Innovative Applications in Water Reuse: Ten Case Studies

INNOVATIVE APPLICATIONS IN WATER REUSE:

TEN CASE STUDIES Innovative Applications in Water Reuse: Ten Case Studies

James Crook, Ph.D., P.E. Water Reuse Consultant Boston, Massachusetts

Alexandria, VA ii Disclaimer

The preparation of this report was sponsored by the WateReuse Association. WateReuse and its Board of Directors assume no responsibility for the content of the report in this publication or for the opinions or statements of facts expressed in the report. The mention of trade names for commercial products does not represent or imply the approval or endorsement of the WateReuse Association. This report is published solely for informa- tional purposes.

For more information, contact: WateReuse Association 1199 North Fairfax Street, Suite 410 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (703) 548-0880 Fax: (703) 548-5085 www.WateReuse.org [email protected]

© Copyright 2004 by the WateReuse Association. All rights reserved. Permission to copy must be obtained from the WateReuse Association.

Printed in the United States of America

iii Foreword

he water reuse industry has experienced rapid growth as well as tremendous Tchanges over the last few years. The worldwide need for alternative water supplies due to increasing demand from population growth and other factors is the prime moti- vation for these changes. Although a number of communities in the United States and abroad have been involved in water reuse for many years, there is a rapidly growing interest in the beneficial reuse of municipal wastewater effluent and other alternative sources of water supply. While several states (e.g., California, Florida, Arizona, and Texas), have practiced water reuse for many years, it is now being recognized as an integral component of water resources management in many other states as well.

As more communities are expanding their water reuse efforts or considering water reuse for the first time, there is an increasing need to share information on successful water reuse projects. The WateReuse Association is committed to supporting the devel- opment of new water reuse projects by demonstrating the societal benefits of water reuse, including economic, environmental, and human health benefits. The purpose of this publication is to document the success of 10 diverse water reuse projects in the United States. In response to the need for alternative water supplies, the water utilities that sponsored these projects have embraced the concept of more sustainable water supplies through water reuse. They have accomplished this in a variety of innovative and nontraditional ways.

The WateReuse Association is a non-profit organization whose mission is to advance the beneficial and efficient use of water resources through education, sound science, and technology using reclamation, recycling, reuse and desalination for the benefit of our members, the public, and the environment. The Association supports water proj- ects that increase high-quality water supplies from treated municipal and industrial effluents, stormwater, agricultural drainage, and sources with high salinity such as seawater and brackish water. The Association accomplishes these goals through: 1) sponsoring research that advances the science of water reuse and desalination and iv supports the Association’s commitment to providing high-quality water, protecting pub- lic health, and improving the environment; 2) reaching out to members, the public, and local leaders and officials with information that communicates the value and benefits of water reuse; and 3) encouraging more Federal and state sup- port for water reuse, including funding for scientific research and implementa- tion of local projects. More information about WateReuse can be found on the Association’s website at: www.WateReuse.org.

This publication would not be possible without the significant efforts of Dr. Jim Crook, the primary author of the case studies. The Association is also greatly appreciative of the cooperation of the water reuse utilities and agencies dis- cussed in the 10 case studies. These utilities and agencies provided much of the underlying information for the case studies and assisted in the review of the summaries. The WateReuse Association is grateful for their efforts. The Association hopes that you benefit from their experiences.

