~~A
LAND APPLICATION OF EFFLUENTS
IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN-PRAIRIE REGION
by
Roger James Dean
-------
LAND APPLICATION OF EFFLUENTS
IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN-PRAIRIE REGION
by
Roger James Dean
! Research supported in part 1
j by a graduate professional
; training grant; from the Of-!
| fice of Water IVograms, U.S;
j Environmental Protection
1 Agency . Grant. #T 900116 .
-------
LAND APPLICATION OF EFFLUENTS
IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN-PRAIRIE REGION
by
Roger James Dean
B.S., Augustana College, I960
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate
School of the University of Colorado in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
1974
-------
This Thesis for the Master of Science Degree by
Roger James Dean
has been approved for the
Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering
by
J. Ernest Flack
Edwin R. Bennett
Date CJ9
-------
ABSTRACT
Dean, Roger James (M.S., Civil and Environmental
Engineering)
Land Application of Effluents in the Kooky Mouritain-
Prairie Region
Thesis directed by Professor J. Ernest Flack
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 and more stringent State water quality stand-
ards for surface waters have revived interest in the
land application of effluents as a wastewater treatment
method. Articles discussing various aspects of the
concept appear in the literature w.i th increasing
f requency.
Legal, environmental, social, economic and engineer-
ing factors must be included in the evaluation of
existing systems or the consideration of new systems.
Each factor also affects the cost, effectiveness of
land application as a wastewater treatment alternative.
These factors are site specific in terms of politics,
law, water rights, climate, topography, soil type,
hydrology, geology, and agricultural practices. Care
must, therefore, be exercised when comparing land
treatment sites or estimating the cost and efficiency
of a proposed site based on the performance of another
site. This thesis includes a compilation of the more
significant factors for consideration, a brief
-------
iv
discussion of the importance and interrelationship of
each factor, and their impact on cost analysis.
A survey of the use of land application of waste-
water effluents was conducted encompassing the Rocky
Mountain-Prairie Region of the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VIII, which includes the States of
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
and Wyoming. Of prime interest were those sites
utilizing spray irrigation, overland flow or ridge
and furrow irrigation which had pre-planned or inten-
tional direct uses of effluents. Not included were
sites where dilution or ultimate destination of the
effluent was unknown. The main survey topics included:
flow and storage, pretreatment, significant effluent
water characteristics, soil, geological, and topo-
graphical characteristics of the site, irrigation
methods used, crop and land use, environmental monitor-
ing of the site, and capital and operating and main-
tenance costs. Six industrial and thirty-seven munici-
pal sites were surveyed. The results of the survey
indicated a general lack of State control over engineer-
ing, environmental, or monitoring considerations
necessary for proper operation and management of land
treatment sites and a corresponding lack of awareness
or concern for those factors by most site operators.
-------
V
This abstract is approved as to form and content.
Signed
Fa ci^l/ty member in charge of thes is
-------
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
While many persons contributed to this research
study, I would like to give special thanks to those
who provided major contributions through their
guidance and assistance.
Impetus for the study began with Robert Hagen of
the Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII.
Without his support the: survey would not have been
possible. George Hartniann provided major contributions
in answering the many questions regarding EPA policy
and regulations. The assistance of Richard Thomas of
the Robert S. Kerr Water Research Center was invaluable
in compiling the site survey list and tracking down
the extensive list of references,
My advisor, Dr. J. Ernest Flack and Dr. Edwin R.
Bennett were helpful throughout the study in providing
guidance and comments based on their professional
experien ce.
I am appreciative of my wife Joyce for her patient
endurance during the last year.
Finally, and with most sincere appreciation, I
would like to thank all the engineers, operators, and
public officials in the Region VIII States who took
time from their busy schedules to answer the many
survey questions that provides the focal point of this
thesis.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Land Treatment Systems 1
Historical Perspective 3
Past U.S. Experiences 5
II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 11
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 11
EPA Rules and Regulations 16
State Laws and Regulations 20
Colorado 21
Montana 22
North Dakota 23
South Dakota 23
Utah 23
Wyoming 2k
County and Local Laws and Regulations 25
Water and Water Law 26
Water Regimen and Secondary Effects 26
Water Law 28
Water Rights vs. Project Costs 3k
Groundwater Pollution 39
III. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS k2
Public Acceptance k2
Farmer-Operator Acceptance k6
Economic and Cost Considerations ^7
-------
viii
CHAPTER PAGE
Environmental Considerations 48
Management Considerations ^9
IV. ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 52
Pretreatment Requirements 53
Effluent Characteristics 5^
Site Requirements and Selection 58
Location 59
Topography 59
Geology 60
Climate and Evapotranspiration 60
Application Rates and Land
Requirement f>2
Infiltration Rate and Drying
Cycle 64
Soils 65
Groundwater and Underdrains 67
Storage Reservoirs and Lagoons 69
Pilot Systems 70
Fate of Wastewater Constituents 71
Physical Constituents 72
Organics 73
Major Inorganic Ions 74
Nutrients 78
Trace Elements and Toxic Chemicals 82
Pathogens 87
Wildlife and Insects 92
Forage Animals 93
-------
IX
CHAPTER PAGE
Crop Selection 94
Corn 97
Alfalfa 98
Reed Canary Grass 98
Monitoring 101
V. REGION VIII SURVEY RESULTS 104
General Site Data 106
Systems Description 110
Monitoring 115
Conclusions 1 1 6
Recommendations 1 1 8
BIBLIOGRAPHY 122
APPENDICES
A. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 135
B. REGION VIII SURVEY RESULTS--EXISTING SITES
Location of Existing Sites 1138
Flow, Pretreatment, and Land Use 140
Winter Discharge, Storage Capacity,
and Effluent Characteristics 1^2
Reason for Land Disposal and
Public/User Comments 1^4
Land, Soils, and Irrigation Methods 1k6
Irrigation Data 148
Site Monitoring 1^9
C. REGION VIII SURVEY RESULTS—PROPOSED SITES 150
-------
X
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I. SAMPLE MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER ANALYSIS 56
II. CORN SILAGE AND REED CANARY GRASS NUTRIENT
ANALYSIS 100
III. REGION VIII SITES 107
IV. YEAR SITES PLACED IN SERVICE 107
V. DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING SITES BY LAND USE 108
VI. LAND DISPOSAL REASON 108
VII. EFFLUENT PRETREATMENT 1 1 1
VIII. AVERAGE ACREAGE BY USE 1 1 3
IX. SOIL TYPES 1 13
X. ADJACENT LAND USE 113
XI. IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT 11*1
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Land Treatment Systems
The land application of effluents is a wastewater
treatment method which takes advantage of the physical,
chemical and biological renovative characteristics of
the soil. Modern land treatment systems are grouped
as crop irrigation, overland flow or spray-runoff, and
infiltration-percolation.
The crop irrigation method utilizes standard spray
irrigation equipment such as center pivot, solid set
or portable irrigation rigs to apply wastewater to
selected crops. Surface application methods include
ridge and furrow, overland flow, and border irrigation.
Spray-runoff or overland flow is an adaptation of
spray irrigation using natural sloping terrain terraced
into separate small areas. Wastewater is treated by
flowing to collection ditches through vegetation growing
on an impermeable soil. The collection ditches dis-
charge the treated wastewater to a receiving stream.
Biological treatment occurs as the wastewater trickles
through the vegetative litter and contacts the biota
and the soil.
Infiltration-percolation methods utilize diked
areas over permeable soil formations. The intent is
to simultaneously achieve wastewater treatment and
-------
2
groundwater recharge. Alternate cycles of flooding,
infiltration, and drying are required to maintain the
soil infiltration capacity.
The emphasis in this thesis will be on three
subjects related to land treatment:
(1) Spray irrigation systems—it is the predomin-
ant method used for land treatment of
wastewater in the Rocky Mountain-Prairie
Region.
(2) Legal, environmental, social, economic and
engineering factors—they all must be in-
cluded in the evaluation of existing systems
or the consideration of new systems.
(3) Present practices in Region VTII--the results
of a survey of land application systems and
systems performance within Region VIII of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
will be presented. EPA Region VIII, the Rocky
Mountain-Prairie Region, includes the states
of Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
Factors affecting the efficacy of land treatment
are site specific in terms of politics, law, water
rights, climate, topography, soil type, hydrology,
geology, cost effectiveness, and agricultural practices.
-------
3
The results will be generalized in terms of identifi-
cation of the significant factors, their importance to
cost effective analysis and design of land treatment
systems, and actual Regional experiences and practices
of land treatment.
Historical Perspective
The application of sewage effluents to the land
has been historically termed "sewage farming". Refer-
ences to sewage farming date as far back as 1559 for
Bunzlau, Germany. In the United States references date
as far back as 1872 for Augusta, Maine. The 1972
Municipal Wastewater Facilities Inventory, published
by the EPA, identified 571 municipal surface applica-
tion systems in the United States . ^ The total number
of industrial systems is not known, but using historic
municipal to industrial facilities ratios would indi-
cate that at least an equal number of industrial
systems probably exist.
There is nothing new about the basic concept of
spreading treated or untreated sewage or liquid wastes
on the land as a means of disposal. What is new is
the objective of making this method of disposal a
scientifically evaluated, professionally designed, and
properly operated and maintained treatment process which
can meet the criterion of a "best practicable tech-
nology" . The more specific definition of "land
-------
4
application of effluents" usually refers to the applica-
tion of municipal effluents onto land areas after
treatment approaching secondary treatment quality
criteria. Pretreatment requirements for industrial
wastes are determined by the individual process involved.
There also is a new awareness that ground waters
need to be protected from pollution just as diligently
as surface waters because groundwater may remain
polluted for years, decades, or centuries. The average
residence time of a pollutant in groundwater can be as
2
long as 200 years.
Land application of effluents is currently con-
sidered to be advanced waste treatment for removal of
suspended so.I ids, biodegradab] e oirgani.cs , nutrients and
pathogens. Land application is thus vj.ewed as an al-
ternative to other physical-chemi.cal-biological methods
of tertiary treatment.
Acute or chronic quantities of toxic trace ele-
ments, salts, heavy inetals and refactory organics are
severe pollutants on land just as they are in streams.
Toxic wastes may poison the soil biological systems
responsible for the renovation processes and cause long
term or irreversible damage to soil systems and ground-
water. They may be concentrated within plants used
for agriculture production and cause toxicity in higher
animals, including man, when used as food or feed.
Soil and groundwater pollution, therefore, need to be
-------
5
at least as strictly controlled and monitored as pollu-
tion of rivers and lakes.
The effectiveness of land application must be
judged by what it accomplishes and not used merely as
a means of avoiding the direct discharge of treated
effluents into receiving waters. Water is a limited
resource, especially in the Western United States.
Denying downstream users the use of part of the effluent
because of the water lost to evapotranspiration in land
treatment may not be in the best interest of the re-
gional or national economy.
Past U.S. Experiences
The American Public Works Association Research
Foundation, in 1972, conducted a field survey of 100
facilities utilizing the land application of municipal
or industrial wastewaters. Facilities utilizing muni-
cipal wastewaters (75) were predominantly in the western
and southwestern portions of the nation. Industrial
facilities (25), primarily fruit and vegetable pro-
cessing plants, were predominantly in the northeastern
section. Selection of the sites to be surveyed was
weighted towards the larger long-established facilities
to obtain as much information as possible on operating
experience. Adequate field survey data was obtained
from 69 municipal and 19 industrial facilities to form
-------
6
the data base used in the analysis. The following are
presented to give a composite picture of the observa-
3
tions made:
Communities generally use their land
application system on a continuous
basis. Food processing plants, the
predominant industrial users of the
system, generally use discharge-to-
land systems for three to eight
months per year.
2. Ground cover utilized for municipal
systems is divided between grass and
crops. Industries generally use
grass cover.
'J. Land application systems are usually
used on a daily basis, seven days
per week.
U. Application rates for crop irriga-
tion are very low in terms of inches
of water per week. Two inches or
less was common.
5. Many types of soils were utilized
although sand, loam and silt were
the most common classifications
given. Two systems on deep sand
were applying up to eight inches
per day once a week, contrasted
with another system on clay apply-
ing a daily rate of 0.1 inch.
6. Most operating agencies, municipal
and industrial, are planning to
either expand or continue their
land application installations.
The few examples of systems which
had been abandoned gave as the
reason either the desire to make
a higher use of the land, or
because of reported overloading
and incompetent operation of the
land application facilities.
-------
7
7. Industries surveyed generally treat
their total waste flow by land
application. Municipalities apply
from less than 25 percent, to all
the wastewaters discharged.
8. Secondary treatment and lagoon
storage are generally, but not
always, provided by municipalities
prior to land application. In-
dustries frequently treated their
process wastes by screening only.
9- Spray irrigation is the most fre-
quently used (57 facilities)
method of application, although
most municipalities use more than
one method. Ridge-and-furrow
irrigation is used at 2J facili-
ties and flooding irrigation by
'j^l systems. Industry generally
used spray irrigation.
10. Land use zoning for land applica-
tion sites is predominantly clas-
sified as agriculture, with some
residential zoning in contiguous
areas.
11. Wastewater generally is trarisjiorted
to the application site by pressure
lines, although a number of munici-
palities are able to utilize ditches
or gravity flow pipelines.
12. Many municipal land application
facilities have been in use for
several years—more than half for
over 15 years. Industrial systems
generally have been in use for a
shorter period of time.
13. Renovated wastewater is seldom col-
lected by underdrains; rather,
evaporation, plant transpiration,
and groundwater recharge take up
the flow.
1^. In general, no appreciable efforts
are made to preclude public access.
Residences are frequently located
adjacent to land application sites.
-------
8
No special effort is made to seclude
land application areas or to exclude
recreationists from the sites.
15. Measurement and monitoring of
groundwater quality, soil uptake
of contaminants, crop uptake of
wastewater components, and surface
water Impacts are not carried out
at all or arc not done with any
cons istency.
The study indicated that existing land applica-
tion systems are serving predominantly small communi-
ties and industrial sites. Seventy-three percent of
the municipal and all the industrial sites have land
application capacities of under 5 MGD. Little concern
or protective measures were shown for deterioration of
the environment in the application areas or for the
impact on continuous lands and their occupants.
Security provisions against trespassers or against the
dispersal of aerosols to surrounding areas through use
of fencing or buffer zones were not common practice.
Monitoring of groundwater, surface water sources, soils,
animals or insects were not common and were often de-
pendent solely on the requirements of public health
authorities. The survey of state health and water
pollution control agencies indicated that most state
agencies have no set policies on land application of
effluents or the attendant environmental impacts. State
agencies do not impose specific conditions on installa-
tions, seldom inspect existing systems, arid seldom
-------
require monitoring procedures and the filing of official
reports on operation.
California appears to have the most land applica-
tion sites (132). The CaJ ifornia land application
systems process an annual volume of about k6 billion
gallons. This is approximately the amount of water
used for all purposes in California during one day,^
and gives an average site size of 0.95 MGD. Only four
sites in the state exceed 3 MGD.^ The breakdown as to
7
si.te use, with several sites having more than one use,
is as follows:
Use of Site Namber
Non-food crops (includes fodder,
fiber, and seed crops) 88
Landscape irrigation (includes parks,
golf courses, and freeway land-
scape) 36
Food crops 1 1
Groundwater recharge 7
Ornamental lakes 5
Industrial use 'l
Recreational lakes 3
Wildlife habitat 1
California regulations for use of wastewaters were
O
adopted in 1918 and revised in 1933, 1968 and 1973.
The use of wastewater in California for landscape
irrigation has been dictated in almost every case by
the economic advantage favoring its use; the only
alternative was irrigation with wastewater since the
9
price of fresh water would be prohibitively expensive.
-------
10
California, while quite liberal on most effluent para-
meters, is restrictive in the health areag due to
unknown aspects such as virus survivability and trans-
port. The State requires a coliform MPN of 23/100 ml
for irrigation of public areas such as golf courses and
2.2/100 ml for recreational lakes and food crop
10
irrigation.
The State of New York has 2b municipal sites de-
signed to process 9-5 MGD (0.^0 MGD average) and 12
industrial sites designed to dispose of 5*2 MGD (0.^-3
MGD average). Guidelines for selection and design of
land treatment sites are being developed.^ ^
Pennsylvania lias 75 spray irrigation sites in
operation. Most are small industrial applications.
State regulatory experience with these systems has been
generally poor due to improper system design and
management errors. To prevent continued pollution of
groundwater, Pennsylvania now requires the installa-
tions to have discharge permits and has published
regulations and guidelines for site selection and
1 2
system design.
From the historical aspect, it appears that past
experience with land application of effluents has been
with small systems; unmonitored; unregulated; and
beset with numerous design and management problems.
-------
CHAPTER II
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 were enacted on October 18, 1972. The Act
outlines a sweeping Federal-State-local government
campaign aimed toward preventing, reducing and eliminat-
ing pollution. Title II of the Act authorizes a multi-
billion dollar program to assist communities by pro-
viding 75 percent Federally funded grants for construct-
ing sewage treatment facilities. Land treatment systems
are included. The major stipulation is that any
assisted sewage project must be chosen on the basis of
the most cost effective method over the life of the
works. Sections 201 and 212 of the Act are directly
concerned with land treatment.
Section 201, regarding grants for construction of
1 3
treatment works:
(d) The Administrator shall encourage
waste treatment management which re-
sults in the construction of revenue
producing facilities providing for—
(1) The recycling of potential
sewage pollutants through the
production of agriculture,
silviculture, or aquaculture
products, or any combination
thereof;
(2) The confined and contained dis-
posal of pollutants not recycled;
-------
1 2
(3) The reclamation of wastewater;
and
(h) The ultimate disposal of sludge
in a manner that will not result
in environmental hazards.
(f) The Administrator shall encourage
waste treatment management which com-
bines 'open-space' and recreational
considerations with such management.
(g)(2) The Administrator shall not make
grants from funds authorized for any
fiscal year beginning after June 30,
1 9 7 U , to any state municipality, or
intermunicipal or interstate agency for
the erection, building, acquisition,
alteration, remodeling, improvement, or
extension of treatment works unless the
grant applicant has satisfactorily
demonstrated to the Administrator that--
(a) Alternative waste management
techniques have been studied
and evaluated and the works pro-
posed for grant assistance will
provide for the application of
the best practicable waste
treatment technology over the
life of the works consistent
with the purposes of this title;
and
(b) As appropriate, the works pro-
posed for grant assistance will
take into account and allow to
the extent practicable the ap-
plication of technology at a
later date which will provide
for the reclaiming or recycling
of water or otherwise eliminate
the discharge of pollutants.
In expanding on this section, Sullivan quoted
from House Report No. 92-911 (on the 1972 Amendments)
as foilows:
-------
13
The Committee believes that appli-
cants must in the future be required
to examine a much broader range of
alternatives for the treatment of
pollutants than they have heretofore
typically done. It expects the Ad-
ministrator to provide leadership
and to stimulate research to assure;
the development and application of
new treatment techniques. In arriv-
ing at the best practicable waste
treatment technology consideration
must be given to its full environ-
mental impact on water, land, and
air and not simply to the impact on
water quality. There may be no net
gain to the Nation if we adopt a
technology to improve water quality
without recognizing its possible
adverse effect on our land and air
resources.
The term 'best practicable waste
treatment technology' covers a range
of possible technologies. There are
essentially three categories of al-
ternatives availabje in selection of
wastewater treatment arid disposal
techniques. These are (l) treatment
and discharge to receiving waters,
(2) treatment and reuse, and (3)
spray irrigation or other land dis-
posal methods. No single treatment
or disposal technique can be con-
sidered to be a panacea for all sit-
uations and selection of the best
alternative can only be made after
careful study.
Particular attention should be
given to treatment and disposal tech-
niques which recycle organic matter
and nutrients within the ecological
cycle.
In defining 'best practicable
waste treatment technology' for a
given case, consideration must be
given to new or improved treatment
techniques which have been developed
and are now considered to be ready
for full-scale application. These
include land disposal, use of pure
oxygen in the activated sludge pro-
cess, physical-chemical treatment
-------
^k
as a replacement for biological treat-
meat, phosphorous and nitrogen removal,
in collection line treatment, and
activated carbon adsorption for re-
moval of organics. Planners must also
give consideration, however, to future
use of new techniques that are now
being developed and plan facilities
to adapt to new techniques.
Section 212 of the Act authorizes federal cost
sharing for site acquisition of the land that will be
1 5
an integral part of the treatment process.
Regarding groundwater pollution, the Act states in
Section 102(a)
Section 102(a). The Administrator
shall, after careful investigation,
and in cooperation with other Federal
agencies, State water pollution con-
trol agencies, interstate agencies,
and the municipalities and industries
involved, prepare or develop compre-
hensive programs for preventing, re-
ducing, or eliminating the pollution
of the navigable waters and ground
waters and improving the sanitary
conditions of surface and underground
waters. In the development of such
comprehensive programs due regard
shall be given to the improvements
which are necessary to conserve such
waters for the protection and propa-
gation of fish and aquatic life and
wildlife, recreational purposes, and
the withdrawal of such waters for
public water supply, agricultural,
industrial, and other purposes.
For the purposes of this section,
the Administrator is authorized to
make joint investigations with any
such agencies of the condition of any
waters in any State or States and of
the discharges of any sewage, indus-
trial wastes, or substance which may
adversely affect such waters.
