Public-involvement activities of
this kind not only serve the planning process but also
help to build a constituency that will support the
selected plan.
In later phases of developing a reuse program,
public involvement will focus in on the sectors of the
public which will be most affected by project imple-
mentation: residents and developers (in a nonpot-
able urban reuse system), employers and employee
representatives (in an agricultural or industrial reuse
scheme), and neighborhood entities. Above all, your
contacts with potential users will enable you to
negotiate an acceptable user charge with them, to
anticipate potential contractual risks, to establish the
operational steps necessary to assure reliable delivery
of reclaimed water and safe reuse of the product.
During your detailed evaluation of selected markets,
you may be ready to obtain some form of pre-
liminary commitment from prospective users,
perhaps even negotiating a contract specifying
reclaimed-water prices and other factors such as
each party's responsibilities and obligations.
If, throughout the planning process, you have
diligently sought the cooperation and involvement of
potential users, other affected sectors of the general
public, and responsible public agencies and funding
bodies, you might find project implementation to be
little more than the formalizing of arrangements
already found to be mutually acceptable—and
desirable.
References
1 Murphy, D F and G Lee East Bay Dischargers Authority
(EBDA) Reclamation/Reuse Survey In Proceedings of the
Water Reuse Symposium, Vol 2 AWWA Research
Foundation, Denver, Colorado, 1979 pp 1086-1098.
2 East Bay Municipal Utility District, Water Resources Planning
Division Wastewater Reclamation Project Report Oakland,
California, June 1979.
3 Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc Economic and Institutional
Analysis of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Projects
Report 14-31-001-3177, final report for OWRR C-1912, Office
of Water Resources Research, U S Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC, 1971 171 pp
4 Schmidt, CJ and E V Clements, III Demonstrated
Technology and Research Needs for Reuse of Municipal
Wastewater EPA-670/2-75-038 National Environmental
Research Center, Office of Research and Development, U S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, May
1975
5 Donovan, J F and J E Bates Guidelines for Implementing a
Municipal Program Consulting Engineer, Vol 53, No 3,
September 1979 pp96-102
10
-------
The Technical Issues
2
This chapter addresses the following questions:
• What are the potential sources of reclaimed water
in your community?
• What are the potential local markets for reclaimed
water?
• What are the water-quality requirements for
specific uses?
• What should be considered in assuring water
quality?
Sources of Reclaimed Water
LOCATING THE SOURCES
Plotting Information. A logical first step in reuse
planning is to locate wastewater-treatment plants
(WWTPs) in the study area. At this stage in the
plan, a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) map of
1.24,000 scale (1 in = 2,000 ft) is suitable for plotting
the location of treatment facilities. These maps are
inexpensive, readily available through USGS outlets,
and of a scale appropriate to local or subregional
planning. You can also use map overlays to show the
locations of elements that might be critical to the
reuse plan. These might include:
• residential areas and their principal sewers,
• industrial areas and their principal sewers,
• areas with combined sewers,
• areas of future residential development, and
• locations of potential reclaimed-water users,
as well as other features discussed later in this
section.
Primary, secondary and advanced wastewater-
treatment (AWT) facilities should be identified, and
any conveyance routes between plants should be
noted, if the facilities are located at some distance
from each other. For example, secondary effluents
from plants in Jurupa and Rubidoux, California
receive filtration at a 26-mgd regional facility located
in Riverside, roughly five miles from each. For reuse-
planning purposes, the conveyance routes for the
effluent would be as significant as the location of the
regional plant.
You should also plot sites for planned future
facilities, to the extent possible. Facilities that have
been designed and located from the outset with reuse
in mind can prove to be less expensive in total
annual costs than facilities that are designed and
located simply to provide treatment and discharge.
Ideally, for the most economical wastewater
reuse, wastewater-treatment facilities will be situated
near an agricultural area, a park, an industry or
utility, or a residential area requiring large volumes
11
-------
CASE STUDY:
Tapping the Interceptor
Drawing wastewater directly from an interceptor has
worked successfully since 1962 at Whittier Narrows,
California in a reuse program administered by the Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD).
Wastewater diverted from a major regional
interceptor is given conventional activated-sludge
secondary treatment, filtration and chlorination at
the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant. The
reclaimed water (along with reclaimed water from the
San Jose and Pomona plants also administered by
LACSD) is then applied to spreading areas for re-
charge of two large groundwater basins a few miles
east of Los Angeles. The operation has several major
attributes:
• The reclamation plant receives mostly domestic
wastes. It is upstream of major industrial discharges
that might make the plant's effluent unsuitable for
recharge purposes.
• Sludge from the reclamation plant is diverted back
to the sewer for eventual treatment downstream,
serving both to reduce system complexity and costs
at the upstream reclamation plant, and to improve
site landscaping possibilities and, therefore, public
acceptance.
• There are savings in capacity—and total costs—for
conveyance and treatment facilities downstream.
• Because the plant draws a constant flow from the
interceptor, its treatment performance is improved.
• In the event of a treatment-plant upset, the unsuit-
able effluent can be diverted back to the sewer for
treatment downstream.
This system proved so successful that LACSD has
since constructed four additional reclamation facilities
(Pomona, Los Coyotes, Long Beach and San Jose
Creek).
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX and
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement of Environmental Impact Report for the Joint
Outfall System Facilities Plan of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County, April 1976
of water. Even if this is not the case, it is quite possi-
ble that an interceptor bearing flows to the WWTP
passes through such an area. A portion of the raw-
sewage flows could then be drawn off for treatment
upstream of the WWTP. This kind of system can be
designed to assure dependable flow of reclaimed
water at the reuse sites while reducing loadings at
the downstream WWTE
Alternatively, if a long outfall (ranging from
several hundred yards to several miles in length)
passes through an area of potential reuse, it could
prove to be relatively economical to tap the outfall for
some portion or all of the treated effluent. For exam-
ple, in 1978, the City of Boca Raton, Florida under-
took a study to determine the feasibility of tapping its
four-mile outfall in order to reclaim a portion of the
secondary effluent by filtration, for use in irrigating
two golf courses and a highway median strip near
the outfall route.' By using reclaimed water for
irrigation, the city hopes both to reduce demand on
severely stressed potable groundwater supplies and,
by reducing drawdown of the water table, to help
counteract the threat of saltwater intrusion into
wellfields drawing from the Biscayne Aquifer.
Where To Find Information. Information on both
existing and planned facilities is usually presented in
facility-planning studies carried out under Section
201 of PL 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act of 1972. If "201" studies have been completed
for your municipality or region, the facility-planning
report can be obtained through the responsible office
of the municipality (for example, the Department of
Public Works), through the state funding agency (for
example, the State Department of Environmental
Protection), or through the regional office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
If a facility plan has not been completed, it might
be possible to obtain the necessary information from
wastewater planning and feasibility studies that have
been undertaken independently by the municipality.
Other sources of information on wastewater-system
sites and conveyance routes include area-wide water-
quality management planning (commonly referred
to as "208 plans") completed in your district,
other regional plans, and direct contact with local,
regional and state agencies responsible for waste-
water management.
12
-------
CASE STUDY:
Reuse at Military Bases
Military bases often are ideal candidates for on-site
water reclamation and reuse. Not only is there high
demand for nonpotable water, but also it is relatively
easy to design and implement well-controlled reuse
systems that expose base personnel and the public to
minimal risk. The lack of major institutional con-
straints means projects can be implemented more
quickly than in most municipalities.
For example, the U.S. Navy has been using re-
claimed water since 1977 for nonpotable domestic use
at seven base housing units in Norfolk, Virginia.
Treatment of secondary effluent consists of coagulant
addition, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection.
Reclaimed water has BOD and SS values of less than 5
mg/l and less than 10 mg/1, respectively. A 1.5 to 3.0
ppm chlorine residual is maintained in the water to
maintain fecal coliform levels at zero and to provide
bacteriological ly safe water.
To remind customers that reclaimed water is being
used and is intended for nonpotable purposes, a
nontoxic, biodegradable dye is added. Even with
reuse limited to toilet flushing, water savings of up to
35 percent have been achieved since instituting the
project.
Another branch of the military service has initiated
a larger-scale program of water reclamation and reuse
that will both conserve some 500 million gallons of
groundwater annually and result in life-cycle cost
savings of several million dollars. At McClellan Air
Force Base in California, some 1.4 mgd of reclaimed
water will be used for grounds' irrigation and cooling
tower make-up as well as for more specialized activi-
ties such as jet-engine test-stand cooling, acid-fume
scrubbing, autoclave cooling, sand blasting and
equipment washdowns. A ten-mile system of labelled
pipelines will distribute reclaimed water to 40 separate
user locations, and the $2.7-million project also will
include a 10-mg storage reservoir and an automatic
system of monitoring and alarms.
Many other military bases in the United States are
presently using reclaimed water. At Fort Carson,
Colorado, the Army uses a filtered secondary effluent
for golf course irrigation. The Marine Corps reclaims
effluent at Camp Pendleton for recharge of
groundwater basins on the base. At the Air Force
Academy, all effluent is used to replenish recreational
lakes and to irrigate highway median strips. Other
bases reportedly plan to use reclaimed water for
irrigation or groundwater recharge.
The Air Force, Army and Navy have recently
contracted for development of a comprehensive
wastewater reuse model to aid in assessing the poten-
tial for reclamation at all fixed military facilities across
the country. The model has been applied to assess-
ments at several Air Force bases and was planned for
use by the Army in 1980 for a reuse survey and pre-
liminary design at Fort Campbell, Kentucky (Ernest V.
Clements III, personal communication).
Source: Schmidt, C J. and E V. Clements. Total Wastewater Reuse at
McClellan AFB In Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium, Vol. 1.
AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado, 1979. pp. 405-420.
CHARACTERIZING SOURCES
WWTP Performance. In order to compare the
quantity and quality of available reclaimed water
with the requirements of potential users, you should
seek out the available information on local WWTP
operating performance and systematically record
all pertinent information. Important to reuse
planning are:
• Level of treatment (primary, secondary, advanced
secondary or advanced);
• Specific processes used (activated sludge, filtration,
disinfection, or nutrient reduction);
• Daily average, maximum and minimum flows,
and concentrations of reported pollutants;
• Significant daily or long-term variation in quantity
or quality; and
• Industrial wastewater contribution to total
WWTP flow.
It might be necessary, at some point, to charac-
terize the reclaimed-water quality in more detail,
particularly for such high-level reuse as industrial
process-water make-up. Some reuse entities recom-
mend that detailed laboratory analyses, including
analysis of seasonal variations in quality, be con-
ducted as soon as possible in the planning stages, in
order to eliminate this source of uncertainty. It
should be noted that both EPA and the General
Accounting Office have reported that more than half
of the 17,000 publicly-owned WWTPs in the United
States have failed to comply with treatment require-
ments of their NPDES permits 2
In some cases, however, it will be possible to
establish roughly the effluent's suitability for recla-
mation and reuse without obtaining detailed analy-
tical data until one or more "most-feasible" reuse
alternatives will have been identified.
13
-------
Water-Quality Parameters. WWTP effluent
parameters that are customarily reported today are
of more significance to water quality in receiving
waters than they are to most reuse applications If,
for example, preservation of stream-water quality
dictates the need for secondary-treatment reduction
of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and sus-
pended solids (SS), then only those parameters are
usually reported For most reuse applications,
however, it is important to know—and, possibly, to
control—levels of other classes of pollutants. There-
fore, in reuse planning, it is best to consider water
quality from the point of view of water supply. This
approach implies that additional constraints on, for
example, industrial reuse of effluent might be
imposed by high levels of dissolved salts, dissolved
organic material, chlorides, phosphates and ammo-
nia nitrogen. Recreation reuse might be affected and
limited by levels of turbidity, coliform counts, phos-
phorus and ammonia.
Substances including boron, dissolved salts and
toxic residues of industrial and agricultural chemi-
cals might restrict reuse of wastewater for agri-
cultural purposes. On the other hand, the presence
of nutrients that might have to be removed from
effluents prior to discharge to receiving waters can be
beneficial for some reuse applications, such as
landscape or crop irrigation.
Effects of Industrial Contributions. Industrial
contributions to wastewater flow can deliver toxic
slugs of pollutants to a WWTP, thereby upsetting
WWTP operations and effluent quality for extended
periods, and can increase the proportion of non-
regulated contaminants in the effluent. Wastewater
from a manufacturing industry might not increase
the concentrations of BOD and SS in the WWTP
effluent, but might sharply elevate levels of chemical
oxygen demand (COD) and total dissolved solids
(TDS). While COD and TDS are parameters not
normally regulated by the state or EPA for munici-
pal secondary-treatment effluents, high levels of
either could affect the success of a planned reuse
program. Manufacturing industries, such as textiles
and metal plating, might contribute heavy metals
that render the effluent unsuitable for certain irriga-
tion uses. You should determine what special indus-
trial contaminants, if any, are present in the total
wastewater flow. General limits for certain contami-
nants for selected uses are described later in this
chapter. Again, the location of significant industrial
sources should be plotted on your USGS map
Effects of Flow Variation. Flow variation directly
affects the marketability of reclaimed water. You
should identify the flow that can be guaranteed to
each user, keeping in mind that an industrial user's
peak demand could be at least half again as large as
its average daily demand, and an irrigation user's
demand could fluctuate by a factor of 10 or 20.3
Long-term flow variation, such as the significant
reduction in wastewater flows experienced as a result
of conservation measures adopted during the Cali-
fornia drought of 1976-1977, must also be antici-
pated to the extent possible.
Variations in influent flow to a WWTP also
affect the quality of the reclaimed-water product.
Large increases in influent flows resulting from
storm-related infiltration/inflow (I/I), or from slug
flows from a large industrial contributor, can cause a
deterioration in effluent quality. Effluent quality can
also be degraded by intermittent discharges of
industrial process wastes.
Examination of WWTP operating records, as
discussed below, and direct conversations with other
public works officials, water-district managers, or
treatment plant chief operators, will help to deter-
mine if significant flow or effluent-quality variations
are occurring. If they are, you might find it necessary
to plan for flow-equalization storage as an element in
your reuse system. Flow equalization can be pro-
vided either prior to the wastewater-treatment
system or in the reclaimed-water distribution sys-
tem, or both. If provided ahead of a treatment
system, equalization has the added advantage of
improving operation of the treatment process by
permitting uniform hydraulic loading. Provision for
odor control and prevention of solids' settling might
be necessary, however.
Where to Find Information. Information on levels
of treatment and effluent quality is available from a
number of sources, as discussed in the preceding
section on locating facilities. Information can also be
obtained from NPDES permits for each WWTR
These permits are on file with the state or the
regional EPA office, along with monthly treatment
plant discharge monitoring reports on monthly
maximum, average, and minimum effluent concen-
trations of parameters controlled by the NPDES
permit.
The greatest level of detail is available from the
WWTP's monthly operating records, which can
usually be obtained directly from the agency operat-
ing the plant. Typical reports from a secondary
wastewater treatment facility could include daily
readings on flows, influent and effluent temperature,
suspended solids (SS), dissolved oxygen (DO), pH,
14
-------
and five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD);
effluent coliform counts and chlorine residual. If
possible, hourly variations should be examined. As
mentioned previously, constituents of importance to
users of reclaimed water—for example, concentra-
tions of boron—are parameters that are not moni-
tored at most treatment plants.
Finally, on-site inspection of your area's principal
treatment facilities and direct contact with treatment
plant operators should be considered essential in
order to put the specific effluent-quality data in
context. Visits to WWTPs and interviews with plant
operators will provide valuable information on plant
performance, on industrial and stormwater contri-
butions (if any) to plant flow, and on daily or long-
term variations in flow. In this way, you will also
establish a basis for possible future cooperative
efforts with the plant staff to make your reuse plan
work.
The Market for Reclaimed Water
LOCATING MARKETS
Potentially, reclaimed water will serve almost any
nonpotable market currently served by freshwater
supplies (Figure 2-1). In order to identify the most
promising local markets for reclaimed water, you
should identify the chief characteristics of all local
markets for water:
• Who are the large water consumers in your
municipality or district?
• Are there a few localized large consumers,
or is water use characterized by widespread
domestic use?
• What domestic, industrial, agricultural or recrea-
tional water users might be as well served by a
reclaimed-water supply?
• What factors of water use—residential growth,
irrigation needs, industrial development—are
forcing your community to search for new (and
increasingly expensive) sources of fresh water?
An initial listing of obvious market possibilities
(the "intuitive project" referred to in Chapter 1)
might include agricultural or golf course irrigation,
or water for once-through power plant cooling. Such
uses are relatively "low-level" and are already well-
established in many areas of the United States, from
Maryland to California. (Low-level uses can be
defined as those uses that require only minimal
additional treatment—or none at all—beyond
primary or secondary treatment prior to reuse.) A
closer examination might reveal other possibilities:
nonpotable service to a major industrial water user
or localized group of industrial users, irrigation of
urban landscapes or commercial nurseries, or
nonpotable water service to residences (lawn-
sprinkling and toilet-flushing together constitute
up to two-thirds of all domestic water use, depending
on region).
Potential Markets for Reclaimed Water
Groundwater
Recharge
Water-table management
Development of
salt-water intrusion barrier
Recreational/
Environmental
Lakes and ponds
Marsh enhancement
Streamflow enhancement
Fisheries
Snowmakmg
Agricultural
Crop irrigation
Commercial nurseries
Commercial aquaculture
Nonpotable
Urban
Landscape irrigation
Fire protection
Air-conditioning
Toilet-flushing
Industrial
Cooling
Boiler-feed
Process Water
Construction uses
Figure 2-1. Potential markets for reclaimed water. (Source: Donovan, J.F. and J.E. Bates. Guidelines for
Implementing a Municipal Program. Consulting Engineer, Vol. 53, No. 3, September 1979. pp 96-102.)
15
-------
Figure 2-2 and Table 2-1 illustrate the number
and variety of nonpotable reuse applications that
have already been used in pilot- or full-scale installa-
tions throughout the United States. The figures used
in Table 2-1 are taken from two nationwide surveys
completed, respectively, in 19714 and 1979.5
The 1979 survey reported reuse projects under-
way in the following states:
Arizona Kentucky New Jersey
California Maine New Mexico
Colorado Maryland North Dakota
Florida Michigan Oklahoma
Hawaii Minnesota Oregon
Idaho Missouri Texas
Indiana Montana Utah
Kansas Nevada Washington
and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The California Department of Health Services in
1977-78 found reuse underway at 363 locations in
the state.6 As in the nationwide surveys, the great
majority of projects—88 percent—involved types of
agricultural or landscape irrigation. Another similar-
ity among the surveys is that relatively large volumes
of reclaimed water were being used for industrial
and groundwater-recharge purposes (figures cited in
the 1971 study included 6 mgd in Midland, Michi-
gan; 10 mgd in Amarillo, Texas; and 120 mgd [a
once-through cooling system] in Baltimore, Mary-
land). Most individual irrigation users were
reportedly consuming only tens or hundreds of
thousands of gallons per day.
Table 2-1. REUSE PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Type of Reuse
Number of Projects
1971 1979
Agricultural/landscape irrigation 400
Industry 1 5
Groundw ater recharge 1 0
Fish propagation, recreation and other 5
Total 430
470
29
II
26
536
(7) Number of projects in subregion
Figure 2-2. Distribution of existing water-reuse projects in the United States. (Source: Williams, R.B. and Wesner, G.M.
Recycling: An Assessment of the Potential. Consulting Engineer, Vol. 53, No. 3, September 1979. pp. 103-117.)
16
-------
Figure 2-3. In St. Petersburg, Florida, some homeowners have elected to irrigate their lawns with reclaimed water
(background) while others use the higher-priced potable water (foreground).
Nonportable urban reuse is practiced at several
locations, including the U.S. Virgin Islands, where
dual systems provide some hotels and high-density
residential units with toilet-flushing water, and St.
Petersburg, Florida (Figure 2-3), where demand for
domestic connections to an expanding nonpotable
distribution system is exceeding the pace of system
development."8 During the drought of 1977, disin-
fected reclaimed water was transported and sprayed
by licensed distributors to apartment complexes and
single-family residences in Marin County. California.
for home-landscape irrigation—the program was
widely acclaimed, and it has contributed to an
increasing public support there for nonpotable
reuse applications.''
The following points should be kept in mind as
vou consider local reuse possibilities:
• Manv reuse projects are designed for multiple
reuse applications (Figure 2-4).
• Not all reuse applications listed in Figure 2-1
are appropriate—or allowable—in all states.
Throughout the planning process, you should be
identifying applicable regulations and determining
how thev affect implementation of reuse schemes
in your area (see Chapter 4).
• The two most important factors in considering a
potential reuser are the volumes and costs of its
present water consumption and the quality of
water required.
You will want to break down water consumption
by user types: industrial users, commercial users.
agricultural users, and estimated domestic nonpot-
able use. Note in particular any existing or projected
locations of centralized water consumption: com-
mercial/industrial parks, intensive housing develop-
ment, agricultural lands and nurseries. Consider and
locate, too. potential new uses for which freshwater
supplies have not yet been tapped because of
freshwater cost or availability: for example, irriga-
tion of public lands, such as median strips and
embankments of roadways; recreation facilities;
cooling, etc. This information should then be plotted
on the USGS map overlay.
REQUIREMENTS FOR
RECLAIMED WATER
Before a potential user will seriously consider using
reclaimed water, he must be assured that his require-
ments can be met for water quantity and quality.
Cost benefits are immaterial if these basic criteria
cannot be satisfied.
Sufficient water must be available when needed.
whether demand is continuous (as with once-
through cooling,.or boiler feed), fluctuating daily (as
with one-shift industries, lawn watering and nonpot-
able household use), or fluctuating seasonally (as
with agricultural use). Provision for storage of
reclaimed water can help you to meet fluctuating
demand. One advantage of multiple-use projects is
that they tend to serve a more uniform demand, with
different user demands peaking at different times.
17
-------
m
Figure 2-4. Reclaimed water can be used for washdown and other miscellaneous purposes—
in St. Petersburg, clay tennis courts are wet down using the nonpotable supply.
Quality requirements can be satisfied in different
wavs. If only a single user or class of users is being
served, the reclaimed-water supplier will need to
meet onlv one level of water quality. If several types
of users are being served, one approach might see all
effluent reclaimed to one level, with individual users
providing additional treatment as necessary;
alternatively, economies-of-scale might permit the
reclaimed-water purveyor to provide the quality of
water required by the highest-level user so that no
individual user would need to provide additional
treatment.
User Water Consumption. So far. we have dis-
cussed ways to determine (1) the volume and quality
of effluents available locally that might serve as a
source of reclaimed water, and (2) some possible
reuse markets. This section helps you to determine
volume and general quality requirements of poten-
tial markets that you have identified. By comparing
what is available to what is needed, you will be able
to screen the potential markets in your area for those
offering the best prospects for reuse, and. perhaps, to
develop long-range plans for other reuse markets
that do not appear to be immediately exploitable To
the extent possible, you should record the potential
users' volume requirements in detail with the follow-
ing considerations in mind.
Urban water demand has been examined by
Deb.1" who found that use nationally amounts to
about 160 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Table
2-2 shows the allocation of water used in U.S.
communities, and Figure 2-5 illustrates national
freshwater withdrawals estimated in 1975.
The variations in this average water-use allocation
have much to do with the economics of reuse. Where
public or industrial use is proportionately higher, it is
possible that the cost savings obtained through use of
reclaimed water will also be proportionately higher.
In household use. exterior use (for lawn and
garden irrigation, car washing, etc ) makes up from
7 to 44 percent of total average daily use. depending
on season and area of the country. Of the interior
urban residential demand (approximately 65 gpcd).
Table 2-2. ALLOCATION OF WATER USED
IN U.S. COMMUNITIES*
Use
Percentage
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Public
Unaccounted
Total
40
15
25
5
J_5
100
*from''
18
-------
the proportion of various uses compared to the total
interior use is shown in Table 2-3. A large portion of
interior water use, such as toilet flushing, does not
require potable water. (Public-health authorities
have not, however, generally allowed the use of
reclaimed water within the home.)
The quantity of water used for landscape or agri-
cultural irrigation will depend on land use, climate,
topography, soils, geology, hydrology, and vegetation.
Annual water requirements for various common
crops are presented in Table 2-4. Since irrigation
water demands are seasonal in nature, the timing
and magnitude of peak demands will vary widely.
In some cases, probably rarely, hydraulic loading
rates might be limited by nutrient levels in the
reclaimed water and by the nutrient uptake rate for
the type of crop to be grown. Table 2-5 shows the
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium uptake in lb/
acre-year for various forage and field crops. Based
on the concentration of these constituents in the
reclaimed water, the proper irrigation rate can
be calculated.
Table 2-3. COMPARISON OF
HOUSEHOLD WATER USES*
PUBLIC LANDS
a
FISH HATCHERIES
05 %
mgd
Figure 2-5. National freshwater withdrawals—1975.
Agricultural irrigation constitutes the single largest demand
for water in the U.S. Viewed regionally, however, irrigation is
most significant in the Missouri, Arkansas and Texas regions
and all states westward, while steam-electric and manufactur-
ing water uses are more important among states east of the
Mississippi. (Source: Culp/Wesner/Culp and M.V. Hughes Jr.
Water Reuse and Recycling, Volume 1, Evaluation of Needs
and Potential. OWRT/RU-79/1, Office of Water Research
and Technology, U.S. Department of the Interior,
April 1979.173 pp.)
Type of Use
% of Total Interior Use
Toilet Flushing
Bathing
Laundry
Culinary and Miscellaneous
35-45
25-30
15-20
15-20
*from'
Tabfe 2-4. ANNUAL CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS*
Crop
Annual Water
Requirement (feet)
Alfalfa and other forage crops,
including pasture
Potatoes, sugar beets, cotton
Cereals, except rice
Rice
Deciduous fruits
Small fruits and grapes
Citrus fruits
Walnuts and almonds
1.0 to 6 0 or more
1 5 to 3.5
1.0 to 2.5
4 5 to 9 5
2 0 to 3 5
1 5 to 3 0
2.0 to 40
2 0 to 3 5
Vegetables, garden and truck crops 1 0 to 4 0
1 ft = 0 3 m
*from12
Fluctuation in Demand. For individual users, peak
demand can range from 1.5 to 50 times greater than
the average demand. It is essential, therefore, to
evaluate peaking demand very closely in planning a
reclaimed-water distribution system, particularly
since the system may be serving only one or a few
end users. Some users, such as one-shift industries,
might require large volumes of water during rela-
tively few hours each day, thereby placing heavy
short-term demands on the supplier. Some might
have storage facilities on-site to handle periods of
peak demand and thus take water at a fairly steady
rate. Other users, such as agricultural customers,
might show seasonal variation in demand, with
reduced demand (or none at all) during rainy
seasons. Figure 2-6 shows a typical pattern of water
use reported in the Oakland, California area for
landscape irrigation at cemeteries and golf courses.
Either situation—daily or long-term variation in
demand—might require that you provide for dis-
charge to a watercourse, or another use, or storage of
the excess product water (Figure 2-7). Storage is
provided in impounding reservoirs at the Irvine
Ranch Water District's facility in California, and is
provided underground, in saline aquifers, in St.
Petersburg, Florida.814
19
-------
Table 2-5. NUTRIENT UPTAKE RATES FOR SELECTED CROPS*
Uptake, Ib/acre.yr
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Forage crops
Alfalfa"
Bromegrass
Coastal Bermuda grass
Kentucky bluegrass
Quackgrass
Reed canary grass
Ryegrass
Sweet clover1
Tall fescue
Field crops
Barley
Corn
Cotton
Milomaize
Potatoes
Soybeans1'
Wheat
200-480
116-200
350-600
180-240
210-250
300-400
180-250
158
135-290
63
155-172
66-100
81
205
94-128
50-81
20-30
35-50
30-40
40
27-41
36-40
55-75
16
26
15
17-25
12
14
20
11-18
15
155-200
220
2(X)
180
245
280
240-290
90
267
20
96
34
64
220-288
29-48
18-42
1 Ib/acre yr = 1.12 kg/ha yr
*fromn
•' Legumes will also take nitrogen from the atmosphere and will not withstand wet conditions
MONTHLY DEMAND AS PERCENT OF AVERAGE ANNUAL DEMAND
PERCENT
250
|AN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUC SEP OCT NOV DEC
Figure 2-6. Typical pattern of irrigation water use derived
from nine landscape-irrigation users in the East Bay area east
of San Francisco, California. Monthly demand is shown as a
percentage of average annual demand. (Source: Water
Resources Planning Division, East Bay Municipal Utility
District. Wastewater Reclamation: Irrigation Uses.
September 1977.)
Once again, it helps to think of the reuse system
as a parallel to the freshwater system. Reservoirs
and storage facilities are commonly used in water
systems to assure the necessary supply, in the face of
fluctuating resource capacity and/or demand and,
in some instances, to obtain improvements in water
quality. The same benefits of storage can accrue to a
reuse scheme.
Fluctuation in demand will also affect design of
distribution systems. Potable-water distribution
systems are usually designed to accommodate peak
flows of two to five times greater than the average
flow, although portions of the system may be
designed with higher peaking factors, depending on
the class of users being served. Distribution systems
designed for fire flows can require an even greater
peaking capacity: the hydraulics of fire flows are
such that it is probably advisable to provide for fire
flows in a reclaimed-water distribution system only if
the capacity of the potable system is inadequate
Monthly water demand in the typical municipal
water system will range from 65 to 75 percent of the
annual average monthly demand in the winter
months, to 140 to 150 percent of the annual average
monthly demand in the summer.
20
-------
Where to Find Information. Water-consumption
figures can be obtained from the local water-
supplier's records. These records usually coincide
with billing; records and so may provide you with
some indication of variations in seasonal demand.
The responsible water-supply agency can also
define for you its projections for future water use
in the area
According to some municipal entities that have
explored reuse, establishing early contact with local
water suppliers will stimulate their interest in reuse
planning and help you to establish the project
credibility that could secure the suppliers' ongoing
cooperation as you approach critical stages of
detailed planning and implementation. The recom-
mended approach to these entities is "top-down:"
contact suppliers first and, through them, the whole-
sale distributors; through the distributors, the water
retailers (Wiley Home, personal communication).
You can identify large users of water by examin-
ing consumption figures for residential complexes,
for commercial, industrial and agricultural water
users In addition, lists of industries by Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) code are usually
available from the public-documents section of local
federal depository libraries and from the Federal
Office of Management and Budget. Industries may
also be listed by the municipality to which they
discharge their wastes if they have adopted pretreat-
ment or source control programs. Agricultural
Figure 2-7. Filtered, chlorinated reclaimed water being
discharged to storage reservoirs in St. Petersburg, Florida.
extension services, usually at the county level, have
information on the types of crops grown in an area.
the number and size of farms, water-procurement
and water-quality problems, and other valuable
information.
Actually, figures on total water consumption are
useful only as background information in the pre-
liminary stages of planning. Each potential user's
total use must be broken out into potable and non-
potable subtotals, and the nonpotable use must be
segregated further into that which can and cannot be
supplied from a reclaimed-water project. The East
Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) in
Oakland, California, found in the course of its reuse
investigations, for example, that potential reclaimed-
water use by an industry is in general about equal to
one-third of total water use by that industry (Donald
Larkin, personal communication). This type of user-
specific information can be obtained only by site
visits and by developing with the prospective user
these component estimates of demand
For some types of users, it may be difficult to
determine water consumption. Frequently, water
consumption is not recorded or is reported only as a
total for several individual uses or users. Additional
metering or recording may be required When users
draw from private water supplies, it may only be
possible to estimate water usage. Among the most
comprehensive sources are certain EPA reports, such
as Qiiahty Criteria for Water,1"* lt> and recent EPA
documents developed for the implementation of
industrial pretreatment requirements Over 60 such
documents are available, characterizing the waste-
water for major industrial groups and subgroups
and, in many cases, also discussing the volume and
quality of water supplies. EPA publication 430/9-76-
017c, State and Local Pretreatment Programs, dated
January 1977, summarizes the information.1 Any
estimates you develop from using such secondary
sources can be confirmed or adjusted during the
initial stages of your negotiations with selected users.
For the purposes of water-reuse planning, you
should attempt to examine water-consumption
projections of at least 20 years ahead. Note which
sources of water are currently being used, and
determine which future sources of water supply will
be exploited. As we have stated earlier, many com-
munities are facing prospects of increasingly expen-
sive water-supply development These increased
costs result because communities have already
developed their nearby, and low-cost, sources of
supply. New supplies must be tapped at greater
distances, forcing freshwater conveyance costs up;
new supplies of poorer quality might have to be
used, forcing freshwater treatment costs up.
21
-------
Water Quality for Reuse
RATIONALE FOR
WATER-QUALITY STANDARDS
The prime water-quality objective in any reuse
scheme is to prevent the spread of waterborne
diseases that could occur through the use of
reclaimed water. Other water-quality objectives—
meeting user requirements, preventing environmen-
tal degradation, and avoiding public nuisance—
must also be satisfied in developing a successful reuse
program, but the starting point remains the safe
delivery and use of adequately-treated reclaimed
water. For nonpotable reuse, protection of public
health can be achieved by (1) limiting people's
exposure to the reclaimed water, and (2) reducing
concentrations of pathogenic bacteria and enteric
viruses in the reclaimed water Clearly, these two
methods are linked to each other. Where exposure is
likely in the reuse application, effluent must be
treated to a high degree prior to its reuse. Conversely,
where exposure is not likely in the reuse application,
a lower level of treatment may be satisfactory.
