-------
EPA/625/R-04/108
September 2004
Guidelines for Water Reuse
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Municipal Support Division
Office of Wastewater Management
Office of Water
Washington, DC
Technology Transfer and Support Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH
U.S. Agency for International Development
Washington, DC
-------
Notice
This document was produced by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. under a Cooperative Research
and Development Agreement with the US Environmental Protection Agency. It has been
subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
In an effort to help meet growing demands being placed
on available water supplies, many communities through-
out the U.S. and the world are turning to water reclama-
tion and reuse. Water reclamation and reuse offer an
effective means of conserving our limited high-quality
freshwater supplies while helping to meet the ever grow-
ing demands for water.
For many years, effluent discharges have been accepted
as an important source for maintaining minimum stream
flows. The investment in treatment technologies required
to meet restrictive discharge limits has lead an increas-
ing number of industries and communities to consider
other uses for their treated wastewater effluents as a
means to recover at least a part of this investment.
Further, as sources of water supplies have become lim-
ited, there has been greater use and acceptance of re-
claimed wastewater effluents as an alternative source
of water for a wide variety of applications, including land-
scape and agricultural irrigation, toilet and urinal flush-
ing, industrial processing, power plant cooling, wetland
habitat creation, restoration and maintenance, and
groundwater recharge. In some areas of the country,
water reuse and dual water systems with purple pipe
for distribution of reclaimed water have become fully
integrated into local water supplies.
The 2004 Guidelines for Water Reuse examines oppor-
tunities for substituting reclaimed water for potable wa-
ter supplies where potable water quality is not required.
It presents and summarizes recommended water reuse
guidelines, along with supporting information, as guid-
ance for the benefit of the water and wastewater utili-
ties and regulatory agencies, particularly in the U.S. The
document updates the 1992 Guidelines document by
incorporating information on water reuse that has been
developed since the 1992 document was issued. This
revised edition also expands coverage of water reuse
issues and practices in other countries. It includes many
new and updated case studies, expanded coverage of
indirect potable reuse and industrial reuse issues, new
information on treatment and disinfection technologies,
emerging chemicals and pathogens of concern, eco-
nomics, user rates and funding alternatives, public in-
volvement and acceptance (both successes and fail-
ures), research activities and results, and sources of
further information. It also includes as an updated ma-
trix of state regulations and guidelines, and a list of state
contacts. This information should be useful to states in
developing water reuse standards, and revising or ex-
panding existing regulations. It should also be useful to
planners, consulting engineers and others actively in-
volved in the evaluation, planning, design, operation or
maintenance of water reclamation and reuse facilities.
Benjamin H. Grumbles
Assistant Administrator for Water U.S. EPA
Paul Oilman
Assistant Administrator for Research & Development
U.S. EPA
Jacqueline E. Schafer
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade
U.S. Agency for International Development
MI
-------
IV
-------
Contents
Chapter Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Objectives of the Guidelines 1
1.2 Water Demands and Reuse 1
1.3 Source Substitution 2
1.4 Pollution Abatement 3
1.5 Treatment and Water Quality Considerations 3
1.6 Overview of the Guidelines 4
1.7 References 5
2 TYPES OF REUSE APPLICATIONS 7
2.1 Urban Reuse 7
2.1.1 Reclaimed Water Demand 8
2.1.2 Reliability and Public Health Protection 9
2.1.3 Design Considerations 10
2.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Faciliities 10
2.1.3.2 Distribution System 10
2.1.4. Using Reclaimed Water for Fire Protection 12
2.2 Industrial Reuse 13
2.2.1 Cooling Water 13
2.2.1.1 Once-Through Cooling Water Systems 13
2.2.1.2 Recirculating Evaporative Cooling Water Systems 13
2.2.1.3 Cooling Water Quality Requirements 15
2.2.2 Boiler Make-up Water 16
2.2.3 Industrial Process Water 17
2.2.3.1 Pulp and Paper Industry 17
2.2.3.2 Chemical Industry 17
2.2.3.3 Textile Industry 17
2.2.3.4 Petroleum and Coal 20
2.3 Agricultural Reuse 20
2.3.1 Estimating Agricultural Irrigation Demands 21
2.3.1.1 Evapotranspiration 21
2.3.1.2 Effective Precipitation, Percolation and Surface Water
Runoff Losses 21
2.3.2 Reclaimed Water Quality 22
2.3.2.1 Salinity 23
2.3.2.2 Sodium 23
2.3.2.3 Trace Elements 24
2.3.2.4 Chlorine Residual 24
2.3.2.5 Nutrients 24
2.3.3 Other System Considerations 26
2.3.3.1 System Reliability 26
-------
Chapter Page
2.3.3.2 Site Use Control 26
2.3.3.3 Monitoring Requirements 26
2.3.3.4 Runoff Controls 26
2.3.3.5 Marketing Incentives 27
2.3.3.6 Irrigation Equipment 27
2.4 Environmental and Recreational Reuse 27
2.4.1 Natural and Man-made Wetlands 28
2.4.2 Recreational and Aesthetic Impoundments 30
2.4.3 Stream Augmentation 30
2.5 Groundwater Recharge 31
2.5.1 Methods of Groundwater Recharge 32
2.5.1.1 Surface Spreading 32
2.5.1.2 Soil-Aquifer Treatment Systems 35
2.5.1.3 VadoseZone Injection 37
2.5.1.4 Direct Injection 38
2.5.2 Fate of Contaminants in Recharge Systems 38
2.5.2.1 Particulate Matter 39
2.5.2.2 Dissolved Organic Constituents 39
2.5.2.3 Nitrogen 40
2.5.2.4 Microorganisms 40
2.5.3 Health and Regulatory Considerations 41
2.6 Augmentation of Potable Supplies 41
2.6.1 Water Quality Objectives for Potable Reuse 42
2.6.2 Surface Water Augmentation for Indirect Potable Reuse 44
2.6.3 Groundwater Recharge for Indirect Potable Reuse 45
2.6.4 Direct Potable Water Reuse 46
2.7 Case Studies 48
2.7.1 Water Reuse at Reedy Creek Improvement District 49
2.7.2 Estimating Potable Water Conserved in Altamonte Springs due
to Reuse 50
2.7.3 How Using Potable Supplies to Supplement Reclaimed Water
Flows can Increase Conservation, Hillsborough County, Florida 51
2.7.4 Water Reclamation and Reuse Offer an Integrated Approach to
Wastewater Treatment and Water Resources Issues in Phoenix,
Arizona 54
2.7.5 Small and Growing Community: Yelm, Washington 55
2.7.6 Landscape Uses of Reclaimed Water with Elevated Salinity;
El Paso, Texas 57
2.7.7 Use of Reclaimed Water in a Fabric Dyeing Industry 58
2.7.8 Survey of Power Plants Using Reclaimed Water for
Cooling Water 58
2.7.9 Agricultural Reuse in Tallahassee, Florida 60
2.7.10 Spray Irrigation at Durbin Creek WWTP Western Carolina
Regional Sewer Authority 60
2.7.11 Agricultural Irrigation of Vegetable Crops: Monterey, California 62
2.7.12 Water Conserv II: City of Orlando and Orange County, Florida 62
2.7.13 The Creation of a Wetlands Park: Petaluma, California 64
2.7.14 Geysers Recharge Project: Santa Rosa, California 64
2.7.15 Advanced Wastewater Reclamation in California 65
2.7.16 An Investigation of Soil Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water 66
2.7.17 The City of West Palm Beach, Florida Wetlands-Based Water
Reclamation Project 67
VI
-------
Chapter Page
2.7.18 Types of Reuse Applications in Florida 69
2.7.19 Regionalizing Reclaimed Water in the Tampa Bay Area 70
2.8 References 71
3 TECHNICAL ISSUES IN PLANNING WATER REUSE SYSTEMS 77
3.1 Planning Approach 77
3.1.1 Preliminary Investigations 78
3.1.2 Screening of Potential Markets 78
3.1.3 Detailed Evaluation of Selected Markets 79
3.2 Potential Uses of Reclaimed Water 80
3.2.1 National Water Use 81
3.2.2 Potential Reclaimed Water Demands 81
3.2.3 Reuse and Water Conservation 85
3.3 Sources of Reclaimed Water 86
3.3.1 Locating the Sources 86
3.3.2 Characterizing the Sources 87
3.3.2.1 Level of Treatment and Processes 87
3.3.2.2 Reclaimed Water Quality 88
3.3.2.3 Reclaimed Water Quantity 89
3.3.2.4 Industrial Wastewater Contributions 90
3.4 Treatment Requirements for Water Reuse 90
3.4.1 Health Assessment of Water Reuse 91
3.4.1.1 Mechanism of Disease Transmission 91
3.4.1.2 Pathogenic Microorganisms and Health Risks 92
3.4.1.3 Presence and Survival of Pathogens 95
3.4.1.4 Pathogens and Indicator Organisms in Reclaimed Water 96
3.4.1.5 Aerosols 98
3.4.1.6 Infectious Disease Incidence Related to
Wastewater Reuse 100
3.4.1.7 Chemical Constituents 102
3.4.1.8 Endocrine Disrupters 104
3.4.2 Treatment Requirements 106
3.4.2.1 Disinfection 107
3.4.2.2 Advanced Wastewater Treatment 109
3.4.3 Reliability in Treatment 113
3.4.3.1 EPA Guidelines for Reliability 113
3.4.3.2 Additional Requirements for Reuse Applications 115
3.4.3.3 Operator Training and Competence 118
3.4.3.4 Quality Assurance in Monitoring 118
3.5 Seasonal Storage Requirements 118
3.5.1 Identifying the Operating Parameters 120
3.5.2 Storage to Meet Irrigation Demands 121
3.5.3 Operating without Seasonal Storage 122
3.6 Supplemental Water Reuse System Facilities 122
3.6.1 Conveyance and Distribution Facilities 122
3.6.1.1 Public Health Safeguards 124
3.6.1.2 Operations and Maintenance 127
3.6.2 Operational Storage 128
3.6.3 Alternative Disposal Facilities 129
3.6.3.1 Surface Water Discharge 130
3.6.3.2 Injection Wells 130
VII
-------
Chapter Page
3.6.3.3 Land Application 131
3.7 Environmental Impacts 132
3.7.1 Land Use Impacts 132
3.7.2 Stream Flowlmpacts 133
3.7.3 Hydrogeological Impacts 134
3.8 Case Studies 134
3.8.1 Code of Good Practices for Water Reuse 134
3.8.2 Examples of Potable Water Separation Standards from the
State of Washington 135
3.8.3 An Example of using Risk Assessment to Establish Reclaimed
Water Quality 136
3.9 References 137
4 WATER REUSE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES IN THE U.S 149
4.1 Inventory of Existing State Regulations and Guidelines 149
4.1.1 Reclaimed Water Quality and Treatment Requirements 153
4.1.1.1 Unrestricted Urban Reuse 153
4.1.1.2 Restricted Urban Reuse 154
4.1.1.3 Agricultural Reuse- Food Crops 155
4.1.1.4 Agricultural Reuse - Non-food Crops 156
4.1.1.5 Unrestricted Recreational Reuse 157
4.1.1.6 Restricted Recreational Reuse 158
4.1.1.7 Environmental-Wetlands 159
4.1.1.8 Industrial Reuse 159
4.1.1.9 Groundwater Recharge 160
4.1.1.10lndirect Potable Reuse 161
4.1.2 Reclaimed Water Monitoring Requirements 162
4.1.3 Treatment Facility Reliability 162
4.1.4 Reclaimed Water Storage 164
4.1.5 Application Rates 164
4.1.6 Groundwater Monitoring 165
4.1.7 Setback Distances for Irrigation 165
4.2 Suggested Guidelines for Water Reuse 165
4.3 Pathogens and Emerging Pollutants of Concern (EPOC) 172
4.4 Pilot Testing 172
4.5 References 173
5 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 175
5.1 Water Rights Law 175
5.1.1 Appropriative Rights System 176
5.1.2 Riparian Rights System 176
5.1.3 Water Rights and Water Reuse 176
5.1.4 Federal Water Rights Issues 177
5.2 Water Supply and Use Regulations 178
5.2.1 WaterSupply Reductions 178
5.2.2 Water Efficiency Goals 178
5.2.3 Water Use Restrictions 179
5.3 Wastewater Regulations 179
5.3.1 Effluent Quality Limits 180
5.3.2 Effluent Flow Limits 180
VIM
-------
Chapter Page
5.4 Safe Drinking Water Act-Source Water Protection 180
5.5 Land Use and Environmental Regulations 181
5.5.1 General and Specific Plans 181
5.5.2 Environmental Regulations 182
5.5.2.1 Special Environmental Topics 183
5.6 Legal Issues in Implementation 183
5.6.1 Construction Issues 183
5.6.1.1 System Construction Issues 184
5.6.1.2 Onsite Construction Issues 184
5.6.2 Wholesaler/Retailer Issues 184
5.6.2.1 Institutional Criteria 185
5.6.2.2 Institutional Inventory and Assessment 185
5.6.3 Customer Issues 186
5.6.3.1 Statutory Customer Responsibilities 186
5.6.3.2 Termsof Service and Commercial Arrangements 187
5.7 Case Studies 187
5.7.1 Statutory Mandate to Utilize Reclaimed Water: California 187
5.7.2 Administrative Order to Evaluate Feasibility of Water Reclamation:
Fallbrook Sanitary District, Fallbrook, California 188
5.7.3 Reclaimed Water User Agreements Instead of Ordinance:
Central Florida 188
5.7.4 Interagency Agreement Required for Water Reuse: Monterey
County Water Recycling Project, Monterey, California 189
5.7.5 Public/Private Partnership to Expand Reuse Program:The City of
Orlando, Orange County and The Private Sector - Orlando,
Florida 190
5.7.6 Inspection of Reclaimed Water Connections Protect Potable Water
Supply: Pinellas County Utilities, Florida 191
5.7.7 Oneida Indian Nation/Municipal/State Coordination Leads to
Effluent Reuse: Oneida Nation, New York 191
5.7.8 Implementing Massachusetts' First Golf Course Irrigation System
Utilizing Reclaimed Water: Yarmouth, Massachusetts 196
5.8 References 198
6 FUNDING WATER REUSE SYSTEMS 199
6.1 Decision Making Tools 199
6.2 Externally Generated Funding Alternatives 200
6.2.1 Local Government Tax-Exempt Bonds 200
6.2.2 State and Federal Financial Assistance 201
6.2.2.1 State Revolving Fund 201
6.2.2.2 Federal Policy 202
6.2.2.3 Other Federal Sources 202
6.2.2.4 State, Regional, and Local Grant and Loan Support 203
6.2.3 Capital Contributions 203
6.3 Internally Generated Funding Alternatives 204
6.3.1 Reclaimed Water User Charges 204
6.3.2 Operating Budget and Cash Reserves 205
6.3.3 Property Taxes and Existing User Charges 205
6.3.4 Public Utility Tax 206
6.3.5 Special Assessments or Special Tax Districts 206
6.3.6 Impact Fees 206
IX
-------
Chapter Page
6.4 Incremental Versus Proportionate Share Costs 206
6.4.1 Incremental Cost Basis 206
6.4.2 Proportionate Share Cost Basis 207
6.5 Phasing and Participation Incentives 208
6.6 Sample Rates and Fees 209
6.6.1 Connection Fees 209
6.6.2 User Fees 209
6.7 Case Studies 209
6.7.1 Unique Funding Aspects of the Town of Longboat Key Reclaimed
Water System 209
6.7.2 Financial Assistance in San Diego County, California 212
6.7.3 Grant Funding Through the Southwest Florida Water Management
District 212
6.7.4 Use of Reclaimed Water to Augment Potable Supplies:
An Economic Perspective (California) 213
6.7.5 Impact Fee Development Considerations for Reclaimed Water
Projects: Hillsborough County, Florida 215
6.7.6 How Much Does it Cost and Who Pays: A Look at Florida's
Reclaimed Water Rates 216
6.7.7 Rate Setting for Industrial Reuse in San Marcos, Texas 218
6.8 References 219
7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMS 221
7.1 Why Public Participation? 221
7.1.1 Informed Constituency 221
7.2 Defining the "Public" 222
7.3 Overview of Public Perceptions 222
7.3.1 Residential and Commercial Reuse in Tampa, Florida 223
7.3.2 A Survey of WWTP Operators and Managers 223
7.3.3 Public Opinion in San Francisco, California 223
7.3.4 Clark County Sanitation District Water Reclamation Opinion
Surveys 223
7.4 Involving the Public in Reuse Planning 224
7.4.1 General Requirements for Public Participation 226
7.4.1.1. Public Advisory Groups or Task Forces 228
7.4.1.2 Public Participation Coordinator 229
7.4.2 Specific Customer Needs 229
7.4.2.1 Urban Systems 229
7.4.2.2 Agricultural Systems 229
7.4.2.3 Reclaimed Water for Potable Purposes 230
7.4.3 Agency Communication 230
7.4.4 Public Information Through Implementation 231
7.4.5 Promoting Successes 231
7.5 Case Studies 231
7.5.1 Accepting Produce Grown with Reclaimed Water: Monterey,
California 231
7.5.2 Water Independence in Cape Coral - An Implementation Update
in 2003 232
7.5.3 Learning Important Lessons When Projects Don't Go as Planned 234
7.5.3.1 San Diego, California 234
7.5.3.2 Public Outreach May not be Enough: Tampa, Florida 235
-------
Chapter Page
7.5.4 Pinellas County, Florida Adds Reclaimed Water to Three R's of
Education 236
7.5.5 Yelm, Washington, A Reclaimed Water Success Story 237
7.5.6 Gwinnett County, Georgia - Master Plan Update Authored
by Public 237
7.5.7 AWWA Golf Course Reclaimed Water Market Assessment 238
7.6 References 240
8 WATER REUSE OUTSIDE THE U.S 241
8.1 Main Characteristics of Water Reuse in the World 241
8.2 Water Reuse Drivers 242
8.2.1 Increasing Water Demands 243
8.2.2 Water Scarcity 243
8.2.3 Environmental Protection and Public Health 245
8.3 Water Reuse Applications-Urban and Agriculture 245
8.4 Planning Water Reuse Projects 246
8.4.1 Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage 247
8.4.2 Technical Issues 247
8.4.2.1 Water Quality Requirements 249
8.4.2.2 Treatment Requirements 252
8.4.3 Institutional Issues 253
8.4.4 Legal Issues 253
8.4.4.1 Water Rights and Water Allocation 253
8.4.4.2 Public Health and Environmental Protection 254
8.4.5 Economic and Financial Issues 254
8.5 Examples of Water Reuse Programs Outside the U.S 255
8.5.1 Argentina 255
8.5.2 Australia 255
8.5.2.1 Aurora, Australia 255
8.5.2.2 Mawson Lakes, Australia 256
8.5.2.3 Virginia Project, South Australia 256
8.5.3 Belgium 257
8.5.4 Brazil 258
8.5.4.1 Sao Paulo, Brazil 258
8.5.4.2 Sao Paulo International Airport, Brazil 259
8.5.5 Chile 259
8.5.6 China 260
8.5.7 Cyprus 261
8.5.8 Egypt 261
8.5.9 France 262
8.5.10 Greece 262
8.5.11 India 263
8.5.12.1 Hyderabad, India 264
8.5.12 Iran 264
8.5.13 Israel 265
8.5.14 Italy 266
8.5.15 Japan 267
8.5.16 Jordan 267
8.5.17 Kuwait 268
8.5.18 Mexico 269
8.5.19 Morocco 271
XI
-------
Chapter Page
8.5.20.1 Drarga, Morocco 271
8.5.20 Namibia 272
8.5.21 Oman 272
8.5.22 Pakistan 273
8.5.23 Palestinian National Authority 274
8.5.24 Peru 275
8.5.25 Saudi Arabia 275
8.5.26 Singapore 276
8.5.27 South Africa 277
8.5.28 Spain 278
8.5.28.1 Costa Brava, Spain 278
8.5.28.2Portbou, Spain 279
8.5.28.3Aiguamollsde I'Emporda Natural Preserve, Spain 279
8.5.28.4The City of Victoria, Spain 279
8.5.29 Sweden 279
8.5.30 Syria 280
8.5.31 Tunisia 280
8.5.32 United Arab Emirates 282
8.5.33 United Kingdom 282
8.5.34 Yemen 283
8.5.35 Zimbabwe 284
8.6 References 284
APPENDIX A STATE REUSE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES 289
APPENDIX B STATE WEBSITES 441
APPENDIX C ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 443
APPENDIX D INVENTORY OF RECLAIMED WATER PROJECTS 445
XII
-------
Tables
Table Page
2-1 Typical Cycles of Concentration (COG) 14
2-2 Florida and California Reclaimed Water Quality 15
2-3 North Richmond Water Reclamation Plant Sampling Requirements 18
2-4 Industrial Process Water Quality Requirements 19
2-5 Pulp and Paper Process Water Quality Requirements 19
2-6 Efficiencies for Different Irrigation Systems 22
2-7 Recommended Limits for Constituents in Reclaimed Water for Irrigation 25
2-8 Comparison of Major Engineering Factors for Engineered Groundwater
Recharge 33
2-9 Water Quality at Phoenix, Arizona SAT System 37
2-10 Factors that May Influence Virus Movement to Groundwater 41
2-11 Physical and Chemical Sampling Results from the San Diego Potable
Reuse Study 47
2-12 San Diego Potable Reuse Study: Heavy Metals and Trace Organics Results 48
2-13 Average Discharge Rates and Quality of Municipal Reclaimed Effluent in
El Paso and Other Area Communities 57
2-14 Treatment Processes for Power Plant Cooling Water 59
2-15 Field Sites for Wetlands/SAT Research 67
3-1 Designer Waters 89
3-2 Infectious Agents Potentially Present in Untreated Domestic Wastewater 93
3-3 Ct Requirements for Free Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide to Achieve 99
Percent Inactivation of £. Co/; Compared to Other Microorganisms 95
3-4 Microorganism Concentrations in Raw Wastewater 96
3-5 Microorganism Concentrations in Secondary Non-Disinfected Wastewater 96
XIII
-------
Table Page
3-6 Typical Pathogen Survival Times at 20-30 °C 97
3-7 Pathogens in Untreated and Treated Wastewater 98
3-8 Summary of Florida Pathogen Monitoring Data 99
3-9 Operational Data for Florida Facilities 99
3-10 Some Suggested Alternative Indicators for Use in Monitoring Programs 100
3-11 Inorganic and Organic Constituents of Concern in Water Reclamation
and Reuse 103
12-12 Examples of the Types and Sources of Substances that have been
Reported as Potential Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 105
3-13a Microfiltration Removal Performance Data 112
3-13b Reverse Osmosis Performance Data 112
3-14 Summary of Class I Reliability Requirements 115
3-15 Water Reuse Required to Equal the Benefit of Step Feed BNR Upgrades 131
3-16 Average and Maximum Conditions for Exposure 137
4-1 Summary of State Reuse Regulations and Guidelines 152
4-2 Number of States with Regulations or Guidelines for Each Type of Reuse Application 151
4-3 Unrestricted Urban Reuse 153
4-4 Restricted Urban Reuse 154
4-5 Agricultural Reuse- Food Crops 155
4-6 Agricultural Reuse-Non-Food Crops 157
4-7 Unrestricted Recreational Reuse 158
4-8 Restricted Recreational Reuse 158
4-9 Environmental Reuse-Wetlands 159
4-10 Industrial Reuse 160
4-11 Groundwater Recharge 161
4-12 Indirect Potable Reuse 163
4-13 Suggested Guidelines for Water Reuse 167
XIV
-------
Table Page
5-1 Some Common Institutional Patterns 185
6-1 Credits to Reclaimed Water Costs 208
6-2 User Fees for Existing Urban Reuse Systems 210
6-3 Discounts for Reclaimed Water Use in California 209
6-4 Estimated Capital and Maintenance Costs for Phase IVA With and Without
Federal and State Reimbursements 214
6-5 Cost Estimate for Phase I of the GWR System 214
6-6 Total Annual Benefits 215
6-7 Reclaimed Water Impact Fees 216
6-8 Average Rates for Reclaimed Water Service in Florida 217
6-9 Percent Costs Recovered Through Reuse Rates 218
7-1 Positive and Negative Responses to Potential Alternatives for Reclaimed
Water 224
7-2 Survey Results for Different Reuse 227
7-3 Trade Reactions and Expectations Regarding Produce Grown with
Reclaimed Water 232
7-4 Chronology of WICC Implementation 233
8-1 Sources of Water in Several Countries 242
8-2 Wastewater Flows, Collection, and Treatment in Selected Countries in
1994(Mm3/year) 247
8-3 Summary of Water Quality Parameters of Concern for Water Reuse 250
8-4 Summary of Water Recycling Guidelines and Mandatory Standards
in the United States and Other Countries 251
8-5 Life-Cycle Cost of Typical Treatment Systems for a 40,000
Population-Equivalent Flow of Wastewater 254
8-6 Summary of Australian Reuse Projects 257
8-7 Water Demand and Water Availability per Region in the Year 2000 259
8-8 Effluent Flow Rates from Wastewater Treatment Plants in
Metropolitan Sao Paulo 259
8-9 Water Reuse at the Sao Paulo International Airport 260
xv
-------
Table Page
8-10 Major Reuse Projects 263
8-11 Uses of Reclaimed Water in Japan 268
8-12 Water Withdrawal in Kuwait 269
8-13 Reclaimed Water Standards in Kuwait 270
8-14 Effluent Quality Standards from the Sulaibiya Treatment and
Reclamation Plant 270
8-15 Plant Performance Parameters at the Drarga Wastewater Treatment Plant 273
8-16 Reclaimed Water Standards for Unrestricted Irrigation in Saudi Arabia 276
8-17 Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Cities of Syria 281
XVI
-------
Figures
Figure Page
1-1 Estimated and Projected Urban Population in the World 2
2-1 Potable and Nonpotable Water Use - Monthly Historic Demand Variation,
Irvine Ranch Water District, California 9
2-2 Potable and Nonpotable Water Use - Monthly Historic Demand Variation,
St. Petersburg, Florida 9
2-3 Cooling Tower 14
2-4 Comparison of Agricultural Irrigation, Public/Domestic, and Total
Freshwater Withdrawals 20
2-5 Agricultural Reuse Categories by Percent in California 20
2-6 Three Engineered Methods for Groundwater Recharge 32
2-7 Schematic of Soil-Aquifer Treatment Systems 36
2-8 Contaminants Regulated by the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations 43
2-9 Water Resources at RCID 50
2-10 Altamonte Springs Annual Potable Water Demands per Capita 51
2-11 Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using BestLEM Method 52
2-12 Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using the CCM Method 52
2-13 Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using Both Methods 53
2-14 Estimated Raw Water Supply vs. Demand for the 2002 South/Central
Service Area 53
2-15 North Phoenix Reclaimed Water Service Area 56
2-16 Durbin Creek Storage Requirements as a Function of Irrigated Area 61
2-17 Project Flow Path 68
2-18 Growth of Reuse in Florida 69
XVII
-------
Figure Page
2-19 Available Reclaimed Water in Pasco, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties 70
3-1 Phases of Reuse Program Planning 77
3-2 1995 U.S. Fresh Water Demands by Major Uses 81
3-3 Fresh Water Source, Use, and Disposition 82
3-4 WastewaterTreatment Return Flowby State, 1995 83
3-5 Total Withdrawals 83
3-6 Average Indoor Water Usage (Total = 69.3 gpcd) 84
3-7 Potable and Reclaimed Water Usage in St. Petersburg, Florida 86
3-8 Three Configuration Alternatives for Water Reuse Systems 87
3-9 Reclaimed Water Supply vs. Irrigation Demand 90
3-10 Generalized Flow Sheet for Wastewater Treatment 107
3-11 Particle Size Separation Comparison Chart 109
3-12 Average Monthly Rainfall and Pan Evaporation 120
3-13 Average Pasture Irrigation Demand and Potential Supply 121
3-14 Example of Multiple Reuse Distribution System 124
3-15 Reclaimed Water Advisory Sign 125
3-16 Florida Separation Requirements for Reclaimed Water Mains 126
3-17 Anticipated Daily Reclaimed Water Demand Curve vs. Diurnal Reclaimed
Water Flow Curve 129
3-18 TDS Increase Due to Evaporation for One Year as a Function of Pond
Depth 130
3-19 Orange County, Florida, Redistribution Constructed Wetland 132
3-20 A Minimum 5-Foot (1.5 m) Horizontal Pipe Separation Coupled with and
18-Inch (46cm) Vertical Separation 135
3-21 Irrigation Lateral Separation 136
3-22 Lateral Crossing Requirements 136
3-23 Parallel Water-Lateral Installation 136
4-1 California Water Reuse by Type (Total 358 mgd) 150
XVIII
-------
Figure Page
4-2 California Water Reuse by Type (Total 584 mgd) 150
6-1 Comparison of Reclaimed Water and Potable Water Rates in Southwest
Florida 211
6-2 Comparison of Rate Basis for San Marcos Reuse Water 218
7-1 Public Beliefs and Opinions 225
7-2 Support of Recycled Water Program Activities 225
7-3 Survey Results for Different Reuse 226
7-4 Public Participation Program for Water Reuse System Planning 227
7-5 Survey Responses 239
8-1 World Populations in Cities 243
8-2a Countries with Chronic Water Stress Using Non-Renewable Resources 244
8-2b Countries with Moderate Water Stress 244
8-3a Countries with Total Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage Over
80 Percent 248
8-3b Countries with Total Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage Over
50 Percent 248
8-4 Future Demand for Irrigation Water Compared with Potential Availability of
Reclaimed Water for Irrigation in the West Bank, Palestine 274
XIX
-------
XX
-------
Acknowledgements
The Guidelines for Water Reuse debuted in 1980 and
was updated in 1992. Since then, water reuse prac-
tices have continued to develop and evolve. This edi-
tion of the Guidelines offers new information and greater
detail about a wide range of reuse applications and in-
troduces new health considerations and treatment tech-
nologies supporting water reuse operations. It includes
an updated inventory of state reuse regulations and an
expanded coverage of water reuse practices in coun-
tries outside of the U. S. Dozens of reuse experts con-
tributed text and case studies to highlight how reuse
applications can and do work in the real world.
The 2004 Guidelines for Water Reuse document was
built upon information generated by the substantial re-
search and development efforts and extensive demon-
stration projects on water reuse practices throughout
the world, ranging from potable reuse to wetlands treat-
ment. Some of the most useful sources drawn upon in
developing this update include: proceedings from Ameri-
can Water Works Association/Water Environment Fed-
eral (AWWA/WEF) Water Reuse conferences, WEF
national conferences, and WateReuse conferences;
selected articles from WEF and AWWA journals; mate-
rials provided by the Guidelines review committee; and
a series of WERF reports on water reclamation and re-
lated subjects published by the National Research Coun-
sel/National Academy of Sciences, WEF/AWWA.
Please note that the statutes and regulations described
in this document may contain legally binding require-
ments. The summaries of those laws provided here, as
well as the approaches suggested in this document, do
not substitute for those statutes or regulations, nor are
these guidelines themselves any kind of regulation. This
document is intended to be solely informational and does
not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, States,
local or tribal governments, or members of the public.
Any EPA decisions regarding a particular water reuse
project will be made based on the applicable statutes
and regulations. EPA will continue to review and up-
date these guidelines as necessary and appropriate.
This version of the Guidelines for Water Reuse docu-
ment was developed by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
(COM) through a Cooperative Research and Develop-
ment Agreement (CRADA) with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under the direction of Robert
L. Matthews, P.E., DEE as Project Director and David
K. Ammerman, P.E. as Project Manager, with hands-on
assistance from Karen K. McCullen, P.E., Valerie P.
Going, P.E., and Lisa M. Prieto, E.I. of COM. These
developers also wish to acknowledge the help of Dr.
James Crook, P.E., Dr. Bahman Sheikh; Julia Forgas,
Gloria Booth, and Karen Jones of COM, as well as;
MerriBeth Farnham of Farnham and Associates, Inc.
and Perry Thompson of Thompson and Thompson
Graphics Inc.
Partial funding to support the preparation of the updated
Guidelines document was provided by EPA and the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID). The
Guidelines document was prepared by COM with con-
tributions from more 100 participants from other con-
sulting firms, state and federal agencies, local water and
wastewater authorities, and academic institutions. We
wish to acknowledge the direction, advice, and sugges-
tions of the sponsoring agencies, notably: Mr. Robert
K. Bastian and Dr. John Cicmanec of EPA, as well as
Dr. Peter McCornick, P.E., Dr. John Austin, and Mr. Dan
Deely of USAID. We would also like to thank the many
technical reviewers who so painstakingly reviewed this
document.
Our special thanks go to the following group of our col-
leagues who took the time to share their life experiences
and technical knowledge to make these Guidelines rel-
evant and user-friendly. The contributors are broken
up into three categories: those who directly authored
and/or edited text, those who attended the technical
review meeting (TRC), and those who were general re-
viewers. Some contributors are listed more than once
to demonstrate their multiple roles in the preparation of
the document.
XXI
-------
Please note that the listing of these contributors in no
way identifies them as supporters of this document or
represents their ideas and/or opinions on the subject.
These persons are the leaders in the field and their ex-
pertise from every angle has added to the depth and
breadth of the document.
The following colleagues contributed in the way of edit-
ing or submitting text and/or case studies. The aster-
isks annotate those who were part of the international
efforts.
*Dr. Felix P. Amerasinghe
International Water Management Institute
Sri Lanka
Daniel Anderson, P.E.
COM
West Palm Beach, Florida
Anthony J. Andrade
Southwest Florida Water Management District
Brooksville, Florida
Laura Andrews, P.E.
COM
Sarasota, Florida
Ed Archuleta
El Paso Water Utilities
El Paso, Texas
*Dr. Takashi Asano
University of California at Davis
Davis, California
Richard W. Atwater
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Shelly Badger
City of Yelm
Yelm, Washington
John E. Balliew, P.E.
El Paso Water Utilities
El Paso, Texas
Kristina Bentson
Katz and Associates
La Jolla, California
Randy Bond
SE Farm Facility - City of Tallahassee
Tallahassee, Florida
*Brandon G. Braley, P.E.
COM International
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Dennis Cafaro
Resource Conservation Systems
Bonita Springs, Florida
Kasey Brook Christian
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
Dr. Russell Christman
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
*Max S. Clark, P.E.
COM International
Hong Kong
Pat Collins
Parsons
Santa Rosa, California
Aimee Conroy
Phoenix Water Services Department
Phoenix, Arizona
Dr. Robert C. Cooper
BioVir Laboratories, Inc.
Benicia, California
Robin Cort
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
Oakland, California
*Geoffrey Croke
PSI-Delta
Australia
Dr. James Crook, P.E.
Environmental Consultant
Norwell, Massachusetts
Phil Cross
Woodard & Curran, Inc./Water Conserv II
Winter Garden, Florida
Katharine Cupps, P.E.
Washington Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington
*Jeroen H. J. Ensink
International Water Management Institute
India
XXII
-------
William Everest
Orange County Water Department
Fountain Valley, California
David Farabee
Environmental Consultant
Sarasota, Florida
Dr. Peter Fox
National Center for Sustainable Water Supply
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Monica Gasca
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Whittier, California
Jason M. Gorrie, P.E.
COM
Tampa, Florida
Brian J. Graham, P.E., DEE
United Water
Carlsbad, California
Gary K. Grinnell, P.E.
Las Vegas Valley Water District
Las Vegas, Nevada
Michael Gritzuk
Phoenix Water Services Department
Phoenix, Arizona
*Dr. Ross E. Hagan
US AID
Egypt
Raymond E. Hanson, P.E.
Orange County Utilities Water Reclamation Division
Orlando, Florida
Earle Hartling
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Whittier, California
Roy L. Herndon
Orange County Water District
Fountain Valley, California
*Dr. Ivanhildo Hesponhol
Polytechnic School, University of Sao Paolo
Brazil
Lauren Hildebrand, P.E.
Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority
Greenville, South Carolina
Dr. HeleneHilger
University of North Carolina - Charlotte
Charlotte, North Carolina
Stephen M. Hoffman
COM
Orlando, Florida
Keith Israel
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Monterey, California
Joe Ann Jackson
PBS&J
Orlando, Florida
Roberts. Jaques
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Monterey, California
Laura Johnson
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Oakland, California
Leslie C. Jones, P.E.
COM
Charlotte, North Carolina
Sara Katz
Katz & Associates
La Jolla, California
Diane Kemp
COM
Sarasota, Florida
*Mario Kerby
Water Resources Sustainability Project
Morocco
*Dr. Valentina Lazarova
Suez Environment - CIRSEE
France
Thomas L. Lothrop, P.E., DEE
City of Orlando
Orlando, Florida
XXIII
-------
Peter M. MacLaggan, P.E., Esq.
Poseidon Resources Corporation
San Diego, California
Rocco J. Maiellano
Evesham Municipal Utilities Authority
Evesham, New Jersey
*Chris Maries
SA Water
Australia
Ted W. McKim, P.E.
Reedy Creek Energy Services
Lake Buena Vista, Florida
Dianne B. Mills
COM
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dr. Thomas M. Missimer, PG
COM
Ft. Myers, Florida
Dr. Seiichi Miyamoto
Texas A&M University/Agricultural Research Center
El Paso, Texas
*Dr. Rafael Mujeriego
Universidad Politecnica de Cataluna
Spain
Richard Nagel, P.E.
West and Central Basin Municipal Water Districts
Carson, California
Margaret Nellor
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Whittier, California
David Ornelas, P.E.
El Paso Water Utilities
El Paso, Texas
Ray T. Orvin
Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority
Greenville, South Carolina
*Francis Pamminger
Yarra Valley Water Ltd.
Australia
Paul R. Puckorius
Puckorius & Associates, Inc.
Evergreen, Colorado
William F. Quinn, Jr.
El Paso Water Utilities
El Paso, Texas
Roderick D. Reardon, P.E., DEE
COM
Orlando, Florida
Craig L. Riley, P.E.
State of Washington Department of Health
Spokane, Washington
Martha Rincdn
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Whittier, California
Dr. Joan Rose
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
Eric Rosenblum
City of San Jose
San Jose, California
Steve Rossi
Phoenix Water Services Department
Phoenix, Arizona
Dr. A. Charles Rowney, P.E.
COM
Orlando, Florida
Robert W. Sackellares
GA-Pacific Corporation
Atlanta, Georgia
Richard H. Sakaji
California Department of Health Services
Berkeley, California
*Dr. Lluis Sala
Consorci de la Costa Brava
Spain
*Ahmad Sawalha
USAID
West Bank & Gaza
Jeffrey F. Payne, P.E., DEE
COM
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dr. Larry N. Schwartz
COM
Orlando, Florida
XXIV
-------
*Dr. Christopher Scott, P.E.
International Water Management Institute
India
Kathy F. Scott
Southwest Florida Water Management District
Brooksville, Florida
*Naief Saad Seder
Jordan Valley Authority - Ministry of Water & Irrigation
Jordan
Dr. David L. Sedlak
University of California - Berkeley
Berkeley, California
*Manel Serra
Consorci de la Costa Brava
Spain
*Dr. Bahman Sheikh
Water Reuse Consulting
San Francisco, CA
Wayne Simpson, P.E.
Richard A. Alaimo & Associates
Mount Holly, New Jersey
Dr. Theresa R. Slifko
Orange County Government
Orlando, Florida
Michael P. Smith, P.E.
COM
Tampa, Florida
Melissa J. Stanford
National Regulatory Research Institute
Columbus, Ohio
Keith Stoeffel
Washington Department of Ecology
Spokane, Washington
Stephen C. Stratton
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Robert D. Teegarden, P.E.
Orange County Utilities Engineering Division
Orlando, Florida
Andy Terrey
Phoenix Water Services Department
Phoenix, Arizona
Hal Thomas
City of Walla Walla Public Works
Walla Walla, Washington
Sandra Tripp, P.E.
COM
Charlotte, North Carolina
Joseph V. Towry
City of St. Petersburg Water Systems Maintenance
Division
St. Petersburg, Florida
Jay Unwin
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Joe Upchurch
Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority
Greenville, South Carolina
*Daniel van Oosterwijck
Yarra Valley Water
Australia
Florence T. Wedington, P.E.
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Oakland, California
Nancy J. Wheatley, J.D.
Water Resources Strategies
Siasconset, Massachusetts
Lee P. Wiseman, P.E., DEE
COM
Orlando, Florida
*Ralph Woolley
Brisbane City Council
Australia
David Young
COM
Cambridge, Massachusetts
XXV
-------
The following persons attended the TRC in Phoenix, Ari-
zona.
Dr. Barnes Bierck, P.E.
Environmental Engineering Consultant
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Dr. Herman Bouwer
U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory
Phoenix, Arizona
Dennis Cafaro
Resource Conservation Systems
Bonita Springs, Florida
Lori Ann Carroll
Sarasota County Environmental Services
Sarasota, Florida
Tracy A. Clinton
Carollo Engineers
Walnut Creek, California
Katharine Cupps, P.E.
Washington Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington
Gary K. Grinnell, P.E.
Las Vegas Valley Water District
Las Vegas, Nevada
Dr. HeleneHilger
University of North Carolina - Charlotte
Charlotte, North Carolina
Robert S. Jaques
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Monterey, California
Heather Kunz
CH2M Hill
Atlanta, Georgia
Keith Lewinger
Fallbrook Public Utility District
Fallbrook, California
Craig Lichty, P.E.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
San Francisco, California
Jeff Mosher
WateReuse Association
Alexandria, Virginia
Richard Nagel, P.E.
West and Central Basin Municipal Water Districts
Carson, California
Joan Oppenheimer
MWH
Pasadena, California
Jerry D. Phillips, P.E.
Jacobs Civil, Inc.
Orlando, Florida
Alan H. Plummer, P.E., DEE
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
Fort Worth, Texas
Fred Rapach, R.E.P.
Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department
West Palm Beach, Florida
Roderick D. Reardon, P.E., DEE
COM
Orlando, Florida
Alan E. Rimer, P.E., DEE
Black & Veatch International Company
Gary, North Carolina
Todd L. Tanberg, P.E.
Pinellas County Utilities
Clearwater, Florida
Dr. Donald M. Thompson, P.E.
COM
Jacksonville, Florida
Don Vandertulip, P.E.
Pape-Dawson Engineers, Inc.
San Antonio, Texas
Michael P. Wehner, MPA, REHS
Orange County Water District
Fountain Valley, California
Nancy J. Wheatley, J.D.
Water Resource Strategies
Siasconset, Massachusetts
XXVI
-------
Robert Whitley
Whitley, Burchett and Associates
Walnut Creek, California
Ronald E. Young, P.E., DEE
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Lake Elsinore, California
The following contributors reviewed portions or all of the
text.
Earnest Earn
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Atlanta, Georgia
Christianne Ferraro, P.E.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Orlando, Florida
Patrick Gallagher
COM
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Robert H.Hultquist
State of California Department of Health Services
Sacramento, California
Frank J. Johns II, P.E.
Arcadis G&M Inc.
Highlands Ranch, Colorado
C. Robert Mangrum, P.E.
CH2M Hill
Deerfield Beach, Florida
Kate Martin
Narasimhan Consulting Services
Irvine, California
David Maclntyre
PB Water
Orlando, Florida
Dr. Choon Nam Ong
National University of Singapore
Singapore
Henry Ongerth
Consulting Engineer
Berkeley, California
David R. Refling, P.E., DEE
Boyle Engineering Corporation
Orlando, Florida
The following individuals also provided review comments
on behalf of the U.S. EPA:
Howard Beard
EPA Office of Water/Office of Groundwater and Drinking
Water
Dr. Phillip Berger
EPA Office of Water/Office of Groundwater and Drinking
Water
Bob Brobst
EPA Region 8
Denver, Colorado
Glendon D. Deal
USDA/RUS
David Del Porto
Ecological Engineering Group, Inc.
Dr. Jorg Drewes
Colorado School of Mines
Alan Godfree
United Utilities Water PLC
Jim Good rich
EPAORD/NRMRL
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dr. Hend Gorchev
EPA Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology
Dr. Fred Hauchman
EPAORD/NHEERL
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Mark Kellet
Northbridge Environmental
Dr. Robert A. Rubin
UDSDA Extension Service
NCSU on detail to EPA OWM
Ben Shuman
USDA/RUS
Carrie Wehling
EPA Office of General Counsel/Water Law Office
Nancy Yoshikawa
EPA Region 9
San Francisco, California
XXVII
-------
XXVIII
-------
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The world's population is expected to increase dramati-
cally between now and the year 2020 - and with this
growth will come an increased need for water to meet
various needs, as well as an increased production of
wastewater. Many communities throughout the world are
approaching, or have already reached, the limits of their
available water supplies; water reclamation and reuse
have almost become necessary for conserving and ex-
tending available water supplies. Water reuse may also
present communities with an alternate wastewater dis-
posal method as well as provide pollution abatement by
diverting effluent discharge away from sensitive surface
waters. Already accepted and endorsed by the public in
many urban and agricultural areas, properly imple-
mented nonpotable reuse projects can help communi-
ties meet water demand and supply challenges without
any known significant health risks.
1.1
Objectives of the Guidelines
Water reclamation for nonpotable reuse has been adopted
in the U.S. and elsewhere without the benefit of national
or international guidelines or standards. Twenty-five states
currently have regulations regarding water reuse. The
World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for agricul-
tural irrigation reuse (dated 1989) are under revision
(World Health Organization Website, 2003).
The primary purpose of the 2004 EPA Guidelines for Water
Reuse is to present and summarize water reuse guide-
lines, with supporting information, for the benefit of utili-
ties and regulatory agencies, particularly in the U.S. The
Guidelines cover water reclamation for nonpotable urban,
industrial, and agricultural reuse, as well as augmenta-
tion of potable water supplies through indirect reuse. Di-
rect potable reuse is also covered, although only briefly
since it is not practiced in the U.S. Please note that the
statutes and regulations described in this document may
contain legally binding requirements. The summaries of
those laws provided here, as well as the approaches sug-
gested in this document, do not substitute for those stat-
utes or regulations, nor are these guidelines themselves
any kind of regulation. In addition, neither the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) nor the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) proposes stan-
dards for water reuse in this publication or any other.
This document is intended to be solely informational and
does not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA,
states, local or tribal governments, or members of the
public. Any EPA decisions regarding a particular water
reuse project will be made based on the applicable stat-
utes and regulations. EPA will continue to review and
update these guidelines as necessary and appropriate.
In states where standards do not exist or are being re-
vised or expanded, the Guidelines can assist in devel-
oping reuse programs and appropriate regulations. The
Guidelines will also be useful to consulting engineers
and others involved in the evaluation, planning, design,
operation, or management of water reclamation and re-
use facilities. In addition, an extensive chapter on inter-
national reuse is included to provide background infor-
mation and discussion of relevant water reuse issues
for authorities in other countries where reuse is being
planned, developed, and implemented. In the U.S., wa-
ter reclamation and reuse standards are the responsibil-
ity of state agencies.
1.2
Water Demands and Reuse
Growing urbanization in water-scarce areas of the world
exacerbates the situation of increasing water demands
for domestic, industrial, commercial, and agricultural
purposes. Figure 1-1 demonstrates the rapid growth rate
of the urban population worldwide. In the year 2000,2.85
billion people (out of a worldwide population of 6.06 bil-
lion) were living in urban regions (United Nations Secre-
tariat, 2001). This increasing urban population results in
a growing water demand to meet domestic, commercial,
industrial, and agricultural needs. Coupled with deplet-
ing fresh water sources, utility directors and managers
are faced with the challenge to supply water to a growing
customer base.
-------
Figure 1-1 Estimated and Projected Urban
Population in the World
^ 6000
= 5000
1.
g 4000
3000
2000
1000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Year
Adapted from: United Nations Secretariat, 2001.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is developing a pro-
gram, Water 2025, to focus attention on the emerging
need for water. Explosive population growth in urban ar-
eas of the western U.S., along with a growing demand
for available water supplies for environmental and recre-
ational uses, is conflicting with the national dependence
on water for the production of food and fiber from western
farms and ranches (Department of the Interior/Bureau of
Reclamation, 2003). The goals of Water 2025 are to:
• Facilitate a more forward-looking focus on water-
starved areas of the country
• Help stretch or increase water supplies, satisfy the
demands of growing populations, protect environ-
mental needs, and strengthen regional, tribal, and
local economies
• Provide added environmental benefits to many wa-
tersheds, rivers, and streams
• Minimize water crises in critical watersheds by im-
proving the environment and addressing the effects
of drought on important economies
• Provide a balanced, practical approach to water
management for the next century
Meanwhile, water reuse in the U.S. is a large and grow-
ing practice. An estimated 1.7 billion gallons (6.4 million
m3) per day of wastewater is reused, and reclaimed
water use on a volume basis is growing at an estimated
15 percent per year. In 2002, Florida reclaimed 584 mgd
(2.2 x 106 m3) of its wastewater while California ranked
a close second, with an estimated total of 525 mgd (2.0
x 106 m3) of reclaimed water used each day. Florida has
an official goal of reclaiming 1 billion gallons per day by
the year 2010. Likewise, California has a statutory goal
of doubling its current use by 2010. Texas currently re-
uses approximately 230 mgd (8.7 x 105 m3) and Arizona
reuses an estimated 200 mgd (7.6x105 m3). While these
4 states account for the majority of the water reuse in
the U.S., several other states have growing water reuse
programs including Nevada, Colorado, Georgia, North
Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. At least 27 states
now have water reclamation facilities, and the majority
of states have regulations dealing with water reuse
(Gritzuk, 2003).
1.3
Source Substitution
Under the broad definition of water reclamation and re-
use, sources of reclaimed water may range from indus-
trial process waters to the tail waters of agricultural irri-
gation systems. For the purposes of these Guidelines,
however, the sources of reclaimed water are limited to
the effluent generated by domestic wastewater treat-
ment facilities (WWTFs).
The use of reclaimed water for nonpotable purposes
offers the potential for exploiting a "new" resource that
can be substituted for existing potable sources. This
idea, known as "source substitution" is not new. In fact,
the United Nations Economic and Social Council enun-
ciated a policy in 1958 that, "No higher quality water,
unless there is a surplus of it, should be used for a pur-
pose that can tolerate a lower grade." Many urban, com-
mercial, and industrial uses can be met with water of
less than potable water quality. With respect to potable
water sources, EPA policy states, "Because of human
frailties associated with protection, priority should be
given to selection of the purest source" (EPA, 1976).
Therefore, when the demand exceeds the capacity of
the purest source, and additional sources are unavail-
able or available only at a high cost, lower quality water
can be substituted to serve the nonpotable purposes.
Since few areas enjoy a surplus of high quality water,
and demand often exceeds capacity, many urban resi-
dential, commercial, and industrial uses can be satis-
fied with water of less than potable water quality. In many
instances, treated wastewater may provide the most
economical and/or available substitute source for such
uses as irrigation of lawns, parks, roadway borders, and
medians; air conditioning and industrial cooling towers;
stack gas scrubbing; industrial processing; toilet flush-
ing; dust control and construction; cleaning and mainte-
nance, including vehicle washing; scenic waters and foun-
tains; and environmental and recreational purposes.
The economics of source substitution with reclaimed water
are site-specific and dependent on the marginal costs of
new sources of high-quality water and the costs of waste-
-------
water treatment and disposal. Understandably, the con-
struction of reclaimed water transmission and distribu-
tion lines to existing users in large cities is expensive
and disruptive. As a result, wastewater reclamation and
reuse will continue to be most attractive in serving new
residential, commercial, and industrial areas of a city,
where the installation of dual distribution systems would
be far more economical than in already developed areas.
Use of reclaimed water for agricultural purposes near ur-
ban areas can also be economically attractive. Agricul-
tural users are usually willing to make long-term commit-
ments, often for as long as 20 years, to use large quanti-
ties of reclaimed water instead of fresh water sources.
One potential scenario is to develop a new reclaimed wa-
ter system to serve agricultural needs outside the city
with the expectation that when urban development re-
places agricultural lands in time, reclaimed water use
can be shifted from agricultural to new urban develop-
ment.
1.4
Pollution Abatement
While the need for additional water supply in arid and
semi-arid areas has been the impetus for numerous
water reclamation and reuse programs, many programs
in the U.S. were initiated in response to rigorous and
costly requirements to remove nitrogen and phospho-
rus for effluent discharge to surface waters. By elimi-
nating effluent discharges for all or even a portion of the
year through water reuse, a municipality may be able to
avoid or reduce the need for the costly nutrient removal
treatment processes. For example, the South Bay Wa-
ter Recycling Project in San Jose, California, provides
reclaimed water to 1.3 million area residents. By reusing
this water instead of releasing it to the San Francisco
Bay, San Jose has avoided a sewer moratorium that would
have had a devastating impact on the Silicon Valley
economy (Gritzuk, 2003).
The purposes and practices may differ between water
reuse programs developed strictly for pollution abate-
ment and those developed for water resources or con-
servation benefits. When systems are developed chiefly
for the purpose of land treatment or disposal, the objec-
tive is to treat and/or dispose of as much effluent on as
little land as possible; thus, application rates are often
greater than irrigation demands. On the other hand,
when the reclaimed water is considered a valuable re-
source (i.e., an alternative water supply), the objective
is to apply the water according to irrigation needs.
Differences are also apparent in the distribution of re-
claimed water for these different purposes. Where dis-
posal is the objective, meters are difficult to justify, and
reclaimed water is often distributed at a flat rate or at
minimal cost to the users. However, where reclaimed
water is intended to be used as a water resource, me-
tering is appropriate to provide an equitable method for
distributing the resource, limiting overuse, and recover-
ing costs. In St. Petersburg, Florida, disposal was the
original objective; however, over time the reclaimed
water became an important resource. Meters, which were
not provided initially, are being considered to prevent
wasting of the reclaimed water.
1.5 Treatment and Water Quality
Considerations
Water reclamation and nonpotable reuse typically re-
quire conventional water and wastewater treatment tech-
nologies that are already widely practiced and readily
available in many countries throughout the world. When
discussing treatment for a reuse system, the overriding
concern continues to be whether the quality of the re-
claimed water is appropriate for the intended use. Higher
level uses, such as irrigation of public-access lands or
vegetables to be consumed without processing, require
a higher level of wastewater treatment and reliability prior
to reuse than will lower level uses, such as irrigation of
forage crops and pasture. For example, in urban set-
tings, where there is a high potential for human expo-
sure to reclaimed water used for landscape irrigation,
industrial purposes, and toilet flushing, the reclaimed wa-
ter must be clear, colorless, and odorless to ensure that
it is aesthetically acceptable to the users and the public
at large, as well as to assure minimum health risk. Expe-
rience has shown that facilities producing secondary ef-
fluent can become water reclamation plants with the
addition of filtration and enhanced disinfection pro-
cesses.
A majority of the states have published treatment stan-
dards or guidelines for one or more types of water reuse.
Some of these states require specific treatment pro-
cesses; others impose effluent quality criteria, and some
require both. Many states also include requirements for
treatment reliability to prevent the distribution of any re-
claimed water that may not be adequately treated be-
cause of a process upset, power outage, or equipment
failure. Dual distribution systems (i.e., reclaimed water
distribution systems that parallel a potable water sys-
tem) must also incorporate safeguards to prevent cross-
connections of reclaimed water and potable water lines
and the misuse of reclaimed water. For example, piping,
valves, and hydrants are marked or color-coded (e.g.
purple pipe) to differentiate reclaimed water from potable
water. Backflow prevention devices are installed, and
hose bibs on reclaimed water lines may be prohibited to
preclude the likelihood of incidental human misuse. A strict
-------
industrial pretreatment program is also necessary to en-
sure the reliability of the biological treatment process by
excluding the discharge of potentially toxic levels of pol-
lutants to the sanitary sewer system. Wastewater treat-
ment facilities receiving substantial amounts of high-
strength industrial wastes may be limited in the number
and type of suitable reuse applications.
1.6
Overview of the Guidelines
This document, the Guidelines for Water Reuse, is an
update of the Guidelines for Water Reuse developed
for EPA by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (COM) and
published by EPA in 1992 (and initially in 1980). In May
2002, EPA contracted with COM through a Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to
update the EPA/USAID Guidelines for Water Reuse
(EPA/625/R-92/004: Sept 1992). As with the 1992 Guide-
lines, a committee, made up of national and international
experts in the field of water reclamation and related sub-
jects, was established to develop new text, update case
studies, and review interim drafts of the document. How-
ever, unlike the 1992 version, the author and reviewer
base was greatly expanded to include approximately 75
contributing authors and an additional 50 reviewers. Ma-
jor efforts associated with the revisions to this edition of
the Guidelines include:
• Updating the state reuse regulations matrix and add-
ing a list of state contacts
• Updating U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) informa-
tion on national water use and reuse practices
• Expanding coverage of indirect potable reuse is-
sues, emphasizing the results of recent studies and
practices associated with using reclaimed water to
augment potable supplies
• Expanding coverage of industrial reuse issues
• Expanding coverage of reuse projects and practices
outside of the U.S
• Adding more case studies to illustrate experience in
all areas of water reclamation
• Expanding the discussion of health issues to include
emerging chemicals and pathogens
• Updating the discussion of treatment technologies
applicable to water reclamation
• Updating information on economics, user rates, and
project funding mechanisms
The document has been arranged by topic, devoting sepa-
rate chapters to each of the key technical, financial, le-
gal and institutional, and public involvement issues that
a reuse planner might face. A separate chapter has also
been provided to discuss reuse applications outside of
the U.S. These chapters are:
• Chapter 2, Types of Reuse Applications - A dis-
cussion of reuse for urban, industrial, agricultural,
recreational and habitat restoration/enhancement,
groundwater recharge, and augmentation of potable
supplies. Direct potable reuse is also briefly dis-
cussed.
• Chapter 3, Technical Issues in Planning Water
Reuse Systems - An overview of the potential uses
of reclaimed water, the sources of reclaimed water,
treatment requirements, seasonal storage require-
ments, supplemental system facilities (including
conveyance and distribution), operational storage,
and alternative disposal systems.
• Chapter 4, Water Reuse Regulations and Guide-
lines in the U.S.-A summary of existing state stan-
dards and regulations as well as recommended
guidelines.
• Chapter 5, Legal and Institutional Issues - An
overview of reuse ordinances, user agreements,
water rights, franchise law, and case law.
• Chapter 6, Funding Water Reuse Systems - A
discussion of funding and cost recovery options for
reuse system construction and operation, as well as
management issues for utilities.
• Chapter 7, Public Involvement Programs - An
outline of strategies for educating and involving the
public in water reuse system planning and reclaimed
water use.
• Chapter 8, Water Reuse Outside the U.S. - A
summary of the issues facing reuse planners out-
side of the U.S., as well as a comprehensive review
of the variety of reuse projects and systems around
the wo rid.
-------
1.7 References
Department of the Interior/Bureau of Reclamation. Water
2025: Preventing Conflict and Crisis in the West. [Up-
dated 6 June 2003; cited 30 July 2003]. Available from
www.doi.gov/water2025/.
Gritzuk, M. 2003. Testimony-The Importance of Water
Reuse in the 21st Century, presented by Michael Gritzuk
to the Subcommittee on Water & Power Committee on
Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, March 27,
2003.
United Nations Secretariat - Population Division - De-
partment of Economic and Social Affairs. 2001. World
Urbanization Prospects: The 1999 Revision. ST/ESA/
SER.A/194, USA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA 570/
9-76-003, Washington, D.C.
World Heath Organization (WHO). Water Sanitation and
Health (WSH). [Updated 2003; cited 31 July 2003]. Avail-
able from www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/waste-
water.
-------
-------
CHAPTER 2
Types of Reuse Applications
Chapter 2 provides detailed explanations of major re-
use application types. These include:
• Urban
• Industrial
• Agricultural
• Environmental and recreational
• Groundwater recharge
• Augmentation of potable supplies
Quantity and quality requirements are considered for each
reuse application, as well as any special considerations
necessary when reclaimed water is substituted for more
traditional sources-of water. Case studies of reuse appli-
cations are provided in Section 2.7. Key elements of water
reuse that are common to most projects (i.e., supply and
demand, treatment requirements, storage, and distribu-
tion) are discussed in Chapter 3.
2.1
Urban Reuse
Urban reuse systems provide reclaimed water for various
nonpotable purposes including:
• Irrigation of public parks and recreation centers, ath-
letic fields, school yards and playing fields, high-
way medians and shoulders, and landscaped ar-
eas surrounding public buildings and facilities
• Irrigation of landscaped areas surrounding single-family
and multi-family residences, general wash down, and
other maintenance activities
• Irrigation of landscaped areas surrounding commer-
cial, office, and industrial developments
• Irrigation of golf courses
• Commercial uses such as vehicle washing facilities,
laundry facilities, window washing, and mixing water
for pesticides, herbicides, and liquid fertilizers
• Ornamental landscape uses and decorative water fea-
tures, such as fountains, reflecting pools, and water-
falls
• Dust control and concrete production for construc-
tion projects
• Fire protection through reclaimed water fire hydrants
• Toilet and urinal flushing in commercial and industrial
buildings
Urban reuse can include systems serving large users.
Examples include parks, playgrounds, athletic fields,
highway medians, golf courses, and recreational facili-
ties. In addition, reuse systems can supply major wa-
ter-using industries or industrial complexes as well as a
combination of residential, industrial, and commercial
properties through "dual distribution systems." A 2-year
field demonstration/research garden compared the im-
pacts of irrigation with reclaimed versus potable water
for landscape plants, soils, and irrigation components.
The comparison showed few significant differences;
however, landscape plants grew faster with reclaimed
water (Lindsey et al., 1996). But such results are not a
given. Elevated chlorides in the reclaimed water pro-
vided by the City of St. Petersburg have limited the foli-
age that can be irrigated (Johnson, 1998).
In dual distribution systems, the reclaimed water is deliv-
ered to customers through a parallel network of distribu-
tion mains separate from the community's potable water
distribution system. The reclaimed water distribution sys-
tem becomes a third water utility, in addition to wastewa-
ter and potable water. Reclaimed water systems are op-
erated, maintained, and managed in a manner similar to
the potable water system. One of the oldest municipal
dual distribution systems in the U.S., in St. Petersburg,
-------
Florida, has been in operation since 1977. The system
provides reclaimed water for a mix of residential proper-
ties, commercial developments, industrial parks, a re-
source recovery power plant, a baseball stadium, and
schools. The City of Pomona, California, first began dis-
tributing reclaimed water in 1973 to California Polytech-
nic University and has since added 2 paper mills, road-
way landscaping, a regional park and a landfill with an
energy recovery facility.
During the planning of an urban reuse system, a commu-
nity must decide whether or not the reclaimed water sys-
tem will be interruptible. Generally, unless reclaimed water
is used as the only source of fire protection in a commu-
nity, an interruptible source of reclaimed water is accept-
able. For example, the City of St. Petersburg, Florida,
decided that an interruptible source of reclaimed water
would be acceptable, and that reclaimed water would pro-
vide backup only for fire protection.
If a community determines that a non-interruptible source
of reclaimed water is needed, then reliability, equal to
that of a potable water system, must be provided to en-
sure a continuous flow of reclaimed water. This reliability
could be ensured through a municipality having more than
one water reclamation plant to supply the reclaimed wa-
ter system, as well as additional storage to provide re-
claimed water in the case of a plant upset. However,
providing the reliability to produce a non-interruptible sup-
ply of reclaimed water will have an associated cost in-
crease. In some cases, such as the City of Burbank,
California, reclaimed water storage tanks are the only
source of water serving an isolated fire system that is
kept separate from the potable fire service.
Retrofitting a developed urban area with a reclaimed wa-
ter distribution system can be expensive. In some cases,
however, the benefits of conserving potable water may
justify the cost. For example, a water reuse system may
be cost-effective if the reclaimed water system eliminates
or forestalls the need to:
• Obtain additional water supplies from considerable
distances
• Treat a raw water supply source of poor quality (e.g.,
seawater desalination)
• Treat wastewater to stricter surface water discharge
requirements
In developing urban areas, substantial cost savings may
be realized by installing a dual distribution system as
developments are constructed. A successful way to ac-
complish this is to stipulate that connecting to the sys-
tem is a requirement of the community's land develop-
ment code. In 1984, the City of Altamonte Springs, Florida,
enacted the requirement for developers to install reclaimed
water lines so that all properties within a development
are provided service. This section of the City's land devel-
opment code also stated, "The intent of the reclaimed
water system is not to duplicate the potable water sys-
tem, but rather to complement each other and thereby
provide the opportunity to reduce line sizes and looping
requirements of the potable water system" (Howard,
Needles, Tammen, and Bergendoff, 1986a).
The Irvine Ranch Water District in California studied the
economic feasibility of expanding its urban dual distri-
bution system to provide reclaimed water to high-rise
buildings for toilet and urinal flushing. The study concluded
that the use of reclaimed water was feasible for flushing
toilets and urinals and priming floor drain traps for build-
ings of 6 stories and higher (Young and Holliman, 1990).
Following this study, an ordinance was enacted requiring
all new buildings over 55 feet (17 meters) high to install a
dual distribution system for flushing in areas where re-
claimed water is available (Irvine Ranch Water District,
1990).
The City of Avalon, California, conducted a feasibility
study to assess the replacement of seawater with re-
claimed water in the City's nonpotable toilet flushing/fire
protection distribution system. The study determined that
the City would save several thousand dollars per year in
amortized capital and operation and maintenance costs
by switching to reclaimed water (Richardson, 1998).
2.1.1
Reclaimed Water Demand
The daily irrigation demand for reclaimed water gener-
ated by a particular urban system can be estimated from
an inventory of the total irrigable acreage to be served
by the reclaimed water system and the estimated weekly
irrigation rates. These rates are determined by such
factors as local soil characteristics, climatic conditions,
and type of landscaping. In some states, recommended
weekly irrigation rates may be available from water
management agencies, county or state agricultural
agents, or irrigation specialists. Reclaimed water demand
estimates must also take into account any other permit-
ted uses for reclaimed water within the system.
An estimate of the daily irrigation demand for reclaimed
water can also be made by evaluating local water bill-
ing records. For example, in many locations, second
water meters measure the volume of potable water used
outside the home, primarily for irrigation. An evaluation
of the water billing records in Orlando, Florida, showed
the average irrigation demand measured on the resi-
-------
dential second meter was approximately 506 gpd
(1.9 m3/d), compared to 350 gpd (1.3 m3/d) on the first
meter, which measured the amount of water for in-house
use (COM, 2001). This data indicates that a 59 percent
reduction in residential potable water demand could be
accomplished if a dual distribution system were to pro-
vide irrigation service.
Water use records can also be used to estimate the sea-
sonal variation in reclaimed water demand. Figure 2-1
and Figure 2-2 show the historic monthly variation in the
potable and nonpotable water demand for the Irvine Ranch
Water District in California and St. Petersburg, Florida,
respectively. Although the seasonal variation in demand
is different between the 2 communities, both show a simi-
lar trend in the seasonal variation between potable and
nonpotable demand. Even though St. Petersburg and
Irvine Ranch meet much of the demand for irrigation with
reclaimed water, the influence of these uses can still be
seen in the potable water demands.
For potential reclaimed water users, such as golf courses,
that draw irrigation water from onsite wells, an evaluation
of the permitted withdrawal rates or pumping records can
be used to estimate their reclaimed water needs.
Figure 2-2. Potable and Nonpotable Water
Use - Monthly Historic Demand
Variation, St. Petersburg, Florida
0.8
J F
I
MAMJJASON
Figure 2-1. Potable and Nonpotable Water
Use - Monthly Historic Demand
Variation, Irvine Ranch Water
District, California
2.0-
1.5-
|! i.oH
f|
0<
S"S 0.5-
Nonpotable
Demand
JFMAMJJASOND
In assessing the reuse needs of an urban system, de-
mands for uses other than irrigation must also be con-
sidered. These demands are likely to include industrial,
commercial, and recreational uses. Demands for indus-
trial users, as well as commercial users, such as car
washes, can be estimated from water use or billing
records. Demands for recreational impoundments can be
estimated by determining the volume of water required
to maintain a desired water elevation in the impound-
ment.
For those systems using reclaimed water for toilet flush-
ing as part of their urban reuse system, water use
records can again be used to estimate demand. Accord-
ing to Grisham and Fleming (1989), toilet flushing can
account for up to 45 percent of indoor residential water
demand. In 1991, the Irvine Ranch Water District be-
gan using reclaimed water for toilet flushing in high-rise
office buildings. Potable water demands in these build-
ings have decreased by as much as 75 percent due to
the reclaimed water use (IRWD, 2003).
2.1.2 Reliability and Public Health
Protection
In the design of an urban reclaimed water distribution
system, the most important considerations are the reli-
ability of service and protection of public health. Treat-
ment to meet appropriate water quality and quantity re-
quirements and system reliability are addressed in Sec-
tion 3.4. The following safeguards must be considered
during the design of any dual distribution system:
• Assurance that the reclaimed water delivered to the
customer meets the water quality requirements for
the intended uses
-------
• Prevention of improper operation of the system
• Prevention of cross-connections with potable water
lines
• Prevention of improper use of nonpotable water
To avoid cross connections, all above-ground appurte-
nances and equipment associated with reclaimed wa-
ter systems must be clearly marked. National color stan-
dards have not been established, but most manufactur-
ers, counties, and cities have adopted the color purple
for reclaimed water lines. The State of Florida has ac-
cepted Pantone 522C as the color of choice for reclaimed
water material designation. Florida also requires signs
to be posted with specific language in both English and
Spanish identifying the resource as nonpotable. Addi-
tional designations include using the international sym-
bol for "Do Not Drink" on all materials, both surface and
subsurface, to minimize potential cross connections. A
more detailed discussion of distribution safeguards and
cross connection control measures is presented in Sec-
tion 3.6.1, Conveyance and Distribution Facilities.
2.1.3
Design Considerations
Urban water reuse systems have 2 major components:
1. Water reclamation facilities
2. Reclaimed water distribution system, including stor-
age and pumping facilities
2.1.3.1
Water Reclamation Facilities
Water reclamation facilities must provide the required
treatment to meet appropriate water quality standards
for the intended use. In addition to secondary treatment,
filtration, and disinfection are generally required for reuse
in an urban setting. Because urban reuse usually involves
irrigation of properties with unrestricted public access or
other types of reuse where human exposure to the re-
claimed water is likely, reclaimed water must be of a higher
quality than may be necessary for other reuse applica-
tions. In cases where a single large customer needs a
higher quality reclaimed water, the customer may have
to provide additional treatment onsite, as is commonly
done with potable water. Treatment requirements are pre-
sented in Section 3.4.2.
2.1.3.2 Distribution System
Reclaimed water operational storage and high-service
pumping facilities are usually located onsite at the water
reclamation facility. However, in some cases, particu-
larly for large cities, operational storage facilities may be
located at appropriate locations in the system and/or near
the reuse sites. When located near the pumping facili-
ties, ground or elevated tanks may be used; when lo-
cated within the system, operational storage is generally
elevated.
Sufficient storage to accommodate diurnal flow variation
is essential to the operation of a reclaimed water sys-
tem. The volume of storage required can be determined
from the daily reclaimed water demand and supply curves.
Reclaimed water is normally produced 24 hours per day
in accordance with the diurnal flow at the water reclama-
tion plant and may flow to ground storage to be pumped
into the system or into a clear well for high-lift pumping to
elevated storage facilities. In order to maintain suitable
water quality, covered storage is preferred to preclude
biological growth and maintain chlorine residual. Refer to
Section 3.5.2 for a discussion of operational storage.
Since variations in the demand for reclaimed water occur
seasonally, large volumes of seasonal storage may be
needed if all available reclaimed water is to be used, al-
though this may not be economically practical. The se-
lected location of a seasonal storage facility will also have
an effect on the design of the distribution system. In ar-
eas where surface storage may be limited due to space
limitations, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) could prove
to be a viable enhancement to the system. Hillsborough
County, Florida has recovered ASR water, placed it into
the reuse distribution system, and is working to achieve
a target storage volume of 90 million gallons (340,700
m3) (McNeal, 2002). A detailed discussion of seasonal
storage requirements is provided in Section 3.5.
The design of an urban distribution system is similar in
many respects to a municipal potable water distribution
system. Materials of equal quality for construction are
recommended. System integrity should be assured;
however, the reliability of the system need not be as
stringent as a potable water system unless reclaimed
water is being used as the only source of fire protec-
tion. No special measures are required to pump, de-
liver, and use the water. No modifications are required
because reclaimed water is being used, with the excep-
tion that equipment and materials must be clearly iden-
tified. For service lines in urban settings, different ma-
terials may be desirable for more certain identification.
The design of distribution facilities is based on topo-
graphical conditions as well as reclaimed water demand
requirements. If topography has wide variations, multi-
level systems may have to be used. Distribution mains
must be sized to provide the peak hourly demands at a
pressure adequate for the user being served. Pressure
10
-------
requirements for a dual distribution system vary depend-
ing on the type of user being served. Pressures for irriga-
tion systems can be as low as 10 psi (70 kPa) if addi-
tional booster pumps are provided at the point of delivery,
and maximum pressures can be as high as 100 to 150
psi(700to1,OOOkPa).
The peak hourly rate of use, which is a critical consider-
ation in sizing the delivery pumps and distribution mains,
may best be determined by observing and studying lo-
cal urban practices and considering time of day and rates
of use by large users to be served by the system. The
following design peak factors have been used in de-
signing urban reuse systems:
System
Peaking
Factor
Altamonte Springs, Florida (HNTB, 1986a) 2.90
Apopka, Florida (Godlewski et a/., 1990) 4.00
Aurora, Colorado (Johns et a/., 1987) 2.50
Boca Raton, Florida (COM, 1990a) 2.00
Irvine Ranch Water District, California
(IRWD, 1991)
- Landscape Irrigation 6.80
- Golf Course and Agricultural Irrigation 2.00
San Antonio Water System (SAWS), Texas
(SAWS Website, 2004) 1.92
Sea Pines, South Carolina 2.00
(Hirsekorn and Ellison, 1987)
St. Petersburg, Florida (COM, 1987) 2.25
The wide range of peaking factors reflects the nature of
the demands being served, the location of the reuse
system (particularly where irrigation is the end use), and
the experience of the design engineers. San Antonio's
low peaking factor was achieved by requiring onsite stor-
age for customer demands greater than 100 acre-feet
per year (62 gpm). These large customers were allowed
to receive a peak flow rate based on a 24-hour delivery
of their peak month demand in July. This flat rate deliv-
ery and number of large irrigation customers resulted in
a low system peaking factor.
For reclaimed water systems that include fire protection
as part of their service, fire flow plus the maximum daily
demand should be considered when sizing the distribu-
tion system. This scenario is not as critical in sizing the
delivery pumps since it will likely result in less pumping
capacity, but is critical in sizing the distribution mains
because fire flow could be required at any point in the
system, resulting in high localized flows.
The Irvine Ranch Water District Water Resources Mas-
ter Plan recommends a peak hourly use factor of 6.8
when reclaimed water is used for landscape irrigation
and a peak factor of 2.0 for agricultural and golf course
irrigation systems (IRWD, 1991). The peak factor for
landscape irrigation is higher because reclaimed water
use is restricted to between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. This re-
striction may not apply to agricultural or golf course use.
Generally, there will be "high-pressure" and "low-pressure"
users on an urban reuse system. The high-pressure us-
ers receive water directly from the system at pressures
suitable for the particular type of reuse. Examples in-
clude residential and landscape irrigation, industrial pro-
cesses and cooling water, car washes, fire protection,
and toilet flushing in commercial and industrial buildings.
The low-pressure users receive reclaimed water into an
onsite storage pond to be repumped into their reuse sys-
tem. Typical low-pressure users are golf courses, parks,
and condominium developments that use reclaimed wa-
ter for irrigation. Other low-pressure uses include the
delivery of reclaimed water to landscape or recreational
impoundments, or industrial or cooling tower sites that
have onsite tanks for blending and/or storing water.
Typically, urban dual distribution systems operate at a
minimum pressure of 50 psi (350 kPa), which will sat-
isfy the pressure requirements for irrigation of larger
landscaped areas such as multi-family complexes, and
offices, commercial, and industrial parks. A minimum
pressure of 50 psi (350 kPa) should also satisfy the re-
quirements of car washes, toilet flushing, construction
dust control, and some industrial uses. Based on require-
ments of typical residential irrigation equipment, a mini-
mum delivery pressure of 30 psi (210 kPa) is used for
the satisfactory operation of in-ground residential irriga-
tion systems.
For users who operate at higher pressures than other
users on the system, additional onsite pumping will be
required to satisfy the pressure requirements. For ex-
ample, golf course irrigation systems typically operate
at higher pressures (100 to 200 psi or 700 kPa to 1,400
kPa), and if directly connected to the reclaimed water
system, will likely require a booster pump station.
Repumping may be required in high-rise office build-
ings using reclaimed water for toilet flushing. Addition-
ally, some industrial users may operate at higher pres-
sures.
The design of a reuse transmission system is usually
accomplished through the use of computer modeling, with
portions of each of the sub-area distribution systems rep-
resenting demand nodes in the model. The demand of
each node is determined from the irrigable acreage tribu-
tary to the node, the irrigation rate, and the daily irriga-
tion time period. Additional demands for uses other than
irrigation, such as fire flow protection, toilet flushing, and
11
-------
industrial uses must also be added to the appropriate
node.
The 2 most common methods of maintaining system pres-
sure under widely varying flow rates are: (1) constant-
speed supply pumps and system elevated storage tanks,
which maintain essentially consistent system pressures,
or (2) constant-pressure, variable-speed, high-service
supply pumps, which maintain a constant system pres-
sure while meeting the varying demand for reclaimed water
by varying the pump speed. While each of these sys-
tems has advantages and disadvantages, either system
will perform well and remains a matter of local choice.
The dual distribution system of the City of Altamonte
Springs, Florida operates with constant-speed supply
pumps and 2 elevated storage tanks, and pressures range
between 55 and 60 psi (380 kPa and 410 kPa). The ur-
ban system of the Marin Municipal Water District, in
California, operates at a system pressure of 50 to 130
psi (350 kPa and 900 kPa), depending upon elevation
and distance from the point of supply, while Apopka,
Florida operates its reuse system at a pressure of 60 psi
(410kPa).
The system should be designed with the flexibility to in-
stitute some form of usage control when necessary and
provide for the potential resulting increase in the peak
hourly demand. One such form of usage control would be
to vary the days per week that schools, parks, golf
courses, and residential areas are irrigated. In addition,
large users, such as golf courses, will have a major im-
pact on the shape of the reclaimed water daily demand
curve, and hence on the peak hourly demand, depending
upon how the water is delivered to them. The reclaimed
water daily demand curve may be "flattened" and the peak
hourly demand reduced if the reclaimed water is dis-
charged to golf course ponds over a 24-hour period or
during the daytime hours when demand for residential
landscape irrigation is low. These methods of operation
can reduce peak demands, thereby reducing storage re-
quirements, pumping capacities, and pipe diameters. This
in turn, can reduce construction cost.
2.1.4 Using Reclaimed Water for Fire
Protection
Reclaimed water may be used for fire protection, but
this application requires additional design efforts (Snyder
et a/., 2002). Urban potable water distribution systems
are typically sized based on fire flow requirements. In
residential areas, this can result in 6-inch diameter pipes
to support fire demands where 2-inch diameter pipes may
be sufficient to meet potable needs. Fire flow require-
ments also increase the volume of water required to be
in storage at any given time. While this results in a very
robust distribution system, the increased pipe size and
storage required for fire flows results in increased resi-
dence time within the distribution system, and a corre-
sponding potential reduction in reclaimed water quality.
In Rouse Hill, an independent community near Sydney,
Australia, reclaimed water lines are being sized to handle
fire flows, allowing potable line sizes to be reduced. Due
to a shortage of potable water supplies, the City of Cape
Coral, Florida, designed a dual distribution system sup-
plied by reclaimed water and surface water that provides
for fire protection and urban irrigation. This practice was
possible due to the fact that nonpotable service, includ-
ing the use of reclaimed water for fire protection, was part
of the planning of the development before construction.
However, these benefits come at the cost of elevating the
reclaimed water system to an essential service with reli-
ability equal to that of the potable water system. This in
turn, requires redundancy and emergency power with an
associated increase in cost. For these reasons, the City
has decided to not include fire protection in its future
reclaimed water distribution systems. This decision was
largely based on the fact that the inclusion of fire protec-
tion limited operations of the reclaimed water distribution
system. Specifically, the limited operations included the
lack of ability to reduce the operating pressure and to
close valves in the distribution system.
In some cases, municipalities may be faced with replac-
ing existing potable water distribution systems, because
the pipe material is contributing to water quality prob-
lems. In such instances, consideration could be given
to converting the existing network into a nonpotable dis-
tribution system capable of providing fire protection and
installing a new, smaller network to handle potable de-
mands. Such an approach would require a comprehen-
sive cross connection control process to ensure all con-
nections between the potable and nonpotable system
were severed. Color-coding of below-ground piping also
poses a challenge. To date, no community has at-
tempted such a conversion. More often, the primary
means of fire protection is the potable water system,
with reclaimed water systems providing an additional
source of water for fire flows. In the City of St. Peters-
burg, Florida, fire protection is shared between potable
and reclaimed water. In San Francisco, California, re-
claimed water is part of a dual system for fire protection
that includes high-rise buildings. Reclaimed water is also
available for fire protection in the Irvine Ranch Water
District, California. In some cases, site-specific investi-
gations may determine that reclaimed water is the most
cost-effective means of providing fire protection. The City
of Livermore, California, determined that using reclaimed
water for fire protection at airport hangers and a whole-
sale warehouse store would be less expensive than up-
12
-------
grading the potable water system (Johnson and Crook,
1998).
2.2
Industrial Reuse
Industrial reuse has increased substantially since the
early 1990s for many of the same reasons urban reuse
has gained popularity, including water shortages and in-
creased populations, particularly in drought areas, and
legislation regarding water conservation and environmen-
tal compliance. To meet this increased demand, many
states have increased the availability of reclaimed water
to industries and have installed the necessary reclaimed
water distribution lines. As a result, California, Arizona,
Texas, Florida, and Nevada have major industrial facili-
ties using reclaimed water for cooling water and process/
boiler-feed requirements. Utility power plants are ideal
facilities for reuse due to their large water requirements
for cooling, ash sluicing, rad-waste dilution, and flue gas
scrubber requirements. Petroleum refineries, chemical
plants, and metal working facilities are among other in-
dustrial facilities benefiting from reclaimed water not only
for cooling, but for process needs as well.
2.2.1
Cooling Water
For the majority of industries, cooling water is the largest
use of reclaimed water because advancements in water
treatment technologies have allowed industries to suc-
cessfully use lesser quality waters. These advancements
have enabled better control of deposits, corrosion, and
biological problems often associated with the use of re-
claimed water in a concentrated cooling water system.
There are 2 basic types of cooling water systems that
use reclaimed water: (1) once-through and (2) recirculat-
ing evaporative. The recirculating evaporative cooling
water system is the most common reclaimed water sys-
tem due to its large water use and consumption by
evaporation.
2.2.1.1 Once-Through Cooling Water Systems
As implied by the name, once-through cooling water sys-
tems involve a simple pass of cooling water through heat
exchangers. There is no evaporation, and therefore, no
consumption or concentration of the cooling water. Very
few once-through cooling systems use reclaimed water
and, in most instances, are confined to locations where
reuse is convenient, such as where industries are lo-
cated near an outfall. For example, Bethlehem Steel
Company in Baltimore, Maryland, has used 100 mgd
(4,380 l/s) of treated wastewater effluent from Baltimore's
Back River Wastewater Treatment Facility for processes
and once-through cooling water system since the early
1970s. The Rawhide Energy Station utility power plant in
Fort Collins, Colorado, has used about 245 mgd (10,753
l/s) of reclaimed water for once through cooling of con-
densers since the 1980s. The reclaimed water is added
to a body of water and the combined water is used in the
once-through cooling system. After one-time use, the
water is returned to the original water source (lake or
river).
2.2.1.2 Recirculating Evaporative Cooling
Water Systems
Recirculating evaporative cooling water systems use wa-
ter to absorb process heat, and then transfer the heat by
evaporation. As the cooling water is recirculated, makeup
water is required to replace water lost through evapora-
tion. Water must also be periodically removed from the
cooling water system to prevent a buildup of dissolved
solids in the cooling water. There are 2 common types of
evaporative cooling systems that use reclaimed water:
(1) cooling towers and (2) spray ponds.
2.2.1.2a Cooling Tower Systems
Like all recirculating evaporative systems, cooling water
towers are designed to take advantage of the absorption
and transfer of heat through evaporation. Over the past
10 years, cooling towers have increased in efficiency so
that only 1.75 percent of the recirculated water is evapo-
rated for every 10 °F (6 °C) drop in process water heat,
decreasing the need to supplement with makeup water.
Because water is evaporated, the dissolved solids and
minerals will remain in the recirculated water. These sol-
ids must be removed or treated to prevent accumulation
on the cooling equipment as well as the cooling tower.
This removal is accomplished by discharging a portion of
the cooling water, referred to as blow-down water. The
blow-down water is usually treated by a chemical pro-
cess and/or a filtration/softening/clarification process be-
fore disposal. Buildup of total dissolved solids can occur
within the reclamation/industrial cooling system if the blow-
down waste stream, with increased dissolved solids, is
recirculated between the water reclamation plant and the
cooling system.
The Curtis Stanton Energy Facility in Orlando, Florida,
receives reclaimed water from an Orange County waste-
water facility for cooling water. Initially, the blow-down
water was planned to be returned to the wastewater facil-
ity. However, this process would eventually increase the
concentration of dissolved solids in the reclaimed water
to a degree that it could not be used as cooling water in
the future. So, as an alternative, the blow-down water is
crystallized at the Curtis Stanton facility and disposed of
at a landfill. The City of San Marcos, Texas, identified the
13
-------
following indirect impacts associated with receiving the
blow-down water back at their wastewater treatment plant:
reduced treatment capacity, impact to the biological pro-
cess, and impact to the plant effluent receiving stream
(Longoria etal., 2000). To avoid the impacts to the waste-
water treatment plant, the City installed a dedicated line
to return the blow-down water directly to the UV disinfec-
tion chamber. Therefore, there was no loss of plant ca-
pacity or impact to the biological process. The City has
provided increased monitoring of the effluent-receiving
stream to identify any potential stream impacts.
Cooling tower designs vary widely. Large hyperbolic con-
crete structures, as shown in Figure 2-3, range from
250 to 400 feet (76 to 122 meters) tall and 150 to 200
feet (46 to 61 meters) in diameter, and are common at
utility power plants. These cooling towers can recircu-
late approximately 200,000 to 500,000 gpm (12,600 to
31,500 l/s) of water and evaporate approximately 6,000
to 15,000 gpm (380 to 950 l/s) of water.
Smaller cooling towers can be rectangular boxes con-
structed of wood, concrete, plastic, and/or fiberglass re-
inforced plastic with circular fan housings for each cell.
Each cell can recirculate (cool) approximately 3,000 to
5,000 gpm (190 to 315 l/s). Petroleum refineries, chemi-
cal plants, steel mills, smaller utility plants, and other
processing industries can have as many as 15 cells in a
single cooling tower, recirculating approximately 75,000
gpm (4,700 l/s). Commercial air conditioning cooling tower
systems can recirculate as little as 100 gpm (6 l/s) to as
much as 40,000 gpm (2,500 l/s).
The cycles of concentration (COC) are defined as the
ratio of a given ion or compound in the cooling tower
water compared to the identical ion or compound in the
makeup water. For example, if the sodium chloride level
in the cooling tower water is 200 mg/l, and the same
compound in the makeup water is 50 mg/l, then the COC
is 200 divided by 50, or 4, often referred to as 4 cycles.
Industries often operate their cooling towers at widely
different cycles of concentration as shown in Table 2-1.
The reason for such variations is that the cooling water is
used for different applications such as wash water, ash
sluicing, process water, etc.
2.2.1.2b Spray Ponds
Spray ponds are usually small lakes or bodies of water
where warmed cooling water is directed to nozzles that
Table 2-1. Typical Cycles of Concentration
(COC)
Industry
Utilities
Fossil
Nuclear
Petroleum Refineries
Chemical Plants
Steel Mills
HVAC
Paper Mills
Typical COC
5-8
6-10
6-8
8-10
3-5
3-5
5-8
Figure 2-3. Cooling Tower
14
-------
spray upward to mix with air. This spraying causes evapo-
ration, but usually only produces a 3 to 8 ° F drop in
temperature. Spray ponds are often used by facilities,
such as utility power plants, where minimal cooling is
needed and where the pond can also be incorporated
into either decorative fountains or the air conditioning
system. Reclaimed water has some application related
to spray ponds, usually as makeup water, since there
are often restrictions on discharging reclaimed water into
lakes or ponds. In addition, there is a potential for foam-
ing within the spray pond if only reclaimed water is used.
For example, the City of Ft. Collins, Colorado, supplies
reclaimed water to the Platte River Power Authority for
cooling its 250 megawatt (MW) Rawhide Energy Station.
The recirculation cooling system is a 5.2-billion-gallon
(20-million-m3) lake used to supply 170,000 gpm (107,000
l/s) to the condenser and auxiliary heat exchangers. Re-
claimed water is treated to reduce phosphate and other
contaminants, and then added to the freshwater lake.
2.2.1.3 Cooling Water Quality Requirements
The most frequent water quality problems in cooling wa-
ter systems are corrosion, biological growth, and scal-
ing. These problems arise from contaminants in potable
water as well as in reclaimed water, but the concentra-
tions of some contaminants in reclaimed water may be
higher than in potable water. Table 2-2 provides some
reclaimed water quality data from Florida and California.
In Burbank, California, about 5 mgd (219 l/s) of munici-
pal secondary effluent has been successfully utilized for
cooling water makeup in the City's power generating plant
since 1967. The reclaimed water is of such good quality
that with the addition of chlorine, acid, and corrosion in-
hibitors, the reclaimed water quality is nearly equal to
that of freshwater. There are also numerous petroleum
refineries in the Los Angeles area in California that have
used reclaimed water since 1998 as 100 percent of the
makeup water for their cooling systems.
The City of Las Vegas and Clark County Sanitation Dis-
trict uses 90 mgd (3,940 l/s) of secondary effluent to
supply 35 percent of the water demand in power generat-
ing stations operated by the Nevada Power Company.
The power company provides additional treatment con-
sisting of 2-stage lime softening, filtration, and chlorina-
tion prior to use as cooling tower makeup. A reclaimed
water reservoir provides backup for the water supply. The
Arizona Public Service 1,270-MW Palo Verde nuclear
power plant is located 55 miles from Phoenix, Arizona,
and uses almost all of the City of Phoenix and area cit-
ies' reclaimed water at an average rate of 38,000 gpm
(2,400 l/s).
In a partnership between the King County Department of
Metropolitan Services (Seattle, Washington), the Boeing
Company, and Puget Sound Power and Light Company,
a new 600,000-square-foot (55,740-m2) Customer Ser-
vice Training Center is cooled using chlorinated second-
ary effluent (Lundt, 1996).
In Texas, The San Antonio Water System (SAWS) has a
provision in its service agreement that allows for adjust-
ment in the reclaimed water rates for cooling tower use if
the use of reclaimed water results in fewer cycles of con-
centration.
2.2.1.3a Corrosion Concerns
The use of any water, including reclaimed water, as
makeup in recirculating cooling tower systems will result
in the concentration of dissolved solids in the heat ex-
change system. This concentration may or may not cause
serious corrosion of components. Three requirements
should be considered to identify the cooling system cor-
rosion potential:
1. Calculation of the concentrated cooling
water quality - most often "worst" case but
also "average expected" water quality
Table 2-2.
Florida and California Reclaimed Water Quality
Water Constituents
Conductivity
Calcium Hardness
Total Alkalinity
Chlorides
Phosphate
Ammonia
Suspended Solids
Orlando
1200-1800
180-200
150-200
20-40
18-25
10-15
3-5
Tampa
600-1500
100-120
60-100
30-80
10 -20
5-15
3-5
Los Angeles
2000 - 2700
260 - 450
140-280
250 - 350
300 - 400
4-20
10-45
San Francisco
800-1200
50 - 1 80
30-120
40 - 200
20-70
2 -8
2-10
15
-------
2. Identification of metal alloys in the process
equipment that will contact cooling water-
primarily heat exchanger/cooler/condenser
tubing but also all other metals in the sys-
tem, including lines, water box, tube sheet,
and cooling tower
3. Operating conditions (temperatures and
water flow) of the cooling tower - primarily
related to the heat exchanger tubing but also
the other metals in the system
Depending upon its level of treatment, the quality of re-
claimed water can vary substantially. The amount of
concentration in the cooling system will also vary sub-
stantially, depending on the cycles of concentration
within the system. Certainly, any contamination of the
cooling water through process in-leakage, atmospheric
conditions, or treatment chemicals will impact the water
quality.
2.2.1.3b Biological Concerns
Biological concerns associated with the use of reclaimed
water in cooling systems include:
• Microbiological organisms that contribute to the po-
tential for deposits and microbiologically induced
corrosion (MIC)
Microbiological organisms (bacteria, fungus, or algae) that
contribute to deposits and corrosion are most often those
adhering to surfaces and identified as "sessile" microor-
ganisms. The deposits usually occur in low flow areas (2
feet per second [0.6 m/s] or less) but can stick to sur-
faces even at much greater flow rates (5 to 8 feet per
second [1.5 to 2 m/s]). The deposits can create a variety
of concerns and problems. Deposits can interfere with
heat transfer and can cause corrosion directly due to
acid or corrosive by-products. Indirectly, deposits may
shield metal surfaces from water treatment corrosion in-
hibitors and establish under-deposit corrosion. Deposits
can grow rapidly and plug heat exchangers, cooling tower
film fill, or cooling tower water distribution nozzles/sprays.
Reclaimed water generally has a very low level of micro-
biological organisms due to the treatment requirements
prior to discharge. Chlorine levels of 2.0 mg/l (as free
chlorine) will kill most sessile microorganisms that cause
corrosion or deposits in cooling systems.
Nutrients that contribute to microbiological growth are
present in varying concentrations in reclaimed water.
However, even when freshwater is used in cooling tow-
ers, chemicals added during the treatment process can
contribute a considerable concentration of nutrients. It
is also important to have a good biological control pro-
gram in place before reclaimed water is used. Ammo-
nia and organics are typical nutrients found in reclaimed
water that can reduce or negate some commonly used
biocides (particularly cationic charged polymers).
2.2.1.3cScaling Concerns
The primary constituents for scale potential from reclaimed
water are calcium, magnesium, sulfate, alkalinity, phos-
phate, silica, and fluoride.
Combinations of these minerals that can produce scale
in the concentrated cooling water generally include cal-
cium phosphate (most common), silica (fairly common),
calcium sulfate (fairly common), calcium carbonate (sel-
dom found), calcium fluoride (seldom found), and mag-
nesium silicate (seldom found).
All constituents with the potential to form scale must be
evaluated and controlled by chemical treatment and/or
by adjusting the cycles of concentration. Reclaimed wa-
ter quality must be evaluated, along with the scaling po-
tential to establish the use of specific scale inhibitors.
Guidelines for selection and use of scale inhibitors are
available as are scale predictive tools.
Nutrients that contribute to microbiological growth 2.2.2
Boiler Make-up Water
The use of reclaimed water for boiler make-up water dif-
fers little from the use of conventional public water sup-
ply; both require extensive additional treatment. Quality
requirements for boiler make-up water depend on the pres-
sure at which the boiler is operated. Generally, the higher
the pressure, the higher the quality of water required.
Very high pressure (1500 psi [10,340 kPa] and above)
boilers require make-up water of very high quality.
In general, both potable water and reclaimed water used
for boiler water make-up must be treated to reduce the
hardness of the boiler feed water to close to zero. Re-
moval or control of insoluble scales of calcium and mag-
nesium, and control of silica and alumina, are required
since these are the principal causes of scale buildup in
boilers. Depending on the characteristics of the reclaimed
water, lime treatment (including flocculation, sedimenta-
tion, and recarbonation) might be followed by multi-me-
dia filtration, carbon adsorption, and nitrogen removal.
High-purity boiler feed water for high-pressure boilers might
also require treatment by reverse osmosis or ion ex-
change. High alkalinity may contribute to foaming, re-
sulting in deposits in the superheater, reheater, or tur-
16
-------
bines. Bicarbonate alkalinity, under the influence of boiler
heat, may lead to the release of carbon dioxide, which is
a source of corrosion in steam-using equipment. The con-
siderable treatment and relatively small amounts of make-
up water required normally make boiler make-up water a
poor candidate for reclaimed water.
Since mid-2000, several refineries located in southern
Los Angeles, California, have used reclaimed water as
their primary source of boiler make-up water. Through
the use of clarification, filtration, and reverse osmosis,
high-quality boiler make-up water is produced that pro-
vides freshwater, chemical, and energy savings. The
East Bay Municipal Utility District in California provides
reclaimed water to the Chevron Refinery for use as boiler
feed water. Table 2-3 shows the sampling requirements
and expected water quality for the reclaimed water.
2.2.3
Industrial Process Water
The suitability of reclaimed water for use in industrial
processes depends on the particular use. For example,
the electronics industry requires water of almost distilled
quality for washing circuit boards and other electronic
components. On the other hand, the tanning industry can
use relatively low-quality water. Requirements for textiles,
pulp and paper, and metal fabricating are intermediate.
Thus, in investigating the feasibility of industrial reuse
with reclaimed water, potential users must be contacted
to determine the specific requirements for their process
water.
A full-scale demonstration plant, operated at Toppan
Electronics, in San Diego, California, has shown that re-
claimed water can be used for the production of circuit
boards (Gagliardo etal., 2002). The reclaimed water used
for the demonstration plant was pretreated with
microfiltration. Table 2-4 presents industrial process water
quality requirements for a variety of industries.
2.2.3.1
Pulp and Paper Industry
The historical approach of the pulp and paper industry
has been to internally recycle water to a very high de-
gree. The pulp and paper industry has long recognized
the potential benefits associated with water reuse. At the
turn of the century, when the paper machine was being
developed, water use was approximately 150,000 gal-
lons per ton (625 liters per kilogram). By the 1950s, the
water usage rate was down to 35,000 gallons per ton
(145 liters per kilogram) (Wyvillef a/., 1984). An industry
survey conducted in 1966 showed the total water use for
a bleached Kraft mill to be 179,000 gallons per ton (750
liters per kilogram) (Haynes, 1974). Modern mills approach
a recycle ratio of 100 percent, using only 16,000 to 17,000
gallons of freshwater per ton (67 to 71 liters per kilogram)
(NCASI.2003).
About a dozen pulp and paper mills use reclaimed water.
Less than half of these mills use treated municipal waste-
water. Tertiary treatment is generally required. The driver
is usually an insufficient source of freshwater. SAPPI's
Enstra mill in South Africa has been using treated mu-
nicipal wastewater si nee the early 1940s. In LakeTahoe,
California, the opportunities for using treated wastewater
in pulping and papermaking arose with the construction
of tertiary wastewater facilities (Dorica et a/.,1998).
Some of the reasons that mills choose not to use treated
municipal wastewater include:
• Concerns about pathogens
• Product quality requirements that specifically pre-
clude its use
• Possibly prohibitive conveyance costs
• Concerns about potentially increased corrosion, scal-
ing, and biofouling problems due to the high degree
of internal recycling involved
Table 2-5 shows the water quality requirements for sev-
eral pulp and paper processes in New York City.
2.2.3.2 Chemical Industry
The water quality requirements for the chemical industry
vary greatly according to production requirements. Gen-
erally, waters in the neutral pH range (6.2 to 8.3) that are
also moderately soft with low turbidity, suspended solids
(SS), and silica are required; dissolved solids and chlo-
ride content are generally not critical (Water Pollution
Control Federation, 1989).
2.2.3.3 Textile Industry
Waters used in textile manufacturing must be non-stain-
ing; hence, they must be low in turbidity, color, iron, and
manganese. Hardness may cause curds to deposit on
the textiles and may cause problems in some of the
processes that use soap. Nitrates and nitrites may cause
problems in dyeing.
In 1997, a local carpet manufacturer in Irvine, California,
retrofitted carpet-dyeing facilities to use reclaimed water
year-round (IRWD, 2003). The new process is as effec-
tive as earlier methods and is saving up to 500,000 gal-
lons of potable water per day (22 l/s).
17
-------
Table 2-3.
North Richmond Water Reclamation Plant Sampling Requirements
Location1
Sample Type
Parameter
Frequency
Target Value2
Samples Required for Compliance with RWQCB Order 90-137
Chevron Tie-In
Reclaimed Water
Effluent
Grab
24-hour composite3
Turbidity, Total Chlorine
Residual1, Total Coliform2
Flow
Daily
Continuous
Max. 2 NTU,
Min. 300 CT,
2.2MPN/100ml
NA
Samples Required for Compliance with EBMUD-Chevron Agreement; Chevron's NPDES Permit
Filter Influent, Filter
Effluent, Chlorine
Contact Basin Effluent
Reclaimed Water
Effluent
Reclaimed Water
Effluent
Reclaimed Water
Effluent
Reclaimed Water
Effluent
Reclaimed Water
Effluent
Reclaimed Water
Effluent
Reclaimed Water
Effluent
Reclaimed Water
Effluent
Reclaimed Water
Effluent
Online Analyzers3
24-hour
composite
24-hour
composite
96-hour flow through
24-hour
composite
24-hour
composite
24-hour
composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
pH, Turbidity, Free Chlorine
Residual
Orthophosphate (PO4)
Calcium, Total Iron,
Magnesium, Silica, TSS
Ammonia (NH3-N), Chloride
Rainbow trout acute bioassay
COD, TOG (Grab), Selenium,
Surfactants
Total Chromium, Hexavalent
Cr, Ag, As, TOG, Cd,
Cyanide, Cu, Hg, Pb, Ni, Zn -
mg/D
Total Phenolics, PAHs
Oil and Grease, Total
Sulfides
Volatile Organics,
Halogenated Volatile
Organics
TCDD Equivalents,
Tributyltin, Halogenated
Volatile Organics,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls,
Pesticides
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Twice/Year
Once/Year
6.5-7.5, 2 NTU,
<4.0 mg/l
<1 .4 mg/l
50 mg/l, 0.1 mg/l,
20 mg/l, 10 mg/l,
<1 .0 mg/l,
< 175 mg/l
>90% Survival
<50 mg/l, Report
Only <1 .0 mg/l
Report Only4
Report Only4
Report Only4
Report Only4
Report Only4
NOTES:
1. Chlorine residual may vary based on CT calculation (contact time x residual = 300 CT); 90 minute minimum
contact time.
2. Sample must be collected at reclaimed water metering station at pipeline tie-in to Chevron Refinery cooling
towers; 90 minute chlorine contact time requirement.
3. Readouts for online analyzers are on graphic panel in Operations Center.
4. "Report Only" parameters are used for pass-through credit for reclaimed water constituents as provided for in
Chevron's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Source: Yologe, 1996
18
-------
Table 2-4.
Industrial Process Water Quality Requirements
Parameter*
Cu
Fe
Mn
Pulp& Paper
Mechanical
Piping
-
0.3
0.1
Chemical,
Unbleached
-
1.0
0.5
Pulp&
Paper
Bleached
-
0.1
0.05
Chemical
-
0.1
0.1
Petrochem &
Coal
0.05
1.0
-
Textiles
Sizing
Suspension
0.01
0.3
0.05
Scouring,
Bleach & Dye
-
0.1
0.01
Cement
-
2.5
0.5
Ca
Mg
-
-
20
12
20
12
68
19
75
30
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cl
HCO3
NO3
S04
SiO2
1,000
-
-
-
-
200
-
-
-
50
200
-
-
-
50
500
128
5
100
50
300
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
250
-
-
250
35
Hardness
Alkalinity
IDS
TSS
Color
PH
CCE
-
-
-
-
30
6-10
-
100
-
-
10
30
6-10
-
100
-
-
10
10
6-10
-
250
125
1,000
5
20
6.2-8.3
-
350
-
1,000
10
-
6-9
-
25
-
100
5
5
-
-
25
-
100
5
5
-
-
-
400
600
500
-
6.5-8.5
-
*AII values in mg/l except color and pH.
Source: Water Pollution Control Federation, 1989.
Table 2-5.
Pulp and Paper Process Water Quality Requirements
Parameter (a)
Iron
Manganese
Calcium
Magnesium
Chlorine
Silicon Dioxide
Hardness
TSS
Color
PH
Mechanical Pulping
0.3
0.1
-
-
1,000
-
-
-
30
6- 10
Chemical,
Unbleached
1
0.5
20
12
200
50
100
10
30
6-10
Pulp and Paper,
Bleached
0.1
0.05
20
12
200
50
100
10
10
6-10
(a) All values in mg/l except color and pH.
Source: Adamski etal., 2000
19
-------
2.2.3.4
Petroleum and Coal
Processes for the manufacture of petroleum and coal
products can usually tolerate water of relatively low qual-
ity. Waters generally must be in the 6 to 9 pH range and
have moderate SS of no greater than 10 mg/l.
2.3
Agricultural Reuse
This section focuses on the following specific consider-
ations for implementing a water reuse program for agri-
cultural irrigation:
• Agricultural irrigation demands
• Reclaimed water quality
• Other system considerations
Technical issues common to all reuse programs are dis-
cussed in Chapter 3, and the reader is referred to the
following subsections for this information: 3.4 - Treat-
ment Requirements, 3.5 - Seasonal Storage Require-
ments, 3.6 - Supplemental Facilities (conveyance and
distribution, operational storage, and alternative dis-
posal).
Agricultural irrigation represents a significant percent-
age of the total demand for freshwater. As discussed in
Chapter 3, agricultural irrigation is estimated to repre-
sent 40 percent of the total water demand nationwide
(Solley et a/., 1998). In western states with significant
agricultural production, the percentage of freshwater used
for irrigation is markedly greater. For example, Figure 2-
4 illustrates the total daily freshwater withdrawals, public
water supply, and agricultural irrigation usage for Mon-
tana, Colorado, Idaho, and California. These states are
the top 4 consumers of water for agricultural irrigation,
which accounts for more than 80 percent of their total
water demand.
The total cropland area in the U.S. and Puerto Rico is
estimated to be approximately 431 million acres (174
million hectares), of which approximately 55 million acres
(22 million hectares) are irrigated. Worldwide, it is esti-
mated that irrigation water demands exceed all other
categories of water use and make up 75 percent of the
total water usage (Solley et al., 1998).
A significant portion of existing water reuse systems sup-
ply reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation. In Florida,
agricultural irrigation accounts for approximately 19 per-
cent of the total volume of reclaimed water used within
the state (Florida Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, 2002b). In California, agricultural irrigation accounts
Figure 2-4. Comparison of Agricultural
Irrigation, Public/Domestic, and
Total Freshwater Withdrawals
EH Other
EH Public/Domestic Supply
EH Irrigation Demand
California Colorado Idaho Montana
for approximately 48 percent of the total volume of re-
claimed water used within the state (California State Water
Resources Control Board, 2002). Figure 2-5 shows the
percentages of the types of crops irrigated with reclaimed
water in California.
Agricultural reuse is often included as a component in
water reuse programs for the following reasons:
• Extremely high water demands for agricultural irriga-
tion
Figure 2-5.
Agricultural Reuse Categories by
Percent in California
Pasture
12%
Nursery &
Sod
2%
Orchards &
Vineyards
3%
Harvested
Feed, Fiber &
Seed
37%
Mixed or
Unknown
44%
Food Crops
2%
Source: California State Water Control Board, 2000
20
-------
• Significant water conservation benefits associated
with reuse in agriculture
• Ability to integrate agricultural reuse with other reuse
applications
Due to saltwater intrusion to its agricultural wells, the
City of Watsonville, California, is looking to develop 4,000
acre-feet per year (2,480 gpm) of reuse for the irrigation
of strawberries, artichokes, and potentially certified or-
ganic crops (Raines et al., 2002). Reclaimed water will
make up 25 percent of the estimated new water required
for irrigation.
2.3.1 Estimating Agricultural Irrigation
Demands
Because crop water requirements vary with climatic con-
ditions, the need for supplemental irrigation will vary from
month to month throughout the year. This seasonal varia-
tion is a function of rainfall, temperature, crop type, stage
of plant growth, and other factors, depending on the
method of irrigation being used.
The supplier of reclaimed water must be able to quantify
these seasonal demands, as well as any fluctuation in
the reclaimed water supply, to assure that the demand
for irrigation water can be met. Unfortunately, many agri-
cultural users are unable to provide sufficient detail about
irrigation demands for design purposes. This is because
the user's seasonal or annual water use is seldom mea-
sured and recorded, even on land surfaces where water
has been used for irrigation for a number of years. How-
ever, expert guidance is usually available through state
colleges and universities and the local soil conservation
service office.
To assess the feasibility of reuse, the reclaimed water
supplier must be able to reasonably estimate irrigation
demands and reclaimed water supplies. To make this
assessment in the absence of actual water use data,
evapotranspiration, percolation and runoff losses, and net
irrigation must be estimated, often through the use of
predictive equations.
2.3.1.1 Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration is defined as water either evaporated
from the soil surface or actively transpired from the crop.
While the concept of evapotranspiration is easily de-
scribed, quantifying the term mathematically is difficult.
Evaporation from the soil surface is a function of the
soil moisture content at or near the surface. As the top
layer of soil dries, evaporation decreases. Transpira-
tion, the water vapor released through the plants' sur-
face membranes, is a function of available soil moisture,
season, and stage of growth. The rate of transpiration
may be further impacted by soil structure and the salt
concentration in the soil water. Primary factors affecting
evaporation and transpiration are relative humidity, wind,
and solar radiation.
Practically every state in the U.S. and Canada now has
access to weather information from the Internet. Califor-
nia has developed the California Irrigation Management
Information System (CIMIS), which allows growers to
obtain daily reference evapotranspiration information. Data
are made available for numerous locations within the state
according to regions of similar climatic conditions. State
publications provide coefficients for converting these ref-
erence data for use on specific crops, location, and stages
of growth. This allows users to refine irrigation schedul-
ing and conserve water. Other examples of weather net-
works are the Michigan State University Agricultural
Weather Station, the Florida Automated Weather Net-
work, and the Agri-Food Canada Lethbridge Research
Centre Weather Station Network.
Numerous equations and methods have been developed
to define the evapotranspiration term. The Thornthwaite
and Blaney-Criddle methods of estimating evapotranspi-
ration are 2 of the most cited methods. The Blaney-Criddle
equation uses percent of daylight hours per month and
average monthly temperature. The Thornthwaite method
relies on mean monthly temperature and daytime hours.
In addition to specific empirical equations, it is quite com-
mon to encounter modifications to empirical equations
for use under specific regional conditions. In selecting
an empirical method of estimating evapotranspiration, the
potential user is encouraged to solicit input from local
agencies familiar with this subject.
2.3.1.2 Effective Precipitation, Percolation, and
Surface Water Runoff Losses
The approach for the beneficial reuse of reclaimed water
will, in most cases, vary significantly from land applica-
tion. In the case of beneficial reuse, the reclaimed water
is a resource to be used judiciously. The prudent alloca-
tion of this resource becomes even more critical in loca-
tions where reclaimed water is assigned a dollar value,
thereby becoming a commodity. Where there is a cost
associated with using reclaimed water, the recipient of
reclaimed water will seek to balance the cost of supple-
mental irrigation against the expected increase in crop
yields to derive the maximum economic benefit. Thus,
percolation losses will be minimized because they repre-
sent the loss of water available to the crop and wash
fertilizers out of the root zone. An exception to this oc-
curs when the reclaimed water has a high salt concen-
21
-------
tration and excess application is required to prevent the
accumulation of salts in the root zone.
Irrigation demand is the amount of water required to meet
the needs of the crop and also overcome system losses.
System losses will consist of percolation, surface water
runoff, and transmission and distribution losses. In addi-
tion to the above losses, the application of water to crops
will include evaporative losses or losses due to wind drift.
These losses may be difficult to quantify individually and
are often estimated as single system efficiency. The ac-
tual efficiency of a given system will be site specific and
vary widely depending on management practices followed.
Irrigation efficiencies typically range from 40 to 98 per-
cent (Vickers, 2001). A general range of efficiencies by
type of irrigation system is shown in Table 2-6.
Since there are no hard and fast rules for selecting the
most appropriate method for projecting irrigation demands
and establishing parameters for system reliability, it may
be prudent to undertake several of the techniques and to
verify calculated values with available records. In the in-
terest of developing the most useful models, local irriga-
tion specialists should be consulted.
2.3.2
Reclaimed Water Quality
The chemical constituents in reclaimed water of concern
for agricultural irrigation are salinity, sodium, trace ele-
ments, excessive chlorine residual, and nutrients. Sensi-
tivity is generally a function of a given plant's tolerance to
constituents encountered in the root zone or deposited
on the foliage. Reclaimed water tends to have higher con-
centrations of these constituents than the groundwater
or surface water sources from which the water supply is
drawn.
The types and concentrations of constituents in reclaimed
wastewater depend upon the municipal water supply, the
influent waste streams (i.e., domestic and industrial con-
tributions), amount and composition of infiltration in the
wastewater collection system, the wastewater treatment
processes, and type of storage facilities. Conditions that
can have an adverse impact on reclaimed water quality
may include:
• Elevated TDS levels
• Industrial discharges of potentially toxic compounds
into the municipal sewer system
• Saltwater (chlorides) infiltration into the sewer sys-
tem in coastal areas
Table 2-6. Efficiencies for Different Irrigation Systems
Irrigation System
Gravity (Surface)
Improved gravity2
Furrow
Flood
Sprinklers
Low energy precision application (LEPA)
Center pivot3
Sideroll
Solid set
Hand-move
Big gun
Microirrigation
Drip
Potential On-Farm Efficiency1
(Percent)
75-85
55-70
40-50
80-90
70-85
60-80
65-80
60-65
60-65
80-95
Efficiencies shown assume appropriate irrigation system selection, correct irrigation design,
and proper management.
includes tailwater recovery, precision land leveling, and surge flow systems.
includes high- and low-pressure center pivot.
Source: Vickers, 2001.
22
-------
For example, reclaimed water is used mostly for ridge
and furrow irrigation at the High Hat Ranch in Sarasota,
Florida, although a portion of the reclaimed water is used
for citrus irrigation via microjet irrigation. To achieve
successful operation of the microjet irrigation system,
filters were installed to provide additional solids removal
treatment to the reclaimed water used for citrus irriga-
tion.
2.3.2.1 Salinity
Salinity is the single most important parameter in deter-
mining the suitability of the water to be used for irriga-
tion. Salinity is determined by measuring the electrical
conductivity (EC) and/or the total dissolved solids (IDS)
in the water. Estimates indicate that 23 percent of irri-
gated farmland has been damaged by salt (Postel,
1999). The salinity tolerance of plants varies widely. Crops
must be chosen carefully to ensure that they can tolerate
the salinity of the irrigation water, and even then the soil
must be properly drained and adequately leached to pre-
vent salt build-up. Leaching is the deliberate over-appli-
cation of irrigation water in excess of crop needs to es-
tablish a downward movement of water and salt away
from the root zone.
The extent of salt accumulation in the soil depends on
the concentration of salts in the irrigation water and the
rate at which salts are removed by leaching. Salt accu-
mulation can be especially detrimental during germina-
tion and when plants are young (seedlings). At this stage,
damage can occur even with relatively low salt concen-
trations. Concerns with salinity relate to possible impacts
to the following: the soil's osmotic potential, specific ion
toxicity, and degradation of soil physical conditions.
These conditions may result in reduced plant growth
rates, reduced yields, and, in severe cases, total crop
failure.
The concentration of specific ions may cause one or more
of these trace elements to accumulate in the soil and in
the plant. Long-term build-up may result in animal and
human health hazards or phytotoxicity in plants. When
irrigating with municipal reclaimed water, the ions of most
concern are sodium, chloride, and boron. Household de-
tergents are usually the source of boron and water soft-
eners contribute sodium and chloride. Plants vary greatly
in their sensitivity to specific ion toxicity. Toxicity is par-
ticularly detrimental when crops are irrigated with over-
head sprinklers during periods of high temperature and
low humidity. Highly saline water applied to the leaves
results in direct absorption of sodium and/or chloride and
can cause leaf injury.
Salinity reduces the water uptake in plants by lowering
the osmotic potential of the soil. This, in turn, causes
the plant to use a large portion of its available energy to
adjust the salt concentration within its tissue in order to
obtain adequate water. This results in less energy avail-
able for plants to grow. The problem is more severe in
hot and dry climatic conditions because of increased
water demands by plants and is even more severe when
irrigation is inadequate.
One location where subsurface drainage is being evalu-
ated is in California's San Joaquin Valley. The drainage
management process is called "integrated on-farm drain-
age management" and involves reusing the drainage
water and using it to irrigate more salt-tolerant crops.
The final discharge water goes into solar evaporators
that collect the dry agricultural salt.
Further complications of salinity problems can occur in
geographic locations where the water table is high. A
high water table can cause a possible upward flow of
high salinity water into the root zone. Subsurface drain-
age offers a viable solution in these locations. Older clay
tiles are often replaced with fabric-covered plastic pipe to
prevent clogging. This subsurface drainage technique is
one salinity-controlling process that requires significant
changes in irrigation management. There are other tech-
niques that require relatively minor changes including
more frequent irrigation schedules, selection of more salt-
tolerant crops, seed placement, additional leaching, bed
forming, and pre-plant irrigation.
2.3.2.2
Sodium
The potential influence sodium may have on soil proper-
ties is indicated by the sodium-adsorption-ratio (SAR),
which is based on the effect of exchangeable sodium
on the physical condition of the soil. SAR expresses the
concentration of sodium in water relative to calcium and
magnesium. Excessive sodium in irrigation water (when
sodium exceeds calcium by more than a 3:1 ratio) con-
tributes to soil dispersion and structural breakdown, where
the finer soil particles fill many of the smaller pore spaces,
sealing the surface and greatly reducing water infiltration
rates (AWWA, 1997). For reclaimed water, it is recom-
mended that the calcium ion concentration in the SAR
equation be adjusted for alkalinity to include a more cor-
rect estimate of calcium in the soil water following irriga-
tion, specifically adj RNa. Note that the calculated adj
RNa is to be substituted for the SAR value.
Sodium salts influence the exchangeable cation compo-
sition of the soil, which lowers the permeability and af-
fects the tilth of the soil. This usually occurs within the
first few inches of the soil and is related to high sodium
23
-------
or very low calcium content in the soil or irrigation water.
Sodium hazard does not impair the uptake of water by
plants but does impair the infiltration of water into the
soil. The growth of plants is thus affected by an unavail-
ability of soil water (Tanji, 1990). Calcium and magne-
sium act as stabilizing ions in contrast to the destabiliz-
ing ion, sodium, in regard to the soil structure. They off-
set the phenomena related to the distance of charge neu-
tralization for soil particles caused by excess sodium.
Sometimes the irrigation water may dissolve sufficient
calcium from calcareous soils to decrease the sodium
hazard appreciably. Leaching and dissolving the calcium
from the soil is of little concern when irrigating with re-
claimed water because it is usually high enough in salt
and calcium. Reclaimed water, however, may be high in
sodium relative to calcium and may cause soil perme-
ability problems if not properly managed.
2.3.2.3
Trace Elements
The elements of greatest concern at elevated levels are
cadmium, copper, molybdenum, nickel, and zinc. Nickel
and zinc have visible adverse effects in plants at lower
concentrations than the levels harmful to animals and
humans. Zinc and nickel toxicity is reduced as pH in-
creases. Cadmium, copper, and molybdenum, however,
can be harmful to animals at concentrations too low to
impact plants.
Copper is not toxic to monogastric animals, but may be
toxic to ruminants. However, their tolerance to copper
increases as available molybdenum increases. Molyb-
denum can also be toxic when available in the absence
of copper. Cadmium is of particular concern as it can
accumulate in the food chain. It does not adversely af-
fect ruminants due to the small amounts they ingest.
Most milk and beef products are also unaffected by live-
stock ingestion of cadmium because the cadmium is
stored in the liver and kidneys of the animal, rather than
the fat or muscle tissues.
In addition, it was found that the input of heavy metals
from commercial chemical fertilizer impurities was far
greater than that contributed by the reclaimed water (En-
gineering Science, 1987).
Table 2-7 shows EPA's recommended limits for con-
stituents 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 leach
(and so to sequester or remove) the element in ques-
tion. 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 pollut-
ant has been added. This does not mean that if the sug-
gested limit is exceeded that phytotoxicity will occur.
Most of the elements are readily fixed or tied up in soil
and accumulate with time. Repeated applications in ex-
cess of suggested levels might induce phytotoxicity. The
criteria for short-term use (up to 20 years) are recom-
mended for fine-textured neutral and alkaline soils with
high capacities to remove the different pollutant elements.
2.3.2.4
Chlorine Residual
Free chlorine residual at concentrations less than 1 mg/
I usually poses no problem to plants. However, some
sensitive crops may be damaged at levels as low as
0.05 mg/l. Some woody crops, however, may accumu-
late chlorine in the tissue to toxic levels. Excessive chlo-
rine has a similar leaf-burning effect as sodium and chlo-
ride when sprayed directly on foliage. Chlorine at con-
centrations greater than 5 mg/l causes severe damage
to most plants.
2.3.2.5
Nutrients
The nutrients most important to a crop's needs are nitro-
gen, phosphorus, potassium, zinc, boron, and sulfur.
Reclaimed water usually contains enough of these nutri-
ents to supply a large portion of a crop's needs.
The most beneficial nutrient is nitrogen. Both the con-
centration and form of nitrogen need to be considered
in irrigation water. While excessive amounts of nitrogen
stimulate vegetative growth in most crops, it may also
delay maturity and reduce crop quality and quantity. The
nitrogen in reclaimed water may not be present in con-
centrations great enough to produce satisfactory crop
yields, and some supplemental fertilizer may be neces-
sary. In addition, excessive nitrate in forages can cause
an imbalance of nitrogen, potassium, and magnesium in
grazing animals. This is a concern if the forage is used
as a primary feed source for livestock; however, such
high concentrations are usually not expected with mu-
nicipal reclaimed water.
Soils in the western U.S. may contain enough potas-
sium, while many sandy soils of the southern U.S. do
not. In either case, the addition of potassium with re-
claimed water has little effect on crops. Phosphorus con-
tained in reclaimed water is usually at too low a level to
meet a crop's needs. Yet, over time, it can build up in
the soil and reduce the need for phosphorus supplemen-
tation. Excessive phosphorus levels do not appear to
pose any problems to crops, but can be a problem in
runoff to surface waters.
24
-------
Table 2-7.
Recommended Limits for Constituents in Reclaimed Water for Irrigation
Constituent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Tin, Tungsten, & Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Constituent
PH
TDS
Free Chlorine Residual
Long-Term Use
(mg/l)
5.0
0.10
0.10
0.75
0.01
0.1
0.05
0.2
1.0
5.0
5.0
2.5
0.2
0.01
0.2
0.02
-
0.1
2.0
Short-Term Use
(mg/l)
20
2.0
0.5
2.0
0.05
1.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
20.0
10.0
2.5
10.0
0.05
2.0
0.02
-
1.0
10.0
Recommended Limit
6.0
500 - 2,000 mg/l
<1 mg/l
Remarks
Can cause nonproductiveness in acid soils, but soils at pH 5.5 to 8.0 will
precipitate the ion and eliminate toxicity.
Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging from 12 mg/L for Sudan grass to less
than 0.05 mg/L for rice.
Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging from 5 mg/L for kale to 0.5 mg/L for
bush beans.
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) at
1 mg/L. Usually sufficient quantities in reclaimed water to correct soil
deficiencies. Most grasses are relatively tolerant at 2.0 to 10 mg/L.
Toxic to beans, beets, and turnips at concentrations as low as 0.1 mg/L in
nutrient solution. Conservative limits recommended.
Not generally recognized as an essential growth element. Conservative limits
recommended due to lack of knowledge on toxicity to plants.
Toxic to tomato plants at 0.1 mg/L in nutrient solution. Tends to be inactivated
by neutral and alkaline soils.
Toxic to a number of plants at 0.1 to 1 .0 mg/L in nutrient solution.
Inactivated by neutral and alkaline soils.
Not toxic to plants in aerated soils, but can contribute to soil acidification and
loss of essential phosphorus and molybdenum.
Can inhibit plant cell growth at very high concentrations.
Tolerated by most crops at concentrations up to 5 mg/L; mobile in soil. Toxic to
citrus at low doses - recommended limit is 0.075 mg/L.
Toxic to a number of crops at a few-tenths to a few mg/L in acidic soils.
Nontoxic 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.
Toxic to a number of plants at 0.5 to 1 .0 mg/L; reduced toxicity at neutral or
alkaline pH.
Toxic to plants at low concentrations and to livestock if forage is grown in soils
with low levels of selenium.
Effectively excluded by plants; specific tolerance levels unknown
Toxic to many plants at relatively low concentrations.
Toxic to many plants at widely varying concentrations; reduced toxicity at
increased pH (6 or above) and in fine-textured or organic soils.
Remarks
Most effects of pH on plant growth are indirect (e.g., pH effects on heavy
metals' toxicity described above).
Below 500 mg/L, no detrimental effects are usually noticed. Between 500 and
1 ,000 mg/L, TDS in irrigation water can affect sensitive plants. At 1 ,000 to
2,000 mg/L, TDS levels can affect many crops and careful management
practices should be followed. Above 2,000 mg/L, water can be used regularly
only for tolerant plants on permeable soils.
Concentrations greater than 5 mg/l causes severe damage to most plants.
Some sensitive plants may be damaged at levels as low as 0.05 mg/l.
Source: Adapted from Rowe and Abdel-Magid, 1995.
Numerous site-specific studies have been conducted re-
garding the potential water quality concerns associated
with reuse irrigation. The overall conclusions from the
Monterey (California) Wastewater Reclamation Study for
Agriculture (Jaques, 1997) are as follows:
Irrigation with filtered effluent (FE) orTitle-22 efflu-
ent (T-22) appears to be as safe as well water.
Few statistically significant differences were found
in soil or plant parameters, and none were found to
25
-------
be attributable to different types of water. None of
the differences had important implications for public
health.
• Yields of annual crops were often significantly higher
with reclaimed water.
• No viruses were detected in any of the reclaimed
waters, although viruses were often detected in the
secondary effluent prior to the reclamation process.
• The T-22 process was somewhat more efficient than
the FE process in removing viruses when the influ-
ent was seeded at high levels of virus concentra-
tion. However, both processes demonstrated the
ability to remove more than 5 logs of viruses during
the seeding experiments. (Jaques, 1997)
This and other investigations suggest that reclaimed
water is suitable for most agricultural irrigation needs.
2.3.3
Other System Considerations
In addition to irrigation supply and demand and reclaimed
water quality requirements, there are other considerations
specific to agricultural water reuse that must be ad-
dressed. Both the user and supplier of reclaimed water
may have to consider modifications in current practice
that may be required to use reclaimed water for agricul-
tural irrigation. The extent to which current irrigation prac-
tices must be modified to make beneficial use of reclaimed
water will vary on a case-by-case basis. Important con-
siderations include:
• System reliability
• Site use control
• Monitoring requirements
• Runoff controls
• Marketing incentives
• Irrigation equipment
2.3.3.1 System Reliability
System reliability involves 2 basic issues. First, as in
any reuse project that is implemented to reduce or elimi-
nate surface water discharge, the treatment and distribu-
tion facilities must operate reliably to meet permit condi-
tions. Second, the supply of reclaimed water to the agri-
cultural user must be reliable in quality and quantity for
successful use in a farming operation.
Reliability in quality involves providing the appropriate
treatment for the intended use, with special consider-
ation of crop sensitivities and potential toxicity effects
of reclaimed water constituents (See Sections 3.4 and
2.3.2). Reliability in quantity involves balancing irrigation
supply with demand. This is largely accomplished by pro-
viding sufficient operational and seasonal storage facili-
ties (See Sections 3.5 and 3.5.2.) It is also necessary to
ensure that the irrigation system itself can reliably ac-
cept the intended supply to minimize the need for dis-
charge or alternate disposal.
2.3.3.2
Site Use Control
Many states require a buffer zone around areas irrigated
with reclaimed water. The size of this buffer zone is of-
ten associated with the level of treatment the reclaimed
water has received and the means of application. Addi-
tional controls may include restrictions on the times that
irrigation can take place and restrictions on the access
to the irrigated site. Such use area controls may require
modification to existing farm practices and limit the use
of reclaimed water to areas where required buffer zones
cannot be provided. See Chapter 4 for a discussion of
the different buffer zones and use controls specified in
state regulations. Signs specifying that reclaimed water
is being used may be required to prevent accidental con-
tact or ingestion.
2.3.3.3 Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring requirements for reclaimed water use in agri-
culture differ by state (See Chapter 4). In most cases,
the supplier will be required to sample the reclaimed
water quality at specific intervals for specific constitu-
ents. Sampling may be required at the water reclamation
plant and, in some cases, in the distribution system.
Groundwater monitoring is often required at the agricul-
tural site, with the extent depending on the reclaimed
water quality and the hydrogeology of the site. Ground-
water monitoring programs may be as simple as a se-
ries of surficial wells to a complex arrangement of wells
sampling at various depths. Monitoring must be consid-
ered in estimating the capital and operating costs of the
reuse system, and a complete understanding of moni-
toring requirements is needed as part of any cost/benefit
analysis.
2.3.3.4
Runoff Controls
Some irrigation practices, such as flood irrigation, result
in a discharge of irrigation water from the site (tail water).
Regulatory restrictions of this discharge may be few or
none when using surface water or groundwater sources;
26
-------
however, when reclaimed water is used, runoff controls
may be required to prevent discharge or a National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit may
be required for a surface water discharge.
2.3.3.5 Marketing Incentives
In many cases, an existing agricultural site will have an
established source of irrigation water, which has been
developed by the user at some expense (e.g., engineer-
ing, permitting, and construction). In some instances,
the user may be reluctant to abandon these facilities for
the opportunity to use reclaimed water. Reclaimed wa-
ter use must then be economically competitive with ex-
isting irrigation practices or must provide some other
benefits. For example, in arid climates or drought condi-
tions where potable irrigation is restricted for water con-
servation purposes, reclaimed water could be offered as
a dependable source of irrigation. Reclaimed water may
also be of better quality than that water currently avail-
able to the farmer, and the nutrients may provide some
fertilizer benefit. In some instances, the supplier of re-
claimed water may find it cost effective to subsidize re-
claimed water rates to agricultural users if reuse is allow-
ing the supplier to avoid higher treatment costs associ-
ated with alternative means of disposal.
2.3.3.6 Irrigation Equipment
By and large, few changes in equipment are required to
use reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation. However,
some irrigation systems do require special considerations.
Surface irrigation systems (ridge and furrow, graded bor-
ders) normally result in the discharge of a portion of the
irrigation water from the site. Where reclaimed water dis-
charge is not permitted, some method of tail water return
or pump-back may be required.
In sprinkler systems, dissolved salts and particulate
matter may cause clogging, depending on the concen-
tration of these constituents as well as the nozzle size.
Because water droplets or aerosols from sprinkler sys-
tems are subject to wind drift, the use of reclaimed wa-
ter may necessitate the establishment of buffer zones
around the irrigated area. In some types of systems (i.e.,
center pivots), the sprinkler nozzles may be dropped
closer to the ground to reduce aerosol drift and thus mini-
mize the buffer requirements. In addition, some regula-
tory agencies restrict the use of sprinkler irrigation for
crops to be eaten raw, because it results in the direct
contact of reclaimed water with the fruit.
When reclaimed water is used in a micro-irrigation sys-
tem, a good filtration system is required to prevent com-
plete or partial clogging of emitters. Close, regular in-
spections of emitters are required to detect emitter clog-
ging. In-line filters of an 80 to 200 mesh are typically
used to minimize clogging. In addition to clogging, bio-
logical growth within the transmission lines and at the
emitter discharge may be increased by nutrients in the
reclaimed water. Due to low volume application rates
with micro-irrigation, salts may accumulate at the wet-
ted perimeter of the plants and then be released at toxic
levels to the crop when leached via rainfall.
2.4 Environmental and Recreational
Reuse
Environmental reuse includes wetland enhancement and
restoration, creation of wetlands to serve as wildlife habi-
tat and refuges, and stream augmentation. Uses of re-
claimed water for recreational purposes range from land-
scape impoundments, water hazards on golf courses,
to full-scale development of water-based recreational
impoundments, incidental contact (fishing and boating)
and full body contact (swimming and wading). As with
any form of reuse, the development of recreational and
environmental water reuse projects will be a function of
a water demand coupled with a cost-effective source of
suitable quality reclaimed water.
As discussed in Chapter 4, many states have regula-
tions that specifically address recreational and environ-
mental uses of reclaimed water. For example,
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 swim-
ming and wading are likely). Secondary treatment and
disinfection to 2.2 total coliforms/100 ml average is re-
quired for recreational water bodies where fishing, boat-
ing, and other non-body contact activities are permitted.
For nonrestricted recreational use that includes wading
and swimming, treatment of secondary effluent is to be
followed by coagulation, filtration, and disinfection to
achieve 2.2 total coliforms/100 ml and a maximum of 23
total coliforms/100 ml in any one sample taken during a
30-day period.
In California, approximately 10 percent (47.6 mgd) (2080
l/s) of the total reclaimed water use within the state was
associated with recreational and environmental reuse in
2000 (California State Water Resources Control Board,
2002). In Florida, approximately 6 percent (35 mgd or
1530 l/s) of the reclaimed water currently produced is
being used for environmental enhancements, all for wet-
land enhancement and restoration (Florida Department
of Environmental Protection, 2002). In Florida, from 1986
to 2001, there was a 53 percent increase (18.5 mgd to 35
mgd or 810 l/s to 1530 l/s) in the reuse flow used for
27
-------
environmental enhancements (wetland enhancement and
restoration).
Two examples of large-scale environmental and recre-
ational reuse projects are the City of West Palm Beach,
Florida, wetlands-based water reclamation project (see
case study 2.7.17) and the Eastern Municipal Water
District multipurpose constructed wetlands in Riverside
County, California.
The remainder of this section provides an overview of
the following environmental and recreational uses:
• Natural and man-made wetlands
• Recreational and aesthetic impoundments
• Stream augmentation
The objectives of these reuse projects are typically to
create an environment in which wildlife can thrive and/
or develop an area of enhanced recreational or aes-
thetic value to the community through the use of re-
claimed water.
2.4.1 Natural and Man-made Wetlands
Over the past 200 years, approximately 50 percent of
the wetlands in the continental United States have been
destroyed for such diverse uses as agriculture, mining,
forestry, and urbanization. Wetlands provide many worth-
while functions, including flood attenuation, wildlife and
waterfowl habitat, productivity to support food chains,
aquifer recharge, and water quality enhancement. In ad-
dition, the maintenance of wetlands in the landscape
mosaic is important for the regional hydrologic balance.
Wetlands naturally provide water conservation by regu-
lating the rate of evapotranspiration and, in some cases,
by providing aquifer recharge. The deliberate application
of reclaimed water to wetlands can provide a beneficial
use, and therefore reuse, by fulfilling any of the following
objectives:
1. To create, restore, and/or enhance wetlands
systems
2. To provide additional treatment of reclaimed
water prior to discharge to a receiving water
body
3. To provide a wet weather disposal alternative
for a water reuse system (See Section
3.6.4.)
For wetlands that have been altered hydrologically, ap-
plication of reclaimed water serves to restore and en-
hance the wetlands. New wetlands can be created through
application of reclaimed water, resulting in a net gain in
wetland acreage and functions. In addition, man-made
and restored wetlands can be designed and managed to
maximize habitat diversity within the landscape.
The application of reclaimed water to wetlands provides
compatible uses. Wetlands are often able to enhance
the water quality of the reclaimed water without creat-
ing undesirable impacts to the wetlands system. This,
in turn, enhances downstream natural water systems
and provides aquifer recharge.
A great deal of research has been performed document-
ing the ability of wetlands, both natural and constructed,
to provide consistent and reliable water quality improve-
ment. With proper execution of design and construction
elements, constructed wetlands exhibit characteristics
that are similar to natural wetlands, in that they support
similar vegetation and microbes to assimilate pollutants.
In addition, constructed wetlands provide wildlife habi-
tat and environmental benefits that are similar to natu-
ral wetlands. Constructed wetlands are effective in the
treatment of BOD, TSS, nitrogen, phosphorus, patho-
gens, metals, sulfates, organics, and other toxic sub-
stances.
Water quality enhancement is provided by transforma-
tion and/or storage of specific constituents within the
wetland. The maximum contact of reclaimed water within
the wetland will ensure maximum treatment assimilation
and storage. This is due to the nature of these processes.
If optimum conditions are maintained, nitrogen and BOD
assimilation in wetlands will occur indefinitely, as they
are primarily controlled by microbial processes and gen-
erate gaseous end products. In contrast, phosphorus
assimilation in wetlands is finite and is related to the
adsorption capacity of the soil and long-term storage within
the system. The wetland can provide additional water
quality enhancement (polishing) to the reclaimed water
product.
In most reclaimed water wetland projects, the primary
intent is to provide additional treatment of effluent prior to
discharge from the wetland. However, this focus does not
negate the need for design considerations that will maxi-
mize wildlife habitats, and thereby provide important an-
cillary benefits. For constructed wetlands, appropriate
plant species should be selected based on the type of
wetland to be constructed as well as the habitat goals.
Treatment performance information is available regarding
certain wetland species as well as recommendations re-
garding species selection (Cronkand Fennessy, 2001).
28
-------
Wetlands do not provide treatment of total suspended
solids. In addition, a salinity evaluation may be neces-
sary because effluent with a high salt content may cause
impacts to wetland vegetation. In some cases, salt tol-
erant vegetation may be appropriate. Design consider-
ations will need to balance the hydraulic and constituent
loadings with impacts to the wetland. Impacts to ground-
water quality should also be evaluated.
The benefits of a wetland treatment system include:
• Improve water quality through the use of natural
systems
• Protect downstream receiving waters
• Provide wetland creation, restoration, or enhance-
ment
• Provide wildlife and waterfowl habitat
• Offer relatively low operating and maintenance
costs
• A reasonable development cost
• Maintain "green space"
• Attenuate peak flows
• One component of a "treatment train"; can be
used in areas with high water table and/or low
permeable soils
• Aesthetic and educational opportunities
Potential limitations of a wetland treatment systems
include:
• Significant land area requirements
• May have limited application in urban settings
• Potential for short-circuiting, which will lead to
poor performance
• Potential for nuisance vegetation and algae
• May need to be lined to maintain wetland
hydroperiod
A number of cities have developed wetlands enhance-
ment systems to provide wildlife habitats as well as treat-
ment. In Arcata, California, one of the main goals of a
city wetland project was to enhance the beneficial use of
downstream surface waters. A wetlands application sys-
tem was selected because the wetlands: (1) serve as
nutrient sinks and buffer zones, (2) have aesthetic and
environmental benefits, and (3) can provide cost-effec-
tive treatment through natural systems. The Arcata wet-
lands system was also designed to function as a wildlife
habitat. The Arcata wetlands system, consisting of three
10-acre (4-hectare) marshes, has attracted more than
200 species of birds, provided a fish hatchery for salmon,
and contributed directly to the development of the Arcata
Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary (Gearheart, 1988).
Due to a 20-mgd (877-L/s) expansion of the City of Or-
lando, Florida, Iron Bridge Regional Water Pollution
Control Facility in 1981, a wetland system was created
to handle the additional flow. Since 1981, reclaimed wa-
ter from the Iron Bridge plant has been pumped 16 miles
(20 kilometers) to a wetland that was created by berming
approximately 1,200 acres (480 hectares) of improved
pasture. The system is further divided into smaller cells
for flow and depth management. The wetland consists of
3 major vegetative areas. The first area, approximately
410 acres (166 hectares), is a deep marsh consisting
primarily of cattails and bulrush with nutrient removal as
the primary function. The second area consists of 380
acres (154 hectares) of a mixed marsh composed of over
60 submergent and emergent herbaceous species used
for nutrient removal and wildlife habitat. The final area,
400 acres (162 hectares) of hardwood swamp, consists
of a variety of tree species providing nutrient removal
and wildlife habitat. The reclaimed water then flows
through approximately 600 acres (240 hectares) of natu-
ral wetland prior to discharge to the St. Johns River (Jack-
son, 1989).
EPA (1999a) indicated that little effort had been made to
collect or organize information concerning the habitat func-
tions of treatment wetlands. Therefore, the Treatment
Wetland Habitat and Wildlife Use Assessment document
(U.S. EPA, 1999a) was prepared. The document was the
first comprehensive effort to assemble wide-ranging in-
formation concerning the habitat and wildlife use data
from surface flow treatment wetlands. The data have
been gathered into an electronic format built upon the
previous existing North American Treatment Wetland
Database funded by the EPA. The report indicates that
both natural and constructed treatment wetlands have
substantial plant communities and wildlife populations.
There are potentially harmful substances in the water,
sediments, and biological tissues of treatment wetlands.
However, contaminant concentration levels are gener-
ally below published action levels. There is apparently
no documentation indicating that harm has occurred in
any wetland intentionally designed to improve water
quality.
29
-------
The Yelm, Washington, project in Cochrane Memorial
Park, is an aesthetically pleasing 8-acre (3-hectare) city
park featuring constructed surface and submerged wet-
lands designed to polish the reclaimed water prior to re-
charging groundwater. In the center of the park, a fish
pond uses the water to raise and maintain rainbow trout
for catch and release (City of Yelm, 2003).
A number of states including Florida, South Dakota, and
Washington, provide regulations to specifically address
the use of reclaimed water in wetlands systems. Where
specific regulations are absent, wetlands have been con-
structed on a case-by-case basis. In addition to state
requirements, natural wetlands, which are considered
waters of the U.S., are protected under EPA's NPDES
Permit and Water Quality Standards programs. The quality
of reclaimed water entering natural wetlands is regulated
by federal, state and local agencies and must be treated
to at least secondary treatment levels or greater to meet
water quality standards. Constructed wetlands, on the
other hand, which are built and operated for the purpose
of treatment only, are not considered waters of the U.S.
Wetland treatment technology, using free water surface
wetlands, has been under development, with varying suc-
cess, for nearly 30 years in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 1999b).
Several key documents that summarize the available in-
formation and should be used to assist in the design of
wetland treatment systems are: Treatment Wetlands
(Kadlec and Kngith, 1996), Free Water Surface Wetlands
for Wastewater Treatment (U.S. EPA, 1999b), Con-
structed Wetlands for Pollution Control: Process, Perfor-
mance, Design and Operation (IWA, 2000), and the Wa-
ter Environment Federation Manual of Practice FD-16
Second Edition. Natural Systems for Wastewater Treat-
ment, Chapter 9; Wetland Systems, (WEF, 2001).
2.4.2 Recreational and Aesthetic
Impoundments
For the purposes of this discussion, an impoundment is
defined as a man-made water body. The use of re-
claimed water to augment natural water bodies is dis-
cussed in Section 3.4.3. Impoundments may serve a
variety of functions from aesthetic, non-contact uses, to
boating and fishing, as well as swimming. As with other
uses of reclaimed water, the required level of treatment
will vary with the intended use of the water. As the po-
tential for human contact increases, the required treat-
ment levels increase. The appearance of the reclaimed
water must also be considered when used for impound-
ments, and treatment for nutrient removal may be re-
quired as a means of controlling algae. Without nutrient
control, there is a high potential for algae blooms, result-
ing in odors, an unsightly appearance, and eutrophic con-
ditions.
Reclaimed water impoundments can be easily incorpo-
rated into urban developments. For example, landscap-
ing plans for golf courses and residential developments
commonly integrate water traps or ponds. These same
water bodies may also serve as storage facilities for ir-
rigation water within the site.
In Lubbock, Texas, approximately 4 mgd (175 l/s) of
reclaimed water is used for recreational lakes in the
Yellowhouse Canyon Lakes Park (Water Pollution Con-
trol Federation, 1989). The canyon, which was formerly
used as a dump, was restored through the use of re-
claimed water to provide water-oriented recreational
activities. Four lakes, which include man-made water-
falls, are used for fishing, boating, and water skiing; how-
ever, swimming is restricted.
Lakeside Lake is a 14-acre (6-hectare) urban impound-
ment in Tucson, Arizona. The lake was constructed in
the 1970s in the Atterbury Wash to provide fishing, boat-
ing, and other recreational opportunities. The lake is lined
with soil/cement layers and has a concrete shelf extend-
ing 6 feet (2 meters) from the shore around the perim-
eter. A berm crosses the lake from east to west, creating
a north and south bay. The Arizona Game and Fish De-
partment (AGFD) stock the lake with channel catfish,
rainbow trout, bluegill, redearand hybrid sunfish, crap-
pie, and large mouth bass on a seasonal basis. The lake
was initially supplied by groundwater and surface runoff
but began receiving reclaimed water from the Roger Road
Treatment Plant in 1990 (up to 45,000 gpd) (170 m3/d). A
mechanical diffuser was installed on the lake bottom in
1992 to improve dissolved oxygen concentrations
(PBS&J, 1992).
2.4.3
Stream Augmentation
Stream augmentation is differentiated from a surface
water discharge in that augmentation seeks to accom-
plish a beneficial end, whereas discharge is primarily
for disposal. Stream augmentation may be desirable to
maintain stream flows and to enhance the aquatic and
wildlife habitat as well as to maintain the aesthetic value
of the water courses. This may be necessary in loca-
tions where a significant volume of water is drawn for
potable or other uses, largely reducing the downstream
volume of water in the river.
As with impoundments, water quality requirements for
stream augmentation will be based on the designated
use of the stream as well as the aim to maintain an ac-
ceptable appearance. In addition, there may be an em-
30
-------
phasis on creating a product that can sustain aquatic
life.
The San Antonio Water System in Texas releases its
high quality (Type 1) reclaimed water to the San Antonio
River. Reclaimed water is used instead of pumped
groundwater to sustain the river flow through a city park,
zoo, and downtown river walk. A second stream aug-
mentation flows to Salado Creek, where reclaimed wa-
ter replaces the flow from an abandoned artesian well.
Also, reclaimed water is used in a decorative fountain
at the City Convention Center with the fountain discharg-
ing into a dead-end channel of the downtown river walk
waterway.
Several agencies in southern California are evaluating
the process in which reclaimed water would be delivered
to streams in order to maintain a constant flow of high-
quality water for the enhancement of aquatic and wildlife
habitat as well as to maintain the aesthetic value of the
streams.
2.5
Groundwater Recharge
This section addresses planned groundwater recharge
using reclaimed water with the specific intent to replen-
ish groundwater. Although practices such as irrigation
may contribute to groundwater augmentation, the replen-
ishment is an incidental byproduct of the primary activity
and is not discussed in this section.
The purposes of groundwater recharge using reclaimed
water may be: (1) to establish saltwater intrusion barriers
in coastal aquifers, (2) to provide further treatment for
future reuse, (3) to augment potable or nonpotable aqui-
fers, (4) to provide storage of reclaimed water for subse-
quent retrieval and reuse, or (5) to control or prevent ground
subsidence.
Pumping of aquifers in coastal areas may result in salt-
water intrusion, making them unsuitable as sources for
potable supply or for other uses where high salt levels
are intolerable. A battery of injection wells can be used
to create a hydraulic barrier to maintain intrusion con-
trol. Reclaimed water can be injected directly into an
aquifer to maintain a seaward gradient and thus pre-
vent inland subsurface saltwater intrusion. This may al-
low for the additional development of inland withdrawals
or simply the protection of existing withdrawals.
Infiltration and percolation of reclaimed water takes ad-
vantage of the natural removal mechanisms within soils,
including biodegradation and filtration, thus providing ad-
ditional in situ treatment of reclaimed water and addi-
tional treatment reliability to the overall wastewater man-
agement system. The treatment achieved in the subsur-
face environment may eliminate the need for costly ad-
vanced wastewater treatment processes. The ability to
implement such treatment systems will depend on the
method of recharge, hydrogeological conditions, require-
ments of the downgradient users, as well as other fac-
tors.
Aquifers provide a natural mechanism for storage and
subsurface transmission of reclaimed water. Irrigation
demands for reclaimed water are often seasonal, re-
quiring either large storage facilities or alternative means
of disposal when demands are low. In addition, suitable
sites for surface storage facilities may not be available,
economically feasible, or environmentally acceptable.
Groundwater recharge eliminates the need for surface
storage facilities and the attendant problems associated
with uncovered surface reservoirs, such as evapora-
tion losses, algae blooms resulting in deterioration of
water quality, and creation of odors. Aquifer storage and
recovery (ASR) systems are being used in a number of
states to overcome seasonal imbalances in both potable
and reclaimed water projects. The tremendous volumes
of storage potentially available in ASR systems means
that a greater percentage of the resource, be it raw water
or reclaimed water, can be captured for beneficial use.
While there are obvious advantages associated with
groundwater recharge, possible limitations include
(Oaksford, 1985):
• Extensive land areas may be needed for spreading
basins.
• Costs for treatment, water quality monitoring, and
injection/infiltration facilities operations may be pro-
hibitive.
• Recharge may increase the danger of aquifer con-
tamination due to inadequate or inconsistent pretreat-
ment.
• Not all recharged water may be recoverable due to
movement beyond the extraction well capture zone
or mixing with poor-quality groundwater.
• The area required for operation and maintenance of a
groundwater supply system (including the ground-
water reservoir itself) is generally larger than that
required for a surface water supply system. The fact
that the aquifer does not compete with overlying land
uses provides a significant advantage. However, this
reservoir cannot adversely impact existing uses of
the aquifer.
31
-------
Figure 2-6. Three Engineered Methods for Groundwater Recharge
Recharge Basin
Vadose Zone
Injection Well . D!recJ.,
Injection Well
' 1
' 1
' 1
Vadose Zone
Unconfined Aquifer
Confining Unit
Confined Aquifer
• Hydrogeologic uncertainties, such as transmissiv-
ity, faulting, and aquifer geometry, may reduce the
effectiveness of the recharge project in meeting wa-
ter supply demand.
• Inadequate institutional arrangements or groundwa-
ter laws may not protect water rights and may present
liability and other legal problems.
The degree to which these factors might limit implemen-
tation of a groundwater recharge system is a function of
the severity of the site specific impediments balanced
against the need to protect existing water sources or
expand raw water supplies.
2.5.1
Methods of Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater recharge can be accomplished by surface
spreading, vadose zone injection wells, or direct injec-
tion. These methods of groundwater recharge use more
advanced engineered systems as illustrated in Figure
2-6 (Fox, 1999). With the exception of direct injection,
all engineered methods require the existence of an un-
saturated aquifer.
Table 2-8 provides a comparison of major engineering
factors that should be considered when installing a
groundwater recharge system, including the availability
and cost of land for recharge basins (Fox, 1999). If such
costs are excessive, the ability to implement injection
wells adjacent to the reclaimed water source tends to
decrease the cost of conveyance systems for injection
wells. Surface spreading basins require the lowest de-
gree of pretreatment while direct injection systems re-
quire water quality comparable to drinking water, if po-
table aquifers are affected. Low-technology treatment
options for surface spreading basins include primary and
secondary wastewater treatment with the possible use
of lagoons and natural systems. Reverse osmosis is
commonly used for direct injection systems to prevent
clogging, however, some ASR systems have been oper-
ating successfully without membrane treatment when wa-
ter was stored for irrigation. The cost of direct injection
systems can be greatly reduced from the numbers pre-
sented in Table 2-8 if the aquifer is shallow and
nonpotable. Vadose zone injection wells are a relatively
new technology, and there is uncertainty over mainte-
nance methods and requirements; however, it is clear
that the removal of solids and disinfection is necessary
to prevent clogging.
2.5.1.1 Surface Spreading
Surface spreading is a direct method of recharge whereby
the water moves from the land surface to the aquifer by
infiltration and percolation through the soil matrix.
An ideal soil for recharge by surface spreading would have
the following characteristics:
• Rapid infiltration rates and transmission of water
• No layers that restrict the movement of water to the
desired unconfined aquifer
• No expanding-contracting clays that create cracks
when dried that would allow the reclaimed water to
-------
Table 2-8. Comparison of Major Engineering Factors for Engineered Groundwater Recharge
Aquifer Type
Pretreatment Requirements
Estimated Major Capital Costs (US$)
Capacity
Maintenance Requirements
Estimated Life Cycle
Soil AquiferTreatment
Recharge Basins
Unconfined
Low Technology
Land and Distribution System
100-20,000 m3/hectare-day
Drying and Scraping
>100 Years
Vadose Zone and Saturated Zone
Vadose Zone
Injection Wells
Unconfined
Removal of Solids
$25,000-75,000
per well
1 ,000-3,000 m3/d
per well
Drying and
Disinfection
5-20 Years
Vadose Zone and
Saturated Zone
Direct Injection
Wells
Unconfined or Confined
High Technology
$500,000-1 ,500,000
per well
2,000-6,000 m3/d
per well
Disinfection and
Flow Reversal
25-50 Years
Saturated Zone
bypass the soil during the initial stages of the flood-
ing period
• Sufficient clay and/or organic-rich sediment contents
to provide large capacities to adsorb trace elements
and heavy metals, as well as provide surfaces on
which microorganisms can decompose organic con-
stituents. The cation exchange capacity of clays also
provides the capacity to remove ammonium ions and
allow for subsequent nitrogen transformations
• A supply of available carbon that would favor rapid
denitrification during flooding periods, support an ac-
tive microbial population to compete with pathogens,
and favor rapid decomposition of introduced organics
(Fox, 2002; Medema and Stuyfsand, 2002; Skjemstad
et a/., 2002). BOD and TOG in the reclaimed water
will also be a carbon source
Unfortunately, some of these characteristics are mutu-
ally exclusive, and the importance of each soil character-
istic is dependent on the purpose of the recharge. For
example, adsorption properties may be unimportant if
recharge is primarily for storage.
After the applied recharge water has passed through the
soil zone, the geologic and subsurface hydrologic condi-
tions control the sustained infiltration rates. The follow-
ing geologic and hydrologic characteristics should be in-
vestigated to determine the total usable storage capac-
ity and the rate of movement of water from the spreading
grounds to the area of groundwater withdrawal:
• Physical character and permeability of subsurface
deposits
• Depth to groundwater
• Specific yield, thickness of deposits, and position
and allowable fluctuation of the water table
• Transmissivity, hydraulic gradients, and pattern of
pumping
• Structural and lithologic barriers to both vertical and
lateral movement of groundwater
• Oxidation state of groundwater throughout the receiv-
ing aquifer
Although reclaimed water typically receives secondary
treatment including disinfection and filtration prior to sur-
face spreading, other treatment processes are sometimes
provided. Depending on the ultimate use of the water
and other factors (dilution, thickness of the unsaturated
zone, etc.), additional treatment may be required. Nitro-
gen is often removed prior to surface spreading to elimi-
nate concerns over nitrate contamination of groundwater
and to simplify the permitting of storage systems as part
of an overall reuse scheme. When extract water is used
for potable purposes, post-treatment by disinfection is
commonly practiced. In soil-aquifer treatment systems
where the extracted water is to be used for nonpotable
purposes, satisfactory water quality has been obtained
at some sites using primary effluent for spreading pro-
viding that the hydraulic loading rates are low to prevent
33
-------
the development of anaerobic conditions (Carlson et al.,
1982 and Lance et al., 1980).
For surface spreading of reclaimed water to be effective,
the wetted surfaces of the soil must remain unclogged,
the surface area should maximize infiltration, and the
quality of the reclaimed water should not inhibit infiltra-
tion.
Operational procedures should maximize the amount of
water being recharged while optimizing reclaimed water
quality by maintaining long contact times with the soil
matrix. If nitrogen removal is desired and the major form
of applied nitrogen is total kjehldal nitrogen, then mainte-
nance of the vadose zone is necessary to allow for par-
tial nitrification of ammonium ions adsorbed in the va-
dose zone. The depth to the groundwater table should be
deep enough to prevent breakthrough of adsorbed am-
monium to the saturated zone to ensure continuous
and effective removal of nitrogen (Fox, 2002).
Techniques for surface spreading include surface flood-
ing, ridge and furrow systems, stream channel modifi-
cations, and infiltration basins. The system used is de-
pendent on many factors such as soil type and porosity,
depth to groundwater, topography, and the quality and
quantity of the reclaimed water (Kopehynski et al., 1996).
a. Surface Flooding
Reclaimed water is spread over a large, gently
sloped area (1 to 3 percent grade). Ditches and
berms may enclose the flooding area. Advantages
are low capital and operations and maintenance
(O&M) costs. Disadvantages are large area re-
quirements, evaporation losses, and clogging.
b. Ridge and Furrow
Water is placed in narrow, flat-bottomed ditches.
Ridge and furrow is especially adaptable to slop-
ing land, but only a small percentage of the land
surface is available for infiltration.
c. Stream Channel Modifications
Berms are constructed in stream channels to
retard the downstream movement of the sur-
face water and, thus, increase infiltration into the
underground. This method is used mainly in
ephemeral or shallow rivers and streams where
machinery can enter the streambeds when there
is little or no flow to construct the berms and
prepare the ground surface for recharge. Disad-
vantages may include a frequent need for re-
placement due to wash outs and possible legal
restrictions related to such construction prac-
tices.
d. Riverbank or Dune Filtration
Riverbank and dune filtration generally rely on
the use of existing waterways that have natural
connections to groundwater systems. Recharge
via riverbankorsand dune filtration is practiced
in Europe as a means of indirect potable reuse.
It is incorporated as an element in water supply
systems where the source is untreated surface
water, usually a river. The surface water is infil-
trated into the groundwater zone through the
riverbank, percolation from spreading basins,
canals, lakes, or percolation from drain fields of
porous pipe. In the latter 2 cases, the river water
is diverted by gravity or pumped to the recharge
site. The water then travels through an aquifer to
extraction wells at some distance from the
riverbank. In some cases, the residence time
underground is only 20 to 30 days, and there is
almost no dilution by natural groundwater
(Sontheimer, 1980). In Germany, systems that
do not meet a minimum residence time of 50
days are required to have post-treatment of the
recovered water and similar guidelines are ap-
plied in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, dune
infiltration of treated Rhine River water has been
used to restore the equilibrium between fresh and
saltwater in the dunes (Piet and Zoeteman, 1980;
Olsthoorn and Mosch, 2002), while serving to
improve water quality and provide storage for
potable water systems. Dune infiltration also pro-
vides protection from accidental spills of toxic
contaminants into the Rhine River. Some sys-
tems have been in place for over 100 years, and
there is no evidence that the performance of the
system has deteriorated or that contaminants
have accumulated. The City of Berlin has
greater than 25 percent reclaimed water in its
drinking water supply, and no disinfection is prac-
ticed after bank filtration.
e. Infiltration Basins
Infiltration basins are the most widely used
method of groundwater recharge. Basins afford
high loading rates with relatively low maintenance
and land requirements. Basins consist of bermed,
flat-bottomed areas of varying sizes. Long, nar-
row basins built on land contours have been ef-
fectively used. Basins constructed on highly
permeable soils to achieve high hydraulic rates
34
-------
are called rapid infiltration basins. Basin infiltra-
tion rates may sometimes be enhanced or main-
tained by creation of ridges within the basin
(Peyton, 2002). The advantage of ridges within
the basin is that materials that cause basin clog-
ging accumulate in the bottom of the ridges while
the remainder of the ridge maintains high infiltra-
tion rates.
Rapid infiltration basins require permeable soil
for high hydraulic loading rates, yet the soil must
be fine enough to provide sufficient soil surfaces
for biochemical and microbiological reactions,
which provide additional treatment to the re-
claimed water. Some of the best soils are in the
sandy loam, loamy sand, and fine sand range.
When the reclaimed water is applied to the
spreading basin, the water percolates through
the unsaturated zone to the saturated zone of
the groundwater table. The hydraulic loading
rate is preliminarily estimated by soil studies,
but final evaluation is completed through oper-
ating in situ test pits or ponds. Hydraulic load-
ing rates for rapid infiltration basins vary from
65 to 500 feet per year (20 to 150 meters per
year), but are usually less than 300 feet per year
(90 meters per year) (Bouwer, 1988).