G. Wade Miller Executive Director WateReuse Association

v vi Contents

Hampton Roads Sanitation District 2

Irvine Ranch Water District 6

Montebello Forebay Groundwater Recharge Project 10

Monterey County Water Recycling Projects 14

Orange County Water District 18

Pinellas County’s Reclaimed Water Program 22

San Antonio Water System 26

St. Petersburg, Florida 30

Water Conserv II 34

West Basin Municipal Water District 38

1 Hampton Roads Sanitation District

Background refinery; hence, a logical option was to consider the use of reclaimed water from Hampton Roads Sanitation District HRSD’s York River Treatment Plant (YRTP), (HRSD), a political subdivision of the located adjacent to the refinery. Commonwealth of Virginia, is located in southeastern Virginia. HRSD was created Negotiations were soon underway and a by public referendum in 1940 to eliminate contract between HRSD and the refinery sewage pollution in the tidal waters of the was signed in December 2000. The con- Chesapeake Bay. HRSD’s service area tract included a 20-year agreement for includes 17 cities and counties of southeast production and delivery of reclaimed water Virginia, an area of over 3,100 square to Giant Industries’ Yorktown Refinery and miles with a population of 1.5 million. It water quality objectives based on the uses operates nine major wastewater treatment of the water at the refinery. Construction of plants in Hampton Roads and four smaller facilities at the YRTP to produce 0.5 mgd of plants on the Middle Peninsula having a reclaimed water for use at the refinery combined capacity of 231 million gallons began soon after that time, and the project per day (mgd). became operational in July 2002. During the first year of operation, reclaimed water Water reuse has been a goal at HRSD use at the refinery averaged about 0.4 since the mid-1980s, when the district mgd, which is 80 percent of the project’s began discussions with water purveyors to anticipated usage of 0.5 mgd. The water use reclaimed water for nonpotable appli- reuse facilities are collectively called the cations in lieu of potable water. These James River Water Reclamation Facility. efforts came to fruition in 1996 when the Amoco Yorktown Refinery (subsequently sold to Giant Industries, Inc.) expressed Project Description interest in using reclaimed water. At that The Yorktown Refinery, built in 1956, time, the refinery was using potable water processes 60,000 barrels (2.5 mgd) of supplied by the Newport News Water crude oil per day to produce gasoline, Works as its source of cooling and process diesel fuel, heating fuel, and other prod- water. Projected increases in the cost of ucts. The refinery categorizes its non- potable water led the refinery to seek a less potable water as either service water or expensive water source. The cost to boiler feed water. Reclaimed water is used upgrade treatment at the refinery’s own for the following service water applications: 2 1.5 mgd wastewater treatment facility rep- cooling; crude oil desalting; coke cutting; resented a large capital investment by the miscellaneous uses such as rinsing and York River Treatment Plant

chemical mixing; charge water for the fire • Total suspended solids: <10 mg/L; protection system when it is not in use (York • NH3; <2.0 mg/L; River water would be used during actual • Phosphorus: <2.0 mg/L; firefighting); and irrigation of trees. • Turbidity: <5 NTU; The source of the reclaimed water is • Fecal coliforms: <200/100 mL; HRSD’s York River Treatment Plant (YRTP), located in York County. The influent to the • Chlorine residual: ≥ 0.5 mg/L; plant is mostly domestic wastewater, as • pH: 6.0-9.0; there is little industrial wastewater input to • Calcium: no significant increase; and the sewerage system. Not including the addition of sidestream treatment to pro- • Sodium: no significant increase. duce reclaimed water for the refinery, the Water quality data from YRTP indicated YRTP has conventional activated sludge that the existing activated sludge secondary treatment, chemical phosphorus treatment process could not consistently removal, and disinfection using sodium meet the ammonia limit during cold hypochlorite. The effluent is dechlorinated weather and could not meet the turbidity prior to discharge to the York River. The limit on a consistent basis. After investigat- wastewater treatment plant has a permitted ing several ammonia removal processes, capacity of 15 mgd and a current average biological nitrification using a sequencing flow of about 10.5 mgd. batch reactor (SBR) was selected as the most reliable and cost-effective technology The reclaimed water agreement between to produce reclaimed water for the HRSD and the refinery consummated in refinery’s applications. 2000 included water quality limits recom- mended by a committee of regional juris- Prior to conception of this project, HRSD dictions (including HRSD), the refinery, and investigated the possibility of adding filtra- the Virginia Departments of Health and tion at its wastewater treatment plants to Environmental Quality. The reclaimed produce water appropriate for reuse appli- water limits include the following: cations. Pilot plant studies conducted in 1998 to evaluate the performance of a Reclaimed water quantity: 0.5 mgd; • cloth-membrane automatic backwash disk Chemical oxygen demand: <40 mg/L; • filter indicated that the filter was capable of 3 reliably producing effluent having turbidity ters and constituents in the product water less than 1 NTU. Thus, a cloth media disk are as follows: filter was selected as the tertiary filtration • pH: 7.0; unit process for the treatment of reclaimed water to be used at the refinery. • Fecal coliforms: <1/100 mL; • Turbidity: 0.7 NTU; The selected reclaimed water treatment train, which provides 0.5-mgd capacity • Total suspended solids: <1 mg/L; sidestream treatment of primary effluent at • Biological oxygen demand: 4 mg/L; YRTP, is as follows: biological oxidation and • NH : 0.4 mg/L; and nutrient removal using an SBR; an equal- 3 ization tank; disinfection (chlorine is added • Total phosphorus: 1.4 mg/L. to the equalization tank); filtration; and final disinfection. The product water is Project Benefits pumped through a 2,800-foot pipeline to The use of reclaimed water at the a 3.6 million gallon storage tank at the Yorktown Refinery results in reduced costs refinery. Primary effluent was chosen over to the refinery for process water while pro- secondary effluent as the source water to viding a drought proof source of water. At the reclaimed water treatment system the same time, Newport News Water because the higher BOD concentration in Works conserves its potable water primary effluent results in a stable concen- resources, and HRSD reduces the nutrient tration of heterotrophic and nitrifying bac- load released to the York River, which is a teria in the SBR, thus ensuring sufficient tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. biomass to produce a settleable floc.