The risk of human exposure to reclaimed
water—through inhalation, ingestion, or skin con-
tact—can arise from:
• Accidental drinking of reclaimed water;
• Drinking of water that has been contaminated by
reclaimed water;
• Inadvertent ingestion at a recreation area using
reclaimed water,
• Frequent or long-term exposure to aerosols near
spray-irrigation or cooling-tower sites;
• Working with reclaimed water;
• Eating of unwashed, raw food crops that have been
irrigated with reclaimed water; or
• Eating of food crops that have been irrigated with
reclaimed water containing excessive amounts of
heavy metals.
With proper planning, design and management,
these types of exposures can be avoided (See Figure
2-8). The State of California Department of Health
Services, for example, has established guidelines for
worker protection at areas using reclaimed water;6
the guidelines are directed principally to agricultural
workers exposed to reclaimed water that has
received primary or secondary treatment. Some of
the precautionary measures include employee
Figure 2-8. Regulation ot the Irvine Ranch Water District's dual distribution system in California is
permitted only for District employees or specially-trained landscape maintenance contractors.
22
-------
awareness and periodic health checks, procedures to
minimize direct contact or ingestion, provisions for
safe potable water, and establishment of separate
areas for eating. Other structural and procedural
steps that can be taken to assure safe product use are
addressed in the last section of this chapter, under
Quality Assurance.
The development of standards for water quality
criteria has evolved from an examination of health
risks and optimum water quality for specific uses. At
the federal level, the EPA "Blue Book"15 and "Red
Book""' have defined water quality requirements for
specific uses. The suitability of various treatment
processes for different reuse applications has been
evaluated in a recent study for the Office of Water
Research and Technology, U.S. Department of the
Interior.ls Outside of these documents, there exists
no federal guidance or regulations defining require-
ments for water quality prior to multiple-purpose
reuse that are comparable to those for discharge
standards.
Several states have developed and issued guid-
ance for a variety of reuse purposes; others are in the
process of developing guidelines and standards.
Most states have some statutes or other legal author-
ity to control the reuse of water.
The State of California has enacted comprehen-
sive regulations based on many years of experience
and extensive health studies. Title 22, Division 4, of
the California Administrative Code, enacted in 1975
and amended in 1978, addresses the use of reclaimed
water. The Department of Health Services regula-
tions establish minimum standards for bacteriologi-
cal quality, treatment, and reliability for certain uses.
The Department's most stringent requirements
apply to (1) spray irrigation of food crops, (2) irriga-
tion of parks, playgrounds, and schoolyards, and (3)
nonrestricted body-contact recreational use. In each
case, oxidation, coagulation, clarification, filtration,
and disinfection (2.2 total coliforms/100 ml) are
required, although the Department has permitted
secondary treatment, coagulation, direct filtration
and disinfection when the applicant has demon-
strated equivalent bacterial reduction.
Not all states are this strict. For approximately
the same uses as shown above, Arizona's Depart-
ment of Health Services permits a far lower degree of
bacteriological quality in its Title 9 Regulations. For
primary contact recreation, irrigation of school
grounds, playgrounds, lawns and parks, and irriga-
tion of food crops, 200 fecal coliforms/100 ml are
allowed. It should be noted, however, that Arizona is
currently revising its Title 9 regulations and that
proposed new regulations will likely be somewhat
more stringent for uses that involve potential expo-
sure of the general public.
In many states, the use of reclaimed water on
parks, golf courses, and the like is not addressed at
all. In the majority of these states, there has simply
been no history of such projects, and approval occurs
only on a case-by-case basis.
State health departments or agencies responsible
for reuse activities formulate policy or decide on
specific projects primarily on the basis of concerns
about infectious agents, bacteria and viruses. Most
other constituents in reclaimed water would pose no
substantial harm in the rare instance of accidental
ingestion.
Control of bacteria and their reduction in
reclaimed water to low levels are processes well
understood. Much less is known about treatment for
removal of viruses. It is not known what concentra-
tions of viruses are acceptable, even in potable
waters. One risk of exposure to viruses in reclaimed
water is associated with inhalation of aerosols from
spray-irrigation units or cooling towers; this mode of
transmitting viruses is recognized, but is not well
understood. No widely-accepted standard tech-
niques exist for analyzing viral concentrations in
water, and the techniques that are available cannot
be practiced routinely by water/wastewater agencies
in most municipalities.
Therefore, the assumed correlation between
removal of bacterial indicators and removal of
viruses does not always hold true:
"...Low levels of viruses which may be associated
with waters that meet bacterial standards may add
to the viral (level) in a community, increasing the
potential for virus transmission.
"Accordingly, a bacterial level and an accom-
panying inferred virus level that may be suitable
when only a small portion of the population is
exposed, such as at wastewater treatment plants or
on golf courses, may not be at all adequate if the
exposure is ubiquitous, as would be the case when
reclaimed wastewater is distributed throughout the
community."19
23
-------
The Pomona Virus Study20 conducted by the
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD)
showed that treatment steps of coagulation, direct
filtration and two hours' chlorination on a secondary
effluent "seeded" with viruses would reduce viruses
by five orders of magnitude.
In another study, two principal means of disease
transmission were identified: first, large-diameter
(5-15/t/m) aerosol particles containing bacteria,
which are too large to reach the lungs and are depos-
ited in the nasopharyngeal region where they will
eventually reach the stomach, and second, small
(^5/ym) particles containing viruses, which have a
fairly high chance of being inhaled and deposited in
the pulmonary system.21 A study currently under-
way in California might help to determine the risk of
infection from aerosols generated during sprinkler
irrigation with reclaimed water;22 this field research
is said to indicate that the probability of inhaling or
ingesting a viable pathogen during an eight-hour
exposure at a distance of 50 feet from the sprinklers is
1 in 500 million.
Clark et a/.23 estimated that the concentration of
viruses in raw wastewater is 7,000/1, with a second-
ary effluent containing 10 to 50 percent of that
amount. Since viruses clump together and form
resistant aggregates, they are more difficult to inac-
tivate during disinfection than are bacteria. Despite
the information being gained in these and related
studies, there is still lacking a "background of data of
viruses in reclaimed water."24 This lack of informa-
tion, coupled with the fact that the sources of
reclaimed water contain many more viruses and at
higher concentrations than do the sources of potable
waters, compels an increasingly conservative
approach to treatment for reclamation as the degree
of public exposure increases. In the determination of
water-quality requirements for your project, you
should first see what guidance is provided by your
state. If none exists, or if there is some degree of
latitude, you might present to the responsible regu-
lating agency the guidelines promulgated by other
states or the requirements that seem to fit your
situation.
In the section that follows, we have discussed
water-quality criteria for each of the major reuse
categories: nonpotable urban, agricultural, recrea-
tional/environmental, groundwater recharge, and
industrial. In each case, we have presented first, the
aspects of water quality pertaining to protection of
public health, and second, aspects addressing the
use-specific requirements. Examples of specific
water-quality requirements and guidelines are
presented, based on federal and state publications
and other sources in the literature.
NONPOTABLE URBAN REUSE
As shown in Figure 2-1, nonpotable urban reuse
encompasses a wide variety of uses, ranging in
complexity from simple golf course irrigation to dual
distribution systems providing a source of nonpot-
able water for a number of urban uses.
Some systems of nonpotable urban reuse involve
wide distribution to numerous individual users, with
people in homes, factories and office buildings using
reclaimed water for toilet flushing, lawn watering,
area wash-ups, and even air conditioning (see Figure
2-9). Table 2-6 presents some of the major operating
nonpotable urban distribution systems in the United
States.
Figure 2-9. At Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) in California, some 5.5 mgd of filtered, disinfected secondary effluent is fed
through a 50-mile reclaimed-water distribution network for use in landscape and agricultural irrigation. Eventually, IRWD will
be reclaiming and distributing up to 15 mgd for nonpotable uses including expanded agricultural irrigation and, possibly, use
by industries. Above, the process schematic at the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant. (Source: Zero Wastewater Discharge:
IRWD's Continuing Coal. Water & Wastes Engineering, September 1978. pp. 35-37 & 148.)
24
-------
CASE STUDY:
Moving Toward Nonpotable
Urban Reuse in Pomona
A portion of the effluent from LACSD's Pomona
Water Reclamation Plant (PWRP) has been reused for
crop and pasture irrigation since 1926. In recent years,
the City of Pomona Water Department also purchased
secondary effluent from LACSD and resold it to a
variety of private and public users for irrigation
purposes. The volume of reuse increased to almost
3 mgd; the unsold portion of PWRP effluent was
discharged to South San Jose Creek, where, for much
of the year, it constituted the creek's only flow, and a
very small portion percolated to the local ground-
water basin.
Because there is frequent public contact with the
water of South San Jose Creek, the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in the early 1970s set
water-quality requirements that could be met by
effluent-treatment steps of coagulation, sedimenta-
tion, filtration, and disinfection (to 2.2 coliforms/100
ml) as well as dechlorination to a 0.1 mg/l chlorine
residual. The City of Pomona quickly ascertained that
reuse could be greatly expanded if the RWQCB
requirements were met and if there were also reduc-
tion of color to ten units or less. Potential uses in-
cluded landscape irrigation for parks and institutions,
process water for two paper industries, and sale to a
water district and water company. The projected
demand amounted to 9.5 mgd in 1977.
Cost-effectiveness analysis done on the treatment
processes capabletof achieving the quality require-
ments set by RWQCB (for discharge) and the Pomona
Water Department (for reuse) showed that filtration of
secondary effluent through granular activated-carbon
(GAC) would meet or exceed all quality requirements
at lower annual cost than the more conventional post-
secondary treatment processes. Accordingly, carbon
beds were constructed at the PWRP. In operation
since 1977, the four carbon beds provide ten minutes
of contact time at filtration rates of 3.5 gal/min/s.f. The
system can be run as a one-stage carbon-adsorption
step with sulfur-dioxide dechlorination at 10 mgd or
as a two-stage system providing carbon-adsorption/
dechlorination at 5 mgd.
Present users include the Pomona City Parks
Department, Los Angeles County Regional Park and
Golf Course, a county landfill, the state Department of
Transportation, a state college farm, California State
Polytechnic University and a paper processing com-
pany. Negotiations are being completed with poten-
tial additional users, including a cemetery, another
paper company and Mt. San Antonio College. Cur-
rently, all direct reuse is for landscape and agricultural
irrigation and paper pulp processing.
Reclaimed water from the Pomona plant achieves
the following levels: SS, 1 mg/l; BODS, 2 mg/l;
coliforms, 2 MPN/100 ml; residual chlorine, 0.1 mg/l;
turbidity, 1.4 NTU; color, 7 color units.
Source: Garrison, W.E., J.E Gratteau, B.E. Hansen and R.F. Luthy.
Gravity Carbon Filtration to Meet Reuse Requirements. Journal
of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, December 1978.
pp. 1165-1174.
Table 2-6. NONPOTABLE URBAN REUSE SYSTEMS
Date of Initial
Location Operation
Grand Canyon Village, Arizona 1926
Colorado Springs, Colorado 1960
Irvine Ranch Water District, California' 1975
St. Petersburg, Florida 1977
Santa Margarita Water District, California 1979
Several other systems are now in the planning
stages. For example, the Walnut Valley (California)
Water District recently completed a feasibility study
on a 85.6-million distribution network for delivering
low-cost reclaimed water to 21 points of use.21 The
District will purchase reclaimed water from the City
of Pomona Water Department (which obtains
effluent from the Pomona Water Reclamation Plant,
owned and operated by the Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts) and will sell it to retail water
agencies in the District. All reuse-system facilities
will be owned and operated by the District, while the
retail agencies will manage sales and customer
service. The State of California has also recently
approved plans for a system in which reclaimed
water would be directly available for purchase by
individual homeowners; the proposed system is
located in Las Virgenes.
25
-------
Despite the growing interest in nonpotable
urban reuse systems, there are currently few legal or
governmental standards regulating reclaimed-water
quality for this purpose, although some state guide-
lines address many of the specific uses that fall under
this category. California's Title 22 reclamation
criteria range from use of oxidized, disinfected
effluent meeting a concentration of 23 coliforms/
100 ml for urban-landscape irrigation, to use of an
oxidized, coagulated, clarified, filtered, disinfected
effluent meeting a concentration of 2.2 coliforms/
100 ml for irrigation of parks, playgrounds, and
schoolyards.
The California standards fail to address some
areas of nonpotable urban reuse, such as toilet
flushing. A reuse program in Las Virgenes that had
proposed use of reclaimed water for lawn watering
and toilet flushing has so far been limited to the
former use only, for this very reason. Some prospec-
tive users hope, however, that the program will be
expanded to include toilet flushing, if agreement can
be reached on what quality standards are necessary
for nonpotable reuse in the home.2'1
Several states (Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, and Texas) prohibit the use of
reclaimed water on parks or playgrounds. Georgia's
"Criteria for Wastewater Treatment by Spray
Irrigation" (Department of Natural Resources, July
1978), calls for secondary treatment and disinfection
for landscape irrigation of golf courses, cemeteries,
public parks and "other areas frequently visited by
the public." The disinfection system must be
designed to reduce fecal coliform concentrations to a
maximum count of 30/100 ml. Irrigation must also
be restricted to hours when irrigated areas are not
normally used by the public.
The State of Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation has proposed rules for reuse.
Section 111A (drafted in 1976) governs nonpotable
urban uses such as spray irrigation of golf courses,
cemeteries, public parks, landscaped areas and
"other areas with access to the public." In these
areas, a secondary effluent with turbidity levels of
less than 5 Jackson Turbidity Units (JTUs) before
disinfection may be applied to land. Disinfection
should be designed to produce a median (seven-day)
number of coliform organisms not exceeding 2.2/100
ml, and the number in any one sample should not
exceed 23/100 ml. The reclaimed water must be
stored for a minimum of three days and may be used
only during hours when the public does not have
access or is unlikely to be present. Chapter 17-6 of
the Florida Administrative Code, which will include
reuse, is currently being revised.
In Utah, advanced wastewater treatment (BOD,
10 mg/1; SS, 5 mg/1) and disinfection (3 coliforms/
100 ml) are required prior to nonpotable urban
reuse. These standards, contained in Part II of the
Division of Health "Wastewater Disposal Regula-
tions," apply to irrigation of public areas as well as to
use in industrial areas where workers may be
exposed.
As mentioned earlier, some states have provided
more lenient standards of water quality prior to
reuse. The Texas Department of Health has
published "Recommended Practices for Irrigating
Controlled Public Access Areas with Treated
Domestic Wastewater." The 1976 guidelines call for
treatment to reduce BOD and SS concentrations to
20 mg/1 and coliforms to 200/100 ml. Texas is the
only state that requires disinfection to maintain a
trace chlorine residual at the sprinkler heads.
Arizona's regulations are very liberal compared to
those in its neighboring state of California. For
irrigation of golf courses, cemeteries and other
similar areas, a disinfected secondary effluent may
contain a monthly average of 5,000 total coliforms/
100 ml and 1,000 fecal coliforms/100 ml. Similar
reuse projects in California permit no more than
23 total coliforms/100 ml.
For irrigation of school grounds, playgrounds,
lawns, parks, or "any other areas where children are
expected to congregate or play," more stringent
requirements must be met in Arizona. The wastewa-
ter must undergo tertiary treatment and disinfection
to reduce BOD to 10 mg/1, SS to 10 mg/1, and fecal
coliform concentrations to 200/100 ml. Again, for
comparison, similar projects in California are
required to achieve 2.2 total coliform/100 ml.
The Arizona regulations were first drafted in
1972 and are currently being revised (M. Matters,
personal communication). Bacteriological standards
will probably be tightened for urban uses. Agri-
cultural irrigation will be encouraged. This situation
is typical in many states, as agencies respond to new
information, or restructured government agencies
change state reuse philosophies, or simply as agen-
cies periodically review and update their existing
regulations. It is best to check frequently with the
appropriate state agency throughout your reuse
planning.
-------
CASE STUDY:
Agricultural Reuse in Tuolumne County
The Tuolumne County Water District No. 2 (TCWD
No. 2) faced a dilemma in trying to find an acceptable
method for disposing of effluent from two 1-mgd
treatment plants in its jurisdiction. Stream discharge of
the plants' effluent was prohibited by California
regulations enacted in 1971, and a land-application
disposal alternative proposed in 1972 was met by
hostile public reaction.
In an attempt to identify a workable program, the
County, which is located southeast of San Francisco,
moved in 1975 to engage a consultant. The consultant
recommended winter storage of effluent with de-
livery as irrigation water in season to individual
ranchers. Although the new plan eliminated the wide-
scale land-application system that had raised so many
objections in 1972-1973, TCWD No. 2 representatives
and consultants found it necessary to meet regularly
with opponents of the new plan over a one-year
period before a level of public confidence and
support was achieved.
The $4-million irrigation plan, as adopted, will
serve over 30 area ranches with secondary effluent
suitable for irrigation of some 1,300 acres of pasture-
land, meeting all state Department of Health Services
water-quality criteria for this purpose. Flow rates for
each rancher are adjustable and range from 100 gpm
to 1,300 gpm. They can be controlled remotely, at
the treatment plant, to conform to predetermined
demand schedules. The system is unusual in that it
operates as a true irrigation system rather than as an
effluent-disposal system. Project elements of particu-
lar interest include:
• Storage/Conveyance Facilities: a nine-mile asbestos
cement effluent-outfall/transmission pipeline of 6-
to 24-inch diameter, an 1,800-acre-foot irrigation
storage reservoir, and a 15-hp pumping plant.
• Automated Control and Monitoring: a computer-
based system (1) to monitor status and flow, (2) to
provide remote control of solenoid-actuated globe
valves to each irrigation turnout, and (3) to control a
16-inch throttling valve just upstream of the storage
reservoir (to maintain full-pipe flow conditions and
fairly constant pressure at the turnouts).
• Contractual Arrangements: individual 20- to 40-year
contracts with each rancher for specified quantities
of water to be delivered during the April-through-
October irrigation season. Signing of the contract
obligates the rancher to accept the water delivered
at no charge.
• Water Delivery Schedule: based on yearly negotia-
tions with ranchers, effluent quantities in storage
before the start of irrigation, estimates of summer
wastewater flow, and ranchers' acreage and crops.
The system was operated on a reduced-scale,
non-automated basis in 1978 and 1979, with fully-
automated delivery of effluent to begin in 1980.
Source: Earles, J.D and L C Amans. Irrigating Private Land with
Wastewater Effluent In Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium,
Vol 3 AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado, 1979. pp.
2046-2053
Some have suggested that nonpotable urban
distribution systems should meet the same bacte-
riological and turbidity requirements as are set forth
in the present EPA standards for drinking water- an
average of I total coliform/100 ml and 1 (or up to 5)
turbidity unit(s), respectively (Daniel A. Okun,
personal communication). The Interim Primary
Drinking Water Standards of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (PL 93-523) call for a maximum level of
turbidity of 1 turbidity unit (TU) as a monthly
average. Up to 5 TUs are permitted if the supplier
of water can demonstrate that the higher turbidity
does not •
• interfere with disinfection,
• prevent maintenance of an effective disinfecting
agent throughout the distribution system, or
» interfere with detection or analysis of
microorganisms.
You will note that the treatment requirements of
the various states are not directed toward removal of
nutrients; most nonpotable urban systems use
reclaimed water extensively for landscape irrigation,
where the nutrients are of distinct benefit
27
-------
AGRICULTURAL REUSE
These fundamental criteria shape the quality
requirements for use of reclaimed water in agri-
cultural irrigation:
• For the protection of farmworkers and the general
public, the use of reclaimed water must pose no
bacteriological or virological hazard.
• In the West, salinity (total dissolved solids, or
TDS) must be low enough to maintain favorable
osmotic pressures for plants to take up water.
• Certain ions making up TDS, such as boron,
chlorides and sodium, are specifically harmful to
some crops; a high level of sodium can also be
harmful to soils.
• Trace levels of certain metals and synthetic
organics can affect crop growth. Obviously, even
very low concentrations of herbicides can be toxic
to plant life.
• Other heavy metals, such as molybdenum and,
possibly, cadmium, can be concentrated by plants
to levels high enough to be toxic to animals eating
the plant (which itself might be unaffected by the
substance).
• Return flows from both surface and subsurface
irrigation are non-point sources of pollutants and
either are, or soon will be, subject to control. The
quality requirements that are imposed on irriga-
tion return flows may dictate a high quality of the
applied water.
• Suspended solids, chemical precipitates and algae
growth can clog the spray nozzles and drip appli-
cators of irrigation units.
No agency has established with certainty what
pollutant parameters are hazardous or toxic at what
levels. And many of the pollutants present in effluent
are present also in other sources of irrigation water,
including irrigation canals passing through
farmlands.
In these Guidelines, we recommend that the
quality of reclaimed water be analyzed for the
constituents that might affect your ability to use the
resource in irrigation. Table 2-7 presents the recom-
mended EPA limits for pollutants in irrigation water.
The recommended maximum concentrations for
"long-term continuous use on all soils" are set
conservatively, to include sandy soils that have low
capacity to react with (and so to sequester or
remove) the element in question. These maxima are
below the concentrations that produce toxicity when
the most sensitive plants are grown in nutrient
solutions or sand cultures to which the pollutant has
been added. The criteria for short-term use (up to 20
years) are recommended for fine-textured neutral
and alkaline soils with high capacities to remove the
different pollutant elements.
Bacteriological Quality. Several states address
bacteriological standards in their regulations. The
California standards require different bacteriological
standards for each of three types of agricultural uses.
For fodder, fiber and seed crop, and for orchards and
vineyards where only surface irrigation is used, a
primary-treated effluent is allowed. Primary effluent
would be expected to contain about 5 x 105 to 5 x 107
total coliforms/100 ml, depending on the raw waste-
water characteristics. For irrigation of pasture for
milking animals, and for food crops where surface
irrigation only is practiced, an oxidized, disinfected
effluent is required. The bacteriological standard
calls for no more than 23 coliform organisms/100 ml
as a median during a seven-day period.
Bacteriological standards in California are most
stringent when reclaimed water is sprayed on food
crops. Again, a major concern is the health of
farmworkers. Only 2.2 coliforms/100 ml as a weekly
median count is allowed, following the treatment
train of oxidation, coagulation, clarification, filtra-
tion, and disinfection.
Like California, the State of Arizona Department
of Health Services requires various levels of bacte-
riological removal for various types of agricultural
reuse. For irrigation of fibrous or forage crops not
intended for human consumption, or for irrigation of
orchard crops by methods that do not result in direct
application of water to fruit or foliage, secondary
treatment is required. Secondary treatment is capa-
ble of removing from 90 to 99 percent of total col-
iform indicator organisms. Approximately 1 x 104 to
1 x 107 coliforms/100 ml would be expected in the
reclaimed water.
28
-------
Secondary treatment and disinfection are
required in Arizona for irrigation of orchard crops
where fruit or foliage comes into direct contact with
reclaimed water and for irrigation of food crops if the
product, in either case, is subject to physical or
chemical processing sufficient to destroy pathogenic
organisms. The disinfection step should be designed
to result in a monthly average of 5,000 total col-
iforms/100 ml and 1,000 fecal coliforms/100 ml.
Table 2-7. RECOMMENDED LIMITS FOR POLLUTANTS IN RECLAIMED WATER USED FOR IRRIGATION*
TRACE HEAVY METALS
Constituent
Long-Term Use^
(mg/l)
Short-Term Use1
(mg/l)
Remarks
Aluminum
Arsenir
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Tin, Tungsten
and Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
50
010
0.10
0.75
001
0.1
005
0.2
1.0
50
5.0
2.5
0.2
0.01
02
002
0.1
20
20.0 Can cause non-productivity in acid soils, but soils at
pH 5.5 to 8.0 will precipitate the ion and eliminate
toxicity.
2 0 Toxicity to plants vanes widely, ranging from 12 mg/
1 for Sudan grass to less than 0.05 mg/l for rice
0.5 Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging from 5 mg/l
for kale to 0.5 mg/l for bush beans.
2.0 Essential to plant growth, with optimum yields for
many obtained at a few-tenths mg/l in nutrient
solutions. Toxic to many sensitive plants (e.g., citrus
plants) at 1 mg/l.
0.05 Toxic to beans, beets and turnips at concentrations
as low as 0.1 mg/l in nutrient solution Conservative
limits recommended.
1.0 Not generally recognized as essential growth ele-
ment. Conservative limits recommended due to lack
of knowledge on toxicity to plants.
5 0 Toxic to tomato plants at 0 1 mg/l in nutrient
solution Tends to be inactivated by neutral and
alkaline soils.
5.0 Toxic to a number of plants at 0.1 to 1.0 mg/l in
nutrient solution.
15.0 Inactivated by neutral and alkaline soils.
20.0 Not toxic to plants in aerated soils, but can contrib-
ute to soil acidification and loss of essential phos-
phorus and molybdendum.
10.0 Can inhibit plant cell growth at very high concentra-
tions
2.5 Tolerated by most crops at up to 5 mg/l; mobile in
soil. Toxic to citrus at low doses—recommended
limit is 0.075 mg/l
10.0 Toxic to a number of crops at a few-tenths to a few
mg/l in acid soils.
0.05 Not toxic to plants at normal concentrations in soil
and water. Can be toxic to livestock if forage is grown
in soils with high levels of available molybdenum.
2.0 Toxic to a number of plants at 0.5 to 1 0 mg/l;
reduced toxicity at neutral or alkaline pH
0 02 Toxic to plants at low concentrations and to livestock
if forage is grown in soils with low levels of added
selenium.
Effectively excluded by plants, specific tolerance
levels unknown.
1 0 Toxic to many plants at relatively low concentra-
tions
10.0 Toxic to many plants at widely varying concentra-
tions; reduced toxicity at increased pH (6 or above)
and in fine-textured or organic soils
29
-------
Table 2-7. (Continued)
OTHER CONSTITUENTS
Constituent
Recommended
Limit
Remarks
Fecal Coliform
Density
TDS
4.5-9.0
1,000/100 ml
500-5,000 mg/1
Most effects of pH on plant growth are indirect (e.g ,
pH effects on heavy metals' toxicity described
above).
Irrigation waters at or below this limit should pose
no hazard to animals or man from their use or from
consumption of raw crops irrigated with the waters
Below 500 mg/1, no detrimental effects are usually
noticed. Between 500 and 1,000 mg/1, TDS in
irrigation water can affect sensitive plants At 1000 to
2000 mg/1, TDS levels can affect many crops, and
careful management practices should be followed
Above 2,000 mg/1, water can be used regularly only
for tolerant plants on permeable soils.
''For water used continuously on all soils.
''For water used for a peroid of up to 20 years on fine-textured neutral or alkaline soils.
*fromls
In many states, bacteriological standards are
applied on a case-by-case basis. In Georgia, for
example, all domestic wastewater must receive
biological treatment prior to irrigation. Disinfection
is usually not required, however, unless it is deemed
necessary "to protect the health of persons contact-
ing the wastewater or the vegetation on which it is
sprayed, or to reduce odor potential." If disinfection
is required, it must be designed to reduce fecal
coliform to a maximum of 200/100 ml.
In Florida, most agricultural reuse projects are
required to provide secondary treatment and disin-
fection to reduce total coliforms to a seven-day
median of 23/100 ml. This applies to sod farms,
forests, and fodder crops, as well as pasture lands
(Figure 2-10). Additionally, dairy cattle may not
graze until 15 days after irrigation. The use of
reclaimed water for crops intended for human
consumption is prohibited in Florida.
Many states have no experience with the use of
reclaimed water for agricultural reuse. In these
states, usually, the better-controlled the agricultural
operation is, the less the degree of treatment that will
be required.
Salinity. Total dissolved solids (TDS) in the
reclaimed water alter the osmotic state of water in
the soil. When concentrations of TDS become high,
plants can wilt even when fields have been watered.
This problem is of special concern in western states.
Since the TDS of secondary effluent is typically
higher than that of freshwater supplies, control of
salinity can be an important criterion in agricultural-
irrigation reuse systems. The TDS of the reclaimed
water will depend principally on the source and
characteristics of the potable water supply. Where
TDS is high, the problem is aggravated by poor
leaching characteristics in the soil, by high evapo-
transpiration rates, and by the type of crop being
irrigated—avocado, berry and citrus crops are much
more sensitive than pasture or landscape grasses, for
example. Through proper planning, the problem
can be minimized by assigning reclaimed water to
irrigation of non-sensitive crops, and by practicing
proper irrigation management. Drip-irrigation
methods permit use of water with somewhat higher
TDS than what can be used for spray irrigation,
because in spray irrigation the higher salt concentra-
tion could damage foliage. Increased leaching will
help to flush out excess salts in the soil, but at the
risk of polluting groundwater. If the irrigation value
of reclaimed water is high enough in your area,
methods of demineralization, such as reverse osmo-
sis, can reduce TDS levels while retaining inorganic
nitrogen as a nutrient in the water.
30
-------
v.v'---:"^^; '/•"" ** ^//? ;;/£,«
y^^ivr -^.,;:h;;v^,, /±*1J*^1-
Figure 2-10. A municipal nursery in St. Petersburg, Florida waters its stock with reclaimed water.
Specific Ions. Chlorides, boron and sodium are ions
among the total dissolved solids that can have
specific harmful effects on certain crops. If any of
these ions is present in high concentration, the crops
might exhibit wilting, leaf drop and reduced crop
yield, even if TDS is below levels considered harm-
ful Again, fruit crops are more sensitive to these
substances than are many other crops. Slightly
increased soil fertility and more frequent irrigation
can help to minimize the effect of these ions. Excess
sodium not only directly affects plant growth, but
also can alter soil structure so as to make it unsuit-
able for efficient irrigation.
Heavy Metals. The effects of heavy metals vary with
pH and physical characteristics of the soil and with
type of crops being irrigated. As shown in Table 2-7,
arsenic, cadmium, copper and nickel are among the
heavy metals that are toxic to some crops. The
chemistry of heavy metals in the soil, their accumu-
lation in plants, and their toxic effects on plants and
animals are not yet well understood, and it is for
these reasons that conservative limits are recom-
mended. Once these metals have accumulated in the
soil, they are difficult to remove.
RECREATIONAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REUSE
Uses of reclaimed water for recreational and environ-
mental purposes range from the maintenance of
landscape ponds, such as water hazards on golf
course fairways (Figures 2-12 and 2-13), to full-scale
development of water-based recreational sites for
swimming, fishing, and boating. In between lies a
gamut of possibilities that includes use in fountains,
snowmaking, rearing of freshwater sport fish, and
the creation of marshlands to serve as wildlife habi-
tats and game preserves.
California's recommended treatment train for
each type of recreational water reuse is linked to the
degree of body contact in that use (that is, to what
degree swimming and wading are likely). Secondary
treatment and disinfection (to 23 coliforms/100 ml)
is required for reuse in landscape ponds. More
stringent disinfection, to 2.2 coliforms/100 ml, is
required for recreational water bodies where fishing
and boating are permitted. And, for nonrestricted
recreational use that includes wading and swim-
ming, treatment of secondary effluent is to be fol-
lowed by coagulation, filtration and disinfection to
31
-------
CASE STUDY:
Irrigation and Reuse in Westminster
Close cooperation between the City of Westminster,
Colorado and a local farmers' company led to devel-
opment of a reuse plan that benefits both parties.
Finding itself pressed by competing needs to
supplement the city's water supply and to meet
stringent new wastewater treatment requirements,
Westminster in 1976 negotiated an agreement for
exchange of water with the Farmers' High Line Canal
and Reservoir Company, one of many Colorado
farmers' organizations to which water rights are
assigned for irrigation. The agreement enables the city
to withdraw water from the company's canal, transfer
it to a city reservoir, and use it in the City's potable-
water treatment and distribution system. In turn, the
city returns to the canal an amount of reclaimed water
equal to the original withdrawal. The canal water is
subsequently used for irrigation by members of the
farmers' company (Figure 2-11).
The agreement provides Westminster with an
expanded water supply, one that can meet its pro-
jected needs for the next 20 years. It also benefits the
farmers. In returning to the canal an amount of water
equal to that withdrawn some distance upstream, the
city actually increases the canal flow by making up the
"ditch loss"—an amount of water estimated at 20
percent of total flow that would otherwise have been
lost in flow between the points of withdrawal and
return. The nutritive content of the reclaimed water
also improves crop growth.
Regulation has not been restrictive. Quality
requirements are stipulated by the State Department
of Agriculture standards for irrigation water and by
NPDES discharge standards. The canal water
augmented with reclaimed water meets all of the
state's standards and is considered suitable for unre-
stricted irrigation use. The farmers themselves are
exceptionally efficient in controlling runoff from the
fields; runoff is diverted to other fields and other
Figure 2-11. Reclaimed water from City of Westminster,
Colorado secondary treatment facilities is discharged to the
Farmers' High Line Canal; upstream, the City has withdrawn
an equal amount of fresh water from the canai. (Photo
courtesy of Robert L. Ferguson, Director, Department of
Operational Services, City of Westminster.)
farmers. No exchange of money is involved, nor is
there any limit on the amount the city can withdraw
from the canal (provided, of course, that an equal
amount is returned).
In developing the project, the city dealt directly
with the farmers' company. The state and EPA were
involved because an NPDES permit was required in
order to discharge the reclaimed water to the canal,
and because the state administered the Clean Water
Act funds that were used to build the new treatment
plant, reclamation facilities and pump station and
force main for conveyance of reclaimed water to the
canal. Also, as the land-application aspects of this
reuse plan satisfied the state's policy on discharge,
Westminster obtained a favorable position on the
state's funding-priorities list. The local share of the
funds was raised through tap fees and utility bond
sales.