Though management techniques are site-spe-
cific and vary accordingly, some common prin-
ciples are practiced in most infiltration basins. A
wetting and drying cycle with periodic cleaning
of the bottom is used to prevent clogging. Dry-
ing cycles allow for desiccation of clogging lay-
ers and re-aeration of the soil. This practice helps
to maintain high infiltration rates, and microbial
populations to consume organic matter, and
helps reduce levels of microbiological constitu-
ents. Re-aeration of the soil also promotes nitri-
fication, which is a prerequisite for nitrogen re-
moval by denitrification. Periodic maintenance
by cleaning of the bottom may be done by deep
ripping of the soils or by scraping the top layer of
soil. Deep ripping sometimes causes fines to
migrate to deeper levels where a deep clogging
layer may develop. The Orange County Water
District (California) has developed a device to
continuously remove clogging materials during
a flooding cycle.
Spreading grounds can be managed to avoid nui-
sance conditions such as algae growth and in-
sect breeding in the percolation ponds. Gener-
ally, a number of basins are rotated through fill-
ing, draining, and drying cycles. Cycle length is
dependent on both soil conditions and the dis-
tance to the groundwater table. This is determined
through field-testing on a case-by-case basis.
Algae can clog the bottom of basins and reduce
infiltration rates. Algae further aggravate soil clog-
ging by removing carbon dioxide, which raises
thepH, causing precipitation of calcium carbon-
ate. Reducing the detention time of the reclaimed
water within the basins minimizes algal growth,
particularly during summer periods where solar
intensity and temperature increase algal growth
rates. The levels of nutrients necessary to stimu-
late algal growth are too low for practical consid-
eration of nutrient removal as a method to con-
trol algae. Also, scarifying, rototilling, or discing
the soil following the drying cycle can help allevi-
ate clogging potential, although scraping or "shav-
ing" the bottom to remove the clogging layer is
more effective than discing it. Removing the hard
precipitant using an underwater machine has also
been accomplished (Mills, 2002).
2.5.1.2 Soil-Aquifer Treatment Systems
Soil-Aquifer Treatment (SAT) systems usually are de-
signed and operated such that all of the infiltrated water
is recovered via wells, drains, or seepage into surface
water. Typical SAT recharge and recovery systems are
shown in Figure 2-7. SAT systems with infiltration ba-
sins require unconfined aquifers, vadose zones free of
restricting layers, and soils that are coarse enough to
allow high infiltration rates, but fine enough to provide
adequate filtration. Sandy loams and loamy or fine sands
are the preferred surface soils in SAT systems. Recent
work on SAT removal of dissolved organic carbon (DOC),
trace organics, and organic halides has shown positive
results (Fox et a/., 2001; Drewes et a/., 2001). The ma-
jority of trace organic compounds are removed by bio-
degradation and organic chlorine and organic bromine are
removed to ambient levels. Short-term DOC removal is
enhanced by maintaining aerobic conditions in the un-
saturated zone (Fox, 2002).
In the U.S., municipal wastewater usually receives con-
ventional primary and secondary treatment prior to SAT.
However, since SAT systems are capable of removing
more BOD than is in secondary effluent, efficient sec-
ondary treatment may not be necessary in cases where
the wastewater is subjected to SAT and subsequently
reused for nonpotable purposes. Higher organic con-
tent may enhance nitrogen removal by denitrification in
the SAT system and may enhance removal of synthetic
organic compounds by stimulating greater microbiologi-
cal activity in the soil. However low hydraulic loading
35
-------
Figure 2-7. Schematic of Soil-Aquifer Treatment Systems
A. Drainage of Reclaimed Water into
Stream, Lake, or Low Area
Observation
Well ^-*- v- -*• " -*— •* -*-^ impermeaDiej
C. Infiltration Area in Two Parallel Rows and
Line of Wells Midway Between
B. Collection of Reclaimed Water
by Subsurface Drain
D. Infiltration Areas in Center Surrounded by a
Circle of Wells
rates must be used to prevent anaerobic conditions from
developing which can prevent complete biodegradation
in the sub-surface. More frequent cleaning of the basins
would increase the cost of the SAT, but would not nec-
essarily increase the total system cost.
Where hydrogeologic conditions permit groundwater re-
charge with surface infiltration facilities, considerable
improvement in water quality may be achieved through
the movement of wastewater through the soil, unsatur-
ated zone, and saturated zone. Table 2-9 provides an
example of overall improvement in the quality of second-
ary effluent in a groundwater recharge SAT system. These
water quality improvements are not limited to soil aquifer
treatment systems and are applicable to most ground-
water recharge systems where aerobic and/or anoxic
conditions exist and there is sufficient storage time.
These data are the result of a demonstration project in
the Salt River bed, west of Phoenix, Arizona (Bouwer
and Rice, 1989). The cost of SAT has been shown to be
less than 40 percent of the cost of equivalent above-
ground treatment (Bouwer, 1991). It should also be noted
that the SAT product water was recovered from a moni-
toring well located adjacent to the recharge basin. Most
SAT systems allow for considerable travel time in the
aquifer and provide the opportunity for improvement in
water quality.
An intensive study, entitled, "An Investigation of Soil
Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse," was
conducted to assess the sustainability of several differ-
ent SAT systems with different site characteristics and
effluent pretreatments (AWWARF, 2001). (See case study
2.7.16). In all of the systems studied, water quality im-
provements were similar to the results presented by
Bouwer (1984). When significant travel times in the
vadose or saturated zone existed, water quality improve-
ments exceeded the improvements actually observed
by Bouwer (1984).
The 3 main engineering factors that can affect the perfor-
mance of soil aquifer treatment systems are: effluent
pretreatment, site characteristics, and operating condi-
tions (Fox, 2002).
Effluent Pretreatment - Effluent pretreatment directly
impacts the concentrations of biodegradable matter that
are applied to a percolation basin. Therefore, it is a key
factor that can be controlled as part of a SAT system.
One of the greatest impacts of effluent pretreatment dur-
ing SAT is near the soil/water interface where high bio-
logical activity is observed. This condition occurs be-
cause both the highest concentrations of biodegradable
matter and oxygen are present. Both organic carbon and
ammonia may be biologically oxidized. They are the wa-
ter quality parameters that control the amount of oxygen
demand in applied effluents. One of the greatest impacts
of effluent pretreatment is to the total oxygen demand of
applied water. Near the soil/water surface, biological ac-
tivity with an effluent that has high total oxygen demand
will result in the use of all the dissolved oxygen. Aerobic
36
-------
Table 2-9. Water Quality at Phoenix, Arizona, SAT System
Total dissolved solids
Suspended solids
Ammonium nitrogen
Nitrate nitrogen
Organic nitrogen
Phosphate phosphorus
Fluoride
Boron
Biochemical oxygen demand
Total organic carbon
Zinc
Copper
Cadmium
Lead
Fecal coliforms/100 ml_a
Viruses, pfu/100 ml_b
Secondary Effluent
(mg/l)
750
11
16
0.5
1.5
5.5
1.2
0.6
12
12
0.19
0.12
0.008
0.082
3500
2118
Recovery Well Samples
(mg/l)
790
1
0.1
5.3
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.6
<1
1.9
0.03
0.016
0.007
0.066
0.3
<1
a Chlorinated effluent
b Undisinfected effluent
Source: Adapted from Bouwerand Rice, 1989.
conditions can be maintained with effluents that have
low total oxygen demand. It should also be noted that
the majority of oxygen demand exerted during wetting is
from the oxidation of organic carbon while ammonia is
removed by adsorption (Kopchynski etal., 1996).
Site Characteristics - Site characteristics are a function
of local geology and hydrogeology. Site selection is of-
ten dependent on a number of practical factors including
suitability for percolation, proximity to conveyance chan-
nels and/or water reclamation facilities, and the avail-
ability of land. The design of SAT systems must accom-
modate the site characteristics. The design options are
primarily limited to the size and depth of percolation ba-
sins and the location of recovery wells. Increasing the
depth of percolation basins can be done to access high
permeability soils. The location of recovery wells affects
the travel time for subsurface flow and mounding below
the percolation basins.
Operating Conditions - The operation of SAT systems
with wet/dry cycles is a common operating strategy. The
primary purpose of wet/dry cycle operation is to control
the development of clogging layers and maintain high
infiltration rates, and in some cases, to disrupt insect life
cycles. As a clogging layer develops during a wetting
cycle, infiltration rates can decrease to unacceptable
rates. The drying cycle allows for the desiccation of the
clogging layer and the recovery of infiltration rates during
the next wetting cycle. Operating conditions are depen-
dent on a number of environmental factors including tem-
perature, precipitation and solar incidence. Therefore,
operating conditions must be adjusted to both local site
characteristics and weather patterns.
2.5.1.3 Vadose Zone Injection
Vadose zone injection wells for groundwater recharge with
reclaimed water were developed in the 1990s and have
been used in several different cities in the Phoenix, Ari-
zona, metropolitan area. Typical vadose zone injection
wells are 6 feet (2 meters) in diameter and 100 to 150
feet (30 to 46 meters) deep. They are backfilled with po-
rous media and a riser pipe is used to allow for water to
enter at the bottom of the injection well to prevent air
entrainment. An advantage of vadose zone injection wells
is the significant cost savings as compared to direct in-
jection wells. The infiltration rates per well are often simi-
lar to direct injection wells. A significant disadvantage is
that they cannot be backwashed and a severely clogged
well can be permanently destroyed. Therefore, reliable
pretreatment is considered essential to maintaining the
performance of a vadose zone injection well. Because of
the considerable cost savings associated with vadose
37
-------
zone injection wells as compared to direct injection wells,
a life cycle of 5 years for a vadose injection well can still
make the vadose zone injection well the economical
choice. Since vadose zone injection wells allow for per-
colation of water through the vadose zone and flow in the
saturated zone, one would expect water quality improve-
ments commonly associated with soil aquifer treatment
to be possible.
2.5.1.4 Direct Injection
Direct injection involves pumping reclaimed water directly
into the groundwater zone, which is usually a well-con-
fined aquifer. Direct injection is used where groundwater
is deep or where hydrogeological conditions are not con-
ducive to surface spreading. Such conditions might in-
clude unsuitable soils of low permeability, unfavorable
topography for construction of basins, the desire to re-
charge confined aquifers, or scarcity of land. Direct injec-
tion into a saline aquifer can create a freshwater "plume"
from which water can be extracted for reuse, particularly
in ASR systems (Pyne, 1995). Direct injection is also an
effective method for creating barriers against saltwater
intrusion in coastal areas.
Direct injection requires water of higher quality than for
surface spreading because of the absence of vadose
zone and/or shallow soil matrix treatment afforded by
surface spreading and the need to maintain the hydrau-
lic capacity of the injection wells, which are prone to physi-
cal, biological, and chemical clogging. Treatment pro-
cesses beyond secondary treatment that are used prior
to injection include disinfection, filtration, air stripping,
ion exchange, granular activated carbon, and reverse
osmosis or other membrane separation processes. By
using these processes or various subsets in appropriate
combinations, it is possible to satisfy present water quality
requirements for reuse. In many cases, the wells used
for injection and recovery are classified by the EPA as
Class V injection wells. Some states require that the in-
jected water must meet drinking water standards prior to
injection into a Class V well.
For both surface spreading and direct injection, locating
the extraction wells as great a distance as possible from
the recharge site increases the flow path length and resi-
dence time in the underground, as well as the mixing of
the recharged water with the natural groundwater. Treat-
ment of organic parameters does occur in the groundwa-
ter system with time, especially in aerobic or anoxic con-
ditions (Gordon et a/., 2002; Toze and Hanna, 2002).
There have been several cases where direct injection
systems with wells providing significant travel time have
allowed for the passage of emerging pollutants of con-
cern, such as NDMA and 1,4-dioxane into recovery
wells. In these cases, the final pretreatment step was
reverse osmosis. Since reverse osmosis effectively re-
moves almost all nutrients, improvements in water qual-
ity by microbial activity might be limited in aquifers that
receive reverse osmosis treated water. These emerg-
ing pollutants of concern have not been observed in soil
aquifer treatment systems using spreading basins where
microbial activity in the subsurface is stimulated.
Ideally, an injection well will recharge water at the same
rate as it can yield water by pumping. However, condi-
tions are rarely ideal. Injection/withdrawal rates tend to
decrease over time. Although clogging can easily be rem-
edied in a surface spreading system by scraping, discing,
drying and other methods, remediation in a direct injec-
tion system can be costly and time consuming. The most
frequent causes of clogging are accumulation of organic
and inorganic solids, biological and chemical contami-
nants, and dissolved air and gases from turbulence. Very
low concentrations of suspended solids, on the order of 1
mg/l, can clog an injection well. Even low concentrations
of organic contaminants can cause clogging due to bac-
teriological growth near the point of injection.
Many criteria specific to the quality of the reclaimed wa-
ter, groundwater, and aquifer material have to be taken
into consideration prior to construction and operation.
These include possible chemical reactions between the
reclaimed water and groundwater, iron precipitation, ionic
reactions, biochemical changes, temperature differences,
and viscosity changes. Most clogging problems are
avoided by proper pretreatment, well construction, and
proper operation (Stuyzand, 2002). Injection well design
and operations should consider the need to occasionally
reverse the flow or backflush the well much like a conven-
tional filter or membrane. In California and Arizona, injec-
tion wells are being constructed or retrofitted with dedi-
cated pumping or backflushing equipment to maintain
injection capacity and reduce the frequency of major well
redevelopment events.
2.5.2 Fate of Contaminants in Recharge
Systems
The fate of contaminants is an important consideration
for groundwater recharge systems using reclaimed wa-
ter. Contaminants in the subsurface environment are
subject to processes such as biodegradation by micro-
organisms, adsorption and subsequent biodegradation,
filtration, ion exchange, volatilization, dilution, chemical
oxidation and reduction, chemical precipitation and com-
plex formation, and photochemical reactions (in spread-
ing basins) (Fox, 2002; Medema and Stuyzand, 2002).
For surface spreading operations, chemical and micro-
38
-------
biological constituents are removed in the top 6 feet (2
meters) of the vadose zone at the spreading site.
2.5.2.1
Participate Matter
Particles larger than the soil pores are strained off at the
soil-water interface. Particulate matter, including some
bacteria, is removed by sedimentation in the pore spaces
of the media during filtration. Viruses are mainly removed
by adsorption and interaction with anaerobic bacteria
(Gordon etal., 2002). The accumulated particles gradu-
ally form a layer restricting further infiltration. Suspended
solids that are not retained at the soil/water interface
may be effectively removed by infiltration and adsorp-
tion in the soil profile. As water flows through passages
formed by the soil particles, suspended and colloidal solids
far too small to be retained by straining are thrown off the
streamline through hydrodynamic actions, diffusion, im-
pingement, and sedimentation. The particles are then
intercepted and adsorbed onto the surface of the station-
ary soil matrix. The degree of trapping and adsorption of
suspended particles by soils is a function of the sus-
pended solids concentration, soil characteristics, and
hydraulic loading. Suspended solids removal is enhanced
by longer travel distances underground.
For dissolved inorganic constituents to be removed or
retained in the soil, physical, chemical, or microbiologi-
cal reactions are required to precipitate and/or immobi-
lize the dissolved constituents. Chemical reactions that
are important to a soil's capability to react with dissolved
inorganics include cation exchange reactions, precipi-
tation, surface adsorption, chelation, complexation, and
weathering (dissolution) of clay minerals.
While inorganic constituents such as chloride, sodium,
and sulfate are unaffected by ground passage, many
other inorganic constituents exhibit substantial removal.
For example, iron and phosphorus removal in excess of
90 percent has been achieved by precipitation and ad-
sorption in the underground, although the ability of the
soil to remove these and other constituents may decrease
over time. Heavy metal removal varies widely for differ-
ent elements, ranging from 0 to more than 90 percent,
depending on the speciation of the influent metals.
2.5.2.2 Dissolved Organic Constituents
Dissolved organic constituents are subject to biodegra-
dation and adsorption during recharge. Biodegradation
mainly occurs by microorganisms attached to the me-
dia surface (Skjemstad etal., 2002). The rate and extent
of biodegradation is strongly influenced by the nature of
the organic substances and by the presence of electron
acceptors such as dissolved oxygen and nitrate. There
are indications that biodegradation is enhanced if the
aquifer material is finely divided and has a high specific
surface area, such as fine sand or silt. However, such
conditions can lead to clogging by bacterial growths.
Coarser aquifer materials such as gravel and some sands
have greater permeability and, thus, less clogging. How-
ever, biodegradation may be less rapid and perhaps less
extensive. The biodegradation of easily degradable or-
ganics occurs a short distance (few meters) from the
point of recharge. A large body of literature shows that
biodegradable compounds do not survive long in anoxic
or aerobic groundwater and only chemical compounds
that have high solubility and extensive half-lives are of
great concern (i.e. chlorinated solvents). Specific groups
of compounds also require longer times due to their com-
plex biodegradation pathways; however, the product wa-
ter from SAT may be compared to membrane processed
water since select groups of compounds may persist in
both cases (Drewes etal., 2003).
The end products of complete degradation under aerobic
conditions include carbon dioxide, sulfate, nitrate, phos-
phate, and water. The end products under anaerobic con-
ditions include carbon dioxide, nitrogen, sulfide, and
methane. The mechanisms operating on refractory or-
ganic constituents over long time periods typical of ground-
water environments are not well understood. However,
sustainable removal has been observed over significant
time periods demonstrating that biodegradation is the
major removal mechanism since accumulation of organic
carbon in the sub-surface is not observed (AWWARF,
2001). The degradation of organic contaminants may be
partial and result in a residual organic product that can-
not be further degraded at an appreciable rate (Khan and
Rorije, 2002), and such metabolites are often difficult to
identify and detect (Drewes etal., 2001).
Results were presented in a 2001 AWWARF study en-
titled, "An Investigation of Soil Aquifer Treatment for
Sustainable Water Reuse." This investigation demon-
strated the potential removal ability of an entire SAT
system where travel times are expected to be on the
order of 6 months or greater before water is recovered.
Since most trace organic compounds are present at con-
centrations that cannot directly support microbial growth,
the sustainable removal mechanism for these compounds
is co-metabolic. The microbes catalyze the mineraliza-
tion of the organic compounds, but the microorganisms
do not get enough energy from the trace organic com-
pounds to support growth. In the study, the majority of
compounds analyzed were below detection limits after 6
months of travel time in the sub-surface. Therefore, it
appears that significant time in the sub-surface is re-
quired in a microbially active aquifer to efficiently remove
trace organics that are potentially biodegradable by co-
39
-------
metabolism. One would expect similar results for aero-
bic or anoxic (nitrate-reducing) aquifers. But results are
not conclusive for anaerobic aquifers. Several pharma-
ceutical compounds do appear to be recalcitrant in a
microbially active aquifer at concentrations in the part
per trillion range. A bench scale study of an unconfined
aquifer irrigated with reclaimed water found antipyrine
moved rapidly through the soil, while caffeine was sub-
ject to adsorption and microbial degradation (Babcock et
al., 2002).
Endocrine-disrupting activity has also been evaluated
during soil aquifer treatment and results consistently
suggest that soil aquifer treatment rapidly reduces endo-
crine-disrupting activity to ambient levels (Turney et al.,
In Press). Since the majority of compounds that are sus-
pected to cause endocrine disruption are either strongly
adsorbed or biodegradable, the results are consistent with
microbial activity providing sustainable removal of organ-
ics during soil aquifer treatment.
2.5.2.3
Nitrogen
The 2 major forms of nitrogen in reclaimed water are typi-
cally ammonia and nitrate. As reported by AWWARF
(2001), the concentrations and forms of nitrogen in ap-
plied effluents are a strong function of effluent pretreat-
ment. Secondary effluents contained ammonia nitrogen
at concentrations up to 20 mg-N/l while denitrified efflu-
ents contained primarily nitrate nitrogen at concentra-
tions less than 10 mg-N/l. Ammonia nitrogen is the ma-
jor form of oxygen demand in secondary effluents that
are not nitrified.
Nitrogen can be efficiently removed during effluent pre-
treatment; however, appropriately operated SAT sys-
tems have the capacity to remove nitrogen in second-
ary effluents. The removal of nitrogen appears to be a
sustainable, biologically mediated process. When am-
monia is present in reclaimed water, the ammonia is
removed by adsorption during wetting when insufficient
oxygen is available to support nitrification. Nitrification
of adsorbed ammonia occurs during subsequent drying
cycles as re-aeration of vadose zone soils occurs. Ni-
trate is weakly adsorbed and is transported with bulk water
flow during SAT. Removal of nitrate was consistently
observed at all sites where anoxic or anaerobic condi-
tions were present (AWWARF, 2001). The biological re-
moval mechanism for denitrification was found to be site
specific.
The 2001 AWWARF study entitled, "An Investigation of
Soil Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse."
investigated the mechanism of anaerobic ammonia oxi-
dation (ANAMMOX) as a sustainable mechanism for ni-
trogen removal. During SAT, it is possible for adsorbed
ammonia to serve as an electron donor to convert ni-
trate to nitrogen gas by ANAMMOX. Evidence for
ANAMMOX activity was obtained in soils obtained from
the Tucson site. Since adsorbed ammonia is available
for nitrification when oxygen reaches soils containing
adsorbed ammonia, ANAMMOX activity could occur as
nitrate percolates through soils containing adsorbed am-
monia under anoxic conditions. This implies that there is
a sustainable mechanism for nitrogen removal during SAT
when effluent pretreatment does not include nitrogen re-
moval and the majority of applied nitrogen is ammonia.
Appropriate wetting/drying cycles are necessary to pro-
mote nitrification in the upper vadose zone during drying
cycles. The more mobile nitrate passes over soils with
adsorbed ammonia under anoxic conditions deeper in the
vadose zone. Extended wetting cycles with short dry
cycles will result in ammonia adsorbed at increasing
depths as adsorption sites become exhausted. Extended
drying cycles will result in reaeration of soils at greater
depths resulting in nitrification of adsorbed ammonia at
greater depths. A mechanistic model was developed to
provide guidelines for the operation of soil aquifer treat-
ment systems to sustain nitrogen removal (Fox, 2003).
2.5.2.4 Microorganisms
The survival or retention of pathogenic microorganisms
in the subsurface depends on several factors including
climate, soil composition, antagonism by soil microflora,
flow rate, and type of microorganism. At low tempera-
tures (below 4 °C or 39 °F) some microorganisms can
survive for months or years. The die-off rate is approxi-
mately doubled with each 10 °C (18 °F) rise in tempera-
ture between 5 and 30 °C (41 and 86 °F) (Gerba and
Goyal, 1985). Rainfall may mobilize bacteria and viruses
that had been filtered or adsorbed, and thus, enhance
their transport.
The nature of the soil affects survival and retention. For
example, rapid infiltration sites where viruses have been
detected in groundwater were located on coarse sand
and gravel types. Infiltration rates at these sites were
high and the ability of the soil to adsorb the viruses was
low. Generally, coarse soil does not inhibit virus migra-
tion. Other soil properties, such as pH, cation concentra-
tion, moisture holding capacity, and organic matter do
have an affect on the survival of bacteria and viruses in
the soil. Resistance of microorganisms to environmental
factors depends on the species and strains present.
Drying the soil will kill both bacteria and viruses. Bacte-
ria survive longer in alkaline soils than in acid soils (pH 3
to 5) and when large amounts of organic matter are
present. In general, increasing cation concentration and
40
-------
decreasing pH and soluble organics tend to promote vi-
rus adsorption. Bacteria and larger organisms associ-
ated with wastewater are effectively removed after per-
colation through a short distance of the soil mantle. Lysim-
eter studies showed a greater than 99 percent removal
of bacteria and 95 to 99 percent removal of viruses (Cuyk
etal., 1999). Factors that may influence virus movement
in groundwater are given in Table 2-10. Proper treatment
(including disinfection) prior to recharge, site selection,
and management of the surface spreading recharge sys-
tem can minimize or eliminate the presence of microor-
ganisms in the groundwater. Once the microorganisms
reach the groundwater system, the oxidation state of the
water significantly affects the rate of removal (Medema
and Stuyfzand, 2002; Gordon etal., 2002).
2.5.3 Health and Regulatory
Considerations
Constraints on groundwater recharge are conditioned by
the use of the extracted water and include health con-
cerns, economic feasibility, physical limitations, legal
restrictions, water quality constraints, and reclaimed water
availability. Of these constraints, health concerns are
the most important as they pervade almost all recharge
projects (Tsuchihashi etal., 2002). Where reclaimed wa-
ter will be ingested, health effects due to prolonged ex-
posure to low levels of contaminants must be consid-
ered as well as the acute health effects from pathogens
or toxic substances. [See Section 3.4.1 Health Assess-
ment of Water Reuse and Section 2.6 Augmentation of
Potable Supplies.]
One problem with recharge is that boundaries between
potable and nonpotable aquifers are rarely well defined.
Some risk of contaminating high quality potable ground-
water supplies is often incurred by recharging "nonpotable"
aquifers. The recognized lack of knowledge about the
fate and long-term health effects of contaminants found
in reclaimed water obliges a conservative approach in
setting water quality standards and monitoring require-
ments for groundwater recharge. Because of these un-
certainties, some states have set stringent water quality
requirements and require high levels of treatment - in
some cases, organic removal processes - where ground-
water recharge impacts potable aquifers.
2.6
Augmentation of Potable Supplies
This section discusses indirect potable reuse via sur-
face water augmentation, groundwater recharge, and di-
rect potable reuse. For the purpose of this document,
indirect potable reuse is defined as the augmentation of
a community's raw water supply with treated wastewater
followed by an environmental buffer (Crook, 2001). The
treated wastewater is mixed with surface and/or ground-
water, and the mix typically receives additional treatment
before entering the water distribution system. Direct po-
table reuse is defined as the introduction of treated waste-
water directly into a water distribution system without
intervening storage (pipe-to-pipe) (Crook, 2001). Both such
sources of potable water are, at face value, less desir-
able than using a higher quality source for drinking.
Table 2-10. Factors that May Influence Virus Movement to Groundwater
Factor
Soil Type
PH
Cations
Soluble Organics
Virus Type
Flow Rate
Saturated vs. Unsaturated Flow
Comments
Fine-textured soils retain viruses more effectively than light-textured soils. Iron oxides increase the
adsorptive capacity of soils. Muck soils are generally poor adsorbents.
Generally, adsorption increases when pH decreases. However, the reported trends are not clear-
cut due to complicating factors.
Adsorption increases in the presence of cations. Cations help reduce repulsive forces on both virus
and soil particles. Rainwater may desorb viruses from soil due to its low conductivity.
Generally compete with viruses for adsorption sites. No significant competition at concentrations
found in wastewater effluents. Humic and fulvic acids reduce virus
adsorption to soils.
Adsorption to soils varies with virus type and strain. Viruses may have different isoelectric points.
The higher the flow rate, the lower virus adsorption to soils.
Virus movement is less under unsatu rated flow conditions.
Source: Gerba and Goyal, 1985.
41
-------
A guiding principle in the development of potable water
supplies for almost 150 years was stated in the 1962
Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards:
". . . water supply should be taken from the most desir-
able source which is feasible, and efforts should be made
to prevent or control pollution of the source." This was
affirmed by the EPA (1976) in its Primary Drinking Water
Regulations:". . priority should be given to selection of
the purest source. Polluted sources should not be used
unless other sources are economically unavailable. . ."
2.6.1 Water Quality Objectives for Potable
Reuse
Development of water quality requirements for either di-
rect or indirect potable reuse is difficult. The task in-
volves a risk management process that entails evaluat-
ing, enumerating, and defining the risks and potential
adverse health impacts that are avoided by the practice
of physically separating wastewater disposal and do-
mestic water supply. By physically separating waste-
water disposal and domestic water supply by environ-
mental storage, the life cycle of waterborne diseases
can be broken, thereby preventing or reducing disease
in the human population. As the physical proximity and
perceived distance between reclaimed water and do-
mestic water supply decreases, human contact with and
consumption of reclaimed water become more certain,
and the potential impacts to human health become
harder to define.
From a regulatory standpoint, there is a tendency to use
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) as a starting point
for defining potable water quality objectives. For years,
water reuse advocates have argued that reclaimed water
from municipal wastewater meets the requirements of
the NPDWR. However, the original purpose of the NPDWR
was not intended to define potable water quality when
the source is municipal wastewater.
There has been a dramatic increase in the ability to de-
tect chemicals in recent years. Considering the hundreds
of thousands of chemicals manufactured or used in the
manufacturing of products, the number of chemicals regu-
lated by the SDWA represent a small fraction of these
compounds. The 1986 SDWA amendments required EPA
to promulgate 25 new maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs), or drinking water treatment requirements, for
specific contaminants every 3 years (Calabrese et al.
1989). However, the 1996 SDWA amendments reduced
that number by requiring the agency to "consider" regu-
lating up to 5 contaminants every 5 years. Figure 2-8
shows the potential impact to the number of regulated
compounds under the NPDWR as outlined by the 1986
and 1996 SDWA amendments.
MCLs are thought of as standards for individual chemi-
cals. However, contaminants can be regulated by speci-
fying treatment processes and performance standards
without directly measuring the contaminant. Because of
the sheer numbers of potential chemicals, traditional
wastewater treatment processes are not the panacea
for all potable water quality concerns, particularly since
current analytical methods are insufficient to identify all
potential contaminants at concentrations of health sig-
nificance. If the analytical method does not have suffi-
cient sensitivity, then the presence of contaminants may
go unobserved. Water reuse agencies in California ob-
served problems with specific chemicals and trace or-
ganics being discharged to wastewater treatment plants.
These elements were detected in the final effluents, only
after analytical detection limits were lowered.
Additional concerns have been raised regarding the fate
and transport of trace organic compounds (Daughton and
Temes 1999 and Sedlakefa/., 2000). These include en-
docrine disrupters, Pharmaceuticals, hormones, antibi-
otics, anti-inflammatories, and personal care products
(antibacterial soaps, sunscreen, bath gels, etc.) that are
present in municipal wastewaters. None of these indi-
vidual compounds are regulated or monitored by maxi-
mum contaminant levels (MCLs) in the SDWA.
Some indirect water reuse projects (San Diego and Den-
ver) have started using lexicological assays to compare
the drinking water source to the reclaimed water. While
these studies have generally shown that the assay re-
sults show no difference between the reclaimed water
and the source water used for domestic supply, there are
concerns that current toxicological methods are not sen-
sitive enough to characterize the impact of reclaimed water
on human health in the 10'4 and 10'6 risk range. As part of
the 1996 SDWA amendments, EPA is charged with de-
veloping an evaluation that considers the health impact
of an identified contaminant to sensitive subpopulations.
In 1996 and 1999, the Rand Corporation conducted epi-
demiological studies to monitor the health of those con-
suming reclaimed water in Los Angeles County (Sloss et
al., 1996 and Sloss et al., 1999). The 1996 ecologic study
design looked at selected infectious disease occurrence
as well as cancer incidence and mortality. Investigators
could find no link between the incidence of infectious
disease or cancer rates and exposure to reclaimed wa-
ter. The 1999 study focused on adverse birth outcomes
(prenatal development, infant mortality, and birth defects).
Similar results were reported for the 1999 study; there
was no association between reclaimed water and adverse
42
-------
Figure 2-8. Contaminants Regulated by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
200
1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
> - - 1986 SDWA Amendment - - -A- - 1996 SDWA Amendment
birth outcomes. However, epidemiological studies are lim-
ited, and these studies are no exception. Researchers
noted several weaknesses in their study design that con-
tribute to the overall uncertainty associated with the find-
ings. They found that it was difficult to get an accurate
assessment of reclaimed water exposure in the different
areas.
In addition to the uncertainties associated with toxico-
logical and epidemiological studies, current analytical
systems are insensitive to the contaminants of concern.
Surrogates are often used as performance-based stan-
dards. Microbiological water quality objectives are de-
fined by surrogates or treatment performance standards
that do not measure the contaminant of concern, but
nevertheless, provide some indication the treatment train
is operating properly, and the product is of adequate qual-
ity. It is then assumed that under similar conditions of
operation, the microbiological contaminant of concern is
being removed concurrently. For example, coliforms are
an indicator of microbiological water quality. While there
are documents discussing the criteria for an ideal surro-
gate (AWWARF and KIWA, 1988), no surrogate meets
every criterion. Hence, the shortcomings of the surro-
gate should also be remembered.
In 1998, the National Research Council (NRC) published,
"Issues in Potable Reuse," an update of its 1980 report.
In this update, the NRC did not consider addressing di-
rect potable reuse for the reason that, without added pro-
tection (such as storage in the environment), the NRC
did notviewdirectpotable reuseasaviableoption. Rather
than face the risks associated with direct, pipe-to-pipe
potable reuse, the NRC emphasized that there are far
more manageable, nonpotable reclaimed water applica-
tions that do not involve human consumption. The focus
of health impacts shifts from the acute microbiologically-
induced diseases, for nonpotable reuse, to the diseases
resulting from long-term chronic exposure, e.g., cancer
or reproductive effects, for potable reuse.
While direct potable reuse may not be considered a vi-
able option at this time, many states are moving for-
ward with indirect potable reuse projects. For many cit-
ies or regions, the growing demand for water, lack of new
water resources, and frequent calls for water conserva-
tion in low and consecutive low rainfall years have re-
sulted in the need to augment potable supplies with re-
claimed water. Indeed, in some situations, indirect po-
table reuse may be the next best alternative to make
beneficial use of the resource. Further, the lack of infra-
structure for direct nonpotable reuse may be too cum-
bersome to implement in a timely manner.
With a combination of treatment barriers and added pro-
tection provided by environmental storage, the problem
of defining water quality objectives for indirect potable
reuse is manageable. By employing treatment beyond
typical disinfected tertiary treatment, indirect potable
reuse projects will provide additional organics removal
and environmental storage (retention time) for the re-
claimed water, thereby furnishing added protection
against the unknowns and uncertainty associated with
trace organics. However, these processes will be oper-
ated using performance standards based on surrogates
that do not address specific contaminants. Until better
43
-------
source control and protection programs are in place to
deal with the myriad of chemicals discharged into the
wastewater collection systems, or until analytical and
toxicological testing becomes more sensitive, the con-
cern over low-level contaminant concentrations will re-
main. If and when contaminants are found, treatment
technologies can be applied to reduce the problem. EPA
(2001) has identified several drinking water treatment
processes capable of removing some endocrine
disrupters. Examples are granular activated carbon and
membrane treatment.
Potable reuse, whether direct or indirect, is not a risk-
free practice. No human engineered endeavor is risk-free,
but with appropriate treatment barriers (and process con-
trol) water quality objectives will be defined by an ac-
ceptable risk. Given the unknowns, limitations, and un-
certainty with the current state of science and tech-
nology, it is not possible to establish the threshold at
which no observed effect would occur, just as it is not
reasonable to expect current scientific techniques to
demonstrate the absence of an impact on human health.
2.6.2 Surface Water Augmentation for
Indirect Potable Reuse
For many years, a number of cities have elected to take
water from large rivers that receive substantial waste-
water discharges. These cities based their decisions, in
part, on the assurance that conventional filtration and
disinfection eliminates the pathogens responsible for
waterborne infectious disease. These water sources were
generally less costly and more easily developed than
upland supplies or underground sources. Such large cit-
ies as Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and New Orleans, draw-
ing water from the Delaware, Ohio and Mississippi Riv-
ers, respectively, are thus practicing indirect potable water
reuse. The many cities upstream of their intakes can be
characterized as providing water reclamation in their
wastewater treatment facilities, although they were not
designed, nor are they operated, as potable water sources.
NPDES permits for these discharges are intended to make
the rivers "fishable and swimmable," and generally do
not reflect potable water requirements downstream. These
indirect potable reuse systems originated at a time when
the principal concern for drinking water quality was the
prevention of enteric infectious diseases and issues re-
lating to chemical contaminants received lesser atten-
tion. Nevertheless, most cities do provide water of ac-
ceptable quality that meets current drinking water regula-
tions. Unplanned or incidental indirect potable reuse via
surface water augmentation has been, and will continue
to be, practiced widely.
More recent indirect potable reuse projects that involve
surface water augmentation are exemplified by the Up-
per Occoquan Sewage Authority (UOSA) treatment fa-
cilities in northern Virginia, which discharge reclaimed
water into Bull Run, just above Occoquan Reservoir, a
water supply source for Fairfax County, Virginia. The
UOSA plant, in operation since 1978, provides AWT that
is more extensive than required treatment for nonpotable
reuse and accordingly provides water of much higher
quality for indirect potable reuse than is required for
nonpotable reuse (Joint Task Force, 1998). In Clayton
County, Georgia, wastewater receives secondary treat-
ment, and then undergoes land treatment, with the re-
turn subsurface flow reaching a stream used as a source
of potable water. The Clayton County project, which has
been in operation for 20 years, is being upgraded to
include wetlands treatment and enhancements at the
water treatment plant (Thomas etal., 2002).
While UOSA now provides a significant portion of the
water in the system, varying from an average of about 7
percent of the average annual flow to as much as 80-90
percent during drought periods, most surface water aug-
mentation indirect potable reuse projects have been driven
by requirements for wastewater disposal and pollution
control. Their contributions to increased public water sup-
ply were incidental. In a comprehensive, comparative
study of the Occoquan and Clayton County projects, the
water quality parameters assessed were primarily those
germane to wastewater disposal and not to drinking wa-
ter (Reed and Bastian, 1991). Most discharges that con-
tribute to indirect potable water reuse, especially via riv-
ers, are managed as wastewater disposal functions and
are handled in conformity with practices common to all
water pollution control efforts. The abstraction and use
of reclaimed water is almost always the responsibility of
a water supply agency that is not related politically, ad-
ministratively, or even geographically to the wastewater
disposal agency (except for being downstream). Increas-
ing populations and a growing scarcity of new water
sources have spurred a small but growing number of com-
munities to consider the use of highly-treated municipal
wastewater to augment raw water supplies. This trend
toward planned, indirect potable reuse is motivated by
need, but made possible through advances in treatment
technology. These advances enable production of re-
claimed water to almost any desired quality. Planned,
indirect potable reuse via surface water augmentation
and groundwater recharge is being practiced in the U.S.
and elsewhere. Notwithstanding the fact that some pro-
posed, high profile, indirect potable reuse projects have
been defeated in recent years due to public or political
opposition to perceived health concerns, indirect potable
reuse will likely increase in the future.
44
-------
2.6.3 Groundwater Recharge for Indirect
Potable Reuse
As mentioned in Section 2.5.1, Methods of Groundwater
Recharge, groundwater recharge via surface spreading
or injection has long been used to augment potable aqui-
fers. Although both planned and unplanned recharge into
potable aquifers has occurred for many years, few health-
related studies have been undertaken. The most compre-
hensive health effects study of an existing groundwater
recharge project was carried out in Los Angeles County,
California, in response to uncertainties about the health
consequences of recharge for potable use raised by a
California Consulting Panel in 1975-76.
In November 1978, the County Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County (Districts) initiated the "Health Effects
Study," a $1.4-million-project designed to evaluate the
health effects of using treated wastewater for groundwa-
ter recharge based on the recommendations of the 1976
Consulting Panel. The focus of the study was the
Montebello Forebay Groundwater Replenishment Project,
located within the Central Groundwater Basin in Los An-
geles County, California. Since 1962, the Districts' re-
claimed water has been blended with imported river wa-
ter (Colorado River and State Project water) and local
stormwater runoff, and used for replenishment purposes.
The project is managed by the Water Replenishment Dis-
trict of Southern California (WRD) and is operated by the
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The
Central Groundwater Basin is adjudicated; 85 groundwa-
ter agencies operate over 400 active wells. Water is per-
colated into the groundwater using 2 sets of spreading
grounds: (1) the Rio Hondo Spreading Grounds consist
of 570 acres (200 hectares) with 20 individual basins and
(2) the San Gabriel River Spreading Grounds consist of
128 acres (52 hectares) with 3 individual basins and por-
tions of the river. The spreading basins are operated un-
der a wetting/drying cycle designed to optimize inflow
and discourage the development of vectors.
From 1962 to 1977, the water used for replenishment
was disinfected secondary effluent. Filtration (dual-me-
dia or mono-media) was added later to enhance virus
inactivation during final disinfection. By 1978, the amount
of reclaimed water spread averaged about 8.6 billion gal-
lons per year (33 x 103 m3 per year) or 16 percent of the
total inflow to the groundwater basin with no more than
about 10.7 billion gallons (40 million m3) of reclaimed
water spread in any year. The percentage of reclaimed
water contained in the extracted potable water supply
ranged from 0 to 11 percent on a long-term (1962-1977)
basis (Crook et al., 1990).
The primary goal of the Health Effects Study was to pro-
vide information for use by health and regulatory au-
thorities to determine if the use of reclaimed water for
the Montebello Forebay Project should be maintained
at the present level, cut back, or expanded. Specific
objectives were to determine if the historical level of
reuse had adversely affected groundwater quality or
human health, and to estimate the relative impact of the
different replenishment sources on groundwater qual-
ity. Specific research tasks included:
• Water quality characterizations of the replenishment
sources and groundwater in terms of their microbio-
logical and chemical content.
• Toxicological and chemical studies of the reple-
nishment sources and groundwater to isolate and
identify organic constituents of possible health sig-
nificance
• Field studies to evaluate the efficacy of soil for at-
tenuating chemicals in reclaimed water
• Hydrogeologic studies to determine the movement
of reclaimed water through groundwater and the rela-
tive contribution of reclaimed water to municipal wa-
ter supplies
• Epidemiologic studies of populations ingesting re-
claimed water to determine whether their health char-
acteristics differed significantly from a demographi-
cally similar control population
During the course of the study, a technical advisory com-
mittee and a peer review committee reviewed findings
and interpretations. The final project report was com-
pleted in March, 1984 as summarized by Nellor et al. in
1985. The results of the study did not demonstrate any
measurable adverse effects on either the area ground-
water or health of the people ingesting the water. Al-
though the study was not designed to provide data for
evaluating the impact of an increase in the proportion of
reclaimed water used for replenishment, the results did
suggest that a closely monitored expansion could be
implemented.
In 1986, the State Water Resources Control Board, De-
partment of Water Resources and Department of Health
Services established a Scientific Advisory Panel on
Groundwater Recharge to review the report and other
pertinent information. The Panel concluded that it was
comfortable with the safety of the product water and the
continuation of the Montebello Forebay Project. The
Panel felt that the risks, if any, were small and probably
45
-------
not dissimilar from those that could be hypothesized for
commonly used surface waters.
Based on the results of the Health Effects Study and
recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Panel, the
Regional Water Quality Control Board in 1987 authorized
an increase in the annual quantity of reclaimed water to
be used for replenishment from 32,700 acre-feet peryear
to 50,000 acre-feet per year (20,270 gpm to 31,000 gpm
or 1,280 to 1,955 l/s). In 1991, water reclamation require-
ments for the project were revised to allow for recharge
up to 60,000 acre-feet peryear (37,200 gpm or 2,350 l/s)
and 50 percent reclaimed water in any one year as long
as the running 3-year total did not exceed 150,000 acre-
feet per year (93,000 gpm or 5,870 l/s) or 35 percent
reclaimed water. The average amount of reclaimed water
spread each year is about 50,000 acre-feet per year
(31,000 gpm or 1,955 l/s). Continued evaluation of the
project is being provided by an extensive sampling and
monitoring program, and by supplemental research
projects pertaining to percolation effects, epidemiology,
and microbiology.
The Rand Corporation has conducted additional health
studies for the project as part of an ongoing effort to
monitor the health of those consuming reclaimed water
in Los Angeles County (Sloss et al., 1996 and Sloss et.
al., 1999). These studies looked at health outcomes for
900,000 people in the Central Groundwater Basin who
are receiving some reclaimed water in their household
water supplies. These people account for more than 10
percent of the population of Los Angeles County. To com-
pare health characteristics, a control area of 700,000
people that had similar demographic and socioeconomic
characteristics was selected, but did not receive re-
claimed water. The results from these studies have found
that, after almost 30 years of groundwater recharge, there
is no association between reclaimed water and higher
rates of cancer, mortality, infectious disease, or adverse
birth outcomes.
The Districts, along with water and wastewater agencies
and researchers in 3 western states, are currently con-
ducting research to evaluate the biological, chemical, and
physical treatment processes that occur naturally as the
reclaimed water passes through the soil on the way to
the groundwater. The SAT Project was developed to bet-
ter understand the impact of SAT on water quality in terms
of chemical and microbial pollutants (see Case Study
2.7.16). This work will continue to address emerging is-
sues such as the occurrence and significance of phar-
maceutically active compounds (including endocrine
disrupters and new disinfection byproducts) and stan-
dardized monitoring techniques capable of determining
pathogen viability. The Groundwater Replenishment
(GWR) System is an innovative approach to keeping the
Orange County, California, groundwater basin a reliable
source for meeting the region's future potable water needs
(Chalmers et al., 2003). A joint program of the Orange
County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County
Sanitation District (OCSD), the GWR System will pro-
tect the groundwater from further degradation due to sea-
water intrusion and supplement existing water supplies
by providing a new, reliable, high-quality source of water
to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin (see
Case Study 2.7.15).
2.6.4
Direct Potable Water Reuse
Direct potable reuse is currently practiced in only one
city in the world, Windhoek, Namibia. This city uses di-
rect potable reuse on an intermittent basis only. In the
U.S., the most extensive research focusing on direct
potable reuse has been conducted in Denver, Colorado;
Tampa, Florida; and San Diego, California. A consider-
able investment in potable reuse research has been made
in Denver, Colorado, over a period of more than 20 years.
This research included operation of a 1 -mgd (44-l/s) rec-
lamation plant in many different process modes over a
period of about 10 years (Lauer, 1991). The product wa-
ter was reported to be of better quality than many po-
table water sources in the region. The San Diego Total
Resource Recovery Project was executed to demonstrate
the feasibility of using natural systems for secondary treat-
ment with subsequent advanced wastewater treatment
to provide a water supply equivalent or better than the
quality of imported water supplied to the region (WEF/
AWWA, 1988). Tables 2-11 and 2-12 show the advanced
wastewater treatment effluent concentrations of miner-
als, metals, and trace organics for the San Diego Project.
Microbial analysis performed over a 2.5-year period,
showed that water quality of advanced wastewater treat-
ment effluent was low in infectious agents. Specifically,
research showed:
• Spiking studies were conducted to determine the re-
moval level of viruses. Results of 4 runs showed an
overall virus removal rate through the primary, sec-
ondary, and advanced wastewater treatment plants
of between 99.999 9 percent and 99.999 99 percent.
Levels of removal were influenced by the number of
viruses introduced. Viruses were not detected in more
than 20.2 x 1041 of sample.
• Enteric bacterial pathogens (that is, Salmonella, Shi-
gella, and Campylobacter) were not detected in 51
samples of advanced wastewater treatment effluent.
• Protozoa and metazoa of various types were absent
46
-------
in the advanced wastewater treatment effluent. Gia-
rdia lamblia were not recovered, and based on re-
covery rates of cysts from raw wastewater, removal
rates were estimated to be 99.9 percent (WEF/
AWWA, 1998)
The treatment train operated in San Diego, after second-
ary treatment, includes the following processes:
• Coagulation with ferric chloride
• Multimedia filtration
• Ultraviolet disinfection
• pH adjustment with sulfuric acid
• Cartridge filter
• Reverse osmosis
Most of these unit processes are well understood. Their
performance can be expected to be effective and reli-
able in large, well-managed plants. However, the heavy
burden of sophisticated monitoring for trace contaminants
that is required for potable reuse may be beyond the ca-
pacity of smaller enterprises.
The implementation of direct, pipe-to-pipe, potable reuse
is not likely to be adopted in the foreseeable future in the
U.S. for several reasons:
• Many attitude (opinion) surveys show that the public
will accept and endorse many types of nonpotable
reuse while being reluctant to accept potable reuse.
In general, public reluctance to support reuse in-
Table 2-11. Physical and Chemical Sampling Results from the San Diego Potable Reuse Study
Constituents
General
COD
PH
SS
TOC
Anions
Chloride
Fluoride
Ammonia
Nitrite
Nitrate
Phosphate
Silicate
Sulfate
Cations
Boron
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Number of
Samples
Units
Minimum
Detection
Limit
Number of
Samples
-------
Table 2-12. San Diego Potable Reuse Study: Heavy Metals and Trace Organics Results
Constituents
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Organics
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl phthalate)
Benzyl/butyl phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Dibutyl phthalate
Dimethylphenol
Methyl chloride
Naphthalene
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
1 ,2 - Dichlorobenzene
4 - Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Number of
Samples
Units
Minimum
Detection
Limit3
Number of
Samples
>MDL
Arithmetic
Mean
Standard
Deviation
11
10
19
20
18
8
20
12
16
W3/L
W3/L
W3/L
W3/L
W3/L
W3/L
W3/L
W3/L
W3/L
1
1
1
6
1
1
1.2
6
5
5
1
10
18
15
0
19
2
2
<1
1
2
18
3
1
6
4
3
8b
0.3
3
20
7
Oc
7
3C
4
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
Wj/L
W3/L
W3/L
W3/L
W3/L
W3/L
W3/L
W3/L
W3/L
W3/L
Wj/L
W3/L
W3/L
2.5
2.5
3.1
1.6
2.5
2.7
2.8
1.6
3.8
4.4
2.4
3.6
1.5
6
1
0
0
1
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
<2.50
2.5
3.1
1.6
2.64
2.7
<2.80
1.6
3.8
4.4
2.4
3.6
1.5
3.27b
0.02°
0.00°
0.00°
0.78°
0.00°
7.91b
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
-------
Urban
Industrial
Agricultural
Environmental
and Recreational
Groundwater Recharge
Augmentation of Potable
Supplies
Miscellaneous
Sections 2.7.1
through 2.7.6
Sections 2.7.7
through 2.7.8
Sections 2.7.9
through 2.7.12
Section 2.7.13
Section 2.7.14
through 2.7.16
Section 2.7.17
Section 2.7.18
through 2.7.19
2.7.1 Water Reuse at Reedy Creek
Improvement District
Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) provides mu-
nicipal services to the Walt Disney World Resort Com-
plex, located in Central Florida. In 1989, RCID faced a
challenge of halting inconsistent water quality discharges
from its wetland treatment system. The solution was a
twofold approach: (1) land was purchased for the con-
struction of rapid infiltration basins (RIBs) and (2) plans
were drafted for the construction of a reuse distribution
system. The RIBs were completed in 1990. Subse-
quently, all surface water discharges ceased. The RIBs
recharge the groundwater via percolation of applied efflu-
ent to surficial sands and sandy clays. Eighty-five 1-
acre basins were built and operate on a 6 to 8 week rota-
tional cycle. Typically, 10 or 11 basins are in active ser-
vice for a 1 -week period; while the remaining basins are
inactive and undergo maintenance by discing of the bot-
tom sands. Initially, the RIBs served as the primary
mechanism for reuse and effluent disposal, receiving 100
percent of the effluent. But the trend has completely re-
versed in recent years, and the RIBs serve primarily as
a means of wet-weather recharge or disposal of sub-stan-
dard quality water. The majority of the effluent is used
for public access reuse. In the past 3 years, over 60
percent of the effluent volume was used for public ac-
cess reuse.
Initially, the reclaimed water distribution system served
5 golf courses and provided some landscape irrigation
within RCID. In the past 10 years, the extent and diver-
sity of uses has grown and now includes washdown of
impervious surfaces, construction (such as concrete
mixing and cleanup), cooling tower make up, fire fighting
(suppression and protection), irrigation of all types of veg-
etation and landscaping, and all of the nonpotable needs
for clean water within the treatment facility.
All product water bound for the reuse system is metered.
There is a master meter at the master pumping station,
and all customers are metered individually at the point of
service. Rates are typically set at 75 to 80 percent of the
potable water rate to encourage connection and use.
Rates are based on volumetric consumption to discour-
age wasteful practices. New customers are required by
tariff to connect to and use the reclaimed water system.
If the system is not available, new customers are re-
quired to provide a single point of service to facilitate
future connection. Existing customers using potable wa-
ter for nonpotable purposes are included in a master plan
for future conversion to reclaimed water.
Demands for reclaimed water have sometimes exceeded
supply capabilities, especially during the months of April
and May, when rainfall is lowest and demand for irrigation
is at its highest. RCID has a number of means at its
disposal to counteract this shortfall. The primary means
uses 2, formerly idle, potable water wells to supplement
the reclaimed water systems during high demand. These
wells can provide up to 5,000 gpm (315 l/s) of additional
supply. A secondary means requests that major, selected
customers return to their prior source of water. Two of
the golf courses can return to surface waters for their
needs and some of the cooling towers can be quickly
converted to potable water use (and back again).
Total water demand within RCID ranges from 18 to 25
mgd (180 to 1,100 l/s) for potable and nonpotable uses.
Reclaimed water utilization accounts for 25 to 30 percent
of this demand. Over 6 mgd (260 l/s) is typically con-
sumed on an average day and peak day demands have
exceeded 12 mgd (525 l/s). Providing reclaimed water for
nonpotable uses has enabled RCID to remain within its
consumptive use permit limitations for groundwater with-
drawal, despite significant growth within its boundaries.
Reclaimed water has been a major resource in enabling
RCID to meet water use restrictions imposed by the wa-
ter management districts in alleviating recent drought
impacts. Figure 2-9 is a stacked bar graph that shows
the historical contribution reclaimed water has made to
the total water resource picture at RCID.
The continued growth of the RCID reclaimed water sys-
tem is expected to play an ever-increasing and critical
role in meeting its water resource needs. Because alter-
native sources of water (e.g., surface water, brackish
water, and stormwater) are not easily and reliably avail-
able and are prohibitively costly to obtain, it makes eco-
49
-------
Figure 2-9. Water Resources at RCID
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Time
Potable Demand D RCW Demand
nomic sense for RCID to maximize its use of reclaimed
water.
2.7.2 Estimating Potable Water Conserved
in Altamonte Springs due to Reuse
It is taken for granted that implementing a reclaimed water
system for urban irrigation will conserve potable water,
but few efforts have been made to quantify the benefits.
An analysis was performed to define the potential value
of urban reuse for a moderately sized city, Altamonte
Springs, Florida. Altamonte Springs began implementing
its reclaimed water system in 1990.
First, annual potable water-use data were analyzed to
ascertain if a significant difference could be seen be-
tween periods before and after reuse. Figure 2-10 shows
the historical potable water demands from 1977 to 2000,
expressed as gallons of water used per capita per day.
Figure 2-10 indicates a much greater potable water de-
mand before reuse was implemented than after. In 1990,
the demand dropped by about 20 gallons per capita-day
(76 liters per capita-day) in just one year.
Two differing methods were used to estimate the total
potable water conserved through implementing a re-
claimed water system. The first method, a linear extrapo-
lation model (LEM), assumes that the rate of increasing
water use per capita for 1990 to 2000 increases as it did
from 1977 to 1989. Then, the amount conserved per year
can be estimated by taking the difference in the potential
value from the linear model and the actual potable water
used. Figure 2-11 predicts the amount of potable water
saved by implementing the reuse system from 1990 to
2000.
The other method used a more conservative, constant
model (CCM). This model averages the gallons of po-
table water per capita-day from the years before reuse
and assumes that the average is constant for the years
after reuse. Figure 2-12 indicates this model's estimate
of potable water conserved.
In the year 2000, the LEM model estimates that 102 gal-
lons per capita-day (386 liters per capita-day) of potable
water are saved. In the same year, the CCM method
estimates a net savings of 69 gallons per capita-day.
Figure 2-13 shows the comparison of the amount con-
served using the 2 different methods.
50
-------
2.7.3 How Using Potable Supplies to
Supplement Reclaimed Water Flows
can Increase Conservation,
Hillsborough County, Florida
Ensuring that an adequate source is available is one of
the first steps in evaluating a potable water project.
However, consideration of how many reclaimed water
customers can be supplied by the flows from a water
reclamation facility is seldom part of the reuse planning
process. The problem with this approach has become
apparent in recent years, as a number of large urban
reuse systems have literally run out of water during peak
reclaimed water demand times.
In order to understand why this happens, it is important
to understand the nature of demands for reclaimed water.
Figure 2-14 illustrates expected seasonal reclaimed
water demands for irrigation in southwest Florida. Ev-
ery operator of a potable water system in this area ex-
pects demands to increase by 20 to 30 percent during
April through June as customers use drinking water to
meet peak season irrigation demands. For reclaimed
water systems, which are dedicated to meeting urban
irrigation demands, the peak season demands may in-
crease by 50 to 100 percent of the average annual de-
mand. It is, of course, the ability to meet these peak
season demands that define the reliability of a utility sys-
tem, including a reclaimed water system.
How Augmentation Can Help
While peak season demand is what limits the number of
customers a utility can connect, it is also short lived,
lasting between 60 to 90 days. Augmenting reclaimed
water supplies during this time of peak demand can al-
low a municipality to increase the number of customers
served with reclaimed water while preserving the reliabil-
ity (level of service) of the system. To illustrate this point,
consider the Hillsborough County South/Central reclaimed
water system. Reclaimed water supplies from the
Falkenburg, Valrico, and South County Water Reclama-
tion Facilities (WRFs) are expected to be an annual av-
erage of 12.67 mgd (555 l/s) in 2002. However, to avoid
shortfalls in the peak demand season, the County will
need to limit connections to an average annual demand
of 7.34 mgd (321 l/s) or less. The County presently has a
waiting list of customers that would demand an annual
average of approximately 10.69 mgd (468 l/s). What if
augmentation water were used to allow the County to
connect these customers instead of making these cus-
tomers wait? Water balance calculations indicate that
from July through March, there will be more than enough
reclaimed water to meet expected demands. However,
in April, May, and June, reclaimed water demands will
exceed available supplies and customers will experience
shortages. Using a temporary augmentation supply of
water could offset these shortages during this 60 to 90
day period.
Figure 2-10. Altamonte Springs Annual Potable Water Demands per Capita
600
. onn .
« m
o. 175
CB
o 150 -
O
= mn .
0 7<5
en
0
1-1
p-.
-
-
1-1
-
-
_ Reuse Implemented
* — -—""^
~
,— -
n
i _ •
B
k
-
-
A
Year
D Potable Water Demand • Supplement
51
-------
Figure 2-11. Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using Best LEM Method
350
Projected Potable Water Use
Without Reuse
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
a Potable Water Use • Potable Water to Supplement WRF a Potable Water Conserved Using a Projected Estimate Without Reuse
Figure 2-12. Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using the CCM Method
350
> 300
Q osrv
Gallons/Capita-
o S 8 g I i
A\
-i
-
-,
_.
-
^
/
erage of Values of Potable Water Used from 1977-1989
estimate conserved after reuse system implemented /
-
to
-
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Annual Potable Water Demand With Supplement O Estimated Potable Conserved I
52
-------
Figure 2-13. Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using Both Method
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
CCM
LEM
Figure 2-14. Estimated Raw Water Supply vs. Demand for the 2002 South/Central Service Area
18.00
16.00
.00
S, 12.00
c 10.00"
(Q
Q Q nn
§ 8.00
Q.
Q.
6.00
.00
n nr>
Peak Demand
Period
/""'V^
Supplied Curve / \,^
- Supplemental Water Used
^ ' ' -^
• ••^~J*7~ -• J— * ~ V
/ A X
..''*' ''^Supplemented
***.•' \ Demand Curve
/ /^Existing ""V L-^\ V--^
/ /^ Demand Curve ^^^^ \
A. * / ^mr t \
rJ 7 ^
Increased Reclaimed Water Use /
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Figure 2-14 illustrates the expected seasonal supply
curve for 2002. The bottom curve shows the expected
demand for the limited case where the County does not
augment its water supplies. The top curve indicates how
the County can meet current demand by augmenting its
reclaimed water supply during April through June. The
limited reclaimed water system is constrained by peak
seasonal demands (not exceeding supply) since custom-
ers expect year round service. For the system to meet
all of the potential demands that have been identified,
sufficient reclaimed water augmentation must be used
to make up the differences in supply and demand.
53
-------
The obvious question that must be answered is, "Can
using supplemental water actually conserve water re-
sources?" The answer is yes, to a point. The existing,
limited reuse system serves an average annual demand
of 7.34 mgd (321 l/s), conserving an annual average of
6.07 mgd (266 l/s) of potable water resources. This level
of conservation is based on the County's experiences
with reductions in potable water demand after reclaimed
water becomes available. In order to provide service to
the entire 10.69 mgd (468 l/s) reclaimed water demand,
the County will need an average annual supply of supple-
mental water of 0.5 mgd (22 l/s). For the purposes of
this analysis, it is assumed this supplemental water
comes from the potable water system and so is sub-
tracted from the "Annual Average Potable Water Con-
served." This 0.5 mgd potable water supplemental sup-
ply increases the total volume of water conserved from
6.07 to 7.23 mgd (266 to 321 l/s). Therefore, 1.16 mgd
(51 l/s) more potable water is conserved by using supple-
mental water. Therefore, an investment of 0.5 mgd (22 I/
s) of supplemental water allows the County to save 1.16
mgd (51 l/s) of potable water resources or, put another
way, for each gallon (3.8 liters) of supplemental water
used we realize a 2.32-gallon (8.8-liter) increase in water
resources conserved. There are, of course, limitations
to this practice. As more supplemental water is used,
the amount of reclaimed water used (as a percentage of
the total demand) decreases. Eventually, the supplemen-
tal water used will be equal to the water resources con-
served. That is the break-even point. In this case po-
table water was used as the supplemental water, but in
reality, other nonpotable supplies, such as raw ground-
water, would likely be used.
Short-term supplementation, such as that described
above, is one of many tools that can be used by a re-
claimed water provider to optimize its system. Utilities
can also maximize their existing reclaimed water re-
sources and increase efficiency by instituting Best Man-
agement Practices (BMPs). Examples of BMPs include
individual metering, volume-based, water-conserving
rate structures, planned interruption, peak season "in-
terruptible service", and time-of-day and day-of-week re-
strictions. When a reclaimed water provider is already
experiencing either a long-term supply/demand imbalance
or temporary drought effects, that provider should first
use BMPs, before considering reclaimed water supple-
mentation. Utilities should also investigate opportunities
for enhanced reclaimed water storage capacity including
innovative technological solutions, such as aquifer stor-
age and recovery, and wet-weather discharge points that
produce a net environmental benefit. Instituting BMPs
and the other options mentioned can enable a reclaimed
water utility to delay, lessen, or potentially eliminate the
need for augmentation of their reclaimed water system
during peak reclaimed water demand periods.
2.7.4 Water Reclamation and Reuse Offer
an Integrated Approach to
Wastewater Treatment and Water
Resources Issues in Phoenix,
Arizona.
The rapidly developing area of North Phoenix is placing
ever-increasing demands on the city's existing waste-
water collection system, wastewater treatment plants,
and potable water resources. As an integrated solution
to these issues, water reclamation and reuse have be-
come an important part of Phoenix Water Services
Department's operational strategy.
Cave Creek Reclaimed Water Reclamation Plant
(CCWRP), in northeast Phoenix, began operation in Sep-
tember 2001. The facility uses an activated sludge nitri-
fication/denitrification process along with filtration and
ultraviolet light disinfection to produce a tertiary-grade
effluent that meets the Arizona Department of Environ-
mental Quality's A+ standards. CCWRP is currently able
to treat 8 mgd (350 l/s) and has an expansion capacity of
32 mgd (1,400 l/s).
The Phoenix reclamation plant delivers reclaimed water
through a nonpotable distribution system to golf courses,
parks, schools, and cemeteries for irrigation purposes.
The reclaimed water is sold to customers at 80 percent
of the potable water rate.
CCWRP's sister facility, North Gateway Water Reclama-
tion Plant (NGWRP), will serve the northwest portion of
Phoenix. The design phase has been completed. The
NGWRP will have an initial treatment capacity of 4 mgd
(175 l/s) with an ultimate capacity of 32 mgd (1,400 l/s).
The plant is modeled after the Cave Creek facility using
the "don't see it, don't hear it, don't smell it" design man-
tra. Construction will be preformed using the construc-
tion manager-at-risk delivery method.
Phoenix is using geographic information system (GIS)
technology to develop master plans for the buildout of
the reclaimed water distribution system for both the Cave
Creek and North Gateway reclamation plants. Through
GIS, potential reclaimed water customers are easily
identified. GIS also provides information useful for de-
termining pipe routing, reservoir, and pump station lo-
cations. The goal is to interconnect the 2 facilities, thus
building more reliability and flexibility into the system.
The GIS model is dynamically linked to the water sys-
tem, planning, and other important databases so that
geospacial information is constantly kept up to date. A
54
-------
hydraulic model is being used in conjunction with the
GIS model to optimize system operation.
Irrigation demand in Phoenix varies dramatically with the
seasons, so groundwater recharge and recovery is a key
component of the water reuse program. Phoenix is cur-
rently exploring the use of vadose zone wells because
they do not require much space and are relatively inex-
pensive to construct. This method also provides addi-
tional treatment to the water as it percolates into the
aquifer. A pilot vadose zone well facility has been con-
structed at the NGWRP site to determine the efficacy of
this technology. A vadose zone recharge facility along
with a recovery well is being designed for the CCWRP
site.
Nonpotable reuse and groundwater recharge with high
quality effluent play an important role in the City's water
resources and operating strategies. The North Phoenix
Reclaimed Water System (Figure 2-15) integrates mul-
tiple objectives, such as minimizing the impact of devel-
opment in the existing wastewater infrastructure by treating
wastewater locally and providing a new water resource in
a desert environment. By using state-of-the-art technol-
ogy, such as GIS, Phoenix will be able to plan the buildout
of the reclaimed water system to maximize its efficiency
and minimize costs.
2.7.5 Small and Growing Community:
Yelm, Washington
The City of Yelm, Washington, a community of 3,500
residents, is considered one of western Washington's
fastest growing cities. In response to a determination
from Thurston County that the continued use of septic
systems in the Yelm area posed a risk to public health,
the City developed a sewage plan. The original plan was
to treat and discharge wastewater to the Nisqually River.
However, the headwaters of the Nisqually River begin in
Mount Rainier National Park and end in a National Wild-
life Refuge before discharging into the Puget Sound Es-
tuary. The river supports 5 species of Pacific salmon—
chinook, coho, pink, chum, and steelhead—as well as
sea-run cutthroat trout. Based on a settlement agree-
ment with local environmental groups, the City agreed to
pursue upland reuse of their Class A reclaimed water
with the goal of eliminating the Nisqually River as a waste-
water discharge location to augment surface water bod-
ies only during times when reclaimed water could not be
used 100 percent upland. Reclaimed water also plays a
very important role in water conservation as Yelm has
limited water resources.
The reclamation plant went on line in August of 1999 and
currently reclaims and reuses approximately 230,000 gpd
(871 m3/d). The facility has a design capacity to reclaim
up to 1.0 mgd (44 l/s). State standards require the use of
treatment techniques for source control, oxidation, co-
agulation, filtration, and disinfection. Final reclaimed wa-
ter requirements include a daily average turbidity of less
than 2.0 NTU with no values above 5.0 NTU, total coliform
less than 2.2 per 100 ml as a 7-day median value and
total nitrogen below 10 mg/l. Major facility components
include a septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) collection
system, activated sludge biological treatment with nitro-
gen removal using Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) tech-
nology, flow equalization, an automated chemical feed
system with in-line static mixers to coagulate remaining
solids prior to filtration, a continuous backwash, upflow
sand media filtration system, and chlorine disinfection.
The facility also includes an on-line computer monitoring
system. Process monitors provide continuous monitor-
ing of flow, turbidity, and chlorine residual. Alarms pro-
vide warning when turbidity reaches 2.0 NTU, the flow to
the filters shuts off at 3.0 NTU, and the intermediate
pumps shut down at 3.5 NTU. Chlorine concentrations
are set for an auto-dialer alarm if the flash mixer falls
below 1.5 mg/l or if the final residual is below 0.75 mg/l.
Only reclaimed water that meets the required standard is
sent to upland use areas.
Reclaimed water in Yelm is primarily used for seasonal
urban landscape irrigation at local schools and churches,
city parks, and a private residence along the distribu-
tion route. The true showcase of the Yelm project is
Cochrane Memorial Park, an aesthetically pleasing 8-
acre city park featuring constructed surface and sub-
merged wetlands designed to polish the reclaimed water
prior to recharging groundwater. In the center of the park,
a fishpond uses reclaimed water to raise and maintain
stocked rainbow trout for catch and release. The City
also uses reclaimed water for treatment plant equipment
washdown and process water, fire fighting, street clean-
ing, and dust control.
Although summers in western Washington are quite dry,
during the winter rainy season there is not sufficient irri-
gation demand for reclaimed water. Excess water is sent
to generate power in the Centralia Power Canal, a diver-
sion from the Nisqually River. Based on state law, re-
claimed water that meets both the reclamation standards
and state and federal surface water quality requirements
is "no longer considered a wastewater." However, per their
settlement agreement, Yelm is continuing to pursue the
goal of 100 percent upland reuse via a program to add
reclaimed water customers and uses.
Yelm recently updated its Comprehensive Water Plan to
emphasize an increased dependence on reclaimed wa-
ter to replace potable water consumption to the greatest
55
-------
Figure 2-15. North Phoenix Reclaimed Water System
A Water Reclamation Plants
| Project Boundary
^^ Existing Reclaimed Mains
— Canals
^^™ Freeways
Major Streets
| Mountain Preserves
• Existing Reuse Facilities
Potential Reuse Facilities
56
-------
extent possible. The City is constructing storage capac-
ity to provide collection of reclaimed water during non-
peak periods for distribution during periods of peak de-
mand. This will allow more efficient use of reclaimed water
and eliminate the need for potable make-up water. Yelm
is planning to use reclaimed water for bus washing, con-
crete manufacturing, and additional irrigation purposes.
Sources: Washington State Department of Ecology and
City of Yelm, 2003.
2.7.6 Landscape Uses of Reclaimed Water
with Elevated Salinity:
El Paso, Texas
Because of declining reserves of fresh groundwater and
an uncertain supply of surface water, the Public Service
Board, the governing body of El Paso Water Utilities,
has adopted a strategy to curtail irrigation use of potable
water by substituting reclaimed municipal effluent. This
strategy has been implemented in stages, starting with
irrigation of a county-operated golf course using second-
ary effluent from the Haskell Plant, and a city-owned golf
course with tertiary treated effluent from the Fred Hervey
Plant. More recently, the reuse projects were expanded
to use secondary effluent from the Northwest Plant to
irrigate a private golf course, municipal parks, and school
grounds (Ornelas and Brosman, 2002). Reclaimed water
use from the Haskell Plant is also being expanded to
include parks and school grounds.
Salinity of reclaimed water ranges from 680 to 1200 ppm
as total dissolved salts (TDS) depending on the plant
(Table 2-13). Reclaimed water from the Hervey Plant has
the lowest salinity (680 ppm), and a large portion of it is
now being injected into an aquifer for recovery as po-
table water. Reclaimed water from the Haskell Plant and
the Northwest plant have elevated levels of salinity, and
are likely to be the principal reclaimed sources for irriga-
tion from now into the near future. The cause of elevated
salinity at the Northwest Plant is currently being investi-
gated, and it appears to be related to intrusion of shallow
saline groundwater into sewer collection systems located
in the valley where high water tables prevail.
Reuse of reclaimed water from the Hervey Plant on a
golf course proceeded without any recognizable ill ef-
fects on turf or soil quality. This golf course is located
on sandy soils developed to about 2 feet (60 cm) over a
layer of caliche, which is mostly permeable. Broadleaf
trees have experienced some foliar damage, but not to
the extent of receiving frequent user complaints. This
golf course uses low pressure, manual sprinklers, and
plantings consist mostly of pines, which are spray resis-
tant. Reuse of reclaimed water from the Northwest Plant,
however, has caused severe foliar damage to a large
number of broadleaf trees (Miyamoto and White, 2002).
This damage has been more extensive than what was
projected based on the total dissolved salts of 1200 ppm.
However, this reclaimed water source has a Na concen-
tration equal to or higher than saline reclaimed water
sources in this part of the Southwest (Table 2-13). Foliar
damage is caused primarily through direct salt adsorp-
tion through leaves. This damage can be minimized by
reducing direct sprinkling onto the tree canopy. The use
of low-trajectory nozzles or sprinklers was found to be
Table 2-13. Average Discharge Rates and Quality of Municipal Reclaimed Effluent in El Paso and
Other Area Communities
Treatment Plants
El Paso
Fred Hervey
Haskell
Northwest
Alamogordo1
Odessa2
Plant
Capacity
(mgd)
Reuse
Area
(acres)
Water Quality
TDS
(ppm)
EC
(dSm1)
SAR
Na
(ppm)
Cl
(ppm)
Soil Type
10
27
17
--
--
150
329
194
--
--
680
980
1200
1800
1650
0.9
1.6
2.2
2.7
2.4
3.7
7.3
11.0
2
1.9
150
250
350
310
330
180
280
325
480
520
Calciorthid, Aridisols
Torrifluvent, Entisols
Paleorthid, Aridisols
Camborthid, Aridisols
Paleustal, Alfisols
1These water sources contain substantial quantities of Ca and SO4.
2Reclaimed water quality of this source changes with season.
Sources: Ornela and Brosman, 2002; Miyamoto and White, 2002; Ornelas and Miyamoto, 2003; and Miyamoto,
2003.
57
-------
effective through a test program funded by the Bureau of
Reclamation (Ornelas and Miyamoto, 2003). This finding
is now used to contain salt-induced foliar damage.
Another problem associated with the conversion to re-
claimed water has been the sporadic occurrence of salt
spots on the turf in areas where drainage is poor. This
problem has been contained through trenching and
subsoiling. Soil salinization problems were also noted in
municipal parks and school grounds that were irrigated
with potable water in the valley where clayey soils pre-
vail. This problem is projected to increase upon conver-
sion to reclaimed water from the Haskell Plant unless
salt leaching is improved. The Texas A&M Research Cen-
ter at El Paso has developed a guideline for soil selec-
tion (Miyamoto, 2003), and El Paso City Parks, in coop-
eration with Texas A&M Research Center, are initiating
a test program to determine cost-effective methods of
enhancing salt leaching. Current indications are that in-
creased soil aerification activities, coupled with
topdressing with sand, may prove to be an effective
measure. If the current projection holds, reuse projects
in El Paso are likely to achieve the primary goal, while
demonstrating that reclaimed water with high Na and Cl
concentrations (greater than 359 ppm) can be used ef-
fectively even in highly diverse soil conditions through
site improvements and modified management practices.
2.7.7 Use of Reclaimed Water in a Fabric
Dyeing Industry
The Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD)
reclaimed water system began operation in 1992 and
currently serves approximately 3,700 acre-feet per year
(2,300 gpm) for a variety of irrigation, commercial, and
industrial uses. Industrial customers include the success-
ful conversion of Tuftex Carpets in Santa Fe Springs,
which was the first application in California of reclaimed
water used for carpet dyeing. A significant benefit to us-
ing reclaimed water is the consistency of water quality.
This reduces the adjustments required by the dye house
that had previously been needed due to varying sources
of water (e.g. Colorado River, State Water Project, or
groundwater). Since completion of the initial system,
CBMWD has continued to explore expansion possibili-
ties, looking at innovative uses of reclaimed water.
The fabric dyeing industry represents a significant po-
tential for increased reclaimed water use in CBMWD and
in the neighboring West Basin Municipal Water District
(WBMWD). More than 15 dye houses are located within
the 2 Districts, with a potential demand estimated to be
greater than 4,000 acre-feet per year (2,500 gpm). A na-
tional search of reclaimed water uses did not identify
any existing use of tertiary treated wastewater in fabric
dyeing.
General Dye and Finishing (General Dye) is a fabric dye-
ing facility located in Santa Fe Springs, California. This
facility uses between 400 and 500 acre-feet per year (250
to 310 gpm) of water, primarily in their dye process and
for boiler feed. CBMWD is working with the plant man-
ager to convert the facility from domestic potable water
to reclaimed water for these industrial purposes.
A 1-day pilot test was conducted on October 15, 2002
using reclaimed water in one of the 12 large dye ma-
chines used at the facility. A temporary connection was
made directly to the dye machine fill line using a 1 -inch
hose from an air release valve on the CBMWD reclaimed
water system. General Dye conducted 2 tests with the
reclaimed water, using reactive dye with a polycotton
blend and using dispersed dye with a 100-percent poly-
ester fabric.
Both test loads used about 800 pounds of fabric with
blue dyes. The identical means and methods of the dye-
ing process typically employed by General Dye with do-
mestic water were also followed using reclaimed water.
General Dye did not notice any difference in the dyeing
process or quality of the end product using the reclaimed
water versus domestic water.
A 1-week demonstration test was conducted between
November 20 and November 27, 2002, based on the
successful results of the 1 -day pilot test. A large variety
of colors were used during the demonstration test. No
other parameters were changed. Everything was done
exactly the same with the reclaimed water that would
have been done with the domestic water. As with the
pilot test, the results indicated that reclaimed water can
successfully be used in the fabric dyeing process, re-
sulting in plans for a full conversion of the General Dye
facility to reclaimed water for all process water needs.
2.7.8 Survey of Power Plants Using
Reclaimed Water for Cooling Water
A wide variety of power facilities throughout the U.S. were
contacted and asked to report on their experience with
the use of treated wastewater effluent as cooling water.
Table 2-14 presents a tabulation of data obtained from
contacts with various power facilities and related waste-
water treatment plants that supply them with effluent
water. Table 2-14 also provides a general summary of
the treatment process for each WWTP and identifies treat-
ment performed at the power plant.
58
-------
Table 2-14. Treatment Processes for Power Plant Cooling Water
Power Facility & Location
1 . Lancaster County
Resource Recovery Facility
Marietta, PA
2. PSE&G Ridgefield Park, NJ
3. Hillsborough County Solid Waste
to Energy Recovery Facility
(operated by Ogden Martin Corp.)
Tampa, FL
4. Nevada Power - Clark and
Sunrise Stations
Las Vegas, NV
5. Panda Brandywine Facility
Brandywine, MD
6. Chevron Refineries; El Segundo, CA
Richmond, CA
7. Curtis Stanton Energy Center
Orange County, FL (near
Orlando)
8. Palo Verde Nuclear Plant
Phoenix, AZ
Average Cooling Water
Supply & Return Flow (mgd)
Supply = 0.65
Return = 0
Zero discharge; all
blow -dow n evaporated or
leaves plant in sludge.
Supply = 0.3 - 0.6 (make-up
supply to cooling towers) Blow-
down disposed of with plant
wastewater to local sewer
svstem.
Supply = 0.7 (includes irrigation
water) Blow-down of 0.093-mgd
mixed with plant wastewater is
returned to WWTP.
Supply = 2.72 (annual avg.) to
Clark Sta.
Return = 0
Blow-down is discharged to
holding ponds for
evaporation
Supply = 0.65
Cooling tower blow-down is
discharged to a local sewage
system and eventually returned
to the WWTP.
Approx = 3-5
Return = 0
Supply = 10
Return = 0
Blow-down is evaporated in
brine concentrator and
crystallizer units at power plant
for zero discharge.
Total Supply to (3) units = 72
Return = 0
Zero discharge facility; all blow-
down is evaporated in ponds.
Wastewater Treatment
Plant Processes
Secondary treatment with
Alum, Floe & Polymer;
Additions settle solids,
remove phosphorus
Secondary Treatment, 85%
minimum removal of solids
Advanced treatment with
high level of disinfection.
Partial tertiary treatment,
removes phosphorus.
Advanced Secondary
treatment with nitrification,
denitrification and biological
phosphorus removal.
Tertiary treatment through
dual media filter &
disinfection in chlorine
contact tank.
Primary & secondary
settling. Biological nutrient
removal, with post filtration
via sand filters.
Tertiary treatment
El Seaundo: Ammonia
Stripping plant across
street.
Richmond: Caustic Soda
Treatment Plant Specifically
for Chevron.
Advanced Wastewater
treatment including filtration,
disinfection & biological
nutrient removal to within
5:5:3:1*
WWTPs provide secondary
treatment. Treated effluent
not transmitted to Palo
Verde is discharged to
riverbeds (wetlands) under
State of Arizona permits.
Treatment for Cooling
Water (by Power Plant)
Further treatment with
clarification process, Flash
Mix, Slow Mix. Also additions
of ferric sulfate, polymer &
sodium hypochlorite
Water chemistry controlled
with biocide, pH control, and
surfactant
Chlorine addition, biocide,
surfactant, tri-sodium
phosphate, pH control with
sulfuric acid.
None at present time.
Previously treated with lime
& softener; discontinued 2-3
years ago.
Addition of corrosion
inhibitors, sodium
hypochlorite, acid for pH
control, and anti-foaming
agents.
Richmond Plant uses Nalco
Chemical for further
treatment.
PH adjustment with acid,
addition of scale inhibitors
and chlorine. Control of
calcium level. All chemical
adjustments done at cooling
towers.
Tertiary treatment plant
consisting of trickling filters
for ammonia removal, 1st and
2nd stage clarifiers for
removal of phosphorus,
magnesium, and silica.
Cooling tower water is
further controlled by addition
of dispersants, defoaming
aaents. and sodium
* 5:5:3:1 refers to constituent limits of 5 mg/l BOD, 5 mg/l TSS, 3 mg/l nitrogen and 1 mg/l phosphorus.
Source: DeStefano, 2000
59
-------
It is important to note that, in all cases for the facilities
contacted, the quality of wastewater treatment at each
WWTP is governed by the receiving water body where
the treated effluent is discharged, and its classification.
For example, if the water body serves as a source of
drinking water or is an important fishery, any treated
effluent discharged into it would have to be of high qual-
ity. Effluent discharged to an urban river or to the ocean
could be of lower quality.
2.7.9 Agricultural Reuse in Tallahassee,
Florida
The Tallahassee agricultural reuse system is a coop-
erative operation where the city owns and maintains the
irrigation system, while the farming service is under con-
tract to commercial enterprise. During the evolution of
the system since 1966, extensive evaluation and opera-
tional flexibility have been key factors in its success.
The City of Tallahassee was one of the first cities in
Florida to use reclaimed water for agricultural purposes.
In 1966, the City began to use reclaimed water from its
secondary wastewater treatment plant for spray irriga-
tion. In 1971, detailed studies showed that the system
was successful in producing crops for agricultural use.
The studies also concluded that the soil was effective at
removing SS, BOD, bacteria, and phosphorus from the
reclaimed water. Until 1980, the system was limited to
irrigation of 120 acres (50 hectares) of land used for hay
production. Based upon success of the early studies and
experience, a new spray field was constructed in 1980,
southeast of Tallahassee.
The southeast spray field has been expanded 3 times
since 1980, increasing its total area to approximately
2100 acres (840 hectares). The permitted application rate
of the site is 3.16 inches per week (8 cm per week), fora
total capacity of 24.5 mgd (1073 l/s). Sandy soils ac-
count for the high application rate. The soil composition
is about 95 percent sand, with an interspersed clay layer
at a depth of approximately 33 feet (10 meters). The spray
field has gently rolling topography with surface eleva-
tions ranging from 20 to 70 feet (6 to 21 meters) above
sea level.
Secondary treatment is provided to the City's Thomas
P. Smith wastewater reclamation plant and the Lake
Bradford Road wastewater reclamation plant. The re-
claimed water produced by these wastewater reclama-
tion plants meet water quality requirements of 20 mg/l
for BOD and TSS, and 200/100 ml for fecal coliform.
Reclaimed water is pumped approximately 8.5 miles (13.7
km) from the treatment plant to the spray field and dis-
tributed via 16 center-pivot irrigation units.
Major crops produced include corn, soybeans, coastal
Bermuda grass, and rye. Corn is stored as high-moisture
grain prior to sale, and soybeans are sold upon harvest.
Both the rye and Bermuda grass are grazed by cattle.
Some of the Bermuda grass is harvested as hay and
haylage. Cows are allows to graze in winter.
2.7.10 Spray Irrigation at Durbin Creek
WWTP Western Carolina Regional
Sewer Authority
The Durbin Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility, lo-
cated near Fountain Inn, South Carolina, is operated by
the Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority (WCRSA).
The plant discharges to Durbin Creek, a relatively small
tributary of the Enoree River. Average flow from the Durbin
Creek Plant is 1.37 mgd (5.2 x 103 m3/day) with a peak
flow of 6.0 mgd (22.7 x 103 m3/day) during storm events.
The plant is permitted for an average flow of 3.3 mgd
(12.5x103m3/day).
The Durbin Creek plant is located on an 200-acre (81-
hectare) site. Half of the site is wooded with the remain-
ing half cleared for land application of biosolids. Hay is
harvested in the application fields. Much of the land sur-
rounding the plant site is used as a pasture and for hay
production without the benefit of biosolids applications.
As a result of increasingly stringent NPDES permit lim-
its and the limited assimilative capacity of the receiving
stream, WCRSA began a program to eliminate surface
water discharge at this facility. Commencing in 1995,
WCRSA undertook a detailed evaluation of land applica-
tion and reuse at Durbin Creek. The initial evaluation fo-
cused on controlling ammonia discharged to the receiv-
ing stream by combining agricultural irrigation with a
hydrograph-controlled discharge strategy.
In order to appreciate the potential for reuse and land
application to address current permit issues facing the
Durbin Creek WWTP, a brief discussion of their origin is
necessary. South Carolina develops waste load alloca-
tions calculated by a model that is based on EPA dis-
charge criteria. Model inputs include stream flow, back-
ground concentrations of ammonia, discharge volume,
water temperature, pH, and whether or not salmonids are
present. Because water temperature is part of the model
input, a summer (May through October) and a winter (No-
vember through April) season are recognized in the cur-
rent NPDES permit. Ammonia concentrations associated
with both acute and chronic toxicity are part of the model
output. The stream flow used in the model is the esti-
mated 7-day, 10-year low flow event (7Q10). For the re-
ceiving stream, the 7Q10 value is 2.9 cfs (0.08 m3/s).
60
-------
The permitted flow of 3.3 mgd (12.5 x 103 m3/day) is
used as the discharge volume in the model.
A detailed evaluation of the characteristics of the receiv-
ing water body flow was required to evaluate the potential
of reuse to address the proposed NPDES limits. The prob-
ability of occurrence of a given 7-day low flow rate was
then determined using an appropriate probability distri-
bution. The annual summer and winter 7Q10 flows for the
Durbin Creek site were then estimated with the following
results:
Annual 7Q10 2.9 cfs (0.08 m3/s)
Summer 7Q10 (May through October)
2.9 cfs (0.08 m3/s)
Winter 7Q10 (November through April)
6.4cfs(0.18m3/s)
The predicted annual 7Q10 of 2.9 cfs (0.08 m3/s) matched
the value used by the state regulatory agency and con-
firmed the validity of the analysis. The winter 7Q10 was
found to be more than double that of the summer 7Q10.
This information was then used in conjunction with the
state's ammonia toxicity model to develop a conceptual
summer and winter discharge permit for effluent discharge
based on stream flow.
The next step was to evaluate various methods of di-
verting or withholding a portion of the design discharge
flow under certain stream flow conditions.
The most prominent agricultural enterprise in the vicinity
of the Durbin Creek WWTP is hay production. Thus,
WCRSA decided to investigate agricultural reuse as its
first alternative disposal method.
To evaluate how irrigation demands might vary over the
summer season, a daily water balance was developed
to calculate irrigation demands. The irrigation water bal-
ance was intended to calculate the consumptive need of
an agricultural crop as opposed to hydraulic capacities
of a given site. This provision was made because farm-
ers who would potentially receive reclaimed water in the
future would be interested in optimizing hay production
and could tolerate excess irrigation as a means of dis-
posal. Results of this irrigation water balance were then
combined with the expected stream flow to evaluate the
requirements of integrating agricultural irrigation with a
hydrograph control strategy.
The results of this analysis are provided in Figure 2-16,
which indicates the storage volume required as a func-
tion of the irrigated area given a design flow of 3.3 mgd
(12.5x 103 m3/day). As shown in Figure 2-16, if no irri-
gated area is provided, a storage volume of approximately
240 million gallons (900 x 103 m3) would be required to
Figure 2-16. Durbin Creek Storage Requirements as a Function of Irrigated Area
800-
::
400-
200-
o-1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Acres
0
200
400
Hectares
Irrigated Area
600
800
61
-------
achieve compliance with a streamflow dependent per-
mit. This storage volume decreases dramatically to ap-
proximately 50 million gallons (190 x 103 m3) if 500 acres
(200 hectares) of irrigated area are developed. As irri-
gated area increases from 500 to 1,200 acres (200 to
490 hectares), the corresponding ratio of increased irri-
gated area to reduction in storage is less. As indicated in
Figure 2-16, storage could hypothetically be completely
eliminated given an irrigated area of approximately 1,900
acres (770 hectares). The mathematical modeling of
stream flows and potential demands has demonstrated
that reuse is a feasible means of achieving compliance
with increasingly stringent NPDES requirements in South
Carolina.
2.7.11 Agricultural Irrigation of Vegetable
Crops: Monterey, California
Agriculture in Monterey County, located in the central
coastal area of California, is a $3 billion per year busi-
ness. The northern part of the county produces a vari-
ety of vegetable crops, many of which may be consumed
raw. As far back as the 1940s, residential, commercial,
industrial, and agricultural users were overdrawing the
County's northern groundwater supply. This overdraw
lowered the water tables and created an increasing prob-
lem of saltwater intrusion. In the mid-1970s, the Califor-
nia Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
completed a water quality management plan for the area,
recommending reclaimed water for crop irrigation.
At that time, agricultural irrigation of vegetable crops with
reclaimed water was not widely accepted. To respond to
questions and concerns from the agricultural community,
the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
(MRWPCA) sponsored an 11-year, $7-million pilot and
demonstration project known as the Monterey Wastewa-
ter Reclamation Study for Agriculture (MWRSA). Study
objectives were to find answers to questions about such
issues as virus and bacteria survival on crops, soil per-
meability, and yield and quality of crops, as well as to
provide a demonstration of field operations for farmers
who would use reclaimed water.
Five years of field operations were conducted, irrigating
crops with 2 types of tertiary treated wastewater, with a
well water control for comparison. Artichokes, broccoli,
cauliflower, celery, and several varieties of lettuce were
grown on test plots and a demonstration field. Crops pro-
duced with reclaimed water were healthy and vigorous,
and the system operated without complications. The re-
sults of the study provided evidence that using reclaimed
water can be as safe as irrigating with well water, and
that large scale water reclamation can be accomplished.
No virus was found in reclaimed water used for irrigation
or on samples of crops grown with the reclaimed water.
No tendency was found for metals to accumulate in soils
or on plant tissues. Soil permeability was not impaired.
By the time the study was completed in 1987, the project
had gained widespread community support for water rec-
lamation.
As a result of the MWRSA, a water reclamation plant
and distribution system were completed in 1997. The
project was designed to serve 12,000 acres (4,850 hect-
ares) of artichokes, lettuce, cauliflower, broccoli, celery,
and strawberries. Delivery of reclaimed water was de-
layed until spring of 1998 to address new concerns about
emerging pathogens. The reclaimed water was tested for
£. Co/; 0157:H7, Legionella, Salmonella, Giardia,
Cryptosporidium, and Cyclospora. No viable organisms
were found and the results were published in the Re-
cycled Water Food Safety Study. This study increased
grower and buyer confidence. Currently, 95 percent of
the project acreage is voluntarily using reclaimed water.
Growers felt strongly that health department regulations
should be minimal regarding use of reclaimed water.
The MRWPCA succeeded in getting the County Health
Department to approve wording requirements for signs
along public roads through the project to say, "No Tres-
passing," rather than previously proposed wording that
was detrimental to public acceptance of reclaimed wa-
ter. Similarly, field worker safety training requires only
that workers not drink the water, and that they wash their
hands before eating or smoking after working with re-
claimed water.
Three concerns remain: safety, water quality, and long
term soil health. To address safety, pathogen testing
continues and results are routinely placed on the
MRWPCA website at www.mrwpca.org. The water qual-
ity concern is partly due to chloride, but mostly due to
sodium concentration levels. MRWPCA works with sewer
users to voluntarily reduce salt levels by using more ef-
ficient water softeners, and by changing from sodium
chloride to potassium chloride for softener regenera-
tion. In 1999, the agency began a program of sampling
soils from 3 different depth ranges 3 times each season
from 4 control sites (using well water) and 9 test sites
(using reclaimed water). Preliminary results indicate that
using reclaimed water for vegetable production is not
causing the soil to become saline.
2.7.12 Water Conserv 11: City of Orlando and
Orange County, Florida
As a result of a court decision in 1979, the City of Or-
lando and Orange County, Florida, were mandated to
cease discharge of their effluent into Shingle Creek, which
62
-------
flows into Lake Tohopekaliga, by March 1988. The City
and County immediately joined forces to find the best
and most cost-effective solution. Following several rounds
of extensive research, the decision was made to con-
struct a reuse project in West Orange and Southeast
Lake counties along a high, dry, and sandy area known
as the Lake Wales Ridge. The project was named Water
Conserv II. The primary use of the reclaimed water would
be for agricultural irrigation. Daily flows not needed for
irrigation would be distributed into rapid infiltration basins
(RIBs) for recharge of the Floridan aquifer.
Water Conserv II is the largest reuse project of its type
in the world, a combination of agricultural irrigation and
RIBs. It is also the first reuse project in Florida permitted
by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
to irrigate crops produced for human consumption with
reclaimed water. The project is best described as "a co-
operative reuse project by the City of Orlando, Orange
County, and the agricultural community." The City and
County jointly own Water Conserv II.
The project is designed for average flows of 50 mgd (2,190
l/s) and can handle peak flows of 75 mgd (3,285 l/s).
Approximately 60 percent of the daily flows are used for
irrigation, and the remaining ±40 percent is discharged to
the RIBs for recharge of the Floridan aquifer. Water
Conserv II began operation on December 1, 1986.
At first, citrus growers were reluctant to sign up for re-
claimed water. They were afraid of potential damage to
their crops and land from the use of the reclaimed wa-
ter. The City and County hired Dr. Robert C.J. Koo, a
citrus irrigation expert at the University of Florida's Cit-
rus Research Center at Lake Alfred, to study the use of
reclaimed water as an irrigation source for citrus. Dr. Koo
concluded that reclaimed water would be an excellent
source of irrigation water for citrus. The growers were
satisfied and comfortable with Dr. Koo's findings, but
wanted long-term research done to ensure that there would
be no detrimental effects to the crop or land from the
long-term use of reclaimed water. The City and County
agreed, and the Mid Florida Citrus Foundation (MFCF)
was created.
The MFCF is a non-profit organization conducting research
on citrus and deciduous fruit and nut crops. All research
is conducted by faculty from the University of Florida's
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS). The
MFCF Board of Directors is comprised of citrus growers
in north central Florida and representatives from the City
of Orlando, Orange County, the University of Florida IFAS,
and various support industries. Goals of the MFCF are
to develop management practices that will allow growers
in the northern citrus area to re-establish citrus and grow
it profitably, provide a safe and clean environment, find
solutions to challenges facing citrus growers, and pro-
mote urban and rural cooperation. All research conducted
by the MFCF is located within the Water Conserv II ser-
vice area. Reclaimed water is used on 163 of the 168
acres of research. MFCF research work began in 1987.
Research results to date have been positive. The ben-
efits of irrigating with reclaimed water have been con-
sistently demonstrated through research since 1987.
Citrus on ridge (sandy, well drained) soils respond well
to irrigation with reclaimed water. No significant prob-
lems have resulted from the use of reclaimed water. Tree
condition and size, crop size, and soil and leaf mineral
aspects of citrus trees irrigated with reclaimed water are
typically as good as, if not better than, groves irrigated
with well water. Fruit quality from groves irrigated with
reclaimed water was similar to groves irrigated with well
water. The levels of boron and phosphorous required in
the soil for good citrus production are present in adequate
amounts in reclaimed water. Thus, boron and phospho-
rous can be eliminated from the fertilizer program. Re-
claimed water maintains soil pH within the recommended
range; therefore, lime no longer needs to be applied.
Citrus growers participating in Water Conserv II benefit
from using reclaimed water. Citrus produced for fresh
fruit or processing can be irrigated by using a direct
contact method. Growers are provided reclaimed water
24 hours per day, 7 days per week at pressures suitable
for micro-sprinkler or impact sprinkler irrigation. At present,
local water management districts have issued no restric-
tions for the use of reclaimed water for irrigation of cit-
rus. By providing reclaimed water at pressures suitable
for irrigation, costs for the installation, operation, and
maintenance of a pumping system can be eliminated.
This means a savings of $128.50 per acre per year ($317
per hectare per year). Citrus growers have also realized
increased crop yields of 10 to 30 percent and increased
tree growth of up to 400 percent. The increases are not
due to the reclaimed water itself, but the availability of
the water in the soil for the tree to absorb. Growers are
maintaining higher soil moisture levels.
Citrus growers also benefit from enhanced freeze pro-
tection capabilities. The project is able to supply enough
water to each grower to protect his or her entire pro-
duction area. Freeze flows are more than 8 times higher
than normal daily flows. It is very costly to the City and
County to provide these flows (operating costs average
$15,000 to $20,000 per night of operation), but they feel
it is well worth the cost. If growers were to be frozen out,
the project would lose its customer base. Sources of
water to meet freeze flow demands include normal daily
flows of 30 to 35 mgd (1,310 to 1,530 l/s), 38 million
63
-------
gallons of stored water (143,850 m3), 80 mgd (3,500 l/s)
from twenty-five 16-inch diameter wells, and, if needed,
20 mgd (880 l/s) of potable water from the Orlando Utili-
ties Commission.
WaterConservll is a success story. University of Florida
researchers and extension personnel are delighted with
research results to date. Citrus growers sing the praises
of reclaimed water irrigation. The Floridan aquifer is
being protected and recharged. Area residents view the
project as a friendly neighbor and protector of the rural
country atmosphere.
2.7.13 The Creation of a Wetlands Park:
Petaluma, California
The City of Petaluma, California, has embarked on a
project to construct a new water reclamation facility. The
existing wastewater plant was originally built in 1938,
and then upgraded over the years to include oxidation
ponds for storage during non-discharge periods. The city
currently uses pond effluent to irrigate 800 acres (320
hectares) of agricultural lands and a golf course. As part
of the new facility, wetlands are being constructed for
multiple purposes including treatment (to reduce sus-
pended solids, metals, and organics), reuse, wildlife habi-
tat, and public education and recreation. The citizens of
Petaluma have expressed a strong interest in creating a
facility that not only provides wastewater treatment and
reuse, but also serves as a community asset. In an ef-
fort to further this endeavor, the citizens formed an orga-
nization called the Petaluma Wetlands Park Alliance.
Currently, the project is being designed to include 30 acres
(12 hectares) of vegetated wetlands to remove algae.
The wetlands will be located downstream from the City's
oxidation ponds. The vegetated treatment wetlands will
not be accessible to the general public for security rea-
sons. However, an additional 30 acres (12 hectares) of
polishing wetlands with both open water and dense veg-
etation zones will be constructed on an adjacent parcel
of land. These polishing wetlands will be fed by disin-
fected water from the treatment wetlands, so public ac-
cess will be allowed. Berms around all 3 wetland cells
will provide access trails.
The parcel of land where the polishing wetlands will be
constructed has many interesting and unique features.
An existing creek and riparian zone extend through the
upland portion of the parcel down to the Petaluma River.
The parcel was historically farmed all the way to the river,
but in an El Nino event, the river levees breached and
132 acres (53 hectares) of land has been returned to
tidal mudflat/marsh. The parcel is directly adjacent to a
city park, with trails surrounding ponds for dredge spoils.
A plan has been developed to connect the 2 parcels via
trails for viewing the tidal marsh, the polishing wetlands,
and the riparian/creek area. The plan also calls for resto-
ration and expansion of the riparian zone, planting of na-
tive vegetation, and restoration/enhancement of the tidal
marsh. The polishing wetlands will be constructed on a
portion of the 133 acres (54 hectares) of uplands. The
remainder of the upland areas will either be restored for
habitat or cultivated as a standing crop for butterfly and
bird foraging. Landscaping on the wetlands site will be
irrigated with reclaimed water. A renowned environmen-
tal artist developed the conceptual plan with an image of
the dog-faced butterfly formed by the wetland cells and
trails.
Funding for acquisition of the land and construction of
the trails and restoration projects has been secured from
the local (Sonoma County) open space district and the
California Coastal Conservancy in the amount of $4
million. The citizen's alliance has continued to promote
the concept. The alliance recently hosted a tour of the
site with the National Audubon Society, asking that the
site be considered for the location of an Audubon Inter-
pretive Center.
2.7.14 Geysers Recharge Project:
Santa Rosa, California
The cities of central Sonoma County, California, have
been growing rapidly, while at the same time regula-
tions governing water reuse and discharge have become
more stringent. This has taxed traditional means of re-
using water generated at the Laguna Wastewater Plant
and Reclamation Facility. Since the early 1960s, the
Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System has
provided reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation in the
Santa Rosa Plain, primarily to forage crops for dairy
farms. In the early 1990s, urban irrigation uses were
added at Sonoma State University, golf courses, and
local parks. The remaining reclaimed water not used for
irrigation was discharged to the Laguna de Santa Rosa
from October through May. But limited storage capacity,
conversion of dairy farms to vineyards (decreasing re-
claimed water use by over two-thirds), and growing con-
cerns over water quality impacts in the Laguna de Santa
Rosa, pressured the system to search for a new and
reliable means of reuse.
In the northwest quadrant of Sonoma County lies the
Geysers Geothermal Steamfield, a super-heated steam
resource used to generate electricity since the mid 1960s.
At its peak in 1987, the field produced almost 2,000
megawatts (MW), enough electricity to supply an esti-
mated 2 million homes and businesses with power. Gey-
sers operators have mined the underground steam to such
64
-------
a degree over the years that electricity production has
declined to about 1,200 MW. As a result, the operators
are seeking a source of water to recharge the deep aqui-
fers that yield steam. Geothermal energy is priced com-
petitively with fossil fuel and hydroelectric sources, and
is an important "green" source of electricity. In 1997, a
neighboring sewage treatment district in Lake County
successfully implemented a project to send 8 mgd (350
l/s) of secondary-treated water augmented with Clear
Lake water to the southeast Geysers steamfields for re-
charge. In 1998, the Santa Rosa Subregional Reclama-
tion System decided to build a conveyance system to
send 11 mgd (480 l/s) of tertiary-treated water to the north-
west Geysers steamfield for recharge. The Santa Rosa
contribution to the steamfield is expected to yield an
additional 85 MW or more of electricity production.
The conveyance system to deliver water to the steamfield
includes 40 miles (64 km) of pipeline, 4 large pump sta-
tions, and a storage tank. The system requires a lift of
3,300 feet (1,005 meters). Distribution facilities within
the steamfield include another 18 miles (29 km) of pipe-
line, a pump station, and tank, plus conversion of geo-
thermal wells from production wells to injection wells.
The contract with the primary steamfield operator, Calpine
Corporation, states that Calpine is responsible for the
construction and operation of the steamfield distribution
system and must provide the power to pump the water to
the steamfield. The Subregional Reclamation System, in
turn, is responsible for the construction and operation of
the conveyance system to the steamfield and provides
the reclaimed water at no charge. The term of the con-
tract is for 20 years with an option for either party to
extend for another 10 years.
One of the major benefits of the Geysers Recharge Project
is the flexibility afforded by year-round reuse of water.
The system has been severely limited because of sea-
sonal discharge constraints and the fact that agricultural
reuse is not feasible during the wet winter months. The
Geysers steamfield will use reclaimed water in the win-
ter, when no other reuse options are available. However,
during summer months, demand for reuse water for irri-
gation is high. The system will continue to serve agricul-
tural and urban users while maintaining a steady but re-
duced flow of reclaimed water to the Geysers. A detailed
daily water balance model was constructed to assist in
the design of the initial system and to manage the opti-
mum blend of agricultural, urban, and Geysers recharge
uses.
In addition to the benefits of power generation, the Gey-
sers Recharge Project will bring an opportunity for agri-
cultural reuse along the Geysers pipeline alignment,
which traverses much of Sonoma County's grape-grow-
ing regions. Recent listings of coho salmon and steel-
head trout as threatened species may mean that exist-
ing agricultural diversions of surface waters will have to
be curtailed. The Geysers pipeline could provide an-
other source of water to replace surface water sources,
thereby preserving the habitat of the threatened spe-
cies.
2.7.15
Advanced Wastewater Reclamation
in California
The Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System is a
regional water supply project sponsored jointly by the
Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange
County Sanitation District (OCSD) in southern Califor-
nia. Planning between OCWD and OCSD eventually led
to the decision to replace Water Factory 21 (WF21) with
the GWR System. OCSD, an early partner with OCWD in
WF21, will continue to supply secondary wastewater to
the GWR System. As one of the largest advanced re-
claimed water facilities in the world, the GWR System
will protect the groundwater from further degradation
due to seawater intrusion and supplement existing wa-
ter supplies by providing a new, reliable, high-quality
source of water to recharge the Orange County ground-
water basin. For OCSD, reusing the water will also pro-
vide peak wastewater flow disposal relief and postpone
the need to construct a new ocean outfall by diverting
treated wastewater flows that would otherwise be dis-
charged to the Pacific Ocean.
The GWR System addresses both water supply and
wastewater management needs through beneficial reuse
of highly treated wastewater. OCWD is the local agency
responsible for managing and protecting the lower Santa
Ana River groundwater basin. Water supply needs in-
clude both the quantity and quality of water. The GWR
System offers a new source of water to meet future in-
creasing demands from the region's groundwater produc-
ers, provides a reliable water supply in times of drought,
and reduces the area's dependence on imported water.
The GWR System will take treated secondary wastewa-
ter from OCSD (activated sludge and trickling filter efflu-
ent) and purify it using microfiltration (MF), reverse os-
mosis (RO) and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. Lime is added
to stabilize the water. This low-salinity water (less than
100 mg/l TDS) will be injected into the seawater barrier
or percolated through the ground into Orange County's
aquifers, where it will blend with groundwater from other
sources, including imported and Santa Ana River
stormwater, to improve the water quality. The GWR Sys-
tem will produce a peak daily production capacity of 78,400
acre-feet per year (70 mgd or 26,500 m3/yr) in the initial
phase and will ultimately produce nearly 145,600 acre-
65
-------
feet per year (130 mgd or 492,100 m3/yr) of a new, reli-
able, safe drinking water supply, enough to serve over
200,000 families. Over time, the water produced by the
GWR System will lower the salinity of groundwater by
replacing the high-TDS water currently percolated into
the groundwater basin with low-TDS reclaimed water from
the GWR System. The project conforms to the California
State Constitution by acknowledging the value of re-
claimed water. Less energy is used to produce the GWR
System water than would be required to import an equiva-
lent volume of water, reducing overall electrical power
demand in the region.
The GWR System will also expand the existing seawater
intrusion barrier to protect the Orange County groundwa-
ter basin from further degradation. The groundwater lev-
els have been lowered significantly in some areas of the
groundwater basin due to the substantial coastal pump-
ing required to meet peak summer potable water de-
mands. The objective of the barrier is to create a continu-
ous mound of freshwater that is higher than sea level, so
that the seawater cannot migrate into the aquifer. As
groundwater pumping activities increase, so do the
amounts of freshwater required to maintain the protec-
tive mound. OCWD currently operates 26 injection wells
to supply water to the barrier first created in the mid
1970s. Additional water is required to maintain a suitable
barrier. To determine optimal injection well capacities and
locations, a Talbert Gap groundwater computer model
was constructed and calibrated for use as a predictive
tool. Based on the modeling analysis, 4 new barrier wells
will be constructed in an alignment along the Santa Ana
River to cut off saltwater intrusion at the east end of the
Talbert Gap. The modeling results also indicate that a
western extension of the existing barrier is required.
Twelve new barrier wells will be constructed at the west-
ern end of the Talbert Gap to inhibit saltwater intrusion
under the Huntington Beach mesa.
The project benefits OCSD's wastewater management
effort as well as helping to meet Orange County's water
supply requirements. The GWR System conforms to the
OCSD Charter, which supports water reuse as a scarce
natural resource. By diverting peak wastewater effluent
discharges, the need to construct a new ocean outfall is
deferred, saving OCSD over $175 million in potential
construction costs. These savings will be used to help
off-set the cost of the GWR system where OCSD will
pay for half of the Phase 1 construction. The GWR Sys-
tem also reduces the frequency of emergency discharges
near the shore, which are a significant environmental is-
sue with the local beach communities.
2.7.16 An Investigation of Soil Aquifer
Treatment for Sustainable Water
An intensive study, entitled, "An Investigation of Soil
Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse," was
conducted to assess the sustainability of several differ-
ent SAT systems with different site characteristics and
effluent pretreatments (AWWARF, 2001). The sites se-
lected for study and key characteristics of the sites are
presented in Table 2-15.
Main objectives of the study were to: (1) examine the
sustainability of SAT systems leading to indirect potable
reuse of reclaimed water; (2) characterize the processes
that contribute to removal of organics, nitrogen, and vi-
ruses during transport through the infiltration interface,
soil percolation zone, and underlying groundwater aqui-
fer; and (3) develop relationships among above-ground
treatment and SAT for use by regulators and utilities.
The study reported the following results:
• Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) present in SAT prod-
uct water was composed of natural organic matter
(NOM), soluble microbial products that resemble
NOM, and trace organics.
• Characterization of the DOC in SAT product water
determined that the majority of organics present were
not of anthropenic origin.
• The frequency of pathogen detection in SAT prod-
ucts waters could not be distinguished from the fre-
quency of pathogen detection in other groundwaters.
• Nitrogen removal during SAT was sustained by
anaerobic ammonia oxidation.
The study reported the following impacts:
• Effluent pretreatment did not affect final SAT prod-
uct water with respect to organic carbon concentra-
tions. A watershed approach may be used to predict
SAT product water quality.
• Removal of organics occurred under saturated an-
oxic conditions and a vadose zone was not neces-
sary for an SAT system. If nitrogen removal is de-
sired during SAT, nitrogen must be applied in a re-
duced form, and a vadose zone combined with soils
that can exchange ammonium ions is required.
66
-------
Table 2-15.
Field Sites for Wetlands/SAT Research
Facility
Sweetwater Wetlands/Recharge
Facility, AZ
Mesa Northwest, AZ
Phoenix Tres Rios Cobble Site, AZ
Rio Hondo/Montebello Forebay, CA
San Gabriel/Montebello Forebay, CA
Riverside Water Quality Control Plant Hidden
Valley Wetlands, CA
East Valley (Hansen Spreading Grounds), CA
Avra Valley Wastewater Treatment
Facility, AZ
Key Site Characteristics
Deep vadose zone (>100 feet) with extensive vadose zone monitoring
capabilities and several shallow groundwater wells located downgradient.
Shallow vadose zone (5-20 feet). Multi-depth sampling capabilities below
basins. Array of shallow groundwater wells located from 500 feet to greater
than 10,000 feet from recharge site.
Horizontal flow and shallow (<21 feet) saturated zone sampling capabilities.
Majority of flow infiltrates into groundwater.
Vadose zone (20-50 feet). Water supply is a mixture of reclaimed water and
other available water sources. Multi-depth sampling capabilities.
Shallow vadose zone (10-20 feet). Water supply is a mixture of reclaimed
water and other available water sources. Multi-depth sampling capabilities.
Horizontal flow and shallow (<3 feet) vadose zone sampling capabilities.
Approximately 25% of flow infiltrates into groundwater.
Deep vadose zone (>100 feet). Multi-depth and downgradient sampling
capabilities exist.
Wastewater treatment applied is similar to facilities in Mesa and Phoenix,
Arizona. However, drinking water supply is based only on local groundwater.
• The distribution of disinfection by-products produced
during chlorination of SAT product water was affected
by elevated bromide concentrations in reclaimed wa-
ter.
2.7.17 The City of West Palm Beach, Florida
Wetlands-Based Water Reclamation
Project
The City of West Palm Beach water supply system con-
sists of a 20-square-mile (52-km2) water catchment area
and surface water allocation from Lake Okeechobee,
which flows to a canal network that eventually terminates
at Clear Lake, where the City's water treatment plant is
located. As part of the Everglades restoration program,
the timing, location, and quantity of water releases to the
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) ca-
nals from Lake Okechobee will be modified. More water
will be directed towards the Everglades for hydropattern
restoration and less water will be sent to the SFWMD
canals. This translates into less water available for wa-
ter supplies in the lower east coast area. Therefore, indi-
rect potable reuse, reuse for aquifer recharge purposes,
and aquifer storage and recovery are some of the alter-
native water supply strategies planned by the City of West
Palm Beach.
The City of West Palm Beach has developed a program
to use highly treated waste water from their East Central
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (ECRWWTP) for
beneficial reuse including augmentation of their drinking
water supply. Presently, all of the wastewater effluent
from the ECRWWTP (approximately 35 mgd [1,530 l/s]
average daily flow) is injected over 3,000 feet (914
meters) into the groundwater (boulder zone) using 6 deep
wells. Rather than continuing to dispose of the wastewa-
ter effluent, the City of West Palm Beach developed the
Wetlands-Based Water Reclamation Project (WBWRP).
The project flow path is shown in Figure 2-17.
To protect and preserve its surface water supply system
and to develop this reuse system to augment the water
supply, the City purchased a 1,500-acre (607-hectare)
wetland reuse site. This site consists of a combination
of wetlands and uplands. A portion of this property was
used for the construction of a standby wellfield. The
standby wellfield site covers an area of 323 acres (131
hectares) and consists of wetlands and uplands domi-
nated by Melaleuca trees. Two important goals of the
project were to: (1) develop an advanced wastewater treat-
ment facility at the ECRWWTP that could produce re-
claimed water that, when discharged, would be compat-
ible with the hydrology and water quality at the wetland
67
-------
reuse site, and (2) produce a reliable water supply to
augment the City's surface water supply. Treatment was
to be provided by the reclaimed water production facility,
wetlands, and through aquifer recharge. Groundwater with-
drawal would meet drinking water and public health stan-
dards. Monitoring was performed at the wetland reuse
site from July 1996 to August 1997. The purpose of this
monitoring was to establish baseline conditions in the
wetlands prior to reclaimed water application and to de-
termine the appropriate quality of the reclaimed water
that will be applied to the wetland reuse site. In addition
to the monitoring of background hydrology, groundwater
quality, and surface water quality, the baseline-monitor-
ing program investigated sediment quality, vegetation,
fish, and the presence of listed threatened and endan-
gered plant and animal species. Groundwater samples
from the wetland reuse site and the standby wellfield met
the requirements for drinking water except for iron. Iron
was detected in excess of the secondary drinking water
standards of 0.3 mg/l at all of the wells, but not in ex-
cess of the Class III surface water quality criteria of 1.0
mg/l. Total nitrogen (TN) concentrations in the wetlands
ranged from 0.67 mg/l to 3.85 mg/l with an average value
of 1.36 mg/l. The concentration of total phosphorus (TP)
was low throughout the wetlands, ranging from less than
0.01 to 0.13 mg/l, with an average value of 0.027 mg/l.
In 1995, the City of West Palm Beach constructed a
150,000-gpd (6.6-l/s) AWT constructed wetlands demon-
stration project. The goals of this project were to demon-
strate that an AWT facility could produce an effluent qual-
ity of total suspended solids (TSS), 5-day carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5), TN, and TP goals
of 5, 5, 3, and 1 mg/l, respectively, and that wetlands
could provide some additional treatment prior to discharge.
The demonstration facility met the AWT goals as well as
all of the surface water quality standards, state and fed-
eral drinking water standards (except for iron), and all
public health standards (absence of Cryptosporidum, Gia-
rdia, enteric viruses, and coliforms).
A hydrologic model capable of simulating both ground-
water flow and overland flow was constructed and cali-
brated to assess the hydrology, hydrogeology, and po-
tential hydraulic conveyance characteristics within the
project area. The model indicated that maintenance of
viable wetlands (i.e., no extended wet or dry periods)
can be achieved at the wetland reuse site, the standby
wellfield, and with aquifer recharge to augment the wa-
ter supply.
Reclaimed water will initially be applied to the wetland
reuse site at a rate of 2 inches (5 cm) per week, which
corresponds to a reclaimed water flow of approximately
6 mgd (263 l/s) over 770 acres (312 hectares) of the
1,415-acre (573-hectare) site. The results of the model-
ing indicate that up to 6 mgd (263 l/s) of reclaimed water
can be applied to the wetland reuse site without produc-
ing more than an 8-inch (20-cm) average rise in surface
water levels in the wetlands. A particle tracking analysis
was conducted to evaluate the fate of discharge at the
wetland reuse site and the associated time of travel in
the surficial aquifer. The particle tracking analysis indi-
cated that the travel time from the point of reclaimed
Figure 2-17. Project Flow Path
I Wetlands H —\\
| Reuse ^jijej A •*
A_ *~
68
-------
water application to the point of groundwater discharge
(from the standby wellfield to the M Canal) ranged from 2
to 34 years. The M Canal flows into the City's surface
water reservoir.
Based on the results of the demonstration project, a 10-
mgd (438-l/s) reclaimed water facility was designed with
operational goals for TN and TP of less than 2.0 mg/l
and 0.05 mg/l (on an annual average basis) respectively,
in order to minimize change in the wetland vegetation. A
commitment to construction and operation of a high-quality
reclaimed water facility has been provided to meet these
stringent discharge requirements.
Public participation for this project consisted of holding
several tours and meetings with regulatory agencies,
public health officials, environmental groups, media, and
local residents from the early planning phases through
project design. Brochures describing the project driv-
ers, proposed processes, safety measures, and ben-
efits to the community were identified. A public relations
firm was also hired to help promote the project to elected
officials and state and federal policy makers.
2.7.18 Types of Reuse Applications in
Florida
Florida receives an average of more than 50 inches (127
cm) of rainfall each year. While the state may appear to
have an abundance of water, continuing population
growth, primarily in the coastal areas, contributes to in-
creased concerns about water availability. The result is
increased emphasis on water conservation and reuse as
a means to more effectively manage state water re-
sources (FDEP, 2002a).
By state statute, Florida established the encouragement
and promotion of water reuse as formal state objectives
(Yorkef a/., 2002). In response, the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP), along with the
state's water management districts and other state agen-
cies, have implemented comprehensive programs de-
signed to achieve these objectives.
As shown in Figure 2-18, the growth of reuse in Florida
during 1986 to 2001 has been remarkable (FDEP, 2002b).
In 2001, reuse capacity totaled 1,151 mgd (50,400 l/s),
which represented about 52 percent of the total permit-
ted capacity of all domestic wastewater treatment facili-
ties in the state. About 584 mgd (25,580 l/s) of reclaimed
water were used for beneficial purposes in 2001.
The centerpiece of Florida's Water Reuse Program is a
detailed set of rules governing water reuse. Chapter 62-
610, Florida Administrative Code (Florida DEP, 1999),
Figure 2-18. Growth of Reuse in Florida
9 1200
O)
r 900
g. 600
g 300
o>
tt 0
1986 1990 1996
Year
2001
Source: Florida DEP, 2002b
includes discussion of landscape irrigation, agricultural
irrigation, industrial uses, groundwater recharge, indirect
potable reuse, and a wide range of urban reuse activi-
ties. This rule also addresses reclaimed water ASR, blend-
ing of demineralization concentrate with reclaimed wa-
ter, and the use of supplemental water supplies.
Given the complexity of the program and the number of
entities involved, program coordination is critical. The
Reuse Coordinating Committee, which consists of repre-
sentatives of the Florida DEP, Florida's 5 water manage-
ment districts, Florida Department of Health, the Public
Service Commission, Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services and Florida Department of Com-
munity Affairs, meets regularly to discuss reuse activi-
ties and issues. In addition, permitting staffs from the
water management districts and the Florida DEP meet
regularly to discuss local reuse issues and to bring po-
tential reclaimed water users and suppliers together. In-
deed, statutory and rule provisions mandate the use of
reclaimed water and implementation of reuse programs
(York et a/., 2002).
Florida's Water Reuse Program incorporates a number
of innovations and advancements. Of note is the "Sfafe-
ment of Support for Water Reuse", which was signed by
the heads of the agencies comprising the Reuse Coordi-
nating Committee. EPA Region 4 also participated as a
signatory party. The participating agencies committed to
encouraging, promoting, and facilitating water reuse in
Florida.
In addition, working as a partner with the Water Reuse
Committee of the Florida Water Environment Associa-
tion, Florida DEP developed the "Code of Good Prac-
tices for Water Reuse." This is a summary of key man-
agement, operation, and public involvement concepts that
define quality reuse programs.
69
-------
As outlined in the Water Conservation Initiative (FDEP,
2002a), the future of Florida's Water Reuse Program will
be guided by the need to ensure that reclaimed water is
used efficiently and effectively in Florida (York et a/.,
2002). The Water Conservation Initiative report contains
15 strategies for encouraging efficiency and effective-
ness in the Water Reuse Program.
2.7.19 Regionalizing Reclaimed Water in
the Tampa Bay Area
The Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFMWD) is one of 5 water management districts in
the state responsible for permitting groundwater and sur-
face water withdrawals. The Tampa Bay area is within
the SWFWMD and has experienced prolonged growth
that has strained potable water supplies. A profile of the
Tampa Bay area is given below:
• Home to nearly 2.5 million people who live in the 3
counties (Pasco, Hillsborough, and Pinellas) referred
to as the Tampa Bay area.
• The largest water user group in the Tampa Bay area
is the public, using 306.2 million mgd (13,410 l/s),
representing 64 percent of the water total use in the
area in the year 2000. There are 38 wastewater treat-
ment facilities in the Tampa Bay area operated by
19 public and private utilities. In 2000 these facili-
ties:
Figure 2-19. Available Reclaimed Water in Pasco, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties
Southwest Florida Water Management District
Available Reclaimed Water in
Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough
Counties - Dry Year (2000)
Total WWTP Flow (mgd)
O °-2
O
O
2-10
10-20
^ J
20-40
40-80
O % RW used in 2000
O % RW unused in 2000
70
-------
- Produced an annual average of 201 mgd (8,800
l/s) of treated wastewater.
- 73 mgd (3,200 l/s) of reclaimed water was used
for beneficial purposes, representing 36 percent
use of available flows.
- Of the 73 mgd (3,200 l/s), 44 mgd (1,930 l/s) (60
percent) of reclaimed water replaced the use of
traditional, high-quality (potable) water resources.
As the regulatory authority responsible for managing
water supplies in the region, SWFWMD views the offset
achieved through use of reclaimed water as an important
contribution to the regional water supply. The District's
"Regional Water Supply Plan" includes a goal to effec-
tively use 75 percent of available reclaimed water re-
sources in order to offset existing or new uses of high
quality water sources. The objectives to meet the goal
by 2020 or earlier are collectively designed to enhance
the use and efficiency of reclaimed water by:
• Maximizing reclaimed water locally to meet water
demands in service areas
• Increasing the efficiency of use through technology
for dealing with wet-weather flows and demand man-
agement (i.e., meters, education, etc.)
• Interconnecting systems to move excess flows to
areas where the water is needed, when it is needed,
for a regional water resource benefit
There is not enough reclaimed water in the Tampa Bay
area to meet all of the irrigation and other needs in the
region. However, there are opportunities to transport ex-
cess reclaimed water flows that cannot be used locally
to achieve benefits to areas of high demand or other ben-
eficial uses, such as natural system restoration. As a
first step in evaluating how reclaimed water may be used
in the Tampa Bay Area, the SWFWMD developed an
inventory of existing water reclamation facilities, their
locations, total flow and flows already committed to ben-
eficial reuse, and flows that might be available for an
expanded reuse program (Figure 2-19). Subsequent plan-
ning efforts will build on this information to evaluate in-
terconnections between reuse systems for optimal use.
2.8
References
When a National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
number is cited in a reference, that reference is available
from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
Adamski, R., S. Gyory, A. Richardson, and J. Crook.
2000. "The Big Apple Takes a Bite Out of Water Reuse."
2000 Water Reuse Conference Proceedings, January 30
- February 2, 2000. San Antonio, Texas.
American Water Works Association, California-Nevada
Section. 1997. Guidelines for the Onsite Retrofit of Fa-
cilities Using Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water.
American Waterworks Association Research Founda-
tion (AWWARF); KIWA. 1988. "The Search for a Surro-
gate," American Water Works Association Research
Foundation, Denver, Colorado.
American Waterworks Association Research Founda-
tion (AWWARF). 2001. "An Investigation of Soil Aquifer
Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse." Order Num-
ber 90855.
Babcock, R., C. Ray, and T. Huang. 2002. "Fate of Phar-
maceuticals in Soil Following Irrigation with Recycled
Water." WEFTEC 2002 Proceedings of the 75th Annual
Conference and Exposition, McCormick Place, Chicago,
Illinois.
Bouwer, H. 1991. "Role of Groundwater Recharge in Treat-
ment and Storage of Wastewater for Reuse." Water Sci-
ence Technology, 24:295-302.
Bouwer, H. 1991. "Simple Derivation of the Retardation
Equation and Application to Referential Flow and
Macrodispersion." Groundwater, 29(1): 41-46.
Bouwer, H. 1988. "Systems for Artificial Recharge for
Groundwater." Proceedings of the International Sympo-
sium. Annaheim, California. American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Bouwer, H., and R.C. Rice. 1989. "Effect of Water Depth
in Groundwater Recharge Basins on Infiltration Rate."
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 115:556-
568.
71
-------
Calabrese, E.J., C.E. Gilbert, and H. Pastides. 1989.
Safe Drinking Water Act, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea,
Michigan.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 2002.
2002 Statewide Recycled Water Survey.California State
Water Resources Control Board, Office of Water Recy-
cling, Sacramento, California. Available from
www.swrcb.ca.gov/recycling/recyfund/munirec/
index.html.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1990.
California Municipal Wastewater Reclamation in 1987.
California State Water Resources Control Board, Office
of Water Recycling, Sacramento, California.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1980.
Evaluation of Industrial Cooling Systems Using Reclaimed
Municipal Wastewater. California State Water Resources
Control Board, Office of Water Recycling, Sacramento,
California.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 2001. City of Orlando, Phase
I Eastern Regional Reclaimed Water Distribution Sys-
tem. Prepared for the City of Orlando, Florida, by Camp
Dresser & McKee Inc., Maitland, Florida.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1990a. City of Boca Raton,
Florida Reclaimed Water System Master Plan. Prepared
for the City of Boca Raton, Florida, by Camp Dresser &
McKee Inc., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1990b. Effluent Reuse Fea-
sibility Study and Master Plan for Urban Reuse. Pre-
pared for the Manatee County Public Works Department
and the Southwest Florida Water Management District
by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Sarasota, Florida.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1987. City of St. Peters-
burg Reclaimed Water System Master Plan Update.
Prepared for the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, by Camp
Dresser & McKee Inc., Clearwater, Florida.
Carlson, R.R., K.D. Lindstedt, E.R. Bennett, and R.B.
Hartman. 1982. "Rapid Infiltration Treatment of Primary
and Secondary Effluents." Journal WPCF, 54: 270-280.
Chalmers, R.B., M. Patel, W. Sevenandt and D. Cutler.
2003. Meeting the Challenge of Providing a Reliable Water
Supply for the Future, the Groundwater Replenishment
System. WEFTEC2003.
City of Yelm. 2003. 2003 Ground Water Monitoring and
Use Information. Provided by Shelly Badger, City Ad-
ministrator, and Jon Yanasek, Operator-in-Charge. Yelm,
Washington.
Cronk, J.K., and M.S. Fennessy. 2001. "Wetland Plants:
Biology and Ecology." Lewis Publishers.
Crook, J. 1990. "Water Reclamation." Encyclopedia of
Physical Science and Technology. R. Myers (ed.), Aca-
demic Press, Inc., pp. 157-187. San Diego, California.
Crook, J., T. Asano, and M.H. Nellor. 1990. "Ground-
water Recharge with Reclaimed Water in California."
Water Environment and Technology, 2 (8), 42-49.
Cuyk, S.V., R. Siegrist, A. Logan, S. Massen, E. Fischer,
and L. Figueroa. 1999. "Purification of Wastewater in Soil
Treatment Systems as Affected by Infiltrative Surface
Character and Unsaturated Soil Depth." Water Environ-
ment Federation, WEFTEC99, Conference Proceedings.
Daughton, C.G., and T.A. Temes. 1999. "Pharmaceuti-
cals and Personal Care Products in the Environment:
Agents of Subtle Change?" Environmental Health Per-
spectives, 107, supplement. December, 1999.
DeStefano, Eugene, C. 2000. "Panda Perkiomen Power
Plant Supply Water Quality Comparisons." Memoran-
dum dated September 13,2000.
Dorica, J., P. Ramamurthy, and A. Elliott. 1998. "Reuse
of Biologically Treated Effluents in Pulp and Paper Op-
erations" Report MR 372. Pulp and Paper Institute of
Canada.
Drewes J., M. Reinhardt and P. Fox. 2003. "Comparing
Microfiltration/Reverse Osmosis and Soil Aquifer Treat-
ment for Indirect Potable Reuse of Water", Water Re-
search, 37,3612-3621.
Drewes, J.E., P. Fox, and M Jekel. 2001. "Occurrence
of lodinated X-Ray Contrast Media in Domestic Efflu-
ents and Their Fate During Indirect Potable Reuse", Jour-
nal of Environmental Science and Health, A36, 1633-
1646.
Engineering Science. 1987. "Monterey Wastewater Rec-
lamation Study for Agriculture." Prepared for Monterey
Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, Monterey, Cali-
fornia.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002a.
Florida Water Conservation Initiative. Florida Department
of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida.
72
-------
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002b.
2001 Reuse Inventory. Florida Department of Environ-
mental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999.
"Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application."
Chapter 62-610, Florida Administrative Code. Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee,
Florida.
Fox, P. 2002. "Soil Aquifer Treatment: An Assessment
of Sustainability." Management of Aquifer Recharge for
Sustainability. A.A. Balkema Publishers.
Fox, P. 1999. "Advantages of Aquifer Recharge for a Sus-
tainable Water Supply" United Nations Environmental
Programme/International Environmental Technology Cen-
tre International Symposium on Efficient Water Use in
Urban Areas, Kobe, Japan, June 8-10, pp. 163-172.
Fox, P., Naranaswamy, K. and J.E. Drewes. 2001. "Wa-
ter Quality Transformations during Soil Aquifer Treat-
ment at the Mesa Northwest Water Reclamation Plant,
USA,", Water Science and Technology, 43,10,343-350.
Fox, P. 2002. "Soil Aquifer Treatment: An Assessment
of Sustainability." Management of Aquifer Recharge for
Sustainability: A. A. Balkema Publishers. Lisse, 9.21-
26.
Fox, P., J. Gable. 2003. "Sustainable Nitrogen Removal
by Anaerobic Ammonia Oxidation During Soil Aquifer
Treatment." Water Environment Federation, 2003
WEFTEC Conference Proceedings:, Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia.
Gagliardo, P., B. Pearce, G. Lehman, and S. Adham.
2002. "Use of Reclaimed Water for Industrial Applica-
tions." 2002 WateReuse Symposium. September 8 -
11. Orlando, Florida
Gearheart, R. A. 1988. "Arcata's Innovative Treatment
Alternative." Proceedings of a Conference on Wetlands
for Wastewater Treatment and Resource Enhancement.
August 2-4, 1988. Humboldt State University. Arcata,
California.
Gerba, C.P., and S.M. Goyal. 1985. "Pathogen Removal
from Wastewater During Groundwater Recharge." Arti-
ficial Recharge ofGroundwater. T. Asano (ed.), pp. 283-
317. Butterworth Publishers. Boston, Massachusetts.
Godlewski, V.J., Jr., B. Reneau, and R. Elmquist. 1990.
"Apopka, Florida: A Growing City Implements Benefi-
cial Reuse." 1990 Biennial Conference Proceedings.
National Water Supply Improvement Association. Vol. 2.
August 19-23,1990. Buena Vista, Florida.
Gordon, C., K. Wall, S. Toze, and G. O'Hara. 2002. "In-
fluence of Conditions on the Survival of Enteric Viruses
and Indicator Organisms in Groundwater" Management
of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A. A. Balkema
Publishers. Lisse, p. 133-138.
Grisham, A., and W.M. Fleming. 1989. "Long-Term Op-
tions for Municipal Water Conservation." Journal AWWA,
81:34-42.
Haynes, D. C., "Water Recycling in the Pulp and Paper
Industry." TAPPI. Vol 57. No. 4. April, 1974.
Hirsekorn, R.A., and R.A. Ellison. 1987. "Sea Pines Public
Service District Implements a Comprehensive Reclaimed
Water System." Water Reuse Symposium IV Proceed-
ings. August 2-7,1987. Denver, Colorado.
Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff. 1986a. Design
Report: Dual-Distribution System (Reclaimed Water sup-
ply, Storage and Transmission System), Project APRI-
COT. Prepared for the City of Altamonte Springs, Florida,
by Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff. Orlando,
Florida.
Irvine Ranch Water District. 1991. Water Resource Mas-
ter Plan. Irvine, California.
Irvine Ranch Water District. 1990. Engineer's Report: Use
of Reclaimed Water for Flushing Toilets and Urinals, and
Floor Drain Trap Priming in the Restroom Facilities at
Jamboree Tower. Irvine, California.
Irvine Ranch Water District. 2003. Water Reclamation
website www.IRWD.com.
International Water Association (IWA). 2000. "Constructed
Wetlands for Pollution Control: Process, Performance,
Design and Operation." Specialist Group on Use of Mac-
rophytes in Water Pollution Control. IWA Publishing.
Jackson, J. 1989. "Man-made Wetlands for Wastewater
Treatment: Two Case Studies." D.A. Hammer Ed. Con-
structed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Municipal
Industrial and Agricultural. Lewis Publishers. P 574-580.
Jaques, R.S. 1997. "Twenty Years in the Making - Now a
Reality, Nations Largest Project to Provide Recycled
Water for Irrigation of Vegetable Crops Begins Opera-
tions." Proceedings for the Water Environment Federa-
tion, 70th Annual Conference and Exposition, October
18-122, 1997. Chicago, Illinois.
73
-------
Johns, F.L., R. J. Neal, and R. P. Arber Associates, Inc.
1987. "Maximizing Water Resources in Aurora, Colo-
rado Through Reuse." Water Reuse Symposium IV Pro-
ceedings. August 2-7, 1987. Denver, Colorado.
Johnson, L.J., and J. Crook, 1998, "Using Reclaimed
Water in Building for Fire Suppressions." Proceedings
of the Water Environment Federation 71st Annual Con-
ference and Exposition. Orlando, Florida.
Johnson, W.D. 1998. "Innovative Augmentation of a
Community's Water Supply-The St. Petersburg, Florida
Experience." Proceedings of the Water Environment Fed-
eration, 71st Annual Conference and Exposition. October
3-7,1998. Orlando, Florida.
Joint Task Force. 1998. Using Reclaimed Waterto Aug-
ment Potable Water Supplies. Special publication pre-
pared by a joint task force of the Water Environment
Federation and the American Water Works Association.
Published by the Water Environment Federation. Alex-
andria, Virginia.
Kadlec, R.H., and R.L. Knight. 1996. "Treatment Wet-
lands." Lewis Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Khan, S. J., and E. Rorije. 2002. "Pharmaceutically ac-
tive compounds in aquifer storage and recovery." Man-
agement of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability. A. A.
Belkema Publishers. Lisse, P. 169-179.
Kopchynski, T., Fox, P., Alsmadi, B. and M. Berner.
1996. "The Effects of Soil Type and Effluent Pre-Treat-
menton Soil Aquifer Treatment", Wat. Sci. Tech., 34:11,
pp. 235-242.
Lance, J.C., R.C. Rice, and R.G. Gilbert. 1980. "Reno-
vation of Sewage Water by Soil Columns Flooded with
Primary Effluent." Journal WPCF, 52(2): 381 -388.
Lauer, W.C. 1991. "Denver's Direct Potable Water Re-
use Demonstration Project." Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Desalination Association. Conference on Desali-
nation and Water Reuse. Topsfield, Massachusetts.
Lindsey, P., R., K. Waters, G. Fell, and A. Setka
Harivandi. 1996. "The Design and Construction of a Dem-
onstration/Research Garden Comparing the Impact of
Recycled vs. Potable Irrigation Water on Landscape
Plants, Soils and Irrigation Components." Water Reuse
Conference Proceedings. American Waterworks Asso-
ciation. Denver, Colorado.
Longoria, R.R., D.W. Sloan, and S.M. Jenkins. 2000.
"Rate Setting for Industrial Reuse in San Marcos, Texas."
2000. WateReuse Conference Proceedings, January 30
- February 2, 2003. San Antonio, Texas.
Lundt, M. M., A. Clapham, B.W. Hounan, and R.E. Fin-
ger. 1996. "Cooling with Wastewater." Water Reuse
Conference Proceedings. American Water Works As-
sociation, Denver, Colorado.
McNeal, M.B. 2002. "Aquifer Storage Recovery has a
Significant Role in Florida's Reuse Future." 2002
WateReuse Symposium, September 8 - 11. Orlando,
Florida.
Medema, G. J., and P. J. Stuyzand. 2002. "Removal of
Micro-organisms upon Recharge, Deep Well Injection and
River Bank Infiltration in the Netherlands." Management
of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A. A. Belkema
Publishers. Lisse, p. 125-131.
Mills, W. R. 2002. "The Quest for Water Through Artifi-
cial Recharge and Wastewater Recycling." Management
of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A. A. Balkema
Publishers, p. 3-10.
Miyamoto, S., and J. White. 2002. "Foliar Salt Damage
of Landscape Plants Induced by Sprinkler Irrigation."
Texas Water Resources Inst. TR 1202.
Miyamoto, S. 2003. "Managing Salt Problems in Land-
scape Use of Reclaimed Water in the Southwest." Pro-
ceedings of the Reuse Symposium. 2003. San Diego,
California.
National Research Council. 1998. Issues in Potable Re-
use. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1980. Drinking Water and
Health, Vol. 2. pp. 252-253. National Academy Press.
Washington, D.C.
NCASI. 2003. Memo report from Jay Unwin. April 23,
2003.
Nellor, M.H., R.B. Baird, and J.R. Smyth. 1985. "Health
Effects of Indirect Potable Reuse." Journal AWWA.
77(7): 88-96.
Oaksford, E.T. 1985. Artificial Recharge: Methods, Hy-
draulics, and Monitoring. In: Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater. T. Asano (ed) pp 69-127, Butterworth
Publishers, Boston Massachusetts.
Olsthoorn, T. N., and M. J. M. Mosch. 2002. "Fifty years
Artificial in the Amsterdam Dune Area, In. Management
74
-------
of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability." A. A. Balkema
Publishers, Lisse, p. 29-33.
Ornelas, D., and D. Brosman. 2002. "Distribution Sys-
tem Startup Challenges for El Paso Water Utilities." 2002
Reuse Symposium. Orlando, Florida.
Ornelas, D., and S. Miyamoto. 2003. "Sprinkler Conver-
sion for Minimizing Foliar Salt Damage." Proceedings of
the WateReuse Symposium. 2003. San Antonio, Texas.
Overman, A.R., and W.G. Leseman. 1982. "Soil and
Groundwater Changes under Land Treatment of Waste-
water." Transactions oftheASAE. 25(2): 381-87.
Payne, J.F., A. R. Overman, M. N. Allhands, and W. G.
Leseman. 1989. "Operational Characteristics of a Waste-
water Irrigation System." Applied Engineering in Agricul-
ture, Vol. 5(3): 355-60.
PBS&J. 1992. Lakeside Lake Load Analysis Study Pre-
pared for Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Peyton, D. 2002. "Modified Recharge Basin Floors to
Control Sediment and Maximize Infiltration Efficiency.
Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A.
A. Balkema Publishers. Lisse, p. 215-220.
Piet, G.J. and B.C.J. Zoeteman. 1980. Organic Water
Quality Changes During Sand Bank and Dune Filtration
of Surface Waters in the Netherlands. Journal AWWA,
72(7)400-414.
Public Health Service. 1962. Drinking Water Standards.
Publication No. 956, Washington, D.C.
Pyne, R.D.G. 2002. "Groundwater Recharge and Wells:
A Guide to Aquifer Storage Recovery." Lewis Publish-
ers, Boca Raton, Florida, p. 376.
Pyne. 1995. Groundwater Recharge and Wells: A Guide
to Aquifer Storage and Recovery. CRC. Boca Raton.
Raines, H.K., B. Geyer, M. Bannister, C. Weeks, and T.
Richardson. 2002. "Food Crop Irrigation with Recycled
Water is Alive and Well in California." 2002 WateReuse
Symposium, September 8-11. Orlando, Florida.
Reed, S. and R. Bastian. 1991. "Potable Water Via Land
Treatment and AWT." Water Environment & Technol-
ogy. 3(8): 40-47.
Rice, R.C., and H. Bouwer. 1980. "Soil-AquiferTreatment
Using Primary Effluent." Journal WPCF. 51 (1): 84-88.
Richardson, T.G. 1998. "Reclaimed Water for Residen-
tial Toilet Flushing: Are We Ready?" Water Reuse Con-
ference Proceedings, American Water Works Associa-
tion, Denver, Colorado.
Rowe, D.R. and I.M. Abdel-Magid. 1995. Handbook of
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. CRC Press, Inc.
550 p.
SAWS website. 2004. www.saws.org.
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. 2002. 2007-
2002 Annual Groundwater Recharge Monitoring Report.
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Whittier,
California.
Sedlak, D.L., J.L. Gray, and K.E. Pinkston. 2000. "Un-
derstanding Microcontaminants in Recycled Water," Env.
Sci. Tech. News. 34(23).
Skjemstad, J. O., M. H. B. Hayes, and R. S. Swift. 2002.
"Changes in Natural Organic Matter During Aquifer Stor-
age. Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability:
A. A. Balkema Publishers. Lisse, p. 149-154.
Sloss, E., D. F. McCaffrey, R. D. Fricker, S. A.
Geschwind, and B.R. Ritz. 1999. "Groundwater Recharge
with Reclaimed Water Birth Outcomes in Los Angeles
County, 1982-1993." RAND Corporation. Santa Monica,
California.
Sloss, E, S. A. Geschwind, D. F. McCaffrey, and B. R.
Ritz. 1996. "Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed Wa-
ter: An Epidemiologic Assessment in Los Angeles
County, 1987-1991." RAND Corporation. Santa Monica,
California.
Sontheimer, H. 1980. "Experience with Riverbank Filtra-
tion Along the Rhine River." Journal AWWA , 72(7): 386-
390.
Snyder, J. K., A. K. Deb, F. M. Grablutz, and S. B.
McCammon. 2002. "Impacts of Fire Flow and Distribu-
tion System Water Quality, Design, and Operation."
AWWA Research Foundation. Denver, Colorado.
Solley, Wayne B., R. R. Pierce, H. and A. Perlman. 1998.
"U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200: Estimated Use
of Water in the United States in 1995." Denver, Colo-
rado.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2002.
"Tampa Bay Area Regional Reclaimed Water Initiative."
75
-------
Southwest Florida Water Management District,
Brooksville, Florida.
State of California. 1987. Report of the Scientific Advi-
sory Panel on Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed
Wastewater. Prepared for State Water Resources Con-
trol Board, Department of Water Resources, and De-
partment of Health Services. Sacramento, California.
Stuyzand, P. J. 2002. "Quantifying the Hydrochemical
Impact and Sustainability of Artificial Recharge Systems.
Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A.
A. Balkema Publishers. Lisse, p. 77-82.
Tanji, K.K. (ed.) 1990. Agricultural Salinity Assessment
and Management. American Society of Civil Engineers.
New York, New York.
Thomas, M., G. Pihera, and B. Inham. 2002. "Con-
structed Wetlands and Indirect Potable Reuse in Clayton
County, Georgia." Proceedings of the Water Environment
Federation 75th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference
(on CD-ROM), September 28 - October 2, 2002. Chi-
cago, Illinois.
Toze, S., and J. Hanna. 2002. "The Survival Potential of
Enteric Microbial Pathogens in a Reclaimed Water ASR
Project." Management of Aquifer Recharge for
Sustainability: A. A. Balkems Publishers. Lisse, p. 139-
142.
Tsuchihashi, R., T. Asano, and R. H. Sakaji. 2002. "Health
Aspects of Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed Wa-
ter." Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability.
A. A. Belkema Publishers. Lisse, p. 11-20.
Turney, D.T., Lansey, K.E., Quanrud, D.M. and R. Arnold
(In Press) "Endocrine Disruption in Reclaimed Water:
Fate During Soil Aquifer Treatment." Journal of Environ-
mental Engineering.
U.S. EPA. 2001. "Removal of Endocrine Disrupter Chemi-
cals Using Drinking Water Treatment Processes." Tech-
nology Transfer and Support Division. Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/R-00/015.
U.S. EPA. 1999a. "Treatment Wetland Habitat and Wild-
life Use Assessment: Executive Summary" EPA832-S-
99-001. Office of Water. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1999b. "Free Water Surface Wetlands for
Wastewater Treatment: A Technology Assesment" EPA-
832-S-99-002. Off ice of Water. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Transport and Fate of Contaminants in
the Subsurface. EPA/625/4-89/019. EPA Center for En-
vironmental Research Information. Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. EPA. 1976. National Interim Primary Drinking Wa-
ter Regulations. U.S. EPA-570/9-76-003. Washington,
D.C.
Vickers, A. 2001. Handbook for Water Reuse and Con-
servation. Waterplow Press. Amherst, Mass.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2003. Facil-
ity Information. Provided by Glenn Pieritz, Regional
Engineer and Kathy Cupps, Water Reuse Lead. Olym-
pia, Washington.
WEF (Water Environment Federation). 2001. Manual
of Practice FD-16 Second Edition. Natural Systems for
Wastewater Treatment. Chapter 9: Wetland Systems.
Alexandria, Virginia.
Water Environment Federation and American Water
Works Association. 1998. Using Reclaimed Water to
Augment Potable Water Resources, USA. 1998.
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1989. Water Reuse
Manual of Practice, Second Edition. Water Pollution Con-
trol Federation, Alexandria, Virginia.
Wyvill, J. C., J.C. Adams, and G. E. Valentine. 1984.
"An Assessment of the Potential for Water Reuse in the
Pulp and Paper Industry." U.S. Department of the Inte-
rior Report No. RU-84/1. March, 1984.
Yarbrough, M. E. "Cooling Tower Blowdown Reduction at
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station." NACE Corro-
sion 93. Paper 650. Arizona Public Service Co. Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Sta. Lon C. Brouse, Calgon
Corporation, Phoenix, Arizona.
Yologe, O., R. Harris, and C. Hunt. 1996. "Reclaimed
Water: Responsiveness to Industrial Water Quality Con-
cerns,." Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. Ameri-
can Water Works Association. Denver, Colorado.
York, D.W., L. Walker-Coleman, and C. Ferraro. 2002.
"Florida's Water Reuse Program: Past, Present, and Fu-
ture Directions." Proceedings of Symposium XVII. Water
Reuse Association. Orlando, Florida.
Young, R.E., and T. R. Holliman. 1990. "Reclaimed Wa-
ter in Highrise Office Buildings." Proceedings ofConserv
90, August 12-16.1990. Phoenix, Arizona.
76
-------
CHAPTER 3
Technical Issues In Planning Water Reuse Systems
This chapter considers technical issues associated with
planning the beneficial reuse of reclaimed water derived
from domestic wastewater facilities. These technical is-
sues include the:
• Identification and characterization of potential de-
mands for reclaimed water
• Identification and characterization of existing sources
of reclaimed water to determine their potential for
reuse
• Treatment requirements for producing a safe and re-
liable reclaimed water that is suitable for its intended
applications
• Storage facilities required to balance seasonal fluc-
tuations in supply with fluctuations in demand
• Supplemental facilities required to operate a water
reuse system, such as conveyance and distribution
networks, operational storage facilities, alternative
supplies, and alternative disposal facilities
• Potential environmental impacts of implementing
water reclamation
• Identification of knowledge, skills, and abilities nec-
essary to operate and maintain the proposed sys-
tem
Technical issues of concern in specific reuse applica-
tions are discussed in Chapter 2, "Types of Reuse Ap-
plications."
3.1
Planning Approach
One goal of the Guidelines for Water Reuse is to outline
a systematic approach to planning for reuse so that plan-
ners can make sound preliminary judgments about the
local feasibility of reuse, taking into account the full range
of key issues that must be addressed in implementing
reclamation programs.
Figure 3-1 illustrates a 3-phase approach to reuse plan-
ning. This approach groups reuse planning activities into
successive stages that include preliminary investiga-
tions, screening of potential markets, and detailed evalu-
ation of selected markets. Each stage of activity builds
on previous stages until enough information is available
to develop a conceptual reuse plan and to begin negoti-
ating the details of reuse with selected users. At each
stage, from early planning through implementation, pub-
lic involvement efforts play an important role. Public in-
volvement efforts provide guidance to the planning pro-
cess and outline steps that must be taken to support
project implementation.
Figure 3-1. Phases of Reuse Program Planning
Initial Public Involvement Steps Toward Implementation
>
>
r
i
Preliminary
Investigations
>
i
t
t
Screening of
Potential Markets
>
i
f
^
Detailed Evaluation
of Selected Markets
77
-------
3.1.1
Preliminary Investigations
This is a fact-finding phase, meant to rough out physi-
cal, economic, and legal/institutional issues related to
water reuse planning. The primary task is to locate all
potential sources of effluent for reclamation and reuse
and all potential markets for reclaimed water. It is also
important to identify institutional constraints and enabling
powers that might affect reuse. This phase should be
approached with a broad view. Exploration of all possible
options at this early planning stage will establish a prac-
tical context for the plan and also help to avoid creating
dead-ends in the planning process.
Questions to be addressed in this phase include:
• What local sources of effluent might be suitable for
reuse?
• What are the potential local markets for reclaimed
water?
• What other nontraditional freshwater supplies are
available for reuse?
• What are the present and projected reliability ben-
efits of fresh water in the area?
• What are the present and projected user costs of
fresh water in the area?
• What sources of funding might be available to sup-
port the reuse program?
• How would water reuse "integrate," or work in har-
mony with present uses of other water resources in
the area?
• What public health considerations are associated
with reuse, and how can these considerations be
addressed?
• What are the potential environmental impacts of wa-
ter reuse?
• What type of reuse system is likely to attract the
public's interest and support?
• What existing or proposed laws and regulations af-
fect reuse possibilities in the area?
• What local, state, or federal agencies must review
and approve implementation of a reuse program?
• What are the legal liabilities of a purveyor or user of
reclaimed water?
The major task of this phase involves conducting a pre-
liminary market assessment to identify potential re-
claimed water users. This calls for defining the water
market through discussions with water wholesalers and
retailers, and by identifying major water users in the
market. The most common tools used to gather this type
of information are telephone contacts and/or letters to
potential reuse customers. Often, a follow-up phone
contact is needed in order to determine what portion of
total water use might be satisfied by reclaimed water,
what quality of water is required for each type of use,
and how the use of reclaimed water might affect the
user's operations or discharge requirements.
This early planning stage is an ideal time to begin to
develop or reinforce strong working relationships, among
wastewater managers, water supply agencies, and po-
tential reclaimed water users. These working relation-
ships will help to develop solutions that best meet a
particular community's needs.
Potential users will be concerned with the quality of re-
claimed water and reliability of its delivery. They will also
want to understand state and local regulations that ap-
ply to the use of reclaimed water. Potential customers
will also want to know about constraints to using reclaimed
water. They may have questions about connection costs
or additional wastewater treatment costs that might af-
fect their ability to use the product.
3.1.2 Screening of Potential Markets
The essence of this phase is to compare the unit costs
of fresh water to a given market and the unit costs of
reclaimed water to that same market. On the basis of
information gathered in preliminary investigations, one or
more "intuitive projects" may be developed that are clear
possibilities, or that just "seem to make sense." For ex-
ample, if a large water demand industry is located next
to a wastewater treatment plant, there is a strong poten-
tial for reuse. The industry has a high demand for water,
and costs to convey reclaimed water would be low. Typi-
cally, the cost-effectiveness of providing reclaimed wa-
ter to a given customer is a function of the customer's
potential demand versus the distance of the customer
from the source of reclaimed water. In considering this
approach, it should be noted that a concentration of
smaller customers might represent a service area that
would be as cost-effective to serve as a single large user.
Once these anchor customers are identified, it is often
beneficial to search for smaller customers located along
the proposed path of the transmission system.
78
-------
The value of reclaimed water - even to an "obvious" po-
tential user will depend on the:
• Quality of water to be provided, as compared to the
user's requirements
• Quantity of fresh water available and the ability to
meet fluctuating demand
• Effects of laws that regulate reuse, and the attitudes
of agencies responsible for enforcing applicable laws
• Present and projected future cost of fresh water to
the user
These questions all involve detailed study, and it may
not be cost-effective for public entities to apply the re-
quired analyses to every possible reuse scenario. A
useful first step is to identify a wide range of candidate
reuse systems that might be suitable in the area and to
screen these alternatives. Then, only the most promising
project candidates move forward with detailed evaluations.
In order to establish a comprehensive list of reuse possi-
bilities, the following factors should be taken into account:
• Levels of treatment - if advanced wastewater treat-
ment (AWT) is currently required prior to discharge
of effluent, cost savings might be available if a mar-
ket exists for secondary treated effluent.
• Project size - the scale of reuse can range from
conveyance of reclaimed water to a single user up
to the general distribution of reclaimed water for a
variety of nonpotable uses.
• Conveyance network- different distribution routes
will have different advantages, taking better advan-
tage of existing rights-of-way, for example, or serv-
ing a greater number of users.
In addition to comparing the overall costs estimated for
each alternative, several other criteria can be factored
into the screening process. Technical feasibility may be
used as one criterion, and the comparison of estimated
unit costs of reclaimed water with unit costs of fresh wa-
ter, as another. An even more complex screening pro-
cess may include a comparison of weighted values for a
variety of objective and subjective factors, such as:
• How much flexibility would each system offer for fu-
ture expansion or change?
• How much fresh water use 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 asso-
ciated with each system?
• How would each system impact land use in the area?
Review of user requirements could enable the list of po-
tential markets to be reduced to a few selected markets
for which reclaimed water could be of significant value.
The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program
(BARWRP) in San Francisco, California used a sophisti-
cated screening and alternative analysis procedure. This
included use of a regional GIS-based market assess-
ment, a computer model to evaluate cost-effective meth-
ods for delivery, detailed evaluation criteria, and a spread-
sheet-based evaluation decision methodology (Bailey et
al., 1998). The City of Tucson, Arizona, also used a GIS
database to identify parcels such as golf courses, parks,
and schools with a potential high demand for turf irriga-
tion. In Gary, North Carolina, the parcel database was
joined to the customer-billing database allowing large water
users to be displayed on a GIS map. This process was a
key element in identifying areas with high concentrations
of dedicated irrigation meters on the potable water sys-
tem (COM, 1997). As part of an evaluation of water recla-
mation by the Clark County Sanitation District, Nevada,
the alternatives analysis was extended beyond the tradi-
tional technical, financial, and regulatory considerations
to include intangible criteria such as:
• Public acceptance including public education
• Sensitivity to neighbors
• Administrative agencies for the project
• Institutional arrangements to implement
• Impacts to existing developments as facilities are
constructed
Source: Pai et. al., 1996
3.1.3 Detailed Evaluation of Selected
Markets
The evaluation steps contained in this phase represent
the heart of the analyses necessary to shape a reuse
program. At this point, a certain amount of useful data
79
-------
should be known including the present freshwater con-
sumption and costs for selected potential users and a
ranking of "most-likely" projects. In this phase, a more
detailed look at conveyance routes and storage require-
ments for each selected system will help to refine pre-
liminary cost estimates. Funding and benefit options can
be compared, user costs developed, and a comparison
made between the costs and benefits of fresh water
versus reclaimed water for each selected system. The
detailed evaluation will also look in more detail at the
environmental, institutional, and social aspects of each
project.
Questions that may need to be addressed as part of the
detailed evaluation include:
• 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 user?
• Can fluctuations in demand best be met by pump-
ing capacity or by using storage? Where would stor-
age facilities best be located?
• If additional effluent treatment is required, who
should own and operate the additional treatment fa-
cilities?
• What costs will the users in each system incur in
connecting to 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 inter-
nal recycling likely, and how will this affect their wa-
ter use?
• Will 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 con-
sidered? What requirements would these agencies
impose on a project eligible for funding?
• Will use of reclaimed water require agricultural users
to make a change to their irrigation patterns or to
provide better control of any irrigation discharges?
• What payback period is acceptable to users who must
invest in additional facilities for onsite treatment, stor-
age, or distribution of reclaimed water?
• What are the prospects of industrial source control
measures in the area, and would institution of such
measures reduce the additional treatment steps nec-
essary 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?
Many of these questions can be answered only after
further consultation with water supply agencies and pro-
spective users. Both groups may seek more detailed
information as well, including the preliminary findings
made in the first 2 phases of effort. The City of Tampa
set the following goals and objectives for their first resi-
dential reclaimed water project:
• Demonstrate customer demand for the water
• Demonstrate customer willingness to pay for the
service
• Show that the project would pay for itself and not be
subsidized by any utility customer not receiving re-
claimed water
• Make subscription to the reclaimed water service
voluntary
Source: Grosh et. al., 2002
Detailed evaluations should lead to a preliminary assess-
ment 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 optimi-
zation steps, and environmental assessment activities
leading to a conceptual plan for reuse might be accom-
plished by working in conjunction with appropriate con-
sulting organizations.
3.2 Potential Uses of Reclaimed
Water
Urban public water supplies are treated to satisfy the
requirements for potable use. However, potable use
(drinking, cooking, bathing, laundry, and dishwashing)
represents only a fraction of the total daily residential
use of treated potable water. The remainder may not
require water of potable quality. In many cases, water
used for nonpotable purposes, such as irrigation, may
be drawn from the same ground or surface source as
80
-------
municipal supplies, creating an indirect demand on po-
table supplies. The Guidelines examine opportunities for
substituting reclaimed water for potable water supplies
where potable water quality is not required. Specific re-
use opportunities include:
• Urban
• Industrial
• Agricultural
• Environmental and Recreational
• Groundwater Recharge
• Augmentation of Potable Supplies
The technical issues associated with the implementa-
tion of each of these reuse alternatives are discussed in
detail in Chapter 2. The use of reclaimed water to provide
both direct and indirect augmentation of potable supplies
is also presented in Chapter 2.
3.2.1
National Water Use
Figure 3-2 presents the national pattern of water use in
the U.S. according to the U.S. Geological Survey (Solley
et al., 1998). Total water use in 1995 was 402,000 mgd
(152 x 107 m3/d) with 341,000 mgd (129 x 107 m3/d) being
fresh water and 61,000 mgd (23 x 107 m3/d) saline water.
The largest freshwater demands were associated with
agricultural irrigation/livestock and thermoelectric power,
representing 41 and 39 percent, respectively, of the total
freshwater use in the United States. Public and domes-
tic water uses constitute 12 percent of the total demand.
Figure 3-2.
1995 U.S. Fresh Water Demands by
Major Uses
Mining
Industrial &
Commercial
8%
Agricultural
Irrigation &
Livestock
41%
Public &
Domestic Supply
12%
Thermoelectric
Power
39%
The remainder of the water use categories are mining
and industrial/commercial with 8 percent of the demand.
The 2 largest water use categories, thermoelectric power
and agricultural irrigation, account for 80 percent of the
total water use. These water uses present a great poten-
tial for supplementing with reclaimed water.
Figure 3-3 provides a flow chart illustrating the source,
use, and disposition of fresh water in the U.S. Of the
341,000 mgd (129 x 107 m3/d) of fresh water used in the
U.S., only 29 percent is consumptively used and 71 per-
cent is return flow. This amounts to a total of 241,000
mgd (91 x 107m3/d), of which 14 percent originates from
domestic and commercial water use. Domestic waste-
water comprises a large portion of this number.