Because YRTP normally nitrifies during Funding and Costs the warmer months, it was originally antici- The total capital costs of the project are pated that the SBR would be operated only estimated to be $2.6 million. in the winter. It has since been determined Approximately $1.6 million of the total will that it is less expensive to operate the unit be funded through the Virginia DEQ’s year round. The reclaimed water facilities Wastewater Revolving Loan Program. This were designed so they could be relocated is the first water reuse project funded to another site in the event that YRTP through this program. The O&M costs for implements full scale nitrogen removal in the first year of operation (fiscal year 2003) the future. are estimated to be between $135,000 and $150,000. However, the avoided The quality of the reclaimed water pro- treatment costs associated with removing duced at the James River Water 0.5 mgd from the conventional activated Reclamation Facility is considerably better sludge process are expected to be as much than that required by the 2000 agreement as $60,000. Thus, the additional cost asso- and easily meets all reclaimed water treat- ciated with the new sidestream treatment ment and quality requirements contained system, not including existing O&M costs, in the most current Virginia Department of is anticipated to be about $80,000 to Environmental Quality draft regulations for $90,000 per year. Operational costs will irrigation and industrial uses (i.e., cooling, be borne by the refinery. boiler feed, process water, and fire protec- tion). Average values for selected parame- 4 Sequencing Batch Reactor

HRSD is selling the water to the refinery reclaimed water use at the refinery as high at cost to recover only the additional as 1.0 mgd during peak operation. investment (capital and O&M costs) HRSD also is pursuing the use of incurred to treat and transport the water to reclaimed water from some of its other the refinery. The current reclaimed water wastewater treatment facilities. Projects rate of $1.50/1,000 gallons is based on being considered include: providing full recovery costs over a 20-year period. reclaimed water to the Virginia Department The rate will be reevaluated after three of Transportation (VDOT) for tunnel wash- years but in no case will exceed the cost of ing; irrigation at a planned golf course in potable water, which currently is the City of Norfolk; landscape irrigation at $3.25/1,000 gallons. Old Dominion University; using reclaimed water at the Southeastern Public Service Potential Future Uses Authority’s waste-to-energy steam and A potential future use of reclaimed water power plant in Portsmouth; and use at a at the refinery is boiler feed water. Pilot new gas fired steam plant at the U.S. testing concluded that HRSD’s reclaimed Navy’s naval amphibious base in Virginia water could be treated by reverse osmosis Beach. (RO) to meet boiler feed water require- The VDOT project has the potential for ments. The refinery has installed RO facili- development of a bulk distribution market. ties and is embarking on a one year full HRSD will pursue bulk distribution with scale operation to evaluate the use of RO landscapers, municipalities, contractors, treated reclaimed water as boiler feed. and others who need large quantities of During this period, all of the reclaimed nonpotable water for irrigation, cleaning, water produced at YRTP will be used for surface wetting, and industrial uses. boiler feed. This use, in addition to the service water uses, ultimately may require For further information, contact: expansion of HRSD’s facilities to accommo- Hampton Roads Sanitation District, 1436 date higher flows and presents issues asso- Air Rail Avenue, Virginia Beach, Virginia ciated with ability to meet peak demands, 23455-3002. maintenance of consistent pH, and dispos- al of reject water from the RO system. Current and future uses could result in total 5 Irvine Ranch Water District