Source: Thurber, M.D. Vision of Balance. In: Proceedings of the
Water Reuse Symposium, Vol. 3. AWWA Research Foundation,
Denver, Colorado, 1979. pp. 2054-2059.
achieve 2.2 coliforms/100 ml and a maximum of 23
coliforms/100 ml in any one sample taken during a
30-day period. The primary purpose of the coagula-
tion step is to reduce suspended solids and, thereby,
to improve the efficiency of virus removal by
chlorination.
The State of Arizona also regulates the use of
reclaimed water in recreational impoundments, and
is currently reviewing its regulations. All reclaimed
water is required to receive secondary treatment and
disinfection prior to its use in any impoundment
used for aesthetic enjoyment or for purposes involv-
ing only "secondary contact recreation." Monthly
average total and fecal coliform densities of 5.000/
100 ml and 1,000/100 ml, respectively, cannot be
exceeded. For any impoundment used for primary
contact recreation, the bacterial standards are 200
fecal coliforms/100 ml.
32
-------
Figure 2-12. Pumping of reclaimed water to golf course water hazards can fulfill a recreational need while also providing
storage or "polishing" treatment for the reclaimed-water supply. Above, at Irvine Ranch Water District in California . . .
Figure 2-13. ... and at St. Petersburg in Florida.
33
-------
CASE STUDY:
Reuse for Marshland Reclamation
Two projects northeast of San Francisco have shown
that secondary effluent can be used effectively to
create or reclaim marshlands that serve as valuable
wildlife havens. Moreover, effluent discharged into
these managed marshlands receives the equivalent of
"tertiary" treatment through natural physical and
biological processes in the marsh.
The Mt. View Sanitary District of Contra Costa
County has been applying some 0.6 mgd of "30/30"
effluent to low saline land draining into Suisun Bay for
more than four years. The flooded marshland area has
attracted over 93 species of waterfowl shorebirds and
passerine birds, including both migratory ducks-
ruddy ducks and canvasbacks, for example—and
resident species such as four generations of cinnamon
teal that have lived and bred exclusively in the created
wetland system. Some 68 species of plants have been
counted in the multiple-habitat system which includes
areas of open water and vegetated shallows. And at
least 34 species of aquatic invertebrates populate the
marsh, which is surrounded by large oil and chemical
installations and a freeway. District personnel view the
numbers and diversity of marsh wildlife forms as a
clear indication of the system's vigor.
Based on early results obtained in weekly moni-
toring and analysis, the original eight-acre marshland
has been expanded to 21 acres, of which 18 are kept
flooded (Figure 2-14). The varying depth of water
attracts different species of wildlife and also helps to
control the spread and dominance of any single type
of vegetation. The District removes excess vegetation
by mechanical and manual means. Problem-causing
species of algae—the bluegreen, filamentous and
odor-producing types—have not thrived in the
managed system; and the common marsh nuisance of
mosquitos has been effectively eliminated by open-air
circulation patterns and the stocking of predatory
mosquitofish, Cambusia afinis.
The system provides additional treatment of
secondary effluent by seasonally reducing effluent
BOD and SS and by removing nitrates and residual
chlorine year-round. The wildlife habitat has proved
to be of great interest to school groups, nature pho-
tographers and bird watchers, who, in 1978, spent
some 854 personhours visiting the wetlands area and
the small environmental center maintained there by
the District.
SCALE - FEET
Figure 2-14. Wetlands plot plan, Mt. View Sanitary District's marsh enhancement program. Secondary treatment plant
effluent flows by gravity into Plot D. After approximately ten days' retention in the wetlands system, the marsh waters are
discharged from Plots A-2 and B into Peyton Slough.
34
-------
Projected costs for Mt. View to join regional
collection/treatment systems had ranged from $2.5 to
$6 million. The expanded 21-acre marsh system, as an
alternative, cost $96,000 to develop, and has present
operations-and-maintenance costs of $12,000 per year.
Due to the system's gravity flow, it bears no pumping
costs.
Similar success was obtained in the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's Suisun Marsh management program,
carried out over a three-year period in cooperation
with the City of Fairfield and the Solano Irrigation
District. The 55,000-acre leveled marsh is located
midway between San Francisco and Sacramento and is
important to the Pacific Flyway, supporting a half-
million or more waterfowl that nest and feed there in
the wintertime.
From 1975 to 1978, BUREC distributed some 0.25
mgd of filtered effluent from aerated oxidation ponds
to pilot-scale field facilities in the marsh area, includ-
ing a three-acre sprinkler-irrigated tile-drained
pasture, marsh ponds of two to three feet in depth,
and two flooded marshland areas of 1V2 acres each
(Figure 2-15). Monitoring of effluent quality and its
effects during this period showed that levels of inor-
ganic nitrogen and phosphorus could be reduced to
less than 1 mg/l each in pasture irrigation and to
about 3 mg/l or less each in the flood ponds. Tile-
drained pasture return flows showed a gradual de-
crease in soil salinity from 25,000 mg/l TDS to less than
9,000 mg/l as soil salts were leached out during ef-
fluent applications of up to 12 inches of wastewater
per month. The only problem encountered was in the
permanently flooded ponds, where filamentous-algae
growth was excessive in summer months. In future
operation, the ponds will be maintained at five- to six-
foot depths to avoid this problem.
Major benefits of the pilot program proved to
be the improved quality of effluent and the good
growths of bulrush—a waterfowl forage grass—in the
seasonally-flooded shallow marsh ponds. The Bureau
noted a significant compatibility between reuse for
agricultural irrigation, which peaks in summer, and for
marshland flooding, which peaks in winter.
On the basis of the pilot study, the program was
expanded in 1978 to a five-year study of marsh flood-
ing for three nearby duck clubs, now using effluent
from the newly-completed 10-mgd Fairfield subre-
gional treatment plant. The clubs are flooding about
650 acres of marshland. The improved bulrush stands
resulting from irrigation with effluent have brought
about a change in the duck club members' attitudes
from one of skepticism to interest and enthusiastic
support. It is expected that other clubs will soon be
joining the marsh reclamation effort.
Sources: Demgen, F.C. and J.W. Nute. Wetlands Creation Using
Secondary Treated Wastewater. In: Proceedings of the Water Reuse
Symposium, Vol. 1. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado,
1979. pp. 727-739.
Roche, W.M and N. Cederquist. Reclamation and Reuse of
Wastewater in the Suisun Marsh, California. In: Proceedings of the
Water Reuse Symposium, Vol. 1. AWWA Research Foundation,
Denver, Colorado, 1979. pp. 685-704.
OFFICE AND LABORATORY TRAILERS
AT CORDELIA SEWAGE PLANT
Figure 2-15. Operational units and monitoring stations at Suisun Marsh reclamation program. Major components include
City of Fairfield's 0.25-mgd secondary treatment facility, a 2-acre-foot detention reservoir, a 3-acre tile-drained irrigation pasture,
four marsh ponds (total area of two acres), and two 1.5-acre irrigated marsh ponds for growth of alkali bulrush and watergrass.
35
-------
Most states'standards do not address the use of
reclaimed water for recreational purposes. This is
because nearly all recreational reuse facilities are
located in California.6 Some states, such as Utah,
provide for a high degree of treatment for reclaimed
water that may be used for purposes resulting in
direct exposure to the public. Recreation reuse
would be considered as such, on a case-by-case
basis, and so would be subject to limitations on
coliform densities of 3/100 ml.
Control of nutrients—phosphorus and nitrogen,
primarily—is essential where excessive algae
growths would interfere with the intended use of the
recreational site. For landscaping ponds, managed
marshlands, golf course hazard ponds, and restricted
recreational use, nutrient removal generally is not
necessary. At such intensive-use recreational sites as
Lancaster, South Tahoe, and, formerly, Santee,
California, however, control of nitrogen and phos-
phorus has been practiced to varying degrees to
prevent algae build-up. At Lancaster, where the
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County has
provided a coagulated, filtered and disinfected
oxidation-pond effluent to the county for use in its
Apollo County Park recreation area, ammonia and
phosphate levels are maintained at concentrations of
1.0 mg/1 and 0.5 mg/1, respectively, but growth of
bluegreen algae in the oxidation ponds during
summer months did result in occasional turbidity
problems in the recreational lakes. Santee County
Water District provided an oxidized, disinfected
effluent to four recreational lakes; with ammonia at
22.3 mg/1 (and nitrate at 1.0 mg/1) and phosphorus
at 8.0 mg/1 in the oxidation-pond effluent, problems
with summer algae blooms in the lakes were noted.
The South Tahoe Water Reclamation Facility
comprises a series of biological and physical-
chemical treatment steps, including coagulation and
ammonia stripping, and has reported no problems of
algae growth or fish killed since the ammonia strip-
ping process was installed.4
OYSTER POND ROAD
?
f ?
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 2-16. A pilot-scale aquacultural system operated since 1973 by Environmental Systems Laboratory (ESL), Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. In one series of experiments, some 8,000 gpd of secondary effluent was mixed
with seawater to promote growth of marine phytoplankton cultures; harvest from the algae ponds was diverted to feeding
areas — raceways — for bivalve mollusc cultures, including oysters; and effluent from the bivalve cultures supported a
seaweed-growing system — again in the raceway system — that served also to "polish" effluent by removing excess nutrients.
Similar experiments in marine and freshwater aquaculture have been conducted by ESL and other organizations in Florida
and California, among other locations in the United States. (Source: Ryther, J.H. Preliminary Results with a Pilot-Plant Waste
Recycling/Marine Aquaculture System. In: Wastewater Renovation and Reuse (F.M. D'ltri, ed.), Marcel Dekker, Inc., New
York, 1977. 705 pp.)
36
-------
The water-quality requirements for raising of
sport fish are well-reported in the literature, but
there have been very few attempts at full-scale
practice using reclaimed water in the United States.
The parameters of greatest concern are:
• dissolved oxygen, which should be maintained at 5
mg/1 or higher;
• free ammonia, which should be reduced to below
0.02 mg/1;15 and
• heavy metals and synthetic organic compounds
(herbicides and pesticides), which can be toxic to
fish and harmful as well to humans eating the fish.
Attempts so far at raising fish and other aquatic
organisms in reclaimed water (Figure 2-16) indicate
that the successful project will have fish culture as its
main emphasis, and not as a recreational sidelight.
For example, attempts at raising bass in the fourth of
a series of effluent-polishing ponds at Michigan State
University ultimately proved unsuccessful, because
the main emphasis had been on removal of excess
nitrogen in the ponds prior to year-round irrigation
of selected land sites. Nitrogen stripping in the ponds
led to dominance of nitrogen fixing bluegreen algae,
causing near-total oxygen depletion and resultant
fish kills.27
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
Reclaimed water has been used to recharge aquifers
in several areas of the United States where excessive
groundwater withdrawals have caused serious
water-supply problems. By recharging the depleted
aquifers, water agencies can prevent ground subsi-
dence and, in coastal areas, salt-water intrusion into
the freshwater supply. If the aquifer is also to be used
as a source of nonpotable water, recharge restores a
nonpotable supply to shallower wells that had been
pumped dry, thereby reducing pumping costs.
Moreover, the infiltration process can provide addi-
tional treatment to the reclaimed water. Facilities for
full-scale groundwater recharge with reclaimed
water are currently in operation or under construc-
tion at about 10 locations in the United States.4
No consistent water-quality standards or recom-
mended treatment method has been advanced at the
state level for use of reclaimed water for ground-
water recharge; these would, of course, vary widely,
according to intended use (if any) after recharge,
method of recharge, and local soil and hydrogeologi-
cal characteristics. Florida, for example, permits
discharge to shallow potable aquifers only if "no
other alternative is available and the proposed
facility will be temporary."
Two methods of recharge are commonly used.
Reclaimed water can be applied to spreading basins
overlying the aquifer and allowed to percolate
through the soil to recharge the supply. Depending
on the soil leaching characteristics, pH, and other
properties, some additional treatment is given to the
reclaimed water by this percolation process. Or
reclaimed water can be pumped directly into the
aquifer via injection wells (Figure 2-17). Reclaimed
water for direct injection must be of high quality, in
order to avoid clogging the well and the aquifer in
the vicinity of the well.
Recharge of groundwater aquifers with
reclaimed water offers distinct advantages, in that it
can help to solve local problems of subsidence or
saltwater intrusion (Figure 2-18) while also provid-
ing storage for nonpotable reuse—typically in
irrigation, recreational and industrial applications.
One problem with recharge is that boundaries
between potable and nonpotable aquifers are rarely
well-defined. There is usually incurred some risk of
contaminating high-quality potable-water
groundwater supplies by recharging "nonpotable"
aquifers with reclaimed water. The recognized lack
of knowledge about the fate and long-term health
efTects of contaminants found in reclaimed water,
such as heavy metals and synthetic organic chemi-
cals, forces a conservative approach to setting of
water-quality standards in groundwater recharge.
There is currently no evidence of biodegradation of
chlorinated organics in aquifers, for example,
although adsorption in the aquifer strata can delay
transport of these contaminants for a considerable
period. Research has been underway since 1976 to
answer the following questions related to aquifer
recharge with reclaimed water:28
• How effectively are pollutants removed during
travel through an aquifer, both in the long term
and in the short term?
• What are the mechanisms of removal or transfor-
mation?
• What are the end products of transformation?
• How rapidly are pollutants transported through an
aquifer compared to the water with which they are
introduced?
37
-------
INFLUENT
INJECTION 29mg
GU
lOmgd
\
15 mgd
5 mgd
REVERSE
OSMOSIS
1 mgd
EXTRACTION
CARBON
Figure 2-17. Process schematic for 15-mgd Water Factory 21 operated by the Orange County (California) Water District.
Reclaimed water from Water Factory 21 is blended with a like amount of deep well water and injected into groundwater
basins to control saltwater intrusion, which by 1976 had progressed up to four miles inland from the Pacific Ocean.
(Source: Highlights of California's Water Factory 21. Municipal Wastewater Reuse News, Vol. 1, AWWA Research Foundation,
Denver, Colorado, October 1977. pp. 15-23.)
38
-------
EXTRACTION f\tLO IN BASIN
SW' 3CA LEVEL^
CONFINED GROUNDWATER BASIN SUBJECT TO SEAWATER INTRUSION
INJECTION WELLS EXTRACTION WELLS
WATER DEMAND
SEAWATER
HYDROLOCIC CONDITIONS WITH AN INJECTION/EXTRACTION WELL SYSTEM
(WITH THE EXTRACTION WELLS INLAND OF THE INJECTION WELLS)
figure 2-18. Recharge of a groundwater aquifer with reclaimed water can control saltwater intrusion in coastal zones. Note
suggested use of injection/extraction pairs to help prevent movement of recharged water into potable aquifers. (Source:
Wedding, J.J. et a/. Use of Reclaimed Wastewater to Operate a Seawater Intrusion Control Barrier. Proceedings of the Water
Reuse Symposium, Vol. 1, AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado, 1979. pp. 639-662.)
39
-------
The State of California, too, has reacted to the
uncertainties surrounding recharge of groundwater
with reclaimed water. Following a three-agency
review in 1975 of health aspects associated with this
type of reuse,29 the California Department of Health
Services amended Title 22 in 1978 to impose require-
ments for stringent case-by-case review of any
proposed new reclaimed-water recharge scheme that
could involve "a potential risk to public health"
(Article 5.1 of Title 22). The Department must
review and evaluate relevant aspects that include
"treatment process, effluent quality and quantity,
spreading area operations, soil characteristics,
hydrogeology, residence time, and distance to with-
drawal," then hold a public hearing and submit its
recommendations to the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. In practice, recharge is approved
only when it can be demonstrated that there is no
risk of contaminating higher-quality aquifers.
Palo Alto Water
Quality Control
Facility (Existing)
In light of these uncertainties, states have recom-
mended that treatment standards for recharge be
linked both to the intended use of water pumped
from the recharged aquifer, and to the possibility of
contaminating nearby aquifers of higher quality.
Therefore, treatment standards for recharge would
be as high (or higher) for any ultimate reuse as they
would be for direct use of the reclaimed water for the
same purpose. Were water to be pumped from the
recharged aquifer and used for recirculating indus-
trial cooling, the recommended treatment might
follow the suggested treatment processes in the next
section. And, if there were risk of contaminating
higher-quality aquifers, it would probably be neces-
sary to add still higher levels of treatment, including
carbon adsorption and/or demineralization (Figure
2-19). Because groundwater resources are valuable
and finite, and their cleansing after contamination
might take many years, recharge of groundwater
with reclaimed water is being approached conser-
vatively, on a case-by-case basis, by all states.
"TTTT
Injection Wells
GROUNDWATER BASIN
Extraction Wells
,M M 1
*
Effluent
Disposal
To Bay
To
Irrigation
Use
Saline
I Wastes
f To Bay
To Irrigation
and Industrial
Uses
Figure 2-19. In Palo Alto, California, a 2-mgd water-reclamation operation provides secondary effluent with lime treatment,
air stripping, recarbonation, ozonation, filtration, CAC adsorption and chlorination, prior to injection of the reclaimed water
into a relatively homogeneous aquifer. Monitoring of the groundwater basin since 1976 has provided researchers with
information on migration of organic constituents in reclaimed water through a recharged aquifer. The figure above illustrates
the ultimate reuse plan conceived for the Palo Alto facilities, which were constructed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District
and are operated by the City of Palo Alto. (Source: AWWA Research Foundation. Continued Highlights of Pomona
Groundwater Recharge Conference. Municipal Wastewater Reuse News, No. 27, December 1979. pp. 10-14.)
40
-------
INDUSTRIAL AND LARGE-SCALE
COMMERCIAL REUSE
Reuse of reclaimed water for industrial and large-
scale commercial applications represents one of the
most underexploited market areas in the U.S. Indus-
tries often use more water than other consumers,
often can tolerate water that is of less than drinking-
water quality, and often are centrally located near
populated areas that generate wastewater. Industrial
uses for reclaimed water include cooling, boiler feed,
washing, transport of material, processing, and use
as a product ingredient (food-processing uses are not
considered in these guidelines). Of these, cooling is
the predominant reuse application, accounting for
about 99 percent of the total reported volume of
industrial reuse (see Table 2-8).
Cooling Water. Cooling water systems can be broad-
ly classified as "once-through" or "recirculating."
Once-through cooling uses intake water for only
one cooling cycle before discharge. The intake water
need not always be of high quality. Seawater and
polluted river waters are commonly used with
minimal treatment, such as coarse screening and
periodic shock chlorination for slime control. Among
the water-quality factors of concern in use of
reclaimed water for once-through cooling are (1) the
potential for accumulation of deposits from sus-
pended matter in the water, and (2) the possibility of
biological activity producing slime growths in the
cooling system. The temperature of the reclaimed
water can also be important in once-through sys-
tems; higher temperatures of reclaimed water in
Table 2-8. INVENTORY OF FACILITIES USING RECLAIMED WATER FOR COOLING*
Location
Amanllo. Texas
Baltimore, Maryland
Burbank. California
Clark Countv. Nevada
Colorado Springs.
Colorado
Contra Costa County,
California
Denton, Texas
Enid. Oklahoma
Glendale, California
Las Vegas. Nevada
Los Alamos, Texas
User Entity
Southwestern Public
Service Co.
Bethlehem Steel Co.
City Power Generating
Station
Nevada Power Co
City Electric,
Martin Drake Plant
Contra Costa County
Water District
Municipal Steam
Electric Plant
Champlin Refinery
City of Glendale
Nevada Power Co.
Zia Corporation
Date
Started
1961
1942
1967
NA
1960
1979
1972
NA
1978
1964
1951
Water Use"
(mgd)
100
106.0
2.0
125
21.0
15.0
1 3
20
57
27.0
0.3
Additional Treatment Following
Municipal Wastewater Treatment1'
Lime clarification. pH adjustment.
shock chlorination. corrosion inhibitor.
Chlorination.
Shock chlorination. pH adjustment.
corrosion inhibitor, antifoam agent.
Lime clarification, chlorination.
Lime clarification, filtration. GAC
adsorption, chlorination
Sodium ion exchange softening.
Shock chlorination. pH adjustment.
corrosion inhibitor.
NA
Chemical addition, flocculation.
sedimentation and filtration
Shock chlorination. lime clarification.
pH adjustment, corrosion inhibitor.
Shock chlorination. pH adjustment.
Lubbock, Texas
Midland. Michigan
Odessa. Texas
Southwestern Public
Service Co.
Dow Chemical Co.
El Paso Products Co.
corrosion inhibitors. Algae growth
controlled by intermittent drying of
towers.
1970 6 5 Lime clarification. pH adjustment.
shock chlorination. corrosion inhibitor.
Boiler feed required filtration, reverse
osmosis and ion exchange.
NA 6 0 NA
1950s 4.8 Lime clarification, recarbonation. pH
adjustment, filtration, ion exchange
softening, antifoam agent.
1 mgd = 3,785 cubic meters per day
*fronV and other sources
'Mainly for cooling, but in some cases also for boiler feed and dilution of blowdown.
''Municipal wastewater treatment by activated-sludge process, except for Colorado Springs, Los Alamos and Las Vegas
(trickling filters) and Glendale and Contra Costa County (activated sludge plus filtration)
41
-------
summer might require installation of greater cooling
capacity in the system. Treatment requirements for
once-through cooling will vary on a case-by-case
basis. In general, secondary effluent can be used
without addition of chemicals, although in some
instances the effluent should be filtered in order to
control suspended solids.
Recirculating evaporative cooling systems, on
the other hand, continually recirculate the same
cooling water for many cycles by utilizing cooling
towers or spray ponds to re-cool the water after each
heat-exchange cycle. To prevent an unacceptable
build-up of contaminants due to evaporation, a
portion of the recirculating water is continuously
wasted, in "blowdown." To replace the volume lost
in blowdown, the recirculating cooling system
requires make-up water. Because any contaminants
present in make-up water are concentrated many
times during the cooling cycle, and because organic
nutrients in the make-up water furnish food for
organisms, make-up water must be of high quality.
Reclaimed water treated to a high degree is
successfully used for cooling make-up water at a
number of locations in the United States. Cooling
water:
• must not form scale on heat-exchange surfaces;
• must not be corrosive to metal in the cooling
system (corrosion inhibitors can be used, as indi-
cated in Table 2-8);
• must not supply nutrients promoting the growth of
slime-forming organisms;
• must not foam excessively; and
• must not cause the wood in cooling towers to
deteriorate.
The literature provides a number of tables listing
water-quality criteria for cooling-water supplies, as
summarized in Table 2-9. Treatment requirements
vary, depending on the materials of construction and
the type of treatment given to the reclaimed water. In
general, the treatment steps most commonly found
to be appropriate consist of lime treatment, which
Table 2-9. RECOMMENDED COOLING-WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
FOR MAKE-UP WATER TO RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS*
Parameter Recommended Limit1'
C.I
TDS
Hardness (CaCO,)
Alkalinity (CaCO,)
PH
COD
TSS
Turbidity
BOD
Organics (methvlene
blue actiye substances)
XH4
P04
SiO:
Al
Fe
Mn
Ca
Me
HCO,
SO4
500
500
630
350
**
75
100
—
—
1
**
—
50
0.1
05
0.5
50
**
24
200
Recommended Limit1"
100-500
500-1.650
50-130
20
6 9-9.0
75
25-100
50
25
2
4
1
—
01
05
0.5
50
0 5/»*
24
200
Comments1"
Preferably
Preferably
Preferably
Preferably
Preferably
2 is good
Preferably
1 is good
68-72
below 10
below 10
below 10
below 5
below 1
*from'^ w. Required limits in mg/1, except for pH units.
**Accepted as received.
42
-------
softens the water and removes phosphorus, a num-
ber of the metals, and removes ions and organic
compounds; filtration, if necessary; and disinfection,
both to control slime growth and to remove bacteria
and viruses that are dispersed in the cooling-tower
aerosol plume At Burbank, California, where
secondary effluent is used, it has not been found
necessary to provide a phosphorus-removal step
(Figure 2-20). In Las Vegas, Nevada, however, the
Nevada Power Company uses an unfiltered second-
ary effluent and itself provides lime clarification for
reduction of turbidity and phosphorus (D. Okun,
personal communication). Additional treatment
steps, as necessary, can be provided at either the
WWTP or the user site. One advanced-treatment
facility designed to produce reclaimed water for
cooling-tower make-up is now in operation in Glen-
dale, California. Some 5 7 mgd of filtered secondary
effluent is pumped approximately 7,000 feet from the
existing Los Angeles/Glendale Water Reclamation
Plant to the Glendale Steam Electric Generating
Plant. Additional treatment of the effluent consists of
alum or sodium aluminate addition, clarification in
solids-contact units, and dual-media filtration prior
to reuse.11
Boiler-Feed Water. The use of reclaimed water for
boiler-feed water is usually not economical, due to
the requirements for extensive additional treatment.
Quality requirements for boiler-feed make-up water
are dependent upon the pressure at which the boiler
is operated. The higher the pressure, the higher the
quality of water required. Very high-pressure boilers
require make-up water of distilled quality. Table 2-10
shows quality tolerances recommended in the EPA's
"Blue Book."15
In general, the users of reclaimed water for
boiler-water make-up reduce the hardness of the
boiler-feed make-up water to close to zero. Depend-
ing on the characteristics of the wastewater being
treated and the requirements for the reclaimed
water, lime treatment (including flocculation, sedi-
mentation and recarbonation) might be followed by
multimedia filtration, carbon adsorption and nitro-
gen removal. High-purity boiler-feed water for high-
pressure boilers might also require treatment by
reverse osmosis or ion exchange (Figure 2-21). The
presence of silica and aluminum in the reclaimed
water is very undesirable, because these form a hard
scale on heat-exchanger surfaces. Potassium and
sodium in high concentrations can cause excessive
foaming in the boiler water.
Figure 2-20. Cooling towers at Burbank, California, where the Public Works Department
uses some 2 mgd of disinfected high-quality secondary effluent as cooling water.
43
-------
Process Water. Process water is related to the
particular use for water within the various industries.
For example, the electronics industry requires water
of almost distilled-water quality for washing circuit
boards and other electronic components. On the
other hand, the tanning industry can use large
quantities of relatively low-quality water.
Requirements for textiles, pulp and paper, metal
fabricating, etc. are intermediate. Thus, it will be
necessary to contact all potential users to determine
their specific requirements for process water. Of
course, industrial users who have relied for years on
high-quality water provided through a municipal
supplier might not know themselves whether
reclaimed water can serve their purposes. It might
well be necessary, in such cases, to contact and visit
similar industrial installations that are already using
lower grades of water, or to conduct pilot tests prior
to project implementation that will demonstrate
what limitations, if any, will be imposed by use of
reclaimed water.
Where an extremely high degree of treat-
ment is needed, it might be more economical
for the provider of reclaimed water to furnish a
filtered supply that can meet most needs in the
community, and have the using industry upgrade the
product water to meet its particular requirements.
Table 2-10. RECOMMENDED INDUSTRIAL BOILER-FEED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA*
Parameter
Silica (SiO2)
Aluminum (Al)
Iron (Fe)
Manganese (Mn)
Calcium (Ca)
Magnesium (Mg)
Ammonia (NH4)
Bicarbonate (HCO,)
Sulfate (SO4)
Chloride (CD
Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Copper (Cu)
Zinc (Zn)
Hardness (CaCO,)
Alkalinity (CaCO,)
pH, units
Organics :
Methylene blue active substances
Carbon tetrachloride extract
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
Dissolved oxygen (O2)
Temperature F
Suspended Solids
Low Pressure
(psig)
30
5
1
0.3
**
##
0.1
170
**
**
700
0.5
**
350
350
7.0-10.0
1
1
5
**
2.5
**
10
Intermediate
Pressure (psig)
10
0.1
0.3
0 1
0.4
0.25
0.1
120
**
**
500
0.05
001
1.0
100
8.2-10.0
1
1
5
**
0.007
**
5
High Pressure
(psig)
0.7
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0 1
48
**
**
200
0.05
0.01
0.07
40
8.2-9.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
**
0 (X)7
**
05
*from|C> Recommended limits in mg/1 except for pH (units) and temperature (degrees Fahrenheit).
**Accepted as received (if meeting other limiting values); has never been a problem at concentrations encountered.
44
-------
Figure 2-21. In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, increased water requirements for expansion of the Petromin
oil refinery has spurred development of a high-quality industrial reuse plan that is now nearing
start-up. Up to 5.3 mgd of secondary-treated wastewater effluent will receive varying degrees of
treatment at the facilities (pictured as a model above) for use as utility water (hose station and fire
water), intermediate quality water for cooling tower make-up and desalting, and boiler-feed water.
The full treatment train for boiler-feed water encompasses two-stage lime treatment, dual-media
filtration, granular activated carbon adsorption, two-stage reverse osmosis and ion-exchange
demineralization processes. (Source: Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.)
Environmental Impacts
A variety of environmental issues have impacts on
water-reuse applications. Reuse planning should be
conducted with these issues in mind, both in antici-
pation of possible requirements for environmental
impact assessment, and in order to respond to any
general public concern over the use of reclaimed
water. An environmental assessment will be neces-
sary in some states, and wherever federal funds are
used. Even if your project is funded wholly from local
sources, you should check to see if your state requires
an impact statement in support of any significant"
expenditure of municipal funds.
Following is a discussion of some representative
issues which could be important in impact assess-
ment for a reuse project
LAND USE
Water reuse can induce land-use impacts that could
be considered either beneficial or detrimental. If a
community's growth had been limited by the capac-
ity of the water supply, and if, through water reuse,
the portion of the potable supply available to resi-
dents were increased, then development that had
previously been excluded could occur. In most cases,
the decision-making process involved in implement-
ing reclamation and reuse forces examination of
community goals. In Westminster, Colorado, for
example, a water-exchange program between the
city and area farmers is tied directly into a compre-
hensive six-point growth and resource-management
plan that includes establishment of land-use priori-
ties, fiscal impact planning, and conservation
programs.32
45
-------
CASE STUDY:
An Example of
Environmental Issues in Reuse
In some cases, instituting a reuse program means that
communities can reduce their discharge of polluting
substances to vulnerable waterways. The potential
effects of reuse must be studied, however, to ensure
that the desired end will be achieved. Recent studies
by engineers in British Columbia, Canada have
indicated that in at least one case, high-volume reuse
of effluent for agricultural irrigation could hasten, not
retard, the rate of lake eutrophication caused by
nutrients' loading.
The Okanagan Valley is located 200 miles inland of
the Pacific Ocean, north of Washington state. It is
about 100 miles long and averages 30 miles in width;
the basin drains into Washington and is tributary to
the Columbia River. It is an arid region, parts of it
receiving less than ten inches of precipitation each
year.
Several agencies in the Valley have long consid-
ered agricultural reuse of reclaimed water to be both
necessary and desirable. Projected water use in
2020 can be projected to approach lake-system
throughflow, due to rapidly-increasing residential/
industrial and agricultural development. Reuse would
avoid costly AWT to meet pollution-control require-
ments and to eliminate point-source input of phos-
phorus, which is believed to have created eutrophic
conditions in the lakes. And agricultural reuse would
assure farmers of ample water for irrigating 60,000
acres of existing orchard land and up to 400,000 acres
of additional new farmland now under development.
According to a study made by Dayton & Knight
Ltd. engineers, however, reuse would not achieve all
of the desired goals over the long term. Complete
reuse of treated-wastewater effluent could, in fact,
nearly triple lake flow-through time within 40 years
and so reduce the flushing of phosphorus that now
occurs. In addition, assuming that nonpoint loadings
of phosphorus are related to agricultural acreage, the
nonpoint source contribution of phosphorus could
increase from 300,000 pounds per year at present to
800,000 pounds per year in 40 years.
In summary, the engineers point out that "the
effects on pollution and eutrophication from the
prolonged lake water flow-through rate and from
potential additional nonpoint source contribution of
phosphorus should receive considerably more
attention...because both are the classic causes of the
premature aging of lakes, in addition to point-source
contributions of phosphorus from growing shoreline
populations."
Source: Dayton, M ).). and A. Berzms. Accelerated Surface Water
Eutrophication from Land Disposal of Sewage. In: Proceedings of the
Water Reuse Symposium, Vol. 3. AWWA Research Foundation,
Denver, Colorado, 1979. pp. 2104-2119.
Water reuse can encourage a more efficient or
more intensive use of land in the municipality. If
parks or golf courses can be developed where pre-
viously there have only been fields, or if more inten-
sive use can be made of agricultural land by virtue of
having more irrigation water available, then the land
can be used more efficiently. A water-reuse program
might result in a more dramatic change in land-
use—for example, if a small manufacturing facility
(attracted by the water source) were sited on a
previously-undeveloped site, or if the availability of
reclaimed water prompted new residential develop-
ment with more effective use of open space.
ECONOMIC
Reuse planning has enabled some communities to
develop municipal recreational facilities. For others,
it could help to keep local industry in the commu-
nity. Reuse to promote conservation or to fill a
recreational need will provide a social good to the
whole community. Reuse that provides local
industry with a more economical or secure source of
water might assure that an important source of
employment remains in the community.
In periods of drought, reclaimed water provides
a reliable source of water for landscape irrigation or
industrial processing, thereby protecting the invest-
ment made in landscape plants or in materials. For
farmers, the nutrient value of reclaimed water can
mean savings in fertilizer costs of up to $30 per acre-
foot of reclaimed water used. In Amarillo, Texas,
three distinct advantages of water reuse have been
identified: the revenues generated have helped to
offset the costs of constructing new water-treatment
46
-------
facilities; the supply of low-cost industrial water has
helped to bring industry to the community; and the
city's potable-water supply is being protected for
more valuable use.4
A reuse program can result in lowering local
sewer charges, particularly if sale of the reclaimed
water increases the wastewater-treatment service
revenues, or results in treatment economies-of-scale
or reduced pretreatment requirements. Water reuse
might make more water available during times of
water shortage, as a result of the decreased demand
on the community's potable water supply.