-------
15
Section 104(a)(5)» regarding national program
+ 17
requirements:
(5) In cooperation with the States,
and their political subdivisions, and
other Federal agencies, [the Adminis-
trator shall] establish, equip, and
maintain a water quality surveillance
system for the purpose of monitoring
the quality of the navigable waters
and groundwaters ...
Section 106, regarding grants for pollution control
18
programs:
(e) Beginning in fiscal year 1974 the
Administrator shall not make any grant
under this section to any State which
has not provided or is not carrying
out as a part of its program—
(1) The establishment and operation
of appropriate devices, methods,
systems, and procedures neces-
sary to monitor, and to compile
and analyze data on (including
classification according to
eutrophic condition), the qual-
ity of navigable waters and to
the extent practicable, ground-
waters including biological
monitoring; and provision for
annually updating such data
and including it in the report
required under Section 305 of
this Act;
Section 208, regarding areawide waste treatment
1 9
management, states that such plans shall include:
(2)(k) A process to control the dis-
posal of pollutants on land or in sub-
surface excavations within such area
to protect ground and surface water
quali ty.
-------
16
Section ')0h, regarding information and guidelines,
describes the development of water quality criteria
reflecting the latest scientific knowledge on the health
effects to all forms of life due to the presence of
2(
pollutants in any body of water, including groundwater.
It should also be noted that Section 502, General
2 1
Definitions:
(7) The term 'navigable waters' means
the waters of the United States, in-
cluding the territorial seas.
Additional clarification of the 'navigable waters' de-
finition, as it relates to the discharge permit system,
states that navigable waters include: navigable waters;
tributaries of navigable waters; interstate waters; and
intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams involved in inter-
22
state recreation or commerce.
EPA Rules and Regula t i.on s
This section includes a brief description of some
of the significant proposed or promulgated EPA rules
and regulations applicable to land treatment. The in-
tent is to indicate the direction, the complexity and
the comprehensive nature of this activity.
Environmental impact statements must be prepared
for Federal grant supported construction where signi-
ficant environmental effects are anticipated or when
-------
17
the environmental impact of an action i9 likely to be
highly controversial.^
The requirement for discharge permits for land
treatment sites is presently at the discretion of the
individual states if the site has no direct discharge
to sux'face waters. The National Pollutant Discharge
2.b
Elimination System (NPDES) for issuing discharge
permits is presently not directly applicable unless the
land treatment site has a discrete return flow to
surface waters. Any land treatment site with a return
flow discharging to surface waters is considered to be
a "treatment works" with a direct surface discharge.
The definition of treatment works in the regulation
* 25
states:
The term 'treatment works' means any
facility, method or system for the
storage, treatment, recycling, or
reclamation of municipal sewage or
industrial wastes of a liquid nature,
including waste in combined storm
water and sanitary sewer systems.
States can impose more stringent treatment standards or
require permits for any form of discharge.
Cost effective analysis of municipal land treatment
alternatives will have to be prepared for those con-
struction grants receiving federal funds after June 30,
197^. The extent of the analysis is defined in the EPA
26
cost effective guidelines.
-------
18
Municipal land treatment sites may implement the
pre treatment regulations for control of industrial dis-
charges to publicly owned treatment works where the
discharge contains toxic wastes that are not conducive
27
to land treatment. The actual pretreatment require-
ments or allowable discharges for various industries
have been published in various issues of the Federal
Register starting on October 5, 1973.
The minimum requirement of secondary treatment
must be met by July 1, 1977 by all publicly owned treat-
28
ment works which discharge to navigable waters. This
requirement will be an impetus to planners to consider
land treatment as an add-on method for achieving
secondary treatment requirements for treatment systems
such as lagoons which do riot consistently meet the BOD,
suspended solids, or coliform requirements.
The application of "best practicable waste treat-
ment technology" (BPWTT) must be demonstrated for
federal construction grants after June 30, 197^+- All
existing publicly owned treatment works must comply with
the requirements by July 1, 1983. The preliminary pro-
posed requirements which pertain specifically to land
treatment systems require that sites with point source
discharges, such as underdrains, would be required to
comply with the treatment and surface discharge criteria.
Land application sites, with discharges to groundwater,
would be required to comply with EPA drinking water
-------
19
quality criteria for chemical and pesticide content of
the groundwater below the site (Reference Table I for
proposed chemical constituent requirements). Monitoring
procedures would be required for all the specified
parameters. The preliminary proposed requirements for
discharge to groundwater by land application sites
137.103 Definition of Best Practicable
Waste Treatment Technology for
Land Application Techniques
and Land Utilization Practices
The following defines the criteria re-
quired for the application of the best
practicable waste treatment technology
for land application techniques (e.g.,
spray irrigation, infiltration, over-
land flow techniques and evaporation
ponds) and land utilization practices
including irrigation of biologically
digested sludge, chemically stabilized
sludge, composting and land spreading
of sludge and leaching fields for
publicly owned treatment works.
(a) The information in Paragraph
137.102 defines the allowable con-
centration of pollutants in the
effluent from a land disposal sys-
tem discharged into navigable waters.
(b) For the purposes of establish-
ing eligibility for grant funding,
the discharge of pollutants onto
the land should not degrade the air,
land, or water (either navigable
waters or groundwaters) and should
not interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of public health;
state and local land use policies;
water quality in navigable and
groundwaters which shall assure
protection of public water supplies,
agriculture and industrial users;
-------
20
propagation of a balanced popula-
tion of aquatic and land flora
and fauna; and the recreational
activities in the area. The land
application system shall be de-
signed such that the permanent
groundwaters (groundwater which
is not removed from the ground by
an underdrain system or other
mechanical means) which are in
the zone of saturation (where the
water is not held in the ground
by capillary tension) that result
from the application of wastewater
shall not exceed the chemical
quality or pesticides levels in
the EPA Manual for Evaluating
Public Drinking Water Supplies...
(d) If the presently existing con-
centration of any parameter is
higher in the groundwater than
the levels allowed in subparagraph
1.'37. 103 (b)(1). then the use of
a land disposal technique should
not result in an increase in the
concentration of that parameter.
The method for imposing the proposed EPA require-
ments on existing land application facilities or in-
corporating the requirements into federal and state
permit systems is not indicated. The present EPA posi-
tion on the protection of groundwaters, however, is
quite obvious.
State Laws and Regulations
A survey conducted in
Works Administration (APWA)
pollution control agencies
agencies presently have no
1972 by the American Public
among State health and water
indicated that most State
set policies, conditions,
-------
21
inspections, or monitoring requirements with regard to
land treatment. States that have some form of regula-
tion include Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, Arizona,
California, Texas, and the Great Lakes Upper Mississippi
30
River Board.
The following information for the six states of
Region VIII was compiled from the APWA survey documents
obtained from the respective states , and other refer-
ence s ource s.
C olorad o.
Colorado's Criteria Used in the Review of Waste
31
Water Treatment Facilities states in paragraph 8.4,
Land Disposal of Effluent: "Since roughly 50 percent
of wastewaters discharged to the land surface will
infiltrate and recharge groundwater, all irrigation
installations are considered discharges to the waters
of the state". No other references to land treatment
facilities or standards are included. The first draft
32
of the proposed Water Quality Standards for Colorado,
November 1973» does not address groundwater quality
standards. In responding to the APWA survey, the Colo-
rado Department of Health indicated that chlorination
of effluents was required, whereas the Water Resources
Control Board [sic, Colorado Water Conservation Board]
indicated that there were no specific regulations or
i • 33
guidelines.
-------
22
Colorado hag promulgated regulations for privately-
¦}k
owned aerobic sewage treatment works. These regula-
tions could be construed as applying to privately-owned
land application systems, however no indication of
such an interpretation was found during the survey of
Colorado sites. A separate survey conducted by Temple
University also elicited a Colorado State Health Depart-
ment response that regulations concerning spray irriga-
35
tion were not currently in force.
Montana.
Direct reference to land treatment or groundwater
quality regulations or criteria was not found in a
review of Montana regulations. Groundwater is classi-
3 ^
fied as property of the state. The proposed Montana
Water Quality Standards state that pollution resulting
from non-point sources, including irrigation practices,
are to be eliminated or minimized as ordered by the
37
department. In responding to the APWA survey, the
Montana Department of Health indicated there were no
specific rules or statutes dealing with land treatment,
and that each case was examined individually. Secondary
treatment and chlorination of effluents are usually
38
required and winter effluent flow must be stored.
This concerns with the results of the Temple University
39
Survey.
-------
23
North Dakota.
Direct reference to land treatment or groundwater
quality criteria or regulations was not found in a
ho
review of the North Dakota Water Quality Standards.
k 1
Groundwaters are waters of the state. The APWA survey
kz
and the Temple University survey found no specific
regulations regarding land treatment.
South Dakota.
Direct reference to land treatment or groundwater
quality criteria or regulations was not found in a
^3
review of the South Dakota Water Quality Standards.
Groundwaters are waters of the state. The APWA survey
concluded "no regulation--each site considered indivi-
d 1
^5
kk
dually" and the Temple University survey found no
regulations.
Utah.
Groundwaters are waters of the state in Utah and
the Division of Health appears to have a negative atti-
tude towards spray irrigation. This is shown in the
only reference that could be found regarding land treat-
k6
ment or groundwater quality criteria or regulations:
Wastewater treatment works effluent
which meets Class ' D' Standards or
better may be utilized for the fol-
lowing purposes...(3) Ridge and furrow
irrigation or flood irrigation of lawn
areas from which the public is ex-
cluded except on guided tours, but not
public parks, golf courses, or similar
-------
2k
areas of public access. (Spray
irrigation is not recommended under
any circumstances.) (k) Ridge and
furrow irrigation of forage type
crops, but not dairy pastures.
Utah Class "D" waters require: chemical and radio-
logical standards as prescribed for drinking water by
"Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards, 1962";
monthly mean coliform density of less than 5000 per
100 ml; arid monthly mean BOD of 25 mg/1 or less. The
APWA survey found no regulations on land treatment.
Wyoming.
Direct reference to land treatment or groundwater
quality or regulations was not found in a review of
k9
the Wyoming Water Quality Standards. Groundwaters are
50
waters of the state. The APWA survey and Temple
5 1
University survey found no specific regulations on
land treatment. A 1959 statute (Wyoming Statute Section
41-121, 41-126) states that pollution of underground
water means any impairment of the natural quality of
such water, however caused, including impairment by
salines, minerals, industrial wastes, domestic wastes,
or sewage. The State Engineer is authorized to require
the abatement of any condition responsible for admitting
52
polluting materials into an underground water supply.
-------
25
County and Local Laws and Regulations
There are several local factors that will be en-
countered in site selection for a new land application
site or future use and expansion of a present site.
Those which should be considered include:
1. Conformity to state or regional land use plans.
2. Conformity to county or metropolitan land use
plans or comprehensive plans.
3. Present and future land use zoning versus future
residential growth versus wastewater transmis-
sion costs. Increasing monitoring requirements
as adjacent residential development occurs.
b. Approval must be obtained from several levels
of local government and several Boards of Health
if the site is outside the jurisdiction of the
municipality or county it serves.
5. Power of eminent domain—in most states a county
or municipality has no authority to condemn
property owned by another municipality, county,
the state or federal government.
6. Payments in lieu of taxes may have to be made
if the amount of land being removed from the tax
rolls is significant.
7. Legal problems encountered in: closing roads
through the site; relocation of cemeteries or
Indian burial grounds; the proximity of schools
-------
26
or churches; national monuments or historic
sites within the proposed site; relocation of
public or private utility easements; obtaining
clear title to the oil, gas, and mineral rights
as well as the land; court condemnation pro-
cedures; the ability of the municipality to
comply with the Federal Uniform Land Acquisition
and Relocation Act of 1970; and ultimate disposi-
tion of material cleared from the site. Muskegon
County, Michigan encountered all these problems
53
in developing their system. The time consum-
ing solution of such problems must be emphasized.
Water and Water Law
Many legal and ecological factors are involved in
the decision to discharge wastewaters to the land rather
than to streams. Both direct and secondary effects on
flow regimen, water rights, and groundwater pollution
must be considered.
Water Regimen and Secondary Effects.
The nature and quantity of receiving waters must
be carefully evaluated prior to diverting the effluent.
Elimination of direct wastewater discharges to a stream
can unbalance the flow regimen associated with down-
stream beneficial uses, inhibit desirable dilution of
waste discharge, and interfere with the moderation of
-------
thermal water discharges. If the land application site
is outside the basin of origin of the water, the diver-
sion can create an imbalance in the water resources of
a watershed. The effluent from sewage treatment works
constitutes the total or a major portion of seasonal
low-flows in some streams. Tertiary treated wastewater
returned to the stream may be of higher quality than the
stream water itself. This is especially true during
low flows on streams with significant acid mine drainage.
In these streams, wastewater effluents have dilution
value in maintaining stream flows and stream quality
during low flow periods.
Wastewater discharges to streams can be important
in moderating man-made and natural thermal conditions
by maintaining receiving waters within optimum tempera-
ture ranges for the spawning and propagation of fish
and aquatic biota.
The drought in western Montana during the summer
of 1973 demonstrates the impact of dewatering trout
5b
streams. As early as July 29, Prickly Pear Creek
near Helena had been totally dewatered for half a mile
by irrigation diversions and it "killed everything in
that stretch--trout, forage fish, insect life, every-
thing". Dead greyling and white fish were observed on
the Big Hole River near Butte. The West Gallatin River,
the Clark Fork River, and the Deer Lodge Croek were i.ri
critical condition.
-------
Underdrains on a land treatment site can recover
water that percolates through the soil. This water can
be returned to the stream. The question remains whether
the 50 percent normally lost to evapotranspiration
represents the optimum use of the wastewater over the
life of the project.
Where winter storage of effluents is required as
part of a land treatment system, winter flow of the
stream is reduced. This may be deleterious to fish and
aquatic biota,
Water Law.
The basic rule of appropriative doctrine water
law states that he who is "first in time is first in
right", and so long as he continues to apply the water
to a beneficial use, subsequent appropriators may not
deprive him of his appropriation. A junior appropriator
is entitled to have conditions on a stream remain as
they were at the time he made his appropriation. A
person desiring to appropriate water from a stream
observes the available supply, taking into consideration
all then existing appropriations, and then makes his
economic decision as to whether enough water will be
available, under existing conditions, to satisfy his
requirements. If he perfects an appropriation, nothing
may be done by a senior appropriator which would alter
-------
29
conditions on the stream to the detriment of the junior
appropriator.
Raphael J. Moses, noted water lawyer, in a paper
describing the legal aspects of land treatment in
55
Colorado stated:
When a city, which has historically
returned it9 sewage effluent to a
stream, determines instead, to irri-
gate land with that water, three things
happen. There is, a change of type of
use, there is an enlarged consumptive
use, and there is a reduction in return
f low.
Let us see what the courts say about
thi s :
"There is absolutely no question
that decreed water right is valuable
property; that it may be used, its
use changed, its point of diversion
relocated "...
"Equally well¦established, as we
have repeatedly held, is the prin-
ciple that junior appropriators have
vested rights in the continuation
of stream conditions as they existed
at the time of their respective ap-
propriations, and that subsequent
to such appropriations they may suc-
cessfully resist all proposed
changes in points of diversion and
use of water from that source which
in any way materially injures or./
adversely affects their rights."
This quotation comes from the leading
Colorado case of Farmers Canal and
Reservoir Company v. Golden, decided
in195^-Afterthelanguage quoted
above, the Colorado Supreme Court cited
seven other similar cases, five of
which involved cities attempting to
enlarge the use of a water right, all
unsuccessfully. There are other simi-
lar Colorado cases not specifically
cited in the Golden case.^
-------
30
Cities have to have dependable water
rights, and therefore they are usually
among the most senior on the stream.
It is good to be senior, but being very
senior means that there are a great
many juniors who will object, and
promptly, if the regimen of the stream
i s changed.
At one time cities (and others)
thought that they had a right to "use
up" water once it was diverted. The
courts disabused them of that concept,
saying:
"Once an appropriation has been
diverted, used and returned, it
becomes again a part of the stream
in which junior appropriators below
acquire a vested right."5°
One thing should be made perfectly
clear, however. For those who are
able to go out and appropriate a re-
liabjo new source of water, there is
absolutely no legal inhibition against
appropriating that water for both
municipal use and land treatment of
secondary effluent. At the moment the
appropriation is made that use is the
most junior right on the stream and
any subsequent appropriators will be
junior and take the stream as they
find it, with the right in existence
to utilize the secondary effluent for
land treatment. Therefore the subse-
quent juniors have no right to com-
plain .
There are three other Colorado cases
one should be aware of that deal di-
rectly with the right to re-use sewage
effluent.
The earliest case is Pulaski Irriga-
ting-Ditch Company v. the City of
Trinidad ^ in which the court said:
"In 1892, a sewer system was com-
pleted by the City of Trinidad, and
the sewage carried therein was
emptied directly into the Las Animas
-------
31
River. Very soon thereafter this
disposal of the sewage was enjoined
by the district court. Thereupon
the city extended its sewers and
discharged the sewage into settling
pits on land adjoining the river.
From the record it appears that a
considerable part of the water con-
tent of the sewage seeped or ran
back into the river, and soon be-
came a part of the supply for the
appropriations below the point of
di scharge.
In 1917 the city began the construc-
tion of two purification plants, and
upon their completion proposed to
sell the purified water to said Model
Land & Irrigation Company; hence this
s ui t.
There seems to be no substantial con-
troversy over the facts, and the sole
question presented for our' considera-
tion is as to the right of the city
to sell the water.
Plaintiffs in error (the junior ap-
propriators) contend that, inasmuch,
as the water which escaped from the
pits and ran into the river contri-
buted to supply appropriations down
the river, the city cannot now divert
that water for use below the points
where it has been in use for some
years past. They contend also that
the water, having performed the pur-
pose for which it was diverted, must,
under the law, be returned to the
river from which it was taken.
[1] Defendents in error contend that
"the application of water to domes-
tic use is a use which consumes".
They also contend, in effect, if not
in words, that sewage is a thing
which may be considered regardless
of its constituents; and that the
water resulting from its purification
is salvage or developed water; that
-------
is, water produced from something
which was not water.
The first proposition is true only
as to a part of the water applied
to city uses. It is not true of
water used in the sewers for the
purpose of diluting and conveying
away solid matter. This water in
the sewers exists as fully as be-
fore it was used, but in connection
with solid matter, which makes it
unfit for further use, as it is.
It has been used as a means of con-
veying matter, a merely mechanical
use. That it may be used for irri-
gation before purification is not
denied, but such use is highly ob-
jectionable for reasons well known.
When it is purified, it is again
the same element which was origin-
ally diverted. The separation will
take place, to a large degree, if
the sewage be allowed to stand, and
that, too, without any external aid.
That fact is conclusive that the
sewage is not fundamentally differ-
ent from water. A title by use is
not acquired any more than it is in
the case of water used for power
purposes; in either case when the
use has been completed, the right
of the user terminates." ...
"To turn this water back into the
river will not increase the river's
flow above what it would have been
had the water not been diverted, and
it is not therefore developed water.
Applying the principle heretofore
laid down, it seems clear that the
water here in question does not be-
long to the city, and that it has
no right to sell it."
Two very recent cases are Metropoli-
tan Denver Sewage Disposal District v.
Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Com-
pany13^ and Denver v. Fulton Irrigating
Ditch Company.b1 Each is a rather spe-
cial fact situation and does not alter
the case law referred to, but each
should be mentioned.
-------
33
Metropolitan is a case which held
that someone returning sewage effluent
to a stream has a right to change the
the place of return, and is not governed
by the rules involved in a change of
point of diversion. It based its de-
cision on early cases involving irri-
gation return flows, citing with appro-
val Green Valley Ditch Company v.
Schneider,where the Court said:
"Plaintiff's rights were limited
and only attached to the water dis-
charged from the Tegeler lateral,
whatever that happened to be, after
the defcndents and cross-complain-
ants had supplied their own wants
and necessities. This does not
vest her with any control over the
ditches or laterals of appellants,
or the water flowing therein, nor
does it obligate appellants to con-
tinue or maintain conditions so as
to supply plaintiff's appropriation
of wastewater at any time or in any
quantity, when acting in good faith."
... , , 63
citing other cases.
Fulton confirmed the right under
Colorado law of an appropriator of
transmountain water to reuse that water
for other than municipal purposes.
Denver had brought water over from the
Western Slope and wanted to trade
sewage effluent to Coors for rights
Coors owned on Clear Creek. The Court
said Denver would have had a right to
make the exchange except for an earlier
contract with Fulton and others agree-
ing not to do so.
As you will note from the decision
in the Fulton case, water imported from
another basin holds a different and
higher status. An importation made
after junior appropriators perfect
their claims adds water to the stream
and the juniors, while permitted to
utilize this windfall, have no right
to demand its continued delivery.
-------
3k
Although the citations here are
Colorado cases for advising on the
legal principles involved, I am of
the opinion that the law is similar
in all of the appropriation states,
although the procedures may vary con-
siderably.
In conclusion, we find that land
use of secondary effluent is legal
provided the municipality replaces
any diminution in return flow so that
junior appropriators are not adversely
affected by the new utilization of
secondary effluent. The decision to
inaugurate land use of secondary treat-
ment requires some hard economic deci-
sions .