Figure 3-4 shows estimated wastewater effluent pro-
duced daily in each state, representing the total potential
reclaimed water supply from existing wastewater treat-
ment facilities. Figure 3-5 shows the estimated water
demands by state in the United States. Estimated water
demands are equal to the total fresh and saline with-
drawals for all water-use categories (public supply, do-
mestic, commercial, irrigation, livestock, industrial, min-
ing, and thermoelectric power). Areas where high water
demand exists might benefit by augmenting existing water
supplies with reclaimed water. Municipalities in coastal
and arid states, where water demands are high and fresh-
water supplies are limited, appear to have a reasonable
supply of wastewater effluent that could, through proper
treatment and reuse, greatly extend their water supplies.
Arid regions of the U.S. (such as the southwest) are can-
didates for wastewater reclamation, and significant rec-
lamation projects are underway throughout this region.
Yet, arid regions are not the only viable candidates for
water reuse. Local opportunities may exist for a given
municipality to benefit from reuse by extending local wa-
ter supplies and/or reducing or eliminating surface water
discharge. For example, the City of Atlanta, Georgia, lo-
cated in the relatively water-rich southeast, has experi-
enced water restrictions as a result of recurrent droughts.
In south Florida, subtropical conditions and almost 55
inches (140 cm) per year of rainfall suggest an abun-
dance of water; however, landscaping practices and re-
gional hydrogeology combine to result in frequent water
shortages and restrictions on water use. Thus, opportu-
nities for water reclamation and reuse must be examined
on a local level to judge their value and feasibility.
3.2.2
Potential Reclaimed Water Demands
Source: Solley et. al., 1998
Residential water demand can further be categorized as
indoor use, which includes toilet flushing, cooking, laun-
dry, bathing, dishwashing, and drinking; or outdoor use,
81
-------
Figure 3-3. Fresh Water Source, Use and
Disposition
Source
Use
r
Surface Water
r n
Domestic-Commercial
222%;
41,700
12.2%
19.2%
80.8%
Industrial Mining
64.7%
16.9%
18.4%
28,000
mgd
8.2%
85.2%
Thermoelectric
-»>
v.
99.5%
132,000
mgd
38.7%
2.5%
97.5%
Irrigation-Livestock
63.2%
36.8%
139,000
mgd
40.9%
60.7%
39,3%
Disposition
r i
Consumptive Use
—»fBU
Return Flow
14.0%
53.4%
22.7%
241,000
mgd
70.7%
Source: Solley et. al., 1998
82
-------
Figure 3-4. Wastewater Treatment Return Flow by State, 1995
EXPLANATION
Return Now. In million
gallons pel day
Source: Solley et a/., 1998
Figure 3-5. Total Withdrawals
EXPLANATION
Water withdrawals, in
million gallons pel day
| | 0 - 2.000
| | 2.000-B.COO
| | 5.000 - 10.000
| | 10.000-20.000
^H 20,000-46.000
Source: Solley et al., 1998
83
-------
which consists primarily of landscape irrigation. Outdoor
use accounts for approximately 31 percent of the resi-
dential demand, while indoor use represents approxi-
mately 69 percent (Vickers, 2001). Figure 3-6 presents
the average residential indoor water use by category. It
should be noted that these are national averages, and
few residential households will actually match these fig-
ures. Inside the home, the largest use of water is toilet
flushing (almost 30 percent). The potable use (cooking,
drinking, bathing, laundry, and dishwashing) represents
about 60 percent of the indoor water use or about 40
percent of the total residential (outdoor and indoor) de-
mand. Reclaimed water could be used for all nonpotable
uses (toilet flushing and outdoor use), which are approxi-
mately 50 percent of the total residential water demand.
Leaks are neglected in these calculations.
Approximately 38 billion gallons of water is produced daily
in the U.S. for domestic and public use. On average, a
typical American household consumes at least 50 per-
cent of their water through lawn irrigation. The U.S. has a
daily requirement of 40 billion gallons (152 million m3) a
day of fresh water for general public use. This require-
ment does not include the 300 billion gallons (1,135 mil-
lion m3) used for agricultural and commercial purposes.
For example, a dairy cow must consume 4 gallons (151)
of water to produce 1 gallon (41) of milk, and it takes 300
million gallons (1.1 million m3) of water to produce a 1 -
day supply of U.S. newsprint (American Water Works
Association Website, 2003).
The need for irrigation is highly seasonal. In the North
where turf goes dormant, irrigation needs will be zero in
the winter months. However, irrigation demand may rep-
Figure 3-6. Average Indoor Water Usage
(Total = 69.3 gpcd)
Other
Domestic
2%
Faucets
16%
Leaks
14%
Laundry &
Dishes
23%
Toilets
27%
Source: Vickers, 2001
Bathing
18%
resent a significant portion of the total potable water de-
mand in the summer months. In coastal South Carolina,
winter irrigation use is estimated to be less than 10 per-
cent of the total potable demand. This increases to over
30 percent in the months of June and July. In Denver,
during July and August when temperatures exceed 90 °F
(32 °C), approximately 80 percent of all potable water
may be used for irrigation. Given the seasonal nature of
urban irrigation, eliminating this demand from the potable
system through reuse will result in a net annual reduc-
tion in potable demands and, more importantly, may also
significantly reduce peak-month potable water demands.
It is not surprising then that landscape irrigation currently
accounts for the largest urban use of reclaimed water in
the U.S. This is particularly true of urban areas with sub-
stantial residential areas and a complete mix of land-
scaped areas ranging from golf courses to office parks
to shopping malls. Urban areas also have schools, parks,
and recreational facilities, which require regular irrigation.
Within Florida, for example, studies of potable water con-
sumption have shown that 50 to 70 percent of all potable
water produced is used for outside purposes, principally
irrigation.
The potential irrigation demand for reclaimed water gen-
erated by a particular urban area can be estimated from
an inventory of the total irrigable acreage to be served
by the reuse system and the estimated weekly irriga-
tion rates, determined by factors such as local soil char-
acteristics, climatic conditions, and type of landscap-
ing. In some states, recommended weekly irrigation rates
are available from water management agencies, county
or state agricultural agents, and irrigation specialists.
Reclaimed water demand estimates should also take
into account any other proposed uses for reclaimed
water within the proposed service area, such as indus-
trial cooling and process water, decorative fountains, and
other aesthetic water features.
Agricultural irrigation represents 40 percent of total water
demand nationwide and presents another significant op-
portunity for water reuse, particularly in areas where ag-
ricultural sites are near urban areas and can easily be
integrated with urban reuse applications. Such is the case
in Orange County, California, where the Irvine Ranch
Water District provides reclaimed water to irrigate urban
landscape and mixed agricultural lands (orchards and
vegetable row crops). As agricultural land use is displaced
by residential development in this growing urban area,
the District has the flexibility to convert its reclaimed water
service to urban irrigation.
In Manatee County, Florida, agricultural irrigation is a
significant component of a county-wide water reuse pro-
84
-------
gram. During 2002, the County's 3 water reclamation fa-
cilities, with a total treatment capacity of 34.4 mgd (1,500
l/s), provided about 10.2 mgd (446 l/s) of reclaimed wa-
ter. This water was used to irrigate golf courses, parks,
schools, residential subdivisions, a 1,500-acre (600-hect-
are) gladioli farm, and about 6,000 acres (2,400 hect-
ares) of mixed agricultural lands (citrus, ridge and furrow
crops, sod farms, and pasture). The original 20-year re-
use agreements with the agricultural users are being ex-
tended for 10 years, ensuring a long-term commitment
to reclaimed water with a significant water conservation
benefit. The urban reuse system has the potential to grow
as development grows. Manatee County has more than
385 acres (154 hectares) of lake storage (1,235 million
gallons or47x 105 m3 of volume) and 2 reclaimed water
aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) projects.
A detailed inspection of existing or proposed water use
is essential for planning any water reuse system. This
information is often available through municipal billing
records or water use monitoring data that is maintained
to meet the requirements of local or regional water man-
agement agencies. In other cases, predictive equations
may be required to adequately describe water demands.
Water needs for various reuse alternatives are explored
further in Chapter 2. In addition to expected nonpotable
uses for reclaimed water, a review of literature shows
consideration and implementation of reuse projects for a
wide variety of demands including toilet flushing, com-
mercial car washing, secondary and primary sources of
fire protection, textile mills to maintain water features,
cement manufacturing, and make-up water for commer-
cial air conditioners. By identifying and serving a variety
of water uses with reclaimed water, the utilization of re-
claimed water facilities can be increased, thereby increas-
ing the cost effectiveness of the system while at the
same time increasing the volume of potable water con-
served.
3.2.3 Reuse and Water Conservation
The need to conserve the potable water supply is an
important part of urban and regional planning. For ex-
ample, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali-
fornia predicted in 1990 that by the year 2010 water de-
mands would exceed reliable supplies by approximately
326 billion gallons (1,200 x 109 m3) annually (Adams,
1990). To help conserve the potable water supplies, the
Metropolitan Water District developed a multi-faceted
program that includes conservation incentives, rebate
programs, groundwater storage, water exchange agree-
ments, reservoir construction, and reclaimed water
projects. Urban reuse of reclaimed water is an essential
element of the program. In 2001, approximately 62 billion
gallons (330 x 106 m3) of reclaimed water were used in
the District's service area for groundwater recharge, land-
scape irrigation, agricultural, commercial, and industrial
purposes. It is estimated that more than 195 billion gal-
lons (740 x 106 m3) of reclaimed water will be reused by
2010. Due to long-term conservation programs, additional
supply agreements, and an increase in the reclaimed
water supply the District expects to meet the area's wa-
ter needs for the next ten years even during times of
critical drought (Metropolitan, 2002).
Perhaps the greatest benefit of urban reuse systems is
their contribution to delaying or eliminating the need to
expand potable water supply and treatment facilities.
The City of St. Petersburg, Florida, has experienced
about a 10 percent population growth since 1976 with-
out any significant increase in potable water demand
because of its urban reuse program. Prior to the start-up
of its urban reuse system, the average residential water
demand in a study area in St. Petersburg was 435 gal-
lons per day (1,650 l/d). After reclaimed water was made
available, the potable water demand was reduced to 220
gallons per day (830 l/d) (Johnson and Parnell, 1987).
Figure 3-7 highlights the City of St. Petersburg's esti-
mated potable water savings since implementing an ur-
ban reuse program.
In 2001, Florida embarked on the Water Conservation
Initiative (FDEP, 2002) - a program designed to promote
water conservation in an effort to ensure water availabil-
ity for the future. Recognizing the conservation and re-
charge potential of water reuse, a Water Reuse Work
Group was convened to address the effective and effi-
cient use of reclaimed water as a component in overall
strategies to ensure water availability. The Water Re-
use Work Group published its initial report in 2001
(FDEP, 2001) and published a more detailed strategy
report in 2003 (FDEP, 2003). The final reuse strategy
report includes 16 major strategies designed to ensure
efficient and effective water reuse. Of particular note
are strategies that encourage the use of reclaimed wa-
ter meters and volume-based rates, in addition to encour-
aging groundwater recharge and indirect potable reuse.
Currently, approximately 20 percent of all water supplied
by the Irvine Ranch Water District in southern California
is reclaimed water. Total water demand is expected to
reach 69 mgd (3,024 l/s) in Irvine by 2010. At that time
Irvine expects to be able to provide service to meet ap-
proximately 26 mgd (1,139 l/s) of this demand with re-
claimed water (Irvine Ranch Water District, 2002). An
aggressive urban reuse program in Altamonte Springs,
Florida is credited with a 30 percent reduction in potable
water demands (Forest et al., 1998).
85
-------
Figure 3-7. Potable and Reclaimed Water Usage in St. Petersburg, Florida
70
60-
50-
Potable Water Pumped (mgd)
Reclaimed Water Pumped (mgd)
D)
-i- 40-
30-
10
0 *
Sin
in
03 O> O3
O> O5 O5 O3
OS OS OS OS
3.3
Sources of Reclaimed Water
3.3.1
Locating the Sources
Under the broad definition of water reclamation and re-
use, sources of reclaimed water may range from indus-
trial process waters to the tail waters of agricultural irri-
gation systems. For the purposes of these guidelines,
however, the sources of reclaimed water are limited to
the effluent generated by domestic wastewater treat-
ment facilities (WWTFs).
Treated municipal wastewater represents a significant
potential source of reclaimed water for beneficial reuse.
As a result of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, the Clean Water Act of 1977 and
its subsequent amendments, centralized wastewater
treatment has become commonplace in urban areas of
the U.S. In developed countries, approximately 73 per-
cent of the population is served by wastewater collection
and treatment facilities. Yet only 35 percent of the popu-
lation of developing countries is served by wastewater
collection. Within the U.S., the population generates an
estimated 41 billion gallons per day (1.8 x 106 l/s) of
potential reclaimed water (Solley et a/., 1998). As the
world population continues to shift from rural to urban,
the number of centralized wastewater collection and treat-
ment systems will also increase, creating significant
opportunities to implement water reuse systems to aug-
ment water supplies and, in many cases, improve the
quality of surface waters.
In areas of growth and new development, completely new
collection, treatment, and distribution systems may be
designed from the outset with water reclamation and re-
use in mind. In most cases, however, existing facilities
will be incorporated into the water reuse system. In ar-
eas where centralized treatment is already provided, ex-
isting WWTFs are potential sources of reclaimed water.
In the preliminary planning of a water reuse system in-
corporating existing facilities, the following information
is needed for the initial evaluation:
• Residential areas and their principal sewers
• Industrial areas and their principal sewers
• Wastewater treatment facilities
• Areas with combined sewers
• Existing effluent disposal facilities
• Areas and types of projected development
• Locations of potential reclaimed water users
For minimizing capital costs, the WWTFs ideally should
be located near the major users of the reclaimed water.
However, in adapting an existing system for water re-
use, other options are available. For example, if a trunk
86
-------
sewer bearing flows to a WWTF passes through an area
of significant potential reuse, a portion of the flows can
be diverted to a new "satellite" reclamation facility to serve
that area. The sludge produced in the satellite reclama-
tion facility can be returned to the sewer for handling at
the WWTF. By this method, odor problems may be re-
duced or eliminated at the satellite reclamation facility.
However, the effects of this practice can be deleterious
to both sewers and downstream treatment facilities. Al-
ternatively, an effluent outfall passing through a poten-
tial reuse area could be tapped for some or all of the
effluent, and additional treatment could be provided, if
necessary, to meet reclaimed water quality standards.
These alternative configurations are illustrated in Figure
3-8.
Figure 3-8. Three Configuration Alternatives
for Water Reuse Systems
A. Central Treatment Near Reuse Site(s)
3.3.2
Characterizing the Sources
Collection
F Reclaimed
Water to
leuse Site(s)
B. Reclamation of Portion of Wastewater Flow
Reclaimed Water
to Reuse Site(s)
t
Diversion
of Portion
of Influent
Collection
Water
Reclamation
Facility
Re
_£
^
turnc
ludge
Trunk Sewer
f
Central
Wastewater
Treatment
Facility
Effluent
Disposal
C. Reclamation of Portion of Effluent
Collection
Central
Wastewater
Treatment
Facility
i
1
Dive
of P
ofE
Return of
Sludge
Effluent Disposal
srsion
ortion
•fluent
1
Water
Reclamation
Facility
T
Sludge Treatment
and Disposal
Reclaimed Water
to Reuse Site(s)
Existing sources must be characterized to roughly es-
tablish the wastewater effluent's suitability for reclama-
tion and reuse. To compare the quality and quantity of
available reclaimed water with the requirements of po-
tential users, information about the operation and per-
formance of the existing WWTF and related facilities
must be examined. Important factors to consider in this
preliminary stage of reuse planning are:
• Level of treatment (e.g., primary, secondary, advanced)
and specific treatment processes (e.g., ponds, acti-
vated sludge, filtration, disinfection, nutrient removal,
disinfection)
• Effluent water quality
• Effluent quantity (use of historical data to determine
daily and season at average, maximum, and mini-
mum flows)
• Industrial wastewater contributions to flow
• System reliability
• Supplemental facilities (e.g., storage, pumping, trans-
mission)
3.3.2.1
Level of Treatment and Processes
Meeting all applicable treatment requirements for the pro-
duction of safe, reliable reclaimed water is one of the
keys to operating any water reuse system. Thus careful
analysis of applicable state and local requirements and
provision of all necessary process elements are critical
in designing a reuse system. Because of differing envi-
ronmental conditions from region to region across the
country, and since different end uses of the reclaimed
water require different levels of treatment, a universal
quality standard for reclaimed water does not exist. In
the past, the main objective of treatment for reclaimed
water was secondary treatment and disinfection. As
wastewater effluent is considered a source for more and
more uses, such as industrial process water or even po-
table supply water, the treatment focus has expanded
beyond secondary treatment and disinfection to include
treatment for other containments such as metals, dis-
solved solids, and emerging contaminants (such as phar-
maceutical residue and endocrine disrupters). However,
at this early planning stage, only a preliminary assess-
ment of the compatibility of the secondary effluent qual-
ity and treatment facilities with potential reuse applica-
tions is needed. A detailed discussion of treatment re-
87
-------
quirements for water reuse applications is provided in
Section 3.4.
Knowledge of the chemical constituents in the effluent,
the level of treatment, and the treatment processes pro-
vided is important in evaluating the WWTF's suitability
as a water reclamation facility and determining possible
reuse applications. An existing plant providing at least
secondary treatment, while not originally designed for
water reclamation and reuse, can be upgraded by modi-
fying existing processes or adding new unit processes
to the existing treatment train to supply reclaimed water
for most uses. For example, with the addition of chemi-
cals, filters, and other facilities to ensure reliable disin-
fection, most secondary effluents can be enhanced to
provide a source of reclaimed water suitable for unre-
stricted urban reuse. However, in some parts of the U.S.,
the effluent from a secondary treatment system may
contain compounds of concern. Such effluent may not
be used because it could result in water quality prob-
lems. In these cases, treatment processes must be se-
lected to reduce these compounds before they are re-
leased. This can create additional disposal issues as
well. Atypical example would be the presence of elevated
IDS levels within the effluent, resulting in problems where
the reclaimed water is used for irrigation (Sheikh etal.,
1997; Dacko, 1997; Johnson, 1998).
In some cases, existing processes necessary for efflu-
ent disposal practices may no longer be required for
water reuse. For example, an advanced wastewater
treatment plant designed to remove nitrogen and/or
phosphorus would not be needed for agricultural or ur-
ban irrigation, since the nutrients in the reclaimed water
are beneficial to plant growth.
In addition to the unit processes required to produce a
suitable quality of reclaimed water, the impact of any
return streams (e.g., filter backwash, RO concentrate
return, etc.) to the WWTF's liquid and solids handling
processes should be considered.
3.3.2.2 Reclaimed Water Quality
Effluent water quality sampling and analysis are required
as a condition of WWTF discharge permits. The specific
parameters tested are those required for preserving the
water quality of the receiving water body, (e.g., biochemi-
cal oxygen demand, suspended solids, coliforms or other
indicators, nutrients, and sometimes toxic organics and
metals). This information is useful in the preliminary evalu-
ation of a wastewater utility as a potential source of re-
claimed water. For example, as noted earlier, the nitro-
gen and phosphorus in reclaimed water represents an
advantage for certain irrigation applications. For indus-
trial reuse, however, nutrients may encourage biological
growths that could cause fouling. Where the latter uses
are a small fraction of the total use, the customer may
be obliged to remove the nutrients or blend reclaimed
water with other water sources. The decision is based on
case-by-case assessments.
In some cases, the water quality data needed to assess
the suitability of a given source are not included in the
WWTF's existing monitoring requirements and will have
to be gathered specifically for the reuse evaluation.
Coastal cities may experience saltwater infiltration into
their sewer system, resulting in elevated chloride con-
centrations in the effluent or reclaimed water. Chloride
levels are of concern in irrigation because high levels
are toxic to many plants. However, chloride levels at
WWTFs typically are not monitored. Even in the absence
of saltwater infiltration, industrial contributions or prac-
tices within the community being served may adversely
impact reclaimed water quality. The widespread use of
water softeners may increase the concentration of salts
to levels that make the reclaimed water unusable for
some applications. High chlorides from saltwater infil-
tration led the City of Punta Gorda, Florida to cease re-
claimed water irrigation in 2001. This facility had irrigated
an underdrained agricultural site for almost 20 years, but
flow discharged from the underdrains caused a violation
of conductivity limitations in the receiving water.
Damage to landscape plants in the City of St. Peters-
burg, Florida, was traced to elevated chlorides in the
reclaimed water. This coastal city operates 4 reclama-
tion plants and those serving older beach communities
are prone to saltwater infiltration. In response to this prob-
lem, the City initiated on-line monitoring of conductance
in order to identify and halt the use of unacceptable wa-
ter. The City also developed a planting guide for reclaimed
water customers to identify foliage more and less suit-
able for use with reclaimed water service (Johnson, 1998).
The Carmel Area Wastewater District in California expe-
rienced a similar problem with golf course turf associ-
ated with elevated sodium. This was due to a combina-
tion of the potable water treatment processes being used,
and the prevalence of residential and commercial water
softeners. Solutions included the use of gypsum, peri-
odic use of potable water for irrigation to flush the root
zone, a switch from sodium hydroxide to potassium hy-
droxide for corrosion control, and attempts to reduce the
use of self-regenerating water softeners (Sheikh et al.,
1997). Some coastal communities, or areas where salin-
ity is a concern, have begun to restrict the discharge of
chemical salts into the sanitary sewer system either by
requiring their placement in a special brine line or by charg-
ing a fee for their treatment and removal (Sheikh and
Rosenblum, 2002). A California state law recently gave
88
-------
local jurisdictions the ability to prohibit the use of self-
regenerating water softeners that had been previously
exempt from regulation by a prior statute (California Health
and Safety Code).
The West Basin Municipal Water District in southwest
Los Angeles County, California, created designer re-
claimed water of different qualities to increase their re-
claimed water customer base. Table 3-1 describes the
5 different grades of designer water they produce and
supply to their 200-square mile area of customers.
For the purpose of reuse planning, it is best to consider
reclaimed water quality from the standpoint of water sup-
ply, (i.e., what quality is required for the intended use?).
Where a single large customer dominates the demand
for reclaimed water, the treatment selected may suit that
particular, major customer. In Pomona, California, acti-
vated carbon filters were used in place of conventional
sand filters at the reclamation plant to serve paper mills
that require low color in their water supply.
Industrial reuse might be precluded if high levels of dis-
solved solids, dissolved organic material, chlorides, phos-
phates, and nutrients are present, unless additional treat-
ment is provided by the industrial facility. Recreational
reuse might be limited by nutrients, which could result in
unsightly and odorous algae blooms. Trace metals in high
concentrations might restrict the use of reclaimed water
for agricultural and horticultural irrigation.
3.3.2.3 Reclaimed Water Quantity
Just as the potable water purveyor must meet diurnal
and seasonal variations in demand, so too must the
purveyor meet variations in demand for reclaimed water.
Diurnal and seasonal fluctuations in supply and demand
must be taken into account at the preliminary design stage
of any water reclamation system. Such an approach is
warranted, given the fact that diurnal and seasonal sup-
plies and demands for reclaimed water often exhibit more
variations than that of potable water and, in many cases,
the peaks in supply and demand are independent of one
another.
For example, WWTF flows tend to be low at night, when
urban irrigation demand tends to be high. Seasonal flow
fluctuations may occur in resort areas due to the influx
Table 3-1. Five Grades of Reclaimed Water Produced by West Basin MWD
Grade
Name
Treatment
Use
Quality Drivers
Reliability
Price
2001-02
Volume (AF)
Grade 1
Tertiary
Secondary effluent;
additional filtration
and disinfection
Landscape; golf
course irrigation
Human contact and
health requirements
No contractual
guarantee; 100%
reliable due to
constant source
25 - 40% discount
from baseline
standard
2,600
Grade 2
Nitrified
Tertiary water with
ammonia removal
Cooling towers
Need to remove ammonia
to reduce corrosion
No information provided
Approximately 20%
discounted from baseline
standard
8,300
Grade 3
Pure RO
Secondary water plus micro
filtration and RO
Low pressure boiler feed
for refineries
Need to reduce
contaminants that cause
scaling; strong desire to
use the water multiple
times in the process
No contractual guarantees
Equal to baseline standard
or slightly higher
6,500
Grade 4
Softened RO
Grade 3 plus lime softening
treatment
Indirect potable reuse for
the Water Replenishment
District
Softening the water
preserves the pipes that
deliver the water to the
injection wells. Micro-
filtration and RO have been
perceived as providing
acceptable treatment for
indirect potable reuse.
No contractual guarantees.
May be perceived as more
reliable
20% discount from baseline
standard
7,300
Grade 5
Ultra-Pure RO
Double pass RO
High pressure boiler feed
for refineries
High pressure increases the
need to further reduce
contaminants that cause
scaling. Desire to use the
water multiple times in the
process
No contractual guarantees.
Probably perceived as more
reliable
100% price premium
compared to the baseline
standard
2,600
Adapted from: "West Basin Municipal Water District: 5 Designer (Recycled) Waters to Meet Customer's Needs"
produced by Darryl G. Miller, General Manager, West Basin Municipal Water District, Carson, California.
89
-------
of tourists, and seasons of high flow do not necessarily
correspond with seasons of high irrigation demand. Fig-
ure 3-9 illustrates the fluctuations in reclaimed water
supply and irrigation demand in a southwest Florida
community. Treatment facilities serving college cam-
puses, resort areas, etc. also experience significant fluc-
tuations in flow throughout the year. Where collection
systems are prone to infiltration and inflow, significant
fluctuations in flow may occur during the rainy season.
Information about flow quantities and fluctuations is criti-
cal in order to determine the size of storage facilities
needed to balance supply and demand in water reuse
systems. A more detailed discussion of seasonal stor-
age requirements is provided in Section 3.5. Operational
storage requirements to balance diurnal flow variations
are detailed in Section 3.6.3.
3.3.2.4
Industrial Wastewater Contributions
Industrial waste streams differ from domestic wastewa-
ter in that they may contain relatively high levels of ele-
ments and compounds, which may be toxic to plants
and animals or may adversely impact treatment plant
performance. Where industrial wastewater flow contri-
butions to the WWTF are significant, reclaimed water
quality may be affected. The degree of impact will, of
course, depend on the nature of the industry. A rigor-
ous pretreatment program is required for any water rec-
lamation facility that receives industrial wastes to en-
sure the reliability of the biological treatment processes
by excluding potentially toxic levels of pollutants from
the sewer system. Planning a reuse system for a WWTF
with substantial industrial flows will require identification
of the constituents that may interfere with particular re-
use applications, and appropriate monitoring for param-
eters of concern. Wastewater treatment facilities receiv-
ing substantial amounts of high-strength industrial wastes
may be limited in the number and type of suitable reuse
applications.
3.4 Treatment Requirements for Water
Reuse
One of the most critical objectives in any reuse program
is to ensure that public health protection is not compro-
mised through the use of reclaimed water. To date there
have not been any confirmed cases of infectious dis-
ease resulting from the use of properly treated reclaimed
water in the U.S. Other objectives, such as preventing
environmental degradation, avoiding public nuisance,
and meeting user requirements, must also be satisfied,
but the starting point remains the safe delivery and use
of properly treated reclaimed water.
Protection of public health is achieved by: (1) reducing
or eliminating concentrations of pathogenic bacteria,
parasites, and enteric viruses in the reclaimed water, (2)
controlling chemical constituents in reclaimed water, and/
or (3) limiting public exposure (contact, inhalation, inges-
tion) to reclaimed water. Reclaimed water projects may
vary significantly in the level of human exposure incurred,
with a corresponding variation in the potential for health
risks. Where human exposure is likely in a reuse appli-
cation, reclaimed water should be treated to a high de-
gree prior to its use. Conversely, where public access to
Figure 3-9. Reclaimed Water Supply vs. Irrigation Demand
1.4
1.2 —
1.0 •
0.8 —
0.6 —
0.4 .
0.2 •
0 •
Reclaimed Water
/ Supply
y
Residential Irrigation
Demand
Send to
Storage
Retrieve from
Storage
1 T
M
A
M
1 T
A
S
0
D
90
-------
a reuse site can be restricted so that exposure is un-
likely, a lower level of treatment may be satisfactory,
provided that worker safety is not compromised.
Determining the necessary treatment for the intended
reuse application requires an understanding of the:
• Constituents of concern in wastewater
• Levels of treatment and processes applicable for re-
ducing these constituents to levels that achieve the
desired reclaimed water quality
3.4.1
Health Assessment of Water Reuse
The types and concentrations of pathogenic organisms
found in raw wastewater are a reflection of the enteric
organisms present in the customer base of the collec-
tion system. Chemical pollutants of concern may also
be present in untreated wastewater. These chemicals
may originate from any customer with access to the
collection system, but are typically associated with in-
dustrial customers. Recent studies have shown that
over-the-counter and prescription drugs are often found
in wastewater.
The ability for waterborne organisms to cause disease
is well established. Our knowledge of the hazards of
chemical pollutants varies. In most cases, these con-
cerns are based on the potential that adverse health
effects may occur due to long-term exposure to rela-
tively low concentrations. In addition, chemicals capable
of mimicking hormones have been shown to disrupt the
endocrine systems of aquatic animals.
In order to put these concerns into perspective with re-
spect to water reclamation, it is important to consider
the following questions.
• What is the intended use of the reclaimed water?
Consideration should be given to the expected de-
gree of human contact with the reclaimed water. It is
reasonable to assume that reclaimed water used for
the irrigation of non-food crops on a restricted agri-
cultural site may be of lesser quality than water used
for landscape irrigation at a public park or school,
which in turn may be of a lesser quality than reclaimed
water intended to augment potable supplies.
• Given the intended use of reclaimed water, what con-
centrations of microbiological organisms and chemi-
cals of concern are acceptable?
Reclaimed water quality standards have evolved over
a long period of time, based on both scientific stud-
ies and practical experience. Chapter 4 provides a
summary of state requirements for different types of
reuse projects. While requirements might be similar
from state to state, allowable concentrations and the
constituents monitored are state-specific. Chapter 4
also provides suggested guidelines for reclaimed water
quality as a function of use.
• Which treatment processes are needed to achieve
the required reclaimed water quality?
While it must be acknowledged that raw wastewa-
ter may pose a significant risk to public health, it is
equally important to point out that current treatment
technologies allow water to be treated to almost any
quality desired. For many uses of reclaimed water,
appropriate water quality can be achieved through
conventional, widely practiced treatment processes.
Advanced treatment beyond secondary treatment
may be required as the level of human contact in-
creases.
• Which sampling/monitoring protocols are required to
ensure that water quality objectives are being met?
As with any process, wastewater reuse programs
must be monitored to confirm that they are operat-
ing as expected. Once a unit process is selected,
there are typically standard Quality Assurance/Qual-
ity Control (QA/QC) practices to assure that the sys-
tem is functioning as designed. Reuse projects will
often require additional monitoring to prevent the
discharge of substandard water to the reclamation
system. On-line, real-time water quality monitoring
is typically used for this purpose.
3.4.1.1 Mechanism of Disease Transmission
For the purposes of this discussion, the definition of dis-
ease is limited to illness caused by microorganisms.
Health issues associated with chemical constituents in
reclaimed water are discussed in Section 3.4.1.7. Dis-
eases associated with microorganisms can be trans-
mitted by water to humans either directly by ingestion,
inhalation, or skin contact of infectious agents, or indi-
rectly by contact with objects or individuals previously
contaminated. The following circumstances must occur
for an individual to become infected through exposure
to reclaimed water: (a) the infectious agent must be
present in the community and, hence, in the wastewa-
ter from that community; (b) the agents must survive, to
a significant degree, all of the wastewater treatment
processes to which they are exposed; (c) the individual
91
-------
must either directly or indirectly come into contact with
the reclaimed water; and (d) the agents must be present
in sufficient numbers to cause infection at the time of
contact.
The primary means of ensuring reclaimed water can be
used for beneficial purposes is first to provide the ap-
propriate treatment to reduce or eliminate pathogens.
Treatment processes typically employed in water recla-
mation systems are discussed below and in Section
3.4.2. Additional safeguards are provided by reducing
the level of contact with reclaimed water. Section 3.6
discusses a variety of cross-connection control mea-
sures that typically accompany reuse systems.
The large variety of pathogenic microorganisms that may
be present in raw domestic wastewater is derived prin-
cipally from the feces of infected humans and primarily
transmitted by consumption. Thus, the main transmis-
sion route is referred to as the "fecal-oral" route. Con-
taminated water is an important conduit for fecal-oral
transmission to humans and occurs either by direct con-
sumption or by the use of contaminated water in agri-
culture and food processing. There are occasions when
host infections cause passage of pathogens in urine.
The 3 principal infections leading to significant appear-
ance of pathogens in urine are: urinary schistosomiasis,
typhoid fever, and leptospirosis. Coliform and other bac-
teria may be numerous in urine during urinary tract infec-
tions. Since the incidence of these diseases in the U.S.
is very low, they constitute little public health risk in wa-
ter reuse. Microbial agents resulting from venereal infec-
tions can also be present in urine, but they are so vulner-
able to conditions outside the body that wastewater is
not a predominant vehicle of transmission (Feachem et
a/., 1983 and Riggs, 1989).
3.4.1.2 Pathogenic Microorganisms and Health
Risks
The potential transmission of infectious disease by patho-
genic agents is the most common concern associated
with reuse of treated municipal wastewater. Fortunately,
sanitary engineering and preventive medical practices have
combined to reach a point where waterborne disease
outbreaks of epidemic proportions have, to a great ex-
tent, been controlled. However, the potential for disease
transmission through water has not been eliminated. With
few exceptions, the disease organisms of epidemic his-
tory are still present in today's sewage. The level of treat-
ment today is more related to severing the transmission
chain than to fully eradicating the disease agents.
Many infectious disease microbes affecting individuals in
a community can find their way into municipal sewage.
Most of the organisms found in untreated wastewater
are known as enteric organisms; they inhabit the intesti-
nal tract where they can cause disease, such as diar-
rhea. Table 3-2 lists many of the infectious agents po-
tentially present in raw domestic wastewater. These mi-
crobes can be classified into 3 broad groups: bacteria,
parasites (parasitic protozoa and helminths), and viruses.
Table 3-2 also lists the diseases associated with each
organism.
a. Bacteria
Bacteria are microscopic organisms ranging from approxi-
mately 0.2 to 10 urn in length. They are distributed ubiq-
uitously in nature and have a wide variety of nutritional
requirements. Many types of harmless bacteria colonize
in the human intestinal tract and are routinely shed in the
feces. Pathogenic bacteria are also present in the feces
of infected individuals. Therefore, municipal wastewater
can contain a wide variety and concentration range of
bacteria, including those pathogenic to humans. The num-
bers and types of these agents are a function of their
prevalence in the animal and human community from
which the wastewater is derived. Three of the more com-
mon bacterial pathogens found in raw wastewater are
Salmonella sp, Shigella sp. and enteropathogenic Es-
cherichia co/; which have caused drinking water outbreaks
with significant numbers of cases of hemolytic uremic
syndrome (HUS) and multiple deaths (e.g. Walkerton,
Ontario; Washington County, NY; Cabool, MO; Alpine,
WY).
Bacterial levels in wastewater can be significantly low-
ered through either a "removal" or an "inactivation" pro-
cess. The removal process involves the physical sepa-
ration of the bacteria from the wastewater through sedi-
mentation and/or filtration. Due to density considerations,
bacteria do not settle as individual cells or even colo-
nies. Typically, bacteria can adsorb to particulate matter
or floe particles. These particles settle during sedimen-
tation, secondary clarification, or during an advanced
treatment process such as coagulation/flocculation/sedi-
mentation using a coagulant. Bacteria can also be re-
moved by using a filtration process that includes sand
filters, disk (cloth) filters, or membrane processes. Fil-
tration efficiency for a sand or cloth filter is dependent
upon the effective pore size of the filtering medium and
the presence of a "pre-coat" layer, usually other particu-
late matter. Because the pore sizes inherent to
microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes (including
those membranes used in membrane bioreactors), bac-
teria are, to a large extent, completely removed due to
size exclusion. Ultimately, thesedimented or filtered bac-
teria are removed from the overall treatment system
through the sludge and backwash treatment system.
92
-------
Table 3-2.
Infectious Agents Potentially Present in Untreated Domestic Wastewater
Pathogen
Disease
Bacteria
Shigella ( spp.)
Salmonella typhi
Salmonella (1700 serotypes spp.)
Vibro cholerae
Escherichia coli (enteropathogenic)
Yersinia enterocolitica
Leptospira (spp.)
Campylobacter jejune
Shigellosis (bacillary dysentery)
Typhoid fever
Salmonellosis
Cholera
Gastroenteritis and septicemia,
hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS)
Yersiniosis
Leptospirosis
Gastroenteritis, reactive arthritis
Protozoa
Entamoeba histolytica
Giardia lamb II a
Cryptosporidium
Microsporidia
Amebiasis (amebic dysentery)
Giardiasis (gastroenteritis)
Cryptosporidiosis, diarrhea, fever
Diarrhea
Helminths
Ascaris lumbricoides
Ancylostoma (spp)
Necator americanus
Ancylostoma (spp.)
Strongloides stercoralis
Thchuris thchiura
Taenia (spp.)
Enterobius vermicularis
Echinococcus granulosus (spp.)
Ascariasis (roundworm infection)
Ancylostomiasis (hookworm infection)
Necatoriasis (roundworm infection)
Cutaneous larva migrams (hookworm infection)
Strongyloidiasis (threadworm infection)
Trichuriasis (whipworm infection)
Taeniasis (tapeworm infection)
Enterobiasis (pinwork infection)
Hydatidosis (tapeworm infection)
Viruses
Enteroviruses (polio, echo, coxsackie,
new enteroviruses, serotype 68 to 71 )
Hepatitis A and E virus
Adenovirus
Rotavirus
Parvovirus
Noroviruses
Astrovirus
Calicivirus
Coronavirus
Gastroenteritis, heart anomolies, meningitis,
others
Infectious hepatitis
Respiratory disease, eye infections,
gastroenteritis (serotype 40 and 41)
Gastroenteritis
Gastroenteritis
Diarrhea, vomiting, fever
Gastroenteritis
Gastroenteritis
Gastroenteritis
Source: Adapted from National Research Council, 1996; Sagik et. a/., 1978; and Hurst et. al., 1989
Inactivation of bacteria refers to the destruction (death)
of bacteria cells or the interference with reproductive
ability using a chemical or energy agent. Such inactiva-
tion is usually referred to as disinfection. The most com-
mon disinfectants used in wastewater treatment are free
chlorine, chloramines, ultraviolet (UV) light, and ozone.
Chlorine, a powerful chemical oxidant, generally inacti-
vates bacterial cells by causing physiological damage to
cell membranes and damage to the internal cell compo-
nents. Chloramines, chlorine substituted ammonia com-
pounds, generally inactivate bacteria cells by disrupting
DMA, thus causing direct cell death and/or inhibiting abil-
ity to reproduce. UV light also inactivates bacteria by
damaging the DMA, thus inhibiting the ability to repro-
duce. Ozone, another powerful oxidant, can cause cell
inactivation by direct damage to the cell wall and mem-
brane, disruption of enzymatic reaction, and damage to
DMA. The relative effectiveness of each chemical disin-
fectant is generally related to the product of disinfectant
concentration and the disinfectant contact time. This prod-
93
-------
uct is commonly referenced as the "Ct" value. Tables of
various Ct values required to inactivate bacteria (and other
pathogens, such as viruses and protozoans) are readily
available in the literature for clean (filtered) water appli-
cations. These Ct values are a function of temperature,
pH, and the desired level of inactivation.
In recognition of the many constraints associated with
analyzing wastewater for all of the potential pathogens
that may be present, it has been common practice to
use a microbial indicator or surrogate to indicate fecal
contamination of water. Some bacteria of the coliform
group have long been considered the prime indicators
of fecal contamination and are the most frequently ap-
plied indicators used by state regulatory agencies to
monitor water quality. The coliform group is composed
of a number of bacteria that have common metabolic
attributes. The total coliform groups are all gram-nega-
tive aspogenous rods, and most are found in feces of
warm-blooded animals and in soil. Fecal coliforms are,
for the most part, bacteria restricted to the intestinal tract
of warm-blooded animals and comprise a portion of the
total coliform group. Coliform organisms are used as
indicators because they occur naturally in the feces of
warm-blooded animals in higher concentrations than
pathogens, are easily detectable, exhibit a positive cor-
relation with fecal contamination, and generally respond
similarly to environmental conditions and treatment pro-
cesses as many bacterial pathogens. Where low levels
of coliform organisms are used to indicate the absence
of pathogenic bacteria, there is consensus among mi-
crobiologists that the total coliform analysis is not supe-
rior to the fecal coliform analysis. Specific methods have
been developed to detect and enumerate Escherichia
co/; for use as a potential indicator organism.
b.
Parasitic Protozoa and Helminths
The most common parasites in domestic untreated waste-
water include several genera in the microspora, proto-
zoa, trematode, and nematode families. Since the para-
sites cannot multiply in the environment, they require a
host to reproduce and are excreted in the feces as
spores, cysts, oocysts, or eggs, which are robust and
resistant to environmental stresses such as dessication,
heat, and sunlight. Most parasite spores, cysts, oocysts,
and eggs are larger than bacteria and range in size from
1 urn to over 60 urn. While these parasites can be present
in the feces of infected individuals who exhibit disease
symptoms, carriers with unapparent infections can also
excrete them, as may be the case with bacteria and viral
infections as well. Furthermore, some protozoa such as
Toxoplasma and Cryptosporidium are among the most
common opportunistic infections in patients with acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (Slifko etal., 2000).
There are several helminthic parasites that occur in waste-
water. Examples include the roundworm Ascaris as well
as other nematodes such as the hookworms and pin-
worm. Many of the helminths have complex life cycles,
including a required stage in intermediate hosts. The in-
fective stage of some helminths is either the adult organ-
ism or larvae, while the eggs or ova of other helminths
constitute the infective stage of the organisms. The eggs
and larvae, which range in size from about 10 urn to more
than 100 um, are resistant to environmental stresses and
may survive usual wastewater disinfection procedures.
Helminth ova are readily removed by commonly used
wastewater treatment processes such as sedimentation,
filtration, or stabilization ponds. A 1992 study in St. Pe-
tersburg, Florida, showed helminths were completely re-
moved in the secondary clarifiers (Rose and Carnahan,
1992).
In recent years, the protozoan parasites have emerged
as a significant human health threat in regards to chlo-
rinated drinking water. In particular, the protozoa such
as Giardia lamblia, Cryptosporidium pavum, and
Cyclospora cayetanensis have caused numerous water-
borne and/or foodborne outbreaks. Microsporidia spp.
have also been implicated as a waterborne pathogen
(Cotteefa/., 1999).
Protozoan pathogens can be reduced in wastewater by
the same previously described mechanisms of removal
and inactivation. Cryptosporidium oocysts are 4 to 6 mm
in diameter while Giardia cysts range between 8 to 16
mm in diameter. Due to the relatively large size com-
pared to bacteria, the protozoa can be removed by prop-
erly designed and operated sedimentation and filtration
systems commonly employed in wastewater and water
treatment. In terms of inactivation, commonly used dis-
infectants such as chlorine are not as effective for inac-
tivating the protozoa as compared to bacteria and vi-
ruses. Table 3-3 shows the relative microbial resistance
to disinfection compared to £. co/;. For the chemical
disinfectants, a higher Ct value is required to show an
equal level of inactivation as compared to bacteria. Ad-
vanced disinfection using irradiation such as UV or elec-
tron beam treatments have been shown to be effective
for inactivating the pathogens with the necessary fluence
or dose being roughly equivalent to that required by
some bacteria.
c.
Viruses
Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites able to multi-
ply only within a host cell and are host-specific. Viruses
occur in various shapes and range in size from 0.01 to
0.3 um in cross-section and are composed of a nucleic
acid core surrounded by an outer coat of protein. Bacte-
94
-------
riophage are viruses that infect bacteria as the host; they
have not been implicated in human infections and are
often used as indicators in seeded virus studies. Coliph-
ages are host specific viruses that infect the coliform
bacteria.
Enteric viruses multiply in the intestinal tract and are
released in the fecal matter of infected persons. Not all
types of enteric viruses have been determined to cause
waterborne disease, but over 100 different enteric vi-
ruses are capable of producing infections or disease. In
general, viruses are more resistant to environmental
stresses than many of the bacteria, although some vi-
ruses persist for only a short time in wastewater. The
Enteroviruses, Rotavirus, and the Enteric Adenoviruses,
which are known to cause respiratory illness, gastroen-
teritis, and eye infections, have been isolated from
wastewater. Of the viruses that cause diarrheal disease,
only the Noroviruss and Rotavirus have been shown to be
major waterborne pathogens (Rose, 1986) capable of
causing large outbreaks of disease.
There is no evidence that the Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV), the pathogen that causes AIDS, can be trans-
mitted via a waterborne route (Riggs, 1989). The results
of one laboratory study (Casson etal., 1992), where pri-
mary and undisinfected secondary effluent samples were
inoculated with HIV (Strain NIB) and held for up to 48
hours at 25° C (77° F), indicated that HIV survival was
significantly less than Polio virus survival under similar
conditions. Asimilar study by Casson etal. in 1997 indi-
cated that untreated wastewater spiked with blood cells
infected with the HIV exhibited a rapid loss of HIV, al-
though a small fraction remained stable for 48 hours.
Similar to bacteria and protozoan parasites, viruses can
be both physically removed from the wastewater or inac-
tivated. However, due to the relatively small size of typi-
cal viruses, the sedimentation and filtration processes
are less effective at removal. Significant virus removal
can be achieved with ultrafiltration membranes, possibly
in the 3- to 4-log range. However, for viruses, inactiva-
tion is generally considered the more important of the 2
main reduction methods. Due to the size and relatively
noncomplex nature of viruses, most disinfectants dem-
onstrate reasonable inactivation levels at relatively low Ct
values. Interestingly, for UV light disinfection, relatively
high fluence values are required to inactivate viruses when
compared to bacteria and protozoans. It is believed that
the protein coat of the virus shields the ribonucleic acid
(RNA) from UV light.
3.4.1.3 Presence and Survival of Pathogens
a. Presence
Bacteria, viruses, and parasites can all be detected in
wastewater. Studies of pathogens have reported aver-
age levels of 6.2, 5.8, and 5.3 log cfu/100ml of Yersinia,
Shigella, and Salmonella detected in primary-clarified
sewage influent over a 2-year period in a U.S. facility
(Hench etal., 2003). Salmonella may be present in con-
centrations up to 10,000/1. The excretion of Salmonella
typhi by asymptomatic carriers may vary from 5 x 103 to
45 x 106 bacteria/g of feces. But there are few studies in
recent years, which have directly investigated the pres-
ence of bacterial pathogens and have focused more
often on the indicator bacteria. Concentrations excreted
by infected individuals range from 106 cysts, 107 oocysts
and as high as 1012 virus particle per gram of feces for
Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and Rotavirus, respectively
(Gerba, 2000). Pathogen levels in wastewater can vary
depending on infection in the community.
Levels of viruses, parasites, and indicator bacteria re-
ported in untreated and secondary treated effluents are
shown in Tables 3-4 and 3-5. These tables illustrate the
tremendous range in the concentrations of microorgan-
Table 3-3. Ct Requirements for Free Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide to Achieve 99 Percent
Inactivation of E. Co// Compared to Other Microorganisms
Microbe
£. Co//
Poliovirus
Giardia
Cryptosporidium
CI2Ct
0.6
1.7
54-250
>7,200
% Greater CI2Ct
Requirement
Compared to £. Co//
NA
96%
196-199%
>200%
Chloramine
Ct
113
1,420
430-580
>7,200
% Greater Chloramine Ct
Requirement Compared
to £. Co//
NA
170%
117-135%
>194%
Adapted from: Maier, 2000
95
-------
isms that may be found in raw and secondary wastewa-
ter.
The methods currently used to detect Cryptosporidium
oocysts and Giardia cysts are limited since they cannot
assess viability or potential infectivity. Therefore, the
health risks associated with finding oocysts and cysts
in the environment cannot be accurately ascertained
from occurrence data and the risks remain unknown.
Dowd et al. (1998) described a polymerase chain reac-
tion (PCR) method to detect and identify the microsporidia
(amplifying the small subunit ribosomal DMA of
microsporidia). They found isolates in sewage, surface
waters, and ground waters. The strain that was most of-
ten detected was Enterocytozoon bieneusi, which is a
cause of diarrhea and excreted from infected individuals
into wastewater. Microsporidia spores have been shown
to be stable in the environment and remain infective for
days to weeks outside their hosts (Shadduck, 1989;
Waller, 1980; Shadduck and Polley, 1978). Because of
their small size (1 to 5 urn), they may be difficult to re-
move using conventional filtration techniques. However,
initial studies using cell culture suggest that the spores
may be more susceptible to disinfection (Wolk et al.,
2000).
Under experimental conditions, absorption of viruses and
£. co/; through plant roots, and subsequent acropetal
translocation has been reported (Murphy and Syverton,
1958). For example, one study inoculated soil with Polio
virus, and found that the viruses were detected in the
leaves of plants only when the plant roots were damaged
or cut. The likelihood of translocation of pathogens
through trees or vines to the edible portions of crops is
extremely low, and the health risks are negligible.
Table 3-4. Microorganism Concentrations in
Raw Wastewater
Table 3-5. Microorganism Concentrations in
Secondary Non-Disinfected
Wastewater
Organism
Fecal Coliforms/100L
Enterococi/100L
Shigella /100mL
Salmonella /lOOmL
Helminth ova/1 OOmL
Enteric virus/1001
Giardia cysts/1001
Cryptosporidium oocysts/1 OOL
Range in Average Concentrations
(CFU, PFU or Cysts/Oocysts)
1 05 to 1 05
1 04 to 1 06
1 to 103
102to 10"
1 to 1 03
1 to 5 x1 03
0.39 to 4.9x10"
0.2 to 1.5x103
Organism
Fecal Conforms
Enterococci
Enteric virus
Giardia cysts
Cryptosporidium oocysts
Average Concentrations
(CPU, PFU, or Cysts/Oocysts per 100L)
7,764
2,186
20 to 650
5 to 2,297
140
Source: NRC, 1998 and Maier et. al., 2000
Source: NRC, 1998
b. Survival
Most pathogens do not increase in numbers outside of
their host, although in some instances the ova of helm-
inths do not mature to the larval stage until they are in
the soil. In all cases, the numbers decrease at various
rates, depending on a number of factors including the
inherent biologic nature of the agent, temperature, pH,
sunlight, relative humidity, and competing flora and fauna.
Examples of relative survival times for some pathogens
are given in Table 3-6. These values are intended to
indicate relative survival rates only, and illustrate the
various persistence of selected organisms.
3.4.1.4 Pathogens and Indicator Organisms in
Reclaimed Water
There have been a number of studies regarding the pres-
ence of pathogens and indicator organisms in reclaimed
water and such studies continue as experience in this
field expands. Koivunen et al. (2003) compared the re-
duction of fecal coliforms to the reduction of Salmonella
by conventional biological treatment, filtration, and disin-
fection. Fecal coliform bacteria were present at 1000-
fold greater concentration, and the Salmonella bacteria
were reduced to non-detectable levels by advanced treat-
ment (greater than 99.9 percent). Fecal coliform bacteria
were a good, conservative indicator of such reductions.
However, given the numbers of Salmonellae in second-
ary effluents and the fact that 18 carried multiple antibi-
otic resistance, the authors concluded that without proper
additional advanced treatment, there may be a signifi-
cant public health risk.
Ayear-long study investigated a conventional reuse treat-
ment facility in St. Petersburg, Florida (Rose et al., 1996).
In this facility, deep-bed sand filtration and disinfection,
with total chlorine residual (4 to 5 mg/L) were the barriers
assessed through both monitoring of naturally occurring
bacteria, protozoa, and viruses, as well as through seeded
challenge studies. Removals were 5 log for human vi-
96
-------
Table 3-6. Typical Pathogen Survival Times at 20-30 °C
Pathogen
Survival Time (days)
Fresh Water & Sewage
Crops
Soil
Viruses8
Enterovirusesb
<120 but usually <50
<60 but usually <15
<100 but usually <20
Bacteria
Fecal coliforms8'0
Salmonella spp.a
Shigella spp.a
Vibrio cholerae d
<60 but usually <30
<60 but usually <30
<30 but usually <10
<30 but usually <10
<30 but usually <15
<30 but usually <15
<10 but usually <5
<5 but usually <2
<70 but usually <20
<70 but usually <20
—
<20 but usually <10
Protozoa
Entamoeba
histolytica cysts
<30 but usually <15
<10 but usually <2
<20 but usually <10
Helminths
Ascaris
lumbricoides eggs
Many months
<60 but usually <30
Many months
a In seawater, viral survival is less and bacterial survival is very much less, than in
fresh water.
b Includes polio-, echo-, and coxsackieviruses
c Fecal coliform is not a pathogen but is often used as an indicator organism
d V. cholerae survival in aqueous environments is a subject of current uncertainty.
Source: Adapted from Feacham et. a/., 1983
ruses and coliphage indicators, with anywhere from 1.5
to 3 log reductions by disinfection. A 3 log reduction for
protozoa was achieved and greater than 1 log reduction
was achieved for bacteria and indicators. Protozoan vi-
ability was not evaluated. In this study, Enterococci and
Clostridium were not included as alternative indicators.
Only the phage was used as a virus indicator. Seeded
trials using bacteriophage demonstrated a 1.5 and 1.6
log reduction by filtration and disinfection, respectively.
A second study was done at the Upper Occoquan Sew-
age Authority (UOSA) in Fairfax County, Virginia.
Samples were collected once per month for 1 year from
8 sites from the advanced wastewater reclamation plant
(Rose etal., 2000). The 8 sites were monitored for indi-
cator bacteria, total and fecal coliforms, enterococci,
Clostridium, coliphage (viruses which infect E.coli), hu-
man enteric viruses, and enteric protozoa. Multimedia
filtration reduced the bacteria by approximately 90 per-
cent, but did not effectively reduce the coliphage or en-
teroviruses. The enteric protozoa were reduced by 85 to
95.7 percent. Chemical lime treatment was the most effi-
cient barrier to the passage of microorganisms (reducing
these microorganisms by approximately 99.99 percent
for bacteria, 99.9 percent for Clostridium and enterovi-
ruses, and 99 percent for protozoa). Disinfection was
achieved through chlorination (free chlorine residuals of
0.2 to 0.5 mg/l), and effectively achieved another 90 to
99 percent reduction. Overall, the plant was able to
achieve a 5 to 7 log reduction of bacteria, 5 log reduction
of enteroviruses, 4 log reduction of Clostridium, and 3.5
log reduction of protozoa. Total coliforms, enterococci,
Clostridium, coliphage, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia were
detected in 4 or fewer samples of the final effluent. No
enteroviruses or fecal coliforms were detected. Proto-
zoa appeared to remain the most resistant microorgan-
isms found in wastewater. However, as with the St. Pe-
tersburg study, protozoan viability in these studies was
not addressed.
Table 3-7 provides a summary of influent and effluent
microbiological quality for the St. Petersburg and Upper
Occaquan studies for enterovirus, Cryptosporidium, and
Giardia. Enteroviruses were found 100 percent of the
time in untreated wastewater. The enteric protozoa,
Cryptosporidium, and Giardia were found from 67 to 100
percent of the time in untreated wastewater. Giardia
cysts were found to be more prevalent, and at higher
concentrations than oocysts in wastewater, perhaps due
to the increased incidence of infection in populations
compared to cryptosporidiosis and higher asymptom-
atic infections. Levels of oocysts in sewage are similar
throughout the world (Smith and Rose, 1998). However,
crops irrigated with wastewater of a poorer quality in
97
-------
Table 3-7
Pathogens in Untreated and Treated Wastewater
City
St. Petersburg, FL
Upper Occoquan, VA
Organism
Enterovirus (PFU/1001)
Cryptospohdium (oocysts/1001)
Giardia (cysts/1001)
Enterovirus (PFU/1001)
Cryptospohdium (oocysts/1001)
Giardia (cysts/1001)
Untreated Wastewater
% Positive
100
67
100
100
100
100
Average Value
1,033
1,456
6,890
1,100
1,500
49,000
Reclaimed Water
% Positive
8
17
25
0
8.3
17
Average Value
0.01
0.75
0.49
0
0.037
1.1
Source: Walker-Coleman et. a/., 2002; Rose and Carnahan, 1992; Sheikh and Cooper, 1998; Rose et. a/., 2001; Rose and
Quintero-Betancourt, 2002; and York et. a/., 2002
Israel contained more oocysts than cysts (Armon et a/.,
2002).
The results of these studies indicate that the treatment
processes employed are capable of significantly reduc-
ing or eliminating these pathogens.
The State of Florida recognizes that Giardia and
Cryptospohdium are pathogens of increasing importance
to water reclamation and now requires monitoring for these
pathogens (Florida DEP, 1999). Results of this monitor-
ing are presented in Table 3-8. The Florida facilities high-
lighted in this table generally feature secondary treat-
ment, filtration, and high-level disinfection. Table 3-9 in-
cludes the associated data from these facilities for TSS,
turbidity, and total chlorine residual.
Visual inspection studies in Florida and elsewhere rou-
tinely found Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts
in reclaimed water that received filtration and high-level
disinfection and was deemed suitable for public
access uses. A number of more detailed studies which
considered the viability and infectivity of the cysts and
oocysts suggested that Giardia was likely inactivated by
chlorine but 15 to 40 percent of detected Cryptosporidium
oocysts may survive (Keller, 2002; Sheikh, 1999; Garcia,
2002; Genacarro, 2003; Quintero, 2003). Other studies
evaluating UV and the electron beam as alternatives to
chlorine disinfection found that both parasites were eas-
ily inactivated (Mofidi 2002 and Slifko 2001). Both Giar-
dia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts required less than
10mJ/cm2 for complete inactivation by UV (Mofidi 2002
and Slifko 2001).
In December 2003, the Water Environment Research
Foundation (WERF) initiated a series of workshops on
indicators for pathogens in wastewater, stormwater, and
biosolids. The first workshop considered the state of
science for indicator organisms. Potential indicators for
further study were identified in an attempt to improve upon
current indicator organism use and requirements. The
results of this effort are summarized in Table 3-10. Sub-
sequent phases of this effort will evaluate the usefulness
of the selected list of indicators and compare them with
current indicators. Detailed studies will then be conducted
using the most promising indicators in field studies at
various sites in the U.S.
3.4.1.5
Aerosols
Aerosols are defined as particles less than 50 urn in di-
ameter that are suspended in air. Viruses and most
pathogenic bacteria are in the respirable size range;
hence, the inhalation of aerosols is a possible direct mean
of human infection. Aerosols are most often a concern
where reclaimed water is applied to urban or agricultural
sites with sprinkler irrigation systems, or where it is used
for cooling water make-up.
The concentration of pathogens in aerosols is a function
of their concentration in the applied water and the aero-
solization efficiency of the spray process. During spray
irrigation, the amount of water that is aerosolized can
vary from less than 0.1 percent to almost 2 percent, with
a mean aerosolization efficiency of 1 percent or less.
Infection or disease may be contracted indirectly by de-
posited aerosols on surfaces such as food, vegetation,
and clothes. The infective dose of some pathogens is
lower for respiratory tract infections than for infections
via the gastrointestinal tract. Therefore, for some patho-
gens, inhalation may be a more likely route for disease
transmission than either contact or ingestion.
The infectivity of an inhaled aerosol depends on the depth
of the respiratory penetration and the presence of patho-
genic organisms capable of infecting the respiratory sys-
98
-------
Table 3-8.
Summary of Florida Pathogen Monitoring Data
Statistic
Number of observations
% having detectable concentrations
25 percentile (#7100 I)
50 percentile (#7100 I)
75 percentile (#7100 I)
90 percentile (#7100 I)
Maximum (#7100 I)
Giardia
69
58%
ND
4
76
333
3,096
Cryptosporidium
68
22%
ND
ND
ND
2.3
282
Notes: (a) All numeric data are total numbers of cysts or oocysts per 100 L.
(b) ND indicates a value less than detection.
Source: Walker-Coleman, et. a/., 2002.
Table 3-9. Operational Data for Florida Facilities
Statistic
Minimum
10 percentile
25 percentile
50 percentile
75 percentile
90 percentile
Maximum
TSS (mg/l)
0.19
0.4
0.8
1
1.76
2.1
6
Turbidity (NTU)
0.31
0.45
0.65
0.99
1.36
1.8
4.5
Chlorine Residual (mg/l)
1.01
1.9
2.32
4.1
5
7.1
10.67
Source: Walker-Coleman et. a/., 2002
tern. Aerosols in the 2 to 5 urn size range are generally
excluded from the respiratory tract, with some that are
subsequently swallowed. Thus, if gastrointestinal patho-
gens are present, infection could result. A considerably
greater potential for infection occurs when respiratory
pathogens are inhaled in aerosols smaller than 2 urn in
size, which pass directly to the alveoli of the lungs (Sorber
and Outer, 1975).
One of the most comprehensive aerosol studies, the Lub-
bock Infection Surveillance Study (Camann et a/., 1986),
monitored viral and bacterial infections in a mostly rural
community surrounding a spray injection site near Wil-
son, Texas. The source of the irrigation water was
undisinfected trickling filter effluent from the Lubbock
Southeast water reclamation plant. Spray irrigation of
the wastewater significantly elevated air densities of
fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci, mycobacteria, and
coliphage above the ambient background levels for at
least 650 feet (200 meters) downwind. The geometric
mean concentration of enteroviruses recovered 150 to
200 feet (44 to 60 meters) downwind was 0.05 pfu/m3, a
level higher than that observed at other wastewater aero-
sol sites in the U.S. and in Israel (Camann et a/., 1988).
While disease surveillance found no obvious connection
between the self-reporting of acute illness and the de-
gree of aerosol exposure, serological testing of blood
samples indicated that the rate of viral infections was
slightly higher among members of the study population
who had a high degree of aerosol exposure (Camann et
a/., 1986).
For intermittent spraying of disinfected reclaimed water,
occasional inadvertent contact should pose little health
hazard from inhalation. Cooling towers issue aerosols
continuously, and may present a greater concern if the
water is not properly disinfected. Although a great deal
of effort has been expended to quantify the numbers of
fecal coliforms and enteric pathogens in cooling tower
waters, there is no evidence that they occur in large num-
99
-------
Table 3-10 Some Suggested Alternative Indicators for Use in Monitoring Programs
Parameter
Viruses
Bacteria
Parasites
Non-microbial indicators
Pathogens as possible indicators
Pathogen Presence
F+ RNA coliphages
Somatic coliphages
Adenovirus
JC virus
£. co//
Enterococci
Bifidobacteria
Clostridium perfringens
Sulfite reducing
Clostridium spp.
Fecal sterols
Cryptosporidium
Giardia
Source: WERF Workshop, 2003
bers, although the numbers of other bacteria may be quite
large (Adams and Lewis, n.d.).
No documented disease outbreaks have resulted from
the spray irrigation of disinfected, reclaimed water. Stud-
ies indicate that the health risk associated with aero-
sols from spray irrigation sites using reclaimed water is
low (U.S. EPA, 1980b). However, until more sensitive
and definitive studies are conducted to fully evaluate the
ability of pathogens contained in aerosols to cause dis-
ease, the general practice is to limit exposure to aero-
sols produced from reclaimed water that is not highly
disinfected. Exposure is limited through design or op-
erational controls. Design features include:
• Setback distances, which are sometimes called buffer
zones
• Windbreaks, such as trees or walls around irrigated
areas
• Low pressure irrigation systems and/or spray nozzles
with large orifices to reduce the formation of fine
mist
• Low-profile sprinklers
• Surface or subsurface methods of irrigation
Operational measures include:
• Spraying only during periods of low wind velocity
• Not spraying when wind is blowing toward sensitive
areas subject to aerosol drift or windblown spray
• Irrigating at off-hours, when the public or employees
would not be in areas subject to aerosols or spray
All these steps would be considered part of a best man-
agement plan for irrigation systems regardless of the
source of water used.
Most states with reuse regulations or guidelines include
setback distances from spray areas to property lines,
buildings, and public access areas. Although predictive
models have been developed to estimate microorgan-
ism concentrations in aerosols or larger water droplets
resulting from spray irrigation, setback distances are
determined by regulatory agencies in a somewhat arbi-
trary manner, using levels of disinfection, experience,
and engineering judgment as the basis.
3.4.1.6 Infectious Disease Incidence Related to
Wastewater Reuse
Epidemiological investigations have focused on waste-
water-contaminated drinking water supplies, the use of
raw or minimally-treated wastewater for food crop irri-
gation, health effects to farm workers who routinely con-
tact poorly treated wastewater used for irrigation, and
the health effects of aerosols or windblown spray ema-
nating from spray irrigation sites using undisinfected
wastewater. These investigations have all provided evi-
dence of infectious disease transmission from such prac-
100
-------
tices (Lund, 1980; Feachem et al., 1983; Shuval et al.,
1986).
Review of the scientific literature, excluding the use of
raw sewage or primary effluent on sewage farms in the
late 19th century, does not indicate that there have been
no confirmed cases of infectious disease resulting from
reclaimed water use in the U.S. where such use has
been in compliance with all appropriate regulatory con-
trols. However, in developing countries, the irrigation of
market crops with poorly treated wastewater is a major
source of enteric disease (Shuval et al., 1986).
Occurrences of low level or endemic waterborne diseases
associated with exposure to reclaimed water have been
difficult to ascertain for several reasons:
• Current detection methods have not been sufficiently
sensitive or specific enough to accurately detect low
concentrations of pathogens, such as viruses and
protozoa, even in large volumes of water.
• Many infections are often not apparent, or go unre-
ported, thus making it difficult to establish the ende-
micity of such infections.
• The apparently mild nature of many infections pre-
clude reporting by the patient or the physician.
• Current epidemiological techniques are not sufficiently
sensitive to detect low-level transmission of these
diseases through water.
• Illness due to enteroviral or parasite infections may
not become obvious for several months or years.
• Once introduced into a population, person-to-person
contact can become a secondary mode of transmis-
sion of many pathogens, thereby obscuring the role
of water in its transmission.
Because of the insensitivity of epidemiological studies to
provide a direct empirical assessment of microbial health
risk due to low-level exposure to pathogens, methodolo-
gies have increasingly relied on indirect measures of risk
by using analytical models for estimation of the intensity
of human exposure and the probability of human response
from the exposure. Microbial risk assessment involves
evaluating the likelihood that an adverse health effect may
occur from human exposure to one or more potential
pathogens. Most microbial risk assessments in the past
have used a framework originally developed for chemi-
cals that is defined by 4 major steps: (1) hazard identifi-
cation, (2) dose-response identification, (3) exposure
assessment, and (4) risk characterization. However, this
framework does not explicitly acknowledge the differences
between health effects due to chemical exposure versus
those due to microbial exposure. Those differences in-
clude acute versus chronic health effects, potential for
person-to-person transmission of disease, and the po-
tential need to account for the epidemiological status of
the population (Olivieri, 2002).
Microbial risk analyses require several assumptions to
be made. These assumptions include a minimum infec-
tive dose of selected pathogens, concentration of patho-
gens present, quantity of pathogens ingested, inhaled,
or otherwise contacted by humans, and probability of
infection based on infectivity models. The use of micro-
bial risk assessment models have been used extensively
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to evalu-
ate food safety for pathogens such as Listeria
Monocytogenes in ready to eat foods (USDA, n.d.). The
World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agricul-
ture Organization (FAO) also provide risk assessment
methodologies for use in evaluating food safety (Codex
Alimentarius).
In order to assess health risks associated with the use
of reclaimed water, pathogen risk assessment models to
assess health risks associated with the use of reclaimed
water have been used as a tool in assessing relative health
risks from microorganisms in drinking water (Cooper et
al., 1986; Gerba and Haas, 1988; Olivieri et al., 1986;
Regli et al., 1991; Rose et al., 1991; Gale, 2002) and
reclaimed water (Asano and Sakaji, 1990; EOA, Inc.,
1995; Rose and Gerba, 1991; Tanaka et al., 1998;
Patterson et al., 2001). Most of the models calculated
the probability of individual infection or disease as a re-
sult of a single exposure. One of the more sophisticated
models calculates a distribution of risk over the popula-
tion by utilizing epidemiological data such as incubation
period, immune status, duration of disease, rate of symp-
tomatic development, and exposure data such as pro-
cesses affecting pathogen concentration (EOA, Inc.,
1995).
At the present time, no wastewater disinfection or re-
claimed water standards or guidelines in the U.S. are
based on risk assessment using microorganism infec-
tivity models. Florida is investigating such an approach
and has suggested levels of viruses between 0.04 to 147
100 I, depending on the virus (ranging from Rotavirus
infectivity to a less infectious virus), viable oocysts at 227
100 I, and viable cysts at 5/100 I (York and Walker-
Coleman, 1999). Microbial risk assessment methodol-
ogy is a useful tool in assessing relative health risks
associated with water reuse. Risk assessment will un-
doubtedly play a role in future criteria development as
epidemiological-based models are improved and refined.
101
-------
3.4.1.7
Chemical Constituents
b.
Organics
The chemical constituents potentially present in munici-
pal wastewater are a major concern when reclaimed
water is used for potable reuse. These constituents may
also affect the acceptability of reclaimed water for other
uses, such as food crop irrigation or aquaculture. Po-
tential mechanisms of food crop contamination include:
• Physical contamination, where evaporation and re-
peated applications may result in a buildup of con-
taminants on crops
• Uptake through the roots from the applied water or
the soil, although available data indicate that poten-
tially toxic organic pollutants do not enter edible por-
tions of plants that are irrigated with treated munici-
pal wastewater (National Research Council, 1996)
• Foliar uptake
With the exception of the possible inhalation of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from indoor exposure, chemi-
cal concerns are less important where reclaimed water
is not to be consumed. Chemical constituents are a con-
sideration when reclaimed water percolates into ground-
water as a result of irrigation, groundwater recharge, or
other uses. These practices are covered in Chapter 2.
Some of the inorganic and organic constituents in re-
claimed water are listed in Table 3-11.
a.
Inorganics
In general, the health hazards associated with the inges-
tion of inorganic constituents, either directly or through
food, are well established (U.S. EPA, 1976). EPA has
set maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking
water. The concentrations of inorganic constituents in
reclaimed water depend mainly on the source of waste-
water and the degree of treatment. Residential use of
water typically adds about 300 mg/l of dissolved inor-
ganic solids, although the amount added can range from
approximately 150 mg/l to more than 500 mg/l (Metcalf
& Eddy, 2002). As indicated in Table 3-11 the presence
of total dissolved solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy
metals, and other inorganic constituents may affect the
acceptability of reclaimed water for different reuse appli-
cations. Wastewater treatment using existing technol-
ogy can generally reduce many trace elements to below
recommended maximum levels for irrigation and drinking
water. Uses in wetlands and recreational surface waters
must also consider aquatic life protection and wetland
habitat.
The organic make-up of raw wastewater includes natu-
rally occurring humic substances, fecal matter, kitchen
wastes, liquid detergents, oils, grease, and other sub-
stances that, in one way or another, become part of the
sewage stream. Industrial and residential wastes may
contribute significant quantities of synthetic organic com-
pounds.
The need to remove organic constituents is related to
the end use of reclaimed water. Some of the adverse
effects associated with organic substances include:
• Aesthetic effects - organics may be malodorous and
impart color to the water
• Clogging - particulate matter may clog sprinkler heads
or accumulate in soil and affect permeability
• Proliferation of microorganisms - organics provide
food for microorganisms
• Oxygen consumption - upon decomposition, organic
substances deplete the dissolved oxygen content
in streams and lakes. This negatively impacts the
aquatic life that depends on the oxygen supply for
survival
• Use limitation - many industrial applications cannot
tolerate water that is high in organic content
• Disinfection effects - organic matter can interfere
with chlorine, ozone, and ultraviolet disinfection,
thereby making them less available for disinfection
purposes. Further, chlorination may result in forma-
tion of potentially harmful disinfection byproducts
• Health effects - ingestion of water containing certain
organic compounds may result in acute or chronic
health effects.
The wide range of anthropogenic organic contaminants
in streams influenced by urbanization (including waste-
water contamination) includes Pharmaceuticals, hor-
mones, antioxidants, plasticizers, solvents, polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), detergents, pesticides,
and their metabolites (Kolpin etal., 2002). The stability
and persistence of these compounds are extremely vari-
able in the stream/sediment environment. A recent com-
prehensive study of the persistence of anthropogenic and
natural organic molecules during groundwater recharge
suggests that carbamezepine may survive long enough
to serve as a useful tracer compound of wastewater ori-
gin (Clara etal., 2004).
102
-------
Table 3-11. Inorganic and Organic Constituents of Concern in Water Reclamation and Reuse
Constituent
Suspended Solids
Biodegradable
Organics
Nutrients
Stable Organics
Hydrogen Ion
Concentration
Heavy Metals
Dissolved
Inorganics
Residual Chlorine
Measured
Parameters
Suspended solids (SS),
including volatile and
fixed solids
Biochemical oxygen demand,
chemical oxygen demand,
total organic carbon
Nitrogen, Phosphorus,
Potassium
Specific compounds
(e.g., pesticides, chlorinated
hydrocarbons)
PH
Specific elements (e.g..
Cd, Zn, Ni, and Hg)
Total dissolved solids, electrical
Conductivity, specific elements
(e.g., Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, and B)
Free and combined chlorine
Reasons for Concern
Organic contaminants, heavy metals, etc. are
absorbed on particulates. Suspended matter
can shield microorganisms from disinfectants.
Excessive amounts of suspended solids cause
plugging in irrigation systems.
Aesthetic and nuisance problems. Organics
provide food for microorganisms, adversely
affect disinfection processes, make water
unsuitable for some industrial or other uses,
consume oxygen, and may result in acute or
chronic effects if reclaimed water is u
Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are
essential nutrients for plant growth and their
presence normally enhances the value of the
water for irrigation. When discharged to the
aquatic environment, nitrogen and phosphorus
can lead to the growth of undesir
Some of these organics tend to resist
conventional methods of wastewater treatment.
Some organic compounds are toxic in the
environment, and their presence may limit the
suitability of reclaimed water for irrigation or
other uses. Chlorine reacts with man
The pH of wastewater affects disinfection,
coagulation, metal solubility, as well as alkalinity
of soils. Normal range in municipal wastewater
is pH = 6.5 - 8.5, but industrial waste can alter
pH significantly.
Some heavy metals accumulate in the
environment and are toxic to plants and animals.
Their presence may limit the suitability of the
reclaimed water for irrigation or other uses.
Excessive salinity may damage some crops.
Specific inorganics electrical conductivity ions
such as chloride, sodium, and boron are toxic to
specific elements (e.g., in some crops, sodium
may pose soil permeability Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, and
B problems).
Excessive amounts of free available chlorine
(>0.05 Chlorine chlorine mg/l) may cause leaf-tip
burn and damage some sensitive crops.
However, most chlorine in reclaimed water is in
a combined form, which does not cause crop
damage. Some concerns are expre
Source: Adapted from Pettygrove and Asano, 1985
103
-------
The health effects resulting from organic constituents
are of primary concern for indirect or direct potable re-
use. In addition, these constituents may be of concern
where reclaimed water is utilized for food crop irriga-
tion, where reclaimed water from irrigation or other ben-
eficial uses reaches potable groundwater supplies, or
where the organics may bioaccumulate in the food chain
(e.g., in fish-rearing ponds).
Traditional measures of organic matter such as BOD,
chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total organic car-
bon (TOG), are widely used as indicators of treatment
efficiency and water quality for many nonpotable uses of
reclaimed water. However, these measures have only
indirect relevance related to evaluating toxicity and health
effects. Sophisticated analytical instrumentation makes
it possible to identify and quantify extremely low levels
of organic constituents in water. Examples include gas
chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (GC/MS/
MS) or high performance liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry (HPLC/MS). These analyses are costly and
may require extensive and difficult sample preparation,
particularly for nonvolatile organics.
Organic compounds in wastewater can be transformed
into chlorinated organic species where chlorine is used
for disinfection purposes. In the past, most attention was
focused on the trihalomethane (THM) compounds; a fam-
ily of organic compounds typically occurring as chlorine
or bromine-substituted forms of methane. Chloroform, a
commonly found THM compound, has been implicated
in the development of cancer of the liver and kidney.
Improved analytical capabilities to detect extremely low
levels of chemical constituents in water have resulted in
identification of several health-significant chemicals and
disinfection byproducts in recent years. For example, the
extremely potent carcinogen, N-nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA) is present in sewage and is produced when mu-
nicipal wastewater effluent is disinfected with chlorine or
chloramines (Mitch et al, 2003). In some situations, the
concentration of NDMA present in reclaimed water ex-
ceeds action levels set for the protection of human health,
even after reverse osmosis treatment. To address con-
cerns associated with NDMA and other trace organics in
reclaimed water, several utilities in California have in-
stalled UV/H2O2 treatment systems for treatment of re-
verse osmosis permeate.
Quality standards have been established for many inor-
ganic constituents. Treatment and analytical technology
has demonstrated the capability to identify, quantify, and
control these substances. Similarly, available technol-
ogy is capable of eliminating pathogenic agents from
contaminated waters. On the basis of available informa-
tion, there is no indication that health risks from using
highly treated reclaimed water for potable purposes are
greater than those from using existing water supplies
(National Research Council, 1994). Yet, unanswered ques-
tions remain about organic constituents, due mainly to
their potentially large numbers and unresolved health risk
potentials related to long-term, low-level exposure. As-
sessment of health risks associated with potable reuse
is not definitive due to limited chemical and toxicological
data and inherent limitations in available epidemiological
and toxicological methods. The results of epidemiologi-
cal studies directed at drinking water have generally been
inconclusive, and extrapolation methodologies used in
toxicological assessments provide uncertainties in over-
all risk characterization (National Research Council, 1998).
3.4.1.8 Endocrine Disrupters
In addition to the potential adverse effects of chemicals
described in Section 3.4.1.6, certain chemical constitu-
ents present in wastewater also can disrupt hormonal
systems. This phenomenon, which is referred to as en-
docrine disruption, can occur through a variety of mecha-
nisms associated with hormone synthesis, hormone
receptor binding, and hormone transformation. As a re-
sult of the many mechanisms through which chemicals
can impact hormone function, a large number of chemi-
cals are classified as endocrine disrupters. However,
the exact types of chemicals that are classified as en-
docrine disrupters vary among researchers. Table 3-12
highlights a number of example sources of potential
endocrine disrupters.
For example, the oxyanion, perchlorate, is an endocrine
disrupter because it affects the thyroid system (U.S. EPA,
2002). The herbicide, atrazine, is an endocrine disrupter
because it affects an enzyme responsible for hormone
regulation (Hayes et al. 2002). A USGS project recently
sampled 139 streams in 30 states for any 1 of 95 endo-
crine disrupters. The results indicated that 80 percent of
the streams had at least 1 of these compounds (McGovern
and McDonald, 2003). The topic of endocrine disruption
has significant implications for a wide variety of chemi-
cals used by industry, agriculture, and consumers. As a
result, the EPA, the European Union (EU), and other gov-
ernment organizations are currently evaluating ap-
proaches for regulating endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
With respect to water reuse, the greatest concerns as-
sociated with endocrine disruption are related to a series
of field and laboratory studies demonstrating that chemi-
cals in wastewater effluent caused male fish to exhibit
female characteristics (Purdom et al., 1994; Harries et
al., 1996; Harries et al., 1997). This process, which is
referred to as feminization, has been attributed mostly to
the presence of steroid hormones excreted by humans
104
-------
(Desbrow eta/., 1998 and Snyder et a/., 2001). The hor-
mones involved in fish feminization include the endog-
enous (i.e., produced within the body) hormone 17b-es-
tradiol as well as hormones present in Pharmaceuticals
(e.g., ethinyl estradiol in birth control pills). Other chemi-
cals capable of feminizing fish are also present in waste-
water. These include nonylphenol and alkylphenol
polyethoxylates, both of which are metabolites of non-
ionic detergents formed during secondary wastewater
treatment (Ahel et a/., 1994).
The specific endocrine-disrupting chemicals in reclaimed
water can be quantified using modern analytical meth-
ods. As indicated previously, the compounds most likely
to be responsible for feminization of fish include steroid
hormones (e.g., 17b-estradiol and ethinyl estradiol) and
detergents metabolites (e.g., nonylphenol and alkylphenol
polyethoxylates). Although these compounds cannot be
quantified at the levels expected in reclaimed water with
the gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)
techniques routinely used to quantify priority pollutants,
they can be measured with equipment available in many
modern laboratories. For the hormones, analytical meth-
ods such as gas chromatography/tandem mass spec-
trometry (GC/MS/MS) (Ternes et a/., 1999, Huang and
Sedlak, 2001), high performance liquid chromatography/
mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS) (Ferguson et a/., 2001),
or immunoassays (Huang and Sedlak, 2001 and Snyder
et a/., 2001) are needed to detect the low concentrations
present in wastewater effluent (e.g., ethinyl estradiol
concentrations are typically less than 2 ug/l in wastewa-
ter effluent). Although the endocrine-disrupting detergent
metabolites are present at much higher concentrations
than the hormones, their analysis also requires special-
ized analytical methods (Ahel et a/., 1994) not available
from many commercial laboratories.
Bioassays can also be used to quantify the potential of
reclaimed water to cause endocrine disruption. These
methods are attractive because they have the potential
to detect all of the difficult-to-measure endocrine-disrupt-
ing chemicals in 1 assay. The simplest bioassays in-
volve in vitro tests, in which a hormone receptor from a
mammalian cell is used to detect endocrine-disrupting
chemicals. Among the different in vitro assays, the Yeast
Estrogen Screen (YES) assay has been employed most
frequently (Desbrow et a/., 1998). Comparisons between
in vitro bioassays and chemical measurements yield
Table 3-12. Examples of the Types and Sources of Substances that have been Reported as Potential
Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals
Category
Polychlorinated
Compounds
Organochlorine Pesticides
Current Use Pesticides
Organotins
Alkylphenolics
Phthalates
Sex Hormones
Synthetic Steroids
Phytoestrogens
Examples of Substances
polychlorinated dioxins and
polychlorinated biphenyls
DDT, dieldrin, and lindane
atrazine, trifluralin, and
permethrin
tributyltin
nonylphenol and
octylphenol
dibutyl phthalate and
butylbenzyl phthalate
1 7-beta estradiol and
estrone
ethinylestradiol
isoflavones, lignans,
coumestans
Examples of Uses
industrial production of
byproducts (mostly banned)
insecticides (many phased
out)
pesticides
antifoulants on ships
surfactants (and their
metabolites)
plasticisers
produced naturally by
animals
contraceptives
present in plant material
Examples of Sources
incineration and landfill
runoff
agricultural runoff
agricultural runoff
harbors
industrial and municipal
effluents
industrial effluent
municipal effluents
municipal effluents
pulp mill effluents
Source: Adapted from McGovern and McDonald, 2003 and Berkett and Lester, 2003
105
-------
consistent results, indicating that steroid hormones are
the most significant endocrine disrupting chemicals in
wastewater effluent. Unfortunately, in vitro bioassays do
not always detect compounds that disrupt hormone sys-
tems through mechanisms other than binding to hormone
receptors. As a result, in vivo bioassays, usually per-
formed with fish, may provide more accurate results. A
clear dose-related response to various endocrine-disrupt-
ing compounds has been established in fish; however,
little is known about species differences in sensitivity to
exposure. Individual responses to exposure may also
vary widely (Routledge etal., 1998). Because many labo-
ratories are unable to perform in vivo bioassays under
the necessary conditions (e.g., flow-through tests with
rainbow trout), in vivo bioassays are not always practi-
cal. Available data suggest that nitrification/denitrifica-
tion and filtration can reduce the concentrations of hor-
mones and detergent metabolites while reverse osmosis
lowers concentrations to levels that are unlikely to cause
endocrine disruption (Huang and Sedlak, 2001 and Fujita
etal., 1996).
The current focus of research on disruption of the estro-
gen system may be attributable to the relative ease of
detecting this form of endocrine disruption. As additional
research is performed, other chemicals in wastewater
effluent may be found to disrupt hormonal systems
through mechanisms yet to be documented. For example,
although results from in vitro bioassays suggest that the
steroid hormones are most likely responsible for femini-
zation of fish, it is possible that other endocrine disrupt-
ers contribute to the effect through mechanisms that can-
not be detected by the bioassays.
The ecological implications associated with the femini-
zation of fish are unknown. The potential of reclaimed
water to cause endocrine disruption in humans is also
unknown. It is anticipated that problems associated with
endocrine disruption could occur, given prolonged con-
sumption of substantial volumes of polluted water. The
compounds in wastewater effluent that are believed to
be responsible for feminization of fish may not pose a
serious risk for humans because of differences between
human and fish physiology. For example, the hormone
17b-estradiol is not used in the oral form in clinical ap-
plications because it would be metabolized before it
could reach its target. Nevertheless, the evidence of
endocrine disruption in wildlife and the absence of data
about the effects of low-level exposure to endocrine dis-
rupting compounds in humans has led to new scrutiny
regarding endocrine-disrupting chemicals in reclaimed
water.
3.4.2 Treatment Requirements
Untreated municipal wastewater may include contribu-
tions from domestic and industrial sources, infiltration
and inflow from the collection system, and, in the case
of combined sewer systems, urban stormwater runoff.
The quantity and quality of wastewater derived from each
source will vary among communities, depending on the
number and type of commercial and industrial estab-
lishments in the area and the condition of the sewer sys-
tem.
Levels of wastewater treatment are generally classified
as preliminary, primary, secondary, and advanced. Ad-
vanced wastewater treatment, sometimes referred to as
tertiary treatment, is generally defined as anything be-
yond secondary treatment. A generalized flow sheet for
municipal wastewater treatment is shown in Figure 3-
10.
In the last decade, significant advances were made in
wastewater treatment equipment, design, and technol-
ogy. For example, biological nutrient removal (BNR)
processes have become more refined. Membranes are
capable of producing higher quality effluent at higher flux
rates and lower pressures than was possible before.
Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) have shown to be effec-
tive in producing a high quality effluent, while greatly re-
ducing a treatment plant's footprint. Microfiltration, used
in some locations to replace conventional media filtra-
tion, has the advantage of effectively removing all para-
site cysts (e.g., Giardiaand Cryptosporidium). Advances
in UV radiation technology have resulted in a cost com-
petitive disinfection process capable of reducing the con-
centration of most pathogens to extremely low levels.
Wastewater treatment from raw to secondary is well un-
derstood and covered in great detail in other publications
such as the Manual of Practice (MOP) 8, Design of Mu-
nicipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, 4th Edition, (WEF,
1998). In this edition of the Guidelines for Water Reuse
the discussion about treatment processes will be limited
to those with a particular application to water reuse and
reclamation. Such processes generally consist of disin-
fection and treatment beyond secondary treatment, al-
though some limited access reuse programs may use
secondary effluent without concern. It should be pointed
out that treatment for particular pollutants at the water
reclamation facility is not always the best answer. Source
controls should also be investigated. In Orange County,
California, 1,4-dioxane (listed as a probable human car-
cinogen based on animal studies) was found in 9 produc-
tion wells at levels greater than the California action lev-
els. This problem was solved by working with a treat-
ment plant customer who voluntarily ceased discharge
106
-------
of 1,4-dioxane to the sewer system (Woodside and
Wehner, 2002).
3.4.2.1
Disinfection
The most important process for the destruction of micro-
organisms is disinfection. In the U.S., the most common
disinfectant for both water and wastewater is chlorine.
Ozone and UV light are other prominent disinfectants
used at wastewater treatment plants. Factors that should
be considered when evaluating disinfection alternatives
include disinfection effectiveness and reliability, capital
costs, operating and maintenance costs, practicality
(e.g., ease of transport and storage or onsite generation,
ease of application and control, flexibility, complexity,
and safety), and potential adverse effects. Examples of
adverse effects include toxicity to aquatic life or forma-
tion of toxic or carcinogenic substances. The predomi-
nant advantages and disadvantages of disinfection al-
ternatives are well known and have been summarized by
the EPA in their Wastewater Technology Fact Sheets on
Ultraviolet Disinfection (September 1999), Ozone Disin-
fection (September 1999), and Chlorine Disinfection (Sep-
tember 1999), Design Manual entitled, "Municipal Waste-
water Disinfection" and Water Environment Federation
(WEF) Manual of Practice FD-10 (1996).
The efficiency of chlorine disinfection depends on the
water temperature, pH, degree of mixing, time of con-
tact, presence of interfering substances, concentration
and form of chlorinating species, and the nature and con-
centration of the organisms to be destroyed. In general,
bacteria are less resistant to chlorine than viruses, which
in turn, are less resistant than parasite ova and cysts.
Figure 3-10. Generalized Flow Sheet for Wastewater Treatment
Screeningn
Comminution
Grit removal
Chemically
Enhanced
Pretreatmentt
(CEPT)
Secondary
Advanced
Low-Rate Processes
Stabilization Pondsn
Aerated Lagoonsn
Wetlandsn
Overland Flown
Soil-Aquifer
Treatment (SAT)
Effluent fora
Subsequent Use
A.
High-Rate
Suspended Growth
(SG)n
• Activated Sludgen
• Membrane n
n Bioreactor (MBR)n
Attached Growth (AG)n
Trickling Filter (TF)n
• Biological Aerated n
n Filter (BAF)n
•Upflow Anaerobic n
n Sludge Blanket n
n (UASB)n
• Rotating Biological [
Contactor (RBC) n
Mixed Growth (MG)n
IntegratedFixed-n
n Film Activated n
n Sludge (IFAS)n
• MBRn
•Trickling Filter*
n Secondary n
n Clarification n
n (TF/SC)
Disposal
Source: Adapted from Pettygrove and Asano, 1985
Effluent fora
Subsequent Use
Selective Ion Exchangen
Overland Flown
Biological Nutrient Removal
(BNR)
Phosphorus Removal
Chemical Precipitation
Biological
Suspended Solids Removal
Chemical Coagulation
n Filtration
Low-Pressure nn
n Membranes-Ultrafiltrationn
n (UF) and Microfiltration (MF)i
Nanofiltration (NF) and n
n Reverse Osmosis (RO) n
n Membranesn
Advanced Oxidation nn
n Processes
Organics & Metals Removal!
Carbon Adsorptiono
Chemical Precipitation
Dissolved Solids Removal
Reverse Osmqsisn
Electrodialysisn
Distillation
Ion Exchangen
Nanofiltration
107
-------
The chlorine dosage required to disinfect wastewater to
any desired level is greatly influenced by the constitu-
ents present in the wastewater. Some of the interfering
substances are:
• Organic constituents, which consume the disinfec-
tant
• Particulate matter, which protects microorganisms
from the action of the disinfectant
• Ammonia, which reacts with chlorine to form chloram-
ines, a much less effective disinfectant species than
free chlorine
In practice, the amount of chlorine added is determined
empirically, based on desired residual and effluent qual-
ity. Chlorine, which in low concentrations is toxic to many
aquatic organisms, is easily controlled in reclaimed wa-
ter by dechlorination, typically with sulfur dioxide.
Chlorine is a regulated substance with a threshold quan-
tity of 2,500 pounds (1130kg). If a chlorine system con-
tains a larger quantity of chlorine than the threshold
quantity, a Risk Management Plan (BMP) must be com-
pleted. Two main factors of the BMP that prompt many
municipalities to switch to alternative disinfection sys-
tems are: (1) the BMP is not a one-time requirement, it
has to be updated every 5 years; and (2) concern over
public reaction to the BMP, which requires that a "kill
zone" be geographically defined around the treatment
facility. This "kill zone" may include residential areas near
the treatment plant. Thus, BMP requirements and de-
creasing chemical costs for commercial grade sodium
hypochlorite have resulted in many municipalities switch-
ing from chlorine gas to commercial grade sodium hy-
pochlorite to provide disinfection of their wastewater.
Ozone (O3), is a powerful disinfecting agent and chemi-
cal oxidant in both inorganic and organic reactions. Due
to the instability of ozone, it must be generated onsite
from air or oxygen carrier gas. Ozone destroys bacteria
and viruses by means of rapid oxidation of the protein
mass, and disinfection is achieved in a matter of min-
utes. Ozone is a highly effective disinfectant for advanced
wastewater treatment plant effluent, removing color, and
contributing dissolved oxygen. Some disadvantages to
using ozone for disinfection are: (1) the use of ozone is
relatively expensive and energy intensive, (2) ozone sys-
tems are more complex to operate and maintain than
chlorine systems, and (3) ozone does not maintain a re-
sidual in water.
UV is a physical disinfecting agent. Badiation at a wave-
length of 254 mm penetrates the cell wall and is absorbed
by the cellular nucleic acids. This can prevent replica-
tion by eliminating the organism's ability to cause infec-
tion. UV radiation is frequently used for wastewater treat-
ment plants that discharge to surface waters to avoid
the need for dechlorination prior to release of the efflu-
ent. UV is receiving increasing attention as a means of
disinfecting reclaimed water for the following reasons:
(1) UV may be less expensive than disinfecting with chlo-
rine, (2) UV is safer to use than chlorine gas, (3) UV
does not result in the formation of chlorinated hydrocar-
bons, and (4) UV is effective against Cryptosporidium
and Giardia, while chlorine is not.
The effectiveness of UV radiation as a disinfectant (where
fecal coliform limits are on the order of 200/100 ml) has
been well established, and is used at small- to medium-
sized wastewater treatment plants throughout the U.S.
Today, UV radiation to achieve high-level disinfection for
reuse operations is acceptable in some states. In recog-
nition of the possible harmful effects of chlorine, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
encourages the use of alternative disinfection methods
(FDEP, 1996). The WEBF published a final report en-
titled, "Disinfection Comparison of UV Irradiation to Chlo-
rination: Guidance for Achieving Optimal UV Perfor-
mance." This report provides a broad-based discussion
of the advantages and disadvantages of chlorine and UV,
using an empirical model to determine the UV dose re-
quired for various levels of coliform inactivation. The re-
port also includes cost information and a comparison of
chlorination/dechlorination and UV systems (WEBF,
1995). Studies in San Francisco, California, indicated that
suspended solids play a major role in UV efficiency. This
included the finding that, as the concentration of par-
ticles 7 mm and larger increase, the ability to achieve
acceptable disinfection with UV decreases. Thus, filtra-
tion must be optimized to manage this problem (Jolis et
al., 1996).
The goal of UV disinfection in reuse applications typi-
cally is to inactivate 99.999 percent or more of the tar-
get pathogens (Swift et al., 2002). The 2000 National
Water Besearch Institute (NWBI) guidelines provide
detailed guidance for the design of UV systems that will
achieve high-level disinfection to meet some state stan-
dards for public access reuse. The 2000 NWBI guide-
lines also include a well-defined testing protocol and vali-
dation test as a means to provide reasonable assurance
that the domestic wastewater treatment facility can meet
the high-level disinfection criteria (NWBI and AWWA,
2000).
The Bethune Point WWTP in Daytona Beach, Florida, is
the largest UV disinfection system in the state of Florida
designed for reuse operations. This facility is also the
108
-------
first public access reuse facility in Florida with UV disin-
fection to be permitted for unrestricted public access
(Elefritz, 2002). Placed into service in December 1999,
the Bethune Point WWTP UV disinfection system is a
medium pressure/high intensity system designed for a
dose of 80mW-s/cm2 (800 J/m2) to achieve the high-level
disinfection standard. The City of Henderson, Nevada
water reclamation facility conducted collimated beam
studies of a low pressure/high intensity UV disinfection
system. The studies demonstrated that the disinfection
goal of 20 fecal coliforms per 100 ml was achievable
with a minimum UV dose of 200 J/m2 (Smith and Brown,
2002).
Other disinfectants, such as onsite chlorine generation,
gamma radiation, bromine, iodine, and hydrogen perox-
ide, have been considered for the disinfection of waste-
water. These disinfectants are not generally used be-
cause of economical, technical, operational, or disinfec-
tion efficiency considerations.
3.4.2.2
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Advanced wastewater treatment processes are those
beyond traditional secondary treatment. These processes
are generally used when high quality reclaimed water is
needed. Examples include: (1) urban landscaping, (2) food
crops eaten raw, (3) contact recreation, and (4) many
industrial applications. Individual unit processes capable
of removing the constituents of concern are shown in
Figure 3-11.
The principal advanced wastewater treatment processes
for water reclamation are:
• Filtration - Filtration is a common treatment pro-
cess used to remove particulate matter prior to dis-
infection. Filtration involves the passing of waste-
water through abed of granular media or filter cloth,
which retain the solids. Typical media include sand,
anthracite, and garnet. Removal efficiencies can be
improved through the addition of certain polymers
and coagulants.
• UV Treatment of NDMA - UV Treatment, consid-
ered an Advanced Oxidation Technology (AOT), is
the only proven treatment to effectively reduce
NDMA. The adsorption of ultraviolet light, even the
UV portion of sunlight, by NDMA causes the mol-
ecule to disassociate into harmless fragments (Nagel
etal., 2001). A study done at West Basin Municipal
Water District in Carson, California proved NDMA
concentrations were reduced by both low and me-
dium pressure UV (Nagel etal., 2001).
• Nitrification - Nitrification is the term generally given
to any wastewater treatment process that biologi-
cally converts ammonia nitrogen sequentially to ni-
Figure 3-11. Particle Size Separation Comparison Chart
301
Ranc
Elec
Micros
Polio
Virus
1 1 1
.0005
01 .005 0.01
1 1 I
eof
ran
scope
Sma
Bac
Carbon
Black
f
p Reverse Osmosis
1.0
Micron =
0.1
Nest
eria
Smallest Red Blood Cell Human
Yeas Cell Sma||es,
Range of Particle
Tobacco Optical visible to
Smoke Microscope Naked Eye
.5
Ultra Filtration
= .0000394 Inches
Ionic
Range
1 5
10
50
1 1
Hair
100
Conventional
Filtration
Micro Filtration
Macromolecular
Range
Micron Fine
Particles Particles
Adapted from AWWA, 1990
109
-------
trite nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen. Nitrification does
not remove significant amounts of nitrogen from the
effluent; it only converts nitrogen into another chemi-
cal form. Nitrification can be achieved in many sus-
pended and attached growth treatment processes
when the processes are designed to foster the growth
of nitrifying bacteria. In the traditional activated sludge
process, this is accomplished by designing the pro-
cess to operate at a solids retention time (SRT) that
is long enough to prevent slow-growing nitrifying bac-
teria from being wasted out of the system. Nitrifica-
tion will also occur in trickling filters that operate at
low BOD/TKN ratios either in combination with BOD
removal, or as a separate advanced treatment pro-
cess following any type of secondary treatment. A
well-designed and -operated nitrification process will
produce an effluent containing 1.0 mg/l or less of
ammonia nitrogen.
i Denitrification - Denitrification is any wastewater treat-
ment method that completely removes total nitro-
gen. As with ammonia removal, denitrification is usu-
ally best achieved biologically, in which case it must
be preceded by nitrification. In biological denitrifica-
tion, nitrate nitrogen is used by a variety of het-
erotrophic bacteria as the terminal electron acceptor
in the absence of dissolved oxygen. In the process,
the nitrate nitrogen is converted to nitrogen gas, which
escapes to the atmosphere. The bacteria in these
processes also require a carbonaceous food source.
Denitrification can be achieved using many alterna-
tive treatment processes including variations of many
common suspended growth and some attached
growth treatment processes, provided that the pro-
cesses are designed to create the proper microbial
environment. Biological denitrification processes can
be designed to achieve effluent nitrogen concentra-
tions between 2.0 and 12 mg/l of nitrate nitrogen.
i Phosphorus Removal - Phosphorus can be removed
from wastewater through chemical or biological meth-
ods, or a combination. The choice of methods will
depend on site-specific conditions, including the
amount of phosphorus to be removed and the de-
sired effluent phosphorus concentration. Chemical
phosphorus removal is achieved by precipitating the
phosphorus from solution through the addition of iron,
aluminum, or calcium salts. Biological phosphorus
removal relies on the culturing of bacteria that will
store excess amounts of phosphorus when exposed
to anaerobic conditions, followed by aerobic condi-
tions in the treatment process. In both cases, the
phosphorus is removed from the treatment process
with the waste sludge. Chemical phosphorus removal
can attain effluent orthophosphorus concentrations
of less than 0.1 mg/l, while biological phosphorus
removal will usually produce an effluent phosphorus
concentration between 1.0 and 2.0 mg/l.
i Coagulation-Sedimentation - Chemical coagulation
with lime, alum, or ferric chloride followed by sedi-
mentation removes SS, heavy metals, trace sub-
stances, phosphorus, and turbidity.
i Carbon Adsorption - One effective advanced waste-
water treatment process for removing biodegradable
and refractory organic constituents is granular acti-
vated carbon (GAG). Carbon adsorption can reduce
the levels of synthetic organic chemicals in second-
ary effluent by 75 to 85 percent. The basic mecha-
nism of removal is by adsorption of the organic com-
pounds onto the carbon. Carbon adsorption proceeded
by conventional secondary treatment and filtration
can produce an effluent with a BOD of 0.1 to 5.0 mg/
I, a COD of 3 to 25 mg/l, and a TOG of 1 to 6 mg/l.
Carbon adsorption treatment will also remove sev-
eral metal ions, particularly cadmium, hexavalent
chromium, silver, and selenium. Activated carbon
has been used to remove uncharged species, such
as arsenic and antimony, from an acidic stream. Car-
bon adsorption has also been reported as an effec-
tive means of removing endocrine disrupting com-
pounds (Hunter and Long, 2002).
i Membrane Processes - In recent years, the same
factors that favor the use of membranes for potable
water treatment (increasing demand, decreasing
source water quality, and more stringent regulatory
standards) are influencing their use in treating
wastewaters prior to reuse. Improvements in mem-
brane technologies which separate suspended sol-
ids, dissolved compounds, and human pathogens
(protozoan cysts, bacteria and viruses) from re-
claimed water have inspired greater confidence in
the use of reclaimed water for purposes which in-
clude both direct and indirect human contact.
Membrane filters became commercially available in
1927 from the Sartorius Company in Germany. Until
the mid-1940s, these filters were used primarily to
remove microorganisms and particles from air and
water. The first viable reverse osmosis membrane
was developed in 1960 by researchers at the Uni-
versity of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). The first
commercial reverse osmosis (RO) treatment plant
went into service in 1965 in Coalinga, California. The
use of membrane filtration systems was initially lim-
ited to specialized applications including industrial
separation processes and seawater desalination. By
110
-------
the 1980s, membrane technology was well estab-
lished.
For many years, membranes were not used for waste-
water treatment due to rapid fouling. Prior to 1990,
there were a few notable exceptions, including a highly
publicized 5-mgd RO system at the Water Factory
21 reclamation plant in Orange County, California.
This system went into service in 1975. The plant
used cellulose acetate membranes with lime clarifi-
cation and multi-media filtration for pretreatment prior
to the RO system. Another notable exception was a
3.3-mgd (12 x 103-m3/d) Petromin plant in Riyadh,
Saudia Arabia.
The large-scale use of membranes for wastewater
reclamation did not become feasible until thel 980s,
when the Australian firm, Memtec, developed a hol-
low fiber microfiltration membrane system with an
air backwash that could provide sustainable opera-
tion for wastewater. The Orange County Water Dis-
trict (California) began pilot testing in 1992 to inves-
tigate this new microfiltration system as pretreatment
for reverse osmosis. The use of this new
microfiltration system, followed by thin film compos-
ite RO membranes, proved to be a tremendous im-
provement over the then-conventional system of lime
clarification, sand filtration, and cellulose acetate
membranes. Between 1994 and 2000, over half a
dozen new dual membrane water reclamation sys-
tems were constructed in California and Arizona.
Pressure-driven membrane treatment systems are
broadly categorized by the size particles rejected
by the membrane, or by the molecular weight cut
off (MWCO). These classifications include:
Microfiltration (MF)
Ultrafiltration (UF)
Nanofiltration (NF)
Reverse Osmosis (RO)
0.1 urn or 500, 000 MWCO
0.01 /urn or 20,000 MWCO
0.001 urn or 200 MWCO
0.0001 urn or < 100 MWCO
Figure 3-11 shows a particle size separation com-
parison chart for conventional filtration, microfiltration,
ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis. Tables 3-13a and
3-13b contain microfiltration and reverse osmosis re-
moval data (Metcalf and Eddy, 2002).
MF systems are used to remove relatively large sus-
pended particles including particulates, large colloids,
and oil. This includes providing about 3 to 6 log (99.9
percent to 99.9999 percent) removal of bacteria. In
wastewater treatment, MF systems can be used to
replace secondary clarifiers and more conventional
(sand) filters following biological treatment. UF mem-
branes have smaller pore sizes than MF membranes
and will provide complete removal of bacteria and
protozoan cysts, and 4 to 6 log removal for viruses.
Otherwise, UF membranes perform the same basic
functions in wastewater applications as MF mem-
branes. NF and RO, while retaining smaller particles
including molecules and ions, require higher driving
pressures, higher levels of pretreatment (prefiltration),
and typically operate at lower recovery rates.
For wastewater treatment, the main emphasis has been
on MF, UF, and RO membranes. MF and UF have the
ability to remove biological contaminants (e.g., bacteria
and viruses), and to reduce fouling on downstream re-
verse osmosis membranes. NF or RO systems are
needed where the removal of colloidal and/or dissolved
materials is required.
Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs)
MBRs typically consist of UF or MF membranes. These
membranes are used to replace conventional gravity clari-
fiers, and return activated sludge systems in conven-
tional activated sludge biological treatment systems. The
membranes can be immersed directly into the aeration
tanks, or the mixed liquor can be pumped to external
pressure-driven membrane units. MBRs exhibit a num-
ber of unique advantages:
• Sludge settling characteristics no longer affect final
effluent quality. Biological processes can be oper-
ated at much higher suspended solids concentra-
tions and thereby provide greater treatment capac-
ity per unit volume.
• MF and UF membranes provide nearly complete
removal of protozoan cysts, suspended solids, and
bacteria, as well as partial removal of viruses. In
addition to removing suspended solids, UF mem-
branes can retain large organic molecules, improv-
ing the biodegradation of otherwise resistant com-
pounds such as grease or emulsified oils.
• Longer sludge ages (as long as 30 to 45 days) are
possible, improving the biodegradation of resistant
compounds and improving nitrification performance
under adverse conditions (such as low temperature).
• Wasting occurs directly from the aeration basin, im-
proving process control.
• Submerged MBR systems are well suited to upgrade
existing systems with minimum new construction
required and low impact to ongoing operations.
111
-------
Table 3-13a. Microfiltration Removal Performance Data
Constituent
TOC
BOD
COD
TSS
IDS
NH3-N
NO3-N
po4-
S042"
cr
Turbidity
MF Influent
(mg/l)
10-31
11-32
24-150
8-46
498-622
21-42
<1-5
6-8
90-120
93-115
2-50 NTU
MF Effluent
(mg/l)
9-16
<2-9.9
16-53
<0.5
498-622
20-35
<1-5
6-8
90-120
93-115
0.03-0.08 NTU
Average
Reduction (%)
57
86
76
97
0
7
0
0
0
0
>99
Reduction Reported in
Literature (%)
45-65
75-90
70-85
95-98
0-2
5-15
0-2
0-2
0-1
0-1
—
1 Data collected from the Dublin San Ramon Sanitary District for the period from
April 2000 through December, 2000.
2 Typical flux rate during test period was 1600 l/m2-d.
Adapted from: Metcalf and Eddy, 2002
Table 3-13b. Reverse Osmosis Performance Data
Constituent
TOC
BOD
COD
TSS
TDS
NH3-N
N03-N
po4-
SO42"
cr
Turbidity
RO Influent
(mg/l)
9-16
<2-9.9
16-53
<0.5
498-622
20-35
<1-5
8-Jun
90-120
93-115
0.03-0.08 NTU
RO Effluent
(mg/l)
<0.5
<2
<2
~0
9-19
1-3
0.08-3.2
0.1-1
<0. 5-0.7
0.9-5.0
0.03 NTU
Average
Reduction (%)
>94
>40
>91
>99
—
96
96
-99
99
97
50
Reduction Reported in
Literature (%)
85-95
30-60
85-95
95-100
90-98
90-98
65-85
95-99
95-99
90-98
40-80
1 Data collected from the Dublin San Ramon Sanitary District for the period from
April 1999 through December, 1999.
2 Typical flux rate during test period was 348 l/m2-d.
Adapted from: Metcalf and Eddy, 2002
Submerged membrane assemblies, either MF or UF,
are typically composed of bundles of hollow fiber or
flat sheets of microporous membranes. Filtrate is
drawn through the membrane assemblies by means
of a vacuum applied to the product side of the mem-
brane. Turbulence on the exterior (feed side) is main-
tained by diffused aeration to reduce fouling.
Low-pressure membrane filtration (MF or UF) can be
used following secondary clarification to provide a
112
-------
higher degree of solids removal. Operating in a con-
ventional (pressurized) flow pattern, clarified efflu-
ent is further treated to remove particulate material
(MF) or colloidal material (UF). Typical operating pres-
sures range from 20 to 100 psi (100 to 700 KPa), and
reject flows range from 2 to 50 percent. MF and UF
membranes can be used to pre-treat flow prior to NF
or RO treatment.
Higher-pressure NF and RO systems are used to
remove dissolved organic and inorganic compounds.
The smaller pore size (lower MWCO) results in higher
quality product water, which may meet primary and
secondary drinking water standards. The higher rates
of rejection also result in increasing problems for dis-
posing of the concentrate streams.
i Other Processes - Other advanced wastewater treat-
ment processes of constituent removal include am-
monia stripping, breakpoint chlorination for ammonia
removal, and selective ion exchange for nitrogen re-
moval.
3.4.3
Reliability in Treatment
A high standard of reliability, similar to water treatment
plants, is required at wastewater reclamation plants.
Because there is potential for harm (i.e., in the event
that improperly treated reclaimed water is delivered to
the use area), water reuse requires strict conformance
to all applicable water quality parameters. The need for
reclamation facilities to reliably and consistently produce
and distribute reclaimed water of adequate quality and
quantity is essential and dictates that careful attention
be given to reliability features during the design, con-
struction, and operation of the facilities.
A number of fallible elements combine to make up an
operating water reclamation system. These include the
power supply, individual treatment units, mechanical
equipment, the maintenance program, and the operating
personnel. An array of design features and non-design
provisions can be employed to improve the reliability of
the separate elements and the system as a whole. Back-
up systems are important in maintaining reliability in the
event of failure of vital components. Particularly critical
units include the disinfection system, power supply, and
various treatment unit processes.
For reclaimed water production, EPA Class I reliability is
recommended as a minimum criteria. Class I reliability
requires redundant facilities to prevent treatment upsets
during power and equipment failures, flooding, peak loads,
and maintenance shutdowns. Reliability for water reuse
should also consider:
• Operator certification to ensure that qualified person-
nel operate the water reclamation and reclaimed wa-
ter distribution systems
• Instrumentation and control systems for on-line moni-
toring of treatment process performance and alarms
for process malfunctions
• A comprehensive quality assurance program to en-
sure accurate sampling and laboratory analysis pro-
tocol
• Adequate emergency storage to retain reclaimed wa-
ter of unacceptable quality for re-treatment or alter-
native disposal
• Supplemental storage and/or water supply to ensure
that the supply can match user demands
• A strict industrial pretreatment program and strong
enforcement of sewer use ordinances to prevent il-
licit dumping into the collection system of hazard-
ous materials or other materials that may interfere
with the intended use of the reclaimed water
• A comprehensive operating protocol that defines the
responsibilities and duties of the operations staff to
ensure the reliable production and delivery of re-
claimed water
Many states have incorporated procedures and practices
into their reuse rules and guidelines to enhance the reli-
ability of reclaimed water systems. Florida requires the
producer of reclaimed water to develop a detailed operat-
ing protocol for all public access systems. This protocol
must identify critical monitoring and control equipment,
set points for chlorine and turbidity, actions to be taken
in the event of a failure to achieve these limits, and pro-
cedures to clear the substandard water and return to nor-
mal operations (FAC 62-610). Washington is in the pro-
cess of developing Water Reclamation Facilities Reli-
ability Assessment Guidance, which includes an alarm
and reliability checklist.
3.4.3.1
EPA Guidelines for Reliability
More than 30 years ago, before the Federal Water Qual-
ity Administration evolved into the EPA, it recognized
the importance of treatment reliability, issuing guidelines
entitled, "Federal Guidelines: Design, Operation and
Maintenance of Waste Water Treatment Facilities" (Fed-
eral Water Quality Administration, 1970). These guide-
lines provided an identification and description of vari-
ous reliability provisions and included the following con-
cepts or principles regarding treatment plant reliability:
113
-------
• All water pollution control facilities should be planned
and designed to provide for maximum reliability at
all times.
• Each facility should be capable of operating satis-
factorily during power failures, flooding, peak loads,
equipment failure, and maintenance shutdowns.
• Such reliability can be obtained through the use of
various design techniques that will result in a facil-
ity that is virtually "fail-safe" (Federal Water Quality
Administration, 1970).
The following points highlight more specific subjects for
consideration in preparing final construction plans and
specifications to help accomplish the above principles:
• Duplicate dual feed sources of electric power
• Standby onsite power for essential plant elements
• Multiple process units and equipment
• Holding tanks or basins to provide for emergency stor-
age of overflow and adequate pump-back facilities
• Flexibility of piping and pumping facilities to permit
rerouting of flows under emergency conditions
• Provision for emergency storage or disposal of
sludge (Federal Water Quality Administration, 1970)
The non-design reliability features in the federal guide-
lines include provisions for qualified personnel, an ef-
fective monitoring program, and an effective mainte-
nance and process control program. In addition to plans
and specifications, the guidelines specify submission of
a preliminary project planning and engineering report,
which will clearly indicate compliance with the guideline
principles.
In summary, the federal guidelines identify the following
8 design principles and 4 other significant factors that
appear to be appropriate to consider for reuse operations:
Design Factors
Duplicate power sources
Standby power
Multiple units and equipment
Emergency storage
Piping and pumping flexibility
Dual chlorination systems
Automatic residual control
Automatic alarms
Other Factors
Engineering report
Qualified personnel
Effective monitoring program
Effective maintenance and process control
program
In 1974, EPA subsequently published a document en-
titled, "Design Requirements for Mechanical, Electric,
and Fluid Systems and Component Reliability" (U.S. EPA,
1974). While the purpose of that publication was to pro-
vide reliability design criteria for wastewater treatment
facilities seeking federal financial assistance under PL
92-500, the criteria are useful for the design and opera-
tion of all wastewater treatment plants. These require-
ments established minimum standards of reliability for
wastewater treatment facilities. Other important reliability
design features include on-line monitoring (e.g., turbi-
dimeters and chlorine residual analyzers, and chemical
feed facilities.
Table 3-14 presents a summary of the equipment re-
quirements under the EPA guidelines for Class I reli-
ability treatment facilities.
As shown in Table 3-14, the integrity of the treatment
system is enhanced by providing redundant, or oversized
unit processes. This reliability level was originally speci-
fied for treatment plants discharging into water bodies
that could be permanently or unacceptably damaged by
improperly treated effluent. Locations where Class I fa-
cilities might be necessary are indicated as facilities dis-
charging near drinking water reservoirs, into shellfish
waters, or in proximity to areas used for water contact
sports (U.S. EPA, 1974). While over 30 years old, the
definition of Class I Reliability given in Table 3-14 is still
referenced in the regulations of many states as the mini-
mum level of reliability required for water reclamation
projects.
114
-------
Table 3-14. Summary of Class I Reliability Requirements
Unit
Mechanically -Cleaned
Bar Screen
Pumps
Comminution Facilities
Primary Sedimentation Basins
Filters
Aeration Basins
Mechanical Aerator
Chemical Flash Mixer
Final Sedimentation Basins
Flocculation Basins
Disinfectant Contact Basins
Class I Requirement
A back-up bar screen shall be provided (may be manually cleaned).
A back-up pump shall be provided for each set of pumps which
perform the same function. Design flow will be maintained with any 1
pump out of service.
If comminution is provided, an overflow bypass with bar screen shall
be provided.
There shall be sufficient capacity such that a design flow capacity of
50 % of the total capacity will be maintained with the largest unit out
of service.
There shall be a sufficient number of units of a size such that a
design capacity of at least 75 % of the total flow will be maintained
with 1 unit out of service.
At least 2 basins of equal volume will be provided.
At least 2 mechanical aerators shall be provided. Design oxygen
transfer will be maintained with 1 unit out of service.
At least 2 basins or a back-up means of mixing chemicals separate
from the basins shall be provided.
There shall be a sufficient number of units of a size such that 75% of
the design capacity will be maintained with the largest unit out of
service.
At least 2 basins shall be provided.
There shall be sufficient number of units of a size such that the
capacity of 50% of the total design flow may be treated with the
largest unit out of service.
Source: Adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974
3.4.3.2 Additional Requirements for Reuse
Applications
Different degrees of hazard are posed by process fail-
ures. From a public health standpoint, it is logical that a
greater assurance of reliability should be required for a
system producing reclaimed water for uses where di-
rect or indirect human contact with the water is likely,
than for water produced for uses where the possibility of
contact is remote. Similarly, where specific constituents
in reclaimed water may affect the acceptability of the
water for any use (e.g., industrial process water), reliabil-
ity directed at those constituents is important. Standby
units or multiple units should be encouraged for the ma-
jor treatment elements at all reclamation facilities. For
small installations, the cost may be prohibitive and pro-
vision for emergency storage or disposal is a suitable
alternative.
a.
Piping and Pumping Flexibility
Process piping, equipment arrangements, and unit struc-
tures should provide for efficiency, ease of operation and
maintenance, and maximum flexibility of operation. Flex-
ibility plans should permit the necessary degree of treat-
ment to be obtained under varying conditions. All as-
pects of plant design should allow for routine mainte-
nance of treatment units without deterioration of the plant
effluent.
No pipes or pumps should be installed that would cir-
cumvent critical treatment processes and possibly al-
low inadequately treated effluent to enter the reclaimed
water distribution system. The facility should be capable
of operating during power failures, peak loads, equip-
ment failures, treatment plant upsets, and maintenance
shutdowns. In some cases, it may be necessary to di-
vert the wastewater to emergency storage facilities or
115
-------
discharge the wastewater to approved, non-reuse areas.
During power failures or in the case of an equipment fail-
ure, standby portable diesel-driven pumps can also be
used.
b.
Emergency Storage or Disposal
The term "emergency storage or disposal" means to pro-
vide for the containment or alternative treatment and dis-
posal of reclaimed water whenever the quality is not suit-
able for use. It refers to something other than normal
operational or seasonal storage (e.g., storage that may
be used to hold reclaimed water during wet weather times
until it is needed for use). Provisions for emergency stor-
age or disposal may be considered to be a basic reliabil-
ity provision for some reclamation facilities. Where such
provisions exist, they may substitute for multiple or
standby units and other specific features.
Provisions for emergency storage or disposal may
include:
• Holding ponds or tanks
• Approved alternative disposal locations such as per-
colation areas, evaporation-percolation ponds, or
spray disposal areas
• Deep injection wells
• Pond systems having an approved discharge to re-
ceiving waters or discharge to a reclaimed water use
area for which lower quality water is acceptable
• Provisions to return the wastewater to a sewer for
subsequent treatment and disposal at the reclama-
tion or other facility
• Any other facility reserved for the purpose of emer-
gency storage or disposal of untreated or partially-
treated wastewater
Automatically-actuated emergency or disposal provisions
should include all of the necessary sensors, instruments,
valves, and other devices to enable fully automatic di-
version of the wastewater in the event of failure of a treat-
ment process, and a manual reset to prevent automatic
restart until the failure is corrected. For either manual or
automatic diversion, all of the equipment other than the
pump-back equipment should either be independent of
the normal power source or provided with a standby power
source. Irvine Ranch Water District in California auto-
matically diverts its effluent to a pond when it exceeds a
turbidity of 2 NTU. The water is then recirculated into the
reclamation plant influent.
Where emergency storage is to be used as a reliability
feature, storage capacity is an important consideration.
This capacity should be based on estimates of how long
it will take to return the facilities to normal operations
and the penalties (regulatory or otherwise) associated
with loss of treatment and discontinuation of reclaimed
water service.
c.
Alarms
Alarm systems should be installed at all water reclama-
tion plants, particularly at plants that do not receive full-
time attention from trained operators. Minimum instru-
mentation should consist of alarms at critical treatment
units to alert an operator of a malfunction. This concept
requires that the plant either be constantly attended, or
that an operator be on call whenever the reclamation plant
is in operation. In the latter case, a remote sounding de-
vice would be needed. If conditions are such that rapid
attention to failures cannot be assured, automatically
actuated emergency control mechanisms should be in-
stalled and maintained. Supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) systems may be employed to ac-
complish this objective, so long as information is made
available to locations that are staffed when operators are
not on site at the remote reclaimed water facilities. If a
critical process were to fail, the condition may go unno-
ticed for an extended time period, and unsatisfactory re-
claimed water would be produced for use. An alarm sys-
tem will effectively warn of an interruption in treatment.
Requirements for warning systems may specify the mea-
surement to be used as the control in determining a unit
failure (e.g., dissolved oxygen) in an aeration chamber
or the requirements could be more general in nature,
merely specifying the units or processes that should be
included in a warning system. The latter approach ap-
pears more desirable because it allows for more flexibil-
ity in the design. Alarms could be actuated in various
ways, such as failure of power, high water level, failure
of pumps or blowers, loss of dissolved oxygen, loss of
coagulant feed, high head loss on filters, high effluent
turbidity, or loss of disinfection.
In addition to the alarm system, it is critical to have a
means available to take corrective action for each situ-
ation, which has caused the alarm to be activated. As
noted above, provisions must be available to otherwise
treat, store, or dispose of the wastewater until the cor-
rections have been made. Alternative or supplemental
features for different situations might include an auto-
matic switchover mechanism to emergency power and
a self-starting generator, or an automatic diversion
mechanism which discharges wastewater from the vari-
ous treatment units to emergency storage or disposal.
116
-------
d.
Instrumentation and Control
Major considerations in developing an instrumentation/
control system for a reclamation facility include:
• Ability to analyze appropriate parameters
• Ability to maintain, calibrate, and verify accuracy of
on-line instruments
• Monitoring and control of treatment process perfor-
mance
• Monitoring and control of reclaimed water distribu-
tion
• Methods of providing reliability
• Operator interface and system maintenance
The potential uses of the reclaimed water determine the
degree of instrument sophistication and operator atten-
tion required in a water reuse system. For example,
health risks may be insignificant for reclaimed water used
for non-food crop irrigation. On the other hand, if waste-
water is being treated for indirect potable reuse via
groundwater recharge, risks are potentially high. Con-
sequently, the instruments must be highly sensitive so
that even minor discrepancies in water quality are de-
tected rapidly.
Selection of monitoring instrumentation is governed by
the folio wing factors:
• Sensitivity
• Accuracy
• Effects of interferences
• Frequency of analysis and detection
• Laboratory or field application
• Analysis time
• Sampling limitations
• Laboratory requirements
• Acceptability of methods
• Physical location
• Ability to provide service and
• Reliability
Source: WPCF, 1989
Each water reclamation plant is unique, with its own
requirements for an integrated monitoring and control in-
strumentation system. The process of selecting monitor-
ing instrumentation should address aspects such as fre-
quency of reporting, parameters to be measured, sample
point locations, sensing techniques, future requirements,
availability of trained staff, frequency of maintenance, avail-
ability of spare parts, and instrument reliability (WPCF,
1989). Such systems should be designed to detect op-
erational problems during both routine and emergency
operations. If an operating problem arises, activation of a
signal or alarm permits personnel to correct the problem
before an undesirable situation is created.
System control methods should provide for varying de-
grees of manual and automatic operation. Functions of
control include the maintenance of operating parameters
within preset limits, sequencing of physical operations
in response to operational commands and modes, and
automatic adjustment of parameters to compensate for
variations in quality or operating efficiency.
System controls may be manual, automated, or a com-
bination of manual and automated systems. For manual
control, operations staff members are required to physi-
cally carry out all work tasks, such as closing and open-
ing valves and starting and stopping pumps. For auto-
mated control, no operator input is required except for
the initial input of operating parameters into the control
system. In an automated control system, the system
automatically performs operations such as the closing
and opening of valves and the starting and stopping of
pumps. These automated operations can be accom-
plished in a predefined sequence and timeframe and
can also be initiated by a measured parameter.
Automatic controls can vary from simple float switches
that start and stop pumps to highly sophisticated com-
puter systems that gather data from numerous sources,
compare the data to predefined parameters, and ini-
tiate actions in order to maintain system performance
within required criteria. For example, in the backwashing
of a filter, instrumentation that monitors head loss across
a filter signals the automated control system that a pre-
defined head loss value has been exceeded. The con-
trol system, in turn, initiates the backwashing sequence
through the opening of valves and starting of pumps. A
simple, but effective, means of maintaining control in
the event of a power failure might include a judicious se-
117
-------
lection of how control valves respond to loss of power.
For example, in a reuse system with a pair of control
valves routing water either to customers or to a reject
location, it is reasonable to expect that the valve to the
customers should fail to the closed position, while the
valve to reject would fail to the open position.
3.4.3.3 Operator Training and Competence
Regardless of the automation built into a plant, mechani-
cal equipment is subject to breakdown, and qualified,
well-trained operators are essential to ensure that the
reclaimed water produced will be acceptable for its in-
tended use. The facilities operation should be based on
detailed process control with recording and monitoring
facilities, a strict preventive maintenance schedule, and
standard operating procedure contingency plans all
structured to provide reliable product water quality.
The plant operator is considered to be the most critical
reliability factor in the wastewater treatment system. All
available mechanical reliability devices and the best
possible plant design are to no avail if the operator is
not capable and conscientious. Three operations per-
sonnel considerations influence reliability of treatment:
operator attendance, operator competence, and opera-
tor training. The knowledge, skills, and abilities that an
operator must possess varies, depending on the com-
plexity of the plant. Most regulatory agencies require
operator certification as a reasonable means to expect
competent operation. Frequent training via continuing
education courses or other means enhances operator
competence.
Actions of the system operator have the potential to ad-
versely affect water quality and public perception of the
reclaimed water system. Therefore, a knowledgeable,
attentive operator is critical to avoid potential threats to
water quality. Consideration should be given to provide
special training and certification for reclaimed water
operations staff.
3.4.3.4 Quality Assurance in Monitoring
Quality assurance (QA) in monitoring of a reclamation
program includes: (1) selecting the appropriate param-
eters to monitor, and (2) handling the necessary sam-
pling and analysis in an acceptable manner. Sampling
techniques, frequency, and location are critical elements
of monitoring and quality assurance. Standard proce-
dures for sample analysis may be found in the following
references:
• Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater (American Public Health Association,
1989)
• Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and
Wastewater Laboratories (U.S. EPA, 1979a)
• Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes
(U.S. EPA, 1983)
• Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal
and Industrial Wastewater (U.S. EPA, 1996)
• Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preservation of
Water and Wastewater (U.S. EPA, 1982)
Typically, the QA plan associated with sampling and
analysis is a defined protocol that sets forth data quality
objectives and the means to develop quality control data.
This serves to quantify precision, bias, and other reli-
ability factors in a monitoring program. Strict adherence
to written procedures ensures that the results are com-
parable, and that the level of uncertainty is verifiable.
Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plans and
procedures are well documented in referenced texts.
QA/QC measures should be dictated by the severity of
the consequences of acting on the "wrong answer" or
on an "uncertain" answer. QA/QC procedures are often
dictated by regulatory agencies, and do constitute nec-
essary operating overhead. For reuse projects, this over-
head may be greater than for wastewater treatment and
disposal.
Sampling parameters required for reclamation extend
beyond those common to wastewater treatment. For
example, turbidity measurements are sometimes required
for reclamation, but not for wastewater treatment and dis-
posal. Monitoring for chlorides may be necessary for re-
use in coastal communities.
Adequate record keeping of reclaimed water system op-
erations is essential to the overall monitoring program.
Many facilities find it reasonable and compatible with
their usual practice and requirements to include routine
reporting of plant operations and immediate notification
of emergency conditions.
3.5
Seasonal Storage Requirements
Managing and allocating reclaimed water supplies may
be significantly different from the management of tradi-
tional sources of water. Traditionally, a water utility draw-
ing from groundwater or surface impoundments uses the
resource as a source and as a storage facility. If the
118
-------
entire yield of the source is not required, the water is
simply left for use at a later date. Yet in the case of
reuse, reclaimed water is continuously generated, and
what cannot be used immediately must be stored or dis-
posed of in some manner.
Depending on the volume and pattern of projected reuse
demands, seasonal surface storage requirements may
become a significant design consideration and have a
substantial impact on the capital cost of the system.
Seasonal storage systems will also impact operational
expenses. This is particularly true if the quality of the
water is degraded in storage by algae growth and re-
quires re-treatment to maintain the desired or required
water quality. Pilot studies in California investigated the
use of clarifiers with coagulation and continuous back-
wash filtration versus the use of dissolved air flotation
with clarification and filtration. The estimated present
worth costs of these 2 strategies for treating reclaimed
water returned from storage ponds were calculated at
$1.92/gal ($0.51/1) and $2.17/gal ($0.57/1), respectively
(Fraserand Pan, 1998).
The need for seasonal storage in reclaimed water pro-
grams generally results from 1 of 2 requirements. First,
storage may be required during periods of low demand
for subsequent use during peak demand periods. Sec-
ond, storage may be required to reduce or eliminate the
discharge of excess reclaimed water into surface water
or groundwater. These 2 needs for storage are not mutu-
ally exclusive, but different parameters are considered
in developing an appropriate design for each one. In fact,
projects where both water conservation and effluent dis-
posal are important are more likely to be implemented
than those with a single driver. Drivers for the creation of
an urban reuse system in Tampa, Florida included water
conservation as well as the fact that any reclaimed wa-
ter diverted to beneficial reuse helped the City to meet
its obligations to reduce nitrogen loadings to area sur-
face waters (Grosh etal., 2002). At the outset, it must be
recognized that the use of traditional storage methods
with finite capacities (e.g., tanks, ponds, and reservoirs)
must be very large in comparison to the design flows in
order to provide 100 percent equalization of seasonal
supplies and demands. With an average flow of 18 mgd
(68 x 103 m3/d) and a storage volume of 1,600 million
gallons (6 x 106 m3), the City of Santa Rosa, California,
still required a seasonal discharge to surface water to
operate successfully (Cort etal., 1998). After attempting
to operate a 3.0 mgd (11 x 103 m3/d) agricultural reuse
system with 100 mg (0.4 x 106 m3) of storage, Brevard
County, Florida, decided to add manmade wetlands with
a permitted surface water discharge as part of its wet
weather management system (Martens etal., 1998).
ASR of reclaimed water involves the injection of reclaimed
water into a subsurface formation for storage, and recov-
ery for beneficial use at a later time. ASR can be an ef-
fective and environmentally-sound approach by provid-
ing storage for reclaimed water used to irrigate areas ac-
cessible to the public, such as residential lawns and ed-
ible crops. These systems can minimize the seasonal
fluctuations inherent to all reclaimed water systems by
allowing storage of reclaimed water during the wet sea-
son when demand is low, and recovery of the stored water
during dry periods when demand is high. Because the
potential storage volume of an ASR system is essen-
tially unlimited, it is expected that these systems will
offer a solution to the shortcomings of the traditional stor-
age techniques discussed above.
The use of ASR was also considered as part of the
Monterey County, California reuse program in order to
overcome seasonal storage issues associated with an
irrigation-based project (Jaques and Williams, 1996).
Where water reuse is being implemented to reduce or
eliminate wastewater discharges to surface waters, state
or local regulations usually require that adequate stor-
age be provided to retain excess wastewater under a
specific return period of low demand. In some cold cli-
mate states, storage volumes may be specified accord-
ing to projected non-application days due to freezing
temperatures. Failure to retain reclaimed water under
the prescribed weather conditions may constitute a vio-
lation of an NPDES permit and result in penalties. A
method for preparing storage calculations under low
demand conditions is provided in the EPA Process De-
sign Manual: Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
(U.S. EPA, 1981 and 1984). In many cases, state regu-
lations will also include a discussion about the methods
to be used for calculating the storage that is required to
retain water under a given rainfall or low demand return
interval. In almost all cases, these methods will be aimed
at demonstrating sites with hydrogeologic storage ca-
pacity to receive wastewater effluent for the purposes
of disposal. In this regard, significant attention is paid to
subsurface conditions as they apply to the percolation
of effluent into the groundwater with specific concerns
as to how the groundwater mound will respond to effluent
loading.
The remainder of this section discusses the design con-
siderations for seasonal storage systems. For the pur-
pose of discussion, the projected irrigation demands of
turf grass in a hot, humid location (Florida) and a hot, arid
location (California) are used to illustrate storage calcu-
lations. Irrigation demands were selected for illustration
because irrigation is a common use of reclaimed water,
and irrigation demands exhibit the largest seasonal fluc-
119
-------
tuations, which can affect system reliability. However,
the general methodologies described in this section can
also be applied to other uses of reclaimed water and other
locations as long as the appropriate parameters are de-
fined.
3.5.1
Identifying the Operating Parameters
In many cases, a water reuse system will provide re-
claimed water to a diverse customer base. Urban reuse
customers typically include golf courses and parks and
may also include commercial and industrial customers.
Such is the case in both the City of St. Petersburg,
Florida, and Irvine Ranch Water District, California, re-
use programs. These programs provide water for cool-
ing, washdown, and toilet flushing as well as for irriga-
tion. Each water use has a distinctive seasonal demand
pattern and, thereby, impacts the need for storage.
Reuse systems have significant differences with tradi-
tional land application systems starting with the funda-
mental objectives of each. Land application systems
seek to maximize hydraulic loadings while reuse sys-
tems provide nonpotable waters for uses where a higher
quality of water is not required. Historical water use pat-
terns should be used where available. Methodologies
developed for land application systems are generally
poorly suited to define expected demands of an irriga-
tion-based reuse system and should be replaced with
methodologies expressly developed to estimate irriga-
tion needs. This point was illustrated well by calcula-
tions of storage required to prevent a discharge based
on: (1) actual golf course irrigation use over a 5-year
period and (2) use of traditional land application water
balance methods using site-specific hydrogeological in-
formation and temperature and rainfall corresponding to
the 5-year record of actual use. Use of historical records
estimated a required storage volume of 89 days of flow,
while traditional land application methods estimated a
required storage volume of 196 days (Ammerman etal.,
1997). It should also be noted that, like potable water,
the use of reclaimed water is subject to the customer's
perceived need for water.
The primary factors controlling the need for supplemen-
tal irrigation are evapotranspiration and rainfall. Evapo-
transpiration is strongly influenced by temperature and
will be lowest in the winter months and highest in mid-
summer. Water use for irrigation will also be strongly
affected by the end user and their attention to the need
for supplemental water. Where uses other than irriga-
tion are being investigated, other factors will be the driv-
ing force for demand. For example, demand for reclaimed
water for industrial reuse will depend on the needs of the
specific industrial facility. These demands could be esti-
mated based on past water use records, if data are avail-
able, or a review of the water use practices of a given
industry. When considering the demand for water in a
manmade wetland, the system must receive water at the
necessary time and rate to ensure that the appropriate
hydroperiod is simulated. If multiple uses of reclaimed
water are planned from a single source, the factors af-
fecting the demand of each should be identified and inte-
grated into a composite system demand.
Figure 3-12 presents the average monthly potential
evaporation and average monthly rainfall in southwest
Florida and Davis, California (Pettygrove and Asano,
Figure 3-12. Average Monthly Rainfall and Pan Evaporation
810
u
^ 8
« 4
California
Potential
Evaporation
/— Rainfall
10
8
6
4
Florida
Potential —v *
Evaporation >^
Rainfall
z
JFMAMJJASOND
JFMAMJJASOND
120
-------
1985). The average annual rainfall is approximately 52
inches (132 cm) per year, with an average annual poten-
tial evaporation of 71 inches (180cm) per year in Florida.
The average annual rainfall in Davis is approximately 17
inches (43 cm) per year with a total annual average po-
tential evaporation rate of approximately 52 inches (132
cm) per year.
In both locations, the shape of the potential evaporation
curve is similar over the course of the year; however, the
distribution of rainfall at the sites differs significantly. In
California, rainfall is restricted to the late fall, winter, and
early spring, with little rainfall expected in the summer
months when evaporation rates are the greatest. The
converse is true for the Florida location, where the major
portion of the total annual rainfall occurs between June
and September.
3.5.2
Storage to Meet Irrigation Demands
Once seasonal evapotranspiration and rainfall have been
identified, reclaimed water irrigation demands through-
out the seasons can be estimated. The expected fluc-
tuations in the monthly need for irrigation of grass in Florida
and California are presented in Figure 3-13. The figure
also illustrates the seasonal variation in wastewater flows
and the potential supply of irrigation water for both loca-
tions. In both locations, the potential monthly supply and
demand are expressed as a fraction of the average monthly
supply and demand.
To define the expected fluctuations in Florida's reclaimed
water supply, historic flow data are averaged for each
month. The reclaimed water supply for the Florida ex-
ample indicates elevated flows in the late winter and early
spring with less than average flows in the summer
months, reflecting the region's seasonal influx of tour-
ists. The seasonal irrigation demand for reclaimed water
in Florida was calculated using the Thornthwaite equa-
tion. (Withers and Vipond, 1980). It is interesting to note
that even in months where rainfall is almost equal to the
potential evapotranspiration, a significant amount of
supplemental irrigation may still be required. This occurs
as a result of high intensity, short duration, rainfalls in
Florida coupled with the relatively poor water-holding ca-
pacity of the surficial soils.
The average monthly irrigation demand for California,
shown in Figure 3-12, is based on data developed by
Pruitt and Snyder (Pettygrove and Asano, 1985). Be-
cause significant rainfall is absent throughout most of
the growing season, the seasonal pattern of supplemen-
tal irrigation for the California site is notably different from
that of Florida. For the California example, it has been
assumed that there is very little seasonal fluctuation in
the potential supply of reclaimed water. If the expected
annual average demands of a reclaimed water system
are approximately equal to the average annual available
supply, storage is required to hold water for peak de-
mand months. Using monthly supply and demand fac-
tors, the required storage can be obtained from the cu-
mulative supply and demand. The results of this analy-
sis suggest that, to make beneficial use of all available
water under average conditions, the Florida reuse pro-
gram will require approximately 90 days of storage, while
California will need approximately 150 days.
These calculations are based on the estimated consump-
tive demand of the turf grass. In actual practice, the es-
timate would be refined, based on site-specific condi-
tions. Such conditions may include the need to leach
Figure 3-13. Average Pasture Irrigation Demand and Potential Supply
California
Florida
121
-------
salts from the root zone or to intentionally over-apply
water as a means of disposal. The vegetative cover re-
ceiving irrigation will also impact the condition under which
supplemental water will be required. Drought conditions
will result in an increased need for irrigation. The require-
ments of a system to accommodate annual irrigation
demands under drought conditions should also be exam-
ined.
3.5.3 Operating without Seasonal Storage
Given the challenges of using storage to equalize sea-
sonal supplies and demands, it is not surprising that many
utilities choose to commit only a portion of the available
reclaimed water flow to beneficial reuse.
A partial commitment of reclaimed water may also have
applications in the following situations:
• The cost of providing storage for the entire flow is
prohibitive
• Sufficient demand for the total flow is not available
• The cost of developing transmission facilities for the
entire flow is prohibitive
• Total abandonment of existing disposal facilities is
not cost-effective
Systems designed to use only a portion of the reclaimed
water supply are plentiful. It should be noted that a par-
tial commitment of reclaimed water may be able to achieve
significant benefits in terms of environmental impacts.
Specifically, many surface water discharge permits are
based on the 7-day, 10-year (7Q10) low flow expected in
the receiving water body. Such events invariably coin-
cide with extended periods of low rainfall, which, in turn,
tend to increase the amount of water diverted away from
disposal and into the reuse system.
3.6 Supplemental Water Reuse
System Facilities
3.6.1 Conveyance and Distribution
Facilities
The distribution network includes pipelines, pump sta-
tions, and storage facilities. No single factor is likely to
influence the cost of water reclamation more than the
conveyance or distribution of reclaimed water from its
source to its point of use. The design requirements of
reclaimed water conveyance systems vary according to
the needs of the users. Water quality is, of course, a
consideration as well. Reclaimed water systems may
present more challenges for both internal and external
corrosion than typically experienced in the potable water
system. Generally, reclaimed water is more mineralized
with a higher conductance and chloride content and lower
pH, enhancing the potential for corrosion on the interior
of the pipe. Because reclaimed water lines are often the
last pipe installed, there is an increased opportunity for
stray current electrolysis or coating damage (Ryder,
1996). Design requirements will also be affected by the
policies governing the reclamation system (e.g., what level
of shortfall, if any, can be tolerated?). Where a dual dis-
tribution system is created, the design will be similar to
that of a potable system in terms of pressure and vol-
ume requirements. However, if the reclaimed water dis-
tribution system does not provide for an essential ser-
vice such as fire protection or sanitary uses, the reliabil-
ity of the reclamation system need not be as stringent.
This, in turn, reduces the need for backup systems,
thereby reducing the cost of the system. In addition, an
urban reuse program designed primarily for irrigation will
experience diurnal and seasonal flows and peak demands
that have different design parameters than the fire pro-
tection requirements generally used in the design of po-
table water systems.
The target customer for many reuse programs may be
an entity that is not traditionally part of municipal water/
wastewater systems. Such is the case with agricultural
and large green space areas, such as golf courses, that
often rely on wells to provide for nonpotable water uses.
Even when these sites are not directly connected to
municipal water supplies, reclaimed water service to
these customers may be desirable for the following rea-
sons:
• The potential user currently draws water from the
same source as that used for potable water, creating
an indirect demand on the potable system.
• The potential user has a significant demand for
nonpotable water and reuse may provide a cost-ef-
fective means to reduce or eliminate reliance on ex-
isting effluent disposal methods.
• The potential user is seeking reclaimed water ser-
vice to enhance the quality or quantity (or both) of
the water available.
• A municipal supplier is seeking an exchange of
nonpotable reclaimed water for raw water sources
currently controlled by the prospective customer.
The conveyance and distribution needs of these sites
may vary widely and be unfamiliar to a municipality. For
example, a golf course may require flows of 500 gpm (38
122
-------
l/s) at pressures of 120 psi (830 kPa). However, if the
golf course has the ability to store and repump irrigation
water, as is often the case, reclaimed water can be de-
livered at atmospheric pressure to a pond at approxi-
mately one-third the instantaneous demand. Where frost-
sensitive crops are served, an agricultural customer may
wish to provide freeze protection through the irrigation
system. Accommodating this may increase peak flows
by an order of magnitude. Where customers that have no
history of usage on the potable system are to be served
with reclaimed water, detailed investigations are warranted
to ensure that the service provided would be compatible
with the user needs. These investigations should include
an interview with the system operator as well as an in-
spection of the existing facilities.
Figure 3-14 provides a schematic of the multiple reuse
conveyance and distribution systems that may be en-
countered. The actual requirements of a system will be
dictated by the final customer base and are discussed
in Chapter 2. The remainder of this section discusses
issues pertinent to all reclaimed water conveyance and
distribution systems.
A concentration or cluster of users results in lower cus-
tomer costs for both capital and O&M expenses than a
delivery system to dispersed users. Initially, a primary
skeletal system is generally designed to serve large in-
stitutional users who are clustered and closest to the
treatment plant. A second phase may then expand the
system to more scattered and smaller users, which re-
ceive nonpotable water from the central arteries of the
nonpotable system. Such an approach was success-
fully implemented in the City of St. Petersburg, Florida.
The initial customers were institutional (e.g., schools,
golf courses, urban green space, and commercial). How-
ever, the lines were sized to make allowance for future
service to residential customers.
As illustrated in St. Petersburg and elsewhere, once re-
claimed water is made available to large users, a sec-
ondary customer base of smaller users often request
service. To ensure that expansion can occur to the pro-
jected future markets, the initial system design should
model sizing of pipes to satisfy future customers within
any given zone within the service area. At points in the
system, where a future network of connections is antici-
pated, such as a neighborhood, turnouts should be in-
stalled. Pump stations and other major facilities involved
in conveyance should be designed to allow for planned
expansion. Space should be provided for additional pumps,
or the capacities of the pumps may be expanded by
changes to impellers and/or motor size. Increasing a pipe
diameter by one size is economically justified since over
half the initial cost of installing a pipeline is for excava-
tion, backfill, and pavement.
A potable water supply system is designed to provide
round-the-clock, "on-demand" service. Some nonpotable
systems allow for unrestricted use, while others place
limits on the hours when service is available. A decision
on how the system will be operated will significantly af-
fect system design. Restricted hours for irrigation (i.e.,
only evening hours) may shift peak demand and require
greater pumping capacity than if the water was used over
an entire day or may necessitate a programmed irriga-
tion cycle to reduce peak demand. The Irvine Ranch Water
District, California, though it is an "on-demand" system,
restricts landscape irrigation to the hours of 9 p.m. to 6
a.m. to limit public exposure. Due to the automatic tim-
ing used in most applications, the peak hour demand
was found to be 6 times the average daily demand and
triple that of the domestic water distribution system (Young
et a/., 1987). The San Antonio Water System (Texas)
established a requirement for onsite storage for all users
with a demand greater than 100 acre-feet per year as a
means of managing peak demands. As noted previously,
attributes such as freeze protection may result in similar
increases in peak demands of agricultural systems.
System pressure should be adequate to meet the user's
needs within the reliability limits specified in a user agree-
ment or by local ordinance. The Irvine Ranch Water Dis-
trict, California runs its system at a minimum of 90 psi
(600 kPa). The City of St. Petersburg, Florida currently
operates its system at a minimum pressure of 60 psi
(400 kPa). However, the City of St. Petersburg is recom-
mending that users install low-pressure irrigation devices,
which operate at 50 psi (340 kPa) as a way of transfer-
ring to a lower pressure system in the future to reduce
operating costs. The City of Orlando, Florida is design-
ing a regional urban reuse system with a target minimum
pressure in the transmission main of 50 psi (350 KPa) at
peak hour conditions (COM, 2001).
When significant differences in elevations exist within
the service area, the system should be divided into pres-
sure zones. Within each zone, a maximum and mini-
mum delivery pressure is established. Minimum delivery
pressures may be as low as 10 psi (70 kPa) and maxi-
mum delivery pressures may be as high as 150 psi (1,000
kPa), depending on the primary uses of the water.
Several existing guidelines recommend operating the
nonpotable system at pressures lower than the potable
system (i.e., 10 psi, 70 kPa lower) in order to mitigate
any cross-connections. However, experience in the field
indicates that this is difficult to achieve at all times
throughout the distribution system.
123
-------
Figure 3-14. Example of a Multiple Reuse Distribution System
Special Need Customers
Urban Reuse
Customer
Requiring
Pressure >
System Pressure
In-Line Booster
Pump
Industrial
Use
Commercial
Customers
Single & Multi-
Family Customers
Sprinkler
Irrigation
Pressure-
Sustaining
MValve
Onsite Storage
Agricultural Reuse
Repump to
Golf Course
Irrigation System
Pressure-
Sustaining
Valve
Onsite
Pumping
Microjet Citrus
Irrigation
Onsite Well
(Supplemental)
Open Channel Pressure-
Conveyance & Sustaining
Flood Irrigation Valve
3.6.1.1 Public Health Safeguards
The major concern guiding design, construction, and op-
eration of a reclaimed water distribution system is the
prevention of cross-connections. A cross-connection is
a physical connection between a potable water system
used to supply water for drinking purposes, and any
source containing nonpotable water through which po-
table water could be contaminated.
Another major concern is to prevent improper use or
inadvertent use of reclaimed water as potable water.
To protect public health from the outset, a reclaimed water
distribution system should be accompanied by health
codes, procedures for approval (and disconnection) of
service, regulations governing design and construction
specifications, inspections, and operation and mainte-
nance staffing. Public health protection measures that
should be addressed in the planning phase are identified
below.
i Establish that public health is the overriding concern
i Devise procedures and regulations to prevent cross-
connections
i Develop a uniform system to mark all nonpotable
components of the system
i Prevent improper or unintended use of nonpotable
water through a proactive public information program
i Provide for routine monitoring and surveillance of the
nonpotable system
i Establish and train special staff members to be re-
sponsible for operations, maintenance, inspection,
and approval of reuse connections
i Develop construction and design standards
124
-------
• Provide for the physical separation of the potable
water, reclaimed water, sewer lines and appurte-
nances
Successful methods for implementing these measures
are outlined below.
ply with the revised wording requirements as part of the
permit renewal process for FDEP (FDEP, 1999).
Figure 3-15. Reclaimed Water Advisory Sign
a.
Identification of Pipes and Appurtenances
All components and appurtenances of the nonpotable
system should be clearly and consistently identified
throughout the system. Identification should be through
color coding and marking. The nonpotable system (i.e.,
pipes, pumps, outlets, and valve boxes) should be dis-
tinctly set apart from the potable system. The methods
most commonly used are unique colorings, labeling, and
markings.
Nonpotable piping and appurtenances are painted purple
or can be integrally stamped or marked, "CAUTION
NONPOTABLE WATER - DO NOT DRINK" or "CAU-
TION: RECLAIMED WATER - DO NOT DRINK," or the
pipe may be wrapped in purple polyethylene vinyl wrap.
Another identification method is to mark pipe with col-
ored marking tape or adhesive vinyl tape. When tape is
used, the words ("CAUTION: RECLAIMED WATER - DO
NOT DRINK") should be equal to the diameter of the pipe
and placed longitudinally at3-feet (0.9-meters) intervals.
Other methods of identification and warning are: sten-
ciled pipe with 2- to 3-inch (5- to 8-cm) letters on oppo-
site sides, placed every 3 to 4 feet (0.9 to 1.2 meters);
for pipe less than 2 inches (5 cm), lettering should be at
least 5/8-inch (1.6 cm) at 1 -foot (30-cm) intervals; plas-
tic marking tape (with or without metallic tracer) with let-
tering equal to the diameter of pipe, continuous over the
length of pipe at no more than 5-foot (1.5-meter) inter-
vals; vinyl adhesive tape may be placed at the top of the
pipe for diameters 2.5 to 3 inches (6 to 8 cm) and along
opposite sides of the pipe for diameters 6 to 16 inches
(15 to 40 cm), and along both sides and on top of the
pipe for diameters of 20 inches (51 cm) or greater (AWWA,
1994).
The FDEP requires all new advisory signs and labels on
vaults, service boxes, or compartments that house hose
bibs, along with all labels on hose bibs, valves, and out-
lets, to bear the words, "do not drink" and "no beber,"
along with the equivalent standard international sym-
bol. In addition to the words, "do not drink" and "no
beber," advisory signs posted at storage ponds and deco-
rative water features also bear the words, "do not swim"
and "no nadar," along with the equivalent standard inter-
national symbols. Figure 3-15 shows a typical reclaimed
water advisory sign. Existing advisory signs and labels
will be retrofitted, modified, or replaced in order to com-
IRRIGATION WITH
RECLAIMED WATER
DO NOT DRINK
AVISO... AGUSRECICLADA
SE PROHBE BEBER
Valve boxes for hydraulic and electrical components
should be colored and warnings should be stamped on
the cover. The valve covers for nonpotable transmission
lines should not be interchangeable with potable water
covers. For example, the City of Altamonte Springs,
Florida uses square valve covers for reclaimed water and
round valve covers for potable water. Blow-off valves
should be painted and carry markings similar to other
system piping. Irrigation and other control devices should
be marked both inside and outside. Any constraints or
special instructions should be clearly noted and placed
in a suitable cabinet. If fire hydrants are part of the sys-
tem, they should be painted or marked and the stem
should require a special wrench for opening.
b. Horizontal and Vertical Separation of Potable
from Nonpotable Pipes
The general rule is that a 10-foot (3-meter) horizontal
interval and a 1 -foot (0.3-meter) vertical distance should
be maintained between potable (or sewer) lines and
nonpotable lines that are parallel to each other. When
these distances cannot be maintained, special authori-
zation may be required, though a minimum lateral dis-
tance of 4 feet (1.2 meters) (St. Petersburg) is generally
mandatory. The State of Florida specifies a 5-foot (1.5-
meter) separation between reclaimed water lines and
water lines or force mains, with a minimum of 3-foot (0.9-
meter) separation from pipe wall to pipe wall (FDEP,
1999). This arrangement allows for the installation of re-
claimed water lines between water and force mains that
are separated by 10 feet (3 meters). The potable water
should be placed above the nonpotable, if possible. Un-
125
-------
der some circumstances, using a reclaimed water main
of a different depth than that of potable or force mains
might be considered to provide further protection from
having an inadvertent cross-connection occur.
Nonpotable lines are usually required to be at least 3 feet
(90 cm) below ground. Figure 3-16 illustrates Florida's
separation requirements for nonpotable lines.
c. Prevent Onsite Ability to Tie into Reclaimed
Water Lines
The Irvine Ranch Water District, California has regula-
tions mandating the use of special quick coupling valves
for onsite irrigation connections. For reclaimed water,
these valves are operated by a key with an Acme thread.
This thread is not allowed for the potable system. The
cover on the reclaimed water coupler is different in color
and material from that used on the potable system. Hose
bibs are generally not permitted on nonpotable systems
because of the potential for incidental use and possible
human contact with the reclaimed water. Below-ground
bibs placed inside a locking box or that require a special
tool to operate are allowed by Florida regulations (FDEP,
1999).
d.
Backflow Prevention
Where the possibility of cross-connection between po-
table and reclaimed water lines exists, backflow preven-
tion devices should be installed onsite when both po-
table and reclaimed water services are provided to a user.
The backflow prevention device is placed on the potable
water service line to prevent potential backflow from the
reclaimed water system into the potable water system if
the 2 systems are illegally interconnected. Accepted
methods of backflow prevention include:
• Air gap
• Reduced-pressure principal backflow prevention as-
sembly
• Double-check valve assembly
• Pressure vacuum breaker
• Atmospheric vacuum breaker
The AWWA recommends the use of a reduced-pressure
principal backflow prevention assembly where reclaimed
water systems are present. However, many communi-
ties have successfully used double-check valve assem-
blies. The backflow prevention device will prevent water
expansion into the water distribution system. At some
residences, the tightly closed residential water system
can create a pressure buildup that causes the safety re-
lief on a water heater to periodically discharge. This prob-
lem was solved by the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, by
providing separate pressure release valves, which allow
for the release of water through an outdoor hose bibb.
If potable water is used as make-up water for lakes or
reservoirs, there should be a physical break between the
potable water supply pipe and receiving reservoir. The
air gap separating the potable water from the reservoir
containing nonpotable water should be at least 2 pipe
diameters. There should never be any permanent con-
nection between nonpotable and potable lines in the sys-
tem.
In most cases, backflow prevention devices are not pro-
vided on a reclaimed water system. However, the San
Antonio Water System (Texas) requires a reduced-pres-
Figure 3-16. Florida Separation Requirements for Reclaimed Water Mains
Finished Grade
Potable Water Main
Finished Grade
Raw Water or
Water Main
Reclaimed
Water Main.
Reclaimed Water Main
Sanitary Sewer/
Force Main —
18 in (46 cm)
min.
Sanitary
Sewer .
^10 ft (3m) minimum (total)
126
-------
sure principal backflow preventer on the potable supply
to properties using reclaimed water. In addition, the City
requires customers to use a double-check assembly or
air gap on the reclaimed water supply. This provision is
basic to maintaining a consistent water quality in the San
Antonio reclaimed water supply. It is prudent to periodi-
cally inspect the potable system to confirm that cross-
connections do not exist. The City of San Antonio alter-
nately shuts down the potable and reclaimed water at a
site. The inactive system is then checked for residual
pressure, indicating a cross- connection. Where possible,
dye tests are also conducted (Baird, 2000). The City of
Altamonte Springs, Florida takes its entire reuse system
off line for 2 days each year as part of its cross-connec-
tion control program.
e. Safeguards when Converting Existing Potable
Lines to Nonpotable Use
In cases where parts of the system are being upgraded
and some of the abandoned potable water lines are be-
ing transferred to the nonpotable system, care must be
taken to prevent any cross-connections from occurring.
As each section is completed, the new system should
be shutdown and drained and each water user checked
to ensure that there are no improper connections. Addi-
tionally, a tracer, such as potassium permanganate, may
be introduced into the nonpotable system to test whether
any of it shows up at any potable fixture.
In existing developments where an in-place irrigation
system is being converted to carry reclaimed water, the
new installation must be inspected and tested with trac-
ers or some other method to ensure separation of the
potable from the nonpotable supply. It may warrant pro-
viding a new potable service line to isolated potable fa-
cilities. For example, if a park is converting to reclaimed
water, rather than performing an exhaustive evaluation
to determine how a water fountain was connected to the
existing irrigation system, it could be simpler to supply a
new service lateral from the new water main.
3.6.1.2 Operations and Maintenance
Maintenance requirements for the nonpotable components
of the reclaimed water distribution system should be the
same as those for potable. As the system matures, any
disruption of service due to operational failures will upset
the users. From the outset, such items as isolation
valves, which allow for repair to parts of the system with-
out affecting a large area, should be designed into the
nonpotable system. Flushing the line after construction
should be mandatory to prevent sediment from accumu-
lating, hardening, and becoming a serious future mainte-
nance problem.
Differences in maintenance procedures for potable and
nonpotable systems cannot generally be forecast prior
to the operation of each system. For instance, the City
of St. Petersburg, Florida flushes its nonpotable lines
twice a year during the off-season months. The amount
of water used in the flushing is equal to a day's demand
of reclaimed water. The Irvine Ranch Water District (Cali-
fornia) reports no significant difference in the 2 lines,
though the reclaimed lines are flushed more frequently
(every 2 to 3 years versus every 5 to 10 years for po-
table) due to suspended matter and sediment picked up
during lake storage. Verification that adequate disinfec-
tion has occurred as part of treatment prior to distribution
to reclaimed water customers is always required. How-
ever, maintenance of a residual in the transmission/dis-
tribution system is not required. Florida requires a 1 -mg/
I chlorine residual at the discharge of the chlorine con-
tact basin, but no minimum residual is required in the
reclaimed water piping system. The State of Washington
is an exception in that it does require a minimum of 0.5-
mg/l-chlorine residual in the distribution lines.
a.
Blow-Offs/Flushing Hydrants
Even with sufficient chlorination, residual organics and
bacteria may grow at dead spots in the system, which
may lead to odor and clogging problems. Flushing and
periodic maintenance of the system can significantly
allay the problem. In most cases, the flushing flow is
directed into the sewage system.
b.
Flow Recording
Even when a system is unmetered, accurate flow re-
cording is essential to manage the growth of the sys-
tem. Flow data are needed to confirm total system use
and spatial distribution of water supplied. Such data al-
low for efficient management of the reclaimed water
pump stations and formulations of policies to guide sys-
tem growth. Meters placed at the treatment facility may
record total flow and flow-monitoring devices may be
placed along the system, particularly in high consump-
tion areas.
c.
Permitting and Inspection
The permitting process includes plan and field reviews
followed by periodic inspections of facilities. This over-
sight includes inspection of both onsite and offsite facili-
ties. Onsite facilities are the user's nonpotable water fa-
cilities downstream from the reclaimed water meter.
Offsite facilities are the agency's nonpotable water fa-
cilities up to and including the reclaimed water meter.
127
-------
Though inspection and review regulations vary from sys-
tem to system, the basic procedures are essentially the
same. These steps are described below.
(1) Plan Review - A contractor (or resident) must
request service and sign an agreement with the
agency or department responsible for permitting
reclaimed water service. Dimensioned plans and
specifications for onsite facilities must conform
to regulations. Usually, the only differences from
normal irrigation equipment will be identification
requirements and special appurtenances to pre-
vent cross-connections. Some systems, how-
ever, require that special strainer screens be
placed before the pressure regulator for protec-
tion against slime growths fouling the sprinkler
system, meter, or pressure regulator.