The relocation of wastewater-effluent discharges
can have adverse impacts on streamflow or
groundwater levels (A variation of this type of
problem occurs when new wastewater-treatment
plants, discharging treated effluent through an ocean
outfall, replace smaller on-site facilities that dis-
charge treated effluent to streams and/or to the
ground.) With irrigation or evaporative cooling
applications of reclaimed water, a point-source
discharge into a stream is reduced or eliminated,
and, consequently, streamflow is substantially
decreased. Such a decrease could alter the ecosystem
supported by that stream and could also decrease
the supply of water available to users downstream.
Quality Assurance
The success of any reuse plan depends on the
reliability of its components and the assurance of safe
reclaimed water Treatment processes for reclaiming
water must be reliable in delivering the quality of
water required. Provision of equalizing storage can
serve effectively toward assuring water quality. Most
reuse applications require the features described
below, although somewhat more fluctuation in water
quality can be tolerated for some types of irrigation
use. The second consideration is user safety. In both
treatment and conveyance, the fundamental goal
must be to provide reclaimed water that poses no
hazard to the user, the user's employees, or the
general public.
RELIABILITY IN TREATMENT
Alarms provide warnings of power failure or failure
of any important unit process. Alarm devices are a
necessity at all treatment facilities, especially at
facilities where no employees are stationed full-time
(in which case the alarm should be connected to a
full-time service unit, such as a police or fire station).
Continuous automatic monitoring devices are
available for measuring temperature, dissolved
oxygen, pH, conductivity, turbidity and other para-
meters. Some reclamation facilities, requiring a high-
level of monitoring, use bacteria, Daphma, and fish
species for biotoxicity monitoring.33
Water-reclamation facilities should be equipped
with an automatic standby power source, and
emergency storage or disposal facilities. You can
provide for emergency storage with retention ponds
that can serve for flow-equalization as well, thereby
permitting the overflow to return to the influent.
Storage can also be provided in groundwater
aquifers suitable for recharge. At a 20-mgd water
reclamation facility in St. Petersburg, Florida,
reclaimed water is distributed for irrigation use
through a separate 14-mile system. During periods
of low demand—when it rains, for example—the
reclaimed water will be pumped to 900 feet under-
ground, displacing brackish water there and creating
an underground reservoir for future water with-
drawal. Of course, if the secondary WWTP from
which effluent is obtained discharges to a waterway,
water can simply be discharged through the existing
outfall if the reclamation facilities are inoperative or
if reclaimed water fails to meet reuse standards.
Other features for reliability are modeled after
facilities commonly used in treatment systems for
potable water supply. For example, chlorination
facilities should be provided with the following
features: standby chlorine supply and facilities,
including such things as manifold systems to connect
chlorine cylinders, chlorine scales, automatic devices
for switching over to full chlorine cylinders, auto-
matic dosage control and residual recording.34 Other
methods of disinfection should have equivalent
reliability.
Of equal importance to the reliability of reclama-
tion facilities is a well-trained and experienced staff.
The facility's operation should be based on detailed
process-control with recording and monitoring
facilities, a strict preventive-maintenance schedule,
and standard-operating-procedure contingency
plans to assure the reliability of the product water
47
-------
quality. By the same token, the reclaimed-water user
must employ safe practices in the handling, distribu-
tion and use of water, to avoid exposing the public to
any health risk. These aspects will be particularly
important during the first few years of operation,
when the reuse system must "prove itself."
The State of California Department of Health
Services has published detailed guidelines for
reliability in wastewater-reclamation facilities; the
guidelines include discussion of emergency proce-
dures, power supply, frequency of bacteriological
analysis, and requirements for disinfection.54 In
addition, Articles 8, 9, and 10 of the State's Title 22
regulations provide an excellent outline of design and
operational considerations covering alarms, power
supply, redundancy features, emergency storage and
disposal, and chemical supply, storage and feed
facilities.
SAFETY IN CONVEYANCE
AND DISTRIBUTION
The State of California Department of Health
Services has established operational standards
designed to assure the reliability and safety of
reclaimed water programs. They are shown below:
• The discharge should be confined to the area
designated and approved for disposal and reuse.
• Maximum attainable separation of reclaimed
water lines and domestic water lines should be
practiced. Domestic and reclaimed water trans-
mission and distribution mains should conform to
the "Separation and Construction Criteria" (see
Table 2-11).
• All reclaimed water valves and outlets should be
appropriately tagged to warn the public and
employees that the water is not safe for drinking or
direct contact.
California does not yet require monitoring on the
nonpotable distribution system, but this has been
recommended.19 When the reclamation and reuse
program in a community involves a dual water-
supply system, special measures should be taken.
Piping, fittings, and plumbing should be well
marked, distinguished from the potable supply by
color, material and jointing. A strict plumbing code
should be developed with agency supervision of
pipeline construction and plumbing installations.
Such guidelines have been developed for several
reuse programs, including those for the Irvine Range
Water District (IRWD), California (Figure 2-22)
and the City of St. Petersburg, Florida.7 M
The Irvine Ranch Example. At Irvine Ranch, steps
taken to ensure safety in conveyance of reclaimed
water include the following:
Training: The Water District staff has prepared
a comprehensive manual on reclaimed-water use
and has instituted an on-going education program to
promote understanding of cross-connection control.
Supervision: Each entity receiving reclaimed
water has a trained staff person directly responsible
for separation of the reclaimed water system. New
construction must be approved and field-inspected
by the district before reclaimed water can be used.
Piping: Pipes for distribution of reclaimed water
must have the words RECLAIMED WATER stenciled
on both sides, at intervals of approximately six feet.
Warning tapes may also be placed directly atop the
pipe. PVC piping carrying reclaimed water for
irrigation is either white with green stenciling or
green with white stenciling. PVC piping carrying
potable water is blue in color.
Valves: All valves are located below grade in a
valve box with locking green cover.
Intersections: All intersections of the reclaimed-
water and potable-water systems are designed to
meet the same requirements as for water-sewer
intersections. For example, the standards require use
of special pipe materials at intersections, and use of
minimum horizontal and vertical clearances.
The State of California Department of Health
Services has established the IRWD plan as the
prototype for nonpotable urban distribution systems
throughout the state. Among the requirements for
these systems are: non-standard threading, color
coding of pipes, special connectors between the street
connection and the sprinkler grid, no hose bibbs on
the nonpotable system, backflow prevention devices,
and other safeguards.
48
-------
WATER
OR
RECLAIMED
WATER
WATER
OR
RECLAME
WATER
PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION
PERPENDICULAR CONSTRUCTION
IF ANY OF THE THREE PIPELINES, WATER, RECLAIMED WATER, OR SEWER, ARE WITHIN
ANY OF THE ABOVE INDICATED ZONES, SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE REQUIRED AS
SHOWN BELOW.
IF ANY OF THE THREE PIPELINES; WATER.
RECLAIMED WATER, OR SEWER CROSS
IF ANY OF THE THREE PIPELINES; WATER,
RECLAIMED WATER. OR SEWER; ARE TO
BE LOCATED WITHJN ANY OF THE ABOVE
INDICATED ZONES, SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
WILL BE REQUIRED AS SHOWN BELOW.
WITHIN ANY OF THE ABOVE INDICATED
ZONES, SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION WILL
BE REQUIRED AS SHOWN BELOW
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
ZONE
A
B
C
D
SEWER
V.CPWITH COMPRESSION JOINTS.
CIP WITH LEAD OR APPROVED MECH
JOINTS OR VC.P IN STEEL CASING
VCP ENCASED IN CONCRETE OR ANY
OF ZONE 8 CONSTRUCTION METHODS
DO NOT LOCATE ANY PARALLEL
SEWER IN THIS AREA WITHOUT HEALTH
DEPARTMENTS APPROVAL.
RECLAIMED WATER
ACP OR PV.C AS SPECIFIED IN PART III.
CIP WITH LEAD OR APPROVED MECH JOINTS;
OR A.CP,OR PV.C IN STEEL CASING.
AC.P OR P,VC ENCASED CONCRETE
OR ANY OF ZONE B CONSTRUCTION METHODS
DO NOT LOCATE ANY PARALLEL RECLAIMED
WATER MAIN IN THIS AREA WITHOUT
HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE WITH RUBBER RING JOINTS APPROVED FOR FORCE MAINS MAY
BE PLACED IN ZONE A.
MECHANICAL COMPRESSION JOINTS CONFORMING TO A.STM C425 "VITRjFIED CLAY PIPE
JOINT USING MATERIAL HAVING RESILIENT PROPERTIES' EXAMPLES ARE "WEDGELOCK
AND "SPEEDSEAL" JOINTS
Figure 2-22. Example of construction specifications for dual distribution system.
(Source: Irvine Ranch Water District. Standard Specifications for the Construction of Water,
Sewer, and Reclaimed Water Facilities. Orange County, California, March 5,1979.)
49
-------
Table 2-11. SEPARATION AND CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA*
DOMESTIC AND RECLAIMED WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION MAINS
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
BASIC WATER MAIN
SEPARATION INVOLVED
Parallel Perpendicular Reclaimed Domestic
Construction Construction Wastewater Water
(Potable above
reclaimed)
2S ft "^ ft Pressure Gravity
(less than
5 psi)
2-> ft 1 ft Gravity Gravity
10 ft 1 ft Pressure Pressure
!() fi ^ ft Gravity Pressure
RECLAIMED WASTEWATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION
MINIMUM SEPARATION IF BASIC SEPARATION IS NOT FEASIBLE
Parallel
Construction
No exception
VCR AC. CIR or equal
class 150, 15ft
minimum separation.
mechanical
compression joints
Minimum pipe class
2 x wwp, 4 ft minimum
separation, no
common trench
VCP, 4 ft minimum
separation, mechanical
compression joints
Perpendicular
Construction
(Reclaimed wastewater
and above domestic
water mam)
Minimum pipe t lass
2 x wwp, steel casing 2^ ft
both sides of crossing
Steel casing 2 1 ft both
sides of crossing
Minimum pipe class
2 x wwp mechanical
compression joints 4 ft
both sides of crossing
Concrete encasement 01
steel casing 4 ft both sides
of crossing
Perpendicular
Construction
(Reclaimed wastewater
mam below
domestic water main
clearance less than
three O) feetl
Minimum pipe class
2 x wwp, steel casing 2S ft
both sides of crossing
VCP AC C'lP or equal
dass ISO mechanical
compression joints 2S ft
both sides of crossing
Minimum class 2 x wwp
mec hanical ( ompression
joints 4 ft both sides of
crossing
VCP AC CIP,
mechanical compression
joints I ft both sides of
crossing
The St. Petersburg Example. St. Petersburg, too,
has taken safeguards to prevent cross-connections
and misuse:
Piping: Distribution pipes for reclaimed water
are identified with a vinyl adhesive tape imprinted
with the words TREATED WASTEWATER. The city is
presently working with a major manufacturer of
PVC piping to develop a tan-colored pipe for convey-
ing the reclaimed water.
Hydrants: Hydrants fed by the reclaimed-water
systems are brown with a yellow stripe (Figure 2-
23) These can be operated only with special tools
that are available to designated public-utility person-
nel and the fire department. Hydrants fed by potable
water are silver in color.
Valves: Valve boxes located along the reclaimed-
water system are of a different shape than those
along the potable system, and these are imprinted
with the words TREATED WASTEWATER.
Meters: Meters for use in the reclaimed-water
system are of a different make than those in the pot-
able system. Meters for the nonpotable and potable
systems, and the spare parts for these meters, must
be kept segregated in Meter Maintenance.
Figure 2-23. Reclaimed-water hydrants in St. Petersburg,
Florida are painted brown with a yellow stripe (above), while
potable-water hydrants are silver in color.
50
-------
• All piping, valves, and outlets should be color-
coded or otherwise marked to differentiate
reclaimed water from domestic or other water.
Where feasible, differential piping materials should
be used to facilitate water system identification.
• All reclaimed water valves, outlets and sprinkler
heads should be of a type that can be operated only
by authorized personnel. Hose bibbs are not
permitted on reclaimed-water distribution lines, in
order to preclude the use of hoses and the likeli-
hood of increased public exposure.
• Where reclaimed water is being used for recrea-
tional ponds and lakes, adequate means of notifica-
tion should be provided to inform the public of this
fact. Such notification should include the position-
ing of conspicuous warning signs with proper
wording of sufficient size to be clearly read.
• Adequate measures should be taken to prevent the
breeding of flies, mosquitoes, and other vectors of
public health significance during the process of
reuse.
• Operations of the use area facilities should not
create odors, slimes, or unsightly deposits of
sewage origin.
51
-------
References
1. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Engineering Feasibility Study
of Effluent Spray Irrigation, City of Boca Raton, Florida.
November 1978.
2. Comptroller General of the United States. Report to the
Congress Continuing Need for Improved Operation and
Maintenance of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Washington, D C , 1977. 75 pp
3. East Bay Municipal Utility District, Water Resources
Planning Division. Wastewater Reclamation Irrigation Uses.
Oakland, California, September 1977.
4. Schmidt, C J. and E V. Clements, III (SCS Engineers).
Demonstrated Technology and Research Needs for Reuse of
Municipal Wastewater. EPA-670/2-75-038, U.S
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975.
5 Culp/Wesner/Culp and M.V. Hughes, Jr. Water Reuse and
Recycling, Volume 1, Evaluation of Needs and Potential.
OWRT/RU-79/1, Office of Water Research and Technology,
U.S Department of the Interior, April 1979 174pp
6. Ling, C S. Wastewater Reclamation Facilities Survey Report
Sanitary Engineering Section State of California Department
of Health Services, 1978.
7. Duynslager, W.A. St. Pete, Florida Implements Reuse. In:
Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium, Vol. 3. AWWA
Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado, 1979. pp. 1680-1687.
8 Dove, L.A. The Symbiotic Approach to Water Reuse in St
Petersburg, Florida In. Proceedings of the Third National
Conference on Complete Water Reuse' Symbiosis as a Means
of Abatement for Multi-Media Pollution AICHE and EPA
Technology Transfer, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976.
9. AWWA Research Foundation. Reclamation Plans in Marin
County, California. Municipal Wastewater Reuse News No
16. January 1979 pp 21-22.
10. Deb, A.K.. Multiple Water Supply Approach for Urban Water
Management Weston Consultants, for the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. ENV 76-18499, 1978.
11. Schaefer, R K Economics and Water Conservation. Water
and Sewage Works, June 1979.
12. Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc Economic and Institutional
Analysis of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Projects.
Office of Water Resources Research, U S Department of
Interior, Washington, D C., 1971
13. U S Environmental Protection Agency (Office of Water
Program Operations) EPA, Process Design Manual for Land
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. EPA, U S. Army Corps
of Engineers, U S Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C 1977
14. AWWA Research Foundation Irvine Ranch Water
District—Total Water Management System Municipal
Wastewater Reuse News No. 7. April 1978 pp 13-23
15 National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of
Engineering Water Quality Criteria 1972: A Report of the
Committee on Water Quality Criteria. EPA-R3-73-033, U S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1973,594pp.
16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Criteria for
Water. Washington, D.C.July 1976. 256 pp.
17 U.S Environmental Protection Agency (Office of Water
Program Operations, Municipal Construction Division).
Federal Guidelines for State and Local Pretreatment
Programs, Volume III, Appendix 8. Construction Grants
Program Information, EPA-430/9-76-Ol7c, 1977
18 Culp/Wesner/Culp. Water Reuse and Recycling, Volume 2,
Evaluation of Treatment Technology. OWRT/RU-79/2,
Office of Water Research and Technology, U S. Department of
the Interior, 1980.
19 Okun, D A. Criteria for Reuse of Wastewaters for Nonpotable
Urban Water Supply Systems in California Report to the
California State Department of Health Services, July 1979
20. Pomona Virus Study Final Report, Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County, 1977.
21 Sobsey, M. Public Health Aspects of Human Enteric Viruses
in Cooling Water Report to NUS Corporation, Pittsburgh,
PA, 1974.
22 Sheikh-ol-Eslami, B., PJ Morris, J.S Hsiao. Aerosol
Generation in Sprinkler Irrigation. In Proceedings of the
Water Reuse Symposium, Vol 3. AWWA Research
Foundation, Denver, Colorado, 1979 pp. 2248-2250
23. Clarke, N.A. et al. Human Enteric Viruses in Water- Source,
Survival, and Removability In- Advances in Water Pollution
Research 2 523. Pergamon Press Ltd , London, 1964
24 Schmidt, C.J. and E.V. Clements Reuse of Municipal
Wastewater for Groundwater Recharge EPA 600/2-77-183
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977
139pp
25 Bales, R.C , E M Biederman, G Arant Reclaimed Water
Distribution System Planning—Walnut Valley, California In.
Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium, Vol 3 AWWA
Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado, 1979 pp 1663-1679
26 Stokes, H.W. and M E Ford, Jr. The Application of
Nonpotable Water Systems to Residential Service. In
Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium, Vol. 3 AWWA
Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado, 1979 pp. 1629-1647
27 King, D.L and TM. Burton. A Combination of Aquatic and
Terrestrial Ecosystems for Maximal Reuse of Domestic
Wastewater In- Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium,
Vol 1 AWWA Research Foundations, Denver, Colorado,
1979. pp 714-723
28 McCarty, P.L , PV Roberts and WJ, Dunlap Contaminant
Transport in the Groundwater Environment during Recharge
of Reclaimed Water. EPA Environmental Research Brief,
Robert S Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada,
Oklahoma, March 1979
29, Wolf, H W et al A "State-of-the-Art" Review of Health
Aspects of Wastewater Reclamation for Ground^ ater
Recharge State Water Resources Control Board, Department
of Water Resources, Department of Health, State of
California, 1975. 240 pp
30. Goldstein, DJ , I. Wei, R.E Hicks Reuse of Municipal
Wastewater as Makeup to Circulating Cooling Systems In-
Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium, Vol 1 AWWA
Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado, 1979 pp 371-397
31 "Sewage to Aid City Power Plant" The American City &
County, Vol. 91, No. 12, December 1976. p 25
32 Thurber, M D Vision of Balance In, Proceedings of the
Water Reuse Symposium, Vol. 3. AWWA Research
Foundation, Denver, Colorado, 1979 pp 2054-2059.
33 World Health Organization Health Effects Relating to Direct
and Indirect Reuse of Wastewater for Human Consumption
WHO Intl Ref Center Technical Paper No 7. The Hague,
The Netherlands, September 1975.
34. Crook, J. Reliability of Wastewater Reclamation Facilities
California Department of Health Services, Sacramento,
California, 1976
52
-------
The Economic Issues
3
The potential value of reclaimed water depends
primarily on its assured availability (at a quality
high enough to permit its use) and on its cost as
compared to the cost of freshwater. In this chapter,
we are concerned with:
• Establishing the present and projected unit costs of
freshwater to the potential local users of reclaimed
water, and
• Comparing these freshwater costs to the estimated
cost of reclaimed water.
Estimating the Costs
of Freshwater Supply
PRESENT COSTS
Water purveyors can provide you with present costs
of water, usually expressed in dollars per thousand
(or million) gallons. Present costs for potable water
range from about $0.40 to about $1.00 per 1000
gallons for high-volume users in typical municipali-
ties across the country. Unit costs are usually higher
for smaller municipalities. This cost includes both
amortized capital, if bonds or indebtedness are not
retired, and operation costs.
The capital costs should include both deprecia-
tion and interest. Depreciation is the actual cost of a
facility divided by its useful life. Interest costs are
those which the utility must pay for ivs bonds.
Operating costs include labor, maintenance and
materials for each functional area. The major func-
tional areas1 are:
• Acquisition: may include the water-supply
source, a large storage reservoir and transmission
system, including pumping stations.
• Treatment: may include water-treatment facility.
• Distribution: may include multiple storage tanks
and distribution system, including pumping
stations.
Other costs, such as administration and cus-
tomer services, should also be included in the present
cost of water.
PROJECTED COSTS
Probably the best way to determine future water
costs is to interview the official responsible for water
supply, although information might also be
available in a comprehensive water-supply planning
document or water-rates study, if such has been
completed.
Certain trends are apparent. Many communities
are facing prospects of increasingly expensive water-
supply development. In addition, water costs will
undoubtedly increase as communities upgrade water
treatment to meet the primary drinking-water
standards promulgated by the EPA in June 1977.
Additional EPA regulations governing levels of
trihalomethanes (THMs) and granular activated-
carbon treatment for removal of synthetic organics
were proposed in 1978 (final regulations controlling
THM levels were promulgated in November 1979);
and the total national capital cost of meeting the
proposed amendment's treatment requirements
has been estimated by EPA at greater than
S600 million.2
Costs will increase most markedly for smaller
water-supply systems, which are likely to have more
water-quality problems3 4 due to:
• lower levels of treatment currently provided,
• inadequate maintenance of treatment equipment,
• badly maintained distribution systems, and/or
• absence of economies-of-scale.
Clark5 recently examined the unit costs of six
small (less than 1 mgd) water utilities and the cost
increase each would face, in order to provide addi-
tional treatment necessary to comply with the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Costs were shown to increase
from an average of about $0.70/1000 gal. to $1.70/
1000 gallons.
In a national survey of approximately 1,000
water purveyors serving a combined population of 18
million, the water-supply quality in 16 percent of the
systems was found to fail mandatory requirements
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and another
25 percent were found to fail the recommended
requirements.6
53
-------
CASE STUDY:
Market Assessment in Walnut Valley
A reclaimed-water distribution system planned in
1979 for Walnut Valley, California, would distribute
reclaimed water from the Pomona Water Reclamation
Plant through 20 miles of pipeline for use by industries
and for irrigation of golf courses and municipal
grounds in the area. As part of the planning to date, a
year-long market assessment was completed both to
identify and arouse interest among the system's
potential customers, and to focus in on what costs
the customers would incur in converting to the
reclaimed-water system.
Initially, the Walnut Valley Water District reviewed
more than 15,000 customer records, in order to
identify those customers using an average of more
than 1.15 acre-feet per month. The District had deter-
mined that a user at this cutoff level could save $1,033
per year (assuming purchase of reclaimed water at $75
per acre-foot less than potable-water costs), a savings
sufficient to justify for most industries an initial
investment of $2,300 to tap into the reclaimed-water
system (say, 100 feet of pipe plus a backflow-
prevention device).
As the screening of potential customers was
continued through initial contacts and discussions, the
District found that price concerns were paramount
among these water users as they considered commit-
ting their enterprises to use of reclaimed water. The
marketing study team tried to determine what mini-
mum savings over potable-water costs would be
acceptable to the users. The potential savings were
formulated as
DxN
where:
S = required minimum savings in dollars per
acre-foot;
C = user's internal capital investment;
D = user's demand in acre-feet per year; and
N = number of years in which investment
is to be recovered.
Obviously, the degree of capital investment a
potential user could commit to is linked directly to the
minimum savings that that user could expect to
achieve over potable-water costs. The greater the
savings offered, the greater the capital investment
each user could make, and the greater his demand
could be. Based on these savings-demand relation-
ships, the District was able to formulate a pricing
policy attractive enough to draw firm commitments
from more than 20 potential end users. The District set
the price to be at least $40 per acre-foot less than the
price for potable water (below this level, demand
would drop rapidly, while only at twice that savings
would many additional large users be attracted).
Given the current potable-water costs of $131 to $200
per acre-foot, the price of reclaimed water would be
sufficient to recover all capital and O&M costs and still
provide a margin to finance future system expansion.
Source: Bales, R C., E.M. Biederman, and G. Arant. Reclaimed-
Water Distribution System Planning—Walnut Valley, California. In:
Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium, Vol. 3. AWWA Research
Foundation, Denver, Colorado, 1979. pp. 1663-1679.
54
-------
Estimating the Costs
of Reclaimed Water
The cost of reclaimed water can be divided into four
principal components of capital and operations-and-
maintenance (O&M) expense:
• Costs for additional treatment, if required (under
the assumption that costs of treatment to meet a
discharge requirement itself are rightfully allocated
to the sewage-treatment and disposal function);
• Costs for conveyance/distribution of the effluent or
reclaimed water;
• Costs for storage, if necessary; and
• Costs for monitoring reclaimed-water quality.
Having identified and estimated these compo-
nents of total cost, you can compare the costs of
potable water—the existing freshwater supply—to
the estimated costs of reclaimed water. This com-
parison can provide some indication of whether or
not reclaimed water will be competitive with the
freshwater supply. By no means does this represent a
definitive statement of the economics of reuse,
however, nor should it form the sole basis of your
subsequent decision-making.
Above all, you should be aware that the esti-
mated unit cost of reclaimed water developed by the
methods presented in this chapter bears no essential
relationship to the prospective user's cost for tying
into and using the reclaimed-water system. On the
one hand, the user faces potential "penalty costs"7
that can include costs of
• on-site hookup to the nonpotable system;
• facilities for monitoring and adjusting water
quality;
• additional treatment, if this is to be provided by the
user;
• repiping for dual systems onsite;
• steps to assure worker safety;
• changes in normal practice: e.g., restricted access
to irrigated lands, use of higher volumes of water to
control salinity in the root zone (irrigation) or to
compensate for poorer quality in recirculating
cooling system (industrial), choice of different crop
types or planting patterns; and
• possible need to increase return-flow control
measure (irrigation) or waste-disposal steps
(industrial).
Other "penalty costs" might be incurred by the
community as a whole. For example, where local
streamflow consists primarily of effluent from waste-
water-treatment facilities, diversion of the effluent for
reuse purposes not only would cause significant
damage to stream habitats but also would deprive
downstream users of the flow.
On the other hand, the community as a whole
might realize so substantial a benefit from instituting
a nonpotable reuse program that it will choose to
finance the system in a way that keeps the users'
total costs competitive with their costs for using
freshwater (measures to accomplish this are among
the financial issues discussed in Chapter 5). This
community benefit can be of direct economic impor-
tance—such as obviating the need for funding
expensive wastewater-treatment facilities to meet
stringent discharge standards, or eliminating the
need for costly new water development or importa-
tion—or of significance that is not directly economic,
such as assuring an adequate potable supply in a
water-short area.
The user, too, can gain benefits from use of
reclaimed water: for an industrial user, this benefit
might be the assurance of a reliable and adequate
water supply (we have cited in Chapter 4 the exam-
ples of a manufacturer in El Paso, Texas, and a
power company in Gillette, Wyoming), while for an
irrigation user, one benefit could be the nutrient
value— estimated at up to $30 per acre-foot—of the
reclaimed water. Clearly, the true costs and benefits
of reuse—to both the community and the user—are
situation-specific. While detailed analysis of these
costs and benefits lies beyond the scope of these
Guidelines, you should be aware of the range of cost/
benefit issues and trade-offs that should be quanti-
fied, to the extent possible, and evaluated closely in
any feasibility study undertaken as you move toward
plan implementation. A valuable document now
available to support detailed economic and financial
analysis is the State of California's Interim Guidelines
for Economic and Financial Analyses of Water Reclamation
Projects*
The "reconnaissance-level" reuse cost estimates
developed in this section are derived from general-
ized cost curves. Appendix C includes a discussion of
the basis of costs and methods of converting capital
costs to equivalent annual costs. An Engineering News-
Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index of 3000 is
used to develop these costs.
Obviously, the economic conditions of a particu-
lar area will influence cost-effectiveness of a specific
local reuse scheme. Following reconnaissance-level
analyses and preliminary screening of potential users
and project alternatives, cost analysis of alternatives
55
-------
selected for detailed evaluation should be based on
the detailed design of systems and on recent, local
bid prices; in these Guidelines, however, we have used
national average construction costs to support
preliminary estimates.
Components of the total reclaimed-water costs
are presented in these Guidelines as for a system that
has the additional treatment steps first, followed by
conveyance and storage. This sequence, which
follows that practiced at Irvine Ranch Water Dis-
trict, is illustrated in the example case presented in
this chapter. Actually, other sequences can be
employed, and their selection will depend on local
conditions. Several industrial reuse projects involve
conveyance of secondary effluent to a storage pond,
followed by treatment prior to reuse. Other installa-
tions, such as that in St. Petersburg, Florida, store
treated reclaimed water on-site prior to distribution.
ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT COSTS
Based on the potential users' water-quality require-
ments as discussed in Chapter 2, you can determine
what additional treatment steps might be required to
reclaim water for your selected reuse market(s). The
cost of additional treatment or advanced-treatment
systems can then be estimated. In this section, we
have provided cost curves for additional-treatment
unit processes capable of supporting most of the
different reuse functions discussed in these Guidelines.
Table C-l in Appendix C shows the equation of the
cost curves and the coefficients and exponents of
each curve. Design criteria are based on conven-
tional practice, actual installation, and manufac-
turer's recommendations.
If possible, you should use locally-developed cost
information as a basis for developing your own
estimates, or at least for adjusting the estimates you
obtain from these cost curves. Local information is
bound to be more accurate than generalized cost
data. Useful information might be found in local or
regional wastewater-facilities feasibility studies, in
facilities plans, and from cost-information records
maintained at recently-constructed water- and
wastewater-treatment facilities in your area.
The cost curves (Figures 3-1 to 3-10) present a
range of flows from 10,000 gpd to 100 mgd, although
costs are probably most accurate in the range of 1 to
50 mgd. To use the curves, you first must determine
the design flow and the type of unit processes that
will be employed, using information presented in
Chapter 2. The design flow can be determined on
the basis of average daily flow (user demand) times a
peaking factor that will depend on peaks in user
demand, as discussed in Chapter 2 (keeping in mind
that some equalization can be provided by differing
demand patterns among various system users), and
on the volume of reclaimed-water storage being
provided.
From this information, you can estimate the
approximate costs of treatment required for a reuse
system. Finding your projected design flow on the
cost curve's abscissa, refer to the left-hand ordinate of
the curve to obtain capital costs in units of millions of
dollars. Similarly, use average daily flow on the
abscissa to find annual operations-and-maintenance
costs in units of millions of dollars on the right-hand
ordinate. Design parameters and cost equations for
the unit processes, and definition of the components
of capital and operating costs, are all presented in
Appendix C.
The treatment processes shown in this section
have all been used successfully at many wastewater
reuse facilities Under the current EPA Innovative
and Alternative (I/A) Technology program, these
processes would be considered conventional. The
I/A solutions must be considered in all planning
efforts after September 30, 1978 receiving construc-
tion grant funds.
An alternative technology is a proven method of
treatment that provides for reclaiming and reusing
water, productively recycling wastewater constitu-
ents, eliminating the discharge of pollutants, or
recovering energy. An innovative technology refers
to a new and promising technology that has been
developed but has not been fully proven under the
circumstances of its intended use.9 EPA provides
economic incentives to promote I/A , and these are
discussed in Chapter 5. Since most municipal reuse
planning involves the EPA construction grants
program, the I/A technologies will be evaluated
along with the methods presented herein.
56
-------
iis"
8 =!
5 *
S ?
I S
0! 2 1 0,
MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY
Figure 3-1. Costs of Coagulant Addition and Flocculation Figure 3-3. Costs of Sedimentation
ENR = 3000 ENR = 30oo
Metric conversion: 1 mgd = 3,785 cubic meters per day Metric conversion: 1 mgd = 3,785 cubic meters per day
MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY
MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY
Figure 3-4. Costs of Separate Nitrification
Figure 3-Z Costs of Filtration
ENR = 3000 ENR =
Metric conversion: 1 mgd = 3,785 cubic meters per day Metric conversion: 1 mgd = 3,785 cubic meters per day
57
-------
MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY
Figure 3-5. Costs of Two-Stage Lime Treatment
ENR = 3000
Metric conversion: 1 mgd = 3,765 cubic meters per day
MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY
Figure 3-7. Costs of Carbon Adsorption
ENR = 3000
Metric conversion: 1 mgd = 3,785 cubic meters per day
MILLIONS or GALLONS PER DAV
I
01 1
i
Figure 3-6. Costs of Lime Recalcination
ENR = 3000
Metric conversion: 1 mgd = 3,785 cubic meters per day
MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY
Figure 3-8. Costs of Reverse Osmosis
ENR = 3000
Metric conversion: 1 mgd = 3,785 cubic meters per day
58
-------
MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAT
Figure 3-9. Costs of Chlorination
ENR = 3000
Metric conversion: 1 mgd = 3,785 cubic meters per day
MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY
Figure 3-12. Costs of Pumping Stations
*based on total size of station (use peak flow rate)
"•assume 100-ft TDH (add or subtract 15% for each
50 feet of TDH in 50—250 foot range)
ENR = 3000
Metric conversion: 1 mgd = 3,785 cubic meters per day
MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY
MILLIONS Of GALLONS
Figure 3-10. Costs of Dechlorination Figure 3-14. Costs of Storage
ENR = 3000 ENR = 3000
Metric conversion: 1 mgd = 3,785 cubic meters per day Metric conversion: 1 mgd = 3,785 cubic meters per day
59
-------
CONVEYANCE/DISTRIBUTION COSTS
No single factor is likely to influence the economics
of reuse more than the conveyance or distribution of
reclaimed water to its point of reuse. Conveyance
systems range from straightforward systems serving
one or more large users to complex systems involving
distribution to many individual users. An example of
the first type can be found in Denton, Texas, where
some 1.5 mgd of secondary effluent is pumped two
miles through an 18-inch diameter force main to a
storage pond located adjacent to the city's power-
generating plant. The water is subsequently treated
and used as make-up water in cooling towers.10
An example of the second type of system is that
managed by Irvine Ranch Water District in
California. There, reclaimed water is pumped to two
reservoirs located four and eight miles, respectively,
from the wastewater-reclamation plant. Water is
distributed through some 30 miles offeree mains for
use in agricultural and landscape irrigation, serving
a residential area with a population of about
50,000."