Water Rights vs. Project Costs.
The water rights questions that need to be resolved,
on a site by site basis according to each state's water
laws, can be summarized as follows:
1. Have junior appropriators established vested
rights in the effluent return flow?
2. What portion of the present and future effluent
return flow originates from newly purchased
water for which dominion over the return flow
can be maintained, thereby allowing total con-
sumptive use?
3. What portion of the effluent return flow ori-
ginates from transbasin diversions which allow
its reuse?
k. Were stipulations applied to the contract or
decree which control the quantity or type of
-------
reuse or forbid reuse?
5. If a private land application system is being
considered, does the water procurement contract
or water service agreement stipulate that the
municipality maintains ownership of the sewer
return flow?
6. Will the enlarged use of water due to land
application of effluents adversely affect the
water rights of junior appropriators?
7. Can t;lie use of the effluent for the intended
land application be legally defended as a bene-
ficial use?
8. What will be the legal status of groundwater
return flow from the land treatment site?
9. What portion of the return flow from an under-
drained land treatment site can be used for
water rights replacement?
10. Are trades of direct flow rights and storage
rights legally available to reduce the impact
on junior appropriators?
The answers to these questions will indicate what
amount of water, of a priority at least as senior as the
priority it is diverting, the municipality must leave in
the stream to satisfy the water rights of junior appro-
priators. The answers will also indicate which engineer-
ing alternatives are available to minimize the water
-------
36
rights replacement costs. Water rights of a seniority-
adequate for municipal supply are difficult to obtain
and command a high price. Although a city can condemn
such a right, condemnation is the most expensive method
of obtaining the right. The first step in any consi-
deration of land treatment should therefore be consul-
tation with a water rights lawyer or the State Engineer.
The impact of the cost of water rights replacement may
preclude the need to consider the cost effectiveness of
land treatment any further.
A partial solution to the impact on summer direct
flow water rights may be to store winter discharges,
treat them in conjunction with summer effluent flows,
recollect the percolation water in underdrains, and re-
turn it to surface streams. This could satisfy summer
direct flow rights not belonging to the municipality.
The hydraulic loading rate of the site is adjusted to
provide for an underdrairi return flow equivalent to that
formerly discharged directly to the stream. Winter
storage water is used to counterbalance evapotranspira-
tion losses, leaving no net change in summer discharge
flow. The impact to winter flow water rights, such as
storage rights, should be easier to negotiate and less
expensive to replace than summer direct flow rights.
This approach can also have an impact on ground-
water rights. Reduced treatment efficiency due to high
-------
37
hydraulic loading rates can result in groundwater pollu-
tion from nitrates. There can be secondary environmental
impacts on the stream from discontinuing winter dis-
charges .
The Denver Regional Council of Governments in
their study of areawide waste treatment management for
the Denver metropolitan area estimated that, should
land treatment be used exclusively, '365,000 acre feet/
year of water rights would have to be replaced at a
capitalized cost of $365 million dollars. It is doubt-
ful that much water would even be available. They would
also have to locate 99>100 acres of land suitable for
6k
treatment of the effluents.
Water rights problems and the financing of replace-
ment water are also encountered in selling the effluent
to farmers. The farmers would treat the effluent by
applying it to their own crops on their own land. The
effluent may not belong to the municipality, or receipts
from the sale of effluent may not cover the cost of water
rights replacement. The APWA survey concluded that
"sale of effluent for beneficial use has been generally
unsuccessful. Few examples were found where a public
agency had been able to obtain more than a token payment
for supplying treated effluent". They also concluded
that well trained personnel, aware of the need for
6 5
careful operation of the systems, were required.
Concern was also expressed that farmers could tend to
-------
38
forget the special requirements of effluent wastewaters
and create pollution problems that the municipality
remains legally responsible for. Larger systems are
therefore best kept under the total control of the
d i s chargers.
Lease of effluents or lease of the land for the
treatment site also have drawbacks. As the area de-
velops in the future, the farmer or irrigation district
may decide to sell the land at the appreciated value,
and leave the municipality.' holding the wastewater.
This is what happened in California to the Orange County
Sanitation District. The Talbert Wastewater Irrigation
District, which had been formed in 1957> had totally
sold out to developers by 1964.^^ Pennsylvania has
found that relatively few farmers have been willing to
accept the long term commitment that is necessary to
Z* rj
implement a system. Farmers will probably only accept
the amount of water required for maximum crop yield,
rather than the optimum hydraulic loading for maximum
treatment efficiency and minimum land requirement. The
land requirement in the former case is greater. Design,
construction and monitoring costs for a multiplicity
of independent systems will be larger than for a smaller
number of larger systems.
Muskegon County, Michigan decided to procure all
the land required and thereby maintain total control of
-------
39
68
the treatment site. This was also the conclusion
arrived at by the Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago in regards to their Fulton County sludge
69
application site. Section 212 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 provides the
incentive that land procured for actual treatment of
wastewater at land treatment sites is eligible for 75
percent Federal cost sharing.
Groundwater Pollution.
The legal and environmental aspects of groundwater
pollution must also be considered. The preceding dis-
cussion of the federal and state regulations indicate
the intent to protect groundwater quality. States which
have imposed groundwater quality requirements tend to
adopt portions of the U.S. Public Health Service Drink-
ing Water Standards or the Raw Surface Water Quality
Criteria. This may seem quite conservative, but it
must be remembered that there is little present under-
standing of the acute and chronic effects of pollution
on man, animals, or plants, and that groundwater pollu-
tion residence times can approach 200 years.
The present lack of monitoring of land treatment
sites shows an apparent lack of appreciation of the
potential for groundwater pollution and that more strin-
gent enforcement is needed. Groundwater pollution in
-------
ko
association with land treatment 9ites is almost always
the result of either management errors or inadequate
design. It is, therefore, both unnecessary and avoid-
able, but proper design, management and monitoring must
be made mandatory. State regulatory agencies which
have the requisite authority fail to exercise it in
many cases, thereby leading to crisis situations.
Fresno, California has nitrate pollution of its
groundwater and San Bernadino and Riverside Counties
have synthetic detergent pollution of groundwater from
70
spreading of wastewater effluents. In the "Montebello
Incident" in California, a single slug of weedicide
which passed through a sewage treatment plant and land
treatment site resulted in non-potable groundwater due
to tastes and odors which persisted for several years.
The wells were located several miles from the land
treatment site.
The nitrate level in the groundwater beneath the
Lubbock, Texas land treatment site has reached 105 nig/l
(compared to the Drinking Water Standard of 45 mg/l)
due to wastewater application rates much higher than
7 1
the crop nitrate uptake rate.
Application of 30 feet of effluent per year on a
60 acre site at Hobbs, New Mexico resulted in nitrate
levels as high as 140 ppm and pollution of 20 to 30
wells in a 2 square mile area. The city, successfully
-------
^1
sued to stop discharging the effluent on the site, must
pump out the mound of polluted groundwater and must
supply potable water to the owners of the polluted
i 72
wells .
A study in Runnels County, Texas found that in a
few cases, both humans and animals were using water
containing more than 1000 mg/1 nitrate with no apparent
73
ill effects. In other areas of Runnels County, infant
methemoglobinemia had resulted from using water with as
little as 50 nig/1 nitrate.
-------
CHAPTER III
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Public Acceptance
Even though a land treatment system may be the mo
cost-effective alternative, it may not be acceptable t
the people .it is intended to serve. This lack of
acceptance may be based on real or unfounded fears.
Therefore, public involvement in the concept must be
initiated very early in the analysis, rather than afte
the study is complete. Some concise comments on what
will be encountered are provided by John Dunbar of
Ik
Purdue University:
Why People Resist Change
• When the purpose is not made clear.
• When they are not involved in the
planning.
• When an appeal is based on personal
reasons (yours, not theirs).
• When the values, norms, and habits
of the people are ignored.
• When there is fear of failure, i.e.
that the goal may not be reached
with the funds available.
• When the cost (social and economic)
is too high in relation to the
benefits or when they believe the
costs of an alternative method
would be lower to secure the same
results.
• When the present situation seems
satisfactory.
-------
^3
When they think they may have to pay
the costs for benefits someone
else will receive.
To overcome this resistance, Dunbar suggests:
• Involve the people in the diagnostic
and creative processes of decision
making--they tend to understand
and support what they create.
• Allow the people to blow off steam.
Too often people pushing an idea
try to move ahead "so fast that
the opposition won't have a
chance to organize".
o Be certain that people agree upon the
goals and reasons for the change.
• Build a trusting climate.
o Provide the information needed for
people to think intelligently.
o Keep people informed. They will get
more intimately involved if they
know the latest details.
Provide them with the information on
what would happen if the various
alternatives were implemented
(how they work, costs involved,
benefits, who pays the costs, who
benefits).
Stimulate the people to react. Let
the people know what is being con-
sidered from the earliest possible
moment.
Dunbar concludes:
By far the simplest way to get people
to look favorably upon one alternative
is to let them compare it with others
so that they can tell which they deem
most desirable. This takes some
-------
hk
courage on the part of professionals
and planners—and some faith in the
judgement of the public. But if we
don't have that, we haven't much
faith in democracy.
Comments from Postlewait and Knudsen, regarding
their experiences with the Muskegon, Michigan project,
75
point up the truth in the above statements:
• If we were requested to single out
the main lesson to be learned
from the Muskegon project, with-
out hesitation, we would cite the
problems of developing sound
public relations.
• We found the general public to be
suspicious and extremely credu-
lous of the system and the
imagined danger to their health,
safety, and welfare.
a The technological attractiveness of
a given area cannot, however, be
given primary consideration for
many reasons since site selection
cannot be determined in the lab-
oratory or on the planner's table.
Present land use is of critical
impact in the selection process,
since public acceptance and coop-
eration will be substantially
enhanced by selecting a site which
is not being ideally utilized.
« Politicians in our area had a clear
demonstration of the effects of
an aroused public, since the
Township Supervisor of one of the
more populous townships was re-
called from office, because he
lead the township board into
granting consent.
• Electoral consents obviously involve
public acceptance and understand-
ing and again point to the need
for sound public relations.
-------
b5
• Anyone who has been involved in at-
tempting to relocate a cemetery
or an Indian burial ground can
relate the emotional problems
whi ch re suit.
e [Regarding relocation] A neighboring
community was not so fortunate,
since they had to bodily carry
out some elderly owners, all of
which did not present a good pub-
lic image.
a The Muskegon project site is located
in what was a rural, sparsely
populated farming area. In set-
ting up the relocation phase of
our project, we ran into a wall
of distrust.
• If the Muskegon experience is at all
typical, any land-use system which
requires the relocation of pro-
perty owners from the proposed
site will meet with resistance
from many persons who are to be
moved. This is a definite social
problem that must be considered
in planning.
• While there were substantial doubts
as to the project harbored by the
residents in and around the site
area, some of the unrest was set-
tled by a suit the County insti-
tuted for a Declaratory Judgement
against the opponents of the pro-
ject.
The above comments indicate the scope of the public
relations effort which can be anticipated in planning
large land treatment projects. The APWA survey and the
survey of Region VIII indicated that public acceptance of
land treatment has been good if they are informed and the
site is well managed. Financial support through the
-------
k6
Federal Uniform Land Acquisition and Relocation Act of
1970 can also help overcome relocation problems and
public resistance by making eligible for Federal cost
sharing certain personal relocation costs that may not
otherwise be reimbursed.
Farmer-Operator Acceptance
If the land treatment project proposes the sale or
lease of effluents to farmers, or the lease of the farm
laud for the application site with the farmer becoming
the operator, another public relations effort is re-
quired. The attitude which will confront such projects
was well summarized by a former Missouri leglislator:^
Another problem is that a tradition
of distrust has developed between rural
and urban segments of our society. The
farmer often feels that he has been
ignored or taken advantage of, to the
benefit of the big city. He feels that
government is distant arid that it is
not at all responsive to his needs or
concerns. He, therefore, has developed
a scrutiny, and stubborn protection of
his own interests are a necessity. This
has made the commercial farmer a good
businessman, and be assured that he
will ask the most vigorous and probing
questions. He may well be suspicious
that land application of treated muni-
cipal waste is another effort to solve
city problems at the expense of the
rural dweller. He will ask how this
waste will compare to other systems in
cost, nutrient value, and yield. Does
the waste contain substances that will
harm his soil or the value of his crop.
-------
k7
An example of this type of rural-urban conflict
arose when the Denver Metro Sewage District approached
the farmers in the Watkins and Bennett, Colorado area
regarding the disposal of liquid sludge on their dry
77
farmlands. The Sewage District representatives were
not adequately prepared for the probing questions raised
and the project is now being reconsidered.
There are several alternative approaches that can
be invaluable aids in presenting the concept of land
treatment to farmers. Personnel from the State Agri-
culture Experiment Stations and the Agricultural Exten-
sion Service can be brought into the program in the
early stages. They can anticipate the questions that
will be asked, and determine which areas need more in-
vestigation. They also have a long standing rapport
with the agricultural industry. If a concept or tech-
nique is new to a farming area, a pilot project conducted
in conjunction with the Agriculture Experiment Station
may be an invaluable tool in demonstrating the feasi-
bility of the concept.
Economic and Cost Considerations
The costs involved in the land application of
effluents are site specific and generalizations must be
made with caution. The cost information obtained in
<~n Q
the APVA survey is summarized by Pound and Crites. '
-------
k8
Capital costs and operating and maintenance costs re-
ported in the literature, including the Pound and Crites
reports, are usually the combined costs for the pre-
treatment and the land treatment portions of the system.
This intermixing of costs and the additional factors of
land purchase or lease, land value, water rights, and
cost inflation factors makes capital cost comparisons
extremely difficult. The wide range of costs attest to
their site-specific nature. For example, the survey
found that the pretreatment and spray irrigation an-
nualized capital costs ranged from 190 to 920 per gallon
per day, while the land costs ranged from $5 to $5»000
per acre. Pretreatment and land application operating
and maintenance costs ranged from 2.70 to 11.60 per 1000
gallons of effluent. Site specific cost estimates will
have to be developed for each proposed site rather than
extrapolating cost estimates from one site to another.
EPA guidelines should be consulted to determine
the costs, including land, eligible for federal con-
struction grant cost sharing. Cost sharing of family
relocation costs is covered in the Federal Uniform Land
Acquisition and Relocation Act of 1970.
Environmental Considerations
Environmental considerations appear to be best
handled through preparation of an Environmental Impact
-------
Statement (EIS) in accordance with EPA guidelines. An
EIS is required when Federal construction grant cost
sharing is involved and significant environmental ef-
fects are anticipated or the environmental impact of an
80
action is likely to be highly controversial.
Management Considerations
Management considerations are both site-specific
arid dependent upon ownership of the land used for treat-
8 1
ment. In Pennsylvania, it was reported that manage-
ment of the system is the deciding factor between
success and failure for most land treatment facilities.
It was found that adequate size and flexibility were
frequently designed into the system; but, as a result
of cost-cutting, the systems too often were poorly
managed. New concepts and completely new orientations
in terms of irrigation farm operations are required when
managing irrigation systems for liquid waste disposal.
Whereas farmers ordinarily manage their irrigation
operations to maximize crop production, in wastewater
irrigation the primary objective is to manage for ade-
quate renovation of the wastewater; crop production is
a secondary consideration. Myers reported that in
Pennsylvania it was found that usually the municipality
or company producing the effluent should own the land
since no matter how conscientious a farmer is, it is
-------
difficult to convince him to irrigate a crop which
already has received twice as much water as necessary
for crop production. Wastewater disposal management
requires application of maximum amounts of water on the
land, not minimum amounts. Monitoring of the ground-
water entering and leaving the renovation area is also
an essential part of system management.
Regulatory personnel in Pennsylvania have found
in that state that site management has been uniformly
8 2
quite poor. Maintenance personnel rarely visit the
works, piping is broken, sprinklers clog or stop up,
field areas are flooded, mosquito populations increase,
soils are waterlogged, and the renovation field may be
anaerobic. Rhindress reported that company managers
of I"-en view spray irrigation and wastewater treatment
as a liability to company operations and, therefore,
consistently re]egate project management to a very low
priority. Maintenance of the site is normally the re-
sponsibility of the bottom man on the maintenance staff
Pennsylvania inspectors found evidence that no one had
viewed some sites or made necessary repairs for long
Q O
periods of time. New York's experience appears to
8^
have been similar. The impact of long term mismanage
ment at Hobbs, New Mexico was discussed in the section
on groundwater pollution.
-------
51
Pound and Crites have summarized some of the manage-
ment aspects resulting from their national survey of
85
the engineering aspects of land treatment. They con-
clude :
The management of an irrigation
system is as important as the site
selection and system design. It is
vital that management personnel have
a working knowledge of farming prac-
tices as well as principles of waste-
water treatment. Important items in
management include seasonal (often
weekly) variation in operation, moni-
toring to establish removal efficien-
cies and to forecast build-ups of
toxic compounds, and ongoing observa-
tions of the system to avoid problems
of ponding, runoff, or mechanical
breakdowns. The operation of a crop
irrigation system must adjust to the
changing demands (water and nutrient)
of the crops ... Even with automated
systems there should be an observer
present daily to ensure a smooth op-
eration. With manual systems, full-
time operators are required ... The
need for competent farm management
cannot be overstressed.
These comments point out the importance of adequate
planning and funding for proper site management. In
some respects, the requirements are greater than stan-
dard physical-chemical-biological tertiary treatment
since the site operators must be knowledgeable about
both wastewater treatment and irrigation farming prac-
tices .
-------
CHAPTER IV
ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The primary purpose of land application of ef-
fluents is wastewater treatment through utilization of
physical, chemical and biological soil characteristics.
The site-specific nature of wastewater constituents,
soi] types, site topography, cliiriate, hydrology, geo-
logy , and local agri cuJ tural practices Jimits the use-
fulness of generalized extrapolation of past practices
into the engineering design for a specific site. This
discussion will identify the major engineering decisions
that need to be made. The state of knowledge regarding
various design parameters will be indicated and their
relationship to design decisions explained.
A prerequisite to consideration of the engineering
factors involved in land treatment of municipal effluents
in the western states is the determination of effluent
ownership based 011 western water law. The water rights
replacement costs due to evapotranspiration losses or
losses to groundwater during land treatment may preclude
land treatment from being a cost-effective alternative,
thereby making detailed consideration of the engineer-
ing factors unnecessary.
-------
53
Pretreatment Requirements
Almost all municipal land treatment systems have
the equivalent of secondary treatment and disinfection
as the minimum pretreatment. Secondary treatment
systems usually consist of trickling filters, activated
sludge systems, or lagoons followed by chlorination.
The pretreatment requirements are based on health and
hygiene aspects, odor reduction, and improvement of
operational efficiency and reliability. If significant
quanti. ties of industrial wastes having toxic metals or
organi.es are found in a municipal effluent, the pre-
treatment regulations promulgated by the EPA should
be imposed on the responsible industries. This results
in treatment of toxic substances where it is most ef-
fective—at the source. Pretreatment reduces the
transmission of toxic substances to the crops raised
on the site, or a build-up of toxic levels in the soil
on the site. The rate of transmission of toxic metals
and organics through the food chain and the level of
crop and animal toxicity to trace elements are two of
the major unknown effects of land treatment today.
Land application of industrial effluents has been
restricted primarily to the food processing industry,
8 6
the pulp and paper industry, and the dairy industry.
Three main reasons for the development of the technique
in these industries are: (l) the location of the
-------
operations in rural areas with access to suitable
land, (2) the nontoxic and easily biodegradable nature
of the wastewater, and (3) the seasonal nature of the
food processing industry. These effluents are high in
BOD and suspended solids and void of pathogens. Con-
sequently, pretreatment can be minimized, and usually
is aimed at eliminating operating difficulties. Screen-
ing is used to prevent spray head plugging. Lagoons
are used for BOD treatment and wastewater flow and
strength equilization, but detention time in the lagoons
is minimized to prevent odor problems from occurring.
Many sites prefer to 9pray direct with screening as the
only pretreatment.
Effluent Characteristics
Determination of the physical, chemical, biological
and flow rate characteristics of the effluent to be
treated is required for the consideration of land treat-
ment alternatives. Of particular importance is the
determination of total nitrogen, toxic metals and toxic
organics. Total nitrogen usually is the controlling
factor in hydraulic loading of municipal sites and de-
termines the land areas required. Toxic metals and
organics are important to both municipal and industrial
treatment sites due to the acute and chronic effects on
the biota performing the treatment. Peak flow charac-
-------
55
teristics determine the land area required for systems
without storage capacity.
A sample analysis of a municipal effluent (Denver)
is shown in Table I. The data show typical constituent
Q ry
concentrations in Denver effluents and the projected
concentration in the root zone, assuming a 50 percent
evapotranspiration loss and no uptake by plants or
modification by soil organisms. The raw surface water
8 8
criteria used for public water supplies, the prelim-
89
inary EPA groundwater criteria, and irrigation water
90
criteria are presented for comparison to the effluent
and projected root zone constituent concentrations.
The following constituents would create groundwater
pollution problems if thoy were leached from the root
zone without dilution or treatment by the crops or soil:
Coliform, TDS, Nitrate, Sodium, Chromium, Fluoride,
Iron, Lead, Manganese, CCE, CAE, Sulfate, Phenols, and
perhaps Chloride. The fate of these constituents will
be discussed in later sections.