The plans are reviewed and the agency works
with the contractor to make sure that the sys-
tem meets all requirements. Systems with cross-
connections to potable water systems must be
denied. Temporary systems should not be con-
sidered. Devices for any purpose other than irri-
gation should be approved through special pro-
cedures.
Installation procedures called out on the plan
notes are also reviewed because they provide
the binding direction to the landscape contrac-
tor. All points of connection are reviewed for
safety and compatibility. The approved record
drawings ("as-builts") are kept on file. The "as-
builts" include all onsite and offsite nonpotable
water facilities as constructed or modified, and
all potable water and sewer lines.
(2) Field Review - Field review is generally con-
ducted by the same staff involved in the plan
review. Staff looks for improper connections,
unclear markings, and insufficient depths of pipe
installation. A cross-connection control test is
performed, followed by operation of the actual
onsite irrigation system to ensure that
overspraying and overwatering are not occurring.
Any problems identified are then corrected. Fol-
low-up inspections are routine, and in some
cases, fixed interval (e.g. semi-annual) inspec-
tions and random inspections are planned.
(3) Monitoring - A number of items should be care-
fully monitored or verified, including:
• Requiring that landscape contractors or ir-
rigation contractors provide at least mini-
mal education to their personnel so that these
contractors are familiar with the regulations
governing reclaimed water installations
• Submitting all modifications to approved fa-
cilities to the responsible agencies
• Detecting and recording any breaks in the
transmission main
• Randomly inspecting user sites to detect
any faulty equipment or unauthorized use
• Installing monitoring stations throughout the
system to test pressure, chlorine residual,
and other water quality parameters
A reclaimed water supplier should reserve the right to
withdraw service for any offending condition subject to
correction of the problem. Such rights are often estab-
lished as part of a user agreement or a reuse ordinance.
Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the legal issues as-
sociated with reclaimed water projects.
3.6.2 Operational Storage
As with potable water distribution systems, a reclaimed
water system must provide sufficient operational stor-
age to accommodate diurnal fluctuations in demand and
supply. The volume required to accommodate this task
will depend on the interaction of the supply and demand
over a 24-hour period.
Designs are dependent on assessments of the diurnal
demand for reclaimed water. Such assessments, in most
cases, require a detailed investigation of the proposed
user or users. When possible, records of actual histori-
cal use should be examined as a means to develop
demand requirements. Where records are absent, site-
specific investigations are in order. In some cases, pilot
studies may be warranted prior to initiating a full-scale
reuse program.
Figure 3-17 presents the anticipated diurnal fluctuation
of supply and urban irrigation demand for a proposed re-
claimed water system in Boca Raton, Florida (COM, 1991).
This information was developed based on the historic
fluctuations in wastewater flow experienced in Boca Raton
and the approximate fluctuations in the reclaimed water
urban irrigation demand experienced in the St. Peters-
burg, Florida urban reuse program.
Operational storage may be provided at the reclamation
facility, as remote storage out in the system, or as a
combination of both. For example, the City of Altamonte
128
-------
Figure 3-17. Anticipated Daily Reclaimed Water Demand Curve vs. Diurnal Reclaimed Water Flow
Curve
Wastewater
Diurnal Flow Curve
Reclaimed Water
Demand
12:00
AM
4:00
PM
8:00
PM
12:00
AM
Springs, Florida, maintains ground storage facilities at
the reclamation plant and elevated storage tanks out in
the reclaimed water system. Large sites, such as golf
courses, commonly have onsite ponds capable of re-
ceiving water throughout the day. Such onsite facilities
reduce operational storage requirements that need to
be provided by the utility. In the City of Naples, Florida
where reclaimed water is provided to 9 golf courses, re-
mote booster pump stations deliver reclaimed water to
users from a covered storage tank located at the recla-
mation plant.
Operational storage facilities are generally covered tanks
or open ponds. Covered storage in ground or elevated
tanks is used for unrestricted urban reuse where aes-
thetic considerations are important. Ponds are less
costly, in most cases, but generally require more land
per gallon stored. Where property costs are higher suffi-
cient property is not available, ponds may not be fea-
sible. Open ponds also result in water quality degrada-
tion from biological growth, and chlorine residual is dif-
ficult to maintain. Ponds are appropriate for onsite ap-
plications such as agricultural and golf course irrigation.
In general, ponds that are already being used as a
source for irrigation are also appropriate for reclaimed
water storage. In addition to the biological aspects of
storing reclaimed water in onsite impoundments, the con-
centration of various constituents due to surface evapo-
ration may present a problem. Reclaimed water often has
a more elevated concentration of TDS than other avail-
able sources of water. Where evaporation rates are high
and rainfall is low, the configuration of onsite storage
ponds was found to have significant impacts on water
quality in terms of TDS (Chapman and French, 1991).
Shallow ponds with a high area-to-volume ratio experi-
ence greater concentrations of dissolved solids due to
surface evaporation. Dissolved solids increase in all
ponds, but deeper ponds can mitigate the problem. Fig-
ure 3-18 summarizes the expected concentration levels
of TDS with varying pond depth for reclaimed water with
an influent concentration of 1,112 and 1,500 mg/l of TDS,
assuming water is lost from storage through evaporation
only.
3.6.3
Alternative Disposal Facilities
Beneficial water reclamation and reuse can effectively
augment existing water supplies and reduce the water
quality impacts of effluent discharge. Yet 100 percent
reuse of the effluent may not always be feasible. In such
cases, some form of alternative use or disposal of the
excess water is necessary. For the purposes of this sec-
tion, the discharge of reclaimed water will be considered
"disposal," regardless of whether it is for subsequent re-
use or permanent disposal.
Where reclamation programs incorporate existing waste-
water treatment facilities, an existing disposal system
will likely be in place and can continue to be used for
partial or intermittent disposal. Common alternative dis-
posal systems include surface water discharge, injec-
tion wells, land application, and wetlands application.
129
-------
Figure 3-18. IDS Increase Due to Evaporation
for One Year as a Function of Pond
Depth
7000
6000 -
« 5000 -
S
4000 -
3000 -
I- 2000 -
1000 -
influent salinity, 1,112 mg/l
influent salinity, 1,500 mg/l
0 2 46 8 10 12 14 16 18
Pond Depth (ft)
These methods are described below.
3.6.3.1 Surface Water Discharge
Intermittent surface water discharge may provide an ac-
ceptable method for the periodic disposal of excess re-
claimed water. While demand for reclaimed water nor-
mally declines during wet weather periods, it is during
wet weather periods that surface waters are generally
more able to assimilate the nutrients in reclaimed water
without adverse water quality impacts. Conversely, dur-
ing the warm summer months when surface water bod-
ies are often most susceptible to the water quality im-
pacts of effluent discharges, the demand for irrigation
water is high and an excess of reclaimed water is less
likely. Thus, the development of a water reuse program
with intermittent discharges can reduce or eliminate
wastewater discharges during periods when waters are
most sensitive to nutrient concentrations while allowing
for discharges at times when adverse impacts are less
likely. By eliminating discharges for a portion of the year
through water reuse, a municipality may also be able to
avoid the need for costly advanced wastewater treatment
nutrient removal processes often required for a continu-
ous discharge. The New York City's investigation into
water reclamation included a comparison of the reduc-
tion in nitrogen loadings that could be achieved through
BNR treatment or beneficial reuse. Table 3-15 provides
a summary of this effort and indicates the volume of
water that must be diverted to reuse in order to equal the
nutrient reduction that would be realized from a given
level of BNR treatment.
In the City of Petaluma, California the ability to protect
the downstream habitat by eliminating surface water dis-
charges from May through September played a major
role in considering reuse. (Putnam, 2002).
3.6.3.2 Injection Wells
Injection wells, which convey reclaimed water into sub-
surface formations, are also used as an alternative means
of disposal, including eventual reuse via groundwater
recharge. Thus, the purpose of the disposal (permanent
or for future reuse) will typically determine the type and
regulatory framework of the injection wells. The EPA
Underground Injection Control (UIC) program has catego-
rized injection wells into 5 classes, only 2 of which (Class
I and V) apply to reclaimed water disposal.
Class I injection wells are technologically sophisticated
and inject hazardous and non-hazardous wastes below
the lowermost underground source of drinking water
(USDW). Injection occurs into deep, isolated rock forma-
tions that are separated from the lowermost USDW by
layers of impermeable clay and rock. In general, owners
and operators of most new Class I injection wells are
required to:
• Site the injection wells in a location that is free of
faults and other adverse geological features. Drill to
a depth that allows the injection into formations that
do not contain water that can potentially be used as
a source of drinking water. These injection zones
are confined from any formation that may contain
water that may potentially be used as a source of
drinking water.
• Inject through an internal pipe (tubing) that is located
inside another pipe (casing). This outer pipe has ce-
ment on the outside to fill any voids occurring be-
tween the outside pipe and the hole that was bored
for the well (borehole). This allows for multiple layers
of containment of the potentially contaminating in-
jection fluids.
• Test for integrity at the time of completion and every
5 years thereafter (more frequently for hazardous
waste wells).
• Monitor continuously to assure the integrity of the
well.
Class V injection wells will likely include nearly all re-
claimed water injection wells that are not permitted as
Class I injection wells. Under the existing federal regula-
tions, Class V injection wells are "authorized by rule" (40
CFR 144), which means they do not require a federal
130
-------
permit if they do not endanger underground sources of
drinking water and comply with other UIC program re-
quirements. However, individual states may require spe-
cific treatment, well construction, and water quality moni-
toring standards compliance before permitting any injec-
tion of reclaimed water into aquifers that are currently or
could potentially be used for potable supply. A discus-
sion about potential reclaimed water indirect potable re-
use guidelines is contained in Chapter 4.
Injection wells are a key component of the urban reuse
program in the City of St. Petersburg, Florida. The city
operates 10 wells, which inject excess reclaimed water
into a saltwater aquifer at depths between 700 and 1,000
feet (210 and 300 meters) below the land surface. Ap-
proximately 50 percent of the available reclaimed water
is disposed of through injection. When originally installed,
the wells were permitted as Class I injection wells with
the primary use for the management of excess reclaimed
water, but also were employed to dispose of any reclaimed
water not meeting water quality standards. The City is in
the permitting process to convert the wells to Class V
injection wells, for primary use as an ASR system.
Under suitable circumstances, excess reclaimed water
can be stored in aquifers for subsequent reuse. In Or-
ange County, California injection of reclaimed water into
potable supply aquifers has been conducted for seawa-
ter intrusion control and groundwater recharge since 1976
and has expanded in recent years to Los Angeles County,
California. New advanced water treatment and injection
projects are underway in both counties to supply the
majority of coastal injection wells in Orange and Los
Angeles counties with reclaimed water to reduce depen-
dence on imported water from the Colorado River and
northern California. Additional discussion about reclaimed
water recharge can be found in Chapter 2.
3.6.3.3 Land Application
In water reuse irrigation systems, reclaimed water is ap-
plied in quantities to meet an existing water demand. In
land treatment systems, effluent may be applied in ex-
cess of the needs of the crop. Land application systems
can provide reuse benefits, such as irrigation and/or
groundwater recharge. However, in many cases, the main
focus of land application systems is to avoid detrimental
impacts to groundwater that can result from the applica-
tion of nutrients or toxic compounds.
In some cases, a site may be amenable to both reuse
and "land application". Such are the conditions of a Tal-
lahassee, Florida sprayfield system. This system is lo-
cated on a sand ridge, where only drought-tolerant flora
can survive without irrigation. By providing reclaimed
water for irrigation, the site became suitable for agricul-
tural production of multiple crop types. However, be-
cause of the extreme infiltration and percolation rates,
it is possible to apply up to 3 inches per week (8 cm per
week) of reclaimed water without significant detrimental
impacts to the crop (Allhands and Overman, 1989).
The use of land application as an alternative means of
disposal is subject to hydrogeological considerations.
The EPA manual Land Treatment of Municipal Waste-
water (U.S. EPA, 1981) provides a complete discussion
of the design requirements for such systems.
The use of land application systems for wet weather dis-
posal is limited unless high infiltration and percolation
rates can be achieved. This can be accomplished through
the use of rapid infiltration basins or manmade wetlands.
In cases where manmade wetlands are created, dam-
aged wetlands are restored, or existing wetlands are en-
Table 3-15. Nitrogen Mass Removal Strategies: Nutrient Removal vs. Water Reuse
Water Pollution
Control Facility
Wards Island
Hunts Point
Tallman Island
Bowery Bay
26th Ward
1998 Total
Flow
(mgd)
224
134
59
126
69
1998
Effluent
TN(lbs/d)
29,000
19,000
7,700
19,700
15,500
Step Feed
BNR Projected
TN Discharge
(Ibs/d)
24,000
16,000
3,500
11,000
7,500
Equivalent
Water
Reuse
(mgd)
39
22
33
56
36
Enhanced Step
Feed BNR&
Separate
Centrate
Treatm ent
(Ibs/d)
12,500
9,500
3,500
6,500
5,000
Equivalent
Water
Reuse
(mgd)
128
67
33
85
48
131
-------
hanced, wetlands application may be considered a form
of water reuse, as discussed in Section 2.5.1. Partial or
intermittent discharges to wetlands systems have also
been incorporated as alternative disposal means in wa-
ter reuse systems, with the wetlands providing additional
treatment through filtration and nutrient uptake.
A wetlands discharge is used in Orange County, Florida,
where a portion of the reclaimed water generated by
the Eastern Service Area WWTF is reused for power
plant cooling, and the remainder is discharged by over-
land flow to a system of manmade and natural wetlands.
Figure 3-19 shows the redistribution construction wet-
lands system. Application rates are managed to simu-
late natural hydroperiods of the wetland systems
(Schanze and Voss, 1989).
3.7
Environmental Impacts
Elimination or reduction of a surface water discharge by
reclamation and reuse generally reduces adverse water
Figure 3-19. Orange County, Florida,
Redistribution Constructed
Wetland
quality impacts to the receiving water. However, moving
the discharge from a disposal site to a reuse system
may have secondary environmental impacts. An envi-
ronmental assessment may be required to meet state or
local regulations and is required whenever federal funds
are used. Development of water reuse systems may have
unintended environmental impacts related to land use,
stream flow, and groundwater quality. Formal guidelines
for the development of an environmental impact state-
ment (EIS) have been established by the EPA. Such
studies are generally associated with projects receiving
federal funding or new NPDES permits and are not spe-
cifically associated with reuse programs. Where an in-
vestigation of environmental impacts is required, it may
be subject to state policies.
The following conditions are given as those that would
induce an EIS in a federally-funded project:
• The project may significantly alter land use.
• The project is in conflict with any land use plans or
policies.
• Wetlands will be adversely impacted.
• Endangered species or their habitat will be affected.
• The project is expected to displace populations or
alter existing residential areas.
• The project may adversely affect a flood plain or
important farmlands.
• The project may adversely affect parklands, pre-
serves, or other public lands designated to be of
scenic, recreational, archaeological, or historical
value.
• The project may have a significant adverse impact
upon ambient air quality, noise levels, surface or
groundwater quality or quantity.
• The project may have adverse impacts on water
supply, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and their actual habi-
tats.
The types of activities associated with federal EIS re-
quirements are outlined below. Many of the same require-
ments are incorporated into environmental assessments
required understate laws.
3.7.1
Land Use Impacts
Water reuse can induce significant land use changes,
either directly or indirectly. Direct changes include shifts
in vegetation or ecosystem characteristics induced by
alterations in water balance in an area. Indirect changes
include land use alterations associated with industrial,
residential, or other development made possible by the
added supply of water from reuse. Two cases from Florida
illustrate this point.
• A study in the Palm Beach County, Florida area de-
termined that reuse could provide water supply suffi-
cient to directly and substantially change the
hydroperiod in the area. This change was significant
enough to materially improve the potential for sus-
132
-------
taining a wetlands ecosystem and for controlling the
extent and spread of invasive species. In short, the
added reuse water directly affected the nature of land
cover in the area.
• Indirect changes were also experienced in agricul-
tural land use in the Orange County, Florida area.
Agricultural use patterns were found to be materially
influenced by water reuse associated with the Water
Conserv II project. Commercial orange groves were
sustained and aided in recovery from frost damage
to crops by the plentiful supply of affordable water
generated by reuse. The added reuse water affected
the viability of agriculture, and therefore, indirectly
affected land use in the area.
Other examples of changes in land use as a result of
available reuse water include the potential for urban or
industrial development in areas where natural water avail-
ability limits the potential for growth. For example, if the
supply of potable water can be increased through recharge
using reuse supply, then restrictions to development
might be reduced or eliminated. Even nonpotable sup-
plies, made available for uses such as residential irriga-
tion, can affect the character and desirability of devel-
oped land in an area. Similar effects can also happen on
a larger scale, as municipalities in areas where develop-
ment options are constrained by water supply might find
that nonpotable reuse enables the development of parks
or other amenities that were previously considered to be
too costly or difficult to implement. Commercial users
such as golf courses, garden parks, or plant nurseries
have similar potential for development given the pres-
ence of reuse supplies.
The potential interactions associated with land use
changes are complex, and in some cases the conclu-
sion that impacts are beneficial is subjective. An increase
in urban land use, for example, is not universally viewed
as a positive change. For this reason, the decision-mak-
ing process involved in implementing a reclamation pro-
gram should result from a careful consideration of stake-
holder goals.
3.7.2
Stream Flow Impacts
Instream flows can either increase or decrease as a con-
sequence of reuse projects. In each situation where re-
use is considered, there is the potential to shift water
balances and effectively alter the prevailing hydrologic
regime in an area. Two examples of the way flows can
increase as a result of a reuse project are as follows:
• In streams where dry weather base flows are ground-
water dependant, land application of reclaimed water
for irrigation or other purposes can cause an increase
in base flows, if the prevailing groundwater elevation
is raised. (Groundwater effects are discussed fur-
ther in Section 3.7.3.)
• Increases in stream flows during wet periods can
result from reduced soil moisture capacity in a tribu-
tary watershed, if there is pervasive use of recharge
on the land surface during dry periods. In such a
case, antecedent conditions are wetter, and runoff
greater, for a given rainstorm. The instream system
bears the consequences of this change.
It is important to note that the concurrent effects of land
use changes discussed in Section 3.7.1 can exacerbate
either of the above effects.
Instream flow reduction is also possible, and can be
more directly evident. For example, the Trinity River in
Texas, in the reaches near the City of Dallas, maintains
a continuous flow of several hundred cubic feet per sec-
ond during dry periods. This flow is almost entirely com-
posed of treated effluent from discharges further up-
stream. If extensive reuse programs were to be imple-
mented at the upstream facilities, dry weather flows in
this river would be jeopardized and plans for urban de-
velopment downstream could be severely impacted due
to lack of available water.
In addition to water quantity issues, reuse programs can
potentially impact aesthetics or recreational use and dam-
age ecosystems associated with streams where hydro-
logic behavior is significantly affected. Where wastewa-
ter discharges have occurred over an extended period of
time, the flora and fauna can adapt and even become
dependent on that water. A new or altered ecosystem
can arise, and a reuse program implemented without con-
sideration of this fact could have an adverse impact on
such a community. In some cases, water reuse projects
have been directly affected by concerns for instream flow
reduction that could result from a reuse program. The
San Antonio Water System (SAWS) in Texas defined
the historic spring flow at the San Antonio River headwa-
ters during development of their reclaimed water sys-
tem. In cooperation with downstream users and the San
Antonio River Authority, SAWS agreed to maintain a re-
lease of 55,000 acre-feet per year (68 x 106 m3 per year)
from its water reclamation facilities. This policy protects
and enhances downstream water quality and provides
35,000 acre-feet per year (43 x 106 m3 per year) of re-
claimed water for local use.
In the State of Washington, reuse water can be dis-
charged to a stream as stream flow augmentation. Un-
133
-------
der this provision, reclaimed water can be discharged to
surface water for purposeful uses such as:
• If the flow is to maintain adequate flows for aquatic
life
• If the reclaimed water is going to be used downstream
and therefore the stream is acting as a conduit
In the City of Sequim, Washington 0.1 cfs (2.8 l/s) of
reclaimed water is discharged into the Bell Stream to
keep the benthic layer wet. The flow is not intended to
maintain an environment for fish, but instead to main-
tain other small species that live in the streambed. To
date, no studies have been conducted to show the ef-
fects to the ecosystem.
The implication of these considerations is that a careful
analysis of the entire hydrologic system is an appropri-
ate consideration in a reuse project if instream impacts
are to be understood. This is particularly the case when
the magnitude of the flows impacted by the reuse pro-
gram is large, relative to the quantities involved in the
hydrologic system that will be directly impacted by the
reuse program.
3.7.3
Hydrogeological Impacts
As a final environmental consideration of water reuse,
the groundwater quality effects of the reclaimed water for
the intended use must be reviewed. The exact concerns
of any project are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
One of the better-known sources of potential groundwa-
ter pollution is nitrate, which may be found in, or result
from, the application of reclaimed water. However, addi-
tional physical, chemical, and biological constituents
found in reclaimed water may pose an environmental risk.
In general, these concerns increase when there are sig-
nificant industrial wastewater discharges to the water
reclamation facility.
Impacts of these constituents are influenced by the
hydrogeology of the reuse application site. Where karst
conditions exist, for example, constituents may poten-
tially exist within the reclaimed water that will ultimately
reach the aquifer. In many reclaimed water irrigation
programs, a groundwater-monitoring program is re-
quired to detect the impacts of reclaimed water con-
stituents.
3.8 Case Studies
3.8.1 Code of Good Practices for Water
Reuse
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) and the Florida Water Environment Association's
(FWEA) Water Reuse committee have developed the
Code of Good Practices for Water Reuse in Florida
(FDEP, 2002). The Code of Good Practices includes 16
principles and is designed to aid reuse utilities as they
implement quality water reuse programs.
Protection of Public Health and Environmental Qual-
ity
Public Health Significance - To recognize that dis-
tribution of reclaimed water for nonpotable purposes
offers potential for public contact and that such con-
tact has significance related to the public health.
Compliance - To comply with all applicable state,
federal, and local requirements for water reclama-
tion, storage, transmission, distribution, and reuse
of reclaimed water.
Product - To provide reclaimed water that meets
state treatment and disinfection requirements and that
is safe and acceptable for the intended uses when
delivered to the end users.
Quality Monitoring and Process Control -To con-
tinuously monitor the reclaimed water being produced
and rigorously enforce the approved operating proto-
col such that only high-quality reclaimed water is
delivered to the end users.
Effective Filtration - To optimize performance of
the filtration process in order to maximize the effec-
tiveness of the disinfection process in the inactiva-
tion of viruses and to effectively remove protozoan
pathogens.
Cross-Connection Control - To ensure that effec-
tive cross-connection control programs are rigorously
enforced in areas served with reclaimed water.
Inspections - To provide thorough, routine inspec-
tions of reclaimed water facilities, including facili-
ties located on the property of end users, to ensure
that reclaimed water is used in accordance with state
and local requirements and that cross-connections
do not occur.
134
-------
Reuse System Management
Water Supply Philosophy - To adopt a "water sup-
ply" philosophy oriented towards reliable delivery of
a high-quality reclaimed water product to the end
users.
Conservation - To recognize that reclaimed water
is a valuable water resource, which should be used
efficiently and effectively to promote conservation
of the resource.
Partnerships - To enter into partnerships with the
Department of Environmental Protection, the end
users, the public, the drinking water utility, other lo-
cal and regional agencies, the water management
district, and the county health department to follow
and promote these practices.
Communications - To provide effective and open
communication with the public, end users, the drink-
ing water utility, other local and regional agencies,
the Department of Environmental Protection, the
water management district, and the county health
department.
Contingency Plans - To develop response plans
for unanticipated events, such as inclement weather,
hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, supply short-
falls, equipment failure, and power disruptions.
Preventative Maintenance - To prepare and imple-
ment a plan for preventative maintenance for equip-
ment and facilities to treat wastewater and to store,
convey, and distribute reclaimed water.
Continual Improvement - To continually improve
all aspects of water reclamation and reuse.
Public Awareness
Public Notification - To provide effective signage
advising the public about the use of reclaimed water
and to provide effective written notification to end
users of reclaimed water about the origin of, the na-
ture of, and proper use of reclaimed water.
Education - To educate the public, children, and
other agencies about the need for water conserva-
tion and reuse, reuse activities in the state and lo-
cal area, and environmentally sound wastewater
management and water reuse practices.
3.8.2 Examples of Potable Water
Separation Standards from the State
of Washington
Efforts to control cross-connections invariably increase
as part of the implementation of dual distribution sys-
tems involving potable and nonpotable lines. A funda-
mental element of these cross-connection control ele-
ments is the maintenance of a separation between po-
table and nonpotable pipelines. While the specific require-
ments often vary from state to state, common elements
typically include color-coding requirements as well as
minimum vertical and horizontal separations. Excerpts
from the State of Washington, "Reclaimed Water - Po-
table Water Separation Standards," are provided below
as an example of these requirements.
Policy Requirements'. Potable water lines require pro-
tection from any nonpotable water supply, including all
classes of reclaimed water. For buried pipelines, proper
pipe separation must be provided.
General Requirements: Standard potable-nonpotable
pipe separation standards should be observed at:
1. Parallel Installations: Minimum horizontal
separation of 10 feet (3 meters) pipe-to-pipe.
2. Pipe Crossings: Minimum vertical separation of
18 inches (0.5 meters) pipe-to-pipe, with potable
lines crossing above nonpotable.
Special Conditions: Special laying conditions where the
required separations cannot be maintained may be ad-
dressed as shown in the following examples.
Figure 3-20. A Minimum 5-foot (1.5-meter)
Horizontal Pipe Separation
Coupled with an 18-inch (46-cm)
Vertical Separation
Potable
Waterline
Non-potable
(Reclaimed Water)
Pipeline
135
-------
Figure 3-21. Irrigation Lateral Separation
Reclaimed Water - Potable Water Line Separation
Irrigation Lateral Lines
Horizontal Separation
Reclamed Water
Irrigation Lateral
Pipeline Separation: Minimum pipeline separation be-
tween any potable water line and reclaimed water irriga-
tion laterals shall be 48 inches (1.2 meters) pipe-to-pipe
separation.
Special Condition Number 1- Irrigation Lateral Cross-
ings: Reclaimed water irrigation laterals will commonly
cross above potable water lines due to normal depths of
bury. To provide adequate protection, the reclaimed wa-
ter irrigation lateral shall be cased in pressure-rated pipe
to a minimum distance of 4 feet (1.2 meters) on each
side of the potable water line.
Figure 3-22. Lateral Crossing Requirements
Minimum Pipe Separation
Reclaimed Water Irrigation Laterals vs. Potable Water Lines
Reclaimed Water Irrigation
Lateral
Impervious barrier protection
recommended
Potable Water Main
Special Condition: 4' horizontal separation unavailable
Minimum horizontal & vertical separation with shelving
Special Condition Number 2 - Inadequate Horizon-
tal Separation: Site limitations will likely result in paral-
lel pipe installations with less than 48 inches (1.2 meters)
of pipe-to-pipe separation. In these instances, a mini-
mum pipe-to-pipe separation of 18 inches (46 cm) shall
be provided, and the reclaimed water irrigation lateral shall
be installed a minimum of 18 inches (46 cm) above the
potable water pipeline. An impervious barrier, such as
PVC sheeting, installed between the irrigation lateral and
the waterline for the length of the run is recommended.
Figure 3-23. Parallel Water - Lateral Installation
Minimum Pipe Separation
Reclaimed Water Irrigation Laterals vs. Potable Water Lines
Reclaimed Water Irrigation
Lateral
Impervious barrier protection
recommended
Potable Water Main
Special Condition: 4' horizontal separation unavailable
Minimum horizontal & vertical separation with shelving
3.8.3 An Example of Using Risk
Assessment to Establish Reclaimed
Water Quality
Historically, the microbiological quality of both wastewa-
ter effluents and reclaimed water has been based on in-
dicator organisms. This practice has proved to be effec-
tive and will likely continue into the foreseeable future.
However, given uncertainties in the use of indicator or-
ganisms to control pathogens in reclaimed water and in
other waters, regulatory agencies could consider devel-
oping a number of guidelines or standards for selected
pathogens using microbiological risk assessment. De-
velopment of risk-based guidelines or standards could
include:
1. Selection of appropriate pathogens
2. Selection of microbial risk models
3. Structuring of exposure scenarios
136
-------
4. Selection of acceptable risk levels
5. Calculation of the concentration of the
pathogen that would result in a risk equal to the
acceptable level of risk
As an example, York and Walker-Coleman (York and
Walker-Coleman, 1999, 2000) used a risk assessment
approach to evaluate guidelines for nonpotable reuse
activities. These investigations developed guidelines for
Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and enteroviruses using the
following models:
Organism
Echovirus 12
(moderately infective)
Rota virus
(highly infective)
Cryptosporidium
Giardia
Model Used
Pi = 1 - (1 + N/f3)"a
(beta-Poisson)
P: = 1 - (1 + N/f3)"a
(beta-Poisson)
Pi = 1-e-rN
(exponential)
Pi = 1-e-rN
(exponential)
Parameters
a = 0.374
P = 186.7
a =0.26
P = 0.42
r = 0.00467
r= 0.0198
Source: Rose and Carnahan, 1992, Rose etal., 1996
Since specific types of viruses typically are not quanti-
fied when assessing viruses in reclaimed water, assump-
tions about the type of viruses present were required.
For the purpose of developing a risk assessment model,
it was assumed that all viruses would be highly infective
rotaviruses. Helminths were not evaluated, since data
from St. Petersburg, Florida showed that helminths were
consistently removed in the secondary clarifiers of a wa-
ter reclamation facility (Rose and Carnahan, 1992, Rose
efa/.,1996).
In this analysis, an annual risk of infection of 1x10"4 was
used as the "acceptable level of risk." Two exposure
scenarios were evaluated. Average conditions were evalu-
ated based on the assumption that an individual would
ingest 1.0 ml of reclaimed water (or its residue) on each
of 365 days during the year. In addition, a worst-case
scenario involving ingestion of 100 ml of reclaimed water
on a single day during the year was evaluated. These
exposure scenarios were judged representative of the
use of reclaimed water to irrigate a residential lawn. The
exposure scenarios could be adjusted to fit other reuse
activities, such as irrigation of a golf course, park, or
school. The results of this exercise are summarized in
Table 3-16.
It is important to note that, particularly for the protozoan
pathogens, the calculations assume that all pathogens
present in reclaimed water are intact, viable, and fully
capable of causing infection. A Giardia infectivity study
conducted by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Dis-
trict (Garcia etal., 2002) demonstrated that Giardia cysts
passing through a water reclamation facility were not in-
fectious. This basic approach could be applied to other
waters and could be used to establish consistency among
the various water programs.
3.9
References
When a National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
number is cited in a reference, that reference is available
from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
Adams, A.P. and B.G. Lewis. Undated. "Bacterial Aero-
sols Generated by Cooling Towers of Electrical Gener-
ating Plants." Paper No. TP-191-A, U.S. Army Dugway
Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah.
Adams, D.L. 1990. "Reclaimed Water Use in Southern
California: Metropolitan Water District's Role." 1990 Bi-
ennial Conference Proceedings, National Water Supply
Improvement Association, Volume 2. August 19-23,
1990. Buena Vista, Florida.
Table 3-16. Average and Maximum Conditions for Exposure
Organism
Giardia
Cryptosporidium
Enterovirus (a)
Units
Viable, infectious cysts/100 I
Viable, infectious oocysts/100 I
PFU/1001
Calculated Allowable Concentrations
Average
1.4
5.8
0.044
Maximum
5
22
0.165
Note: (a) Assumes all viruses are highly infective Rotavirus.
Source: York and Walker-Coleman, 1999, 2000
137
-------
Ahel M., W. Giger W., and M. Koch. 1994. "Behavior of
Alkylphenol Polyethoxylate Surfactants in the Aquatic
Environment 1. Occurrence and Transformation in Sew-
age-Treatment." Water Research, 28(5), 1131-1142.
Allhands, M.N. and A.R. Overman. 1989. Effects of Mu-
nicipal Effluent Irrigation on Agricultural Production and
Environmental Quality. Agricultural Engineering Depart-
ment, University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.
American Public Health Association. 1989. Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
17th Edition. [Clesceri, L.S.; A.E. Greenberg; and R.R.
Trussell (eds.)], Washington D.C.
American Water Works Association Website,
www.awwa.org 2003.
American Water Works Association. 1994. Dual Water
Systems. McGraw-Hill. New York.
American Water Works Association. 1990. Water Qual-
ity and Treatment 4th Ed. McGraw-Hill. New York.
Ammerman, O.K., M.G. Heyl, and B.C. Dent. 1997. "Sta-
tistical Analysis of Reclaimed Water Use at the
Loxahatchee River District Reuse System." Proceedings
for the Water Environment Federation, 70th Annual Con-
ference and Exposition. October 18-22,1997. Chicago,
Illinois.
Armon, R. G., Oron, D. Gold, R. Sheinman, and U.
Zuckerman. 2002. "Isolation and Identification of the
Waterborne Protozoan Parasites Cryptosporidium spp and
Giardia spp., and Their Presence on Restricted and Un-
restricted Irrigated Vegetables in Israel.": Perserving the
Quality of Our Water Resources. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Asano, T, Leong, L.Y.C, M. G. Rigby, and R. H. Sakaji.
1992. "Evaluation of the California Wastewater Reclama-
tion Criteria Using Enteric Virus Monitoring Data." Water
Science Technology 26 7/8:1513-1522.
Asano, T. and R.H. Sakaji. 1990. "Virus Risk Analysis in
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse." Chemical Water
and Wastewater Treatment, pp. 483-496.Springer-Verlay,
Berlin.
Bailey, J., R. Raines, and E. Rosenblum. 1998. "The
Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program - A Part-
nership to Maximize San Francisco Bay Area Water Re-
cycling." Proceedings of the Water Environment Federa-
tion 71st Annual Conference and Exposition. October 3-7,
1998. Orlando, Florida.
Baird, F. 2000. "Protecting San Antonio's Potable Water
Supply from Cross Connections Associated with Re-
cycled/Reclaimed Water." 2000 Water Reuse Conference
Proceedings. January 30-February 2, 2000. San Anto-
nio, Texas.
Berkett, J.W., and J.N. Lester. 2003. Endocrine Disrupt-
ers in Wastewater and Sludge Treatment Processes.
Lewis Publishers. IWA Publishing. Boca Raton, Florida.
Bryan, R.T. 1995. "Microsporidiosis as an AIDS-related
Opportunistic Infection." Clin. Infect. Dis. 21, 62-65.
California Department of Health Services. 1990. Guide-
lines Requiring Backflow Protection for Reclaimed Wa-
ter Use Areas. California Department of Health Services,
Office of Drinking Water. Sacramento, California.
Camann, D.E., R.J. Graham, M.N. Guentzel, H.J.
Harding, K.T. Kimball, B.E. Moore, R.L. Northrop, N.L.
Altman, R.B. Harrist, A. H. Holguin, R.L. Mason, C.B.
Popescu, and C.A. Sorber. 1986. The Lubbock Land
Treatment System Research and Demonstration Project:
Volume IV. Lubbock Infection Surveillance Study. EPA-
600/2-86-027d, NTIS No. PB86-173622. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Health Effects Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Camann, D.E. and M.N. Guentzel. 1985. "The Distribu-
tion of Bacterial Infections in the Lubbock Infection Sur-
veillance Study of Wastewater Spray Irrigation." Future
of Water Reuse, Proceedings of the Water Reuse Sym-
posium III. pp. 1470-1495. AWWA Research Founda-
tion. Denver, Colorado.
Camann, D.E., D.E. Johnson, H.J. Harding, and C.A.
Sorber. 1980. "Wastewater Aerosol and School Atten-
dance Monitoring at an Advanced Wastewater Treat-
ment Facility: Durham Plant, Tigard, Oregon." Waste-
water Aerosols and Disease, pp. 160-179. EPA-600/9-
80-028, NTIS No. PB81-169864. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Camann, D.E., and B.E. Moore. 1988. "Viral Infections
Based on Clinical Sampling at a Spray Irrigation Site."
Implementing Water Reuse, Proceedings of Water Re-
use Symposium IV. pp. 847-863. AWWA Research Foun-
dation. Denver, Colorado.
COM. 2001. "City of Orlando Phase I Eastern Regional
Reclaimed Water Distribution System Expansion." Or-
lando, Florida.
COM. 1997. "Reclaimed Water and Wastewater Reuse
Program, Final Report." Town of Gary, North Carolina.
138
-------
COM. 1991. "Boca Raton Reuse Master Plan." Ft. Lau-
derdale, Florida.
Casson, L.W., M.O.D. Ritter, L.M. Cossentino; and P.
Gupta. 1997. "Survival and Recovery of Seeded HIV in
Water and Wastewater." Wat. Environ. Res. 69(2):174-
179.
Casson, L.W., C.A. Sorber, R.H. Palmer, A. Enrico, and
P. Gupta. 1992. "HIV in Wastewater." Water Environ-
ment Research. 64(3): 213-215.
Chapman, J.B., and R.H. French. 1991. "Salinity Prob-
lems Associated with Reuse Water Irrigation of South-
western Golf Courses." Proceedings of the 1991 Spe-
cialty Conference Sponsored by Environmental Engi-
neering Division of the American Society of Civil Engi-
neers.
Clara, M., B. Strenn, and N. Kreuzinger. 2004.
"Carbamezepine as a Possible Anthropogenic Marker in
the Aquatic Environment." Investigations on the Behavior
of Carbamezepine in Wastewater Treatment and during
Groundwater Infiltration, Water Research 38, 947-954.
Codex Alimentarius, Codex Alimentarious Commission,
http://www.codexalimentarius.net.
Cooper, R.C., A.W. Olivieri, R.E. Danielson, P.G. Bad-
ger, R.C. Spear, and S. Selvin. 1986. Evaluation of Mili-
tary Field-Water Quality: Volume 5: Infectious Organisms
of Military Concern Associated with Consumption: As-
sessment of Health Risks and Recommendations for
Establishing Related Standards. Report No. UCRL-21008
Vol. 5. Environmental Sciences Division, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, University of California,
Livermore, California.
Cort, R.P., A.J. Hauge, and D. Carlson. 1998. "How Much
Can Santa Rosa Expand Its Water Reuse Program?"
Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. American Water
Works Association. Denver, Colorado.
Cotte L., Rabodonirina M., Chapuis F., Bailly F., Bissuel
F., Raynal C., Gelas P., Persat F., Piens MA., and Trepo
C. 1999. Waterborne Outbreak of Intestinal
Microsporidiosis in Persons with and without Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Infection. J Infect Dis.; 180(6):
2003-8
Crook, J. 1998. "Water Reclamation and Reuse Criteria."
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, pp. 627-703,
Technomic Publishing Company, Inc. Lancaster, Penn-
sylvania.
Crook, J. 1990. "Water Reclamation." Encyclopedia of
Physical Science and Technology. Academic Press, Inc.
pp. 157-187. San Diego, California.
Crook, J., and W.D. Johnson. 1991. "Health and Water
Quality Considerations with a Dual Water System." Wa-
ter Environment and Technology. 3(8): 13:14.
Dacko, B., and B. Emerson. 1997. "Reclaimed Water
and High Salts - Designing Around the Problem." Pro-
ceedings for the Water Environment Federation, 70th
Annual Conference and Exposition. October 18-22,
1997. Chicago, Illinois.
Desbrow C., E.J. Routledge, G.C. Brighty, J.P. Sumpter,
and M. Waldock. 1998. "Identification of Estrogenic
Chemicals in STW Effluent. 1. Chemical Tractionation
and in vitro biological screening." Environ Sci Technol.
32:1549-1558.
Dowd, S.E. and S.D. Pillai, 1998. "Groundwater Sam-
pling for Microbial Analysis." In S.D. Pillai (ed.) Chapter
2: Microbial Pathogens within Aquifers - Principles & Pro-
tocols. Springer-Verlag.
Dowd, S.E., C.P. Gerba, M. Kamper, and I. Pepper. 1999.
"Evaluation of methodologies including Immunofluores-
cent Assay (IFA) and the Polymerase Chain Reaction
(PCR) for Detection of Human Pathogenic Microsporidia
in Water." Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 35, 43-52.
East Bay Municipal Utility District. 1979. Wastewater
Reclamation Project Report. Water Resources Planning
Division, Oakland, California.
Elefritz, R. 2002. "Designing for Non-Detectable Fecal
Coliform.. .Our Experience With UV Light." Proceedings
of the Florida Water Resources Conference. March 2002.
Orlando, Florida.
EOA, Inc. 1995. Microbial Risk Assessment for Re-
claimed Water. Report prepared for Irvine Ranch Water
District. Oakland, California.
Fannin, K.F., K.W. Cochran, D.E. Lamphiear, and A.S.
Monto. 1980. "Acute Illness Differences with Regard to
Distance from the Tecumseh, Michigan Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant." Waste water Aerosols and Disease, pp. 117-
135.EPA-600/9-80-028. NTIS No. PB81-169864. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Feachem, R.G, D.J. Bradley, H. Garelick, and D.D. Mara.
1983. Sanitation and Disease-Health Aspects of Excreta
and Wastewater Management. Published for the World
Bank, John Wiley & Sons. Chicester, Great Britain.
139
-------
Federal Water Quality Administration. 1970. Federal
Guidelines: Design, Operation and Maintenance of
Waste Water Treatment Facilities. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration. Wash-
ington, D.C.
Ferguson P.L., C.R. Iden, A.E. McElroy, and B.J.
Brownawell. 2001. "Determination of Steroid Estrogens
in Wastewater by Immunoaffinity Extraction Coupled with
HPLC-Electrospray-MS." Anal. C/?e/n.73(16), 3890-
3895.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2003.
Reuse Coordinating Committee and the Water Reuse
Work Group. "Water Reuse for Florida: Strategies for
Effective Use of Reclaimed Water." Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002.
Code of Good Practices for Water Reuse in Florida. Tal-
lahassee, Florida.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002.
Florida Water Conservation Initiative. Tallahassee,
Florida.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2001.
Water Reuse Work Group. Using Reclaimed Water to
Conserve Florida's Water Resources^ A report to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection as part
of the Water Conservation Initiative.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999.
"Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application." Chap-
ter 62-610, Florida Administrative Code. Tallahassee, FL.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999.
Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection for Domestic Wastewater.
Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999.
Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application. Chap-
ter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code. Tallahassee,
Florida.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1996.
Domestic Wastewater Facilities. Chapter 62-610, Florida
Administrative Code. Tallahassee, Florida.
Forest, G., J. Peters, and K. Rombeck. 1998. "Reclaimed
Water Conservation: A Project APRICOT Update." Pro-
ceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 71st An-
nual Conference and Exposition. October 3-7,1998. Or-
lando, Florida.
Fox, D.R., G.S. Nuss, D.L. Smith, and J. Nosecchi. 1987.
"Critical Period Operation of the Santa Rosa Municipal
Reuse System." Proceedings of the Water Reuse Sym-
posium IV. August 2 - 7, 1987. AWWA Research Foun-
dation, Denver, Colorado.
Eraser, J., and N. Pan. 1998. "Algae Laden Pond Efflu-
ents - Tough Duty for Reclamation Filters." Water Re-
use Conference Proceedings. American Water Works
Association. Denver, Colorado.
Fujita Y., W.H. Ding, and M. Reinhard. 1996. "Identifi-
cation of Wastewater Dissolved Organic Carbon Charac-
teristics in Reclaimed Wastewater and Recharged
Groundwater." Water Environment Research. 68(5), 867-
876.
Gale, Paul. 2002. "Using Risk Assessment to Identify
Future Research Requirements." Journal of American
Water Works Association, Volume 94, No. 9. Septem-
ber, 2002.
Garcia, A., W. Yanko, G. Batzer, and G. Widmer. 2002.
"Giardia cysts in Tertiary-Treated Wastewater Effluents:
Are they Infective?" Water Environment Research.
74:541-544.
Genneccaro, Angela L., Molly R. McLaughlin, Walter
Quintero-Betancourt, Debra E. Huffman, and Jean B.
Rose. 2003. "Infectious Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts
in Final Reclaimed Effluent," Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 69(8): 4983-4984 August, 2003, p.4983-
4984.
Gerba, C.P. 2000. "Assessment of Enteric Pathogen
Shedding by Bathers during Recreational Activity and
its Impact on Water Quality." Quant. Micrbiol. 2: 55-68.
Gerba, C.P, and S.M. Goyal. 1985. "Pathogen Removal
from Wastewater during Groundwater Recharge." Arti-
ficial Recharge of Groundwater. pp. 283-317. Butterworth
Publishers. Boston, Massachusetts.
Gerba, C.P., and C.N. Haas. 1988. "Assessment of Risks
Associated with Enteric Viruses in Contaminated Drink-
ing Water." Chemical and Biological Characterization of
Sludges, Sediments, Dredge Spoils, and Drilling Muds.
ASTM STP 976. pp. 489-494, American Society for Test-
ing and Materials. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Grisham, A., and W.M. Fleming. 1989. "Long-Term Op-
tions for Municipal Water Conservation." Journal AWWA,
81:34-42.
Grosh, E.L., R.L. Metcalf, and D.H. Twachtmann. 2002.
140
-------
"Recognizing Reclaimed Water as a Valuable Resource:
The City of Tampa's First Residential Reuse Project."
2002 WateReuse Annual Symposium, Orlando, Florida.
September 8-11,2002.
Harries J.E., D.A. Sheahan, S. Jobling, P. Mattiessen,
P. Neall, E.J. Routledge, R. Rycroft, J.P. Sumpter, and
T. Tylor. 1997. "Estrogenic Activity in Five United King-
dom Rivers Detected by Measurement of Vitellogenesis
in Caged Male Trout." Environ Toxicol Chem. 16: 534-
542.
Harries J.E., D.A. Sheahan, S. Jobling, P. Mattiessen, P.
Neall, E.J. Routledge, R. Rycroft, J.P. Sumpter, and T.
Tylor. 1996. "A Survey of Estrogenic Activity in United
Kingdom Inland Waters." Environ Toxicol Chem. 15:1993-
2002.
Haas, C.N. A. Thayyat-Madabusi, J.B. Rose, and C.P.
Gerba. 2000. "Development of a Dose-response Relation-
ship for Escherichia coli." 0157:H7. Intern. J. Food
MicrobiolA'A-J.
Haas, C.H., J.B. Rose, and C.P. Gerba. (eds) 1999.
Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment John Wiley and
Sons, New York, New York.
Hayes T.B., A. Collins, M. Lee, M. Mendoza, N. Noriega,
A.A. Stuart, and A. Vonk. 2002. "Hermaphroditic, De-
masculinized Frogs After Eexposure to the Herbicide Atra-
zine at Low Ecologically Relevant Doses." Proc. Nat.
Acad. Sci. 99(8) 5476-5480.
Hench, K. R., G.K. Bissonnette, A.J. Sexstone, J.G.
Coleman, K. Garbutt, and J.G. Skousen. 2003. "Fate of
Physical, Chemical and Microbila Contaminants in Do-
mestic Wastewater Following Treatment by Small Con-
structed Wetlands." Wat. Res. 37: 921-927.
Hirsekorn, R.A., and R.A. Ellison, Jr. 1987. "Sea Pines
Public Service District Implements a Comprehensive
Reclaimed Water System." Proceedings of the Water
Reuse Symposium IV, August 2-7, 1987. AWWA Re-
search Foundation. Denver, Colorado.
Hoeller, C. S. Koschinsky, and D. Whitthuhn. 1999. "Iso-
lation of Enterohaemorragic Escherchia coli from Mu-
nicipal Sewage." Lancet 353. (9169):2039.
Huang, C.H., and D.L. Sedlak. 2001. "Analysis of Estro-
genic Hormones in Municipal Wastewater Effluent and
Surface Water using ELISA and GC/MS/MS." Environ-
mental Toxicology and Chemistry. 20,133-139.
Huffman, Debra E., Theresa R. Slifko, and Joan B. Rose.
1998. "Efficacy of Pulsed White Light to Inactivate Mi-
croorganisms." Proceedings, AWWA WQTC, San Diego,
CA. November 1-5.
Hunter, G., and B. Long. 2002. "Endocrine Disrupters in
Reclaimed Water Effective Removal from Disinfection
Technologies." 2002 Annual Symposium - WateReuse
Symposium. Orlando, Florida. September 8-11,2002.
Hurst, C.J., W.H. Benton, and R.E. Stetler. 1989. "De-
tecting Viruses in Water." Journal AWWA.Ql (9): 71 -80.
Irvine Ranch Water District. 2002. Water Resource Mas-
ter Plan. Irvine, California.
Jaques, R.S., and D. Williams. 1996. "Enhance the Fea-
sibility of Reclamation Projects through Aquifer Storage
and Recovery." Water Reuse Conference Proceedings.
American Water Works Association. Denver, Colorado.
Jansons, J., L.W. Edmonds, B. Speight, and M.R.
Bucens. 1989. "Survival of Viruses in Groundwater."
Water Research, 23(3):301-306.
Jenks, J.H. 1991. "Eliminating Summer Wastewater Dis-
charge." Water Environment & Technology, 3(4): 9.
Johnson, W.D. 1998. "Innovative Augmentation of a
Community's Water Supply-The St. Petersburg, Florida
Experience." Proceedings of the Water Environment Fed-
eration, 71st Annual Conference and Exposition. October
3-7,1998. Orlando, Florida.
Johnson, W.D., and J.R. Parnell. 1987. "The Unique Ben-
efits/Problems When Using Reclaimed Water in a Coastal
Community." Proceedings of the Water Reuse Sympo-
sium IV, pp. 259-270. August 2-7,1987. AWWA Research
Foundation. Denver, Colorado.
Jolis, D., C. Lan, P. Pitt, and R. Hirano. 1996. "Particle
Size Effects on UV Light Disinfection of Filtered Re-
claimed Wastewater." Water Reuse Conference Proceed-
ings. American Waterworks Association. Denver, Colo-
rado.
Keller, W. 2002. "Reuse of Stormwater and Wastewater
in the City of Calgary." Presentation at CCME Workshop.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. May 30-31,2002.
Keswick, B.H., C.P. Gerba, S.L. Secor, and I. Sech.
1982. "Survival of Enteric Viruses and Indicator Bacteria
in Groundwater." Jour. Environ. Sci. Health, A17: 903-
912.
141
-------
Klingel, K., C. Hohenadl, A. Canu, M. Albrecht, M.
Seemann, G. Mall, and R. Kandolf. 1992. "Ongoing En-
terovirus-induced Myocarditis is Associated with Persis-
tent Heart Muscle Infection: Quantitative Analysis of Vi-
rus Replication, Tissue Damage and Inflammation." Pro-
ceeding of the National Academy of Science. 89, 314-
318.
Koivunen, J., A. Siitonen, and H. Heinonen-Tanski. 2003.
"Elimination of Enteric Bacteria in Biological-Chemical
Wastewater Treatment and Tertiary Filtration Units."
Wat. Res. 37:690-698.
Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman,
S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and H.T. Buxton. 2002. "Phar-
maceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater
Contaminants in U.S. Stream, 1999-2000 - A National
Reconnaissance." Env. Sci. and Tech., v. 36, no. 6, p.
1202-1211.
Lund, E. 1980. "Health Problems Associated with the
Re-Use of Sewage: I. Bacteria, II. Viruses, III. Protozoa
and Helminths." Working papers prepared for WHO
Seminar on Health Aspects of Treated Sewage Re-Use.
1-5 June 1980. Algiers.
Mahmoud. A.A. 2000. "Diseases Due to Helminths." Prin-
ciples and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 5th Ed. pp.
2937-2986. Churchill Livingstone. Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania.
Maier, R.N., Ian L. Pepper, and Charles P. Gerba. 2000.
"Environmental Microbiology." 1st Ed. Eds. R.M. Maier,
I.L. Pepper, C.P. Gerba. Academic Press. Pp. 546-547.
San Diego, CA.
Mara, D., and S. Cairncross. 1989. Guidelines for the
Safe Use of Wastewater and Excreta in Agriculture and
Aquaculture: Measures for Public Health Protection.
World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland.
Martens, R.H., R.A. Morrell, J. Jackson, and C.A.
Ferguson. 1998. "Managing Flows During Low Reclaimed
Water Demand Periods at Brevard County, Florida's South
Central Regional Wastewater System."Proceedings of
the Water Environment Federation, 71st Annual Confer-
ence and Exposition. October 3-7,1998. Orlando, Florida.
McGovern, P., and H.S. McDonald. 2003. "Endocrine
Disrupters." Water Environment & Technology Journal.
Water Environment Federation. January 2003.
Metcalf & Eddy. 2002. Wastewater Engineering: Treat-
ment, Disposal, Reuse. Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
New York, New York.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
2002."Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies."
www.mwd.dst.ca.us.
Michino, I.K., H. Araki, S. Minami, N. Takaya, M. Sakai,
A. Oho Miyazaki, and H. Yanagawa. 1999. "Massive
Outbreak of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 Infection in School
Children in Sakai City, Japan, Associated with consump-
tion of White Radish Sprouts." Am. J. Epidemiol. 150,
787-796
Miller, D.G. "West Basin Municipal Water District: 5 De-
signer (Recycled) Waters to Meet Customer's Needs."
West Basin Municipal Water District.
Mitch, William, and David L. Sedlak. 2003. "Fate of N-
nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) Precursors during Munici-
pal Wastewater Treatment." Proceedings of the Ameri-
can Water Works Association AnnauI Conference. Ana-
heim, California. American Water Works Association,
2003.
Modifi, A.A., E. A. Meyer, P.M. Wallis, C.I. Chou, B.P.
Meyer, S. Ramalingam, and B.M. Coffey. 2002. "The
effect of UV light on the Inactivation of Giardia lamblia
and Giardia muris cysts as determined by Animal Infec-
tivity Assay." Water Research. 36:2098-2108.
Murphy, D.F.. and G.E. Lee. 1979. "East Bay Discharg-
ers Authority Reuse Survey." Proceedings of the Water
Reuse Symposium. Volume 2. pp. 1086-1098. March 25-
30, 1979. AWWA Research Foundation. Denver, Colo-
rado.
Murphy, W.H.. and J.T. Syverton. 1958. "Absorption and
Translocation of Mammalian Viruses by Plants. II. Re-
covery and Distribution of Viruses in Plants." Virology,
6(3), 623.
Nagel, R.A., L.M. McGovern, P. Shields, G. Oelker, and
J.R. Bolton. 2001. "Using Ultraviolet (UV) Light to Re-
move N-Nitrosodimethylamine from Recycled Water."
WateReuse 2001 Symposium.
National Academy of Sciences. 1983. Drinking Water
and Health. Volume 5. National Academy Press. Wash-
ington, D.C.
National Communicable Disease Center. 1975. Morbid-
ity and Mortality, Weekly Report. National Communicable
Disease Center. 24(31): 261.
National Research Council. 1998. "Issues in Potable Re-
use: The Viability of Augmenting Drinking Water Sup-
plies with Reclaimed Water." National Academy Press.
142
-------
National Research Council. Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1996. Use of Reclaimed Water
and Sludge in Food Crop Irrigation. National Academy
Press. Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1994. Ground Water Recharge
Using Waters of Impaired Quality. National Academy
Press. Washington, D.C.
National Water Research Institute and American Water
Works Association. 2000. Ultraviolet Disinfection Guide-
lines for Drinking Water and Water Reuse. Fountain
Valley, California.
Nellor, M.H., R.B. Baird, and J.R. Smyth. 1984. Health
Effects Study- Final Report. County Sanitation Districts
of Los Angeles County. Whittier, California.
Olivieri, A. 2002. "Evaluation of Microbial Risk Assess-
ment Methodologies for Nonpotable Reuse Applica-
tions." WEFTEC2002 Seminar #112. Water Environment
Research Foundation.
Olivieri, A.W., R.C. Cooper, R.C. Spear, R.E. Danielson,
D.E. Block, and P.G. Badger. 1986. "Risk Assessment
of Waterborne Infectious Agents." ENVIRONMENT86:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Devel-
opment and Application of Computer Techniques to
Environmental Studies. Los Angeles, California
Ortega, Y.R., C.R. Sterling, R.H. Oilman, M.A. Cama,
and F. Diaz. 1993. "Cyclospora species - A New Proto-
zoan Pathogen of Humans." N. Engl. J. Med. 328,1308-
1312.
Pai, P., G. Grinnell, A. Richardson, and R. Janga. 1996.
"Water Reclamation in Clark County Sanitation District
Service Area." Water Reuse Conference Proceedings.
American Waterworks Association. Denver, Colorado.
Patterson, S.R., N.J. Ashbolt, and A. Sharma. 2001. "Mi-
crobial Risks from Wastewater Irrigation of Salad Crops:
A Screening-Level Risk Assessment." Wat. Environ. Res.
72:667-671.
Payment, P. 1997. "Cultivation and Assay of Viruses."
Manual of Environmental Microbiology pp. 72-78. ASM
Press. Washington, D.C.
Pettygrove, G.S., and T. Asano. (ed.). 1985. Irrigation
with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater - A Guidance
Manual. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, Michigan.
Pruss, A., and A. Havelaar.2001. "The Global Burden of
Disease Study and Applications in Water, Sanitation and
Hygiene." Water Quality: Standards, and Health IWA Pub-
lishing. Pp. 43-59. London, UK.
Purdom C.E., P.A. Hardiman, V.J. Bye, C.N. Eno, C.R.
Tyler, and J.P. Sumpter. 1994. "Estrogenic Effects from
Sewage Treatment Works." Chem EcolQ: 275-285.
Putnam, L.B. 2002. "Integrated Water Resource Plan-
ning: Balancing Wastewater, Water and Recycled Wa-
ter Requirements." 2002 Annual Symposium -
WateReuse Symposium. Orlando, Florida. September
8-11,2002.
Quintero-Betancourt, W., A.L. Gennaccaro, T.M. Scott,
and J.B. Rose. 2003. "Assessment of Methods for De-
tection of Infected Cryptosporidium Oocysts and Giardia
Cysts in Reclaimed Effluent." Applied and Environmen-
tal Microbiology, p. 5380-5388. September 2003.
Regli,S., J.B. Rose, C.N. Haas, and C.P. Gerba. 1991.
"Modeling the Risk from Giardia and Viruses in Drink-
ing Water." Journal AWWA. 83(11): 76-84.
Riggs, J.L. 1989. "AIDS Transmission in Drinking Wa-
ter: No Threat." Journal AWWA. 81(9): 69-70.
Rose, J.B. 1986. "Microbial Aspects of Wastewater Re-
use for Irrigation." CRC Critical Reviews in Environ. Con-
trol. 16(3): 231 -256.
Rose, J.B., and R.P. Carnahan. 1992. Pathogen Removal
by Full Scale Wastewater Treatment. A Report to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Univer-
sity of South Florida. Tampa, Florida.
Rose, J.B., and C.P. Gerba. 1991. "Assessing Potential
Health Risks from Viruses and Parasites in Reclaimed
Water in Arizona and Florida, U.S.A." Water Science
Technology. 23:2091-2098.
Rose, J.B., C.N. Haas, and S. Regli. 1991. "Risk As-
sessment and Control of Waterborne Giardiasis." Ameri-
can Journal of Public Health. 81(6): 709-713.
Rose, J.B., D.E. Huffman, K. Riley, S.R. Farrah, J.O.
Lukasik, and C.L. Hamann. 2001. "Reduction of Enteric
Microorganisms at the Upper Occoquan Sewage Author-
ity Water Reclamation Plant." Water Environment Re-
search. 73(6): 711-720.
Rose, J.B., and W. Quintero-Betancourt. 2002. Monitor-
ing for Enteric Viruses, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and
Indicator Organisms in the Key Colony Beach Wastewa-
143
-------
ter Treatment Plant Effluent. University of South Florida.
St. Petersburg, Florida.
Rose J.B., L. Dickson, S. Farrah, and R. Carnahan. 1996.
"Removal of Pathogenic and Indicator Microorganisms
by a Full-scale Water Reclamation Facility." Wat. Res.
30(11): 2785-2797.
Rose, J.B., and T.R. Slifko. 1999. "Giardia,
Cryptosoridium, and Cyclospora and their Impact on
Foods: a Review." J. of Food Protect. 62(9):1059-1070.
Rose, J.B., S. Daeschner, D.R. Deasterling, F.C. Curriero,
S. Lele, and J. Patz. 2000. "Climate and Waterborne Dis-
ease Outbreaks." J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 92:77-
87.
Rose, J.B., D.E. Huffman, K. Riley, S.R. Farrah, J.O.
Lukasik, and C.L. Harman. 2001. "Reduction of Enteric
Microorganisms at the Upper Occoquan Sewage Au-
thority Water Reclamation Plant." Wat. Environ. Res.
73(6):711-720.
Routledge, E.J., D. Sheahan, C. Desbrow, G.C. Brighty,
M. Waldock, and J.P. Sumpter. 1998. "Identification of
Estrogenic Chemicals in STW Effluent.2. In Vivo Re-
sponses in Trout and Roach." Environmental Science
and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 11.
Ryder, R.A. 1996. "Corrosivity and Corrosion Control of
Reclaimed Water Treatment and Distribution Systems."
Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. American Water
Works Association. Denver, Colorado.
Sagik, B.P., B.E. Moore, and C.A. Sorber. 1978. "Infec-
tious Disease Potential of Land Application of Waste-
water." State of Knowledge in Land Treatment of Waste-
water. Volume 1, pp. 35-46. Proceedings of an Interna-
tional Symposium. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover,
New Hampshire.
Sanders, W., and C. Thurow. Undated. Water Conserva-
tion in Residential Development: Land-Use Tech-niques.
American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Ser-
vice Report No. 373.
Schanze, T., and C.J. Voss. 1989. "Experimental Wet-
lands Application System Research Program." Pre-
sented at the 62nd Annual Conference of the Water
Pollution Control Federation. San Francisco, California.
Sepp, E. 1971. The Use of Sewage for Irrigation - A
Literature Review. California Department of Public Health.
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering. Berkeley, California.
Shadduck, J.A. 1989. Human Microsporidiosis and AIDS.
Rev. Infect Dis. Mar-Apr, 11:203-7.
Shadduck, J.A., and M. B. Polley. 1978. Some Factors
Influencing the in vitro infectivity and Replication on En-
cephalitozoon cuniculi. Protozoology 25:491 -496.
Sheikh, B., and E. Rosenblum. 2002. "Economic Impacts
of Salt from Industrial and Residential Sources." Proceed-
ings of the Water Sources Conference, Reuse, Re-
sources, Conservation. January 27-30,2002. Las Vegas,
Nevada.
Sheikh, B., R.C. Cooper, and K.E. Israel. 1999. "Hygienic
Evaluation of Reclaimed Water used to Irrigate Food
Crops - a case study." Water Science Technology 40:261 -
267.
Sheikh, B., and R.C. Cooper. 1998. Recycled Water Food
Safety Study. Report to Monterey County Water Re-
sources Agency and Monterey Reg. Water Pollution Cont.
Agency.
Sheikh, B., E. Rosenblum, S. Kosower, and E. Hartling.
1998. "Accounting for the Benefits of Water Reuse." Water
Reuse Conference Proceedings. American Water Works
Association. Denver, Colorado.
Sheikh, B., C. Weeks, T.G. Cole, and R. Von Dohren.
1997. "Resolving Water Quality Concerns in Irrigation of
Pebble Beach Golf Course Greens with Recycled Wa-
ter." Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation,
70th Annual Conference and Exposition. October 18-22,
1997. Chicago, Illinois.
Shuval, H.I., A. Adin, B. Fattal, E. Rawitz, and P. Yekutiel.
1986. "Wastewater Irrigation in Developing Countries D
Health Effects and Technical Solutions." World Bank
Technical Paper Number 51. The World Bank. Wash-
ington, D.C.
Slifko, Theresa R. Invited -Verbal. 2002. "New Irradiation
Technologies for the Water Industry: Efficacy and Appli-
cation of High-energy Disinfection using Electron Beams.
Emerging Contaminants Roundtable," Florida Water Re-
sources Annual Conference, Orlando, FL. March 24-26
Slifko, T.R. May 2001. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
South Florida, College of Marine Science, St. Peters-
burg, FL. Development and Evaluation of a Quantita-
tive Cell Culture Assay for Cryptosporidium Disinfection
Studies (this shows both UV and ebeam inactivation for
Crypto).
144
-------
Slifko, T.R., H.V. Smith, and J.B. Rose. 2000. Emerging
Parasite Zoonoses associated with Water and Food. In-
ternational Journal for Parasitology. 30: 1 379-1 393.
Smith H.V., and J.B. Rose. 1998. "Waterborne
Cryptosporidiosis Current Status." Parasitology Today.
Smith, T., and D. Brown. 2002. "Ultraviolet Treatment
Technology for the Henderson Water Reclamation Fa-
cility." Proceedings of the Water Sources Conference,
Reuse, Resources, Conservation. January 27-30, 2002.
Las Vegas, Nevada.
Snyder S.A., D.L. Villeneuve, E.M. Snyder, and J.P.
Giesy. 2001 . "Identification and Quantification of Estro-
gen Receptor Agonists in Wastewater Effluents. "Environ.
Sci. Technol. 35(18), 3620-3625.
Sobsey, M. 1 978. Public Health Aspects of Human En-
teric Viruses in Cooling Waters. Report to NUS Corpo-
ration. Pittsburgh, PA.
Solley, W.B., R.R. Pierce, and H.A. Perlman, 1998. Es-
timated Use of Water in the United States in 1995. U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1 200. Denver, Colorado.
Sorber, C.A., and K.J. Guter. 1 975. "Health and Hygiene
Aspects of Spray Irrigation." American Jour. Public
Health, 65(1): 57-62.
State of California. 1 987. Report of the Scientific Advi-
sory Panel on Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed
Water. Prepared for the State of California, State Water
Resources Control Board. Department of Water Re-
sources, and Department of Health Services. Sacramento,
California.
State of California. 1978. Wastewater Reclamation Cri-
teria. Title 22, Division 4, California Code of Regula-
tions. State of California, Department of Health Services.
Sanitary Engineering Section. Berkeley, California.
Stecchini, M.L., and C. Domenis. 1994. "Incidence of
Aeromonas Species in Influent and Effluent of Urban
Wastewater Purification Plants." Lett. Appl. Microbiol.
19:237-239.
Swift, J., R. Emerick, F. Soroushian, L.B. Putnam, and
R. Sakaji. 2002. "Treat, Disinfect, Reuse." Water Envi-
ronment & Technology, 1 4 (1 1 ): 21 -25.
Tanaka, H., T. Asano. E.D. Schroeder, and G.
Tchobanoglous. 1998. "Estimation of the Safety of Waste-
water Reclamation and Reuse Using Enteric Virus Moni-
toring Data." Water Environmental Research, Vol. 70, No.
1, pp. 39-51.
Teltsch, B., and E. Katzenelson. 1978. "Airborne Enteric
Bacteria and Viruses from Spray Irrigation with Waste-
water." Applied Environ. Microbiol., 32:290-296.
Teltsch, B., S. Kidmi, L. Bonnet, Y. Borenzstajn-Roten,
and E. Katzenelson. 1980. "Isolation and Identification
of Pathogenic Microorganisms at Wastewater-lrrigated
Fields: Ratios in Air and Wastewater." Applied Environ.
Microbiol., 39: 1184-1195.
Ternes T.A., M. Stumpf, J. Mueller, K. Haberer, R.D.
Wilken, and M. Servos. 1999. "Behavior and Occurrence
of Estrogens in Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants - I.
Investigations in Germany, Canada and Brazil." Sc; Total
Environ 225: 81 -90.
Tomowich, D. 2002. "UV Disinfection for the Protection
and Use of Resource Waters." Proceedings of the Florida
Water Resources Conference. March 2002. Orlando,
Florida.
USDA, http://www.foodsafty.gov.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. "Perchlor-
ate Environmental Contamination: Toxicological Review
and Risk Characterization." USEPA Office of Research
and Development. January 16,2002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Methods
for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Indus-
trial Wastewater.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Wastewa-
ter Treatment Facilities and Effluent Quantities by State.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Rainfall
Induced Infiltration Into Sewer Systems, Report to Con-
gress. EPA 430/09-90-005. EPA Office of Water (WH-
595). Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Process
Design Manual: Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewa-
ter, Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow,
EPA 625/1 -81 -013a EPA Center for Environmental Re-
search Information. Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Handbook
for Sampling and Sample Preservation of Water and
Wastewater. EPA/600/4-82/029, NTIS No. PB83-
145
-------
124503. Environmental Monitoring and Support Labora-
tory. Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Process
Design Manual: Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewa-
ter. EPA 625/1-81-013. EPA Center for Environmental
Research Information. Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980b. Waste-
water Aerosols and Disease. Proceedings of Sympo-
sium. September 19-21,1979. EPA-600/9-80-028, NTIS
No. PB81-169864. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Health Effects Research Laboratory. Cincin-
nati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979a. Hand-
book for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Waste-
water Laboratories. EPA-600/4-79-019. Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Methods
for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/
4-79-020, NTIS No. PB84-128677. Environmental Moni-
toring and Support Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality
Criteria for Water. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Design
Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid Systems and
Component Reliability. EPA-430-99-74-01. EPA Office
of Water Program Operations, Municipal Construction
Division. Washington, D.C.
University of California Division of Agriculture and Natu-
ral Resources. 1985. Turfgrass Water Conservation
Projects: Summary Report. Washington, D.C.
Vickers, A., 2001. Handbook of Water Use and Conser-
vation. Waterplow Press. Amherst, Massachusetts.
Walker-Coleman, L; D.W. York; and P. Menendez. 2002.
"Protozoan Pathogen Monitoring Results for Florida's
Reuse Systems." Proceedings of Symposium XVII.
WateReuse Association. Orlando, Florida.
Waller, T. 1980. Sensitivity of Encephalitozoon cuniculi
to Various Temperatures, Disinfectants and Drugs. Lab.
Anim. Sci. 13:277-285.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2003. "Wa-
ter Reclamation and Reuse Program General Sewer and
Facility Plan Development Reliability Assessment Guid-
ance."
Water Environment Federation. 2003. Summary of WERF
Workshop on Indicators for Pathogens in Wastewater,
Stormwater and Biosolids, San Antonio, TX, December
11-12,2003.
Water Environment Federation. 1998. Design of Munici-
pal Wastewater Treatment Plants. WEF Manual of Prac-
tice No. 8, Fourth Edition, Water Environment Federa-
tion, Alexandria, Virginia.
Water Environment Federation. 1996. Wastewater Disin-
fection Manual of Practice FD-10. Water Environment
Federation. Alexandria, Virginia.
Water Environment Research Foundation. 2003. Sum-
mary of WERF Workshop on Indicators for Pathogens in
Wastewater, Stormwater, and Biosolids. San Antonio,
Texas. December 11-12,2003. www.werf.org
Water Environment Research Foundation. 1995. Disin-
fection Comparison of UV Irradiation to Chlorination:
Guidance for Achieving Optimal UV Performance (Final
Report). Project 91 -WWD-1. Water Environment Research
Foundation. Alexandria, Virginia.
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1989. Water Reuse
(Second Edition). Manual of Practice SM-3. Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation. Alexandria, Virginia.
Withers, B., and S. Vipond. 1980 Irrigation Design and
Practice. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York.
Wolk, D.M., C.H. Johnson, E.W. Rice, M.M. Marshall,
K.F. Grahn, C.B. Plummer, and C.R. Sterling. 2000. "A
Spore Counting Method and Cell Culture Model for Chlo-
rine Disinfection Studies of Encephalitozoon syn. Septata
intestinal!." Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
66:1266-1273.
Woodside, G.D., and Wehner, M.P. 2002. "Lessons
Learned from the Occurrence of 1,4-dioxane at Water
Factory 21 in Orange County Califorina." Proceedings of
the 2002 Water Reuse Annual Symposium. Alexandria,
Virginia. WateReuse Association, 202: CD-ROM.
York, D.W., and L. Walker-Coleman. 1999. "Is it Time for
Pathogen Standards?" Proceedings of the 1999 Florida
Water Resources Conference. AWWA, FPCA, and
FW&PCOA. Tallahassee, Florida.
146
-------
York, D.W., L. Walker-Coleman, and P. Menendez. 2002.
"Pathogens in Reclaimed Water: The Florida Experience."
Proceedings of Water Sources 2002. AWWA and WEF.
Las Vegas, NV.
York, D.W., and L. Walker-Coleman. 2000. "Pathogen
Standards for Reclaimed Water." Water Environment &
Technology. 12(1): 58.
York, D.W., and L. Walker-Coleman. 1999. "Is it Time for
Pathogen Standards?" Proceedings of the 1999 Florida
Water Resources Conference. AWWA, FPCA and
FW&PCOA. April 25-28,1999. Tallahassee, Florida.
York, D.W., and N.R. Burg. 1998. "Protozoan Pathogens:
A Comparison of Reclaimed Water and Other Irrigation
Waters." Proceedings of Water Reuse 98. AWWA and
WEF. Lake Buena Vista, Florida.
Young, R., K. Thompson, and C. Kinner. 1997. "Manag-
ing Water Quality Objectives in a Large Reclaimed Wa-
ter Distribution System." Proceedings forthe Water En-
vironment Federation, 70th Annual Conference and Expo-
sition. October 18-22, 1997. Chicago, Illinois.3
Young, R.E., K. Lewinger, and R. Zenik. 1987. "Waste-
water Reclamation - Is it Cost Effective? Irvine Ranch
Water District - A Case Study." Proceedings of the Wa-
ter Reuse Symposium IV. August 2-7,1987. AWWA Re-
search Foundation. Denver, Colorado.
147
-------
148
-------
CHAPTER 4
Water Reuse Regulations and Guidelines in the U.S.
Most reuse programs operate within a framework of regu-
lations that must be addressed in the earliest stages of
planning. Athorough understanding of all applicable regu-
lations is required to plan the most effective design and
operation of a water reuse program and to streamline
implementation.
Regulations refer to actual rules that have been enacted
and are enforceable by government agencies. Guidelines,
on the other hand, are not enforceable but can be used in
the development of a reuse program. Currently, there are
no federal regulations directly governing water reuse prac-
tices in the U.S. Water reuse regulations and guidelines
have, however, been developed by many individual
states. As of November 2002, 25 states had adopted
regulations regarding the reuse of reclaimed water, 16
states had guidelines or design standards, and 9 states
had no regulations or guidelines. In states with no spe-
cific regulations or guidelines on water reclamation and
reuse, programs may still be permitted on a case-by-
case basis.
Regulations and guidelines vary considerably from state
to state. States such as Arizona, California, Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming have devel-
oped regulations or guidelines that strongly encourage
water reuse as a water resources conservation strat-
egy. These states have developed comprehensive regu-
lations or guidelines specifying water quality require-
ments, treatment processes, or both, for the full spec-
trum of reuse applications. The objective in these states
is to derive the maximum resource benefits of the re-
claimed water while protecting the environment and pub-
lic health. Other states have developed water reuse regu-
lations with the primary intent of providing a disposal al-
ternative to discharge to surface waters, without consid-
ering the management of reclaimed water as a resource.
This section provides an inventory of the various state
water reuse regulations throughout the U.S. and updates
recommended guidelines that may aid in the develop-
ment of more comprehensive state or even federal stan-
dards for water reuse. Water reuse outside the U.S. is
discussed in Chapter 8.
4.1 Inventory of Existing State
Regulations and Guidelines
The following inventory of state reuse regulations and
guidelines is based on a survey of all states conducted
specifically for this document. Regulatory agencies in
all 50 states were contacted and information was ob-
tained concerning their regulations governing water re-
use. All of the information presented in this section is
considered current as of November 2002.
California and Florida compile comprehensive invento-
ries of reuse projects by type of reuse application. These
inventories are compiled by the California Water Re-
sources Control Board (CWRCB) in Sacramento and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) in Tallahassee, respectively. The inventories are
available for viewing or downloading from each agency's
website. Florida's 2001 Reuse Inventory shows a total
of 461 domestic wastewater treatment facilities with
permitted capacities of 0.1 mgd (4.4 l/s) or more that
produce reclaimed water. These treatment facilities serve
431 reuse systems and provide 584 mgd (25,600 l/s) of
reclaimed water for beneficial purposes. The total reuse
capacity associated with these systems is 1,151 mgd
(50,400 l/s) (FDEP, 2002). California's May 2000 Munici-
pal Wastewater Reclamation Survey, estimated a total of
358 mgd (14,800 l/s) treated municipal wastewater was
being reused. This represents a 50 percent increase from
the survey undertaken by CWRCB in 1987. The waste-
water is treated at 234 treatment plants and is being re-
used at approximately 4,840 sites (CWRCB, 2000). Fig-
ures 4-1 and 4-2 show the types of reuse occurring in
California and Florida, respectively.
149
-------
Figure 4-1. California Water Reuse by Type
(Total 358 mgd)
Habitat Restoration^
Recreational Impoundments
4%
Seawater Barrier
3%
Groundwater Recharge
12%
Industrial Reuse
5%
Landscape Irrigation and
Impoundments
20%
Agricultural Irrigation
48%
Source: Adapted from California Environmental Protection
Agency
Figure 4-2. Florida Water Reuse by Type
(Total 584 mgd)
Wetlands and Other
Groundwater Recharge
16%
Industrial Reuse
15%
Agricultural Irrigation
19%
Public Access Irrigation
44%
Source: 2001 Florida Water Reuse Inventory
Every 5years, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) com-
piles an estimate of national reclaimed water use that is
entered in a national database system and publishes its
findings in a national circular, Estimated Use of Water in
the United States. The 1995 publication estimated that
approximately 983 mgd (43,060 l/s) of the effluent dis-
charged in the U.S. was released for beneficial reuse, an
increase of 55 mgd (2,410 l/s) from the 1990 estimate
(Perlman etal., 1998). More current estimates were not
available from the USGS at the time of this update, but it
is anticipated that the 2000 publication will be available
at the time these guidelines are published.
Most states do not have regulations that cover all poten-
tial uses of reclaimed water. Arizona, California, Colo-
rado, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, and Washington have extensive regulations
or guidelines that prescribe requirements for a wide range
of end uses of the reclaimed water. Other states have
regulations or guidelines that focus upon land treatment
of wastewater effluent, emphasizing additional treatment
or effluent disposal rather than beneficial reuse, even
though the effluent may be used for irrigation of agricul-
tural sites, golf courses, or public access lands.
Based on the inventory, current regulations and guide-
lines may be divided into the following reuse catego-
ries:
• Unrestricted urban reuse - irrigation of areas in which
public access is not restricted, such as parks, play-
grounds, school yards, and residences; toilet flush-
ing, air conditioning, fire protection, construction, or-
namental fountains, and aesthetic impoundments.
• Restricted urban reuse - irrigation of areas in which
public access can be controlled, such as golf
courses, cemeteries, and highway medians.
• Agricultural reuse on food crops - irrigation of food
crops which are intended for direct human consump-
tion, often further classified as to whether the food
crop is to be processed or consumed raw.
• Agricultural reuse on non-food crops - irrigation of
fodder, fiber, and seed crops, pasture land, com-
mercial nurseries, and sod farms.
• Unrestricted recreational reuse - an impoundment
of water in which no limitations are imposed on body-
contact water recreation activities.
• Restricted recreational reuse - an impoundment of
reclaimed water in which recreation is limited to fish-
ing, boating, and other non-contact recreational ac-
tivities.
• Environmental reuse - reclaimed water used to cre-
ate manmade wetlands, enhance natural wetlands,
and sustain or augment stream flows.
• Industrial reuse- reclaimed water used in industrial
facilities primarily for cooling system make-up wa-
ter, boiler-feed water, process water, and general
washdown.
150
-------
• Groundwater recharge - using either infiltration ba-
sins, percolation ponds, or injection wells to recharge
aquifers.
• Indirect potable reuse - the intentional discharge of
highly treated reclaimed water into surface waters
or groundwater that are or will be used as a source
of potable water.
Table 4-1 (on the following page) provides an overview
of the current water reuse regulations and guidelines
by state and by reuse category. The table identifies those
states that have regulations, those with guidelines, and
those states that currently do not have either. Regula-
tions refer to actual rules that have been enacted and
are enforceable by government agencies. Guidelines, on
the other hand, are not enforceable but can be used in
the development of a reuse program.
The majority of current state regulations and guidelines
pertain to the use of reclaimed water for urban and ag-
ricultural irrigation. At the time of the survey, the only
states that had specific regulations or guidelines regard-
ing the use of reclaimed water for purposes other than
irrigation were Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,
Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and
Washington. The 1995 Substitute Senate Bill 5605, "Re-
claimed Water Act," passed in the State of Washington,
states that reclaimed water is no longer considered
wastewater (Van Riper etal., 1998).
Table 4-2 shows the number of states with regulations
or guidelines for each type of reuse. The category of
unrestricted urban reuse has been subdivided to indi-
cate the number of states that have regulations pertain-
ing to urban reuse not involving irrigation.
States with regulations or guidelines pertaining to the
use of reclaimed water for the following unrestricted ur-
ban reuse categories are:
• Toilet Flushing - Arizona, California, Florida, Ha-
waii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Texas, Utah, and Washington
• Fire Protection - Arizona, California, Florida, Ha-
waii, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, and
Washington
• Construction Purposes - Arizona, California, Florida,
Hawaii, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah,
and Washington
• Landscape or Aesthetic Impoundments - Arizona,
California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Wash-
ington
• Street Cleaning - Arizona, California, Florida, Ha-
waii, North Carolina, and Washington
Table 4-2.
Number of States with Regulations or Guidelines for Each Type of Reuse Application
Type of Reuse
Unrestricted Urban
Irrigation
Toilet Flushing
Fire Protection
Construction
Landscape Impoundment
Street Cleaning
Restricted Urban
Agricultural (Food Crops)
Agricultural (Non-food Crops)
Unrestricted Recreational
Restricted Recreational
Environmental (Wetlands)
Industrial
Groundwater Recharge (Nonpotable Aquifer)
Indirect Potable Reuse
Number of States
28
28
10
9
9
11
6
34
21
40
7
9
3
9
5
5
151
-------
Table 4-1.
Summary of State Reuse Regulations and Guidelines
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California |3>
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Regulations
•
•
•
.(4)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
co
.1
CD
T3
'13
O
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No Regulations or
Guidelines |1'
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Change from 1992
Guidelines for
Water Reuse |2>
N
NR
U
N
U
GR
N
GR
U
U
U
N
U
U
NR
N
N
N
N
N
NG
N
N
N
N
GR
GR
GR
N
RG
N
N
U
U
NG
GR
N
NG
N
GR
N
N
U
U
N
N
U
N
N
U
Unrestricted Urban
Reuse
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Restricted Urban
Reuse
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agricultural Reuse
Food Crops
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agricultural Reuse
Non-Food Crops
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Unrestricted
Recreational
Reuse
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Restricted
Recreational
Reuse
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Environmental
Reuse
•
•
•
Industrial Reuse
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Groundwater
Recharge
•
•
•
•
•
Indirect Potable
Reuse
•
•
•
•
•
(1) Specific regulations on reuse not adopted: however, reclamation may be approved on a
case-by-case basis
(2) N - no change NR - no guidelines or regulations to
regulations
U - updated guidelines or regulations NG - no guidelines or regulations to
guidelines
GR - guidelines to regulations RG - regulations to guidelines
(3) Has regulations for landscape irrigation excluding residential irrigation; guidelines cover
all other uses
152
-------
It is important to understand that because a state does
not have specific guidelines or regulations for a particu-
lar type of reuse as defined in this chapter, it does not
mean that the state does not allow that type of reuse
under other uses. Also, some states allow consideration
of reuse options that are not addressed within their ex-
isting guidelines or regulations. For example, Florida's
rules governing water reuse enable the state to permit
other uses, if the applicant demonstrates that public
health will be protected.
4.1.1 Reclaimed Water Quality and
Treatment Requirements
Requirements for water quality and treatment receive
the most attention in state reuse regulations. States that
have water reuse regulations or guidelines have set stan-
dards for reclaimed water quality and/or specified mini-
mum treatment requirements. Generally, where unre-
stricted public exposure is likely in the reuse applica-
tion, wastewater must be treated to a high degree prior
to its application. Where exposure is not likely, how-
ever, a lower level of treatment is usually accepted. The
most common parameters for which water quality limits
are imposed are biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
total suspended solids (TSS), and total or fecal coliform
counts. Total and fecal coliform counts are generally used
as indicators to determine the degree of disinfection. A
limit on turbidity is usually specified to monitor the per-
formance of the treatment facility.
This discussion on reclaimed water quality and treatment
requirements is based on the regulations from the follow-
ing states: Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada,
Texas, and Washington. These regulations were chosen
because these states provide a collective wisdom of suc-
cessful reuse programs and long-term experience.
4.1.1.1
Unrestricted Urban Reuse
Unrestricted urban reuse involves the use of reclaimed
water where public exposure is likely in the reuse appli-
cation, thereby necessitating a high degree of treatment.
In general, all states that specify a treatment process
require a minimum of secondary treatment and treat-
ment with disinfection prior to unrestricted urban reuse.
However, the majority of states require additional lev-
els of treatment that may include oxidation, coagula-
tion, and filtration. Texas does not specify the type of
treatment processes required and only sets limits on
the reclaimed water quality. Table 4-3 shows the re-
claimed water quality and treatment requirements for
unrestricted urban reuse.
Where specified, limits on BOD range from 5 mg/l to 30
mg/l. Texas requires that BOD not exceed 5 mg/l (monthly
Table 4-3.
Unrestricted Urban Reuse
Treatment
BOD5
TSS
Turbidity
Coliform
Arizona
Secondary
treatment,
filtration, and
disinfection
NS
NS
2 NTU (Avg)
5 NTU (Max)
Fecal
None
detectable
(Avg)
237100ml
(Max)
California
Oxidized,
coagulated,
filtered, and
disinfected
NS
NS
2 NTU (Avg)
5 NTU (Max)
Total
2. 2/1 00 ml
(Avg)
23/1 00 ml
(Max in 30
days)
Florida
Secondary
treatment,
filtration, and
high-level
disinfection
20 mg/l
CBOD5
5.0 mg/l
NS
Fecal
75% of
samples below
detection
25/1 00 ml
(Max)
Hawaii
Oxidized,
filtered, and
disinfected
NS
NS
2 NTU (Max)
Fecal
2. 2/100 ml
(Avg)
23/1 00 ml
(Max in 30
days)
Nevada
Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
30 mg/l
NS
NS
Fecal
2. 2/1 00 ml
(Avg)
23/1 00 ml
(Max)
Texas
NS(1)
5 mg/l
NS
3 NTU
Fecal
20/1 00 ml
(Avg)
75/1 00 ml
(Max)
Washington
Oxidized,
coagulated,
filtered, and
disinfected
30 mg/l
30 mg/l
2 NTU (Avg)
5 NTU (Max)
Total
2. 2/100 ml
(Avg)
23/1 00 ml
(Max)
(1)
NS - Not specified by state regulations
153
-------
average) except when reclaimed water is used for land-
scape impoundments. In that case, BOD is limited to 10
mg/l. Nevada, on the other hand, requires that BOD not
exceed 30 mg/l prior to unrestricted urban reuse. Limits
on TSS vary from 5 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida requires a
TSS limit of 5.0 mg/l prior to disinfection and Washing-
ton requires that TSS not exceed 30 mg/l.
Average fecal and total coliform limits range from non-
detectable to 20/100 ml. Higher single sample fecal and
total coliform limits are allowed in several state regula-
tions. Florida requires that 75 percent of the fecal coliform
samples taken over a 30-day period be below detectable
levels, with no single sample in excess of 25/100 ml,
while Texas requires that no single fecal coliform count
exceed 75/100 ml.
In general and where specified, limits on turbidity range
from 2 to 5 NTU. Most of the states require an average
turbidity limit of 2 NTU and a not-to-exceed limit of 5
NTU, although Hawaii's guidelines identify a not-to-ex-
ceed limit of 2 NTU. Florida requires continuous on-line
monitoring of turbidity as an indicator that the TSS limit
of 5.0 mg/l is being met. No limit is specified but turbid-
ity setpoints used in Florida generally range from 2 to
2.5 NTU. California specifies different turbidity require-
ments for wastewater that has been coagulated and
passed through natural and undisturbed soils or a bed of
filter media, as well as wastewater passed through mem-
branes. For the first, turbidity is not to exceed 5 NTU for
more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period
and not to exceed 10 NTU at any time. For the latter,
turbidity is not to exceed 0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of
the time within a 24-hour period and not to exceed 0.5
NTU at any time.
At this time, no states have set limits on certain patho-
genic organisms for unrestricted urban reuse. However,
Florida does require monitoring of Giardia and
Cryptosporidium with sampling frequency based on
treatment plant capacity. For systems less than 1 mgd
(44 |/s), sampling is required one time during each 5-year
period. For systems equal to or greater than 1 mgd (441/
s), sampling is required one time during each 2-year pe-
riod. Samples are to be taken following the disinfection
process.
4.1.1.2
Restricted Urban Reuse
Restricted urban reuse involves the use of reclaimed
water where public exposure to the reclaimed water is
controlled; therefore, treatment requirements may not
be as strict as for unrestricted urban reuse. Six states,
which regulate both unrestricted and restricted urban
reuse, adjusted requirements downward for the restricted
category. Florida imposes the same requirements on
both unrestricted and restricted urban access reuse.
Table 4-4 shows the reclaimed water quality and treat-
ment requirements for restricted urban reuse.
Table 4-4.
Restricted Urban Reuse
Treatment
BOD5
TSS
Turbidity
Coliform
Arizona
Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
NS
NS
NS
Fecal
200/1 00 ml
(Avg)
800/1 00 ml
(Max)
California
Secondary -
23, oxidized,
and disinfected
NS
NS
NS
Total
23/1 00 ml
(Avg)
240/1 00 ml
(Max in 30
days)
Florida
Secondary
treatment,
filtration, and
high-level
disinfection
20 mg/l
CBOD5
5 mg/l
NS
Fecal
75% of
samples below
detection
25/1 00 ml
(Max)
Hawaii
Oxidized and
disinfected
NS
NS
2 NTU (Max)
Fecal
23/1 00 ml
(Avg)
200/1 00 ml
(Max)
Nevada
Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
30 mg/l
NS
NS
Fecal
23/1 00 ml
(Avg)
240/1 00 ml
(Max)
Texas
NS(1)
20 mg/l
NS
3 NTU
Fecal
200/1 00 ml
(Avg)
800/1 00 ml
(Max)
Washington
Oxidized and
disinfected
30 mg/l
30 mg/l
2 NTU (Avg)
5 NTU (Max)
Total
23/1 00 ml
(Avg)
240/1 00 ml
(Max)
(1)
NS - Not specified by state regulations
154
-------
Table 4-5. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
Treatm ent
BODS
TSS
Turbidity
Coliform
Arizona
Secondary
treatment,
filtration, and
disinfection
NS
NS
2 NTU (Avg)
5 NTU (Max)
Fecal
None
detectable
(Avg)
23/100 ml
(Max)
California
Oxidized,
coagulated,
filtered, and
disinfected
NS
NS
2 NTU (Avg)
5 NTU (Max)
Total
2.2/100 ml
(Avg)
23/100 ml
(Max in 30
days)
Florida
Secondary
treatment,
filtration, and
high-level
disinfection
20 mg/l
CBOD6
5 mg/l
NS
Fecal
75% of
samples below
detection
25/100 ml
(Max)
Hawaii
Oxidized,
filtered, and
disinfected
NS
NS
2 NTU (Max)
Fecal
2.2/100 ml
(Avg)
23/100 ml
(Max in 30
days)
Nevada
Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
30 mg/l
NS
NS
Fecal
200/100 ml
(Avg)
400/100 ml
(Max)
Texas
NS(1)
5 mg/l
NS
3 NTU
Fecal
20/100 ml
(Avg)
75/100 ml
(Max)
Washington
Oxidized,
coagulated,
filtered, and
disinfected
30 mg/l
30 mg/l
2 NTU (Avg)
5 NTU (Max)
Total
2.2/100 ml
(Avg)
23/100 ml
(Max)
(1)
NS - Not specified by state regulations
In general, the states require a minimum of secondary or
biological treatment followed by disinfection prior to re-
stricted urban reuse. Florida requires additional levels of
treatment with filtration and possibly coagulation prior to
restricted urban reuse. As in unrestricted urban reuse,
Texas does not specify the type of treatment processes
required and only sets limits on the reclaimed water qual-
ity.
Where specified, limits on average BOD range from 20
mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida and Texas require that BOD not
exceed 20 mg/l, while Nevada and Washington require
that BOD not exceed 30 mg/l prior to restricted urban
reuse. Limits on TSS vary from 5 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida
requires that TSS not exceed 5.0 mg/l, while Washing-
ton requires that TSS not exceed 30 mg/l. As in unre-
stricted urban reuse, for those states that do not specify
limitations on BOD or TSS, a particular level of treat-
ment is usually specified.
Average fecal coliform limits range from non-detectable
to 200/100 ml, with some states allowing higher single
sample fecal coliform limits. As for unrestricted urban
reuse, Florida requires that 75 percent of the fecal coliform
samples taken over a 30-day period be below detectable
levels, with no single sample in excess of 25/100 ml.
Arizona and Texas require that no single fecal coliform
count exceed 800/100 ml.
Washington is the only state that sets a limit on turbidity
for restricted urban reuse with an average turbidity limit
of 2 NTU and a not-to-exceed at any time limit of 5 NTU.
At this time, no states have set limits on certain patho-
genic organisms for restricted urban reuse. However,
Florida does require monitoring of Giardia and
Cryptosporidium with sampling frequency as noted in
Section 4.1.1.1.
4.1.1.3 Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
The use of reclaimed water for irrigation of food crops is
prohibited in some states, while others allow irrigation
of food crops with reclaimed water only if the crop is to
be processed and not eaten raw. Nevada allows only
surface irrigation of fruit or nut bearing trees. Treatment
requirements range from secondary treatment in Ne-
vada for irrigation of processed food crops, to oxida-
tion, coagulation, filtration, and disinfection in Arizona,
California, Florida, Hawaii, and Washington. Table 4-5
shows the reclaimed water quality and treatment require-
ments for irrigation of food crops.
Most states require a high level of treatment when re-
claimed water is used for edible crops, especially those
that are to be consumed raw. As in other reuse applica-
tions, however, existing regulations on treatment and
155
-------
water quality requirements vary from state to state and
depend largely on the type of irrigation employed and
the type of food crop being irrigated. For example, for
foods consumed raw, Washington requires that the re-
claimed water be oxidized and disinfected when sur-
face irrigation is used, with the mean total coliform count
not to exceed 2.2/100 ml. When spray irrigation is uti-
lized, Washington requires that the reclaimed water be
oxidized, coagulated, filtered, and disinfected, with the
mean total coliform count not to exceed 2.2/100 ml. For
processed foods, Washington requires only oxidation
and disinfection regardless of the type of irrigation, with
a 7-day mean total coliform count of 240/100 ml.
Where specified, limits on BOD range from 5 mg/l to 30
mg/l. Texas requires a monthly average BOD limit of 5
mg/l when reclaimed water will be used to irrigate un-
processed food crops. In Texas, spray irrigation is not
permitted on foods that may be consumed raw, and only
irrigation types that avoid reclaimed water contact with
edible portions of food crops are acceptable. Florida
requires that the annual average CBOD not exceed 20
mg/l after secondary treatment with filtration and high-
level disinfection, while Texas requires that the BOD not
exceed 30 mg/l (monthly average) when the reclaimed
water is treated using a pond system and is to be used
to irrigate food crops undergoing processing.
Limits on TSS vary from 5 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida re-
quires that TSS not exceed 5.0 mg/l in any one sample
prior to disinfection, while Washington requires that the
TSS not exceed 30 mg/l (monthly average). In Florida,
direct contact (spray) irrigation of edible crops that will
not be peeled, skinned, cooked, or thermally-processed
before consumption is not allowed except for tobacco
and citrus. Indirect contact methods (ridge and furrow,
drip, subsurface application system) can be used on
any type of edible crop. California allows for direct con-
tact irrigation with the edible portion of the crop.
Average fecal and total coliform limits range from non-
detectable to 200/100 ml. Arizona requires no detect-
able limit for fecal coliform when reclaimed water will be
used for spray irrigation of food crops. Florida requires
that 75 percent of the fecal coliform samples taken over
a 30-day period be below detectable levels, with no
single sample in excess of 25/100 ml. Conversely, Ne-
vada requires a maximum fecal coliform count of less
than 400/100 ml with only surface irrigation of fruit and
nut bearing trees. Again, some states allow higher single
sample coliform counts.
Limits on turbidity range from 2 to 10 NTU. For example,
California requires that turbidity not exceed 2 NTU within
a 24-hour period, not exceed 5 NTU more than 5 per-
cent of the time, and not exceed a maximum of 10 NTU
at any time for reclaimed water that has been coagu-
lated and passed through natural undisturbed soils or a
bed of filter media and is irrigated on food crops to be
consumed raw. California requires that the turbidity not
exceed 0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of the time and not
exceed a maximum of 0.5 NTU at any time for reclaimed
water that has been passed through a membrane and is
irrigated on food crops to be consumed raw. Hawaii re-
quires that the detectable turbidity not exceed 5 NTU for
more than 15 minutes and never exceed 10 NTU prior to
filtration for reclaimed water used for spray irrigation of
food crops.
At this time, no states have set limits on certain patho-
genic organisms for agricultural reuse on food crops.
Florida does require monitoring of Giardia and
Cryptosporidium with sampling frequency as noted in
Section 4.1.1.1.
4.1.1.4 Agricultural Reuse - Non-food Crops
The use of reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation of
non-food crops presents a reduced opportunity of hu-
man exposure to the water, resulting in less stringent
treatment and water quality requirements than other
forms of reuse. In the majority of the states, secondary
treatment followed by disinfection is required, although
Hawaii also requires filtration. Table 4-6 shows the re-
claimed water quality and treatment requirements for
irrigation of non-food crops.
Where specified, limits on BOD range from 5 mg/l to 30
mg/l. Texas requires that BOD not exceed 5 mg/l
(monthly average) except when reclaimed water is used
for landscape impoundments, in which case BOD is lim-
ited to 10 mg/l. Florida requires that the annual average
CBOD not exceed 20 mg/l after secondary treatment and
basic disinfection. Washington and Nevada require that
BOD not exceed 30 mg/l as a monthly average. Limits on
TSS vary from 20 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida requires that
the annual average TSS not exceed 20 mg/l except when
a subsurface application is used, in which case the single
sample TSS limit is 10 mg/l. Washington requires a
monthly mean of 30 mg/l TSS.
Average fecal and total coliform limits range from 2.2/100
ml for Hawaii to 200/100 ml for Arizona and Florida. There
are several states that do not require disinfection if cer-
tain buffer requirements are met. For example, Nevada
requires no disinfection with a minimum buffer zone of
800 feet for spray irrigation of non-food crops. Some states
allow higher single sample coliform counts. For example,
Arizona requires that no single fecal coliform count ex-
156
-------
Table 4-6. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
Treatm ent
BOD5
TSS
Turbidity
Coliform
Arizona
Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
NS
NS
NS
Fecal
200/100 ml
(Avg)
800/100 ml
(Max)
California
Secondary-23,
Oxidized, and
disinfected
NS
NS
NS
Total
23/100 ml
(Avg)
240/100 ml
(Max in 30
days)
Florida
Secondary
treatment,
basic
disinfection
20 mg/l
CBOD6
20 mg/l
NS
Fecal
200/100 ml
(Avg)
800/100 ml
(Max)
Hawaii
Oxidized,
filtered, and
disinfected
NS
NS
2 NTU (Max)
Fecal
2.2/100 ml
(Avg)
23/100 ml
(Max)
Nevada
Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
30 mg/l
NS
NS
Fecal
200/100 ml
(Avg)
400/100 ml
(Max)
Texas
NS(1)
5 mg/l
NS
3 NTU
Fecal
20/100 ml
(Avg)
75/100 ml
(Max)
Washington
Oxidized and
disinfected
30 mg/l
30 mg/l
2 NTU (Avg)
5 NTU (Max)
Total
23/100 ml
(Avg)
240/100 ml
(Max)
(1)
NS - Not specified by state regulations
ceed 4,000/100 ml when reclaimed water will be used for
irrigation of pasture for non-dairy animals.
At this time, Hawaii, Texas, and Washington require lim-
its on turbidity for reclaimed water used for agricultural
reuse on non-food crops. Washington requires that the
turbidity not exceed 2 NTU as an average and not ex-
ceed 5 NTU at any time. Texas requires a turbidity limit
of 3 NTU for reclaimed water that will be used for irriga-
tion of pastures for milking animals. Hawaii, on the other
hand, requires the detectable turbidity not exceed 5 NTU
for more than 15 minutes and never exceed 10 NTU
prior to filtration for reclaimed water used for spray irri-
gation of pastures for milking and other animals.
At this time, no states have set limits on certain patho-
genic organisms for agricultural reuse on non-food
crops.
4.1.1.5
Unrestricted Recreational Reuse
As with unrestricted urban reuse, unrestricted recre-
ational reuse involves the use of reclaimed water where
public exposure is likely, thereby necessitating a high
degree of treatment. Only 4 of the 7 states (California,
Nevada, Texas, and Washington) have regulations or
guidelines pertaining to unrestricted recreational reuse.
Table 4-7 shows the reclaimed water quality and treat-
ment requirements for unrestricted recreational reuse.
Nevada requires secondary treatment with disinfection,
while California requires oxidation, coagulation, clarifica-
tion, filtration, and disinfection. Where specified, limits
on BOD range from 5 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Texas requires
that BOD not exceed 5 mg/l as a monthly average, while
Washington requires that BOD not exceed 30 mg/l prior
to unrestricted recreational reuse. Washington is the only
state to set a limit on TSS and requires 30 mg/l or less
as a monthly average. All states, except Texas, require
that the median total coliform count not exceed 2.2/100
ml, with no single sample to exceed 23/100 ml. Texas
requires that the median fecal coliform count not ex-
ceed 20/100 ml, with no single sample to exceed 75/
100ml.
Limits on turbidity generally range from 2 NTU to 5 NTU.
Most of the states require an average turbidity limit of 2
NTU and a not-to-exceed limit of 5 NTU. California speci-
fies different turbidity requirements for wastewater that
has been coagulated and passed through natural and
undisturbed soils or a bed of filter media as well as
wastewater passed through membranes. For the first,
turbidity is not to exceed 5 NTU for more than 5 percent
of the time within a 24-hour period and not to exceed 10
NTU at any time. For the latter, turbidity is not to ex-
ceed 0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a
24-hour period and not to exceed 0.5 NTU at any time.
Texas requires a turbidity limit of 3 NTU, and Nevada
does not specify a limit on turbidity.
157
-------
Table 4-7.
Unrestricted Recreational Reuse
Treatm ent
BOD5
TSS
Turbidity
Coliform
Arizona
NR11'
NR
NR
NR
NR
California
O x id iz e d ,
coagulated,
clarified,
filtered, and
disinfected
NS(2>
NS
2 NTU (Avg)
5 NTU (Max)
Total
2.2/100 ml
(Avg)
23/100 ml (Max
in 30 days)
Florida
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Hawaii
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Nevada
Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
30 mg/l
NS
NS
Fecal
2.2/100 ml
(Avg)
23/100 ml
(Max)
Texas
NS
5 mg/l
NS
3 NTU
Fecal
20/100 ml (Avg)
75/100 ml
(Max)
Washington
Oxidized,
coagulated,
filtered, and
disinfected
30 mg/l
30 mg/l
2 NTU (Avg)
5 NTU (Max)
Fecal
2.2/100 ml
(Avg)
23/100 ml
(Max)
(1) NR - Not regulated by the state
(2) NS - Not specified by state regulations
Table 4-8.
Restricted Recreational Reuse
Treatment
BOD5
TSS
Turbidity
Coliform
Arizona
Secondary
treatment,
filtration, and
disinfection
NS(2)
NS
2 NTU (Avg)
5 NTU (Max)
Fecal
None
detectable
(Avg)
23/100 ml
(Max)
California
Secondary-23,
oxidized, and
disinfected
NS
NS
NS
Total
2.2/100 ml (Avg)
23/100 ml (Max in
30 days)
Florida
NR(1)
NR
NR
NR
NR
Hawaii
Oxidized,
filtered, and
disinfected
NS
NS
2 NTU (Max)
Fecal
2.2/100 ml
(Avg)
23/100 ml
(Max)
Nevada
Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
30 mg/l
NS
NS
Fecal
200/100 ml
(Avg)
23/100 ml
(Max)
Texas
NS
20 mg/l
NS
NS
Fecal
200/100 ml
(Avg)
800/100 ml
(Max)
Washington
Oxidized and
disinfected
30 mg/l
30 mg/l
2 NTU (Avg)
5 NTU (Max)
Total
2.2/100 ml (Avg)
23/100 ml (Max)
(1) NR - Not regulated by the state
(2) NS - Not specified by state regulations
At this time, no states have set limits on certain patho-
genic organisms for unrestricted recreational reuse.
4.1.1.6
Restricted Recreational Reuse
State regulations and guidelines regarding treatment and
water quality requirements for restricted recreational re-
use are generally less stringent than for unrestricted rec-
reational reuse since the public exposure to the reclaimed
water is less likely. Six of the 7 states (Arizona, Califor-
nia, Hawaii, Nevada, Texas, and Washington) have regu-
lations pertaining to restricted recreational reuse. With
the exception of Arizona and Hawaii, which require filtra-
tion, the remaining states require secondary treatment
with disinfection. Texas does not specify treatment pro-
cess requirements. Table 4-8 shows the reclaimed wa-
158
-------
ter quality and treatment requirements for restricted rec-
reational reuse.
Nevada, Texas, and Washington have set limits on BOD
ranging from 20 mg/l to 30 mg/l as a monthly average.
Only Washington has set limits on TSS of 30 mg/l as a
monthly average. Arizona requires no detectable fecal
coliform in 4 of the last 7 daily samples and a single
sample maximum of 23/100 ml. California, Hawaii, Ne-
vada, and Washington require that the median total
coliform count not exceed 2.2/100 ml. Texas, on the
other hand, requires that the median fecal coliform count
not exceed 200/100 ml and that a single sample not
exceed 800/100 ml.
Limits on turbidity are specified for Arizona, Hawaii, and
Washington. Arizona and Washington require a turbid-
ity of less than 2 NTU as an average and a not-to-exceed
maximum of 5 NTU. Hawaii specifies an effluent turbid-
ity requirement of 2 NTU. California, Nevada, and Texas
have not specified turbidity requirements for restricted
recreational reuse.
At this time, no states have set limits on certain patho-
genic organisms for restricted recreational reuse.
4.1.1.7
Environmental -Wetlands
pertaining to the use of reclaimed water for creation of
artificial wetlands and/or the enhancement of natural
wetlands. Table 4-9 shows the reclaimed water quality
and treatment requirements for environmental reuse.
Florida has comprehensive and complex rules governing
the discharge of reclaimed water to wetlands. Treatment
and disinfection levels are established for different types
of wetlands, different types of uses, and the degree of
public access. Most wetland systems in Florida are used
for tertiary wastewater treatment; and wetland creation,
restoration, and enhancement projects can be consid-
ered reuse. Washington also specifies different treatment
requirements for different types of wetlands and based
on the degree of public access. General compliance re-
quirements of 20 mg/l BOD and TSS, 3 mg/l total Kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN), and 1 mg/l total phosphorus must be met
for all categories.
4.1.1.8
Industrial Reuse
A review of existing reuse regulations shows only 2 of
the 7 states (Florida and Washington) have regulations
Five of the 7 states (California, Florida, Hawaii, Texas,
and Washington) have regulations or guidelines pertain-
ing to industrial reuse of reclaimed water. Table 4-10
shows the reclaimed water quality and treatment require-
ments for industrial reuse.
Reclaimed water quality and treatment requirements vary
based on the final use of the reclaimed water and expo-
sure potential (see Appendix A, Table A-8 for a sum-
Table 4-9.
Environmental Reuse -Wetlands
Treatm ent
BOD5
TSS
Coliform
Total
Am m onia
Total
Phosphorus
Arizona
NR(2>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
California
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Florida'1'
Advanced
treatment
5 mg/l CBOD6
5 mg/l
NS(3>
2 mg/l
1 mg/l
Hawaii
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Nevada
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Texas
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Was hington
Oxidized,
coagulated,
and disinfected
20 mg/l
20 mg/l
Fecal
2.2/100 ml
(Avg)
23/100 ml
(Max)
Not to exceed
chronic
standards for
freshwater
1 mg/l
(1) Florida requirements are for discharge of reclaimed water to receiving wetlands
(2) NR - Not regulated by the state
(3) NS - Not specified by state regulations
159
-------
Table 4-10.
Industrial Reuse111
Treatment
BOD5
TSS
Turbidity
Coliform
Arizona
NR(2)
NR
NR
NR
NR
California
Oxidized
and
disinfected
NS(3)
NS
NS
Total
23/100 ml
(Avg)
240/100 ml
(Max in 30
days)
Florida
Secondary
treatment
and basic
disinfection
20 mg/l
20 mg/l
NS
Fecal
200/100 ml
(Avg)
800/100 ml
(Max)
Hawaii
Oxidized
and
disinfected
NS
NS
NS
Fecal
23/100 ml
(Avg)
200/100 ml
(Max)
Nevada
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Texas
NS
20 mg/l
---
3NTU
Fecal
200/100 ml
(Avg)
800/100 ml
(Avg)
Washington
Oxidized and
disinfected
NS
NS
NS
Total
23/100 ml (Avg)
240/100 ml
(Avg)
(1) All state requirements are minimum values. Additional treatment may be required depending on expected
public exposure. Additional regulations for industrial systems are contained in Appendix A.
(2) NR - Not regulated by the state
(3) NS - Not specified by state regulations
mary of each state's regulations). For example, Califor-
nia has different requirements for the use of reclaimed
water as cooling water, based on whether or not a mist is
created. If a mist is created, oxidation, coagulation, fil-
tration, and disinfection are required and total coliform
limits of 2.2/100 ml as a weekly median must be met. If
a mist is not created, only oxidation and disinfection are
required and total coliform limits of 23/100 ml as a weekly
median must be met.
4.1.1.9 Groundwater Recharge
Spreading basins, percolation ponds, and infiltration ba-
sins have a long history of providing both effluent dis-
posal and groundwater recharge. Most state regulations
allow for the use of relatively low quality water (i.e., sec-
ondary treatment with basic disinfection) based on the
fact that these systems have a proven ability to provide
additional treatment. Traditionally, potable water supplies
have been protected by requiring a minimum separa-
tion between the point of application and any potable
supply wells. These groundwater systems are also typi-
cally located so that their impacts to potable water with-
drawal points are minimized. While such groundwater re-
charge systems may ultimately augment potable aqui-
fers, that is not their primary intent and experience sug-
gests current practices are protective of raw water sup-
plies.
Based on a review of the existing reuse regulations and
guidelines, California, Florida, Hawaii, and Washington
have regulations or guidelines for reuse with the spe-
cific intent of groundwater recharge of aquifers. Table
4-11 shows reclaimed water quality and treatment re-
quirements for groundwater recharge via rapid-rate ap-
plication systems.
For groundwater recharge, California and Hawaii do not
specify required treatment processes and determine re-
quirements on a case-by-case basis. The California and
Hawaii Departments of Health Services base the evalua-
tion on all relevant aspects of each project including treat-
ment provided, effluent quality and quantity, effluent or
application spreading area operation, soil characteristics,
hydrogeology, residence time, and distance to withdrawal.
Hawaii does require a groundwater monitoring program.
Washington has extensive guidelines for the use of re-
claimed water for direct groundwater recharge of
nonpotable aquifers. It requires Class A reclaimed wa-
160
-------
Table 4-11. Groundwater Recharge
Treatment
BOD5
TSS
Turbidity
Coliform
Total
Nitrogen
Arizona
NR(3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
California121
Case-by-case
basis
Florida
Secondary
treatment and
basic
disinfection
NS(4)
10.0 mg/l
NS
NS
12 mg/l
Hawaii
Case-by-case
basis
Nevada
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Texas
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Washington
Oxidized,
coagulated,
filtered, and
disinfected
5 mg/l
5 mg/l
2 NTU (Avg)
5 NTU (Max)
Total
2.2/100 ml
(Avg)
23/100 ml
(Max)
NS
(1) All state requirements are for groundwater recharge via rapid-rate application systems. Additional regulations
for recharge of potable aquifers are contained in Section 4.1.1.10 and Appendix A.
(2) Groundwater recharge in California and Hawaii is determined on a case-by-case basis
(3) NR - Not regulated by the state
(4) NS - Not specified by state regulations
ter defined as oxidized, coagulated, filtered, and disin-
fected. Total coliform is not to exceed 2.2/100 ml as a
7-day median and 23/100 ml in any sample. Weekly
average BOD and TSS limits are set at 5 mg/l. Turbidity
is not to exceed 2 NTU as a monthly average and 5
NTU in any sample. Additionally, groundwater monitor-
ing is required and is based on reclaimed water quality
and quantity, site-specific soil and hydrogeologic char-
acteristics, and other considerations. Washington also
specifies that reclaimed water withdrawn for nonpotable
purposes can be withdrawn at any distance from the
point of injection and at any time after direct recharge.
Florida requires that TSS not exceed 5.0 mg/l in any
sample, be achieved prior to disinfection, and that the
total nitrogen in the reclaimed water be less than 12 mg/
I. Florida also requires continuous on-line monitoring of
turbidity; however, no limit is specified.
4.1.1.10 Indirect Potable Reuse
Indirect potable reuse involves the use of reclaimed wa-
ter to augment surface water sources that are used or
will be used for public water supplies or to recharge ground-
water used as a source of domestic water supply. Un-
planned indirect potable water reuse is occurring in many
river systems today. Many domestic wastewater treat-
ment plants discharge treated effluent to surface waters
upstream of intakes for domestic water supply treatment
plants. Additionally, many types of beneficial reuse
projects inadvertently contribute to groundwater augmen-
tation as an unintended result of the primary activity. For
example, irrigation can replenish groundwater sources
that will eventually be withdrawn for use as a potable
water supply. Indirect potable reuse systems, as defined
here, are distinguished from typical groundwater recharge
systems and surface water discharges by both intent
and proximity to subsequent withdrawal points for po-
table water use. Indirect potable reuse involves the in-
tentional introduction of reclaimed water into the raw water
supply for the purposes of increasing the total volume of
water available for potable use. In order to accomplish
this objective, the point at which reclaimed water is intro-
duced into the environment must be selected to ensure
it will flow to the point of withdrawal. Typically the design
of these systems assumes there will be little to no addi-
tional treatment in the environment after discharge, and
all applicable water quality requirements are met prior to
release of the reclaimed water.
Based on a review of the existing reuse regulations and
guidelines, 4 of the 7 states (California, Florida, Hawaii,
161
-------
and Washington) have regulations or guidelines pertain-
ing to indirect potable reuse. For groundwater recharge
of potable aquifers, most of the states require a pretreat-
ment program, public hearing requirements prior to project
approval, and a groundwater monitoring program. Florida
and Washington require pilot plant studies to be performed.
In general, all the states that specify treatment processes
require secondary treatment with filtration and disinfec-
tion. Washington is the only state that specifies the waste-
water must be treated by reverse osmosis. California and
Hawaii do not specify the type of treatment processes
required and determine requirements on a case-by-case
basis.
Most states specify reclaimed water quality limitations
for TSS, nitrogen, total organic carbon (TOG), turbidity,
and total coliform. Florida requires that TSS not exceed
5.0mg/l in any sample and be achieved prior to disinfec-
tion. Florida and Washington require the total nitrogen in
the reclaimed water to be less than 10 mg/l. Washington
has a limit of 1 mg/l for TOG, while Florida's limit is set
at 3 mg/l as a monthly average. Florida also requires an
average limit of 0.2 mg/l for total organic halides (TOX).
Turbidity limits vary greatly where specified. For example,
Washington specifies a limit of 0.1 NTU as a monthly
average and 0.5 NTU as a maximum at any time. Florida
requires continuous on-line monitoring of turbidity; how-
ever, no limit is specified. Fecal coliform limits also vary
greatly from state to state. Washington requires a limit
of 1/100 ml for total coliform as a weekly median and a
not to exceed limit of 5/100 ml in any one sample for
direct injection into a potable aquifer. The states that
specify reclaimed water quality limitations require the re-
claimed water to meet drinking water standards.
Most states specify a minimum time the reclaimed water
must be retained underground prior to being withdrawn
as a source of drinking water. Washington requires that
reclaimed water be retained underground for a minimum
of 12 months prior to being withdrawn as a drinking water
supply. Several states also specify minimum separation
distances between a point of recharge and the point of
withdrawal as a source of drinking water. Florida requires
a 500-foot (150-meter) separation distance between the
zone of discharge and potable water supply well. Wash-
ington requires the minimum horizontal separation dis-
tance between the point of direct recharge and point of
withdrawal as a source of drinking water supply to be
2,000 feet (610 meters). Table 4-12 shows the reclaimed
water quality and treatment requirements for indirect po-
table reuse.
Florida includes discharges to Class I surface waters
(public water supplies) as indirect potable reuse. Dis-
charges less than 24 hours travel time upstream from
Class I waters are also considered as indirect potable
reuse. Surface water discharges located more than 24
hours travel time to Class I waters are not considered
indirect potable reuse. For discharge to Class I surface
waters or water contiguous to or tributary to Class I wa-
ters (defined as a discharge located less than or equal to
4 hours travel time from the point of discharge to arrival
at the boundary of the Class I water), secondary treat-
ment with filtration, high-level disinfection, and any addi-
tional treatment required to meet TOC and TOX limits is
required. The reclaimed water must meet primary and
secondary drinking water standards, except for asbes-
tos, prior to discharge. TSS must not exceed 5.0 mg/l in
any sample prior to disinfection and total nitrogen cannot
exceed 10 mg/l as an annual average. The reclaimed
water must also meet TOC limitations of 3 mg/l as a
monthly average and 5 mg/l in any single sample. Outfalls
for surface water discharges are not to be located within
500 feet (150 meters) of existing or approved potable
water intakes within Class I surface waters.
4.1.2 Reclaimed Water Monitoring
Requirements
Reclaimed water monitoring requirements vary greatly
from state to state and again depend on the type of re-
use. For unrestricted urban reuse, Oregon requires sam-
pling for coliform daily, while for agricultural reuse of
non-food crops, sampling for total coliform is only re-
quired once a week. Oregon also requires hourly moni-
toring of turbidity when a limit on turbidity is specified.
For unrestricted and restricted urban reuse, as well as
agricultural reuse on food crops, Florida requires the
continuous on-line monitoring of turbidity and chlorine
residual. Even though no limits on turbidity are speci-
fied in Florida, continuous monitoring serves as an on-
line surrogate for suspended solids. In addition, Florida
requires that the TSS limit be achieved prior to disinfec-
tion and has a minimum schedule for sampling and test-
ing flow, pH, chlorine residual, dissolved oxygen, TSS,
CBOD, nutrients, and fecal coliform based on system
capacity. Florida also requires an annual analysis of pri-
mary and secondary drinking water standards for re-
claimed water used in irrigation for facilities greater than
100,000 gpd (4.4 l/s). Monitoring for Giardia and
Cryptosporidium must also be performed with frequency
dependent on system capacity. Other states determine
monitoring requirements on a case-by-case basis de-
pending on the type of reuse.
4.1.3
Treatment Facility Reliability
Some states have adopted facility reliability regulations
or guidelines in place of, or in addition to, water quality
162
-------
Table 4-12. Indirect Potable Reuse <11
Treatm ent
BOD5
TSS
Tu rbid ity
Coliform
Total
Nitrogen
TOC
Prim ary
and
Secondary
Standards
Arizona
NR(3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
California'21
Case-by-case
basis
Florida
Advanced
treatment,
filtration, and
high-level
disinfection
20 mg/l
5.0 mg/l
NS<4'
Total
All samples
less than
detection
10 mg/l
3 mg/l (Avg)
5 mg/l (Max)
Compliance
with most
primary and
secondary
Haw aii
Case-by-
case basis
Nevada
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Texas
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Was h ington
Oxidized,
coagulated, filtered,
reverse-osmosis
treated, and
disinfected
5 mg/l
5 mg/l
0.1 NTU (Avg)
0.5 NTU (Max)
Total
1/100 ml (Avg)
5/100 ml (Max)
10 mg/l
1.0 mg/l
Compliance with
most primary and
secondary
(1) Florida requirements are for the planned use of reclaimed water to augment surface water sources that will be
used as a source of domestic water supply
(2) Indirect potable reuse in California and Hawaii is determined on a case-by-case basis
(3) NR - Not regulated by the state
(4) NS - Not specified by state regulations
requirements. Generally, requirements consist of alarms
warning of power failure or failure of essential unit pro-
cesses, automatic standby power sources, emergency
storage, and the provision that each treatment process
be equipped with multiple units or a back-up unit.
Articles 8, 9, and 10 of California's Title 22 regulations
provide design and operational considerations covering
alarms, power supply, emergency storage and disposal,
treatment processes, and chemical supply, storage, and
feed facilities. For treatment processes, a variety of reli-
ability features are acceptable in California. For example,
for all biological treatment processes, one of the follow-
ing is required:
• Alarm (failure and power loss) and multiple units ca-
pable of producing biologically oxidized wastewater
with one unit not in operation
• Alarm (failure and power loss) and short-term (24-
hour) storage or disposal provisions and standby re-
placement equipment
• Alarm (failure and power loss) and long-term (20-day)
storage or disposal provisions
Florida requires Class I reliability of treatment facilities
when reclaimed water is used for irrigation of food crops
and for restricted and unrestricted urban reuse. Class I
reliability requires multiple treatment units or back-up units
and a secondary power source. In addition, a minimum
of 1 day of reject water storage is required to store re-
claimed water of unacceptable quality for additional treat-
ment. Florida also requires staffing at the water reclama-
tion facility 24 hours/day, 7 days/week or 6 hours/day, 7
days/week. The minimum staffing requirement may be
reduced to 6 hours/day, 7 days/week if reclaimed water
163
-------
is delivered to the reuse system only during periods when
a qualified operator is present, or if additional reliability
features are provided.
Florida has also established minimum system sizes for
treatment facilities to aid in assuring the continuous pro-
duction of high-quality reclaimed water. Minimum sys-
tem size for unrestricted and restricted urban reuse and
for use on edible crops is 0.1 mgd (4.4 l/s). A minimum
system size is not required if reclaimed water will be
used only for toilet flushing and fire protection uses.
Other states that have regulations or guidelines regard-
ing treatment facility reliability include Georgia, Hawaii,
Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming. Washington's guidelines
pertaining to treatment facility reliability are similar to
California's regulations. Georgia, Massachusetts, North
Carolina, Oregon, and Wyoming require that multiple
treatment units be provided for all essential treatment
processes and a secondary or back-up power source
be supplied.
4.1.4
Reclaimed Water Storage
Current regulations and guidelines regarding storage
requirements are primarily based upon the need to limit
or prevent surface water discharge and are not related
to storage required to meet diurnal or seasonal varia-
tions in supply and demand. Storage requirements vary
from state to state and are generally dependent upon
geographic location and site conditions. For example,
Florida requires a minimum storage volume equal to 3
days of the average design flow, while South Dakota
requires a minimum storage volume of 210 days of the
average design flow. The large difference in time is pri-
marily due to the high number of non-irrigation days due
to freezing temperatures in the northern states. In addi-
tion to the minimum storage requirement, Florida also
requires that a water balance be performed based on a
1 -in-10 year rainfall recurrence interval and a minimum
of 20 years of climatic data to determine if additional
storage is required beyond the minimum requirement of
3 days.
Most states that specify storage requirements do not
differentiate between operational and seasonal storage,
with the exception of Delaware, Georgia, and Ohio,
which require that both operational and wet weather stor-
age be considered. The majority of states that have stor-
age requirements in their regulations or guidelines re-
quire that a water balance be performed on the reuse
system, taking into account all inputs and outputs of
water to the system based on a specified rainfall recur-
rence interval.
Presently, Florida is the only state with regulations or
guidelines for aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) of
reclaimed water. ASR systems using reclaimed water
are required to meet the technical and permitting re-
quirements of Florida's Department of Environmental
Protection underground injection control program and
obtain an underground injection control construction and
operation permit in addition to the domestic wastewater
permit. Water recovered from the ASR system must
meet the performance standards for fecal coliform as
specified for high-level disinfection. Specifically, the fe-
cal coliform limits require 75 percent of samples to be
below detection limits, and any single sample is not to
exceed 25/100 ml before use in a reuse system.
Preapplication treatment and disinfection requirements
vary depending on the class of groundwater receiving
injected reclaimed water, but may be as stringent as to
require that reclaimed water meet primary and second-
ary drinking water standards and TOC and TOX limits
prior to injection. Monitoring of the reclaimed water prior
to injection and after recovery from the ASR system is
required. In addition, a groundwater monitoring plan
must be implemented before placing the ASR system
into operation. The monitoring plan must be designed
to verify compliance with the groundwater standards and
to monitor the performance of the ASR system. As part
of the monitoring plan, a measure of inorganics con-
centration (such as chlorides or total dissolved solids)
and specific conductance of the water being injected,
the groundwater, and the recovered water are required
to be monitored. In some cases, an extended zone of
discharge for the secondary drinking water standards
and for sodium can be approved.
Injection wells and recovery wells used for ASR are to
be located at least 500 feet from any potable water sup-
ply well. For potable water supply wells that are not public
water supply wells, a smaller setback distance may be
approved if it can be demonstrated that confinement ex-
ists such that the system will not adversely affect the
quantity or quality of the water withdrawn from the po-
table water supply well. If the ASR well is located in the
same aquifer as a public supply well, the permitting agen-
cies may require a detailed analysis of the potential for
reclaimed water entry into the public supply well.
4.1.5
Application Rates
When regulations specify application or hydraulic load-
ing rates, the regulations generally pertain to land ap-
plication systems that are used primarily for additional
wastewater treatment for disposal rather than reuse.
When systems are developed chiefly for the purpose of
land treatment and/or disposal, the objective is often to
dispose of as much effluent on as little land as possible;
164
-------
thus, application rates are often far greater than irrigation
demands and limits are set for the maximum hydraulic
loading. On the other hand, when the reclaimed water is
managed as a valuable resource, the objective is to ap-
ply the water according to irrigation needs rather than
maximum hydraulic loading, and application limits are
rarely specified.
Many states do not have any specific requirements re-
garding reclaimed water irrigation application rates, as
these are generally based on site conditions; however,
most states emphasizing beneficial reuse recommend
a maximum hydraulic loading rate of no more than 2 inches
per week (5.1 cm per week). Delaware's regulations re-
quire that the maximum design wastewater loading be
limited to 2.5 inches per week (6.4 cm per week). Florida
recommends a maximum annual average of 2 inches per
week (5.1 cm per week). Those states emphasizing land
treatment or disposal may recommend a hydraulic load-
ing rate of up to 4 inches per week (10.2 cm per week).
In addition to hydraulic loading rates, some states also
have limits on nitrogen loading. For example, Alabama,
Arkansas, and Tennessee all require that the effluent
from the reuse system have a nitrate-nitrogen concen-
tration of 10 mg/l or less, while Missouri and Nebraska
both require that the nitrogen loading not exceed the
nitrogen uptake of the crop.
4.1.7
Setback Distances for Irrigation
4.1.6
Groundwater Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring programs associated with re-
claimed water irrigation generally focus on water qual-
ity in the surficial aquifer and are required by Alabama,
Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Mas-
sachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Vir-
ginia, and Wisconsin. In general, these groundwater
monitoring programs require that 1 well be placed hy-
draulically upgradient of the reuse site to assess back-
ground and incoming groundwater conditions within the
aquifer in question. In addition 2 wells must be placed
hydraulically downgradient of the reuse site to monitor
compliance. Florida normally requires a minimum of 3
monitoring wells at each reuse site. For reuse projects
involving multiple sites, Florida may allow monitoring at
selected example sites. Some states also require that a
well be placed within each reuse site. South Carolina's
guidelines suggest that a minimum of 9 wells be placed
in golf courses (18 holes) that irrigate with reclaimed
water. Sampling parameters and frequency of sampling
are generally considered on a case-by-case basis.
Many states have established setback distances or buffer
zones between reuse irrigation sites and various facili-
ties such as potable water supply wells, property lines,
residential areas, and roadways. Setback distances vary
depending on the quality of reclaimed water and the
method of application. For example, Nevada requires a
400- to 800-foot (120- to 240-meter) buffer, depending on
disinfection level, for a spray irrigation system, but when
surface irrigation is used as the application method, no
buffer is required. For restricted and unrestricted urban
reuse and irrigation of food crops, Florida requires a 75-
foot (23-meter) setback to potable water supply wells;
but for agricultural reuse on non-food crops, Florida re-
quires a 500-foot (150-meter) setback to potable water
supply wells and a 100-foot (30-meter) setback to prop-
erty lines. Florida will allow reduced setback distances
for agricultural reuse on non-food crops if additional dis-
infection and reliability are provided or if alternative ap-
plication techniques are used. Colorado recommends a
500-foot (150-meter) setback distance to domestic sup-
ply wells and a 100-foot (30-meter) setback to any irriga-
tion well regardless of the quality of the reclaimed water.
Due to the high degree of treatment required, Oregon
and Nevada do not require setback distances when re-
claimed water is used for unrestricted urban reuse or irri-
gation of food crops. However, setback distances are
required for irrigation of non-food crops and restricted
urban reuse. In Nevada, the quality requirements for re-
claimed water are based not only on the type of reuse,
but also on the setback distance. For example, for re-
stricted urban reuse and a 100-foot (30-meter) buffer zone,
Nevada requires that the reclaimed water have a mean
fecal coliform count of no more than 23/100 ml and not
exceed a maximum daily number of 240/100 ml. How-
ever, with no buffer zone, the reclaimed water must have
a mean fecal coliform count of no more than 2.2/100 ml
and not exceed a maximum daily number of 23/100 ml.
4.2 Suggested Guidelines for
Water Reuse
Table 4-13 presents suggested wastewater treatment
processes, reclaimed water quality, monitoring, and set-
back distances for various types of water reuse. Sug-
gested guidelines are presented for the following cat-
egories:
• Urban Reuse
• Restricted Access Area Irrigation
165
-------
• Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
-Food crops not commercially processed
-Commercially processed food crops and
surface irrigation of orchards and vineyards
• Agricultural Reuse- Non-Food Crops
-Pasture for milking animals and fodder, fiber,
and seed crops
• Recreational Impoundments
• Landscape Impoundments
• Construction Uses
• Industrial Reuse
• Environmental Reuse
• Groundwater Recharge
-Spreading or injection into aquifers not used
for public water supply
• Indirect Potable Reuse
-Spreading into potable aquifers
-Injection into potable aquifers
-Augmentation of surface supplies
These guidelines apply to domestic wastewater from mu-
nicipal or other wastewater treatment facilities having a
limited input of industrial waste. The suggested guide-
lines are predicated principally on water reclamation and
reuse information from the U.S. and are intended to ap-
ply to reclamation and reuse facilities in the U.S. Local
social, economic, regulatory, technological, and other con-
ditions may limit the applicability of these guidelines in
some countries (see Chapter 8). It is explicitly stated
that the direct application of these suggested guidelines
will not be used by the United States Agency for Interna-
tional Development (USAID) as strict criteria for funding.
The suggested treatment processes, reclaimed water
quality, monitoring frequency, and setback distances are
based on:
• Water reuse experience in the U.S. and elsewhere
• Research and pilot plant or demonstration study data
• Technical material from the literature
• Various states' reuse regulations, policies, or guide-
lines (see Appendix A)
• Attainability
• Sound engineering practice
These guidelines are not intended to be used as defini-
tive water reclamation and reuse criteria. They are in-
tended to provide reasonable guidance for water reuse
opportunities, particularly in states that have not devel-
oped their own criteria or guidelines.
Adverse health consequences associated with the re-
use of raw or improperly treated wastewater are well
documented. As a consequence, water reuse regula-
tions and guidelines are principally directed at public
health protection and generally are based on the con-
trol of pathogenic microorganisms for nonpotable re-
use applications and control of both health significant
microorganisms and chemical contaminants for indirect
potable reuse applications. These guidelines address
health protection via suggested wastewater treatment
unit processes, reclaimed water quality limits, and other
controls (setback distances, etc.).
Both treatment processes and water quality limits are
recommended for the following reasons:
• Water quality criteria that include the use of surro-
gate parameters may not adequately characterize
reclaimed water quality.
• A combination of treatment and quality requirements
known to produce reclaimed water of acceptable
quality obviate the need to monitor the finished wa-
ter for certain constituents, e.g., some health-sig-
nificant chemical constituents or pathogenic micro-
organisms.
• Expensive, time-consuming, and, in some cases,
questionable monitoring for pathogenic organisms,
such as viruses, is eliminated without compromising
health protection.
• Treatment reliability is enhanced.
It would be impractical to monitor reclaimed water for all
of the chemical constituents and pathogenic organisms
of concern, and surrogate parameters are universally
accepted. In the U.S., total and fecal coliforms are the
most commonly used indicator organisms in reclaimed
water as a measure of disinfection efficiency. While
coliforms are adequate indicator organisms for many
bacterial pathogens, they are, by themselves, poor indi-
cators of parasites and viruses. The total coliform analy-
sis includes enumeration of organisms of both fecal and
nonfecal origin, while the fecal coliform analysis is spe-
166
-------
Table 4-13. Suggested Guidelines for Water Reuse 1
Types of
Reuse
Urban Reuse
All types of
landscape
irrigation, (e.g.,
golf courses,
parks,
cemeteries) -
also vehicle
washing, toilet
flushing, use in
fire protection
systems and
commercial air
conditioners, and
other uses with
similar access or
exposure to the
water
Restricted
Access Area
Irrigation
Sod farms,
silviculture sites,
and other areas
where public
access is
prohibited,
restricted or
infrequent
Agricultural
Reuse - Food
Crops Not
Commercially
Processed <5
Surface or spray
irrigation of any
food crop,
including crops
eaten raw.
Agricultural
Reuse - Food
Crops
Commercially
Processed 15
Surface Irrigation
of Orchards and
Vineyards
Agricultural
Reuse - Non-
food Crops
Pasture for
milking animals;
fodder, fiber, and
seed crops
Treatment
• Secondary 4
• Filtration 6
* Disinfection
• Secondary 4
• Disinfection 6
• Secondary 4
• Filtration 6
* Disinfection 6
• Secondary 4
• Disinfection 6
• Secondary 4
• Disinfection 6
Reclaimed
Water Quality 2
• pH = 6-9
• < 10 mg/l BOD7
• < 2 NTU 8
• No detectable fecal
coli/100 ml 9i1°
• 1 mg/l CI2 residual
(minimum) "
• pH = 6-9
• < 30 mg/l BOD 7
• < 30 mg/l TSS
• < 200 fecal coli/100
ml 9'13'14
• 1 mg/l CI2 residual
• • 11
(minimum)
• pH = 6-9
• < 10 mg/l BOD7
• < 2 NTU 8
• No detectable fecal
coli/100 ml 9'10
• 1 mg/l CI2 residual
(minimum) "
• pH = 6-9
• < 30 mg/l BOD 7
• < 30 mg/l TSS
• < 200 fecal coli/100
ml 9'13'14
• 1 mg/l CI2 residual
(minimum) "
• pH = 6-9
• < 30 mg/l BOD 7
• < 30 mg/l TSS
• < 200 fecal coli/100
ml 9'13'14
• 1 mg/l CI2 residual
(minimum)
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
• pH - weekly
• BOD - weekly
• Turbidity -
continuous
• Coliform - daily
• CI2 residual -
continuous
• pH - weekly
• BOD - weekly
• TSS - daily
• Coliform - daily
• CI2 residual -
continuous
• pH - weekly
• BOD - weekly
• Turbidity -
continuous
• Coliform - daily
• CI2 residual -
continuous
• pH - weekly
• BOD - weekly
• TSS - daily
• Coliform - daily
• CI2 residual -
continuous
• pH - weekly
• BOD - weekly
• TSS - daily
• Coliform - daily
• CI2 residual -
continuous
Setback
Distances 3
• 50 ft (15m) to
potable water
supply wells
• 300 ft (90 m) to
potable water
supply wells
• 100 ft (30m) to
areas accessible
to the public (if
spray irrigation)
• 50 ft (15m) to
potable water
supply wells
• 300 ft (90 m) to
potable water
supply wells
• 100 ft (30m) to
areas accessible
to the public (if
spray irrigation)
• 300 ft (90 m) to
potable water
supply wells
• 100 ft (30m) to
areas accessible
to the public (if
spray irrigation)
Comments
• See Table 2-7 for other recommended limits.
• At controlled-access irrigation sites where design and
operational measures significantly reduce the potential
of public contact with reclaimed water, a lower level of
treatment, e.g., secondary treatment and disinfection to
achieve < 14 fecal coli/100 ml, may be appropriate.
• Chemical (coagulant and/or polymer) addition prior to
filtration may be necessary to meet water quality
recommendations.
• The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of
viable pathogens. 12
• Reclaimed water should be clear and odorless.
• A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may
be necessary to assure that viruses and parasites are
inactivated or destroyed.
• A chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/l or greater in the distribution
system is recommended to reduce odors, slime, and
bacterial regrowth.
• See Section 3.4.3. for recommended treatment reliability.
• See Table 2-7 for other recommended limits.
• If spray irrigation, TSS less than 30 mg/l may be necessary
to avoid clogging of sprinkler heads.
• See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
• See Table 2-7 for other recommended limits.
• Chemical (coagulant and/or polymer) addition prior to
filtration may be necessary to meet water quality
recommendations.
• The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of
viable pathogens. 12
• A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may
be necessary to assure that viruses and parasites are
inactivated or destroyed.
• High nutrient levels may adversely affect some crops during
certain growth stages.
• See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
• See Table 2-7 for other recommended limits.
• If spray irrigation, TSS less than 30 mg/l may be necessary
to avoid clogging of sprinkler heads.
• High nutrient levels may adversely affect some crops during
certain growth stages.
• See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
• See Table 2-7 for other recommended limits.
• If spray irrigation, TSS less than 30 mg/l may be necessary
to avoid clogging of sprinkler heads.
• High nutrient levels may adversely affect some crops during
certain growth stages.
• Milking animals should be prohibited from grazing for 15
days after irrigation ceases. A higher level of disinfection,
e.g., to achieve < 14 fecal coli/100 ml, should be provided if
this waiting period is not adhered to.
• See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
167
-------
Table 4-13. Suggested Guidelines for Water Reuse 1
Types of Reuse
Recreational
Impoundments
Incidental contact
(e.g. .fishing and
boating) and full
body contact with
reclaimed water
allowed
Landscape
Impoundments
Aesthetic
impoundment
where public
contact with
reclaimed water is
not allowed
Construction Use
Soil compaction,
dust control,
washing
aggregate, making
concrete
Industrial Reuse
Once-through
cooling
Recirculating
cooling towers
Other Indus! rial
Uses
Environmental
Reuse
Wetlands,
marshes, wildlife
habitat, stream
augmentation
Treatment
* Secondary 4
• Filtration 6
* Disinfection
• Secondary 4
• Disinfection 6
* Secondary 4
• Disinfection 6
• Secondary 4
• Disinfection 6
* Secondary 4
* Disinfection 6
(chemical
coagulation
may be needed)
Reclaimed
Water Quality 2
• pH = 6-9
•< 10 mg/l BOD7
• <2NTU8
• No detectable fecal
coli/100ml9'10
* 1 mg/l CU residual
(minimum) "
• < 30 mg/l BOD7
• < 30 mg/l TSS
• < 200 fecal coli/100
ml 9'13'14
• 1 mg/l CI2 residual
• • 11
(minimum)
• < 30 mg/l BOD7
• < 30 mg/l TSS
• < 200 fecal coli/100
ml 9'13'14
• 1 mg/l CI2 residual
(minimum) "
• pH = 6-9
• < 30 mg/l BOD7
• < 30 mg/l TSS
• < 200 fecal coli/100
ml 9'13'14
* 1 mg/l CI2 residual
(minimum) "
• Variable depends
on recirculation
ratio (see Section
2.2.1) pH = 6-9
• < 30 mg/l BOD 7
• < 30 mg/l TSS
•< 200 fecal coli/100
ml 9'13'14
* 1 mg/l CI2 residual
(minimum) 11
Rsclsimsd
Water
Monitoring
• pH - weekly
• BOD - weekly
• Turbidity -
continuous
* Coliform - daily
• CI2 residual -
continuous
* pH - weekly
• TSS - daily
• Coliform - daily
* CI2 residual -
continuous
• BOD - weekly
• TSS - daily
• Coliform - daily
* CI2 residual -
continuous
• pH - weekly
• BOD - weekly
• TSS - daily
• Coliform - daily
• CI2 residual -
continuous
* pH - weekly
• BOD - weekly
• TSS - daily
* Coliform - daily
• CI2 residual -
continuous
Setback
Distances 3
• 500 ft (1 50 m) to
potable water
supply wells
(minimum) if
bottom not sealed
• 500 ft (1 50 m) to
potable water
supply wells
(minimum) if
bottom not sealed
• 300 ft (90 m) to
areas accessible
to the public
• 300 ft (90 m) to
areas accessible
to the public.
May be reduced
or eliminated if
high level of
disinfection is
provided.
Comments
• Dechlorination may be necessary to protect aquatic species
of flora and fauna.
• Reclaimed water should be non-irritating to skin and eyes.
* Reclaimed water should be clear and odorless.
* Nutrient removal may be necessary to avoid algae growth in
impoundments.
* Chemical (coagulant and/or polymer) addition prior to
filtration may be necessary to meet water quality
recommendations.
* The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of
viable pathogens. 12
• A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may
be necessary to assure that viruses and parasites are
inactivated or destroyed.
• Fish caught in impoundments can be consumed.
* See Section 3.4.3. for recommended treatment reliability.
* Nutrient removal may be necessary to avoid algae growth in
impoundments.
• Dechlorination may be necessary to protect aquatic species
of flora and fauna.
• See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
* Worker contact with reclaimed water should be minimized.
* A higher level of disinfection, e.g., to achieve < 14 fecal
coli/100 ml, should be provided when frequent work contact
with reclaimed water is likely.
• See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
* Windblown spray should not reach areas accessible to
workers or the public.
• Windblown spray should not reach areas accessible to
workers or the public.
• Additional treatment by user is usually provided to prevent
scaling, corrosion, biological growths, fouling and foaming.
* See Section 3. 4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
Depends on site specific uses (See Section 2.2.3)
• Variable
* Secondary 4
and
disinfection 6
(minimum)
Variable, but not to
exceed:
• < 30 mg/l BOD 7
• < 30 mg/l TSS
• < 200 fecal coli/100
ml 9'13'14
• BOD - weekly
• TSS - daily
• Coliform - daily
• CI2 residual -
continuous
• Dechlorination may be necessary to protect aquatic species
of flora and fauna.
• Possible effects on groundwater should be evaluated.
• Receiving water quality requirements may necessitate
additional treatment.
• The temperature of the reclaimed water should not adversely
affect ecosystem.
• See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
168
-------
Table 4-13. Suggested Guidelines for Water Reuse 1
Types of
Reuse
Groundwater
Recharge
By spreading or
injection into
aquifers not used
for public water
supply
Indirect Potable
Reuse
Groundwater
recharge by
spreading into
potable aquifers
Indirect Potable
Reuse
Groundwater
recharge by
injection into
potable aquifers
Indirect Potable
Reuse
Augmentation of
surface supplies
Treatment
* Site-specific
and use
dependent
* Primary
(minimum)
for spreading
* Secondary 4
(minimum)
for injection
* Secondary 4
* Disinfection 6
* May also
need
filtration
and/or
advanced
wastewater
treatment
* Secondary 4
* Filtration 5
* Disinfection 6
* Advanced
wastewater
treatment 16
* Secondary 4
* Filtration 5
* Disinfection
* Advanced
wastewater
treatment
Reclaimed
Water Quality2
* Site-specific and
use dependent
* Secondary 4
* Disinfection 6
* Meet drinking water
standards after
percolation through
vadose zone
Includes, but not
limited to, the
following:
* pH = 6.5-8.5
* < 2 NTU 8
* No detectable total
coli/100ml9'10
* 1 mg/l CI2 residual
(minimum) 11
* < 3 mg/l TOG
* < 0.2 mg/l TOX
* Meet drinking water
standards
Includes, but not
limited to, the
following:
* pH = 6.5-8.5
* <2NTU 8
* No detectable total
coli/100ml9'10
* 1 mg/l CI2 residual
(minimum) 11
* < 3 mg/l TOG
* Meet drinking water
standards
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
* Depends on
treatment and
use
Includes, but not
limited to, the
following:
* pH - daily
* Coliform -
daily
* CI2 residual -
continuous
* Drinking water
standards -
quarterly
* Other 17-
depends on
constituent
* BOD - weekly
* Turbidity -
continuous
Includes, but not
limited to, the
following:
* pH - daily
* Turbidity -
continuous
* Total coliform -
daily
* CI2 residual -
continuous
* Drinking water
standards -
quarterly
* Other 17-
depends on
constituent
Includes, but not
limited to, the
following:
* pH - daily
* Turbidity -
continuous
* Total coliform -
daily
* CI2 residual -
continuous
* Drinking water
standards -
quarterly
* Other 17-
depends on
constituent
Setback
Distances 3
* Site-specific
* 500 ft (1 50 m)
to extraction
wells. May
vary depending
on treatment
provided and
site-specific
conditions.
* 2000 ft (600 m)
to extraction
wells. May vary
depending on
site-specific
conditions.
* Site-specific
Comments
* Facility should be designed to ensure that no reclaimed
water reaches potable water supply aquifers
* See Section 2.5 for more information.
* For spreading projects, secondary treatment may be
needed to prevent clogging.
* For injection projects, filtration and disinfection may be
needed to prevent clogging.
* See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
* The depth to groundwater (i.e., thickness to the vadose
zone) should be at least 6 feet (2 m) at the maximum
groundwater mounding point.
* The reclaimed water should be retained underground for at
least 6 months prior to withdrawal.
* Recommended treatment is site-specific and depends on
factors such as type of soil, percolation rate, thickness of
vadose zone, native groundwater quality, and dilution.
* Monitoring wells are necessary to detect the influence of the
recharge operation on the groundwater.
* See Sections 2.5 and 2.6 for more information.
* The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of
viable pathogens after percolation through the vadose
zone. 12
* See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
* The reclaimed water should be retained underground for at
least 9 months prior to withdrawal.
* Monitoring wells are necessary to detect the influence of the
recharge operation on the groundwater.
* Recommended quality limits should be met a the point of
injection.
* The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of
viable pathogens after percolation through the vadose
zone. 12
* See Sections 2.5 and 2.6 for more information.
* A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may
be necessary to assure virus and protozoa inactivation.
* See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
* Recommended level of treatment is site-specific and
depends on factors such as receiving water quality, time and
distance to point of withdrawal, dilution and subsequent
treatment prior to distribution for potable uses.
* The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of
viable pathogens. 12
* See Sections 2.6 for more information.
* A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may
be necessary to assure virus and protozoa inactivation.
* See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
169
-------
Footnotes
1. These guidelines are based on water reclamation and reuse practices in the U.S., and they are especially
directed at states that have not developed their own regulations or guidelines. While the guidelines should
be useful in may areas outside the U.S., local conditions may limit the applicability of the guidelines in
some countries (see Chapter 8). It is explicitly stated that the direct application of these suggested
guidelines will not be used by USAID as strict criteria for funding.
2. Unless otherwise noted, recommended quality limits apply to the reclaimed water at the point of discharge
from the treatment facility.
3. Setback distances are recommended to protect potable water supply sources from contamination and to
protect humans from unreasonable health risks due to exposure to reclaimed water.
4. Secondary treatment processes include activated sludge processes, trickling filters, rotating biological
contractors, and may include stabilization pond systems. Secondary treatment should produce effluent in
which both the BOD and TSS do not exceed 30 mg/l.
5. Filtration means the passing of wastewater through natural undisturbed soils or filter media such as sand
and/or anthracite, filter cloth, or the passing of wastewater through microfilters or other membrane pro-
cesses.
6. Disinfection means the destruction, inactivation, or removal of pathogenic microorganisms by chemical,
physical, or biological means. Disinfection may be accomplished by chlorination, UV radiation, ozonation,
other chemical disinfectants, membrane processes, or other processes. The use of chlorine as defining
the level of disinfection does not preclude the use of other disinfection processes as an acceptable means
of providing disinfection for reclaimed water.
7. As determined from the 5-day BOD test.
8. The recommended turbidity limit should be met prior to disinfection. The average turbidity should be based
on a 24-hour time period. The turbidity should not exceed 5 NTU at any time. If TSS is used in lieu of
turbidity, the TSS should not exceed 5 mg/l.
9.Unless otherwise noted, recommended coliform limits are median values determined from the bacteriological
results of the last 7 days for which analyses have been completed. Either the membrane filter or fermenta-
tion-tube technique may be used.
10. The number of fecal coliform organisms should not exceed 14/100 ml in any sample.
11. Total chlorine residual should be met after a minimum contact time of 30 minutes.
12. It is advisable to fully characterize the microbiological quality of the reclaimed water prior to implementa
tion of a reuse program.
13. The number of fecal coliform organisms should not exceed 800/100 ml in any sample.
14. Some stabilization pond systems may be able to meet this coliform limit without disinfection.
15. Commercially processed food crops are those that, prior to sale to the public or others, have undergone
chemical or physical processing sufficient to destroy pathogens.
16. Advanced wastewater treatment processes include chemical clarification, carbon adsorption, reverse
osmosis and other membrane processes, air stripping, ultrafiltration, and ion exchange.
17. Monitoring should include inorganic and organic compounds, or classes of compounds, that are known or
uspected to be toxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, or mutagenic and are not included in the drinking water
standards.
170
-------
cific for coliform organisms of fecal origin. Therefore,
fecal coliforms are better indicators of fecal contamina-
tion than total coliforms, and these guidelines use fecal
coliform as the indicator organism. Either the multiple-
tube fermentation technique or the membrane filter tech-
nique may be used to quantify the coliform levels in the
reclaimed water.
The Guidelines suggest that, regardless of the type of
reclaimed water use, some level of disinfection should
be provided to avoid adverse health consequences from
inadvertent contact or accidental or intentional misuse
of a water reuse system. For nonpotable uses of re-
claimed water, 2 levels of disinfection are recommended.
Reclaimed water used for applications where no direct
public or worker contact with the water is expected should
be disinfected to achieve an average fecal coliform con-
centration not exceeding 200/100 ml because:
• Most bacterial pathogens will be destroyed or re-
duced to low or insignificant levels in the water
• The concentration of viable viruses will be reduced
somewhat
• Disinfection of secondary effluent to this coliform
level is readily achievable at minimal cost
• Significant health-related benefits associated with
disinfection to lower, but not pathogen-free, levels
are not obvious
For uses where direct or indirect contact with reclaimed
water is likely or expected, and for dual water systems
where there is a potential for cross-connections with
potable water lines, disinfection to produce reclaimed
water having no detectable fecal coliform organisms per
100 ml is recommended. This more restrictive disinfec-
tion level is intended for use in conjunction with tertiary
treatment and other water quality limits, such as a tur-
bidity less than or equal to 2 NTU in the wastewater
prior to disinfection. This combination of treatment and
use of water quality limits has been shown to produce
reclaimed water that is essentially free of measurable
levels of bacterial and viral pathogens.
For indirect potable uses of reclaimed water, where re-
claimed water is intentionally introduced into the raw
water supply for the purposes of increasing the total
volume of water available for potable use, disinfection
to produce reclaimed water having no detectable total
coliform organisms per 100 ml is recommended. Total
coliform is recommended, in lieu of fecal coliform, to be
consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR)
that regulate drinking water standards for producing po-
table drinking water.
These guidelines do not include suggested specific para-
site or virus limits. Parasites have not been shown to be
a problem at water reuse operations in the U.S. at the
treatment and quality limits recommended in these
guidelines, although there has been considerable inter-
est in recent years regarding the occurrence and sig-
nificance of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in reclaimed
water. Viruses are of concern in reclaimed water, but
virus limits are not recommended in these guidelines
for the following reasons:
A significant body of information exists indicating that
viruses are reduced or inactivated to low or immeasur-
able levels via appropriate wastewater treatment, includ-
ing filtration and disinfection (Yanko, 1993).
• The identification and enumeration of viruses in waste-
water are hampered by relatively low virus recovery
rates, the complexity and high cost of laboratory pro-
cedures, and the limited number of facilities having
the personnel and equipment necessary to perform
the analyses.
• The laboratory culturing procedure to determine the
presence or absence of viruses in a water sample
takes about 14 days, and an additional 14 days are
required to identify the viruses.
• While recombinant DMA technology provides new
tools to rapidly detect viruses in water (e.g., nucleic
acid probes and polymerase chain reaction technol-
ogy), methods currently in use are not able to quan-
tify viruses or differentiate between infective and non-
infective virus particles.
• There is no consensus among virus experts regard-
ing the health significance of low levels of viruses in
reclaimed water.
• There have been no documented cases of viral dis-
ease resulting from the reuse of wastewater at any
of the water reuse operations in the U.S.
The removal of suspended matter is related to the virus
issue. Many pathogens are particulate-associated and
that particulate matter can shield both bacteria and vi-
ruses from disinfectants such as chlorine and UV radia-
tion. Also, organic matter consumes chlorine, thus mak-
ing less of the disinfectant available for disinfection.
There is general agreement that particulate matter should
be reduced to low levels, e.g., 2 NTU or 5 mg/l TSS,
prior to disinfection to ensure reliable destruction of patho-
171
-------
genie microorganisms during the disinfection process.
Suspended solids measurements are typically performed
daily on a composite sample and only reflect an average
value. Continuously monitored turbidity is superior to daily
suspended solids measurements as an aid to treatment
operation.
The need to remove organic matter is related to the type
of reuse. Some of the adverse effects associated with
organic substances are that they are aesthetically dis-
pleasing (may be malodorous and impart color), pro-
vide food for microorganisms, adversely affect disinfec-
tion processes, and consume oxygen. The recom-
mended BOD limit is intended to indicate that the or-
ganic matter has been stabilized, is nonputrescible, and
has been lowered to levels commensurate with antici-
pated types of reuse. TSS limits are suggested as a
measure of organic and inorganic particulate matter in
reclaimed water that has received secondary treatment.
The recommended BOD and TSS limits are readily
achievable at well operated water reclamation plants.
The suggested setback distances are somewhat sub-
jective. They are intended to protect drinking water sup-
plies from contamination and, where appropriate, to pro-
tect humans from exposure to the reclaimed water. While
studies indicate the health risk associated with aero-
sols from spray irrigation sites using reclaimed water is
low, the general practice is to limit, through design or
operational controls, exposure to aerosols and wind-
blown spray produced from reclaimed water that is not
highly disinfected.
Unplanned or incidental indirect potable reuse occurs
in many states in the U.S., while planned or intentional
indirect potable reuse via groundwater recharge or aug-
mentation of surface supplies is a less-widely accepted
practice. Whereas the water quality requirements for
nonpotable water uses are tractable and not likely to
change significantly in the future, the number of water
quality constituents to be monitored in drinking water (and,
hence, reclaimed water intended for potable reuse) will
increase and quality requirements will become more re-
strictive. Consequently, it would not be prudent to sug-
gest a complete list of reclaimed water quality limits for
all constituents of concern. Some general and specific
information is provided in the guidelines to indicate the
extensive treatment, water quality, and other requirements
that are likely to be imposed where indirect potable reuse
is contemplated.
4.3 Pathogens and Emerging
Pollutants of Concern (EPOC)
As needs for alternative water supplies grow, reclaimed
water will be used more in both direct nonpotable appli-
cations and indirect potable reuse projects. Future moni-
toring for pathogens and other EPOCs will likely be nec-
essary to ensure that reclaimed water is a safe water
source. For example, California regulations require
monthly sampling and analysis for Giardia, enteric vi-
ruses, and Cryptosporidium for the use of reclaimed
water for impoundments during the first year of opera-
tion (State of California, 2000). After the first year, the
reclaimed water may be sampled and analyzed quar-
terly and monitoring may be discontinued after 2 years
of operation with the approval of the California Depart-
ment of Health Services (DHS). As previously discussed,
Florida requires monitoring of Giardia and Cryptosporidium
with sampling frequency based on treatment plant ca-
pacity for specific types of reuse.
The DHS updated the draft regulations for Groundwater
Recharge Reuse in July 2003 to require monitoring of
EPOCs. Each quarter, during the first year of operation,
the reclaimed water shall be analyzed for: unregulated
chemicals; priority toxic pollutants; chemicals with state
action levels; and other chemicals that the DHS has speci-
fied (California DHS, 2003). Chemicals with state action
levels are defined as chemicals that have been detected
at least once in drinking water supplies or chemicals of
interest for some specific reason. The other chemicals
as specified by the DHS include N-Nitrosodiethylamine
(NDEA) and N-Nitrosopyrrolidine.
The draft regulations also require annual monitoring of
Pharmaceuticals, endocrine disrupting chemicals, and
other chemical indicators of municipal wastewater pres-
ence. The draft regulations state that these samples are
being collected for information purposes, and there are
no standards for the contaminants listed and no stan-
dards anticipated at this time (California DHS, 2003).
Although no illnesses to date have been directly con-
nected to the use of reclaimed water, in order to better
define pathogens and EPOCs contained in reclaimed
water, it is recommended to continue with ongoing re-
search and additional monitoring for Giardia,
Cryptosporidium, and other EPOCs.
4.4
Pilot Testing
Because it is desirable to fully characterize the reclaimed
water to be produced and to compare its quality to other
water sources in the area, pilot testing should be con-
ducted in support of some of the more sensitive types of
172
-------
reuse, like groundwater recharge by injection and indi-
rect potable reuse. Pilot testing can be used to demon-
strate the ability of the selected unit processes to meet
project objectives and to refine the design of sophisti-
cated treatment trains. Pilot testing also can be used to
demonstrate the ability of the treatment and disinfec-
tion units to effectively control pathogens and organic
compounds. As part of this activity, the EPOCs, includ-
ing pharmaceutically active substances, endocrine dis-
rupters, and personal care products, can be evaluated.
Ideally, pilot testing should build on previous work as
opposed to repeating it.
4.5 References
California Department of Health Services. 2003. Ground-
water Recharge Reuse Regulations July 2003 Draft, Title
22, California Code of Regulations, Division 4. Environ-
mental Health, Chapters. Recycling Criteria.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 2000.
California Municipal Waste water Reclamation Survey.
http ://www. s wrcb. ca. gov/recycl i n g/recyf u nd/m u n i reel
index.html.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002.
2001 Reuse Inventory, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/
reuse/.
Hilger, H.A., 2003. "An Assessment of North Carolina
Water Reuse Regulations: Their Application to a New
Reclamation Facility and Their Key Features Compared
to Other State Reuse Regulations," North Carolina Water
Resources Research Institute, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Perlman, H.A., Pierce, R.R., and Solley, W.B. 1998. Es-
timated Use of Water in the U.S. in 1995. U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey Circular 1200.
State of California. 2000. California Code of Regulations,
Title 22, Division 4, Environmental Health, Chapter 3
Recycling Criteria.
Van Riper, C., G. Schlenderand M. Walther, 1998. "Evo-
lution of Water Reuse Regulations in Washington State."
WateReuse Conference Proceedings, AWWA, Denver,
Colorado.
Yanko, W.A. 1993. "Analysis of 10 Years of Virus Moni-
toring Data from Los Angeles County Treatment Plants
Meeting California Wastewater Reclamation Criteria."
Water Environ. Research, 65(3):221-226.
173
-------
174
-------
Previous Page Blank
CHAPTER 5
Legal and Institutional Issues
Although specific laws vary widely, most states have
adopted a number of rules and policies that both sup-
port and challenge the development of reclaimed water
projects. Since public health regulations are reviewed
in detail in Chapter 4, this chapter focuses on other is-
sues that emerge during the various stages of planning
and implementing water reuse projects, including rel-
evant rules promulgated by federal, state, and local ju-
risdictions.