To determine what conveyance system is most
economical for your reuse plan, you must evaluate
the trade-off between initial capital costs and opera-
tions-and-maintenance costs over the life of the
project. For the "straightforward"system (the
example we used above was Denton, Texas), you can
easily obtain a "reconnaissance-level" estimate of
costs for your conveyance system components using
the steps described in detail below.
Capital Costs for Force Mains. We suggest at least
two ways by which to determine a suitable—not
necessarily optimum—pipe diameter for effluent
conveyance. First, studies have shown that the
average velocity for cost-effective water mains is
approximately 4 ft/sec.12 Using this velocity, one can
derive the following equation expressing pipe diame-
ter in terms of flow:
D = \/^32Q (1)
where' D = pipe diameter in feet, and
Q = flow in cubic feet per second
In each community, the actual optimum (most
economical) force main diameter may vary accord-
ing to local operating expenses. Consider the rela-
tionship between capital and operating costs shown
in Figure 3-11, illustrating the trade-off between
initial capital costs and operations-and-maintenance
costs over the life of the project.4 Selection of smaller
pipe diameters results in larger friction heads,
requiring larger pumps and more energy. Increase in
pipe diameter gives smaller friction heads and so a
decreasing energy cost, but at a steadily-increasing
TOTAL ANNUAL
"V
-OPTIMUM DIAMETER AT
MINIMUM TOTAL COST
DIAMETER OF FORCE MAIN
Figure 3-11. Relationship of Annual Conveyance Costs
to Diameter of Force Main
ENR = 3000
Metric conversion: 1 mgd = 3,785 cubic meters per day
capital cost. Summing the capital and O&M costs
over a range of increasing diameter yields the curve
at the top. Where this curve "bottoms out," total
annual costs are at a minimum, corresponding to the
optimum force-main diameter. When local energy
costs increase more rapidly than other costs, annual
O&M costs will be higher for a given pipe diameter,
displacing the total-cost curve to the right; in such
situations, the optimum pipe diameter will be larger.
Having determined the suitable or optimum
force-main diameter (D), refer to Table 3-1 to esti-
mate the total capital costs of force mains in dollars-
per-linear-foot. To figure total capital costs, you need
to determine the conveyance route and end-point
elevations along the route, for each potential user.
This information can be lifted from the USGS map
used for locating your local reclaimed-water sources
and potential user sites. There is no need to optimize
force-main routing; plotting of a realistic conveyance
route—generally over existing roadway networks—
between source and potential user will prove satisfac-
tory for reconnaissance-level analysis.
Similarly, USGS contours will provide sufficient
detail to estimate the difference-in-elevation (static
head) that must be overcome in pumping.
60
-------
Capital Costs for Pumping Stations. Knowing your
average daily flow and design peaking factor, you
can determine capital costs of pumping Pumping
stations for reclaimed water are usually designed for
delivery of the maximum daily flow. If large storage
facilities are part of the conveyance system, peak
flow rates can be adjusted. Providing capacity for
several months' storage prior to reclamation either at
the wastewater-treatment facility or at the site of
reuse will permit a smaller pumping station and
conveyance-pipe size. Figure 3-12 shows the costs for
pumping stations. For an average daily flow of 1.5
mgd and a peaking factor of 2, you would enter the
curve at 3 mgd and obtain a cost of approximately
$475,000. Capital costs assume a 100-ft total
dynamic head (TDH). Approximately 15 percent
should be added or subtracted for each 50 feet of
TDH in the range of 50 to 250 feet TDH.
Operating Costs for Pumping Stations. Annual
operations-and-maintenance costs can be divided
into two major groups: power, and labor-and-
materials. Figure 3-12 shows annual O&M costs
exclusive of power These costs are based on the total
size of the station, and, therefore, you should find the
annual costs based on the peak flow rate. Power
costs can be estimated on the basis of horsepower
required at average daily flow, taking into account
both pump and motor efficiencies. Use the following
formula to calculate horsepower (hp):
^-2*™ (2)
Table 3-1. TYPICAL CAPITAL COSTS OF FORCE
MAINS INCLUDING INSTALLATION
Diameter of Force Main
(inches)
Cost per Linear Foot
(dollars)
where: Q = average daily flow in gallons per
minute;
TDH = total dynamic head in feet (static
head plus friction head at
average daily flow); and
2800 = factor which takes into account a
combined pump and motor
efficiency of 70 percent.
TDH is the sum of static head and friction head.
Static head is simply the difference in elevation (in
feet) between the pumping station and the proposed
point of reclaimed-water reuse—all of which you
have plotted on USGS or other contour maps—plus
the selected system pressure. Friction head losses for
various pipes and flows can be determined from
tables and graphs available in standard hydraulic
texts. In Figure 3-13, we have presented one such
graph, which is based on a conservative Hazen-
Williams roughness coefficient of 100. Draw a
straight line connecting your proposed flow (gpm) to
the suitable pipe diameter (in inches) determined
above. Extending this straight line to the line for
head loss (in feet of water per 1,000 feet) provides an
approximation of friction head.
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
24
30
36
« 18
21
27
33
37
47
54
64
70
86
125
162
ENR = 3000
1 ft = 0.3 m
Having calculated pump horsepower require-
ments, you can estimate annual power costs using
Equation 3:
Annual Power Cost (c) =
hp x .075 kW/hp x hrs/yr x $/kW-hr (3)
where the unit cost for power can be adjusted to
local rates, and hrs/yr can be estimated according to
proposed usage, as in the example.
Distribution System Costs. When the proposed
reuse scheme involves a more complex distribution
system serving residential areas for lawn irrigation,
for example, more detailed engineering analysis will
be necessary. If the application is for nonpotable
residential use, you can design the system as a
municipal water-supply distribution system. It is
best to estimate total system length based on a
street-by-street layout.
It has been found that the length of water mains
is usually a function of population density. You can
roughly estimate water-main length by the following
formula:13
Lm = 125P-°415 (4)
where L,,, = length of main in miles per 1,000
population
P = population density
(persons/square mile).
For example, a municipality of 2,000 persons
residing in one square mile could be serviced by
about 7.6 miles of water mains. Based on an average
force-main diameter of eight inches (typical of urban
systems) and costs of $27 per linear foot as presented
in Table 3-1, capital costs for this system would be
about $1,100,000.
61
-------
v in Gallons per Minute
o
E
10,000 —
9,000 —
8,000 —
7,000 —
6,000 —
5,000 —
4,000 —
3,000 —
._
2,000 —
1,500 -
1 ,OOO —
900 —
800 —
700 —
600 —
500 —
400 —
300 —
—
20O —
—
150 -
—
100 —
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
— 600
— 500
-
— 400
^"300
; ^v^
—
-
— 200
I
- 150
—
—
— 100
— 90
— 80
— 70
— 60
— 50
1 "
— 40
— 30
Z~ 20
- 15
— 10
— 9
— 8
— 7
— 6
— 5
— 4
— 3
^
V
\
^
f~
jw in Liters per Second
Meters per Second = L/sec x 0,
1
U
c
1
72-
66-
fifi —
\j\j *••
54-
48-
42 —
36-
^S. 30 —
\
24^
20 —
ipe Diameter in Inches
CO O N> «. __ 180
— 170
"~ 1 fin
— i DU
^- 150
— 140
— 130
— 120
— 1 10
— too
— 90
— 80
_
— 70 r
•^60 /
>.
— 50 \
1 | 1 1 1 l| I M l| lll|lllll| |
ro cj j»
0 O o
Diameter in Centimeters
: &
S
— 15
— 10
— 9
— 8
— 7
— 6
— 5
05-
.06-
08 -
0.1 —
0.2-=
03 —
0.4 _j
-See 05-n
Example 0 6_
Problem o.7— ,
08-
0 9 —
1 0-
Feet of Water per 1000 Feet
eters of Water per 1000 Meters
ocfl ^ co /i>o
ll I II I I 1 1 / Illlllllll
•£S E
§.S 15 E
•J *fi —
^ S 2°-
m — i
H-c
X « 30-
I
1 40-
C/"l
DU —
60 —
70_
80_
90-
100-
-
150 ;
200-=
-
300-
400-
500-
600-
700-
— 05
;- 06
f- 08
1^
r ° '
_
_
_
_
-02
_
— 03
— 04
— 05
— 06
-07
— 08
— 09
- 1 0
.
;
^- 2
^>3
N
— 4
— 5
~ 6
- 7
- 8
— 9
=-10
: 15
=-20
— 30
— 40
— 5O
— 60
— 70
— 80
— 90
— 100
^ 150
— 200
— ')OO
— 400
— 500
— 600
— 700
0.8-
0.9-
1.0-
1 1 -
1 2 -
1.3-
1.4 -
1.5 -
1.6-
1.7-
1.8 -
;ilo Pascals per 100 Meters
:ity in Feet per Second
ZfO -
CO o «
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 i
1 *
- 1 3
- 1 4
- 1 5
- 1 6
- 1 7
- 1 8
- 1 9
— 20
-22
-24
-26
- ? 8
— 30
Figure 3-13. Hazen-Williams Hydraulic Flow Charts with C=100 (Adapted from Ref. 15)
-------
STORAGE COSTS
Providing for storage of reclaimed water at the
point of reuse can cut distribution costs, by making
it possible to reduce the diameter of distribution
piping When storage is available, there will be
no need to size for the instantaneous peaks in
reclaimed-water demand.
The cost-effectiveness of providing storage will
depend on the availability and cost of land for the
required storage, and on the need to provide any
additional treatment (aeration or disinfection)
during or after the holding period. Properly designed,
covered storage facilities will prevent degradation in
water quality and can actually improve water quality
through physical and biological processes. Open
storage facilities, on the other hand, might result in
degradation and requirement for retreatment.
Figure 3-14 presents costs for two general types
of storage facilities: open earthen basins and covered
concrete storage reservoirs (costs for steel-storage
tanks would fall between those for lined earthen and
concrete reservoirs). Open earthen storage basins are
appropriate for use in agricultural-irrigation and
industrial reuse systems. These basins can be either
lined or unlined, depending on local soil conditions.
Covered concrete storage reservoirs of the type
commonly used for potable-water supply should be
used if the reclaimed water is being delivered in a
dual distribution system. Use of covered reservoirs
will reduce chlorine losses and algae problems and
will help to maintain the quality of the reclaimed
water in the distribution system. In St. Petersburg,
Florida, for example, the city is planning to install
covered service reservoirs at three future reclamation
plants, after having experienced problems with
growth of algae in an open storage reservoir for
reclaimed water.14
GUIDELINES FOR THE
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Having determined, respectively, the costs of fresh-
water and of reclaimed water, you can now compare
these costs in order to weigh the economic aspects
of a reuse project (see example computations).
The reclaimed water must be available to poten-
tial users at reasonable cost, but there are many
other economic and noneconomic factors that should
be evaluated. A local freshwater cost that is lower
than reclaimed water would not necessarily imply
that water reuse could not be economically effected,
nor, by the same token, would a higher freshwater
cost necessarily imply that reclaimed water would be
highly competitive. Your decision to proceed with
reuse planning does not hinge solely on economics.
Some of the noneconomic factors discussed in the
next few chapters may in themselves allow you to
make decisions on reuse options in your community.
Some of the economic aspects that may be
difficult to quantify in a preliminary reuse study
include the following:
• Costs of additional wastewater treatment to meet
high discharge standards if water is not reclaimed;
• Costs for future capacity in interceptors or waste-
water-treatment facilities;
• Additional costs for customers required to retrofit
for installation of a dual distribution system;
• Cost of increased water use that might be
necessary for irrigators to flush out minerals
accumulating in the root zone, and the value of
nutrients in reclaimed water that is used
for irrigation purposes; and
• Costs of increased system monitoring and adminis-
trative functions required for two grades of water
These factors should be kept in mind while
evaluating the economic feasibility of various reuse
alternatives. As a first cut, you might screen out all
projects that are more than 50 percent or 100 per-
cent greater than the projected potable-water costs,
and then proceed with more detailed and specific
economic and financial evaluations of the remaining
project alternatives.
63
-------
CASE STUDY:
An Example of Penalty Costs
User "penalty costs," such as those for hookup to the
reclaimed-water system and for any repiping necessi-
tated by the system, can be quite substantial. When
the nonpotable system was being installed by the
Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) in Irvine, California,
the nonpotable piping was connected to an existing
landscape-irrigation system. In one small system, the
runoff fed a small stream and decorative pond. Since
the IRWD permit did not allow any runoff, it was
necessary to take corrective action. The IRWD found
that the least expensive solution would be to
reconnect portions of the irrigation system to the
potable supply, despite the higher price of that water,
rather than to modify the irrigation system in order to
reduce runoff. In this case, the expense of redesigning
and altering the irrigation system to permit safe use of
reclaimed water represented a user penalty cost
(Matthew Lovein, personal communication).
Example of Estimating Costs
Basic Information. A 10-mgd biological secondary-
treatment facility is located in a suburban residential
community near an extensive regional park. From a
preliminary market analysis, it has been determined
that 5 mgd could be utilized for irrigation of a golf
course, playgrounds, and sports areas, and for
general landscaping needs. The reclaimed water
would be pumped over a distance of 10,000 feet to
storage facilities that are 70 feet higher in elevation
than the pumping station.
TREATMENT
Location and Type of Treatment The municipal-
ity has determined that it would operate the recla-
mation facility at the site of the existing secondary
plant. Based on water-quality standards required by
the state, the recommended treatment process for
urban distribution systems would include coagulant
addition, flocculation, Filtration and disinfection.
Use of Cost Curves. A table showing each unit
process, the capital, amortized, and operations-and-
maintenance costs is shown below. To follow the
example through, locate and use three cost curves:
coagulation (Figure 3-1), filtration (Figure 3-2), and
disinfection (Figure 3-9). Amortized capital costs are
computed by multiplying capital costs by 0.10. This
factor is based on a 15- to 20-year service life of
TOTALTREATMENT COSTS
facilities, at an interest rate of approximately 7
percent. Appendix C presents a detailed analysis by
which you can amortize capital costs with different
service lives. However, this type of cost-effectiveness
analysis will not affect total cost significantly and
is not warranted in reconnaissance-level reuse
planning.
Unit costs are determined by dividing the annual
cost ($387,000) by the amount of reclaimed water
used in one year (1,825 million gallons), or approxi-
mately $210 per million gallons.
CONVEYANCE
Select Peak Factor and Size Force Main. A peak-
ing factor of 1.5 is used to allow for pumping during
two shifts per day, if desired at the wastewater
reclamation facility. The peak flow rate is, therefore,
7.5 mgd (5 mgd x 1.5) or 11.6 cfs. Pipe diameter for
preliminary analysis is calculated using equation 1:
D = v/.32(11.6) = 1.92 ft or 24 inches
Determine Power Costs. To determine horsepower,
calculate the friction head from Figure 3-13. At an
average flow rate of 5 mgd (or 3,470 gpm) and a pipe
diameter of 24 inches, the friction head is 1.3 feet per
1,000 feet. The TDH is calculated as follows:
TDH = 70ft (static head) + 1.3ft/l,000ftx 10 = 83ft
Unit
Process
Coagulation and Flocculation
Filtration
Disinfection
TOTALS
Capital
Cost
$ 540,000
890,000
200,000
$1,630,000
Amortized
Capital
$ 54,000
89,000
20,000
$163,000
Annual
O&M
$ 105,000
80,000
39,000
$ 224,000
Total
Annual Cost
$ 159,000
169,000
59,000
$ 387,000
64
-------
Horsepower can then be calculated from equation 2
as follows :
Annual power costs are calculated using equation 3:
C= 103 hpx 0.75 kW/hp
x 365 days/yr x 24 hrs/day x $0.05/kWhr = $33,835
Determine Total Operating and Capital Costs.
Operating costs exclusive of power and capital costs
are determined from Figure 3-12 by entering the
peak pumping-station capacity. Force-main costs are
based on Table 3- 1 . Force mains may be amortized
by using a factor of 0.8, which is approximately a 40-
to 50-year service life at 7% interest. For a 24-inch-
diameter force main, the unit cost is approximately
$86 per linear foot. A table similar to that shown
below can be set up to record these costs. Unit costs
are $214,000/1,825 million gallons, or approxi-
mately $120 per million gallons.
TOTAL CONVEYANCE COSTS
Pumping Station (Capital Costs $850,000)
Amortized Capital Costs $ 85,000
Annual Power Cost 34,000
Annual Operating Cost 21,000
Sub-Total $140,000
Force Main (Capital Costs $860,000)
Amortized Capital Costs
Total Annual Cost
$ 69,000
$209,000
STORAGE
Using Figure 3-14, it is shown that a 5-mgd covered
storage reservoir would cost about $1.9 million and
would be amortized at approximately $150,000 per
year over a 40- to 50-year period ($1,900,000 x 0.08).
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Costs from the example are summarized below:
Component
Annual Costs
Additional Treatment Facilities
Conveyance System
Storage Facilities
Total
$387,000
209,000
150,000
$746,000
References
I Clark R M Cost and Pricing Relationships in Water Supply
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division. ASCE
102 (EE2). 1976 pp 361-373
2 Argo, I) G The Cost of Water Reclamation by Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Presented at the WPCF Annual
Conference, Anaheim, California October 1978
3 Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc Revised Economic Impact
Anah sis of Proposed Regulations on Organic Contaminants
m Drinking Water Julv 1978
4 Temple. Barker, & Sloane, Inc Survey of Operating and
Financial Characteristics of Community Water Systems U S
En\ ironmental Protection Agency April 1977
5 Clark. R M Small Water Systems Role of Technology
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division. ASCE.
'l()6(EEl). 1980 pp 19-35
6 Comptroller General of the United States Improved Federal
and State Programs Needed to Insure the Purity and Safety of
Drinking Water in the United States Report to the Congress
No B166506, 1977
7 Banks. H O Reclaimed Water in the Marketplace In
Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium AWWA
Research Foundation, Denver. Colorado, July 1979
8 Ernst and Ernst Interim Guidelines for Economic and
Financial Analyses of Water Reclamation Projects Prepared
for Office of Water Recycling. State (California) Water
Resources Control Board. February 1970
9 Lussier, D andj Brank EPA's Innovative and Alternative
Technology Program Pollution Engineering. November 1979
pp 33-36
10 Schmidt. C J and E V Clements, III (SCS Engineers)
Demonstrated Technology and Research Needs for Reuse
of Municipal Wastewater'EPA-670/2-75-038. U S
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975
11 AWWA Research Foundation Irvine Ranch Water
District—Total Water Management System Municipal
Wastewater Reuse News No 1 April 1978. pp 13-23
12 Olson, H L Designing Water Transmission Mams for the
Most Effective Velocity Public Works, October 1976
pp 82-84
13 Deb, A K , Principal Investigator Dual Water Supply
Seminar & Workshop, Weston Environmental
Consultants-Designers Supported by the National
Science Foundation, Washington, D C , October 1978
14 AWWA Research Foundation Dual Distribution System in
St Petersburg. Florida Is Operational Municipal Wastewater
Reuse News No 5 February 1978 pp 13-23
15 Reid, F and H Stone Hazen-Williams Pipe Flow Charts
(English/ Metric Units) Water and Sewage Works, April
1977 p 51
Therefore, unit costs are $746,000/1,825 mg, or
$410 per million gallons.
65
-------
The Legal and Institutional Issues
4
In simplest terms, the legal and institutional issues
are the issues that tell you what you may and may
not do and, in the case of the former, how you must
doit.
Any reuse program operates within a framework
of regulations, enabling powers, and financing
constraints that must be addressed in the earliest
stages of planning. Study of these legal and institu-
tional issues could help you to uncover program
funding sources you hadn't been aware of, or to
identify the best operating structure for your water-
reuse program. You might find that local regulations
or state laws constrain or preclude efforts at water
reuse, or you might find that changes in local policy
or state legislation are necessary to permit or pro-
mote reuse. For example, in Contra Costa County,
California, an ordinance was enacted to state that
potable water could not be utilized for certain uses if
reclaimed water were available.' At the Irvine Ranch
Water District, industrial wastewater pretreatment
provisions were enacted to protect the quality of the
district's treatment-plant effluent.2
Most likely, unless you are in the western and
southwestern portions of the country where most
existing water-reuse programs are being operated,
you will be hard-pressed to perceive any comprehen-
sive, coherent approach to water reuse in your state.
You will likely discover that many agencies recognize
that they should have some responsibility relating to
water reuse but that they are unsure of exactly what
is their authority or responsibility.
This chapter provides an overview of the legal
and institutional issues. In it, we discuss:
• The legal issues associated with reuse;
• The organizations involved, the regulations pro-
mulgated by each, and the review procedures used
by each; and
• General steps that you should follow throughout
implementation of your reuse project.
The chapter provides a general approach to help
you identify all of the major issues associated with
water reuse. Specific parts of the approach might not
apply directly to issues in your state, but they should
still support an understanding of primary legal and
institutional issues. This chapter is not designed to
allow you to render judgments that your municipal
legal counsel should make; it is simply intended to
describe the type of issues with which you should be
concerned when assessing the feasibility of water
reuse.
Identifying Legal Issues
The legal issues warrant careful review. It is neces-
sary to check:
• State Statutes. This legislation will say what can
and cannot be done, what is to be regulated, and
who is to administer such legislation.
• Enabling Legislation. This legislation in particu-
lar will state what a municipal entity can do.
• Water Rights Law. This will allow you to deter-
mine what your legitimate claim is upon the water
you intend to use.
• Franchise Rights. This will indicate whether some
other entities have the exclusive authority to
provide water for public use.
• Case Law. The court decisions relating to the
development of municipal water supply will allow
you to understand the courts' interpretation of any
especially controversial laws, including interpreta-
tions of legal liability.
66
-------
CASE STUDY:
Contra Costa County:
Institutional Issues in California
It took Contra Costa County about ten years to
resolve all of the institutional issues associated with
water reclamation and reuse there. Facilities now are
essentially complete, and a number of local industries
will soon be using reclaimed water for cooling pur-
poses (Figure 4-1).
The project's two prime participants, the Sanitary
District and Water District, initiated the project in the
late 1960s, based on mutual need. The Sanitary District
faced new regulatory requirements for expanded and
RAW SEWAGE
PUMPING
_
FeCI3 *;
•* "
r!
FLOCCULATION-
PRE-AERATION
j
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
TANK
1
I
PRIMARY EFFLUENT
PUMPING
1
/
1
SLUDGE
RECYCLE
RECLAIMEC
LIME
,1 SOLIDS
"1 PROCESSING
1
STEAM
ASH TO
DISPOSAL
TURBINE
BLOWERS
WASTE SLUDGE
TO RAW SEWAGE
WASTE SLUDGE
TO RAW SEWAGE
RECLAIMED WATER
TO INDUSTRY
Figure 4-1. In Contra Costa County, the water-reuse
program is a joint venture between the county's water and
sanitation districts. The Sanitation District provides the Water
District with an oxidized, filtered and disinfected water
product (as shown above); the Water District treats the water
additionally by sodium ion exchange before delivering it to
industrial users. (Source: Industrial Reuse Complex at
Concord, California, Water Reuse Highlights, AWWA Re-
search Foundation, Denver, Colorado, January 1978.119 pp.)
upgraded wastewater-treatment facilities. The Water
District found that the projected increase in demand
for potable water—a large portion of the increase due
to industrial use—would force development of new
supplies and transmission facilities.
A feasibility study completed in 1969 contained the
recommendation that the two Districts agree to carry
out further studies on water reclamation, which had
been found to be technically feasible. Other technical
evaluations, completed concurrently, showed various
pollution-control alternatives all to be very capital-
intensive. In December of 1969, the Districts executed
a Memorandum of Understanding in which each
stated its explicit interest in reclamation and agreed
upon a six-phase program towards implementation.
The Memorandum represented the first tangible
evidence that the Districts shared a common
interest and level of cooperation in realizing reuse
in Contra Costa.
During the next two years, reuse gained new
impetus from federal and state agencies. Pilot-testing
was funded by a research-and-demonstration grant
from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion (now EPA). The California Water Resources
Control Board, jn reviewing the Sanitary District's
precertification report for WWTP improvements,
insisted that more attention be given to reclamation
and that the Water and Sanitary Districts negotiate a
contractual agreement toward this end. Initially, the
district boards stated their intent to negotiate, in order
to keep the project alive; ultimately, and by unani-
mous votes, the boards adopted a negotiated con-
tract. Three major problems remained:
• Funding. The Sanitary District obtained federal
support through an amendment to the Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 that
rendered the proposed project grant-eligible. The
Water District adopted a pay-as-you-go approach,
funding its capital requirements by increasing its
water rates.
• Quantities. The State Board wanted the contract to
stipulate what actual quantity of water would be
reclaimed. The Sanitary District, too, wanted a
minimum purchase commitment from the Water
District, in order to cover the local share of con-
struction. The Water District wanted to purchase
only as much water as it could sell. The issue was
resolved by identifying in the contract the
reclaimed-water users and the amounts each
would require.
67
-------
• Bureau of Reclamation. The Water District had
contracted with the federal Bureau of Reclamation
for purchase of water, and the local Bureau office
wanted to hold the District to the commitment
(a requirement that would have made the reuse
project too costly). This problem, potentially the
most serious of the three, was resolved by involving
Bureau headquarters personnel in Washington, D.C.
in the initial negotiations, thus gaining their support
for the recl'amation/reuse concept.
The potential industrial users showed considerable
reluctance, at first, to commit to use of reclaimed
water, particularly at the anticipated price and with
the amount of additional treatment that would still be
necessary. In addition, industry was concerned about
discharge requirements for its waste cooling water.
These issues were resolved by ordinance. The Water
District stated that if reclaimed water were available
for cooling purposes, canal water would not be sold
for that purpose. The District also stated its intent to
reflect in its use charge any costs assumed by the
reusers for additional treatment of the reclaimed
water. The bulk of reclaimed-water costs, however,
will be spread among all water users in the district, as
reclamation is seen to support a more general good.
With reclamation, development of a new water
source is not necessary. And the reclamation project
is, after all, significantly less costly than developing the
new transmission facilities that had been thought
necessary in 1969.
STATE STATUTES
You should begin by checking the legislation relating
to environmental and utility regulation for the state
in which you are located; your municipal legal
counsel will either possess or have ready access to a
copy of the state statutes. New legislation at the state
level can affect reuse opportunities. For example, it is
expected that stringent water-quality monitoring
requirements will be mandated by the State of
California as reuse applications continue to expand
in that state. Thus, as new legislation is enacted, it
should be carefully studied.
Thorough understanding of state statutes will
help you to avoid situations of tort liability, also.
Most states have well-defined liability laws relating
to defects in design and manufacture of products.
Legal precedents exist for considering distributed
potable water a product that is subject to these
laws.3 The municipal official planning to implement
a program of water reuse must take direction, in
assuring safety and reliability in the reclaimed-water
system, from these liability laws. As noted in Chap-
ter 2, the few state regulations that exist pertaining
to quality, distribution and use of reclaimed water
can serve only as a guide to minimum standards
your program should meet. The potential for liabil-
ity in case of system inadequacy or failure should
prompt you to go well beyond the minimum.
Zeitzew has listed a number of steps that a
municipal official should expect to take in imple-
menting a reuse program.3 These include developing
an informed awareness of hazards that can accom-
pany use of reclaimed water (Chapter 2), carrying of
adequate liability insurance, selection of highly
qualified design and operations personnel, careful
monitoring of water quality—including monitoring
of known hazardous substances not yet regulated by
state statute, and development and maintenance of
contingency plans and emergency backup proce-
dures to assure system reliability.
Try to determine what is regulated or facilitated
by the law, by whom, and how. The state statutes
deserve careful review, but less effort need be devoted
to federal legislation. The federal agencies' methods
of regulation can easily be determined as you estab-
lish contact with those agencies.
ENABLING LEGISLATION
Enabling legislation will be found bound in the
state statutes (just as are all the appropriate
environmental laws) or within your own municipal
code.
Allowable Operating Structures. You =hould
survey the law to determine what are the hest
municipal organizations under which to operate a
reclamation and reuse program. For example, even
if the municipal wastewater-treatment service is
permitted by law to distribute reclaimed water, it
might make more sense to organize a reuse system
under the water-supply agency or under a regional
authority (assuming that such an authority can be
established under the law). A regional authority
could operate more effectively across municipal
boundaries and could obtain distinct economies-of-
scale in operation and financing advantages.4 To
form an authority, it might be possible to establish
a new public entity under existing legislation, or it
might be necessary to enact new legislation.
68
-------
Your survey of enabling legislation should also
determine if there are other incorporated entities
that are allowed to distribute water; you might be
able to anticipate possible conflicts among compet-
ing entities.
Financing Powers. In addition, you should make
note of all the financing constraints that apply to
each entity, yours as well as any other possible
organization under which to operate. For example:
Can it assume bonded indebtedness? What kinds
of debt? To what limits? How must the debt be
retired? How must the costs of operating the
water-reclamation facility be recovered? What
restrictions are there on cost-recovery methods?
What kinds of accounting practices are imposed
upon the entity?
Contracting Power. Finally, you should determine
if there are any constraints on how and with whom
you can contract for services. For example, can you
now contract with other municipalities? Could
you, under another operating structure? Are there
severe political constraints—for example, do you
need city-council approval, or can you operate
quite independently of the municipal government?
Can you participate in activities for profit, or is
your responsibility strictly to provide services at
cost?
In general, you should review the enabling
legislation to see what you are able to do and what
other governmental entities are allowed to do. This
will help you to determine the most effective
framework under which to provide reuse services.
Examples of Operating Structures. Obviously,
many different types of institutional structures can
exist. For example, the Irvine Ranch Water Dis-
trict in California is a self-contained entity. Under
its original enabling legislation, it was strictly a
water-supply entity, but in 1965 the state law was
amended to assign it sanitation responsibilities
within its service area (Figure 4-2). Thus, the
District is in a good position to deal directly, as one
entity, with potential users of reclaimed water, as
well as to provide conventional potable-water and
wastewater services.2
Where separate municipal services exist for
water supply and wastewater, the water-supply
entity has to deal first with the wastewater service
before procuring reclaimed water-users. In Contra
Costa County in California, this was the case. A
reuse project was established as a joint venture
between the County's water and sanitation dis-
tricts. The Water District purchases reclaimed
water from the Sanitation District and then treats
and redistributes it to its users.5
In Los Angeles, the institutional arrangement
is one step more complex There, the Pomona
Water Reclamation Plant is operated by the Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD)
LACSD sells reclaimed water to purveyors, includ-
ing the municipal Pomona Water Department,
which then resells it to a number of reusers.6
Conclusions. Existing or new enabling legislation
can serve as the basis for any institutional arrange-
ment that is constitutional. In general, the simpler
the structure, the better. The Irvine Ranch Water
District approach is preferred, even though it
' required new legislation to establish its combined
responsibility. In Contra Costa, hurdles posed by
having dual water and wastewater agencies were
overcome contractually. (Even in this case, new
legislation was required. Each district's board of
directors adopted resolutions indicating their
intent to work jointly.5)
Figure 4-2. Irrigation of common residential areas at Irvine
Ranch Water District in California. Amendment of state law
in 1965 enabled the District to operate as a self-contained
water-supply/sanitation entity within its service area. This
approach can simplify implementation of a water-reuse
program.
69
-------
WATER RIGHTS
Water rights are an especially important issue. The
water rights system can actually promote reuse
measures, or it can pose an obstacle to reuse
Water Rights Supporting Reuse. In the West,
many users of reclaimed water have found it simpler
to obtain and use reclaimed water than to obtain
appropriated water from the state's water rights
board—particularly since the freshwater appropria-
tion would be designated a low-priority right and
would be withdrawn in times of water shortages. In
Odessa, Texas, the El Paso Products Company
chose to purchase reclaimed water for cooling water
and boiler make-up water because the reclaimed
water is a more reliable source than the public or
private water supply.7
A similar situation exists in Gillette, Wyoming,
where the Wyodak Power Plant is utilizing reclaimed
water as the primary source of water for all purposes
except domestic supply. The power plant is innova-
tive in itself; it is the world's largest air-cooled power
plant. When the power company determined that it
was uncertain whether the availability of surface-
water sources could be relied on, it resorted to use of
reclaimed water as an assured source of water.8
Water Rights as an Obstacle to Reuse. Water
rights issues can constrain reclamation/reuse pro-
jects, because the law may impose on any water user
certain requirements pertaining to the use and
return of that water. It is true that few examples can
be cited in which water rights issues actually pre-
cluded an otherwise viable project Nevertheless, the
issues effectively blocked, in Solano County, Califor-
nia, what would have been one of the largest recla-
mation/reuse projects yet attempted in this country.
Unable to contract for new sources of freshwater, in
1975 the County began investigating the possibility
of purchasing some 150,000 acre-feet per year of
"advanced-secondary" effluent from a regional
treatment plant scheduled for completion in 1981;
the County planned to use the water for irrigation of
35,000 acres of farmland. Planning on the project
moved ahead sporadically, but the problem of water
rights surfaced as a significant obstacle: according to
the state, most of the effluent rightfully "belonged"
to the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta, and signifi-
cant environmental harm—increased saltwater
intrusion from San Francisco Bay—would result if
this water were removed from Delta flows for reuse
purposes. In 1979, the State Water Resources Con-
trol Board halted project funding.
In other cases, it is possible that municipalities
would lose a portion of their water rights if they
decreased their water consumption. In some states,
however, this problem is being remedied. For exam-
ple, legislation has been proposed in California to
provide that whenever water use decreases under an
existing appropriation because use of reclaimed
water has been substituted, the original water
appropriation will not be lost.