The boron concentration in Denver's effluent is
unknown. Boron is toxic to certain crops in the 0.7 to
1.2 mg/l concentrations typically found in municipal
9 1
effluents. Boron concentrations in effluent are
primarily derived from the increasing use of low and
no-phosphate detergents containing borax and perborate.
Molybdenum in the effluent is 20 times the maximum
-------
TABLE I
SAMPLE MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER ANALYSIS
Cons ti tuent
Surfa ce
Preliminary
Irrigation
Denver
Root Zone
(mg/l except
Water
EPA
Water
Secondary-
C oncentra ti on
as noted)
Criteria
Groundwater
Cri teria
Effluent
E.T. = 50$
Criteria
Physical:
SS
-
-
-
98
196
Biological:
(MPN/100 ml)
Coliform
10,000
-
-
160 ,000
-
Fecal Coliform
2 , 000
-
-
26,000
-
Chemical:
TDS
500
—
variable
480
960
pH, units
6.0-8.5
—
-
7.7
-
BOD
—
_
24
48
COD
—
_
—
62
1 2h
Total N
—
—
-
28 . 2
5 6.4
Nitrate N
10
10
—
tra ce
<56.4
Ammonia N
0.5
—
—
17.5
variable
Phosphate
-
-
-
8.7
17-4
Sodium
-
270
-
155
310
Potassium
—
—
—
unknown
unknown
C a1c i um
—
—
—
62
1 24
Magties ium
—
—
—
10.6
21.2
SAR
—
—
variable
4.8
-
Boron
1 .0
—
0.75
unknown
unknown
Ars eni c
0.05
0. 1
1 .0
0 .003
0.006
Barium
1 .0
1 .0
—
0.192
0.384
Cadmium
0.01
0.01
o
o
< 0 .001
< 0.002
-------
TABLE I (continued)
Cons tituent
Surfa ce
Preliminary
Irrigation
Denver
Root Zone
(mg/l except
Water
EPA
Water
Se condary
Concentration
as noted)
Criteria
Groundwater
Criteria
Criteria
Effluent
E.T. = 50#
Chloride
250
250
1 20
2^0
Chromium +6
0 .05
0.05
5-0
0.05
0.10
C opper
1 .0
1 . 0
0.2
0.07
0 . 1 U
Cyanid e
0 . 2
0 . 2
—
< 0.01
< 0.02
Fluoride
1 .3
1 . 1
-
1 .09
2.18
Iron
0.3
0.3
—
3.0
6.0
Lead
0.05
0.05
5.0
0 .082
0 . 1 6k
Manganese
0.05
0.05
2.0
0.075
0.15
Mercury
-
0.005
-
-
-
MBAS
0.5
0.5
0.116
0.232
CCE
0.15
0.3
-
2 . 478
k .96
CAE
—
1.5
-
1.185
2.37
Selenium
0.01
0.01
0
0
Ul
< 0.001
< 0.002
Silver
0.05
0.05
—
0 .008
0.016
Sulfate
250
250
168
336
Zinc
5
5
5.0
O
00
Ui
0.37
Phenols
0 .001
-
—
0.01
0.02
Specific
Conductance
-
-
variable
1 .03
-
Molybdenum
—
—
0.005
0 . 1
0 . 2
Nickel
-
—
0.5
0.12
0 . 2k
Aluminum
—
-
1 .0
0.16
0.32
Beryllium
-
-
0. 5
-
-
Cobalt
-
-
0 . 2
< 0.00 1
< 0.002
Li thium
—
—
5.0
-
-
Tin
_
__
0.003
0 .006
Tungs ten
—
-
-
0.1^7
0.29^
Vanadium
—
—
10
< 0.001
< 0.002
-------
58
recommended levels for irrigation water. Molybdenum
may concentrate in plants in quantities toxic to cattle.
Si be Requirements and Selection
The following factors should be considered when
evaluating potential land treatment sites: location,
topography, geology, hydrology, agronomy, and soils.
All of these factors are site specific and have inter-
dependent relationships affecting the engineering design.
The significance of various physical and geochemical
factors to he considered when selecting irrigation
si I'.rs vary depend Lng on: (a) the quality of the waste-
water to be applied, (b) the acreage required, (c) the
amount and duration of the wastewater application, (d)
the water quality standards to be met for the receiving
body of water, (e) climate, (f) other uses to be made
of the site, (g) the irrigation season, and (h) the
92
management considerations.
The ultimate project success or failure depends on
sound engineering judgement by qualified, experienced
people in several engineering disciplines. The State
of Pennsylvania Spray Irrigation Manual requires a
soil scientist, geologist and hydrogeologist to complete
and approve their respective portions of the permit
93
application forms. The engineering decisions required
for site selection will be briefly discussed in the
-------
59
following paragraphs.
Location.
Engineering factors, as well as the legal and
social factors discussed earlier, must be considered
when locating a land treatment site. Factors not di-
rectly related to treatment site efficiency include
water rights, zoning, adjacent land use, area for
future expansion, availability of winter storage re-
servoir sites, and the tradeoffs between pumping cost
and land cost as the site becomes more remote from the
secondary treatment plant.
Topography.
Site topography must be adaptable to the agricul-
tural operations to be performed. Sloping sites can
be terraced and provided with contour ditches or leveled
to increase detention storage and infiltration. Level-
ing is costly and may expose undesirable soils. Over-
land flow should be limited to prevent uneven spatial
infiltration which can result in inconsistent treatment.
Surface runoff must be controlled to prevent pollution
of adjacent surface waters. Slope will also affect
storm runoff and erosion on the site. Surface runoff
retention for a storm of a specified frequency and
duration may be required to prevent surface water pollu-
tion. Groundwater mounds below land treatment sites
-------
60
located on steep slopes can create problems due to
groundwater reappearance as new springs or swamps in
adjoining areas. Areas with high water tables may also
have groundwater mounding problems. Drainage ditches,
tile fields, or drainage wells are then required to
maintain a zone of aeration and to control groundwater
flow .
Geology.
The depth to bedrock and the amount of folding,
fracturing and faulting of the bedrock will affect the
site suitability. Such features reduce treatment ef-
ficiency by short-circuiting percolating wastewater to
the groundwater. Glacial deposits such as the typical
ground moraine can have fragipan developed high in the
soil. This can create a seasonal high water table.
Sands and gravels typical of outwash plains and valley
fills can have permeabilities too high to give adequate
9k
residence time for wastewater renovation.
Climate and Evapotranspiration.
Factors such as annual precipitation and its sea-
sonal distribution, humidity, wind velocity, and tem-
perature range will affect both the evapotranspiration
of the site and the type of crop that can be grown. The
length of the growing season will affect crop choice,
crop water demand, and the required volume of winter
-------
61
storage or the need for alternate methods of winter
disposal. Wind velocity, direction and duration will
affect the size and location of buffer zones and the
useable irrigation season. The frequency, amount, and
duration of precipitation can affect groundwater quality
by leaching mobile pollutants out of the root zone,
result in surface runoff, or raise the soil moisture
to field capacity or even saturation.
In arid climates, effluent is depleted mainly by
evapotranspiration rather than percolation. Prolonged
irrigation with low application rates would result in
a dissolved solids build-up in the root zone. These
salts would have to be leached to prevent crop damage,
and this would result in groundwater pollution. Inter-
cepting the leachate with tile fields would only ex-
change surface water pollution for groundwater pollution.
Application rates combined with precipitation must
exceed evapotranspiration rates to give continuous
leaching of soluble salts. The frequency and duration
of the applications must also be controlled to allow
adequate detention time in the root zone for the crop
uptake of mobile nutrients such as nitrates. Thus it
can be seen that the application of effluent is an ever
changing function of climate, precipitation, evapotrans-
piration, infiltration, percolation, crop nitrate uptake
rate, leaching rate, denitrification rate, field
-------
62
capacity of the soil, root zone depth, groundwater
depth, and aquifer transmissibility. Effluent applica-
tion is a multivariable function which must be con-
tinually adjusted to prevent surface runoff, groundwater
pollution and crop toxicity. On large sites this could
require extensive instrumentation and monitoring, and
computer modeling of site characteristics to predict
and maintain proper site management.
Application Rates and Land Requirements.
Three loading rates are of concern in site selec-
tion and design. They are the liquid loading rate, the
nitrogen loading rate and the organic loading rate.
Organic loading rates of up to 7000 lbs BOD/acre/
9 5
year have been successfully used. The acceptable
rate is site specific, but is probably not the control-
ling function for the application of secondary effluents
from municipajities. For industrial effluents the
organic loading rate may be the controlling function.
The organic loading rate is also a factor in selecting
a drying out/decomposition period between applications.
Excessive organic loading may reduce the infiltration
rate and cause ponding and anaerobic soil conditions.
The liquid loading rate (inches of effluent per
week) is affected by the variable conditions described
in the previous section. If effluent constituents are
in sufficiently low concentrations, the liquid loading
-------
613
rate is adjusted to the seasonal evapotranspiration and
percolation rates of the crop and soil. Ponding should
be avoided. Liquid loading rates are both site specific
and seasonally variable and are best determined in
consultation with soils or agriculture experts.
To prevent surface runoff and ponding, the applica-
tion rate (inches of effluent per hour) should not
exceed the infiltration rate of the soil. This requires
adjustment of the application duration and frequency
with season, precipitation and crop conditions. Design
rates should not be based solely on percolation tests
because these typically indicate infiltration rates
that are much higher than can be expected under operat-
96
ing conditions. The rate of application itself is
set by the nozzle size, spray area and the water pres-
sure and is relatively fixed.
The nitrogen loading rate (lbs N/acre/year) is the
controlling function whore groundwater nitrate pollution
is of concern. The nitrogen loading rate depends on
the crop type, the crop seasonal nitrate uptake, the
soil type, the degree of crop removal at harvest, the
amount of denitrification in the soil, and the amount
of nitrate allowed to leach to the groundwater or the
underdrains. Once again, the application rate (inches
of effluent per hour) should not exceed the soil infil-
tration rate. The application should preferably match
-------
the seasonal nitrate requirements of the crop. Deter-
mining and maintaining this nitrate balance is one of
the main challenges in land treatment and can also be
one of its weakest links. Denitrification in the soil
is just beginning to be understood, and is not presently
a reliable process for nitrate removal. Nitrate removal
efficiency is affected by precipitation since a heavy
rain after a spray cycle can leach nitrates below the
root zone.
Once the controlling loading rate has been estab-
lished, the approximate acreage necessary for irrigation
can be calculated for a known wastewater flow rate.
For emergencies, an alternate area should be available.
If winter storage is planned, the area must be suffi-
cient for application of the daily flow plus a propor-
tion of the stored effluent.
Infiltration Rate and Drying Cycle.
The prediction of infiltration rates for disposal
fields is more difficult than the prediction of normal
infiltration rates for high quality water. This is due
to surface accumulation of suspended solids, bacterial
action in the soil, and cation effects on the soil
structure. The best way to determine the attainable
infiltration rates for land treatment is through field
trials using the actual wastewater and application
97
sys tem.
-------
65
Drying periods between applications are required
to allow desiccation and aerobic biological action to
restore infiltration capacity. In situations where
coarse soil, gravel, or mulch, overlays a finer soil,
the restoration of the infiltration rate may be ex-
tremely slow due to the filtration occurring lower in
the soil profile where desiccation and biological
processes are impeded. The optimum combination of
infiltration rate and drying period is site specific
and can best be evaluated by field trials.
Vegetation improves infiltration rate by protect-
ing the soil against compaction by direct impact of
waterdrops during irrigation. Climate affects infil-
tration rates through the effect of temperature on
wastewater viscosity and through the effects of rain
and temperature on the recovery of infiltration rates
during drying. Temperature affects the rate of soil
biological processes for organic decomposition. There
are systems in which the infiltration rate remains
98
acceptable after 60 years of operation.
Soils .
Important soil characteristics include drainability,
ion exchange capacity, organic content, chemical con-
stituents, and subsoil mineralization. The U.S. Soil
Conservation Service has soil maps delineating soil
physical characteristics to depths of 5 feet for most
-------
66
99
parts of the United States. Drainage characteristics
are important as they relate to the soil'9 ability to
retain effluent in the loot zone. This is largely
determined by the relative percentages of sand, silt,
and clay. Permeability of the soil and the presence
of impermeable layers are also important.
Ion exchange capacity, derived primarily from clay
and organic material, is relied upon to retain and
store exchangeable waste constituents until they can
be assimilated by the soil biological system. Ion
exchange capacity is also relied upon to indefinitely
store toxic metals, trace elements, and excess phos-
phorus. Organic matter is desirable both for its ion
exchange capacity and as a carbon source for denitri-
fication.
Soil chemical characteristics of importance are
salinity, alkalinity, nutrient level, pH, conductivity,
and sodium adsorption ratio due to their effects on
crops, physical characteristics of the soil, and
groundwater pollution. Subsoil mineralization affects
groundwater pollution due to solution of salt or ni-
trate deposits as the effluent percolates through the
soil.
Adequate soil depth is important for crop root
development, for retention of wastewater components,
and for bacterial action. Root activity is generally
-------
67
limited to h or 5 feet, but roots of plants such as
alfalfa can reach 9 feet or more. Soil retention
capacity for wastewater components such as phosphorus,
heavy inetals, and viruses is a function of residence
time in the soil. Parizek of Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity recommends a minimum of 20 feet of soil to
allow for soil thickness variations, ponding, animal
burrows, and as a margin of safety against pollutant
breakthroughs when operational mistakes are made.
Groundwater and Underdrains.
Once wastewater reaches the water table, only
minimal renovation can be expected. Wastewater reach-
ing the water table can be expected to move laterally
away from the site with dilution and dispersion being
the only continuing renovative processes. Vertical
mixing and vertical dispersion into the water table
normally will be minimal.Groundwater monitoring
points must take this into account by monitoring at
different levels.
The basic groundwater considerations are depth
and seasonal variation of the water table, rate and
direction of flow, location of natural groundwater dis-
charge points, groundwater quality and the effect of the
groundwater mound that may build up under the site.
The depth to the water table is important because
it is a measure of the zone of aeration in which
-------
68
renovation takes place. Percolate wastewater recharg-
ing groundwater will create a groundwater mound beneath
the site. The size of ohe mound will depend on soil
permeability and the hydraulic loading rate. A low
permeability and high water table may cause the mound
to intersect the land surface resulting in poor renova-
tion, swampy areas, and odorous conditions. Ground-
water mounds can also alter the direction of ground-
water flow from the site. The groundwater mound should
be maintained below the active root zone. Knowledge
of groundwater flow direction and rate are important
for establishing monitoring points above and below the
site to determine the pollution increment added to
groundwa ter.
The groundwater table can be controlled by instal-
lation of an underdrainage system or pumping wells.
If the water table or an impermeable layer is relatively
close to the surface, tile fields or drainage ditches
are usually the most cost effective means of controlling
groundwater levels. If the aquifer is deep or uncon-
fined, pumping wells may be required to control the
groundwater levels. Underdrainage is also useful to
alleviate the water rights problem by returning per-
colate water to the surface stream.
-------
69
Storage Reservoirs and Lagoons.
Storage reservoirs and lagoons are used to hold
wastewater effluent flow in areas without winter grow-
ing seasons, since sites with designs based on nitrogen
loading rates depend on crops for the ultimate fate of
the nitrates. Lagoons also serve to equalize effluent
flow and effiuent pollutant strength variations.
The. major factors involved in the determination
of the required reservoir capacity is the winter ef-
fluent flow volume, affected water rights, reservoir
losses, quantity and seasonal distribution of annual
precipitation, and crop growing season. The crop
selected to be grown on the land treatment site has a
major impact on reservoir size. For example, an annual
such as corn may have a water and nutrient demand for
only '} to 4 months, whereas a perennial such as reed
canary grass can have a water and nutrient demand of
7 to 8 months. The annualized savings from reducing
the reservoir size by a factor of two may more than
offset the reduced forage value of reed canary grass.
Reservoir size may be influenced by the water rights
considerations as discussed previously. Reservoir
sizing should allow for precipitation and evaporation,
Seepage losses from the reservoir should be controlled
since seepage can result in groundwater pollution.
-------
70
The use of storage reservoirs or lagoons has other
potential problems. Effluent reservoirs can have
odorous conditions during spring and fall turnover
or from malodorous algae blooms. In colder climates
or higher mountain elevations, lagoons are affected
by longer winters with thick ice or snow cover, lower
average summer temperatures, and reduced oxygen solu-
bility. Continuous or periodic aeration by mechanical
means may be required to aleviate or prevent odorous
conditions.
Algal growth in storage reservoirs or lagoons can
create operational problems by plugging irrigation
systems. A simple, effective algae removal system is
not yet available. SeJectLve algaecides and rock fil-
ters with subsurface drawoff are being developed. The
chlorine demand of algae, ammonia and BOD can interfere
with the chlorination of lagoon effluents. The effect
of chlorine on pathogenic viruses in the presence of
algae, ammonia, and residual organics is not known.
High residual chlorine content in the effluent can
affect the soil biota responsible for effluent treat-
ment .
Pilot Sys terns.
The performance of a land treatment system depends
so much on local site specific conditions of climate,
soil, and hydrogeology, that pilot systems should
-------
71
precede any large development. The best way to deter-
mine the attainable seasonal infiltration rates for a
land application system is through field trials, using
102
the actual wastewater and application system.
Problems with the variability in the surface and the
infiltration rate can then be worked out before final
design. The treatment effectiveness and potential
build-up of salts can be analyzed. Present day tech-
nology is not sufficient for predicting the quality of
irrigation return flow. Thus, there is a real problem
in making long-range projections on water quality from
irrigation projects. The real critical problem is
defining the variability in subsurface return flows for
103
large areas.
Fate of Wastewater Constituents
The fate of wastewater constituents is an important
factor in the consideration of land treatment arid in
the selection of land treatment sites. The five major
ultimate fates of the constituents are: (l) volatili-
zation and release to the atmosphere, (2) runoff to
surface waters, (3) uptake by and removal with crops,
(4) temporary or permanent retention in the soil, and
(5) leaching to groundwater. The fate of each consti-
tuent is dependent on the physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the constituent and the
-------
72
soil, and the interaction between the two. Some of the
interactions can be controlled by man, others cannot.
Physical Constituents.
Temperature of the effluent is not a problem unless
it is so high as to be deleterious to the vegetation
1 Ok
and biota. Color has little effect, if any. Odors
in wastewaters are not normally a problem on well
managed sites where the storage lagoons and the soil
are not allowed to become anaerobic. Certain volatile
industrial compounds can cause noxious odors when re-
leased to the atmosphere. These can best be controlled
through pretreatment requirements.
Suspended solids are filtered out during percola-
tion through the soil. Almost complete retention is
105
achieved within a few inches to a few feet of travel.
A major fraction of the suspended solids in municipal
effluents are volatile and can be biochemically oxidized.
Management of the resultant biochemical oxygen demand
is a big factor in the successful operation of the
system. Insufficient available oxygen in the soil will
cause the site to go anaerobic with the associated
odors and shift in biological and chemical processes.
Information from practical experiences with land dis-
posal of wastewaters shows a wide divergence in the
amount of biodegradable solids which can be applied to
the soil without inducing soil clogging and anaerobic
-------
compounds in the combinations and quantities found in
108
secondary effluent. The readily biodegradable or-
gani.cs (proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, amino
sugars, etc.), as measured by the BOD test, should
cause no problems for well managed sites when applied
in the quantities normally found in secondary effluent.
The remaining organic compounds, called refactory or-
ganics (phenols, surfactants, hydrocarbons, pesticides,
herbicides, etc.), are normally present in small quan-
tities in secondary effluent. The refactory organic
content is estimated by the difference between the COD
and BOD measurements. Some refactory organics have
persistent toxicity, and very little is known about
their ultimate fate after they reach the soil, their
rate of biodegradation, or their acute and chronic
1 09
physiological effects. The most effective control
of toxic organi.es is the imposition of the industrial
pretrea tnien t requirements promulgated by the EPA;
however this will not prevent adverse effects from
accidents or clandestine dumping by either industry or
the publi c.
Major Inorganic Ions.
The major inorganic ions in wastewater include
calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfat
and carbonates. The interrelationships among them as
measured by total dissolved solids, alkalinity, hardnes
-------
75
pH, sodium adsorption ratio, and electrical conductivity-
are important in the consideration of land treatment.
Each factor is site specific and must be evaluated for
the conditions under consideration.
The most important soil characteristic in regard
to inorganic ions is the ion exchange capacity of the
soil. The higher the ion exchange capacity, the greater
the purification ability. Increased exchange capacity
means increased clay and organic content and decreased
water permeability. Therefore an important aspect of
site selection is the balance between the ion exchange
capacity and permeability.
The relative balance between evapotranspiration,
rainfall, and irrigation rate will influence the build-
up of the total dissolved salts in the soil and thus
the frequency, rate, and concentration at which they
are leached to groundwater or underdrains. With evapo-
transpiration of 50^ of the applied effluent, the ef-
fective concentration of salts in the effluent in the
root zone is doubled since nearly pure water is eva-
porated or transpired. The subsequent rate at which
the applied irrigation water plus rainfall exceeds field
capacity will determine the level of pollution of
groundwater, or surface waters where underdrains are
used .