Background of treated wastewater that must be sent to a regional wastewater agency for disposal Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) was through an ocean outfall. founded in 1961 in the Orange County area of Southern California. This semiarid region receives an average of only 12 to Project Description 13 inches of rainfall per year. At the time Unlike some projects that serve a limited the District was formed, the area was pri- number of customers, IRWD’s recycled marily agricultural. A majority of the prop- water distribution system reaches most of erty within the District boundaries was its 133 square mile service area, which has owned by The Irvine Company, which a population of 316,000. While some began development of the former ranch as recycled water distribution lines are retrofit- a planned community in the early 1960s. ted, common practice at IRWD is to install About 40 percent of IRWD’s drinking water recycled water lines along with domestic is surface water from the Colorado River water and sewer lines as new housing or and Northern California purchased from commercial developments are built. the Metropolitan Water District of Southern Currently, there are over 3,400 metered California. The remaining 60 percent is recycled water connections. obtained from local groundwater wells. Two facilities, the Michelson and Los In the early 1960s water reuse for other Alisos WRPs, treat wastewater to tertiary than agricultural applications was relatively standards (i.e., total coliforms ≤2.2/100 rare, but the Water District’s early visionar- mL and turbidity ≤2 NTU) specified in the ies realized that water would be a key California Department of Health Services component to the viability of the new com- Water Recycling Criteria for high level non- munity. Wastewater came to be viewed as potable uses, such as irrigation of residen- a unique resource rather than something in tial property. The Michelson WRP has a need of disposal. The Michelson Water capacity of 15 mgd; the Los Alisos Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) was built and Reclamation Plant has a capacity of 5.5 became operational in 1967, supplying the mgd. Recycled water is delivered through- growing community with highly treated out the community through a dual distribu- recycled water. IRWD merged with the Los tion system that includes more than 300 Alisos Water District in 2000 and began miles of recycled water pipelines, 12 stor- serving additional customers with recycled age reservoirs, and 15 pump stations. Two water from the Los Alisos WRP. of the reservoirs are open lakes; the others The main purpose of the water recycling are pre-stressed concrete or steel tanks. program is to maximize drinking water Prior to discharge from the two open reser- supplies by reducing the need to use voirs to the recycled water distribution sys- tem, recycled water may receive additional 6 potable water for nonpotable uses. Another purpose is to minimize the amount treatment by straining, pressure filtration, Dual-Plumbed Office Buildings