Understanding Water Rights. Two general guide-
lines are offered. Expect water rights to be an issue if
you are in a water-poor area and/or if the reclaimed
water will be utilized in a consumptive fashion.
These, ironically, are both conditions under which
water reuse would be most attractive.
A water right is a right to use water. It should not
be interpreted as a right of ownership. A "water
right" allows you to divert and utilize a portion of the
water; that right is accompanied, however, by the
obligation to return the water in a manner that does
not adversely affect others who also have a right to
that water The most basic doctrine in water-rights
law is that you cannot render harm upon others who
might have claim to the water.
There are two main systems of water rights—the
appropriative doctrine and the riparian doctrine.
The appropriative rights system is found in most
western states and in areas that are water-poor
(California has both appropriative and riparian
rights). It is a system by which the right to use water
is appropriated—that is, it is assigned or delegated
to the consumer. The basic notion is: first in time,
first in right. In other words, the right derives from
prior use. If you were using the water first, you have
the most senior claim to that water. The senior users
have a continued right to the water, and a junior user
generally cannot diminish the quantity or quality of
the water to them. Generally, appropriative water
rights are acquired pursuant to statutory law; thus,
typically, there are comprehensive water codes which
govern the acquisition and control of the water
rights.
70
-------
CASE STUDY:
Water Rights Problems
Turned to Opportunities
Resolving the water-rights issue proved to be the most
difficult aspect of water-reuse planning in the City of
Sterling, Colorado. And the city's proposed solution
takes advantage of water rights to provide a substan-
tial projected return-on-investment over the life of its
reuse system.
New secondary treatment facilities planned for
Sterling include a 4-mgd system of aerated lagoons
and tertiary sand filters. Looking into possibilities for
reuse of the "30/30" effluent, the city's consultants
found no major legal, environmental or administrative
obstacle to any of five basic system alternatives that
included:
• Discharge to the South Platte River;
• Agricultural reuse with pivot sprinklers;
• Agricultural reuse by supply to existing irrigation
ditch companies;
• Reuse for wildlife-habitat enhancement by the
Colorado Division of Wildlife; and
• Groundwater recharge and recovery.
From a water-rights point of view, however, the
problem with most of the 18 specific alternatives
explored was that they represented consumptive uses.
They would return substantially less water to the river
than had been withdrawn. Because this would harm
the interests of downstream irrigation users during the
irrigation season, the city would have to purchase
additional water rights, driving up the costs of these
alternatives. The high costs for consumptive reuse
could not be offset, the city found, by the crop reve-
nues that would be obtained in agricultural reuse.
As a solution, the city and state have accepted a
plan that will have filtered effluent discharged to the
South Platte River during the irrigation season and will
use the filtered effluent for groundwater recharge
during the non-irrigation season (Figure 4-3). The
recharge area has been sited, with the cooperation of
the state, so that the normal underground return flow
to the South Platte River will peak near midsummer of
the year following recharge. The return flow, then,
can be calculated as a water credit (additional water
right) of approximately 1,000-acre-feet to the city of
Sterling. The "new" water rights (that is, the right to
additional water drawn upstream from the South
Platte River) can either be sold, leased or used directly
by the city for domestic well augmentation.
Should future water-quality standards for the river
demand more stringent treatment, the city can
discharge year-round to the recharge site without
having to construct additional facilities.
Source: WindoTph, G.R. and T.J Carlson, Effluent Reuse in a
Semi-Arid Region of the U S. In Proceedings of the Water Reuse
Symposium, Vol. 2 AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado,
1979. pp 1175-1189
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
CITY Of STERLING
AERATED LAGOON
1
SAND FILTERS
_T>i
v^ —
NON-IRRIGATION SEASON REUSE LINE
X,
NATURAL GROUNDWATER
AND PUMP STATION
1PRE-TREATMENT) ,
PUMPSTATIO
Figure 4-3. Schematic diagram of wastewater disposal and reuse plan recommended for City of Sterling, Colorado
(figure courtesy of ARIX Corporation).
The riparian water-rights system is found pri-
marily in the east and in the water-abundant areas.
The right is based on one's proximity to water; if you
border on a watercourse, you have the riparian right
to the reasonable use of that water. However, as a
riparian user, you cannot make any use of the water
that substantially depletes the streamflow or that
significantly degrades the quality of it. You can use
the water only for a legal and beneficial use. The
right of one riparian owner is generally correlative
with the rights of the other riparian owners. Water
used under a riparian right can be used only on the
riparian land. Generally, the riparian rights system is
judicially enforced. Thus, there are generally few
procedural problems created in the statutes. Instead,
for careful interpretation of riparian rights issue, look
to case law decisions.
71
-------
Summary of Major Water Rights Issues. The
impact of the water rights issue on a program of
water reuse can be profound. If it seems to be a
major concern, you should consult professional legal
advice. We offer the following generalizations:
• Injury to others: If your water-reuse program
could substantially reduce flows in a local water-
course, you can expect problems associated with
water rights.
• Water sources: Water-rights law for streams and
rivers is relatively clear and well-defined, but is less
so for other surface-water sources and even less so
for groundwater. You should obtain proper legal
advice if contemplating a program that will affect
groundwater.
• Reducing withdrawals: A water-reuse program
that reduces withdrawals from your water supply
will probably pose no conflict with water-rights
issues.
• Reducing discharge: Some uses of reclaimed
water can reduce or eliminate the discharge of
water to the watercourse from which freshwater is
withdrawn. Examples of such uses include eva-
porative cooling, infiltration/percolation through
irrigation, or diversion to a different stream or
watershed. Multiple use of water is generally
acceptable under the law, but reducing water-
course flows through reuse is usually not accept-
able Therefore, although a discharger of
wastewater-treatment plant effluent is not gener-
ally bound by statute to continue the discharge,
withdrawal for reuse could face legal challenge and
could result in serious economic and environmen-
tal losses downstream
• Changes in point-of-discharge or place-of-use:
In appropriative states, the statutes might contain
laws designed to protect the area of the origin of
the water, to limit the places of use, or to require
the same point of discharge. In riparian states, the
place of use can be an issue potential users located
outside the watershed from which the water was
originally drawn (or, for that matter, outside the
jurisdiction abutting the watercourse) might have
no claim to the water
• Hierarchy of use: Presumably, with water reuse,
the "reasonable-use" issue would not arise; it
should be arguable that recycling water is for a
good use, particularly if such recycling is economi-
cally justified Nevertheless, a hierarchy of use still
exists in both riparian and appropriative law. In
times of water shortage, it is possible that a more
important use could make claim to reclaimed
water that, for example, is being used for industrial
process water
• Indian water rights: In the West, a particularly
sensitive issue is that of the water rights of Indian
reservations. Although there have been many
decisions relating to Indian water rights, there is
still a great deal of uncertainty as to how those
decisions should be interpreted. If you anticipate
any potential conflict with Indian water rights, you
should obtain a very careful legal interpretation.
FRANCHISE LAW
A franchise is a special right or license granted to an
individual or corporation to market goods or services
in a particular area. Exclusive franchises are often
granted when economies-of-scale do not warrant
competition, such as in the right of public and
private electric utilities to provide electric service to
their exclusive franchise areas. The problem as it
could apply to water reuse is that you might be
attempting to do something that is exclusively the
right of some other entity to perform. Some other
water-supplying entity might have the exclusive right
to sell water in its service area. A municipal waste-
water-treatment agency attempting to institute reuse
in an area receiving water service from a private
water-supply corporation could find itself in direct
conflict with the corporation's right to be the exclu-
sive provider of water. The agency could be sued for
lost revenues, or, more likely, be required to negotiate
a settlement for damages.
The scope of such franchise rights, like that of
water rights, varies from state to state. In each case,
the potential infringement upon franchise rights
should be carefully considered. From a practical
standpoint, franchise rights will probably not pose a
particularly difficult barrier. Cases are known in
which payment for damages (lost revenues) has been
necessitated under franchise rights, but none known
in which franchise rights issues have killed a pro-
posed project. Since wastewater reuse is most likely
to prove economically attractive in water-short
regions, it can be assumed that franchise rights
issues will be resolved quite easily.
CASE LAW
The final legal issue to cover is that of case law. It
warrants little more in this document other than a
statement that it should be assessed carefully where
potential conflicts might exist or where previous
conflicts have been resolved in the courts. Most
likely, your general review of the statutes should
enable you to recognize if there are some especially
subtle issues that might have been interpreted in the
courts. If so, then a review of the appropriate case
law is warranted. Doing so would be an assignment
for a legal professional.
72
-------
Regulatory Agencies
From your review of legal issues, you will be able to
determine what organizations might be involved in
water reuse and what pertinent regulations are
promulgated by them. For example, a law that calls
for the control of activities in all streams above a
specified flow (the flow parameters that define Corps
of Engineers' responsibilities for streams under
Section 404 of PL 92-500) will also identify the
agency that is to administer the law and how that
agency is to promulgate related rules and regula-
tions. You will be concerned primarily with agencies
at the federal, state and local level responsible for
regulating the natural environment, allocating water
resources, and protecting the public health. The
regulations promulgated by such agencies are likely
to define how reclaimed water can be used (for
example, the Department of Agriculture and its
requirements relating to irrigation water) and to
cover general water-quality issues (under the man-
date of the State Department of Water Pollution
Control or the State Board of Health), people con-
tact (under the auspices of the local and state health
departments), or the "media" in which this could all
occur (for example, streams or navigable waters
regulated by the Corps of Engineers).
The review procedures are important because
they help determine how to get something done.
Even though your intended use for reclaimed water
might be in compliance with environmental regula-
tions, you still might have to go through lengthy
review procedures and public hearings. Some of the
reviews might be initiated on the local level. For
example, many states and municipalities have
enacted local versions of NEPA and, thus, have
required comprehensive reviews of sizable projects.
IDENTIFYING THE ORGANIZATIONS
AND THEIR REGULATIONS
As early as possible in your assessment of reuse
potential, you should survey and establish contact
with a number of agencies that have possible involve-
ment in water reuse. You should not be surprised,
however, if you find that the role of these agencies in
water reuse is not well-defined. In California, a well-
structured responsibility for water reuse rests with
the Office of Water Recycling (OWR) in the State
Water Resources Control Board. OWR's purpose is
to promote the reclamation and recycling of waste-
water in California; it is responsible for statewide
coordination of reclamation activities and is working
with other state and local agencies to resolve prob-
lems preventing the increased use of reclaimed
water. Few other states have specified responsibility
for reuse.
The intent of the survey is to identify as soon as
possible the appropriate administering agency and
regulations relating to:
• Public health;
• Water quality standards;
• State reclamation policy and/or reclamation
requirements;
• Water ownership issues;
• Potential funding sources; and
• Permit requirements and review procedures.
In general, your state's water pollution control
agency or equivalent thereof will have the best
information on which of the above agencies are
responsible for reuse issues in your state. A general
list of agencies and their respective interests is pre-
sented below:
Local:
• Regional Water Quality Control Board—for
effluent-quality standards, permitting require-
ments and procedures, regulatory review
procedures;
• Department of Public Health—for effluent-quality
standards, restrictions on reuse applications;
• Regional River Basin Commission, Water
Management District, Water Compact Board,
and/or Irrigation District—for guidelines on
water-ownership issues, restrictions on reuse
applications, clarification as to the jurisdiction of
such agencies over water as well as the media in
which the water is found; and
• A-95 Review Agency—for review requirements
(federal Office of Management and Budget Circu-
lar A-95 requires that a regional agency, acting as a
designated "clearinghouse," review proposed
projects of regional impact if federal financial
support is involved).
In many states, there are no local water-quality
control boards or local agencies that administer
water rights and allocations; in such cases, the
municipality should refer its inquiry to the state
agency level for information. In addition, if no
federal funds are involved, A-95 review can be
avoided altogether.
73
-------
State:
• State Water Quality Control Board—for effluent
quality standards, permitting requirements and
procedures, regulatory review procedures;
• State Department of Public Health—for effluent-
quality standards, restrictions on reuse
applications;
• State Water Resource Departments, Water Com-
pact Board—for guidelines on water-ownership
issues, restrictions on reuse applications; clarifica-
tion as to the jurisdiction of such agencies; and
• State EPAs—for review requirements and proce-
dures in compliance with state-level environmental
policy acts (comparable to the National Environ-
mental Protection Act (NEPA)).
While the title of the agency may change from
state to state, the purpose is the same. The state
water-quality control agency has the primary
responsibility for controlling and protecting the
quality of waters in the state and usually for
administering water rights.
Many states have not established regulations for
wastewater reclamation and reuse. In a 1978 survey
of State Health Departments conducted as part of a
National Science Foundation study, only seven of 37
states responding were found to have some form of
regulations involving the use of reclaimed water,
primarily related to irrigation uses.9 These states
were California, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Utah. Since that
survey, several other states have issued regulations
or are developing guidelines.
Obviously, requesting information from a state
water-quality control agency might not generate
information on regulations governing water reuse
(although it is still the best place to start). A munici-
pality should then pursue the request with any
agencies comparable to, or with responsibilities
similar to, those agencies itemized here In some
states, a multi-agency hierarchy is likely to be found;
in other states, such as those in the Northeast, there
may be very little direct reference to water-reuse
issues. Thus, it will be incumbent upon the munici-
pality to assemble its own understanding of "State
Water Reuse Procedures," likely to consist of water-
quality effluent standards, health codes and regula-
tions, and environmental impact review procedures.
If you consider your proposed project a viable one,
but find yourself constrained by the lack of regula-
tory guidelines, you should be prepared to take an
advocacy position on reclamation and reuse
standards, to "educate" the appropriate regulatory
agencies as to regulations and standards pro-
mulgated in other states, and to encourage the
regulatory agencies to accept the standards with
which you intend to comply. The city of St. Peters-
burg, Florida, faced with a lack of state water-
quality guidelines for use of reclaimed water, set its
own standards, based primarily on what quality it
knew it could assure. In addition, in the absence of
any monitoring requirements, the city established,
and had accepted by the State Department of
Environmental Regulation, a groundwater-
monitoring program.
You should also note that some states are begin-
ning to take the advocacy position by requiring
that reuse be considered in new water-source
development as a criterion to state grant assist-
ance. Proposed legislation in California will call
upon the State Water Resources Control Board, in
its review of new or altered water-rights requests,
to require that reuse be employed to the greatest
possible extent. Related to this is the case of the
Castroville Project sponsored by the Monterey
Peninsula Water Pollution Control Agency, which
is utilizing reclaimed water for irrigation purposes.
The project was developed because the State
Water Resources Control Board objected to an
application for a federal small project loan on the
grounds that reclaimed water had not been consid-
ered as a source of water.10
Finally, one regulatory problem which you will
probably confront is that of the eventual discharge
of the reclaimed water if it is discharged as a point
source It is likely that the reusers will have to
acquire discharge permits and will have to provide
significant treatment to the water. As reported in
Demonstrated Technology and Research Needs, industries
have resorted to evaporation or deep-well injection
for disposal or have simply proved to the water-
quality agencies that the total amount of pollutants
discharged is less than what would have been
contained in treatment-plant effluent.11
-------
Federal:
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—for
effluent quality standards, assistance in conjunc-
tion with developing wastewater treatment facili-
ties;
• Water and Power Resources Service—for guide-
lines on potential reuse applications;
• Department of Agriculture—for restrictions as
to the quality of effluent that can be applied to
arable land; and
• US. Army Corps of Engineers—for permitting
requirements should the reuse application affect
navigable waters (via withdrawing from or dis-
charging to such waters) and wetlands.
As with some state agencies, the federal govern-
ment is beginning to assume an advocacy role in
water reuse. EPA is now requiring that water conser-
vation and reuse be considered in wastewater facility
planning as a prerequisite to federal funding. Con-
gress had mandated EPA to encourage water reuse
by enacting provisions offering financial incentives
for reuse and requiring that reuse be considered as
part of facility planning.12
THE REVIEW PROCEDURES
A variety of formal reviews is required in order to
implement some programs of water reuse—for the
initiation of a capital project, for the approval of a
bond issue, for review of an environmental impact
assessment, etc These review procedures, if lengthy,
can delay implementation of your project. By identi-
fying them as early as possible, you can incorporate
them realistically into your overall schedule.
As you contact different agencies responsible for
regulating water reuse, ask their representatives to
describe their review and procedural requirements.
Involve such agencies in your planning from an early
stage, as their familiarity with your proposed pro-
gram will work to its advantage. Of particular
interest should be the environmental and funding
review periods and procedures, and public hearing
requirements.
If there should develop any organized opposition
to your reuse project, your project will be most
vulnerable in the area of noncompliance with
administrative and statutory requirements. Early
review of applicable law, initial contacts with respon-
sible agencies, and knowledge of the review proce-
dures to follow will strengthen your plan's chances
for implementation.
Guidelines for Implementation
Based on your preliminary understanding of the
legal and institutional issues, you can take specific
steps in your reuse planning to address these issues.
Maintain Contact with the Agencies. Throughout
development of the reuse project, you should contin-
ually monitor the reactions of the federal, state and
local agencies involved. The intent is to maintain
such agencies' understanding of what you have in
mind, and to keep them informed of what you expect
from them, particularly if that includes certain
permit reviews or the enactment of new legislation.
Regulatory agencies are generally unable to
provide any solid endorsement of a program before
its actual proposal or permit application is submit-
ted In advance of your submittal, however, you
should try to know what their anticipated reaction
will be. You must continually acquire their tacit
approval of your program, so that regulatory review
does not become a critical stumbling block in the
implementation stage of the project.
Develop a Realistic Schedule. By developing a
comprehensive implementation schedule, you can
anticipate any lengthy review procedures, the time
needed to enact any required legislation, and the
timing of any public hearings that must be held. It is
especially important to identify any permit review
procedures and whether they are able to occur
concurrently or must occur consecutively, and in
what order.
Assess Cash Flow Needs. Develop an accurate
assessment of your cash flow needs so that you can
anticipate your funding requirements, formulate
contract provisions, and devise cost-recovery tech-
niques, as you develop a more complete understand-
ing of what your reuse program will entail.
Consider Institutional Structures. Consider in
detail the alternative institutional structures under
which you could purvey reclaimed water. You should
carefully examine the advantages and disadvantages
of each, particularly as relating to the financial
aspects of the reuse project. You should identify as
early as possible any legislative changes that might
be required to allow you to create the necessary
institutions, and the level of government at which the
legislation must be enacted And, when appropriate,
you should move to establish the institutional struc-
ture under which you wish to operate, if any change
is required.
75
-------
CASE STUDY:
Industrial Reuse: Who Should Own
and Operate the Facilities?
Three current examples of industrial use of reclaimed
water illustrate some forms of ownership/operation
that can be structured into a reuse plan.
Municipal Ownership/Operation. Colorado Springs,
Colorado, has reclaimed a portion of its wastewater
since 1960. The application is unique in that the city
operates two separate AWT facilities to serve different
reuse needs. Both facilities are located at the city's
secondary wastewater-treatment facility, which
employs trickling filters. One AWT process train
consists of dual-media filtration, chlorination and
storage of the secondary effluent. Reclaimed water
from this train is piped through a distribution system
to irrigate city parks, a golf course, a cemetery, an
industrial area, and grounds of the Colorado College.
The second AWT process train consists of lime
coagulation and settling, recarbonation, dual-media
pressure filtration, activated-carbon adsorption,
chlorination and storage. This water is piped two miles
to the municipal power plant for use as cooling-tower
make-up water.
User Ownership/Operation. Reclaimed water from
the Clark County, Nevada wastewater-treatment
facility, located in Las Vegas, is utilized for both irriga-
tion and cooling-tower make-up water. At this instal-
lation, unlike Colorado Springs, the user accepts
secondary effluent and is responsible for pumping it
from the Clark County facility. Part of this water is
subsequently used to irrigate two golf courses and
agricultural acreage. Water is also pumped to two
Nevada Power Company facilities, each of which
provides lime treatment, chlorination and storage,
prior to use at each of two power-generating stations.
Joint Ownership/Operation. In some cases, the AWT
processes may be split between effluent supplier and
user. In Contra Costa County, California, the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) is responsible
for much of the wastewater-treatment and -disposal
function in the country's industrial areas. Most of the
major oil and chemical companies in the area pur-
chase water from the Contra Costa County Water
District (CCCWD). In 1972, the Sanitary and Water
Districts signed a contract providing for sale of the
Sanitary District's effluent to the Water District for
further treatment and resale to six industrial users. The
Sanitary District provides secondary treatment and
filtration of 15 to 30 mgd, with delivery to a clearwell
operated by the Water District. The Water District is
operating an ion-exchange softening facility and a
storage and distribution system to supply industries
with 15 mgd for cooling tower users. The project is
designed to meet an ultimate 30-mgd demand for
various industrial uses. Industries currently served
include the Shell and Lion Oil Companies, Stauffer
and Monsanto Chemical Companies, and two Pacific
Gas and Electric Company installations.
Prepare Application Documents. At some point,
you will prepare the final documents required to
support your intended project: funding applications,
permit and review procedure applications, bond
prospectus, letters of intent, etc. You should carefully
anticipate the time requirements of such reviews. For
example, even in especially successful cases, such as
Contra Costa, it required several years to overcome
the institutional hurdles involved.
Prepare Legal Contracts. Finally, you must prepare
your draft contracts. In doing so, there is a variety of
issues that should be dealt with. Provisions relating
to quality and quantity are obviously essential. You
must also specify the range in which each can fluc-
tuate, and the remedies, should the quantity or
quality go outside that range. Some statement
should be made if one party is required to provide
storage facilities or if the reuser may occasionally
have to look to alternative sources of water. There
must be an explicit statement as to how the reuser
will pay for the recycled water, and to what extent,
and for what reasons he is responsible and liable for
costs. Both parties must be protected explicitly in
case either party defaults, either by bankruptcy or by
the inability to comply with the commitments of the
agreement. The monitoring responsibility must be
specified, especially if the recycled water is being
utilized for irrigation purposes and a monitoring
program is required.
The discharge-permit responsibility must also be
specified. If the recycled water is being used for once-
through cooling purposes (and, in some cases, for
blowdown), the discharge of that cooling water will
require a NPDES permit. The responsibility of
acquisition and compliance with the NPDES permit
must be explicit.
76
-------
General compliance with environmental regula-
tions must be assigned to each party. For example,
if the crops grown are not to be utilized for human
consumption, it is appropriate to assign the responsi-
bility of compliance with such regulation to the
reuser.
Finally, the ownership and maintenance of the
facilities must be stated, particularly for the trans-
mission and distribution facilities of the recycled
water. The point at which the water conveyance
facilities become the property and responsibility of
the reuser must be explicitly stated. In the case
where the reuser is a private enterprise, that state-
ment should be reasonably straightforward. How-
ever, in the case where the reuser is another
municipal entity, it is especially important that each
party know its responsibility in the operations and
maintenance of the facilities.
References
1 Flett, D B Wastewater Reclamation for Industrial Use
Journal of the American Water Works Association—
Management. February 1975 pp 75-79.
2 Zero Wastewater Discharge IRWD's Continuing Goal
Water and Wastes Engineering, September 1978 pp. 35-37
3 Zeit/ew, H Legal Liability of Reclaimed Water System
Operators Under California's Products Liability Laws
Brown and Caldwell Pasadena, California, April 1979
(unpublished)
4 Okun, D A Principles for Water Quality Management
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE,
Vol 103, No EE6, December 1977 pp 1039-1055
5 Weddle, C L , D G Miles, and D B Flett The Central Contra
Costa County Water Reclamation Project In Complete
Water Reuse—Industry's Opportunity L K Cecil, ed
National Conference on Complete Water Reuse, sponsored
by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1973
pp 644-654
6 Pomona Water Reclamation Plant—Tour Highlights—
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Informational
Bulletin
7 Kirkpatrick, FW Jr and E F Smythe History and Possible
Future of Multiple Reuse of Sewage Effluent at the Odessa,
Texas Industrial Complex Chemical Engineering Progress
Svmposium Series—Water Reuse No. 78, Vol 63 1967
pp 201-209
8 Bvdalek, H . V Mussall and A H Seekamp Power Plant
Water Supply. Reuse and Treatment in an Arid Region
Proceedings of the National Conference on Environmental
Engineering Sponsored by the Environmental Engineering
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers Kansas City,
Missouri July 10-12, 1978 pp 341-348
9 Dual Water Supply Seminar & Workshop Supported by
the National Science Foundation Conducted by Weston
Environmental Consultants Designers Washington, D C ,
1978 pp 11-1 to 11-8
10 Formulation and Financing of Water Reuse Projects Edited
transcript of R P Robie's comments In Proceedings of the
Fourth Annual Conference of WATERCARE, Concord,
California, June 26-28, 1977 pp 109-119
11 Schmidt, C J , E V Clements III Demonstrated Technology
and Research Needs for Reuse of Municipal Wastewater
EPA-670/2-75-038 National Environmental Research and
Development, U S Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1975
!2 Municipal W'astewater Reuse News No 15 Water Reuse—A
New Emphasis for EPA AWWA Research Foundation,
Denver, Colorado, December 1978 pp 10-11
77
-------
Financing a Reuse Program
5
Using the preliminary economic analyses discussed
in Chapter 3, you can weigh the relative merits of
various reclamation and reuse alternatives, com-
paring the alternatives to each other and to the
status quo—the continued exclusive dependence on
freshwater for all water needs. Based on this pre-
liminary comparison and the more detailed cost/
benefit study that should follow as you move toward
implementation, you might be able to identify a
reuse alternative(s) that could generate a number of
economic benefits for your community. The purpose
of the financial analyses discussed in this chapter is
to determine how the community can best raise
money to pay for all costs of construction, operations-
and-maintenance (O&M), and debt service on the
selected project.
The significance of the financing problem is well-
defined in Interim Guidelines prepared for the Office of
Water Recycling, California State Water Resources
Control Board:1
" ..A project which generates a great many net
benefits to society may not ultimately be chosen
because sufficient capital is unavailable to construct
and operate the project or may cause financial
hardship on other agencies, such as fresh-water
purveyors...Financial feasibility analysis compares
the monetary costs of building and operating the
project with the funds generated from user fees,
standby fees, and funds from loans, bonds, govern-
ment grants, and contributions from developers and
new applicants for service."
In other words, although you may have identi-
fied some net economic benefits that contribute to
the attractiveness of the proposed reuse project
before it is actually built, you still must raise capital
to fund the construction activities and must generate
a stream of revenues to pay the operations-and-
maintenance costs and the debt-service costs of the
project. Moreover, and of equal importance, you
must work with prospective users to determine how
their costs for tying into and using the nonpotable
supply systems should be financed.
In this section, five sources of funds are dis-
cussed: the operating budget or the cash reserves of
the developer of the reuse facility, a tax levy or an
increase in existing use charges, federal and state
grant programs, municipal bond issues, and new use
charges for the reclaimed water.
Different reuse planners have approached the
basic funding issue in different ways. In Contra
Costa County in California, both the water and the
sanitary districts (the dual agencies that were pursu-
ing a reuse project) recognized that the project could
not proceed if the sanitary district did not receive
state and federal grants for funding of the project.
The difficulties were overcome, and Contra Costa
has become one of the most widely recognized reuse
projects in the country.2 In Mission Viejo, California,
on the other hand, the planned reuse project was
funded entirely with local funds. The Santa
Margarita Water District serving Mission Viejo
required in very expeditious order the services of a
new wastewater-treatment facility and the supply of
reclaimed water for irrigation purposes to supple-
ment its existing water supply. Thus, since the
project was economically justified, the facility was
built and funded by $22 million raised through the
sale of general obligation bonds and by an $8 million
contribution from a large local developer.
How to Begin
The most important prerequisite to determine how
to fund the reuse facility is to develop an accurate
statement of cash needs: for planning, design, and
construction activities, as well as for the operations-
and-maintenance and debt-service costs. In addition
to anticipating the costs, you should project the
stream of revenues that will be produced by the
particular project, either estimated on the basis of a
charge that is a certain percentage of the present
charge for potable water, or on the basis of contrac-
tual commitments made in advance of completion of
the plant, or on the basis of the use charge that is
expected to be imposed.
It is necessary to know the funding options that
are available, and to relate the particular activities of
implementing a reuse program to the most practical
means of funding each activity. For example:
78
-------
• Operating budget. Practically all activities asso-
ciated with the development of the reuse facilities
could be funded out of an existing wastewater-
treatment-plant operating budget (In some
instances, a water-supply agency seeking to
expand its water resources would find it appropri-
ate to apply a portion of its operating funds in a
similar way.) To do so would simply require that
funds be set aside for those purposes. In addition,
any reserve accounts could be utilized, if available.
• Tax levy or user charges. Similarly, practically all
activities could be funded through an ad valorem tax
levy, or through an increase in the present user
charge.
• Grants programs. Capital needs could be
obtained largely through federal and state grant
programs to fund reuse projects, particularly those
programs designed specifically to support reuse.
• Bond issues. The local share or (should the
project not be grant eligible) the total cost of
construction activities in the reuse project could
come from the sale of bonds.
• Use charges. Operations-and-maintenance
(O&M) and debt-service costs could be recovered
by imposing a use charge upon the users of the
reclaimed water.
These five sources of funds will be discussed in
greater detail in the following sections.
Operating Budget
and Cash Reserves
For funding of reuse planning and design functions,
and moderate capital improvements, you might first
look to the operating budget or to any reserve
amounts of cash. It is quite legitimate to utilize the
operating budget for planning activities or business
costs associated with assessing the reuse opportunity.
Furthermore, if cash reserves are accruing for unspe-
cified future capital projects, then you could utilize
those funds (or if you anticipate implementing a
reuse project in the future, you could begin now to
set aside a portion of your operating revenues in a
cash reserve). The obvious advantage of using this
type of source of cash is that the utility board or
ruling body of the wastewater treatment utility can
act on its own initiative to allocate the necessary
resources—there is no need to raise taxes or water
and/or sewer rates; the resources can be tapped at
the.utility's prerogative.
These sources are especially practical when you
anticipate only very limited expenditures to imple-
ment the reuse program, or when the reuse project
will provide a general benefit to the entire commu-
nity (as represented by the present customers of the
utility). In addition, utilizing such resources is
practical when your reuse project will distribute
reclaimed water at little or no cost to the users, and
therefore will generate no future stream of revenues
to repay the cost of the project.
Property Taxes, Special Assessments,
and Existing User Charges
If the resources available in the operating budget or
the cash reserves are not sufficient to cover the
necessary system activities and facilities, then the
next source of funds to look to is revenues generated
by increasing existing levies or charges. If you are
funding activities now with property taxes or special
assessments, you could increase those levies and
designate the revenues for expenses associated with
the reuse project. Similarly, you could increase the
use charge presently paid for water and sewer
services. As with the use of the operating budget or
cash reserves, the use of property taxes, special
assessments or use charges is legitimate if the expen-
ditures for the project are not anticipated to be
sizable or if a general benefit accrues to the entire
community (or special assessment district).
Property taxes and special assessments are
intended to tax proportionately all the residents
within a municipality or special district for the use of
a municipal service; the charges either are based
upon assessed valuation of property or are a flat fee
of some sort. Property value is an appropriate means
of allocating the costs of the improvements of service
if there is a "general good" accruing to all members
of the community. It is also a useful means of allocat-
ing the cost of debt service for a project in which
there is general good to the community and in which
the specific O&M costs are allocated to the direct
beneficiaries. The ad valorem or special assessment
allocation of the costs would be appropriate for such
reuse applications as:
• Irrigation of municipal landscaping;
• Municipal recreational impoundments;
• Fire-fighting water;
• Water for flushing sewers;
• Groundwater recharge for saltwater intrusion
barrier; and
• Parks and other uses.
79
-------
All such projects have benefits that accrue to the
residents of the municipality in general, or to those
who can be isolated in an identifiable special district.
Thus, a simple cost-allocation technique suffices.
Similar use can be made with resources gener-
ated by increasing any existing use charges. How-
ever, to do so legitimately, benefits of the proposed
project should primarily accrue to those presently
utilizing the services of the water or wastewater
utility. This would be the case, for example, when
water reuse precludes the need to develop costly
advanced-wastewater-treatment facilities or a new
water-supply source. As cited elsewhere in this
manual, these are among the reasons why many
municipalities first consider water reuse.
Federal and State Grant Programs
When the capital expenditures associated with a
reuse project are anticipated to be extensive, then
you may have to look to the typical means of raising
capital—acquiring grants and assuming debt by
selling bonds. Grants are discussed in this section,
and bond issues are reviewed in the following
sections.
As reuse is currently practiced, only infrequently
are substantial capital improvements made to the
municipal wastewater-treatment plant for the
purpose of supporting water reuse. Typically, the
reuser accepts the effluent as it is discharged from
the treatment plant. As interest in reuse expands,
however, so can the need for significant amounts of
capital funds, both to cover treatment-process
improvements to produce higher quality effluents for
high-level uses, and to cover costs of conveying
reclaimed water to new users.
Grant programs can provide the resources
required to fund programs of practically any mag-
nitude, provided that they meet grant-eligibility
requirements. Some funding agencies are taking an
increasingly active role in facilitating wastewater-
reuse projects. In addition, many funding agencies
are receiving a clear legislative and executive man-
date to encourage water reuse.
To be successful over the long term, any reuse
program must be able to "pay for itself." It is true
that federal- and state-supported subsidies can
underwrite substantial portions of the capital
improvements necessary in a reuse project—and
grant funds can also help a program to establish
itself in early years of operation. But you should not
count on these aid funds in preparing financial
arrangements for a project unless their availability is
assured. Some aid programs require that funds be
appropriated each year by Congress or the state
legislature, and, in many instances, the amounts
appropriated are far less than those needed to assist
all eligible projects. For the same reason, once your
project is underway, you should strive to achieve
program self-sufficiency as quickly as possible—
meeting O&M costs and debt service on your local
share of capital costs by generating an adequate
stream of revenues through local budget set-asides,
tax levies, special assessments and use charges, as
discussed above.