-------
76
One of the major ion exchange reactions in the soil
is the exchange of sodium for calcium. It is of par-
ticular importance because of the adverse effect upon
the physical structure of soils which contain clay.
The soil dispersive effect retards the movement of water
and the leaching of salts. The effect is dependent upon
the relative milliequivalent per liter concentrations
of the sodium, calcium, and magnesium cations as defined
in the Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR):
SAR = Na 1/2
Ca +Mg '
2
Anions such as carbonates and sulfates, which precipi-
tate either calcium or magnesium, will affect the sodium
adsorption ratio.110 The exchangeable sodium percentage
(ESP) in the soil, the soil pH, and the relative concen-
trations of cations and anions are also factors affect-
4-U CAT, 111
ing the SAR.
Electrical Conductivity indicates the total dis-
solved salts concentration and furnishes an approximate
indication of the overall mineral quality of the water.
Highly saline or highly bicarbonate concentrations can
1 1 2
affect permeability significantly. The total effect
of all these parameters is best determined by field
s tud i e s .
Sodium can affect the osmotic action in some plants
and prevent water uptake. Sodium has been shown to be
-------
77
a problem with cardiac patients, and is therefore of
concern since it passes essentially unaffected through
the soil treatment system.^1^ Sodium and chloride are
toxic to some plants and can be concentrated and ab-
sorbed through the leaves during spray irrigation.
Essential ions such as calcium, magnesium, potas-
sium and sulfate may deter growth if the total or
relative concentrations are out of balance. Plants
vary in their tolerance to high concentrations of
1 1 4
calcium, magnesium, potassium and sulfate. High
1 1 5
bicarbonate may induce iron chlorosis.
It can be concluded that analysis of the wastewater
for cation and anion concentrations and their relative
concentrations is a necessary prerequisite to proper
soil and crop selection. Soil type will affect the
mobility of the divalent cations and permeability.
Cation and anion effects on long term permeability must
be considered. Rainfall plus the quantity and frequency
of application of effluents will affect the total dis-
solved salts concentration of groundwater or return
flow and their transient concentration characteristics.
Sodium, chlorides, sulfates, and the total dissolved
salts are highly mobile in the soil and their effect
on groundwater pollution must be considered since
evapotranspiration can create high concentrations in
the root zone, as shown in Table I,
-------
78
Nutrients.
Municipal effluents contain nitrogen in organic,
ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate form. The relative
amount is a function of the freshness of the effluents.
Industrial effluents can have varying amounts of
nitrogen, depending on the process involved. Some
industrial effluents may have nitrogen levels too low
to support biological activity.
The fate of nitrogen compounds applied to the soil
are: volatilization to the atmosphere, runoff to sur-
face waters, uptake by and removal with crops, tempor-
ary retention in the soil, and leached to groundwater.
The primary biological processes involved are the
decomposition of organic nitrogen to ammonia, nitrifi-
cation of ammonia to nitrite and then to nitrate, and
the denitrification of nitrate to nitrogen gas or
nitrous oxides. Nitrification is an aerobic process
requiring only oxygen. Denitrification is an anaerobic
process requiring the absence of oxygen and the presence
of a carbon source.
Organic nitrogen is filtered out in the soil and
decomposed to ammonium nitrogen. The ammonium ion is
then adsorbed in the soil by ion exchange. In the
presence of clay minerals and certain organic soil
fractions, ammonium ions are preferentially adsorbed.
These adsorbed ions can be held tightly and may be
-------
79
resistant to leaching. The ammonia is then available
to some plants for direct uptake or for nitrification.
Nitrate nitrogen is mobile. Nitrate that is not
taken up by a crop or denitrified will leach to ground-
water with the next rain or irrigation. The nitrogen
loading rate therefore becomes the controlling factor
on wastewaters with high nitrogen content. For example,
the effluent in Table I has a total nitrogen content
of 28 nig/l which becomes 56 mg/l when concentrated in
the root zone by 50$> evapotranspiration. If pollution
requirements were to require no more than 10 mg/l of
nitrogen (NO^-N) in nitrate form in the groundwater or
underdrain water, k6 mg/l of nitrogen would have to be
removed.
Soil pH is usually close to neutral and therefore
volatilization of ammonia is insignificant. Management
of denitrification in the soil is not well understood
and therefore the process cannot be depended upon for
nitrogen removal. Studies at Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity concluded that "although microbial denitrifica-
tion appears to be a potential solution to the problem
of nitrogen elimination from soil and waters, the
available knowledge is still fragmentary and inadequate
in order to manage efficiently the denitrification pro-
1 1 7
cess in the various ecosystems". There are problems
in sustaining nitrification and denitrification
-------
80
processes in the same soil profile, and providing a
source of carbon iri the anaerobic zone in an unsaturated
soil. Lance, in an excellent summary of the state of
-j-jg
the art on denitrification, concluded that the pro-
cess offers tremendous potential when proper management
is developed.
Crop uptake, therefore, is the only dependable
nitrogen removal mechanism presently available. To
minimize the land treatment area required, a crop
should be selected for maximum nitrate nitrogen uptake
and a fairly constant nitrate nitrogen demand. For
soils where the maximum annual hydraulic loading rate
is the controlling factor, crop selection would be
based on the nitrogen loading associated with the se-
lected hydraulic loading rate. To minimize the winter
storage, the crop should also have a long growing season.
The wastewater application rate should be adjusted to
the seasonal nitrate uptake rate of the crop, since
applying the wastewater in too large increments risks
leaching the nitrates out of the root zone before crop
uptake occurs. The failure to balance wastewater ap-
plication with crop nitrate uptake has led to signifi-
cant groundwater nitrate pollution below land applica-
tion sites at locations such as Lubbock, Texas; Hobbs,
New Mexico; and Fresno, California.
-------
81
The amount of phosphorus that can be adsorbed by
the soil is site specific as to the type of soils and
soil depth. Since the effluent contains more phosphorus
than the crop can absorb, the capability of the soil to
retain and fix phosphorus is important to the site
treatment efficiency. Phosphorus adsorption follows
the Langmuir adsorption isotherm, and the maximum quan-
tity of adsorption would not be reached except for very
high levels of phosphorus in solution. An analysis of
Michigan soils indicated that the maximum amount of
phosphorus adsorbed per acre foot of soil ranged from
77 lb/acre foot for dune sand to 1898 lb/acre foot for
Warsaw Clay Loam. The effect of soil horizon was found
to be great, and the amount adsorbed in various horizons
correlated well with the amount of iron or aluminum in
1 1 9
the profile.
Studies at Pennsylvania State University indicate
that the orthophosphate anions bond chemically with
surfaces of iron and aluminum oxyhydroxides and will
form precipitates with iron and aluminum when they are
in solution. The most weakly bonded phosphates readily
equilibrate with the soil solution and would be con-
sidered available to plants. Phosphorus will penetrate
to greater depths in some sandy soils due both to the
greater hydraulic conductivity allowing less reaction
time between the soil solution and the particle surfaces
-------
82
and the tendency of sandy soils to have lower iron,
1 20
aluminum, and clay content. Soil profile analysis
is important to site selection for long-term phosphorus
ad sorp tion.
Surface runoff containing high phosphate concen-
trations must be controlled. The crop must, of course,
be removed from the site to remove that portion of the
phosphate which is taken up by crops from the system.
A well managed system on properly selected soils would
probably have no phosphorus pollution problems.
Trace Elements and Toxic Chemicals.
The effects of trace refactory organics are dis-
cussed in the section on organics. This section will
be concerned with the nutrient and toxic effects of
the trace inorganic chemicals in effluent wastewater.
As mentioned earlier, one of the most effective methods
of preventing problems with toxic levels of trace ele-
ments in land treatment is to impose pretreatment
requirements on the source industries. Significant
quantities of trace elements can also come from domestic
sources. Examples are copper and zinc from copper and
brass plumbing fixtures and heavy metals from urban
runoff. Some elements such as heavy metals receive
significant removal in secondary treatment and appear
in the sludge rather than in the effluent.
-------
Heavy metal effects on living organisms are pre-
sently being researched, especially as they relate to
land disposal of sludge, but little is yet known.
Most heavy metals are retained in the surface soil
horizon by chelation by organic material, adsorption
on colloidal clay material, and precipitation as in-
1 2 1
soluble oxides, hydroxides, phosphates, or sulfides.
The availability and toxicity of heavy metals in soil
so.lution is a function of trace metal concentration,
soil pH, soil, organic content, presence and relative
concentration of other metal ions, and crop type.
Most crops require far less trace elements or
heavy metals than is applied in effluents. The result
is a build-up of these elements in the soil. Both
short-term acute effects and long-term chronic effects
must be considered. There are presently available no
reliable correlations between soil concentration levels
and crop toxicity, no in forma lion on upper permissible
levels in plants, and little is known about foliar
1 22
adsorption during spraying. Information on differ-
ences in accumulation of toxic metals in edible portion
of crops grown on sites using sludge or effluent are
almost non-existent. Almost nothing is known about
toxic metal interactions (synergistic toxicity) or the
effects of PO^ interactions to alleviate toxicity and
1 21
prevent plant transport of these toxic elements. A
survey of the available literature on the subject
-------
84
References 12^-128) of trace elements or heavy metals
ndicates the following:
Arsenic. Little is known. It appears to be fairly
immobile at normal pH and not to accumulate
in plants.
Aluminum. Little is known. Some reported toxicity
at 1 ppm.
Barium. Barium normally causes no problems.
Beryllium. Animals and plants show toxicity, but
little is known.
Boron. Borax and perborates are being increasingly
used in low or no-phosphate detergents, there-
fore, boron is of increased concern. Most
boron remains in the effluent and is toxic
to boron-sensitive crops at 0.75 ppm. Water
containing more than k ppm is considered un-
satisfactory for all crops. Corn shows
toxicity at 1-2 ppm and alfalfa at 2-h ppm.
Boron will kill plants at levels below food
chain hazard levels thereby interrupting the
food chain path.
Cadmium. Cadmium is toxic in the food chain at
levels below plant toxicity and plant accumu-
lation is of concern. Little or no informa-
tion is available on the movement of cadmium
from feed grains or pasture into beef. The
-------
Food and Drug Administration has not published
acceptable levels but is initiating studies.
Chromium. Crop toxicity levels start at k to 5
pprn. Chromium appears to be non-injurious
because it is rapidly reduced to Cr in the
soil and as such is immobile.
Cobalt. Field occurrences of cobalt toxicity are
rare. Cobalt will kill plants before becoming
a food chain hazard.
Copper. Copper is a plant micronutrient, but at
higher levels represents a significant poten-
tial hazard to the food chain through accumu-
lation in plants. Copper will cause severe
plant injury before content is high enough to
bo toxic to most animals. Sheep are an excep-
tion. Some plants show toxicity at 0.1 ppm.
Cyanide. Cyanide is a trace organic about which
little is known in this context.
Fluoride. Flu-oride has little effect on plants
and is toxic mainly to man and animals at
high levels. Note in Table I that fluoride
leaching to groundwater may reach significant
levels.
Iron. Iron is relatively immobile in soil and
should present no problems.
Lead. Lead is not a problem due to its reaction
with phosphates in the soil, and is relatively
-------
insoluble in soils except for acidic, low
phosphate soils .
Manganese. Manganese is relatively insoluble in
soil.
Mercury. Mercury presents no problems for plants
and the Food and Drug Administration has
found no cycle into meat or milk from land
trea tment.
Molybdenum. Molybdenum normally occurs in low
levels in most effluents. Denver effluent
(Table I) is one of the unique effluents that
could have potential problems. Molybdenum
can accumulate in pasture forages at levels
toxic to ruminant animals with no apparent
plant toxicity, especially in calcareous soils
or low pH. Intensive studies on molybdenum
are in progress at the University of Colorado
and Colorado State University.
Nickel. Nickel is mobile in soil only at low pH.
It kills plants at levels below those con-
sidered to be food chain hazards.
Selenium. Selenium will collect in certain pasture
plants at levels toxic to animals without
apparent plant toxicity and care must be ex-
ercised to exclude these plants from forage
crops or pasture.
-------
87
Silver, Tin, Tungsten, Vanadium. Little is known,
but there have been no reported toxicity
problems.
Zinc. Some toxicity to animals through zinc con-
centration in plants has been observed, but
most plants will show damage before reaching
such levels. Available information on toxi-
city to animals from zinc in food crops is
insufficient to establish a safe plant zinc
level. Soil phosphates reduce zinc avail-
ability to plants.
Pa thogens.
Present methods of disinfection of wastewaters are
not uniformly effective against all potential wastewater
pathogens. Viruses in particular may survive usual
chlorination procedures. Standard methods for sample
concentrations, isolation and culturing of viruses are
not yet available. These factors plus virus mobility
and survival in the soil are the primary concerns in
the health aspects of land disposal.
Studies have shown that pathogenic bacteria are
largely retained at or near the soil surface and that
movement through the soil is not considered a problem
except in the presence of high hydraulic loads, soils
with high permeability, or shallow soils with faulted
or fractured bedrock. The studies also indicated that
-------
pathogenic and indicator bacteria are eliminated from
the soil rather rapidly by exposure to natural ultra-
violet light, oxidation, desiccation, and antagonistic
1 29
soil organisms.
Research has shown that the fate of viruses is not
necessarily the same as for bacteria; that they are
found in wastewater samples which have had successful
bacteria kills; and that they may be more mobile than
bacteria in the soil due to their smaller size. Indi-
cative of the state of the art on viruses is the fact
that the infectious hepatitis virus has just recently
1 30
been isolated. Dispersion of viruses in spray
aerosols is also little understood. Little is known
about the health effects on livestock or on humans
consuming livestock products from land treatment sites.
Surface runoff from land treatment sites should be con-
trolled to prevent contamination of adjacent areas.
Underdrain water should be tested for pathogens since
the use of underdrains reduces the effective filtering
distance for viruses.
The literature contains little information on
irrigation-caused disease transmission, which can in-
dicate either the lack of a serious problem or a lack
of adequate isolation and reporting. That a viral
problem does exist is indicated by the fact that 5^0,000
Americans are afflicted each year with infectious
-------
89
1 3 1
hepatitis, a virus that can be transmitted through
contaminated drinking water.
More than 100 kinds of viruses are known to be
excreted by man and approximately 70 of these have been
found in sewage. Those that appear to be transmitted
through wastewater are enteroviruses, poliomyelitis,
coxsackie, and infectious hepatitis. The fragmented
knowledge of the fate of such viruses as indicated by
various researchers will be briefly discussed in the
following paragraphs.
Reported average concentrations of viruses in raw
wastewater range from 5 viruses per liter to 100,000
1 32
viruses per liter. Identification of viruses in
wastewater has been hampered by the limitations of
sampling techniques, problems of concentration of
samples, the complexity and high cost of laboratory
procedures, and the limited number of facilities having
the personnel and equipment necessary to perform the
1 '33
analytic service. Lund reports that very little is
known about the reactions which take place in rendering
viruses innocuous. Various inactivation processes are
discussed: spontaneous, thermal, chemical, and oxida-
tive. There is a problem as to what part of the virus
particles are affected, i.e. the nucleic acid and/or
the proteins. If only the protein is affected, the
nucleic acid is still potentially infectious.
-------
90
1 3k
Kruse, et al., have demonstrated that in the
presence of ammonia, amino acids or other nitrogen
compounds a zero coliform reading does not necessarily
mean a virus kill.
Bacteria are commonly used as an indicator of virus
movement in the soil. Bacteria sizes range from 0.3
micron to 50 micron with common bacteria being in the
range of 0.5 micron to 3.0 micron, Krone^ reports
that viruses range from about 0.01 microns for infec-
tious hepatitis and polio viruses to 0.^5 microns for
psittacosis. The use of bacteria filtration in the
soil as an indicator of virus removal is, therefore,
open to question. Krone reports that some laboratory
stiifli.es conducted on movement of vi.ruses through gran-
ular media show that coagulation is important to re-
moval of viruses, but even then only 90 percent removal
was achieved by rapid sand filtration. It was also
found that removal was greater at low flow rates. Krone
also discusses the filtration processes in soil such as
straining, bridging, and sedimentation. He concludes
that until there is a simple way of describing the
condition of the soil, the filtration relationships
cannot easily be used to calculate numbers of organisms
passing through a soil.
1 37
Eliassen found that the removal of virus from
percolating water is largely due to adsorption on the
-------
soil particles. Soils with clay content over 5 percent
showed high adsorption of viruses. The equilibrium
constant was also found to be sensitive to the pH and
cation concentration. As the pH increased above 7,
the fraction of viruses adsorbed decreased markedly
due to the increasing negative charge on both the
viruses and the soil particles causing mutual repulsion.
For example, in a soil with 50 percent sand, 30 per-
cent silt, and 20 percent clay, the adsorption was
reduced by almost U0 percent when the pH was increased
from 6.8 to 8.0. As the cation concentration in the
water increased the fraction of virus adsorbed increased
Krone concludes that there is no adequate theory
for describing the movement of viruses through soil,
but that the knowledge that adsorption is the important
removal mechanism provides a qualitative description.
Prolonged application of high concentrations of viruses
to even clayey soils can eventually result in break-
through of organisms. Very little information is
available on unsaturated flow.
138
Romero surveyed the literature on studies to
determine the movement of bacteria and viruses through
porous media such as soils. He concluded that studies
concerning the travel of viruses during percolation
indicated that some behave like bacteria while others,
because of resistance to the environment, may travel
greater distances than do bacteria.
-------
92
1 39
Sorber defines aerosols as particles in the
size range of 0.01 to 50 microns which are suspended
in the air. He indicates that specific studies of
biological aerosols emitted by spray irrigation of
wastewater have not been found in the literature.
There are very few, if any, public health problems
that have been demonstrated as a result of spray irri-
gation or land disposal of wastewater. However, a
significant number of questions have been raised, and
research is needed before conclusions as to the exis-
tence of a hazard can be made.
California, as a state with significant wastewater
reclamation, appears determined to avoid the risk in
the interim. In California, wastewater must have a
coliform MPN of 23/100 ml for spray irrigation of golf
courses, parks, public access landscaped areas, land-
scape impoundments, and for spray irrigation of crops
that will be processed before consumption. Wastewater
must have a coliform MPN of 2.2/100 ml for use in
recreational impoundments and for spray irrigation of
+ V ¦ 4- 1
produce that is eaten raw.
Wildlife and Insects.
Considerable emphasis is developing regarding the
effect of wastewater land disposal on the changes in
both the population and the disease incidents amongst
wild animals, birds, and mosquitos occupying the
-------
treatment site. Some work, notably at Pennsylvania
State University, has been directed towards these areas.
Additional areas needing research include the fate of
protozoan parasites, the passive spread of micro-
organisms or infection by flying insects, and migrat-
1 h 1
ing birds and wildlife.
Research at Pennsylvania State University indicated
no major population changes in birds and mammals after
2 years. Increased mosquito populations were attri-
1 42
buted to standing water on the site. Studies of the
1 43
effects on deer and rabbits are in progress.
Standing water on sites can be avoided through
management practices and proper site selection. Insect
propagation in lagoons can be controlled through in-
secticides or possibly the use of Gambusia fish. The
geology of the site selected will be important in
regard to avoiding potentia] reappearance of groundwater
in the form of swamps or ponds with their associated
potential for insect and other problems.
Forage Animals.
Very little is known about the health effects on
livestock or on humans consuming livestock pastured on
or fed crops from land treatment sites. The hazards
are site specific in that they relate to the effluent
constituents, soil type, crop type, animal species and
quality of management of the system.
-------
Management tools available to reduce parasite and
pathogen transmission opportunity through livestock
include not allowing animals to graze the site, and
allowing forage crops adequate curing time before har-
vesting. Elevated temperatures during fermentation of
ensilage should be beneficial to die-off of pathogens.
Toxicity due to eff].uent residue on plants or to
accumulation of trace elements in the forage will be
site specific. Elements presently of concern that do
not kill the forage before reaching levels toxic to
animals are arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper, cyanide,
fluoride, molybdenum, and selenium. Crop sample analy-
sis should be performed routinely.
Nutritional analysis of the forage should be per-
formed to be sure that animals being fed forage from
land treatment sites are receiving properly balanced
feed. The feed supplements required may differ from
normal practice since forages from land treatment sites
may not be similar to forages grown under normal irri-
gation. Protein level, calcium-phosphorus ratio, mag-
nesium, potassium, cobalt, iodine, and molybdenum-copper
~\bh
ratio would be expected to be most critical.
Crop Selection.
Crop selection is also site specific. Crops should
be selected on the basis of minimizing the total system
cost including capital costs and operating and
-------
95
maintenance costs. The climate requirements and grow-
ing season of the crop selected will affect the size
of the winter storage reservoir. The nutrient uptake
of the crop, the nutrient requirement profile, the
ability of the crop to withstand wet feet, and the
required harvest drying time will affect the amount
of land required. The wastewater nutrient content is
fairly uniform throughout the year, but crop nutrient
demands vary as to crop type and season. Perennial
grasses have fairly uniform nutrient requirements
during the growing season, whereas the nutrient re-
quirements of corn are more variable. This can lead
to either increased storage requirements, or nutrient
build-ups in the soil that may leach.