Laws, policies, rules, and regulations that affect project
planning include water rights laws, water use, and
wastewater discharge regulations, as well as laws that
restrict land use and protect the environment. Included
in project implementation issues are policies that guide
the development of reclaimed water rates and agree-
ments between reclaimed water producers, wholesal-
ers, retailers, and customers, as well as rules affecting
system construction and liability for water reuse.
Some legal matters are quite technical, and the body of
statutory and case law in the area of water reuse is rela-
tively small. The majority of the rules and policies are
focused on areas where water reuse has been prac-
ticed, and expansion to other areas might raise issues
not discussed here. Therefore, managers should care-
fully consider the legal and institutional aspects of a new
reuse project, and obtain counsel to help weigh alter-
natives and risks. However, even a review of the basic
issues should allow reuse planners to identify the most
important questions early in the planning process where
they can be most effectively addressed.
This section also expands upon the following guidelines
that can assist managers in addressing legal and insti-
tutional issues during the planning and implementation
phases of a reuse system:
• Identifying the legal and institutional drivers for re-
use
• Developing a public education program
• Forging and maintaining contact with the appropri-
ate agencies
• Developing a realistic schedule
• Assessing cash flow needs
• Considering institutional structure
• Identifying steps to minimize liability
• Preparing contracts
5.1 Water Rights Law
A water right is a right to use water - it is not a right of
ownership. In the U.S., the state generally retains own-
ership of "natural" or public water within its boundaries,
and state statutes, regulations, and case law govern
the allocation and administration of the rights of private
parties and governmental entities to use such water. A
"water right" allows water to be diverted at one or more
particular points and a portion of the water to be used
for one or more particular purposes. A basic doctrine in
water rights law is that harm cannot be rendered upon
others who have a claim to the water. Water rights are
an especially important issue since the rights allocated
by the states can either promote reuse measures, or
they can pose an obstacle. For example, in water-lim-
ited areas, where water reuse might be most attractive,
water rights laws might prohibit the use of potable wa-
ter for nonpotable purposes, while at the same time re-
stricting the use of reclaimed water in a consumptive
fashion that prevents its return to the stream.
State laws allocate water based on 2 types of rights -
the appropriative doctrine and the riparian doctrine.
These will be described in general terms, after which
there will be a brief analysis of their application to water
reuse projects.
175
-------
5.1.1
Appropriative Rights System
native.
The appropriative rights system is found in most west-
ern states and in areas that are water-limited. (Califor-
nia 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 beneficial use on a first-come,
first-served basis and not from the property's proximity
to the water source. The first party to use the water has
the most senior claim to that water. The senior users
have a continued right to the water, and a "late" user
generally cannot diminish the quantity or quality of the
water to the senior user. This assures that senior users
have adequate water under almost any rainfall condi-
tions, and that later users have some moderate assur-
ance to the water. The last to obtain water rights may
be limited to water only during times when it is available
(wet season). The right is for a specific quantity of wa-
ter, but the appropriator may not divert more water than
can be used. If the appropriated water is not used, it will
be lost.
Generally, appropriative water rights are acquired pur-
suant to statutory law; thus, there are comprehensive
water codes that govern the acquisition and control of
the water rights. The acquisition of the water right is
usually accompanied by an application to state officials
responsible for water rights and granted with a permit
or license. The appropriative rights doctrine allows for
obtaining water by putting it to beneficial use in accor-
dance with procedures set forth in state statutes and
judicial decisions.
The appropriative water rights system is generally used
for groundwater throughout the U.S. Water percolating
through the ground is controlled by 3 different appro-
priative methods: absolute ownership, reasonable use
rule, or specific use rule. Absolute ownership occurs
when the water located directly beneath a property be-
longs to the property owner to use in any amount, re-
gardless of the effect on the water table of the adjacent
land, as long as it is not for a malicious use. The rea-
sonable use rule limits groundwater withdrawal to the
quantity necessary for reasonable and beneficial use in
connection with the land located above the water. Wa-
ter cannot be wasted or exported. The specific use rule
occurs when water use is restricted to one use.
During times of excess water supply, storage alterna-
tives may be considered as part of the reuse project so
that water may be used at a later date. A determination
of the ownership or rights to use this stored reclaimed
water will need to be made when considering this alter-
5.1.2
Riparian Rights System
The riparian water rights system is found primarily in
the east and in water-abundant areas. The right is based
on the proximity to water and is acquired by the pur-
chase of the land. A riparian user is not entitled to make
any use of the water that substantially depletes the
stream flow or that significantly degrades the quality of
the stream. Such riparian use can only be for a legal
and beneficial purpose. The right of one riparian owner
is generally correlative with the rights of the other ripar-
ian owners, with each landowner being assured some
water when available.
Water used under a riparian right can be used only on
the riparian land and cannot be extended to another
property. However, unlike the appropriative doctrine, the
right to the unused water can be held indefinitely and
without forfeiture. This limits the ability of the water au-
thority to quantify the amount of water that has a hold
against it and can lead to water being allocated in ex-
cess of that available. This doctrine does not allow for
storage of water.
5.1.3 Water Rights and Water Reuse
In arid parts of the western U.S., reclaimed water often
constitutes a more reliable supply than rights to surface
water or groundwater granted by a water authority. This
is particularly true when a user has low-priority rights
that are curtailed or withdrawn in times of shortage.
(Such subordinate rights are sometimes referred to as
"paper water" as opposed to "wet water" which refers to
the possession of an actual supply.) Because of the dif-
ficulty in obtaining an uninterrupted supply, reclaimed
water has simultaneously become an attractive alter-
native water source and the largest block of unappro-
priated water in the West. Consequently, it is important
to understand who retains control of the reclaimed wa-
ter among the discharger, water supplier, other appro-
priators, and environmental interests. For example, in
Washington State, the municipal corporation of the City
of Walla Walla was taken to court by a local irrigation
district that wanted the city to continue to discharge
wastewater effluent into Mill Creek, a natural channel,
for irrigation use. The court decreed on 2 occasions
that the city must discharge all of its wastewater efflu-
ent, at all seasons of the year, into the creek (Superior
Court of the State of Washington, 1927 and 1971).
According to Colgne and MacLaggan (1995) the down-
stream water user's right to reclaimed water depends
on the state's water allocation system:
176
-------
Some states issue permits to the owners of re-
claimed water or to appropriators of it when dis-
charged into a natural water course. These
states granting permits to the appropriators of
reclaimed water do so treating such discharges
into a reclaimed watercourse as if it has been
abandoned and thus available for appropriation.
Other states issue appropriation permits con-
taining a provision that clarifies that the permit
does not, in itself, give the permittee a right
against a party discharging water upstream who
may cease to discharge the water to the water-
course in the future.
In other words, state law can either promote or con-
strain reuse projects depending on how its system of
water rights regards the use and return of reclaimed
water. In general, the owner of a wastewater treatment
plant that produces effluent is generally considered to
have first rights to its use and is not usually bound to
continue its discharge. However, when a discharger's
right to reuse is constrained, such restrictions are usu-
ally based on issues resulting from one of the following
scenarios:
• Reduced Discharge - Reduction or elimination of
effluent discharge flows due to certain types of re-
use (e.g. evaporative cooling, groundwater infiltra-
tion) could result in legal challenges from down-
stream users, especially when the reduced flow re-
sults in serious economic losses or negative impacts
on the environment. When the use of reclaimed
water reduces or eliminates the discharge of waste-
water to the watercourse, downstream users may
make claim damages against the owner of the re-
use project. The nature of the legal challenge would
depend on the water rights system used. These is-
sues are less well defined for groundwater than for
streams and rivers.
• Changes in Point-of-Discharge or Place-of-Use -
Occurs in states with appropriative rights where laws
are designed to protect the origin of the water by
limiting the place-of-use or by requiring the same
point of discharge. In riparian states, the place-of-
use can also be an issue when reclaimed water is
distributed to users located outside the watershed
from which the water was originally drawn.
• Hierarchy of Use - Generally with water reuse, the
concepts of "reasonable use" and "beneficial use"
should not present an obstacle, particularly if such
reuse is economically justified. Nevertheless, a hi-
erarchy of use still exists in both riparian and ap-
propriative law, and 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.
• Reduced Withdrawal - A water reuse program that
reduces withdrawals from the water supply will prob-
ably pose no third-party conflict with water rights
issues, but the impact of such reductions on project-
proponent water rights should be evaluated. In some
instances, such as when water rights or allocations
are based on historic usage, reductions could jeop-
ardize the amount of water a customer is entitled
to, especially during times of drought. This has a
negative effect on the marketing of reclaimed wa-
ter. Therefore, where possible, assurances should
be made that historic allocations will not be reduced
to the point that the customer will suffer damage
during periods of shortage.
5.1.4 Federal Water Rights Issues
Although most water rights issues are decided accord-
ing to state law, in certain cases federal water laws may
impact the planning of water reuse projects. This most
often occurs when the project augments, reduces, or
otherwise impacts the supply of water to more than one
state, to protected Native American tribes, or to other
countries. In addition to these areas of federal involve-
ment, the federal government also has the right to ad-
equate water from sources on or adjacent to its own
property to meet the required needs of the land. Some
of the water rights laws that may apply to this situation
are listed below.
• Multi-State and Federal Water Allocations - The fed-
eral government may claim jurisdiction in disputes
between states regarding the allocation of limited
water supplies. This has been particularly true in
the West where 5 states (Arizona, California, Colo-
rado, Nevada, and Utah) are served by the Colo-
rado River where the flow is not always sufficient to
supply all the nominal allocations. A federal inter-
est may also be invoked when water owned by the
federal government is allocated to various parties
within the same state. In such cases, the federal
government may serve as the "honest broker" be-
tween parties. Or, in instances were the federal in-
terest is strong enough, the government may sup-
port the implementation of an appropriate solution
to allocation conflicts by funding recommended im-
provements. In either situation, the availability of al-
ternative water supplies (e.g. reclaimed water) may
constitute an important factor in determining water
rights and entitlements. (This is also discussed in
177
-------
Section 5.2 "Water Supply and Use.")
• Native American Water Rights - Although there have
been many court decisions relating to the water
rights of Indian reservations and other federal lands,
there is still a great deal of uncertainty as to how
these decisions should be interpreted. If there is a
possibility that a water reuse project will conflict with
the federal reserved water rights, either from an In-
dian reservation or other federal reserve, a very
careful legal interpretation of such water rights
should be obtained.
• International Water Rights - Another area of fed-
eral interest with respect to water rights is in the
distribution of water supplies across state lines, or
in international or boundary waters (e.g. the Great
Lakes, the Tijuana River). In such situations, where
the use of reclaimed water might reduce the access
to water supply between states, or to another na-
tion, federal jurisdiction may be imposed.
• Water Rights on Federal Property - Referred to as
federal reserved water rights, the quantity of water
reserved by the federal government does not have
to be established at the time of the land's acquisi-
tion. In addition, these water rights are not lost due
to non-use or abandonment and can be designated
for purposes other than that which they were origi-
nally intended, as long as consumption does not
increase. These rights may be set aside by execu-
tive order, statute, treaty, or agreement (Weinberg
and Allan, 1990). Water may also be appropriated
by the federal government for purposes established
by Congress and carried out on non-reserved lands.
Like the water rights associated with federal re-
serves, this right to water for non-reserved lands
may not cause harm to other water users and the
appropriation may not take priority over already ex-
isting appropriations. There is some question as to
whether there is sufficient legal basis for claiming
water under the non-reserved rights scenario.
5.2 Water Supply and Use
Regulations
Water supply and use legislation in the context of the
Guidelines is distinct from water rights law in that it cov-
ers policies and regulations, which determine how an
agency or entity with water rights may decide to distrib-
ute that supply to various parties. Over the past decade,
it has become increasingly common for federal, state,
and even local entities to set standards for how water
may be used as a condition of supplying water to its
customers, including the extent to which it must be con-
served or reused. Often these standards serve to pro-
mote reuse by requiring water users to reduce their to-
tal or per capita water use as compared to an estab-
lished baseline. In some cases, certain uses of potable
water (i.e., irrigation, power plant cooling) are consid-
ered "unreasonable" and are prohibited unless other,
nonpotable sources have been determined to be "envi-
ronmentally undesirable or economically unsound" (Cali-
fornia Water Code Section 13550).
There are 3 main types of water supply and use rules
discussed here:
• Water supply reductions
• Water efficiency goals
• Water use restrictions
5.2.1
Water Supply Reductions
Water supply reductions are often imposed during peri-
ods of drought. For example, Florida has identified wa-
ter conservation goals for the water management dis-
tricts to implement (FDEP, 1999). To meet these goals
and to help ensure that enough water is available to
meet anticipated potable water demands, Florida issued
a water shortage order in 2001 to limit the number of
irrigation days per week. Where water shortages are
common, cutbacks may be imposed by statute, or they
may be written into water allocation agreements between
the various parties, (e.g., Colorado River Agreement,
Monterey Agreement). During such times, appropriate
water rights may be invoked so that the senior rights-
holders receive their full allocations, or have their allo-
cations reduced less than those with more junior rights.
Whatever the cause, water shortages often provide a
powerful incentive to implement water reuse projects to
augment supplies, especially where reductions are fre-
quent and other less costly methods (e.g., water con-
servation) have already been implemented.
When the supply is curtailed by the federal or state gov-
ernment, local water agencies may adopt tiered rates,
priority categories, and other pricing and allocation strat-
egies to minimize the impact of drought on customers
by making sure that water is available for firefighting,
public health, and other critical purposes. One side ef-
fect of such restrictions is an increased public aware-
ness of the cost associated with water supply—costs
that water reuse projects can help to avoid. The fre-
quency of restrictions can also help planners evaluate
the risk of such shortages, which in turn can increase
the calculated value of the reuse projects.
178
-------
5.2.2 Water Efficiency Goals
Water efficiency goals can be either mandatory or vol-
untary. When voluntary goals (or targets) are promul-
gated, public support for conservation and reuse are
usually stimulated by advertising or outreach campaigns
designed to underscore the importance of protecting lim-
ited supplies. When mandatory goals are set, however,
compliance is related to fees and availability of service.
On a local level, the consequences for failing to meet
mandatory goals can range from higher use fees (e.g.
tiered water rates, surcharges) to termination of service.
Where water efficiency is required on a state level, in-
centives are frequently used to encourage compliance,
and meeting certain targets is a prerequisite for qualify-
ing for grants or loans or even for receiving a greater
percent of an agency's normal allocation.
When water reuse projects are planned in areas where
voluntary or mandatory goals are in place, project man-
agers should be sure that the proposed reuse types
qualify as water efficiency measures so that reclaimed
water customers can take advantage of the resulting
benefits.
5.2.3
Water Use Restrictions
Water use restrictions may either prohibit the use of
potable water for certain purposes, or require the use of
reclaimed water in place of potable water. Ordinances
requiring water reuse, however, generally allow other-
wise prohibited and "unreasonable" uses of potable
water to occur when reclaimed water is unavailable, is
unsuitable for the specific use, is uneconomical, or when
its use would have a negative impact on the environ-
ment.
On a federal level, there have been discussions in re-
cent years on encouraging the passage of federal wa-
ter use restrictions as part of a "green building" regula-
tion, such that all federally-sponsored projects must
evaluate the use of reclaimed water during the plan-
ning process. However, no such rules have yet been
proposed. On a state level, water use restrictions are
important because they give local jurisdictions a legal
foundation for regulating local use. They may also be
effective in promoting water reuse, particularly when
such rules also require state agencies to evaluate alter-
native supplies for all state-funded projects.
Local water use restrictions can help to encourage re-
use when the practice is generally accepted and readily
available at a cost below other supplies. However, an
important consideration in evaluating the implementa-
tion of such restrictions is deciding what type of penal-
ties or consequences result from non-compliance. In
the case of local water restrictions, it may not be neces-
sary to test the enforceability of the statutes, since the
potential consequences of non-compliance may be suf-
ficient to persuade most customers to use reclaimed
water for appropriate purposes. Otherwise, penalties
should be specified at a level adequate to deter viola-
tion. Such penalties may include disconnection of ser-
vice and a fee for reconnection with fines and jail time
for major infractions (e.g., Mesa, Arizona and Brevard
County, Florida). However, other regulations designed
to protect water customers from termination may miti-
gate or even neutralize that particular penalty option.
Where local ordinances require the use of reclaimed
water, they may also include a variety of other require-
ments regulating its supply and use, including rules for
customer connection, inspection, and facility manage-
ment. Many cities require customers within a given dis-
tance of existing or proposed reclaimed water pipes to
connect to the reclaimed water system. This may be
coupled with restrictions on the use of potable water for
nonpotable purposes, such as irrigation. Some cities
have gone as far as to prohibit the use of other
nonpotable water (i.e. groundwater or surface water)
where reclaimed water is available. These rules are ex-
amined more closely in a later section, 5.5.3 Customer
Agreements.
5.3
Wastewater Regulations
Both federal and state agencies exercise jurisdiction
over the quality and quantity of wastewater discharge
into public waterways. The primary authority for the regu-
lation of wastewater is the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act
(CWA) (Public Law 92-500). While the legislative origin
of the CWA stretches back to the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899, the 1972 CWA assigned the federal gov-
ernment specific responsibilities for water quality man-
agement designed to make all surface waters "fishable
and swimmable" (Cologne and MacLaggan, 1995). The
CWA requires states to set water quality standards, thus
establishing the right to control pollution from wastewa-
ter treatment plants, as long as such regulations are at
least as stringent as federal rules. Primary jurisdiction
under the CWA is with the EPA, but in most states the
CWA is administered and enforced by the state water
pollution control agencies.
Wastewater discharge regulations mostly address
treated effluent quality—specifically the removal of
chemical pollutants and biological pathogens that could
have a deleterious effect on receiving waters. Even in
regions of the U.S. where rainfall is plentiful (i.e., Florida),
179
-------
regulations that establish criteria for discharged waste-
water water quality can provide a powerful incentive to
reuse treated effluent. Although less common, discharge
permits may also restrict the quantity of effluent dis-
charged to a receiving body to limit its effect on the lo-
cal ecosystem. Such regulations may be continuous or
seasonal, and may or may not correspond to a period
when reclaimed water is in demand. As with water quality
limits, it is important for those planning reuse projects
to meet with treatment plant managers to understand
the extent of discharge limitations and how they may be
alleviated by supplying treated effluent for reuse.
5.3.1
Effluent Quality Limits
The CWA regulates discharge of pollutants into navi-
gable waters through permits issued pursuant to the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). Under the CWA, the term "navigable waters"
means waters of the U.S. The federal courts follow the
Tenth Circuit Court's conclusion that this definition is an
expression of congressional intent "to regulate dis-
charges made into every creek, stream, river or body of
water that in any way may affect interstate commerce"
(United States vs. Earth Sciences Inc., 1979).
The goal of the CWA is to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical and biologic integrity of the nation's
waters." The CWA sets forth specific goals to conserve
water and reduce pollutant discharges and directs the
EPA Administrator to assist with the development and
implementation of water reclamation plans, which will
achieve those goals. Major objectives of the CWA are
to eliminate all pollutant discharges into navigable wa-
ters, stop discharges of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts,
develop waste treatment management plans to control
sources of pollutants, and to encourage water reclama-
tion and reuse. Pursuant to this goal, the EPA has evalu-
ated major waterways in the U.S. to determine which
ones fail to meet federal water quality standards.
Waterbodies listed as "impaired" according to Section
303(d) of the CWA are protected by strict limits on the
discharge of the specific pollutants of concern that could
further degrade their water quality.
In addition to limits on the concentration of specific con-
taminants, discharge regulations may also include lim-
its on the total mass of a pollutant discharged to the
receiving stream - known as total maximum daily load
(TMDL) limits - and on the quality of the water in the
receiving stream itself (e.g. minimum dissolved oxygen
limits). These regulations are usually the result of ex-
tended negotiations between federal, state, and local
agencies.
Wastewater discharge regulations are important to wa-
ter reuse managers for a number of reasons. First, re-
use projects can be implemented as an alternative to
high levels of treatment when discharge regulations re-
quire advanced treatment methods, such as nutrient re-
moval. Second, the level of treatment required by the
NPDES permit may be adequate to meet most health
regulations, reducing the investment needed to meet
reuse standards. By the same token, the level of reli-
ability required by NPDES standards may be less rigor-
ous than what paying customers expect, so that supple-
mentary treatment systems are needed to ensure con-
tinuous production. These issues should be thoroughly
explored by those planning water reuse projects prior
to project design and implementation.
5.3.2
Effluent Flow Limits
Although less common than water quality regulations,
the quantity of treatment plant effluent discharged to a
receiving body may also be limited by regulation, such
as the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Such regula-
tions may be continuous or seasonal, and may or may
not correspond to periods associated with reclaimed
water demand as required by the NPDES permit. For
instance, state regulators in California required the San
Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (serv-
ing the Silicon Valley area of northern California) to re-
use treated effluent as an alternative to limiting discharge
into the south end of San Francisco Bay during the sum-
mer dry-weather period (May through October). In this
instance the limitation was due not to contaminants, but
to the fact that the point of discharge was a saltwater
marsh which was made brackish by the discharge of
relatively fresh treated effluent. The salt marsh in ques-
tion is home to 2 endangered species (Rosenblum,
1998). Further discussion of the Endangered Species
Act is in Section 5.4.2.
Effluent quantity may also be limited due to the demand
for the reclaimed water by communities in the area. In a
1984 decision by the California State Water Resources
Control Board, the Fallbrook Sanitary District (a waste-
water discharger near San Diego) was enjoined to show
cause why their treated effluent was discharged to the
Pacific Ocean rather than made available for reuse by
the local community. As discussed in the citation above,
the foundation of this ruling (which has not been tested
by the courts) lies with that state's prohibition against
wasting water and the "unreasonable" use of potable
water when reclaimed water is available. This case also
illustrates a trend towards viewing water of any quality
suitable for some type of reuse, such that its discharge
may be limited for the sake of preserving a scarce pub-
lic resource.
180
-------
5.4 Safe Drinking Water Act -
Source Water Protection
In 1996, the 104th Congress reauthorized and amended
Title XIV of the Public Health Services Act (commonly
known as the Safe Drinking Water Act). One of the
amendments included was Section 132, Source Water
Assessment, which requires that the EPA administrator
publish guidance for states exercising primary enforce-
ment responsibility for public water systems to carry out
directly or through delegation, (for the protection and
benefit of public water systems and for the support of
monitoring flexibility), a source water assessment pro-
gram within the state's boundaries. The program require-
ments include: (a) delineating the boundaries of the as-
sessment areas in such state from which one or more
public water systems in the state receive supplies of
drinking water, using all reasonably available
hydrogeologic information on the sources of the supply
and the water flow, recharge, discharge, and any other
reliable information deemed necessary to adequately
determine such areas; and (b) identifying contaminants
regulated under this title for which monitoring is required
under this title or any unregulated contaminants which
the state has determined may present a threat to public
health. To the extent practical, the origins of such con-
taminants within each delineated area should be deter-
mined so that the susceptibility of the public water sys-
tems to such contaminants can be decided.
A state may establish a petition program under which a
community water system, municipal or local government,
or political subdivision of a state may submit a source
water quality protection partnership petition requesting
state assistance in the development of a voluntary, in-
centive-based partnership to reduce the presence of
drinking water contaminants, and to obtain financial or
technical assistance necessary to set up the source
water of a community water system. A petition may only
address contaminants that are pathogenic organisms
for which regulations are established, or for which regu-
lations have been proposed or promulgated and are
detected by adequate monitoring methods in the source
water at the intake structure or in any community water
system collection, treatment storage, or distribution fa-
cilities at levels above the maximum contaminant level
(MCL), or that are not reliable and consistently below
the MCL.
5.5 Land Use and Environmental
Regulations
Land use policies regulate the development and use of
property which might be served by reclaimed water sys-
tems. Unlike water and wastewater laws that are pro-
mulgated and enforced by federal and state govern-
ments, most land use regulations are developed and
enforced by local jurisdictions. But while they are gen-
erally considered to be local matters, land use decisions
are always made in the context of federal environmen-
tal laws and state planning regulations that also influ-
ence their determination. The following section reviews
the key elements of local land use planning, as well as
the underlying environmental regulations and their ef-
fect on planning reclaimed water projects.
5.5.1
General and Specific Plans
Most communities in the U.S. engage in some type of
structured planning process whereby the local jurisdic-
tion regulates development according to a general plan.
A general plan is designed to serve as "a basis for ratio-
nal decisions regarding a city's or county's long-term
physical development [and] embodies public policy rela-
tive to the distribution of future land uses, both public
and private" (State of California, 1998 and State of
Florida, 2002). General plans can be adopted by ordi-
nance and are sometimes reinforced with zoning regu-
lations and similar restrictions. In some states, commu-
nities are legally required to adopt these general plans,
and projects that significantly deviate from them must
be rejected, modified, or permitted by variance.
The cost of extending utilities into undeveloped areas
is an important criterion when deciding where to permit
development in a community, as is the availability of
resources. Even after a general plan is adopted and an
area is planned for a particular type of development,
developers may be required to prepare specific plans
that demonstrate sufficient water supply or wastewater
treatment capacity to meet the needs of their develop-
ments. Several western states have also adopted laws
that require communities to adopt water management
plans and identify additional supplies to support new
developments. Such rules actually encourage the imple-
mentation of reuse projects that reduce the use of lim-
ited resources. In chronically water-short or environmen-
tally sensitive areas, use of reclaimed water may even
be a prerequisite for new developments.
However, the local planning process can also pose a
challenge to reuse projects by subjecting them to the
scrutiny of a public that may have many misconcep-
tions about reclaimed water. Federal and state environ-
mental assessment regulations (which are often in-
cluded in the local planning process) require public no-
tice of published plans and advertised hearings to so-
licit opinion from all parties potentially affected by the
proposed project. It is not unusual at such hearings to
hear opposition to the use of reclaimed water for rea-
181
-------
sons ranging from health effects to growth inducement
to environmental justice. These concerns often mask
underlying worries about growth or political issues that
may be hard to deal with directly. However, unless the
specific concerns are thoroughly addressed in the plan-
ning process, it is unlikely that the project will proceed
to the point that the underlying issues can emerge to be
dealt with. Furthermore, failure of a reuse project to con-
form to general plan guidelines and local requirements
will render the project vulnerable to challenge in the
courts or to appeal before the regulatory bodies even
after the project is approved.
5.5.2
Environmental Regulations
A number of state and federal environmental regula-
tions promote the use of reclaimed water by limiting the
amount of water available to communities or restricting
the discharge of wastewater into receiving streams. The
ESA in particular has been applied to require water us-
ers to maintain minimum flows in western rivers to pro-
tect the habitat of various species of fish whose survival
is threatened by increases in water temperature and
restricted access to breeding grounds. Similarly, as
noted previously, the provisions of the CWA can im-
pose limits on both the quality and quantity of treated
effluent an agency is allowed to discharge. A commu-
nity with limited water supply or wastewater treatment
capabilities has a real incentive to build a reclaimed
water project that augments existing sources and re-
duces discharge.
Broader in scope, the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) requires an assessment of environmental im-
pacts for all projects receiving federal funds, and then
the mitigation of all significant impacts. Many states also
have equivalent rules that mandate environmental as-
sessment and mitigation planning for all projects prior
to construction. Combined with other laws that protect
biological, scenic, and cultural resources, these laws
can result in a cte facto moratorium on the construction
of large-scale water diversions (by dams) that flood the
habitat of protected species or inundate pristine can-
yons or areas of historical significance.
Even where such projects are allowed to go forward,
they may be less cost-effective than water reuse projects
that provide a comparable supply with fewer and less
expensive mitigations. Both federal and state environ-
mental assessment regulations generally require an eco-
nomic analysis of alternatives, including the "no project"
alternative in which nothing is built. A number of guid-
ance documents are available suggesting approaches
to evaluating both the costs and benefits of water
projects, including water reuse alternatives. It is par-
ticularly important when evaluating the economics of
reuse projects to consider how reclaimed water serves
to augment water supply and divert wastewater from
impacted waters, and to include both direct and indirect
benefits. The evaluation should include the consider-
ation of preserving a habitat that might be depleted by
importing surface water supplies or the avoided cost of
mitigating such an impact. A steady stream of research
has appeared in the literature during the past decade
suggesting appropriate methods of contingent valua-
tion for environmental benefits (Sheikh et al., 1998).
On the other hand, environmental assessment regula-
tions also require the careful assessment of any nega-
tive impacts of reclaimed water projects. Examples of
common environmental impacts include the visual im-
pact of tanks and reservoirs and the disturbance of un-
derground cultural resources and hazardous materials
by underground pipelines. Less common, but equally
significant, projects that provide reclaimed water for ir-
rigation over unconfined aquifers are sometimes re-
quired to demonstrate that use of nonpotable water will
not contribute to the degradation of underlying ground-
water. In such cases, mitigation may include a monitor-
ing program or even additional treatment to match
groundwater quality. Rules to protect aquifers from in-
filtration by reclaimed water may also be adopted.
The manager of a reclaimed water project must be fa-
miliar with not only the federal and state regulations
guiding the environmental assessment process, but also
their interpretation by the local jurisdiction. For example,
the federal NEPA process requires a public scoping,
dissemination of a Notice of Intent, and at least one
public meeting preceding the solicitation and consider-
ation of public comments on project impacts and their
mitigation. By contrast, the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) mandates specific periods during
which project information must be published and en-
courages—but does not require—formal hearings dur-
ing project review. However, many lead agencies do
conduct public hearings on environmental assessment
reports, either independently or in the course of their
own public planning process (California Department of
Water Resources, 2002 and State of Florida, 2002).
Public review requirements have a significant effect on
project schedules. In addition to the time required to
assemble site information and assess the potential im-
pacts of the project, there are mandatory public review
periods that range from 1 to 6 months depending on
the nature of the impact and the type of permit required.
A comprehensive implementation schedule should be
182
-------
developed and periodically revised, including lengthy
review procedures, the timing of any public hearings
that must be held, and the time needed to enact any
required legislation. It is especially important to identify
any permit review procedures and whether they can
occur concurrently or must occur consecutively, and in
what order.
5.5.2.1 Special Environmental Topics
In addition to the assessment of environmental impacts
commonly encountered by construction of all types of
water projects, there are some topics of special con-
cern for the evaluation of reuse projects that reflect the
safety of reclaimed water use, including growth induce-
ment, environmental justice, and detection of emerging
pathogens. Because the project proponent or lead
agency must, by law, address all material questions
raised during the assessment process, these topics
should be considered at some point during project plan-
ning—if only to note that they do not apply.
One environmental impact associated with reclaimed
water projects is the potential for growth inducement.
Indeed, where communities are constrained by a lim-
ited water supply, the availability of a reliable source of
reclaimed water can allow more growth than might oth-
erwise occur. However, there are many other factors
that contribute to the increase in population in an area,
and substitution of nonpotable for potable water may
only reduce the negative impact a community's existing
water use has on the neighboring environment. In any
case, the question of growth inducement must be ad-
dressed in evaluating the overall impact of reclaimed
water projects.
The question of environmental justice may come up
during the permitting of water reuse projects. The term
"environmental justice" refers to the historic pattern of
siting undesirable environmental facilities (e.g. waste-
water treatment plants, landfills and transfer stations,
solid waste incinerators) in or adjacent to economically
depressed neighborhoods, whose populations may have
a proportionally large percentage of people of color or
ethnic minorities. An environmental justice policy at-
tempts to ensure that all such facilities are distributed
equally throughout the community, so that no one seg-
ment bears a disproportionate share of the impact. This
policy is reinforced by a number of federal rules per-
taining to environmental review of federally-funded
projects, the ultimate source of which is the constitu-
tional right to equal protection under the law. While it is
reasonable to argue that reclaimed water distribution
facilities should not be grouped with other more nox-
ious facilities, and that the use of reclaimed water rep-
resents a clear benefit to the neighborhoods where it is
available, the population at large does not always share
this view. The project manager of a water reuse pro-
gram should discuss project plans with representatives
from all affected communities to gauge their sensitivity
to this issue, and provide additional information about
reclaimed water to help alleviate neighborhood con-
cerns.
5.6
Legal Issues in Implementation
Just as there are many laws and policies that influence
the planning and overall design of water reuse projects,
their detailed design, construction, and implementation
is also governed by a number of rules and regulations.
For example, state health departments may require mini-
mum setback distances between potable and
nonpotable pipelines (addressed in Chapter 4), while
dual distribution facilities at the customer's site may have
to be constructed to meet Uniform Plumbing Code stan-
dards. Similarly, a value engineering study of the sys-
tem design may need to be performed in order for the
project to qualify for state or federal funding, which may
add to the time required for project review and impact
the ultimate construction schedule.
Following construction, various parties need to coordi-
nate their efforts to produce, distribute, deliver, and pay
for reclaimed water. Each of these parties must be or-
ganized to comply with their contractual obligation, with
appropriate legal agreements between the parties to
clearly spell out and enforce responsibilities. Indeed,
there are a range of legal agreements that may be nec-
essary in order for reclaimed water to be delivered to
the end customer for reuse.
The following section examines laws and regulations
pertaining to project construction (both system wide
and on-site), agreements between water wholesalers
and retailers, and customer agreements to ensure
payment and proper handling of reclaimed water by the
end user.
5.6.1
Construction Issues
In general, there are 2 types of regulations associated
with construction of reuse projects:
1) Rules governing system construction, including
large-diameter mains, pump stations, reservoirs,
and other appurtenances required to deliver re-
claimed water to groups of customers
2) Rules for on-site construction, specifically separa-
tion of existing pipelines into potable and
183
-------
nonpotable systems, or the installation of new re-
claimed water pipelines separate from the potable
system
As noted in Chapter 4, state health departments often
promulgate regulations for both system and on-site con-
struction, but these rules may be administered by county
or even local health departments. State agencies may
also take the lead in ensuring that project designs meet
the requirements for grant funding, but their rules are
frequently adopted from existing federal grant or loan
programs. Local agencies may adopt their own special
rules incorporating state regulations with additional re-
quirements specific to local jurisdictions.
5.6.1.1 System Construction Issues
Chapter 4 includes a detailed analysis of water reuse
regulations and design guidelines in various states.
These issues are included here only to provide a com-
prehensive picture of the overall legal context in which
reuse projects are developed and built.
Regulations impacting system construction include both
rules governing utility construction in general and rules
specifically aimed at water reuse projects. Regulations
governing general utility construction include require-
ments to observe and maintain proper easements for
pipelines and facilities, local codes with respect to ac-
ceptable building materials and construction practices,
as well as all applicable contract and labor laws (which
is beyond the scope of this chapter). Prior to and during
design of any system construction project, the project
manager should become familiar with state and local
construction regulations and obtain all necessary per-
mits from local agencies, utilities, and other parties so
as not to delay project construction.
In addition to these general rules, many states have
rules specifically pertaining to the construction of re-
claimed water systems. These regulations frequently
designate physical separation distances between re-
claimed water and potable and wastewater lines, as well
as details for pipeline crossings (e.g., nonpotable be-
low potable). Where it is not practical to maintain mini-
mum distances, some states allow construction of
nonpotable pipelines adjacent to potable lines provided
that they are cased in suitable materials.
From a legal perspective, federal and state grant and
loan programs are established by statute and often es-
tablish construction-related rules that projects must meet
to qualify for funding. Typically these include:
• Formal review of all designs to ensure that they
meet professional standards and present the
most "cost-effective" solutions to engineering prob-
lems. This review often includes value engineering
of the project by professionals who were not involved
in the original design.
• Institution of a revenue program identifying addi-
tional sources of funds to pay for the initial construc-
tion. This is especially true when grant funds are
provided for construction on a reimbursement ba-
sis, to ensure that the project sponsor will be able
to afford the project without the support of grant
funds.
• Identification of customers, with some evidence that
they will individually and collectively use a specific
quantity of reclaimed water once it is supplied.
Early in the process, agencies that accept grants or loans
should be aware of the requirements of their particular
programs with respect to project design and funding.
5.6.1.2
On-site Construction Issues
Like system construction regulations, standards for con-
structing distribution pipelines on a customer's site (e.g.
irrigation systems) are usually a combination of state
regulations and local ordinances specifically regarding
the use of reclaimed water. State regulations generally
focus on requirements to prevent accidental or inten-
tional cross-connection of potable and nonpotable sys-
tems by separating the pipelines, requiring clear identi-
fication of nonpotable facilities, and installing backflow
prevention devices, where appropriate. Local agencies
may adopt individual regulations by ordinance, or they
may adopt general regulations like the Uniform Plumb-
ing Code, whose Appendix J includes special rules for
installing reclaimed water lines inside buildings where
potable water is also served. Once again, the manager
of a reuse project should become familiar with all perti-
nent regulations during the design phase to ensure that
the system meets state and local codes. See Chapter 4
for a detailed discussion of regulations that have been
adopted in various jurisdictions throughout the U.S.
Once on-site facilities have been constructed, state and
local regulations often require that cross-connection
tests be performed to ensure complete separation be-
tween potable and nonpotable systems. Depending on
the quality of the water provided and the type of use,
agencies may also restrict the times of use and require
periodic inspection and reporting on system operation,
even after the on-site system has been installed and
184
-------
approved. This topic is addressed more closely in Sec-
tion 5.5.3 Customer Agreements.
5.6.2
Wholesaler/Retailer Issues
One of the first steps in implementing a water reuse
program is the identification of roles and responsibili-
ties for the production and wholesale and retail distribu-
tion of reclaimed water. Many different types of institu-
tional structures can be utilized for implementing a wa-
ter reuse project and responsibility for reclaimed water
production and wholesale and retail distribution can be
assigned to different groups depending on their histori-
cal roles and technical and managerial expertise (Table
5-1).
The various departments and agencies within a gov-
ernment may come into conflict over the proposed re-
use system unless steps are taken early in the planning
stages to find out who will be involved and to what level.
Close internal coordination between departments and
branches of local government will be required to en-
sure a successful reuse program. Obtaining the sup-
port of other departments will help to minimize delays
caused by interdepartmental conflicts.
A good example of integrated authority is the Irvine
Ranch Water District in California, an independent, self-
financing entity responsible for all phases of reclaimed
water production and distribution. Under its original en-
abling legislation, the district was strictly a water supply
entity; but in 1965, state law was amended to assign it
sanitation responsibilities within its service area. This
put the district is in a good position to deal directly, as
one entity, with conventional potable water and
nonpotable water services. Such a position contrasts
markedly with other institutional arrangements in the Los
Angeles area, where agency relationships are often
more complex. For instance, the Pomona Water Recla-
mation Plant is operated by the Sanitation Districts of
Table 5-1. Some Common Institutional
Patterns
Los Angeles County, which sells reclaimed water to sev-
eral purveyors, including the municipal Pomona Water
Department, who then redistributes it to a number of
users.
5.6.2.1
Institutional Criteria
In evaluating alternative institutional arrangements, re-
sponsible managers should determine the best munici-
pal organizations or departments to operate a reclama-
tion and reuse program. For example, even if the mu-
nicipal 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).
Among the criteria that should be considered in devel-
oping a viable arrangement is the ability of the proposed
entity to finance the project and enter into the following
types of agreements:
• Financing Power - The agency responsible for fi-
nancing the project should be able to assume
bonded indebtedness, if such financing is likely, a
determination should be made as to what kind of
debt could be assumed, how much, and how debt
must be retired. In addition, the evaluation should
include the method for recovering the costs of op-
erating the water reclamation facility and any re-
strictions placed on them by virtue of the institutional
structure, including kinds of accounting practices to
be imposed upon the entity.
• Contracting Power - Any constraints on how and
with whom services can be contracted should be
identified, as well as the method of approving such
agreements. For example, if contracts are required
with other municipalities, they may have limitations
on the nature of the corporate structure or legal au-
Type of Institutional Arrangement
Separate Authorities
Wholesaler/Retailer System
Joint Powers Authority (for Production and Distribution
only)
Integrated Production and Distribution
Production
Wastewater
Treatment Agency
Wastewater
Treatment Agency
Joint Powers
Authority
Wate r/Wastewate r
Authority
Wholesale
Distribution
Wholesale Water
Agency
Wastewater
Treatment Agency
Joint Powers
Authority
Wate r/Wastewate r
Authority
Retail Distribution
Retail Water Company
Retail Water Company
Retail Water Company
Wate r/Wastewate r
Authority
185
-------
thorization of entities with whom they enter into
agreement.
5.6.2.2 Institutional Inventory and Assessment
It is necessary to develop a thorough understanding of
which organizations and institutions are concerned with
which aspects of a proposed reuse system. This under-
standing should include an inventory of required per-
mits and agency review requirements prior to construc-
tion and operation of the reuse system, economic ar-
rangements, subsidies, groundwater and surface water
management policies, and administrative guidelines and
issues. The following institutions should be involved or
at a minimum, contacted: federal and state/regulatory
agencies, administrative and operating organizations,
and general units of government.
On occasion there is an overlap of agency jurisdiction.
For example, it is possible for one agency to control the
water in the upper reaches of a stream and a separate
agency to control the water in the lower reaches. Un-
less these agencies can work together, there may be
little hope of a successful project.
One of the best ways to gain the support of other agen-
cies is to make sure that they are involved from the be-
ginning of the project and are kept informed as the
project progresses. Any potential conflicts between
these agencies should be identified as soon as pos-
sible. Clarification on which direction the lead agency
should follow will need to be determined. By doing this
in the planning stages of the reuse project, delays in
implementation may be avoided.
5.6.3
Customer Issues
Finally, a key link in the chain of institutional arrange-
ments required to implement water reclamation projects
is the relationship between the water purveyor and the
water customer. Again, there are 2 dimensions to this
arrangement:
1) The legal requirements established by state and
local jurisdictions defining the general responsibili-
ties of the 2 parties to protect the public
2) The specific items of agreement between the par-
ties, including commercial arrangements and op-
erational responsibilities
The legal requirements are usually stipulated in state
laws, agency guidelines, and local ordinances designed
to ensure that reclaimed water is used safely and with
appropriate regard for public health. In fact, the agency
responsible for reclaimed water distribution should con-
sider adopting an ordinance requiring customers to meet
these standards of performance as a condition of re-
ceiving reclaimed water. Or, if that is not appropriate,
the agency should encourage the jurisdictions where
the customers are located to pass such ordinances. In
some cases, the requirements for customer performance
have been delegated by the state to the reclaimed wa-
ter purveyor, who in turn is empowered to delegate them
to their customers. For instance, where reclaimed wa-
ter is still statutorily considered effluent, the agency's
permit to discharge wastewater may be delegated by
the agency to customers whose reuse sites are legally
considered to be distributed outfalls of the reclaimed
water, with concomitant responsibilities.
The second group of agreements, those agreements
made between parties, are more variable and reflect
the specific circumstances of the individual projects and
the customers they serve. These include rates and
charges, fees, rebates, terms of service, and other spe-
cial conditions of use between reclaimed water suppli-
ers and customers.
Not all reclaimed water systems require development
of a reclaimed water ordinance. This is particularly true
where there are a limited number of users. For example,
it is not uncommon for a reclaimed water supplier pro-
viding service to a small number of large users, such as
agriculture or industrial customers, to forego develop-
ment of a reuse ordinance and rely instead on user
agreements. In other instances, such as water inten-
sive activities, a single user may well encumber all of
the water available from a given reclaimed water source.
Where such conditions exist, it is often more appropri-
ate to deal with the customer through the negotiation of
a reclaimed water user agreement. However, all of the
customer issues discussed should still be addressed in
developing customer agreements.
5.6.3.1 Statutory Customer Responsibilities
Protective measures are required to avoid cross-con-
nection of reclaimed water lines with potable water lines.
In the event that these responsibilities are codified in a
local ordinance, the ordinance and its provisions should
be clearly spelled out in the customer agreement. (Lo-
cal ordinances may, in turn, reference state regulations
on this subject, in which case they should provide spe-
cific citations, in addition to general references, for the
sake of clarity.)
As noted in Chapter 4, required protections may include
the mandatory backflow preventers, use of color-coded
186
-------
pipes for the reclaimed and potable water, and periodic
inspection of the system. Inspection is recommended
to determine if there are any illegal connections, viola-
tions of ordinances, or cross-connections. It is impor-
tant that the ordinance or agreement state which party
is responsible for inspection, under what conditions and
with what frequency inspection may be required, as well
as the consequences if users refuse to perform or allow
inspection (i.e., disconnection of service).
A customer agreement (or the corresponding local or-
dinance) might also specify the type of irrigation sys-
tem required in order to receive reclaimed water. This
could include the requirements for system design (e.g.,
a permanent below-ground system) or construction de-
tails (e.g., specific pipe materials or appurtenances like
quick disconnect fittings on hose bibs used for hand
watering). The requirements for an irrigation system
timer may also be included.
The customer agreement may also include details on
financing on-site construction to separate potable and
nonpotable piping systems. It is not uncommon for lo-
cal agencies to fund all or part of the cost of retrofitting
a customer's existing system in order to defray the over-
all cost of reclaimed water use. In such instances, the
agency may provide grant funds to the customer to cover
the cost of construction or may even construct the fa-
cilities at the agency's expense after obtaining a right-
of-entry from the customer. In other cases, the cost of
the construction may be covered by reductions in the
normal rates over a period of time.
Although not included in a customer agreement, a local
ordinance might also define when property owners will
be required to connect to the reuse system. Examples
include the requirement for turf grass facilities (e.g.,
parks, golf courses, cemeteries, schools) to connect
when the system becomes available, requirements for
new developments to connect prior to being inhabited,
and requirements for all properties to connect as the
reuse system becomes available. These agreements
might also specify what equipment is available to the
customer and how it can be used. For example, Florida
allows hose bibs on the reclaimed water system but they
must be placed in below-ground, locking boxes.
Local ordinances may also contain requirements for pub-
lic education about the reuse project, including infor-
mation on the hazards of reclaimed water, the require-
ments for service, the accepted uses, and the penalties
for violation. In Cocoa Beach, Florida, reclaimed water
applicants must be provided an informative brochure to
explain public safety and reuse in accordance with the
City's ordinance. A detailed discussion of public infor-
mation programs is provided in Chapter 7.
5.6.3.2 Terms of Service and Commercial
Arrangements
Any reclaimed water connection fees and rates associ-
ated with service should be addressed in an appropri-
ate rate ordinance passed by the local jurisdiction. Re-
claimed water rate ordinances should be separate from
those regulations that control reclaimed water use, and
may include an "escalator clause" or other means of
providing for regular increases proportional to the cost
of potable water in the local area. (See Chapter 6 for a
discussion of the development of the financial aspects
of water reuse fees and rates).
In addition to these considerations, it is often helpful to
establish various other terms of service that are par-
ticular to the water reuse program and its customers.
For example, the customer agreement may specify a
certain level of reliability that may or may not be com-
parable to that of the potable system. When reclaimed
water is used for an essential service, such as fire pro-
tection, a high degree of system reliability must be pro-
vided. However, if reclaimed water use is limited to irri-
gation, periodic shortages or service interruption may
be tolerable. The reclaimed water supplier may also wish
to retain the right to impose water use scheduling as a
means of managing shortages or controlling peak sys-
tem demands.
5.7 Case Studies
5.7.1 Statutory Mandate to Utilize
Reclaimed Water:
California
Underscoring the fact that potable water resources are
strained and in many cases reclaimed water represents
the next best supply, some states have integrated re-
claimed water into the codes and policies that govern
water resources in general. An example of such a case
from California is Article 7, Water Reuse from the Cali-
fornia Code of Regulations, Section 13550, Legislative
Findings and Declarations; Use of Potable Water for
Nonpotable Uses Prohibited.
a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the
use of potable domestic water for nonpotable uses,
including, but not limited to, cemeteries, golf
courses, parks, highway landscaped areas, and
industrial and irrigation uses, is a waste or an un-
reasonable use of the water within the meaning of
Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution
187
-------
b)
if reclaimed water is available which meets all of
the following conditions, as determined by the state
board, after notice to any person or entity who may
be ordered to use reclaimed water or to cease using
potable water and a hearing held pursuant to Article 2
(commencing with Section 648) of Chapter 1.5 of Divi-
sion 3 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations:
(1) The source of reclaimed water is of
adequate quality for these uses and is avail-
able for these uses. In determining ad-
equate quality, the state board shall con-
sider all relevant factors, including, but not
limited to, food and employee safety, and
level and types of specific constituents in
the reclaimed water affecting these uses,
on a user-by-user basis. In addition, the
state board shall consider the effect of the
use of reclaimed water in lieu of potable
water on the generation of hazardous waste
and on the quality of wastewater discharges
subject to regional, state, or federal permits.
(2) The reclaimed water may be furnished for
these uses at a reasonable cost to the user.
In determining reasonable cost, the state
board shall consider all relevant factors,
including, but not limited to, the present and
projected costs of supplying, delivering, and
treating potable domestic water for these
uses and the present and projected costs
of supplying and delivering reclaimed wa-
ter for these uses, and shall find that the
cost of supplying the treated reclaimed wa-
ter is comparable to, or less than, the cost
of supplying potable domestic water.
(3) After concurrence with the State Depart-
ment of Health Services, the use of re-
claimed water from the proposed source will
not be detrimental to public health.
(4) The use of reclaimed water for these uses
will not adversely affect downstream water
rights, will not degrade water quality, and is
determined not to be injurious to plant life,
fish, and wildlife.
In making the determination pursuant to subdivision
(a), the state board shall consider the impact of the
cost and quality of the nonpotable water on each in-
dividual user.
son subject to this article to furnish information, which
the state board determines to be relevant to making
the determination required in subdivision (a).
HISTORY: Added by Stats.1977, c. 1032, p. 3090,
Section 1, eff. Sept. 23, 1977. Amended by
Stats.1978, c. 380, p. 1205, Section 148;
Stats.1978, c. 894, p. 2821, Section 1, eff. Sept.
20, 1978; Stats.1991, c. 553 (A.B.174), Section 1.
c) The state board may require a public agency or per-
5.7.2 Administrative Order to Evaluate
Feasibility of Water Reclamation:
Fallbrook Sanitary District, Fallbrook,
California
In 1984 the California State Water Resources Control
Board considered a complaint filed by the Sierra Club
to enjoin an unreasonable use of water by a wastewa-
ter discharger (California State Water Resources Con-
trol Board Order 84-7). At issue was a permit issued by
the Board authorizing the Fallbrook Sanitary District to
discharge up to 1.6 mgd (6000 m3/d) of treated waste-
water to the ocean. The Sierra Club alleged that under
the circumstances, the discharge of the district's waste-
water to the ocean, where it cannot be recovered for
beneficial use, constitutes a waste of water.
Before a wastewater discharger can be required to re-
claim water, a determination must be made whether the
particular discharge constitutes a waste or unreason-
able use of water. Water Code Section 13550, with its
focus on prohibiting the use of potable water for
nonpotable applications, provided no guidance to the
State Board in this instance. Thus, in making its deter-
mination, the State Board sought guidance from the
state's constitutional prohibitions on waste and related
case law.
In keeping with the case law, which indicates that a rea-
sonable use of water today may be a waste of water at
some time in the future, the State Board ordered the
district, and all future applicants proposing a discharge
of once-used water into the ocean, to evaluate the fea-
sibility of reclaiming its wastewater. The State Board
insisted that water reclamation be carefully analyzed
as an alternative, or partial alternative, to the discharge
of once-used wastewater to the ocean in all water-short
areas of the state. In adopting its order, the State Board
recognized the requirements were consistent with the
Board's authority to conduct investigations and prevent
188
-------
waste of water (California Water Code).
the city boundaries.
Information provided by Cologne and Maclaggan (1995)
"Legal Aspects of Water Reclamation" in Wastewater
Reclamation and Reuse.
5.7.3 Reclaimed Water User Agreements
Instead of Ordinance:
Central Florida
While most reclaimed water systems with multiple us-
ers will require the adoption of a reclaimed water ordi-
nance, there may be cases where an ordinance is not
required, particularly when there are a limited number
of users in the system. An example would include the
provision of reclaimed water to several large agricul-
tural users where the need for control extends to only a
few parties. In such cases, it may be entirely appropri-
ate to handle the requirements of the supplier and the
users through a user agreement.
Orlando, Florida's reclaimed water program (in concert
with Orange County, Florida) began with about 20 cit-
rus growers under the Water Conserv II Irrigation Pro-
gram in 1986. Orlando/Orange County entered into a
20-year agreement with each of the growers, with the
agreement specifying the responsibilities of both the sup-
plier and the user. Each of these agreements was iden-
tical except for the volume of flow provision. The agree-
ment covered suppliers' contractual requirements includ-
ing "no cost" provision of reclaimed water, water quality
limits, minimum pressures, volume of water and deliv-
ery schedules, and indemnity provisions for third party
claims. From the users' side, the agreements addressed
issues such as requirements to take a certain volume
of water, transfer of land allowances, inspection require-
ments, and buyout provisions if the agreement was ter-
minated prior to the 20 year term. As Orlando's reclaimed
system grew, each of the users, either agricultural or
commercial, were required to enter into a user agree-
ment. For the commercial users, an agreement was
developed similar in some respects to the grower agree-
ment. These commercial agreements evolved over time,
but all contained the same basic requirements. For ex-
ample, each of them stated that the customer would
pay the user fee for the reclaimed water when such a
rate was established by the City. It was not until 2002
that the City elected to adopt monthly user rates with
the growth of the reclaimed system for single-family resi-
dences. These rates were implemented shortly after the
adoption of a reclaimed water ordinance, which gov-
erns all aspects of the reclaimed water system within
Clearly there are other examples of the need for a user
agreement when dealing with a larger customer. Or-
ange County, Florida, provides over 10 mgd (438 l/s) of
make-up water from its water reclamation facility to the
Curtis Stanton Energy Center. The Curtis Stanton En-
ergy Center, located on the east side of Orlando, is
owned by the Orlando Utilities Commission and pro-
vides electric power to the greater Orlando area. There
are unique aspects to the relationship between these 2
entities with respect to the supply of reclaimed water for
cooling purposes including stringent water quality re-
quirements, delivery schedules, fees, and means for
handling the blow-down water.
5.7.4 Interagency Agreement Required for
Water Reuse:
Monterey County Water Recycling
Project, Monterey, California
The Monterey County Water Recycling Project
(MCWRP) consists of a tertiary water recycling plant
and water distribution system. Since beginning opera-
tion in the spring of 1998, over 14 billion gallons (53
million m3) of reclaimed water have been produced for
irrigation of food crops such as artichokes, lettuce, cau-
liflower, celery, and strawberries. The project was de-
signed to reduce seawater intrusion along the north-
west portion of Monterey County (California) by using
reclaimed water instead of groundwater.
The reclaimed water is supplied by the regional waste-
water provider, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution
Control Agency (MRWPCA). However, the responsibil-
ity for water planning rests with the Monterey County
Water Resources Agency (MCWRA). Thus, 2 types of
agreements were required. The first was a contract be-
tween MRWPCA and MCWRA for the sale, disposition,
and operation of MCWRP. The second was a series of
ordinances between MCWRA and the growers that gov-
erned the providing of water for the end user. The focus
of this case study is on the contract between MRWPCA
and MCWRA.
The base agreement was signed in 1992 and contained
the following key provisions:
A. Project Ownership, Operation, and Maintenance
• The project will be owned and operated by
MRWPCA
• MRWPCA will be reimbursed for the actual
189
-------
cost of its operation
• MRWPCA will supply water on a daily basis
except for infrequent shut-downs
• Water will be provided in accordance with a
specified demand schedule
B. Maintenance of Water Quality
• Water produced will be suitable for irrigation
of food crops
• MRWPCA will monitor water quality
• Water Quality Committee, which includes lo-
cal growers, will be formed
C. Records and Audits
• Accounting system required that allocates
project costs
• Annual project audit required
D. Project Repairs and Maintenance
• Reserve for replacement established
• MCWRA will cover uninsured costs
E. Indemnification and Insurance
• Each party will hold each other harmless
from damages
• Types and amounts of project insurance are
defined
F. Term of Agreement/Dispute Resolution
• Provisions for extension of the Agreement
are defined
• Options to cancel/terminate are described
• Requirement to meet and confer in the case
of disputes
Three amendments to the agreement have been nego-
tiated in order to clarify the details of the agreement.
Overall, this contract has worked well.
5.7.5 Public/Private Partnership to Expand
Reuse Program:
The City of Orlando, Orange County
And The Private Sector - Orlando,
Florida
The Orange County National Golf Center (OCNGC) is
a unique and innovative public/private partnership
formed by Orange County, the City of Orlando, and
Team Classic Golf Services, Inc. The Orange County
National is one of the largest golf centers in the State
of Florida, devoted solely to golf and golf instruction.
The Orange County National Golf Course project rep-
resents an expansion of the successful Conserv II re-
use program jointly owned and operated by the City of
Orlando and Orange County, Florida. (See the case
study, 3.8.6 Water Conserv II Chapter 3 for additional
details.) The County and City purchased 660 acres (270
hectares) of additional land adjacent to 2 of its original
rapid infiltration basins (RIB) sites in the rolling hills of
west Orange County, originally intended solely for the
construction of new RIBs. Large RIB sites in this area
typically consist of a series of basins interspersed across
the site with large areas of open land between them. In
fact, RIBs typically occupy as little as 15 percent of the
site, with the remaining area being available for other
uses. Hoping to achieve multiple uses on the new lands,
the County commissioned a study to determine the fea-
sibility of building a municipal golf course. The results
of the feasibility study were very encouraging, and the
County and City agreed to pursue this option with the
County acting as the lead-contracting agency.
During a subsequent regulatory and permitting delay in
the RIB expansion program, an internationally renowned
golf instructor and course developer, Mr. Phil Ritson,
approached the Orange County Parks Department and
the Orange County Convention Center in search of land
to construct a public golf course. After considerable de-
bate, all parties agreed to investigate the feasibility of
co-locating RIBs and golf facilities on Conserv II prop-
erty owned jointly by the City and County.
Project planning for the golf course began in 1991. Us-
ing a four-step process, the team completed the follow-
ing before construction started: (1) a business feasibil-
ity plan; (2) a request for interested golf course devel-
opers; (3) a leasehold agreement; and (4) a capital-fi-
nancing plan. Each step was crucial and built on the
work of the previous steps.
The business feasibility study showed excess demand
for golf and high potential for a golf course develop-
ment. This analysis, along with the primary environmen-
tal concerns, such as protection of on-site wetlands
190
-------
acreage and a preliminary survey of threatened and en-
dangered species, was used to develop a request for
business proposals. In September 1993, after the City
and County had selected and approved Team Classic
Golf Services, Inc. as a partner, the difficult work began
- negotiating terms for the long-term lease, securing
financing for the deal, and setting up a team which would
work to the mutual benefit of all the partners. The major
breakthrough in the project came when Team Classic
acquired private sector financing totaling $51.5 million.
A public/private partnership was established through a
55 year leasehold agreement. Forming a partnership
with the municipal government and private sector par-
ties took 6 years from its conceptual and planning stages
until the start of construction.
In addition to RIBs, the OCNGC incorporated several
other environmental benefits. The site includes a num-
ber of isolated wetland areas that had been degraded
through lowered water tables and invasion of undesir-
able plant species. The combined golf course RIB and
surface water management system was designed to
restore and maintain more desirable water elevations,
and the invading plant species were removed and re-
placed by hand-planted native species appropriate to
the wetland type. The site was developed in a low-den-
sity layout, leaving natural upland habitat areas between
the golf holes.
Today, 54 holes of golf are open along with a 42-acre
(17-hectare) practice range and a 9-hole executive
course. The facilities also include a 33,000 square-foot
(3,070- m2) clubhouse, 50-room campus lodge, a Pro
Studio with 5,000 square feet (465 m2) of instructional
space, and an institute housing classrooms and admin-
istrative offices. It is estimated that private sector in-
vestment will exceed $100M at completion.
Accessibility has been increased through a multi-tiered
fee structure that provides reduced rates to Florida resi-
dents and even greater reductions for Orlando and Or-
ange County residents. Rent is paid to the City and
County in tiered lease payments tied to time and finan-
cial performance of the golf course development. As
the golf center is more successful, the lease payments
will increase.
University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences (I FAS) is using the site as part of a study, which
is co-funded by the County and City. The study is ex-
amining the effects of reclaimed water use on golf
courses, including the effects of fertilizer and pesticide
applications. The study results are being used to de-
velop best management practices for golf courses irri-
gated with reclaimed water.
5.7.6 Inspection of Reclaimed Water
Connections Protect Potable Water
Supply:
Pinellas County Utilities, Florida
Few things are more important than a safe, potable wa-
ter supply. Therefore, cross connection control must be
taken seriously and comprehensive inspections are ab-
solutely necessary to ensure the public's health. In ad-
dition, state and local ordinances and policies must be
thoroughly and uniformly enforced. This has become
even more important considering the potential threats
to our drinking water.
Pinellas County, Florida, began its Cross Connection
Control and Backflow Prevention Program in 1977. Ma-
jor improvements to the inspection process were imple-
mented in 1994 and 2002. Inspections have uncovered
remote hose bibs (to docks, etc.), hidden and/or forgot-
ten valves, and interconnections between the potable
and well systems with inexpensive and leaking ball or
gate valves.
Pinellas County requires that the reclaimed water con-
nection remain in the locked position and that the irriga-
tion system be separated until the day of inspection.
The owner, or their legal representative, must sign an
application (see copy following this case study) agree-
ing to use the reclaimed water for its intended purpose
and agreeing to inform future owners of these condi-
tions. Owners must schedule an inspection and are to
be present to operate the entire system. First, the in-
spector verifies that the backflow prevention device is
installed on the potable meter. Pinellas County inspec-
tors check all zones for potential cross-connections and
overspray into public waters, sidewalks, and roadways.
A "dry" run, with the potable source on and the reclaimed
source off, is then conducted. This helps to limit the pos-
sibility of reclaimed water entering the building. Certainly,
it is far less intrusive and more cost-effective than flush-
ing the potable plumbing system if a cross-connection
occurs. Then the "wet" run, with the reclaimed water
connected and the potable water supply turned off at
the meter, begins. This uncovers any remote connec-
tions and any cross-connections under the reclaimed
pressure. A1 -page report (see copy following this case
study) with a "point of disconnect" (POD) sketch is com-
pleted by the inspector. A reclaimed water curb marker
is glued to the curb indicating that the property has
passed the inspection. This information is then entered
into a database.
Initially, contractors who are unfamiliar with this process
have minor concerns about the length of time for this
inspection. Atypical, well-prepared residential property
191
-------
Pinellas County Utilities - STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
FOR RECLAIMED WATER CROSS-CONNECTION INSPECTIONS
1. The Pinellas County Utilities Inspector briefly explains the inspection procedure.
2. The Inspector asks the questions necessary to complete the Reclaimed Water Cross-Connection
Inspection form, and records the information on the form.
3. The Inspector checks to see if the reclaimed service line has been connected to the irrigation
system and checks to make sure that the reclaimed service valve is locked off.
4. The Inspector walks around the building, checking to make sure that all hose bibbs have water
flowing from them, and to see if a pressure relief valve is attached, that all reclaimed valve box
covers and exposed pipes located above ground (except risers for bush spray heads) are purple
in color from the factory or painted with Pantone Purple 522C (Florida Building Code - Plumbing
608.8; DEP 62-610.469(7)(f)) using light stable colorants, and that all sprinkler heads are attached.
5. The Inspector asks to see the Point of Disconnect (POD) from the potable, well, or other water
source.
6. The Inspector starts the Dry Run by having the Contractor or Homeowner operate each of the
solenoid valves, one zone at a time, and then checks to see if any other water source is being
used for irrigation.
7. The Inspector asks the Contractor or Homeowner to connect the irrigation system to the reclaimed
service line, and then unlocks the reclaimed water service valve.
8. The Inspector starts the Wet Run, by opening all hose bibbs and then closing the potable water
at the water meter and letting the hose bibbs completely drain. Next, the reclaimed water service
valve and the Homeowner's shut-off valve are opened, and each irrigation zone on the property
is run, one zone at a time. When each zone is fully pressurized, the Inspector checks each hose
bibb to make sure no water is coming out of them and also checks for over spray.
9. The Inspector turns the potable water back on and then turns off all of the hose bibbs.
10. The Inspector installs a Reclaimed Water curb marker on the curb or road edge.
11. The Inspector makes a drawing on the form, depicting the locations of buildings, streets, driveways,
sidewalks, POD, Pinellas County water meter, and the reclaimed box. Any areas with no irrigation
present are identified, and each component of the drawing is labeled. The location of the POD is
referenced by measurements taken at right angles to the building's walls.
12. The Inspector returns to the office and enters the information into the MAXIMO Work Management
computer program.
192
-------
Pinellas County Application for Reclaimed Water Service and Cross-Connection Inspection Forms
As reclaimed water service becomes more common, utilities create the forms required to keep track of customers
and address concerns critical to distribution of nonpotable water. The following forms present the application for
service and cross-connection inspection forms currently used by the Pinellas County Utilities in Florida.
Reclaimed Water
CROSS CONNECTION INSPECTION
PINELLAS COUNTY UTILITIES
6730 142nd Ave.N.
Largo, Fl. 33771
(727) 464-5849
CITY / SUB
MP
B) CROSS CONNECTION
YES
NO
OWNER/BUS. NAME
RESOLVED
YES D
NO
SERVICE ADDRESS
CC FORM
YES
NO
OWNER / BUS. PHONE |
TYPE OF CC
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL D
VACANT LOT D
Permit #
VVO#
C.I Reclaimed Meter Information NA l~~l
A) POTABLE METER INFORMATION |
1) NUMBER/SEE
1) METER NUMBER / SIZE
# OF METERS
2) MANUFACTURER
2) BACKFLOW DEVICE YgS D
NOD
TYPE:
3) READING BEFORE INSP.
3) PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE DVST YES C.I NO D
4) READING AFTER INSP.
4) PRVQIVEN TO CUSTOMER or CUSTOMER HAD YES D NO D
5) PRV PRE- DISTRIBUTED BY AREA
D) RECLAIMED WATER | RECLAIMED WATER CONNECTED PRIOR TO INSPECTION YES Q NO
1) RECLAIMED CONNECTION TO / IRRIGATION SYSTEM D IRRIGATION SYSTEM / HB
HOSE CONNECTION ONLY
2) IRRIGATION SYS / EXISTING D NEW D / NUMBER of ZONES
/ RAIN SENSOR INSTALLED D OPERABLE YES D NO
3) OWNER INSTALLED /_MASTER CONTROL VAJLVE YES D NO D NA d / VALVE BOX D / STRAINER YES D NO D NA D
4) WELL DISCONNECT: YBS D NO D NAD/ H.B. ON WELL YES D NO D NA D
5) RECLAIMED PIPE AND APPURTENANCES PAINTED PURPLE : YES
NO n
6) POTABLE WATER DISCONNECT : YES D NO [D NA
SECOND SOURCE OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION
7) CONTRACTOR Q OWNER Q PH #
YES D NO D
TYPE:
NAME
E) PRE-INSPECTION | YES D NOD
INSPECTOR :
TIME BEGIN
TIME ENDED
F) FIRST INSPECTION 1
1) APPROVED : YESG
NOQ
REASON :
BEGIN
END
TIME
3) INSP. SIGN
DATE
CALL#
G) SECOND INSPECTION (
1) APPROVED YES D
NO
REASON :
TIME
BEGIN
END
31 MSP- SIGN
DATE
CALL#
POD
YES D
NO D | FROM
1/7/03 imb
193
-------
PINELLAS COUNTY UTILITIES
Application for Reclaimed Water Service
D Residential
LJ Commercial
For Commercial Properties, a completed Irrigation Area Worksheet is required with this Application for Reclaimed Water
Owner's Full Name and Service Address Mailing Address (If different than service
Please Print in Ink Please Print in Ink
Daytime Phone: ( )
address)
Daytime Phone: ( )
Do you have an existing irrigation system? D Yes D No
If yes, what is your irrigation supply? D Well D County supplied drinking water D Surface water
D Irrigation system D Hose connection
I, the Applicant, have read and understand the County's Policies, Procedures and Regulations for Reclaimed
Water Service and agree to use reclaimed water for the purpose(s) described therein.
Upon transfer of owner or resident I will inform the new owner or tenants that the property is connected to
Reclaimed Water.
It is further agreed that the County or Pinellas County Public Health Unit shall have the right to enter the above
premises to inspect the reclaimed water piping and fittings: to discontinue County reclaimed water service, for
tampering with the service (includes meter and appurtenances), for cross-connections with another service or
water source, or for any other reason that may be detrimental to Pinellas County Utilities.
Terms of Application Accepted:
Print Name
Signature
Date
Send Completed Application To;
Pinellas County Utilities
Attn: Customer Service
14 S. Ft Harrison Ave.
i Clearwater, FL 33756
PLEASE RETURN ENTIRE THREE-PART APPLICATION
Your copy (with a Utilities Agent's signature) will be mailed to you
For Office Use Only
Account Number:_
Account Number:_
Received by:
PARCEL #:
Date:
(Utilities Agent)
/
SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE
SUB. NO. BLOCK
LOT
194
-------
inspection is completed in 45 to 60 minutes. Approxi-
mately 8,000 inspections have been conducted and
contractors work successfully with the County's experi-
enced inspectors.
Information provided by the Pinellas County Utilities De-
partment- Cross-Connection Control and Backflow Pre-
vention Program, 1998, Clearwater, Florida.
5.7.7 Oneida Indian Nation/Municipal/
State Coordination Leads to
Effluent Reuse:
Oneida Nation, New York
The Oneida Indian Nation is in a period of strong eco-
nomic growth. The cornerstone of its economic devel-
opment is the Turning Stone Casino Resort, the only
casino in New York State. The casino and other Nation
enterprises are located in an area of central New York
with limited water resources. The viability of future en-
terprise development is linked to the Nation's ability to
adequately meet its water supply and wastewater treat-
ment needs. For the Nation's planned golf course com-
plex, reclaimed water has been identified as a viable
water resource for irrigation water. Implementing water
reclamation required inter-governmental cooperation be-
tween the Nation and the reclaimed water supplier, the
City of Oneida. Regulatory or jurisdictional cooperation
between the New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the Nation also was
required because the Nation, being sovereign, is free
to establish its own environmental standards for its lands,
while the City is regulated by the NYSDEC. The project
was further complicated by the fact that the NYSDEC
does not have reclaimed water quality or treatment stan-
dards for unrestricted reuse.
An estimate of the peak irrigation demand for the
Nation's proposed golf course complex is 670,000 gpd
(2540 m3/d), which is well in excess of the potable wa-
ter allocation available to the Nation (150,000-250,000
gpd, 570-950 m3/d). Investigation of the area's water
resources identified the City of Oneida's wastewater
treatment plant as a water source. The City subsequently
agreed to support the Nation's concept for a water rec-
lamation project.
Reclaimed water use is not a common practice in New
York State. In fact, the state does not have reclaimed
water quality or treatment standards for either restricted
or unrestricted urban reuse. In the initial stages of the
project, a stakeholders meeting was held with repre-
sentatives of the Nation, the City, and the NYSDEC.
The environmental benefits of the project were dis-
cussed at this meeting - the reuse of a water resource,
the conservation of existing potable water supplies, and
reduced pollutant loads into Oneida Creek and, ulti-
mately, Oneida Lake, which is part of the Great Lakes
watershed. The Nation also made its position clear that
the NYSDEC had no jurisdiction over activities on Na-
tion land. The NYSDEC concurred with the Nation and
City's reclaimed project concept plan, and expressed
its basic support of the project. It outlined for the Nation
and the City the regulatory framework and procedural
steps for expediting the project.
To formally commit the City to the project, the City Coun-
cil and Mayor needed to pass a resolution to authorize
the technical staff of its Public Works Department to pro-
ceed with the project. The project team elected to use
one of the City's semi-monthly council meetings as the
forum to present the benefits of the project. Informa-
tional fact sheets were prepared for the meeting, which
described in simple terms what reclaimed water is, the
current uses of reclaimed water by other communities,
and the environmental benefits of reclaiming highly
treated wastewater. The fact sheets were distributed
before the meeting so that elected officials, the public,
and the news media could prepare questions before the
council meeting. Factual and candid information was
presented on water reclamation - its need in the overall
growth plans of the Nation, its environmental benefits
and, through its use, the conservation of limited potable
water supplies. The City Council unanimously approved
a resolution pledging the City's support and commitment
to cooperate with the Nation on this project.
The implementation phase of the project included the
following major milestones:
• Preparing a draft reuse agreement between the Na-
tion and the City
• Completing the State Environmental Quality Review
(SEQR) process to demonstrate the project's envi-
ronmental benefits and lack of significant negative
impacts
• Obtaining approval from the NYSDEC for a State
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
permit modification to allow the city to deliver its
treated water to the Nation's irrigation pond
• Completing a preliminary design of the project.
Each of these project aspects is discussed below:
Reuse Agreement - The agreement addresses re-
claimed water quality and characteristics. The City of
Oneida will be responsible for delivering to the Nation
195
-------
reclaimed water of sufficient quality to meet the require-
ments of the City's SPDES permit and target water qual-
ity conditions identified in the reuse agreement. While
the entire cost of constructing the project will be borne
by the Nation, the planned treatment and pumping sys-
tems will be installed at the City's wastewater treatment
plant site. The City will be responsible for operating the
reclaimed water system. As needed, the Nation will con-
tract with a third party for major maintenance and repair
work for the facilities and pipeline.
Other provisions of the agreement include easement
and usage rights to allow the City access to Nation land
to operate and monitor the reclaimed system, standard
conditions regarding good faith commitments, a limited
waiver of sovereign immunity for the purpose of imple-
menting and enforcing the agreement, indemnification,
notices, and amendments and assignments.
SEQR Review Process - The first step in the SEQR
process was for the City to formally request "lead
agency" status. This required sending a letter of notice,
along with a basic project description, to the potentially
interested agencies (including NYSDEC, County Depart-
ments of Health, EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, and
New York State Department of Transportation). After a
required 30-day public comment period, during which
no other agency challenged the City's lead agency re-
quest, the City became lead agency for SEQR purposes.
An environmental assessment of the project was com-
pleted and resulted in a recommendation to the City
Council that a "negative declaration" (akin to the "find-
ing of no significant impact" under NEPA) be declared.
As an "unlisted action," the project's SEQR conclusion
did not need any additional public comment period af-
ter the City's negative declaration.
SPDES Permit Modification - To deliver water to an
outfall location other than its permitted discharge point
(Oneida Creek), the NYSDEC required that the City com-
plete a SPDES permit modification request. Currently,
the permit application is under review by the NYSDEC.
It is anticipated that the City will obtain the permit modi-
fication with few exceptions to the proposed plan. Early
involvement and open communication with the NYSDEC
was a key success factor in preparing the application
based on specific guidance form the NYSDEC.
Preliminary Design - The design report addressed the
preliminary design criteria and basis of design for the
needed reclaimed water system components, including
operation and control strategies. The system design in-
cludes a provision that would allow the City to process
a portion of its secondary treated effluent through the
reclaimed system filter (i.e., providing tertiary treatment)
for discharge to the creek outfall in the event there is no
demand for reclaimed water. This provision would al-
low the City to discharge a higher quality water to the
creek, but it would not obligate the City to provide a
higher level of treatment than is now required by its ex-
isting permit. This provision is a secondary benefit, not
the driving force behind the project or future permit re-
quirements.
In New York State, where water reclamation is not com-
monly practiced, the Nation, the City of Oneida, the
NYSDEC and other local agencies collaborated in an
inter-governmental and multi-jurisdictional effort to make
this project possible. A key reason for the successful
collaboration was effective communication among all
project stakeholders. All involved parties shared the
conviction that the project was a win-win proposition for
the Nation, the City, and the environment. Early, two-
way communication that consistently focused on the
project's benefits resulted in full and unanimous sup-
port of the project at each of the legal decision-making
junctions.
5.7.8 Implementing Massachusetts' First
Golf Course Irrigation System
Utilizing Reclaimed Water:
Yarmouth, Massachusetts
For the first time in the Commonwealth of Massachu-
setts, reclaimed water is being used as the source wa-
ter to irrigate a golf course - The Links at Bayberry Hills,
which is owned and operated by the Town of Yarmouth.
This project required a team effort on the part of every-
one involved and many years to successfully implement.
The town developed a landfill closure/reuse plan that
provided for a 9-hole expansion of the adjacent town-
owned Bayberry Hills Golf Course with 7 of the 9 holes
located over the capped landfill. However, since the town
already needed additional drinking water supplies to
handle peak summer demands in this tourist commu-
nity, in the spring of 1996, the town began discussions
with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
about utilizing the effluent from the adjacent Yarmouth-
Dennis Septage Treatment Plant (STP) as the source
of irrigation water.
The Yarmouth-Dennis STP had an existing biological
treatment process followed by sand filtration and ultra-
violet (UV) light disinfection. The original facility was not
designed to meet stringent reclaimed water standards.
After evaluating several options it was determined that
the installation of an ozone treatment system prior to
196
-------
filtration was the most efficient option to meet the pro-
posed standards.
A reclaimed water sampling plan was developed in dis-
cussions with the DEP. A two-phase sampling program
was required. The phase 1 preliminary sampling pro-
gram was performed in conjunction with the start-up of
the new ozone treatment system and consisted of daily
fecal coliform testing and continuous turbidity monitor-
ing of the final effluent form the UV channel. Results of
the sampling indicated that the proposed fecal coliform
and turbidity standards could be attained. The phase 2
program consisted of comparing the results of influent
septage samples from the equalization tanks and final
effluent samples from the UV channel for the following
parameters: Enteric Viruses, Giardia and
Cryptosporidium, Heterotrophic Plate Counts (HPC),
Coliphage (Male-specific and Somatic), and Clostridium
perfingens. Results for these parameters indicated simi-
lar log removals with and without the ozone treatment.
Development of Groundwater Discharge Permit to
Use Reclaimed Water
The sampling programs were developed to convince
DEP that utilizing reclaimed water in Yarmouth was vi-
able and that the interim guidelines could be attained.
However, there were several steps necessary to acquire
the revised groundwater discharge permit for the project.
In total, it took 4 years to acquire the permit that finally
allowed the reclaimed water to be utilized. The first step,
which began in 1996, involved working closely with the
DEP to develop a means for permitting this type of facil-
ity; Massachusetts was one of the remaining states that
did not have guidelines or regulations for permitting re-
claimed water facilities. Ultimately, DEP issued a set of
"Interim Guidelines on Reclaimed Water" in May 1999
(Revised January 2000). These guidelines provided a
mechanism for permitting reclaimed water projects un-
der the DEP's groundwater discharge permit regulations.
A site hearing process allowed for a public comment
period regarding modifications to the existing Yarmouth-
Dennis STP groundwater discharge permit so that it
would include the reclaimed water and new application
site. Based on all the work that had been done leading
up to these events, there were very few comments re-
ceived and the new groundwater discharge permit was
issued on June 28, 2000.
DEP added some additional monitoring parameters to
the reclaimed water portion of the permit to help de-
velop a historical database of viral and pathogenic val-
ues. The MS2 Coliphage, a viral indicator, will be
sampled twice per month for the March through Novem-
ber use period, and can be tested using a fairly inex-
pensive means.
Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and Clostridium perfringens
will be sampled 4 times during the use period, which
involves expensive testing procedures that take weeks
to conduct. Although the reclaimed water is not to be
ingested, it is believed that DEP will utilize this data in
the future to develop an even greater confidence level
that the current stringent reclaimed water standards are
protective of public health.
Groundwater Protection Management Plan
Because of the unique way in which the reclaimed wa-
ter portion of the groundwater discharge permit was
written, the implementation of reclaimed water requires
close coordination between the treatment plant staff and
the golf course staff. Therefore, a Groundwater Protec-
tion Management Plan was developed to address these
coordination issues. The overall purpose of the plan is
to protect the area groundwater. To achieve that pur-
pose, the plan provides an understanding of the issues
involved and defines the responsibilities of the various
parties. The treatment plant staff are responsible for the
groundwater discharge permit compliance, which in-
cludes the reclaimed water applied as well as the water
collected in the underflow from the golf course. The golf
course staff are responsible for the operation and main-
tenance of the Links at Bayberry Hills. Thus, without
close coordination between the 2 parties, permit com-
pliance would be difficult.
Based on the coordination requirements and the unique-
ness of this golf course, there were 4 basic elements
addressed within the Groundwater Protection Manage-
ment Plan. The first element deals with the schedule for
using the reclaimed water. Town water will be used dur-
ing the spring months when the golf course staff will be
"waking the course up" with different fertilizer applica-
tions depending on the previous winter weather condi-
tions. This is also a period when the town can use its
own potable water supply. However, in the summer
months, when town water supplies are stretched, re-
claimed water will be used on the golf course. It is an-
ticipated this will occur beginning in July and will con-
tinue until November, or until the reclaimed water sup-
plies of up to 21 million gallons by permit are depleted.
The second element deals with the requirement for the
use of slow release fertilizers. The third element deals
with the need to reduce the quantity of commercially-
applied fertilizer when reclaimed water is in use. The
197
-------
fourth element addresses the coordination between the
treatment plant staff and the golf course staff so that
the above 3 elements are being done. Thus, an approval
form requiring the signature of both parties has been
developed for use prior to any fertilizer application on
the golf course.
It is believed that the Groundwater Protection Manage-
ment Plan addresses the key issues between the treat-
ment plant staff and the golf course staff so that, over
time, as personnel change, the Town of Yarmouth will
have an adequately maintained golf course and ad-
equately protected groundwater supplies. It will also pro-
vide the ability to comply with the reclaimed water per-
mit limits. Implementation of the reclaimed water project
for the Town of Yarmouth has been a challenge for all
parties involved due to its innovative nature for the Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts. However, all parties
worked together to find a way to get this project imple-
mented without compromising public health issues.
5.8
References
California Department of Water Resources Recycled
Water Task Force. White Paper of the Public Informa-
tion, Education and Outreach Workgroup on Better Pub-
lic Involvement in the Recycled Water Decision Process
(December, 2002 Draft).
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1984.
"In The Matter Of The Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter"
Order 84-7.
Cologne, Gordon and Peter MacLaggan. 1995. "Legal
Aspects of Water Reclamation" in Wastewater Recla-
mation And Reuse (ed. Takashi Asano) American Wa-
ter Works Association (Denver CO) ISBN: 1566763053
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 92-500,
33U.S.C. 1251-1387.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999.
"Water Resource Implementation Rule." Chapter 62-40,
Florida Administrative Code. Florida Department of En-
vironmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida.
Rosenblum, Eric. "Nonpotable Recycling in San Jose,
California Leads Silicon Valley Towards Sustainable
Water Use", Proceedings of the Advanced Wastewater
Treatment, Recycling and Reuse Conference, Milan,
Italy, September 14-16, 1998.
Sheikh, Bahman., E. Rosenblum. "Accounting for the
Benefits of Water Reuse," Proceedings, AWWA/WEF
1998 Water Reuse Conference (February, 1998)
State of California. 1998. "General Plan Guidelines",
Governor's Office of Planning and Research, (Novem-
ber, 1998), p.10. http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/
pub_org.html
State of Florida, Florida's Growth Management Act.
2002. Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Devel-
opment Act. Tallahassee, Florida.
State of Florida, Sunshine Law. 2002. Chapter 286,
Florida Statutes. Tallahassee, Florida.
Blalock Irrigation District vs. The City of Walla Walla
Case 18888 Decree. March 25, 1927.
Superior Court of the State of Washington. City of Walla
Walla vs. Blalock Irrigation District Case 54787 Decree.
September 28, 1971.
Water Reclamation and Reuse, Water Quality Manage-
ment Library Volume 10, edited by Takashi Asano, CRC
Press 1998.
Weinberg, E. and R.F. Allan. 1990. Federal Reserved
Water Rights. In: Water Rights of the Fifty States and
Territories, American Water Works Association, Den-
ver, Colorado.
198
-------
CHAPTER 6
Funding Water Reuse Systems
Like the development of other utilities, the implementa-
tion of reuse facilities generally requires a substantial
capital expense. Capital improvements at the wastewa-
ter treatment facility are normally required, but trans-
mission lines can also add significantly to capital costs.
In an urban setting, reuse lines must often be added to
the existing transmission infrastructure, requiring care-
ful construction processes. And unless agricultural, in-
dustrial, and recreational reuse sites are close to re-
claimed water sources, these sites will require new trans-
mission facilities as well.
In addition to the capital costs associated with reclaimed
water facilities, there are also additional operation, main-
tenance, and replacement (OM& R) costs, including those
associated with power and water quality monitoring, as
well as administrative costs, such as customer billing.
And, in almost all cases, implementation of a reuse sys-
tem involves enhanced cross-connection programs with
an associated increase in cost. These costs are typi-
cally calculated into a reclaimed water rate, expressed
either as a gallonage charge or a fixed monthly fee. Even
in situations where reclaimed water systems are devel-
oped in response to effluent disposal needs and custom-
ers are encouraged to make use of an "unlimited" supply
at little to no charge, provisions should still be made for
the day when conservation of the reclaimed water supply
will be required. Another factor impacting costs is the
potential drop in revenues associated with a reduction in
potable water use after implementation of a reuse sys-
tem. This loss of revenue can be particularly challenging
if the water and wastewater systems are owned by differ-
ent utilities. Consequently, multiple financial alternatives
should be investigated to fund a reclaimed water sys-
tem.
6.1
Decision Making Tools
To clarify the issues to be discussed, some general terms
are defined as follows:
• Cost-Effectiveness - the analysis of alternatives us-
ing an effectiveness scale as a measurement con-
cept. EPA formulated "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Guidelines" as part of its Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E, Appendix
A). This technique requires the establishment of a
single base criterion for evaluation, such as annual
water production of a specific quality expressed as
an increase in supply or decrease in demand. Al-
ternatives are ranked according to their ability to
produce the same result. The alternatives can in-
clude such factors as their impact on quality of life,
environmental effects, etc. which are not factored
into a cost/benefit analysis.
• Cost/Benefit - the relationship between the cost of
resources and the benefits expected to be realized
using a discounted cash-flow technique. Non-mon-
etary issues are not factored into these calculations.
• Financial Feasibility - the ability to finance both the
capital costs and OM&R costs through locally raised
funds. Examples of revenue sources include user
fees, bonds, taxes, grants, and general utility oper-
ating revenues.
In the context of these definitions, the first analysis to
be performed when considering a reuse system would
be a cost-effectiveness analysis. This involves analyz-
ing the relevant costs and benefits of providing addi-
tional water from fresh water sources versus reclaimed
water.
Benefits that can be considered include:
• Environmental - the reduction of nutrient-rich efflu-
ent discharges to surface waters
- the conservation of fresh water supplies
- reduction of saltwater intrusion
199
-------
• Economic - delay in or avoidance of expanding ex-
isting water supply and treatment facilities
• Delay in, or elimination of, enhancements to the ex-
isting potable water treatment systems
• Delay in, or elimination of, enhancements to the ex-
isting wastewater treatment systems
Shared benefits should also be considered. For instance,
if a benefit is received by water customers from a delay
in expanding the water supply (deferred rate increase),
a portion of reclaimed water costs could be shared by
existing and future water customers. A similar analysis
can also be made for wastewater customers who ben-
efit from a delay in, or elimination of, increased levels of
treatment associated with more stringent discharge lim-
its.
The cost/benefit analyses are conducted once feasible
alternatives are selected. The emphasis of these analy-
ses is on defining the economic impact of the project on
various classes of users, (e.g., industrial, commercial,
residential, agricultural). The importance of this step is
that it relates the marketability of reuse relative to alter-
native sources, based on the end use. To elaborate, given
the cost of supplying reclaimed water versus fresh water
for urban use, what is the relationship of water demand
to price, given both abundant and scarce resources? The
present worth value of the benefits are compared to de-
termine whether the project is economically justified and/
or feasible. As part of meeting a requirement to secure a
100-year water supply, an expansion of the reuse sys-
tem was found to be more cost-effective than traditional
effluent disposal coupled with increasing water supplies
(Grayefa/., 1996).
Finally, financial feasibility determines whether sufficient
financial resources can be generated to construct and
operate the required reclamation facilities. Specific fi-
nancial resources available will be explained in subsec-
tions 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4.
6.2 Externally Generated Funding
Alternatives
It is difficult to create a totally self-supporting reuse pro-
gram financed solely by reclaimed water user fees. To
satisfy the capital requirements for implementation of a
reuse program, the majority of the construction and re-
lated capital costs are often financed through long-term
water and wastewater revenue bonds, which spread the
cost over multiple decades. Supplemental funds may be
provided by grants, developer contributions, etc., to miti-
gate or offset the annual revenue requirement. The vari-
ous externally generated capital funding source alterna-
tives include:
• Local Government Tax-Exempt Bonds - The total
capital cost of construction activities for a reuse
project could be financed from the sale of long-term
(20-30 year) bonds.
• Grants and State Revolving Fund (SRF) Programs -
Capital needs could be funded partially through state
or local grants programs or through SRF loans, par-
ticularly those programs designed specifically to sup-
port reuse.
• Capital Contribution - At times, there are special agree-
ments reached with developers or industrial users,
requiring the contribution of either assets or money
to offset the costs of a particular project.
6.2.1 Local Government Tax-Exempt
Bonds
A major source of capital financing for local governments
is to assume debt - that is, to borrow money by selling
municipal bonds, which enables the municipality to
spread the cost of the project over many years. This
approach reduces the annual amount that must be
raised as compared to funding the entire capital project
on a "pay-as-you-go" basis from rate revenues. With
many water reclamation projects, local community sup-
port will be required to finance the project. If revenue
bond financing is used, this matches the revenue stream
from the use of reclaimed facilities with the costs of the
debt used for construction, but does not normally re-
quire voter approval. However, voter approval may be
required for general obligation bonds. The types of bonds
commonly used for financing public works projects are:
• General Obligation Bonds - Repaid through col-
lected general property taxes or service charge rev-
enues, and generally require a referendum vote.
Underlying credit support is the full faith taxation
power of the issuing entity.
• Special Assessment Bonds - Repaid from the re-
ceipts of special benefit assessments to properties
(and in most cases, backed by property liens if not
paid by property owners). Underlying credit support
is the property tax liens on the specially benefited
properties.
• Revenue Bonds - Repaid through user fees and
service charges derived from operating reuse facili-
ties (useful in regional or sub-regional projects be-
cause revenues can be collected from outside the
200
-------
geographical limits of the borrower). Underlying credit
support is the pledged revenues, such as user fees
or special charges.
• Short-Term Notes - Usually repaid through general
obligation or revenue bonds. These are typically
used as a method of construction or interim financ-
ing until they can be incorporated into the long-term
debt.
The local government must substantiate projections of
the required capital outlay, of the anticipated OM&R
costs, of the revenue-generating activities (i.e., the user
charge system, etc.), and of the "coverage" anticipated
- that is, the extent to which anticipated revenues will
more than cover the anticipated capital and OM&R costs.
A local government finance director, underwriter, or fi-
nancial advisor can describe the requirements to justify
the technical and economic feasibility of the reuse project.
Since reuse facilities are often operated as part of a wa-
ter and wastewater utility fund, bonds issued will prob-
ably be issued by the combined utility and thus any fi-
nancial information presented will be for a combined en-
terprise fund. The reuse operation will most likely not
have to stand alone as a self-sufficient operation and will
appear financially stronger.
6.2.2 State and Federal Financial
Assistance
Where available, grant programs are an attractive fund-
ing source, but require that the proposed system meets
grant eligibility requirements. These programs reduce
the total capital cost borne by system beneficiaries thus
improving the affordability and viability of the project.
Some funding agencies have an increasingly active role
in facilitating water reuse projects. In addition, many
funding agencies are receiving a clear legislative and
executive mandate to encourage water reuse in sup-
port of water conservation.
To be financially successful over time, a reuse program,
however, must be able to "pay for itself." While grant
funds may underwrite portions of the capital improve-
ments necessary in a reuse project - and in a few states,
state-supported subsidies can also help a program to
establish itself in early years of operation - grant funds
should not be expanded for funding needs associated
with annual operating costs. In fact, most federally- funded
grant and loan programs explicitly prohibit the funding of
OM&R costs. Once the project is underway, the program
should strive to achieve self-sufficiency as quickly as
possible - meeting OM&R costs and debt service re-
quirements of the local share of capital costs by gener-
ating an adequate stream of revenues through local
sources.
6.2.2.1 State Revolving Fund
The SRF is a financial assistance program established
and managed by the states under general EPA guidance
and regulations and funded jointly by the federal govern-
ment (80 percent) and state matching money (20 per-
cent). It is designed to provide financial assistance to
local agencies to construct water pollution control facili-
ties and to implement non-point source, groundwater, and
estuary management activities, as well as potable water
facilities.
Under SRF, states make low-interest loans to local agen-
cies. Interest rates are set by the states and must be
below current market rates and may be as low as 0 per-
cent. The amount of such loans may be up to 100 per-
cent of the cost of eligible facilities. Loan repayments
must begin within 1 year after completion of the facility
and must be completely amortized in 20 years. Repay-
ments are deposited back into the SRF to be loaned to
other agencies. The cash balance in the SRF may be
invested to earn interest, which must accrue to the SRF.
States may establish eligibility criteria within the broad
limits of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF). Basic eligible facilities include secondary and
advanced treatment plants, pump stations, and force
mains needed to achieve and maintain NPDES permit
limits. States may also allow for eligible collection sew-
ers, combined sewer overflow correction, stormwater fa-
cilities, and the purchase of land that is a functional part
of the treatment process.
Water conservation and reuse projects eligible under the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) include
installation of meters, installation or retrofit of water effi-
cient devices such as plumbing fixtures and appliances,
implementation of incentive programs to conserve water
(e.g., rebates, tax breaks, vouchers, conservation rate
structures), and installation of dual-pipe distribution sys-
tems as a means of lowering costs of treating water to
potable standards.
In addition to providing loans to water systems for water
conservation and reuse, states can use their DWSRF
set-aside funds to promote water efficiency through ac-
tivities such as: development of water conservation plans,
technical assistance to systems on how to conserve water
(e.g., water audits, leak detection, rate structure consul-
tation), development and implementa-
201
-------
tion of ordinances or regulations to conserve water,
drought monitoring, and development and implementa-
tion of incentive programs or public education programs
on conservation.
States select projects for funding based on a priority sys-
tem, which is developed annually and must be subjected
to public review. Such priority systems are typically struc-
tured to achieve the policy goals of the state and may
range from "readiness to proceed" to very specific water
quality or geographic area objectives. Each state was
allowed to write its own program regulations for SRF fund-
ing, driven by its own objectives. Some states, such as
Virginia, provide assistance based on assessing the
community's economic health, with poorer areas being
more heavily subsidized with lower interest loans.
Further information on the SRF program is available from
each state's water pollution control agency.
6.2.2.2 Federal Policy
The Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, supports
water reuse projects through the following provisions:
• 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 201 facility
plan study must be completed to qualify for state
revolving loan funds.
• Section 214 stipulates that the EPA administrator
"shall develop and operate a continuing program of
public information and education on water reclama-
tion and reuse of wastewater. . ."
• Section 313, which describes pollution control ac-
tivities at federal facilities, was amended to ensure
that wastewater treatment facilities will utilize "re-
cycle and reuse techniques: if estimated life-cycle
costs for such techniques are within 15 percent of
the most cost-effective alternative."
6.2.2.3
Other Federal Sources
There are a number of federal sources that might be
used to generate funds for a water reuse project. While
there are many funding sources, only certain types of
applicants or projects are eligible for assistance under
each program.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has sev-
eral programs that may provide financial assistance for
water reuse projects in rural areas, but the definition of
a rural area varies depending upon the statutory lan-
guage authorizing the program. Most of these programs
are administered through the USDA Rural Development
Office in each state.
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) offers funds through the
Water and Waste Program, in the form of loans, grants,
and loan guarantees. The largest is the Water and Waste
Loan and Grant Program, with approximately $1.5 billion
available nationwide per year. This program offers finan-
cial assistance to public bodies, eligible not-for-profits
and recognized tribal entities for development (including
construction and non-construction costs) of water and
wastewater infrastructure. Unincorporated areas are typi-
cally eligible, as are communities with less than 10,000
people. Grants may be available to communities meet-
ing income limits to bring user rates down to a level that
is reasonable for the serviced population. Interest rates
for loan assistance depend on income levels in the served
areas as well. The Rural Development offices act to over-
see the RUS-funded projects from initial application until
the operational stage.
Other Rural Development programs are offered by the
Rural Housing Service and the Rural Business-Coopera-
tive Service. Rural Housing Service offers the Commu-
nity Facilities Program that may fund a variety of projects
for public bodies, eligible not-for-profits, and recognized
tribal entities where the project serves the community.
This includes utility projects and may potentially include
a water reuse project, if proper justification is provided.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service offers the Ru-
ral Business Enterprise Grant program to assist grant-
ees in designing and constructing public works projects.
A water reuse system serving a business or industrial
park could potentially receive grant assistance through
this program. An individual eligible business could apply
for loan guarantees through the Rural Business-Coop-
erative Service to help finance a water reuse system
that would support the creation of jobs in a rural area.
Other agencies that have funded projects in cooperation
with USDA may provide assistance for water reuse
projects if eligibility requirements are met include the
Economic Development Administration, Housing and
Urban Development (Community Development Block
Grant), Appalachian Regional Commission, and the
Delta Regional Commission.
Finally, the Bureau of Reclamation, authorized under
Title XVI, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwa-
ter Study and Facilities Act; PL 102-575, as amended,
Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of
1996; PL 104-266, Oregon Public Lands Transfer and
Protection Act of 1998; PL 105-321, and the Hawaii
202
-------
Water Resources Act of 2000; PL 106-566, provides for
the Bureau to conduct appraisal and feasibility studies
on water reclamation and reuse projects. The Bureau
can then fund construction of reuse projects after Con-
gressional approval of the appropriation. This funding
source is restricted to activities in the 17 western states
unless otherwise authorized by Congress. Federal par-
ticipation is generally up to 25 percent of the capital cost.
Information about specific funding sources can be found
in the Catalog of Federal and Domestic Assistance, pre-
pared by the Federal Office of Management and Bud-
get and available in federal depository libraries. It is the
most comprehensive compilation of the types and
sources of funding available.
6.2.2.4 State, Regional, and Local Grant and
Loan Support
State support is generally available for wastewater treat-
ment facilities, water reclamation facilities, conveyance
facilities, and, under certain conditions, for on-site distri-
bution systems. A prime source of state-supported fund-
ing is provided through SRF loans.
Although the number of states that have developed other
financial assistance programs that could be used for
reuse projects is still limited, there are a few examples.
Texas has developed a financial assistance program
that includes the Agriculture Water Conservation Grants
and Loans Program, the Water Research Grant Pro-
gram, and the Rural Water Assistance Fund Program.
There is also a planning grant program - Regional Fa-
cility Planning Grant Program and Regional Water Plan-
ning Group Grants - that funds studies and planning
activities to evaluate and determine the most feasible
alternatives to meet regional water supply and waste-
water facility needs.
Local or regional agencies, such as the regional water
management districts in Florida, have taxing authority.
In Florida, a portion of the taxes collected has been allo-
cated to the funding of alternative water sources includ-
ing reuse projects, which have been given a high priority,
with as much as 50 percent of a project's transmission
system eligible for grant funding. Various methods of
prioritization exist, with emphasis on those projects that
are of benefit to multi-jurisdictional users.
The State of Washington began its process of address-
ing water reclamation and reuse issues by passing the
Reclaimed Water Act of 1992. In 1997, the State Legis-
lature provided $10 million from the Centennial Clean Wa-
ter Fund to help fund 5 demonstration projects. These
projects have been completed and are currently provid-
ing reclaimed water for a variety of non-potable uses.
A comprehensive water reuse study in California con-
cluded that funding was the primary constraint in imple-
menting new water reuse projects (California State Wa-
ter Resources Control Board, 1991).
To assist with the financial burden, grant funds are now
available from the California Department of Water Re-
sources for water conservation and groundwater man-
agement. Proposition 13 Safe Drinking Water, Clean
Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Bond
Act provides funds for:
• Agriculture water conservation capital outlay
• Groundwater recharge construction loans
• Groundwater storage construction grants
• Infrastructure rehabilitation feasibility study grants
• Infrastructure rehabilitation construction grants
• Urban streams restoration program grants
• Urban water conservation capital outlay grants
AB303, the Local Groundwater Management Assistance
Act of 2000, also provides grants. Funds have been used
by Daly City, California to develop a groundwater-moni-
toring program and to refine models of the Westside Ba-
sin aquifer.
The passage of California's Proposition 50 in November
2002 makes funds available for projects to "protect ur-
ban communities from drought, increase supplies of clean
drinking water, reduce dependence on imported water,
reduce pollution of rivers, lakes, streams, and coastal
waters, and provide habitat for fish and wildlife." This
includes financing for "groundwater recharge and man-
agement projects." The State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
have played major roles in providing capital funding for
local projects.
6.2.3
Capital Contributions
In certain circumstances, where reclaimed water is to be
used for a specific purpose, such as cooling water, it
may be possible to obtain the capital financing for new
transmission facilities directly from one or more major
users that benefit from the available reclaimed water
supply.
203
-------
One example of such a capital contribution would be con-
struction of a major reuse transmission line by a devel-
oper who then transfers ownership to the utility for opera-
tion and maintenance. Another example is a residential
housing developer, golf course, or industrial user who
may provide the pipeline, financing for the pipeline, or
provide for a pro-rata share of construction costs for a
specific pipeline. In the event the private entity initially
bears the entire capital cost of the improvement, such
an approach may include provisions for reimbursement
to the entity from future connections to the contributed
facility for a specified period of time.
6.3 Internally Generated Funding
Alternatives
While the preceding financing alternatives describe the
means of generating construction capital, there is also
a need to provide funding for OM&R costs, as well as
debt service on borrowed funds. Examples of various
internally-generated funding sources are highlighted, with
details, in the following subsections.
In most cases, a combination of several funding sources
will be used to recover capital and OM&R costs. The
following alternatives may exist for funding water reuse
programs.
• Reclaimed water user charges
• Operating budget and cash reserves of the utility
• Local property taxes and existing water and waste-
water user charges
• Public utility tax
• Special assessments or special tax districts
• Connection fees
The City of Reno, Nevada, used a combination of spe-
cial assessment districts bonds, revenue bonds, devel-
oper agreements, connection fee charges, user fees,
and general fund advances as part of the creation of its
reclaimed water system (Collins, 2000).
6.3.1 Reclaimed Water User Charges
The first source of funding considered should be a
charge to those receiving reclaimed water services. As
noted in the introduction, reclaimed water systems may
well begin life as effluent disposal programs. Under such
circumstances, reclaimed water "customers" are likely
to be encouraged to use as much water as they want. A
negligible fee may have been adopted to support the "all
you can use" mentality. Very often a fixed rate will be
used to simplify billing and eliminate penalties for over-
use in the form of increased costs. While such an ap-
proach may seem to be justified when a project begins,
this rationale for basing user fees falls by the wayside as
water resources become stressed and reclaimed water
supplies become a valuable resource. User charges would
be utilized to generate a stream of revenues with which
to defray the OM&R costs of the reuse facility and the
debt service of any bonds or loans issued.
In a reclaimed water user charge system, the intent of
an equitable rate policy is to allocate the cost of provid-
ing reuse services to the recipient. With a user charge
system, it is implicit that there be select and identifiable
user categories to which the costs of treatment and dis-
tribution can be allocated.
There are 2 prime means of allocating costs that are to
be incorporated into a user charge: the proportionate share
cost basis and the incremental cost basis. These 2 meth-
ods are discussed in more detail in Section 6.4.
Determining an equitable rate policy requires consider-
ation of the different service needs of individual resi-
dential users (single-family and multi-family) as compared
to other "larger" users with bigger irrigable areas, such as
golf courses and green spaces. In many cases, a lower
user rate can be justified for such large users than for
residential customers. As an example, large users may
receive reclaimed water into on-site storage facilities and
then subsequently repump the water into the irrigation
system, enabling the supplier to deliver the reclaimed
water, independent of daily peak demands, using low-
pressure pumps rather than providing high-pressure de-
livery on demand as required by residential users. Some
multi-family customers may be treated as "large" users
under this example, unless the reclaimed water is deliv-
ered at high pressure directly into the irrigation system.
This flexibility in delivery and the low-pressure require-
ments can often justify the lower rate. At the same time,
keeping reclaimed water rates competitive for large us-
ers when considering alternative sources of water, such
as groundwater, is another consideration.
The degree of income from other sources, such as the
general fund and other utility funds, must be consid-
ered in determining the balance of funding that must come
from reuse rates. Residential user fees must be set to
make water reuse an attractive option to potable water or
groundwater. Alternatively, local regulations can prescribe
that reclaimed water must be used for irrigation and other
outdoor nonpotable uses in areas where it is available so
usage becomes less sensitive to pricing. Although re-
204
-------
claimed water may have to be priced below potable wa-
ter to encourage its use, reuse rates may also be set to
discourage indiscriminate use by instituting volume (per
gallon) charges rather than a flat fee; however, as re-
claimed water has become recognized as an increas-
ingly valuable element of an overall water resources plan,
the trend is to meter reuse consumption to better monitor
and control its use.
6.3.2 Operating Budget and Cash
Reserves
Activities associated with the planning and possible pre-
liminary design of reuse facilities could be funded out of
an existing wastewater utility/department operating bud-
get. A water supply agency seeking to expand its water
resources would find it appropriate to apply a portion of
its operating funds in a similar way. It could be appro-
priate, for example, to utilize funds from the operating
budget for planning activities or business costs associ-
ated with assessing the reuse opportunity. Furthermore,
if cash reserves are accruing for unspecified future capi-
tal projects, those funds could be used for design and
construction costs, or a portion of the operating revenues
from utility revenues can be set aside in a cash reserve
for future needs.
The obvious advantage of using this alternative source
of funding is that the utility board or governing body of
the water and/or wastewater department or utility can
act on its own initiative to allocate the necessary re-
sources. These sources are especially practical when
relatively limited expenditures are anticipated to imple-
ment or initiate the reuse program, or when the reuse
project will provide a general benefit to the entire com-
munity (as represented by the present customers of the
utility). In addition, utilizing such resources is practical
when the reclaimed water will be distributed at little or
no cost to the users, and therefore, will generate no
future stream of revenues to repay the cost of the project.
While it is ideal to fully recover all direct costs of each
utility service from customers, it may not be practical
during the early phases of a reuse system implementa-
tion.
6.3.3 Property Taxes and Existing User
Charges
If the resources available in the operating budget or the
cash reserves of the utility are not sufficient to cover
the necessary system, OM&R activities, and capital fi-
nancing debt, then another funding source to consider
is revenues generated by increasing existing levies or
charges. If some utility costs are currently funded with
property taxes, levies could be increased and the new
revenues designated for expenses associated with the
reuse project. Similarly, the user charge currently paid
for water and wastewater services could be increased.
Like using the operating budget or cash reserves, the
use of property taxes or user charges may be desirable
if the expenditures for the project are not anticipated to
be sizable or if a general benefit accrues to the entire
community.
Ad valorem property taxes, unlike user charges, raise
funds on the basis of assessed value of all taxable prop-
erty, including residential, commercial, and industrial.
Property value can be an appropriate means of allocat-
ing the costs of the service improvements if there is a
"general good" to the community. It is also a useful
means of allocating the cost of debt service for a project
in which there is general good to the community and in
which the specific OM&R costs are allocated to the di-
rect beneficiaries. A contribution of ad valorem prop-
erty tax revenues might be appropriate for such reuse
applications as:
• Irrigation of municipal landscaping
• Fire protection
• Water for flushing sewers
• Groundwater recharge for saltwater intrusion
barriers
• Parks and recreational facility irrigation
All such projects have benefits, either to the residents
of the municipality in general, or to those who can be
isolated in an identifiable special district.
Resources generated by increasing any existing user
charges can be used in a similar manner. However, to
do so equitably, 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 treatment facilities or a new
water supply source.
Contributions from the water and wastewater systems
may be warranted whenever there is a reduction in the
average day or peak day water demand or when the
reuse system serves as a means of effluent disposal
for the wastewater system. The City of St. Petersburg,
Florida, for example, provides as much as 50 percent of
the urban reuse system operations costs from water and
wastewater system funds. The significant reduction in
potable water demand achieved through water reuse has
205
-------
allowed the City to postpone expansion of its water treat-
ment plant.
6.3.4
Public Utility Tax
The State of Washington took a rather innovative ap-
proach to funding when it passed a major water bill in
2001. The new law addresses several key areas in water
resource management, including an incentive program
to promote conservation and distribution of reclaimed
water. The Public Utility Tax (Chapter 82.16 Revised Code
of Washington) is levied on gross income of publicly and
privately-owned utilities. The incentive program (Chapter
237), which exempts 75 percent of the amounts received
for reclaimed water services for commercial and indus-
trial uses, also allows reclaimed water utilities to deduct
from gross income 75 percent of amounts expended to
improve consumer water use efficiency or to otherwise
reduce the use of water by the consumer. (Focus, Wash-
ington State Department of Ecology, August 2001) Ex-
amples of eligible measures are:
• Measures that encourage the use of reclaimed water
in lieu of drinking water for landscape or crop irriga-
tion
• Measures that encourage the use of moisture sen-
sors, flow timers, low-volume sprinklers, or drip irri-
gation for efficiencies in reclaimed water use
Many variations on this incentive theme could be
adopted by states, such as imposing a utility tax directly
on large water users and granting exemptions for re-
claimed water use.
6.3.5 Special Assessments or Special Tax
Districts
When a reuse program is designed to be a self-sup-
porting enterprise system, independent of both the ex-
isting water and wastewater utility systems, it may be
appropriate to develop a special tax or assessment dis-
trict to recover capital costs directly from the benefited
properties. The advantage of this cost recovery mecha-
nism is that it can be tailored to collect the costs appro-
priate to the benefits received. The City of Cape Coral,
Florida, is one example of an area using special as-
sessments to fund dual-water piping capital costs for fire
protection and irrigation water. This special assessment
was levied at an approximate cost of $1,600 per single-
family residence with financing over 8 years at 8 percent
annual interest. In addition, a monthly user charge is also
applied to the water and wastewater billing to assist in
defraying operating costs.
Special assessments may be based on lot front footage,
lot square footage, or estimated gallon use relative to
specific customer types. This revenue alternative is es-
pecially relevant if the existing debt for water and waste-
water precludes the ability to support a reuse program,
or if the area to be served is an independent service area
with no jurisdictional control over the water or wastewa-
ter systems. The implementation of reclaimed water sys-
tems will reduce potable water consumption, correspond-
ing to a reduction of revenues. This must be factored
into the funding analysis.
6.3.6
Impact Fees
Impact fees, or capacity fees, are a means of collecting
the costs of constructing an infrastructure element, such
as water, wastewater, or reuse facilities, from those new
customers benefiting from the service. Impact fees col-
lected may be used to generate construction capital or
to repay borrowed funds. Frequently, these fees are used
to generate an equitable basis for cost recovery between
customers connecting to the system in the early years
of a program and those connecting in the later years.
The carrying costs (interest expenses) are generally not
fully recovered through the impact fee, although annual
increases above a base cost do provide equity between
groups connecting in the early years and those in later
years.
Impact fees for water reuse systems are implemented
at the discretion of the governing body. However, re-
quiring a fee to be paid upon applying for service prior
to construction can provide a strong indication of public
willingness to participate in the reuse program. Incen-
tive programs can be implemented in conjunction with
impact fees by waiving the fee for those users who make
an early commitment to connect to the reclaimed water
system (e.g., for the first 90 days after construction
completion) and collecting the fee from later connec-
tions.
6.4 Incremental Versus Proportionate
Share Costs
6.4.1 Incremental Cost Basis
The incremental cost basis allocates only the marginal
costs of providing service to the customer. This system
can be used if the community feels that the marginal
reclaimed water user is performing a social good by con-
serving potable water, and should be allocated only the
additional increment of cost of the service. However, if
the total cost savings realized by reuse are being en-
joyed only by the marginal user, then in effect, the rest of
the community is subsidizing the service. For example,
206
-------
an ocean outfall used as the primary means of effluent
disposal could be tapped and reclaimed water mains ex-
tended to provide irrigation to one or more developments
in an area that formerly used potable water. In this ex-
ample, it may be appropriate to charge the developments
only for the cost of installing the additional mains plus
any additional treatment that might be required.
6.4.2
Proportionate Share Cost Basis
Under the commonly used proportionate share basis, the
total costs of the facilities are shared by the parties in
proportion to their usage. In apportioning the costs, con-
sideration must be given to the quantity and quality of the
water, the reserve capacity that must be maintained, and
the use of any joint facilities, particularly means of con-
veyance. In determining the eventual cost of reuse to the
customer base, the apportionment of costs among waste-
water users, potable water users, and reclaimed water
users must be examined. The allocation of costs among
users also must consider the willingness of the local com-
munity to subsidize a reuse program.
A proportional allocation of costs can be reflected in the
following equations:
Total wastewater service =
Total potable water service =
wastewater treatment
to permitted disposal
standards + effluent
disposal + transmis-
sion + collection
water treatment + wa-
ter supply + transmis-
sion + distribution
Total reclaimed water service = [reclaimed water treat-
ment - treatment to
permitted disposal
standards] + additional
transmission + addi-
tional distribution + ad-
ditional storage
These equations illustrate an example of distributing the
full costs of each service to the appropriate system and
users. The first equation distributes only the cost of treat-
ing wastewater to currently required disposal standards,
with any additional costs for higher levels of treatment,
such as filtration, coagulation, or disinfection, assigned
to the cost of reclaimed water service. In the event that
the cost of wastewater treatment is lowered by the re-
use alternative because current effluent disposal stan-
dards are more stringent than those required for the
reuse system, the credit accrues to the total cost of re-
claimed water service. This could occur, for example, if
treatment for nutrient removal had been required for a
surface water discharge but would not be necessary for
agricultural reuse.
As previously noted, because reclaimed water is a dif-
ferent product from potable water and has restrictions on
its use, it may be considered a separate, lower valued
class of water and priced below potable water. Thus, it
may be important that the user charges for reuse be be-
low, or at least competitive with, those for potable water
service. However, often the current costs of construct-
ing reuse facilities cannot compete with the historical
costs of an existing potable water system. One means
of creating a more equitable basis for comparison is to
associate new costs of potable water supplies to the
current costs of potable water, as well as any more costly
treatment methods or changes in water treatment require-
ments that may be required to meet current regulations.
When creating reuse user fees, it may be desirable to
deduct incremental potable water costs from those
charged for reuse because reuse is allowing the deferral
or elimination of developing new potable water supplies
or treatment facilities. The perceived inequalities between
reclaimed water and potable water may be eliminated
where potable water is in short supply and subject to
seasonal (or permanent) restrictions. For customers that
cannot tolerate uncertainty in deliveries, a source of re-
claimed water free from restrictions might be worth more
than traditional supplies.
To promote certain objectives, local communities may
want to alter the manner of cost distribution. For ex-
ample, to encourage reuse for pollution abatement pur-
poses by eliminating a surface water discharge, the
capital costs of all wastewater treatment, reclaimed
water transmission, and reclaimed water distribution can
be allocated to the wastewater service costs. To pro-
mote water conservation, elements of the incremental
costs of potable water may be subtracted from the re-
use costs to encourage use of reclaimed water.
For water reuse systems, the proportionate share basis
of allocation may be most appropriate. The allocation
should not be especially difficult, because the facilities
required to support the reuse system should be readily
identifiable. As shown in the previous equations, it is
appropriate to allocate to wastewater charges the costs
of all treatment required for compliance with NPDES per-
mits. All additional costs, including the costs of recla-
mation and conveyance of reclaimed water, would be
allocated to the water reuse user charge.
207
-------
General and administrative costs should also be allo-
cated proportionately to all services just as they would
be in a cost-of-service allocation plan for water and waste-
water service. In some cases, lower wastewater treat-
ment costs may result from initiating reclaimed water
usage. Therefore, the result may be a reduction in the
wastewater user charge. In this case, depending on lo-
cal circumstances, the savings could be allocated to ei-
ther the wastewater customer or the reclaimed water cus-
tomer, or both.
Table 6-1 provides a range of credits that can be applied
to the financial analysis of water reclamation projects
based on experience in California (Sheikh etal., 1998).
With more than one category or type of reclaimed water
user, different qualities of reclaimed water may be
needed. 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
wastewater for discharge. If, for example, reclaimed
water is distributed for 2 different irrigation needs with
one requiring higher quality water than the other, then
the user fee calculation can be based on the cost of
treatment to reach the quality required. This assumes
that it is cost-effective to provide separate delivery sys-
tems to customers requiring different water quality.
Clearly this will not always be the case, and a cost/ben-
efit analysis of treating the entire reclaimed water stream
to the highest level required must be compared to the
cost of separate transmission systems. Consideration
should also be given to providing a lower level of treat-
ment to a single reclaimed water transmission system
with additional treatment provided at the point of use as
required by the customer.
Estimating the operating cost of a reclaimed water sys-
tem involves determining those treatment and distribu-
tion components that are directly attributable to the re-
claimed water system. Direct operating costs involve ad-
ditional treatment facilities, distribution, additional water
quality monitoring, and inspection and monitoring staff.
Any costs saved from effluent disposal may be consid-
ered a credit. Indirect costs include a percentage of ad-
ministration, management, and overhead. Another cost
is replacement reserve, i.e., the reserve fund to pay for
system replacement in the future. In many instances,
monies generated to meet debt service coverage re-
quirements are deposited into replacement reserves.
6.5 Phasing and Participation
Incentives
The financing program can be structured to construct
the water reuse facilities in phases, with a target per-
centage of the potential customers committed to using
reclaimed water prior to implementation of each phase.
This commitment assures the municipal utility decision
makers that the project is indeed desired and ensures
the financial stability to begin implementation. Incentives,
such as a reduction or waiver of the assessment or con-
nection fee for those connections to the system within a
set time frame, can be used to promote early connec-
tions or participation. The San Antonio, Texas, reclaimed
water system charges for reclaimed water will be $2807
acre-foot ($0.86/1,000 gallons), the same as the cost of
potable water. As an incentive for users to sign up for
this service, the city offered a one-time $900/acre-foot
($2.76/1,000 gallons) credit to cover the user's costs of
converting to reclaimed water (Martinez, 2000).
Adequate participation to support implementation can be
determined by conducting an initial survey in a service
area, followed by a formal voted service agreement for
each neighborhood. If the required percentage of resi-
dents in a given neighborhood agree to participate, facili-
ties will be constructed in that area. Once this type of
measure is taken, there is an underlying basis for either
assessing pipeline costs, or charging using a monthly
fixed fee, because the ability to serve exists. The rate
policy may also include a provision for assessments or
charges for undeveloped properties within a neighbor-
hood served by a reclaimed water system.
Table 6-1.
Credits to Reclaimed Water Costs
Benefit
Water supply
Water supply reliability
Effluent disposal
Downstream watershed
Energy conservation
Applicability
Very common
Very common
Very common
Common
Situational
Value ($/acre-feet)
$300 -$1,100
$100-$140
$200 -$2,000
$400 - $800
0 to $240
208
-------
6.6 Sample Rates and Fees
6.6.1 Connection Fees
Connection charges to a dual distribution system are of-
ten based on the size of the reclaimed water system
being served. For example, in Cocoa Beach, Florida,
customers are charged a connection fee based on the
size of the reclaimed water service line. The connection
fees are $100, $180, and $360 for a 3/4-inch, 1-inch,
and 1-1/2-inch service line, respectively.
As an alternative to connection fees, a flat monthly rate
can be charged to each user for a specified length of
time until the capital costs associated with the system
are paid off. This alternative is often preferred to spread
out the costs associated with connection fees.
6.6.2
User Fees
The procedure for establishing rates for reclaimed wa-
ter can be similar to the procedure for establishing po-
table water and wastewater rates. If reclaimed water is
metered, then user rates can be based upon the amount
of reclaimed water used. This will tend to temper ex-
cessive use. If meters are not used, then a flat rate can
be charged. Table 6-2 presents user fees for a number
of existing urban reuse systems.
It is common for the cost of reclaimed water service to
be based on a percentage of the cost of potable water
service. One might assume that reclaimed water rates
would always be less than that of potable water but this
may not be the case. A recent survey of reclaimed wa-
ter utilities in California (Table 6-3) shows the range of
discounts for reclaimed water (Lindow and Newby, 1998).
This survey clearly shows that reclaimed water can com-
mand rates equal to that of potable water depending on
the specific nature of local water resources.
Table 6-3. Discounts for Reclaimed Water
Use in California
Jurisdiction
City of Long Beach
Marin Municipal Water District
City of Milpitas
Orange County Water District
San Jose Water Company
Irvine Ranch Water District
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Otay Water District
Cost Percentage of
Potable Water (%)
53
56
80
80
85
90
100
100
100
Figure 6-1 provides the results of a similar survey of
potable and reclaimed water rates for utilities in south-
west Florida (Personal Communication with Dennis
Cafaro, 2003). With the exception of Barren Collier utili-
ties, reclaimed water rates tend to be less than 50 per-
cent of the potable water rates, with some rates for re-
use less than 20 percent that of potable water. These
results provide additional evidence that reclaimed water
rates are highly dependent on local conditions.
To further reinforce the concept that reclaimed water is a
valuable resource, utilities may consider not only charg-
ing for reclaimed water by the gallon, but also implement-
ing a conservation rate structure to encourage efficient
use. Conservation rate structures provide economic in-
centives for consumers to limit water use. To the extent
possible, they should achieve similar results in all cus-
tomer classes, be equitable within and among customer
classes, support the utility's financial requirements, and
can be revenue neutral. Structures can significantly re-
duce water use without government expenditure or new
regulation, while helping to protect both the quantity and
quality of water resources. For example, at system start-
up some residential customers in the City of Venice,
Florida were charged a flat rate for reclaimed water ser-
vice. When the rate structure was changed to charge
customers for the actual volume of water used, including
an inclining conservation rate, demand was reduced by
10 to 15 percent. However, no change in the peak de-
mand water use was observed - suggesting peak use
was driven by actual need and reductions were the result
of more efficient water use in low demand periods
(Farabeeefa/., 2002).
6.7 Case Studies
6.7.1 Unique Funding Aspects of the Town
of Longboat Key, Florida Reclaimed
Water System
Longboat Key is a barrier island community located on
Florida's Gulf coast. The town lies within 2 counties—the
northern portion of Longboat Key is in Manatee County and
the southern portion is in Sarasota County. The island is
surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west and Sarasota
Bay on the east. The town's geographical location severely
limits local water resources. Since its inception in 1972, the
Town of Longboat Key has received potable water and waste-
water services from Manatee County.
Landscape irrigation accounts for approximately a quar-
ter of the town's potable water use. In 2002, it was nec-
essary for the town to seek an alternative water source
for irrigation since its current potable water use exceeded
what is available through Manatee County agreement al-
209
-------
Table 6-2. User Fees for Existing Urban Reuse Systems
Location
Amarillo, Texas1
Cocoa Beach, Florida1
Colorado Springs, Colorado1
County of Maui, Hawaii1
Henderson, Nevada1
San Rafael, California1
South Bay, California1
St. Petersburg, Florida1
Wheaton, Illinois1
Summary of Florida Reuse Systems2
User Fee
$0.1 5/1 ,000 gallons
Residential (not metered):
• $8/month/acre
Commercial (metered):
•$0.26/1 ,000 gallons
$0.00685/cubic foot ($0.91/1 ,000 gallons)
Major agriculture:
• $0.1 0/1 ,000 gallons
Agriculture, golf course:
• $0.20/1 ,00 gallons
Other:
• $0.55/1 ,000 gallons
$0.71/1 ,000 gallons
Tier 1 : $2.02/CCF for 0-100% of water budget
Tier 2: $3.89/CCF for 100-150% of water budget
Tier 3: $7.64/CCF for over 1 50% of water budget
Inside service area:
• $280/AF ($0.86/1 ,000 gallons) for 0-25 AF/month
• $260/AF ($0.80/1 ,000 gallons) for 25-50 AF/month
• $240/AF ($0.74/1 ,000 gallons) for 50-1 00 AF/month
• $220/AF ($0.68/1 ,000 gallons) for 100-200 AF/month
• $200/AF ($0.61/1 ,000 gallons) for 200+ AF/month
Residential (not metered):
• $10.36/month for first acre +
$5.92/month for each additional acre
$0.18/1,000 gallons
Residential - Flat Rate ($/month)
•Average = $13.81
• Range = $0.00 - $350.003
Residential - Gallonage Charge ($/1,000 gallons)
• Average = $0.32
• Range = $0.00 -$1.25
Non-Residential - Flat Rate ($/month)
• Average = $445.35
• Range = $0.00 - $12,595.00
Non-Residential Gallonage Charge ($/1,000 gallons)
• Average = $0.26
• Range = $0.00 - $2.50
1 User fees as reported in management practices for nonpotable water reuse, Project 97-
IRM-6, Water Environment Research Foundation, 2001.
2 Reuse Rates as reported in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Reuse Inventory Report, June 2002.
3 Includes lump sum rates charged to residential developments as well as individual
residential customers.
210
-------
Figure 6-1. Comparison of Reclaimed Water and Potable Water Rates in Southwest Florida
Potable Water*
Reclaimed Water
*Base rate cost of potable water
(Many utilities use an inclining rate structure for potable water.)
locations. Historically, the town has also used ground-
water to meet approximately 80 percent of its irrigation
demands. However, a decline in groundwater quality at-
tributed to saltwater intrusion caused by long-term with-
drawals and probable overpumping has been observed.
After the review and evaluation of many alternatives, the
Town of Longboat Key opted for a reclaimed water sys-
tem with supply provided by an adjoining jurisdiction, the
City of Sarasota, Florida. The project will require:
• Installation of a subaqueous reclaimed water trans-
mission main across Sarasota Bay
• Construction of aquifer storage and recovery facili-
ties
• Construction of delivery pumping stations
• Construction of a 2.5-million-gallon (9,460-m3) stor-
age tank
• Construction of associated distribution mains
The Longboat Key reclaimed water transmission system
will connect to the City of Sarasota's existing reclaimed
water system. Two and a half million gallons per day of
reclaimed water will be available from the City of Sarasota.
The conceptual planning cost for the project is estimated
to be $28,166,000.
The reclaimed water rate structure has been designed
so the system can be financially self-sufficient. The end
user costs are the true cost of providing the service.
The estimated cost per 1,000 gallons will be approxi-
mately $2.67. By obtaining funding through the SRF loan
program, the town will be able to satisfy the capital re-
quirements for system implementation. Since loan re-
payments are not required to begin until 1 year after
completion of the facility, semi-annual debt service pay-
ments and OM&R costs will be satisfied from the operat-
ing revenues of the reclaimed water system.
Water and wastewater revenues are not intended to be
used to pay for the reclaimed water system, but instead
will serve as a backup pledge to the pledge of reclaimed
water revenues for the SRF loan. To the extent that wa-
ter and wastewater revenues are used to make any
semi-annual loan payments, the town intends to reim-
211
-------
burse its water and wastewater revenues fund with re-
claimed water revenues.
The reclaimed water revenue source is contingent on com-
mitments in the form of user agreements from condo-
minium and homeowner's associations. The public has
voted for a town-required referendum authorizing the fi-
nancing of a reclaimed water system.
6.7.2 Financial Assistance in San Diego
County, California
Water reclamation is an important component of the San
Diego region's local water resources. A number of agen-
cies in San Diego continue to implement and expand
their water reuse projects. Currently, about 12,000 acre-
feet (3.9 billion gallons) per year of reclaimed water is
beneficially reused within the service area of Water
Authoriy Board of the County of San Diego (Authority).
Approximately 64 percent of the water is used for agri-
culture, landscape irrigation, and other municipal and in-
dustrial uses; the remaining 36 percent is recharged into
groundwater basins. This number is projected to increase
to over 53,000 acre-feet per year (17.3 billion gallons per
year) by 2020.
Financial assistance programs play a critical role in the
development of reclaimed water supplies. There are a
number of financial assistance programs available to
San Diego County agencies: the Authority's Financial
Assistance Program (FAR) and Reclaimed Water De-
velopment Fund (RWDF); the Metropolitan Water Dis-
trict of Southern California's Local Resources Program
(LRP); the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI Grant
Program; and the State Water Resources Control
Board's low-interest loan programs. Together, these
programs offer funding assistance for all project phases,
from initial planning and design to construction and op-
eration. Examples of how these funds facilitate water
reuse projects in San Diego are described below:
• FAP provides loans to Authority member agencies
for water reuse facilities planning, feasibility investi-
gations, preliminary engineering studies, and research
projects related to water reuse and/or groundwater
development. The Authority provides funding on a
50:50 cost sharing basis up to $50,000 for any given
project activity.
• FAP funds are also available for research and devel-
opment in the form of grants. In order to receive FAP
funding for these types of studies, a local agency
must have secured partial funding from at least one
other source such as the American Water Works
Association Research Foundation (AWWARF), De-
salination Research and Innovation Partnership
(DRIP), Water Environmental Research Foundation
(WERF), Proposition 13, etc.
• RWDF provides Authority member agencies finan-
cial assistance up to $100 per acre-foot ($0.31 per
1,000 gallons) for the development of reclaimed wa-
ter projects capable of relieving a demand on the
Authority. Project expenses must exceed project rev-
enues. Funding is available for up to 25 years based
on financial need.
• LRP is designed to ensure the financial feasibility of
local projects during the initial years of operation.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Califor-
nia offers an incentive of up to $250 per acre-foot
($0.77 per 1,000 gallons) for up to 25 years for re-
claimed water and groundwater development projects
that offset demands for imported water.
6.7.3 Grant Funding Through the South-
west Florida Water Management
District
The Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD) is 1 of 5 water management districts in Florida
with responsibilities for: water quality, natural systems
improvement, flood protection, and water supply in a
10,000-square-mile (25,900-km2) area. The SWFWMD is
unique among the water management districts in Florida
in that, beyond the similar structure of the governing
boards, it has 9 basins with jurisdictional boundaries en-
compassing the major watersheds making up the Dis-
trict. In 8 of the 9 basins, populations have increased
such that boards have been appointed to react to local,
sub-regional water resource issues. These boards spon-
sor projects in coordination with local governments, pri-
vate citizens, and private businesses, to improve, pro-
tect, and restore the water resources of their respective
areas. These basin boards, like the Governing Board,
have the authority to levy ad valorem taxes up to 0.5 of a
mil within their boundaries.
The SWFWMD basin boards have provided local funds
for local water resource-related projects since the
District's creation in 1961. Originally, the focus of the
basin boards and the Governing Board was on funding
flood control projects. In the late 1980s, the basin priori-
ties began to shift to the identification and funding of
projects that focus on water conservation and the de-
velopment of alternative water sources.
Recognizing the importance of their ability to support lo-
cal governments by providing solutions to the growing
issues surrounding water supply, the basins adopted a
212
-------
more proactive role in addressing local non-regulatory
water issues. The Cooperative Funding Initiative, New
Water Sources Initiative, and Water Supply and Resource
Development funding was established in recognition of
the growing need for a structured approach to projects in
order to maximize the SWFWMD's effectiveness in
choosing and funding water resource projects and bud-
geting for their completion.
The SWFWMD funds up to 50 percent of a project's capital
cost and over the past 15 years has budgeted more than
$182,000,000 in financial contributions towards reclaimed
water development. As a result of Governing Board and
basin board participation, more than 214 reuse projects
totaling $494,000,000 in capital costs have been funded
since Fiscal Year 1987.
Source: SWFWMD, 2003.
6.7.4 Use of Reclaimed Water to Augment
Potable Supplies: An Economic
Perspective (California)
To accurately assess the cost-effectiveness of any re-
use project, including an indirect potable water reuse
project, all potential benefits of the project must be con-
sidered. The beneficial effects of an indirect potable re-
use project often extend beyond the sponsoring agency,
providing regional benefits and, in many cases, ben-
efits that extend statewide and beyond. In certain set-
tings, indirect potable reuse projects may provide for
large-scale beneficial use of reclaimed water with rela-
tively modest additional infrastructure requirements.
Examples of 2 such indirect potable reuse projects are
underway in California: the East Valley Water Recycling
Project (EVWRP), and the Orange County Ground water
Replenishment (GWR) System.
East Valley Water Recycling Project
Phase IA of the EVWRP includes approximately 10 miles
(16 km) of 54-inch (137-cm) diameter pipeline and a pump-
ing station to deliver tertiary treated reclaimed water from
the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant to the
Hansen Spreading Grounds. Phase lAalso includes an
extensive monitoring well network designed to track the
reclaimed water as it travels through the San Fernando
Groundwater Basin from the spreading grounds to do-
mestic production wells. This project will initially deliver
up to 10,000 acre-feet per year (6,200 gpm) to the Hansen
Spreading Grounds. Phase IB of the EVWRP will include
construction of an additional pipeline to deliver reclaimed
water to the Pacoima Spreading Grounds.
The cost of Phase IA is estimated at approximately $52
million. Up to 25 percent of this cost is being funded by
the federal government through the Federal Reclama-
tion Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992.
Up to 50 percent of the total cost is being funded by the
State of California through the Environmental Water Act
of 1989. The remaining 25 percent of the total cost is
being funded by ratepayers through special conserva-
tion and reclamation rate adjustments. Table 6-4 pro-
vides calculations, in cost per acre-foot, for reclaimed
water with and without federal and state requirements.
Based on these funding reimbursement percentages,
Phase IA of the EVWRP will provide water at an esti-
mated cost of $478 per acre-foot ($1.47 per 1,000 gal-
lons), with a net cost of approximately $194 per acre-
foot ($0.60 per 1,000 gallons) when state and federal fund-
ing is considered. Even if state or federal funding had
not been available, the EVWRP would still provide a new
reliable source of water at a cost comparable to other
water supplies, and significantly less expensive than other
new supply options. (According to the City Of Los Ange-
les Department of Water and Power Urban Water Man-
agement Plan Fiscal Year 1997-1998 Annual Update, sea-
water might be desalinated using new technology, which
has produced desalted ocean water at a cost of about
$800 per acre-foot ($2.35 per 1,000 gallons) in pilot tests,
or approximately $2,000 per acre-foot ($6.14 per 1,000
gallons) using current technology.) Furthermore, the
EVWRP has other benefits, which have not been quanti-
fied, such as the reduction of water imported from the
Mono Basin and improved water system reliability result-
ing from a new local supply of water.
Orange County Groundwater Replenishment (GWR)
System
Under the Orange County GWR System, highly treated
reclaimed water will be pumped to either existing spread-
ing basins, where it will percolate into and replenish the
groundwater supply, or to a series of injection wells that
act as a seawater intrusion control barrier. The GWR
System will be implemented in 3 phases, providing a
peak daily production capacity of 78,400 acre-feet per
year (70 mgd) by the year 2007, 112,000 acre-feet per
year (100 mgd) by 2013, and 145,600 acre-feet per year
(130 mgd) by 2020.
Table 6-5 shows a conservative preliminary estimate of
the capital and OM&R costs for Phase I of the GWR
System based on December 2003 estimates.
The expected project benefits and their economic val-
ues (avoided costs) include:
213
-------
Table 6-4. Estimated Capital and Maintenance Costs for Phase IVA With and Without Federal and
State Reimbursements
Capital Costs
State Reimbursement (50%)
Federal Reimbursement (25%)
Net DWP Capital Expenditure
Amortized Net Capital Expenditure (6% interest for 30 years)
Operation & Maintenance Cost per Acre-foot (AF)
Annual Delivery
Cost of Delivered Water
Without Federal and State
Reimbursement
$52,000,000
-0-
-0-
$52,000,000
$3,777,743
$100
1 0,000 AF
$478 per acre-foot
($1 .47 per 1 ,000 gal)
With 25% Federal and 50% State
Reimbursement
$52,000,000
$26,000,000
$13,000,000
$13,000,000
$944,436
$100
1 0,000 AF
$194 per acre-foot
($0.60 per 1,000 gal)
1. Alternative Water Supply - If the GWR System is
not implemented, Water Factory 21 would have to
be rehabilitated at a construction cost of approxi-
mately $100 million to provide the water needed for
seawater intrusion control via groundwater injection.
Additional imported water at a yearly cost of approxi-
mately $4 million to $10 million would have to be
purchased for use at the spreading basins as recharge
water. In times of drought, there is also a penalty
imposed on using imported water supplies, ranging
from $175 to $250 per acre-foot, potentially adding
fees up to $10.7 million a year. By implementing the
GWR System, approximately $27.4 million in annual
costs a re avoided.
2. Salinity Management - The OCWD uses water from
the Santa Ana River (consisting of upstream treated
wastewater discharges and stormwater) and imported
water (from the Colorado River Aqueduct and the
State Water Project) to percolate into the forebay
area of the Orange County groundwater basin. The
treated wastewater discharges and water from the
Colorado River are high in TDS, with concentrations
over 700 mg/l. Higher TDS water can cause corro-
sion of plumbing fixtures and water heaters. Normal-
ized costs for more frequent replacement of plumb-
ing and water using fixtures and appliances are esti-
mated to range from $100 to $150 per household
each year. Over time, the reverse osmosis-treated
product from the GWR System will lower the overall
TDS content of the groundwater basin, saving the
average household approximately $12.50 per year
(or $25/acre-foot, $0.08 per 1,000 gallons). Indus-
tries and other large water users might also realize
significant savings. From the standpoint of salinity
management, the GWR System provides an annual
benefit of $16.9 million.
3. Delay/Avoid Ocean Outfall Construction - Implemen-
tation of the GWR System will divert up to 100 mgd
Table 6-5. Cost Estimate for Phase I of the GWR System
Item
Capital Costs
Operation & Maintenance
Grant Receipts
Interest
Power Cost
Capacity Utilization
Cost
$453.9 Million
$26.7 Million/year
$89.8 Million
2.6% amortized over 25 years
$0.11perkwh
50% Barrier injection
50% Recharge percolation
214
-------
(4,380 l/s) of peak wastewater flow during Phase I
from the Sanitation District's ocean outfall disposal
system. The estimated $175 million cost of a new
ocean outfall can be delayed at least 10 years by
applying several peak reduction methods, including
diverting water to the GWR system instead of dis-
charging to the ocean outfall.
Economic Summary
The annual cost to implement the GWR System - in-
cluding capital, OM&R, engineering, administration, and
contingencies, at 2.6 percent interest and amortized over
a 25-year period-would be approximately $37.1 million.
Totaling the avoided costs, the total annual benefits are
as shown in Table 6-6.
This results in a maximum benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.33
($49.2/$37.1). Based on this analysis, Orange County
Water District and Orange County Sanitation District
have decided to move forward with the implementation
of this project.
The EVWRP and the GWR System exemplify how indi-
rect potable reuse projects, when compared to other
water supply and wastewater management options, can
offer the greatest benefits for the least cost. The ulti-
mate success of these projects would be attributable to
project sponsors reaching out and forming alliances with
the full array of beneficiaries.
The EVWRP and the GWR System exemplify how indi-
rect potable reuse projects, when compared to other
water supply and wastewater management options, can
offer the greatest benefits for the least cost. The ulti-
mate success of these projects would be attributable to
project sponsors reaching out and forming alliances with
the full array of beneficiaries.
Source: WateReuse Association, 1999. Updated by COM/
OCWD Project Team, 2004.
6.7.5 Impact Fee Development
Considerations for Reclaimed Water
Projects: Hillsborough County,
Florida
Hillsborough County is located on the central-west coast
of the State of Florida. The unincorporated area encom-
passes 931 square miles (2,411 km2), or more than 86
percent of the total county area. Approximately 650,000
residents live in unincorporated Hillsborough County, and
most of them are served by various community services
provided by the County. The Hillsborough County Wa-
ter Department is responsible for providing treatment
and delivery of potable water, wastewater collection, and
treatment and distribution of reclaimed water within un-
incorporated Hillsborough County. The Department cur-
rently saves about 10 mgd (440 l/s) of potable water
through reuse. Future expansion of the reclaimed wa-
ter system is expected to save about 30 mgd (1,315 l/s)
of potable water by the year 2020.
Florida continues to be a rapidly growing state. To ad-
dress the need for additional infrastructure, local govern-
ments have turned to development impact fees. Devel-
opment impact fees are charges applied to new develop-
ment to pay for the construction of new facilities or for
the expansion of existing ones to meet these demands.
Water and wastewater utilities are no exception. At least
half of Florida's 67 counties use some form of impact
fees to pay for expansion of their water and wastewater
utility that is necessitated by growth in the community.
The following 3 criteria must be met to justify these fees:
(1) there must be a reasonable connection between growth
from new development and the resultant need for the
Table 6-6. Total Annual Benefits
Item
Orange County Water District
(OWCD) Cost Avoidance
Salinity Management
Orange County Sanitation District
(OCSD), Delay in outfall
Total Benefits
Total Annual Cost
Avoidance (Millions
$)
$27.40
$16.90
$4.90
$49.20
215
-------
new service; (2) the fees charged cannot exceed a pro-
portionate share of the cost incurred in accommodating
the new users paying the fee; and (3) there must be a
reasonable connection between the expenditure of the
fees that are collected and the benefits received by the
new customers paying the fees.
Several years ago, Hillsborough County decided to fund
a portion of the cost of new reclaimed water projects
through the capacity fee mechanism. It was recognized
that the service benefits reclaimed water customers as
well as new customers to the system that do not neces-
sarily receive the reclaimed service. Specifically, re-
claimed water projects have the unique characteristic
of providing capacity in both the water and wastewater
components of a traditional utility.
The Department's potable water investment since 1986,
when the majority of the debt for the existing system
was issued, is approximately $175 million with a corre-
sponding potable water capacity of 54.5 mgd (2,400 I/
s). The level of service prior to potable water conserva-
tion benefits derived from using reclaimed water was
approximately 350 gpd (1,325 l/d) per Equivalent Resi-
dential Connection (ERG). Based on this level of ser-
vice, the 54.5 mgd (2,400 l/s) potable water capacity would
serve 155,714 ERCs. However, since reclaimed water
service has been implemented, the Department has been
able to reduce the level of service to 300 gpd (1,135 l/d)
per ERG. The same 54.5 mgd (2,400 l/s) of capacity is
now able to serve 181,667 ERCs with no additional in-
vestment in potable water capacity. This equates to
25,953 additional ERCs being served due to reclaimed
water use - or a potable water capacity avoidance at the
350-gpd (1,325 l/d) level of service of 9.1 mgd (400 l/s).
Assuming a cost of $5.25 per gpd for additional potable
water capacity based on desalination treatment, the po-
table water capacity cost avoided is approximately $47.78
million.
The Department has 8 wastewater treatment plants with
a total permitted treatment capacity of 48.5 mgd (2,125
l/s). These treatment plants have permitted effluent dis-
posal capacity in the form of a surface-water discharge
for 24 mgd (1,050 l/s). The difference of 24.5 mgd (1,075
l/s) is the effluent disposal benefit obtained from re-
claimed water. Using a cost of $2.40 per gpd for either
land application or deep-well injection methods for alter-
nate effluent disposal, this results in an effluent disposal
cost avoided of approximately $58.8 million.
Using these calculations, the total cost avoided for both
water and wastewater is $106.58 million. The potable
water capacity cost avoided and the effluent disposal
cost avoided were each divided by this total cost to de-
termine the allocation of reclaimed water project costs
associated with water and wastewater. This resulted in
a reclaimed water project cost split of 45 percent to water
and 55 percent to wastewater.
The current North service area capacity fee is $1,335
for water and $1,815 for wastewater. For the South/Cen-
tral service area, the current capacity fee is $1,440 for
water and $1,970 for wastewater. Table 6-7 provides the
percentage of the capacity fees that have been attrib-
uted to reclaimed water projects in these service areas.
6.7.6 How Much Does it Cost and Who
Pays: A Look at Florida's Reclaimed
Water Rates
Reclaimed water is becoming an increasingly valuable
water resource in Florida in terms of groundwater re-
charge, conservation of potable quality water, and drink-
ing water cost savings to the consumer (since reclaimed
water is usually less expensive than drinking water to
the consumer). In fact, reuse has become so popular
that some utilities have had trouble keeping up with the
demand.
In order to meet the high demand for reclaimed water,
some utilities have used other sources (i.e., groundwa-
ter, surface water, etc.) to augment their reclaimed water
supply. Others deal with high reclaimed water demand
by imposing watering restrictions on reuse customers,
and/or limiting or prohibiting new customer connections
to the reuse system. Many reclaimed water suppliers
used these methods to try to meet demands when the
Table 6-7.
Reclaimed Water Impact Fees
Service Area
North
South/Central
Percent of Water Capacity Fee
Allocated to Reclaimed Water
8
6
Percent of Wastewater Fee
Allocated to Reclaimed Water
29
18
216
-------
state was faced with a drought, but a few suppliers still
struggled. The need to conserve and properly manage
reclaimed water as a valuable resource became very clear.
In the past, many utilities provided reclaimed water at no
cost to the customer or based on a fixed monthly charge,
regardless of use. Since the water was free or sold at
low flat rates, customers used as much as they wanted,
which was usually more than they needed. Now, many
utilities are moving towards volume-based charges for
reclaimed water service. Although the main intent of
charging reuse customers for reclaimed water is to re-
cover the costs associated with reuse facilities, reuse
customers that are charged by the gallon for reclaimed
water service tend to be more conservative in their use
of the water supply.
1999 Florida Reclaimed Water Rates
Every year, the Florida Department of Environmental Pro-
tection publishes the Reuse Inventory that contains a
good deal of useful information regarding water reclama-
tion facilities in Florida, including reuse rates charged by
facilities. The 1999 Reuse Inventory (FDEP, 2000) com-
piles rates under 2 categories, Residential and Non-Resi-
dential. A survey based on information from the 1999
Reuse Inventory tor 176 reuse systems revealed the fol-
lowing:
Non-Residential Category: Forty-five percent of the re-
use systems provided reclaimed water free of charge,
33 percent charged by the gallon, about 10 percent
charged a flat rate, and 12 percent incorporated the base
facility charge and the gallonage charge.
Residential Category: Eight percent of the systems
surveyed provided reclaimed water free of charge, 12
percent by the gallon, 22 percent charged a flat rate, and
about 10 percent utilized the base facility charge and the
gallonage charge. (48 percent of the systems surveyed
did not provide residential service.) The average rates
associated with each rate type are shown in Table 6-8.
According to an AWWA survey, reuse rates are devel-
oped in many different ways. Out of 99 facilities sur-
veyed, 19 percent set the rate at a percentage of the
potable water rate, 14 percent base the rate on the esti-
mated cost of the reuse service, 24 percent set the rate
to promote use, 9 percent base the rate on market analy-
sis, and 33 percent use other methods to develop reuse
rates. The survey also revealed what percentages of
costs were recovered through reuse rates for these fa-
cilities as shown in Table 6-9.
Fifty-three percent of 97 facilities surveyed charge a uni-
form rate for reclaimed water, approximately 6 percent
charge inclining block rates, 2 percent charge declining
block rates, and 6 percent charge seasonal rates. The
other 33 percent used some other type of rate structure
(AWWA, 2000). The survey shows that the majority of
reuse customers are metered. The average metered rate
of 16 surveyed facilities was $1.12/1,000 gallons.
In order to determine the relationship between how much
reclaimed water a reuse customer used and how much
they were charged for the service, the Southwest Florida
Water Management District (SWFWMD) conducted a
survey of utilities in Pinellas County that provided re-
claimed water to residential customers. This survey re-
vealed that residential customers who were charged a
flat rate used an average of 1,112 gallons of reclaimed
water per day, while residential customers who were
charged per 1,000 gallons only used an average of 579
gallons per day (Andrade, 2000). The average metered
rate charged by these utilities was $0.61/1000 gallons.
The average flat rate charged by these utilities was $9.77/
month. Based on the average usage of 1,112 gallons per
day reported for residential customers, this flat rate trans-
lates to a metered rate of $0.29/1000 gallons.
Source: Coleman and Andrade, 2001
Table 6-8. Average Rates for Reclaimed Water Service in Florida
Flat Rate 1*
Flat Rate 2**
Metered Rate
Flat Rate with Metered
Rate
Non-Residential
$19.39/month
$892,89/month
$0.26/1,000 gallons
$29.99/month+$0.39/1 ,000 gallons
Residential
$6.85/month
Not Applicable
$0.39/1,000 gallons
$7.05/month+$0.34/1 ,000 gallons
217
-------
Table 6-9. Percent Costs Recovered Through Reuse Rates
Percent of Costs Recovered
Under 25 Percent
25 to 50 Percent
51 to 75 Percent
76 to 99 Percent
100 Percent
Unknown
Percent of Utilities
Recovering Costs
32
5
5
14
13
31
6.7.7 Rate Setting for Industrial Reuse in
San Marcos, Texas
The newly expanded San Marcos 9-mgd (395-l/s) ad-
vanced tertiary wastewater treatment plant is a state-of-
the-art facility that produces some of the highest quality
effluent in the State of Texas. The permit requirements
are the toughest the Texas Natural Resources Conser-
vation Commission deploys: 5/5/2/1/6 (BOD/TSS/NH,/
PO4/DO). Since coming on-line last year, the quality of
the effluent has consistently been better than the permit
limits require. In this region of the state, the use of ground-
water is discouraged and surface water is becoming less
available and more costly; therefore, reclaimed water is
becoming a marketable commodity. In January 1999,
American National Power approached the City of San
Marcos, as well as other cities in the Central Texas area
between Austin and San Antonio, with a list of resources
required for the power co-generation facility they were to
build - The Hays Energy Project (HEP) - in anticipation
of the imminent electrical power deregulation in Texas.
Principal on the list was a reliable, economical source of
both potable and process water, and a means of dispos-
ing of their domestic wastewater and process wastewa-
ter. The City had no existing wastewater treatment plant
effluent customers and no historical basis for setting a
rate to charge the HEP for delivering to them basically
the City's entire effluent flow.
Figure 6-2. Comparison of Rate Basis for
San Marcos Reuse Water
(0
C3
§
o
$1.50
$1 .00
$0.50
$0.00
$0.54
$0.25
I $1.09
I $0.74
D
$0.90
$0.40
$0.55
$0.17
$1.09
Rates Selected
for San Marcos
Reuse Water
$0.42
Actual Cost of Market Commodity Commodity
Cost Raw Rates Charges Charges +
Water in Texas Actual Cost
218
-------
In considering rates to this industrial customer, the City
of San Marcos investigated both the actual cost of pro-
ducing and delivering reclaimed water as well as the
market value of reclaimed water. By including only those
facilities over and above what was required for normal
wastewater treatment and disposal, the actual cost of
delivering reclaimed water was determined to be be-
tween $0.25 to $0.54/1,000 gallons. A review of the ex-
isting costs of alternate suppliers of water in the region
was then conducted to define the market value of re-
claimed water to the industrial customers. This investi-
gation included reuse rates charged elsewhere in the
state and determined that the cost of alternate water
supplies might range from $0.40 to $0.90/1,000 gallons.
The results of this investigation are summarized in Fig-
ure 6-2.
Based on the results of this investigation, the City was
able to consider reclaimed water as a commodity and
set the charges as a function of available supplies, the
demand for water and the benefits of the service.
Through this process, the City established a charge of
$0.69/1,000 gallon as shown in Figure 6-2.
Source: Longoria etal., 2000.
6.8 References
Andrade, Anthony. 2000. "Average Reclaimed Water
Flows for Residential Customers in Pinellas County."
Brooksville, FL: Southwest Florida Water Management
District.
American Waterworks Association. 2000. "AWWA/WEF
Water Reuse Rates and Charges Survey Report." Ameri-
can Water Works Association.
Personal Communication with Dennis Cafaro, 2003.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1991.
Water Recycling 2000: California's Plan for the Future.
Office of Water Recycling, Sacramento, California.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. and Orange County Water
District, 2004. Project team consists of Richard Corneille,
Robert Chalmers, and Mike Marcus.
City Of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Urban Water Management Plan Fiscal Year 1997-1998
Annual Update - page 19.
Coleman, L.W., A. Andrade. 2001. "How Much Does it
Cost and Who Pays: A Look at Florida's Reclaimed Wa-
ter Rates," Technical Program and Proceedings of the
76th Annual Florida Water Resources Conference, Jack-
sonville, Florida.
Collins, J.M. 2000. "The Price of Reclaimed Water in
Reno, Nevada," 2000 Water Reuse Conference Proceed-
ings, San Antonio, Texas.
Farabee, D.L., P.S. Wilson, J. Saputo. 2002. "How Vol-
ume Pricing Affects Residential Reuse Demands,"
WEFTEC 2002, Proceedings of the 75th Annual Confer-
ence and Exposition, Chicago, Illinois.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
2002.2001 Reuse Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999
Reuse Inventory. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department
of Environmental Protection. 2000.
Gray, B. P., M. Craig, B.E. Hemken. 1996 "Integrated
Water Resources Planning for Scottsdale, Arizona,"
Water Reuse Conference Proceedings, American Wa-
ter Works Association, Denver, Colorado.
Gorrie, J.M., V.P. Going, M.P. Smith and J. Jeffers. 2003.
"Impact Fee Development Considerations for Reclaimed
Water Projects," 2003 FWRC Proceedings, Tampa,
Florida.
Lindow, D., J. Newby. 1998. "Customized Cost-Benefit
Analysis for Recycled Water Customers," Water Reuse
Conference Proceedings, American Water Works As-
sociation, Denver, Colorado.
Longoria, R.R., D.W. Sloan, S.M. Jenkins. 2000. "Rate
Setting for Industrial Reuse in San Marcos, Texas," 2000
Water Reuse Conference Proceedings, San Antonio,
Texas.
Martinez, P.R. 2000. "San Antonio Water System Re-
cycled Water Program: An Alternative Water Supply -
Short Term Management Resources," 2000 Water Re-
use Conference Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas.
Sheikh, B., E. Rosenblum, S. Kosower, E. Hartling.1998.
"Accounting for the Benefit of Water Reuse," Water Re-
use Conference Proceedings, American Water Works
Association, Denver, Colorado.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. Annual
Alternative Water Supply Report FY 2003. Southwest
Florida Water Management District, 2003, Brooksville,
Florida.
219
-------
Washington State Department of Ecology. Focus Sheets.
August 2001.
Water Environment Research Foundation. 2001. Manage-
ment Practices for Nonpotable Water Reuse. Project 97-
IRM-6. Alexandria, Virginia.
WateReuse Association. 1999. "Use of Recycled Water
to Augment Potable Supplies: An Economic Perspec-
tive." http://www.watereuse.org/Pages/information.html
220
-------
CHAPTER 7
Public Involvement Programs
In the years since this manual was first developed, the
world has seen ever-increasing demands for water, of-
ten from competing interests, and often in the face of
declining water supplies. As a result, water quality and
quantity have become important public topics in many
arenas, and regulatory agencies often require some level
of stakeholder involvement in water management deci-
sions. This is strikingly different from the past when
members of the public were often informed about
projects only after final decisions had been made. To-
day, responsible leaders recognize the need to incor-
porate public values with science, technology, and legal
aspects to create real, workable solutions tailored to
meet specific needs.
In the area of water reuse, the opportunities for meaning-
ful public involvement are many. This chapter provides
an overview of the key elements of public planning, as
well as several case studies illustrating public involve-
ment and/or participation approaches.
7.1
Why Public Participation?
Public involvement or participation programs work to iden-
tify key audiences and specific community issues at a
very early stage, offering information and opportunities
for input in a clear, understandable way. Effective public
involvement begins at the earliest planning stage and
lasts through implementation and beyond.
Public participation begins with having a clear understand-
ing of the water reuse options available to the commu-
nity. Once an understanding of possible alternatives is
developed, a list of stakeholders, including possible us-
ers, can be identified and early public contacts may be-
gin. Why begin contacting stakeholders before a plan is
in place? These citizen stakeholders can provide early
indications regarding which reuse program will be best
accepted on a community-wide level. Beyond that, in-
formed citizens can help identify and resolve potential
problems before they occur and develop alternatives
that may work more effectively for the community.
In general, effective public participation programs invite
two-way communication, provide education, and ask for
meaningful input as the reuse program is developed and
refined. Depending on the project, public involvement
can involve limited contact with a number of specific
users, or can be expanded to include the formation of a
formal advisory committee or task force. Often, public
information efforts begin by targeting the most impacted
stakeholders. Over time, as an early education base is
built among stakeholders, the education effort then
broadens to include the public at large. Regardless of
the audience, all public involvement efforts are geared
to help ensure that adoption of a selected water reuse
program will fulfill real user needs and generally recog-
nized community goals including public health, safety,
and program cost.
The term, "two-way communications flow" cannot be too
highly emphasized. In addition to building community
support for a reuse program, public participation can
also provide valuable community-specific information to
the reuse planners. Citizens have legitimate concerns,
quite often reflecting their knowledge of detailed techni-
cal information. In reuse planning, especially, where one
sector of "the public" comprises potential users of re-
claimed water, this point is critical. Potential users gen-
erally know what flow and quality of reclaimed water
are acceptable for their applications.
7.1.1
Informed Constituency
By taking time during the planning stages to meet with
citizens, communities will have a much greater oppor-
tunity to develop a successful reuse program. Many citi-
zens may have a pre-conceived notion about reclaimed
water and its benefits. It is important to identify each
stakeholder's issues and to address questions and con-
cerns in a clear, matter-of-fact way. This two-way dia-
logue will lead to informed input regarding reuse alter-
natives.
221
-------
A public participation program can build, over time, an
informed constituency that is comfortable with the con-
cept of reuse, knowledgeable about the issues involved
in reclamation/reuse, and supportive of program imple-
mentation. Ideally, citizens who have taken part in the
planning process will be effective proponents of the se-
lected plans. Having educated themselves on the is-
sues involved in adopting reclamation and reuse, they
will also understand how various interests have been
accommodated in the final plan. Their understanding of
the decision-making process will, in turn, be communi-
cated to larger interest groups - neighborhood residents,
clubs, and municipal agencies - of which they are a
part. Indeed the potential reuse customer who is enthu-
siastic about the prospect of receiving service may be-
come one of the most effective means of generating
support for a program. This is certainly true with the
urban reuse programs in St. Petersburg and Venice,
Florida. In these communities, construction of distribu-
tion lines is contingent on the voluntary participation of
a percentage of customers within a given area.
In other communities where reuse has not been intro-
duced in any form, the focus may begin with very small,
specific audiences. For instance, a community may work
closely with golf course owners and superintendents to
introduce reuse water as a resource to keep the golf
course in prime condition, even at times when other
water supplies are low. This small, informed constitu-
ency can then provide the community with a lead-in to
other reclaimed water options in the future. Golf course
superintendents spread the word informally, and, as
golfers see the benefits, the earliest of education cam-
paigns has subtly begun. Later, the same community
may choose to introduce an urban system, offering re-
claimed water for irrigation use.
Since many reuse programs may ultimately require a
public referendum to approve a bond issue for funding
reuse system capital improvements, diligently soliciting
community viewpoints and addressing any concerns
early in the planning process can be invaluable in gar-
nering support. Public involvement early in the planning
process, even as alternatives are beginning to be iden-
tified, allows ample time for the dissemination and ac-
ceptance of new ideas among the constituents. Public
involvement can even expedite a reuse program by
uncovering any opposition early enough to adequately
address citizen concerns and perhaps modify the pro-
gram to better fit the community.
7.2
Defining the "Public"
lies" with differing interests, motivations, and approaches
to policy issues. For example, in discussing public par-
ticipation for wastewater facilities and reuse planning
the following publics may be identified: general public,
potential users, environmental groups, special interest
groups, home owners associations, regulators and/or
regulating agencies, educational institutions, political
leaders, and business/academic/community leaders. In
an agricultural area, there may be another different set
of publics including farmers.
For example, several government agencies in California
held a Reuse Summit in 1994, at which they endorsed
the creation of the public outreach effort by creating the
following mission statement (Sheikh et al., 1996):
"To activate community support for
water recycling through an outreach
program of educating and informing
target audiences about the values
and benefits of recycled water."
During that summit they also identified 8 public audiences:
Local Elected Officials, Regulatory Agency Staff, Gen-
eral Public, Environmental Community, City Planning
Staffs, Agricultural Community, Schools, and Newspaper
Editorial Boards.
From the outset of reuse planning, informal consultation
with members of each of the groups comprising "the pub-
lic", and 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 inter-
ests at stake, each presentation should be tailored to the
special needs and interests of the audience.