The prime source of grants for funding of reuse
projects is the federal government. Information on
specific source possibilities can be found in the
Catalog of Federal and Domestic Assistance, prepared by
the federal Office of Management and Budget and
available in federal depository libraries. It is the most
comprehensive compilation of the types and sources
of funding available
A number of particular sources of funds should
be explored:
EPA SOURCES
The language of the Clean Water Act of 1977,
PL 95-217, supports water-reuse projects through
the following provisions:
• Section 105j of PL 92-500 of 1972 provides grant
assistance for research and development projects in
innovative treatment technology (AWT/recycling).
It was amended to include provision for grants of
up to 100 percent for the costs of performance
evaluations, staff training, and the preparation of
technical operation guides.
• Section 201 of PL 92-500 was amended to ensure
that municipalities are eligible for "201" funding
only if they have "fully studied and evaluated"
techniques for "reclaiming and reuse of water."
• A new Section 214 was added; it stipulates that the
EPA administrator "shall develop and operate a
continuing program of public information and
education on recycling and reuse of wastewater..."
• Section 313, which describes pollution control
activities at federal facilities, was amended to
ensure that WWTPs will utilize "recycle and reuse
techniques" if estimated life-cycle costs for such
techniques are within 15 percent of "the most cost-
effective alternative."
80
-------
At this writing, EPA had not yet fully formulated
its funding policy based on these provisions of the
Clean Water Act (see Preface). It appears, however,
that EPA will not afford substantial federal construc-
tion grant funding beyond that available for the
least-cost pollution-control alternative. Ancillary
facilities for reuse—conveyance systems for
reclaimed water, monitoring devices, distribution
storage tanks and the like—might not be eligible for
funding unless the primary purpose of the whole,
since project inception, has been achievement of
water-pollution-control objectives.
Even if a reuse project qualifies for EPA funding
beyond the usual 75 percent federal share, there can
be pitfalls. Funds granted for wastewater-treatment
capital improvements are contingent on implemen-
tation of an industrial cost recovery (ICR) system.
This would tend to work against industries' accept-
ance of an industrial water-reuse plan, since the cost
advantages of the reclaimed water would be offset by
the higher wastewater-disposal charges caused by
ICR. One way to avoid this situation is to have the
sanitation agency assume responsibility for waste-
water treatment, and establish a separate agency for
additional treatment and distribution of reclaimed
water. The new agency can then impose a use charge
upon the purchasers of the reclaimed water that
would cover the costs of the reclamation facility, and
those purchasers would not be subject to an ICR
system.3
OTHER FEDERAL SOURCES
There are at least four other sources of federal
support. First, there is the Farmers Home Admini-
stration (FmHA) of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). Under the FmHA programs,
grants and loans are available to public agencies and
non-profit corporations which serve areas with
populations under 10,000. The amount of the grant
or loan is restricted by that amount necessary to
lower the user costs to a reasonable rate, based on
the median family income of the community. In
addition, the sum of the FmHA grant and other
state and federal grants cannot exceed 50 percent of
the project costs Thus, projects funded by Clean
Water grants will not be eligible under FmHA
programs.
Second, the Water and Power Resources Service
(formerly Bureau of Reclamation) of the U.S.
Department of the Interior provides loans for non-
federal design and construction of irrigation distribu-
tion and drainage systems on federally-authorized
land-reclamation projects. Funds are not available
for wastewater-treatment facilities. The Ventura
County, California reclamation project, for example,
is being partially funded by Service support In
addition, the water-reclamation project in Gilroy,
California was mostly financed by a loan from
BUREC.4 The reclamation facility provides water
suitable for irrigation of agriculture and landscaping;
however, BUREC's prime interest in the project was
that a supplemental water supply to the declining
groundwater levels could be developed.' Finally, the
Service, in cooperation with the City of Fairfield and
the Solano Irrigation District, California, is currently
investigating the use of reclaimed water to protect
and maintain the Suisun Marsh in Solano County
The reclaimed water is intended to be used for the
management of wildlife habitat and for agriculture
irrigation.6
Third, U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA) will provide low-interest loans to small busi-
nesses for wastewater-control equipment required
by regulatory agencies The funds can be used for
pretreatment of industrial waste to reduce toxic and
saline constituents in reclaimed water. To obtain a
loan from the SBA, the EPA must be able to certify
that the project is required to comply with either
federal or state water-pollution-control requirements
and that other funds are not available.
Finally, the Office of Water Research and Tech-
nology of the Department of the Interior will provide
research-and-development funds for water reclama-
tion projects, particularly for demonstration projects,
that meet OWRT-identified priority needs
STATE SUPPORT
State support is generally available for wastewater-
treatment facilities, wastewater-reclamation facilities
and conveyance facilities, and, under certain condi-
tions, for on-site distribution systems. Obviously, a
prime source of funding is the state support that
usually accompanies Clean Water grants. State sup-
port often equals one-half of the federally-unfunded
but eligible costs of the project. However, the
formula varies from state to state.
You should determine what other types of state
assistance are available as a by-product of state
programs to encourage water recycling and resource
conservation in general. As discussed in Chapter 4 of
these Guidelines, as you contact state agencies to
determine what their roles might be in the institu-
tional issues involved, you should request any availa-
ble information relating to state assistance.
81
-------
CASE STUDY:
Financing for Irrigation in Gilroy
Many of the projects described in these Guidelines
have been funded in part by "Section 201" grants
from PL 92-500, as administered by the EPA. Other
communities have looked to other sources of fund-
ing, ranging from locally-raised funds to grants from
other federal agencies. The Santa Clara Valley Water
District in California, for example, obtained a $1.25-
million loan from the Water and Power Resources
Service (formerly the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, or
BUREC) to help finance its $1.8-million reuse project;
the District will repay the loan and meet other costs
through sale of reclaimed water and through contri-
butions from the City of Gilroy and another water
district. The BUREC loan was provided for under the
Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977.
The Gilroy project, in operation since 1977, in-
volves the reclamation of domestic wastewater for
landscape and agricultural irrigation. The City's
reclamation facility treats primary effluent from an
existing WWTP, providing additional oxidation in a 15-
acre oxidation pond with floating aerators, mechani-
cal strainers, and chlorination facilities. The reclaimed
water is then pumped through an eight-mile pipeline
to an existing terminal reservoir with a capacity of 120
acre-feet. Chlorine residual is automatically moni-
tored two miles along the 12-inch distribution main to
ensure adequate disinfection; too low a residual will
trigger automatic shutdown of the system.
The initial market for the reclaimed water was to
include about 300 acres of agricultural irrigation,
comprising primarily nursery crops, flowers and seed
crops, and landscape irrigation for a municipal golf
course, city parks and school grounds. Amendment of
the State's Title 22 code by the Department of Health
Services eliminated the parks' and school grounds'
irrigation, however, as the amendment requires a
higher coliform standard for this type of reuse than
had been provided for in the Gilroy project.
The location of the reclamation facilitiy, distribu-
tion system and users are indicated in the accompany-
ing figure. The project effectively supplements the
Santa Clara Valley Water District's groundwater supply
by reducing irrigation demand and leaving the
groundwater available for potable purposes.
All markets are required to pay for a specified
minimum quantity of water, based on individual
contracts, whether or not the water is used. Contracts
with individual users price the reclaimed water $10
per acre-foot for agricultural purposes, while the city
pays $40 an acre-foot for reclaimed water used in
irrigating municipal grounds.
Source: Fowler, L.C. Water Reuse for Irrigation—Gilroy, Calfornia.
In • Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium, Vol 2. AWWA
Research Foundation. Denver, Colorado, 1979 pp. 2060-2067.
In your pursuit of state assistance, you should
request from your state grant-administering agency
a copy of the criteria utilized to develop priority lists
for state assistance. You should use your understand-
ing of those criteria to accentuate any facets of your
proposed reclamation project that would improve
your position on the priority lists.
CONTACTING FUNDING AGENCIES
It is necessary to contact potential funding agencies
in order to acquire a preliminary commitment for
the funds required. With reference to federal and
state programs, it can be assumed that the applica-
tion procedures are explicitly laid out within each
agency; thus, you should contact the respective
agency to get information relating to grant acquisi-
tion and award criteria. Presumably, most of the
criteria will be based on technical and economic
feasibility, and on your response to any federal or
state incentives to encourage water reuse.
82
-------
Municipal Bond Issues
User Charges
The other source of capital for a municipality is to
assume debt—that is, to borrow money by selling
municipal bonds. With almost any water-
reclamation project, some local support will be
required to finance the project, and most likely, this
money will have to be raised through a bond issue
(or as one portion of a bond issue). In reviewing
enabling legislation, you should determine to what
extent and under what restrictions you can assume
debt obligations and, in fact, should determine
which financial instruments offer the greatest
advantage Among the types of bonds commonly
used for financing public-works projects are:
• general obligation bonds, paid back through
general property taxes or service-charge revenues;
• special assessment bonds, payable only from the
receipts of special benefit assessments (and carry-
ing a higher interest rate than general obligation
bonds);
• revenue bonds, paid back through service
charges—and useful in regional or sub-regional
projects because revenues can be collected from
outside the geographical limits of the borrower;
and
• short-term notes, usually repaid through general
obligation or revenue bonds.
A municipal finance director or bond advisor can
describe how you will be expected to justify the
technical and economic feasibility. You must be able
to show potential investors how you will generate the
cash flow to cover the costs of the reuse project.
Thus, you must be prepared to substantiate your
projections of the required capital outlay, of the
anticipated operations-and-maintenance costs, of
the revenue-generating activities (that is, your user-
charge system, etc.) and of the "coverage" you
anticipate—that is, the extent to which anticipated
revenues will more than cover the anticipated capital
and operations-and-maintenance costs.
Finally, you may choose to impose a use charge
on those receiving the reclaimed water. That
charge would be utilized to generate a stream of
revenues with which to defray the operations-and-
maintenance costs of the reuse facility and the debt
service of any bonds issued.
With most present reuse applications, user
charges are flat fees that bear little resemblance to
the actual cost of delivering the water. Historically,
effluent has been thought of as something to be
disposed of, not as a product to be sold. Conse-
quently, the fees attached to reclaimed water have
not generally reflected what realistic user charges
would be. More recent programs of water reuse,
however, are shifting toward metered charges.
In one EPA study, it was found that most indus-
trial users are paying for the reclaimed water on a
volume basis and that most irrigation reusers are
receiving the reclaimed water free or at a minimal
charge.7 In many cases in which there is a charge for
reclaimed water sold for irrigation, a flat fee is
negotiated annually.
In a user-charge system, the intent is, as before,
to allocate the cost of providing reuse services to the
recipient. With a user-charge system, it is implicit
both that there is a select and identifiable group of
beneficiaries to which the costs of treatment and
distribution can be allocated, and that the public in
general is not the beneficiary.
The principles of establishing rates for use of
reclaimed water follow closely those used in estab-
lishing rates for potable-water systems. Several
points of interest relating specifically to the calcula-
tion of a user charge for reclaimed water are offered
below. First, it can be assumed that the user charge
should be less than the cost of freshwater available
from the existing municipal or private water-supply
system (Figure 5-1). If it were not, then, generally,
the potential user would not be interested (except in
an exceptionally water-poor area where, under an
appropriative-rights system, a low-priority user
would be willing to pay a premium for reclaimed
water in order to have an assured source of water).
Irvine Ranch Water District, for example, arbitrarily
chose a user charge amounting to 50 percent of
the potable-water costs. Second, the user charge
becomes complicated if there are several reusers that
require different qualities of water. And third, the
calculation is further complicated in the process of
determining which costs should be allocated to the
wastewater-treatment user charge and which to the
water-reuse user charge. The following comments
help clarify these issues.
83
-------
CASE STUDY:
Two Examples of User Charges
One type of "user charge" is no charge at all. Particu-
larly in irrigation reuse systems, this practice has been
the norm. For example, in Santa Rosa, California,
reclaimed water used for irrigation purposes is de-
livered free of charge on the condition that a stipu-
lated volume will be used each year. The justification
for this type of arrangement is that the wastewater-
treatment authority finds it more cost-effective to
make effluent available for irrigation than to absorb
additional costs for meeting stringent discharge
standards. Probably, as more purveyors of reclaimed
water recognize the intrinsic value of their product,
they will begin to charge a realistic fee for the water,
although this will vary according to the cost-benefits
perceived in each case.
A dual costing system was originally proposed for
industrial water-reusers in Contra Costa County. The
Water and Sanitary Districts agreed on a charge of
$3.50 per acre-foot for the first block of reclaimed
water used, up to about 19,000 acre-feet per year.
Once this minimum quantity had been purchased by
the Water District each year—enabling the Sanitary
District to meet its debt-service obligations on the
local share of construction costs for the reclamation
facilities—then the price would be reduced to $0.75
per acre-foot for the rest of the year, covering opera-
tion-and-maintenance expenses. This dual-charge
system has since been modified somewhat; current
agreements call for a flat price of $4 per acre-foot,
with a stipulated minimum amount to be purchased
each year by the Water District. Retail costs to the
industrial users have not yet been established, al-
though potable-water costs to these users are about
$35 per acre-foot. The $4 charge is expected to cover
the Sanitary District's share of costs for the reclama-
tion facilities. Because the Water District's distribution-
system costs cannot be recovered in reclaimed-water
fees to users without greatly exceeding potable-water
costs of $35 per acre-foot, the unrecovered amount
will be apportioned among all Water District cus-
tomers, in recognition of a general good being
obtained through reuse.
Sources: Riha, B.J Wastewater Irrigation—The Price Is Right The
American City & County, March 1976 pp. 55-57.
Weddle, C.L., D.G Niles and D.B Flett. The Central Contra Costa
County Water Reclamation Pro|ect. In- Complete Water Reuse-
Industry's Opportunity L. K. Cecil, ed. National Conference on
Complete Water Reuse, sponsored by The American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, 1973 pp. 644-654
10
20
30
40 50 60
Percent Savings
70
80
90
Figure 5-1. Demand for reclaimed water increases with increased savings over potable water rate.
(Source: Grant, F.A., C.P. Treweek and W. Home. Water Reuse and Recycling: Industrial Cost Analysis
and Pricing Strategies. Consulting Engineer, Vol. 53, No. 3, September 1979. pp. 118-124.)
84
-------
There are two prime means of allocating costs
that are to be incorporated into a user charge; the
proportionate-share basis and the incremental-
cost basis. Under the commonly used proportionate-
share basis, the total costs of the facilities are shared
by the parties in proportion to the benefit that each
derives from the facilities. In apportioning the costs,
you should consider the quantity and quality of the
water, the reserve capacity that must be maintained,
and the use of any joint facilities, particularly means
of conveyance. When there are a large number of
parties using reclaimed water, classes of users can be
identified, with a set charge assigned to each class
based on the general characteristics of the service to
that class For most new or developing water-reuse
applications, this is not likely to be required; initially,
at least, probably only a few parties will be involved.
The incremental-cost basis allocates to the
marginal user only the marginal costs of providing
service. This system can be used if the community
feels that the marginal user of recycled water is
performing a social good by conserving potable
water, and so should be allocated only the additional
increment of cost of the service. However, two points
should be noted. First, if the total cost savings real-
ized by reuse are being enjoyed only by the marginal
user, then in effect the rest of the community is
subsidizing the service; does the community really
wish to do so? Second, economies-of-scale might be
realized in the overall system due to the marginal
user's joining the system; other users may feel that
they should enjoy part of the savings resulting from
these economies (Figure 5-2).
For water-reuse systems, the proportionate share
basis of allocation is most appropriate. The alloca-
tion should not be especially difficult, because you
will probably have only one or two reusers at first,
and the facilities required to support their needs
should be readily identifiable. The best rule of
thumb is to allocate to wastewater charges the
costs of all treatment required for compliance with
NPDES permits; all additional costs, the costs of
reclamation and conveyance of reclaimed water,
should be allocated to the water-reuse user charge.
General administrative costs could also be allocated
proportionately or, in this case, via the incremental
cost basis: all wastewater administration would be
charged to the sewer-use charge, and all additional
administration to the water-reuse user charge. In
some cases a lesser degree of wastewater treatment
will be required as a result of water reuse. The effect
may be to reduce the wastewater user charge. In this
case, depending on local circumstances, the savings
could be allocated to either or both the wastewater
discharger and the water reuser.
With more than one water reuser, you might
have to produce different qualities of water. If so, the
user charge becomes somewhat more complicated to
calculate, but it is really no different than calculating
the charges for treating different qualities of waste-
water for discharge. If, for example, you are distrib-
uting water to two different irrigation needs, one
requiring better water than the other, then presum-
ably you can base the calculation in relation to the
cost of treatment to reach the quality provided.
Of course, if your two users are one farm and one
industry, then the measure of quality might be
entirely different—for example, in terms of BOD
and the absence of corrosives, respectively. Even in
this case, however, you should be able to identify the
facilities required to reclaim water to the required
quality for each.
POTABLE
WATER
PRICE
t
END USER
SAVINGS
MARGIN
AVAILABLE-
RECLAIMED
WATER
PRICE
RECLAIMED
WATER
REVENUE
REQUIREMENTS
'Margin (an be used for fuluie expansion, and/or
to offset loss in fixed revenue of potable svstem
Figure 5-2. Illustration of a reclaimed-water pricing policy
concept. A margin or profit exists when costs are less than
revenues generated by selling the reclaimed water; this
margin can be used to lower wastewater discharger charges,
to lower water prices for all water customers, to assist in
financing other environmental improvement programs, or to
pay off portions of existing water systems when these systems
have been abandoned due to use of reclaimed water.
(Source: Ernst & Ernst. Interim Guidelines for Economic
and Financial Analyses of Water Reclamation Projects.
Prepared for Office of Water Recycling, State of California
Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, California,
February 1979.83 pp.)
85
-------
References
1 Ernst & Ernst Interim Guidelines for Economic and Financial
Analyses of Water Reclamation Pro]ects. Prepared for Office of
Water Recycling, State Resources Control Board, Sacramento,
California, February 1979 83 pp
2 Weddle, C L , D G Miles, and D B Flett The Central Contra
Costa County Water Reclamation Project In Complete Water
Reuse—Industry's Opportunity L K Cecil, ed. National
Conference on Complete Water Reuse, sponsored by the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1973 pp 644-654
3 Municipal Wastewater Reuse News No 18 Financial
Assistance for Wastewater Reclamation AWWA Research
Foundation, March 1979 pp 14-15
4 Fowler, L C Water Reuse for Irrigation—Gilroy, California In
Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium, Vol 2 AWWA
Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado, 1979 pp 2060-2072
5 Water Reclamation Facility, Gilrov—Fact Sheet
December 13, 1977
6 Roche, WM. and N Cederquist Reclamation and Reuse of
Wastewater in the Suisun Marsh, California In Proceedings of
the Water Reuse Symposium, Vol 1 AWWA Research
Foundation, Denver, Colorado 1979 pp 685-702
7 Schmidt, CJ and E V Clements III Demonstrated
Technology and Research Needs for Reuse of Municipal
Wastewater EPA-670/2-75-038 National Environmental
Research Center, Office of Research and Development,
L' S Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
May 1975
8 Riha, B J Wastewater Irrigation—The Price is Right The
American City & County, March 1976 pp 55-57
86
-------
Public Involvement in Reuse Planning
6
As we have tried to show in these Guidelines, develop-
ment of a workable water-reuse program grows out
of successive stages of study in technical, economic,
legal/institutional, and financial aspects of reuse as
they apply to your community. Just as crucial to
successful program implementation is your support
and encouragement, from the outset, of active public
involvement in the reuse-planning process.
Why Public Participation?
Public involvement begins with your earliest explora-
tory contacts with potential users, and can continue
through to formation of an advisory committee and
holding of nonbinding referenda on candidate reuse
schemes. It involves the two-way flow of information
and responses, helping to ensure that adoption of a
selected water-reuse program will fulfill real user
needs and generally-recognized community goals.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION
The term "two-way flow" cannot be too highly
emphasized. From the point of view of sound plan-
ning, your encouragement of public participation
will uncover community information and resources
that can substantively affect the reclamation/reuse
plan. As stated in EPA's Public Involvement Activities
Guide: "Local residents often have a more intimate
understanding of particular community problems...
Their information is pertinent and up-to-date...
(reflecting) the community's values, concerns, and
goals."1 The distinction that engineers often make
between a proposal's technical merit and .its local
political acceptability is often an artificial one.
Citizens have legitimate concerns, quite often reflect-
ing their knowledge of detailed technical informa-
tion. In reuse planning, especially, where one sector
of "the public" comprises potential users of
reclaimed water, this point pertains all the more
strongly. Potential users know what flow and quality
of reclaimed water are acceptable for their applica-
tions. The example from Chicago-South End of
Lake Michigan discussed at the end of this chapter
illustrates that an agency's failure to consult at an
early stage with affected segments of the public
undermined not only the acceptability of its pro-
posed program, but also its intrinsic technical merit.
INFORMED CONSTITUENCY
Beyond the value of public participation in improv-
ing your base of information is the fact that by
soliciting expression of public concerns and incor-
porating suggestions made by members of the
public, you can also build, over time, an informed
constituency that is "at home" with the concept of
reuse, knowledgeable about the trade-offs involved in
reclamation/reuse, and supportive of program
implementation. Citizens who have taken part in the
planning process will be effective proponents of the
selected plans. Having educated themselves on the
trade-offs involved in adopting reclamation and
reuse, they will understand how various interests
have been accommodated in the final plan. Their
understanding of the decision-making process will,
in turn, be communicated to the larger interest
groups—neighborhood residents, clubs, and munici-
pal agencies—of which they are a part
Since most reuse programs will ultimately
require the direct involvement of the voting public
anyway—say, in voting to support a bond issue
necessary to fund reuse system capital improve-
ments, you can avoid the "sudden-death" overtones
of such a vote by diligently soliciting information,
viewpoints and criticism early in the planning
process, even as you are beginning to identify
alternatives. You will also be gaining time at the
front end, and time in itself is crucial to allow dis-
semination and acceptance of new ideas among
public sectors.2 If your program is likely to encounter
opposition in the community, support of public
participation will uncover opposition early enough in
planning so that the opposition's concerns can be
addressed, or so that you can be prepared for contin-
ued opposition up to and through program imple-
mentation. Precedents for failure to take these steps
are legion in wastewater-facilities planning, and lie
behind EPA's adoption in 1979 of amended regula-
tions providing for more significant levels of public
participation in Section 201-funded projects.3
87
-------
Defining "The Public"
Many contemporary analyses of public involvement
define "the public" as comprising various subsets of
"publics" with differing interests, motivations, and
approaches to policy issues. For example, in discus-
sing public participation for wastewater facilities
planning, one planning consultant identifies the
following publics: general public, potential users,
environmental groups, regulators, political leaders,
and business/academic/community leaders.4
EPA regulations5 identify the public as the
general public, the organized public (public and
private interest groups), the representative public
(elected and appointed officials), and the economi-
cally concerned public (in this case, those whose
interests might be directly affected by a reuse pro-
gram). Examples of groups falling under the
organized, representative and economically con-
cerned publics can include the news media and "the
chief elected officials of the involved communities,
neighborhood organizations, the 208 Citizens Advi-
sory Committee, the Sierra Club, the League of
Women Voters, business groups such as the Cham-
ber of Commerce, the Rotary Club, industries and
unions, sportsmen's clubs, historical societies, public
works departments, recreation commissions, health
departments, and state legislations."6
Will you need to involve all sectors of the public
in reuse planning?
If your program for reuse truly has minimal
impact on the general public, you might need to
solicit information and support only from technical
and health experts in other municipal and state
agencies and from representatives of the prospective
user and its employees. Use of treatment plant
effluent as industrial cooling water—with no
significant capital improvements required of the
municipality—might fall in this category. Reuse for
irrigation of pasture land in well-isolated areas might
be another example.
But consideration of a broad range of candidate
reuse systems, as is being advocated in these Guide-
line^ involves choices among systems with widely
varying economic and environmental impacts for
many segments of the public. Successful plan imple-
mentation will be assured only when officials,
interest groups, and ordinary citizens share "a
significant voice in (project) development."7
"The public," in reuse planning, encompasses
area residents, potential users of reclaimed water,
freshwater purveyors, citizens with special areas of
expertise pertinent to reuse, and the interest groups
whose support is vital as representing diverse view-
points shared by many in the community. From the
outset of your reuse planning, informal consultation
with members of each of these groups, and your
formal presentations before them, should both
support the development of a sound base of local
water-reuse information and, simultaneously, build a
coalition that can effectively advocate reuse in the
community. Keeping in mind that different groups
have different interests at stake, you will want to
tailor your consultations with these groups to be sure
you are addressing the issues of concern to them in
the terms they understand.
Before turning to some possible methods of
achieving these goals, what public reaction to reuse
might you expect?
Gauging Public Acceptance
You might be surprised to find a large measure of
local public support for reuse programs. A number
of opinion surveys conducted in recent years have
shown similar trends in public acceptance of reuse:
studies completed by Bruvold and Ward8 and by
Bruvold and Crook,9 for example, show high (more
than 90 percent) acceptance for so-called "low-level"
reuse applications, with public support gradually
eroding as the risk of exposure to reclaimed water
increased. The author of another study10 obtained
similar results, concluding that "for lower contact
uses, public attitudes are largely accepting...(The)
public is ready for large-scale wastewater reuse for
non-body-contact purposes." Even when surveys
have focused on possible reuse for potable pur-
poses," 12 anywhere from 48 to 62 percent of the
respondents have indicated a willingness to use
"renovated" wastewater.
These survey results and others have led some
investigators to conclude that public officials have
lagged behind the public in their enthusiasm for
reuse, and certainly in their assessment of public
opinion on reuse (e.g ,10). One study" funded by the
U.S. Office of Water Resources Research (now the
Office of Water Research and Technology), U.S.
Department of the Interior, concluded that "Govern-
ment officials, .grossly underestimated public opi-
nion (toward reuse)," and that government officials'
objections to wastewater reuse on the basis of sup-
posed adverse public opinion, at least in the case of
88
-------
body contact and some non-body-contact uses, "lack
a substantial foundation." Another author12 is even
more critical in evaluating the role of public officials:
"the salient impediment (to reuse) may lie in the
minds of the engineers and water management
officials who for a variety of reasons are themselves
reluctant to move to what is for them a revolution in
water supply management, fraught with uncertainty
and risk" (Figure 6-1).
90 -
80 -
Key 1 Less than 10 years
2 10-19 years
3 20-29 years
4 Over 30 years
77
70
w 60
3
«J
£ 50
U
£
40
30
20
10
-
-
_
~
-
-
45
25
H
1 2 3
20
4
Irrigation
27
19
1 2
w
32
23
20
34 12
Q 11
fir
34 1
20,
2
,2,
21
1112
r4T
34 1234
Recharge Industrial Swimming Potable
Figure 6-1, Survey of public officials and consulting
engineers in water-abundant New England showed very
conservative attitudes toward reuse, although about half of
those interviewed saw industrial or irrigation reuse being
adopted in the region within ten years. The same study
indicated that those most directly involved in assessment of
reuse opportunities respond to the reuse concept according
to their areas of responsibility: municipal officials judge
reuse on the basis of its operability, as compared to other
supply-augmenting options; consulting engineers are
concerned with reliability and costs; state officials, with
public-health issues; and regional EPA personnel, with
funding of cost-effective projects. (Source: Johnson, B.B.
Waste Water Reuse and Water Quality Planning in New
England Attitudes and Adoption. Water Resources Research
15:6, December 1979. pp 1329-1334.)
Of course, these bad reviews tend to obscure the
fact that most public officials who might undertake
implementation of a water-reuse program have
received their "battle scars" in previous encounters
with the public on issues as ostensibly straight-
forward as the routing of a new sewer line. Some
authors have even attempted to link public officials'
supposed wariness on the reuse issue to their "dread
of public controversy" gained in the "bitter and
bizarre debates over fluoridation."1213 Others have
attributed it to long-established priorities, in water-
abundant areas such as New England, of providing
all water supply from protected upland reservoirs.'"
Whatever the reasons behind public officials'
poor view of public opinion on water reuse, there is
no question that the public's enthusiasm for reuse
(as perceived in the cited studies) might more reflect
the hypothetical conditions set up by the survey
questions and interviews used than signify a genuine
willingness to endorse local funding of real programs
that could involve distribution of reclaimed water for
nonpotable use in their neighborhood. The survey
results do indicate, however, that at least on the
intellectual plane, "the public" is receptive to use of
reclaimed water in well-thought-out programs. The
results also support conclusions that this initial
acceptance hinges in large measure on:
• the public's awareness of local water-supply
problems and perception of reclaimed water as
having a place in the overall water-supply alloca-
tion scheme;11
• public understanding of the quality of reclaimed
water and how it would be used;
• confidence in local management of the public
utilities and in local application of modern techno-
logy (Stone" found that residents in communities
with good-quality water were more accepting of
the use of reclaimed water than were residents in
communities with water-quality problems); and
• assurance that the reuse applications being consid-
ered involve minimal risk of accidental personal
exposure
Bruvold and Ongerth14 conclude that "the public
is not yet ready for intimate uses of reclaimed
water...(nor does the public favor) a low level of
treatment of wastewater and its discharge into the
environment without further reuse." Having set these
boundaries of public acceptance, it is time to turn to
specific recommendations on public information and
involvement in reuse planning.
89
-------
CASE STUDY:
Potential Users' Workshops
and Reuse Planning
Where conditions for reuse are particularly sensitive,
a program of public involvement is essential to gain
potential users' commitment to reclaimed water. Such
is the case in Goleta, California, where a pilot plant
demonstration program was completed during 1979
as one spinoff of public participation to date.
The Goleta County Water District's (GCWD)
planning for water reclamation and reuse represents
an attempt to solve a severe water shortage that has
clamped a moratorium on new water-system connec-
tions since 1972. Even with concerted conservation
efforts, the District operates at a 1,500 acre-foot/year
deficit. Of the current total demand of 19,000 acre-
feet/year, agricultural irrigation accounts for about
one-fourth, a proportion projected to increase to
one-third by 1990.
In order to end the deficit and to lift the morato-
rium on water system hookups, the District undertook
a "201"-funded facility planning study of water-
reclamation/reuse alternatives. (Currently, wastewater
receives primary sedimentation prior to ocean dis-
posal.) GCWD found that substitution of reclaimed
water for landscape and agricultural irrigation would
free potable-water supplies, but that the high IDS
(1,330 mg/l) of untreated effluent would cause prob-
lems, particularly for the highly sensitive avocado and
citrus crops grown in the area. Accordingly, GCWD
and its engineering consultants undertook a series of
meetings and workshops with representatives of
major growers.
In the workshops, the participants worked
cooperatively to identify potential sites for irrigation
with reclaimed water and to review current irrigation
practices and discuss areas of concern. The growers
expressed concern that minerals in the reclaimed
water would accumulate in the soils and cause
reduced productivity over the long term; most
growers stated they would not accept substitution
with reclaimed water unless quality and costs were
comparable to their current supplies.
Technical studies showed the desired water quality
could be achieved by coagulant addition, rapid-
mixing, filtration and reverse osmosis of the secondary
effluent from the new Goleta plant. A blend of waste-
water receiving 75 percent treatment by reverse
osmosis would yield water quality comparable to
local surface supplies (445 mg/l TDS, as opposed to
523 mg/l from the Cachuma Reservoir) and better
than available ground water. Both reservoir water and
75 percent RO reclaimed water carry a seven-percent
leaching requirement. The engineers recommended
a two-phased approach to reuse: while Phase I reuse
will involve only landscape irrigation, using disin-
fected secondary effluent, Phase II will provide
reclaimed water for irrigation of some 4,970 acres
of avocado and citrus groves. Total Phase II use is
expected to total 7,653 acre-feet per year.
The 5,000-gpd pilot demonstration program is
being conducted, with federal and state assistance,
both to obtain detailed operating performance data
on the reverse osmosis unit and to obtain firm com-
mitments from growers as a result of demonstrated
treatment performance.
To date, the workshops and demonstration pro-
gram have helped support reuse goals in Goleta: in
1979 voters participating in a GCWD advisory election
mandated the District to proceed with the reclama-
tion project and to study means of funding the local
share.16
Source: Everest, W R. and R A. Paul Reclaimed Wastewater as a
Feasible Water Resource for Landscape and Orchard Irrigation. In:
Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium, Vol. 3. AWWA Research
Foundation. Denver, Colorado, 1979 pp 2082-2103
Involving the Public
in Reuse Planning
Most studies of public attitudes toward reclamation
and reuse which are reported in the literature appear
to focus more on management of public opinion than
on the actual involvement of the public in making
decisions about reclamation and reuse projects for
which they are asked to pay. Strategies are recom-
mended for identifying the source of public reaction
against reuse, whether it be cost,'5 "psychological
repugnance,"8 or ignorance about the overall water-
supply problem,'' and then responding with a
public-information campaign developed specifically
to offset the identified public sentiment. Sims and
Baumann, for example, have concluded that unless
perceived experts share a "congruence of belief" in
the viability of reuse, any public information pro-
gram would fail.l3 They suggest, therefore, that
experts must reach a consensus of opinion and then
"present the .public with information that would
reflect more solid support among the experts."
Moreover, having concluded that ignorance about or
lack of faith in water-treatment science and techno-
logy are the primary factors behind aversion toward
90
-------
reuse, Sims and Baumann recommend "an informa-
tion campaign that would focus upon encouraging
public support, not one based upon enhancing
public dialogue."