Efficient nitrogen removal requires total removal
of the crop. For example, picking ear corn removes
very little nitrogen. Having cattle subsequently graze
the stalks removes only the amount of nitrogen that is
converted into beef; the rest is recycled to the soil
as manure.
Infiltration rate is affected both by the root
density of the crop and the amount of soil compaction
prevented by foliage coverage. Sodium, chloride, and
trace element uptake or toxicity to the selected crop
must also be considered. Erosion prevention and
control are important factors. Shallow rooted crops
-------
96
will have less time to take up nutrients as the effluent
passes through the root zone.
1 k 5
The APWA survey of land treatment facilities
indicated that for 82 municipal sites, b0$> raised
grass and h2% raised crops. For the 22 industries
surveyed, 73% raised grass and 1 k'f) raised crops. The
percent of total irrigated acreage breakdown for crops
showed corn--'jO$, a.Lfalf a--2'3aJ>, and whoat--17^. The
preference for perennial glasses is based on their
higher ratings in almost all the selection factors
mentioned earlier.
Comparison of the 1963-1970 crop yields for corn,
corn silage, and alfalfa at the Pennsylvania State
University fertilized control plots and the land treat-
ment sites shows no significant differences in yields
in years of normal precipitation, but quite significant
1 HG
differences in below normal years. This indicates
that in selecting a crop for a land treatment site,
the average typical yields for fertilized, irrigated
crops in the immediate area should be used; however,
attention must be paid to the deleterious effects of
over-irrigation if high hydraulic loadings are intended.
After obtaining typical yields for the site area,
the optimization of crop selection becomes one of
selecting the crop that minimizes the total system cost
while providing the desired engineering features men-
tioned earlier. Care must be taken not to put too much
-------
emphasis on the apparent cash value of a crop such as
corn, because it may be found that using reed canary-
grass could significantly reduce the size of the winter
storage reservoir and the required treatment site
acreage. These reduced annualized capital costs could
more than compensate for the reduced value of the crop.
Where hydraulic loading is the determining factor, reed
canary grass is the better choice since it will with-
stand wetter conditions than corn without adverse
effects. The higher nitrogen uptake rate and longer
growing season for reed canary grass gives it a dis-
tinct advantage over corn. The discussion in the
following paragraphs will deal with typical yields,
crop nutrient uptake per acre, crop food value, analy-
sis, and growing season for commonly selected crops.
Corn.
Corn grain crops are not normally used since
removing only the ears does not remove a significant
amount of nitrogen unless the stalks are also removed.
Grazing the stalks allows significant amounts of their
nitrogen content to remain on the site in the form of
manure.
Yields of corn silage crops at Pennsylvania State
1^7
University (1965-1970) for the 2 inches/week sites
averaged 5-6 tons/acre/year, with a range of 4.32 to
7.27 tons/acre/year. Average crop nitrogen uptake
-------
98
was 150 lbs/acre/year, with a range of 110 to 236
lbs/acre/year. Average phosphorus uptake was 35
lbs/acre/year. A typical corn silage nutrient analy-
sis (1970) i° shown in Table II.
The NO^-N concentration below the corn site
averaged 9.6 mg/l and twice exceeded the 10 mg/l limit.
The NO^-N concentration below the adjacent reed canary
grass site averaged 3.0 nig/l for the same period and
1 ^4- 8
had a 3.6 mg/l maximum value. Corn appears to be
less efficient in protecting groundwater quality.
Corn also has only a 3-^ month growing season during
which s iguii f':i. can t nitrogen uptake occurs, and requires
relatively dry conditions in the spring for planting
and germination.
Alfalfa.
Alfalfa yields at Pennsylvania State University
( 1963-1967) averaged '4.8 tons/acre. Because alfalfa
fixes significant nitrogen from the air, nitrogen
1 k9
uptake values were not available. Because of this
nitrogen fixation capability, care must be used when
determining seasonal nitrogen requirements and appli-
cation rates for alfalfa.
Reed Canary Grass.
Reed canary grass is a tall, cool season perenni.a]
with a rhizomatous root system. It will grow in a
very wet area, and can withstand flooding for over a
-------
99
month without permanent injury. It is one of the
earliest grasses to begin spring growth, and is ex-
cellent for establishing a dense sod to control erosion.
It may be difficult to get started due to low seed
germination, but is almost indestructible once estab-
li shed.
Reed canary grass is becoming the most popular
crop for land treatment sites due to the long growing
season, the high nitrogen uptake, and the ability to
withstand wet conditions. These characteristics can
reduce the capital costs significantly by reducing the
required land area and reservoir sizes compared to
crops that do not have these characteristics.
Reed canary grass yields at Pennsylvania State
1 50
University (1965-1970) averaged 5»5 tons/acre/year
with a range of ^+.3 to 7-0 tons/acre/year. The 1973
reed canary crop yield at the Idaho Supreme Potato
Plant at Furth, Idaho was 3.1 tons/acre/year.1^1 Reed
canary nitrogen uptake at Pennsylvania State University
(1965-1970) averaged 355 lbs/acre/year or 97-3 percent
152
of the applied amount. The range was 272 to ^08
153
lbs/acre/year. Phosphorus uptake averaged k6 lbs/
acre/year, or 35 percent of the applied amount. Com-
bined soil and crop uptake of phosphorus totaled 99.2
1 5k
percent of the applied amount.
-------
100
The total nitrogen uptake of reed canary grass at
155
Idaho Supreme was 163 lbs/acre/year. This is low
compared to Pennsylvania State University and probably
due to the fact that the Idaho Supreme effluent nitrogen
is almost totally organic or significant denitrification
may occur. Sites at Paris, Texas and Ames, Iowa report
reed canary nitrogen uptakes of 361 and 400 lbs/acre/
year, respectively. Missouri reports 359 lbs/acre/year
nitrogen uptakes, 82 lbs/acre/year phosphorus uptakes
1 56
and reed canary grass yields of 6.1 tons/acre/year.
A typical nutrient analysis of reed canary grass
at Pennsylvania State University (1970) is shown in
1 57
Table II. J'
TABLE II
CORN SILAGE AND REED CANARY GRASS NUTRIENT ANALYSIS
Nutrient Average Nutrient Total Amount
Composition Removed
() (lb/acre)
Reed Canary Reed Canary
Grass Corn Grass Corn
Nitrogen
3.69
1 .3k
408
161
Phosphorus
0.50
0.35
56
h2
Potassium
2 . 23
1 .07
2^7
128
Ca1cium
0 . ko
0.23
kh
28
Magnesium
0.36
0.19
4o
23
Chloride
1 -57
0.39
1 58
bl
Sodium (^g/g)
309
201
3. h
2.k
Boron (|jLg/g)
8
7
0 .09
0 .08
-------
101
Reed canary grass can be made into hay or chopped
for silage, but should be harvested before it becomes
coarse and stemmy. Pennsylvania State University
reports no change in digestible dry matter or protein
was found from irrigation with effluent. All the sites
growing reed canary grass found it to be an excellent
livestock feed.
Monitoring.
Monitoring requirements are site specific due to
the variation in site sizes and site characteristics.
1 58
The APWA survey found that "monitoring of land
application facilities has been minimal and mostly
inadequate. Many states appear not to have taken an
active role in requiring use of monitoring facilities,
apparently because there was no discharge to receiving
waters. Industrial systems were generally better
monitored, but control cannot be characterized as ade-
quate in most cases".
The APVA survey also found that few tests were
performed on system effluents or groundwater discharges.
Of the 69 municipal systems, half indicated a lack of
public health restrictions. The industrial systems
reported that 80 percent operated without public health
restrictions. Monitoring of groundwater, surface water
sources, soils, crops, animals and insects is practiced
in some locations and minimally used in others, often
-------
102
dependent solely on the requirements of public health
authorities.
Factors that need to be considered for monitoring
are groundwater, soil, crops, underdrain effluent,
lagoon leakage, and adjacent surface waters. Adequate
background data for any of these parameters is mandatory
before initiating operation. The background data serves
as a data base from which to judge systems performance.
Some monitoring techniques such as for viruses and
1 59
trace elements in soils are just being developed.
Other techniques such as soil testing, plant analysis
and groundwater testing are well developed and should
be required. Plant and soils analysis are available at
most state agricultural research stations, extension
services, or universities. Groundwater testing can
be done in conjunction with effluent testing. Pressure-
vacuum lysimeters represent the single best approach
to sampling soil water. They are inexpensive, easy to
install, and can be used at depths from 6 inches to
60 f eet . 1^
The number, location and depth of groundwater
sampling wells will be site specific. Consideration
must be given to the fact that a groundwater mound
beneath the site will change the groundwater depth and
flow direction characteristics. Consideration also
should be given to the fact that polluted percolate
-------
103
water will stratify on top of the water table. The
Michigan Department of National Resources has' had con-
siderable experience in this area in developing the
monitoring program for the Muskegon County project.^1
Answers to land treatment efficiency and monitor-
ing requirements are being sought by the EPA through
projects such as those at Muskegon, Michigan and
Pennsylvania State University. The Muskegon project
will be monitored for 5 years through an EPA grant of
over $2 million. Complementary studies are to be under-
taken by the University of Michigan, Michigan State
University, and the Michigan Department of Natural
1^2
Resources under a separate EPA grant.
-------
CHAPTER V
REGION VIII SURVEY RESULTS
A survey of the use of land application of waste-
water effluents was conducted encompassing the Rocky
Mountain Prairie Region of the EPA, Region VIII, which
includes the States of Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. Of prime interest
were those sites utilizing spray irrigation, overland
flow or ridge and furrow irrigation which had pre-
planned or intentional direct uses of effluents. Not
included are sites such as lagoons with emergency
outfalls to land, or discharges to streams or return
flow irrigation ditches where dilution or ultimate
destination of the effluent is unknown. If discharges
to streams or irrigation ditches with possible reuse
downstream were to be considered land treatment, almost
every discharge in Region VIII would be included. The
land treatment sites included in the survey are those
sites where full control is maintained over the effluent
for at least a portion of the year. Even then, most
responses indicated that the user's intent was pre-
dominantly reuse as low cost irrigation water, rather
than concern for advanced waste treatment or the environ-
ment. Individually owned and operated domestic aerobic
"package" treatment systems also were not included.
-------
105
The list of sites to be surveyed was developed
through review of known listings such as the 1968
Inventory of Municipal Waste Facilities by the EPA,
EPA files on federal installations, and inquiries to
engineers of the U.S. Forest Service, various engineer-
ing firms and the state water pollution control en-
gineers of the states within the region. All sites
of possible land application of secondary effluents
were first investigated by means of telephone inquiries
to complete survey questionnaires. This assured ob-
taining at least some data for all sites without ex-
tensive travel. It also avoided the poor response to
mail surveys, and allowed direct inquiry into the
unique aspects of each site as they were discussed
with the persons being surveyed.
The survey questionnaire (Reference Appendix A)
centered around the main topics of (a) general consi-
derations, (b) legal aspects, and (c) engineering
systems. The queries included: flow and storage,
pretreatment, significant effluent water characteris-
tics, soil, geological and topographical characteris-
tics of the site, irrigation methods used, crop or land
use, environmental monitoring of the site, and capital
and operating and maintenance costs.
Six industrial and thirty-seven municipal sites
met the definition of land treatment. Thirty-one of
-------
106
these sites are either operating or installed. The
significant survey data for these sites appears in
Appendix B. Twelve of the sites are in the study or
plans and specification stage of development. A short
description of these sites appears in Appendix C.
Major sites that have appeared in other surveys that
were found not to meet the true definition of land
treatment, and are therefore not included, were:
Cheyenne, Wyoming; Rawlins, Wyoming; Helena, Montana;
Tooele, Utah; and West Yellowstone, Montana.
General Site Data
The state location of known sites categorized as
operating, under construction, planned or seriously
being considered for the near future are indicated in
Table III. The year each site was placed, or planned
to be, in service is given in Table IV. A breakdown
of land use of existing sites is given in Table V.
-------
107
State
Colorad o
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
TOTAL
TABLE III
REGION VIII SITES
Under Con- Plans Serious Con-
Operating struction & Specs sideration
10
2
1
1
k
1
6
2
2
2
k
1
3
2
1
19
1 2
TABLE IV
YEAR SITES PLACED IN SERVICE
Number of Number of
Date Sites Date S i t e 9
1951 1 1970 2
1958 1 1971 1
1959 1 1972 2
1960 1 1973 6
196^ 2 19 7 U 11
1967 1 Proposed 12
1969 2
-------
108
TABLE V
DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING SITES BY LAND USE
Golf ik Natural Vegetation 6
Crops Landscaping 3
Hay & Grass 5 Pasture 3
Alfalfa 2 Forest 1
Undecided 1
The predominant reasons given for choosing land
application of secondary effluents for existing and
proposed sites were:
TABLE VI
LAND DISPOSAL REASON
Reason Number
Water already owned by user and available
for secondary use such, as golf course
irrigation 18
Avoid direct discharge to stream 15
Lower cost of treatment on seasonal waste 4
No stream available for discharge 2
Offensive odors if lagooned 2
Only to maintain water rights 1
Overloaded lagoon 1
The predominant use of land application of ef-
fluents in Region VIII is municipal or private golf
-------
109
courses along the Front Range of Colorado, where the
effluent was already owned by the user and was a low
or no-cost irrigation water source. Eighty-seven
percent of the 31 existing sites are less than 10
years old, fifty-five percent are less than 2 years
old, and fifty-two percent are in Colorado. Golf
courses constitute forty-five percent of the site uses.
Forty-two percent of the sites chose to use the ef-
fluent as irrigation water, whereas thirty-five percent
indicated new state or federal stream standards were
the main reason for using or proposing land disposal
of effluents. No attempt was made to determine if the
emphasis was on disposal 'or on treatment. The lack of
site monitoring indicates disposal probably is the
major intent. A major determinant appeared to be the
lack, of standards on land disposal as compared to in-
creasingly stringent stream disposal standards.
No water rights adjudications or legal oppositions
have been encountered by the existing sites. The pri-
mary reasons for this are believed to be: (1) the
water was initially purchased from a municipality or
is owned and therefore can be totally consumed or re-
used; (2) the water originates from transbasin diver-
sion; (j) dominion has been maintained on the effluent
water; (^) the water is deep well water: and (5) the
water right is a federal reserve right.
-------
1 10
Fourteen, of the 31 sites are new and have had no
operating experience. Five of the remaining 17 sites
indicate some odor probJems have been encountered.
This arises primarily from anaerobic conditions or
algae growths in storage ponds (water hazards) on golf
courses, or a too long detention time on food process-
ing effluents. Many of the golf courses have adjacent
housing, and they indi ca te tha t publi c acceptance in
general has been good. Some golf courses concede that
spraying at night helps maintain a low profile and
that the neighbors may not know the source of the water.
Odor conditions are usually related to anaerobic pond
conditions caused by overloaded conditions on the
primary and secondary treatment systems. The algae
problems have also caused some user complaints about
plugged sprinkler heads, even in cases where filters
were in use.
Systems Descriptions
The types of pretreatment received by the effluents
before application at the existing sites are given in
Table VII.
-------
111
TABLE VII
EFFLUENT PRETREATMENT
Number of Sites Pretreatment
6 Activated sludge with chlorination arid
polishing pond.
1 Activated sludge with no chlorination
1 Activated sludge with tertiary treat-
ment and chlorination
k Extended aeration with chlorination
and polishing pond
1 Two cell aerated lagoon
5 Two cell aerated lagoon with chlorina-
tion
3 Two cell aerated lagoon with chlorina-
tion and polishing pond
1 Anaerobic lagoon with polishing pond
3 Trickling filter with chlorination and
polishing pond
1 Trickling filter with chlorination
k Screening only (industrial)
1 Septic tank with chlorination
The average daily flow of the sites presently in
operation was 0.75 MGD per site with a range from 8000
GPD to 3.0 MGD. The average design flow for the exist-
ing and proposed plants surveyed was 0.75 MGD with a
range from 40,000 GPD to 3.6 MGD. Only 6 of the 31
existing sites had design flows greater than 1.0 MGD.
These values are comparable to statistics for California
-------
1
where 110 waste treatment facilities whose effluents
are used for crop or landscape irrigation have an
average flow rate of 0.79 MGD per facility with a
¦j / n
range from U0,000 GPD to 14 MGD.
Eight of the existing sites were presently dis-
charging to streams during the winter months. Seven
sites were new housing developments with present
populations sufficiently small to have totally con-
tained land treatment sites. Eight sites were lagoon
systems with enough storage capacity to be totally
contained in winter. Two sites were seasonal and had
no winter flow. Five industrial sites continued
irrigation through the winter months.
The significant industrial effluent constituents
reported were whey by-products in the three cheese
factory effluents and high BOD and suspended solids
in the three food processing plants. The BOD of ef-
fluents being successfully used in Region VIII ranged
from less than 5 nig/l to 1600 mg/l. The suspended
solids range was from less than 5 mg/l to 500 mg/l.
The average area of existing sites by use in
Region VIII where effluent is used for irrigation is
given in Table VIII. Soil types for existing sites
ranged from sandy to clayey to unknown types with the
distribution shown in Table IX. Adjacent land use foi
the existing sites are given in Table X.
-------
113
TABLE VIII
AVERAGE ACREAGE BY USE
Number of Sites Use Average Area
14 Golf 112 acres
11 Crop/Pasture 60 acres
3 Landscape/Recreational 82 acres
6 Natural Vegetation 6 acres
1 Forest 8 acres
TABLE IX
SOIL TYPES
SoiJ Type Number of Sites
Sandy loam 11
Saridy 6
Loam 1
Clay loam 1
Silty clay 1
Silty loam 1
Unknown 10
TABLE X
ADJACENT LAND USE
Use Number of Sites
Farming 13
Housing 10
Forest 5
Open area 3
-------
1 ^k
Irrigation equipment utilized was almost exclu-
sively of the below ground, solid set, impact sprinkler
type as noted below:
TABLE XI
IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT
Irrigation Equipment Number of Sites
Solid set (below ground) 21
Solid set (above ground) k
Portable 3
Movable boom 2
Overland flow 2
Irrigation rates presently being used were quite
variable. Eight sites, which were predominantly golf
courses, irrigate on an "as required" basis. For those
sites where a known quantity of water was being applied
each week, the range of effluent application was from
0.6 inches per week to 3.5 inches per week with an
average of 1.7 inches per week.
The irrigation season was dependent upon the grow-
ing season except for the year around operations. The
five industrial sites which utilize winter disposal
applications reported no adverse effects upon the ground
covers due to winter spraying. Golf courses reported
the start of green-up spraying as early as March and
continuation of spraying through October.
-------
115
The availability of capi
maintenance cost data varied
existent, thereby preventing
of typical costs.
Monitoring
Observed during the survey was a widespread lack
of awareness of the pollution potential from the use
of effluents for irrigation, coupled with a comparable
lack of state guidelines or requirements on design
discharges or monitoring. The sites are typically
designed so that percolation to groundwater occurs,
yet none of the states in Region VIII have promulgated
standards for groundwater quality nor established
specific requirements or a permit system for discharges
to groundwater. The State of Montana has required some
monitoring of sites adjacent to no-degradation streams
but the monitoring requirements are far from compre-
hensive. Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest
Service and the National Park Service have been includ-
ing monitoring capabilities for parameters such as
groundwater quality in the design for land application
sites within the Region, primarily at the insistence of
EPA and other agency officials. Some site monitoring
is performed at industrial sites primarily because of
the nature of their effluents.
tal cost and
from minimal
a meaningful
operating and
to non-
determination
-------
1 1 6
Most golf course sites do not monitor. The poten-
tial health hazards to a golfer wading through water
hazards containing effluent with fecal coliform MPN
counts of 5000/100 ml or higher is totally ignored, as
are aerosol drift prevention, drift control, and moni-
toring. Pollution of surface waters from runoff from
land disposal sites is uncontrolled and unmonitored at
all but a few sites.
The general lack of availability of information on
basic engineering prerequisites such as site geology,
subsoils, soil depth, or water table depth indicates
that these factors probably weren't even considered in
site design. This would be expected where the primary
purpose involved is effluent use as irrigation water
or effluent disposal rather than advanced treatment.
The few sites that had monitoring requirements also had
considered these basic design prerequisites, thereby
demonstrating a better understanding of the environ-
mental impact of land treatment.
Conclusions
Land application of effluents is presently used
at 31 sites within Region VIII. These sites are best
typified as land disposal sites rather than land
treatment sites, since very few showed concern for the
treatment aspect of application of effluents to the
-------
117
land. The amount of engineering going into all but a
few sites was limited and typically required no more
technical ability than uhat needed to lay out a golf
course or irrigation system. Secondary environmental
effects were only considered when and where a state or
federal agency required it. The site monitoring data
indicates that twenty-two of thirty-one sites are
totally without monitors of any kind.
The need for the states within Region VIII to take
the lead in promulgating standards and requirements
for land disposal of wastewater effluents is evident.
Including si.tes for land disposal of effluent in a
discharge permit system can provide a mechanism for
review of site design and operation by state water
pollution control engineers. Monitoring, sampling,
and reporting requirements will help ensure that sites
are properly operated and maintained.
Design guidelines need not be detailed or try to
address the multiplicity of site specific variables
that may be encountered. The tendency of detailed
guidelines to become design standards must be avoided.