If a reuse program truly has minimal impact on the gen-
eral public, limited public involvement may be appropri-
ate. For example, use of reclaimed water for industrial
cooling and processing - with no significant capital im-
provements required of the municipality - may require
support only from regulatory, technical, and health ex-
perts, as well as representatives from the prospective
user and its employees. Reuse for pastureland irriga-
tion in isolated areas might be another example war-
ranting only limited public participation.
7.3
Overview of Public Perceptions
Many contemporary analyses of public involvement
define "the public" as comprising various subsets of "pub-
One of the most tried and true methods of determining
the public's perception of reuse programs is surveys.
Surveys can determine whether or not there will be a large
enough consumer base to sustain a program, if the pro-
222
-------
gram will be favorable enough to progress to the concep-
tual and design stage, and the overall success of the
project after implementation. The following projects high-
light different survey strategies and results across the
nation.
7.3.1 Residential and Commercial Reuse
in Tampa, Florida
A survey done by the City of Tampa for its residential
reuse project included a direct mailing and public opin-
ion survey. Information was sent to 15,500 potable wa-
ter customers in the conceptual project area. Out of the
pool of potential reuse customers, 84 percent of the resi-
dential users and 94 percent of the commercial users in
the South Tampa area thought that reclaimed water was
safe for residential and commercial landscape irriga-
tion. Of the same group, 84 percent of the residential
responders and 90 percent of the commercial respond-
ers replied that the project was appealing. The re-
sponses met the design criteria of 90 percent participa-
tion (Grosh eta/., 2002).
7.3.2 A Survey of WWTP Operators and
Managers
A study done by Hall and Rubin in 2002 surveyed 50
wastewater operators and managers. Seventy percent
of the responders stated that they believed that reuse
would be an important part of their operation in 5 years.
The majority (66 percent) thought that water reuse
should be considered as an element of all water and
wastewater expansion facility permits. Ninety percent
wanted funding agencies to consider financial incentives
to encourage more water reuse. Table 7-1 lists the sur-
vey results (in percentages) to the inquiry for potential
use alternatives for reclaimed water.
7.3.3 Public Opinion in San Francisco,
California
The City of San Francisco, California, surveyed the gen-
eral public to measure public acceptance of a proposed
reclaimed water project. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 graphically
demonstrate the responses that were collected. The over-
all majority strongly felt that reclaimed water was benefi-
cial. Figure 7-2 shows that the responders felt positively
about all of the proposed uses of reclaimed water: fire
fighting, irrigation of golf courses and parks, street clean-
ing, toilet flushing, and drought protection.
7.3.4 Clark County Sanitation District
Water Reclamation Opinion Surveys
Clark County (Las Vegas, Nevada) conducted a series
of 4 different surveys. The surveys included a face-to-
face intercept survey at the Silver Bowl Park, a direct
mail survey with local residents in the Silver Bowl Park
area, a direct mail survey to local residents in the Desert
Breeze Park vicinity, and face-to-face intercepts with
attendees of the EcoJam Earth Day Event. A total of
883 persons participated in the survey (Alpha Commu-
nications Inc., 2001).
The majority (63.8 to 90.1 percent) of the responses were
very positive, replying that the "...overall benefits of re-
claimed water usage are very beneficial." There was a
small minority who had concerns with".. .environmental
safety, bacteria, or germ build-up and general health risks
to children" (Alpha Communications Inc., 2001). Figure
7-3 shows a graphical representation of the average pub-
lic opinion responses from the 4 surveys regarding reuse
for 4 different uses: golf course irrigation, park irrigation,
industrial cooling, and decorative water features.
Another portion of the survey asked if there were any
benefits of using reclaimed water at park facilities. Table
7-1 lists the responses.
There is no question that the public's enthusiasm for re-
use (as noted in the cited studies) could reflect the hypo-
thetical conditions set up by the survey questions and
interviews used rather than signify a genuine willingness
to endorse local funding of real programs that involve
distribution of reclaimed water for nonpotable use in their
neighborhood. Survey results do indicate, however, that,
at least intellectually, "the public" is receptive to use of
reclaimed water in well thought out programs. The re-
sults also support conclusions that this initial acceptance
hinges in large measure on:
• The public's awareness of local water supply prob-
lems and perception of reclaimed water as having
a place in the overall water supply allocation scheme
• Public understanding of the quality of reclaimed wa-
ter and how it would be used
• Confidence in local management of the public utili-
ties and in local application of modern technology
• Assurance that the reuse applications being consid-
ered involve minimal risk of accidental personal ex-
posure
223
-------
Table 7-1.
Positive and Negative Responses to Potential Alternatives for Reclaimed Water
Use
Irrigation of Athletic Fields
Irrigation of Office Parks and Business Campuses
Irrigation of Highway Right-of-way
Residential Landscape Irrigation and Maintenance
Golf Course Irrigation
Irrigation of Agricultural Crops
Irrigation of Crops for Direct Human Consumption
Vehicle Wash Water
Concrete Production
Dust Control
Stream Augmentation
Toilet Flushing
Fire Protection
Ornamental Ponds/Fountains
Street Cleaning
Industrial Process Water
Wetland Creation
Pools/Spas
Potable Reuse - Direct
Potable Reuse - Indirect
Yes
84
82
85
74
89
82
30
76
90
82
67
80
84
56
87
78
84
15
18
40
No
16
18
15
26
11
18
70
24
10
18
33
20
16
44
13
22
16
85
82
60
Adapted from Hall and Rubin, 2002
7.4 Involving the Public in Reuse
Planning
Even where water reclamation is common, there is a
need to establish a flow of information to and from po-
tential reuse customers, so that they can have a clear
understanding of the program and provide input regard-
ing their needs and concerns. Equally important is the
need to address these concerns and answer any ques-
tions in a timely manner. This can help assure the pub-
lic that their issues are being heard and that reuse plan-
ners are being forthcoming in their efforts.
Probably the most important step in encouraging the
public acceptance is to establish and communicate the
expected project benefits. If the project is intended to
extend water resources, then preliminary studies should
address how much water will be made available through
reclamation and compare the costs to those needed to
develop other potable water sources. If reclamation costs
are not competitive, then overriding non-economic is-
sues must exist to equalize the value of the 2 sources.
When reclamation is considered for environmental rea-
sons, such as to reduce or eliminate surface water dis-
charge, then the selected reuse alternative must also be
competitive with other disposal options. Above all, the
public must be aware of and understand all of the ben-
efits.
However, most potential reuse programs invoice choices
among systems with widely different economical and
environmental impacts, which are of varying degrees of
224
-------
Figure 7-1. Public Beliefs and Opinions
Reclaimed Wasteful to Reclaimed Reclaimed Government
Water Will Help Discharge Water Will Water Will Will Make
in Dry Years Reclaimed Save Money Maintain Lake Reclaimed
Water into the in Long Run Water Levels Water Safe
Ocean
Adapted from Filice 1996
Government Reclaimed Reclaimed City Doesn't
Cannot Be Water Will Cost Water is Need Extra
Trusted With Too Much Unsafe Water
Reclaimed
Figure 7-2. Support of Recycled Water Program Activities
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Water Parks &
Golf Courses
Fight Fires
Adapted from Filice 1996
Clean Streets
Flush Toilets
in Buildings
Reduce Rationing
(During Droughts)
225
-------
Figure 7-3. Survey Results for Different Reuse
u
in
o
Q.
in
&
CH Golf Courses
• Parks
CH Industrial Cooling
Water Features
Very Beneficial Some Benefit Neutral
Data Source: Alpha Communications 2001
Little Benefit Not at all Beneficial
importance to many segments of the public. That is why
development of the expected project benefits is so im-
portant because once they are firmly established, they
become the plants of a public information program -
the "why" the program is necessary and desirable. With-
out such validation, reclamation programs will be un-
able to withstand public scrutiny and the likelihood of
project failure increases. In addition, only after the "why"
is established can the "who" and "how" in public involve-
ment truly be determined.
7.4.1 General Requirements for Public
Participation
Figure 7-4 provides a flow chart of a public participa-
tion program for water reuse system planning.
The following items suggest an example approach that
a community might consider in developing a reuse pro-
gram. Note that information tools will vary depending
upon how broad or involved an information program is
needed.
• Determine, internally, the community's reuse goals
and the associated options and/or alternatives to
be further considered.
• Identify any scientific/technical facts that exist, or
are needed, to help explain the issues and alterna-
tives. If additional facts or studies are needed, con-
sider beginning them in the earliest stages so that
additional scientific data can be made available later
in the process. Unanswered questions can damage
the credibility of the program effort.
i Create a master list of stakeholders, including agen-
cies, departments, elected officials, potential cus-
tomers, and others who will be impacted in some
way. It might be helpful to identify the level of inter-
est different individuals and groups will have in the
reuse planning process.
i Begin public outreach to specific target audiences
in the form of informal meetings involving direct
contact, limiting the number invited at any one time
so that individual discussion is more easily accom-
plished
i Determine whether a task force or advisory com-
mittee is needed. If so, take steps to formally ad-
vertise and be sure to include representatives from
the target audience groups. Plan a schedule and
target date for reaching consensus on reuse alter-
natives; then plan well-prepared meetings that in-
vite two-way communications. Bring in outside ex-
perts, such as scientists, to answer questions when
needed.
226
-------
Figure 7-4. Public Participation Program for Water Reuse System Planning
Specific
Users
Survey
Alternatives
Identification
& Evaluation
Project
Implementation
Customer-
Specific
Workshops
Public
Notification/
Involvement
Target
Audience
Broader
Public Group
Customer-Specific
Information
Program(s)
Table 7-2. Survey Results for Different Reuse
Purpose
Communitywide
Education/Information
Direct Stakeholder or
Citizen Contact
Formalized Process
Tools
News media, editorial boards, program web site, traveling exhibits, brochures, educational
videos, school programs, open houses
Neighborhood meetings, speeches and presentations to citizen/stakeholder groups, direct
mail letters and surveys, program "hotlines" for answering information or managing
construction complaints
Public workshops, public meetings, presentations to elected bodies, public hearings,
advisory committees, special task forces
From the task force or advisory committee, the commu-
nity should be able to identify public issues that need
further attention, and determine which additional public
information tools will be needed. Table 7-2 outlines a
number of public information tools that can be used in
the public participation process.
Once the issues are identified and public reaction is
anticipated, the following tools may be useful in con-
veying information to the broader public:
• Citizen survey. Can be conducted via direct mail or
telephone and might be accompanied by media re-
leases to help increase the number of surveys re-
turned or calls answered. In the early stages, a gen-
eral distribution survey may be helpful in identifying
level of interest, potential customers, and any initial
concerns that the population might have. Where
specific concerns are identified, later public infor-
mation efforts can be tailored to address them.
These tailored efforts could include participation by
other public agencies that can provide information
on water reuse and regulatory requirements, infor-
mal discussions with some potential users to deter-
mine interest or fill data gaps, and initial background
reports to appropriate local decision- making bodies.
As the program progresses to alternative identifica-
tion and evaluation, another survey might be con-
sidered. This survey could help confirm earlier re-
227
-------
suits, monitor the effectiveness of the ongoing edu-
cation program, or target specific users. Note that
the percentage of citizens who take the time to par-
ticipate in a survey varies widely from one commu-
nity to another. This should not be the only tool re-
lied upon in gathering input.
i Open houses. Advertise periodic public open houses
where information is made available and knowledge-
able people are on hand to answer questions. Maps,
displays, and brief slide demonstrations are all useful
open house tools.
i Program website. Increasingly, citizens are turning
to websites as important information sources. Such
a website can be purely informational or it can invite
citizens to ask questions. The website should be
updated on a regular basis and can include: its own
survey or results of a citizen survey, answers to fre-
quently asked questions, information regarding other
successful programs in nearby communities, or a
slideshow-style presentation that outlines the pro-
gram goals and alternatives being considered.
i Media relations. In addition to project news releases,
it can be very helpful to spend extra time with re-
porters who will be covering the topic on a regular
basis, providing added background data, plant tours,
and informal updates at appropriate times. This
helps to provide accurate, balanced reports. The
media can also be helpful in making survey data
known, and in posting maps of construction areas
once program implementation is underway.
i Direct mail updates or occasional newspaper inserts.
These updates allow the community to address
questions or issues - not relying specifically on a
media report.
i Briefings for government officials. Because water
reclamation programs often end up with a vote by a
city council, county commission, or other elected
body, it is vital that each elected official be well-
informed throughout the reuse planning process.
Therefore, informal briefings for individual officials
can be an invaluable tool. These briefings are often
conducted prior to public workshops and formal
votes, and allow questions to be answered in ad-
vance of a larger, public setting.
i Plant or project tours. During the education process,
a tour of an existing project that is similar to the one
proposed can be an especially useful tool in provid-
ing information to key stakeholders, such as an ad-
visory committee, elected body, or the media.
Once a reuse program has been determined, additional
public information efforts will be needed throughout the
implementation phase, including notification to citizens
prior to construction occurring near their home or busi-
ness. Then, as the reuse program goes on-line, addi-
tional media relations and direct mailings will be needed.
In the case of urban reuse, this will include information
to help homeowners through the connection process.
The City of Tampa's residential reclaimed water project
(Florida) is one example of a successful comprehensive
public participation program. The City used the services
of Roberts Communication to conduct a targeted public
education program, which included the following elements
(Groshefa/.,2002):
• Opinion leader interviews
• Public opinion survey
• Speakers bureau
• Direct mail to potential customers
• Newsletter article for homeowner association news-
letters
7.4.1.1 Public Advisory Groups or Task Forces
If the scope or potential scope of the reuse program
warrants (e.g., reclaimed water may be distributed to
several users or types of users, or for a more contro-
versial use), a public advisory group or task force can
be formed to assist in defining system features and re-
solving problem areas. In its regulations for full-scale
public participation programs, EPA requires that such
group membership contain "substantially equivalent"
representation from the private (non-interested), orga-
nized, representative, and affected segments of the
public. It is recommended that, for reuse planning, group
membership provide representation from potential us-
ers and their employees, interest groups, neighborhood
residents, other public agencies, and citizens with spe-
cialized expertise in areas (such as public health) that
pertain directly to reclamation/reuse.
The advantage of an advisory group or task force is
that it offers an opportunity to truly educate a core group
that may later become unofficial "spokespersons" for
the project. For such a group to be successful, mem-
bers must see that their input is being put to meaningful
use. Depending upon the community need, either an
advisory committee or task force may be appropriate.
Advisory committees are generally formed for an inde-
terminate period to continuously provide input regard-
228
-------
ing issues related to the topic. So, if an advisory com-
mittee is formed for reuse water, the committee may be
kept as a recommending body to city council, county
commission, or other elected body, regarding all future
reclaimed water projects or issues. Often, members of
the advisory group are designated to serve 2-year terms.
With the development of a task force, the objectives are
clearly defined and the task force disbands once the
objectives have been met. Often, a task force can be a
better short-term solution.
Whether a community chooses a task force or advisory
committee, it is very important to take steps to institu-
tionalize the group and its activities so that its efforts
are formally recognized as meaningful by the elected
body. This group can effectively focus on 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 considered and addressed.
In order to achieve this, the proposed formation of the
advisory group or task force should be publicized to
solicit recommendations for, and expression of interest
in, membership. Often, the community and its leader-
ship will be aware of candidates who would be ideal to
fulfill this role.
Whether a short-lived task force or a longer-term advi-
sory committee, the group's responsibilities should be
well-defined. Its meetings should be open to the public
at times and places announced in advance. Interpretive
meeting minutes should be kept and made available to
the public. During an initial meeting, the group's mem-
bers should designate a single individual who can serve
as a contact point for the news media. The group should
fully recognize its shared responsibility for developing a
sound reuse program that can serve both user require-
ments and community objectives. In subsequent public
meetings, the group will assert its combined role as a
source of information representing numerous interests,
and an advocate of the reuse program as it gains defi-
nition.
7.4.1.2 Public Participation Coordinator
EPA regulations for full-scale public participation pro-
grams require appointment of a public participation co-
ordinator- an individual skilled in developing, publiciz-
ing, and conducting informal briefings and work ses-
sions as well as formal presentations for various com-
munity groups. The appointment of a public participa-
tion coordinator helps ensure that one accurate source
of information is available, and that individuals who show
interest are given an opportunity to provide meaningful
input. Such a person, whether an agency staff member,
advisory group member or specialist engaged from the
larger community, should be thoroughly informed of the
reuse planning process, be objective in presenting in-
formation, and have the 'clout' necessary to communi-
cate and get fast response on issues or problems raised
by citizens involved in the process.
To accomplish this goal, many communities involved in
urban and agricultural reuse have created a dedicated
reuse coordinator position. The responsibilities of such
a position will vary according to specific conditions and
preferences of a given municipality. In many programs,
the reuse coordinator is part of the wastewater treat-
ment department. However, the position can be associ-
ated with the water system, or independent of either
utility.
7.4.2 Specific Customer Needs
As alternatives for water reuse are being considered,
the customers associated with each alternative should
be clearly identified, and then the needs of these cus-
tomers must be ascertained and addressed. In the past,
failure to take this step has resulted in costly and dis-
ruptive delays to reclamation projects. Early involvement
of citizen stakeholders is a key to program success and
is based on tailoring a program to the specific user type
and type of reuse system.
7.4.2.1 Urban Systems
In urban reuse programs, the customer base may con-
sist of literally thousands of individuals who may be
reached through the local media, publicly advertised
workshops, open houses, or neighborhood meetings.
Identification of homeowner associations and civic or-
ganizations may allow for presentations to a larger num-
ber of potential customers at a single time.
The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
(MRWPCA) is one example of a public information pro-
gram that reaches a large urban audience. It has an
active school education program with classroom dem-
onstrations to about 2,300 children each year. Booths
at the County Fair and other local events reach another
7,500 people. Speeches to civic and service groups
reach another 900 people. Together with the 800 people
who tour the water reclamation plant each year, 5 per-
cent of the service area population is being educated
each year. Bimonthly billing inserts add to the local un-
derstanding and appreciation of water reclamation.
7.4.2.2 Agricultural Systems
In agricultural reuse programs, the issues of concern may
differ from those of the urban customer. In such pro-
229
-------
grams, the user is concerned with the suitability of the
reclaimed water for the intended crop. Water quality is-
sues that are of minor importance in residential irrigation
may be of significant importance for agricultural produc-
tion. For example, nitrogen in reclaimed water is gener-
ally considered a benefit in turf and landscape irrigation.
However, as noted in the Sonoma Case Study in Chap-
ter 3, the nitrogen in agricultural reclaimed water could
result in excessive foliage growth at the expense of fruit
production. Similarly, while turf grass and many orna-
mental plants may not be harmed by elevated chlorides,
the same chloride levels may delay crop maturation and
affect the product marketability, as occurred in the straw-
berry irrigation study for the Irvine Ranch Water District
discussed in Section 3.4.
For these reasons and others, it is necessary to modify
the public participation approach used for the urban
customer when developing an agricultural program.
Agencies traditionally associated with agricultural ac-
tivities can provide an invaluable source of technical
information and means of transmitting information to the
potential user. Local agricultural extension agents may
prove to be the most important constituency to commu-
nicate as to the benefits of reclamation to the agricul-
tural community. The agents will likely know most, if not
all, of the major agricultural sites in the area. In addi-
tion, they will be familiar with the critical water quality
and quantity issues facing the local agricultural market.
Finally, the local farmers usually see the extension of-
fice as a reliable source of information and are likely to
seek their opinion on issues of concern, as might be the
case with new reclamation projects. The local exten-
sion agent will be able to discuss the issues with local
farmers and hopefully endorse the project if they are
familiar with the concept of reuse. The local soils con-
servation service may also prove an important target of
a preliminary information program. Lack of endorsement
from these agencies can hinder the implementation of
agricultural reclamation.
7.4.2.3 Reclaimed Water for Potable Purposes
While "reuse" of water has occurred naturally over the
ages, the concept of treating wastewater to a level that
is acceptable for drinking is the most difficult type of
water reuse to gain public acceptance. In such cases
public health and safety issues are of utmost importance
and citizen questions will need to be fully addressed.
Therefore, a comprehensive public participation effort
will be required, initially focusing on the water problems
to be addressed, and then turning to a thorough look at
possible solutions.
Regulatory agencies, health departments, and other
health and safety-related groups will be key audiences
throughout the process. These are groups the public turns
to for answers; therefore, it is very important to develop
strong working relationships. Representatives from local
agencies are also most likely to understand the issues
that need to be addressed and can provide meaningful
input regarding reuse options. Endorsement from these
agencies is critical to program acceptance by the public.
7.4.3
Agency Communication
As noted in Chapters 4 and 5, the implementation of
wastewater reclamation projects may be subject to re-
view and approval by numerous state and local regula-
tory agencies. In locations where such projects are com-
mon, the procedures for agency review may be well-es-
tablished. Where reclamation is just starting, formal re-
view procedures may not exist. In either case, establish-
ing communication with these agencies early in the project
is as important as addressing the needs of the potential
customers. Early meetings may serve as an introduction
or may involve detailed discussions of the permitability
of a given project. As with all other types of stakehold-
ers, the proposed project must be understood and en-
dorsed by the permitting agencies.
It may also be appropriate to contact other agencies that
may still become involved with a public education pro-
gram. In fact, early coordination with key agencies, such
as a community health department, is an important con-
sideration for a couple of reasons. First, the agency may
not be well-informed about the community's reuse goals.
Early discussions can help to answer questions and iden-
tify issues at a time when the issues can most easily be
addressed. Second, because the public often turns to
these agencies for information, early meetings will help
to ensure that citizens receive accurate, consistent an-
swers. If a citizen were to ask one agency a question
and receive a different answer than the community repre-
sentative gave, credibility of the program can be under-
mined.
Where multiple departments in the same agency are in-
volved, direct communication with all concerned depart-
ments will ensure coordination. It is worthwhile to estab-
lish a master list of the appropriate agencies and depart-
ments that will be copied on status reports and periodi-
cally asked to attend review meetings. And while this
communication will be beneficial in developing any recla-
mation project, it will be critical when specific regulatory
guidance on a proposed project does not exist. Such a
condition is most likely to occur in states lacking de-
tailed regulations or in states with very restrictive regula-
tions that discourage reuse projects.
230
-------
7.4.4 Public Information Through
Implementation
No matter the type of reclaimed water project, some
level of construction will be involved at the implementa-
tion stage. Citizens who may not have had an opinion
prior to construction could become negative if the pro-
cess does not go smoothly. This can be especially chal-
lenging in urban reuse programs when citizen "disrup-
tions" are more visible. Whenever possible, minimal dis-
ruption to sidewalks and driveways should be planned,
along with a speedy restoration effort. It will be worth-
while for the community to have a formal construction
complaint process in place that offers one phone num-
ber to call regarding problems, and a tracking system
that documents how quickly complaints are resolved.
Public information regarding construction activities can
be made available through the local media. The com-
munity will also need an information program regarding
connections to the system, with emphasis on making
the process as simple as possible for each customer.
7.4.5
Promoting Successes
In communities where the use of reclaimed water is new,
short-term project successes can become a strong sell-
ing point for later, larger programs. Such is the case
with communities that may begin an urban program by
using reclaimed water in highly visible public medians.
Citizens who drive pass these medians are likely to note
improvements over time and see "reclaimed water" signs
posted at the site. Over time, as a reuse program be-
comes more established, the public information special-
ists will need to look for other opportunities to talk about
how the program is helping the community. These fol-
low-up information efforts provide an important role in
making reuse water a long-term solution for the com-
munity.
Reclaimed water has been actively and successfully
used in urban applications for more than 30 years. These
long-term successes have helped to encourage more
and more communities to make use of this resource.
As citizens have grown to accept and embrace the use
of reclaimed water, a new need for education has arisen
because the supply of reclaimed water is limited and
should not be wastefully used any more than potable
water should not be over-used. The problem of reclaimed
water over-use seems to be especially true in commu-
nities that do not have metering systems to track the
specific amount of water used. Metering systems, and
a sliding scale for payment according to the amount
used, are examples of approaches that some commu-
nities use to encourage conservative use of the re-
claimed water. In Cape Coral, Florida, where urban re-
use has been in place for more than 10 years, the City
launched an education campaign gently reminding citi-
zens to conserve.
7.5 Case Studies
7.5.1 Accepting Produce Grown with
Reclaimed Water: Monterey,
California
For many years some vegetables and fruits have been
grown in foreign countries with reclaimed water and then
sold in the U.S. This practice suggests acceptance on
the part of the distributors and consumers. In Orange
County, California, the Irvine Company has been furrow
irrigating broccoli, celery, and sweet corn with reclaimed
water for over 20 years.
In 1983, as part of the Monterey Wastewater Reclama-
tion Study for Agriculture (see description in Section 3.8),
individuals involved with produce distribution were in-
terviewed regarding the use of reclaimed water for veg-
etable irrigation. One hundred and forty-four interviews
were conducted with:
• Brokers and receivers at terminal markets through-
out the U.S. and Canada
• Buyers for major cooperative wholesalers in princi-
pal cities
• Buyers, merchandisers, and store managers with
small, medium, and large chains
The primary focus of the interviews was the need or
desire to label produce grown with reclaimed water. The
results are given in Table 7-3.
The responses indicated the product would be accepted,
and that labels would not be considered necessary.
According to federal, state, and local agency staff, the
source of the water used for irrigation was not subject
to labeling requirements. Produce trade members indi-
cated labeling would only be desirable if it added value
to the product. Buyers stated that good appearance of
the product was foremost. An abbreviated update of the
1983 survey was conducted in 1995 and led to these
same conclusions.
Since 1998, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Con-
trol Agency (MRWPCA) has been providing reclaimed wa-
ter for nearly 12,000 acres (4,900 hectares) of vegetables
and strawberries. Growers, especially those with a world
known brand, are reluctant to advertise the source of
water used on their crops. They believe the water is as
231
-------
Table 7-3. Trade Reactions and Expectations Regarding Produce Grown with Reclaimed Water
Reaction or Expectation
Would Carry
Would Not Carry
Don't Know
TOTAL
Would Not Expect it to be Labeled
Would Expect it to be Labeled
Don't Know
TOTAL
Respondents Knowledgeable About
Reclaimed Water
64%
20%
16%
100%
68%
20%
12%
100%
Respondents Not Aware of
Reclaimed Water
50%
25%
25%
100%
67%
25%
8%
100%
Total Number of Respondents=68
Source: Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, 2002
good as or better than other irrigation water but are con-
cerned with perception issues. Consequently, 3 ap-
proaches are being followed to address these concerns:
operating the treatment plant beyond the regulatory re-
quirements, low profile education of local residents, and
planning for real or perceived problems with the produce.
MRWPCAstrives to meet Title 22 requirements (<2 NTU,
>5 ppm chlorine residual, <23 MPN max.) when the wa-
ter enters the distribution system. This is usually 1 day
after being held in an open storage pond following treat-
ment. During the peak growing season, chlorine residual
is maintained in the water until it is applied to the crops.
The storage pond is sampled for fecal coliform, emerg-
ing pathogens, Clostridium, and priority pollutants. All
the results are shared with the growers via the
MRWPCA's website (www.mrwpca.org) and through
monthly grower meetings.
MRWPCA has an active school education program with
classroom demonstrations to about 2,300 children each
year. Booths at the county fair and other local events
reach another 7,500 people. Speeches to civic and ser-
vice groups reach another 900. Along with 800 people
coming to tour the water reclamation plant each year, 5
percent of the service area population is being educated
each year. Bimonthly billing inserts add to the local un-
derstanding and appreciation of water reclamation.
The Water Quality and Operations Committee is a group
consisting of project growers, the county health depart-
ment, and the reclaimed water purveyors. It meets monthly
and decides policy issues for the project. That group hired
a public relations firm to plan for a crisis, and a crisis
communication manual was prepared. The committee is
editing the manual, continuing to prepare for different pos-
sible scenarios, and preparing to train members on how
to deal with the press. The growers are still concerned
about perception issues, but are confident that they have
prepared for most possibilities.
7.5.2 Water Independence in Cape Coral -
An Implementation Update in 2003
The City of Cape Coral, Florida, is one of the fastest
growing communities in the country. At 33 years old,
this southwest Florida community has a year-round popu-
lation of more than 113,000 people. However, like many
Florida communities, the population fluctuates with more
than 18,000 additional residents in the winter months.
What makes the City truly unique is its vast developer-
planned canal system, with platted lots throughout the
community. City planners knew well in advance that they
would eventually need to supply water to more than
400,000 residents.
Water supply concerns, coupled with a need to find an
acceptable method for ultimately disposing of 42 mgd
of wastewater effluent, prompted the City to develop a
program called, "Water Independence in Cape Coral"
(WICC). WICC includes a unique dual-water system de-
signed to provide potable water through one set of pipes
and secondary, irrigation water through a second set of
pipes. This secondary water would be provided through
reclaimed water and freshwater canals.
Implementation of WICC did not come easy. The WICC
master plan was prepared, presented, and adopted by
the City with relatively little interest from the public. How-
ever, when attempts were made to move forward with
232
-------
Phase 1 (issuance of special property assessment no-
tices), some members of the public became very vocal
and were successful in delaying the project. From the
time the City committed to proceed, it took 6.5 years to
start up Phase 1. Table 7-4 lists the chronology of the
WICC implementation and highlights the challenges faced
by the City in moving forward.
The City began using the secondary water system in
1992. Had a public awareness campaign been launched
in the early years, it could have addressed citizen con-
cerns prior to finalizing the special assessment program.
Cape Coral's experience provides a valuable lesson to
other communities introducing reuse water.
During the first 8 years of using secondary water, Cape
Coral was able to conserve more than 4 billion gallons
(15 million m3) of potable water that would previously have
been used for irrigation purposes. The system works by
pumping reclaimed water from storage tanks to the distri-
bution system. Five canal pump stations transfer sur-
face water from freshwater canals, as needed. Variable
speed effluent pumps respond to varying customer de-
mands. The secondary water is treated and filtered be-
fore going into the distribution system.
In 2002, the City successfully used secondary water to
irrigate more than 15 miles (24 km) of landscaped me-
dians. Other benefits have included the availability of
year round irrigation at a reasonable price to custom-
ers, the deferred expansion of a City wellfield, the de-
ferred construction of a second reverse osmosis water
treatment facility by a number of years, and nearly zero
discharge of effluent into the nearby Caloosahatchee
River.
As Cape Coral residents came to accept secondary wa-
ter as an irrigation source, the City found a need to launch
an entirely different kind of education campaign. In re-
sponse to "over-watering" by some customers and con-
cerns by regulatory agencies, the City began to enforce
limited watering days and times, just as with potable
water. The City's new education campaign underscored
the message that secondary water should be recognized
as a resource, not a "disposal issue." The City created a
friendly "Cape Coral Irrigator," using a smiling alligator,
Table 7-4.
Chronology of WICC Implementation
November 1 985
January 1988
April 1988
November 9, 1988
November 1 988 -
October 1989
November 1 989
December 1 989
February 1990
March 1992
September 1992
October 1 994
City WICC report prepared
WICC concept is born
WICC master plan adopted
Assessment hearing with 1 ,200 vocal citizens
WICC program stopped
City Council election
Pro-WICC/Anti-WICC campaign
Low voter turnout/Anti-WICC prevailed
Deadlocked City Council
State water management threatens potable allocation cutback
Supportive rate study
Supportive citizen's review committee
Requested increase to potable water allocation denied
WICC referendum
60% voter turnout
WICC wins 2-to-1
Second assessment hearing
Construction started for Phase I
Phase 1 starts up
Phase 2 start up is scheduled
Phase 3 start up is scheduled
233
-------
to remind homeowners about dry season watering times
and good conservation practices. The City also created
an Irrigator Hotline for people to call to confirm watering
schedules, and the City's Code Enforcement began is-
suing citations to violators to make the message clear.
As Cape Coral continues to grow, the City is looking to
expand its secondary system at the same time that crews
bring water and sewer service to new areas of this 114-
square-mile (295-km2) community. In another creative
endeavor, the City is working to increase the supply of
secondary water through weir improvements by season-
ally raising weirs to store more water in the canals. These
weir improvements may make it possible to supply sec-
ondary water to an even larger customer base. Cape Coral
has one of the largest, fully integrated water manage-
ment systems in the country and will bear watching in
the future.
7.5.3 Learning Important Lessons When
Projects Do Not Go as Planned
Over the last decade, reclaimed water proponents have
been highly successful in convincing the public about
the benefits of reclaimed water for irrigation. That
"hurdle" has, for the most part, been surpassed. But
public questions and concerns continue to emerge about
using reclaimed water for anything related to potable
supplies. Today, science and technology make it pos-
sible to treat reclaimed water to drinking water stan-
dards. But, even as an indirect water supply source,
case studies continue to find hesitation by citizens to
embrace highly treated reclaimed water as a potable
water source. This is especially true when other water
supply options become available. Over time, and as
more successes in the potable reclaimed water arena
are achieved, this hurdle may also be surpassed.
The following 2 case studies illustrate some of the chal-
lenges that can emerge as programs strive to move for-
ward from the conceptual stage.
7.5.3.1 San Diego, California
In 1993, the City of San Diego began exploring the feasi-
bility of using highly treated wastewater, or reclaimed
water, to augment imported water supplies. The con-
cept of this "Water Repurification Project" was to treat
reclaimed water to an even higher standard and then
pipe it into a surface water reservoir. There, the re-
claimed water would blend with the raw water supply,
thus increasing the water supply available.
Some positive public involvement efforts undertaken by
the Water Repurification Project team included:
• Convening a public advisory committee early in the
project's development, which included a broad cross
section of community interests
• Engaging members of the advisory committee and
others, including the Sierra Club, County Medical
Society, and Chamber of Commerce, to speak on
behalf of the project
• Developing easy-to-understand information materi-
als and disseminating them widely to potential stake-
holders
Making presentations to community groups and held
numerous workshops and open houses
• Taking members of the public and key stakeholders
on tours of the pilot plant where taste tests were
held using repurified water
• Briefing policy-makers and their staffs
While the project team worked to educate and involve
stakeholders in the process from the early planning
stages, the following "outside" factors emerged and may
have influenced public perception:
• Once the project moved from concept to design,
the City of San Diego's wastewater department took
over as the lead agency. This may have served to
portray the project as a wastewater disposal solu-
tion rather than a water supply solution.
• Lesson to consider. If possible, stay with the same
project team, especially leadership, from inception
through completion. Keep the project goal clear and
unchanging. Try to avoid sending mixed messages.
• During the 5 years from concept to design, another
water supply alternative emerged. Proponents of an
agricultural water transfer positioned it as a supe-
rior alternative to indirect potable reuse and
launched an aggressive promotional campaign. In
fact, the 2 projects were complementary, one pro-
viding a new source of imported water, the other a
locally controlled water source.
Lesson to consider. If a new alternative is proposed
in a public forum, it needs to be formally recognized
and evaluated before the original or an enhanced
concept can move forward. Otherwise, the credibil-
ity of the original concept may be harmed. In some
instances, ideas can be blended through public in-
volvement to develop a more tailored community so-
lution. The goal is to partner with others wherever
234
-------
possible and to avoid an "us versus them" environ-
ment.
The time when the project was ready for final ap-
proval from the San Diego City Council coincided
with several competitive elections. The project be-
came a political issue. Key votes were delayed until
after the election.
Lesson to consider. Much time is often dedicated to
educating community leaders about a project. Elec-
tions can disrupt the timing of implementation be-
cause added time is then needed to educate new
leaders. When possible, big picture planning should
consider key election dates, timing project deadlines
and approvals prior to any major shifts on a council
or commission.
A State Assembly member running for re-election
called for special state hearings on the project, pro-
viding a forum for the candidate's allies to attack
the project. The same candidate sent a direct-mail
"survey" to constituents asking if they supported
"drinking sewage." An underdog City Council can-
didate raised the issue of environmental justice by
stating, inaccurately, that while the wastewater
source was the affluent part of the city, the water
recipients were in lower economic and ethnically
diverse neighborhoods. Even though this was not
true, the misinformation spread with the help of lo-
cal radio talk show personalities and African-Ameri-
can activists. Several African-American ministers
appeared at City Council hearings to protest politi-
cians "using them as guinea pigs."
Lesson to consider. If the public hears a particular
"fact" as little as 3 times, then, regardless of whether
or not the information is true, this "fact" will begin to
be perceived as truth. This is why it is so important
to correct inaccuracies whenever possible, as quickly
as possible. If, for instance, a newspaper article pro-
vides incorrect facts about a project and no one calls
the reporter to correct the story, then the report is
filed in the newspaper archives as factual. The next
time a story is needed about the project, a different
reporter then uses the previous story for background
information. This article is very likely to repeat the
wrong information.
Even after briefings, the lead editorial writer for water
issues at The San Diego Union-Tribune felt any kind
of water reuse was too costly and ill advised. News
reporters borrowed the "Toilet to Tap" description
(used by media covering a groundwater project in
Los Angeles) in their ongoing coverage.
Lesson to Consider: Developing ongoing relationships
with knowledgeable reporters and editorial boards is
critical.
• The National Research Council issued a report on
indirect potable reuse just prior to the project's con-
sideration by the San Diego City Council. While the
report was largely favorable, the executive summary
included a statement that indirect potable reuse
should be considered an "option of last resort." That
comment made national news and was viewed as
scientific validation that the project was unsafe.
• Spurred by local media coverage and direct mail
from political candidates criticizing the project, a
group of County residents formed to actively op-
pose the project. The "Revolting Grandmas" at-
tended all hearings and public meetings to speak
against the project and wrote letters to the media
and elected officials. Members of the Revolting
Grandmas lived outside the City's jurisdiction and,
therefore, had not been included on project mailing
lists to receive accurate information for the past 5
years.
Lesson to Consider. While it may be impossible to
identify every stakeholder group in the process, this
situation highlights just how critical early identifica-
tion of a complete list of stakeholders can be.
• A private developer of gray water systems attacked
the project repeatedly with elected officials and the
media, claiming gray water was a superior water
supply option. The company president argued gray
water was safer and more cost-effective than indirect
potable reuse.
Lesson to Consider. Sometimes, providing a direct
response to a party with an opposing view can be
the correct response. But, at other times, providing
a response may serve to validate the other person's
claims in the eyes of the public. It is important to
evaluate the level of response needed on a case-
by-case basis.
7.5.3.2 Public Outreach May not be Enough:
Tampa, Florida
In the late 1990s, the City of Tampa, Tampa Bay Water,
and the SWFWMD, in cooperation with the EPA, studied
the feasibility of developing a water purification project
for the area. Reclaimed water, treated further at a supple-
mental water reclamation treatment facility, would be
blended with surface water and treated again at the City's
water treatment facility. A public outreach program was
235
-------
developed to enhance and improve the public's under-
standing of the region's water problem, its long history of
conflict over water issues, and public perceptions about
government and indirect potable reuse. While there were
significant challenges to overcome, a public information
program began to make headway through the use of the
following efforts:
• Identified and interviewed key stakeholders, conducted
focus groups, and conducted a public opinion sur-
vey
• Developed project fact sheets, frequently asked ques-
tions materials, and brochures
• Drafted a comprehensive communication plan for the
project
• Formed a public working committee and developed
its operating framework
• Developed a project video, website, and layperson's
guide to the Independent Advisory Committee's rec-
ommendations.
• Supported the Ecosystem Team Permitting process
that resulted in permit issuance
• Conducted public meetings, open houses, and work-
shops
Although the outreach program reached a broad audi-
ence and the project was permitted, it has yet to be
implemented. Several factors contributed to the lack of
implementation, including a lack of support among
agency policymakers and senior staff. Specific examples
include:
• Policymakers viewed the project as a choice among
seawater desalination, creating a new reservoir in
an old phosphate pit, and developing the purified
water project. Many policymakers considered de-
salination the preferred option.
• The City of Tampa Department of Sanitary Sewers
was the main project proponent, positioning the
project from the wastewater side. The City of Tampa
Water Department was not actively involved.
• A general manager of a local water agency vocally
opposed the project. Tampa Bay Water, the region's
water agency, did not speak out to counter the op-
position.
• A National Research Council report critical of indi-
rect potable reuse was released just prior to when
the Tampa Bay Water Board was called upon to
approve the project. The report created a percep-
tion that the scientific community was not in favor of
indirect potable reuse.
The Tampa project shows the importance of gaining
support of policymakers, senior staff and elected offi-
cials. It may be worthwhile to consider these among the
first target audiences, before working toward a broader
public involvement effort.
7.5.4 Pinellas County, Florida Adds
Reclaimed Water to Three R's
of Education
When Pinellas County Utilities renovated the South
Cross Bayou Water Reclamation Facility, the depart-
ment saw an opportunity to use the new facility as a
learning laboratory to teach "real-life" science to stu-
dents and other County residents. The effort to make the
vision a reality began more than a year ago with the con-
struction of an Educational/Welcome Center that is now
home to a multifaceted, hands-on educational program.
Initially focusing on high school science students and
adult visitors, utility officials worked closely with County
high school teachers to develop "Discover a Cleaner
Tomorrow" as an appropriate curriculum to enhance
classroom learning. The curriculum was designed to
support National Science Standards, Sunshine State
Standards, and student preparedness for the Florida
Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) tests.
Through a partnership with the Pinellas County School
Board, a certified science educator modifies the cur-
riculum for each visiting class and teaches the scientific
principles and methods involved in water reclamation.
Before they visit the South Cross Bayou site, students
are introduced to the topic of wastewater treatment
through an animated video focusing on the role of bac-
teria. The video sets the tone for serious learning through
humor in the light-hearted production. When they arrive
at the site, students are introduced to the facility tour
with a second short feature, a sequel to the classroom
video. A third video was developed for the general pub-
lic. Titled "Undissolved Mysteries," it features a detec-
tive/narrator who roams through the facility uncovering
the mysteries of water reclamation.
After the video presentations, visitors board a tram that
transports them through the 35-acre site. Hands-on in-
vestigation helps students and other visitors gain a bet-
ter understanding of wastewater treatment processes.
236
-------
Students test the wastewater at 2 different locations for
dissolved oxygen, nitrates, nitrites, and total suspended
solids. They compare their results with those from the
professional on-site laboratory, as well as those from other
high school groups, adding a competitive element to the
tour. Students must each complete an exercise and ob-
servation notebook as they take the tour, creating ac-
countability in meeting specific learning objectives.
Visitors to the facility develop a better understanding of
the science involved in water reclamation, the role citi-
zens play in managing limited water resources, the im-
portance of clean water, and the range of career oppor-
tunities in wastewater treatment and management.
7.5.5 Yelm, Washington, A Reclaimed
Water Success Story
The City of Yelm, Washington, boasts an $11 million
water reclamation facility that has gained statewide rec-
ognition and become a local attraction. Yelm recycles
200,000 gpd (760 m3/d) of water, with plans to eventu-
ally recycle 1 mgd (3,800 m3/d). The system has been
producing Class A reclaimed water since its inception
in August 2001; however, the jewel of the facility is an
8-acre (3-hectare) memorial park and fishing pond. At
the park, a constructed wetlands system de-chlorinates,
re-oxygenates, and further cleans, screens, and moves
the water through a wetland park of several ponds, in-
cluding a catch-and-release fishing pond stocked with
rainbow trout. City representatives say the park has be-
come a good place for fishing and viewing wildlife. There's
even been a wedding held on site. The City also uses
the reclaimed water for irrigation at a middle school and
a number of churches. The water is also used to wash
school buses and to supply a number of fire hydrants.
Yelm is actively promoting public awareness about re-
claimed water. Twenty-five elementary and middle
school students entered a city-sponsored contest to see
who could come up with the most creative water reuse
mascot. The winning mascot, designed by a fifth grader,
was a purple pipe aptly named, "Mike the Pipe." Stu-
dents and teachers then took the concept a step further
and created an interactive skit using Mike the Pipe and
other characters to talk about what can be done with
water that is poured down a drain. Some of the other
characters included, "Water Sprite," "Sledge," and "Little
Bug."
The City of Yelm Water Reclamation Facility has won
awards from the American Public Works Association,
the Association of Washington Cities, and, in 2002, the
Department of Ecology presented the City with an Envi-
ronmental Excellence Award.
7.5.6 Gwinnett County, Georgia - Master
Plan Update Authored by Public
Population and economic growth, as well as an extended
drought, forced Gwinnett County, Georgia, to reassess
its water strategy. While simultaneously building the 20-
mgd North Advanced Water Reclamation Facility
(NAWRF), the county also initiated a multi-stakeholder
program to update its Water and Wastewater Master
Plan in order to combat growing water problems.
The NAWRF is an 11-step reclamation facility that in-
cludes primary, secondary, and advanced treatment as
well as a 20-mile (32-km) pipeline to discharge plant ef-
fluent to the Chattahoochee River. Unit processes at the
plant include: clarifying tanks, biological treatment, mem-
brane filters, sand and activated carbon filters, and ozone
gas disinfection. During construction, projections led the
County to begin plans to renovate the plant to double its
capacity to 40 mgd (1,750 l/s).
As part of the multi-stakeholder program to update the
master plan, the county created an Advisory Panel. The
panel, created in 1996, had meetings facilitated by the
Gwinnett County Department of Public Utilities (DPU)
with assistance from an environmental consulting firm.
Polls were held at public meetings to identify 7 catego-
ries of stakeholder groups (Hartley, 2003):
• Homeowner associations
• Business community
• Development interests
• Large water users
• Gwinnett County cities
• Environmental organizations
• Citizens-at-large
Representatives were selected from each of these stake-
holder groups and were responsible for attending meet-
ings and conveying information to and from their respec-
tive groups. Public meetings were held the first Tuesday
of each month for 18 months. The following list of goals
and objectives were developed by the Advisory Panel
throughout the 18-month discourse (Hartley, 2003):
• Improve reliability of water and sewer system
• Develop strong maintenance and rehabilitation pro-
grams
237
-------
• Protect public health and the environment
• Plan for water and sewer capacity proactively
• Minimize the negative impact of new facilities on
neighborhoods and the environment
• Develop alternate water sources
• Pursue regional opportunities
• Manage water and wastewater demand
• Provide a high level of service at an optimum cost
One of the major items of dissent among the regulatory
agencies, Gwinnett County, and members of "the pub-
lic" was effluent disposal from the NAWRF. The original
plant included a pipeline to discharge effluent to the
Chattahoochee River; however, fears of low quality ef-
fluent and recent raw sewage spills and fish kills led many
groups and individuals to be against discharge to the
river. The second alternative was to discharge effluent
to Lake Lanier, which feeds the local water treatment
plant, in turn, a form of indirect potable reuse. And al-
though the state did approve discharge into Lake Lanier,
it is illegal in the State of Georgia to perform direct po-
table reuse (Hartley, 2003).
The Advisory Panel recommended the following items
for water supply (Hartley, 2003):
• Preference for the continued use of Lake Lanier as
a water supply source in the near-, mid-, and long-
term
• Blended reuse was considered a secondary alter-
native in the long-term
The group created a second set of recommendations for
wastewater (Hartley, 2003):
• Given the quality of treated wastewater effluent from
the NAWRF, nonpotable reuse should be "pursued
vigorously" through all time periods
• Continue to seek conversions from septic tanks to
public wastewater treatment
• Discharge into the Chattahoochee River in the near-
term was preferred, with a second option being dis-
charge into Lake Lanier
• Increased preferences for blended reuse in reser-
voirs for the mid- and long-term planning horizons
These items were included in the update to the master
plan that the Advisory Panel members".. .actively wrote
and edited..." (Hartley, 2003).
In addition to the creation of the Advisory Panel, Gwinnett
County created a separate Citizen Advisory Board to
oversee responsibilities at the NAWRF, especially proper
operations and meeting effluent limits. This board was
created in response to the concern that lower-standard
effluent would have detrimental effects on the
Chattahoochee River and Lake Lanier.
"While there were a few common members with the
master planning process Advisory Panel, the Citizen
Advisory Board is in independent group with a distinct
role. It serves as a communication channel between the
public and the utility. The Citizen Advisory Board con-
trols its own $50,000/year budget. The Citizen Advisory
Board has spent the funds on sampling, technical re-
view of plans and designs, and other oversight activi-
ties" (Hartley, 2003).
The Citizen Advisory Board has been successful in both
facilitating communications with other citizens, as well
as being instrumental in ensuring premium operations
and maintenance at the NAWRF. Most recently they
succeeded in adding a new resolution to include annual
budgeting for the retraining of the operations and main-
tenance staff at the plant (Hartley, 2003).
7.5.7 AWWA Golf Course Reclaimed Water
Market Assessment
In 1998, the AWWA Water Reuse Committee commis-
sioned a study to survey golf course superintendents
regarding their perceptions and experiences using re-
claimed water. With the increasing need to turn to re-
claimed water for non-domestic uses, the water indus-
try was interested in determining if the existing systems
providing reclaimed water to golf courses were satis-
factory or needed improvement so that this information
could be used by providers when developing future re-
claimed water systems.
A survey creation group was formed with members of
the USGA Green Section, certified golf course superin-
tendents, and a member of the University of Nevada at
Las Vega (UNLV) research staff. This group developed a
37-question survey focused primarily on the technical
aspects of water quality issues, irrigation system issues,
management issues, provider issues, and the percep-
tions of golfers, superintendents, and the public.
The survey was beta tested in 2000 with the AWWA CA/
NV Recycled Water Committee and the NWEA user sub-
238
-------
committee of Reuse Nevada to ensure that the time com-
mitment and survey content were appropriate. A website
was built to disseminate the survey, providing a readily
available place for soliciting input from superintendents
across the nation. The website, www.gcrwa.com, was
opened in September of 2000 and the necessary pro-
gramming was completed to allow the survey data to be
downloaded to a secure database so that the results could
be evaluated.
Since January 2003, data has been received from 15
states and British Columbia with the majority of the sur-
vey responses coming from Florida, Arizona, and Ne-
vada. Knowing that the USGA list of effluent-using golf
courses in 1994 numbered 220 and the number in South-
ern Nevada alone has grown from 5 to 17 since then, it
is estimated that the number of golf courses in the U.S.
that use reclaimed water might easily exceed 300 to-
day. Based on this expected sample population, the most
significant observation has been the slow response rate
from golf course superintendents — only 88 have been
received. Internet responses as of January 2003 num-
bered 62, while returns by fax or mail number 26, indi-
cating that 30 percent of the superintendents either do
not have access to the Internet or prefer to respond with
hard copy.
The survey responses have come from private courses
(47 percent) and public courses (53 percent). Most of
the courses (78 percent) were standard 18-hole courses
and ranged between 660 and 7,200 yards (600 and
6,580 meters) in length. About 55 percent of the courses
use reclaimed water all or part of the time. The remain-
ing 45 percent of the courses use potable, well, storm,
canal, river water, or combinations thereof to irrigate
their courses.
Significant to the intent of the survey, was the response
regarding the opinions of golfers, nearby residents, and
superintendents to the use of reclaimed water. Nega-
tive comments about reclaimed water appear to be lim-
ited to about 10 percent of each of the groups, with odors
being the only repetitive comment. The overwhelming
majority (90 percent) appears to be very positive and
supportive of reclaimed water use. Algae, pondweeds,
and odors were the 3 most troublesome problems for
superintendents associated with both reclaimed water
irrigation systems and aesthetic ponds.
Irrigation quantity and timing was most often influenced
by turf color, followed by soil sampling and on-site
weather stations. Total dissolve solids (TDS) is gener-
ally claimed to be a large concern with turf irrigation wa-
ter, so it was interesting to find that only 31 percent of
Figure 7-5. Survey Reponses
EH Yes
• No
^| Did Not Respond
239
-------
the survey respondents claimed to know what the actual
TDS of their water was, yet 59 percent were either satis-
fied or dissatisfied. Satisfied outnumbered the dissatis-
fied by a ratio of 2 to 1. A graphical representation of the
survey responses is presented in Figure 7-5.
7.6 References
Alpha Communications, Inc. 2001 Water Reclamation
Public Opinion Surveys. Researched for: Clark County
Sanitation District. Las Vegas, Nevada.
Curran, T.M. and S.K. Kiss. 1992. "Water Independence
in Cape Coral: An Implementation Update." In: Proceed-
ings of Urban and Agricultural Water Reuse, Water En-
vironment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia.
Filice, F.V. 1996. "Using Public Opinion Surveys to Mea-
sure Public Acceptance of a Recycled Water Program
- San Francisco, CA." Water Reuse Conference Pro-
ceedings. AWWA. Denver, Colorado.
Grosh, E.L., R.L. Metcalf, and D.H. Twachtmann. 2002.
"Recognizing Reclaimed Water as a Valuable Resource:
The City of Tampa's First Residential Reuse Project."
2002 WateReuse Annual Symposium, Orlando, Florida.
September 8-11,2002.
Grinnell, Gary K., and Ram G. Janga. 2003. "AWWA
Golf Course Reclaimed Water Market Analysis." 2003
AWWA Annual Conference Proceedings, Anaheim, Cali-
fornia.
Hall, W.L. and A.R. Rubin. 2002. "Reclaimed Water: A
Public Perception." WEFTEC 2002, Proceedings of the
75th Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, Illinois.
Hartley, Troy W. 2003. Water Reuse: Understanding Pub-
lic Perception and Participation. Alexandria, Virginia: Wa-
ter Environment Federation and IWA Publishing.
Kadvany, John, and Tracy Clinton. 2002. "A Decision Analy-
sis Toolkit for Engineering and Science-Based Stakeholder
Processes." WEFTEC 2002, Proceedings of the 75th
Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, Illinois.
Sheikh, B., J. Kelly and P. MacLaggan 1996. "An Out-
reach Effort Aimed at Increasing Water Recycling in
California." Water Reuse Conference Proceedings.
AWWA. Denver, Colorado.
240
-------
Chapter 8
Water Reuse Outside the U.S.
The need for alternative water resources, coupled with
increasingly stringent water quality discharge require-
ments, are the driving forces for developing water reuse
strategies in the world today. Water reuse enables prac-
titioners to manipulate the water cycle, thereby creating
needed alternative water resources and reducing effluent
discharge to the environment. The growing trend is to
consider water reuse as an essential component of inte-
grated water resources management and sustainable
development, not only in dry and water deficient areas,
but in water abundant regions as well. In areas with high
precipitation where water supply may be costly due to
extensive transportation and/or pumping, water reuse has
become an important economic alternative to developing
new sources of water.
Reuse of wastewater for agricultural irrigation is prac-
ticed today in almost all arid areas of the world. Numer-
ous countries have established water resources planning
policies based on maximum reuse of urban wastewater.
In many dry regions, particularly in developing countries
in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, unplanned use of in-
adequately treated wastewater for irrigation of crops con-
tinues today and is often confused with planned and regu-
lated reuse. This major health concern makes it impera-
tive to governments and the global community to imple-
ment proper reuse planning and practices, emphasizing
public health and environmental protection, during this
era of rapid development of wastewater collection and
treatment. Within the next 2 decades, 60 percent of the
world's population will live in cities. As increasingly am-
bitious targets for sewage collection are pursued, mas-
sive and growing volumes of wastewater will be disposed
of without treatment to rivers and natural water bodies.
The challenges will be particularly acute in mega-cities
(cities with a population of 10 million or more), over 80
percent of which will be located in developing countries.
This chapter provides an overview and examples of wa-
ter reuse in countries outside of the U.S., including the
implementation of reuse in developing countries where
the planning, technical, and institutional issues may dif-
fer considerably from industrialized countries.
8.1 Main Characteristics of Water
Reuse in the World
Increased water shortages and new environmental poli-
cies and regulations have stimulated significant devel-
opment in reuse programs in the past 20 years. Accord-
ing to the conclusions of various water reuse surveys
(Lazarova etal., 2001 and Mantovani et a/., 2001), the
best water reuse projects, in terms of economic viability
and public acceptance, are those that substitute re-
claimed water in lieu of potable water for use in irriga-
tion, environmental restoration, cleaning, toilet flushing,
and industrial uses. The main benefits of using reclaimed
water in these situations are conservation of water re-
sources and pollution reduction.
A project commissioned by the Water Environment Re-
search Foundation (WERF), Mantovani etal. (2001) sur-
veyed nonpotable water reclamation planning and man-
agement practices worldwide. The study reviewed 65 in-
ternational nonpotable water reuse projects to document
planning and management approaches for agricultural,
urban, and industrial water reuse projects in both advanced
and developing countries in the arid and semi-arid belts
around the globe. The survey findings confirmed that in
addition to operational performance, sound institutional
arrangements, conservative cost and sales estimates,
and good project communication are the basis for project
success. By the same token, institutional obstacles, in-
adequate valuation of economic benefits, or a lack of public
information can delay projects or cause them to fail.
Table 8-1 shows the average volumes of reclaimed water
produced in several countries, as well as the relative con-
tribution of water reuse to the total water demand. Re-
cent projections show that in Israel, Australia, and Tuni-
sia, the volume of reclaimed water will satisfy 25 percent,
11 percent, and 10 percent, respectively, of the total wa-
ter demand within the next few years (Lazarova et al.,
241
-------
Table 8-1.
Sources of Water in Several Countries
Country
Algeria
Bahrain
Cyprus
Egypt
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Jordan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon
Libya
Morocco
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Tajikistan
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
U. A. Emirates
Yemen
Total Annual Water Withdrawal
Year
1990
1991
1993
1993
2001
1990
1995
1993
1994
1990
1994
1994
1991
1991
1994
1992
1993
1989
1990
1992
1989
1995
1990
Mm3
4,500
239
211
55,100
81 ,000
42,800
2,000
984
538
1 1 ,036
1,293
4,600
1 1 ,045
1,223
285
17,018
14,410
12,600
3,075
31 ,600
22,800
2,108
2,932
MG
1,188,900
63,144
55,746
14,557,420
21 ,400,200
1 1 ,307,760
528,400
259,973
142,140
2,915,711
341,611
1,215,320
2,918,089
323,117
75,297
4,496,156
3,807,122
3,328,920
812,415
8,348,720
6,023,760
556,934
774,634
Annual Reclaimed Water Usage
Year
-
1991
1997
2000
1999
-
1995
1997
1997
1994
1997
1999
1994
1995
1994
2000
2000
-
1998
2000
-
1999
2000
Mm3
-
15
23
700
154
-
200
58
80
0.14
2
40
38
26
25
217
370
-
28
50
-
185
6
MG
-
3,963
6,077
184,940
40,687
-
52,840
1 5,324
21,136
37
528
1 0,568
1 0,040
6,869
6,605
57,331
97,754
-
7,398
13,210
-
48,877
1,585
Reclaimed Water as
Percent of Total
-
6%
11%
1%
0.20%
-
10%
6%
15%
0%
0.20%
1%
0.30%
2%
9%
1%
3%
-
1%
0%
-
9%
0%
Sources: Adapted
Note: (-) indicates
from World Bank, 2001 with updates from Hamdallah, 2000.
that data was not available.
2001). In Jordan, reclaimed water volumes must increase
more than 4 times by the year 2010 in order to meet
demands. By 2012, the volume of reclaimed water in Spain
will increase by 150 percent. The reclaimed water vol-
ume in Egypt is expected to increase by more than 10
times by the year 2025. A number of countries in the
Middle East are planning significant increases in water
reuse to meet an ultimate objective of reusing 50 to 70
percent of the total wastewater volume.
8.2
Water Reuse Drivers
The main drivers for water reuse development worldwide
are:
• Increasing water demands to sustain industrial and
population growth. This is the most common and
important driver for dry and water-abundant regions
in developed, developing, and transitional countries.
i Water scarcity and droughts, particularly in arid
and semi-arid regions. In this case, reclaimed water
is a vital and drought-proof water source to ensure
economic and agricultural activities.
i Environmental protection and enhancement in
combination with wastewater management needs
represent an emerging driver, in a number of industri-
alized countries, coastal areas, and tourist regions.
In areas with more stringent wastewater discharge
standards, such as in Europe, Australia, and South
Africa, wastewater reuse becomes a competitive
alternative to advanced water treatment from both
economic and environmental points of view.
i Socio-economic factors such as new regulations,
health concerns, public policies, and economic in-
centives are becoming increasingly important to the
implementation of water reuse projects. For example,
242
-------
the increase in the cost of potable water will help
promote the implementation of wastewater reuse.
Public health protection is the major driver in de-
veloping countries where lack of access to fresh wa-
ter supplies coupled with high market access in ur-
ban and peri-urban areas, drives untreated reuse in
agriculture. Public health protection and environmen-
tal risk mitigation are key components of any reuse
program under these conditions.
8.2.1
Increasing Water Demands
Population growth, urbanization, and industrial develop-
ment contribute to water shortages by perpetually push-
ing up demand. In addition, these same factors increase
water pollution, add to potable water treatment costs,
and most likely, have adverse health effects. Urban growth
impacts in developing countries are extremely pressing.
Whereas only 1 in 3 mega-cities were located in devel-
oping countries in 1950, in the year 2002,14 of 22 such
cities were in developing countries. By 2020, more than
half the total population of Asia, Africa, and Latin America
will be living in cities, and all of these cities will need
additional water supplies. (See Figure 8-1).
8.2.2
Water Scarcity
The most common approach used to evaluate water avail-
ability is the water stress index, measured as the an-
nual renewable water resources per capita that are avail-
Figure 8-1. World Populations in Cities
Majority of people to live in cities by 2005
Rural/urban distribution of population, 1950,1975,2000*, 2020*
The world's current population of 5.9 billion is split
more or less equally between cities and rural
areas. Urban areas are expected to surpass rural
areas in population around the year 2005 and to
account for at least 60 percent of the global
population by 2020.
CZI Rural population
• Urban population
Source: UN
* Projections
Asia Africa Europe Latin North Oceania
America America
Source: United Nations 2002
able to meet needs for domestic, industrial, and agricul-
tural use. Based on past experiences in moderately de-
veloped countries in arid zones, renewable freshwater
resources of 1,700 m3/capita/year (0.45 mg/capita/year)
has been proposed as the minimum value at which coun-
tries are most likely to begin to experience waterstress,
which may impede development and harm human health
(Earth Trends, 2001). Below 1,000 m3/capita/year(0.26
mg/capita/year) of renewable freshwater sources, chronic
water scarcity appears. According to some experts,
below 500 m3/capita/year (0.13 mg/capita/year), countries
experience absolute water stress and the value of
100 m3/capita/year (0.026 mg/capita/year) is the mini-
mum survival level for domestic and commercial use
(Falkenmarkand Widstrand, 1992 and Lazarova, 2001).
Projections predict that in 2025,2/3 of the world's popu-
lation will be under conditions of moderate to high water
stress and about half of the population will face real con-
straints in their water supply.
Population Action International has projected the future
water stress index for 149 countries and the results in-
dicate that 1 /3 of these countries will be under water stress
by 2050. Africa and parts of western Asia appear particu-
larly vulnerable to increasing water scarcity. This data
also shows that a number of Middle Eastern countries
are already well below the absolute water stress of 500 m3/
capita/year (0.13 mg/capita/year) and by 2050 will reach
the minimum survival level of 100 m3/capita/year (0.026
mg/capita/year) for domestic and commercial use. In
addition, numerous nations with adequate water resources
have arid regions where drought and restricted water sup-
ply are common (north-western China, western and south-
ern India, large parts of Pakistan and Mexico, the west-
ern coasts of the U.S. and South America, and the Medi-
terranean region).
A high concentration of population within individual coun-
tries also causes water stress. The North China Plain
(surrounding Beijing and within the river basins Hai, Huai,
and Yellow River) contains most of the country's popu-
lation, such that the water availability is only about 5
percent of the world average, while China, as a whole,
has about 25 percent of the world average.
Another important criterion for evaluating water stress is
water withdrawal as a percentage of the annual internal
renewable water resources. Water management becomes
a vital element in a country's economy when over 20 per-
cent of the internal renewable resources are mobilized
(Earth Trends, 2001). This is currently occurring in sev-
eral European countries (Figure 8-2a) such as France,
Spain, Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Belgium, the Netherlands,
and Hungary. The Mediterranean region, North Africa,
Morocco, Tunisia, Israel, and Jordan are facing high risks
243
-------
of water scarcity, meaning that in these areas, the major
portion of the renewable resources are withdrawn. A num-
ber of arid and semi-arid countries meet water demands
by seawater desalination or by withdrawals from non-re-
newable deep aquifers with extracted volumes 2 to 30
times higher than available renewable resources (Figure
8-2b).
Improving the efficiency of water use, water reclama-
tion, and reducing distribution losses are the most af-
fordable solutions to relieve water scarcity. For a num-
ber of countries in the Middle East and North Africa, where
current fresh water reserves are, or will be, at the sur-
vival level, reclaimed wastewater is the only significant,
8-2a.
Countries with Chronic Water Stress Using Non-Renewable Resources
•5
ss
(A
£
•a
|
<
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
3061
..921
Water stress level of 1700 m3
2690
n
2378
I I Withdrawals in 1998, % of water resources
I—I Withdrawals in 2000, % of water resources
"•" Water availability, m3/inhabitant
1748
1405
"- -~ i~ 72
1_LJ 1_LJ 1_LJ l-l I I I I l_l_|
2000
-1800
-1600
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
E
S
a
£
8-2b.
Countries with Moderate Water Stress
160
._ 120-'
o
ss
to
80-
40"
145
Withdrawals in 1998, % of water resources
Withdrawals in 2000, % of water resources
Water available, m3/inhabitant
431140 36 37
30/23\25/ Water stress level
rrlfirjk
/ [—i \.~. J 23 \~V *»ciid oLI coo ic;vc;i • •
MMIiMi
oi ittTrrnmiffl i h
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
I
I
o>
Source: Adapted by Lazarova, V. from Earth Trends 1999-2000, World Resource Institute
244
-------
low cost alternative resource for agricultural, industrial,
and urban nonpotable purposes.
8.2.3 Environmental Protection and
Public Health
In spite of the economic and ecological advantages as-
sociated with wastewater reuse, the key issue remains
public health safety. The reuse of raw wastewater, still
widely practiced in several regions in China, India, Mo-
rocco, Egypt, Pakistan, Nepal, Vietnam and most of South
America, leads to enteric diseases, helminthic infections,
and dangerous epidemics. In addition to public health
risks, insufficiently treated effluent may also have detri-
mental effects on the environment. For example, high
salinity levels in effluent can lead to a decrease in pro-
ductivity for certain crops and destabilization of the soil
structure. Another possible adverse effect is groundwater
pollution. In the Mezquital Valley, north of Mexico City,
1,027 mgd (45 m3/s, or 1.15 million acre-feet/year) of
untreated wastewater from the capital city of Mexico City
is used for agricultural irrigation in a222,400-acre (90,000-
hectare) area, year-round (IWA, 2002). This huge waste-
water irrigation project, believed to be the largest in the
world, has given rise to inadvertent and massive recharge
of the local aquifers, and unintended indirect potable re-
use of water from that aquifer by a population of 300,000
inhabitants.
8.3 Water Reuse Applications - Urban
and Agriculture
Agriculture is the largest user of water, accounting for
approximately 80 percent of the global demand. Con-
sequently, agricultural irrigation is the major water re-
use application worldwide. In a number of arid and semi-
arid countries - Israel, Jordan, and Tunisia-water reuse
provides the greatest share of irrigation water. Israel is
the world's leader in this area, with over 70 percent of
collected and treated wastewater reused for agricultural
purposes (Kanarekand Michail, 1996).
Urban water reuse is developing rapidly, particularly in
large cities, coastal, and tourist areas. Japan is the
leader in urban water reuse, with 8 percent of the total
reclaimed water (about 2,113 mgd or 8 millions rrrYyear)
used for urban purposes. The most common urban uses
are for the irrigation of green areas (parks, golf courses,
and sports fields), urban development (waterfalls, foun-
tains, and lakes), road cleaning, car washing, and
firefighting. Another major type of reuse is on-site water
reuse within commercial and residential buildings. For
example, Australia, Canada, Japan, and the United King-
dom use treated domestic wastewater for toilet flushing.
Golf course irrigation is reported as the most rapidly grow-
ing application of urban water reuse in Europe (Lazarova,
1999), while replenishment of river flows for recreational
uses is becoming increasingly popular in Spain and Ja-
pan.
There are several advantages to implementing urban re-
use versus agricultural reuse:
• Most urban reuse, such as toilet flushing, vehicle
washing, stack gas cleaning, and industrial process-
ing is nonconsumptive; therefore, the water can be
reused again for subsequent consumptive uses in
agriculture or industry.
• The urban markets for water reuse are generally
closer to the points of origin of the reclaimed water
than are the agricultural markets.
• Urban reuse water generally holds a higher value
than agricultural reuse because it can be metered
and appropriate charges levied.
Wastewater treatment for reuse may have a lower cost
than developing new water supply sources, particularly
for low-quality reuse in toilet flushing and similar
nonpotable urban uses. Agricultural irrigation will prob-
ably continue to dominate water reuse practices for many
years into the future, especially in developing countries.
However, reclamation projects are not likely to be built
to serve agriculture. Over recent years, there has been
increasing interest in indirect potable reuse in a num-
ber of industrialized countries (Australia, Belgium,
France, Spain, South Africa, Singapore, and the U.S.) for
water supply augmentation through the replenishment of
surface reservoirs, aquifers, and salt intrusion barriers in
coastal areas.
Untreated reuse water is a large and rapidly growing prob-
lem practiced in both low- and middle-income countries
around the world. The International Water Management
Institute (IWMI), based in Colombo, Sri Lanka, and the
International Development Research Centre (IDRC), based
in Ottawa, Canada held a workshop to discuss the use of
untreated reuse water, at which a range of case studies
were presented from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and
Latin America. At the workshop the Hyderabad Declara-
tion on Wastewater Use in Agriculture was adopted.
The conference organizers are preparing an official, peer-
reviewed publication based on this declaration. As previ-
ously mentioned, there are parts of the world where the
wastewater management systems do not allow for the
development of water reuse. In some regions untreated
wastewater is improperly used for irrigation, usually ille-
gally. The declaration recognizes that in situations where
245
-------
wastewater treatment to produce usable reuse water is 8.4 Planning Water Reuse Projects
not available, there are alternatives to improve the man-
agement of water reuse. The Hyderabad Declaration on Numerous state-of-the-art technologies enable wastewa-
Wastewater Use in Agriculture is reproduced below. ter to become a complementary and sustainable water
The Hyderabad Declaration on Wastewater Use in Agriculture
14 November 2002, Hyderabad, India
1. Rapid urbanization places immense pressure on the world's fragile and dwindling fresh water
resources and over-burdened sanitation systems, leading to environmental degradation. We as wa-
ter, health, environment, agriculture, and aquaculture researchers and practitioners from 27 interna-
tional and national institutions, representing experiences in wastewater management from 18 coun-
tries, recognize that:
1.1 Wastewater (raw, diluted or treated) is a resource of increasing global importance,
particularly in urban and peri-urban agriculture.
1.2 With proper management, wastewater use contributes significantly to sustaining livelihoods,
food security and the quality of the environment.
1.3 Without proper management, wastewater use poses serious risks to human health and the
environment
2. We declare that in order to enhance positive outcomes while minimizing the risks of wastewater
use, there exist feasible and sound measures that need to be applied. These measures include:
2.1 Cost-effective and appropriate treatment suited to the end use of wastewater, supplemented
by guidelines and their application
2.2 Where wastewater is insufficiently treated, until treatment becomes feasible:
(a) Development and application of guidelines for untreated wastewater use that safeguard
livelihoods, public health and the environment
(b) Application of appropriate irrigation, agricultural, post-harvest, and public health
practices that limit risks to farming communities, vendors and consumers
(c) Education and awareness programs for all stakeholders, including the public at large, to
disseminate these measures
2.3 Health, agriculture and environmental quality guidelines that are linked and implemented in
a step-wise approach
2.4 Reduction of toxic contaminants in wastewater, at source and by improved management
3. We declare that:
3.1 Knowledge needs should be addressed through research to support the measures outlined above
3.2 Institutional coordination and integration together with increased financial allocations are required
4. Therefore, we strongly urge policy-makers and authorities in the fields of water, agriculture, aquac-
ulture, health, environment and urban planning, as well as donors and the private sector to:
Safeguard and strengthen livelihoods and food security, mitigate health and environmental
risks and conserve water resources by confronting the realities of wastewater use in agricul-
ture through the adoption of appropriate policies and the commitment of financial resources
for policy implementation.
246
-------
resource for a number of purposes in both developed
and emerging countries, thus allowing utilities to reserve
high quality and often scarce freshwater for domestic
uses. The development and implementation of water re-
use projects, however, remains difficult due to issues
such as institutional discord, economics, funding, public
health and environmental issues and, in some cases, a
lack of public acceptance.
8.4.1 Water Supply and Sanitation
Coverage
Despite increasing efforts to improve water supply and
sanitation coverage in the world during the past 10 years,
numerous regions and many large cities still do not have
sufficient infrastructure (Table 8-2). According to a 2000
survey (Homsi, 2000), wastewater treatment coverage
remains lower than water supply coverage and still rep-
resents an important constraint to implementing water
reuse projects:
Sewage network coverage:
• Developed countries: 76 percent, except Japan, 54
percent and Portugal, 55 percent
• Developing countries: 35 percent, except Chile,
greater than 90 percent
Wastewater treatment coverage:
• Developed countries: 75 percent, except Portugal,
36 percent
• Developing countries: greater than 10 percent
The situation becomes critical in a number of African
and Asian countries, where water supply and sanitation
coverage do not exceed 30 percent and 45 percent, re-
spectively, including Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia,
Chad, Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Laos, Mauritania, and
Rwanda. Despite these numbers, it is important to stress
that more and more countries have effectively achieved
total water supply and sanitation coverage, such as An-
dorra, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Canada,
Cyprus, Finland, South Korea, Lebanon, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Signifi-
cant strides have also been made in a number of devel-
oping countries (Figure 8-3a) and it is expected that
these figures will improve in several other countries with
water resource problems (Figure 8-3b) due to govern-
mental policies and increased investments.
8.4.2
Technical Issues
Treatment technology, another key aspect of the plan-
ning process, varies between planning a reuse project
in an emerging country and planning a reuse system in
a more industrialized country. In industrialized countries,
where stringent control of water quality and operational
reliability are the main requirements, modern, high cost
technology may be more beneficial. In developing coun-
tries, relatively inexpensive labor and higher capital costs
dictate that a facility, which can be built and operated
with local labor, will be more cost effective than a facility
utilizing more modern, capital-intensive technology.
Table 8-2. Wastewater Flows, Collection, and Treatment in Selected Countries in 1994 (MmWear)
Country
Cyprus
Egypt
Jordan
Morocco
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Tunisia
Turkey
Generation Rate
Mm3/yr
24
1700
110
500
700
480
200
2,000
MG/yr
6,341
449,140
29,062
132,100
184,940
126,816
52,840
528,400
Collection
Mm3/yr
15
1138
95
400
620
480
180
1,700
MG/yr
3,963
300,660
25,099
105,680
163,804
126,816
47,556
449,140
Treatment
Mm3/yr
15
950
45
170
580
260
155
1,100
MG/yr
3,963
250,990
11,889
44,914
153,236
68,692
40,951
290,620
Treated, As
Percent of
Total
63%
55%
41%
34%
83%
54%
78%
55%
Treated, As
Percent of
Collected
100%
83%
47%
43%
94%
54%
86%
65%
Source: Table created from World Bank Working documents (UNDP, 1998)
247
-------
Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage in Selected Countries
Figure 8-3a. Countries with Total Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage over 80 Percent
Uruguay
Turkey
Tunisia
Syria
Saudi Arabia
Philippines
Panama
Palestinian Terr.
Lebanon
Korea, Dem. Rep.
Jordan
Iran
Guatemala
Egypt
Costa Rica
Colombia
Chile
Algeria
^_
•
IZI
Sanitat
Water £
on
•upply
10 20 30 40 50 60
Coverage, %
70
80
90
100
Figure 8-3b. Countries with Total Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage Over 50 Percent
Zimbabwe
Yemen
Venezuela
Ukraine
Thailand
Tajikistan
South Africa
Peru
Pakistan
Oman
Nigeria
Namibia
Morocco
Mexico
Libya
Iraq
Indonesia
India
China
Brazil
Bolivia
Bangladesh
Azerbaijan
• • Sanitation
^
I 1
I 1
I
'
10
20
30
40
50
Coverage %
60
70
80
90
100
Source: Figures for this table were assembled from WorldBank working documents (UNDP, 1998)
248
-------
This section provides an overview of some of the techni-
cal issues associated with water reuse in developing coun-
tries that may differ from those presented in Chapter 2
for the U.S. Many of these issues result from the differ-
ent technical solutions that are appropriate in a labor-
intensive economy as compared with the capital-inten-
sive economy of industrialized countries. Other differ-
ences result from dissimilarities in financial, material,
and human resources, as well as in existing wastewa-
ter collection, treatment, and disposal facilities.
8.4.2.1 Water Quality Requirements
Water reuse standards or guidelines vary with the type
of application, the regional context, and the overall risk
perception. Depending on the project specifications,
there will be different water quality requirements, treat-
ment process requirements, and criteria for operation
and reliability. However, the starting point for any water
reuse project for any application is ensuring public health
and safety. For this reason, microbiological parameters
have received the most attention in water reuse regula-
tions. Since monitoring for all pathogens is not realistic,
specific indicator organisms are monitored to minimize
health risks.
Table 8-3 provides a summary of water quality param-
eters of concern with respect to their significance in water
reuse systems, as well as approximate ranges of each
parameter in raw sewage and reclaimed water. The
treatment of urban wastewater is typically designed to
meet water quality objectives based on suspended sol-
ids (Total Suspended Solids (TSS) or turbidity), organic
content (BOD), biological indicators (total or fecal
coliforms, E.coli, helminth eggs, enteroviruses), nutri-
ent levels (nitrogen and phosphorus) and, in some cases,
chlorine residual. Additional water quality parameters for
irrigation include salinity, sodium adsorption ratio, boron
concentration, heavy metals content, and phytotoxic
compounds content. The use of reclaimed municipal water
for industrial purposes may require effluent limits for dis-
solved solids, ammonia, disinfection byproducts and other
specific inorganic and organic constituents.
Different countries have developed different approaches
to protecting public health and the environment, but the
major factor in choosing a regulatory strategy is eco-
nomics, specifically the cost of treatment and monitor-
ing. Most developed countries have established conser-
vatively low risk guidelines or standards based on a high
technology/high-cost approach, such as the California
standards. However, high standards and high-cost tech-
niques do not always guarantee low risk because insuffi-
cient operational experience, OM&R costs, and regula-
tory control can have adverse effects. A number of de-
veloping countries advocate another strategy of control-
ling health risks by adopting a low technology/low-cost
approach based on the WHO recommendations. A sum-
mary of select guidelines and mandatory criteria for re-
claimed water use in a variety of U.S. states and other
countries and regions is presented in Table 8-4.
Historically, water reuse standards are based on reuse
for agricultural irrigation. The countries that have adopted
the WHO recommendations as the basis for their agricul-
tural reuse standards use both fecal coliforms (FC) and
helminth eggs as pathogen indicators, respectively, at
1000 FC/100 ml and 1 helminth egg/I for unrestricted irri-
gation. The WHO recommends more stringent standards
for the irrigation of public lawns than for the irrigation of
crops eaten raw (fecal coliform count at 200 FC/100 ml,
in addition to the helminth egg standard). Recent work,
based on epidemiological and microbiological studies
performed in Mexico and Indonesia support the WHO
fecal coliform limit of less than 103 FC/100 ml, but rec-
ommends a stricter guideline value of less than 0.1 egg
of intestinal nematode per liter (Blumenthal etal., 2000).
In the absence of recommendations for particulate mat-
ter, these standards use TSS at concentrations varying
between 10 and 30 mg/l.
WHO recommends stabilization ponds or an equivalent
technology to treat wastewater. The guidelines are
based on the conclusion that the main health risks as-
sociated with reuse in developing countries are associ-
ated with helminthic diseases; therefore, a high degree
of helminth removal is necessary for the safe use of
wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. The intesti-
nal nematodes serve as indicator organisms for all of
the large settleable pathogens. The guidelines indicate
that other pathogens of interest apparently become non-
viable in long-retention pond systems, implying that all
helminth eggs and protozoan cysts will be removed to
the same extent. The helminth egg guidelines are in-
tended to provide a design standard, not an effluent test-
ing standard.
The original 1973 WHO recommendations were more
stringent than the 1989 recommendations. With respect
to fecal coliforms, the standard rose from 100 FC/100 ml
to 1000 FC/100 ml. The WHO guidelines are currently
undergoing further revision. A draft guideline proposed
by Bahri and Brissaud (2002) recommends massive re-
visions in the WHO guidelines, making them somewhat
more restrictive, while maintaining the objective of
affordability for developing countries. For example, in the
draft guidelines, the helminth egg concentration limit is
reduced from the current guideline of 1 egg/L to 0.1 egg/
L for unrestricted irrigation. The proposed draft guide-
lines also cover various options for health protection,
249
-------
Table 8-3. Summary of Water Quality Parameters of Concern for Water Reuse
Parameter
Suspended solids
Turbidity
BOD5
COD
TOC
Total conforms
Fecal conforms
Helminth eggs
Viruses
Heavy metals
Inorganics
Chlorine residual
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Significance for Water Reuse
Measures of particles. Can be related to
microbial contamination. Can interfere with
disinfection. Clogging of irrigation systems.
Deposition.
Organic substrate for microbial growth. Can
favor bacterial regrowth in distribution systems
and microbial fouling.
Measure of risk of infection due to potential
presence of pathogens. Can favor biofouling in
cooling systems.
Specific elements (Cd, Ni, Hg, Zn, etc) are toxic
to plants and maximum concentration limits
exist for irrigation
High salinity and boron (>1mg/L) are harmful for
irrigation
To prevent bacterial regrowth. Excessive
amount of free chlorine (>0.05) can damage
some sensitive crops
Fertilizer for irrigation. Can contribute to algal
growth, corrosion (N-NH4) and scale formation
(P).
Range in Secondary Effluents
5 mg/L - 50 mg/L
1 NTU - 30 NTU
10 mg/L -30 mg/L
50 mg/L -150 mg/L
5 mg/L - 20 mg/L
<10 cfu/100mL -107cfu/100mL
<1-106cfu/100mL
<1/L- 10/L
<1/L- 100/L
—
—
—
10mgN/L-30mgN/L
0.1 mgP/L-30mg P/L
Treatment Goal in Reclaimed
Water
<5 mg SS/L - 30 mg SS/L
<0.1 NTU -30 NTU
<10 mg BOD/L - 45 mg BOD/L
<20 mg COD/L - 90 mg COD/L
<1 mg C/L- 10 mg C/L
<1 cfu/100mL - 200 cfu/100mL
<1 cfu/100mL- 103cfu/100mL
<0.1/L-5/L
<1/50L
<0.001 mg Hg/L
<0.01 mg Cd/L
<0.1 mgNi/L- 0.02 mg Ni/L
>450 mg TDS/L
0.5 mg CI/L - >1 mg CI/L
<1 mg N - 30mgN/L
<1 mg P/L - 20 mg P/L
Source: Adapted from Lazarova, 2001; Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Pettygrove and Asano, 1985
such as treatment of wastewater, crop restrictions, ap-
plication controls, and control of human exposure. The
multi-barrier approach throughout the water cycle is also
considered an important element. WHO wastewater re-
use initiatives are considering 4 categories of reuse: (a)
agriculture, (b) aquaculture (shellfisheries), (c) artificial
recharge exclusively for potable supply, and (d) urban use.
The premise is that better health protection can be
achieved by not only implementing stringent water qual-
ity limits but also by defining other appropriate practices
that could provide additional barriers for pathogens de-
pending on the type of reuse. Such an approach has
been proposed in the new Israeli standards (Shelef and
Halperin, 2002). In 1999, new standards were issued by
the Israeli Ministry of Health (Palestine Hydrology Group,
1999), defining 5 qualities of reclaimed water, as follows:
1. Effluents of very high quality, suitable for
unrestricted irrigation—no barriers required
2. Effluents of high quality—2 barriers required for irri-
gation
3. Oxidation pond effluents—2 to 3 barriers required
for irrigation
4. Effluents of medium quality—3 barriers required for
irrigation
5. Effluents of low quality—only specific "no-barrier"
crops are allowed to be irrigated
These standards set a low coliform limit of less than 10
£. CO///100 ml for very high quality reclaimed water that
does not require additional barriers (the first quality listed
250
-------
Table 8-4. Summary of Water Recycling Guidelines and Mandatory Standards in the United States
and Other Countries
Country/Region
Australia (New South Wales)
Arizona
California
Cyprus
at ing water
France
Florida (m)
Germany (g)
Japan (m)
Israel
Italy
Kuwait
Crops not eaten raw
Kuwait
Crops eaten raw
Oman
11A
Oman
11B
South Africa
Spain (Canary islands)
Texas (m)
Tunisia
UAE
United Kingdom
Bathing Water Criteria
US EPA (g)
Fecal
Conforms
(CFU/IOOml)
<1
<1
--
50
100(g)
2,000 (m)
<1000
25 for any
sample for
75%
100(g)
10
<200
<1000
o(g)
--
75(m)
100(g)
2000 (m)
14 for any
sample, 0 for
90%
200 (g)
1000 (m)
Total
conforms
(cfu/100 ml)
<2/50
2.2
--
500 (g)
10,000 (m)
-
--
500 (g)
10
2.2 (50%)
12(80%)
10,000
100
--
2.2
--
<100
500 (g)
10000 (m)
--
Helminth
eggs
(#/L)
--
--
<1
--
--
-
--
--
--
<1
--
BOD5
(ppm)
>20
--
10
-
20
20 (g)
10
15
10
10
15
20
--
10
5
30
<10
10
Turbidity
(NTU)
<2
1
2
--
2(9)
1 (m)
-
--
1-2 (m)
5
--
2
3
2(g)
1 (m)
2
TSS
(ppm)
--
10
-
5
30
-
15
10
10
15
30
--
3
--
30
<10
--
DO
(%of Sat)
--
--
-
--
80-120
-
0.5
-
-
-
7
-
PH
4.5-9
-
-
-
-
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-9
-
6.5-8.4
-
6.5-8.5
6-9
Chlorine
residual
(ppm)
-
-
-
1
-
-
0.5
1
1
-
1
-
1
Note: (g) signifies that the standard is a guideline and (m) signifies that the standard is a mandatory regulation
Source: Adapted from Cranfield University, 2001. Urban Water Recycling Information Pack, UK
above) and can be used for irrigation of vegetables eaten
raw. Additional barriers are identified as:
• Physical barriers, such as: buffer zones, plastic
groundcovers and underground drip irrigation
• Crops or fruits that are normally treated under high
temperature and/or are eaten only cooked (e.g.,
wheat), as well as those with an inedible peel or shell
(e.g., citrus, banana, nuts)
No-barrier crops are defined in the following categories:
(1) industrial crops (such as cotton or fodder); (2) crops
whose harvestable parts are dried in the sun for at least
60 days after the last irrigation (including sunflower,
wheat, chickpeas intended for cooking); (3) watermelon
for edible seeds or for seeds that are irrigated before
flowering; (4) woody crops or plants with no public con-
tact; and, (5) grass for sale with no public access to the
plot.
251
-------
The government of Tasmania, Australia, issued the tenth
draft of its, "Environmental Guidelines forthe Use of Re-
cycled Water in Tasmania" (Tasmanian website). These
guidelines are intended to provide a framework to allow
sustainable water reuse in a manner that is practical and
safe for agriculture, the environment, and the public while
also remaining consistent with industry standards and
best environmental practice management (Dettrick and
Gallagher, 2002). Issues of soil sustainability, including
permeability hazard, salinity hazard, groundwater protec-
tion, and crop health, are discussed in the guidelines. A
comprehensive health risk management framework is pro-
vided that gives different levels of risk management for
3 quality classes of wastewater including: backflow pre-
vention, public access and withholding, safety for work-
ers dealing with reclaimed water, food safety issues, and
grazing animal withholding. The Tasmanian guidelines
identify 3 categories of reclaimed water:
• Class A Recycled Water: No restriction on public ac-
cess less than 10 cfu /100 ml
• Class B Reclaimed Water: Limited restrictions apply
less than 100 cfu /100 ml or less than 1,000 cfu/100 ml
depending upon type of application
• Class C Treated Water: Access restricted less than
10,000 cfu/100 ml
No potable reuse or body contact with reclaimed water is
addressed in the Tasmanian guidelines because of the
high level and cost of treatment necessary to produce
the requisite quality reclaimed water. Irrigation of treated
wastewater to riverside land less than 6 miles (10 kilome-
ters) upstream of a town water supply intake is generally
not permitted.
8.4.2.2 Treatment Requirements
Wastewater treatment is the most effective way to re-
duce the health, environmental, and other risks associ-
ated with the use of reclaimed water. Choosing the most
appropriate treatment technology for water reuse is a
complex procedure that must take into consideration
various criteria, including technical and regulatory re-
quirements, as well as social, political, and economic
considerations specific to the local conditions. It is im-
portant to stress that economic and financial constraints
have to be taken into account in countries where re-
claimed water is a vital water resource for sustainable
development.
Depending on water quality objectives, plant capacity,
land availability, and climate conditions, extensive low-
tech technologies, also known as non-conventional pro-
cesses, can be used in water reuse facilities. Wastewa-
ter treatment processes, such as stabilization ponds or
lagooning, infiltration-percolation, soil-aquifer treatment,
and wetlands, are well adapted to the climate conditions
in tropical and subtropical zones. Their relatively low
OM&R costs and easy upkeep are important advantages
for developing countries. However, these treatment tech-
nologies require large land availability, are associated
with high evaporation losses resulting in high salinity con-
centrations, and are recommended predominantly for
small treatment units, with less than 5000 population
equivalents (700 m3/d or 0.2 mgd) (Lazarova etal., 2001).
Over the last decade, an increased number of studies
conducted in different countries have shown that stabili-
zation pond systems in series can produce effluent with
microbiological water quality suitable for unrestricted
irrigation (WHO guidelines category A, less than 1000
FC/100 ml and less than 1 helminth egg/L) (Lazarova,
1999). The hydraulic residence time varies in the range
of 20 to 90 days according to the climate conditions and
the optimal lagoon depth is 1.2 to 1.5 meters. Under op-
timal operating conditions, the disinfection efficiency is
3 to 5 log removal, with maximum values up to 5 to 6 log
removal for fecal coliforms. A removal rate of 5 to 6 log
of fecal coliforms in stabilization ponds can only be
achieved if maturation ponds are provided. Stabilization
ponds operating in Brazil have been shown to provide a
3-log removal of intestinal nematodes (Mara and Silva,
1986).
One of the drawbacks of using a stabilization pond sys-
tem is the restricted operation flexibility, especially dur-
ing flow and seasonal variations. Activated sludge treat-
ment used in conjunction with tertiary treatment ponds
has proven to be a reliable and efficient method for dis-
infection with the elimination of fecal coliform, viruses,
and helminth eggs. The ponds also provide the required
storage capacity for irrigation. High evaporation rates,
particularly in dry and windy zones, are the major dis-
advantage of this treatment technology.
The increased use of constructed wetlands in develop-
ing countries has been slow, despite favorable climate
conditions. Adequate wetlands systems designs for tropi-
cal and subtropical zones have not yet been developed.
Several field studies performed in constructed wetlands
for secondary treatment show that the pathogen reduc-
tion (2 to 3 log reduction of fecal coliforms and coliph-
ages) is not sufficient to satisfy the WHO water quality
guidelines for irrigation.
Larger cities with existing sewage systems are the most
promising locations for implementing water reuse. Con-
ventional treatment is likely to be the treatment of choice
252
-------
because of limited land availability, the high cost of land,
the considerable transmission distance to reach the
treatment site, and lack of public acceptability, particu-
larly as city growth nears the vicinity of the treatment
sites.
With the increased concern for public health, choosing
a disinfection technology is recognized as one of the
critical steps in developing a water reclamation system.
The treatment quality upstream of disinfection has a
great impact on the doses required for a given disinfec-
tion level. Therefore, if a stringent regulation must be
met, disinfection alone cannot make up for inefficient
upstream treatment and often must be coupled with ter-
tiary filtration or other advanced treatment processes.
The growing use of ultraviolet (UV) technologies for dis-
infection in wastewater reuse plants worldwide is largely
attributed to low costs, as well as the absence of toxic
byproducts. One drawback to using UV disinfection in
reuse systems is the lack of disinfection residual, which
is mandatory in distribution tanks, holding tanks, and
reservoirs.
In addition to appropriate treatment technology, adequate
monitoring is also important. Although not always fea-
sible in developing countries, on-line, real-time moni-
toring is preferable to sampling and laboratory analysis
where the results arrive too late to take corrective ac-
tion. A simple and useful measurement of water quality
for reclaimed water is turbidity. Experience can relate
turbidity to other parameters of interest but, more im-
portantly, a sudden increase in turbidity beyond the op-
erating standard provides a warning that corrective ac-
tion is required. For example, practice in the U.S. often
requires that, should the turbidity exceed 2 NTU for more
than 10 minutes, the reclaimed water be diverted to stor-
age to be retreated.
Treatment cost is an extremely important consideration
everywhere, but especially where financial resources
are very limited. A recent analysis by Lazarova (2001)
summarized the unit costs of various treatment levels
for a 40,000 population-equivalent size treatment plant.
The results are shown in Table 8-5. The treatment costs
for producing reclaimed water are highly influenced by
local constraints, such as the price of the building site,
distance between the production site and the consum-
ers, and whether or not there is a need to install a dual
distribution system or retrofit an existing system.
8.4.3
Institutional Issues
reuse might occur. The institutions with a stake in water
reuse include those responsible for water supply, waste-
water management, water resources management, envi-
ronmental protection, and public health and, in many
cases, agriculture. Furthermore, these agencies may
have responsibilities at local, regional and national lev-
els. More often than not, there is a wide chasm between
these agencies. Acknowledging that the ideal situation
rarely exists, and that there is an institutional barrier to
developing a new water reuse initiative, overcoming bar-
riers and forgoing the necessary links among agencies
should be the first step in any planning effort. An admin-
istrative reorganization may be necessary to guarantee
the development of water reuse into a general water man-
agement group. Examples of such changes include those
taking place in developing countries like Tunisia, Mo-
rocco, and Egypt. Ideally, it would be most desirable to
have just one agency in charge of the entire water cycle
in a given hydrologic basin.
A critically important "partner" in a safe and successful
water reuse program is the independent regulatory
agency with oversight and enforcement responsibility
over all the partners involved in water reuse. It would
be a conflict of interest for either the water supplier or
the wastewater manager to have this regulatory role;
therefore, the most logical "home" for the regulatory func-
tion is with the agency charged with protection of public
health and/or the environment.
8.4.4
Legal Issues
Planned water reuse is best accomplished through the
collaboration of at least 2—and often more—institutions.
Without collaboration, only unplanned or incidental water
There are 2 basic types of legal issues relevant to water
reuse: (1) water rights and water allocation; and (2) the
protection of public health and environmental quality.
Other legal issues may also be relevant in specific cir-
cumstances.
8.4.4.1 Water Rights and Water Allocation
Diverting existing wastewater flows to a treatment facil-
ity will, at a minimum, change the point at which the flow
is discharged to surface waters, and may change the
amount of water available to current users further down-
stream. A water reuse project may completely deprive
existing users of their current supply if reclaimed water
is sold to new users (e.g., industrial facilities) or allo-
cated to new uses (e.g., municipal use).
Traditional practice and customary law in most develop-
ing countries recognizes that a water user acquires vested
rights. Changing the amount of water that is available to
a current user may entitle the user to some type of rem-
edy, including monetary compensation or a supplemen-
tal water supply. A proposed water reuse project needs
253
-------
Table 8-5. Life-Cycle Cost of Typical Treatment Systems for a 40,000 Population- Equivalent Flow of
Wastewater
Treatment System
Stabilization Ponds (Land Cost not Included)
Activated Sludge (Secondary)
Activated Sludge + Filtration + UV Irradiation
Additional Cost of Full Tertiary Treatment (Title 22)
Additional Cost of Disinfection
Lime Pretreatment + Reverse Osmosis
(After secondary treatment)
Micro filtration + Reverse Osmosis
(After secondary treatment)
Unit Cost1
perm3
$0.18
$0.34
$0.42
$0.24
$0.07
$0.75
$0.54
per AF
$222.00
$420.00
$518.00
$296.00
$86.00
$926.00
$667.00
perMG
$0.68
$1.29
$1.59
$0.91
$0.26
$2.84
$2.04
1 Cost in U.S. Dollars
Adapted from Lazarova, 2001
to consider the impact on current patterns of water use
and determine what remedies, if any, are available to or
should be created for current users if the project inter-
feres with their water uses.
i Controls on access to the wastewater collection sys-
tem and controls to prevent cross-connections be-
tween the distribution networks for drinking water
and reclaimed water
8.4.4.2 Public Health and Environmental
Protection
Regulations concerning sludge disposal and facility
location
The use of reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation and
various municipal uses may result in human exposure
to pathogens or chemicals, creating potential public
health problems. Water reclamation and reuse, and the
disposal of sludge from wastewater treatment, may also
have adverse effects on environmental quality if not
managed properly.
Planning for water reuse projects should include the
development and implementation of regulations that will
prevent or mitigate public health and environmental prob-
lems. Such regulations include:
• A permit system for authorizing wastewater discharges
• Water quality standards for reclaimed water that are
appropriate for various uses
• Water quality standards for river discharge when wa-
ter reuse is seasonal, intermittent, or less than the
effluent rate of the wastewater treatment facility
• Controls that will reduce human exposure, such as
restrictions on the uses of reclaimed water
• Mechanisms for enforcing all of the above regulations,
including monitoring requirements, authority to con-
duct inspections, and authority to assess penalties
for violations
A number of other legal issues discussed in Chapter 5
are also relevant to developing countries.
8.4.5
Economic and Financial Issues
The economic justification for water reuse depends prin-
cipally on either offsetting the costs of developing addi-
tional water sources or on reducing the overall waste-
water treatment costs. The full cost of developing and
managing the water supply, wastewater management
system, and water reuse system needs to be understood
in order to conduct a rigorous economic analysis.
The economic rationale for water reuse outside of the
U.S. does not differ much from that set out in Chapter 6.
Benefits associated with water reuse include savings from
not having to develop new water sources, reduced treat-
ment requirements, and the economic value of the re-
claimed water.
254
-------
The enterprises responsible for water supply services in
developing countries function with varying degrees of
success, but increasingly, the utility companies recover
their operating costs through user fees. User fees and/or
public funds also have to fund the wastewater treatment
system, if provided by the same institution.
8.5 Examples of Water Reuse
Programs Outside the U.S.
Based on a review of water reuse projects outside the
U.S., it can be concluded that the number of countries
investigating and implementing water reuse has in-
creased over the past decade. Hence, water reuse is
growing steadily not only in water-deficient areas (Medi-
terranean region, Middle East, Latin America), but also
in highly populated countries in temperate regions (Ja-
pan, Australia, Canada, North China, Belgium, England,
Germany). The suitability of water reuse, especially in
arid and semi-arid regions, is now nearly universally
recognized. However, the societal ability and willingness
to make the necessary investment for infrastructure
improvement depends on local circumstances and var-
ies considerably from country to country.
The principal reuse application remains agricultural irri-
gation, especially in developing countries. Urban,
nonpotable reuse, such as reuse for, landscape irriga-
tion, road cleaning, car washing, toilet flushing, and river
flow augmentation, is developing rapidly in high density
urban and tourist areas. Indirect potable reuse and the
use of reclaimed water for industrial purposes have also
been receiving increased attention in several industrial-
ized countries. The only existing example of direct po-
table water reuse remains the Windhoek plant in
Namibia. There have not been any adverse public health
impacts reported during the 34 years of the plant's suc-
cessful operation.
This section illustrates the applications of water reuse in
several industrialized countries as well as several devel-
oping countries where an interest in reuse is just begin-
ning. This inventory is intended to be illustrative rather
than exhaustive. For the convenience of the reader, the
case studies have been listed in alphabetical order.
8.5.1
Argentina
Argentina is characterized by various climatic zones:
tropical, humid climate in the northeastern region with
large rivers such as the Parana and Uruguay; mild and
humid climate in the central flat region of the pampas
with few sources of surface water; and arid and semi-
arid regions in the west and south.
Only 35 percent of the population is connected to sewer
systems and only part of the collected sewage under-
goes appropriate treatment (Pujol and Carnabucci,
2000). Large-scale reuse of untreated wastewater has
been occurring since the beginning of the 20th century
in densely populated areas in the western regions of
the country for the purpose of agricultural irrigation. Ar-
gentina requires that water reuse practices must be in
compliance with the WHO standards, but in some re-
gions, raw wastewater or minimally treated effluent are
still being used for irrigation (Kotlik, 1998). In the large
cities, there are plans to use trickling filters and activated
sludge systems. In the arid areas, conventional stabili-
zation ponds are used for treatment for agricultural re-
use.
Driven by water scarcity, the largest water reuse system
in Argentina is located in the arid region of Mendoza, in
the western part of the country near the Andes. Over
160,000 m3/d (42.3 mgd) of urban wastewater (1 million
inhabitants, 100 Mm3/year or 26,400 mg/year) is treated
by one of the largest lagooning systems in the world at
the Campo Espejo wastewater treatment plant with a to-
tal area of 290 hectares (643 acres) to meet the WHO
standards for unrestricted irrigation by means of faculta-
tive stabilization ponds (Kotlik, 1998). Reuse water in
this region is a vital water resource, enabling the irriga-
tion of over 3,640 hectares (8,995 acres) of forests, vine-
yards, olives, alfalfa, fruit trees and other crops. Improved
water reuse practices are under development to avoid
contamination of aquifers, including establishment of spe-
cial areas for restricted crops and restrictions in the choice
of irrigation technologies. An extension of this water re-
use system is planned in the northern region of the
Mendoza City Basin, where the treated effluent from the
Paramillo wastewater treatment plant (100,000 m3/d or
26.4 mgd, series of stabilization ponds) is diluted with
the flow from the Mendoza River and used for irrigation
of a 20,000-hectare (49,420-acre) oasis.
8.5.2
Australia
8.5.2.1 Aurora, Australia
Aurora is a proposed new 650-hectare development to
be located in the outer northern suburbs of Melbourne,
Australia. The development is intended to showcase
sustainable development principles. A key feature will
be water conservation, with a plan to utilize recycled
treated wastewater for nonpotable use. The work under-
taken so far indicates that with water reuse and demand
management combined, there is the potential to reduce
the demand on the potable reticulated system in the or-
der of 70 percent. Construction was planned to commence
in 2003, with an estimated 15 years before full develop-
255
-------
ment, at which stage, around 9,000 dwellings will exist,
housing a population of 25,000.
Reuse systems completed to date convey wastewater
to a decentralized treatment plant and distribute it via a
separate, metered pipe system back to each dwelling.
At present, Melbourne's typical separate water systems
include potable water supply, wastewater collection, and
storm water collection. The recycled pipes will there-
fore represent a fourth system that will be plumbed for
irrigation and toilet flushing.
Wastewater will need to be treated to Class A standards
to meet the state's Environmental Protection Agency
and Department of Health requirements for the intended
use. Class A standards require treated effluent to
achieve the following standards:
• 10E. co/; per 100ml
• 1 helminth per liter
• 1 protozoa per 50 liters
• 1 virus per 50 liters
It is envisioned that the project will utilize surface stor-
age; however, aquifer recharge and recovery is being
investigated as another mechanism for water balanc-
ing. Despite these 2 potential methods, it is anticipated
that there will be continual need for the facility to dis-
charge treated effluent into the local waterway during times
of high rainfall. An environmental impact study is being
conducted for both the groundwater and stream to deter-
mine adequate water quality standards for discharge to
occur. At this stage, it appears that discharge targets for
the stream releases will need to meet Class A standards,
as well as to keep phosphorus and nitrogen below 0.1
mg/L and 1 mg/L, respectively.
8.5.2.2 Mawson Lakes, Australia
Mawson Lakes will be an innovative urban development
12 kilometers (7.5 miles) north of Adelaide, designed to
integrate evolutionary strategies into economic, social,
and environmental activities. The development is designed
for 8,000 to 9,000 residents in 3,200 dwellings, and in-
cludes a town center and commercial properties.
A key component of the development is to create a re-
claimed water supply system that will reduce household
potable demand by at least 50 percent by providing re-
claimed storm water and wastewater for outdoor, domes-
tic, and municipal irrigation. Stormwater run-off from roofs,
paths, roads, and the general area, as well as treated
wastewater will be collected and treated, and then stored
in groundwater aquifers for reuse. Houses have both a
potable water main connection and a reclaimed water
connection. The reclaimed water will be used for toilet
flushing, garden irrigation, and car washing. Public open
space will also be irrigated with reclaimed water.
Stormwater is to be harvested from the 620-hectare (1,532-
acre) development site plus an equivalent area of adjoin-
ing industrial land. An established wetland adjacent to
the development will augment the proposed system and
provide additional storage for the harvested Stormwater.
Prior to entering the wetland system, the Stormwater will
be screened through a combination of gross pollution
traps and wetland basins.
8.5.2.3 Virginia Project, South Australia
The Virginia pipeline project was built to transport over
20,000 megaliters (5,284 million gallons) of reclaimed
water (approximately 20 percent of the wastewater pro-
duced in the Adelaide area) from the Bolivar Treatment
Plant just north of Adelaide to the Virginia area. The
secondary effluent from the treatment plant receives
further treatment after transmission in a Dissolved Air
Flotation Filtration (DAFF) system which improves the
water quality to less than 10 E. Colil 100 ml - the Austra-
lian standard for irrigation for crops eaten raw. The re-
claimed water system serves over 220 irrigators in the
Virginia area - the majority of the customers are horticul-
tural farmers who produce root and salad crops, brassi-
cas, wine grapes, and olives.
The project was developed in response to 3 problems:
nutrients in the secondary effluent were damaging an
environmentally sensitive gulf, irrigators were experienc-
ing declining yields, and there was an increase in salinity
in underground aquifers. The reduced water resource
was expected to cause reduced production and employ-
ment in an area which already faced high unemployment.
Even though there were 3 drivers for a reclaimed water
system, the project remained in the planning stages until
4 major issues were overcome: (1) project financing; (2)
a public-private partnership; (3) water quality standards;
and, (4) marketing. Multiple stakeholders including gov-
ernment, the water authority, regulatory authorities, po-
tential customers, and the project developer further com-
plicated the project; however, the common goal to see
the project proceed overcame the individual interests of
each party.
The project has been operating since 2000 and the own-
ers are considering extending the system to meet de-
mand that was unable to be met in the original develop-
ment. There have been no public health concerns and
256
-------
Table 8-6. Summary of Australian Reuse Projects
Project
Virginia
South East
Queensland
Hunter Water
Eastern Irrigation
Scheme
Barwon Water
Sewer Mining
McClaren Vale
Rouse Hill
Georges River
Program
Other projects
Annual Volume
(ML)
22,000
100,000+
Up to 3, 000
10,000
Up to 1,000
Up to 8, 000
Up to 1,500
15, 000 to
30,000
...
(WIG)
5,815
26,420
Up to 795
2,645
Up to 265
Upto 2,115
Up to 400
3, 960 to
7,925
...
Water Quality1
A
A and C
C and B
C
Class C
Class A
Varying standards
based on
application
All Class B or
Class A
Application
Unrestricted irrigation of horticultural
crops including salad crops
Class A water similar to Virgina project in
major horticultural region. Class C to
cotton and cereal farms.
Coal washing and electricity generator
cooling.
Stage 1 - horticulture , public spaces, and
golf courses.
Stage 2 - distribution to homes for
household gardens and toilet flushing.
Agricultural and industrial uses.
Application to vines for producing
premium quality wine grapes.
Reclaimed water distributed to 1 5,000
households using a dual distribution
system. Future plans to serve a total of
35,000 households.
50 kilometers (31 miles) Reclaimed water
pipeline to serve existing potable water
customers and new residential
developments
Applications include wine grapes, sugar,
pasture and fodder, including that for
dairy cattle, water cooling for an oil
refinery, golf course and recreational area
watering, tree lots, and dust suppression.
Comment
Built to overcome problems from nutrient
discharges and declining aquifer. Largest
operating reuse project in Australia - completed
in 2000.
Major engineering, financial, economic, and
social impact study recently completed
estimating using all of Brisbane's wastewater -
however, smaller project more likely to proceed.
Operating in a location where labor relations are
typically difficult.
Stage 1 water sold and project is under
construction.
Feasibility study only.
System in operation. Annualized water price
exceeds that for potable water.
System in operation.
Environmental Impact Statement completed and
projected is to begin construction in 2004.
While exact numbers are not known there is
likely to be more than 50 schemes and individual
applications in Australia. Most state
governments and water authorities have policies
on reuse and devote efforts to developing new
applications.
1 Class A Water = less than 10 E. Co/;/100 ml
Class B Water = less than 100 E. Colin 00 ml
Class C Water = less than 1,000 E. Colin 00 ml
there is continuous monitoring for environmental impacts
such as accession of irrigation water to the water table
and build-up of salts in the soil profile. Table 8-6 gives
a summary of this project and other reuse projects in
Australia.
8.5.3 Belgium
Belgium has one of the lowest water availabilities among
the countries of the European Union (EU) with 2000 m3/
capita/year (528,300 gallons/capita/year). Only 45 per-
cent of the sewage is currently treated, with plans to
treat almost all wastewater by 2006. The amount of
wastewater reuse remains limited; nevertheless, using
reclaimed water is becoming increasingly attractive to
industries such as power plants and food processing
plants. Other industries with high rates of water utiliza-
tion or industries located in areas of dropping water tables
or high summer water demand are also moving more to-
wards water reuse. The elimination of wastewater dis-
charge in environmentally sensitive areas is another in-
centive for developing water reuse projects.
There is one indirect potable reuse project that has proven
to be a cost-effective and environmentally beneficial so-
lution. The system not only provides additional water,
but also provides a saltwater intrusion barrier. At the
Wulpen wastewater treatment plant, up to 2.5 MrrrYyear
(660 mg/year) of urban effluent is treated by microfiltration
(MF) and reverse-osmosis (RO), stored for 1 to 2 months
in an aquifer, and then used for water supply augmenta-
tion.
257
-------
There was another attempt to reuse 10,000 to 24,000 m3/
d (2.6 to 6.3 mgd) of wastewater to recharge an aquifer in
Heist; however, infiltration could not be achieved through
the soil due to low hydraulic conductivity. The only other
option was to do direct reuse. In the end, the project
team decided to use surface water as the raw water
source.
A third possible water reuse project is still under study. It
involves the treatment of about 8,000 m3/d (2.1 mgd) of
effluent from the Waregem wastewater treatment plant
for direct reuse in the neighboring textile industry. The
technical feasibility study has shown that the required
effluent quality can be obtained through the use of a com-
bined process of sand filtration, MF, and RO.
8.5.4 Brazil
Brazil is one of the countries with the most abundant
water resources (8 percent of the world's fresh water,
equivalent to about 40,000 m3/capita/year or 10.5 mg/
capita/year in 2000). In spite of this, 80 percent of the
fresh water in Brazil is in the Amazon basin in the north-
ern region of the country, leaving 20 percent bounded to
the area that concentrates about 65 percent of the popu-
lation (southeastern, southern, and central-western Bra-
zil) as seen in Table 8-7. Despite having a great poten-
tial of water, water conflicts occur in some areas of the
country. For example, the Upper Tiete River Basin has
about 18 million inhabitants and is one of the world's
largest industrial complex, yet the region only has a
specific water availability of only 179 m3/capita/year
(47,290 mg/capita/year). On the other hand, irrigation is
growing steadily in the country, reaching a consumptive
use of about 69 percent at national level.
The Law na 9,433 of January, 1997, established the Na-
tional Water Resources Policy and created the National
Water Resources Management System. Since then, the
country has had a legal instrument to ensure future gen-
erations the availability of water in adequate conditions.
In July, 2000, the Law na 9,984 created the National Wa-
ter Agency, linked to the Ministry of the Environment,
but with administrative and financial autonomy. Among
several other attributions, the Agency will supervise,
control, and evaluate the actions and activities resulting
from compliance with the federal legislation; grant, by
means of licensing, the right to use water resources in
bodies of water that are in the Union domain; encourage
and support initiatives to institute River Basin Commit-
tees; and collect, distribute, and apply revenues obtained
by billing for the use of water resources in the Union
domain, etc.
In a country with a population of 173 million in 2001, a
full 60 percent of the population was not connected to
sewer systems. Only 34 percent of the wastewater flow
collected that was collected was treated in 1996. The
situation has a clearly visible negative impact on the en-
vironmental quality of many of Brazil's urban river basins
and public health. However, it is important to underline
that Brazil achieved substantial progress with regard to
the coverage of water supply and sanitation services over
the past 3 decades, much of this effort being the fruit of
the Government's National Water and Sanitation Program.
In urban areas, access to potable water supplies rose
from 50 percent in 1968 to 91 percent in 1997. Sewage
coverage increased from 35 percent to 43 percent in the
same period. The sewage coverage in urban areas was
significantly improved to 85 percent in 2000.
There are a great deal of wastewater reuse planning and
actions being implemented in Brazil. Most of them are
associated with industrial projects: resource recovery,
demand management, and minimization of effluent dis-
charge. Municipalities recognize the benefits of nonpo-
table urban reuse and have started to make plans to op-
timize the use of local water resources. On the other
hand, unplanned (and sometimes unconscious) agricul-
tural reuse is performed in many parts of the country,
particularly for the irrigation of fodder crops and veg-
etables. Water is diverted from heavily polluted sources
to be applied to crops without treatment or adequate ag-
ronomic measures. It is expected that the new regula-
tions to be placed into law by the Agency will regulate
the practice nationwide, promoting at the same time, the
implementation of public health and environmental safe-
guards to new projects.
8.5.4.1 Sao Paulo, Brazil
Metropolitan Sao Paulo, a city with 18 million people and
a very large industrial complex, is located in a plateau in
the heads of the Tiete River. A small amount of local
water availability has forced the region to survive on the
importation of water resources from neighboring basins.
Two sources of water have been considered for reuse:
municipal wastewater (which contains a significant
amount of industrial effluents) and the volumes retained
in flood control reservoirs. The available volumes for re-
use and the corresponding quality of the treated efflu-
ents are shown in Table 8-8.
Three potential types of water reuse applications have
been identified.
• Industrial use, for cooling towers, boiler feed water,
process water in metallurgic and mechanical indus-
tries, floor washing, and irrigation of green spaces
258
-------
Table 8-7. Water Demand and Water Availability per Region in the Year 2000
Region
North
Northeast
Southeast
South
Central West
Brazil
Inhabitants
12,900,704
47,741,711
72,412,411
25,107,616
11,636,728
169,799.17
Specific Water
Demand
(m3/capita/yr)
204
302
436
716
355
414
Specific Water
Demand
(gal/capita/yr)
53,890
79,780
115,180
189,150
93,780
109,370
Specific Water
Availability
(m3/capita/yr)
513,102
4,009
4,868
15,907
69,477
40,000
Specific Water
Availability
(mg/capita/yr)
135.5
1.1
1.3
4.2
18.4
10.6
Demand
(% of Available)
0.04%
7.53%
8.96%
4.50%
0.51%
1 .03%
Table 8-8. Effluent Flow Rate from Wastewater Treatment Plants in Metropolitan Sao Paulo
WWTP
ABC
Barueri
Parque Novo Mundo
Sao Miguel
Suzano
Total Flow
Design Flow
(Mm3/day)
0.26
0.82
0.22
0.13
0.13
1.6
(mgd)
68.47
216.83
57.06
34.24
34.24
410.84
Treated Flow a
(Mm3/day)
0.13
0.57
0.13
0.05
0.07
0.96
(mgd)
35.38
151.78
33.32
13.69
18.94
253.12
data from operational data, March 2002
• Restricted urban use, for toilet and urinal flushing,
vehicle, floor and street washing, decorative water
features such as fountains, reflecting pools and wa-
terfalls, cleaning sewer and flood galleries, prepara-
tion of concrete and soil compaction, irrigation of
sports fields, parks, and gardens
• Unrestricted urban use, for irrigation of green ar-
eas where public access is restricted, as well as,
irrigation of industrial and fodder crops and pastures.
8.5.4.2 Sao Paulo International Airport, Brazil
The Sao Paulo International Airport of Guarulhos has 2
terminals, each one handling about 7 million passengers
per year. Terminal 3 will serve an additional 16 million
passengers per year, to reach the saturation level of about
30 million passengers per year by 2030. An additional
water demand, in the order of 3,000 m3/d (792,500 gal-
lons/d) will produce a total wastewater flow of 6,400 m3/
d (1.7 mgd). Groundwater is the sole source of water,
and due to excessive pumping, the aquifer is recessing,
increasing the potential for ground subsidence. A waste-
water reuse project is in development to serve the uses
listed in Table 8-9.
The second phase of the reuse project will include addi-
tional treatment units to provide effluents with conditions
to allow for artificial aquifer recharge in the vicinity of the
airport. Column testing is being conducted to design re-
charge basins and to define the level of pollutant removal
on the unsaturated layer.
8.5.5 Chile
Water resources in Chile are abundant (61,007 m3/capita/
year or 16.1 mg/capita/year), with a strong prevalence of
surface water with inhomogeneous geographical distri-
bution. In 1997, water supply and sewage coverage were
comparable to those in Europe, with over 99 percent in
urban areas and 90 percent in rural areas (Homsi, 2000).
Moreover, 90.8 percent of rural settlements are equipped
with water supply systems. Wastewater treatment cov-
erage is lower, at about 20 percent, with strong govern-
mental efforts for coverage to more than double that ca-
pacity in the near future. Consequently, the driving fac-
259
-------
tor for water reuse at a national level, and in particular in
large cities such as Santiago de Chile, is pollution con-
trol.
Wastewater reuse has been practiced for years near the
large cities. In the past, 70 to 80 percent of Santiago's
raw wastewater has been collected into an open drain-
age canal and then distributed for irrigation. The irri-
gated area immediately outside the city provided almost
all the salad vegetables and low-growing fruits to the
population of Santiago, having a large negative impact on
public health. In order to improve this situation and imple-
ment sound water reuse practices, plans have been made
to treat all the wastewater from greater Santiago in 3 large
and 13 smaller sewage treatment plants. The first large
facility, in operation since November 2001, El Trebol,
has an average capacity of 380,000 m3/d (100 mgd). An-
other treatment plant, La Farfana, will have a capacity of
760,000 m3/d or 200 mgd when completed. Five smaller
sewage treatment works are also in operation, all using
activated sludge processes for treatment. Treatment fa-
cilities constructed before the 1980s mainly used stabili-
zation ponds for treatment.
8.5.6 China
Water reuse in China primarily occurs when rivers down-
stream from cities are used for irrigation. Most pollution
is produced in the industrialized cities; therefore, pollu-
tion control was first aimed at industries. Over the last
10 years, increasing attention has been paid to munici-
pal wastewater treatment. In 2001, there were 452 waste-
water treatment plants, of which approximately 307 pro-
vided secondary or higher treatment. These plants served
all or parts of 200 cities of the 667 cities in China. The
total volume of wastewater generated was 42.8 billion m3
(11,300 billion gallons), of which industry generated 20.1
billion m3 (5,300 billion gallons) (47 percent) and non-
industrial (domestic, commercial, and institutional)
sources generated 22.8 billion m3 (53 percent). In 2001,
approximately 35 percent of municipal wastewater re-
ceived treatment before discharge. Wastewater sector
investment is rising dramatically; in 1999 the annual ex-
penditure rose to over 12 billion RMB ($1.5 billion), an 8-
fold increase from 1996.
Taiyuan, a city of 2 million people and the capital of the
Shanxi Province, is located approximately 400 kilome-
ters (249 miles) southwest of Beijing on the Fen River, a
tributary to the Yellow River. The city stretches for 29
kilometers (18 miles) within the narrow valley of the Fen
River, where water availability is limited, sporadic, and
greatly affected by high sediment loads from the Great
Loess Plateau. Terracing for agriculture and destruction
of natural ground cover on this plateau create large dust
storms as well as limitations on water retention during
major rainstorms.
Under the $2 billion Yellow River Diversion Project
(YRDP), partially funded by the World Bank, water is
being conveyed 200 kilometers (125 miles) by tunnels
and aqueducts from a reservoir on the Yellow River and
pumped to a head of 600 meters (1,970 feet) into the Fen
River, upstream from Taiyuan. Previously, the ground-
water aquifer beneath the city supplied much of the do-
mestic demand, as well as the large industrial self-sup-
plied water demands of the steel, coal, and chemical
industries in the city. Industries have made considerable
progress in water reuse, with 85 percent of industrial water
demand achieved through internal treatment and reuse
of process water. The chemical industry has built an ad-
vanced centralized treatment facility to provide an addi-
tional source for industrial water reuse as well as 2 large
power plants that reuse all effluent in slurry pipelines to
ash disposal reservoirs.
Taiyuan is implementing an environmental master plan,
under which 7 enhanced secondary wastewater treatment
plants will be built (or existing plants upgraded and ex-
panded) to treat about 900,000 m3/d (238 mgd) by 2010.
Table 8-9. Water Reuse at the Sao Paulo International Airport
Use
Toilets and Urinals in Terminal 3
Cooling Towers (Air Conditioning)
Airplane Washing
Floor Washing
Irrigation
Total Flow
Flow
(m3/day)
2,175
480
50
15
10
2,730
(gal/day)
574,575
126,800
13,200
3,960
2,640
721,200
260
-------
Approximately 500,000 m3/d (132 mgd) of effluent from
these plants will be reused via groundwater recharge from
the Fen River ponds. The ponds were built as an urban
amenity under a subsidized public works program to pro-
vide work for the unemployed during a period of economic
restructuring and plant closures. The Fen River ponds
stretch nearly 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) along the river, for
a total volume of 2 million m3(528mg), and occupy about
half the width of the riverbed. Inflatable dams and flood-
gates on the slope of the Fen River allow floods in ex-
cess of the 2-year flood flow to be passed through to the
ponds. The course alluvium of the river bottom under the
ponds is expected to allow sufficient recharge to meet
industrial demands through the existing self-supplied wells.
Groundwater levels have been dropping rapidly, and
groundwater quality has deteriorated in the upper aquifer
from the buildup of nitrates from untreated municipal waste-
water, as well as salinity in the concentrated wastes in
industrial wastewater after extensive recycling. As a re-
sult, water reuse from the aquifer recharge system will
be primarily for nonpotable, industrial process water.
In order to prevent a large buildup of salinity in the ground-
water, a portion of the effluent from the municipal waste-
water treatment plants will be discharged into the Fen
River. However, downstream irrigation demands greatly
exceed the available stream flow, and eventually Taiyuan
may face restrictions on consumptive use to re-estab-
lish stream flow in the lower portions of the Yellow River.
Currently the Yellow River runs dry seasonally over the
last 300 kilometers (186 miles) of its length, which is
detrimental to major cities and agricultural areas in the
densely developed water-scarce North China Plain.
8.5.7 Cyprus
Cyprus is a mediterranean island with a population of
700,000 and a vigorous tourism industry. The country is
facing 2 major obstacles in its continued development:
(1) a growing scarcity of water resources in the semi-arid
regions of the country and, (2) degradation of water at its
beaches. The government has recognized that a water
reuse program would address both problems. In addition,
it is expected that reclaimed water will provide a reliable
alternative resource for irrigation, which draws 80 percent
of the total water demand (300 Mm3/year or 79,250 mg/
year).
The 25 Mm3/year (6,600 mg/year) of wastewater gener-
ated by the main cities will be collected and used for
irrigation after tertiary treatment (Papadopoulos, 1995).
Since transmission costs will be high, most of the re-
claimed water, about 55 to 60 percent, will most likely be
used for amenity purposes such irrigation of greens ar-
eas in hotels, gardens, parks, golf courses and other
urban uses. A reclaimed water supply of about 10 Mm3/d
(2,640 mgd) is conservatively estimated to be available
for agricultural irrigation.
The provisional water reuse standards in Cyprus are
stricter than the WHO guidelines. The disinfection level
required for urban uses with unrestricted public access
is 50 FC/100 ml (80 percent of the time, with a maximum
value of 100 FC/100 ml). For other uses with restricted
access and for irrigation of food crops; the standard is
200 FC/100 ml (maximum 1000 FC/100 ml), while for
irrigation of fodder and industrial crops, the guideline
values are 1000 and 3000 FC/100 ml, respectively.
8.5.8 Egypt
Approximately 96 percent of Egypt is desert; rains are
rare, even in winter, and occur only in the north. In addi-
tion, oases and wells are limited and cannot accommo-
date water needs in the regions where they exist. Egypt
relies heavily on the Nile River, which supplies essen-
tially all of the country's water.
Presently, wastewater production is estimated at 4,930
million rrrYyear (1.3 mg/year). There are 121 municipal
wastewater treatment plants operating in Egypt treat-
ing 1,640 million m3/year (0.43 mg/year). A total of 42,000
hectares (104,000 acres) are irrigated with treated waste-
water or blended water. Since 1900, wastewater has been
used to cultivate orchards in a sandy soil area at El-
Gabal EI-Asfar village, near Cairo. This area has gradu-
ally increased to about 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres). The
most readily available and economic source of water
suitable for reuse is the wastewater effluent from Greater
Cairo, Alexandria, and other major cities.
No reuse guidelines have yet been adopted in Egypt, but
the 1984 martial law regulation prohibits the use of efflu-
ent for irrigating crops, unless treated to the required stan-
dards for agricultural drainage water. The irrigation of
vegetables eaten raw with treated wastewater, regard-
less of its quality level, is also forbidden. As a result, a
USAID-funded project is developing new codes for safe
use of reclaimed water for irrigation of crops with a focus
on those that cannot be contaminated, such as wood
trees, palm trees, citrus, pomegranates, castor beans,
olives, and field crops, such as lupins and beans. How-
ever, despite this code development, no adequate plan-
ning, monitoring, and control measures are being taken,
and, because of this, spreading of Schistomiasis is quite
common.
261
-------
8.5.9 France
France's water resources availability is 3,047 m3/capita/
year (0.8 mg/capita/year) (Earth Trends 2001), and there-
fore, is considered to be self-sufficient. However, an un-
even distribution of hydraulic resources and increasing
global water demand have led to seasonal deficits in parts
of the country. The average water consumption has in-
creased by 21 percent in the past 10 years. The agricul-
tural sector has experienced the greatest increase of water
use, 42 percent, mainly due to an increase in land irriga-
tion. Water consumption has also increased in resort ar-
eas where water is needed to irrigate golf courses and
landscape areas. The industrial sector is the only sector
that has seen a decrease in water consumption, due to
increasing efforts to reuse industrial effluents and use
more water-efficient technologies. Recently, there has
been a reduction in domestic water consumption.
France has been practicing nonpotable water reclama-
tion since the 19th century. Its oldest projects are the
Acheres water reclamation plant (near Paris) and the
Reims plant. The main drivers for water reuse in France
are to: (1) compensate for water deficiencies, (2) improve
public health, (3) to protect the environment, and (4) elimi-
nate contamination in recreational and shellfish farming
areas along the Atlantic coast. The majority of water re-
use projects are found in the islands and in coastal areas
in the southern part of the country.
Numerous cases of unplanned indirect potable reuse ex-
ist in France, where surface water, diluted with wastewa-
ter, is used for potable water supply. An example is
Aubergenville, in the Paris region, where the Seine River,
which is 25 percent wastewater effluent, is treated and
used to recharge the drinking water aquifer.
Clermont Ferrand is a large agricultural reuse project that
was implemented in 1999 as a response to water short-
ages and economic concerns. The wastewater treatment
facility consists of an activated sludge process and matu-
ration ponds for disinfection. Over 10,000 m3/d (2.6 mgd)
are used to irrigate 750 hectares (1,850 acres) of maize.
One of the first examples in Europe of integrated water
management with water reuse is on Noirmoutier Island.
The lack of water resources, the 10-fold increase in tour-
ist population during the summer, and the intensive agri-
cultural activities required water reuse. Wastewater treat-
ment on the island is achieved through 2 treatment plants
with a total capacity of 6,100 m3/d (1.6 mgd). The plants
have activated sludge systems followed by maturation
ponds for storage and disinfection. Thirty percent of the
treated wastewater (0.33 Mm3/year) is used for the irriga-
tion of 500 hectares (1,235 acres) of vegetable crops.
There are plans to reuse 100 percent of the wastewater
flow in the near future.
The country's regulatory framework (Circular n° 51 of July
22,1991, of the Ministry of Health) is based on the WHO
guidelines (1989). But France's regulations are more strin-
gent having additional requirements concerning irrigation
management, timing, distance and other measures for
preventing health risks related to human exposure and
negative environmental impacts (i.e. the potential con-
tamination of groundwater). New water reuse guidelines
are under preparation with the introduction of some new
microbiological indicators for unrestricted irrigation (i.e.
Salmonella, Taenia eggs), as well as more stringent op-
erational restrictions.
8.5.10 Greece
Greece has a severe water imbalance, particularly in the
summer months, due to low precipitation and increased
demands for irrigation and water use. Water demand in
Greece has increased tremendously over the past 50
years (Tchobanoglous and Angelakis, 1996). Despite ad-
equate precipitation, water shortages are often experi-
enced due to temporal and regional variations in precipi-
tation, the increased water demand during the summer
months, and the difficulty of transporting water through
the mountainous terrain. As a result, the integration of
water reuse into the water resources management is be-
coming a very important issue.
In 2000, almost 60 percent of the population was con-
nected to 270 wastewater treatment plants, with a total
capacity of 1.30 Mm3/d (345 mgd). An analysis of treated
domestic wastewater distribution of showed that more
than 83 percent of wastewater effluent is produced in
regions with a deficient water balance (Tchobanoglous
and Angelakis, 1996). This indicates that water reuse in
these areas would satisfy a real water demand. Another
important factor driving the use of reclaimed water is that
88 percent of the wastewater effluents are located at a
distance of less than 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) from farm-
land needing irrigation water; therefore, the additional cost
for irrigation with reclaimed water would be relatively low.
According to Tsagarakis etal. (2000), over 15 wastewa-
ter treatment plants are planning to reuse their effluents
for agricultural irrigation. The major water reuse projects
being planned or constructed are listed in Table 8-10.
Unplanned reuse still occurs in some regions, where
wastewater is discharged to intermittent rivers and, after
infiltration, is pumped through adjacent wells by farmers.
Guidelines for water reuse are under consideration by
the Ministry of Environment and Public Works (Angelakis
262
-------
Table 8-10. Major Reuse Projects
Plant Name
Levadia
Amfisa
Palecastro
Chalkida
Karistos
lerisos
Agios Konstantinos
Kentarchos
Capacity
m3/day
3,500
400
280
13,000
1,450
1,200
200
100
mgd
0.925
0.106
0.74
3.434
0.383
0.317
0.053
0.026
Uses
Irrigation of cotton
Olive tree irrigation
Storage, olive tree Irrigation
Landscape and Forestry irrigation
Landscape and Forestry irrigation
Landscape and Forestry irrigation
Landscape and Forestry irrigation
Landscape and Forestry irrigation
et al., 2000). Six water reuse categories are being con-
sidered: nonpotable urban, agriculture, aquaculture, in-
dustrial, environmental, and groundwater recharge. The
criteria are more stringent requirements than the WHO
guidelines. Secondary effluent quality criteria are used
for discharging purposes (No E1b/221/65 Health Ar-
rangement Action) and are independent of the disposal,
reclamation, and reuse effort.
8.5.11 India
India is the second most populous country of the world,
with a current population of over 1 billion that is pro-
jected to increase to 1.5 billion by 2050 (WorldWatch
Institute, 1999). Almost 30 percent of the population lives
in urban mega-cities, in particular, in the 7 giant con-
glomerates of Mumbai (formerly Bombay) (12.57 million),
Calcutta (Kolkata) (10.92 million), Delhi (8.38 million),
Chennai (formerly Madras) (5.36 million), Bangalore (4.09
million), Hyderabad (6 million), and Ahmedabad (3 mil-
lion). Fast depletion of groundwater reserves, coupled
with India's severe water pollution, have put India in a
challenging position to supply adequate amounts of wa-
ter to their growing population. In 2000, India's total re-
newable water resources were estimated at 1,244 m3/
capita/year (328,630 gallons/capita/year) (Earth Trends,
2001) and it was estimated that 40 percent of India's
water resources were being withdrawn, with the majority
of that volume (92 percent), used for agricultural irriga-
tion.
As a result of the fast-growing urban population, service
infrastructure is insufficient to ensure public health. In
fact, about 15 percent of the urban population does not
have access to safe drinking water and about 50 percent
is not serviced by sanitary sewers. In 1997, the total
volume of wastewater generated in India was 17 Mm3/d
(4,500 mgd), of which 72 percent was collected and only
24 percent was ever treated. These conditions cause a
high number of waterborne diseases in the country (more
than 30 million life years according to the World Bank).
The capital city of Delhi is one illustration of failing ser-
vice infrastructure and deteriorating environment. The
growing population in Delhi has led to an increase in
the volume of wastewater, yet the current treatment
capacity is only about 1.3 Mm3/d (3,400 mgd) - which is
only 73 percent of the wastewater generated. Another
example is Mumbai, where 2.3 Mm3/d (608 mgd) of raw
sewage is discharged into the Arabian Sea. However,
there have been some attempts at rectifying these situa-
tions. The large, $300 million, Bombay Sewage Disposal
Project was approved in 1995 with the financial support
of the World Bank. Other efforts have been made in the
Calcutta metropolitan area, where 13 sewage treatment
plants have been constructed with a total capacity of
386,000 m3/d (102 mgd) using either activated sludge
processes, trickling filters, or oxidation ponds. In addi-
tion, the Ganges River program is to include treatment
facilities for 6 cities in Uttar Pradesh that will incorporate
reuse for agriculture and forestry.
In 1985, over 73,000 hectares (180,000 acres) of land
were irrigated with wastewater on at least 200 sewage
farms. There has been a dramatic increase in waste-
water volumes discharged and used for agricultural irri-
gation in India. With its current population, Hyderabad
can supply wastewater to irrigate an estimated 40,000
hectares (99,000 acres). The law prohibits irrigation of
salad vegetables with wastewater, yet the prohibited
practice is widespread and government agencies report-
edly do not actively enforce regulations governing reuse.
Furthermore, in many states there is no microbiological
standard and hence no parameter to control the level of
263
-------
treatment. Enteric diseases, anemia, and gastrointesti-
nal illnesses are high among sewage farm workers. Con-
sumers of salad and vegetable crops are also at risk.
8.5.11.1 Hyderabad, India
Hyderabad, the capital city of Andhra Pradesh, is the
fifth largest and the fastest growing city in India with 6
million inhabitants (2001). The city produces over 700,000
m3 (185 mg) of wastewater per day, of which less then 4
percent receives secondary treatment. The remaining 95
percent of the wastewater is disposed, untreated in the
Musi River. The Musi River is the main source of irrigation
water for over 40,000 hectares (98,840 acres) of agricul-
tural land. Agriculture is the sole livelihood of over 40,000
farming families living within a 50-kilometer (31 -mile) ra-
dius of Hyderabad.
Downstream of Hyderabad, the Musi River water is di-
verted through a system of weirs into irrigation canals
(see photo) that were originally designed to retain water
for the dry season after the monsoon rain. Farming com-
munities along the Musi River experience negative and
positive impacts from the discharge of wastewater into
the river. Perceived negative impacts include an increase
in reported fever cases, skin rash, joint aches, and stom-
ach problems. Positive impacts include savings in chemi-
cal fertilizer application and larger crops as a result of a
year-round availability of water, which without the addi-
tion of wastewater, would have been confined to the
monsoon season. The main crops grown are fodder, rice,
and bananas, as well as different varieties of spinach
and other vegetables. Data reported that water samples
taken out of the Musi River, 40 kilometers (25 miles)
downstream of Hyderabad, have normal river water qual-
ity parameter readings including a gradual reduction in
BOD, COD, and coliform. The coliform counts reported
were within the WHO guidelines set for unrestricted irri-
gation.
8.5.12 Iran
Iran is one of the largest countries in the Middle East,
with an area of more than 165 million hectares (407
million acres) and a population of over 60 million
(Shanehsaz et al., 2001). The average annual precipi-
tation over the country is less than 250 mm (10 inches).
Distribution of rainfall in Iran is not uniform, with some
very urbanized areas receiving even less than the av-
erage annual precipitation.
In 1994, the volume of municipal wastewater generated
in all urban and rural areas of the country (potentially
reclaimable as a water resource if a collection system
were in place) was estimated to be 3,100 MrrrYyear (2.5
million acre-feet per year), and projected to increase to
5,900 MrrrYyear (4.8 million acre-feet per year) by 2021.
[Agricultural return flows and industrial wastewaters are
not included in these figures.] These immense volumes
are now largely disposed of at the point of generation,
through cesspits, without treatment. If collected, prop-
erly treated, distributed, and safely utilized, these vol-
umes of water could go a long way toward meeting the
burgeoning demands for agricultural and industrial water
demand of the nation. Planned water reuse projects cur-
rently produce 154 Mm3/year (125,000 acre-feet per year)
of reclaimed water.
In fact, recently, the government of Iran approved a rec-
ommendation to establish and implement programs for,
among other water-related initiatives, comprehensive rec-
lamation and use of non-conventional water resources—
such as reclaimed water. The public also accepts water
reclamation and reuse as a sensible way to maximize
the use of a limited resource. In the past, effluent was
used primarily to fertilize the soil, but now wastewater
effluent is increasingly used for improving water use effi-
ciency, surface and groundwater pollution prevention, and
to compensate for a shortage of irrigation water. Other
driving forces for water reuse include expansion of
greenbelts, soil erosion prevention by growing plants and
improving soil quality, and control of the desertification
process.
Hyderabad, India - wastewater being diverted over weir
into irrigation canals. Source: International Water Man-
agement Institute
Iranian farmers generally consider wastewater an accept-
able water resource for irrigation. There are studies in
Iran examining the use of treated effluent for irrigation
water in the suburban farms, mainly for fodder crops such
as corn, millet, and alfalfa. Systematic studies have
shown that there is a significant decrease in water use
and fertilizer consumption due to nutrients in the efflu-
ent.
264
-------
At present, there is no national standard for the reuse of
treated wastewater. The only existing wastewater code
in Iran is the "Effluent Discharge Standard" developed by
the Department of the Environment in 1994. This stan-
dard determines the allowable effluent discharges to sur-
face waters, cesspits, and agricultural irrigation; however,
the standard does not provide any criteria for the use of
reclaimed water for industrial use, fisheries, or recreational
activities. Microbiological criteria in this standard are in-
adequate for the purposes of water reclamation and re-
use; therefore, reliable international standards, such as
those developed by the WHO and by the EPA, are cur-
rently used to regulate water reuse. The responsibility
and authority for water reuse is scattered and fragmented,
as it is in many other parts of the world. Institutions re-
sponsible for the management of various aspects of wa-
ter, wastewater, water reclamation and reuse in Iran are
the Ministry of the Energy, Ministry of Jihad and Agricul-
ture, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Ministry
of Industries and Mines, and the Department of the Envi-
ronment.
Despite governmental edicts prohibiting the use of un-
treated wastewater in irrigation and agriculture, there
are still some places in Iran where the farmers use raw
wastewater, due to a shortage of fresh water supplies.
Unplanned use of wastewater is observed in cities with
no sanitary sewage systems and no wastewater treat-
ment plants. The government, at all management levels,
has struggled to maximize the benefits of reuse and is
working to accomplish this by giving appropriate priori-
ties to water use in various sectors, and by encouraging
wastewater reclamation and reuse through allocation of
the necessary financial resources. Considering that waste-
water treatment and water reclamation are relatively new
in Iran, 2 of the most important approaches used by the
government are economical incentives and management
tools. Operational permits are issued for the use of sur-
face water or groundwater, municipal distribution networks,
and the continuance of previously issued permits. These
permits are now conditioned with requirements for imple-
mentation of sewage systems and wastewater treatment
plants. Until such systems are implemented, entities that
consume water are required to pay penalties in propor-
tion to their discharge volumes and based on established
tariffs. A percentage of the income from the collected
penalties is channeled to the Department of Energy to
fund water conservation and wastewater treatment con-
struction projects.
8.5.13 Israel
The acute shortage of fresh water throughout most of
Israel prompted the development of a nationwide inte-
grated water management system. As a result of the
water crisis, with repetitive droughts between 1996 and
2002, Israel turned to water conservation and alternative
water resources including the most widely practiced form
of water reuse, reclaiming municipal water from medium
and large cities for irrigation of agricultural crops.
In several water reuse projects in Israel, deep, surface
reservoirs are used to store effluent during the winter
season and the water is then used during the summer
irrigation season. There are approximately 200 of these
reservoirs in operation throughout the country with a to-
tal storage capacity of 150 Mm3 (40,000 mg). Most of
these reservoirs also serve as surface water storage and
additional treatment. The oldest, and by far the largest
reuse project, is the Dan Region Project, which incorpo-
rates soil-aquifer treatment (SAT) and storage in a ground-
water aquifer.
Water reuse represents approximately 10 percent of the
total national water supply and almost 20 percent of the
total water supply for irrigation. Nearly 70 percent of the
municipal wastewater collected is treated and reused for
Pumps transfer water from the withdrawal wells to irriga-
tion zones in the Negev Desert, Israel. Photo courtesy of
Bahman Sheikh
irrigation. As a result of this nationwide effort, Israel cur-
rently supports its increasing population, industrial growth,
and intensive irrigation demand with a water supply of
less than 400 m3/capita/year (105,700 gallons/capita/
year), while the benchmark value for water stress is avail-
able renewable water resources of 1700m3/capita/year
(449,000 gallons/capita/year). Israel's objective is to treat
and reuse most of its wastewater by 2010 (400 Mm3 or
106,000 mg per year, 20 percent of the country's total
water resources). Most of the reclaimed water would be
used for the irrigation of crops and animal fodder in ac-
cordance with the regulations put forth by the Ministry of
Health.
265
-------
The 2 largest reuse projects are the Dan Region Recla-
mation Scheme and the Kishon Scheme. The Kishon
facilities treat 32 Mm3/year (8,450 mg/year) of wastewa-
ter from the Haifa metropolitan area using a conventional
activated sludge system. After treatment, the reclaimed
water is conveyed to the Yiszre'el Valley, approximately
30 kilometers (18.6 miles) east of Haifa, where it is
blended with local waste and stormwater and then stored
in a 12-Mm3 (3,170-mg) reservoir for summer irrigation of
15,000 hectares (37,000 acres) of cotton and other non-
edible crops. The Dan Region reuse system serves the
Tel Aviv metropolitan area of approximately 1.7 million
inhabitants. The facilities include a 120-Mm3/year
(31,700-mg/year) mechanical biological plant (Soreq
wastewater treatment plant). After biological treatment,
the wastewater is discharged to aquifer recharge basins
and stored in the aquifer. The reclaimed water is then
pumped from recovery wells and conveyed to irrigation
areas on the southern coastal plain and the northern
Negev area (see photo). Some areas only receive auxil-
iary irrigation of 4,000 to 8,000 m3/hectares/year (0.4 to
0.8 mg/acres/year); while more intensely irrigated areas
use 10,000 to 20,000 m3/hectares/year (1.1 to 2.2 mg/
acres/year).
There are 3 other significant reuse projects in the Jeezrael
Valley (8 Mm3/yearor2,100 mg/year), Gedera (1.5 Mm3/
year or 400 mg/year), and Getaot Kibbutz (0.14 Mm3/
year or 37 mg/year). All 3 of these reuse projects pro-
duce reclaimed water for the irrigation of over 40,000
hectares (98,840 acres) of agricultural lands.
8.5.14 Italy
Like most Mediterranean regions, southern Italy (particu-
larly Sicily, Sardinia, and Puglia) suffers from water short-
age and lack of quality water due to recurrent droughts
(Barbagallo et al., 2001). In addition, wastewater dis-
charge into rivers or the sea has lead to significant envi-
ronmental problems and eutrophication. Available water
resources are estimated to be 2,700 m3/capita/year
(713,260 gallons/capita/year), with a water volume of about
155 billion m3 (41,000 billion gallons). According to the
recent estimates, the potential water resources in Italy
are less than 50 billion m3 (13,200 billion gallons) when
considering the actual hydraulic infrastructures with rela-
tively low water availability of about 928 m3/capita/year
(245,150 gallons/capita/year).
The deficient and unreliable supply of irrigation water,
besides reducing production most years, has strongly
limited irrigation development. Forecasts for irrigation
water demand show steady increases in many areas,
not only in southern Italy and the islands.
The reuse of untreated wastewater in Italy has been prac-
ticed since the beginning of the 20th century. Among the
oldest and noted cases is the "marcite", where water from
the Vettabia River, which has a high content of industrial
and urban raw wastewater, is used for irrigation. How-
ever, this practice has been decreasing due to poor wa-
ter quality. The only negative impact reported is an in-
stance where a high concentration of boron damaged very
sensitive crops, such as citrus.
The present lack of water resources and the growing de-
mand for domestic, industrial, and agricultural consump-
tion has prompted research into non-conventional sup-
plies. Reclaimed water is beginning to be considered a
cost competitive source, playing an increasingly impor-
tant role in water resource management. A survey of Ital-
ian treatment plants estimated the total treated effluent
flow to be 2400 Mm3/year (634,000 mg/year), all esti-
mated to be potential reuse water. The medium to large
plants in Italy treat approximately 60 percent of the ur-
ban wastewater flow and can produce reclaimed water to
an adequate quality at a reasonable cost.
Currently, reuse water is used mainly for agricultural irri-
gation of over 4,000 hectares (9,800 acres) of land. How-
ever, the controlled reuse of municipal wastewater in ag-
riculture is not yet developed in most Italian regions be-
cause of stringent legislation, which ignores the findings
of recent research works and experiences of uncontrolled
reuse in Southern Italy. One of the largest reuse projects
was implemented in Emilia Romagna where over 1,250
m3/d (0.3 mgd) of treated effluent from the towns of
Castiglione, Cesena, Casenatico, Cervia, and Gatteo are
used for irrigation of more than 400 hectares (980 acres).
According to a recent survey (Barbagallo et al., 2001),
16 new water reuse projects for irrigation purposes have
been selected for implementation in water-scarce regions.
In Sicily, where uncontrolled wastewater reuse is very
common, several new reuse systems have been planned,
using seasonal storage reservoirs. In Grammichele, about
1,500 m3/d (0.4 mgd) of reclaimed water will be used for
the irrigation of citrus orchards. Recently, 2 other projects
have been authorized and financed on Palermo and Gela,
where reuse water will be used for irrigation of several
thousand hectares.
Another industrial reuse project is at the Turin sewage
treatment plant, which treats 500,000 m3/d (132 mgd)
with nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Approximately 8
percent of the effluent will undergo tertiary treatment,
filtration and chlorination, for agricultural and industrial
reuse.
266
-------
8.5.15 Japan
8.5.16 Jordan
Because of the country's density and limited water re-
sources, water reclamation and reuse programs are not
new to Japan. Only 40 percent of Japan's total popula-
tion (including the rural population) is sewered; how-
ever, by 1995, 89.6 percent of cities larger than 50,000
people were sewered, and 72 percent of the inhabit-
ants of these cities were served with a sewage collec-
tion system. Therefore, buildings being retrofitted for
flush toilets and the construction of new buildings offer
excellent opportunities for reuse. Initially, the country's
reuse program provided reclaimed water to multi-fam-
ily, commercial, and school buildings, with a reclama-
tion plant treating all of the wastewater for use in toilet-
flushing and other incidental nonpotable purposes. Later,
municipal treatment works and reclaimed water systems
were used together, as part of a dual system, providing
more effective and economical treatment than individual
reclamation facilities.
In 1998, reclaimed water use in Japan was 130 Mm3/
year (94 mgd), according to Ogoshi et al. (2000) with
distribution as shown in Table 8-11. At that time, about
40 percent of the reclaimed water was being distributed
in dual systems. Of this more than 1/3 was being used
for toilet flushing, and about 15 percent each for urban
irrigation and cleansing. A wide variety of buildings were
fitted for reclaimed water use, with schools and office
buildings being most numerous. In Tokyo, the use of
reclaimed water is mandated in all new buildings larger in
floor area than 30,000 m2 (300,000 ft2).
Japan offers a very good reuse model for cities in devel-
oping countries because its historical usage is directly
related to meeting urban water needs rather than only
agricultural irrigation requirements. In addition, the
country's reclaimed water quality requirements are dif-
ferent from those in the U.S., as they are more stringent
for coliform counts for unrestricted use, while less re-
strictive for other applications.
Examples of large area water reclamation systems in
Japan can be found in Chiba Prefecture Kobe City, and
Fukuoka City. Outside the city limits of each of these
urban areas, streams have been augmented, parks and
agricultural areas have been irrigated, and greenbelts
established with reclaimed water (Ogoshi et al., 2000).
The price of reclaimed water in these cities ranges from
$0.83/m3 for residential use to $2.99/m3for business and
other uses. This compares with a potable water price
range of $1.08 to $3.99/m3.
Jordan has very limited renewable water resources of
only 102 m3/capita/year (26,950 gallons/capita/year)
(World Water Resources, 2000-2001), which is basically
at the survival level (see Section 8.2.1). As a result,
mobilization of non-conventional water resources is one
of the most important measures that have been proposed
to meet the increasing water demand of the growing popu-
lation (3.6 percent/year, 6.5 million expected in 2010).
Over 63 percent of the Jordanian population is connected
to sewage systems. Seventeen wastewater treatment
plants are in operation, with an overall capacity of 82
MrrrYyear (21,700 mg/year). The largest facilities (greater
than 4,000 m3/d or 1.1 mgd) are As-Samra, Baqa's, Wadi
Arab, Irbid, and Madaba. Stabilization ponds and acti-
vated sludge processes are the most common treatment
processes in addition to a few trickling filter facilities.
More than 70 Mm3 (57,000 acre-feet or 18,500 mg) of
Jordan's reclaimed water, around 10 percent of the total
water supply, is either directly or indirectly reused each
year. By the year 2020, the expected available volume
•I
Wadi Musa secondary treatment plant and storage ponds
serving communities in the vicinity of Petra, Jordan. Photo
courtesy of Bahman Sheikh
of treated wastewater is estimated to be 265 Mm3/year
(70,000 mg/year), which is about 25 percent of the total
water available for irrigation. To date, the majority of the
reuse has been unplanned and indirect, where the re-
claimed water is discharged to the environment and, af-
ter mixing with natural surface water supplies and fresh-
water supplies, used for agriculture downstream, prima-
rily in parts of the Jordan Valley. The direct use of re-
claimed water in the immediate vicinity or adjacent to
the wastewater treatment plants is generally under the
jurisdiction of the Water Authority of Jordan (WAJ), which
is the entity that plans, builds, owns, operates, and main-
tains the plants. The majority of these sites are pilot
projects with some research and limited commercial vi-
ability. A few direct water reuse operations, such as the
267
-------
Table 8-11. Uses of Reclaimed Water in Japan
Use
Environmental Water
Agricultural Irrigation
Snow Melting
Industrial Water
Cleansing Water
Percent
54%
13%
13%
11%
9%
Mm3/year
63.9
15.9
15.3
12.6
11.2
mg/year
16,882.4
4,200.8
4,042.3
3,328.9
2,959.0
Source: Oqoshi eta/., 2000.
date palm plantations receiving reclaimed water from the
Aqaba wastewater treatment plant, are separate and vi-
able enterprises.
In recent years, with an increasing population and indus-
trialization, planned water reuse is being viewed as an
important component of maximizing Jordan's scarce
water resources. As a result, the government of Jordan,
with support from USAID, has been examining water re-
use and its application in the integrated management of
Jordan's water resources, particularly to alleviate the de-
mand on fresh water. The Water Resource Policy Sup-
port activity includes policy support and broad-based
stakeholder participation on water reuse, specifically in
the Amman-Zarqa Basin (McCornick et al., 2002). To
further promote the commercial viability of direct water
reuse, the government of Jordan, with support from
USAID, also revisited the existing water reuse standards
(Sheikh, 2001). Senior international water reuse and stan-
dards experts were consulted in coordination with gov-
ernment, agriculture, industry, and technical representa-
tives, whose participation helped develop an apprecia-
tion of the constraints and concerns faced by all parties
with respect to reclaimed water use. Jordan is now imple-
menting a program that will demonstrate that direct water
reuse is reliable, commercially viable, socially accept-
able, environmentally sustainable, and safe. The program
is focusing on 3 sites in Jordan including: Wadi Musa
(see photo), Aqaba, and Jordan University of Science
and Technology, each of which is at a different stage of
development in wastewater treatment and reuse.
8.5.17 Kuwait
With a population estimated at about 2 million, most of
Kuwait can be considered urban. The country is arid,
with average annual rainfall less than 12.5cm (5 inches).
With no surface sources, water is drawn from groundwa-
ter at the rate of about 2270 m3/d (0.6 mgd) for producing
bottled water and for adding minerals to desalinized sea-
water from the Persian Gulf. Most water needs are met
by desalination. About 90 percent of the urban popula-
tion is connected to a central sewage system.
According to Table 8-12, irrigation accounts for approxi-
mately 60 percent of Kuwait's water use, while approxi-
mately 37 percent is withdrawn for domestic use. Irriga-
tion water is primarily supplied from groundwater (61
percent) and reclaimed water (34 percent).
In 1994, the total volume of collected wastewater was
119 Mm3/year (31,400 mg/year), 103 Mm3/year (27,200
mg/year) of which was treated. The 3 main municipal
treatment plants are Ardhiya, Reqqa, and Jahra, with a
total capacity of more than 303,000 m3/d (80 mgd). Ter-
tiary treatment - activated sludge, filtration, and chlorine
disinfection - is provided. And while Kuwait has been
practicing water reclamation and reuse for over 20 years
as a means of extending its limited natural water supply,
only about 10 percent of treated effluent is reused.
While the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation
is growing in urban areas, the main reuse application is
agricultural irrigation (4,470 hectares or 11,046 acres in
1997), representing 25 percent of the total irrigated area.
Reclaimed water is only allowed for the irrigation of veg-
etables eaten cooked (potatoes and cauliflower), indus-
trial crops, forage crops (alfalfa and barley), and irriga-
tion of highway landscapes. Table 8-13 details the efflu-
ent quality standards established by the Ministry of Pub-
lic Works for water reuse.
The percentage of reclaimed water used for irrigation in
Kuwait is relatively high; nevertheless, groundwater sup-
plies used for irrigation are being stressed through ex-
cessive pumping. The result is increasing salinity of irri-
gation water. Irrigated lands are also experiencing salin-
ization due to evaporation. In response to these irriga-
tion concerns, Kuwait signed a forward-looking, 30-year,
build-operate-transfer (BOT) concession contract in May
2002 for the financing, design, construction, and opera-
tion of a 375,000-m3/d (99-mgd) wastewater treatment
268
-------
and reclamation plant. The plant, due to commence op-
eration in 2005, is located at Sulaibiya, near one of the
most productive agricultural areas of Kuwait. Product
water from the Sulaibiya plant must meet the conces-
sion contract requirements presented in Table 8-14.
The product water from this plant will be very high quality
and will allow Kuwait several choices for end use includ-
ing unrestricted irrigation and replenishment of irrigation
groundwater supplies. The Sulaibiya plant will achieve
the high quality product water through the application of
advanced treatment processes - biological nitrogen and
phosphorus removal, followed by ultrafiltration and re-
verse-osmosis treatment.
8.5.18 Mexico
Like other Latin American countries, Mexico faces a major
challenge in terms of providing drinking water, sewage
connection, and wastewater treatment, due to the need
to strengthen and expand its economic and social devel-
opment. Therefore, efforts to reuse water for different
purposes are extremely important to solving the increas-
ing water shortage and environmental problems. Mexico
has 314 catchment areas with an average water avail-
ability of 4,136 m3/capita/year (1.1 mg/capita/year) (Wa-
ter Resources 2000-2001) with uneven distribution. Av-
erage rainfall is 777 mm (30.6 inches) per year, and most
of it occurs over only 4 months per year.
At the national level, the rates of coverage for drinking
water and sewage connection in December 1998 were 86
percent and 72 percent, respectively. However, high dis-
crepancies exist for the different regions, in particular for
sewer connections with 32 percent for small communi-
ties and 92 percent for large cities. Approximately 22
percent of all the wastewater flow from urban centers
throughout the country, estimated at 187 m3/s (49,400
gallons/s), are treated at 194 sewage treatment plants.
The total urban wastewaters produced in Mexico are es-
timated to be 14.7 Mm3/d (3,880 mgd), of which 25 per-
cent are currently treated prior to discharge.
Towns and cities across Mexico generate wastewater
that is reused in agriculture (Scott etal, 2000). The gov-
ernment has mandated treatment and wastewater qual-
ity standards that are set by the type of receiving wa-
ters. One of the major examples of agricultural reuse is
Mexico City. Almost all collected raw wastewater (45 to
300 m3/s dry and wet flows, respectively, or 11,900 to
79,250 gallons/s), is reused for irrigation of over 85,000
hectares (210,000 acres) of various crops (Jimenez,
2001). Of the total wastewater generated, 4.25 m3/s
(367,000 m3/d or 97 mgd) is reused for urban uses (filling
recreational lakes, irrigating green areas, car washing,
3.2 m3/s (845 gallons/s) is used for filling a part of a dry
lake called Texcoco, and for other local uses, and 45 m3/
s (12,000 gallons/s) is transported 65 kilometers (40 miles)
to the Mezquital Valley for irrigation. The reuse of this
wastewater for irrigation represents an opportunity for the
development of one of the most productive irrigation dis-
tricts in the country; however, health problems also are
also a result from this practice.
Although the necessity to treat wastewater is obvious,
when the Mexican government started a wastewater im-
provement program for the Valley of Mexico, the farmers
from the Mezquital Valley were opposed to it. The main
argument was to keep the organics and nutrients (car-
bon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other micronutrients) as
fertilizer for the crops.
Several projects have been conducted to determine the
most appropriate treatment that would ensure adequate
disinfection (to minimize epidemiological problems and
illnesses), but keeping the nutrients in the reclaimed wa-
ter to preserve the fertilizing property. According to the
results obtained, it is concluded that advanced primary
treatment (coagulation/flocculation plus disinfection) pro-
duces water of a consistent quality, independent of the
Table 8-12.
Water Withdrawal in Kuwait
Water Use
Agricultural
Domestic
Industrial
Annual Quantity
(Mm3)
324
201
13
(mg)
85,600
53,100
3,435
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1997
269
-------
Table 8-13.
Reclaimed Water Standards in Kuwait
Parameter
Level of Treatment
SS (mg/L)
BOD (mg/L)
COD (mg/L)
Chlorine Residual (mg/L),
After 12 hours at 20° C
Coliform Bacteria
(count/100 ml)
Irrigation of Fodder and Food Crops
Not Eaten Raw, Forestland
Advanced
10
10
40
1
10,000
Irrigation of Food Crops
Eaten Raw
Advanced
10
10
40
1
100
Table 8-14. Effluent Quality Standards from the Sulaibiya Treatment and Reclamation Plant
Characteristics
PH
TDS (mg/l)
TSS (mg/l)
VSS (mg/l)
BOD (mg/l)
NH3-N (mg/l)
N03-N (mg/l)
P04-P (mg/l)
Sulfide (mg/l)
Oil and Grease (mg/l)
TOG (mg/l)
Hardness (mg/l) as CaCO3
Color (unit)
Enteric Viruses (Geometric Mean)
Total Coliforms (colonies/100 ml)
Monthly Average Value
6 to 9
<100
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
2
<0.1
<0.05
<2
<10
<1
5
<2.2
Source: State of Kuwait, Ministry of Finance (2000).
variation in wastewater quality in the influent. This pro-
cess may also be used for the treatment of wastewater
destined for reuse in agriculture in accordance with the
quality standards established.
Another growing issue in Mexico is the reuse of munici-
pal wastewater in industry. For example, in the Monterrey
metropolitan area, 1.2 m3/s (317 gallons/s) of reclaimed
water (104,000 m3/d, 16 percent of the total volume of
treated municipal wastewater), is reused as make-up
water in cooling towers in 15 industries. Besides increas-
ing pressure on water resources, this project is driven by
economic concerns. The competitive cost of reclaimed
water is $0.3/m3, compared to conventional sources of
groundwater at $0.7/m3, and potable water at $1.4/m3.