The investigators' assumptions appear to be
that reclamation/reuse is clearly a desirable goal
wherever there is a threat of water-supply shortages,
and that the public official must convince the public
of this fact. As we have emphasized repeatedly in
these Guidelines, however, water reuse is only one
water-supply alternative to be considered, among
many, and reuse planning is rarely carried out in an
economic and political vacuum. Democratic impera-
tives alone require a more realistic and straight-
forward approach to public involvement. Specific
techniques to effect this approach are discussed in
the following paragraphs.
CLEAN WATER ACT REQUIREMENTS
FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The starting point for any reuse program that could
involve Clean Water Act funding is, of course, the
amended public-participation requirements con-
tained in §35.917-5, 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart E
(Federal Register Vol. 44, No. 34, February 16,
1979). The application of these requirements to
wastewater-facilities planning has been illustrated by
Heilman4 as adapted in Figure 6-2. The "abbre-
viated" or "basic" program involves, at a minimum,
initial public consultation and three structured
events involving public dialogue. The "full-scale"
program for more complex "201" projects includes,
in addition, the designation of a public participation
ABBREVIATED PROGRAM
Developmer
of Plan
of Study
\
it
Public
Notification
& Consultation
Stepl
Grant
Award
i
Existing
Environment
Studies
' i
Public
Participation
Work Program
to EPA within
45 Days
t
t
!
Public
Consultation
Alte
&EV
i
rnatives
tification
aluation
r
i,
>
-
Se
Public
Meeting
Public
Notificat on
Plan
ection
1 '
Public
Notification
Plan
t Adoption
Public 1
Hearing 1
FULL-SCALE PROGRAM
Development
of Plan
of Study
Stepl
Grant
Award
Public
Notification
It Consultation
Existing
Environment
Studies
Public
Participation
Work Program
to EPA within
45 Days
Alternatives
Identification
& Evaluation
Public
Consultation
Public
Participation
Coordinator
Public
Advisory
Group
Plan
Selection
Public
Meeting
Public
Notification
Plan
Adoption
Public
Hearing
Public
Notification
Figure 6-2. Abbreviated and full-scale public participation programs required for Section 201 wastewater
facilities planning can apply as well to planning a program of water reuse. (Source: Heilman, C.B.
Join Forces with John Q. Public. Water & Wastes Engineering, July 1979. pp. 26-28.)
91
-------
coordinator to serve through the duration of the
project, and establishment of a public advisory
group.
Either program can be adapted effectively to the
planning sequence recommended in Chapter 1 of
these Guidelines, whether or not you actually intend to
use "201" funding. The ongoing "public consulta-
tion" required prior to identifying and screening of
alternatives in wastewater-facilities planning corre-
sponds well to public involvement in the preliminary
investigations of reuse planning. This could encom-
pass initial contacts with other public agencies that
can provide basic information on water use or
regulatory requirements, informal discussions with
some potential users to determine interest or fill data
gaps, and initial background reports to appropriate
local decision-making bodies.
You might find it helpful to identify at the outset
the level of interest different individuals and groups
will have in the reuse-planning process. For exam-
ple, Boston's Metropolitan District Commission
(MDC) determined in one recent "201 "-related
public-participation program that some "publics"
would want only to be kept informed on a regular
basis, some would want periodic opportunities to ask
questions and offer comments, and some would
want to play a very active review and advisory role.6
The MDC's public-participation program incorpo-
rated tasks and activities that ensured the desired
degree of involvement for each group. Table 6-1 lists
tools of public participation that might be useful in
informing and involving the public to different
degrees.
If the scope or potential scope of your reuse
planning warrants it—if, for example, you are
considering distribution of reclaimed water to several
users or types of users—formation of a public advi-
sory group at this stage will assist you in defining
system features and resolving problem areas. In its
regulations for full-scale public-participation pro-
grams, EPA requires that group membership con-
tain "substantially equivalent" representation of the
private (noninterested), organized, representative
and affected segments of the public. We would
recommend that group membership for reuse plan-
ning provide representation for potential users and
their employees, interest groups, neighborhood
residents, the other public agencies, and citizens
with specialized expertise in areas (such as public
health) that pertain directly to reclamation/reuse.
There is no reason to consider the group fixed at
its original membership; other interested citizens can
be co-opted as the reuse program takes shape and as
new issues or opportunities develop. What is impor-
tant, however, is to institutionalize the group and its
activities so that its efforts are directed effectively to
the task at hand: planning and implementation of a
reuse program in which the legitimate interests of
various sectors of the public have been fully consid-
ered and addressed. In order to achieve this, you
should publicize the proposed formation of the
advisory group and solicit recommendations for,
and expression of interest in, membership.
The group's responsibilities should be well-
defined, whether you intend that the group should
simply conduct a study of some particular aspect of
the reuse plan, or that it should serve throughout
program planning and implementation as a broad-
based representative body that can develop and
advocate the program. Its meetings should be open
to the public at times and places announced in
advance. The group's members should designate at
an early meeting a single individual who can serve as
a contact-point for the press and other news media.
The group should fully recognize its shared responsi-
bility for developing a sound reuse program that can
serve both user requirements and community objec-
tives. In subsequent public meetings, the group will
assert its combined role as source of information
representing numerous interests, and advocate of the
reuse program as it gains definition.
Other EPA regulations for full-scale public-
participation programs under Part 35 require
appointment of a public-participation coordinator—
an individual skilled in developing, publicizing, and
conducting informal briefings and work sessions as
well as formal presentations for various community
groups. Whether or not your program requires
designation of a public-participation specialist, you
should consider the significant value of providing
public contact and liaison through a single indi-
vidual. Such a person, whether an agency staffer,
advisory group member or specialist engaged from
the larger community, should be thoroughly
Table 6-1. THE TOOLS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION*
Education/Information
Newspaper articles, radio and TV programs, speeches and
presentations, field trips, exhibits, information deposito-
ries, school programs, films, brochures and newsletters,
reports, letters, conferences.
Review/Reaction
Briefings, public meetings, public hearings, surveys and
questionnaires, question-and-answer columns, advertised
"hotlines" for telephone inquiries.
Interaction/Dialogue
Workshops, special task forces, interviews, advisory
boards, informal contacts, study-group discussions,
seminars.
*from' and other sources
92
-------
informed of reuse-planning progress, be objective in
presenting information, and have the "clout" neces-
sary to communicate and get fast response on issues
or problems raised during program planning and
implementation. An individual who is recognized in
the community as filling these roles can greatly
facilitate the flow of information in each direction.
The timing of the public meeting required in
changes to 40 CFR "when alternatives are largely
developed but before an alternative or plan has been
selected"1 corresponds to the screening of potential
markets recommended in Chapter 1 of these Guide-
lines. At this meeting, you can present for public
scrutiny the list of reuse/non-reuse alternatives
developed for consideration; an outline of assump-
tions and criteria that will be used as this list is first
screened; and then evaluation in detail (see the
discussions in Chapter 1 of procedures used by East
Bay Dischargers Authority and by East Bay Munici-
pal Utility District). You should encourage and be
prepared to accept proposed additions or modifica-
tions to the base of information you have prepared at
this time.
The closer you are to selection of a reuse-
program alternative, the more specific will be the
issues remaining to be resolved. Now is the time to
seek direct, organized participation of potential users
in developing and evaluating details of the planned
program (see, for example, the Goleta case study).
This can be achieved by establishing an advisory
group of users (if you have not already created a
public advisory group) or by asking the public
advisory group to set up a directed study subcom-
mittee staffed by potential users and others with
specific pertinent expertise.
In "201" planning, the final structured element
of public participation involves a formal public
hearing "before final adoption of the facilities plan."
This would logically follow the detailed evalua-
tion of potential markets discussed in Chapter 1,
if the project were to qualify for Clean Water Act
funding. If you were not considering use of "201"
funds and your project involved a single public or
private user, with little or no impact on the general
public, it would not be necessary to hold a public
hearing. Obviously, however, supporting continued
public participation, as a follow-through measure,
would provide added assurance that future expan-
sion of the system to serve other users and markets
could be more easily achieved.
Bruvold and Crook have recently urged that a
direct solicitation of public opinion precede selection
of a treatment/reuse alternative.9 This might take
the form of a non-binding referendum, asking voters
to select among, say, three candidate reclamation
schemes that "deliberately represent divergent
solutions," possibly ranging from treatment/disposal
to advanced treatment/high-level reuse. In the weeks
before the referendum, a voter information packet
could be distributed containing a description of each
option, summaries of the environmental, economic
and health aspects of each, and position statements
by opposing groups. The effort could be accompa-
nied by meetings and media coverage; the authors
concede that all this "would cost money" but proba-
bly would be "less costly in money and confidence in
public officials" than failure to provide some form of
early, broad-based citizen involvement. Too often,
they say, "technical experts and political planners
can misjudge the public will...The bond issue vote on
(only) one option chosen by the experts weighs too
heavily in favor of technocratic expertise and too
lightly for democratic principles." Bruvold and
Crook cite the failure of the innovative and widely
publicized Santee, California recreational reuse
facility as an example of what can happen when
there is insufficient public support for funding
facilities favored by "the technical and local political
sectors."
A CASE IN POINT
In 1972, the Corps of Engineers revealed plans for a
program to provide land treatment, in four rural
counties in northwestern Indiana, of wastewater
piped from a highly industrialized area at the south
end of Lake Michigan. Galloway has completed a
case study and critique16 of the public reaction and
"solid front of opposition" stirred by the proposal,
which was shelved after more than a year of intense
public controversy. Galloway sees the Corps' failure
to consult with the public until within two weeks of a
public hearing on the proposal as a crucial flaw that
not only fostered an abiding sense of mistrust among
rural residents, but also limited even the amount of
technical information the Corps needed to develop a
sound plan. (For example, the proposed irrigation
rates of 134 inches annually would have been far too
high for the region's poorly drained sandy and loamy
soils and high water table. Farmers feared they
would be forced to change cropping patterns or to
sell their land under these conditions.) Despite the
Corps' attempts to restore public confidence in the
proposal by engaging the services of Indiana
Cooperative Extension Service agents, and sincere
efforts to respond to local criticisms of the plan, the
Corps was never able to overcome the inertia of
initial opposition to the plan.
93
-------
Galloway concludes that the Chicago-South End
of Lake Michigan plan typifies experiences likely to
occur in planning for wastewater reclamation/reuse
in other "urban-rural fringe areas." Opportunity
costs often are particularly high in such areas,
adding to the economic burden of any land-based
proposal. Among his conclusions:
• The Cooperative Extension Service or other educa-
tional agency should be involved from the outset in
planning for this type of reuse.
• Public education programs should be guided by
local citizens' committees representing all citizen
concerns.
• Programs should provide two-way flow of informa-
tion through small-group discussions and presen-
tations. The public hearing process "results in
more controversy than education," says Galloway.
• A program should assure ongoing contact between
the local/state agencies that will be involved.
• Broad changes in scope, location, type of use, or
use rates should be minimized, as changes in such
basic direction can lower public confidence in the
planners' understanding of technical issues.
Above all, Galloway argues, planners and
agencies "must eliminate biases toward favored
treatment alternatives" and must be well-informed
enough to handle discussions of technical or
agronomic issues skillfully. Users and the general
public will have legitimate concerns that must be
duly addressed in the planning process.
Galloway's concluding remarks provide a fitting
closing to this chapter:
"Good educational programs...cannot assure
public acceptance of land treatment... If they are
well-conceived and executed, they can result in a
public well enough informed to make logical choices
and support decision makers and officials who will
have to decide on adopting wastewater treatment
systems in the years ahead."
References
1. Rastatter, C L , ed Municipal Wastewater Management
Public Involvement Activities Guide Prepared by The
Conservation Foundation for the U S Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D C , January 1979 125 pp
2 Dunbar, JO Public Acceptance—Educational and
Informational Needs In Proc Joint Conference on Recycling
Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land Champaign,
Illinois, July 9-13, 1973 Natl Assn State Univ and Land
Grant Colleges, Washington, D C , 1973 pp 207-211
(quoted in 10)
3 Environmental Protection Agency State and Local Assistance,
Grants for Construction of Treatment Works Federal
Register, Vol 44. No 34, Part VI, February 16, 1979
pp 10300-10304
4 Heilman, C B "Join Forces with John Q Public " Water &
Wastes Engineering, July 1979
5 Environmental Protection Agency Public Participation in
Programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act,
Final Regulations Federal Register, Vol 44, No 34, Part V,
February 16, 1979 pp 10286-10297
6 Stern, C and M Reynolds Public Participation Regulations
A New Dimension in EPA Programs Public Works,
October 1979
7 Hollnstemer, M R People Power Community Participation
in the Planning and Implementation of Human Settlements
Philippine Studies 24 (1976) pp 5-36
8 Bruvold, WH and PC Ward Using Reclaimed Wastewater—
Public Opinion Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation 44 9, September 1972 pp 1690-1696.
9 Bruvold, WH andj Crook Public Participation in the
Adoption of Wastewater Reclamation Projects In
Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium, Vol 2. AWWA
Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado, 1979
10 Johnson, B B Waste Water Reuse and Water Quality
Planning in New England Attitudes and Adoption
Water Resources Research, Vol 15, No 6, December 1979
pp 1329-1334
11 Stone, R Water Reclamation Technology and Public
Acceptance Journal of the Environmental Engineering
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 102,
No EE3,June 1976 pp 581-594
12 Baumann, D D and R E Kasperson Public Acceptance of
Renovated Waste Water Myth and Reality. Water Resources
Research Vol 10, No 4, August 1974 pp 667-674
13 Sims,JH and D D Baumann Renovated Waste Water-The
Question of Public Acceptance Water Resources Research,
Vol. 10, No. 4, August 1974 pp 659-665
14 Bruvold, WH and H J Ongerth Public Use and Evaluation
of Reclaimed Water Journal AWWA (Management), May
1974 pp 294-297
15 Pagorski, AD Is the Public Ready for Recycled Water3
Water & Sewage Works, June 1974
16 Galloway, H M Public Views on Wastewater Cleanup on
Land: Suggestions for Public Educational Programs Journal
of Agronomic Education, Vol 4, 1975 pp 35-43
94
-------
Appendix
A
Research Needs for
Nonpotable Water Reuse
The following research needs would assist in the
development of nonpotable reuse programs:
Impact of Treatment on Viruses. Because we do
not have a routine determination for viruses, it would
be useful to have correlations developed for different
methods of treating wastewaters to establish rela-
tionships between the routine bacterial determina-
tions and the presence of viruses in the reclaimed
water for various types of wastewater and treatment
methods.
Impact of Aerosolized Viruses. Major reuse
applications are in the spray irrigation of lawns,
median strips and shoulders on roadways, parks and
playgrounds, and in the cooling towers of power
plants. In these applications, as contrasted with
agricultural reuse, there exists the potential for
exposure of a large segment of the population to the
sprays. This makes the virus problem somewhat
more serious than in the case when only a few people
might be exposed, as in the case of agricultural
spraying or at wastewater treatment plants. Some
work has been done in detecting bacteria in these
sprays and plumes, but almost no work has been
done in identifying viruses.
The persistence of viruses in air drying on
sprayed areas should also be established. One of the
guidelines for reuse might be that the spray irriga-
tion be done in the evening, with use of the sprayed
fields—such as tennis courts and golf courses—
during the daylight hours. More information con-
cerning the time element that should be provided
between spraying and contact is required.
Water Quality Standards for Nonpotable Reuse.
Standards must be developed for various nonpotable
uses. In the case of nonpotable distribution systems,
it is necessary that the standards meet the require-
ments for the highest use. Standards have been
developed for many nonpotable uses, especially in
California. But the standards are needed for nonpot-
able systems as well as for such uses as toilet flush-
ing and residential irrigation. In connection with
such standards, protocols for monitoring of such
systems need to be developed, including frequency
and method of sampling.
Studies of Wastewater Filtration. Experience and
research at Pomona, California has demonstrated
that minimum treatment to assure quality of the
nonpotable supply will include filtration of the
wastewater treatment plant effluent. Some studies in
this regard have been done, but not with the inten-
tion of meeting a standard for reuse. Far more
attention needs to be given to direct filtration of
effluents with the use of coagulants or coagulant
aids.
Distribution System Maintenance. Because there
has been no extensive monitoring of nonpotable
systems, we have little data on the fate of chlorine
residuals in distribution systems for nonpotable
waters. We can expect that slimes will grow, and we
should obtain data on such growths, with the inten-
tion of devising control methods, such as periodic
intensive chlorination, should this be necessary. As
noted above, nonpotable systems will need to be
monitored for bacteria in much the same way that
potable systems are now being monitored. However,
we do not know what standards should be applied to
such systems, and research in this area would be
extremely helpful.
95
-------
Documentation of Experience at Reuse Systems.
Nonpotable systems where many and diverse cus-
tomers make use of the reclaimed wastewater are few
in number and relatively new. Accordingly, it might
be well to profit from these innovative applications
and to assist the agencies operating them to assem-
ble data based upon their operations. Data so
collected would be extremely useful to others
who might seek to initiate nonpotable distribution
systems.
Intensive Monitoring Program. Many innovative
nonpotable reuse systems are being introduced.
Regulatory agencies are understandably cautious
and would tend to impose monitoring requirements
that may seem excessive, but are necessary because
of the lack of experience with such systems. It would
be entirely appropriate to use research funds to assist
with the additional monitoring required during the
early days of such systems. Once there is experience
with nonpotable systems, the level of monitoring
could be sharply reduced.
96
-------
Appendix
B
State and Federal Environmental Agencies
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES
State
Overall Responsibility
Wastewater Responsibility
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Chief Engineer & Director
Environmental Health Administration
State Office Building
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205)832-3176
Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
Pouch 0
Juneau, AK 99811
(907) 465-2600
Director
Division of Environmental Health Services
1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602)255-1130
Director
Department of Pollution Control & Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72219
(501)371-1701
Secretary for Resources
The Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916)445-5656
Executive Director
Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
(303) 320-8333, ext. 3315
Commissioner
Department of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06115
(203)566-2110
Secretary
Department of Natural Resources
& Environmental Control
PO. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19901
(302) 678-4403
Director
Department of Environmental Services
415 12th Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
(202)629-3415
Water Improvement Comm.
State Office Building
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205) 277-3630
Division of Water Programs
Department of Environmental Conservation
Pouch 0
Juneau, AK 99811
(907) 465-2640
Division of Environmental Health Services
Bureau of Water Quality Control
1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602)255-1252
Department of Pollution Control & Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72219
(501)371-1701
Water Resources Control Board
PO. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95801
(916)445-7762
Water Pollution Control Division
Department of Health
4210East llth Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
(303) 320-8333
Department of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06115
(203) 566-5599
Division of Environmental Control
Department of Natural Resources
& Environmental Control
PO Box 1401
Dover, DEI 9901
(302) 678-4765
Water Quality Division
Department of Environmental Services
5010 Overlook Avenue S W.
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 767-7486
97
-------
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES (continued)
State
Overall Responsibility
Wastewater Responsibility
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky-
Louisiana
Maine
Secretary
Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904) 488-4807
Director
Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington Street S.W., Room 822
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404)656-4713
Director of Health
Hawaii State Department of Health
PO. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
(808) 548-6505
Department of Health & Welfare
Division of Environment
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 384-2393
Director
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
(217)782-3397
Secretary
State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206
(317) 633-8854
Executive Director
Department of Environmental Quality
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand
DesMoines,IA50319
(515)281-8690
Director
Division of Environment
Depertment of Health & Environment
Topeka, KS 66620
(913)862-8690
Commissioner
Bureau of Environmental Protection
Department of Natural Resources
& Environmental Protection
Capital Plaza Towers
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)564-2150
Office of Health Services
& Environmental Quality
PO. Box 60630
New Orleans, LA 70160
(504) 568-5100
Commissioner
Department of Environmental Protection
State House
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 289-2811
Division of Environmental Programs
Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904)487-8163
Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington Street S.W, Room 822
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-6593
Environmental Health Division
Hawaii State Department of Health
PO. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
(808) 548-4139
Department of Health & Welfare
Division of Environment
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 384-2433
Division of Water Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
(217)782-9540
Director
Division of Water Pollution Control
State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206
(317)633-8862
Water Quality Management Division
Department of Environmental Quality
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand
DesMoines, IA50319
(515)281-8690
Bureau of Water Quality
Division of Environment
Department of Health & Environment
Topeka, KS 66620
(913)862-9360
Division of Water Quality
Department of Natural Resources
& Environmental Protection
Century Plaza
U.S. 127 South
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-3410
Stream Control Commission
PO. Box Drawer FC
University Station
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
(504) 389-5309
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
Department of Environmental Protection
State House
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 289-2591
98
-------
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES (continued)
State
Overall Responsibility
Wastewater Responsibility
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Environmental Health Administration
Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
(301)383-2740
Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
(617)727-9800
Chief
Bureau of Environmental Protection
Department of Natural Resources
RO. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
(517)373-7917
Executive Director
Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN55113
(612)296-7301
Executive Director
Air & Water Pollution Control Commission
PO. Box 827
Jackson, MS 39205
(601)354-2550
Director
Division of Environmental Quality
PO. Box 1368
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314)751-3241
Administrator
Environmental Sciences Division
Department of Health
& Environmental Sciences
Board of Health Building
Helena, MT 59601
(406) 449-3946
Director
Department of Environmental Control
EO. Box 94877, State House Station
Lincoln, NB 68509
(402)471-2186
Director
Department of Conservation
& Natural Resources
201 South Fall Street, Capitol Complex
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 885-4360
Commissioner
Department of Environmental Protection
PO. Box 1390
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-2885
Water Resources Administration
Department of Natural Resources
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301)269-3846
Division of Water Pollution Control
Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
110 Tremont Street
Boston, MA 02202
(617)727-3855
Water Quality Division
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
(517)373-1947
Pollution Control Agency
Division of Water Quality
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
(612) 296-7203
Division of Water Pollution Control
Air & Water Pollution Control Commission
PO. Box 827
Jackson, MS 39205
(601)354-2550
Water Quality Program
Division of Environmental Quality
RO Box 1368
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-3241
Water Quality Bureau
Department of Health
& Environmental Sciences
555 Fuller
Helena, MT 59601
(406) 449-2406
Department of Environmental
Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 94877, State House Station
Lincoln, NB 68509
(402)471-2186
Department of Conservation
& Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Protection
201 South Fall Street, Capitol Complex
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 885-4670
Water Supply & Pollution Control Commission
105 Loudon Road, P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-3503
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. BoxCN029
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-0666
99
-------
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES (continued)
State
Overall Responsibility
Wastewater Responsibility
Oklahoma
New Mexico Director
Environmental Improvement Division
PO. Box 968
Santa Fe, NM 87503
(505)827-5271
New York Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518) 457-3446
North Carolina Director
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Natural Resources
& Community Development
RO Box 27687
Raleigh, NO 27611
(919)733-7015
North Dakota Chief
Environmental Health & Engineering Services
Executive Offices
State Department of Health
State Capitol
Bismarck, ND 58501
(701)224-2371
Director
Environmental Protection Agency
PO. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216
(614)466-8318
Director
Department of Pollution Control
Box 53504
N.E. 1 Oth & Stonewall
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405)271-4677
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
PO. Box 1760
Portland, OR 97207
(503) 229-5696
Pennsylvania Secretary
Department of Environmental Resources
RO Box 1467
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717)787-2814
Puerto Rico Chairman
Environmental Quality Board
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
(809) 725-5140
Rhode Island Director
Environmental Management
83 Park Street
Providence, RI 02903
(401)277-2771
South Carolina Commissioner
Department of Health
& Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 758-5443
Water Pollution Control Section
Environmental Improvement Agency
RO. Box 968
Santa Fe, NM 87 503
(505)827-5271
Division of Pure Waters
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518)457-6674
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Natural Resources
& Community Development
PO. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919)733-7120
Division of Water Supply & Pollution Control
Department of Health
State-Capitol
Bismarck, ND 58501
(701)224-2354
Division of Water Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
RO. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216
(614)466-2390
Water Resources Board
Jim Thorpe Building, 5th Floor
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405)521-3945
Water Quality Control Division
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O Box 1760
Portland, OR 97207
(503) 229-6474
Bureau of Water Quality Management
Department of Environmental Resources
PO Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717)787-2666
Associate Member
Air and Water Environmental Quality Board
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
(809) 725-8692
Department of Environmental Management
Cannon Building, Room 209
75 Davis Street
Providence, RI 02908
(401)277-2234
Division of Water Quality
Department of Health
& Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803)758-5483
100
-------
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES (continued)
State
Overall Responsibility
Wastewater Responsibility
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Secretary
Department of Environmental Protection
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501
(605) 773-3351
Director
Bureau of Environmental Health Services
Department of Public Health
349 Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, TN 37219
(615)741-3657
Deputy Director
Environmental Health Services Bureau
150 W. North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
(801)533-6121
Secretary
Agency of Environmental Conservation
Montpelier, VT 05602
(802) 828-3357
Commissioner
Department of Conservation
& Cultural Affairs
PO. Box 4340
St. Thomas, VI 00801
(809) 774-3320
Director
Department of Ecology
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 753-2240
Director
Department of Natural Resources
1800 East Washington Street
Charleston, WV 25305
(304) 348-2754
Secretary
Department of Natural Resources
RO. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608)266-2121
Director
Department of Environmental Quality
Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7391
Water Quality Program
Department of Environmental Protection
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 5750 \
(605) 773-3296
Division of Water Quality Control
Department of Public Health
621 Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, TN 37219
(615)741-2275
Texas Department of Water Resources
PO. Box 13087, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711
(512)475-3187
Bureau of Water Quality
Environmental Health Services Bureau
150 W North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 8411 (I
(801) 533-6146
Department of Water Resources
Agency of Environmental Conservation
Montpeiier, VT 05602
(802)828-3361
State Water Control Board
Commonwealth of Virginia
2111 North Hamilton Street
Richmond, VA 23230
(804) 257-0056
Director
Division of Natural Resource Management
Department of Conservation
& Cultural Affairs
PO. Box 4340
St. Thomas, VI 00801
(809) 774-6420
Water Quality Section
Department of Ecology
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 753-2966
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 253II
(304)348-2107
Division of Environmental Protection
Department of Natural Resources
P.O Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 266-0289
Water Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, WY 02002
(307) 777-7781
101
-------
REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS, FEDERAL EPA
Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Delaware, District of Columbia,
Maryland, Virginia,
West Virginia, Pennsylvania
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Colorado, Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, Wyoming
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam,
Trust Territories of Pacific Islands,
Wake Island
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Regional Administrator I
Environmental Protection Agency
John F Kennedy Federal Building, Room 2303
Boston, MA 02203
(617)223-7210
Regional Administrator II
Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 908
New York, NY 10007
(212)264-2525
Regional Administrator III
Environmental Protection Agency
Curtis Building, Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215)597-9801
Regional Administrator IV
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E
Atlanta, GA 30308
(404) 526-5727
Regional Administrator V
Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-5250
Regional Administrator VI
Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
(214)749-1962
Regional Administrator VII
Environmental Protection Agency
1735 Baltimore Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64108
(816)374-5493
Regional Administrator VIII
Environmental Protection Agency
Lincoln Tower, Suite 900
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 837-3895
Regional Administrator IX
Environmental Protection Agency
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)556-2320
Regional Administrator X
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-1220
102
-------
Appendix
c
Basis of Costs
These reuse Guidelines are not intended for use as a
design manual for cost-effectiveness analysis, but
rather as a means of making preliminary reconnais-
sance-level cost estimates to identify some key
economic bounds of a proposed reuse program.
Costs of unit processes in these Guidelines were
based on several engineering reports completed by
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. The reports were
based on a comprehensive review of published
information on the costs of unit processes and actual
construction projects. Table C-l presents additional
wastewater treatment costs and design criteria.
Capital costs include structures, equipment, and
nominal costs for electrical, instrumentation, and site
work No unusual structural requirements due to soil
or other site conditions were considered. Engineering,
legal, administrative, construction supervision and
construction contingencies are included.
Construction costs undergo long-term changes in
keeping with corresponding changes in the national
economy. One widely-used barometer of these
changes is the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Con-
struction Cost Index. The ENR index is computed
from costs of construction and labor, and adjusted
for geographical variation throughout the United
States. In any given locality, construction costs could
be 30 percent above or below the national average.
Costs for these Guidelines are based on an index of
3000 for mid-1979.
Table C-1. ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS AND DESIGN PARAMETERS
Unit Process
COST EQUATION COEFFICIENTS AND EXPONENTS*
Capital Costs Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Materials Labor**
a b a b a b
Design Parameters
Coagulation and Flocculation
Filtration
Sedimentation
Separate Nitrification
Two Stage Lime Treatment
Lime Recalcination
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Reverse Osmosis
Chlormation
Dechlorination
$ 175,000
210,000
155,000
415,000
386,000
800,000
915,000
1,200,000
50,000
43,000
070
090
090
080
0.85
060
080
080
095
095
$ 28,000
19,000
1,000
7,700
8,700
90,000
22,000
290,000
9,000
8,000
080
080
075
075
095
090
085
080
070
070
$ "l,100
2,750
6,200
7,200
21,700
45,000
20,000
21,000
5,600
5,600
070
080
0 55
055
065
055
055
055
060
060
20 mg/1 alum
4 gpm/sf filtration rate
650 gpd/sf overflow rate
4-hr detention time includes
settling (clarifier 650 gpd/sf)
400 mg/1 CaO
3 5 tons of sludge per million
gallons
4 gpm/sf, 12-min contact
time, (includes thermal
regeneration and carbon
make-up)
90% TDS removal
10 mg/1 30-min detention at
average flow
10mg/lSO2
*Cost Equation is' C = aQb, where
C = costs
a = coefficient of proportionality
Q = average design flow in mgd
b = exponent indicating economy of scale
**Labor based on $10/hr Should be adjusted to local conditions
ENR Construction Cost Index = 3000.
103
-------
All capital costs presented in these Guidelines
should be expressed in terms of annual or amortized
costs. These annual costs for capital can then be
added to the projected annual operations-and-
maintenance costs to yield a total annual cost, which
can be used to compare reuse alternatives. Capital
costs of wastewater-treatment processes can usually
be broken down to structural and equipment com-
ponents. Table C-2 shows the equivalent annual cost
factors for various service lives. The factors are based
on a 7% interest rate, which is approximately the
rate required for cost-effectiveness analysis.
The planning period for economic comparison
should be 20 years. Therefore, equipment with a
service life of ten years is replaced at the end of ten
years. The factors in Table C-2 take this into
account. Similarly, if a structure has a 30-year life, it
would have a salvage value of one-third its original
value at the end of 20 years. This salvage value,
which is based on straight-line depreciation, is also
reflected in the conversion factors.
Table C-2. TO CONVERT CAPITAL COSTS
TO EQUIVALENT ANNUAL COSTS
(AT ASSUMED 7% INTEREST RATES)
Service Life
Conversion Factor
5
10
15
20
30
40
50
0.243
0.142
0.112
0.094
0.086
0.082
0.079
As an example of using this method of cost estimat-
ing, consider the example presented in Chapter 3 for
additional treatment facilities. The first thing that
must be done is to break out the structural and
mechanical components of each unit process and
determine their individual service lives. Using the
conversion factors in Table C-2, you can separate
annual costs for each component. The computations
below show how this might be accomplished:
Coagulation
$200,000
340,000
$540,000
Filtration
1450,000
440,000
(structures,
(equipment,
(structures,
(equipment,
40 years) x
15 years) x
40 years) x
20 years) x
.082
.112
.082
.094
$890,000
Disinfection
$ 75,000
25,000
100,000
$200,000
Total
(structures,
(equipment,
(equipment,
40 years) x
5 years) x
1 5 years) x
.082
.243
.112
= $16,400
= 38,100
$54,500
= $36,900
= 41,400
$78,300
= $ 6,100
= 6,100
= 11,200
$23,400
$156,200
For the example presented above, use of the more
accurate method changes the unit cost from
$163,000, calculated in Chapter 3, to $156,000.
Generally, this type of cost analysis is not necessary
for most reconnaissance-level reuse planning.
104
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/8-80-036
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
'Guidelines for Water Reuse"
5. REPORT DATE
August 1980 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
John F. Donovan and John E. Bates
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
One Center Plaza
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
35BlC,#C611B,SOS#4,Taskl4
11. CONTRACT/ORANT NO.
68-03-2686
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Final 7/78 to 4/80
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: John N. English Telephone 513/684-7613
16. ABSTRACT
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified an immediate
short-term objective of developing a wastewater-reuse guidelines document that
will significantly increase interest in and assist implementation of wastewater
reuse for nonpotable purposes: irrigation and agriculture, industrial, recreation,
and nonpotable domestic use. The guidelines have been developed to make water
managers and resource planners aware of proven reuse possibilities that may exist
nearby and to alert the guidelines user to EPA's encouragement and support for the
water-reuse approach. Following a step-by-step approach provided in the guidelines,
the water manager and resource planner will have addressed the principal areas of
concern in water-reuse programs, including technology, economics, legal issues,
institutional arrangements, markets, and public information. The nature of these
areas of concern is examined so that the guidelines user can estimate the complexity
of the implementation problem and the effort required to overcome it. Case histories
provide insight into actual reuse experience for similar communities, and the result
to the user of the guidelines is a clear indication of the feasibility of wastewater
reuse in the community.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COS AT I Field/Group
Water reclamation
Water conservation
Water resources
Water supply
Industrial water
Irrigation
yirn1
l\n\~
3. BIS
Wastewater renovation
Wastewater reuse
Wastewater treatment
Water reuse
Water recycle
Reuse technology
Domestic reuse
ppr.rpat.inn Reuse
13B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
2<^ SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
105
US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1980-657-165/0143
------- |