Residence Irrigated with Reclaimed Water and/or disinfection. The recycled water California’s frequent drought cycles, drink- storage capacity currently is 656 million ing water supplies can be curtailed by the gallons. state or other entities. These restrictions do not impact the recycled water system. The primary use of recycled water is landscape irrigation. Eighty percent of all business and public area landscaping in Problems Encountered the District is irrigated with recycled water. The major problems encountered by Landscape irrigation uses include parks, IRWD are related to salinity, seasonal stor- school grounds, golf courses, a cemetery, age, and increased maintenance. freeway landscapes, city-maintained streetscapes, common areas managed by Salinity/Water Softeners: IRWD must homeowner associations, and front and constantly fight the battle of salinity. With back yards at individual residential source water (Colorado River) becoming dwellings, including large residential estate more saline, the District has become lots. Recycled water is also used for food increasingly concerned over the addition of crop irrigation, toilet and urinal flushing in more salts into the “closed loop” water 12 dual-plumbed office buildings, and in reclamation system. Self-regenerating commercial office cooling towers. Steve water softeners can add a large amount of Bourke, Landscape Superintendent for the salt to the sewer system each year. In addi- City of Irvine, states that, “We’ve been tion, regulators attempting to limit non- using recycled water for more than 30 point sources of pollution (i.e., urban years with no documented adverse affects. runoff) often suggest that the salty runoff Having recycled water available has been be diverted to the sanitary sewer. a win-win situation for everybody.” IRWD recognized the salinity issue and enacted rules and regulations in the early Alternatives to Project 1970s to prohibit the use of self-regenerat- ing water softeners within IRWD bound- Recycled water now makes up more aries. Exchange tank systems that do not than 20 percent of IRWD’s total water sup- add salt to the sewer system were not pro- ply, reducing the need to import additional hibited. The City of Irvine was incorporated – and expensive – water from the in 1971, and the prohibition on self-regen- Colorado River and Northern California. erating water softeners soon became an The recycled water system also helps make 7 ordinance of the city. The salinity problem IRWD “drought resistant.” During reemerged in 1997, when court cases None of the maintenance issues present- brought by the water softener industry ed by recycled water proved to be major against water agencies elsewhere in problems, but they did result in equipment California overturned such bans. IRWD and procedural changes to adequately continues to work legislatively toward address the maintenance issues. For exam- restoring the ability of water recycling ple, IRWD now specifies a different type of agencies to control salinity. valve seat, which has a higher resistance to chlorine. When dealing with leaks or spills Seasonal Storage: Southern California of recycled water, IRWD attempts wherever receives most of its rainfall during the win- possible to route the water into a sanitary ter months. Since landscape irrigation is sewer system instead of the separate storm the main use of recycled water, demand drain system which flows to the ocean. In fluctuates seasonally. In the winter months, other cases, leaked or spilled water is col- more recycled water is produced than can lected and trucked to the sewer system. be used. In the hot summer and fall months, the plant capacity cannot produce sufficient water to meet demand. Balancing Public Outreach the seasonal storage issue through the use Recycled water generally is very well of open lakes is an ongoing challenge, accepted within the IRWD service area. and finding land in an urban setting to Because the district has a 35-year track build more seasonal storage is a difficult record of successfully and safely providing task. IRWD currently is able to meet year recycled water to the community, it is not round demand through the use of its met with resistance by the general public. numerous storage reservoirs but This is due, in part, to an extensive public continually seeks locations for additional education and involvement program via recycled water storage to meet expected brochures, videos, workshops, tours, and future demand. other means that have resulted in commu- nity acceptance of water reuse as an envi- Increased Maintenance: Recycled water ronmentally sound method for stretching systems require more maintenance than limited water supplies. drinking water systems. This includes more frequent reservoir tank cleaning, increased IRWD’s public outreach program has control valve maintenance, and potential included an extensive classroom water damage to mainline valve body seats from education program in local schools for higher chlorine levels. From a regulatory nearly 30 years. The need for water con- standpoint, leaks or spills of any amount servation is taught at all grade levels, and must be reported to the county health the water reuse concept is introduced to department. Leaks or spills over 50,000 students in the fifth grade. In addition, gallons are treated as if they were raw tours of the WRPs and water quality labo- sewage and necessitate notification of the ratory are regularly held for the general Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board public. IRWD has found that a well and extensive follow-up reporting. Also informed public is less apprehensive about 8 needed is an onsite inspection group to water reuse. conduct ongoing monitoring to prevent cross connections. Costs and Revenues The District is also in the design phase on the Irvine Desalter Project, which will IRWD has continued to expand and remove trichloroethylene (TCE) from a upgrade its reclaimed water program plume of pollution migrating from a former throughout the years, with most of the cap- military base. Following treatment by ital costs financed via the District’s internal reverse osmosis, air stripping with activated funding mechanisms. Infrastructure costs carbon filters, and disinfection, the product are recovered through a combination of water will be added to the recycled water property taxes and connection fees. The system. Beginning in 2006, this project is annual O&M cost of the recycled water sys- expected to provide an additional 590 mil- tem (including treatment and distribution lion gallons/yr of water. system maintenance) was about $6.6 mil- lion for fiscal year 2002-2003. The base Because the IRWD service area is still recycled water rate is $0.68/100 ft3, which being developed, there will be a need for is 90 percent of the base domestic water additional recycled water in the future. rate. IRWD uses an ascending block rate IRWD’s master plan calls for the gradual structure that severely penalizes excessive enlargement of the Michelson WRP within water use. its existing boundaries to eventually pro- duce 33 mgd by 2025. Plans call for the Future Upgrades eventual expansion of the Los Alisos plant to 7.8 mgd. The district currently is working on con- version of an existing open reservoir that For further information, contact: Marilyn was formerly used for drinking water stor- Smith, Public Affairs Manager, Irvine Ranch age to provide additional seasonal storage Water District, 15600 Sand Canyon of recycled water. When completed in early Avenue, Irvine, CA 92618. 2005, this reservoir will add another 814 million gallons of recycled water storage to the IRWD system.