Poor design has resulted from the arbitrary selection
of the 2 inches/week application rate used at the
Pennsylvania State University site. Increasing inci-
dence of land disposal is noticeable in the data as
the states adopt more stringent stream standards.
-------
118
Prevention of stream pollution is no virtue if it
results in air, land, or groundwater pollution.
Lack of adequate design, monitoring and effective
management can result in lawsuits similar to that
which involved the City of Hobbs, New Mexico, or re-
sult, i ri situations like Lubbock, Texas and Fresno,
California which have nitrate groundwater pollution
problems at their land disposal sites. Because ground-
water pollution from land disposal of effluents is
much less transitory than stream pollution, the need
is to design and manage the system so that groundwater
pollution does not occur.
Re commendations
The proper design of a facility for the land
application of effluents is site specific. Therefore,
state standards and requirements must be flexible to
allow the designer the latitude required for proper
design. Some points for consideration in the develop-
ment of standards or requirements, based on the survey,
are :
1. Proper effluent application rates are site
specific as to soil type, topography and annual
precipitation.
2. Many industrial effluents such as food process-
ing wastes are best handled while they are
-------
119
fresh. Inflexible mandatory pretreatment
standards such as a minimum of secondary treat-
ment with chlorination may be self defeating
in some cases .
The goal of zero discharge to surface waters
should not give freedom to pollute groundwaters.
Up-gradient and down-gradient wells to monitor
groundwater quality are mandatory. Groundwater
monitoring is not necessarily more complex
than the effluent monitoring already being done.
Annual soil sample analysis can be useful in
heading off soil toxicity problems such as a
build-up of salts .
Design review and approval by a team consisting
of a qualified soils engineer, a hydrologist, a
geologist and an agronomist should be required
to insure proper design.
Design feasibility approval by the state water
engineer would avoid many potential water
rights conflicts.
Total analysis of the wastewater effluent being
considered for land disposal is mandatory to
identify potential toxic and trace element
problems before design is initiated.
Insect abatement requirements (such as mos-
quitos) need to be addressed as to both nuisance
-------
1 20
effects and disease vector potential. Aerosol
drift must also be considered.
9. Land disposal requirements need to be updated
continuously to include new developments in
the areas of viruses and toxic element control
and monitoring.
10. Use of water hazards on golf courses as storage
for secondary effluents with high fecal coli-
form counts should be carefully reviewed by the
regulatory state agencies.
11. Chlorination requirements for effluent uses on
golf courses or other recreational sites should
be reviewed in comparison to the California
rcquirementa and the present knowledge of virus
pathogen survivability.
12. It is the demonstrated intent of the EPA to
bring groundwater pollution under control by
1983. Design engineers therefore need to know
the state requirements for land treatment design
that reflect this deadline.
It should be noted that all requests for Federal
moneys for construction after June 30, 197^+ will have
to consider land treatment as an alternative method of
wastewater treatment in the cost effective analysis per
Public Law 92-500. What is to be considered at the
state level in such an analysis is presently undefined
-------
121
due to the lack of state control or state requirements.
Also, the preliminary EPA definition of "best practical
treatment" for municipal effluents clearly indicates
the intent to bring groundwater pollution under control
by 1983. Wastewater treatment facilities to meet those
requirements are being designed now. The need for
state requirements and regulations of land treatment
is immediate. Initiation of state rules and regulations
cannot wait until after the current state effort on
stream quality standards is complete.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Pound, Charles E. and Ronald W. Crites. Wastewater
Treatment and R :use by Land Application,
Volume II, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington D.C., Publication No. EPA-660/2-
7 3-006b, August 1973. pp. 9-11.
2. TEMPO, General Electric Company—Center for Advanced
Studies. Polluted Groundwater: Some Causes,
Effects, Controls, and Monitoring, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.,
Publication No. EPA-600/^-73-001b, July 1973.
pp. 1-11.
3. Sullivan, Ralph II. "Federal and State Legislative
History and Provisions for Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater Effluents and Sludges",
Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recyc-
ling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land,
Champaign, Illinois, July 1973. p. 11.
k. Sullivan, pp. 13 — 17 > 22.
5. Deaner, David G. California Water Reclamation
Sites--1971> California State Department of
Health, June 1971. p. i.
6. Deaner, pp. 19-36.
7. . Water Reclamation, California State
Department of Public Health, 1972. p. 12.
8. . Water Reclamation, p. 13.
9. . Water Reclamation, p. 14.
1 0 . . Water Reclamation, p . 71.
11. Bogedain, Frank 0. "New York State's View of Land
Disposal", Proceedings of the Conference on
Land Disposal of Municipal Effluents and
Sludges, Rutgers University, EPA Publication
No. EPA-902/9-73-001, March 1973. PP. 153, 156.
12. Rhindress, Richard C. "Spray Irrigation--The
Regulatory Agency View", Recycling Treated
Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest
and Cropland, Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1973. p. kk2.
-------
123
13. United States Congress. Public Law 92-500, 92nd
Congress, S. 2770, October 18, 1972, Laws of
the United States Relating to Water Pollution
Control and Environmental Quality, compiled
by the Committee on Public Works, U.S. House
of Representatives, March 1973. pp. 28, 29.
14. Sullivan, p. 5.
15.
Publi c
Law
92-500,
P •
42.
16.
Publi c
Law
92-500,
P •
7.
17.
Publi c
Law
92-500,
P •
9-
18.
Publi c
Law
92-500,
P •
20 .
19.
Publi c
Law
92-500,
P •
39
20 .
Public
Law
92-500,
P •
51 ¦
21 .
Publi c
Law
92-500,
P •
99.
22. Environmental Protection Agency. "National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System", Federal
Register, May 22, 1973. p. 13529.
23. Environmental Protection Agency. "Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements—Interim
Regulations", Federal Register, January 17,
1973. p. 1698.
2b. Environmental Protection Agency. "National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System", Federal
Register, May 22, 1973. p. 13529.
25. Environmental Protection Agency. "National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System", Federal
Register, May 22, 1973. p. 13530.
26. Environmental Protection Agency. "Cost-Effective-
ness" , Federal Register, July 3, 1973.
27. Environmental Protection Agency. "Pollutants in
Publicly Owned Treatment Works", Federal
Regi s ter, July 19, 1973. p. 19237-
28. Environmental Protection Agency. "Secondary Treat-
ment Information", Federal Register, August 17,
1973. p. 22298.
-------
1 2k
29. Environmental Protection Agency. "Information on
Alternative Waste Management Techniques and
Systems to Achieve Best Practicable Waste
Treatment", (Preliminary Copy dated 10-3-73).
pp. 1-12.
30. American Public Works Association (APWA). Survey
of Facilities Using Land Application of Waste-
water, Draft Copy, April 1973. pp. 16k-176.
31. Colorado Department of Health. Criteria Used in
the Review of Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
June 1973. p. 35•
32. Water Quality Control Commission. Proposed Water
Quality Standards for Colorado, November 1973.
pp. 1-58.
33. APWA, pp. 150, 15^, 158.
3^. Colorado Department of Health. "Rules, Regulations
and Standards for Certain Domestic Sewage
Treatment Systems and Other Non-Municipal
Systems Other Than Septic Tanks", APWA Survey
of Facilities Using Land Application of Waste-
water Draf t Copy , April 1973. pp . 1 66- 1 68 .
35. Center for the Study of Federalism. Green Land—
Clean Streams. Temple University, 1972.
P. 237.
36. Legislative Assembly of the State of Montana.
Senate Bill No. bkk, Chapter No. ^+52, Montana
Sessions Laws of 1973, March 1973. p. 1.
37* . Proposed Montana Water Quality Stand-
ards^ 16-2.14(10)-S14480. April 11, 1973.
p. 17.
38. APWA, p. 155.
39. Center for the Study of Federalism, p. 262.
40. State of North Dakota. Standards of Surface Water
Qua1i ty (undated). pp. 1 — 17 -
hi. APWA, p. 156.
k2. Center for the Study of Federalism, p. 272.
43. South Dakota Committee on Water Pollution. Water
Quality Standards for the Surface Waters of
South Dakota~ February 16, 1967. pp. 1—59.
-------
125
44. AP¥A, p. 156.
45. Center for the Study of Federalism, p. 279-
46. Utah State Division of Health. Code of Waste
Disposal Regulations, May 1965• pp. 1-6, II-8.
47. Center for the Study of Federalism, p. 284.
48. APWA, p. 156.
49. Wyoming Department of Health and Social Services.
Water Quality Standards for Wyoming, June 28,
1973. pp. 1-10.
50. APWA, p. 157.
51. Center for the Study of Federalism, p. 293.
52. Office of Water Programs. Subsurface Water Pollu-
tion, Part III, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington D.C., March 1972. p. 206.
53. Postlewait, John C. and Harry J. Knudson. "Some
Experiences in Land Acquisition for a Land
Disposal System for Sewage Effluent", Proceed-
ings of the Joint Conference on Recycling
Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land.
Champaign, Illinois, July 1973- pp. 25-37.
54. . "Drought Threatens Trout in Montana",
Denver Post, July 29, 1973.
55- Moses, Raphael J. "Legal Aspects of Land Treatment
of Secondary Effluent", (Presented at the
Symposium on Land Treatment of Secondary Ef-
fluent. University of Colorado. November 8,
1973.) pp. 1-12.
56. Farmers Highline Canal & Reservoir Company v. City
of Golden, (1954) 129 C.575, 272 P. 2d 629,
citing Baer Brothers Land & Cattle Co. v.
Wilson, 38 Colo. 101, 88 P. 534, 107 P. 1108;
City and County of Denver v. Colorado Lane &
Livestock Co., 86 Colo. 191, 279 P. 46; Baker
v. Pueblo, 87 Colo. 489, 491, 289 P. 603;
Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. Town of
Lafayette, 93 Colo. 173, 24 P. 2d 756; Faden
v. Hubbell, 93 Colo. 358, 369, 28 P. 2d 247;
Del Norte Irrigation District v. Santa Maria
Reservoir Co., 108 Colo. 1, 7, 113 P. 2d 676.
-------
126
57• Farmers High Line & Reservoir Co. v. Wolf, 23 Colo.
App. 570, 131 P. 291 (1913), and Mendenhall v.
Lake Meredith Reservoir Co., (1953) 127 C.
bkh , 257 P. 2d 1 ^. See also a ca9e decided
after the Golden case: Hallenbeck v. Granby
Ditch & Reservoir Co., (1966) k20 P. 2d ^19.
58. Vogel v. Minnesota Canal & Reservoir Co., supra,
n.1; Farmers High Line & Reservoir Co. v.
Wolf, supra, n.2.
59. 70 Colo. 565, 203 P. 681 (1922).
60. h99 P• 2d 1 190 ( 1972) .
61 . 506 P. 2d ( 1972) .
62. 50 Colo. 606, 115 P. 705 (1911).
63. Mabee v. Platte Land Co., 17 Colo. App. bj6, 68 P.
1058 (1902), the Fairplay Hydraulic Mining Co.
v. Weston, 29 Colo. 158, 67 P. 160 (1901).
6b. Denver Regional Council of Governments. Water
Quality Management Planning Program—Appendix
B. Preliminary Draft, November 20, 1973.
pp. 28, k3.
65. APWA, pp. 2, 3.
66. Pound and Crites. "Wastewater Treatment ...",
p . 62 .
67. Rhindress, p. ^52.
68. Chaiken, Eugene I., et al. "Muskegon Sprays Sewage
Effluents on Land", Civil Engineering, ASCE.
May 1973. pp. ^9-53.
69. Barbolini, Robert R. "Institutional Options for
Recycling Urban Sludges and Effluents on Land",
Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycl-
ing Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land.
Champaign, Illinois, July 1973. p. 202.
70. Fuhriman, Dean K. and James R. Barton. Groundwater
Pollution in Arizona, California, Nevada and
Utah. Environmental Protection Agency, Wash-
ington D.C., Publication No. 16060 ERU,
December 1971. P» 105.
-------
1 27
71. Wells, Dan M. and Robert ¥. Sweazy. "Multiple Reuse
of Municipal Wastewater in Lubbock", Texas
Tech University, p. 9.
72. Wright, John R. Chief, Water Quality Section,
Environmental Improvement Agency, Santa Fe,
New Mexico. Personal Communication, October
1973.
73. Jones, David C. An Investigation of the Nitrate
Problem in Runnels County, Texas. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.,
Publication No. EPA R2-73-267, June 1973.
p. 8.
7^. Dunbar, John 0. "Public Acceptance—Education and
Informational Needs", Proceedings of the Joint
Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois, July
1973. pp. 208-210.
75. Postlewait, John C. and Harry J. Knudsen. "Some
Experiences in Land Acquisition for a Land
Disposal System for Sewage Effluent", Proceed-
ings of the Joint Conference on Recycling
Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land.
Champaign, Illinois, July 1973. pp. 25-38.
76. Schramm, Jack J. "Some Observations about the
Legal and Political Implications of Applying
Municipal Waste on Land", Proceedings of Con-
ference on Disposing of Treated Municipal
Effluent on the Land. University of Missouri
at Columbia, March 20, 1973. pp. 57-66.
77* Brimberg, Judith. "Sewage-Sludge Plan Reservations
Voiced", Denver Post, February 18, 1973.
78. Pound, Charles E. and Ronald W. Crites. Wastewater
Treatment and Reuse by Land Application—Volume
II. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton D.C., Publication No. EPA 660/2-73-0066,
August 1973. pp. 141-158.
79- Pound, Charles E. and Ronald W. Crites. "Nation-
wide Experiences in Land Treatment", Proceed-
ings of the Conference on Land Disposal of
Municipal Effluents and Sludges. Rutgers
University, March 1973. EPA Publication No.
EPA 902/9-73-001. p. 2^0.
-------
80
81
82
8 3
8^1
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
1 28
Environmental Protection Agency. "Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements—Interim
Regulations", Federal Register, January 17,
1973. p. 1698.
Myers, Earl A. "Sprinkler Irrigation Systems:
Design and Operation Criteria", Recycling
Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge
Through Forest and Cropland. Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1973. p. 331.
Goddard, Maurice K. "Needed Directions in Land
Disposal", Recycling Treated Municipal Waste-
water and Sludge Through Forest and Cropland.
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1973.
P- 5-
Rhiridress, p. '-190.
Bogedain, p. 157 •
Pound and Crites, "Wastewater Treatment
pp. 50, 52.
Pound and Crites, "Wastewater Treatment ...",
p. 9^ •
Lindstedt, K.D., E.R. Bennett and S.W. Work.
"Quality Considerations in Successive Water
Use", JWPCF 43:8 (August 1970, PP • 1686, 1687.
National Technical Advisory Committee. Water Qual-
ity Criteria. FWPCA, Washington D.C., 1968.
p. 20 .
Environmental Protection Agency. "Information on
Alternative Waste Management Techniques and
Systems to Achieve Best Practicable Waste
Treatment". (Preliminary Copy dated 10-3-73).
PP. 7, 8.
National Technical Advisory Committee, p. 152.
Pound, Charles E. and Ronald W. Crites. "Charac-
teristics of Municipal Effluent", Proceedings
of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal
Sludges and Effluents on Land. Champaign,
Illinois, July 1973- p. 53.
-------
129
92. Parizek, Richard R. "Site Selection Criteria for
Wastewater Disposal—Soils and Hydrogeologic
Considerations", Recycling Treated Municipal
Wastewater and Sludge Through Forest and Crop-
land . Pennsylvania State University Press,
1973- p. 95.
93. Bureau of Water Quality Management. Spray Irriga-
tion Manual. Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, Publication No. 31,
1972. pp. 1-^9.
9b. Bureau of Water Quality Management (Pennsylvania),
p . 9 •
95- Pound and Crites. "Wastewater Treatment
p. hk.
96. Pound and Crites. "Wastewater Treatment ...",
p . bo .
97. Bouwer, Herman. "Land Treatment of Liquid Waste:
The Hydrologic System", Proceedings of the
Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges
and Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois,
July 1973. p. 104, 105.
98. Pound and Crites. "Wastewater Treatment ...",
P. ^5.
99« Pound and Crites. "Wastewater Treatment
p. 3b.
100. Parizek, p. 115.
101. Bureau of Water Quality Management (Pennsylvania),
p. 10.
102. Bouwer, p. 104.
103. Skogerbee, Gaylord V. and James P. Law, Jr. Re-
search Needs for Irrigation Return Flow Quality
Control. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington D.C., Publication No. 13030, Novem-
ber 1971. pp. 25, 80.
104. Pound and Crites. "Wastewater Treatment ...",
p . 22.
105. Pound and Crites. "Wastewater Treatment ...",
P- 25.
-------
i 30
106. Thomas, Richard E. "Fate of Materials Applied",
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab.
(Presented at the Conference on Land Disposal
of Wastewaters. Michigan State University,
East Lansing. December 6-7> 1972). p. 6U.
107. Thomas, p. 65.
108. Ongerth, H.J., et al. "Public Health Aspects of
Organics in Water", Journal AWWA (July 1973).
pp. ^95-^98.
109. Miller, R.H. "The Soil as a Biological Filter",
Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and
Sludge Through Forest and Cropland. Pennsyl-
vania State University Press, 1973. pp. 75-76.
1 10. Ellis, Boyd G. "The Soil as a Chemical Filter",
Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and
Sludge Through Forest and Cropland. Pennsyl-
vania State University Press, 1973. p. ^9-
111. National Technical Advisory Committee, pp. 16^-167.
112. National Technical Advisory Committee, p. 170.
113. Sorber, Charles A. "Protection of the Public
Health", Proceedings of the Conference on Land
Disposal of Municipal Effluents and Sludges.
Rutgers University, March 1973. EPA Publica-
tion No. EPA 902/9-73-001. p. 207.
National Technical Advisory Committee, p. 155.
National Technical Advisory Committee, p. 156.
Pound and Crites. "Wastewater Treatment ...",
p . 26 .
Bollag, Jean-Marc. Nitrate and Nitrite Volatili-
zation by Microorganisms in Laboratory Experi-
ments . Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington D.C., Publication No. EPA 660/2-
73-002, August 1973. p. 1.
118. Lance, J.C. "Nitrogen Removal by Soil Mechanisms",
Journal WPCF, kk-.l (July 1972). p. 1360.
1 1U .
115.
116.
117.
119. Ellis, p. 53.
-------
1 20
121
122
123
1 2k
125
1 26
1 27
1 28
1 29
1 30
131
131
Hook, J.E., L.T. Kardos and W.E. Sopper. "Effects
of Land Disposal of Wastewaters on Soil Phos-
phorus Relations", Recycling Treated Municipal
Wastewater and kludge Through Forest and
Cropland. Pennsylvania State University Press,
1973. p. 205.
Miller, p. 87.
Melsted, S.W. "Soil-Plant Relationships (Some
Practical Considerations in Waste Management)",
Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Re-
cycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on
Land. Champaign, Illinois, July 1973-
pp. 125-126.
Chaney, Rufus L. "Crop and Food Chain Effects of
Toxic Elements in Sludges and Effluents",
Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recyc-
ling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land.
Champaign, Illinois, July 1973. pp. 129,138.
National Technical Advisory Committee, pp. 151-155,
163.
Chaney, pp. 129-1^0.
University of Missouri Extension Division. A
Guide to Planning and Designing Effluent Irri-
gation Disposal Systems in Missouri, Publica-
tion MP 337, March 1973. pp. 19, 76-81.
Lindsay, W.L. "Inorganic Reactions of Sewage
Wastes with Soils", Proceedings of the Joint
Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois, July
1973. PP. 91-96.
Jelink, Charles. "Informal Opinions", HEW, Food
and Drug Administration. The Joint Conference
on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents
on Land. Champaign, Illinois, July 1973.
pp. 215-216.
Miller, pp. 85-86.
. "Hepatitis-Causing Particle Isolated",
Denver Post, November 30, 1973.
. "Hepatitis-Causing Particle Isolated",
Denver Post, November 30, 1973.
-------
1 32
133
1 3k
135
136
137
138
139
1 40
1^1
1 h2
1 32
Foster, D.H. and R.S. Engelbrecht. "Microbial
Hazards in Disposing of Wastewater on Soil",
Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and
Sludge Through Forest and Cropland. Pennsyl-
vania State University Press, 1973. p. 253.
Lund, Ebba. "Inactivation of Viruses", Sixth
International Water Pollution Research,
Session 14, Paper 28, June 1972. pp. 1-3.
Kruse, C., et al. "Halogen Action on Bacteria,
Viruses and Protozoa", Proceedings of the
National Specialty Conference on Disinfection,
University of Massachusetts, Amerhurst, Mass.,
July 1970.
McKinney, Ross E. Microbiology for Sanitary En-
gineers. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.,
Inc., 1962. p. 29.
Krone, R.B. "The Movement of Disease Producing
Organisms Through Soils", Municipal Sewage
Effluent for Irrigation, Ruston, La., Loui-
siana Tech Alumni Foundation, 1968. pp. 75-105-
Eliassen, R., et al. "Studies on the Movement of
Viruses with Groundwater", Water Quality Con-
trol Research Lab., Stanford University, 1967.
Romero, J.C. "The Movement of Bacteria and Viruses
Through Porous Media", Journal of Groundwater,
8:37-
Sorber, p. 205.
. Water Reclamation, pp. 71-72.
Sorber, p. 205-206.
Parizek, R.R., et al. "Wastewater Renovation and
Conservation", Pennsylvania State University
Studies No. 23. Pennsylvania State University,
1967. p. 59.