The improvement of sanitation, water resource manage-
ment and water reuse in Mexico requires appropriate ad-
270
-------
ministrative reorganization. One possible solution is the
public-private partnership that was successfully estab-
lished in Monterrey (Agua Industrial de Monterrey
Sociedad de Usuarios) and more recently in Culiacan.
8.5.19 Morocco
Despite the influence of the Atlantic Ocean, which con-
tributes to the area's relatively abundant precipitation,
Morocco is an arid to semi-arid country. Out of 150 bil-
lion m3 (120 million acre-feet/year or 40,000 billion gal-
lons/year) of annual rainfall, only 30 billion m3 (24 MAFY
or 7,925 billion gallons/year) are estimated to be usable
(70 percent as surface water and 30 percent from aqui-
fers). In addition, these resources are unevenly distrib-
uted. The catchment areas of the Sebou, Bou Regreg,
and Oum er Rbia wadis alone represent 2/3 of the hy-
draulic potential of the country (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, 2001).
Approximately 11.5 billion m3 (9 million acre-feet per year
or 3,000 billion gallons/year) of water are used annually,
including 3.5 billion m3 (3 million acre-feet per year or 925
billion gallons/year) from groundwater. Nearly 93 percent
of this amount is used to irrigate 1.2 million hectares (3
million acres), including 850,000 hectares (2 million acres)
irrigated more or less permanently throughout the year.
Most Moroccan towns are equipped with sewage net-
works that also collect industrial effluent. The volumes
of wastewater collected were estimated at 500 MrrrYyear
(360 mgd) in 1993 and are expected to reach 700 Mm3/
year (500 mgd) in 2020. For Casablanca alone, the an-
nual production of wastewater is estimated at 250 Mm3/
year (180 mgd) in 1991, with forecasts of around 350
Mm3 (275 mgd) in 2010. However, out of the 60 largest
towns, only 7 have treatment plants, and the design and
operation of those plants are considered insufficient.
Most of the wastewater produced by inland towns is re-
used, mainly, as raw or insufficiently treated wastewa-
ter, to irrigate about 8,000 hectares (20,000 acres). Some-
times the wastewater is mixed with water from the wa-
dis, into which it spills. A high proportion of the remain-
ing water is discharged to the sea. The irrigated crops
are mainly fodder crops (4 harvests of corn per year around
Marrakech), fruit, cereals, and produce. If irrigated with
wastewater, the growing and selling of vegetables to be
eater raw is prohibited.
The largest water reuse project in Morocco was imple-
mented in 1997 in Ben Slimane (near Rabat), where 5600
m3/d (1.5 mgd) of wastewater is treated by stabilization
ponds (anaerobic, facultative, and maturation ponds) and
the disinfected effluent (absence of helminth eggs, less
than20CF/100 ml) is used for golf course irrigation dur-
ing the summer (average volume of reused water 1000
m3/d or 0.26 mgd). The country does not yet have any
specific wastewater reuse regulations and usually refers
to the WHO recommendations.
The lack of wastewater treatment before reuse in inland
cities has resulted in adverse health impacts, and a high
incidence of waterborne diseases exist in Morocco. Im-
provement in wastewater reuse methods and the quality
of reuse water for irrigation is recognized as essential.
Major improvements are urgently needed because of the
strong migration of the rural population towards the towns
and the very rapid demographic expansion.
8.5.19.1 Drarga, Morocco
The Morocco Water Resources Sustainability (WRS)
Activity is a USAID-funded project that started in July,
1996. The objectives of WRS are: (1) to assist the gov-
ernment of Morocco in undertaking water policy reforms,
(2) to implement pilot demonstrations that introduce tech-
nologies which will foster the sustainability of water re-
sources, and (3) to broaden public participation in water
resources management.
The Commune of Drarga, near Agadir, in southern Mo-
rocco, is rapidly expanding. The current population of
10,000 is expected to double over the next few years.
Prior to the start of the WRS project, the town of Drarga
had a potable water distribution and wastewater collec-
tion system; however, raw wastewater was being dis-
charged into the environment without any treatment, cre-
ating large cesspools and contaminating drinking water
sources.
The 1,000-m3/d (0.26-mgd) Drarga wastewater treatment
plant uses a re-circulating sand filtration system. After
screening, the influent flow is treated in anaerobic basins
with an average hydraulic retention time of 3 days. The
flow is then sent to equalization storage where it is ad-
justed for release to sand filters. The third step of the
treatment process, after the sand filters, is denitrifica-
tion. Finally, the treated flow is sent to reed beds where
the root systems of the reeds provide further filtration.
The final effluent is stored in a storage basin before being
pumped to irrigate adjacent fields.
The implementation of a public participation program has
been one of the cornerstones of the Drarga project. The
fact that the public was consulted throughout each step
of the project has resulted in overall public support for
the project. Public opinion even led to a change in the
plant's location.
271
-------
Another key element of the Drarga pilot project was the
establishment of an institutional partnership. A local
steering committee, made up of all of the institutions
involved with various aspects of water management at
the local level, was created at the beginning of the
project. The role of the steering committee was to fol-
low each step of the pilot project and to provide assis-
tance, when necessary, based on their specific area of
expertise. After construction, a technical oversight com-
mittee was set up to oversee plant operations.
In Morocco, nearly 70 percent of all of the wastewater
treatment plants are not functioning due to lack of spare
parts and poor cost recovery. The Drarga project in-
cluded several cost recovery features. The plant itself
generates a number of products that have a market
value: reclaimed water sold to farmers, reeds which are
harvested and sold twice a year, dried sludge from the
anaerobic basins mixed with organic wastes from Drarga
to produce compost, and methane gas from the anaero-
bic basins, which is recovered and used to run pumps at
the plant, thereby reducing electricity costs.
The plant has been operating continuously since Octo-
ber 2000 and has exceeded removal rate targets for the
abatement of key pollution parameters such as BOD5,
nitrates, fecal coliforms, and parasites. Table 8-15 sum-
marizes the plant's performance.
The treated wastewater fulfills the requirements of WHO
reuse guidelines, and therefore, is suitable for reuse in
agriculture without restriction. The WRS project encour-
aged farmers to use reclaimed water for crop irrigation
by developing demonstration plots using drip irrigation.
Crops irrigated with reclaimed water in the demonstra-
tions plots include cereals (wheat and maize), vegetables
(tomatoes and zucchini), and forage crops (alfalfa and
rye-grasses).
8.5.20 Namibia
Windhoek, the capital of Namibia, has a population of
200,000 and is located in the desert. In 1960, low rainfall
(below 300 mm/year or 11.8 inches/year) caused the nec-
essary water supply to fall short of the water demand. To
meet this need, the country's water supply master plan
included the long distance transport of 80 percent of its
water supply from the Eastern National Water Carrier,
extensive aquifer withdrawals from around the city, the
development of a local surface reservoir, and the con-
struction of a reclamation plant. The Windhoek reclama-
tion plant has been In operation since 1968 with an initial
production rate of 4800 m3/d (1.3 mgd) (see photo) This
operation is the only existing example of direct potable
The Goreangab Dam, adjacent to the Windhoek recla-
mation plant in Windhoek, Namibia. Photo courtesy of
Valentina Lazarova
water production. The plant has since been upgraded in
stages to its present capacity of 21,000 m3/d (5.5 mgd).
The wastewater from residential and commercial settings
is treated in the Gammans treatment plants by trickling
filters (6000 m3/d or 1.6 mgd capacity) and activated
sludge (12,000 m3/d or3.2mgd capacity), with enhanced
phosphorus removal. The effluents from each of these
processes go to 2 separate maturation ponds for 4 to 12
days of polishing. Only the polished effluent from the
activated sludge system is directed to the Windhoek rec-
lamation facility as well as water from the Goreangab
Dam (blending ratio 1:3.5), where it is treated to drinking
water standards. After tertiary treatment, reclaimed wa-
ter is blended again with bulk water from different sources.
Advanced treatment processes (including ozonation and
activated carbon) have been added to the initial separa-
tion processes of dissolved air flotation, sedimentation,
and rapid sand filtration. A chlorine residual of 2 mg/l is
provided in distribution systems. Membrane treatment
has been considered, as well as an additional 140 days
storage of the secondary effluent from the maturation
ponds in the Goreangab Dam.
Risk studies and evaluations of toxicity and carcinogenity
have demonstrated that reclaimed water produced at
the Windhoek facility is a safe and acceptable alterna-
tive water resource for potable purposes. Treatment ca-
pacity at the Windhoek treatment plant is currently being
increased to 40,000 m3/d (11 mgd).
8.5.21 Oman
Oman is another dry country with internal, renewable wa-
ter resources estimated at 1 billion m3/year (388 m3/capita/
272
-------
Table 8-15. Plant Performance Parameters at the Drarga Wastewater Treatment Plant
Parameter
BOD5 (mg/l)
COD (mg/l)
TSS (mg/l)
NTK (mg/l)
Fecal coliforms
(per 100 ml)
Parasites
(Helminth eggs)
Raw
625
1825
651
317
1.6x107
5
Effluent
9
75
3.9
10
500
0
Reduction
98.5%
95.8%
99.4%
96.8%
99.99%
100%
year or 264 billion gallons/year). Surface water resources
are scarce, with evaporation rates higher than annual rain-
fall. In 1995, total water withdrawals including depletion
of non-renewable groundwater, were 1,223 Mm3 (323,000
mg), of which 93.9 percent was used for agricultural pur-
poses.
In 1995, the total produced wastewater was estimated at
58 Mm3 (15,320 mg) (Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, 2001), of which only 28 Mm3 (7,400
mg) was treated and 26 Mm3 (6,870 mg) was reused,
mainly for irrigation of trees along the roads. The quan-
tity of desalinated water produced in the same period
was 34 Mm3 (8,980 mg) and was used for domestic pur-
poses. Since 1987, 90 percent of the treated effluent in
the capital area has been reused for agricultural irrigation
of tree plantations by drip irrigation.
About 262 wastewater treatment plants with capacities
below 11,000 m3/d (2.9 mgd) are currently in operation.
Over 50 percent of these plants are located in the capital
area around Muscat, with overall capacity of 52,000 m3/
d (13.7 mgd), and 20 percent are in Dhofar and AI-Batinat.
The largest wastewater treatment plants are Darsait, Al-
Ansab, and Shatti al Qurm, which produce about 11,500
m3/d (3 mgd), 5400 m3/d (1.4 mgd), and 750 m3/d (0.2
mgd), respectively. The plants use activated sludge pro-
cesses with tertiary filtration and chlorination. Effluent is
pumped to a storage tank that provides pressure to the
water reuse transmission system.
There are 2 main Omani rules which regulate water re-
use: (1) wastewater reuse, discharge and sludge disposal
rules that include physico-chemical parameters such as
suspended solids, conductivity, organic matters, heavy
metals, etc., and (2) wastewater standards related to bio-
logical characteristics. Reuse regulations further clas-
sify wastewater use into 2 categories:
• Standard A- (200 FC/100 ml, less than 1 nematode
ova/I) for irrigation of vegetables and fruit to be eaten
raw, landscape areas with public access, controlled
aquifer recharge, and spray irrigation
• Standard B - (1000 FC/100 ml, less than 1 nematode
ova/I) for cooked vegetables, fodder, cereals, and
areas with no public access
During the summer, all of the reclaimed water in the area
is used, and demands are still not met. But during the
winter, about 40 percent of the effluent from the Darsait
plant is discharged through an outfall to the Gulf of Oman.
In the future, the reuse network will be expanded so that
all the effluent is reused for the irrigation of over 5,600
hectares (13,840 acres).
In the southern city of Salalah, the second largest city in
Oman, an extensive wastewater collection, conveyance,
treatment, and groundwater recharge project is nearing
completion. The effluent from the 20,000-m3/d (5.3-mgd)
capacity tertiary treatment plant will be discharged to a
series of gravity recharge wells along the coast of the
Arabian Sea to form a saltwater intrusion barrier with
additional wells further inland for replenishment of agri-
cultural withdrawals.
8.5.22 Pakistan
The use of untreated wastewater for agricultural irriga-
tion is common in Pakistan; a survey showed that it was
practiced in 80 percent of all the towns and cities with
populations over 10,000 inhabitants. The main crops cul-
tivated on these lands are vegetables, fodder, and wheat.
Vegetables and fodder are grown year-round to be sold
at the local market, while wheat is grown in the winter
season, mainly for domestic consumption. There are vari-
ous reasons why untreated wastewater is used for irriga-
tion such as: lack of access to other water sources, the
273
-------
high reliability of wastewater, the profits made by selling
crops at the local market, and the nutrient value of the
wastewater (reducing the need for fertilization). Farmers
using untreated wastewater for irrigation bring in almost
twice the income than farmers using normal irrigation
water.
The City of Faisalabad has a population of over 2 million
people, making it the third largest city in Pakistan. Lo-
cated in the heart of the Punjab province, Faisalabad was
founded in 1900 as an agricultural market town but since
then has rapidly developed into a major agro-based in-
dustrial center. The local Water and Sanitation Agency
(WASA) has identified over 150 different industrial divi-
sions in the area, most of which are involved in cotton
processing such as: washing, bleaching, dying, and
weaving.
Lahore, Pakistan - Farmers installing a pump into a
wastewater drain to draw water for irrigation. Source: In-
ternational Water Management Institute
The use of wastewater for agricultural irrigation is com-
mon in Faisalabad. At least 9 different areas are irrigated
with wastewater ranging in size from a few hectares to
almost 1,000 hectares (2,470 acres). In total, over 2,000
hectares (4,940 acres) of agricultural land are irrigated
with untreated wastewater in Faisalabad. The 2 main sites
in Faisalabad are the Narwala Road site and the Channel
4 site. At Narwala Road, the wastewater is primarily of
domestic origin while at the Channel 4 site the farmers
use a mixture of industrial and domestic wastewater. One
wastewater treatment plant in Faisalabad treats approxi-
mately 15 percent of the city's wastewater.
All wastewater reused in Faisalabad is used untreated.
Farmers opt to use untreated wastewater over treated
wastewater because it is considered to be more nutri-
ent-rich and less saline than treated wastewater. In
Faisalabad, like in many other cities in Pakistan, the lo-
cal water and sanitation agency sells the wastewater to
groups, or a community of farmers. The total revenue
generated is mainly used for the operation and mainte-
nance of the drinking water supply and sewage disposal
systems.
The only wastewater that is currently not auctioned off is
the wastewater at the Channel 4 site. The farmers at this
site complain that the toxicity of the wastewater has di-
minished their choice in crops and forced them to use
wastewater only in combination with brackish groundwa-
ter. The majority of the farmers at the Channel 4 site
would prefer to use regular irrigation water (potable wa-
ter), but increased water shortages in Pakistan have re-
sulted in such low water allocations that the cultivation
of crops without wastewater is no longer possible.
8.5.23 Palestinian National Authority
Currently, wastewater collection and treatment practices
in the Palestinian National Authority (West Bank and
Gaza Strip) are relatively low. Hence, the ability to re-
claim and reuse the large volumes of wastewater gener-
ated in this highly water-deficient region is restricted.
However, this situation is changing rapidly. International
development aid from European countries and the U.S.
is gradually strengthening the country's sanitation infra-
structure, leading to the potential availability of greater
volumes of reclaimed water in future years. In addition,
several pilot projects have been conducted with varying
results, but each project has demonstrated potential use
for reclaimed water. The Ministries of Agriculture and Pub-
lic Health have studied the use of reclaimed water in
agriculture, landscape, industry, and groundwater re-
charge. As a result, the volume of reclaimed water use
in Palestine is anticipated to grow over the next 20 years
(Figure 8-4). Farmer acceptance of reclaimed water use
Figure 8-4. Future Demand for Irrigation Water
Compared with Potential
Availability of Reclaimed Water for
Irrigation in the West Bank,
Palestine
T4U
100-
60 -
n
O Reuse for Irrigation
EH Irrigation Requirement
i —
2005 2010
MCM per Year
Source: Adapted from Abdo, 2001.
2020
274
-------
is relatively high, as measured in interviews with grow-
ers in both parts of the country (Abdo, 2001). Research-
ers found that, "the acceptance of farmers to use re-
claimed water was conditional by securing water quality
and getting governmental approval" (Abdo, 2001).
8.5.24 Peru
Peru is another Latin American country with serious wa-
ter shortage problems. Half of the total population of 22
million live in the coastal region with an arid climate. The
uneven distribution of water resources (very high inland,
very short on the coast) contributes to the low water sup-
ply and sanitation coverage of the population of only 42
percent and 43 percent, respectively. Only 5 percent of
the sewage in Peru is treated before discharge, mostly
by stabilization ponds.
The reuse of predominantly raw sewage has been prac-
ticed for agricultural irrigation of vegetables, fodder, for-
est trees, cotton, and other crops. In Lima, about 5,000
hectares (12,000 acres) are irrigated with raw wastewa-
ter. A project is under development to irrigate about 4000
hectares (10,000 acres) near San Bartolo, south of Lima,
with disinfected effluent from a lagoon system, including
maturation ponds, lea, located 300 kilometers (180 miles)
south of Lima, uses effluent treated in facultative lagoons
for restricted irrigation of 400 hectares (1,000 acres). At
Tacna, Peru's southernmost town, effluent treated in la-
goons is used to irrigate 210 hectares (500 acres) of land.
Peru uses raw sewage to irrigate market vegetables to
be eaten without processing. This is typical of numerous
cities in developing countries (Yanez, 1992). Furthermore,
the effluent produced by stabilization ponds throughout
Peru is of generally low quality because of design defi-
ciencies, operational problems, or overloading. Numer-
ous enteric bacterial and viral infections are reported,
although the many possible transmission routes preclude
attributing a direct link to irrigation practices (Strauss
and Blumenthal, 1990).
8.5.25 Saudi Arabia
Water is a scarce and extremely valuable resource in
Saudi Arabia. The renewable water resources are only
111 m3/capita/year (2.4 billion rrrYyear or 634 billion gal-
lons/year). As a result of agricultural, urban, and indus-
trial growth, the country's water demand has been in-
creasing steadily over the past 2 decades, reaching
around 20 billion m3/year (5,283 billion gallons/year) in
2000. Irrigation consumes the largest amount of water in
the kingdom. The majority of water consumption is sup-
plied by depleting non-renewable groundwater and de-
salination. Saudi Arabia is now the world's largest pro-
ducer of desalinated water, which covers 70 percent of
the total water demand.
In 1985, Saudi Arabia began focusing on ways to econo-
mize and regulate the use of water through a National
Water Plan. The plan provides for conservation, greater
coordination between agriculture and water policies, in-
tensive use of reclaimed waste and surface water, and
better coordination of supply and distribution. As a re-
sult, Saudi Arabia is committed to a policy of complete
water reuse.
Treated urban wastewater is considered a viable alterna-
tive resource for meeting water needs. It is estimated
that approximately 40 percent of the water used for do-
mestic purposes in urban areas could be recycled. In
1992, there were 22 sewage treatment plants in opera-
tion (stabilization ponds and activated sludge processes)
with a total treatment capacity of 1.2 Mm3/d (317 mgd).
In 1992,217 Mm3 (57,300 mg) of treated wastewater were
reused. Regulations require secondary treatment with ter-
tiary treatment for unrestricted irrigation, with standards
shown in Table 8-16.
The largest water reuse scheme is in Riyadh. The most
sophisticated Riyadh North treatment plant started op-
eration at the beginning of 1994 ,with a design capacity
of 200,000 m3/d (53 mgd). Treatment at the Riyadh North
plant includes a nitrification-denitrification activated sludge
process with sand filtration for tertiary treatment. On the
basis of this plant's treatment experience, the Riyadh
Region Water and Sewerage Authority recently adopted
a policy of treating all sewage to the tertiary level to comply
with the current effluent guideline standards for unre-
stricted agricultural reuse enforced by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Water. In 2000, an average daily flow of
415,000 m3/d (110 mgd) of tertiary treated and disinfected
effluent was available to potential users free of charge
(see photos). However, only about 45 percent (185,000
m3/d or 49 mgd) of this effluent has been reclaimed, pre-
dominantly for agricultural irrigation (170,000 m3/d or 45
mgd), and about 15,000 m3/d (4 mgd) is used for indus-
trial cooling purpose by the Riyadh refinery. The remain-
ing effluent is discharged to Wadi Hanifah, where it is
mixed with the natural flow of the channel. Private sector
farmers can extract some of this flow for irrigation.
In Jeddah, a 38,000-m3/d (10-mgd) activated sludge fa-
cility was designed to produce high-quality reuse water
to standards similar to drinking water standards. Ad-
vanced treatment includes reverse-osmosis, desalina-
tion, filtration, and disinfection. Other plants are planned
for Jeddah and Mecca. In both cities, the reclaimed wa-
ter will be used for municipal, industrial, and agricultural
reuse. The City of Jubail is planning to have 114,000 m3/
275
-------
d (30 mgd) of reclaimed water for nonpotable industrial,
urban landscaping, and other purposes.
Reclaimed water valve access box on sidewalk on Em-
bassy Row in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Photo courtesy of
Bahman Sheikh
Potable water valve access box on sidewalk on Embassy
Rowin Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Photo courtesy of Bahman
Sheikh
A recent master planning effort studied the infrastructure
needed to meet Riyadh's expected growth of an addi-
tional 7 million inhabitants by 2021 (over and above the
current 3.5 million). The master plan recommended 12
satellite water reclamation plants be constructed (Sheikh
and Aldu Kair, 2000). Each plant would treat wastewater
from a district and return the reclaimed water (disinfected
tertiary effluent) for irrigation of residential gardens, pub-
lic parks, and other landscaping, in addition to industrial
and commercial uses in various parts of the city. The
water reuse component of the integrated water cycle sys-
tem is expected to have an ultimate capacity of 1.5 Mm3/
d (400 mgd).
8.5.26 Singapore
Singapore is a city-state with a dense, growing popula-
tion of almost 4 million people. Although the island re-
ceives heavy rainfall averaging 250 cm/year (100 inches/
year), it has limited water resources because of its small
size (680 square kilometers or 265 square miles). The
island is fully served by a comprehensive wastewater
infrastructure - 6 secondary (activated sludge) treatment
plants discharge wastewater effluent to the sea.
Since February 2003, Singapore has been supplying high
quality reclaimed water (meeting drinking water stan-
dards), called "NEWater", directly to industries and com-
mercial and office buildings for process and other
nonpotable uses such as air conditioning and cooling.
The goal is to supply 245,000 m3/d (64.5 mgd) of NEWater
for nonpotable use by year 2011.
Table 8-16. Reclaimed Water Standards for
Unrestricted Irrigation in Saudi
Arabia
Parameter (a)
BOD
TSS
PH
Coliform (count/100 ml)
Turbidity (NTU)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chloride
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate
Selenium
Zinc
Oil & Grease
Phenol
Maximum Contaminant
Level
10
10
6-8.4
2.2
1
5
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.01
280
0.1
0.05
0.4
0.05
2
5
0.1
0.07
0.2
0.001
0.01
0.02
10
0.02
4
Absent
0.002
Note: (a) In mg/l unless otherwise specified
276
-------
The NEWater is reclaimed from municipal wastewater
using the most advanced technologies, including reverse-
osmosis and UV disinfection. NEWater is also being used
for indirect potable use. Since February 2003, about 9,000
m3/d (2.4 mgd) of NEWater has been discharged into
reservoirs and treated again in a conventional water treat-
ment plant before introduction into the distribution sys-
tem for domestic potable use. The amount of reclaimed
water for indirect potable use will increase gradually by
4,500 m3/d (1.2 mgd) yearly to 45,000 m3/d (12 mgd) by
2011. Currently, 2 NEWater plants are in operation with
a total production capacity of 72,000 m3/d (19.5 mgd).
The cost of NEWater production is estimated to be half
the cost of desalinized seawater.
Reclaimed water of lower quality than NEWater has been
supplied to industries in the western part of Singapore
since the 1960s. Industrial reclaimed water treatment
involves conventional sand filtration and chlorination be-
fore it is pumped to a service reservoir for distribution to
the industries. The current demand for industrial water is
about 90,000 m3/d (24 mgd).
8.5.27 South Africa
Limited water resources with uneven distribution, highly
variable rainfall, repetitive, severe water shortages, and
intensive industrial and urban development are the main
factors impacting the need for water reuse in South Af-
rica. In 1996, the population was at 38 million, of which
55.4 percent lived in urban regions. The population growth
rate is estimated to be 2.4 percent per year. Based on
these population figures, the water demand is expected
to double in the next 30 years. In fact, projections indi-
cate that the water demand will exceed available water
resources soon after the year 2020.
Water reuse is considered a very promising alternative
water resource. Over 1,000 wastewater treatment plants
are in operation with biological nitrogen removal as the
predominant treatment technology. However, according
to Grobicki (2000), less than 3 percent of the available
treated wastewater is being reused (an estimated vol-
ume of 41 Mm3/year or 11,000 mg/year).
Aquifer recharge and industrial uses are currently the
major water reuse applications. One of the country's larger
reuse projects is in Durban (3 million inhabitants) where
reclaimed municipal wastewater from the Southern waste-
water treatment facility is used by the paper industry and
petrol refineries. The tertiary treatment of the secondary
effluent from the Southern wastewater treatment works
consists of coagulation/flocculation with lamella settling,
dual media filtration, ozonation, activated carbon, and
chlorination. The reclaimed capacity is 47,000 m3/d (12.4
mgd).
The largest aquifer storage and recharge project is in the
Atlantis area (70,000 people), situated 50 kilometers (31
miles) north of Cape Town. Two infiltration basins aug-
ment the aquifer storage capacity with 4,500 m3/d (2 Mm3/
year or 1.2 mgd) of treated wastewater. High-quality
stormwater is also discharged to another aquifer. This
water is subsequently abstracted after an underground
residence time of about 1 year as part of a 15,000-m3/d
(4.0-mgd) groundwater supply project. In addition, treated
industrial wastewater is used as a barrier against saltwa-
ter intrusion near the coast. A number of small recharge
systems exist where farmers augment groundwater sup-
ply through small, earth-dams.
In addition to industrial reuse and aquifer recharge, a
number of small water reuse irrigation systems are cur-
rently in place in the areas of Durban and Cape Town,
mostly for landscape irrigation at golf courses (King
David, Mowbray, Rondebosch, Milnerton, Steenberg,
Parow, Durbanville, Cato Ridge, Langebann Country
Club), sport facilities (Milnerton Racecourse, Milnerton
Beachfront, Bellville South, Kraaifontein Sportsdround,
Peninsula Technion, etc.), and various agricultural ap-
plications.
Since many of the country's water bodies provide little
dilution capacity, there has been significant focus on
water reuse initiatives involving planned indirect reuse
through discharge to surface bodies. The return of
treated wastewater to rivers in inland areas of South Af-
rica has been considered an important aspect of water
management. Despite the deterioration of surface water
quality, the well-established, intensive, potable treatment
system (86 percent water supply coverage) minimizes
any potential health risk. This indirect potable reuse via
surface flow augmentation accounts for several million
cubic meters per day. In fact, with increasing water de-
mand, the volume of return flows is increasing steadily
and will be greater than natural run-off in a number of
regions by 2020. For example, in the Gauteng area
(Johannesburg-Pretoria metropolis), 60 percent of the
surface water used for water supply is treated wastewa-
ter. The Hartebeespoort Dam, used to supply water to
Johannesburg (10 million people), receives 50 percent of
its volume from wastewater effluent. In addition to this
indirect potable reuse, the effluent from Johannesburg
Northern Works (200,000 m3/d or 52.8 mgd) is also used
by a power station and for the irrigation of 22,000 hect-
ares (54,400 acres) of industrial crops.
The implementation of the National Water Act of 1997
resulted in the establishment of catchment management
277
-------
authorities. These authorities are helping to focus the
country's water resources management enhancement.
One of the major tasks of these catchment agencies will
be the management of environmental compliance, while
water supply and sanitation will remain the responsibility
of local governments and municipalities. Effluent and en-
vironmental standards specification and enforcement are
the duties of the central government, in particular the
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.
Water reuse standards are currently being revised. Ex-
isting regulations apply very stringent drinking water
standard requirements for water to be used for human
washing and irrigation of food crops to be eaten raw. Ter-
tiary treatment with no fecal coliforms is required for un-
restricted irrigation of sport fields, pasture for milking ani-
mals, and toilet flushing. The microbiological limits have
been relaxed for discharge into river systems to 126 FC/
100 ml, or sometimes even higher. The unrestricted irri-
gation and irrigation of non-food crops requires less that
1000FC/100ml.
8.5.28 Spain
Although both planned and incidental water reuse have
been taking place in Spain for decades, particularly in
coastal Mediterranean areas and in the Balearic and Ca-
nary inlands, planned water reuse became a viable op-
tion as a consequence of the First International Sympo-
sium on Water Reclamation and Reuse held in Costa
Brava in 1991 (IAWPRC, 1991). Since then, numerous
projects have been implemented across the country,
mainly serving agricultural irrigation as well as landscape
irrigation, environmental restoration, and urban uses
such as street cleaning, urban landscape irrigation, boat
washing, and fire control.
The major impetus for water reclamation and reuse has
been based on the viable alternatives for cost recovery.
The highly competitive water markets of the Canary Is-
lands, the highly productive hydroponic crops of the
southern Mediterranean coast, and the more recent de-
mands for golf course irrigation, have largely contributed
to the expansion of water reclamation and reuse in Spain.
Farmers have begun to realize the considerable benefits
from a reliable supply of good quality water, particularly
during the summer season, when water shortages are
most common.
The Water and Sanitation District of Costa Brava (lo-
cated in the north of Barcelona) has been one of the
leading agencies in developing water reuse alternatives
for the last 15 years. As secondary wastewater treat-
ment becomes a standard in most urban and rural areas,
a renewed interest has developed to reclaim and reuse
treated effluent, particularly in coastal areas, where tour-
ism, environmental protection, and intensive agriculture
have become top priorities. Mediterranean coastal cit-
ies, like Barcelona and Valencia, with traditional high levels
of incidental reuse in agriculture, are seriously consider-
ing rehabilitation and expansion of their treatment facili-
ties, as to satisfy the water quality requirements associ-
ated with environmental and public health protection, and
include adopting microbiological quality levels that are
nearly comparable to those of drinking water quality.
In 1999, the Spanish Ministry of Public Works, Trans-
portation and Environment proposed a set of physico-
chemical and microbiological standards for 14 possible
applications of reclaimed water. The proposed microbio-
logical standards range from limits similar to those in-
cluded in the Title 22 regulations (Californian reuse stan-
dards), for unrestricted water uses, to limits similar to
those included in the WHO guidelines, where public ex-
posure to reclaimed water is restricted. Several regional
governments have adopted and are currently consider-
ing either or both of the above criteria and guidelines as
a practical way to regulate and promote water reclama-
tion and reuse.
8.5.28.1 Costa Brava, Spain
The Consorci de la Costa Brava (CCB, Costa Brava Wa-
ter Agency) is a public organization, created in 1971,
that deals with the management of the water cycle (whole-
sale purveyor of drinking water, wastewater treatment,
and water reuse) in the 27 coastal municipalities of the
Girona province. In Spain, CCB is considered to be a
pioneer organization in the management of the water
cycle. The CCB embraces biological secondary treat-
ment of wastewater when the main option in coastal ar-
eas has been disposal into the sea through submarine
outfalls. The CCB introduced the concept of planned water
reuse in the late 1980s.
The CCB opted for the progressive development of this
resource after a conference in 1985, where renowned
specialists presented planned wastewater reclamation
and reuse systems in the U.S. Being that Costa Brava
itself is an area with a Mediterranean climate and peri-
odic periods of drought, it became clear to the governing
board of the CCB that treated wastewater should be con-
sidered as a resource to be developed rather than to be
disposed. Despite the lack of regulations in Spain, the
CCB proceeded to develop water reuse while maintain-
ing public health. Reclaimed water initially was disinfected
secondary effluent; continuing improvements to water
reclamation facilities have led facilities to evolve into
Title 22 reclamation treatment trains, consisting of co-
agulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and dis-
278
-------
infection. The major leap forward in wastewater reclama-
tion and reuse occurred in 1996, when several water re-
use projects were approved and partially (80 percent)
funded by the European Union (EU).
8.5.28.2 Portbou, Spain
The municipality of Portbou (Girona, Spain - population
1,600) is located in a remote area in northern Costa
Brava, in the midst of a very mountainous area and fac-
ing the Mediterranean Sea. A small reservoir, located
on the mountains on the western city limits, with a ca-
pacity of 130,000m3 (34.3 mg), supplies potable water to
the area. The maximum drinking water demand is
160,000 rrrYyear (42.3 mg/year) and the potable water
supply is extremely dependent on rainfall (annual aver-
age 550 mm or 21.7 inches). There are no wells to supple-
ment potable water supply, so the drought conditions of
the period 1998 through 2001 resulted in water restric-
tions for nonpotable water uses including landscape irri-
gation. The municipality has a 360-m3/d (95,000-gallons/
d) treatment facility which includes coagulation, floccu-
lation, direct filtration, and a UV-chlorine combined disin-
fection system to provide reclaimed water for a variety
of urban nonpotable water uses such as: landscape irri-
gation, street cleaning, and fire protection. The munici-
pality is also installing a pipeline to deliver high-quality
reclaimed water for boat cleaning to a nearby marina.
8.5.28.3 Aiguamolls de I'Emporda Natural
Preserve, Spain
The Aiguamolls de I'Emporda Natural Preserve (AENP)
is a marsh located in Northern Costa Brava between
the mouths of the Muga and Fluvia rivers. This naturally
occurring marsh formed as a result of the periodical
floods from both rivers, producing a rich and diverse
environment, ranging from saline to freshwater ecosys-
tems. The construction of the Boadella dam in the up-
per Muga River in the late 1960s and urbanization in
coastal areas dramatically changed the river flow and
affected the marshes, which were finally declared a natu-
ral preserve in 1984. A visitor center was created and
with it an 18-hectare (44.5-acre) manmade lagoon (Cortalet
lagoon), which is artificially fed by the Corredor stream
from autumn to late spring. In summer both this stream
and the lagoon usually dry out.
In 1995, the CCB received funding from the EU to con-
struct a 7-hectare (17.3-acre) wetlands treatment sys-
tem to reduce the nitrogen content in the secondary ef-
fluent from the Empuriabrava wastewater treatment plant,
which includes extended aeration and polishing lagoons.
The effluent is then reused for environmental purposes
at the Cortalet lagoon. The system came into operation
in 1998. Since then, 500 to 550 m3/year (132,000 to
145,300 gallons/year) of denitrified reclaimed water have
been pumped to the Cortalet lagoon, preventing its sum-
mer desiccation. Apart from this, the constructed wet-
land itself has become a great waterfowl attraction and
is one of the favorite spots in the natural preserve for
bird watching. Since the Empuriabrava community uses
water from the Boadella reservoir as a potable water sup-
ply, this project returns to the AENP a portion of the
flows that are naturally used to feed these marshes, thus
creating a true restoration of the original habitat.
8.5.28.4 The City ofVitoria, Spain
Water reclamation and reuse has been the final step of
an ambitious integrated water resources management
program for the City of Vitoria (250,000 people, located
in the Basque Country, northern Spain) that began in 1995.
The enthusiasm and determination of the most directly
affected stakeholders, the agricultural community, to pro-
mote and fund the design, construction, and OM&R of
the wastewater reclamation and reuse facilities have been
the driving factors for the practical implementation of this
far-reaching program.
The water reclamation and reuse project includes a waste-
water reclamation facility, with a capacity of 35,000 m3/d
(9.2 mgd) and an elaborate pumping, conveyance, and
storage system, satisfies water quality requirements
specified by Title 22 of the California Code of Regula-
tions. The project objectives were: (1) to provide water
for spray irrigation of 9,500 hectares (23,000 acres) dur-
ing the summer, (2) to pump about 0.5 m3/s (12,000 gal-
lons/d) of reclaimed water to reservoirs, and (3) to store
reclaimed water in a 6,800-m3 (1.8-mg) reservoir for agri-
cultural irrigation.
8.5.29 Sweden
As in other Scandinavian countries, Sweden has rela-
tively high freshwater availability and the annual water
withdrawal represents only 2 percent of the renewable
water resources, 352 m3/capita/year (93,000 gallons/
capita/year) in 1997 (Angelakis etal., 2001). Industry is
characterized by higher water demand at 55 percent, com-
pared to 36 and 9 percent for urban uses and agriculture,
respectively.
Advanced sewage treatment, including carbon and phos-
phorus removal, is common practice in Sweden. The
upgrading of many wastewater treatment plants for nitro-
gen removal has been implemented over the past years,
especially in the coastal region up to the archipelago of
Stockholm.
279
-------
Over 40 irrigation projects have been constructed in wa-
ter-scarce areas in the southeast region, where waste-
water is collected in large reservoirs and stored for up to
9 months before being used for irrigation with or without
blending with surface water. Agricultural demands for water
in these areas are intense, as the precipitation is small.
Two main benefits of these projects have been reported:
(1) additional wastewater treatment in a safe and finan-
cially attractive way, including recycling of nutrients, and
(2) the creation of alternative water resources for agricul-
tural irrigation which allow groundwater resources to be
dedicated for other purposes. After approximately 10
years, only positive impacts have been reported for these
water reuse projects. After a minimum of 4 months stor-
age, the water quality is adequate for swimming accord-
ing to the Swedish legislation. Subsequently, there have
been no sanitary problems related to water reuse.
A new environmental act in Sweden requires nitrogen
reduction for most of the large wastewater treatment
plants. This act may encourage future development of
these water reuse irrigation systems. The increasingly
stringent environmental requirements on the discharge
of industrial wastewater promote byproduct recovery and
industrial wastewater reclamation. Significant research
and development efforts have been made on the use of
membrane technologies, including industrial desalination
for zero discharge.
8.5.30 Syria
In Syria, agriculture is an important economic sector. In
addition to the role it plays in enhancing food security, it
accounts for 60 percent of the national revenue from
non-oil exports (Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, 2001). The agricultural sector employs
over 27 percent of the total manpower in the country. In
view of the harsh climatic conditions, irrigation is given a
high priority as a means to boost agricultural production
and to ensure a high level of food security. The total
irrigated area in Syria is in the range of 1.2 million hect-
ares (3 million acres), with 61 percent of the water com-
ing from groundwater and the rest from surface water
sources.
Until recently, the amount of municipal wastewater was
small because of the limited population in cities. Most of
these waters were not reused because of their lack of
quality and the availability of good quality water for irriga-
tion. With an increase in urban population and the spread
of drinking water supply connections, particularly in large
cities, the volume of municipal wastewaters has increased
rapidly. In fact, the volume of wastewater in Syria was
estimated at 451, 650 and 1,642 Mm3/year (365,000,
527,000, and 1,330,000 acre-feet/year or 119,000,
172,000 and 434,000 mg/year), respectively for 1995,
2000, and 2025. At the same time, the availability of
good quality water has diminished around cities. This
has led farmers to start using untreated wastewater. How-
ever, this wastewater is generally mixed with good qual-
ity water and is used essentially, but not exclusively, for
irrigating trees and forage crops (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, 2001).
Table 8-17 shows the status of wastewater treatments
in various Syrian cities. Collected raw sewage from the
cities (except for a part of Damascus), villages, and other
residential areas where sewage systems are in opera-
tion, is used without any treatment. The wastewater is
used either for direct irrigation of agricultural crops or, if
not disposed to the sea, it is discharged into water bod-
ies which are then used for unrestricted irrigation (Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2001).
8.5.31 Tunisia
Situated in an arid and semi-arid area, Tunisia is facing
increasingly serious water shortage problems (Bahri,
2000). In 2000, water availability was 440 m3/capita/year
(116,200 gallons/capita/year) with withdrawals account-
ing for 78 percent of the renewable resources. These
water deficits are projected to increase with population
growth, an increase in living standards, and accelerated
urbanization. According to recent forecasts, increased
domestic and industrial water consumption by the year
2020 may cause a decrease in the volume of fresh water
available for Tunisian agriculture. Moreover, water short-
age problems are associated with increasing environmen-
tal pollution. To help address this situation, different mo-
bilization infrastructures (dams, hillside-dams and lakes,
recharge and floodwater diversion structures, wells) are
under construction. Water transfer systems have been
implemented and existing reservoirs have been integrated
into a complex hydraulic system, allowing interregional
transfer and spatial redistribution of water.
Most residents of large urban centers have access to
various, adequate sanitation systems and wastewater
treatment facilities (78 percent versus 61 percent for all
of the population and 40 percent in rural areas). Of the
240 Mm3 (63,400 mg) of wastewater discharged annu-
ally, 156 Mm3 (41,200 mg) is treated at 61 treatment
plants. Five treatment plants are located in the Tunis
area, producing about 62 Mm3/year (16,400 mg/year), or
54 percent of the country's treated effluent. As a rule,
municipal wastewater is treated biologically, mainly in
oxidation ditches, activated sludge processes, and sta-
bilization ponds. Sanitation master plans have been de-
signed for several towns. Most existing reuse programs
were implemented and integrated into the scheme of al-
280
-------
Table 8-17. Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Cities of Syria
City
Damascus
Salamieh
Aleppo
Hama
Homes
Dar's
Al-Swaida
Idleb
Lattakia
Tatous
Total
Wastewater Flow
m3/day
485,000
5,800
255,000
70,000
134,000
21,800
18,750
30,000
100,830
33,450
1,154,630
mgd
128
2
67
18
35
6
5
8
27
9
305
Status in Year 2000
In Operation
In Operation
Under Implementation
Under Implementation
In Operation
Studied, Ready for Implementation
Studied, Ready for Implementation
Studied, Ready for Implementation
Invitation of Offers for Implementation
Invitation of Offers for Implementation
—
Source: Sa'dulla Al Shawaf, Ministry of Irrigation, Syria, 2000.
ready existing treatment plants. However, for new plants,
treatment and reuse needs are combined and consid-
ered during the planning stage.
Although some pilot projects have been launched or are
under study for groundwater recharge, irrigation of for-
ests and highways, and wetlands development - the
wastewater reuse policy, launched in the early 1980s
favors planned water reuse for agricultural and land-
scape irrigation (Bahri, 2000). Approximately 7 to 10 per-
cent of the overall irrigated area (14,500 hectares or
35,830 acres) is located around the Great Tunis. Re-
claimed water is used mainly during spring and summer,
either exclusively or as a complement to groundwater.
About 35 Mm3 (9,250 mg) of reclaimed water annually is
allocated for irrigation. In some areas, irrigation with ef-
fluent is well established and most of the volume allo-
cated is being used. In new areas, where irrigation is just
beginning, the reclaimed water usage rate is slowly in-
creasing. The annual volume of reclaimed water is ex-
pected to reach 290 Mm3 (76,600 mg) in the year 2020.
At that point, reclaimed water could be used to replace
groundwater (18 percent) that is currently being used for
irrigation, particularly in areas where excessive ground-
water mining is causing seawater intrusion in coastal
aquifers.
The area currently irrigated with reclaimed water is about
7,000 hectares (17,300 acres), 80 percent of which is
located around Tunis, with a few other locations near
Hammamet, Sousse, Monastir, Sfax, and Kairouan. By
2020, the area irrigated with reclaimed water is planned
to expand between 20,000 and 30,000 hectares (49,400
and 74,100 acres). However, the availability of agricul-
tural land is a limiting factor, especially along seashores
where most of the reclaimed water is generated. The most
common irrigation methods are sprinklers (57 percent of
the equipped area) and surface irrigation (43 percent).
Another common water reuse practice is golf course irri-
gation. In fact, 8 existing golf courses are irrigated with
treated effluent in compliance with the WHO guidelines
(1989) for water reuse on recreational areas with free
access to the public (2.3 log units /100 ml) during winter
and part of spring.
Water reuse in agriculture is regulated by the 1975 Water
Law and by the JORT Decree No. 89-1047 (1989). The
reclaimed water quality criteria for agricultural reuse
were developed using the guidelines of Food and Agri-
culture Organization of the United Nations (1985) and
WHO (1989) for restricted irrigation (less than 1 helminth
egg/I), and other Tunisian standards related to irrigation
or water supply. The Water Law prohibits both the use of
raw wastewater in agriculture and the irrigation with re-
claimed water of any vegetable to be eaten raw. The
1989 decree specifically regulates reuse of wastewater
in agriculture and allows the use of secondary treated
effluent for growing all types of crops except vegetables,
whether eaten raw or cooked. The main crops irrigated
with treated wastewater are fruit trees (citrus, grapes,
olives, peaches, pears, apples, and grenades), fodder
(alfalfa, sorghum, and berseem), sugar beet, and cere-
als. Peri-urban irrigated areas are mainly devoted to the
production of vegetables eaten raw, which is a major
constraint to reuse development because of the crop-
type irrigation restrictions. Specifications regarding the
281
-------
terms and general conditions of reclaimed water reuse
(and the precautions that must be taken in order to pre-
vent any contamination to workers, residential areas, and
consumers) have also been established.
Two new, large water reuse projects are planned for Tunis
West and the Medjerda catchment area. The new waste-
water treatment plant for the City of Tunis West will have
a design capacity of 105,000 m3/d (41 Mm3/year or 27.7
mgd) by the year 2016, which will enable the irrigation of
approximately 6,000 hectares (14,800 acres). The ongo-
ing Medjerda catchment area sanitation program is plan-
ning to equip the 11 largest towns with sewage networks,
treatment plants, and reclaimed water irrigation schemes
in order to protect natural resources, particularly the Sidi
Salem dam (450 Mm3or 119,000 mg), from contamina-
tion by raw wastewater.
The National Sewerage and Sanitation Agency is respon-
sible for the construction and operation of all sewage
and treatment infrastructure in the larger cities of Tuni-
sia. When effluent is to be used for agricultural irrigation,
the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for execution of
the projects, which include the construction and opera-
tion of all facilities for pumping, storing, and distributing
the reclaimed water. Various departments of the Ministry
are responsible for several functions, while regional de-
partments supervise the Water Code and collection of
charges, about $0.01/m3 ($0.04/1,000 gallons), accord-
ing to the World Bank (2001).
8.5.32 United Arab Emirates
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of 7
emirates: Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ras Al Khaimah,
Fujairah, Umm ul Quwain, and Ajman. According to the
1995 national census of the Ministry of Planning, the
population is approximately 2.4 million, mostly urban (83
percent). Only a few renewable water resources are avail-
able - 200 Mm3 or 61 m3/capita/year (52,830 mg or 16,100
gallons/capita/year) in 2000. The annual water demand
of 954 m3/capita/year is met by depleting non-renewable
aquifers and desalinization (700 Mm3/year or 185,000 mg/
year in 1997). It is estimated that about 500 Mm3 (132,000
mg) of wastewater were produced in the urban areas dur-
ing 1995, of which 108 Mm3 (28,530 mg) were treated
and reused (Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, 2002).
By far the largest emirate in the United Arab Emirates is
Abu Dhabi, where extensive nonpotable reuse has been
practiced since 1976. The system, designed for 190,000
m3/d (50 mgd), includes a dual distribution network which
uses reclaimed water—referred to, in the UAE and other
Persian Gulf states as treated sewage effluent (TSE)—
for urban irrigation of 15,000 hectares (38,000 acres) of
urban forests, public gardens, trees, shrubs, and grassed
areas along roadways. The treatment facility provides
tertiary treatment with rapid sand filtration and disinfec-
tion by chlorination and ozonation. The reclaimed water
distribution system is operated at lower pressure than
the potable system to reduce wind spraying. Convey-
ance and control elements of the system are painted
purple, marked, and labeled to avoid cross-connections.
AI-Ain, with a projected population of 250,000 by the year
2000, produces reclaimed water that may be used only
for restricted irrigation. The reclaimed water is pumped
about 12 kilometers (7 miles) outside the city where it is
used for irrigation in designated areas. Treatment includes
dual-media filtration and chlorination for disinfection.
8.5.33 United Kingdom
The impact of climatic change on inland water resources
has been noted in the southeast of England in the United
Kingdom, where a drought had been experienced in the
early 1990s. As a result, diminishing raw water supplies
led water planners to develop projects to help safeguard
and optimize existing raw water supplies, as well as
search for future resources.
The United Kingdom has used sewage effluents to main-
tain river flows (and ecosystems) and, through river
abstractions, to contribute towards potable water and to
augment other supplie. This practice is particularly de-
veloped for the major rivers in the south and east, includ-
ing the Thames River, where it is not always feasible to
abstract upstream of sewage works.
For example, in the Water Resource Plan for East Anglia
of 1994, the National Rivers Authority (a predecessor
body of the Environment Agency) recognized the impor-
tance of reclaiming wastewater effluents to augment the
flow in the River Chelmer and the water stored in the
Hanningfield reservoir in Essex, United Kingdom. As a
result of this decision, the first indirect potable reuse
project in Europe was implemented in 1997 (Lazarova,
2001). Water quality for this project has been strictly
observed including the monitoring of viruses and estro-
gens, as well as numerous studies of the impact of re-
use on the environment (estuary ecosystem) and public
health (Walker, 2001). The project was developed in 2
stages. The first stage involved a temporary system to
pretreat the effluent at Langford Works with UV disinfec-
tion before pumping the effluent to Hanningfield reser-
voir, a large 27-Mm3, 354-hectare (7,130-mg, 875-acre)
bankside raw water reservoir with a residence time of up
to 214 days. Abstraction from the reservoir is followed
with advanced potable water treatment at the Hanningfield
282
-------
Treatment Works. The discharge consent applied for uti-
lizing 30,000 m3/d (7.9 mgd) of the sewage effluent in
1997 to 1998. The second stage of the project involves
more traditional water reuse - discharging the effluent
back into the river and improving the wastewater treat-
ment at the source - Langford Treatment Works. This
medium/long term plan was approved in 2000 and the
new tertiary treatment plant has been in operation since
the beginning of 2002. The reclaimed water is discharged
into the River Chelmer and then abstracted along with
river water 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) downstream at
Langford Treatment Works for drinking water supply.
There are also some examples of direct treated waste-
water reuse in the United Kingdom, mainly for irrigation
purposes such as: golf courses, parks, road verges, as
well as for commerce, car washes, cooling, fish farming
, and industry (power station cooling, for example). One
of the more recent projects "Waterwise," was started in
January, 1999, to reuse the water from the Beazer Homes
district. Wastewater from 500 individual houses is treated
by a conventional process; then 70 percent of the water
is then discharged to the river and the remaining 30 per-
cent undergoes tertiary treatment before being redistrib-
uted to 130 houses connected to a dual distribution net-
work as reuse water.
There are several pilot projects being conducted to study
reusing grey water from washing machines, baths, and
showers for the flushing of toilets. Since domestic use
accounts for over 40 percent of the total water demand
in the United Kingdom, 30 percent of which is used for
toilet flushing, the interest in grey water reuse is grow-
ing. In some case, run-off water is also collected from
the roofs of the houses, treated, and blended with grey
water to be reused.
A large in-building water reuse project, known as
"Watercycle," was implemented in 2000 at the Millen-
nium Dome in London. The design capacity of the plant
is 500 m3/d (132,000 gallons/d). Run-off water, grey wa-
ter, and polluted groundwater are treated in 3 different
treatment trains to a high quality standard for reuse in
the more than 600 toilets and over 200 urinals on-site.
8.5.34 Yemen
Yemen has a predominantly semi-arid to arid climate with
a large rural population (76 percent). The annual renew-
able water resources were estimated in 2000 at 4.1 bil-
lion m3 or 226 m3/capita/year (1,083 billion gallons or
59,700 gallons/capita/year) (surface water and ground-
water). There is an increasing awareness in Yemen of
groundwater depletion.
The total amount of treated wastewater is estimated at
around 92,000 m3/d (24.3 mgd) from 9 treatment facili-
ties. The largest plants are located in Sana's, Ta'aiz, Al-
Hudeidah, and Aden. The common wastewater treatment
method used is stabilization ponds, with the exception
being the facility of Sana's, which utilizes an activated
sludge system. In addition, 3 new treatment plants with
stabilization ponds will be in operation in 2002 in Aden,
Yarim, and Amran with design capacities of 60,000,3,500,
and 6,000 m3/d (15.9, 0.93, and 1.6 mgd), respectively.
New plants are also planned in Beit Al-faqih, Bagel, and
Zabid.
Controlled water reuse for irrigation is practiced in the
coastal plain cities (Aden, Hodeidah), mainly to build the
green belts, as well as for the fixation of sand dunes or
control of desertification in affected areas. Unplanned
and unregulated wastewater reuse is commonly practiced
by the farmers to grow corn and fodder in Taiz area, or to
grow restricted and non-restricted crops, like vegetables
and fruits, in the Sana'a area.
In 2000, the new wastewater treatment plant for the capi-
tal city of Sana'a began operation. The activated sludge
treatment plant, with a design capacity of 50,000 m3/d
(13 mgd), faces numerous operational problems. The prob-
lems are due, among other things, to a lack of sufficient
operational storage and an organic load of the incoming
wastewater that is higher than the load used in the plant
design. The plant substantially increased the amount of
reclaimed water available to farmers in 15 villages along
the wadi, downstream of the plant. Farmers pump the
reclaimed water with their own pumps to their fields. This
has reduced the pressure on the overexploited aquifer in
the area. The number of active agricultural wells was
reduced from 80 to 55, mainly because pumping re-
claimed water is cheaper than operating the wells. Veg-
etables are the main crops grown and there are no crop
restrictions. Farmers have little information about the
quality of the treated wastewater. Upgrades to the treat-
ment plant are planned to make the reuse of reclaimed
water safer in the future (World Bank, 2001).
Five water reuse projects are being initiated in Aden,
Amran, Hajjah, Ibb, and Yarim. Funded by the German
government's Kreditanstaltfur Wiederaufbau (KfW), these
projects will make significant volumes of secondary treated
reclaimed water available, mostly for agricultural irriga-
tion. In Aden, some of the water will be used for indus-
trial cooling. The wastewater collection and treatment
systems are already being constructed or have recently
been completed for each of the cities in the program.
283
-------
8.5.35 Zimbabwe
In Zimbabwe, water reuse is an established practice that
has been accepted not only by engineers and environ-
mentalists, but also by all stakeholders involved in the
water resources management of the country (Hranova,
2000). This acceptance of water reuse has been influ-
enced by 2 major factors governing the water resources
systems management of the country: (1) the scarcity of
available natural water resources, and (2) the watershed
effect. Geographically, Zimbabwe's major towns lie on
or close to the main watershed. Therefore, in order to
increase the catchment yield, water supply dams are, in
many cases, located downstream from the urban areas.
The present policy of wastewater management focuses
primarily on 2 major types of water reuse. One is direct
reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation purposes, where
the treatment technologies adopted are based on classi-
cal biological treatment systems, mainly trickling filters,
waste stabilization ponds, and combinations. The 2 larg-
est direct reuse projects for irrigation purposes are lo-
cated in 2 major towns of Zimbabwe - Harare and
Bulawayo. The second type is indirect potable water re-
use, where municipal wastewater is treated in biological
nutrient removal plants and then discharged to water-
courses and reservoirs that are used for potable water
supply downstream from the discharge point.
8.6
References
Abdo, Kasim M. 2001. Water Reuse in Palestine. Pre-
sented at World Bank MENA Regional Water Initiative-
Water Reuse Workshop in Cairo, July 2-5, 2001, Minis-
try of Agriculture, General Directorate of Soil & Irrigation,
Ramallah Palestine.
Angelakis, A., T. Thairs, and V. Lazarova. 2001. "Water
Reuse in EU Countries: Necessity of Establishing EU-
Guidelines. "State of the Art Review." Report of the
EUREAU Water Reuse Group EU2-01 -26, 52p.
Angelakis, A.M., Tsagarakis, K.P., Kotselidou, O.N., and
Vardakou, E. 2000. "The Necessity for Establishment
of Greek Regulations on Wastewater Reclamation and
Reuse." Report for the Ministry of Public Works and
Environment and Hellenic Union of Municipal Enter, for
Water Supply and Sewage. Larissa, Greece (in Greek),
pp. 100.
Bahri, A. 2000. "The experience and challenges of re-
use of wastewater and sludge in Tunisia," 15 p., Water
Week 2000,3-4 April 2000, World Bank, Washington D.C.,
USA.
Bahri, A. and F. Brissaud, 2002. Guidelines for Munici-
pal Water Reuse In The Mediterranean Countries, World
Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe,
Mediterranean Action Plan.
Bahri, Akissa and Francis Brissaud, 2003, "Setting Up
Microbiological Water Reuse Guidelines for the Medi-
terranean," published on the website of the Mediterra-
nean Network for Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse,
www.med-reunet.com.
Barbagallo, S., Cirelli, G.L., and Indelicate, S. 2001.
"Wastewater Reuse in Italy." Water, Science & Technol-
ogy, 43,10, 43-50.
Bazza, Mohamed. 2002. "Wastewater Reuse in the Near
East Region: Experience and Issues." Regional Sympo-
sium on Water Recycling in the Mediterranean Region,
Iraklio, Crete, Greece. 26-29 September 2002.
Blumenthal, U., Peasey, A., Ruiz-Palacios, G., and Mara,
D.D. 2000. Guidelines for wastewater reuse in agricul-
ture and aquaculture: recommended revisions based
on new research evidence. Task No. 68 Part 1, Water
and Environmental Health at London and Loughborough,
UK, June 2000.
Cranfield University. 2000. Urban Water Recycling Pack.
Available from www.jiscmail.uk/files/WATER-RECY-
CLING-UK/cranfieldwatrec.doc.
Dettrick, D., S. Gallagher. 2002. Environmental Guide-
lines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania, De-
partment of Primary Industries, Water and Environment,
Tasmania, Australia.
Earth Trends: The Environmental Information Portal,
2001. "Water Resources and Freshwater Ecosystems,
1999-2000." World Resources Institute, http://
earthtrends.wri.org/datatables/
FalkenmarkM. and Widstrand C. (1992) Population and
Water Resources: A Delicate Balance. Population Bul-
letin, Population Reference Bureau.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
website. 2002. www.fao.org.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
2001. "Experience of Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations on Wastewater Reuse in the Near
East Region." Proceedings, Regional Workshop on Wa-
ter Reuse in the Middle East and North Africa organized
by The World Bank Middle East and North Africa Region,
July 2 - 5, 2001, Cairo, Egypt.
284
-------
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
1997. Irrigation in the Near East Region in Figures.
Rome, Italy
Grobicki A. 2000. "Water Reclamation in South Africa."
Proc. AWWAA/VEF Water Reuse 2000 Conference, Jan
30-Febr 2, 2000, San Antonio, USA, 23p.
Hamdallah, H. 2000. Reuse of Treated Wastewater for
Agriculture, Presented at the Aqua 2000 Conference,
April 28 to May 2, 2000, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Homsi. J. 2000. "The present state of sewage treatment".
Water Supply, 18.
Hranova R. K. 2000. Water reuse in Zimbabwe: an over-
view of present practice and future needs. Newsletter of
the IWA Water Reuse Specialist Group, June 2000.
International Association on Water Pollution Research
and Control. 1991. Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse.
R. Mujeriego and T. Asano (eds.) Water Science and
Technology, 24(9): 36.
IWA. 2002. "Mexico City, 4™ International Symposium
on Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse" Conference
Announcement, www.iingen.unam.mx/isw/index1.html.
Jenkins, C.R., Papadopoulos, I. and Stylianou, Y. 1994.
"Pathogens and wastewater use for irrigation in Cyprus".
Proc. on Land and Water Resources Management in the
Mediterranean Region. Ban, Italy, 4-8 September 1994.
Jimenez, B., Chavez, A., Mayan, C., and Gardens, L.
2001. "The Removal of the Diversity of Microorganisms
in Different Stages of Wastewater Treatment." Water
Science & Technology, 43,10,155-162.
KanarekA. and Michail M. 1996. "Groundwater recharge
with municipal effluent: Dan region reclamation project,
Israel." Water Science & Technology, 34, 11, 227-233.
Kotlik, L. 1998. "Water reuse in Argentina". Water Sup-
ply, 16, (1/2), 293-294.
Lazarova V. 1999. "Wastewater reuse: technical chal-
lenges and role in enhancement of integrated water
management." E.I.N. International, Dec. 99, 40-57.
Lazarova, V. (2001) Recycled Water: Technical-Economic
Challenges for its Integration as a Sustainable Alterna-
tive Resource. Proc. UNESCO Int. Symp. Les frontieres
de la gestion de I'eau urbaine: impasse ou espoir?,
Marseilles, 18-20 juin 2001, 8p.
Lazarova, V., B. Levine, J. Sack, G. Cirelli, P. Jeffrey,
H. Muntau, M. Salgot, and F. Brissaud. 2001. "Role of
water reuse for enhancing integrated water manage-
ment in Europe and Mediterranean countries." Water
Science & Technology, Vol 43 No 10 pp 23-33. IWA
Publishing.
Mantovani, P., Asano, T., Chang, A. and Okun, D.A.
2001. "Management Practices for Nonpotable Water
Reuse." WERF, Project Report 97-IRM-6, ISBN: 1-
893664-15-5.
Mara, D.D. and Silva, S.A. 1986. "Removal of intestinal
nematodes in tropical waste stabilization ponds." Jour-
nal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 89, pp.71 -74.
McCornick, P. G., S. S. E. Taha, and H. El Nasser. 2002.
Planning for Reclaimed Water in the Amman-Zarqa Ba-
sin and Jordan Valley. ASCE/EWRI Conference on
Water Resources Planning & Management, Roanoke,
Virginia, USA.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Revised by: George Tchobanoglous
and Franklin L. Burton. 1991. Wastewater Engineering
- Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Ogoshi, M., Y. Suzuki, and T. Asano. 2000. "Water Re-
use In Japan," Third International Symposium on Waste-
water Reclamation, Recycling and Reuse at the First
World Congress of the International Water Association
(IWA), Paris, France.
Palestine Hydrology Group. 1999. [Unofficial Translation
from Hebrew into English] Principles for giving permits
for irrigation with effluents (Treated Wastewater). The Is-
raeli Ministry Of Health, Israel.
Papadopoulos, 1.1995. "Present and perspective use of
wastewater for irrigation in the Mediterranean basin." Proc.
2nd Int. Symp. On Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse,
A.N. Angelakis et. al. (Eds.), IAWQ, Iraklio, Greece, 17-
20 October, 2, 735-746.
Pettygrove and Asano .1985. "Irrigation with reclaimed
municipal wastewater - A guidance manual." Lewis
Publishers Inc., Chelsea.
Pujol, M. and O. Carnabucci. 2000. "The present state
of sewage treatment in Argentina". Water Supply, 18, (1/
2), 328-329.
Sa'dulla Al Shawaf, Ministry of Irrigation, Syria. 2000.
285
-------
Scott, C. A., J. A. Zarazua, G. Levine. 2000. "Urban
Wastewater Reuse for Crop Production in the Water-Short
Guanajuato River Basin." Research Report 41. Interna-
tional Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Shanehsaz, M. J., A. R. Hosseinifar, A. Sabetraftar. 2001.
"Water Reuse in Iran," by the Iran Water Resources Man-
agement Organization, Ministry of Energy, Proceedings,
Regional Workshop on Water Reuse in the Middle East
and North Africa, July 2-5, 2001, Cairo, Egypt.
Shawaf, S., 2000. "Reuse of Wastewater in Syrian Arab
Republic," Ministry of Irrigation, Proceedings, Aqua 2000
Conference, April 28 to May 2, 2000. Abu Dhabi, DAE.
Sheikh, B., AlduKair, A. 2000. "Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, A Vision Of 2021"
"Introducing Water Reuse to A World Capital." Proceed-
ings, AWWA-WEF Joint Water Reuse Conference. San
Antonio, Texas.
Sheikh, B. 2001. Standards, Regulations & Legislation
for Water Reuse in Jordan. Water Reuse Component,
Water Policy Support Project, Ministry of Water and Irri-
gation, Amman, Jordan.
Shelef, G. and Halperin R. 2002. "The development of
wastewater effluent quality requirements for reuse in
agricultural irrigation in Israel." Proc. Regional Sympo-
sium on Water Recycling in Mediterranean Region, 26-29
September, 2002, Iraklio, Greece.
State of Kuwait, Ministry of Finance. 2000. Concession
Contract to Build, Operate, and Transfer (BOT) a Waste-
water Treatment and Reclamation Plant at Sulaibiya.
Strauss, M. and U.J. Blumenthal. 1990. Human Waste
Use in Agriculture andAquaculture: Utilization Practices
and Health Perspective. IRCWD Report No. 09/90.
Tchobanoglous, G. and A.N. Angelakis. 1996. "Technolo-
gies for Wastewater Treatment Appropriate for Reuse:
Potential for Applications in Greece." Water Science
Technology, 33(10-11): 17-27.
Tsagarakis, K.P., P. Tsoumanis, D. Mara and A.M.
Angelakis. 2000. "Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in
Greece: Related Problems and Prospectives." IWA, Bi-
ennial International Conference, Paris, France.
UNDP/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations/The World Bank/WHO. 1998. "Wastewater Treat-
ment and Reuse in the Middle East and North Africa
Region: Unlocking the Potential." Report of Joint Mis-
sion to Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia,
Turkey, the West Bank and Gaza and Yemen.
United Nations 2002, www.un.org
Walker D. 2001. "The impact of disinfected treated waste-
water in raw water reservoir." J.Ch.lnstn.Wat.& Envir.
Mangt., 15, (1),9.
WHO. 1973. Reuse of Effluents: Methods of Wastewater
Treatment and Health Safeguards. A report of WHO Meet-
ing of Experts. Technical Report No. 517. Geneva, Swit-
zerland.
WHO, 1989. Health Guidelines for the Use of Wastewa-
ter in Agriculture and Aquaculture. Report of a Scientific
Group. Technical Report No. 778. Geneva, Switzerland.
World Bank. 2001. Regional Water Initiative: Water Re-
use in the Middle East and North Africa, Proceedings
(and Compact Disc Summary Tabulations), Regional
Workshop, Sponsored by the World Bank and the Swiss
Agency for Development and Cooperation, July 2-5,2001,
Cairo, Egypt, The World Bank, Washington, D. C.
World Bank. 2000. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in
the Middle East and North Africa Region. The World Bank,
Washington, D. C.
World Health Organization. 1989. Health Guidelines for
the Use of Wastewater in Agriculture and Aquaculture.
Report of a WHO Scientific Group, Technical Report
Series 778, World Health Organization, Geneva, Swit-
zerland.
WorldWatch Institute, 1999. www.worldwatch.org
Yanez, F. 1992. Evaluation and Treatment of Wastewa-
ters Prior to Agricultural Reuse in Peru (in Spanish).
Report to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations on Project FAO/PERU/TCP/PERA
286
-------
Appendix A
State Reuse Regulations and Guidelines
287
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Arizona
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
Class A
reclaimed water:
• Secondary
treatment,
filtration and
disinfection
• Chemical feed
facilities
required to add
coagulants or
polymers if
necessary to
meet turbidity
criterion
• Turbidity
- 2 NTU (24
hour average)
- 5 NTU (not
to exceed at
anytime)
• Fecal coliform
- none
detectable in 4
of last 7 daily
samples
-23/1 00 ml
(single sample
maximum)
Class B
reclaimed water:
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in 4 of the last
7 daily
samples)
-800/1 00 ml
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Case-by-case
basis
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates (f>
• Application
rates based on
either the
water allotment
assigned by
the Arizona
Department of
Water
Resources (a
water balance
that considers
consumptive
use of water by
the crop, turf,
or landscape
vegetation) or
an alternative
approved
method
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
Other
• Class A
reclaimed
water may be
used for
residential
landscape
irrigation,
schoolground
landscape
irrigation, toilet
and urinal
flushing, fire
protection
systems,
commercial
closed-loop air
conditioning
systems,
vehicle and
equipment
washing, and
snowmaking
• Class B
reclaimed
water may be
used for
landscape
impoundment,
construction
uses, and
street cleaning
• Application
methods that
reasonably
preclude
human contact
with reclaimed
water will be
used when
irrigating
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Arkansas
California
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
(single sample
maximum)
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• Disinfected
tertiary
recycled water
-oxidized,
coagulated
(not required if
membrane
filtration is
used and/or
turbidity
requirements
are met),
filtered,
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
-240/1 00 ml
(maximum any
one sample)
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• As required by
regulatory
agency
• Total coliform -
sampled at
least once
daily from the
disinfected
effluent
• Turbidity
- continuously
sampled
following
filtration
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
• Warning
alarms
• Back-up power
source
• Multiple
treatment units
capable of
treating entire
flow with one
unit not in
operation or
storage or
disposal
provisions
• Emergency
storage or
disposal:
short-term,
1 day;
long-term,
20 days
• Sufficient
number of
qualified
personnel
Storage
Requirements
• Based on
water balance
using divisional
average
annual 90
percentile
rainfall
Loading
Rates (15
• Hydraulic - 0.5
to 4.0 in/wk
• Nitrogen -
percolate
nitrate-nitrogen
not to exceed
10mg/l
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
• Required
• One well
upgradient
• One well within
site
• One well
down- gradient
• More wells
may be
required on a
case-by-case
basis
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• No irrigation
within 50 feet
of any
domestic water
supply well
unless certain
conditions are
met
Other
• Includes
landscape
irrigation of
parks,
playgrounds,
schoolyards,
residential
lawns, and
unrestricted
access golf
courses, as
well as use in
decorative
fountains
• Also allows
reclaimed
water use for
toilet and urinal
flushing, fire
protection,
construction
uses, and
commercial car
washing
10
00
<£>
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
• Turbidity
requirements
for wastewater
that has been
coagulated
and passed
through natural
undisturbed
soils or a bed
of filter media
- maximum
average of
2 NTU within a
24-hour period
- not to exceed
5 NTU more
than 5 percent
of the time
within a
24-hour period
- maximum of
10 NTU at any
time
• Turbidity
requirements
for wastewater
passed
through
membrane
- not to exceed
0.2 NTU more
than 5 percent
of the time
within a
24-hour period
- maximum of
0.5 NTU at any
time
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates $
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
Other
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Colorado
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
Landscape
irrigation
excluding single-
family residential:
• Oxidized,
filtered and
disinfected
• E. coli -
126/1 00 ml
(monthly
average)
-235/1 00 ml
(single sample
maximum in
any calendar
month)
• Turbidity
- not to exceed
3NTU
(monthly
average)
- not to exceed
5 NTU in more
than 5 percent
of the
individual
analytical
results (any
calendar
month)
Single-family
residential:
• Oxidized,
coagulated,
clarified,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treaters:
• Quality of
reclaimed
domestic
wastewater
produced and
delivered at
the point of
compliance
Applicators:
• Total volume
of reclaimed
domestic
wastewater
applied per
year or season
• The maximum
monthly
volume applied
• Each location
with the
associated
acreage where
reclaimed
domestic
wastewater
was applied
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates (f>
• Application
rates shall
protect surface
and
groundwater
quality and
irrigation shall
be controlled
to minimize
ponding
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
Landscape
irrigation
excluding single-
family residential:
• No
impoundment
or irrigation of
reclaimed
water within
100 feet of any
well used for
domestic
supply unless,
in the case of
impoundment,
it is lined with a
synthetic
material with a
permeability of
10~6 cm/sec or
less
Single-family
residential:
• No irrigation of
reclaimed
water within
500 feet of any
domestic
supply well
• No irrigation of
reclaimed
water within
100 feet of any
irrigation well
Other
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Delaware
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
-23/1 00 ml
(any sample)
• Advanced
treatment
using
oxidation,
clarification,
coagulation,
flocculation,
filtration, and
disinfection
• 10mg/IBOD5
• 10mg/ITSS
• Turbidity not to
exceed 5 NTU
• Fecal coliform
-20/1 00 ml
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Continuous on-
line monitoring
for turbidity
before
application of
the disinfectant
• Continuous on-
line monitoring
of residual
disinfection
concentrations
• Parameters
which may
require
monitoring
include volume
of water
applied to
spray fields,
BOD,
suspended
solids, fecal
coliform
bacteria, pH,
COD, TOC,
ammonia
nitrogen,
nitrate
nitrogen, total
Kjeldahl
nitrogen, total
phosphorus,
chloride, Na,
K, Ca, Mg,
metals, and
priority
pollutants
• Parameters
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
provisions
required either
as a separate
facility or
incorporated
into the
pre treatment
system
• Minimum 15
days storage
required
unless other
measures for
controlling flow
are
demonstrated
• Must determine
operational,
wet weather,
and water
balance
storage
requirements
• Separate off-
line system for
storage of
reject
wastewater
with a
minimum
capacity equal
to 2 days
average daily
design flow
required
Loading
Rates (f>
• Maximum
design
wastewater
loadings
limited to
2.5 in/wk
• Maximum
instantaneous
wastewater
application
rates limited to
0.25 in/hour
• Design
wastewater
loading must
be determined
as a function of
precipitation,
evapotrans-
piration, design
percolation
rate, nitrogen
loading and
other
constituent
loading
limitations,
groundwater
and drainage
conditions, and
average and
peak design
wastewater
flows and
seasonal
fluctuations
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
• Required
• One well
upgradient of
site or
otherwise
outside the
influence of the
site for
background
monitoring
• One well within
wetted field
area of each
drainage basin
intersected by
site
• Two wells
downgradient
in each
drainage basin
intersected by
site
• One well
upgradient and
One well
downgradient
of the pond
treatment and
storage
facilities in
each drainage
basin
intersected by
site
• May require
measurement
of depth to
groundwater,
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
Other
• Regulations
pertain to sites
unlimited to
public access
10
<£>
10
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Florida
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
• Secondary
treatment with
filtration and
high-level
disinfection
• Chemical feed
facilities to be
provided
• 20 mg/l
CBOD5
(annual
average)
• 5 mg/l TSS
(single sample)
to be achieved
prior to
disinfection
• Total chlorine
residual of at
least 1 mg/l
after a
minimum
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
and sampling
frequency
determined on
case-by-case
basis
• Parameters to
be monitored
and sampling
frequency to
be identified in
wastewater
facility permit
• Minimum
schedule for
sampling and
testing based
on system
capacity
established for
flow, pH,
chlorine
residual,
dissolved
oxygen,
suspended
solids, CBOD5,
nutrients, and
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
• Class I
reliability -
requires
multiple or
back-up
treatment units
and a
secondary
power source
• Minimum
reject storage
capacity equal
to 1 -day flow at
the average
daily design
flow of the
treatment plant
or the average
daily permitted
flow of the
reuse system,
whichever is
Storage
Requirements
• At a minimum,
system storage
capacity shall
be the volume
equal to 3
times the
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
• Water balance
required with
volume of
storage based
on a 1 0-year
recurrence
interval and a
minimum of 20
Loading
Rates (f>
• Site specific
• Design
hydraulic
loading rate -
maximum
annual
average of
2 in/wk is
recommended
• Based on
nutrient and
water balance
assessments
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
pH, COD,
TOC, nitrate
nitrogen, total
phosphorus,
electrical
conductivity,
chloride, fecal
coliform
bacteria,
metals, and
priority
pollutants
• Parameters
and sampling
frequency
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Required
• One
upgradient well
located as
close as
possible to the
site without
being affected
by the site's
discharge
(background
well)
• One well at the
edge of the
zone of
discharge
down-gradient
of the site
(compliance
well)
• One well
downgradient
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
• 75 feet to
potable water
supply wells
• 75 feet from
reclaimed
water
transmission
facility to public
water supply
well
• Low trajectory
nozzles
required within
100 feet of
outdoor public
eating,
drinking, and
bathing
facilities
• 100 feet from
indoor
aesthetic
Other
• Includes use of
reclaimed
water for
irrigation of
residential
lawns, golf
courses,
cemeteries,
parks,
playgrounds,
schoolyards,
highway
medians, and
other public
access areas
• Also includes
use of
reclaimed
water for toilet
flushing, fire
protection,
construction
10
<£>
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
acceptable
contact time of
15 minutes at
peak hourly
flow
• Fecal coliform
- over 30 day
period, 75
percent of
samples below
detection limits
-25/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• pH 6-8.5
• Limitations to
be met after
disinfection
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
fecal coliform
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
turbidity prior
to disinfection
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
total chlorine
residual or
residual
concentrations
of other
disinfectants
• Monitoring for
Giardia and
Cryptosporidium
based on
treatment plant
capacity
- > 1 mgd,
sampling one
time during
each 2-year
period
- < 1 mgd,
sampling one
time during
each 5-year
period
- samples to
be taken
immediately
following
disinfection
process
• Primary and
secondary
drinking water
standards to
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
less
• Minimum
system size of
0.1 mgd (not
required for
toilet flushing
and fire
protection
uses)
• Staffing -
24 hrs/day,
7 days/wk or
6 hrs/day,
7 days/wk with
diversion of
reclaimed
water to reuse
system only
during periods
of operator
presence
Storage
Requirements
years of
climatic data
• Not required if
alternative
system is
incorporated
into the system
design to
ensure
continuous
facility
operation
• Existing or
proposed lakes
or ponds (such
as golf course
ponds) are
appropriate for
storage if it will
not impair the
ability of the
lakes or ponds
to function as a
storm water
management
system
• Aquifer
storage and
recovery
allowed as
provision of
storage
Loading
Rates $
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
from the site
and within the
zone of
discharge
(intermediate
well)
• One well
located
adjacent to
unlined
storage ponds
or lakes
• Other wells
may be
required
depending on
site-specific
criteria
• Quarterly
monitoring
required for
water level,
nitrate, total
dissolved
solids, arsenic,
cadmium,
chloride,
chromium,
lead, fecal
coliform, pH,
and sulfate
• Monitoring
may be
required for
additional
parameters
based on site-
specific
conditions and
groundwater
quality
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
features using
reclaimed
water to
adjacent
indoor public
eating and
drinking
facilities
• 200 feet from
unlined
storage ponds
to potable
water supply
wells
Other
dust control,
vehicle
washing and
aesthetic
purposes
• Tank trucks
can be used to
apply
reclaimed
water if
requirements
are met
• Cross-
connection
control and
inspection
program
required
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Georgia
Hawaii
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
• Secondary
treatment
followed by
coagulation,
filtration, and
disinfection
• 5 mg/l BOD
• 5 mg/l TSS
• Fecal coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(monthly
average)
- 100/1 00 ml
(maximum any
sample)
• pH 6-9
• Turbidity not to
exceed 3 NTU
prior to
disinfection
• Detectable
disinfectant
residual at the
delivery point
R-1 water:
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
be monitored
by facilities >
1 00,000 gpd
• Continuous
turbidity
monitoring
prior to
disinfection
• Weekly
sampling for
TSS and BOD
• Daily
monitoring for
fecal coliform
• Daily
monitoring for
PH
• Detectable
disinfection
residual
monitoring
• Daily flow
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
• Multiple
process units
• Ability to
isolate and
bypass all
process units
• System must
be capable of
treating peak
flows with the
largest unit out
of service
• Equalization
may be
required
• Back-up power
supply
• Alarms to warn
of loss of
power supply,
failure of
pumping
systems,
failure of
disinfection
systems, or
turbidity
greater than
3 NTU
• Multiple or
Storage
Requirements
• Reject water
storage equal
to at least
3 days of flow
at the average
daily design
flow
• One of the
following
options must
be in place to
account for wet
weather
periods
- sufficient
storage onsite
or at the
customer's
location to
handle the
flows until
irrigation can
be resumed
- additional
land set aside
that can be
irrigated
without
causing harm
to the cover
crop
- obtain
NPDES permit
for all or part of
the flow
• 20 days
Loading
Rates (f>
• Design
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
quality
• Required
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
R-1 water:
Other
• R-1 water can
10
<£>
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
• Oxidized,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
-200/1 00 ml
(maximum any
one sample)
• Inactivation
and/or removal
of 99.999
percent of the
plaque-forming
units of F-
specific
bacteriophage
MS2, or polio
virus
• Effluent
turbidity not to
exceed 2 NTU
• Chemical
pretreatment
facilities
required in all
cases where
granular media
filtration is
used; not
required for
facilities using
membrane
filtration
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
monitoring
• Continuous
turbidity
monitoring
prior to and
after filtration
process
• Continuous
measuring and
recording of
chlorine
residual
• Daily
monitoring of
fecal coliform
• Weekly
monitoring of
BOD5and
suspended
solids
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
standby units
required with
sufficient
capacity to
enable
effective
operation with
anyone unit
out of service
• Alarm devices
required for
loss of power,
high water
levels, failure
of pumps or
blowers, high
head loss on
filters, high
effluent
turbidity, loss
of coagulant or
polymer feed,
and loss of
chlorine
residual
• Standby power
source
required for
treatment plant
and distribution
pump stations
Storage
Requirements
storage
required
unless it can
be
demonstrated
that another
time period is
adequate or
that no storage
is necessary
• Storage
requirements
based on
water balance
using at least a
30-year record
• Reject storage
required with a
volume equal
to 1 day of flow
at the average
daily design
flow
• Emergency
system storage
not required
where an
alternate
effluent
disposal
system has
been approved
Loading
Rates $
application rate
determined by
water balance
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
• Groundwater
monitoring
system may
consist of a
number of
lysi meters
and/or
monitoring
wells
depending on
site size, site
characteristics,
location,
method of
discharge, and
other
appropriate
considerations
• One well
upgradient and
two wells
downgradient
for project sites
500 acres or
more
• One well within
the wetted field
area for each
project whose
surface area is
greater than or
equal to 1,500
acres
• One lysimeter
per 200 acres
• One lysimeter
for project sites
that have
greater than 40
but less than
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
• Minimum of 50
feet to drinking
water supply
well
• Outer edge of
impoundment
at least 1 00
feet from any
drinking water
supply well
R-2 water:
• For spray
irrigation
applications,
500 feet to
residence
property or a
place where
public
exposure could
be similar to
that at a park,
elementary
school yard or
athletic field
• Minimum of
100 feet to any
drinking water
supply well
• Outer edge of
impoundment
at least 300
feet from any
drinking water
supply well
Other
be used for
spray Irrigation
of golf courses,
parks,
elementary
schoolyards,
athletic fields,
landscapes
around some
residential
property,
roadside and
median
landscapes,
landscape
impoundments
with decorative
fountain, and
decorative
fountains
• R-1 water can
also be used
for flushing
toilets and
urinals, fire
fighting and
washing yards,
lots and
sidewalks
• R-2 water can
be used as
source of
supply for
landscape
impoundments
without
decorative
fountain and
construction
uses
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Idaho
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
• Theoretical
chlorine
contact time of
120 minutes
and actual
modal contact
time of 90
minutes
throughout
which the
chlorine
residual is
5 mg/l
R-2 water:
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-200/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
• Theoretical
chlorine
contact time of
15 minutes
and actual
modal contact
time of 10
minutes
throughout
which the
chlorine
residual is
0.5 mg/l
• Oxidized,
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates $
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
200 acres
• Additional
lysi meters may
be necessary
to address
concerns of
public health or
environmental
protection as
related to
variable
characteristics
of the
subsurface or
of the
operations of
the project
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
Other
• If alternative
application
methods are
used, such as
subsurface,
drip or surface
irrigation, a
lesser quality
reclaimed
water may be
suitable
• R-2 water
used in spray
irrigation will
be performed
during periods
when the area
is closed to the
public and the
public is
absent from
the area, and
end at least 1
hour before the
area is open to
the public
• Subsurface
irrigation may
be performed
at any time
• Includes
10
<£>
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Illinois
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
coagulated,
clarified,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
• Two-cell
lagoon system
with tertiary
sand filtration
and
disinfection or
mechanical
secondary
treatment with
disinfection
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Minimum
storage
capacity equal
to at least 1 50
days of
wastewater at
design
average flow
except in
southern
Illinois areas
where a
minimum of
120 days of
storage
capacity to be
provided
• Storage can
be determined
based on a
rational design
that must
include
capacity for the
wettest year
with a 20-year
Loading
Rates (f>
• Based on the
limiting
characteristic
of the treated
wastewater
and the site
• Balances must
be calculated
and submitted
for water,
nitrogen,
phosphorus,
and BOD
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
• Required
• One well
upgradientfor
determining
background
concentrations
• Two wells
downgradient
in the
dominant
direction of
groundwater
movement
• Wells between
each potable
water well and
the application
area if within
1,000 feet
• Monitoring of
nitrates,
ammonia
nitrogen,
chlorides,
sulfates, pH,
total dissolved
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
• 200 feet to
residential lot
lines
Other
irrigation of
parks,
playgrounds,
schoolyards
and other
areas where
children are
more likely to
have access or
exposure
• Irrigation to be
accomplished
during periods
of non-use
10
<£>
CO
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Indiana
Kansas
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• 10mg/IBOD5
• 5 mg/l TSS
prior to
disinfection (24
hour average)
• Fecal coliform
- no detectable
fecal coliform
(7-day median)
-14/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• pH6-9
• Total chlorine
residual after a
minimum
contact time of
30 minutes at
least 1 mg/l (if
chlorination is
used for
disinfection)
• Secondary
treatment with
filtration and
disinfection for
irrigation of
areas with a
high probability
of body contact
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Daily
monitoring of
TSS, coliform,
and chlorine
residual
• Weekly
monitoring of
BOD and pH
• Monthly
monitoring of
total nitrogen,
ammonium
nitrogen,
nitrate
nitrogen,
phosphorus,
and potassium
• Annual
monitoring of
arsenic,
cadmium,
copper, lead,
mercury,
nickel,
selenium, and
zinc
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
• Alternate
power source
required
Storage
Requirements
return
frequency
• Minimum of 90
days effective
storage
capacity
required
• Storage
provided to
retain a
minimum of 90
days average
dry weather
flow when no
discharge to
surface water
is available
Loading
Rates (15
• Maximum
hydraulic
loading rate of
2 in/week
• Maximum daily
application rate
of 3 in/ac/day
• Maximum
annual
application rate
of 40 in/acre
• Based on soil
and crop
moisture
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
solids,
phosphate,
and coliform
bacteria
• Site specific
• May be
required
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
• 200 feet to
potable water
supply wells or
drinking water
springs
• 300 feet to any
waters of the
state
• 300 feet to any
residence
• None required
Other
• Pertains to
land with a
high potential
for public
exposure
• Projected uses
include
irrigation of
golf courses or
public parks
with a low
probability of
body contact
• Public access
prohibited
10
<£>
to
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Massachusetts
Montana
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
Toilet flushing:
• Secondary
treatment with
filtration
(possibly) and
disinfection
• pH 6-9
• 30 mg/l BOD5
• Turbidity
-5NTU
(not to exceed
at any time)
• Fecal coliform
- 100/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• 10mg/ITSS
• 10 mg/l total
nitrogen
• Class I
groundwater
permit
standards
(SDWA
Drinking Water
Standards)
• Oxidized,
clarified,
coagulated,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• Turbidity
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Toilet flushing:
• pH - weekly or
daily
• BOD - weekly
• Turbidity -
continuous
monitoring
prior to
disinfection
• Fecal coliform
-once per
week
• Disinfection
UV intensity -
daily or
chlorine
residual - daily
• TSS - weekly
• Nitrogen -
twice per
month
• Permit
standards -
variable testing
requirements
• Effluent to be
monitored on a
regular basis
to show the
biochemical
and
bacteriological
quality of the
applied
wastewater
• Monitoring
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
• EPA Class I
Reliability
standards may
be required
• Two
independent
and separate
sources of
power
• Unit
redundancy
• Additional
storage
Storage
Requirements
• Immediate,
permitted
discharge
alternatives
are required
for emergency
situations and
for non-
growing
season
disposal
Loading
Rates (f>
and/or nutrient
requirements
of selected
crop
• Nitrogen and
hydraulic
loadings
determined
based on
methods in
EPA Manual
625/1-81-013
• Hydraulic
loading must
be based on
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Consideration
is given to
groundwater
characteristics,
past practices,
depth to
groundwater,
cropping
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
• 100 feet to any
water supply
well
• Distance to
surface water
determined on
a case-by-case
basis based on
quality of
effluent and
the level of
Other
during and 8
hours after
irrigation
• The use of
reclaimed
water for toilet
flushing is
allowed at
commercial
facilities where
public access
to the
plumbing is not
allowed
• Includes
landscape
irrigation of
parks,
playgrounds,
schoolyards,
unrestricted
golf courses,
and other
areas where
the public has
o
o
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Nevada
New Jersey
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
-2NTU
(average)
- 5 NTU (not to
exceed more
than 5 percent
of the time
during any 24-
hour period)
• At a minimum,
secondary
treatment with
disinfection
• 30 mg/l BOD5
• Fecal coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(30-day
geometric
mean)
-23/1 00 ml
(maximum
daily number)
• Fecal Coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
- 14/1 00 ml
(maximum any
one sample)
• Minimum
chlorine
residual
- 1 .0 mg/l after
15-minute
contact at peak
hourly flow
• Alternative
methods of
disinfection,
such as UV
and ozone,
may be
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
frequency to
be determined
on a case-by-
case basis
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
chlorine
residual
produced
oxidant at the
compliance
monitoring
point
• For spray
irrigation,
chlorination
levels for
disinfection
should be
continually
evaluated to
ensure
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Not required
when another
permitted
reuse system
or effluent
disposal
system is
incorporated
into the system
design
• If system
storage ponds
are used, they
do not have to
be lined
• Reject storage
ponds shall be
lined or sealed
to prevent
Loading
Rates (f>
the wettest
year in ten
years
• Hydraulic
loading rate
- maximum
annual
average of
2 in/wk but
may be
increased
based on a
site-specific
evaluation
• The spray
irrigation of
reclaimed
water shall not
produce
surface runoff
or ponding
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
practices, etc.
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
disinfection
• None required
• 75 feet to
potable water
supply wells
that are
existing or
have been
approved for
construction
• 75 feet
provided from
a reclaimed
water
transmission
facility to all
potable water
supply wells
• 100 feet from
outdoor public
eating,
Other
similar access
or exposure
• Uses include
irrigation of
cemeteries,
golf courses,
greenbelts,
parks,
playgrounds,
or commercial
or residential
lawns
• Secondary
treatment, for
the purpose of
the manual,
refers to the
existing
treatment
requirements
in the NJPDES
permit, not
including the
additional
reclaimed
water for
beneficial
reuse
treatment
requirements
• A chlorine
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
New Mexico
North Carolina
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
approved
• TSS not to
exceed 5 mg/l
before
disinfection
• Total nitrogen
- 10 mg/l but
may be less
stringent if
higher limit is
still protective
of environment
• Secondary
• Filtration
• Chemical
addition prior
to filtration may
be necessary
• Adequately
treated and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
- 100/1 00 ml
• Tertiary quality
effluent
(filtered or
equivalent)
• TSS
- 5 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 10 mg/l (daily
maximum)
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
chlorine
residual levels
do not
adversely
impact
vegetation
• Continuous
monitoring for
turbidity before
disinfection is
required
• Operating
protocol
required
• User/Supplier
Agreement
• Annual usage
report
• Fecal coliform
sample taken
at point of
diversion to
irrigation
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring and
recording for
turbidity or
particle count
and flow prior
to discharge
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
• All essential
treatment units
to be provided
in duplicate
• Five-day side-
stream
detention pond
required for
effluent
exceeding
Storage
Requirements
measurable
seepage
• Existing or
proposed
ponds (such as
golf course
ponds) are
appropriate for
storage of
reuse water if
the ability of
the ponds to
function as
storm water
management
systems is not
impaired
• Determined
using a mass
water balance
based upon a
recent 25-year
period using
monthly
average
precipitation
data, potential
Loading
Rates (15
• Site specific
• Application
rate may take
both the
maximum soil
absorption and
water needs of
the receiving
crop into
consideration
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
drinking, and
bathing
facilities
• 100 feet
between
indoor
aesthetic
features and
adjacent
indoor public
eating and
drinking
facilities when
in the same
room or
building
• 100 feet to any
surface waters
classified SA,
including
wetlands
• 25 feet to any
surface water
not classified
SA, including
wetlands and
Other
residual of
0.5 mg/l or
greater is
recommended
to reduce
odors, slime,
and bacterial
re-growth
• Includes
irrigation of
parks,
playgrounds,
schoolyards,
golf courses,
cemeteries,
and other
areas where
the public has
similar access
or exposure
• Uses include
irrigation of
residential
lawns, golf
courses, parks,
school
grounds,
industrial or
commercial
site grounds,
o
10
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
North Dakota
Ohio
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
• Fecal coliform
- 14/1 00 ml
(monthly
geometric
mean)
-25/1 00 ml
(daily
maximum)
• BOD5
- 10mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 15 mg/l (daily
maximum)
• NH3
- 4 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 6 mg/l (daily
maximum)
• Turbidity not to
exceed 10
NTU at any
time
• At a minimum,
secondary
treatment with
chlorination
• 25 mg/l BOD5
• 30mg/ITSS
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
• Chlorine
residual of at
least 0.1 mg/l
• Biological
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• BOD5, TSS,
and fecal
coliform
monitoring
once every 2
weeks
• Daily
monitoring of
chlorine
residual at the
point of use
farthest from
the treatment
plant
Large system
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
turbidity or
fecal coliform
limits
• Automatically
activated
standby power
source to be
provided
• Certified 24
hours/day
operator with a
grade level
equivalent to
or greater than
the facility
classification
Storage
Requirements
evapotrans-
piration data,
and soil
drainage data
• No storage
facilities
required if it
can be
demonstrated
that other
permitted
disposal
options are
available
• Operational
Loading
Rates (f>
• Determined by
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
• Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
any swimming
pool
• 100 feet to any
water supply
well
• 1 0 feet to any
nonpo table
well
• 1 00 feet to
Other
landscape
areas, highway
medians, and
roadways
• Can also be
used for
aesthetic
purposes such
as decorative
ponds or
fountains, dust
control, soil
compaction,
street cleaning,
vehicle
washing, urinal
and toilet
flushing, or fire
protection in
sprinkler
systems
located in
commercial or
industrial
facilities
• Use applies to
irrigation of
public property
such as parks
and golf
courses
• Signs must be
posted in
visible areas
during
irrigation and
for 2 hours
after irrigation
is completed
• Includes parks,
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Oregon
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
treatment and
disinfection
• 25 mg/l
CBOD5
• Fecal coliform
(30-day
average)
-23/1 00 ml
with no public
access buffer
area or night
application
• Limits for
metals
Parks,
playgrounds,
schoolyards, and
golf courses with
contiguous
residences:
• Level IV-
biological
treatment,
clarification,
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
monitoring
(150,000 to
500,000 gpd):
• Twice weekly
for CBOD5,
total coliform
(when
irrigating) and
storage
volume
• Monthly
monitoring for
total inorganic
nitrogen
• Daily
monitoring for
flow
Small system
monitoring
(<1 50, 000 gpd):
• Weekly
monitoring of
CBOD5, total
coliform (when
irrigating) and
storage
volume
• Daily
monitoring of
flow
Parks,
playgrounds,
schoolyards, and
golf courses with
contiguous
residences:
• Total coliform
sampling
- one time a
day
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
• Standby power
with capacity
to fully operate
all essential
treatment
processes
• Redundant
treatment
facilities and
monitoring
Storage
Requirements
storage of 4
times the daily
design flow
needed
• Storage
provisions for
at least 1 30
days of design
average flow
needed for
periods when
irrigation is not
recommended
• Actual storage
requirements
determined by
performing
water balance
• Permits can be
obtained for
stream
discharge
during winter
and times of
high stream
flow to reduce
storage needs
Loading
Rates (15
calculating a
water and
nutrient
balance
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
wells
upgradient and
downgradient
of large
irrigation
systems
• Monitoring
wells should
be sampled at
the beginning
and the end of
the irrigation
season
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
private water
well
• 300 feet to
community
water well
• 100 feet to
sink hole
• 50 feet to
drainage way
• 50 feet to
surface water
• 100 feet to
road right-of-
way without
windbreak
using spray
irrigation
• 1 0 feet to road
right-of-way
with windbreak
or with flood
irrigation
• 50 feet to
property line
Parks,
playgrounds,
schoolyards, and
golf courses with
contiguous
residences:
• None required
Landscape
impoundments
and construction
Other
golf courses,
lawns, highway
medians, and
playing fields
• No direct
public contact
is allowed
during the
irrigation cycle
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
South Carolina
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
coagulation,
filtration, and
disinfection
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(maximum any
sample)
• Turbidity
-2 NTU
(24-hour
mean)
-5 NTU
(5 percent of
time during a
24-hour
period)
Landscape
impoundments
and construction
use:
• Level II -
biological
treatment and
disinfection
• Total coliform
-240/1 00 ml
(2 consecutive
samples)
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
• Advanced
wastewater
treatment
• BOD5 and TSS
- 5 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 7.5 mg/l
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Turbidity
- hourly
Landscape
impoundments
and construction
use:
• Total coliform
sampling
- once a week
• Minimum of
one fecal or
total coliform
presence/
absence
measurement
daily
• Nitrate
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
equipment to
meet required
levels of
treatment
• Alarm devices
to provide
warning of loss
of power
and/or failure
of process
equipment
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
facilities are
not required to
be lined
• Covered
storage
systems or
other
Loading
Rates (f>
• Hydraulic -
maximum of
0.5 - 2 in/wk
depending on
depth to
groundwater
• A nitrate to
nitrogen
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
• May be
required
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
use:
• 10-foot buffer
with surface
irrigation
• 70-foot buffer
with spray
irrigation
• No spray
irrigation within
100 feet of
drinking
fountains or
food
preparation
areas
• None required
Other
• Applies to
application of
reclaimed
water in areas
with a high
potential for
contact
• Includes
o
Ul
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
South Dakota
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
(weekly
average)
• Turbidity
- 1 NTU
(monthly
average)
- 5 NTU (not to
exceed based
on an average
for 2
consecutive
days)
• Total coliform
- similar to
standards in
State Primary
Regulations
- for a system
that collects at
least 40
samples per
month, if no
more than 5
percent are
total coliform-
positive, the
system will be
in compliance
with the MCL
for total
coliform
• Total chlorine
residual limits
based on site
conditions and
distribution
system design
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
monitoring
required
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
Storage
Requirements
alternative
methods may
be required to
maintain
effluent quality
prior to
distribution
• Minimum of
210 days
capacity
Loading
Rates <"
loading
balance may
be required
• Application
rates in excess
of 2 in/wk may
be approved
• Maximum
application rate
limited to
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
• Shallow wells
in all directions
of major
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
Other
residential
irrigation
systems,
multifamily
irrigation
systems,
commercial
irrigation
systems in
common
residential
areas, public
parks, and
open spaces
o
o
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Tennessee
Texas
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
• Total coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(geometric
mean)
• Biological
treatment
• Additional
treatment
requirements
are determined
on a case-by-
case basis
• Disinfection
required
• 30 mg/l BOD5
and TSS
(monthly
average)
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
• Type I
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Site specific
• Sampling and
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
Storage
Requirements
without
consideration
for evaporation
• Storage
requirements
determined by
either of two
methods 1)
use of water
balance
calculations or,
2) use of a
computer
program that
was developed
based upon an
extensive
NOAA study of
climatic
variations
throughout the
United States
Loading
Rates (15
2 in/acre/wk or
a total of
24 in/acre/yr
• Nitrogen -
percolate
nitrate-nitrogen
not to exceed
10 mg/l
• Hydraulic -
based on
water balance
using 5-year
return monthly
precipitation
• Based on
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
groundwater
flow from site
and no more
than 200 feet
outside of the
site perimeter,
spaced no
more than 500
feet apart, and
extending into
the
groundwater
table
• Shallow wells
within the site
are also
recommended
• Required
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
Surface Irrigation:
• 100 feet to site
boundary
• 50 feet to on
site streams,
ponds, and
roads
Spray Irrigation:
[1] Open Fields
• 300 feet to site
boundary
• 150 feet to on
site streams,
ponds, and
roads
[2] Forested
• 150 feet to site
boundary
• 75 feet to on
site streams,
ponds, and
roads
Other
• Pertains to
irrigation of
parks, green
areas, and
other public or
private land
where public
use occurs or
is expected to
occur
• Type I
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Utah
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
reclaimed
water
Reclaimed water
on a 30-day
average to have
a quality of:
• 5 mg/l BOD5 or
CBOD5
• 10 mg/l for
landscape
impoundment)
• Turbidity
-3NTU
• Fecal coliform
-20/1 00 ml
(geometric
mean)
-75/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• Type I treated
wastewater
- secondary
treatment with
filtration and
disinfection
• 10 mg/l BOD
(monthly
average)
• Turbidity prior
to disinfection
- not to exceed
2NTU (daily
average)
- not to exceed
5 NTU at any
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
analysis twice
per week for
BOD5or
CBOD5,
turbidity, and
fecal coliform
• Periodic fecal
coliform
sampling in the
reclaimed
water
distribution
system may be
necessary
• Daily
composite
sampling
required for
BOD
• Continuous
turbidity
monitoring
prior to
disinfection
• Daily
monitoring of
fecal coliform
• Continuous
total residual
chlorine
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
• Alternative
disposal option
or diversion to
storage
required if
turbidity or
chlorine
residual
requirements
not met
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates (f>
water balance
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
• 50 feet to any
potable water
well
• Impoundments
at least 500
feet from any
potable water
well
Other
reclaimed
water use
defined as use
of reclaimed
water where
contact
between
humans and
the reclaimed
water is likely
• Uses include
residential
irrigation,
irrigation of
public parks,
golf courses
with
unrestricted
public access,
schoolyards or
athletic fields,
fire protection,
toilet flushing,
and other uses
• Uses allowed
where human
exposure is
likely include
residential
irrigation, non-
residential
landscape
irrigation, golf
course
irrigation, toilet
flushing, fire
protection, and
other uses
• For residential
landscape
o
00
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Washington
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
time
• Fecal coliform
- none
detected
(weekly
median as
determined
from daily grab
samples)
- 14/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• 1.0mg/l total
residual
chlorine after
30 minutes
contact time at
peak flow
• pH 6-9
Landscape
irrigation,
decorative
fountains, street
cleaning, fire
protection, and
toilet flushing:
• Class A -
oxidized,
coagulated,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day mean)
-23/1 00 ml
(single sample)
Landscape
impoundment
and construction
uses:
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
monitoring
• pH monitored
continuously or
by daily grab
samples
• BOD -24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least weekly
• TSS- 24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least daily
• Total coliform
and dissolved
oxygen
- grab samples
collected at
least daily
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
turbidity
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
• Warning
alarms
independent of
normal power
supply
• Back-up power
source
• Emergency
storage:
short-term,
1 day;
long-term,
20 days
• Multiple
treatment units
or storage or
disposal
options
• Qualified
personnel
available or on
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
required when
no approved
alternative
disposal
system exists
• Storage
volume
established by
determining
storage period
required for
duration of a
10-year storm,
using a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• At a minimum,
system storage
capacity
Loading
Rates (f>
• Hydraulic
loading rate to
be determined
based on a
detailed water
balance
analysis
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
• May be
required
• Monitoring
program will be
based on
reclaimed
water quality
and quantity,
site specific
soil and
hydrogeologic
characteristics,
and other
considerations
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
• 50 feet to any
potable water
supply well
• Unlined
impoundments
- 500 feet
between
perimeter and
any potable
water supply
well
• Lined
impoundments
- 100 feet
between
perimeter and
any potable
water supply
well
Other
irrigation at
individual
homes,
additional
quality control
restrictions
may be
required
• Uses include
irrigation of
open access
areas (such as
golf courses,
parks,
playgrounds,
schoolyards,
residential
landscapes, or
other areas
where the
public has
similar access
or exposure to
the reclaimed
water) and use
in decorative
fountains and
landscape
impoundments
o
to
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Wyoming
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
• Class C -
oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day mean)
-240/1 00 ml
(single sample)
General
compliance
requirements:
• 30mg/IBOD
and TSS
(monthly
mean)
• Turbidity
-2NTU
(monthly)
-5 NTU
(not to exceed
at any time)
• Minimum
chlorine
residual of
1 mg/l after a
contact time of
30 minutes
• Minimum of
Class A
wastewater -
advanced
treatment
and/or
secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• Fecal coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml or
less
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Treated
wastewater to
be analyzed
for fecal
coliform,
nitrate as N,
ammonia as N,
and pH at a
minimum
• Monitoring
frequency
- once per
month for
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
call at all times
the irrigation
system is
operating
• Multiple units
and equipment
• Alternative
power sources
• Alarm systems
and
instrumenta-
tion
• Operator
certification
and standby
capability
• Bypass and
Storage
Requirements
should be the
volume equal
to 3 times that
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
• Emergency
storage
Loading
Rates (15
• Will be applied
for the purpose
of beneficial
reuse and will
not exceed the
irrigation
demand of the
vegetation at
the site
• Not to be
applied at a
rate greater
than the
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
• 30 feet to
adjacent
property lines
• 30 feet to all
surface waters
• 100-feettoall
potable water
supply wells
• 100-foot buffer
zone around
spray site
Other
• Also includes
use for street
cleaning,
construction,
fire protection
in hydrants or
sprinkler
systems, toilet
flushing in
commercial or
industrial
facilities and in
apartments
and condos
where the
residents do
not have
access to the
plumbing
system
• Pertains to
land with a
high potential
for public
exposure
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
State
Reclaimed
Water Quality
and Treatment
Requirements
Reclaimed
Water
Monitoring
Requirements
lagoon
systems
- once per
week for
mechanical
systems
• Frequency
specified in
NPDES permit
required if
more frequent
Treatment
Facility
Reliability
dewatering
capability
• Emergency
storage
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates (f>
agronomic rate
for the
vegetation at
the site
• Will be applied
in a manner
and time that
will not cause
any surface
runoff or
contamination
of a
groundwater
aquifer
Groundwater
Monitoring (1)
Setback
Distances (1)(2)
Other
(1) For irrigation use only.
(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Alabama
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Minimum EPA
secondary, or
equivalent to
secondary,
limits and
appropriate
disinfection
• If wastewater
stabilization
pond is used,
pond must
meet ADEM
requirements
with second
cell being used
as a holding
pond
• Mechanical
systems, if
used, should
allow as little
nitrification as
possible
• Disinfection
must be
performed
through one of
the following
processes
- breakpoint
chlorination,
ozonation, or
ultraviolet
disinfection
- storage of the
treated
wastewater for
a period of 20
days in a
holding pond
prior to
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Controls
required to
indicate any
system
malfunction or
permit varied
field operations
Storage
Requirements
• Based on
water balance
performed on a
monthly basis
with a
precipitation
input using a
5-year, 24-
hour rainfall
event, 30-year
minimum base
period
• In addition to
storage
dictated by
water balance,
a minimum of
1 5 days
storage should
be provided for
contingencies
Loading
Rates
• Based on soil
permeability
and nitrogen
limits (10mg/l
nitrate)
• Excessive
rainwater run-
off should be
diverted
• Excessive
ponding should
be avoided
Groundwater
Monitoring
• At least three
downgradient
monitoring
wells
• At least one
upgradient
monitoring well
• Contaminants
in groundwater
not to exceed
primary and
secondary
maximum
contaminant
levels
• Minimum
depth to
groundwater,
without use of
an underdrain
collection
system, shall
be 4 feet
Setback
Distances (1)
• 1 00 feet to
property lines
• 300 feet to
existing
habitable
residences
• Spray irrigation
not allowed
within 100 feet
of any
perennial lake
or stream
• If irrigation
causes an
intermittent
stream to
become
perennial, the
irrigation must
cease within
100 feet of the
stream
• Spray irrigation
not allowed in
wellhead
protection area
(WHPAI)-if
no wellhead
delineation
exists,
minimum
distance for
application
shall be 1,000
feet or as
required
• No sites within
1 00-year
floodplain
Other
• Disinfection
required for
public access
areas such as
golf courses
• May use
breakpoint
chlorination
with rapid,
uniform mixing
to a free
chlorine
residual of
2 mg/l at a
contact period
of 30 minutes
at average
daily flow rate
• May use
ozonation or
ultraviolet
disinfection
systems; a
geometric
mean limit of
126/1 00 ml for
E. Coli, or
33/1 00 ml for
enterococci
bacteria will be
required; the
total
suspended
solids
concentration
of the effluent,
prior to
disinfection,
must be no
more than
5 mg/l which
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
discharge to
the application
site
• Class B
reclaimed
water -
secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in 4 of the last
7 daily
samples)
-800/1 00 ml
(single sample
maximum)
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• Disinfected
secondary-23
recycled water
- oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Case-by-case
basis
• As required by
regulatory
agency
• Total coliform -
sampled at
least once
daily from the
disinfected
effluent
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Warning
alarms
• Back-up power
source
• Multiple
treatment units
Storage
Requirements
• Based on
water balance
using divisional
average
annual 90
percentile
rainfall
Loading
Rates
• Application
rates based on
either the
water allotment
assigned by
the Arizona
Department of
Water
Resources (a
water balance
that considers
consumptive
use of water by
the crop, turf,
or landscape
vegetation) or
an alternative
approved
method
• Hydraulic - 0.5
to 4.0 in/wk
• Nitrogen -
percolate
nitrate-nitrogen
not to exceed
10mg/l
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Required
• One well
upgradient
• One well within
site
• One well
downgradient
• More wells
may be
required on a
case-by-case
basis
Setback
Distances (1)
• Determined on
case-by-case
basis
• No irrigation
with, or
impoundment
of, disinfected
secondary-23
recycled water
Other
may require
installation of a
filtration
process
• Includes
irrigation of
golf courses
and other
restricted
access
landscapes
• Application
methods that
reasonably
preclude
human contact
with reclaimed
water will be
used when
irrigating
• Includes
landscape
irrigation of
cemeteries,
freeway
landscapes,
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Colorado
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-240/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
• Secondary
treatment with
disinfection
• E. coli -
126/1 00 ml
(monthly
average)
-235/1 00 ml
(single sample
maximum in
any calendar
month)
• 30 mg/l TSS
as a daily
maximum
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treaters:
• Quality of
reclaimed
domestic
wastewater
produced and
delivered at
the point of
compliance
Applicators:
• Total volume
of reclaimed
domestic
wastewater
applied per
year or season
• The maximum
monthly
volume applied
• Each location
with the
associated
acreage where
Treatment
Facility Reliability
capable of
treating entire
flow with one
unit not in
operation or
storage or
disposal
provisions
• Emergency
storage or
disposal: short-
term, 1 day;
long-term,
20 days
• Sufficient
number of
qualified
personnel
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
• Application
rates shall
protect surface
and
groundwater
quality and
irrigation shall
be controlled
to minimize
ponding
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
within 100 feet
of any
domestic water
supply well
• No spray
irrigation within
1 00 feet of a
residence or a
place where
public
exposure could
be similar to
that of a park,
playground, or
schoolyard
• No
impoundment
or irrigation of
reclaimed
water within
100 feet of any
well used for
domestic
supply unless,
in the case of
an
impoundment,
it is lined with a
synthetic
material with a
permeability of
10~6 cm/sec or
less
Other
and restricted
access golf
courses
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Delaware
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Biological
treatment and
disinfection
• 30 mg/l BOD5
• 30mg/ITSS
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
reclaimed
domestic
wastewater
was applied
• The beginning
and end time
for each date
that reclaimed
domestic
wastewater is
applied
• Continuous on-
line monitoring
of residual
disinfection
concentrations
• Parameters
which may
require
monitoring
include volume
of water
applied to
spray fields,
BOD,
suspended
solids, fecal
coliform
bacteria, pH,
COD, TOC,
ammonia
nitrogen,
nitrate
nitrogen, total
Kjeldahl
nitrogen, total
phosphorus,
chloride, Na,
K, Ca, Mg,
metals, and
priority
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
provisions
required either
as a separate
facility or
incorporated
into the
pretreatment
system
• Minimum 15
days storage
required
unless other
measures for
controlling flow
are
demonstrated
• Must determine
operational,
wet weather,
and water
balance
storage
requirements
• Separate off-
line system for
storage of
reject
wastewater
with a
Loading
Rates
• Maximum
design
wastewater
loadings
limited to
2.5 in/wk
• Maximum
instantaneous
wastewater
application
rates limited to
0.25 in/hour
• Design
wastewater
loading must
be determined
as a function of
precipitation,
evapotrans-
piration, design
percolation
rate, nitrogen
loading and
other
constituent
loading
limitations,
groundwater
and drainage
conditions, and
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Required
• One well
upgradient of
site or
otherwise
outside the
influence of the
site for
background
monitoring
• One well within
wetted field
area of each
drainage basin
intersected by
site
• Two wells
down-gradient
in each
drainage basin
intersected by
site
• One well
upgradient and
One well
downgradient
of the pond
treatment and
storage
facilities in
Setback
Distances (1)
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
Other
• Regulations
pertain to sites
limited to
public access
at specific
periods of time
Ul
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Florida
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Secondary
treatment with
filtration and
high-level
disinfection
• Chemical feed
facilities to be
provided
• 20 mg/l
CBOD5
(annual
average)
• 5 mg/l TSS
(single sample)
• Total chlorine
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
pollutants
• Parameters
and sampling
frequency
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Parameters to
be monitored
and sampling
frequency to
be identified in
wastewater
facility permit
• Minimum
schedule for
sampling and
testing based
on system
capacity
established for
flow, pH,
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Class 1
reliability -
requires
multiple or
back-up
treatment units
and a
secondary
power source
• Minimum
reject storage
capacity equal
to 1 day flow at
the average
daily design
Storage
Requirements
minimum
capacity equal
to 2-day
average daily
design flow
required
• At a minimum,
system storage
capacity shall
be the volume
equal to 3
times the
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
• Water balance
Loading
Rates
average and
peak design
wastewater
flows and
seasonal
fluctuations
• Site specific
• Design
hydraulic
loading rate -
maximum
annual
average of
2 in/wk is
recommended
• Based on
nutrient and
water balance
assessments
Groundwater
Monitoring
each drainage
basin
intersected by
site
• May require
measurement
of depth to
groundwater,
pH, COD,
TOC, nitrate
nitrogen, total
phosphorus,
electrical
conductivity,
chloride, fecal
coliform
bacteria,
metals, and
priority
pollutants
• Parameters
and sampling
frequency
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Required
• One
upgradient well
located as
close as
possible to the
site without
being affected
by the site's
discharge
(background
well)
• One well at the
edge of the
zone of
Setback
Distances (1)
• 75 feet to
potable water
supply wells
• 75 feet from
reclaimed
water
transmission
facility to public
water supply
well
• Low trajectory
nozzles
required within
100 feet of
outdoor public
Other
• Rules do not
differentiate
between
unrestricted
and restricted
urban reuse
• Tank trucks
can be used to
apply
reclaimed
water if
requirements
are met
• Cross-
connection
o
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
residual of at
least 1 mg/l
after a
minimum
acceptable
contact time of
15 minutes at
peak hourly
flow
• Fecal coliform
- over 30-day
period, 75
percent of
samples below
detection limits
-25/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• pH 6-8.5
• Limitations to
be met after
disinfection
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
chlorine
residual,
dissolved
oxygen,
suspended
solids, CBOD5,
nutrients, and
fecal coliform
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
turbidity prior
to disinfection
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
total chlorine
residual or
residual
concentrations
of other
disinfectants
• Monitoring for
Giardia and
Cryptosporidium
based on
treatment plant
capacity
- > 1 mgd,
sampling one
time during
each two-year
period
- < 1 mgd ,
sampling one
time during
each 5-year
period
- samples to
be taken
immediately
Treatment
Facility Reliability
flow of the
treatment plant
or the average
daily permitted
flow of the
reuse system,
whichever is
less
• Minimum
system size of
0.1 mgd (not
required for
toilet flushing
and fire
protection
uses)
• Staffing -
24 hrs/day,
7 days/wk or
6 hrs/day,
7 days/wk with
diversion of
reclaimed
water to reuse
system only
during periods
of operator
presence
Storage
Requirements
required with
volume of
storage based
on a 1 0-year
recurrence
interval and a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• Not required if
alternative
system is
incorporated
into the system
design to
ensure
continuous
facility
operation
• Existing or
proposed lakes
or ponds (such
as golf course
ponds) are
appropriate for
storage if it will
not impair the
ability of the
lakes or ponds
to function as a
storm water
management
system
• Aquifer
storage and
recovery
allowed as
provision of
storage
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
discharge
downgradient
of the site
(compliance
well)
• One well
downgradient
from the site
and within the
zone of
discharge
(intermediate
well)
• One well
located
adjacent to
unlined
storage ponds
or lakes
• Other wells
may be
required
depending on
site-specific
criteria
• Quarterly
monitoring
required for
water level,
nitrate, total
dissolved
solids, arsenic,
cadmium,
chloride,
chromium,
lead, fecal
coliform, pH,
and sulfate
• Monitoring
may be
required for
Setback
Distances (1)
eating,
drinking, and
bathing
facilities
• 100 feet from
indoor
aesthetic
features using
reclaimed
water to
adjacent
indoor public
eating and
drinking
facilities
• 200 feet from
unlined
storage ponds
to potable
water supply
wells
Other
control and
inspection
program
required
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Georgia
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Secondary
treatment
followed by
coagulation,
filtration, and
disinfection
• 5 mg/l BOD
• 5 mg/l TSS
• Fecal coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(monthly
average)
- 100/1 00 ml
(maximum any
sample)
• pH 6-9
• Turbidity not to
exceed 3 NTU
prior to
disinfection
• Detectable
disinfectant
residual at the
delivery point
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
following
disinfection
process
• Primary and
secondary
drinking water
standards to
be monitored
by facilities >
1 00,000 gpd
• Continuous
turbidity
monitoring
prior to
disinfection
• Weekly
sampling for
TSS and BOD
• Daily
monitoring for
fecal coliform
• Daily
monitoring for
PH
• Detectable
disinfection
residual
monitoring
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Multiple
process units
• Ability to
isolate and
bypass all
process units
• System must
be capable of
treating peak
flows with the
largest unit out
of service
• Equalization
may be
required
• Back-up power
supply
• Alarms to warn
of loss of
power supply,
failure of
pumping
systems,
failure of
disinfection
systems, or
turbidity
greater than
3 NTU
Storage
Requirements
• Reject water
storage equal
to at least
3 days of flow
at the average
daily design
flow
• One of the
following
options must
be in place to
account for wet
weather
periods
- sufficient
storage onsite
or at the
customer's
location to
handle the
flows until
irrigation can
be resumed
- additional
land set aside
that can be
irrigated
without
causing harm
to the cover
crop
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
additional
parameters
based on site-
specific
conditions and
groundwater
quality
Setback
Distances (1)
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
Other
00
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Hawaii
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• R-2 water -
oxidized and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-200/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
• Theoretical
chlorine
contact time of
15 minutes
and actual
modal contact
time of 10
minutes
throughout
which the
chlorine
residual is
0.5 mg/l
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Daily flow
monitoring
• Continuous
turbidity
monitoring
prior to and
after filtration
process
• Continuous
measuring and
recording of
chlorine
residual
• Daily
monitoring of
fecal coliform
• Weekly
monitoring of
BOD5and
suspended
solids
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Multiple or
standby units
required with
sufficient
capacity to
enable
effective
operation with
anyone unit
out of service
• Alarm devices
required for
loss of power,
high water
levels, failure
of pumps or
blowers, high
head loss on
filters, high
effluent
turbidity, loss
of coagulant or
polymer feed,
and loss of
chlorine
residual
• Standby power
source
required for
treatment plant
and distribution
pump stations
Storage
Requirements
-An NPDES
permit for all or
part of the flow
• 20 days
storage
required
unless it can
be
demonstrated
that another
time period is
adequate or
that no storage
is necessary
• Storage
requirements
based on
water balance
using at least a
30-year record
• Reject storage
required with a
volume equal
to 1 day of flow
at the average
daily design
flow
• Emergency
system storage
not required
where an
alternate
effluent
disposal
system has
been approved
Loading
Rates
• Design
application rate
determined by
water balance
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Required
• Groundwater
monitoring
system may
consist of a
number of
lysi meters
and/or
monitoring
wells
depending on
site size, site
characteristics,
location,
method of
discharge, and
other
appropriate
considerations
• One well
upgradient and
two wells
downgradient
for project sites
500 acres or
more
• One well within
the wetted field
area for each
project whose
surface area is
greater than or
equal to 1,500
acres
• One lysimeter
per 200 acres
• One lysimeter
for project sites
Setback
Distances (1)
R-2 water:
• For spray
irrigation
applications,
500 feet to
residence
property or a
place where
public
exposure could
be similar to
that at a park,
elementary
schoolyard, or
athletic field
• Minimum of
100 feet to any
drinking water
supply well
• Outer edge of
impoundment
at least 300
feet from any
drinking water
supply well
Other
• R-2 water can
be used for
spray irrigation
of freeway and
cemetery
landscapes
and other
areas where
access is
controlled
• If alternative
application
methods are
used, such as
subsurface,
drip or surface
irrigation, a
lesser quality
reclaimed
water may be
suitable
• R-2 water
used in spray
irrigation will
be performed
when the area
is closed to the
public and the
public is
absent from
the area, and
will end at
least 1 hour
before the area
is open to the
public
• Subsurface
irrigation may
<£>
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Idaho
Illinois
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-23/1 00 ml (7
day median)
• Two-cell
lagoon system
with tertiary
sand filtration
and
disinfection or
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Minimum
storage
capacity equal
to at least 1 50
days of
wastewater at
Loading
Rates
• Based on the
limiting
characteristic
of the treated
wastewater
and the site
Groundwater
Monitoring
that have
greater than 40
but less than
200 acres
• Additional
lysi meters may
be necessary
to address
public health or
environmental
protection
concerns
related to
variable
characteristics
of the
subsurface or
of the
operations of
the project
• Required
• One well
upgradientfor
determining
background
concentrations
Setback
Distances (1)
• 25 feet to any
residential lot
line if
surrounded by
a fence with a
minimum
Other
be performed
at any time
• Includes
irrigation of
golf courses,
cemeteries,
roadside
vegetation,
and other
areas where
individuals
have access or
exposure
• Irrigation to be
accomplished
during periods
of non-use
10
o
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Indiana
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
mechanical
secondary
treatment with
disinfection
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• 30 mg/l BOD5
• 30mg/ITSS
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-800/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• pH 6-9
• Total chlorine
residual after a
minimum
contact time of
30 minutes at
least 1 mg/l (if
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Daily
monitoring of
TSS, coliform,
and chlorine
residual
• Weekly
monitoring of
BOD and pH
• Monthly
monitoring of
total nitrogen,
ammonium
nitrogen,
nitrate
nitrogen,
phosphorus,
and potassium
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Alternate
power source
required
Storage
Requirements
design
average flow
except in
southern
Illinois areas
where a
minimum of
120 days of
storage
capacity to be
provided
• Storage can
be determined
based on a
rational design
that must
include
capacity for the
wettest year
with a 20-year
return
frequency
• Minimum of 9
days effective
storage
capacity
required
Loading
Rates
• Balances must
be calculated
and submitted
for water,
nitrogen,
phosphorus,
and BOD
• Maximum
hydraulic
loading rate of
2 in/week
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Two wells
downgradient
in the
dominant
direction of
groundwater
movement
• Wells between
each potable
water well and
the application
area if within
1,000 feet
• Monitoring of
nitrates,
ammonia
nitrogen,
chlorides,
sulfates, pH,
total dissolved
solids,
phosphate,
and coliform
bacteria
Setback
Distances (1)
height of 40
inches
• No buffer
required if
irrigation of
golf course
occurs only
during the
hours between
dusk and dawn
• No buffer
required if the
application and
its associated
drying time
occur during a
period when
the area is
closed to the
public
• 200 feet to
potable water
supply wells or
drinking water
springs
• 300 feet to any
waters of the
state
• 300 feet to any
residence
Other
• Public access
to be restricted
for 30 days
after land
application of
wastewater
10
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Iowa
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
chlorination is
used for
disinfection)
• At a minimum,
treatment
equivalent to
that obtained
from a primary
lagoon cell
• Disinfection
- required for
all land
application
systems with
spray irrigation
application
technique
- must precede
actual spraying
of the
wastewater on
to a field area
and must not
precede
storage
- minimum
contact time of
15 minutes
with equipment
necessary to
maintain a
residual
chlorine level
of 0.5 mg/l
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Annual
monitoring of
arsenic,
cadmium,
copper, lead,
mercury,
nickel,
selenium, and
zinc
• Monitoring of
the following
parameters
required
unless it has
been
demonstrated
that they are
present in
insignificant
amounts in the
influent
wastewater:
total organic
carbon, total
dissolved
solids, sodium
absorption
ratio, electrical
conductivity,
total nitrogen,
ammonia
nitrogen,
organic
nitrogen,
nitrate
nitrogen, total
phosphorus,
chloride, pH,
alkalinity,
hardness,
trace
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Minimum of
two storage
cells required
capable of
series and
parallel
operation
Storage
Requirements
• Minimum days
of storage
based on
climatic
restraints
• When flows
are generated
only during the
application
period, a
storage
capacity of 45
days or the
flow generated
during the
period of
operation
(whichever is
less) must be
provided
• When
discharging to
a receiving
waterway on a
periodic basis,
storage for 180
days of
average wet
weather flow is
required
Loading
Rates
• Determined by
using a water
balance per
month of
operation
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Monitoring
required
adjacent to the
site both
upstream and
downstream of
the site in
reference to
the general
groundwater
flow direction
Setback
Distances (1)
• 300 feet to
existing
dwellings or
public use
areas (not
including roads
and highways)
• 400 feet to any
existing
potable water
supply well not
located on
property
• 300 feet to any
structure,
continuous
flowing stream,
or other
physiographic
feature that
may provide
direct
connection
between the
groundwater
table and the
surface
• Wetted
disposal area
to be at least
50 feet inside
the property
Other
• Categorized as
land
application
using slow rate
system
(irrigation)
• Application to
public use
areas given as
example of
permissible
application
with
requirements
- public not
allowed into an
area when
spraying is
being
conducted
- any drinking
water fountains
located on or
near the
application
area must be
protected
- for golf
courses using
"wastewater",
notice of its
use must be
10
10
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Kansas
Maryland
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection for
irrigation of
areas with a
low probability
of body contact
• 70 mg/l BOD
• 90 mg/l TSS
• Fecal coliform
-3/1 00 ml
• pH 6.5-8.5
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
elements, and
coliform
bacteria
• Location of
monitoring in
effluent prior to
site application
• Reporting
frequency
depends on
size of system
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
provided to
retain a
minimum of
90-days
average dry
weather flow
when no
discharge to
surface water
is available
• Minimum of
60-days
storage to be
provided for all
systems
receiving
wastewater
flows
throughout the
Loading
Rates
• Maximum daily
application rate
of 3 in/ac/day
• Maximum
annual
application rate
of 40 in/acre
• Based on soil
and crop
moisture
and/or nutrient
requirements
of selected
crop
• Maximum
application rate
of 2 in/wk on
annual
average basis
• Water balance
required based
on wettest year
in the last 10
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Site specific
• May be
required
• May be
required
• One well
upgradient of
site
• Two wells
adjacent to the
property line
and
Setback
Distances (1)
line of the land
application site
• 1,000 feet to
any shallow
public water
supply well
• 500 feet to any
public lake or
impoundment
• _ mile to any
public lake or
impoundment
used as a
source of raw
water by a
potable water
supply
• None required
• 200 feet to
property lines,
waterways,
and roads for
spray irrigation
• 500 feet to
housing
developments
and parks for
Other
given and
warning signs
posted
• Projected uses
include
irrigation of
golf courses or
public parks
with a low
probability of
body contact
• Pertains to golf
course
irrigation
10
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Massachusetts
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Secondary
treatment with
filtration and
disinfection
• pH 6-9
• 10mg/IBOD5
• Turbidity
-2NTU
(average over
24-hour
period) - 5
NTU (not to
exceed at any
time)
• Fecal coliform
- no detectable
colonies
(7-day median)
- 14/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• 5 mg/l TSS
• 10 mg/l total
nitrogen
• Class I
groundwater
permit
standards
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• pH - daily
• BOD - weekly
• Turbidity -
continuous
monitoring
prior to
disinfection
• Fecal coliform
- daily
• Disinfection
UV intensity -
daily or
chlorine
residual - daily
• TSS - twice
per week
• Nitrogen -
twice per
month
• Phosphorus -
twice per
month
• Heterotrophic
plate count -
quarterly
• MS-2 phage -
quarterly
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• EPA Class I
Reliability
standards may
be required
• Two
independent
and separate
sources of
power
• Unit
redundancy
• Additional
storage
Storage
Requirements
year
• Immediate,
permitted
discharge
alternatives
are required
for emergency
situations and
for non-
growing
season
disposal
Loading
Rates
years of record
• Actual
application rate
accepted must
consider
permeability of
the soils, depth
to
groundwater,
and the
nutrient
balance of the
site
Groundwater
Monitoring
downgradient
of site
• Monitoring
frequency
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Required
• Monitoring
wells to be
located and
constructed to
strategically
sample the
geologic units
of interest
between the
discharges and
sensitive
receptors and
withdrawal
points
• Sensitive
receptors
include, but
are not limited
to public and
private wells,
surface waters,
embayments,
and ACECs
• Monitoring and
testing
frequency and
Setback
Distances (1)
spray irrigation
• Reduction of
the buffer zone
up to 50
percent will be
considered
with adequate
windbreak
• Minimum
buffer zone of
50 feet for all
other types of
slow rate
systems
• 100 feet to
buildings,
residential
property,
private wells,
Class A
surface water
bodies, and
surface water
intakes
• Other than for
private wells,
using a green
barrier in the
form of hedges
or trees placed
at the dwelling
side of the
buffer may
reduce the
setback
distance to
50 feet
• No spray
irrigation
directed into
Zone I of
Other
• Includes the
irrigation of
golf courses
• Spray irrigation
must take
place during
non-
operational
hours and
cannot result in
any ponding
10
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Missouri
Montana
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
(SDWA
Drinking Water
Standards)
• Secondary
treatment
equivalent to
treatment
obtained from
primary
wastewater
pond cell
• Disinfected
prior to
application (not
storage)
• Total residual
chlorine of
0.5 mg/l after
15 minutes of
contact time at
peak flow
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Permit
standards -
variable testing
requirements
• Effluent to be
monitored on
a regular basis
to show the
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Minimum of 45
days in south
with no
discharge
• Minimum of 90
days in north
with no
discharge
• Based on the
design
wastewater
flows and net
rainfall minus
evaporation
expected for a
one in 10-year
return
frequency for
the storage
period selected
Loading
Rates
• Application
rates shall in
no case
exceed
- 0.5 in/hour
- 1 .0 in/day
- 3.0 in/week
• Maximum
annual
application rate
not to exceed
a range from 4
to 10 percent
of the design
sustained
permeability
rate for the
number of
days per year
when soils are
not frozen
• Nitrogen
loading not to
exceed the
amount of
nitrogen that
can be used by
the vegetation
to be grown
• Nitrogen and
hydraulic
loadings
determined
Groundwater
Monitoring
parameters
determined
based on land
use, effluent
quality and
quantity, and
the sensitivity
of receptors
• Minimum of
one well
between site
and public
supply well
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Consideration
Setback
Distances (1)
public water
supply wells
• 150 feet to
existing
dwellings or
public use
areas,
excluding
roads or
highways
• 50 feet to
property lines
• 300 feet to
potable water
supply wells
not on
property,
sinkholes, and
losing streams
or other
structure or
physiographic
feature that
may provide
direct
connection
between the
groundwater
table and the
surface
• Buffer zones
determined on
a case-by-case
basis if less
Other
• Public
restricted from
area during
application
• Includes
landscape
irrigation of
golf courses,
10
Ul
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Nebraska
Nevada
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
(7-day median)
-400/1 00 ml
(any two
consecutive
samples)
• Biological
treatment
• Disinfected
prior to
application
• Fecal coliform
limit to be
established
• At a minimum,
secondary
treatment with
disinfection
• 30 mg/l BOD5
No buffer zone:
• Fecal coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(30-day
geometric
mean)
-23/1 00 ml
(maximum
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
biochemical
and
bacteriological
quality of the
applied
wastewater
• Monitoring
frequency to
be determined
on a case-by-
case basis
• Site specific
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
based on
methods in
EPA Manual
625/1-81-013
• Hydraulic
loading must
be based on
the wettest
year in ten
years
• Hydraulic
loading rate
should not
exceed 4 in/wk
• Nitrogen
loading not to
exceed crop
uptake
Groundwater
Monitoring
is given to
groundwater
characteristics,
past practices,
depth to
groundwater,
cropping
practices, etc.
• Site specific
Setback
Distances (1)
than 200 feet
• If low trajectory
nozzles are
used, the
buffer zone
can be
reduced to
50 feet
• 100 feet to any
water supply
well
• Distance to
surface water
determined on
a case-by-case
basis based on
quality of
effluent and
the level of
disinfection
• None or 100
foot minimum
buffer required
depending on
level of
disinfection
Other
cemeteries,
freeway
landscapes,
and
landscapes in
other areas
where the
public has
similar access
or exposure
• Public access
must be
restricted
during the
period of
application
• Includes
irrigation of
golf courses
and other
public use
areas
• Uses include
irrigation of
golf courses,
cemeteries, or
greenbelts
where public
access to the
site being
irrigated is
controlled and
human contact
with the
treated effluent
10
o
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
New Jersey
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
daily number)
100' buffer zone:
• Fecal coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(30-day
geometric
mean)
-240/1 00 ml
(maximum
daily number)
• Fecal coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
- 14/1 00 ml
(maximum any
one sample)
• Minimum
chlorine
residual
- 1 .0 mg/l after
15-minute
contact at peak
hourly flow
• Alternative
methods of
disinfection,
such as UV
and ozone,
may be
approved
• TSS not to
exceed 5 mg/l
before
disinfection
• Total nitrogen
- 10 mg/l but
may be less
stringent if
higher limit is
still protective
of environment
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
chlorine
residual
produced
oxidant at the
compliance
monitoring
point
• For spray
irrigation,
chlorination
levels for
disinfection
should be
continually
evaluated to
ensure
chlorine
residual levels
do not
adversely
impact
vegetation
• Continuous
monitoring for
turbidity before
disinfection is
required
• Operating
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Not required
when another
permitted
reuse system
or effluent
disposal
system is
incorporated
into the system
design
• If system
storage ponds
are used, they
do not have to
be lined
• Reject storage
ponds shall be
lined or sealed
to prevent
measurable
seepage
• Existing or
proposed
ponds (such as
golf course
ponds) are
appropriate for
storage of
reuse water if
the ability of
the ponds to
Loading
Rates
• Hydraulic
loading rate
- maximum
annual
average of
2 in/wk but
may be
increased
based on a
site-specific
evaluation
• The spray
irrigation of
reclaimed
water shall not
produce
surface runoff
or ponding
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
• 75 feet to
potable water
supply wells
that are
existing or
have been
approved for
construction
• 75 feet
provided from
a reclaimed
water
transmission
facility to all
potable water
supply wells
• 100 feet from
outdoor public
eating,
drinking, and
bathing
facilities
Other
does not occur
or cannot
reasonably be
expected
• Secondary
treatment, for
the purpose of
the manual,
refers to the
existing
treatment
requirements
in the NJPDES
permit, not
including the
additional
reclaimed
water for
beneficial
reuse
treatment
requirements
• A chlorine
residual of
0.5 mg/l or
greater is
recommended
to reduce
odors, slime,
and bacterial
re-growth
10
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
New Mexico
North Carolina
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Secondary
• Filtration
• Chemical
addition prior
to filtration may
be necessary
• Adequately
treated and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
of 1000/1 00 ml
• Tertiary quality
effluent
(filtered or
equivalent)
• TSS
- 5 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 10 mg/l (daily
maximum)
• Fecal coliform
- 14/1 00 ml
(monthly
geometric
mean)
-25/1 00 ml
(daily
maximum)
• BOD5
- 10 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 15 mg/l (daily
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
protocol
required
• User/Supplier
Agreement
• Annual usage
report
• Fecal coliform
sample taken
at point of
diversion to
irrigation
system
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring and
recording for
turbidity or
particle count
and flow prior
to discharge
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• All essential
treatment units
to be provided
in duplicate
• Five-day side-
stream
detention pond
required for
effluent
exceeding
turbidity or
fecal coliform
limits
• Automatically
activated
standby power
source to be
provided
• Certified
operator 24
hours/day with
a grade level
equivalent to
Storage
Requirements
function as
storm water
management
systems is not
impaired
• Determined
using a mass
water balance
based upon a
recent 25-year
period using
monthly
average
precipitation
data, potential
evapotrans-
piration data,
and soil
drainage data
• No storage
facilities
required if it
can be
demonstrated
that other
permitted
disposal
options are
Loading
Rates
• Site specific
• Application
rate may take
both the
maximum soil
absorption and
water needs of
the receiving
crop into
consideration
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
• 100 feet to any
surface waters
classified SA,
including
wetlands
• 25 feet to any
surface water
not classified
SA, including
wetlands and
any swimming
pool
• 100 feet to any
water supply
well
• 1 0 feet to any
nonpo table
well
Other
• Includes
irrigation of
freeway
landscapes
and
landscapes in
other areas
where the
public has
similar access
or exposure
• Uses include
irrigation of
golf courses,
cemeteries,
industrial or
commercial
site grounds,
landscape
areas, highway
medians, and
roadways
10
00
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
North Dakota
Ohio
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
maximum)
• NH3
- 4 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 6 mg/l (daily
maximum)
• Turbidity not to
exceed 10
NTU at any
time
• At a minimum,
secondary
treatment
• 25 mg/l BOD5
• 30mg/ITSS
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
• Biological
treatment
• Disinfection
should be
considered
• 40 mg/l
CBOD5
• Fecal coliform
(30-day
average)
-23/1 00 ml
with no public
access buffer
-200/1 00 ml
with 100-foot
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• BOD5 and TSS
monitoring
once every 2
weeks
• Fecal coliform
- twice weekly
for mechanical
plants
- once per
week for
lagoon
systems
Large system
monitoring
(150,000 to
500,000 gpd):
• Twice weekly
for CBOD5,
total coliform
(when
irrigating) and
storage
volume
• Monthly
monitoring for
total inorganic
nitrogen
Treatment
Facility Reliability
or greater than
the facility
classification
on call
Storage
Requirements
available
• Operational
storage of 4
times the daily
design flow
needed
• Storage
provisions for
at least 130
days of design
average flow
needed for
periods when
irrigation is not
recommended
• Actual storage
Loading
Rates
• Determined by
calculating a
water and
nutrient
balance
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Monitoring
wells
upgradient and
downgradient
of large
irrigation
systems
• Monitoring
wells should
be sampled at
the beginning
and the end of
the irrigation
season
Setback
Distances (1)
• 100 feet to
private water
well
• 300 feet to
community
water well
• 100 feet to
sink hole
• 50 feet to
drainage way
• 50 feet to
surface water
• 100 feet to
road right-of-
way without
Other
• Use applies to
irrigation of
public property
such as parks
and golf
courses
• Irrigation
should take
place during
hours when
the public does
not have
access to the
area being
irrigated
10
to
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Oklahoma
Oregon
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
public access
buffer
- 1,000/1 00 ml
with 200 foot
public access
buffer
• Limits for
metals
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• Level II -
biological
treatment and
disinfection
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Daily
monitoring for
flow
Small system
monitoring
(<1 50,000 gpd):
• Weekly
monitoring of
CBOD5, total
coliform (when
irrigating) and
storage
volume
• Daily
monitoring of
flow
• Total coliform
sampling
- 1 time per
week
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Standby power
required for
continuity of
operation
during power
failures
• Standby power
with capacity
to fully operate
all essential
Storage
Requirements
requirements
determined by
performing
water balance
• Permits can be
obtained for
stream
discharge
during winter
and times of
high stream
flow to reduce
storage needs
• Required for
periods when
available
wastewater
exceeds
design
hydraulic
loading rate,
and when the
ground is
saturated or
frozen
• Based on
water balance
• Must provide
at least 90
days of
storage above
that required
for primary
treatment
Loading
Rates
• Based on the
lower of the
two rates
calculated for
soil
permeability
and nitrogen
requirements
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
windbreak
using spray
irrigation
• 1 0 feet to road
right-of-way
with windbreak
or with flood
irrigation
• 50 feet to
property line
• 1 00 feet to
adjacent
property
• Additional
distance may
be required
where
prevailing
winds could
cause aerosols
to drift into
residential
areas
• Buffer zone to
be a part of the
permitted site
• 10-foot buffer
with surface
irrigation
• 70-foot buffer
Other
• Applies to
multi-purpose
use areas such
as golf courses
• Wastewater to
be applied
during times of
non-use
• No wastewater
applied in
public use
areas with high
potential for
skin to ground
contact
• Includes
irrigation of
golf courses
without
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
South Carolina
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Total coliform
-240/1 00 ml
(2 consecutive
samples)
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• BOD5 and TSS
- 30 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 45 mg/l
(weekly
average)
• Total coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(monthly
average)
-400/1 00 ml
(daily
maximum)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Nitrate
monitoring
required
Treatment
Facility Reliability
treatment
processes
• Redundant
treatment
facilities and
monitoring
equipment to
meet required
levels of
treatment
• Alarm devices
to provide
warning of loss
of power
and/or failure
of process
equipment
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
• Hydraulic -
maximum of
0.5 - 2 in/wk
depending on
depth to
groundwater
• A nitrate to
nitrogen
loading
balance may
be required
• Application
rates in excess
of 2 in/wk may
be approved
provided the
application is
only for a
portion of the
year; requires
a water
balance for the
summer
season
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Required
• One well
upgradient
• Two wells
downgradient
• A minimum of
9 wells are
suggested for
each 18
fairways
Setback
Distances (1)
with spray
irrigation
• No spray
irrigation within
100 feet of
drinking
fountains or
food
preparation
areas
• 200 feet to
surface waters
of the state,
occupied
buildings, and
potable water
wells
• 75 feet to
property
boundary
Other
contiguous
residences,
cemeteries,
highway
medians, and
landscapes
without
frequent public
access
• Applies to
irrigation of
golf courses
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
South Dakota
Tennessee
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• Total coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(geometric
mean)
• Biological
treatment
• Additional
treatment
requirements
are determined
on a case-by-
case basis
• Disinfection
required
• 30 mg/l BOD5
and TSS
(monthly
average)
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Site specific
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Minimum of
210 days
capacity
without
consideration
for evaporation
• Storage
requirements
determined by
either of two
methods, 1)
use of water
balance
calculations or,
2) use of a
computer
program that
was developed
based upon an
extensive
NOAA study of
climatic
variations
throughout the
United States
Loading
Rates
• Maximum
application rate
limited to
2 in/acre/wk or
a total of
24 in/acre/yr
• Nitrogen -
percolate
nitrate-nitrogen
not to exceed
10 mg/l
• Hydraulic -
based on
water balance
using 5-year
return monthly
precipitation
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Shallow wells
in all directions
of major
groundwater
flow from site
and no more
than 200 feet
outside of the
site perimeter,
spaced no
more than 500
feet apart, and
extending into
the
groundwater
table
• Shallow wells
within the site
are also
recommended
• Required
Setback
Distances (1)
Surface Irrigation:
• 100 feet to site
boundary
• 50 feet to
onsite streams,
ponds, and
roads
Spray Irrigation:
[1] Open Fields
• 300 feet to site
boundary
• 150 feet to
onsite streams,
ponds, and
roads
[2] Forested
• 150 feet to site
boundary
• 75 feet to
onsite streams,
ponds, and
Other
• Pertains to
irrigation of
golf courses,
cemeteries,
and other
public and
private land
where public
use occurs or
is expected to
occur
10
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Texas
Utah
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Type II
reclaimed
water
Reclaimed water
on a 30-day
average to have
a quality of:
• 30 mg/l BOD5
with treatment
using pond
system
• 20 mg/l BOD5
or 15 mg/l
CBOD5 with
treatment other
than pond
system
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(geometric
mean)
-800/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• Type II treated
wastewater -
secondary
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Sampling and
analysis once
per week for
BOD5or
CBOD5 and
fecal coliform
• Weekly
composite
sampling
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Alternative
disposal option
or diversion to
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
• Based on
water balance
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
roads
• 300 feet to any
potable water
well
Other
• Type II
reclaimed
water use
defined as use
of reclaimed
water where
contact
between
humans and
the reclaimed
water is
unlikely
• Uses include
irrigation of
limited access
highway rights-
of-way and
other areas
where human
access is
restricted or
unlikely to
occur
• Use of
reclaimed
water for soil
compaction
and dust
control in
construction
areas where
application
procedures
minimize
aerosol drift to
public areas
also included
• Uses allowed
include
irrigation of
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Washington
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
treatment with
disinfection
• 25 mg/l BOD
(monthly
average)
• TSS
- 25 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 35 mg/l
(weekly mean)
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(weekly
median)
-800/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• pH 6-9
• Class C -
oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day mean)
-240/1 00 ml
(single sample)
General
compliance
requirements:
• 30 mg/l BOD
and TSS
(monthly
mean)
• Turbidity
-2NTU
(monthly)
-5 NTU
(not to exceed
at any time)
• Minimum
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
required for
BOD
• Daily
composite
sampling
required for
TSS
• Daily
monitoring of
fecal coliform
• pH monitored
continuously or
by daily grab
samples
• BOD -24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least weekly
• TSS -24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least daily
• Total coliform
and dissolved
oxygen
- grab samples
collected at
least daily
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
turbidity
Treatment
Facility Reliability
storage
required in
case quality
requirements
not met
• Warning
alarms
independent of
normal power
supply
• Back-up power
source
• Emergency
storage: short-
term, 1 day;
long-term, 20
days
• Multiple
treatment units
or storage or
disposal
options
• Qualified
personnel
available or on
call at all times
the irrigation
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
required when
no approved
alternative
disposal
system exists
• Storage
volume
established by
determining
storage period
required for
duration of a
10-year storm,
using a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• At a minimum,
system storage
capacity
should be the
Loading
Rates
• Hydraulic
loading rate to
be determined
based on a
detailed water
balance
analysis
Groundwater
Monitoring
• May be
required
• Monitoring
program will be
based on
reclaimed
water quality
and quantity,
site specific
soil and
hydrogeologic
characteristics,
and other
considerations
Setback
Distances (1)
• 300 feet to
areas intended
for public
access
• Impoundments
at least 500
feet from any
potable water
well
• Public access
to effluent
storage and
irrigation or
disposal sites
to be restricted
by a stocktight
fence or other
comparable
means
• 50 feet to
areas
accessible to
the public and
use area
property line
• 100 feet to any
potable water
supply well
Other
highway rights-
of-way and
other areas
where human
access is
restricted or
unlikely to
occur
• Also allows
use of
reclaimed
water for soil
compaction or
dust control in
construction
areas
• Uses include
irrigation of
restricted
access areas
such as
freeway
landscapes, or
other areas
where the
public has
similar access
or exposure to
the reclaimed
water
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
State
Wyoming
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
chlorine
residual of
1 mg/l after a
contact time of
30 minutes
• Minimum of
Class B
wastewater-
secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• Fecal coliform
- greater than
2.2/100 ml but
less than
200/1 00 ml
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Treated
wastewater to
be analyzed
for fecal
coliform,
nitrate as N,
ammonia as N,
and pH at a
minimum
• Monitoring
frequency
- once per
month for
lagoon
systems
- once per
week for
mechanical
systems
• Frequency
specified in
NPDES permit
required if
more frequent
Treatment
Facility Reliability
system is
operating
• Multiple units
and equipment
• Alternative
power sources
• Alarm systems
and
instrumenta-
tion
• Operator
certification
and standby
capability
• Bypass and
dewatering
capability
• Emergency
storage
Storage
Requirements
volume equal
to 3 times that
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
• Emergency
storage
Loading
Rates
• Will be applied
for the purpose
of beneficial
reuse and will
not exceed the
irrigation
demand of the
vegetation at
the site
• Not to be
applied at a
rate greater
than the
agronomic rate
for the
vegetation at
the site
• Will be applied
in a manner
and time that
will not cause
any surface
runoff or
contamination
of a
groundwater
aquifer
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
• 30 feet to
adjacent
property lines
• 30 feet to all
surface waters
• 100 feet to all
potable water
supply wells
Other
• Pertains to
land that is
accessible to
the public but
with limited
access during
irrigation
periods
Ul
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Arizona
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
Class A
reclaimed water:
• Secondary
treatment,
filtration and
disinfection
• Chemical feed
facilities
required to add
coagulants or
polymers if
necessary to
meet turbidity
criterion
• Turbidity
- 2 NTU (24-
hour average)
- 5 NTU (not to
exceed at any
time)
• Fecal coliform
- none
detectable in 4
of last 7 daily
samples
-23/1 00 ml
(single sample
maximum)
Class B
reclaimed water:
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in 4 of the last
7 daily
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Case-by-case
basis
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
• Application
rates based on
either the
water allotment
assigned by
the Arizona
Department of
Water
Resources (a
water balance
that considers
consumptive
use of water by
the crop, turf,
or landscape
vegetation) or
an alternative
approved
method
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances {1)
Other
• Class A
reclaimed
water required
for spray
irrigation of
food crops and
orchards or
vineyards
• Class B
reclaimed
water suitable
for surface
irrigation of
orchards or
vineyards
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Arkansas
California
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
samples)
-800/1 00 ml
(single sample
maximum)
• Primary
treatment
Disinfected
tertiary recycled
water:
• Oxidized,
coagulated
(not required if
membrane
filtration is
used and/or
turbidity
requirements
are met),
filtered,
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• As required by
regulatory
agency
Disinfected
tertiary recycled
water:
• Total coliform -
sampled at
least once
daily from the
disinfected
effluent
• Turbidity
- continuously
sampled
following
filtration
Disinfected
secondary-2.2
recycled water:
• Total coliform -
sampled at
least once
daily from the
disinfected
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Warning
alarms
• Back-up power
source
• Multiple
treatment units
capable of
treating entire
flow with one
unit not in
operation or
storage or
disposal
provisions
• Emergency
storage or
disposal: short-
term, 1 day;
long-term, 20
days
• Sufficient
number of
Storage
Requirements
• Based on
water balance
using divisional
average
annual 90
percentile
rainfall
Loading
Rates
• Hydraulic - 0.5
to 4.0 in/wk
• Nitrogen -
percolate
nitrate-nitrogen
not to exceed
10 mg/l
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Required
• One well
upgradient
• 1 well within
site
• One well
downgradient
• More wells
may be
required on a
case-by-case
basis
Setback
Distances (1)
Spray irrigation:
• 200 feet
• 1,320 feet to
populated area
Non-spray
system:
• 50 feet
• 660 feet to
populated area
• No irrigation
with
disinfected
tertiary
recycled water
within 50 feet
of any
domestic water
supply well
unless certain
conditions are
met
• No
impoundment
of disinfected
tertiary
recycled water
within 100 feet
of any
domestic water
supply well
• No irrigation
Other
• Pertains to
processed
food crops only
and evaluated
on a case-by-
case basis
• Irrigation of
raw food crops
is not
permitted
• Disinfected
tertiary
recycled water
can be used
for irrigation of
food crops
where recycled
water comes
into contact
with edible
portion of crop
• Disinfected
secondary-2.2
recycled water
can be used
for irrigation of
food crops
where edible
portion is
produced
above ground
and not
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
period)
-240/1 00 ml
(maximum any
one sample)
• Turbidity
requirements
for wastewater
that has been
coagulated
and passed
through natural
undisturbed
soils or a bed
of filter media
- maximum
average of
2 NTU within a
24-hour period
- not to exceed
5 NTU more
than 5 percent
of the time
within a
24-hour period
- maximum of
10 NTU at any
time
• Turbidity
requirements
for wastewater
passed
through
membrane
- not to exceed
0.2 NTU more
than 5 percent
of the time
within a
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
effluent
Treatment
Facility Reliability
qualified
personnel
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
with, or
impoundment
of, disinfected
secondary-2.2
recycled water
within 100 feet
of any
domestic water
supply well
• No irrigation
with, or
impoundment
of,
undisinfected
secondary
recycled water
within 150 feet
of any
domestic water
supply well
• No spray
irrigation of
any recycled
water, other
than
disinfected
tertiary
recycled water,
within 100 feet
of a residence
or a place
where public
exposure could
be similar to
that of a park,
playground, or
schoolyard
Other
contacted by
the recycled
water
• Undisinfected
secondary
recycled water
can be used
for irrigation of
orchards and
vineyards
where recycled
water does not
come into
contact with
edible portion
of crop and
food crops that
must undergo
commercial
pathogen-
destroying
processing
before
consumption
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Colorado
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
24-hour period
- maximum of
0.5 NTU at any
time
Disinfected
secondary-2.2
recycled water:
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
Undisinfected
secondary
recycled water:
• Oxidized
wastewater
Consumed raw:
[1 ] Surface
irrigation
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
• Not acceptable
for root crops
or crops where
edible portions
contact ground
[2] Spray
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances {1)
• 500 feet to
domestic
supply well
• 1 00 feet to any
irrigation well
• Setback from
property lines
based upon
use of
adjoining
property
Other
to
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Florida
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
irrigation
• Oxidized,
coagulated,
clarified,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
Processed food:
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
Orchards &
Vineyards:
[1 ] Surface
irrigation
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
• Edible portion
of plant cannot
contact ground
[2] Spray
irrigation
• Oxidized,
coagulated,
clarified,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
• Secondary
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Parameters to
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Class I
Storage
Requirements
• At a minimum,
Loading
Rates
• Site specific
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Required
Setback
Distances {1)
• 75 feet to
Other
• Direct contact
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
treatment with
filtration and
high-level
disinfection
• Chemical feed
facilities to be
provided
• 20 mg/l
CBOD5
(annual
average)
• 5 mg/l TSS
(single sample)
• Total chlorine
residual of at
least 1 mg/l
after a
minimum
acceptable
contact time of
15 minutes at
peak hourly
flow
• Fecal coliform
- over 30-day
period, 75
percent of
samples below
detection limits
-25/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• pH 6-8.5
• Limitations to
be met after
disinfection
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
be monitored
and sampling
frequency to
be identified in
wastewater
facility permit
• Minimum
schedule for
sampling and
testing based
on system
capacity
established for
flow, pH,
chlorine
residual,
dissolved
oxygen,
suspended
solids, CBOD5,
nutrients, and
fecal coliform
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
turbidity prior
to disinfection
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
total chlorine
residual or
residual
concentrations
of other
disinfectants
• Monitoring for
Giardia and
Treatment
Facility Reliability
reliability -
requires
multiple or
back-up
treatment units
and a
secondary
power source
• Minimum
reject storage
capacity equal
to 1 -day flow at
the average
daily design
flow of the
treatment plant
or the average
daily permitted
flow of the
reuse system,
whichever is
less
• Minimum
system size of
0.1 mgd (not
required for
toilet flushing
and fire
protection
uses)
• Staffing -
24 hrs/day,
7 days/wk or
6 hrs/day,
7 days/wk with
diversion of
reclaimed
water to reuse
Storage
Requirements
system storage
capacity shall
be the volume
equal to three
times the
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
• Water balance
required with
volume of
storage based
on a 1 0-year
recurrence
interval and a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• Not required if
alternative
system is
incorporated
into the system
design to
ensure
continuous
facility
operation
• Existing or
proposed lakes
or ponds (such
as golf course
ponds) are
Loading
Rates
• Design
hydraulic
loading rate -
maximum
annual
average of
2 in/wk is
recommended
• Based on
nutrient and
water balance
assessments
Groundwater
Monitoring
• One
upgradient well
located as
close as
possible to the
site without
being affected
by the site's
discharge
(background
well)
• One well at the
edge of the
zone of
discharge
downgradient
of the site
(compliance
well)
• One well
downgradient
from the site
and within the
zone of
discharge
(intermediate
well)
• One well
located
adjacent to
unlined
storage ponds
or lakes
• Other wells
may be
required
depending on
site-specific
Setback
Distances (1)
potable water
supply wells
• 75 feet from
reclaimed
water
transmission
facility to public
water supply
well
• Low trajectory
nozzles
required within
100 feet of
outdoor public
eating,
drinking, and
bathing
facilities
• 200 feet from
unlined
storage ponds
to potable
water supply
wells
Other
irrigation of
edible crops
that will not be
peeled,
skinned,
cooked, or
thermally
processed
before
consumption is
not allowed
except for
tobacco and
citrus
• Indirect
application
methods that
preclude direct
contact with
the reclaimed
water can be
used for
irrigation of
any edible crop
• Citrus irrigation
systems will
only require
secondary
treatment and
basic
disinfection if
public access
will be
restricted, the
reclaimed
water does not
directly contact
the fruit, and
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Hawaii
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
R-1 water:
• Oxidized,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Cryptosporidium
based on
treatment plant
capacity
- > 1 mgd,
sampling one
time during
each two-year
period
- < 1 mgd ,
sampling one
time during
each 5 year
period
- samples to
be taken
immediately
following
disinfection
process
• Primary and
secondary
drinking water
standards to
be monitored
by facilities >
1 00,000 gpd
• Daily flow
monitoring
• Continuous
turbidity
monitoring
prior to and
after filtration
process
• Continuous
measuring and
recording of
Treatment
Facility Reliability
system only
during periods
of operator
presence
• Multiple or
standby units
required with
sufficient
capacity to
enable
effective
operation with
any one unit
out of service
• Alarm devices
Storage
Requirements
appropriate for
storage if it will
not impair the
ability of the
lakes or ponds
to function as a
stormwater
management
system
• Aquifer
storage and
recovery
allowed as
provision of
storage
• 20 days
storage
required
unless it can
be
demonstrated
that another
time period is
adequate or
that no storage
is necessary
Loading
Rates
• Design
application rate
determined by
water balance
Groundwater
Monitoring
criteria
• Quarterly
monitoring
required for
water level,
nitrate, total
dissolved
solids, arsenic,
cadmium,
chloride,
chromium,
lead, fecal
coliform, pH,
and sulfate
• Monitoring
may be
required for
additional
parameters
based on site-
specific
conditions and
groundwater
quality
• Required
• Groundwater
monitoring
system may
consist of a
number of
lysi meters
and/or
monitoring
wells
depending on
Setback
Distances {1)
R-1 water:
• Minimum of 50
feet to drinking
water supply
well
• Outer edge of
impoundment
at least 100
feet from any
drinking water
supply well
Other
the fruit
produced is
processed
before human
consumption
• R-1 water can
be used for
spray irrigation
of food crops
above ground
and not
contacted by
irrigation and
orchards and
vineyards
bearing food
10
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
any 30-day
period)
-200/1 00 ml
(maximum any
one sample)
• Inactivation
and/or removal
of 99.999
percent of the
plaque-forming
units of F-
specific
bacteriophage
MS2, or polio
virus
• Detectable
turbidity not to
exceed 5 NTU
for more than
15 minutes
and never to
exceed 10
NTU prior to
filtration
• Effluent
turbidity not to
exceed 2 NTU
• Chemical
pretreatment
facilities
required in all
cases where
granular media
filtration is
used; not
required for
facilities using
membrane
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
chlorine
residual
• Daily
monitoring of
fecal coliform
• Weekly
monitoring of
BOD5 and
suspended
solids
Treatment
Facility Reliability
required for
loss of power,
high water
levels, failure
of pumps or
blowers, high
head loss on
filters, high
effluent
turbidity, loss
of coagulant or
polymer feed,
and loss of
chlorine
residual
• Standby power
source
required for
treatment plant
and distribution
pump stations
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
requirements
based on
water balance
using at least a
30-year record
• Reject storage
required with a
volume equal
to 1 day of flow
at the average
daily design
flow
• Emergency
system storage
not required
where an
alternate
effluent
disposal
system has
been approved
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
site size, site
characteristics,
location,
method of
discharge, and
other
appropriate
considerations
• One well
upgradient and
two wells
downgradient
for project sites
500 acres or
more
• One well within
the wetted field
area for each
project whose
surface area is
greater than or
equal to 1,500
acres
• One lysimeter
per 200 acres
• One lysimeter
for project sites
that have
greater than 40
but less than
200 acres
• Additional
lysi meters may
be necessary
to address
concerns of
public health or
environmental
Setback
Distances (1)
R-2 water:
• For spray
irrigation
applications,
500 feet to
residence
property or a
place where
public
exposure could
be similar to
that at a park,
elementary
schoolyard or
athletic field
• Minimum of
1 00 feet to any
drinking water
supply well
• Outer edge of
impoundment
at least 300
feet from any
drinking water
supply well
R-3 water:
• Minimum of
150 feet to
drinking water
supply well
• Outer edge of
impoundment
at least 1 000
feet to any
drinking water
supply well
Other
crops
• R-2 water can
be used for
spray irrigation
of food crops
undergoing
commercial
pathogen
destroying
process before
consumption,
as well as
orchards and
vineyards not
bearing food
crops during
irrigation
• R-2 water can
be used for
subsurface
irrigation of
food crops
above ground
and not
contacted by
irrigation
• R-3 water can
be used for
drip, surface,
or subsurface
irrigation of
food crops
undergoing
commercial
pathogen
process before
consumption
(no later than
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
filtration
• Theoretical
chlorine
contact time of
120 minutes
and actual
modal contact
time of 90
minutes
throughout
which the
chlorine
residual is
5 mg/l
R-2 water:
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-200/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
• Theoretical
chlorine
contact time of
15 minutes
and actual
modal contact
time of 10
minutes
throughout
which the
chlorine
residual is
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
protection as
related to
variable
characteristics
of the
subsurface or
of the
operations of
the project
Setback
Distances {1)
Other
30 days before
before
harvest),
orchards and
vineyards
bearing food
crops and
orchards and
vineyards not
bearing food
crops during
irrigation
• R-2 water
used in spray
irrigation will
be performed
when the area
is closed to the
public and the
public is
absent from
the area, and
will end at
least 1 hour
before the area
is open to the
public
• Subsurface
irrigation may
be performed
at any time
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Idaho
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
0.5 mg/l
R-3 water:
• Oxidized
wastewater
Raw food crops
where reclaimed
water contacts
edible portion:
• Oxidized,
coagulated,
clarified,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
Raw food crops
where reclaimed
water only
contacts unedible
portion:
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
Processed foods
and orchards &
vineyards with no
direct contact of
reclaimed water:
[1] Unrestricted
public access
• Disinfected
primary
effluent
• Total coliform
-230/1 00 ml
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
Ul
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Indiana
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
(7-day median)
[2] Restricted
public access
• Primary
effluent
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• 10mg/IBOD5
• 5 mg/l TSS
prior to
disinfection (24
hour average)
• Fecal coliform
- no detectable
fecal coliform
(7-day median)
- 14/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• pH 6-9
• Total chlorine
residual at
least 1 mg/l
after a
minimum
contact time of
30 minutes (if
chlorination is
used for
disinfection)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Daily
monitoring of
TSS, coliform,
and chlorine
residual
• Weekly
monitoring of
BOD and pH
• Monthly
monitoring of
total nitrogen,
ammonium
nitrogen,
nitrate
nitrogen,
phosphorus,
and potassium
• Annual
monitoring of
arsenic,
cadmium,
copper, lead,
mercury,
nickel,
selenium, and
zinc
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Alternate
power source
required
Storage
Requirements
• Minimum of 90
days effective
storage
capacity
required
Loading
Rates
• Maximum
hydraulic
loading rate of
2 in/week
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances {1)
• 200 feet to
potable water
supply wells or
drinking water
springs
• 300 feet to any
waters of the
state
• 300 feet to any
residence
Other
• Food crops not
to be
harvested for
14 months
after land
application of
wastewater if
the harvested
part touches
the ground and
has no
harvested
parts below the
soil surface
• Food crops not
to be
harvested for
38 months
after land
application of
wastewater if
harvested
parts are
below the soil
surface
• Otherwise,
food crops not
to be
harvested for
30 days after
land
application of
wastewater
o
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Kansas
Michigan
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Secondary
treatment with
periodic
discharge to
surface waters
• Primary
treatment with
no discharge
to surface
water
• pH 5.5- 10
• 20 mg/l total
inorganic
nitrogen
• 0.5 mg/l nitrite
• 5 mg/l
phosphorus
• 1 mg/l
phosphorus if
surface water
body is
downgradient
within
1,000 feet
• Aluminum,
150 ug/l
• Chloride,
250 mg/l
• Sodium,
150 mg/l
• Sulfate,
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Flow
measurement
• Grab samples
collected and
analyzed twice
each month for
ammonia-
nitrogen,
nitrate-
nitrogen,
nitrite-nitrogen,
sodium,
chloride,
phosphorus,
and pH
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
provided to
retain a
minimum of
900 days
average dry
weather flow
when no
discharge to
surface water
is available
Loading
Rates
• Maximum daily
application rate
of 3 in/ac/day
• Maximum
annual
application rate
of 40 in/acre
• Based on soil
and crop
moisture
and/or nutrient
requirements
of selected
crop
• Daily, monthly,
or annual
design
hydraulic
loading rate
shall not be
more than 7
percent of the
permeability of
the most
restrictive soil
layer within the
solum as
determined by
the saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
method or 12
percent of the
permeability as
determined by
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Site specific
• May be
required
• Monitoring
requirements
specific to
each site
Setback
Distances (1)
• 500 feet to
residential
areas
• 200 feet to
wells and
water supplies
not on site
property
• 1 00 feet to
adjacent
properties
• Groundwater
table a depth
of at least 1 0
feet beneath
application
area
• 1 00 feet to
property lines
Other
• Irrigation of
unprocessed
food for direct
human
consumption
prohibited
• Irrigated crops
for human
consumption
shall be limited
to those
requiring
processing
prior to
consumption
• Allows
irrigation of
vegetated
areas between
May 1 and
October 15
• Governed by
Michigan
Department of
Environmental
Quality issued
groundwater
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Montana
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
250 mg/l
• Iron, 300 ug/l
• Manganese,
50 ug/l
• THM limits
• Treatment
technology
standards for
certain organic
substances
• Additional
effluent criteria
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Oxidized,
clarified,
coagulated,
filtered, and
disinfected
• 10 mg/l or less
of BOD and
TSS
• Fecal coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(single sample
in any 30-day
period)
• Turbidity
-2 NTU
(average)
- 5 NTU (not to
exceed more
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Effluent to be
monitored on
a regular basis
to show the
biochemical
and
bacteriological
quality of the
applied
wastewater
• Monitoring
frequency to
be determined
on a case-by-
case basis
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
the basin
infiltration
method
• Annual
hydraulic
loading rate
shall not be
more than 3
percent of the
permeability of
the solum
when
determined by
either the
cylinder
infiltration
method or air
entry
permeameter
test method
• Nitrogen and
hydraulic
loadings
determined
based on
methods in
EPA Manual
625/1-81-013
• Hydraulic
loading must
be based on
the wettest
year in ten
years
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Consideration
is given to
groundwater
characteristics,
past practices,
depth to
groundwater,
cropping
practices, etc.