9 Montebello Forebay Groundwater Recharge Project

Background used within the basin, with groundwater accounting for the remainder. Southern California is essentially a desert area with limited water resources If recycled water was not used for and an annual rainfall averaging about 15 groundwater recharge of the Central Basin inches/year. In the early 1900s, local pre- aquifer, the Water Replenishment District of cipitation and runoff was sufficient to Southern California (WRD) would have to replenish the groundwater supply of the purchase an equivalent amount of import- coastal basins, which initially was the pri- ed water from MWD for recharge at a mary source of water. By the 1950s, much higher price or restrict pumping of increasing demand for water resulted in the aquifer to prevent overdrafting, which severe overdrafting of groundwater in the would shift water demand to surface sup- region. Water needs were exacerbated in plies. Surface deliveries could be augment- 1982 by a Supreme Court decision that ed by seawater desalination, albeit at a awarded the State of Arizona surplus much higher cost than either recycled or Colorado River water, which makes up imported water. more than 50 percent of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s In addition to groundwater recharge, the (MWD) annual withdrawals, raising the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles possibility of decreased availability of County (CSDLAC) uses recycled water for a Colorado River water in the future. variety of nonpotable applications, such as landscape and agricultural irrigation, The Montebello Forebay Groundwater industrial process water, recreational Recharge Project – the oldest planned indi- impoundments, and wildlife habitat. rect potable reuse groundwater recharge project in California – is located in south- Project Description eastern Los Angeles County and is the pri- mary source of replenishment for the The use of recycled water for ground- Central Basin, which is the main ground- water recharge began in 1962. water basin underlying the greater Los Approximately 12,000 acre-feet/year (ac- Angeles metropolitan area. Planned ft/yr) of disinfected activated sludge sec- recharge of recycled water occurs in an ondary effluent from the Whittier Narrows unconfined (non-pressure zone) region of Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) was spread the Central Basin known as the Montebello in the Montebello Forebay area of the Forebay. The Central Basin is an adjudicat- Central Basin, which has an estimated stor- ed basin with 85 groundwater pumpers age capacity of 780,000 ac-ft. The County operating more than 400 active wells. of Los Angeles provided funding for the Imported water from the Colorado River plant, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 10 and State Water Project purchased from provided the site behind the Whittier MWD provides 55 percent of the water Narrows dam, and CSDLAC designed, built, and operated the plant. Rio Hondo In 1973, the San Jose Creek WRP was ments for the project were revised to allow Spreading Grounds placed in service and also supplied sec- for a maximum recharge of 60,000 ac-ft in ondary effluent for recharge. The San Jose any year as long as the running 3-year Creek WRP has a capacity of 100 mgd total did not exceed 50,000 ac-ft/yr or 35 and provides the majority of the recycled percent recycled water. water now used for recharge. In addition, As part of the 1987 permit that allowed effluent from the 13-mgd Pomona WRP an increase in the amount of recycled that is not reused for other purposes is dis- water used for recharge, the California charged into San Jose Creek, a tributary of Department of Health Services (DHS) and the San Gabriel River, and ultimately the RWQCB require monitoring of not only becomes a source of recharge in the the effluent from the three WRPs contribut- Montebello