Wood, Gene W., D.W. Simpson and R.L. Dressier.
"Effects of Spray Irrigation on Forests with
Chlorinated Sewage Effluent on Deer and Rab-
bits", Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater
and Sludge Through Forest and Cropland. Penn-
sylvania State University Press, 1973.
pp. 311-323.
-------
133
144. University of Missouri Extension Division, p. 31.
145. APWA, p. 102, 14').
146. Sopper, William E. anrl Louis T. Kardos. "Vegeta-
tion Responses to Irrigation with Treated
Municipal Wastewater", Recycling Treated
Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Through Forest
and Cropland. Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1973. p. 277.
1^7. Sopper and Kardos, "Vegetation Responses
pp. 276-279.
148 . Kardos, Louis T. "The Effect of Applying Municipal
Effluent on Soils, Plants, and Surface and
Subsurface Water Quality", Proceedings of the
Conference on Disposal of Treated Municipal
Effluent on Land. University of Missouri at
Columbia, March 20, 1973. pp. 33-35.
149. Sopper and Kardos, "Vegetation Responses ...",
P. 275.
150. Sopper and Kardos, "Vegetation Responses
p. 275.
151. Smith, J.H. "Treatment of Potato Processing Waste
Water on Agricultural Land", (Presented at the
Pacific Northwest Pollution Control Associa-
tion, 1973 Meeting, Vancouver, B.C.). p. 10.
152. Sopper, "Crop Selection ...", p. 144.
153. Sopper and Kardos, "Vegetation Responses ...",
P. 279.
154. Sopper, "Crop Selection ...", p. 144.
155. Smi th, p. 12.
156. University of Missouri Extension Division, p. 22.
157- Sopper, "Crop Selection ...", p. 144.
158. APWA, pp. 2, 124, 127.
159. Miller, p. 126-128.
160. Parizek, "Site Selection ...", p. 133.
-------
13^4
161. Blakeslee, Paul A. "Monitoring Considerations for
Municipal Wastewater Effluent and Sludge Appli-
cation to the Land", Proceedings of the Joint
Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois, July
1973. pp. 183-198.
162. Chaikon, Eugene I., et al. "Muskegon Sprays
Effluents on Land", Civil Engineering, ASCE
(May 1 97'3) . pp. 49-53.
16'J. Deaner, pp. 1-64.
-------
APPENDIX A
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
135
WASTE WATER LAND APPLICATION
• SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Date
Source _
Facility
City ;
State
Contact _
Telephone
Consultants
City
State
Contact
Telephone _
.General:
"Disposal Site Land Use
Year Placed in Service
Population Served
Reason for Selecting Land Disposal
Public Attitude
fffluent User Attitude
Legal:
•Hater Adjudication Required
Legal Opposition Encountered
Population Relocation Require3
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Flow and Storage:
Present Total Flow
Industrial Flow
Retention Storage Capacity
•Pretreatment:
•Primary
Secondary T.
F.
A.S.
•Aerated Lagoon _
Anarobic Lagoon"
Septic Tank
Irrigation Water Characteristics:
BOD, (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml)
Total P (mg/1)
T.D.S. (mg/1)
ph ~~m
Design Total Flow
Signif. Indust. Constit.
Ave. Retention Time
Tertiary
Chiorination
Other
Sludge Disposal Method
S.S. (mg/1)
Total N. (maTTJ
Metal Ions (mg/iy
V.S.S. (mg/1)
S.A.R.
-------
Page 2 - Survey Questionnaire
Site Description:
Geology
Runoff Retention
Adjacent Land Use
Irrigated Acres
Site Topography
Soil Type
Water Transport Distance
Soil Depth
Water Table Depth
Underdrains
Effluent Reuse
Buffer Zone Size
Irrigation Methods:
Solid Set Above Ground
Center Pivot
Ridge and Furrow
Below Ground
Portable
Overland Flow
Crops:
Ground Cover Type
Irrigation Rate
Irrigation Frequency _
Annual Irrigation Rate
Annual Yield
Irrigation Duration
Irrigation Season _
Operator '
Rate Optimized for Crop Yield
Rate Optimized for Effluent Disposal
Monitoring: (tests performed, test frequency, test results)
Influent
Effluent
Ground Water
Surface Runoff
Air
-------
¦Soil
137
Crops
'Vegetation
Costs:
System Cost not including Primary and Secondary Treatment
{Jet Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs
System Cost Per Person
O&M Cost Per Person
Health or Nuisance Problems Encountered:
Recreational Uses of Disposal Site:
Suggestions, Comments, Recommendations:
-------
APPENDIX B
REGION VIII SURVEY RESULTS
EXISTING SITES
-------
TABLE B-1
LOCATION OF EXISTING SITES
Ref .
No .
Site
Effluent
Source
Locati on
Colorado
1
Air Force Academy
AFA WWTP
Colorado Spring
2
Aurora Golf Course
Aurora WWTP
Aurora
3
Colorado Springs Sites
Colorado Springs WWTP
Colorado Spring
4
Donala Development
Development
Colorado Spring
5
East Canon
East Canon Sanit.Dist.
Canon City
6
Fitzsimmons Golf Course
Fitzsimmons Hospital
Aurora
7
Inverness Development
Indust. Development
Arapahoe County
8
Kuner-Empson Co.
Veg. Process. Plant
Brighton
9
Lake of the Pines Dev.
Left Hand Sanit. Dist.
Boulder County
10
Lakewood Golf Course
S. Lakewood Sanit.Dist.
Lakewood
1 1
Mechaneer West Golf Course
Fort Carson
Fort Carson
1 2
Pueblo West Development
Development
Pueblo
13
Roxborough Park Development
Development
Douglas County
1^
Snowmass Golf Course
Snowmass at Aspen
Pitkin County
15
Taylor Park C.D.
Forest Service Cent. Disp.
Gunnison N.F.
16
Timrneron Development
Development
Durango
Montana
17 Aerial Fire Depot Forest Service Site Missoula
18 Big Sky Golf Course Development Bozeman
19 Rexford Rexford WWTP Rexford
20 Rocky Boy Indian Reservation Reservation Havre
-------
TABLE B-1 (continued)
Ref .
No .
Site
Ef fl uent
Source
Location
North Dakota
21
Di ckens on
Dickenson WWTP
Di ckens on
South Dakota
22
Big Stone Cheese Factory
Cheese Processing Plant
Big Stone
Utah
23
2k
25
26
27
28
Bear River C.D.
Delmonte Corp.
Gossner Cheese Co.
Provo River C.D.
Spanish Forks Golf Course
Union Pacific Resort
Forest Service Cent.Disp
Veg. Process. Plant
Cheese Processing Plant
Forest Service Cent.Disp
Spanish Forks WWTP
Resort
by Evanston
Smi thf ield
Logan
by Kamas
Spanish Forks
Zion Nat. Park
Vyoming
29 Snowy Range C.D.
30 Thayne
31 Wyoming Potato Inc.
Forest Service Cent.Disp. by Centennial
Thayne WWTP (& Cheese Pro) Thayne
Potato Processing Pine Bluff
-------
TABLE B-2
FLOW ,
PRETREATMENT, AND LAND USE
Present
Design
Ref.
Start
Flow
Flow
No .
Da te
(MGD)
(MGD)
Land Use
Pretreat
Colo .
1
1959
1 .5
2.2
Golf,Land s cape
TF,C,P
2
1969
1 .3
1 .0
Golf
EA,C,F,P
3
1 960
3.0
10.0
Golf,Land scape
AS,TERT.,C
k
1973
AR
0.25
Golf
AS,C,P,F
5
1973
0.25
0.3
Pas ture
EA,C,P
6
1951
0.5
0.8
Golf
TF,C,P
7
197^
AR
AR
Golf,Land scape
AS , C,P
8
1970
0.5
1 .0
Pasture
SCREEN
9
1969
AR
0.25
Pas ture
EA 8C , P
10
1967
AR
AR
Golf
AS,C,F,P
1 1
1971
0.5
1 .0
Golf
TF,C,P,F
1 2
1973
0.25
0 . 2
Golf,Land scape
AS
13
197^
AR
3.6
Golf
AS,C ,P
1*+
197^
0.5
1 . 2
Golf
AS,C,P
15
197^
AR
AR
Natural Veg.
AL, C
16
197^
AR
0 .k
Golf
AS,C ,P
Mont.
17
1973
O
O
to
0.0k
Hay
AL, C
18
197^
AR
0.25
Golf
AL,P,F,C,P
19
1973
AR
0 .Ok
Natural Veg.
AL,C,P
20
197^
AR
0.075
Fores t
EA,C,P
-------
TABLE B-2
Present Design
Ref. Start Flow Flow
No.
Da te
(mgd) (mgd)
N. Dak
.
21
1964
1.0 1.0
S . Dak
•
22
1970
0.1 AR
Utah
23
197^
0.008 1 MGY
2k
1973
0.9 ar
25
1972
0.07 ar
26
1974
0.016 0.2 MGY
27
1958
3.0 3.0
28
196k
0.016 AR
Vyo .
29
1974
AR 0.1 MGY
30
1974
0.35 1.1
31
1972
1.8 AR
CODE:
AR
As Required
AS
Activated Sludge
TF -
Trickling Filter
EA - Extended Aeration
AL - 2 Cell Aerated Lagoon
(continued)
Land Use
Pre trea t
Hay
AL
Alfalfa,Hay
SCREEN
Natural Veg.
Alfalfa
Hay
Natural Veg.
Golf
Natural Veg.
AL,C,P
SCREEN
ANL, F
AL,C , P
TF , C
ST, C
Natural Veg. AL,C
Not Decided AL,C
Hay SCREEN
ANL - Anaerobic Lagoon
ST - Septic Tank
C - Chlorination
F - Filter
P - Pond or Reservoir
-------
TABLE B
WINTER DISCHARGE, STORAGE CAPACITY,
Present Present
Ref. Winter Storage BOD
N o. Pi s charge Capacity (MG/l)
Colo .
1
S tream
k Reservoirs
6-39
2
Stream
10 MG
6-13
3
Stream
23 MG
< 5
b
Storage
15 MG
10-15
5
Stream
4 MG
17
6
Stream
2.3 MG
5-10
7
Storage
Pond
8
Spray
3.5 MG
High
9
Storage
5 Months
10
Stream
20 MG
< 30
1 1
Stream
3 MG
15
1 2
Unknown
Unknown
< 1 1
13
Storage
67 MG
1 k
Storage
100 MG
< 20
15
Storage
Lagoon
300 lb/day
1 6
S torage
27 MG
< 20
Mont .
17
18
19
20
Storage
Storage
Storage
Storage
Lagoon
70 MG
Lagoon
Lagoon
10
25-35
AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
S . S .
(MG/L)
7-2 6
20
< 5
10-15
< ^5
High
< 30
15
< 20
< 20
< 20
Other
Cons ti tuents
TDS 800-1000 mg/1
Cannery Waste
TDS 500-700 mg/1
Trailer Wastes
10
25-35
-------
TABLE B-3 (continued)
Ref .
No .
Pre sent
Winter
Dis charge
Pres ent
Storage
Capaci ty
BOD
(mg/l)
S.S.
(mg/l)
0 ther
Cons ti tuents
N . Dak
.
21
Storage
Lagoon
30-35
S . Dak
•
22
Spray
None
High
High
25$ Whey By-products
Utah
23
S torage
Lagoon
< 50
2k
None
None
High
Cannery Waste
25
Spray
1 MG
High
Whey By-products
26
Storage
Lagoon
< 35
Trailer Wastes
27
Stream
None
17-27
28
None
None
Wyo .
29
Storage
Lagoon
< ko
< 50
Trailer Wastes
30
Spray
1 . 2k MG
712 lb/day
100 lb/day
Brine, Whey By-products
31
Spray
None
1200-1600 mg/l
200-500 mg/l
Potato Waste
-------
TABLE B-h
REASON FOR LAND DISPOSAL AND
PUBLIC/USER COMMENTS
Ref .
No .
Land Disposal Reason
Public/User Comments
Colo .
1
Low cost
irrigation water
Some Odor complaints
2
Low cost
irrigation water
Some algae odor & plugging problems
3
Low cost
irrigation water
Good acceptance, overloaded T.F.,
caused odor problems
k
Low cost
irrigation water
( new)
5
Ma inta in
water rights
( new)
6
Low cost
irrigation water
Good acceptance, some algae problems
7
Low cost
water, 1973 state stds.
( new)
8
Low cost
treatment of seasonal waste
Some odor if not kept fresh
9
Public opposition to stream discharge
Operator satisfied
10
Low flow
supplement to water rights
No problems or complaints
1 1
Low cost
irrigation water
Some odor complaints
1 2
L ow cost
irrigation water
( new)
13
Low cost
irrigation water, state stds.
(new)
14
Low cost
water, 1978 state stds.
( new)
15
Emergency backup system for zero
( new)
dis charge
( new)
16
Low cost
irrigation water, 1978 state
s td s .
Mont .
17
No direct
: discharge available for lagoon
( new)
18
No degradation stream std., low cost
Environmentalists happy
wa ter
19
Avoid discharge to reservoir
Good acceptance
20
Drinking
water stream std.
( new)
-------
TABLE B-^ (continued)
Ref .
No. Land Disposal Reason
N. Dak.
21 Overloaded lagoons
S. Dak.
22 Former system had lagoon odors
Utah
23 Seasonal, precip. > evapotranspiration
2k Low cost treatment of seasonal waste
25 Low cost treatment
26 Seasonal, precip. > evapotranspiration
27 Low cost irrigation water
28 Avoid surface discharge to stream
Vy o .
29 Seasonal, avoid direct discharge
30 Avoid lagoon discharge, precip. = E.T.
31 Low cost treatment of seasonal waste
Public/User Comments
Farmer happy
Very good, no odor proble
( new)
Good acceptance
Good performance
( new)
Good acceptance
Variable performance
( new)
( new)
Excellent performance
-------
TABLE B-5
LAND, SOILS, AND IRRIGATION METHODS
Ref. Irrigated Soil Adjacent Irrigation
No. Acres Type Land Use Method
Colo.
1
3^5
Sandy Loam
Open & Housing
solid
Set
2
150
—
Housing
Solid
Set
3
200
Sandy
Housing
Solid
Set
k
100
Sandy Loam
Housing
Solid
Set
5
20
Sandy
Housing
Flood
6
100
Clay & Sand
Farm
Solid
Set
7
AR
—
Farm
Solid
Set
8
1 10
—
Farm
Porta
ble
9
1 2
—
Farm
Solid
Set
10
1 1 8
—
Housing
Solid
Set
1 1
100
Sandy Loam
Open & Housing
Solid
Set
1 2
10
Sandy
Open
Solid
Set
13
1 20
—
Open
Solid
Set
lU
1 20
—
Housing
Solid
Set
15
2.3
Sandy Loam
Fore s t
Solid
Set
1 6
1 20
—
Housing
Solid
Set
Mont.
17
6
Clay Loam
Farm
Surface Solid Set
18
72
Sandy Loam
Housing
Solid Set
19
9
Silty Loam
Farm
Solid Set
20
7.5
Silty Clay
Forest
Portable
¦ET-
ON
-------
TABLE B-5
Ref. Irrigated Soil
N o. Acres Type
N. Dak.
2 1 200 Sandy Loam
S. Dak.
22 80 Sandy Loam
Utah
23 17 Sandy
2h 50 Sandy Loam
25 ^0 Loam
26 7 Sandy Loam
27 35
28 2 Sandy
Vy o .
29 0.19
30 37 Gravely Loam
31 ^0 Sandy Loam
(continued)
Ad ja cent
Land Use
Irrigation
Method
Farm
Portable Booms & Flood
Farm
Portable Booms
Forest Portable
Farm Portable Solid Set
Farm Solid Set
Forest Surface Solid Set
Farm Solid Set
Open Surface Solid Set
Forest Solid Set
Farm Solid Set
Farm Solid Set
-p-
-------
148
TABLE B-6
IRRIGATION
DATA
Ref.
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irriga tion
Irrigation
No .
Rate
Duration
Frequency
Season
Colo.
1
2-3"/week
6 hr/nite
1/week
May-October
2
0.25"/ni te
30 min/nite
each nite
March-October
3
AR
AR
AR
March-October
k
TBD
TBD
TBD
April-October
5
Flo od
3 days
1/week
May-September
6
1.5"/week
5 hr/nite
1/week
April-October
7
TBD
TBD
TBD
April-October
8
-Move When
Pools Fonn-
All Year
9
1.25"/weck
1/week
10
1"/week
'3 hrs
2/week
July-September
1 1
AR
AR
AR
April-October
1 2
AR
AR
AR
13
TBD
TBD
TBD
April-October
Ik
TBD
TBD
TBD
May-September
15
2"/week
8 hrs
1/week
June-September
16
TBD
TBD
TBD
May-September
Mont.
17 TBD TBD
18 AR AR
19 1"/week AR
20 0.6"/week AR
N. Dak.
21 AR AR
S. Dak.
22 'l . 5"/'"onth 12 hrs
U tah
23 5"/year -AR
2h AR AR
25 2"/week 1 day
26 2"/week 8 hrs
27 AR AR
28 AR AR
TBD April-October
AR May-September
4/week April-October
2/week 12 Days/Year
AR May-October
1/nionth All Year
AR July-October
AR June-September
1/week All Year
1/week July-August
AR May-September
AR
Vyo .
29 1.5"/week
30 1.75"/week
31 3•5"/week
7 hrs 1/week
8 hrs 1/week
2k hrs 1/week
June-September
All Year
October-May
AR - As required
TBD - To be determined
-------
1 h9
TABLE B-7
SITE MONITORING
Ref.
No. Site Monitoring
Colo .
1
14 monitor stations on adjacent stream, soil
tested yearly
2
N one
3
TBD
k
N one
5
None
6
None
7
None
8
Soil tested U years ago
9
Noni;
10
N one
1 I
N on o
1 2
None
13
N one
li)
N one
15
4 wells being installed, soils and vegetation
to be tested as required
16
N one
Mont.
17
Soil and groundwater testing planned
18
Stream water test program by Montana State
University
19
N one
20
Groundwater and adjacent stream to be tested
N. Dak
21
None
S . Dak
#
22
Yearly soil samples
U tali
23
Groundwater to be tested
2k
N one
25
None
26
Groundwater to be tested
27
None
28
N one
Wy o .
29
Full 1 year soil & water test program by
University of Wyoming
30
Test wells & springs to be sampled, yearly soil
tests
31
Test program in conjunction with Firth, Idaho
plant
-------
APPENDIX C
REGION VIII SURVEY RESULTS
PROPOSED SITES
-------
REGION VIII PROPOSED FACILITIES
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument, Colorado.
The proposed facility would consist of aerated
lagoons with chlorination and solid set spray
application to 5 acres of natural vegetation on
sandy soil. Natural stream outfalls are not avail-
able. System flow would be 0.063 MGD and 8 MGY.
The operating season would coincide with the
tourist season starting in 1975*
Boulder, Colorado.
A feasibility demonstration plot was started in
the Fall 1973 in conjunction with CSU. A defini-
tized test program has not been completed and
system operation has been sporadic. Dual cost-
effective studies of advance waste treatment vs.
land application of Boulder effluent (presently
1^ MGD) have been undertaken by two nationally
known firms. Draft reports are due July, 197^«
Burlington, Colorado.
Studies are presently underway for application of
aerated lagoon effluent of up to 0.9 MGD to corn
and grass crops on 270 acres of silty clay loam
soil. Ridge and furrow or overland flow are being
considered. First stage implementation would be
about 1977-
-------
Colony Park Subdivision, Greeley, Colorado.
Consideration is being given to condominium land-
scape application of effluents from an aerated
lagoon and polishing pond. The system would be
discontinued upon extension of sewer service from
Greeley.
Indianhead Development, Kelim, Colorado.
Effluents from an extended aeration system are
proposed to be used on lawns and pastures (dual
water system) on 1 acre lots.
Lake Park Estates, Longmont, Colorado.
Up to 0.016 MGD of effluents from an extended
aeration system with a landscape-storage pond
would be applied to 5 acres of lawn. A convenient
outfall is not available and the soil is tight
clay. Proposed start date is 197^•
Prairie Park Development, Castle Rock, Colorado.
Effluents from an extended aeration and polishing
pond system would be applied to the golf course.
Design flow would be 1 MGD and the starting date
is 1975.
Park Headquarters, Glacier National Park, Montana.
Seasonal effluents of up to 0.25 MGD would be
applied, to a 57 acre horse pasture to avoid surface
discharge to a stream. The treatment system would
-------
152
be aerated lagoons, chlorination, and a polishing
pond. Land application proposals for 4 other
sites have been abandoned due to environmental
concerns. A study of potential impact on wild-
life and vegetation has been completed. Start
date would be 1975.
West Yellowstone, Montana.
Land application of 0.25 MGD is being considered
as a replacement for the present percolation
lagoons.
Riverside Country Club, Bozeman,. Montana.
The golf course is studying the feasibility of
using effluent from an adjacent trailer court.
American Crystal Sugar, Fargo, North Dakota.
Land application of sugar processing effluents
is being considered for 5 company plants.
Laramie, Wyoming.
The city is considering land application of muni-
cipal effluents. Water rights appear to be a
serious obstacle.
------- |