Setback
Distances (1)
• 1 00 feet to any
water supply
well
• Distance to
surface water
determined on
a case-by-case
basis based on
quality of
effluent and
the level of
disinfection
Other
discharge
permits
• Categorized as
slow rate land
treatment
• Reduction to
reclaimed
water quality
requirements
may be
considered for
food crops
which undergo
extensive
commercial,
physical, or
chemical
processing
sufficient to
destroy
pathogenic
agents before
it is suitable for
00
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Nevada
New Jersey
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
than 5 percent
of the time
during any 24-
hour period)
• At a minimum,
secondary
treatment with
disinfection
• 30 mg/l BOD5
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(30-day
geometric
mean)
-400/1 00 ml
(maximum
daily number)
• Fecal coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
- 14/1 00 ml
(maximum any
one sample)
• Minimum
chlorine
residual
- 1 .0 mg/l after
15-minute
contact at peak
hourly flow
• Alternative
methods of
disinfection,
such as UV
and ozone,
may be
approved
• TSS not to
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
chlorine
residual
produced
oxidant at the
compliance
monitoring
point
• For spray
irrigation,
chlorination
levels for
disinfection
should be
continually
evaluated to
ensure
chlorine
residual levels
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Not required
when another
permitted
reuse system
or effluent
disposal
system is
incorporated
into the system
design
• If system
storage ponds
are used, they
do not have to
be lined
• Reject storage
ponds shall be
lined or sealed
to prevent
measurable
seepage
Loading
Rates
• Hydraulic
loading rate
- maximum
annual
average of
2 in/wk but
may be
increased
based on a
site-specific
evaluation
• The spray
irrigation of
reclaimed
water shall not
produce
surface runoff
or ponding
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
• None required
• 75 feet to
potable water
supply wells
that are
existing or
have been
approved for
construction
• 75 feet
provided from
a reclaimed
water
transmission
facility to all
potable water
supply wells
• 1 00 feet from
outdoor public
eating,
drinking, and
bathing
Other
human
consumption
• Only surface
irrigation of
fruit or nut
bearing trees
permitted
• Irrigation of
edible crops
that will be
peeled,
skinned,
cooked, or
thermally
processed
before
consumption is
allowed
• An indirect
method that
precludes
direct contact
with the
reclaimed
water (such as
ridge and
furrow
irrigation) is
<£>
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
exceed 5 mg/l
before
disinfection
• Total nitrogen
- 1 0 mg/l but
may be less
stringent if
higher limit is
still protective
of environment
• Secondary
• Filtration
• Chemical
addition prior
to filtration may
be necessary
• A chlorine
residual of
0.5 mg/l or
greater is
recommended
to reduce
odors, slime,
and bacterial
re-growth
• Adequately
treated and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
-1,000/1 00 ml
• Primary
treatment
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
do not
adversely
impact
vegetation
• Continuous
monitoring for
turbidity before
disinfection is
required
• Operating
protocol
required
• User/Supplier
Agreement
• Annual usage
report
• Annual
inventory
submittal on
commercial
operations
using
reclaimed
water to
irrigate edible
crop
• Fecal coliform
sample taken
at point of
diversion to
irrigation
system
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Standby power
required for
Storage
Requirements
• Existing or
proposed
ponds (such as
golf course
ponds) are
appropriate for
storage of
reuse water if
the ability of
the ponds to
function as
stormwater
management
systems is not
impaired
• Required for
periods when
Loading
Rates
• Based on the
lower of the
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
facilities
• 100 feet
between
indoor
aesthetic
features and
adjacent
indoor public
eating and
drinking
facilities when
in the same
room or
building
• 1 00 feet to
adjacent
Other
permitted for
edible crops
that will not be
peeled,
skinned,
cooked, or
thermally
processed
before
consumption
• Secondary
treatment for
the purpose of
the manual
refers to the
existing
treatment
requirements
in the NJPDES
permit, not
including the
additional
reclaimed
water for
beneficial
reuse
treatment
requirements
• Only surface
irrigation on
food crops with
no contact of
reclaimed
water on edible
portion is
permitted
• Use not
allowed on
Ul
o
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Oregon
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
Unprocessed
food :
• Level IV -
biological
treatment,
clarification,
coagulation,
filtration, and
disinfection
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(maximum any
sample)
• Turbidity
-2 NTU
(24-hour
mean)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Unprocessed
food:
• Total coliform
sampling
- once a day
• Turbidity
- hourly
Processed food
crops and
orchards and
vineyards:
• Total coliform
sampling
- once a week
Treatment
Facility Reliability
continuity of
operation
during power
failures
• Standby power
with capacity
to fully operate
all essential
treatment
processes
• Redundant
treatment
facilities and
monitoring
equipment to
meet required
levels of
treatment
• Alarm devices
to provide
warning of loss
of power
and/or failure
Storage
Requirements
available
wastewater
exceeds
design
hydraulic
loading rate,
and when the
ground is
saturated or
frozen
• Based on
water balance
• Must provide
at least 90
days of
storage above
that required
for primary
treatment
Loading
Rates
two rates
calculated for
soil
permeability
and nitrogen
requirements
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances {1)
property
• Additional
distance may
be required
where
prevailing
winds could
cause aerosols
to drift into
residential
areas
• Buffer zone to
be a part of the
permitted site
Unprocessed
food:
• None required
Processed food
and orchards and
vineyards:
• 1 0 foot buffer
for surface
irrigation
• 70 foot buffer
for spray
irrigation
Other
food crops that
can be eaten
raw
• May be used
for irrigation of
crops such as
corn, wheat,
and oats,
provided a
period of 30
days elapses
between last
application and
harvest
• Surface
irrigation
required for
orchards and
vineyards
• No irrigation of
processed
food crops and
orchards and
vineyards 3
days prior to
harvesting
Ul
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Texas
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
-5NTU
(5 percent of
time during 24-
hour period)
Processed food
crops and
orchards and
vineyards:
• Level II -
biological
treatment and
disinfection
• Total coliform
-240/1 00 ml
(2 consecutive
samples)
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
Direct contact
with edible
portion of crop
unless food crop
undergoes
pasteurization
process
• Type I
reclaimed
water
Reclaimed water
on a 30 day
average to have
a quality of:
• 5 mg/l BOD5 or
CBOD5
• 10 mg/l for
landscape
impoundment
• Turbidity
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Direct contact
with edible
portion of crop
unless food crop
undergoes
pasteurization
process
• Sampling and
analysis twice
per week for
BOD5 or
CBOD5,
turbidity, and
fecal coliform
Direct contact
with edible
portion of crop
not likely or
where food crop
undergoes
Treatment
Facility Reliability
of process
equipment
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
• Based on
water balance
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
• Spray irrigation
not permitted
on food crops
that may be
consumed raw
• Other types of
irrigation that
avoid contact
of reclaimed
water with
edible portions
of food crops
are acceptable
• Food crops
that will be
substantially
processed
prior to human
consumption
may be spray
Ul
10
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
-3NTU
• Fecal coliform
-20/1 00 ml
(geometric
mean)
-75/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
Direct contact
with edible
portion of crop
not likely or
where food crop
undergoes
pasteurization
• Type II
reclaimed
water
Reclaimed water
on a 30-day
average to have
a quality of:
• 30 mg/l BOD5
with treatment
using pond
system
• 20 mg/l BOD5
or 15 mg/l
CBOD5 with
treatment other
than pond
system
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(geometric
mean)
-800/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
pasteurization
• Sampling and
analysis once
per week for
BOD5 or
CBOD5 and
fecal coliform
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
irrigated
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Utah
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
in any sample)
Spray irrigation
of food crops:
• Type 1 treated
wastewater
- secondary
treatment with
filtration and
disinfection
• 10mg/IBOD
(monthly
average)
• Turbidity prior
to disinfection
- not to exceed
2 NTU
(daily average)
- not to exceed
5 NTU at any
time
• Fecal coliform
- none
detected
(weekly
median as
determined
from daily grab
samples)
- 14/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• 1.0mg/l total
residual
chlorine after
30 minutes
contact time at
peak flow
• pH 6-9
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Spray irrigation
of food crops:
• Daily
composite
sampling
required for
BOD
• Continuous
turbidity
monitoring
prior to
disinfection
• Daily
monitoring of
fecal coliform
• Continuous
total residual
chlorine
monitoring
• pH monitored
continuously or
by daily grab
samples
Surface irrigation
of food crops:
• Weekly
composite
sampling
required for
BOD
• Daily
composite
sampling
required for
TSS
• Daily
monitoring of
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Alternative
disposal option
or diversion to
storage
required in
case quality
requirements
not met
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Spray irrigation
of food crops:
• 50 feet to any
potable water
well
• Impoundments
at least 500
feet from any
potable water
well
Surface irrigation
of food crops:
• 300 feet to any
potable water
well
• Impoundments
at least 500
feet from any
potable water
well
• Public access
to effluent
storage and
irrigation or
disposal sites
to be restricted
by a stocktight
fence or other
comparable
means
Other
• Type I treated
wastewater
required for
spray irrigation
of food crops
where the
applied
reclaimed
water is likely
to have direct
contact with
the edible part
• Type II treated
wastewater
required for
irrigation of
food crops
where the
applied
reclaimed
water is not
likely to have
direct contact
with the edible
part, whether
the food will be
processed or
not (spray
irrigation not
allowed)
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Washington
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
Surface irrigation
of food crops:
• Type II treated
wastewater -
secondary
treatment with
disinfection
• 25 mg/l BOD
(monthly
average)
• TSS
- 25 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 35 mg/l
(weekly mean)
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(weekly
median)
-800/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• pH 6-9
Spray irrigation of
food crops or
surface irrigation
of root crops:
• Class A -
oxidized,
coagulated,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day mean)
-23/1 00 ml
(single sample)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
fecal coliform
• pH monitored
continuously or
by daily grab
samples
• BOD -24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least weekly
• TSS -24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least daily
• Total coliform
and dissolved
oxygen
- grab samples
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Warning
alarms
independent of
normal power
supply
• Back-up power
source
• Emergency
storage:
short-term,
1 day;
long-term,
20 days
• Multiple
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
required when
no approved
alternative
disposal
system exists
• Storage
volume
established by
determining
storage period
required for
duration of a
10-year storm,
Loading
Rates
• Hydraulic
loading rate to
be determined
based on a
detailed water
balance
analysis
Groundwater
Monitoring
• May be
required
• Monitoring
program will be
based on
reclaimed
water quality
and quantity,
site specific
soil and
hydrogeologic
characteristics,
and other
considerations
Setback
Distances (1)
Spray irrigation of
food crops or
surface irrigation
of root crops:
• 50 feet to any
potable water
supply well
Surface irrigation
of food crops:
• 50 feet to
areas
accessible to
the public and
the use area
Other
• No orchard or
vineyard fruit
may be
harvested that
has come in
contact with
the irrigating
water or the
ground
• Effluent quality
requirements
for processed
food
determined on
Ul
Ul
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
Surface irrigation
of food crops:
' Class B -
oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day mean)
-23/1 00 ml
(single sample)
Irrigation of foods
crops that
undergo
processing or
surface irrigation
of orchards and
vineyards:
• Class D -
oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-240/1 00 ml
(7-day mean)
General
compliance
requirements:
• 30 mg/l BOD
and TSS
(monthly
mean)
• Turbidity
-2 NTU
(monthly)
-5 NTU
(not to exceed
at any time)
• Minimum
chlorine
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
collected at
least daily
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
turbidity
Treatment
Facility Reliability
treatment units
or storage or
disposal
options
• Qualified
personnel
available or on
call at all times
the irrigation
system is
operating
Storage
Requirements
using a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• At a minimum,
system storage
capacity
should be the
volume equal
to 3 times that
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
property line
• 1 00 feet to any
potable water
supply
Irrigation of food
crops that
undergo
processing or
surface irrigation
of orchards and
vineyards:
• 1 00 feet to
areas
accessible to
the public and
the use area
property line
• 300 feet to any
potable water
supply
Other
a case-by-case
basis
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
West Virginia
Wyoming
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
residual of
1 mg/l after a
contact time of
30 minutes
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• 30 mg/l BOD
• 30 mg/l TSS
• Minimum of
Class B
wastewater -
secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• Fecal coliform
- greater than
2.2/1 00 ml but
less than
200/1 00 ml
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Frequency of
reporting
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Treated
wastewater to
be analyzed
for fecal
coliform,
nitrate as N,
ammonia as N,
and pH at a
minimum
• Monitoring
frequency
- once per
month for
lagoon
systems
- once per
week for
mechanical
systems
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Multiple units
and equipment
• Alternative
power sources
• Alarm systems
and
instrumenta-
tion
• Operator
certification
and standby
capability
• Bypass and
dewatering
capability
• Emergency
storage
Storage
Requirements
• Minimum of 90
days storage
to be provided
• Emergency
storage
Loading
Rates
• Hydraulic -
maximum
application
rates of
0.25 in/hr
0.50 in/day
2.0 in/wk
• Will be applied
for the purpose
of beneficial
reuse and will
not exceed the
irrigation
demand of the
vegetation at
the site
• Not to be
applied at a
rate greater
than the
agronomic rate
for the
vegetation at
the site
• Will be applied
in a manner
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Minimum of
one well
between
project site and
public well(s)
or high
capacity
private wells
• Minimum of
one well in
each direction
of groundwater
movement
Setback
Distances {1)
• Fence to be
placed at least
50 feet beyond
spray area
• 350 feet from
fence to
adjacent
property lines
or highways
unless low
trajectory
spray and/or
physical
buffers are
provided
• 30 feet to
adjacent
property lines
• 30 feet to all
surface waters
• 100 feet to all
potable water
supply wells
Other
• Analysis of
crop required if
used for
human
consumption
• Food crops not
to be
harvested for
30 days after
application of
treated
wastewater
Ul
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Frequency
specified in
NPDES permit
required if
more frequent
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
and time that
will not cause
any surface
runoff or
contamination
of a
groundwater
aquifer
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
Ul
00
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Alabama
Alaska
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Minimum EPA
secondary, or
equivalent to
secondary,
limits and
appropriate
disinfection
• If wastewater
stabilization
pond is used,
pond must
meet ADEM
requirements
with second
cell being used
as a holding
pond
• Mechanical
systems, if
used, should
allow as little
nitrification as
possible
• Secondary
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Controls
required to
indicate any
system
malfunction or
permit varied
field operations
Storage
Requirements
• Based on
water balance
performed on a
monthly basis
with a
precipitation
input using a
5-year, 24-
hour rainfall
event, 30-year
minimum base
period
• In addition to
storage
dictated by
water balance,
a minimum of
1 5 days
storage should
be provided for
contingencies
Loading
Rates
• Based on soil
permeability
and nitrogen
limits (10 mg/l
nitrate)
• Excessive
rainwater run-
off should be
diverted
• Excessive
ponding should
be avoided
Groundwater
Monitoring
• At least three
downgradient
monitoring
wells
• At least one
upgradient
monitoring well
• Contaminants
in groundwater
not to exceed
primary and
secondary
maximum
contaminant
levels
• Minimum
depth to
groundwater,
without use of
an underdrain
collection
system, shall
be 4 feet
Setback
Distances (1)
• 100 feet to
property lines
• 300 feet to
existing
habitable
residences
• Spray irrigation
not allowed
within 100 feet
of any
perennial lake
or stream
• If irrigation
causes an
intermittent
stream to
become
perennial, the
irrigation must
cease within
100 feet of the
stream
• Spray irrigation
not allowed in
wellhead
protection area
(WHPAI)-if
no wellhead
delineation
exists,
minimum
distance for
application
shall be 1,000
feet or as
required
• No sites within
100 year
floodplain
Other
• Categorized as
a form of land
treatment
defined as use
of a
vegetation-soil
system to both
renovate and
serve as the
ultimate
receiver of
treated
wastewater
• Categorized as
Ul
<£>
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
treatment, and
if discharge is
potential health
hazard,
disinfection
• BOD5andTSS
from source
other than
stabilization
pond
- 30 mg/l
(30-day
average)
- 45 mg/l
(7-day
average)
- 60 mg/l
(24-hour
average)
• BOD5from
stabilization
pond
- 45 mg/l
(30-day
average)
and a percent
removal that is
not less than
65 percent by
weight
- 65 mg/l
(7-day
average)
• Suspended
solids from
stabilization
pond
- 70 mg/l
(30-day
average)
• pH 6-9
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
land surface
disposal
defined as
disposal of
treated
wastewater
onto the
surface of the
land in area
suitable for
that purpose
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Arizona
Arkansas
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
Class B
reclaimed water:
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in 4 of the last
7 daily
samples)
-800/1 00 ml
(single sample
maximum)
Class C
reclaimed water:
• Secondary
treatment in a
series of
wastewater
stabilization
ponds,
including
aeration, with
or without
disinfection
• Minimum total
retention time
of 20 days
• Fecal coliform
-1,000/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in 4 of the last
7 daily
samples)
-4,000/1 00 ml
(single sample
maximum)
• Primary
treatment
• Disinfection
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Case-by-case
basis
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Based on
water balance
using divisional
Loading
Rates
• Application
rates based on
either the
water allotment
assigned by
the Arizona
Department of
Water
Resources (a
water balance
that considers
consumptive
use of water by
the crop, turf,
or landscape
vegetation) or
an alternative
approved
method
• Hydraulic - 0.5
to 4.0 in/wk
• Nitrogen -
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Required
• One well
upgradient
Setback
Distances (1)
Spray irrigation:
• 200 feet
• 1,320 feet to
Other
• Class B
reclaimed
water may be
used for
irrigation of
pasture for
milking
animals and
livestock
watering (dairy
animals)
• Class C
reclaimed
water can be
used for
irrigation of
pasture for
non-dairy
animals;
livestock
watering (non-
dairy animals);
irrigation of
sod farms,
fiber, seed,
forage, and
similar crops;
and silviculture
o
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
California
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
also required
when irrigating
dairy cattle
pasture land
Ornamental
nursery stock and
sod farms where
access by
general public is
not restricted,
pasture for
milking animals,
and any
nonedible
vegetation where
access is
controlled so that
the irrigated area
cannot be used
as if it were part
of a park,
playground, or
schoolyard
• Disinfected
secondary-23
recycled water-
oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-240/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Disinfected
secondary-23
recycled water
• Total coliform
- sampled at
least once
daily from the
disinfected
effluent
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Warning
alarms
• Back-up power
source
• Multiple
treatment units
capable of
treating entire
flow with one
unit not in
operation or
storage or
disposal
provisions
• Emergency
storage or
disposal:
short-term,
1 day;
long-term,
20 days
• Sufficient
number of
qualified
personnel
Storage
Requirements
average
annual 90
percentile
rainfall
Loading
Rates
percolate
nitrate-nitrogen
not to exceed
10mg/l
Groundwater
Monitoring
• 1 well within
site
• One well
downgradient
• More wells
may be
required on a
case-by-case
basis
Setback
Distances (1)
populated area
Non-spray
system:
• 50 feet
• 660 feet to
populated area
• No irrigation
with, or
impoundment
of, disinfected
secondary-23
recycled water
within 100 feet
of any
domestic water
supply well
• No irrigation
with, or
impoundment
of,
undisinfected
secondary
recycled water
within 150 feet
of any
domestic water
supply well
• No spray
irrigation within
100 feet of a
residence or a
place where
public
exposure could
be similar to
that of a park,
playground, or
schoolyard
Other
• Irrigation of
ornamental
nursery stock
and sod farms
will be allowed
provided no
irrigation with
recycled water
occurs for a
period of 14
days prior to
harvesting,
retail sale, or
access by the
general public
o
10
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Colorado
Delaware
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
period)
A/on food-bearing
trees, ornamental
nursery stock and
sod farms, fodder
and fiber crops,
pasture for
animals not
producing milk for
human
consumption, and
seed crops not
eaten by humans:
• Undisinfected
secondary
recycled water-
oxidized
wastewater
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
• Biological
treatment and
disinfection
• BOD5
- 50 mg/l at
average
design flow
- 75 mg/l at
peak flow
• TSS
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Parameters
which may
require
monitoring
include volume
of water
applied to
spray fields,
BOD,
suspended
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
provisions
required either
as a separate
facility or
incorporated
into the
pre treatment
system
• Minimum 15
Loading
Rates
• Maximum
design
wastewater
loadings
limited to
2.5 in/week
• Maximum
instantaneous
wastewater
application
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Required
• One well
upgradient of
site or
otherwise
outside the
influence of the
site for
background
monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
• 500 feet to
domestic
supply well
• 100 feet to any
irrigation well
• Setback from
property lines
based upon
use of
adjoining
property
• 150 feet to all
property
boundaries
and the
shoulder of
internal and
external public
roads
• 1 00 feet to
perennial lake
Other
• Includes
irrigation of
pastures for
milking
animals
• Regulations
pertain to sites
closed to
public access
o
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
- 50 mg/l for
mechanical
systems
- 90 mg/l for
ponds
• Fecal coliform
- not to exceed
200/1 00 ml at
all times
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
solids, fecal
coliform
bacteria, pH,
COD, TOO,
ammonia
nitrogen,
nitrate
nitrogen, total
Kjeldahl
nitrogen, total
phosphorus,
chloride, Na,
K, Ca, Mg,
metals, and
priority
pollutants
• Parameters
and sampling
frequency
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
days storage
required
unless other
measures for
controlling flow
are
demonstrated
• Must determine
operational,
wet weather,
and water
balance
storage
requirements
Loading
Rates
rates limited to
0.25 in/hour
• Design
wastewater
loading must
be determined
as a function of
precipitation,
evapotrans-
piration, design
percolation
rate, nitrogen
loading and
other
constituent
loading
limitations,
groundwater
and drainage
conditions, and
average and
peak design
wastewater
flows and
seasonal
fluctuations
Groundwater
Monitoring
• One well within
wetted field
area of each
drainage basin
intersected by
site
• Two wells
downgradient
in each
drainage basin
intersected by
site
• One well
upgradient and
1 well
downgradient
of the pond
treatment and
storage
facilities in
each drainage
basin
intersected by
site
• May require
measurement
of depth to
groundwater,
pH, COD,
TOC, nitrate
nitrogen, total
phosphorus,
electrical
conductivity,
chloride, fecal
coliform
bacteria,
metals, and
priority
pollutants
• Parameters
Setback
Distances (1)
or stream
• 50 feet to edge
of channelized,
intermittent
watercourse
• If irrigation
causes
intermittent
watercourse to
become
perennial, 100-
foot buffer
requirement
will apply
• Wetland
buffers
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
Other
o
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Florida
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Secondary
treatment and
basic
disinfection
• 20 mg/l
CBOD5 and
TSS (annual
average)
• 30 mg/l
CBOD5 and
TSS (monthly
average)
• 45 mg/l
CBOD5 and
TSS (weekly
average)
• 60 mg/l
CBOD5 and
TSS (single
sample)
• 10 mg/l TSS
for subsurface
application
systems
(single sample)
• Chlorine
residual of
0.5 mg/l
maintained
after at least
15 minutes
contact time at
peak flow
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(annual
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Parameters to
be monitored
and sampling
frequency to
be identified in
wastewater
facility permit
• Minimum
schedule for
sampling and
testing based
on system
capacity
established for
flow, pH,
chlorine
residual,
dissolved
oxygen,
suspended
solids, CBOD5,
nutrients, and
fecal coliform
• Primary and
secondary
drinking water
standards to
be monitored
by facilities >
1 00,000 gpd
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• At a minimum,
system storage
capacity shall
be the volume
equal to 3
times the
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
• Water balance
required with
volume of
storage based
on a 1 0-year
recurrence
interval and a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• Not required if
alternative
system is
incorporated
into the system
design to
ensure
continuous
facility
operation
Loading
Rates
• Site specific
• Design
hydraulic
loading rate -
maximum
annual
average of
2 in/wk is
recommended
• Based on
nutrient and
water balance
assessments
Groundwater
Monitoring
and sampling
frequency
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Required
• One
upgradient well
located as
close as
possible to the
site without
being affected
by the site's
discharge
(background
well)
• One well at the
edge of the
zone of
discharge
downgradient
of the site
(compliance
well)
• One well
downgradient
from the site
and within the
zone of
discharge
(intermediate
well)
• Other wells
may be
required
depending on
site-specific
criteria
• Quarterly
monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
• 100 feet to
buildings not
part of the
treatment
facility, utility
system, or
municipal
operation
• 100 feet to site
property lines
• 500 feet to
potable water
supply wells
and Class I
and Class II
surface waters
• 1 00 feet from
reclaimed
water
transmission
facility to public
water supply
wells
• 1 00 feet to
outdoor public
eating,
drinking, and
bathing
facilities
• 500 feet from
new unlined
storage ponds
to potable
water supply
wells
• Some setback
Other
• Public access
will be
restricted
unless a
subsurface
application
system is used
• Reclaimed
water may be
applied to
pastures,
wholesale
nurseries, sod
farms, forests,
and areas
used to grow
feed, fodder,
fiber, or seed
crops
• Milking cows
are not
permitted to
graze on land
for a period of
15 days after
last application
of reclaimed
water
o
Ul
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Georgia
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
average)
-200/1 00 ml
(monthly
geometric
mean)
-400/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
10 percent of
samples in a
30-day period)
-800/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• pH 6-8.5
• Limitations to
be met after
disinfection
• Secondary
treatment
followed by
coagulation,
filtration, and
disinfection
• 5 mg/l BOD
• 5 mg/l TSS
• Fecal coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(monthly
average)
- 100/1 00 ml
(maximum any
sample)
• pH 6-9
• Turbidity not to
exceed 3 NTU
prior to
disinfection
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Continuous
turbidity
monitoring
prior to
disinfection
• Weekly
sampling for
TSS and BOD
• Daily
monitoring for
fecal coliform
• Daily
monitoring for
PH
• Detectable
disinfection
residual
monitoring
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Multiple
process units
• Ability to
isolate and
bypass all
process units
• System must
be capable of
treating peak
flows with the
largest unit out
of service
• Equalization
may be
required
• Back-up power
supply
• Alarms to warn
of loss of
power supply,
Storage
Requirements
• Reject water
storage equal
to at least
3 days of flow
at the average
daily design
flow
• One of the
following
options must
be in place to
account for wet
weather
periods
- sufficient
storage onsite
or at the
customer's
location to
handle the
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
required for
water level,
nitrate, total
dissolved
solids, arsenic,
cadmium,
chloride,
chromium,
lead, fecal
coliform, pH,
and sulfate
• Monitoring
may be
required for
additional
parameters
based on site-
specific
conditions and
groundwater
quality
Setback
Distances (1)
distances can
be reduced if
additional
disinfection
and reliability
are provided or
if alternative
application
techniques are
used
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
Other
o
o
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Hawaii
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Detectable
disinfectant
residual at the
delivery point
R-1 water:
• Oxidized,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
-200/1 00 ml
(maximum any
one sample)
• Inactivation
and/or removal
of 99.999
percent of the
plaque-forming
units of F-
specific
bacteriophage
MS2, or polio
virus
• Detectable
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Daily flow
monitoring
• Continuous
turbidity
monitoring
prior to and
after filtration
process
• Continuous
measuring and
recording of
chlorine
residual
• Daily
monitoring of
fecal coliform
• Weekly
monitoring of
BOD5and
suspended
solids
Treatment
Facility Reliability
failure of
pumping
systems,
failure of
disinfection
systems, or
turbidity
greater than
3NTU
• Multiple or
standby units
required with
sufficient
capacity to
enable
effective
operation with
anyone unit
out of service
• Alarm devices
required for
loss of power,
high water
levels, failure
of pumps or
blowers, high
head loss on
filters, high
effluent
turbidity, loss
of coagulant or
polymer feed,
and loss of
chlorine
residual
• Standby power
Storage
Requirements
flows until
irrigation can
be resumed
- additional
land set aside
that can be
irrigated
without
causing harm
to the cover
crop
-An NPDES
permit for all or
part of the flow
• 20 days
storage
required
unless it can
be
demonstrated
that another
time period is
adequate or
that no storage
is necessary
• Storage
requirements
based on
water balance
using at least a
30-year record
• Reject storage
required with a
volume equal
to 1 day of flow
at the average
daily design
flow
• Emergency
system storage
not required
Loading
Rates
• Design
application rate
determined by
water balance
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Required
• Groundwater
monitoring
system may
consist of a
number of
lysi meters
and/or
monitoring
wells
depending on
site size, site
characteristics,
location,
method of
discharge, and
other
appropriate
considerations
• One well
upgradient and
two wells
downgradient
for project sites
500 acres or
more
• One well within
Setback
Distances (1)
R-1 water:
• Minimum of 50
feet to drinking
water supply
well
• Outer edge of
impoundment
at least 1 00
feet from any
drinking water
supply well
R-2 water:
• For spray
irrigation
applications,
500 feet to
residence
property or a
place where
public
exposure could
be similar to
that at a park,
elementary
school yard or
athletic field
• Minimum of
Other
• R-1 water can
be used for
spray irrigation
of pastures for
milking and
other animals
• R-2 water can
be used with
buffer for spray
irrigation of
sod farms,
feed, fodder,
fiber, and seed
crops not
eaten by
humans, and
timber and
trees not
bearing food
crops
• R-2 water can
be used for
subsurface
irrigation of
pastures for
milking and
other animals
o
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
turbidity not to
exceed 5 NTU
for more than
15 minutes
and never to
exceed 10
NTU prior to
filtration
• Effluent
turbidity not to
exceed 2 NTU
• Chemical
pre treatment
facilities
required in all
cases where
granular media
filtration is
used; not
required for
facilities using
membrane
filtration
• Theoretical
chlorine
contact time of
120 minutes
and actual
modal contact
time of 90
minutes
throughout
which the
chlorine
residual is
5 mg/l
R-2 water:
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
-23/1 00 ml
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
source
required for
treatment plant
and distribution
pump stations
Storage
Requirements
where an
alternate
effluent
disposal
system has
been approved
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
the wetted field
area for each
project whose
surface area is
greater than or
equal to 1,500
acres
• One lysimeter
per 200 acres
• One lysimeter
for project sites
that have
greater than 40
but less than
200 acres
• Additional
lysi meters may
be necessary
to address
public health
concerns or
environmental
protection as
related to
variable
characteristics
of the
subsurface or
of the
operations of
the project
Setback
Distances (1)
100 feet to any
drinking water
supply well
• Outer edge of
impoundment
at least 300
feet from any
drinking water
supply well
R-3 water:
• Minimum of
150 feet to
drinking water
supply well
• Outer edge of
impoundment
at least 1000
feet to any
drinking water
supply well
Other
• R-2 water can
be used for
surface, drip,
or subsurface
irrigation of
ornamental
plants for
commercial
use only if
plants are
harvested
above any
portion
contacted by
reclaimed
water
• R-3 water can
be used for
drip, surface,
or subsurface
irrigation of
feed, fodder,
and fiber crops
not eaten by
humans and
timber and
trees not
bearing food
crops
(irrigation must
cease at least
24 days before
harvest)
• R-3 water can
be used for
drip or surface
irrigation of
seed crops not
eaten by
humans
• R-2 water
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Idaho
Illinois
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
(7-day median)
-200/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
• Theoretical
chlorine
contact time of
15 minutes
and actual
modal contact
time of 10
minutes
throughout
which the
chlorine
residual is
0.5 mg/l
R-3 water:
• Oxidized
wastewater
Unrestricted
public access:
• Disinfected
primary
effluent
• Total coliform
-230/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
Restricted public
access:
• Primary
effluent
• Two-cell
lagoon or
mechanical
secondary
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Minimum
storage
capacity equal
to at least 1 50
Loading
Rates
• Based on the
limiting
characteristic
of the treated
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Required
• One well
upgradientfor
determining
Setback
Distances (1)
• 200 feet to
residential lot
lines
• 25 feet to any
Other
used in spray
irrigation will
be performed
when the area
is closed to the
public and the
public is
absent from
the area, and
will end at
least 1 hour
before the area
is open to the
public
• Subsurface
irrigation may
be performed
at any time
• Animals not to
be grazed on
land where
effluent is
applied
• Animals not to
be fed
vegetation
irrigated with
effluent until at
least two
weeks after
application
o
to
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Indiana
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
treatment
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• 30 mg/l BOD5
• 30 mg/l TSS
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-800/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• pH6-9
• Total chlorine
residual at
least 1 mg/l
after a
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Daily
monitoring of
TSS, coliform
and chlorine
residual
• Weekly
monitoring of
BOD and pH
• Monthly
monitoring of
total nitrogen,
ammonium
nitrogen,
nitrate
nitrogen,
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Alternate
power source
required
Storage
Requirements
days of
wastewater at
design
average flow
except in
southern
Illinois areas
where a
minimum 120
days of
storage
capacity to be
provided
• Storage can
be determined
based on a
rational design
that must
include
capacity for the
wettest year
with a 20-year
return
frequency
• Minimum of 90
days effective
storage
capacity
required
Loading
Rates
wastewater
and the site
• Balances must
be calculated
and submitted
for water,
nitrogen,
phosphorus,
and BOD
• Maximum
hydraulic
loading rate of
2 in/week
Groundwater
Monitoring
background
concentrations
• Two wells
downgradient
in the
dominant
direction of
groundwater
movement
• Wells between
each potable
water well and
the application
area if within
1 ,000 feet
• Monitoring of
nitrates,
ammonia
nitrogen,
chlorides,
sulfates, pH,
total dissolved
solids,
phosphate,
and coliform
bacteria
Setback
Distances (1)
residential lot
line if
surrounded by
a fence with a
minimum
height of 40
inches
• No buffer
required if the
application and
its associated
drying time
occur during a
period when
the area is
closed to the
public
• 200 feet to
potable water
supply wells or
drinking water
springs
• 300 feet to any
waters of the
state
• 300 feet to any
residence
Other
• No restrictions
are placed on
fecal coliform
organisms
where public
access is
strictly
restricted
• Feed and fiber
crops not to be
harvested for
30 days after
land
application of
wastewater
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Iowa
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
minimum
contact time of
30 minutes (if
chlorination is
used for
disinfection)
• At a minimum,
treatment
equivalent to
that obtained
from a primary
lagoon cell
• Disinfection
- required for
all land
application
systems with
spray irrigation
application
technique
- must precede
actual spraying
of the
wastewater on
to a field area
and must not
precede
storage
- minimum
contact time of
15 minutes
with equipment
necessary to
maintain a
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
phosphorus,
and potassium
• Annual
monitoring of
arsenic,
cadmium,
copper, lead,
mercury,
nickel,
selenium, and
zinc
• Monitoring of
the following
parameters
required
unless it has
been
demonstrated
that they are
present in
insignificant
amounts in the
influent
wastewater:
total organic
carbon, total
dissolved
solids, sodium
absorption
ratio, electrical
conductivity,
total nitrogen,
ammonia
nitrogen,
organic
nitrogen,
nitrate
nitrogen, total
phosphorus,
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Minimum of
two storage
cells required
capable of
series and
parallel
operation
Storage
Requirements
• Minimum days
of storage
based on
climatic
restraints
• When flows
are generated
only during the
application
period, a
storage
capacity of 45
days or the
flow generated
during the
period of
operation
(whichever is
less) must be
provided
• When
discharging to
a receiving
waterway on a
periodic basis,
storage for 180
days of
average wet
Loading
Rates
• Determined by
using a water
balance per
month of
operation
• For overland
flow systems,
maximum
hydraulic
application rate
of
3 in/week
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Monitoring
required
adjacent to the
site both up
and
downstream of
the site in
reference to
the general
groundwater
flow direction
Setback
Distances (1)
• 300 feet to
existing
dwellings or
public use
areas (not
including roads
and highways)
• 400 feet to any
existing
potable water
supply well not
located on
property
• 300 feet to any
structure,
continuous
flowing stream
or other
physiographic
feature that
may provide
direct
connection
between the
groundwater
table and the
surface
• Wetted
Other
• Turfgrass not
to be
harvested for 1
year after
application of
wastewater
• Grazing of
animals
prohibited for
30 days after
land
application of
wastewater
• Categorized as
land
application
using slow rate
(irrigation) and
overland flow
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Kansas
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
residual
chlorine level
of 0.5 mg/l
• Secondary
treatment with
periodic
discharge to
surface waters
• Primary
treatment with
no discharge
to surface
water
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
chloride, pH,
alkalinity,
hardness,
trace
elements, and
coliform
bacteria
• Location of
monitoring in
effluent prior to
site application
• Reporting
frequency
depends on
size of system
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
weather flow is
required
• Storage
provided to
retain a
minimum of
90-days
average dry
weather flow
when no
discharge to
surface water
is available
Loading
Rates
• Maximum daily
application rate
of 3 in/ac/day
• Maximum
annual
application rate
of 40 in/acre
• Based on soil
and crop
moisture
and/or nutrient
requirements
of selected
crop
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Site specific
Setback
Distances (1)
disposal area
to be at least
50 feet inside
the property
line of the land
application site
Additional
requirements for
Slow Rate
System:
• 1,000 feet to
any shallow
public water
supply well
• 500 feet to any
public lake or
impoundment
• _ mile to any
public lake or
impoundment
used as a
source of raw
water by a
potable water
supply
• 500 feet to
residential
areas
• 200 feet to
wells and
water supplies
off of site
property
• 1 00 feet to
adjacent
properties
• Groundwater
table a depth
of at least 1 0
feet beneath
application
Other
10
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Maryland
Massachusetts
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• 70 mg/l BOD
• 90 mg/l TSS
• pH 6.5-8.5
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
• Secondary
treatment with
filtration and
disinfection
• pH6-9
• 10mg/IBOD5
• Turbidity
-2NTU
(average over
24-our period)
-5 NTU
(not to exceed
at any time)
• Fecal coliform
- no detectable
colonies
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• pH - daily
• BOD - weekly
• Turbidity -
continuous
monitoring
prior to
disinfection
• Fecal coliform
- daily
• Disinfection
UV intensity -
daily or
chlorine
residual - daily
• TSS - twice
per week
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• EPA Class I
Reliability
standards may
be required
• Two
independent
and separate
sources of
power
• Unit
redundancy
• Additional
storage
Storage
Requirements
• Minimum of
60-days
storage to be
provided for all
systems
receiving
wastewater
flows
throughout the
year
• Immediate,
permitted
discharge
alternatives
are required
for emergency
situations and
for non-
growing
season
disposal
Loading
Rates
• Maximum
application rate
of 2 in/wk on
annual
average basis
• Water balance
required based
on wettest year
in the last 10
years of record
• Actual
application rate
accepted must
consider
permeability of
the soils, depth
to
groundwater,
and the
nutrient
balance of the
site
Groundwater
Monitoring
• May be
required
• One well
upgradient of
site
• Two wells
adjacent to the
property line
and
downgradient
of site
• Monitoring
frequency
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Required
• Monitoring
wells to be
located and
constructed to
strategically
sample the
geologic units
of interest
between the
discharges and
sensitive
receptors and
withdrawal
points
• Sensitive
Setback
Distances (1)
area
• 200 feet to
property lines,
waterways,
and roads for
spray irrigation
• 500 feet to
housing
developments
and parks for
spray irrigation
• Reduction of
the buffer zone
up to 50
percent will be
considered
with adequate
windbreak
• Minimum
buffer zone of
50 feet for all
other types of
slow rate
systems
• 100 feet to
buildings,
residential
property,
private wells,
Class A
surface water
bodies, and
surface water
intakes
• Other than for
private wells,
using a green
barrier in the
form of hedges
or trees placed
Other
• Categorized as
land treatment
• Includes use of
reclaimed
water for
landscaping at
nurseries
• Spray irrigation
must take
place during
non-use hours
and cannot
result in any
ponding
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Michigan
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
(7-day median)
- 14/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• 5 mg/l TSS
• 10 mg/l total
nitrogen
• Class I
groundwater
permit
standards
(SDWA
Drinking Water
Standards)
• pH 5.5- 10
• 20 mg/l total
inorganic
nitrogen
• 0.5 mg/l nitrite
• 5 mg/l
phosphorus
• 1 mg/l
phosphorus if
surface water
body is
downgradient
within
1,000 feet
• Aluminum, 150
ug/l
• Chloride, 250
mg/l
• Sodium, 150
mg/l
• Sulfate, 250
mg/l
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Nitrogen -
twice per
month
• Phosphorus -
twice per
month
• Heterotrophic
plate count -
quarterly
• MS-2 phage -
quarterly
Permit standards
-variable testing
requirements
• Flow
measurement
• Grab samples
collected and
analyzed twice
each month for
ammonia-
nitrogen,
nitrate-
nitrogen,
nitrite-nitrogen,
sodium,
chloride,
phosphorus,
and pH
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
• Daily, monthly,
or annual
design
hydraulic
loading rate
shall not be
more than 7
percent of the
permeability of
the most
restrictive soil
layer within the
solum as
determined by
the saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
method or 12
percent of the
permeability as
determined by
the basin
Groundwater
Monitoring
receptors
include, but
are not limited
to public and
private wells,
surface waters,
embayments,
and ACECs
• Monitoring and
testing
frequency and
parameters
determined
based on land
use, effluent
quality and
quantity, and
the sensitivity
of receptors
• May be
required
• Monitoring
requirements
specific to
each site
Setback
Distances (1)
at the dwelling
side of the
buffer may
reduce the
setback
distance to 50
feet
• No spray
irrigation
directed into
Zone I of
public water
supply wells
• 100 feet to
property lines
Other
• Dairy animals
shall not be
allowed to
graze on fields
until 30 days
after the
application
• Allows
irrigation of
vegetated
areas between
May 1 and
October 1 5
• Governed by
Michigan
Department of
Environmental
Quality issued
groundwater
discharge
permits
• Categorized as
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Missouri
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Iron, 300 ug/l
• Manganese,
50 ug/l
• THM limits
• Treatment
technology
standards for
certain organic
substances
• Additional
effluent criteria
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Treatment
equivalent to
that obtained
from primary
wastewater
pond cell
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Minimum of 45
days in south
with no
discharge
• Minimum of 90
days in north
with no
discharge
• Based on the
design
wastewater
flows and net
rainfall minus
evaporation
expected for a
one in 1-year
return
frequency for
the storage
period selected
Loading
Rates
infiltration
method
• Annual
hydraulic
loading rate
shall not be
more than 3
percent of the
permeability of
the solum
when
determined by
either the
cylinder
infiltration
method or air
entry
permeameter
test method
• Application
rates shall in
no case
exceed
- 0.5 in/hour
- 1 .0 in/day
- 3.0 in/week
• Maximum
annual
application rate
not to exceed
a range from 4
to 10 percent of
the design
sustained
permeability
rate for the
number of
days per year
when soils are
not frozen
• Nitrogen
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Minimum of
one well
between site
and public
supply well
Setback
Distances (1)
• 150 feet to
existing
dwellings or
public use
areas,
excluding
roads or
highways
• 50 feet to
property lines
• 300 feet to
potable water
supply wells
not on
property,
sinkholes, and
losing streams
or other
structure or
physiographic
feature that
may provide
Other
slow rate land
treatment
• From May 1 to
October 30,
grazing of
animals or
harvesting of
forage shall be
deferred for 14
days after
irrigation
• From
November 1 to
April 30,
grazing of
animals or
harvesting of
forage shall be
deferred for 30
days after
irrigation
• Grazing of
dairy animals
generally not
Ul
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Montana
Nebraska
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
Fodder, fiber, and
seed crops:
• Oxidized
wastewater
• Disinfection
generally not
required
Pasture for
milking animals:
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
• Biological
treatment
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Effluent to be
monitored on
a regular basis
to show the
biochemical
and
bacteriological
quality of the
applied
wastewater
• Monitoring
frequency to
be determined
on a case-by-
case basis
• Site specific
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
loading not to
exceed the
amount of
nitrogen that
can be used by
the vegetation
to be grown
• Nitrogen and
hydraulic
loadings
determined
based on
methods in
EPA Manual
625/1-81-013
• Hydraulic
loading must
be based on
the wettest
year in ten
years
• Hydraulic
loading rate
should not
exceed 4 in/wk
• Nitrogen
loading not to
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Consideration
is given to
groundwater
characteristics,
past practices,
depth to
groundwater,
cropping
practices, etc.
• Site specific
Setback
Distances (1)
direct
connection
between the
groundwater
table and the
surface
• 100 feet to any
water supply
well
• Distance to
surface water
determined on
a case-by-case
basis based on
quality of
effluent and
the level of
disinfection
Additional
requirements for
fodder, fiber, and
seed crops:
• Fencing must
be provided
• 200 feet
between
fencing and
irrigated area
• 200 feet to any
dwelling,
including
residential
property
Other
recommended
unless there
has been a
much longer
deferment
period
o
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Nevada
New Jersey
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Secondary
treatment with
disinfection
• 30 mg/l BOD5
• Disinfection
Spray irrigation:
Minimum buffer
zone of 400 feet
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(30-day
geometric
mean)
-400/1 00 ml
(maximum
daily number)
Minimum buffer
zone of 800 feet
• Fecal coliform
- no limit
Surface irrigation:
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(30-day
geometric
mean)
-400/1 00 ml
(maximum
daily number)
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(monthly
average,
geometric
mean)
-400/1 00 ml
(maximum any
one sample)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Submission of
Standard
Operations
Procedure that
ensures proper
disinfection to
the required
level of
1.0 mg/l
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Not required
when another
permitted
reuse system
or effluent
disposal
system is
incorporated
into the system
Loading
Rates
exceed crop
uptake
• Hydraulic
loading rate
- maximum
annual
average of
2 in/wk but
may be
increased
based on a
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Spray irrigation:
• 400 foot or 800
foot minimum
buffer required
depending on
disinfection
level
Surface irrigation:
• None required
• 500 feet to
potable water
supply wells
that are
existing or
have been
approved for
construction
• 100 feet
Other
• Includes
irrigation of
land used for
pasture or
other
agricultural
purposes
except growing
crops for
human
consumption
• Public access
to site is
prohibited
• Secondary
treatment, for
the purpose of
the manual,
refers to the
existing
treatment
requirements
in the NJPDES
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
New Mexico
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Minimum
chlorine
residual
-1.0 mg/l after
15-minute
contact at peak
hourly flow
• Alternative
methods of
disinfection,
such as UV
and ozone,
may be
approved
• TSS - existing
treatment
requirements
as specified in
the NJPDES
permit for the
discharge
• Total nitrogen
- 10 mg/l but
may be less
stringent if
higher limit is
still protective
of environment
• Secondary
Fodder, fiber,
and seed crops:
• Primary
effluent
Pastures for
milking cows
• Adequately
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Chlorination
levels should
be continually
evaluated to
ensure the
reclaimed
water will not
adversely
impact
vegetation
• Annual usage
report
• Fecal coliform
sample taken
at point of
diversion to
irrigation
system
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
design
• If system
storage ponds
are used, they
do not have to
be lined
• Reject storage
ponds shall be
lined or sealed
to prevent
measurable
seepage
• Existing or
proposed
ponds (such as
golf course
ponds) are
appropriate for
storage of
reuse water if
the ability of
the ponds to
function as
storm water
management
systems is not
impaired
Loading
Rates
site-specific
evaluation
• The
distribution of
reclaimed
water shall not
produce
surface runoff
or ponding
• Land
application
sites shall not
be frozen or
saturated
when applying
reclaimed
water
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
provided from
a reclaimed
water
transmission
facility to all
potable water
supply wells
• 500 feet from
FW1 surface
waters,
Pineland
Waters and
Shellfish
Waters
• All other
surface water
setback
distances shall
be established
on a case-by-
case basis
• 1 00 feet from
outdoor public
eating,
drinking, and
bathing
facilities
Other
permit, not
including the
additional
reclaimed
water for
beneficial
reuse
treatment
requirements
• A chlorine
residual of
0.5 mg/l or
greater is
recommended
to reduce
odors, slime
and bacterial
re-growth
• For a period of
1 5 days from
the last
application of
reclaimed
water, land
application
areas shall not
be used for the
grazing of
cattle whose
milk is
intended for
human
consumption
00
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
- 100/1 00 ml
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• If waste
stabilization
ponds are
used
- minimum 180
days capacity
without
consideration
for evaporation
• Representative
sample of
reclaimed
water must be
submitted to
determine
suitability for
irrigation
• Biological
treatment
• Disinfection
should be
considered
• 40 mg/l
CBOD5
• Fecal coliform
(30-day
average)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Flow
measurement
and
wastewater
characteristics
Large system
monitoring
(150,000 to
500,000 gpd):
• Twice weekly
for CBOD5,
total coliform
(when
irrigating) and
storage
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Two weeks
plus any flow
generated in
prohibited time
period
(includes
rainfall events)
• Operational
storage of 4
times the daily
design flow
needed
• Storage
provisions for
at least 130
days of design
average flow
Loading
Rates
• Hydraulic - 3
in/wk
• Organic -600
Ibsof
BOD/acre/day
• Maximum
salinity - 1 ,000
mg/l
• Site specific
• Based on soils
type and type
of vegetation
• Application
rates generally
between
0.5 to 4 in/wk
• Determined by
calculating a
water and
nutrient
balance
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Required
• Minimum of
three off-field
wells
• Monitoring
wells
upgradient and
downgradient
of large
irrigation
systems
• Monitoring
wells should
be sampled at
Setback
Distances (1)
• 200 feet to
surface waters,
dwellings and
public
roadways
• 100 feet to
private water
well
• 300 feet to
community
water well
• 100 feet to
sink hole
• 50 feet to
drainage way
Other
• Spray irrigation
should be
practiced only
from May 1 to
November 30
and only
during daylight
hours
• Categorized as
land treatment
• Areas readily
accessible to
humans or
animals, such
as pastures
being grazed
by dairy
animals, hay
crops ready for
harvesting, or
garden crops
for human
consumption,
should not be
irrigated
• Includes
agricultural
sites where
nonhuman
food crops are
grown
to
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Oklahoma
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
-23/1 00 ml
with no public
access buffer
- 1,000/1 00 ml
with 1 00 foot
public access
buffer
-No
disinfection
necessary with
200 foot or
more public
access buffer
• Limits for
metals
• Primary
treatment
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
volume
• Monthly
monitoring for
total inorganic
nitrogen
• Daily
monitoring for
flow
Small system
monitoring:
(<150,000 gpd)
• Weekly
monitoring of
CBOD5 and
storage
volume
• Monthly
monitoring of
total coliform
• Daily
monitoring of
flow
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Standby power
required for
continuity of
operation
during power
failures
Storage
Requirements
needed for
periods when
irrigation is not
recommended
• Actual storage
requirements
determined by
performing
water balance
• Permits can be
obtained for
stream
discharge
during winter
and times of
high stream
flow to reduce
storage needs
• Required for
periods when
available
wastewater
exceeds
design
hydraulic
loading rate,
and when the
ground is
saturated or
frozen
• Based on
water balance
• Must provide
at least 90
Loading
Rates
• Based on the
lower of the
two rates
calculated for
soil
permeability
and nitrogen
requirements
Groundwater
Monitoring
the beginning
and the end of
the irrigation
season
Setback
Distances (1)
• 50 feet to
surface water
• 100 feet to
road right-of-
way without
windbreak
using spray
irrigation
• 1 0 feet to road
right-of-way
with windbreak
or with flood
irrigation
• 50 feet to
property line
• 1 00 feet to
adjacent
property
• Additional
distance may
be required
where
prevailing
winds could
cause aerosols
to drift into
residential
areas
• Buffer zone to
be a part of the
permitted site
Other
00
o
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
Pasture for
animals, sod,
ornamental
nursery stock,
Christmas trees,
and firewood
• Level II -
biological
treatment and
disinfection
• Total coliform
-240/1 00 ml
(2 consecutive
samples)
-23/1 00 ml
(7 day median)
Fodder, fiber,
and seed crops
not for human
ingestion and
commercial
timber
• Level I -
biological
treatment
• Secondary
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Pasture for
animals, sod,
ornamental
nursery stock,
Christmas trees,
and firewood
• Total coliform
sampling
- 1 time per
week
Fodder, fiber,
and seed crops
not for human
ingestion and
commercial
timber
• None required
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Standby power
with capacity
to fully operate
all essential
treatment
processes
• Redundant
treatment
facilities and
monitoring
equipment to
meet required
levels of
treatment
• Alarm devices
to provide
warning of loss
of power
and/or failure
of process
equipment
Storage
Requirements
days of
storage above
that required
for primary
treatment
• Storage
Loading
Rates
• Hydraulic
Groundwater
Monitoring
• A minimum of
Setback
Distances (1)
Pasture for
animals, sod,
ornamental
nursery stock,
Christmas trees,
and firewood
• 10-foot buffer
with surface
irrigation
• 70-foot buffer
with spray
irrigation
Fodder, fiber,
and seed crops
not for human
ingestion and
commercial
timber
• 10 foot buffer
with surface
irrigation
• Site specific
requirements
with spray
irrigation
Other
Pasture for
animals, sod,
ornamental
nursery stock,
Christmas trees,
and firewood
• No animals on
pasture during
irrigation
• No irrigation
3 days prior to
harvesting
Fodder, fiber,
and seed crops
not for human
ingestion and
commercial
timber
• No irrigation
for 30 days
prior to
harvesting
• Spray irrigation
may be
permitted if it
can be
demonstrated
that public
health and the
environment
will be
adequately
protected from
aerosols
• Categorized as
00
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
South Carolina
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
treatment and
disinfection
• Minimum of 85
percent
removal of
CBOD5 and
TSS
• Concentration
levels based
on a 30-day
average
- 25 mg/l
CBOD5
- 30 mg/l TSS
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(monthly
geometric
average)
• pH6-9
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• BOD5 and TSS
- 30 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 45 mg/l
(weekly
average)
• Total coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(monthly
average)
-400/1 00 ml
(daily
maximum)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Nitrate
monitoring
required
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
requirements
determined
using daily,
weekly, or
monthly water
balance
calculations
• Seasonal
discharge to
surface waters
may be an
alternative to
storage
Loading
Rates
loading rates
based on a
water balance
that includes
precipitation,
infiltration rate,
evapotrans-
piration, soil
storage
capabilities,
and subsoil
permeability
• Application
rates both site
and waste
specific
• Application
rates greater
than 2 in/ac/wk
generally not
considered
• Hydraulic -
maximum of
0.5-2 in/wk
depending on
depth to
groundwater
• A nitrate to
nitrogen
loading
balance may
be required
• Application
rates in excess
of 2 in/wk may
be approved
provided the
application is
only for a
portion of the
Groundwater
Monitoring
two wells must
be located
downgradient
of the
application
area
• Required
• One well
upgradient
• Two wells
downgradient
• At larger sites,
more
monitoring
wells may be
required
Setback
Distances (1)
• 200 feet to
surface waters
of the state,
occupied
buildings, and
potable water
wells
• 1 00 feet to
property
boundary
Other
land
application of
treated
sewage
• Pertains to
slow rate
infiltration
systems
00
10
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
South Dakota
Tennessee
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Secondary
treatment
• Biological
treatment
• Treated to a
level afforded
by lagoons
• Disinfection
generally not
required,
however can
be required
when deemed
necessary
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Site specific
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Minimum of
210 days
capacity
without
consideration
for evaporation
• Storage
requirements
determined by
either of two
methods 1)
use of water
balance
calculations or,
2) use of a
computer
program that
was developed
based upon an
extensive
Loading
Rates
year; requires
a water
balance for the
summer
season
• Maximum
application rate
limited to
2 in/acre/wk or
a total of
24 in/acre/yr
• Nitrogen -
percolate
nitrate-nitrogen
not to exceed
10mg/l
• Hydraulic -
based on
water balance
using 5-year
return monthly
precipitation
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Shallow wells
in all directions
of major
groundwater
flow from site
and no more
than 200 feet
outside of the
site perimeter,
spaced no
more than 500
feet apart, and
extending into
the
groundwater
table
• Shallow wells
within the site
are also
recommended
• Required
Setback
Distances (1)
• 1 mile from
municipal
water supply
• _ mile from
private
domestic water
supply, lakes,
and human
habitation
• _ mile from
state parks
and recreation
areas unless
disinfected
• 1 00 feet from
neighboring
property lines
or road right of
ways
Surface Irrigation:
• 100 feet to site
boundary
• 50 feet to
onsite streams,
ponds, and
roads
Spray Irrigation:
[1] Open Fields
• 300 feet to site
boundary
• 150 feet to
onsite streams,
ponds, and
Other
• Does not
include
pastures used
for dairy
grazing
00
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Texas
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
Type 1 reclaimed
water:
• 5 mg/l BOD5 or
CBOD5 (30-
day average)
• 10 mg/l for
landscape
impoundment
(30-day
average)
• Turbidity
-3NTU
• Fecal coliform
-20/1 00 ml
(geometric
mean)
-75/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
Type II reclaimed
water:
• 30 mg/l BOD5
with treatment
using pond
system (30-
day average)
• 20 mg/l BOD5
or 15 mg/l
CBOD5 with
treatment other
than pond
system (30-
day average)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Type 1 reclaimed
water:
• Sampling and
analysis twice
per week for
BOD5or
CBOD5,
turbidity, and
fecal coliform
Type II reclaimed
water:
• Sampling and
analysis once
per week for
BOD5or
CBOD5 and
fecal coliform
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
NOAA study of
climatic
variations
throughout the
United States
Loading
Rates
• Based on
water balance
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
roads
[2] Forested
• 150 feet to site
boundary
• 75 feet to
onsite streams,
ponds, and
roads
Other
• Type I
reclaimed
water can be
used for
irrigation of
pastures for
milking
animals
• Type II
reclaimed
water can be
used for
irrigation of
sod farms,
silviculture,
and animal
feed crops
00
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Utah
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(geometric
mean)
-800/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
Type 1 treated
wastewater:
• Secondary
treatment with
filtration and
disinfection
• 10mg/IBOD
(monthly
average)
• Turbidity prior
to disinfection
- not to exceed
2NTU (daily
average)
- not to exceed
5 NTU at any
time
• Fecal coliform
- none
detected
(weekly
median as
determined
from daily grab
samples)
- 14/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• 1.0mg/l total
residual
chlorine after
30 minutes
contact time at
peak flow
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Type 1 treated
wastewater:
• Daily
composite
sampling
required for
BOD
• Continuous
turbidity
monitoring
prior to
disinfection
• Daily
monitoring of
fecal coliform
• Continuous
total residual
chlorine
monitoring
• pH monitored
continuously or
by daily grab
samples
Type II treated
wastewater:
• Weekly
composite
sampling
required for
BOD
• Daily
composite
sampling
required for
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Alternative
disposal option
or diversion to
storage
required in
case quality
requirements
not met
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Type 1 treated
wastewater:
• 50 feet to any
potable water
well
• Impoundments
at least 500
feet from any
potable water
well
Type II treated
wastewater:
• 300 feet to any
potable water
well
• 300 feet to
areas intended
for public
access
• Impoundments
at least 500
feet from any
potable water
well
• Public access
to effluent
storage and
irrigation or
disposal sites
to be restricted
by a stocktight
fence or other
comparable
means
Other
• Type 1
reclaimed
water can be
used for
irrigation of
pastures for
milking
animals
• Type II
reclaimed
water can be
used for
irrigation of
sod farms,
silviculture,
and animal
feed crops
00
Ul
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Vermont
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• pH 6-9
Type // treated
wastewater:
• Secondary
treatment with
disinfection
• 25 mg/l BOD
(monthly
average)
• TSS
- 25 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 35 mg/l
(weekly mean)
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(weekly
median)
-800/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• pH 6-9
• Minimum of
secondary
treatment
• Tertiary
treatment with
nitrogen and
phosphorus
removal can
be provided
instead of
secondary
treatment
• BOD <30 mg/l
at any time
• TSS <30 mg/l
at any time
• Disinfection
with 20 minute
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
TSS
• Daily
monitoring of
fecal coliform
• pH monitored
continuously or
by daily grab
samples
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Multiple units
required
• Alternative
power source
required
• Retention
pond or tank
required with
volume
sufficient to
hold the design
flow for 48
hours
Storage
Requirements
• Storage sized
so that the
system can
operate
effectively
without having
to spray during
the spring
runoff months
• Minimum
storage
capacity
required
- 45 days of
design flow
Loading
Rates
• 2 in/wk for
systems with
secondary
treated effluent
• 2. 5 in/wk for
systems with
tertiary
treatment with
nitrogen and
phosphorus
removal
• Maximum
hourly
application rate
of 0.25 in/hour
based on
actual wetted
area
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
• 100 feet to
edge of any
surface water
• 200 feet to,
habitation,
property lines,
roads, or areas
frequented by
the public
• 200 feet to any
water supply
Other
• Categorized as
spray disposal
system
00
o
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Washington
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
chlorine
contact time
immediately
prior to
spraying
• I.Oppmfree
chlorine
residual or 4.0
ppm total
chlorine
residual at the
spray nozzle
Class D:
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-240/1 00 ml
(7 day mean)
Class C:
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day mean)
-240/1 00 ml
(single sample)
General
compliance
requirements:
• 30 mg/l BOD
and TSS
(monthly
mean)
• Turbidity
-2 NTU
(monthly)
-5 NTU
(not to exceed
at any time)
• Minimum
chlorine
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• BOD -24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least weekly
• TSS -24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least daily
• Total coliform
and dissolved
oxygen
- grab samples
collected at
least daily
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
turbidity
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Warning
alarms
independent of
normal power
supply
• Back-up power
source
• Emergency
storage:
short-term,
1 day;
long-term,
20 days
• Multiple
treatment units
or storage or
disposal
options
• Qualified
personnel
available or on
call at all times
the irrigation
system is
operating
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
required when
no approved
alternative
disposal
system exists
• Storage
volume
established by
determining
storage period
required for
duration of a
10-year storm,
using a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• At a minimum,
system storage
capacity
should be the
volume equal
to 3 times that
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
Loading
Rates
• Hydraulic
loading rate to
be determined
based on a
detailed water
balance
analysis
Groundwater
Monitoring
• May be
required
• Monitoring
program will be
based on
reclaimed
water quality
and quantity,
site specific
soil and
hydrogeologic
characteristics,
and other
considerations
Setback
Distances (1)
Class D:
• 100 feet to
areas
accessible to
the public and
the use area
property line
• 300 feet to any
potable water
supply
Class C:
• 50 feet to
areas
accessible to
the public and
use area
property line
• 100 feet to any
potable water
supply well
Other
• Class D
reclaimed
water can be
used for
irrigation of
trees or fodder,
fiber, and seed
crops
• Class C
reclaimed
water can be
used for
irrigation of
sod,
ornamental
plants for
commercial
use, or pasture
to which
milking cows
or goats have
access
00
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
residual of
1 mg/l after a
contact time of
30 minutes
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• 30 mg/l BOD5
• 30 mg/l TSS
• Biological,
chemical,
physical or a
combination of
treatments
necessary to
meet effluent
standards
• Monthly
average BOD5
may not
exceed 50 mg/l
• Fecal coliform
bacteria limits
based on
potential
impact to
public health
• Nitrogen limits
based on
needs of cover
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Frequency of
reporting
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Total daily flow
monitored
• Monthly
monitoring for
total dissolved
solids,
chlorides,
BOD5, organic
nitrogen,
ammonia
nitrogen and
nitrate plus
nitrite nitrogen
• Fecal coliform
bacteria
monitoring
may be
required on a
case-by-case
basis
• Soil at each
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
disposal
system is
permitted
• Minimum of 90
days storage
to be provided
• Storage
lagoons
required for
systems
adversely
affected by
winter
conditions or
wet weather
Loading
Rates
• Hydraulic -
maximum
application
rates of
0.25 in/hr
0.50 in/day
2.0 in/wk
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Based on
hydrogeologic
conditions, soil
texture,
permeability,
cation
exchange
capacity,
topography,
cover crop,
and
wastewater
characteristics
• Average
hydraulic
application rate
may not
exceed 10,000
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Minimum of
one well
between
project site and
public well(s)
or high
capacity
private wells
• Minimum of
one well in
each direction
of groundwater
movement
• Required for
design flows
greater than
0.015 mgd
• Monitoring
may be
required for
elevation,
BOD5, field
specific
conductance,
COD, organic
nitrogen,
ammonia
nitrogen,
nitrate plus
nitrite nitrogen,
chlorides,
sulfates, total
dissolved
solids,
Setback
Distances (1)
• Fence to be
placed at least
50 feet beyond
spray area
• 350 feet from
fence to
adjacent
property lines
or highways
unless low
trajectory
spray and/or
physical
buffers are
provided
• 250 feet to
private water
supply wells
• 1 ,000 feet to
public water
supply wells
Other
• Analysis of
crop required
at harvest if
used for
animal
consumption
• Categorized as
land disposal
00
00
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
State
Wyoming
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
crop plus
demonstrable
denitrification
• Minimum of
Class C
wastewater-
primary
treatment and
disinfection
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml or
greater but
less than
1000/1 00 ml
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
individual
spray field
tested annually
for nitrogen,
available
phosphorus,
available
potassium, and
PH
• Treated
wastewater to
be analyzed
for fecal
coliform,
nitrate as N,
ammonia as N,
and pH at a
minimum
• Monitoring
frequency
- once per
month for
lagoon
systems
- once per
week for
mechanical
systems
• Frequency
specified in
NPDES permit
required if
more frequent
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Multiple units
and equipment
• Alternative
power sources
• Alarm systems
and
instrumenta-
tion
• Operator
certification
and standby
capability
• Bypass and
dewatering
capability
• Emergency
storage
Storage
Requirements
• Emergency
storage
Loading
Rates
gal/acre/day
• Will be applied
for the purpose
of beneficial
reuse and will
not exceed the
irrigation
demand of the
vegetation at
the site
• Not to be
applied at a
rate greater
than the
agronomic rate
for the
vegetation at
the site
• Will be applied
in a manner
and time that
will not cause
any surface
runoff or
contamination
of a
groundwater
aquifer
Groundwater
Monitoring
alkalinity,
hardness,
temperature,
and pH
Setback
Distances (1)
• 30 feet to
adjacent
property lines
• 30 feet to all
surface waters
• 100 feet to all
potable water
supply wells
• 100-foot buffer
zone around
spray site
Spray Irrigation:
• 1 00 feet to
adjacent
property lines
and any public
right-of-way
Flood Irrigation:
• 30 feet to
adjacent
property lines
and any public
right-of-way
Other
• Pertains to
irrigation on
agricultural
lands
supporting
indirect food
chain crops
• Animals not
allowed to
graze on land
for 30 days
after reclaimed
water
application
00
to
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse
State
California
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Disinfected
tertiary
recycled water
that has been
subjected to
conventional
treatment (see
monitoring
requirements if
recycled water
has not
received
conventional
treatment) -
oxidized,
coagulated
(not required if
membrane
filtration is
used and/or
turbidity
requirements
are met),
clarified,
filtered,
disinfected
• Total coliform
measured at a
point between
the disinfection
process and
the point of
entry to the
use
impoundment
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7 day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Total coliform -
sampled at
least once
daily from the
disinfected
effluent
• Turbidity -
continuously
sampled
following
filtration
Monitoring
requirements if
recycled water
has not received
conventional
treatment:
' Sampled and
analyzed
monthly for
Giardia, enteric
viruses, and
Cryptosporidium
for first 12
months and
quarterly
thereafter
• Samples to be
taken at a
point following
disinfection
and prior to the
point where
recycled water
enters the use
impoundment
• Ongoing
monitoring
may be
discontinued
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Warning
alarms
• Back-up power
source
• Multiple
treatment units
capable of
treating entire
flow with one
unit not in
operation or
storage or
disposal
provisions
• Emergency
storage or
disposal:
short-term,
1 day;
long-term,
20 days
• Sufficient
number of
qualified
personnel
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances
• No
impoundment
of disinfected
tertiary
recycled water
within 100 feet
of any
domestic water
supply well
Other
to
o
-------
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
-240/1 00 ml
(maximum any
one sample)
• Turbidity
requirements
for wastewater
that has been
coagulated
and passed
through natural
undisturbed
soils or a bed
of filter media
- maximum
average of
2 NTU within a
24-hour period
- not to exceed
5 NTU more
than 5 percent
of the time
within a
24-hour period
- maximum of
10 NTU at any
time
• Turbidity
requirements
for wastewater
passed
through
membrane
- not to exceed
0.2 NTU more
than 5 percent
of the time
within a
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
after the first 2
years of
operation with
approval
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances
Other
<£>
-------
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse
State
Colorado
Nevada
Oregon
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
24-hour period
- maximum of
0.5 NTU at any
time
• Oxidized,
coagulated,
clarified,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
• At a minimum,
secondary
treatment with
disinfection
• 30 mg/l BOD5
• Fecal coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(30-day
geometric
mean)
-23/1 00 ml
(maximum
daily number)
• Level IV -
biological
treatment,
clarification,
coagulation,
filtration, and
disinfection
• Total coliform
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Total coliform
sampling
- 1/day
• Turbidity
- hourly
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Standby power
with capacity
to fully operate
all essential
treatment
processes
• Redundant
treatment
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances
• 500 feet from
impoundment
to domestic
supply well
• 100 feet from
impoundment
to any
irrigation well
Other
<£>
10
-------
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse
State
Texas
Utah
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(maximum any
sample)
• Turbidity
-2NTU
(24-hour
mean)
-5 NTU
(5 percent of
time during 24-
hour period)
• Type I
reclaimed
water
Reclaimed water
on a 30 day
average to have
a quality of:
• 5 mg/l BOD5 or
CBOD5
• Turbidity
-3 NTU
• Fecal coliform
-20/1 00 ml
(geometric
mean)
-75/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• Type I treated
wastewater
- secondary
treatment with
filtration, and
disinfection
• 10 mg/l BOD
(monthly
average)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Sampling and
analysis twice
per week for
BOD5or
CBOD5,
turbidity, and
fecal coliform
• Daily
composite
sampling
required for
BOD
• Continuous
turbidity
monitoring
prior to
Treatment
Facility Reliability
facilities and
monitoring
equipment to
meet required
levels of
treatment
• Alarm devices
to provide
warning of loss
of power
and/or failure
of process
equipment
• Alternative
disposal option
or diversion to
storage
required if
turbidity or
chlorine
residual
requirements
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances
• Impoundments
at least 500
feet from any
potable water
well
Other
<£>
-------
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse
State
Washington
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Turbidity prior
to disinfection
- not to exceed
2 NTU (daily
average)
- not to exceed
5 NTU at any
time
• Fecal coliform
- none
detected
(weekly
median as
determined
from daily grab
samples)
- 14/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• 1.0mg/l total
residual
chlorine after
30 minutes
contact time at
peak flow
• pH 6-9
• Class A -
oxidized,
coagulated,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day mean)
-23/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• 30mg/IBOD
and TSS
(monthly
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
disinfection
• Daily
monitoring of
fecal coliform
• Continuous
total residual
chlorine
monitoring
• pH monitored
continuously or
by daily grab
samples
• BOD -24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least weekly
• TSS -24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least daily
• Total coliform
and dissolved
oxygen
Treatment
Facility Reliability
not met
• Warning
alarms
independent of
normal power
supply
• Back-up power
source
• Emergency
storage: short-
term, 1 day;
long-term, 20
days
• Multiple
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
required when
no approved
alternative
disposal
system exists
• Storage
volume
established by
determining
storage period
required for
duration of a
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
• May be
required
• Monitoring will
be based on
reclaimed
water quality
and quantity,
site-specific
soil and
hydrogeologic
characteristics,
and other
considerations
Setback
Distances
• Unlined
impoundments
- 500 feet
between
perimeter and
any potable
water supply
well
• Lined
impoundments
- 100 feet
between
perimeter and
Other
• Nutrient
removal to
reduce levels
of phosphorus
and/or nitrogen
is
recommended
to minimize
algal growths
and maintain
acceptable
aesthetic
conditions
<£>
-------
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
mean)
• Turbidity
-2NTU
(monthly)
-5NTU
(not to exceed
at any time)
• Minimum
chlorine
residual of
1 mg/l after a
contact time of
30 minutes
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
- grab samples
collected at
least daily
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
turbidity
Treatment
Facility Reliability
treatment units
or storage or
disposal
options
• Qualified
personnel
available or on
call at all times
the irrigation
system is
operating
Storage
Requirements
10-year storm,
using a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• At a minimum,
system storage
capacity
should be the
volume equal
to 3 times that
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances
any potable
water supply
well
Other
<£>
-------
Table A-6. Restricted Recreational Reuse
State
Arizona
California
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Class A
reclaimed
water-
secondary
treatment,
filtration, and
disinfection
• Chemical feed
facilities
required to add
coagulants or
polymers if
necessary to
meet turbidity
criterion
• Turbidity
- 2 NTU (24
hour average)
- 5 NTU (not to
exceed at any
time)
• Fecal coliform
- none
detectable in 4
of last 7 daily
samples
-23/1 00 ml
(single sample
maximum)
• Disinfected
secondary-2.2
recycled water-
oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Case-by-case
basis
• Total coliform -
sampled at
least once
daily from the
disinfected
effluent
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Warning
alarms
• Back-up power
source
• Multiple
treatment units
capable of
treating entire
flow with one
unit not in
operation or
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances
• No
impoundment
of disinfected
secondary-2.2
recycled water
within 100 feet
of any
domestic water
supply well
Other
• Includes any
publicly
accessible
impoundments
at fish
hatcheries
<£>
O
-------
Table A-6. Restricted Recreational Reuse
State
Colorado
Hawaii
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
• R-1 water-
oxidized,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
-200/1 00 ml
(maximum any
one sample)
• Inactivation
and/or removal
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Daily flow
monitoring
• Continuous
turbidity
monitoring
prior to and
after filtration
process
• Continuous
measuring and
recording of
chlorine
residual
• Daily
monitoring of
fecal coliform
• Weekly
monitoring of
Treatment
Facility Reliability
storage or
disposal
provisions
• Emergency
storage or
disposal:
short-term,
1 day;
long-term,
20 days
• Sufficient
number of
qualified
personnel
• Multiple or
standby units
required of
sufficient
capacity to
enable
effective
operation with
anyone unit
out of service
• Alarm devices
required for
loss of power,
high water
levels, failure
of pumps or
blowers, high
head loss on
Storage
Requirements
• 20 days
storage
required
unless it can
be
demonstrated
that another
time period is
adequate or
that no storage
is necessary
• Storage
requirements
based on
water balance
using at least a
30 year record
• Reject storage
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances
• 500 feet from
impoundment
to domestic
supply well
• 100 feet from
impoundment
to any
irrigation well
• Outer edge of
impoundment
at least 100
feet from any
drinking water
supply well
Other
<£>
-------
Table A-6. Restricted Recreational Reuse
State
Nevada
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
of 99.999
percent of the
plaque-forming
units of F-
specific
bacteriophage
MS2, or polio
virus
• Effluent
turbidity not to
exceed 2 NTU
• Chemical
pre treatment
facilities
required in all
cases where
granular media
filtration is
used; not
required for
facilities using
membrane
filtration
• Theoretical
chlorine
contact time of
120 minutes
and actual
modal contact
time of 90
minutes
throughout
which the
chlorine
residual is
5 mg/l
• At a minimum,
secondary
treatment with
disinfection
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
BOD5and
suspended
solids
Treatment
Facility Reliability
filters, high
effluent
turbidity, loss
of coagulant or
polymer feed,
and loss of
chlorine
residual
• Standby power
source
required for
treatment plant
and distribution
pump stations
Storage
Requirements
required with a
volume equal
to 1 day of
flow at the
average daily
design flow
• Emergency
system storage
not required
where an
alternate
effluent
disposal
system has
been approved
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances
Other
• Pertains to
impoundments
where full body
contact with
<£>
CO
-------
Table A-6. Restricted Recreational Reuse
State
Oregon
Texas
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• 30 mg/l BOD5
• Fecal coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(30 day
geometric
mean)
-23/1 00 ml
(maximum
daily number)
• Level III
- biological
treatment and
disinfection
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(maximum any
sample)
• Type II
reclaimed
water
Reclaimed water
on a 30-day
average to have
a quality of:
• 30 mg/l BOD5
with treatment
using pond
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Total coliform
sampling
- 3/week
• Sampling and
analysis once
per week for
BOD5or
CBOD5 and
fecal coliform
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Standby power
with capacity
to fully operate
all essential
treatment
processes
• Redundant
treatment
facilities and
monitoring
equipment to
meet required
levels of
treatment
• Alarm devices
to provide
warning of loss
of power
and/or failure
of process
equipment
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances
Other
the treated
effluent cannot
reasonably be
expected
<£>
to
-------
Table A-6. Restricted Recreational Reuse
State
Utah
Washington
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
system
• 20 mg/l BOD5
or 15 mg/l
CBOD5 with
treatment other
than pond
system
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(geometric
mean)
-800/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• Type II treated
wastewater -
secondary
treatment with
disinfection
• 25 mg/l BOD
(monthly
average)
• TSS
- 25 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 35 mg/l
(weekly mean)
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(weekly
median)
-800/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• pH6-9
• Class B -
oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Weekly
composite
sampling
required for
BOD
• Daily
composite
sampling
required for
TSS
• Daily
monitoring of
fecal coliform
• pH monitored
continuously or
by daily grab
samples
• BOD -24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Alternative
disposal option
or diversion to
storage
required in
case quality
requirements
not met
• Warning
alarms
independent of
normal power
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
required when
no approved
alternative
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
• May be
required
• Monitoring
program will be
Setback
Distances
• Impoundments
at least 500
feet from any
potable water
well
• Unlined
impoundments
- 500 feet
between
Other
• Nutrient
removal to
reduce levels
of phosphorus
O
O
-------
Table A-6. Restricted Recreational Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day mean)
-23/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• 30 mg/l BOD
and TSS
(monthly
mean)
• Turbidity
-2 NTU
(monthly)
-5 NTU
(not to exceed
at any time)
• Minimum
chlorine
residual of
1 mg/l after a
contact time of
30 minutes
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
least weekly
• TSS -24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least daily
• Total coliform
and dissolved
oxygen
- grab samples
collected at
least daily
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
turbidity
Treatment
Facility Reliability
supply
• Back-up power
source
• Emergency
storage:
short-term,
1 day;
long-term,
20 days
• Multiple
treatment units
or storage or
disposal
options
• Qualified
personnel
available or on
call at all times
the irrigation
system is
operating
Storage
Requirements
disposal
system exists
• Storage
volume
established by
determining
storage period
required for
duration of a
10-year storm,
using a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• At a minimum,
system storage
capacity
should be the
volume equal
to three times
that portion of
the average
daily flow for
which no
alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
based on
reclaimed
water quality
and quantity,
site specific
soil and
hydrogeologic
characteristics,
and other
considerations
Setback
Distances
perimeter and
any potable
water supply
well
• Lined
impoundments
- 100 feet
between
perimeter and
any potable
water supply
well
Other
and/or nitrogen
is
recommended
to minimize
algal growths
and maintain
acceptable
aesthetic
conditions
-------
Table A-7. Environmental - Wetlands
State
Florida
South Dakota
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
Treatment
wetland:
• Secondary
treatment with
nitrification
• 20mg/ICBOD5
and TSS
(annual
average)
• 2 mg/l total
ammonia
(monthly
average)
Receiving
wetland:
• 5 mg/l CBOD5
and TSS
(annual
average)
• 3 mg/l total
nitrogen
(annual
average)
• 1 mg/l total
phosphorus
(annual
average)
• 2 mg/l total
ammonia
(monthly
average)
• Pretreatment
with
stabilization
ponds
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
• Reclaimed
water shall be
stored in a
holding pond
• The holding
pond will have
sufficient
storage
capacity to
assure
retention of
reclaimed
water that has
not been
treated to an
acceptable
quality for
discharge to a
treatment or
receiving
wetland
• At a minimum,
this capacity
will be the
volume equal
to 1 day of flow
at the
permitted
capacity of the
treatment plant
• Minimum
recommended
storage
capacity in
stabilization
Loading
Rates
• Maximum
annual
average
hydraulic
loading of
2 in/wk except
in
hydrologically
altered
wetlands -
maximum of
6 in/wk
• Treatment
wetland
- total nitrogen
loading rate
not to exceed
25 g/m2/yr
- total
phosphorus
loading rate
not to exceed
3 g/m2/yr
• Hydrologically
altered wetland
- total nitrogen
loading rate
not to exceed
75 g/m2/yr
- total
phosphorus
loading rate
not to exceed
9 g/m2/yr
• Maximum
hydraulic
design loading
flow through
rate on artificial
Groundwater
Monitoring
• A minimum of
three wells,
one upgradient
and two
downgradient
Setback
Distances (1)
• The entire
wetland area
to be enclosed
with a suitable
fence to
Other
• The discharge
of reclaimed
water to
treatment or
receiving
wetlands shall
minimize
channelized
flow and
maximize
sheet flow in
the wetland,
minimize the
loss of
dissolution of
sediments due
to erosion or
leaching, and
not cause
adverse effects
on endangered
or threatened
species
• Discharge of
reclaimed
water to
wetlands
located within
Class I surface
waters
considered
reuse for
indirect potable
purposes
• Applies to
artificial
wetland
systems
• Reviewed on a
O
10
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-7. Environmental - Wetlands
State
Washington
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
Natural and
constructed
beneficial use
wetlands that
provide potential
human contact,
recreational, or
educational
beneficial uses:
• Class A -
oxidized,
coagulated,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day mean)
-23/1 00 ml
(single sample)
Natural and
constructed
beneficial use
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• BOD, TSS,
Kjeldahl
nitrogen,
ammonia-
nitrogen, total
phosphorus,
and metals
- 24-hour
composite
samples
collected
weekly
• Total coliform
- grab samples
collected at
least daily
• Continuous
flow monitoring
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Warning
alarms
independent of
normal power
supply
• Back-up power
source
• Emergency
storage:
short-term,
1 day;
long-term,
20 days
• Multiple
treatment units
or storage or
disposal
options
• Qualified
personnel
available or on
call at all times
Storage
Requirements
pond system of
150 days
• Minimum
combined
storage
capacity of 180
days in
stabilization
ponds and
artificial
wetland areas
• Storage
required when
no approved
alternative
disposal
system exists
• Storage
volume
established by
determining
storage period
required for
duration of a
10-year storm,
using a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• At a minimum,
system storage
capacity
should be the
Loading
Rates
wetlands of
25,000
gal/acre/day
• Not to exceed
an additional
average
annual
hydraulic
loading rate of
2 cm/day to
Category II
wetlands and
3 cm/day to
Category III
and IV
wetlands
• Maximum
annual
average
hydraulic
loading rate to
constructed
beneficial use
wetlands is
limited to
Groundwater
Monitoring
of the site, may
be required
• At a minimum,
parameters to
be sampled
include
temperature,
PH,
conductivity,
nitrate,
ammonia, fecal
coliform,
nitrites,
chlorides,
TDS, sulfate,
andGW
elevations
• May be
required
• Groundwater
monitoring
may be
required for a
sufficient
length of time
to determine
that the
application of
reclaimed
water will not
degrade
existing
groundwater
quality
• Depends on
parameter
concentrations
in reclaimed
water and the
Setback
Distances (1)
provide public
safety, exclude
livestock, and
discourage
trespassing
• Unlined or
unsealed
wetland
- 500 feet
between
perimeter and
any potable
water supply
well
• Lined or
sealed wetland
- 1 00 feet
between
perimeter and
any potable
water supply
well
Other
site-by-site
basis
• Discharge to
Category I
wetlands or to
saltwater
dominated
wetlands is not
permitted
• Reclaimed
water intended
for beneficial
reuse may be
discharged for
streamflow
augmentation
provided the
reclaimed
water meets
certain
requirements
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-7. Environmental - Wetlands
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
wetlands that
provide fisheries,
or potential
human non-
contact
recreational or
educational
beneficial uses:
• Class B -
oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day mean)
-23/1 00 ml
(single sample)
Natural wetlands
that provide
potential non-
contact
recreational or
educational
beneficial uses
through restricted
access
• Class C -
oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day mean)
-240/1 00 ml
(single sample)
General
compliance
requirements:
• 20mg/IBOD
and TSS
(average
annual basis)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
the irrigation
system is
operating
Storage
Requirements
volume equal
to 3 times that
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
Loading
Rates
5 cm/day
• Hydraulic
loading rate
determined as
the ratio of the
average
annual flow
rate of
reclaimed
water to the
effective
wetted area of
the wetland
Groundwater
Monitoring
groundwater
quality criteria
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-7. Environmental - Wetlands
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• 3 mg/l total
Kjeldahl
nitrogen
(average
annual basis)
• Total ammonia
nitrogen not to
exceed
Washington
chronic
standards for
freshwater
• 1 mg/l total
phosporus
(average
annual basis)
• Metals not to
exceed
Washington
surface water
quality
standards
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
O
Ul
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse
State
California
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
Cooling water that
creates a mist:
• Disinfected
tertiary recycled
water -oxidized,
coagulated (not
required if
membrane
filtration is used
and/or turbidity
requirements
are met),
filtered,
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml (not
to exceed in
more than one
sample in any
30-day period)
-240/1 00 ml
(maximum any
one sample)
• Turbidity
requirements
for wastewater
that has been
coagulated and
passed through
natural
undisturbed
soils or a bed of
filter media
- maximum
average of
2 NTU within a
24-hour period
- not to exceed
5 NTU more
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Cooling water
that creates a
mist:
• Total coliform
- sampled at
least once
daily from the
disinfected
effluent
• Turbidity
- continuously
sampled
following
filtration
Cooling water
that does not
create a mist:
• Total coliform
- sampled at
least once
daily from the
disinfected
effluent
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Warning
alarms
• Back-up power
source
• Multiple
treatment units
capable of
treating entire
flow with one
unit not in
operation or
storage or
disposal
provisions
• Emergency
storage or
disposal:
short-term,
1 day;
long-term,
20 days
• Sufficient
number of
qualified
personnel
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
• Whenever a
cooling
system, using
recycled water
in conjunction
with an air
conditioning
facility, uses a
cooling tower
or otherwise
creates a mist
that could
come into
contact with
employees or
members of
the public, the
cooling system
shall comply
with the
following:
- a drift
eliminator shall
be used
whenever the
cooling system
is in operation
- a chlorine, or
other biocide,
shall be used
to treat the
cooling system
recirculating
water to
minimize the
growth of
Legionella and
other micro-
organisms
• Reclaimed
water can also
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse
State
Florida
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
than 5 percent
of the time
within a
24-hour period
- maximum of
10 NTUatany
time
• Turbidity
requirements
for wastewater
passed through
membrane
- not to exceed
0.2 NTU more
than 5 percent
of the time
within a 24-
hour period
- maximum of
0.5 NTU at any
time
Cooling water that
does not create a
mist:
• Disinfected
secondary-23
recycled water-
oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-240/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
Once-through
cooling water and
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Once-through
cooling water,
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Open cooling
water tower
Storage
Requirements
Once-through
cooling water,
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Once-through
cooling water,
Other
be used for
industrial boiler
feed and
industrial
process water
• Allows use of
reclaimed
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
process water at
wastewater
treatment plants:
• Secondary
treatment
• 20mg/ICBOD5
and TSS
(annual
average)
• 30 mg/l CBOD5
and TSS
(monthly
average)
• 45 mg/l CBOD5
and TSS
(weekly
average)
• 60 mg/l CBOD5
and TSS
(single sample)
• pH 6-8.5
Wash water or
process water:
• Secondary
treatment and
basic
disinfection
• 20mg/ICBOD5
and TSS
(annual
average)
• 30 mg/l CBOD5
and TSS
(monthly
average)
• 45 mg/l CBOD5
and TSS
(weekly
average)
• 60 mg/l CBOD5
and TSS
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
wash water or
process water:
• Parameters to
be monitored
and sampling
frequency to
be identified in
wastewater
facility permit
• Minimum
schedule for
sampling and
testing based
on system
capacity
established for
flow, pH,
chlorine
residual,
dissolved
oxygen,
suspended
solids, CBOD5,
nutrients, and
fecal coliform
• Primary and
secondary
drinking water
standards to
be monitored
by facilities >
1 00,000 gpd
Open cooling
water tower
applications:
• Parameters to
be monitored
and sampling
frequency to
be identified in
wastewater
Treatment
Facility Reliability
applications:
• Class I
reliability -
requires
multiple or
back-up
treatment units
and a
secondary
power source
• Minimum
reject storage
capacity equal
to 1 day flow at
the average
daily design
flow of the
treatment plant
or the average
daily permitted
flow of the
reuse system,
whichever is
less
• Minimum
system size of
0.1 mgd (not
required for
toilet flushing
and fire
protection
uses)
• Staffing -
24 hrs/day,
7 days/wk or
6 hrs/day,
7 days/wk with
diversion of
reclaimed
water to reuse
system only
Storage
Requirements
wash water or
process water:
• System
storage ponds
not required
Open cooling
water tower
applications:
• At a minimum,
system storage
capacity shall
be the volume
equal to 3
times the
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
• Water balance
required with
volume of
storage based
on a 10-year
recurrence
interval and a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• Not required if
alternative
system is
incorporated
into the system
design to
ensure
continuous
facility
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
wash water or
process water:
• Setback
distances from
the industrial
process or
activity to the
site property
line not
required
Open cooling
water tower
applications:
• None required
if the reclaimed
water has
received
secondary
treatment with
filtration and
high-level
disinfection
• 300-foot
setback
distance
provided from
the cooling
tower to the
site property
lines if
reclaimed
water has
received
secondary
treatment and
basic
disinfection
Other
water for
cooling water,
wash water, or
process water
at industrial
facilities
• Reclaimed
water that has
not been
disinfected
may be used
for once-
through
cooling
purposes at
industrial
facilities if the
reclaimed
water has
received at
least
secondary
treatment, is
conveyed and
used in closed
systems which
are not open to
the
atmosphere,
and is returned
to the domestic
wastewater
treatment
facility
• Reclaimed
water that has
received
secondary
treatment and
basic
disinfection
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
(single sample)
• Chlorine
residual of
0.5 mg/l
maintained
after at least 1 5
minutes contact
time at peak
flow
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(annual
average)
-200/1 00 ml
(monthly
geometric
mean)
-400/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than 10
percent of
samples in a
30-day period)
-800/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• pH 6-8.5
• Limitations to
be met after
disinfection
Open cooling
water tower
applications:
• Secondary
treatment with
filtration and
high-level
disinfection
• Chemical feed
facilities to be
provided
• 20mg/ICBOD5
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
facility permit
• Minimum
schedule for
sampling and
testing based
on system
capacity
established for
flow, pH,
chlorine
residual,
dissolved
oxygen,
suspended
solids, CBOD5,
nutrients, and
fecal coliform
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
turbidity prior
to disinfection
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
total chlorine
residual or
residual
concentrations
of other
disinfectants
• Monitoring for
Giardia and
Cryptosporidium
- sampling one
time during
each 2 year
period
- samples to
be taken
immediately
Treatment
Facility Reliability
during periods
of operator
presence
Storage
Requirements
operation
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
can be used in
open cooling
towers if a
300-foot
setback
distance is
provided to the
property line,
the cooling
tower is
designed and
operated to
minimize
aerosol drift to
areas beyond
the site
property line
that are
accessible to
the public, and
biological
growth is
controlled
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse
State
Hawaii
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
(annual
average)
• 5 mg/l TSS
(single sample)
to be met after
filtration and
prior to
disinfection
• Total chlorine
residual of at
least 1 mg/l
after a
minimum
acceptable
contact time of
15 minutes at
peak hourly
flow
• Fecal coliform
- over 30-day
period, 75
percent of
samples below
detection limits
-25/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• pH 6-8.5
• Limitations to
be met after
disinfection
Cooling water that
emits vapor or
droplets or an
industrial process
with exposure to
workers:
• R-1 water-
oxidized,
filtered, and
disinfected
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
following
disinfection
process
• Primary and
secondary
drinking water
standards to
be monitored
by facilities >
1 00,000 gpd
• Daily flow
monitoring
• Continuous
turbidity
monitoring
prior to and
after filtration
process
• Continuous
measuring and
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Multiple or
standby units
required of
sufficient
capacity to
enable
effective
operation with
anyone unit
out of service
Storage
Requirements
• 20 days
storage
required
unless it can
be
demonstrated
that another
time period is
adequate or
that no storage
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
• Can be used
for industrial
cooling in a
system that
does not have
a cooling
tower,
evaporative
condenser, or
other feature
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Fecal coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml (not
to exceed in
more than one
sample in any
30-day period)
-200/1 00 ml
(maximum any
one sample)
• Inactivation
and/or removal
of 99.999
percent of the
plaque-forming
units of F-
specific
bacteriophage
MS2, or polio
virus
• Effluent
turbidity not to
exceed 2 NTU
• Chemical
pre treatment
facilities
required in all
cases where
granular media
filtration is
used; not
required for
facilities using
membrane
filtration
• Theoretical
chlorine contact
time of 120
minutes and
actual modal
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
recording of
chlorine
residual
• Daily
monitoring of
fecal coliform
• Weekly
monitoring of
BOD5and
suspended
solids
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Alarm devices
required for
loss of power,
high water
levels, failure
of pumps or
blowers, high
head loss on
filters, high
effluent
turbidity, loss
of coagulant or
polymer feed,
and loss of
chlorine
residual
• Standby power
source
required for
treatment plant
and
distribution
pump stations
Storage
Requirements
is necessary
• Storage
requirements
based on
water balance
using at least a
30 year record
• Reject storage
required with a
volume equal
to 1 day of flow
at the average
daily design
flow
• Emergency
system storage
not required
where an
alternate
effluent
disposal
system has
been approved
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
that emits
vapor or
droplets to the
open
atmosphere or
to air to be
passed into a
building or
other
enclosure
occupied by a
person
• Can be used
as supply for
addition to a
cooling system
or air
conditioning
system with a
cooling tower,
evaporative
condenser, or
other feature
that emits
vapor or
droplets to the
open
atmosphere or
to air to be
passed into a
building or
other
enclosure
occupied by a
person, when
all of the
following
occurs: a high
efficiency drift
reducer is
used and the
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
contact time of
90 minutes
throughout
which the
chlorine
residual is
5 mg/l
Cooling water that
does not emit
vapor or droplets,
an industrial
process without
exposure to
workers or
industrial boiler
feed:
• R-2 water-
oxidized and
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-200/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
• Theoretical
chlorine contact
time of 15
minutes and
actual modal
contact time of
10 minutes
throughout
which the
chlorine
residual is
0.5 mg/l
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
system is
maintained to
avoid greater
rate of
generation of
drift than that
which a high
efficiency drift
reducer is
associated; a
continuous
biocide
residual,
sufficient to
prevent
bacterial
population
from
exceeding
10,000/mlis
maintained in
circulating
water; and the
system is
inspected by
an operator
capable of
determining
compliance at
least once per
day
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse
State
New Jersey
North Carolina
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Requires a
case-by-case
review
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(monthly
average,
geometric
mean)
-400/1 00 ml
(maximum any
one sample
• Minimum
chlorine
residual
- 1 .0 mg/l after
15 minute
contact at peak
hourly flow
• TSS
requirements
applies to the
existing
treatment
requirements
as specified in
the NJPDES
permit for the
discharge
• Secondary
• Tertiary quality
effluent (filtered
or equivalent)
• TSS
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Submission of
Standard
Operations
Procedure that
ensures proper
disinfection to
the required
level of
1.0 mg/l
• Annual usage
report
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring and
recording for
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• All essential
treatment units
to be provided
in duplicate
Storage
Requirements
• Not required
when another
permitted
reuse system
or effluent
disposal
system is
incorporated
into the system
design
• If system
storage ponds
are used, they
do not have to
be lined
• Reject storage
ponds shall be
lined or sealed
to prevent
measurable
seepage
• Existing or
proposed
ponds (such as
golf course
ponds) are
appropriate for
storage of
reuse water if
the ability of
the ponds to
function as
storm water
management
systems is not
impaired
• Determined
using a mass
water balance
based upon a
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
• Worker contact
with reclaimed
water shall be
minimized
• Windblown
spray shall not
reach areas
accessible to
the public
• Secondary
treatment, for
the purpose of
the manual,
refers to the
existing
treatment
requirements
in the NJPDES
permit, not
including the
additional
reclaimed
water for
beneficial
reuse
treatment
requirements
• Includes
reclaimed
water used for
process water
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse
State
Oregon
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
- 5 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 10 mg/l (daily
maximum)
• Fecal coliform
- 14/1 00 ml
(monthly
geometric
mean)
-25/1 00 ml
(daily
maximum)
• BOD5
- 10 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 15 mg/l (daily
maximum)
• NH3
- 4 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 6 mg/l (daily
maximum)
• Turbidity not to
exceed 10 NTU
at any time
• Level II is
minimum
treatment for
industrial or
commercial
uses
- biological
treatment and
disinfection
• Total coliform
-240/1 00 ml
(2 consecutive
samples)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
turbidity or
particle count
and flow prior
to discharge
• Total coliform
sampling
- Once a week
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Five-day side
stream
detention pond
required for
effluent
exceeding
turbidity or
fecal coliform
limits
• Automatically
activated
standby power
source to be
provided
• Certified
operator on
call 24 hrs/day
with a grade
level
equivalent to
or greater than
the facility
classification
• Standby power
with capacity
to fully operate
all essential
treatment
processes
• Redundant
treatment
facilities and
monitoring
equipment to
meet required
levels of
Storage
Requirements
recent 25-year
period using
monthly
average
precipitation
data, potential
evapotrans-
piration.data,
and soil
drainage data
• No storage
facilities
required if it
can be
demonstrated
that other
permitted
disposal
options are
available
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
and cooling
water
purposes
• Use of
reclaimed
water in
evaporative
cooling
systems will be
approved only
if the user can
demonstrate
that aerosols
will not present
a hazard to
public health
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse
State
Texas
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
Cooling tower
makeup water
• Type II
reclaimed water
Reclaimed water
on a 3- day
average to have a
quality of:
• 30 mg/l BOD5
with treatment
using pond
system
• 20 mg/l BOD5
or 15 mg/l
CBOD5 with
treatment other
than pond
system
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(geometric
mean)
-800/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Sampling and
analysis once
per week for
BOD5or
CBOD5 and
fecal coliform
Treatment
Facility Reliability
treatment
• Alarm devices
to provide
warning of loss
of power
and/or failure
of process
equipment
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
• Use for cooling
towers which
produce
significant
aerosols
adjacent to
public access
areas may
have special
requirements
Ul
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse
State
Utah
Washington
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
Cooling water:
• Type II treated
wastewater -
secondary
treatment with
disinfection
• 25 mg/l BOD
(monthly
average)
• TSS
- 25 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 35 mg/l
(weekly
average)
• Fecal coliform
-200/1 00 ml
(weekly
median)
-800/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• pH 6-9
Industrial boiler
feed, industrial
cooling water
where aerosols or
other mists are
not created, and
industrial process
water with no
exposure to
workers:
• Class C -
oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-23/1 00 ml
(7-day mean)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Weekly
composite
sampling
required for
BOD
• Daily
composite
sampling
required for
TSS
• Daily
monitoring of
fecal coliform
• pH monitored
continuously or
by daily grab
samples
• BOD -24-
hour
composite
samples
collected at
least weekly
• TSS -24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least daily
• Total coliform
and dissolved
oxygen
- grab samples
collected at
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Alternative
disposal option
or diversion to
storage
required in
case quality
requirements
not met
• Warning
alarms
independent of
normal power
supply
• Back-up power
source
• Emergency
storage:
short-term,
1 day;
long-term,
20 days
• Multiple
treatment units
or storage or
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
required when
no approved
alternative
disposal
system exists
• Storage
volume
established by
determining
storage period
required for
duration of a
10-year storm,
using a
minimum of 20
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
• Use for cooling
towers which
produce
aerosols in
populated
areas may
have special
restrictions
imposed
O
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
-240/1 00 ml
(single sample)
Industrial cooling
water where
aerosols or other
mists are created
and industrial
process water
with exposure to
workers:
• Class A -
oxidized,
coagulated,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day mean)
-23/1 00 ml
(single sample)
General
compliance
requirements:
• 30mg/IBOD
and TSS
(monthly mean)
• Turbidity
-2NTU
(monthly)
-5NTU
(not to exceed
at any time)
• Minimum
chlorine
residual of
1 mg/l after a
contact time of
30 minutes
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
least daily
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
turbidity
Treatment
Facility Reliability
disposal
options
• Qualified
personnel
available or on
call at all times
the irrigation
system is
operating
Storage
Requirements
years of
climatic data
• At a minimum,
system storage
capacity
should be
equal to 3
times that
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances (1)
Other
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge
State
California
Florida
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Based on all
relevant
aspects of each
project,
including the
following
factors:
treatment
provided;
effluent quality
and quantity;
spreading area
operations; soil
characteristics;
hydrogeology;
residence time
and distance to
withdrawal
Use of rapid-rate
land application
systems:
• Secondary
treatment and
basic
disinfection
• Fecal coliform -
200/1 00 ml
(annual
average)
-200/1 00 ml
(monthly
geometric
mean)
-400/1 00 ml
(not to exceed
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring for
turbidity before
applicaton of
the disinfectant
• Continuous
monitoring for
chlorine
residual or for
residual
concentrations
of other
disinfectants
• Treatment
facilities
designed to
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Class I
reliability -
requires
multiple or
backup
treatment units
and a
secondary
power source
• For treatment
facilities
required to
provide full
treatment and
disinfection -
minimum reject
storage
Storage
Requirements
• System
storage not
required
• If system
storage is
provided, at a
minimum,
system storage
capacity shall
be the volume
equal to three
times the
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
Loading
Rates
• Reasonable
assurances
must be
provided that
the hydraulic
loading rates
used in the
design must
enable the
system to
comply with
the
requirements
while meeting
applicable
groundwater
quality
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Required
• 1 upgradient
well located as
close as
possible to the
site without
being affected
by the site's
discharge
(background
well)
• 1 well at the
edge of the
zone of
discharge
down-gradient
of the site
Setback
Distances
• Zones of
discharge not
to extend
closer than
500 feet to a
potable water
supply well
• 1,000 foot
setback
distance from
injection well
used for
salinity barrier
control to
potable water
supply wells
• 500 feet to
Other
• Rapid-rate
application
systems that
result in the
collection and
discharge of
more than 50
percent of the
applied
reclaimed
water will be
considered
effluent
disposal
systems
• Involves the
planned use of
00
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
in more than
10% of
samples in a 30
day period)
-800/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• 10mg/ITSS
(single sample)
prior to
discharge to
the application/
distribution
system for
absorption field
systems
• Nitrate
- 1 2 mg/l as
nitrogen
Use of rapid-rate
land application
systems for
projects
considered reuse
for groundwater
recharge under
62-610.525:
• Secondary
treatment with
filtration and
high-level
disinfection
• Chemical feed
facilities to be
provided
• 5 mg/l TSS
(single sample)
to be achieved
prior to
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
meet the full
treatment and
disinfection
requirements
to sample for
TOC and total
organic
halogen daily,
seven days per
week
• Total conforms
and TSS
analyzed daily
if treatment
facility is
required to
meet
bacteriological
requirements
of the drinking
water
standards
• Parameters
listed as
primary
drinking water
standards that
are imposed
as reclaimed
water limits to
be analyzed
monthly
• Parameters
listed as
secondary
drinking water
standards that
are imposed
Treatment
Facility Reliability
capacity equal
to three day's
flow at the
average daily
permitted flow
of the
treatment plant
or the average
daily permitted
flow of the
reuse system,
whichever is
less
• If full treatment
and
disinfection is
not required,
the capacity
requirement for
reject storage
shall be
reduced to one
day's flow
• Reject storage
will not be
required if
another
permitted
reuse system
or effluent
disposal
system is
capable of
discharging
the reject
water in
accordance
with
Storage
Requirements
disposal
system is
permitted
• Water balance
required with
volume of
storage based
on a 1 0-year
recurrence
interval and a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• Not required if
alternative
system is
incorporated
into the system
design to
ensure
continuous
facility
operation
Loading
Rates
standards
• A groundwater
mounding
analysis is to
be included in
the
engineering
report and
should provide
reasonable
assurances
that the
proposed
project will
function as
intended and
will not result
in excessive
mounding of
groundwaters,
increases in
surface water
elevations,
property
damage or
interference
with
reasonable
use of property
within the
affected area
Groundwater
Monitoring
(compliance
well)
• 1 well
downgradient
from the site
and within the
zone of
discharge
(intermediate
well)
• 1 well located
adjacent to
unlined
storage ponds
or lakes
• Other wells
may be
required
depending on
site-specific
criteria
• Quarterly
monitoring
required for
water level,
nitrate, total
dissolved
solids, arsenic,
cadmium,
chloride,
chromium,
lead, fecal
coliform, pH
and sulfate
• Monitoring
may be
required for
additional
Setback
Distances
potable water
supply wells
that are
existing or
have been
approved;
Class I surface
waters; or
Class II
surface waters
• Setback
distance to
Class I and
Class II
surface waters
reduced to 100
feet if high-
level
disinfection is
provided
• 1 00 feet to
buildings not
part of the
treatment
facility, utilities
system or
municipal
operations
• 100 feet to site
property line
• Some setback
distances may
be reduced if
certain
treatment
requirements
are met and
assurances
Other
reclaimed
water to
augment Class
F-1, G-1,or
G-ll
groundwaters
identified for
potable water
use and
defined as
groundwater
recharge in
regulations
• Types of
groundwater
recharge
systems
include
injection of
reclaimed
water into
Class F-1, G-1,
or G-ll
groundwaters,
specific rapid-
rate land
application
systems, use
of reclaimed
water to create
barriers to the
landward or
upward
migration of
salt water
within Class
F-1, G-1, or
G-ll
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
disinfection
• Total nitrogen
- 10mg/l
(maximum
annual
average)
• Primary (except
asbestos and
bacteriological
parameters)
and secondary
drinking water
standards must
be met
• pH to fall within
range
established in
secondary
drinking water
standards
Groundwater
recharge by
injection of Class
G-1 andF-1
groundwaters and
Class G-ll
groundwaters
containing 3000
mg/l or less of
TDS:
• Secondary
treatment with
filtration and
high-level
disinfection
• Chemical feed
facilities to be
provided
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
as reclaimed
water limits to
be analyzed
quarterly
• pH - daily
• Except for total
coliforms and
pH, 24-hour
composite
samples to be
used for
parameters
listed as
primary or
secondary
drinking water
standards
• Unregulated
organic
contaminants
to be sampled
annually for
some types of
projects
• Monitoring for
Giardia and
Cryptosporidium
required
quarterly or
onetime
during each
two-year
period
depending on
type of project
• Parameters to
be monitored
and sampling
Treatment
Facility Reliability
requirements
• Minimum
system size of
0.1 MGD
• Staffing -
24 hrs/day,
7 days/wk for
systems
required to
provide full
treatment and
disinfection
- reduced
staffing
requirement to
6 hrs/day,
7 days/wk may
be approved
for systems not
required to
provide full
treatment with
diversion of
reclaimed
water to reuse
system only
during periods
of operator
presence and
other
provisions for
increased
reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
parameters
based on site
specific
conditions and
groundwater
quality
Setback
Distances
are provided
Other
groundwaters
and discharge
to surface
waters which
are directly
connected to
Class F-1.G-I
or G-ll
groundwaters
• Public
notification and
public hearing
requirements
• Pilot testing is
required for all
projects that
are required to
provide full
treatment and
disinfection
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• 5 mg/l TSS
(single sample)
to be achieved
prior to
disinfection
• Total nitrogen
- 10 mg/l
(maximum
annual
average)
• Primary (except
asbestos) and
secondary
drinking water
standards must
be met
• pH to fall within
range
established in
secondary
drinking water
standards
• TOC
- 3 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 5 mg/l
(single sample)
• Total organic
halogen (TOX)
- 0.2 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 0.3 mg/l
(single sample)
• Alternative
TOC and TOX
limitations may
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
frequency to
be identified in
wastewater
facility permit
• Minimum
schedule for
sampling and
testing based
on system
capacity
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances
Other
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge
State
Hawaii
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
be approved if
certain
conditions are
met
Groundwater
recharge by
injection of Class
G-ll groundwaters
containing greater
than 3000 mg/l of
TDS:
• Same
treatment and
water quality
requirements
as above
except TOC,
TOX and
secondary
drinking water
requirements
do not apply
• Limitations to
be met before
injection to
groundwater
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Recycled water
used for
groundwater
recharge by
surface or
subsurface
application
shall be at all
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Multiple or
standby units
required of
sufficient
capacity to
enable
effective
operation with
any one unit
out of service
• Alarm devices
Storage
Requirements
• 20 days
storage
required
unless it can
be
demonstrated
that another
time period is
adequate or
that no storage
is necessary
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Required
• Groundwater
monitoring
system may
consist of a
number of
lysi meters
and/or
monitoring
wells
depending on
Setback
Distances
Other
• Department of
Health
evaluation of
proposed
groundwater
recharge
projects and
expansion of
existing
projects made
on an
10
10
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
times of a
quality that fully
protects public
health
• Projects that
are over an
aquifer
classified as
nonpotable,
where the
design monthly
(deep)
percolation rate
(DMPR) is
greater than 20
percent of the
maximum
monthly
application rate
minus the
DMPR, will be
designated as a
recharge
project
• Projects that
are over an
aquifer
classified as
potable, where
the application
rates exceed
the
consumptive
evapotranspira-
tion of the
vegetative
cover, will be
designated as a
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
required for
loss of power,
high water
levels, failure
of pumps or
blowers, high
head loss on
filters, high
effluent
turbidity, loss
of coagulant or
polymer feed,
and loss of
chlorine
residual
• Standby power
source
required for
treatment plant
and
distribution
pump stations
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
requirements
based on
water balance
using at least a
30-year record
• Reject storage
required with a
volume equal
to 1 day of flow
at the average
daily design
flow
• Emergency
system storage
not required
where an
alternate
effluent
disposal
system has
been approved
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
site size, site
characteristics,
location,
method of
discharge and
other
appropriate
considerations
• One well
upgradient and
two wells
downgradient
for project sites
500 acres or
more
• One well
within the
wetted field
area for each
project whose
surface area is
greater than or
equal to 1500
acres
• One lysimeter
per 200 acres
• One lysimeter
for project sites
that have
greater than 40
but less than
200 acres
• Additional
lysi meters may
be necessary
to address
concerns of
public health or
Setback
Distances
Other
individual case
basis where
the use of
reclaimed
water involves
a potential risk
to public health
• Evaluation
based on all
relevant
aspects of
each project
including
treatment
provided,
effluent quality
and quantity,
effluent or
application
spreading area
operation, soil
characteristics,
hydrogeology,
residence time,
and distance to
withdrawal
• A public
hearing or a
public
referendum is
required for the
DOH to review
a request to
augment a
potable water
supply by
recharging the
potable water
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge
State
Massachusetts
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
recharge
project
• Secondary
• Filtration
(possibly)
• Disinfection
• pH 6-9
• BOD - less
than 10 mg/l or
30 mg/l
• Turbidity - less
than 2 NTU or
5 NTU
• Fecal coliform
- median of no
detectable
colonies/100 ml
over
continuous,
running 7 day
sampling
periods, not to
exceed
14/1 00 ml or
200/1 00 ml
• TSS - 5 mg/l or
1 0 mg/l
• Total nitrogen -
less than
1 0 mg/l
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• pH - weekly or
daily
• BOD - weekly
• Turbidity -
continuous
• Fecal coliform
- daily or twice
per week
• Metals -
quarterly
• TSS - weekly
or twice per
week
• Nitrogen -
once or twice
per week
• MS-2 phage -
quarterly
• Total
culturable
viruses -
quarterly
• Variable
testing
requirements
• UV intensity or
chlorine
residual - daily
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• EPA Class I
Reliability
standards may
be required
• Two
independent
and separate
sources of
power
• Unit
redundancy
• Additional
storage
Storage
Requirements
• Immediate,
permitted
discharge
alternatives
are required
for emergency
situations
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
environmental
protection as
related to
variable
characteristics
of the
subsurface or
of the
operations of
the project
A groundwater
monitoring plan is
required and
must accomplish
the following
goals:
• Evaluates
upgradient
(background)
groundwater
quality
• Evaluates the
performance of
land use
components
that are
considered
part of the
treatment
process
• Evaluates the
overall impact
of the project
on local
groundwater
quality
• Acts as an
early warning
Setback
Distances
• No wastewater
discharges will
be permitted in
the Zone I of
any public
water supply
well defined as
the area
encompassing
a maximum
400-foot radius
around the
wellhead
(assuming a
greater than
1 00,000 gpd
withdrawal
rate)
• Discharging to
Zone Ms,
defined as the
entire extent of
the aquifer
deposits which
could fall within
and upgradient
from the
production
Other
supply aquifer
with recycled
water
• Refers to
discharges into
aquifer
recharge areas
as defined by
Zone II
boundaries of
community
water systems
and
groundwater
discharges that
will recharge
reservoirs or
tributaries to
reservoirs
• New treatment
plants located
in approved
Zone Ms with
less than a two
year
groundwater
travel time to
the public
water supply
well must treat
to the more
10
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge
State
Washington
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Class 1
Groundwater
Permit
Standards
(SDWA
Drinking Water
Standards)
Nonpotable
aquifer recharge:
• Class A -
oxidized,
coagulated,
filtered and
disinfected
• Total coliform
-2.2/1 00 ml
(7-day median)
-23/1 00 ml
(single sample)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Point of
compliance is
the point of
direct recharge
of reclaimed
water into the
underground
• BOD -24-
hour
composite
samples
collected at
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Warning
alarms
independent of
normal power
supply
• Back-up power
source
• Emergency
storage:
short-term,
1 day;
long-term,
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
required when
no approved
alternative
disposal
system exists
• Storage
volume
established by
determining
storage period
required for
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
system
between the
discharge and
sensitive
receptors
• Will be
required and
based on
reclaimed
water quality
and quantity,
site-specific
soil and
hydrogeologic
characteristics
and other
considerations
Setback
Distances
well's capture
zone based on
the predicted
drawdown
after 1 80-day
drought
conditions at
the approved
pumping rate,
will be
permitted in
circumstances
where it is
necessary to
replenish
streamflow,
enhance the
productivity
and capacity of
an aquifer
and/or improve
upon or
mitigate poor
existing
environmental
conditions
• Reclaimed
water
withdrawn for
nonpotable
purposes can
be withdrawn
at any distance
from the point
of direct
recharge
• The minimum
horizontal
Other
rigorous of the
two standards
described
• Existing
treatment
plants that can
demonstrate
four or five feet
of separation
and where the
well has not
shown any
evidence of
water quality
degradation
may maintain
the lesser
standard
• Defined as
direct recharge
to nonpotable
or potable
groundwater
aquifers
• Reclaimed
water
withdrawn for
nonpotable
purposes can
be withdrawn
10
Ul
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• 5 mg/l BOD
and TSS
(7-day mean)
• Turbidity
-2NTU
(monthly mean)
-5NTU
(single sample)
• Minimum
chlorine
residual of
1 mg/l after a
contact time of
30 minutes
based on peak
hourly flow
• A chlorine
residual of at
least 0.5 mg/l to
be maintained
in the reclaimed
water during
conveyance to
the point of
recharge
Potable aquifer
recharge:
• Oxidized,
coagulated,
filtered,
reverse-
osmosis treated
and disinfected
• Total coliform
- 1/100 ml
(7-day median)
-5/1 00 ml
(single sample)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
least daily
• TSS -24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least daily
• Total coliform -
grab samples
collected at
least daily and
at a time when
wastewater
characteristics
are most
demanding on
the treatment
facilities and
disinfection
procedures
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
turbidity and
chlorine
residual
Additional
monitoring
requirements for
potable aquifer
recharge:
• TOC - 24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least daily
• Primary
contaminants
(except total
Treatment
Facility Reliability
20 days
• Multiple
treatment units
or storage or
disposal
options
• Qualified
personnel
available or on
call at all times
the system is
operating
Storage
Requirements
duration of a
10-year storm,
using a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• At a minimum,
system storage
capacity
should be the
volume equal
to 3 times that
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Nonpotable
aquifer recharge:
• Monitoring
wells shall be
established on
a case-by-case
basis
• Constituents to
be sampled
shall be
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Samples from
monitoring
wells and their
sampling
frequency shall
be determined
on a case-by-
case basis
Potable aquifer
recharge:
• Monitoring
wells, at a
minimum, shall
be located at
points 500 feet
and 1 ,000 feet
(plus or minus
10%) along the
groundwater
flow path from
the point of
recharge to the
nearest point
of withdrawal
of groundwater
Setback
Distances
separation
distance
between the
point of direct
recharge and
withdrawal as
a source of
drinking water
supply shall be
2,000 feet
Other
at any time
after direct
recharge
• Reclaimed
water shall be
retained
underground
for a minimum
of 12 months
prior to being
withdrawn as a
source of
drinking water
supply
• Project
evaluation
based on all
relevant
aspects of
each project,
including
treatment and
treatment
reliability
provided,
reclaimed
water quality
and quantity,
use or
potential use of
groundwater,
operation and
management
of the recharge
facilities, soil
characteristics,
hydrogeology,
residence time
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• 5 mg/l BOD
and TSS
(7 day mean)
• Turbidity
-0.1 NTU
(monthly mean)
- 0.5 NTU
(maximum)
• Total nitrogen
- 1 0 mg/l as N
(annual mean)
• TOC
- 1 .0 mg/l
(monthly mean)
• Water quality
criteria for
primary
contaminants
(except nitrate),
secondary
contaminants,
radionuclides
and
carcinogens
listed in Table 1
in chapter 1 73-
200 WAC and
any other
maximum
contaminant
levels pursuant
to chapter 246-
290 WAC must
be met
• Minimum
chlorine
residual of
1 mg/l after a
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
coliform
organisms),
secondary
contaminants,
radionuclides,
and
carcinogens -
24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least quarterly
• Total nitrogen
- grab or
24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least weekly
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
used as a
source of
drinking water
supply
• Groundwater
shall be
sampled for
TOC and
primary
contaminants,
secondary
contaminants,
radionuclides,
and
carcinogens
listed in Table
1 in chapter
173-200 WAC
• Samples from
monitoring
wells shall be
collected at
least quarterly
Setback
Distances
Other
of the
reclaimed
water in the
underground
prior to
withdrawal and
distance from
the recharge
area to nearest
point of
withdrawal
• A pilot plant
study shall be
performed
prior to
implementation
of direct
recharge into a
potable
groundwater
aquifer
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
contact time of
30 minutes
based on peak
hourly flow
• A chlorine
residual of at
least 0.5 mg/l to
be maintained
in the reclaimed
water during
conveyance to
the point of
recharge
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances
Other
10
00
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse
State
California
Florida
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Based on all
relevant
aspects of each
project,
including the
following
factors:
treatment
provided;
effluent quality
and quantity;
spreading area
operations; soil
characteristics;
hydrogeology;
residence time
and distance to
withdrawal
Discharge to
Class 1 surface
waters and to
water contiguous
to or tributary to
Class 1 waters
(less than 4 hours
travel time):
• Secondary
treatment with
filtration and
high-level
disinfection
• Chemical feed
facilities to be
provided
• 5 mg/l TSS
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
•
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring for
turbidity before
application of
the disinfectant
• Continuous
monitoring for
chlorine
residual or for
residual
concentrations
of other
disinfectants
• Treatment
facilities
designed to
Treatment
Facility Reliability
•
• Class 1
reliability -
requires
multiple or
backup
treatment units
and a
secondary
power source
• For treatment
facilities
required to
provide full
treatment and
disinfection -
minimum reject
storage
Storage
Requirements
• System
storage not
required
• If system
storage is
provided, at a
minimum,
system storage
capacity shall
be the volume
equal to 3
times the
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
Loading
Rates
•
• Reasonable
assurances
must be
provided that
the hydraulic
loading rates
used in the
design must
enable the
system to
comply with
the
requirements
while meeting
applicable
surface water
and
Groundwater
Monitoring
•
• Required
• 1 upgradient
well located as
close as
possible to the
site without
being affected
by the site's
discharge
(background
well)
• 1 well at the
edge of the
zone of
discharge
down-gradient
of the site
Setback
Distances
•
• Outfalls for
surface water
discharges not
to be located
within 500 feet
of existing or
approved
potable water
intakes within
Class I surface
waters
• Zones of
discharge not
to extend
closer than
500 feet to a
potable water
Other
• Involves the
planned use of
reclaimed
water to
augment Class
F-1, G-1,or
G-ll
groundwaters
identified for
potable water
use and
defined as
groundwater
recharge in
regulations
• Types of
groundwater
10
to
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
(single sample)
to be achieved
prior to
disinfection
• Total nitrogen
- 10mg/l
(maximum
annual
average)
• Primary (except
asbestos) and
secondary
drinking water
standards must
be met
• pH to fall within
range
established in
secondary
drinking water
standards
• TOC
- 3 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 5 mg/l
(single sample)
Use of rapid-rate
land application
systems for
projects
considered reuse
for groundwater
recharge under
62-610.525:
• Secondary
treatment with
filtration and
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
meet the full
treatment and
disinfection
requirements
to sample for
TOC and total
organic
halogen daily,
7 days per
week
• Total conforms
and TSS
analyzed daily
if treatment
facility is
required to
meet
bacteriological
requirements
of the drinking
water
standards
• Parameters
listed as
primary
drinking water
standards that
are imposed
as reclaimed
water limits to
be analyzed
monthly
• Parameters
listed as
secondary
drinking water
standards that
are imposed
Treatment
Facility Reliability
capacity equal
to 3 day's flow
at the average
daily permitted
flow of the
treatment plant
or the average
daily permitted
flow of the
reuse system,
whichever is
less
• If full treatment
and
disinfection is
not required,
the capacity
requirement for
reject storage
shall be
reduced to one
day's flow
• Reject storage
will not be
required if
another
permitted
reuse system
or effluent
disposal
system is
capable of
discharging
the reject
water in
accordance
with
requirements
Storage
Requirements
disposal
system is
permitted
• Water balance
required with
volume of
storage based
on a 1 0-year
recurrence
interval and a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• Not required if
alternative
system is
incorporated
into the system
design to
ensure
continuous
facility
operation
Loading
Rates
groundwater
quality
standards
• A groundwater
mounding
analysis is to
be included in
the
engineering
report for
projects
involving
discharges to
groundwater
and should
provide
reasonable
assurances
that the
proposed
project will
function as
intended and
will not result
in excessive
mounding of
groundwaters,
increases in
surface water
elevations,
property
damage or
interference
with
reasonable
use of property
within the
affected area
Groundwater
Monitoring
(compliance
well)
• 1 well
downgradient
from the site
and within the
zone of
discharge
(intermediate
well)
• 1 well located
adjacent to
unlined
storage ponds
or lakes
• Other wells
may be
required
depending on
site-specific
criteria
• Quarterly
monitoring
required for
water level,
nitrate, total
dissolved
solids, arsenic,
cadmium,
chloride,
chromium,
lead, fecal
coliform, pH,
and sulfate
• Monitoring
may be
required for
additional
Setback
Distances
supply well
• 1,000 foot
setback
distance from
injection well
used for
salinity barrier
control to
potable water
supply wells
Injection
facilities:
• 500 feet to
potable water
supply wells
that are
existing or
have been
approved;
Class I surface
waters; or
Class II
surface waters
• Setback
distance to
Class I and
Class II
surface waters
reduced to 100
feet if high-
level
disinfection is
provided
• 1 00 feet to
buildings not
part of the
treatment
facility, utilities
Other
recharge
systems
include
injection of
reclaimed
water into
Class F-1, G-1,
orG-ll
groundwaters,
specific rapid-
rate land
application
systems, use
of reclaimed
water to create
barriers to the
landward or
upward
migration of
salt water
within Class
F-1, G-1, or
G-ll
groundwaters
and discharge
to surface
waters which
are directly
connected to
Class F-1, G-l
or G-ll
groundwaters
• Indirect
potable reuse
Involves the
planned use of
reclaimed
water to
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
high-level
disinfection
• Chemical feed
facilities to be
provided
• 5 mg/l TSS
(single sample)
to be achieved
prior to
disinfection
• Total nitrogen
- 10 mg/l
(maximum
annual
average)
• Primary (except
asbestos and
bacteriological
parameters)
and secondary
drinking water
standards must
be met
• pH to fall within
range
established in
secondary
drinking water
standards
Groundwater
recharge by
injection of Class
G-1 andF-1
groundwaters and
Class G-ll
groundwaters
containing 3000
mg/l or less of
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
as reclaimed
water limits to
be analyzed
quarterly
• pH - daily
• Except for total
coliforms and
pH, 24-hour
composite
samples to be
used for
parameters
listed as
primary or
secondary
drinking water
standards
• Unregulated
organic
contaminants
to be sampled
annually for
some types of
projects
• Monitoring for
Giardia and
Cryptosporidium
required
quarterly or
onetime
during each 2-
year period
depending on
type of project
• Parameters to
be monitored
and sampling
frequency to
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Minimum
system size of
0.1 mgd
• Staffing -
24 hrs/day,
7 days/wk for
systems
required to
provide full
treatment and
disinfection
- reduced
staffing
requirement to
6 hrs/day,
7 days/wk may
be approved
for systems not
required to
provide full
treatment with
diversion of
reclaimed
water to reuse
system only
during periods
of operator
presence and
other
provisions for
increased
reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
parameters
based on site-
specific
conditions and
groundwater
quality
Setback
Distances
system or
municipal
operations
• 100 feet to site
property line
• Some setback
distances may
be reduced if
certain
treatment
requirements
are met and
assurances
are provided
Other
augment
surface water
resources
which are used
or will be used
for public water
supplies and
includes
discharges to
Class I surface
waters and
discharges to
other surface
waters which
are directly or
indirectly
connected to
Class I surface
waters
• Public
notification and
public hearing
requirements
in place for
projects
involving
surface water
discharges and
underground
injection
• Pilot testing is
required for all
projects that
are required to
provide full
treatment and
disinfection
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
TDS:
• Same
treatment and
water quality
requirements
as discharge to
Class I surface
waters except
additional
requirement for
total organic
halogen must
be met
• Total organic
halogen (TOX)
- 0.2 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 0.3 mg/l
(single sample
• Alternative
TOC and TOX
limitations may
be approved if
certain
conditions are
met
Groundwater
recharge by
injection of Class
G-ll groundwaters
containing greater
than 3000 mg/l of
TDS:
• Same
treatment and
water quality
requirements
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
be identified in
wastewater
facility permit
• Minimum
schedule for
sampling and
testing based
on system
capacity
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances
Other
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse
State
Hawaii
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
as discharge to
Class I surface
waters except
TOC and
secondary
drinking water
requirements
do not apply
• Limitations to
be met before
injection to
groundwater or
discharge to
surface waters
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Reclaimed
water used for
groundwater
recharge by
surface or
subsurface
application
shall be at all
times of a
quality that fully
protects public
health
• Projects that
are over an
aquifer
classified as
potable, where
the application
rates exceed
the
consumptive
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Multiple or
standby units
required of
sufficient
capacity to
enable
effective
operation with
any one unit
out of service
• Alarm devices
required for
loss of power,
high water
levels, failure
of pumps or
blowers, high
head loss on
filters, high
effluent
turbidity, loss
of coagulant or
polymer feed,
and loss of
Storage
Requirements
• 20 days
storage
required
unless it can
be
demonstrated
that another
time period is
adequate or
that no storage
is necessary
• Storage
requirements
based on
water balance
using at least a
30-year record
• Reject storage
required with a
volume equal
to 1 day of flow
at the average
daily design
flow
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Required
• Groundwater
monitoring
system may
consist of a
number of
lysi meters
and/or
monitoring
wells
depending on
site size, site
characteristics,
location,
method of
discharge, and
other
appropriate
considerations
• One well
upgradient and
two wells
downgradient
for project sites
Setback
Distances
Other
• Department of
Health
evaluation of
proposed
groundwater
recharge
projects and
expansion of
existing
projects made
on an
individual case
basis where
the use of
recycled water
involves a
potential risk to
public health
• Evaluation
based on all
relevant
aspects of
each project
including
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse
State
Massachusetts
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
evapotranspira-
tion of the
vegetative
cover, will be
designated as a
recharge
project
• Secondary
• Filtration
(possibly)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• pH - weekly or
daily
• BOD - weekly
Treatment
Facility Reliability
chlorine
residual
• Standby power
source
required for
treatment plant
and
distribution
pump stations
• EPA Class I
Reliability
standards may
Storage
Requirements
• Emergency
system storage
not required
where an
alternate
effluent
disposal
system has
been approved
• Immediate,
permitted
discharge
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
500 acres or
more
• One well
within the
wetted field
area for each
project whose
surface area is
greater than or
equal to 1,500
acres
• One lysimeter
per 200 acres
• One lysimeter
for project sites
that have
greater than 40
but less than
200 acres
• Additional
lysi meters may
be necessary
to address
concerns of
public health or
environmental
protection as
related to
variable
characteristics
of the
subsurface or
of the
operations of
the project
A groundwater
monitoring plan is
required and
Setback
Distances
• No wastewater
discharges will
be permitted in
Other
treatment
provided,
effluent quality
and quantity,
effluent or
application
spreading area
operation, soil
characteristics,
hydrogeology,
residence time,
and distance to
withdrawal
• A public
hearing or a
public
referendum is
required for the
DOH to review
a request to
augment a
potable water
supply by
recharging the
potable water
supply aquifer
with recycled
water
• Refers to
discharges into
aquifer
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Disinfection
• pH 6-9
• BOD - less
than 10 mg/l or
30 mg/l
• Turbidity - less
than 2 NTU or
5NTU
• Fecal coliform
- median of no
detectable
colonies/100 ml
over
continuous,
running 7-day
sampling
periods, not to
exceed
14/1 00 ml or
200/1 00 ml
• TSS - 5 mg/l or
1 0 mg/l
• Total nitrogen -
less than
1 0 mg/l
• Class I
Groundwater
Permit
Standards
(SDWA
Drinking Water
Standards)
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Turbidity -
continuous
• Fecal coliform
- daily or twice
per week
• Metals -
quarterly
• TSS - weekly
or twice per
week
• Nitrogen -
once or twice
per week
• MS-2 phage -
quarterly
• Total
culturable
viruses -
quarterly
• Variable
testing
requirements
• UV intensity or
chlorine
residual - daily
Treatment
Facility Reliability
be required
• Two
independent
and separate
sources of
power
• Unit
redundancy
• Additional
storage
Storage
Requirements
alternatives
are required
for emergency
situations
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
must accomplish
the following
goals:
• Evaluates
upgradient
(background)
groundwater
quality
• Evaluates the
performance of
land use
components
that are
considered
part of the
treatment
process
• Evaluates the
overall impact
of the project
on local
groundwater
quality
• Acts as an
early warning
system
between the
discharge and
sensitive
receptors
Setback
Distances
the Zone I of
any public
water supply
well defined as
the area
encompassing
a maximum
400-foot radius
around the
wellhead
(assuming a
greater than
1 00,000 gpd
withdrawal
rate)
• Discharging to
Zone Ms,
defined as the
entire extent of
the aquifer
deposits which
could fall within
and upgradient
from the
production
well's capture
zone based on
the predicted
drawdown
after 1 80-day
drought
conditions at
the approved
pumping rate,
will be
permitted in
circumstances
where it is
Other
recharge areas
as defined by
Zone II
boundaries of
community
water systems
and
groundwater
discharges that
will recharge
reservoirs or
tributaries to
reservoirs
• New treatment
plants located
in approved
Zone Ms with
less than a 2
year
groundwater
travel time to
the public
water supply
well must treat
to the more
rigorous of the
two standards
described
• Existing
treatment
plants that can
demonstrate 4
or 5 feet of
separation and
where the well
has not shown
any evidence
of water quality
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse
State
Washington
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
• Oxidized,
coagulated,
filtered,
reverse-
osmosis treated
and disinfected
• Total coliform
- 1/100 ml
(7-day median)
-5/1 00 ml
(single sample)
• 5 mg/l BOD
and TSS
(7-day mean)
• Turbidity
-0.1 NTU
(monthly mean)
- 0.5 NTU
(maximum)
• Total nitrogen
- 1 0 mg/l as N
(annual mean)
• TOC
- 1 .0 mg/l
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
• Point of
compliance is
the point of
direct recharge
of reclaimed
water into the
underground
• BOD -24-
hour
composite
samples
collected at
least daily
• TSS - 24 hour
composite
samples
collected at
least daily
• Total coliform -
grab samples
collected at
least daily and
at a time when
wastewater
Treatment
Facility Reliability
• Warning
alarms
independent of
normal power
supply
• Back-up power
source
• Emergency
storage:
short-term,
1 day;
long-term,
20 days
• Multiple
treatment units
or storage or
disposal
options
• Qualified
personnel
available or on
call at all times
the system is
operating
Storage
Requirements
• Storage
required when
no approved
alternative
disposal
system exists
• Storage
volume
established by
determining
storage period
required for
duration of a
10-year storm,
using a
minimum of 20
years of
climatic data
• At a minimum,
system storage
capacity
should be the
volume equal
to 3 times that
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
• Will be
required and
based on
reclaimed
water quality
and quantity,
site specific
soil and
hydrogeologic
characteristics
and other
considerations
• For direct
recharge into
potable
groundwater
aquifers,
monitoring
wells, at a
minimum, shall
be located at
points 500 feet
and 1 ,000 feet
(plus or minus
Setback
Distances
necessary to
replenish
streamflow,
enhance the
productivity
and capacity of
an aquifer,
and/or improve
upon or
mitigate poor
existing
environmental
conditions
• The minimum
horizontal
separation
distance
between the
point of direct
recharge and
withdrawal as
a source of
drinking water
supply shall be
2,000 feet
Other
degradation
may maintain
the lesser
standard
• Defined as
direct recharge
to potable
groundwater
aquifers
• Reclaimed
water shall be
retained
underground
for a minimum
of 12 months
prior to being
withdrawn as a
source of
drinking water
supply
• Project
evaluation
based on all
relevant
aspects of
each project,
including
treatment and
O
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
(monthly mean)
• Water quality
criteria for
primary
contaminants
(except nitrate),
secondary
contaminants,
radionuclides
and
carcinogens
listed in Table 1
in Chapter 173-
200 WAC and
any other
maximum
contaminant
levels pursuant
to Chapter 246-
290 WAC must
be met
• Minimum
chlorine
residual of
1 mg/l after a
contact time of
30 minutes
based on peak
hourly flow
• A chlorine
residual of at
least 0.5 mg/l to
be maintained
in the reclaimed
water during
conveyance to
the point of
recharge
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
characteristics
are most
demanding on
the treatment
facilities and
disinfection
procedures
• Continuous
on-line
monitoring of
turbidity and
chlorine
residual
• TOC - 24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least daily
• Primary
contaminants
(except total
coliform
organisms),
secondary
contaminants,
radionuclides,
and
carcinogens -
24-hour
composite
samples
collected at
least quarterly
• Total nitrogen
- grab or
24-hour
composite
samples
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
portion of the
average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
10 percent)
along the
groundwater
flow path from
the point of
recharge to the
nearest point
of withdrawal
of groundwater
used as a
source of
drinking water
supply
• Groundwater
shall be
sampled for
TOC and
primary
contaminants,
secondary
contaminants,
radionuclides,
and
carcinogens
listed in Table
1 in Chapter
173-200 WAC
• Samples from
monitoring
wells shall be
collected at
least quarterly
Setback
Distances
Other
treatment
reliability
provided,
reclaimed
water quality
and quantity,
use or
potential use of
groundwater,
operation and
management
of the recharge
facilities, soil
characteristics,
hydrogeology,
residence time
of the
reclaimed
water in the
underground
prior to
withdrawal and
distance from
the recharge
area to nearest
point of
withdrawal
• A pilot plant
study shall be
performed
prior to
implementation
of direct
recharge into a
potable
groundwater
aquifer
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse
State
Reclaimed Water
Quality and
Treatment
Requirements
Reclaimed Water
Monitoring
Requirements
collected at
least weekly
Treatment
Facility Reliability
Storage
Requirements
Loading
Rates
Groundwater
Monitoring
Setback
Distances
Other
00
(1) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
-------
Appendix B
State Websites
439
-------
Appendix B. State Website Internet Addresses
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Type
Guidelines
Regulations
Regulations
Guidelines
Regulations
Regulations
Neither
Regulations
Regulations
Guidelines
Guidelines
Regulations
Regulations
Regulations
Regulations
Guidelines
Neither
Neither
Neither
Agency
Department of Environmental
Management
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Health Services
Department of Public Health and
Environment
Department of Environmental
Protection
Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control
Department of Environmental
Protection
Department of Natural
Resources
Department of Health
Department of Environmental
Quality
Environmental Protection
Agency
Department of Environmental
Management
Department of Natural
Resources
Department of Health and
Environment
Rules
Guidelines and Minimum Requirements for Municipal,
Semi-Public and Private Land Treatment Facilities
Alaska Administrative Code, Title 18 - Environmental Conservation,
Chapter 72, Article 2, Section 275 - Disposal Systems
Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18 - Environmental Quality,
Chapter 1 1 , Article 3 - Reclaimed Water Quality Standards and
Chapters, Article 7 - Direct Reuse of Reclaimed Water
Arkansas Land Application Guidelines for Domestic Wastewater
California Department of Health Services
Regulations and Guideance for Recycled Water (The Purple Book)
California Code of Regulations, Title 17 and 22
Water Quality Control Commission Regulation 84-Reclaimed
Domestic Wastewater Control Regulation
Guidance and Regulations Governing the Land Treatment of Wastes
Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application
Florida Administrative Code - Chapter 62-610
Environmental Protection Division
Guidelines for Water Reclamation and Urban Water Reuse
Guidelines for the Treatment and Use of Recycled Water
58.01. 17 Wastewater Land Application Permit Rules
Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35, Subtitle C, Part 372,
Illinois Design Standards for Slow Rate Land Application of
Treated Wastewater
Indiana Administrative Code, Title 327, Article 6.1 -Land Application
of Biosolid, Industrial Waste Product, and Pollutant-Bearing Water
Environmental Protection Division
Iowa Wastewater Design Standards, Chapter 21 -
Land Application of Wastewater
KDHE Administrative Rules and Regulations, 28-1 6.
Water Pollution Control
Website
http://www.adem.state.al.us/
http://209.192.62.106/
Land treatment guidelines not found on website
http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/home.htm
http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/title18/aac72ndx.htm
http://www.sos.state.az.us/
http://www.sos. state. az.us/public_services/Table_of_Contents. htm
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/default.htm
http://www.adeq. state. ar. us/water/bra nch_permits/default. htm
Land application guidelines not found on website
http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/publications/waterrecycling/waterrecyclingindex.htm
http://ccr.oal.ca.gov/
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/cdphehom.asp
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/regs/waterregs/100284.pdf
http://dep.state.ct.us/
http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/
http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/water2000/Sections/GroundWat/GWDSRegulations.htm
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/reuse/index.htm
http://fac.dos.state.fl.us/
http://www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ/
http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/techguide_files/wpb/reuse.pdf
http://www.state.hi.us/doh/
http://www.state.hi.us/doh/eh/wwb/reuse-final.pdf
http://www2.state.id.us/adm/index.htm
http://www2.state.id.us/adm/adminrules/rules/idapa58/58index.htm
http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/
http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/SLR/IPCBandlEPAEnvironmentalRegulations-Title35.asp
http://www.in.gov/idem/
http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/title327.html
http://www.state.ia.us/epd/
http://www.state.ia.us/epdAwastewtr/design.htm
http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/
http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/regs/
http://kentucky.gov/Default.html
http://www.state.la.us/
http: //www. state, me. us/
-------
Appendix B. State Website Internet Addresses Continued
State
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Type
Guidelines
Guidelines
Regulations
Neither
Neither
Regulations
Guidelines
Regulations
Regulations
Neither
Guidelines
Guidelines
Guidelines
Regulations
Guidelines
Guidelines
Regulations
Agency
Department
of the Environment
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Natural
Resources
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources
Department of Environmental
Protection-Division of Water
Quality
Environment Department
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Department of Health
Environmental Protection
Agency
Department of Environmental
Quality
Rules
Guidelines for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters
Title 26 Department of the Environment
Interim Guidelines on Reclaimed Water (Revised)
Part 22 Rules of Part 31Groundwater Quality Rules
Part 22 Guidesheet II Irrigation Management Plan
Rule 2215 Various Aboveground Disposal Systems
Code of State Regulations, Title 10, Division 20,
Chapter 8 - Design Guides
Design Standards for Wastewater Facilities, Appendix B -
Standards for the Spray Irrigation of Wastewater
Title 1 19 Chapter 9 Disposal of Sewage Sludge
and Land Application of Effluent - Regulations
refer to the use of Guidelines for Treated
Wastewater Irrigation Systems, February 1986
Divison of Environmental Protection
Nevada Administrative Code 445A.275 -
Use of Treated Effluent for Irrigation
General Design Criteria for Reclaimed
Water Irrigation Use
Technical Manual for Reclaimed Water for Beneficial Reuse
Use of Domestic Wastewater Effluent for Irrigation
State Guidelines for the Use of Land Treatment of Wastewater
Administrative Rules, Title 15A, Chapter 02, Subchapter H, .0200 -
Waste not Discharged to Surface Waters
Division of Water Quality
Criteria for Irrigation with Treated Wastewater
Recommended Criteria for Land Disposal of Effluent
The Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 860
Reuse of Reclaimed Wastewater through Irrigation
Title 252 Chapter 621 and 656
Website
http://www.mde.state.md.us/index.asp
http://www.dsd. state. md.us/comar/subtitle_chapters/26_Chapters. htm
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/dephome.htm
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brpAwwm/t5regs.htm
http://www.michigan.gov/deq
http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1 607,7-1 35-331 3_3682-14902--.OO.html
http://www.michigan.goV/deq/0.1 607,7-1 35-331 2_4117-9782--.OO.html
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-wmd-gwp-Rule2215VariousAboveGroundDisposalSystems-
http://www.state.mn. us/cgi-bin/portal/mn/jsp/home.do?agency=NorthStar
http://www.mississippi.gov/
http://www.sos.mo.gov/
http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10csr.asp
http://www.deq.state.mt.us/
http://www.deq. state. mt.usAwqinfo/Circulars/DEQ2. PDF
http://www.deq.state.ne.us/
http://ndep.nv.gov/
http://ndep.nv.gov/nac/445a-226.pdf
http://ndep.nv.gov/bwpcAwts1a.pdf
http://www.state.nh.us/
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/techman.htm
http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/
Guidelines not found on website
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/
Guidelines not found on website
http://www.oah.state.nc.us/rules/
http://ncrules. state. nc.us/ncadministrativ_/title15aenviron_/chapter02enviro_/default. htm
http://www.health.state.nd.us/wq/
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/
http://ohioline.osu.edu/b860/
http://www.deq.state.ok.us/mainlinks/deqrules.htm
-------
Appendix B. State Website Internet Addresses Continued
State
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Type
Regulations
Guidelines
Neither
Regulations
Guidelines
Regulations
Regulations
Regulations
Regulations
Neither
Guidelines
Regulations
Regulations
Regulations
Agency
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Environmental
Protection
Department of Health and
Environmental Control
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Department of Environment and
Conservation
Natural Resource Conservation
Commission
Department of Environmental
Quality
Division of Water Quality
Agency of Natural Resources
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Health State
Department of Health
Department of Natural
Resources
Department of Environmental
Quality
Rules
Oregon Administrative Rules Use of Reclaimed Water from
Sewage Treatment Plants - Division 55 340-055
Treatment and Monitoring Requirements for Use of Reclaimed Water
Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Manual for Land Application of Treated Sewage
and Industrial Wastewater
-
Administrative Code 61 Section 9.505
Land Application Permits and State Permits
Chapter XII Recommended Design Criteria for
Disposal of Effluent by Irrigation
Chapter XIII Recommended Design Criteria for
Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Chapter XVI Recommended Design Criteria for
Artificial Wetland Systems
Chapter 1 6 of Design Criteria for Sewage Works
Texas Administrative Code, Title 30 Environmental Quality,
Part 1, Chapter 210 Use of Reclaimed Water
Utah Administrative Code, Environmental Quality, R-317-1-4
Indirect Discharge Rules (for systems >6500 gpd)
Wastewater Disposal Systems and Potable Water Supplies
(for systems <6500 gpd)
Department of Ecology
Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards
Title 64 Series 47 Chapter 1 6-1
Sewage Treatment and Collection System Design Standards
Natural Resources, Chapter NR 206 Land Disposal of
Municipal and Domestic Wastewaters
Wyoming Water Quality Regulations
Chapter 21 -Reuse of Treated Wastewater
Website
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqrules/wqrules.htm
http://www.dep. state. pa. us/dep/deputate/watermgt/Wqp/WQP_WM/WM_Sewage. htm
http://www.state.ri.us/
http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/coderegs/chap61/61-9.htm
http://www.state.sd.us/denr/DES/P&S/designcriteria/designT.html
http://www.state.tn.us/environment/
http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pub/plsql/readtacSext.viewtac
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code.htm
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ww/indirect.htmftlDRs
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ww/rules/os/Final081602/Subchap5-6-081602.pdf
http://www.virginia.gov/cmsportal/
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ecyhome.html
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/97023.html
http://www.wvsos.com/csr/verify.asp?TitleSeries=64-47
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/
www.legis. state. wi.us/rsb/code
http://soswy.state.wy.us/
http://soswy.state.wy.us/RULES/2804.pdf
-------
Appendix C
Abbreviations and Acronyms
443
-------
Acronyms
AID U.S. Agency for International Development
ANSI American National Standards Institute
AWT advanced wastewater treatment
AWWA American Water Works Association
BNR biological nutrient removal
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
CBOD carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
CPU colony forming units
COD chemical oxygen demand
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CWA Clean Water Act
DO dissolved oxygen
EC electrical conductivity
EIS environmental impact statement
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA external support agency
ET evapotranspiration
PC fecal coliform
FmHA Farmers Home Administration
GAG granular activated carbon
GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy
HPLC high pressure liquid chromatography
IAWPRC International Association on Water
Pollution Research and Control
ICP inductively coupled plasmography
I/I infiltration/inflow
IOC inorganic chemicals
IRCWD International Reference Centre for Waste
Disposal
IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District
MCL maximum contaminant level
MCLG maximum contaminant level goal
MDL method detection limit
MPN most probable number
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
NRC National Research Council
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
O3 ozone
O&M operations and maintenance
OM&R operations, maintenance and replacement
OWRT Office of Water Research and Technology
PAC powder activated carbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
POTW publicly owned treatment works
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RAS return activated sludge
RBC rotating biological contactor
RO reverse osmosis
SAR sodium adsorption ratio
SAT soil aquifer treatment
SBA Small Business Administration
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SOC synthetic organic chemical
SRF State Revolving Fund
SS suspended solids
TCE trichloroethylene
TDS total dissolved solids
THM trihalomethane
TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen
TN total nitrogen
TOC total organic carbon
TOH total organic hydrocarbons
TOX total organic halides
TP total phosphorus
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon
TSS total suspended solids
UN United Nations
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
UV ultraviolet
VOC volatile organic chemicals
WAS waste activated sludge
WASH Water and Sanitation for Health
WHO World Health Organization
WPCF Water Pollution Control Federation
WRF water reclamation facility
WWTF wastewater treatment facility
444
-------
Abbreviations for Units of Measure
Acre
Acre-foot
British thermal unit
cubic feet per second
cubic meter
cubic meters per day
cubic meters per second
Curie
cycles per second
degrees Celsius
degrees Fahrenheit
feet (foot)
feet per year
Gallon
gallons per day
gallons per minute
hectare
horsepower
hour
Inch
kilogram
kilometer
kiloPascal
kilowatt
kilowatt hour
Liter
liters per capita per day
ac
AF
Btu
cfs
m3
m3/d
m3/s
Ci
cps
°C
°F
ft
ft/yr
g
gpd
gpm
ha
hp
hr
in
kg
km
kPa
kW
kWh
1
led
liters per second
meter
meters per second
microgram
micrograms per liter
micrometer
mile
mile per hour
milligram
milligrams per liter
millilter
millimeter
million gallons per day
milliquivalent per liter
minute
megawatt
million acre feet per year
pascal
plaque forming unit
pound
pounds per square inch
roentgen
second
square foot
square inch
square meter
year
l/s
m
m/s
ug
ug/i
urn
mi
mph
mg
mg/l
ml
mm
mgd
meq/l
min
mW
MAFY
Pa
pfu
Ib
psi
R
S
ft2
in2
m2
yr
445
-------
446
-------
Appendix D
Inventory of Reclaimed Water Projects
447
-------
Appendix D: Inventory of Water Reuse Projects
Projects Sponsored by the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF)
Project Number
01 -CTS-6
D 13000
92-HHE-1CO
01-HHE-4
01-HHE-4a
01-HHE-20T
01-HHE-21T
97-IRM-6
OO-PUM-1
00-PUM-2T
OO-PUM-3
94-PUM-1CO
99-PUM-4
92-WRE-1
Project Title
Membrane Treatment of Secondary Effluent for Subsequent Use*
Membrane Bioreactors: Feasibility and Use in Water Reclamation
The Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production
(Cooperative Effort w/ NRC)
Workshop: On-line Toxicologic Methods for Evaluating Potential Chemical Risk
Associated with Potable Reuse (Workshop)
Online Methods for Evaluating the Safety of Reclaimed Water*
Removal of Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in Water Reclamation Systems*
Innovative DNA Array Technology for Detection of Pharmaceutics in Reclaimed Water*
Nonpotable Water Reuse Management Practices
Water Reuse: Understanding Public Participation and Participation
Reduction of Pathogens, Indicator Bacteria, and Alternative Indicators by
Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Processes*
Evaluation of Microbial Risk Assessment Techniques and Applications in Water Reclamation*
Soil Treatability Pilot Studies to Design and Model Soil Aquifer Treatment Systems
Impact of Storage on Nonpotable Reclaimed Water: Seasonal and Long Term
Water Reuse Assessment
448
-------
Appendix D: Inventory of Water Reuse Projects Continued
Projects Sponsored by the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF)
Project Number
371
487
2568
2919
2968
Project Title
Augmenting Potable Water Supplies With Reclaimed Water
Investigation of Soil-Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse
Membrane Treatment of Waste Filter Washwater for Direct Reuse
Understanding Public Concerns and Developing Tools to Assist Local Officials in
Successful Potable Reuse Projects
Protocol for Developing Water Reuse Criteria With Reference to Drinking Water Supplies
Projects Sponsored by the National Water Research Institute (NWRI)
WR-699-531-92
HRA-699-517-94
A Comparative Study of UV and Chlorine Disinfection for Wastewater Reclamation
Microbial Risk Assessment for Reclaimed Water
Projects Sponsored by the WateReuse Foundation
WRF-01-001
WRF-0 1-002
WRF-0 1-004
WRF-0 1-005
WRF-0 1-006
WRF-0 1-007
WRF-0 1-008
WRF-02-001
WRF-02-002
WRF-02-003
WRF-02-004
WRF-02-005
WRF-02-006a
WRF-02-006b
Develop Low Cost Analytical Method for Measuring NDMA
Removal and/or Destruction of NDMA in Wastewater Treatment Processes
Understanding Public Concerns of Indirect Potable Reuse Projects
Characterizing Salinity in Sewer Contributions in Sewer Collection and Reclaimed Water
Distribution Systems (AwwaRF Project)
Characterizing Microbial Water Quality in Non-Potable Reclaimed Water Distribution
Systems to Optimize End Uses (AwwaRF Project)
The Use of Bioassays and Chemical Measurements to Assess the Removal of Endocrine
Disrupting Compounds in Water Reclamation Systems (WERF Project via JWRTF)
Evaluation and Testing of Bioassays for Pharmaceutics in Reclaimed Water
(WERF Project via JWRTF)
Rejection of Wastewater-Derived Micropollutants in High-Pressure Membrane Applications
Leading to Indirect Potable Reuse: Effects of Membrane and micropollutant Properties
Investigation of NDMA Fate and Transport
Filter Loading Evaluation for Water Reuse
National Database on Water Reuse Projects
Develop a National Salinity Management Clearinghouse and Five-year Research Program
Zero Liquid Discharge for Water Utility Applications
Beneficial and Non-Traditional Uses of Concentrate and Salts
449
-------
Appendix D: Inventory of Water Reuse Projects Continued
Projects Sponsored by the WateReuse Foundation Continued
Project Number
WRF-02-006C
WRF-02-006d
WRF-02-007
WRF-02-008
WRF-02-009
WRF-02-011
WRF-03-001
WRF-03-005
WRF-03-006
WRF-03-009
WRF-03-010
WRF-03-011
WRF-03-012
WRF-03-013
WRF-03-014
Project Title
Impacts of Membrane Process Residuals on Wastewater Treatment
Benefits of Regional Solutions in Disposing of Concentrate
Comparative Study of Recycled Water Irrigation and Fairway Turf
Study of Reclaimed, Surface, and Ground-Water Quality
Study of Innovative Treatment on Reclaimed Water
A Protocol for Developing Water Reuse Criteria with Reference to Drinking Water Supplies
Pathogen Removal and Inactivation in Reclamation Plants - Study Design
Marketing Strategies for Non-Potable Recycled Water
Economic Analysis of Sustainable Water Use - Benefits and Cost
Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery: Potential Changes in Water Quality
Water Reuse Research Needs Workshop
Two-Day Research Needs Assessment Workshop on Integrating
Human Reactions to Water Reuse
Salt Management Guide
Rejection of Contaminants of Concern by Nanofiltration and Ultra-low Pressure Reverse
Osmosis Membranes for Treating Water of Impaired Quality (AWWARF)
Development of Indicators and Surrogates of Chemical Contaminants and
Organic Removal in Wastewater and Water Reuse (Co-funding with WERF)
450
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA625/R-04/108
August 2004
www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
------- |