Forebay. During the mid to late ing to the recharge project, but also 1970s, all three plants were upgraded to bimonthly sampling of six shallow monitor- provide tertiary treatment via filtration as a ing wells and semiannual monitoring of 19 public health protection measure to protect production wells. This long-term monitor- people recreating in the receiving waters. ing program has continued to demonstrate The WRPs have since been upgraded to that the introduction of recycled water into include nitrification/denitrification treat- the aquifer meets all regulatory require- ment. Recycled water is used along with ments and has not adversely impacted stormwater runoff and imported surface groundwater quality. water (Colorado River and State Water Project water) for recharge. Project Management All of the biosolids from the WRPs are returned to one of the major trunk sewers CSDLAC operates the WRPs and moni- and subsequently treated at the CSDLAC’s tors the recycled water quality. The Los Joint Water Pollution Control Plant near the Angeles County Department of Public coast in Carson, thus eliminating the need Works (DPW) operates the recharge facili- for biosolids treatment facilities at the ties (river conveyance and spreading plants. Elimination of treatment of biosolids basins), and the WRD is responsible for simplifies operation of the plants, reduces overall management of the groundwater construction and O&M costs, and avoids basin – including groundwater monitoring. the potential for odors. DPW has constructed two spreading areas designed to increase the percolation In 1987, a Los Angeles Regional Water capacity. The Rio Hondo Spreading Quality Control Board (RWQCB) order per- Grounds have 570 acres of spreading mitted the CSDLAC to increase the annual basins available for spreading, and the quantity of recycled water used for replen- San Gabriel Coastal Spreading Grounds 11 ishment from 32,700 ac-ft to 50,000 ac-ft. have 128 acres. Percolation also occurs in In 1991, the water reclamation require- 133 acres of the unlined San Gabriel River used for groundwater recharge will have to channel. The WRPs are located upstream meet drinking water standards, very low of the spreading grounds, allowing gravity nitrogen and total organic carbon (TOC) flow and existing waterways to transport limits, dilution requirements, and not con- the recycled water, thus reducing capital tain measurable levels of pathogens. Also, and O&M costs. monitoring of other constituents, such as xenobiotic compounds (e.g., pharmaceuti- Under normal operating conditions, bat- cals and personal care products), will be teries of basins are rotated through a 21- required by the regulatory agencies. It is day cycle. The cycle consists of three 7-day noteworthy that the water quality criteria periods during which the basins are filled, apply to the water after percolation the flow to the basins is terminated, and through the vadose zone. the basins are allowed to drain and dry out thoroughly. This wetting and drying opera- Recycled water produced by the WRPs tion serves to maintain aerobic conditions complies with the primary drinking water in the upper strata of the soil and to con- standards, and meets total coliform and trol vectors in the basins. The vadose zone turbidity limits of 2.2/100 mL and 2 NTU, under the spreading basins (i.e., the sandy respectively. Extensive virus and parasite loam soil layer extending from the bottom sampling indicates that the recycled water of the basins to the groundwater table in is essentially free of measurable levels of which additional treatment takes place) is pathogens. Samples taken from monitoring variable depending on location but gener- wells within 500 feet of the recharge basins ally is 10 feet thick or more. indicate that TOC levels in the groundwater range from nondetectable to about 2.6 Water Quality/Regulatory mg/L, while the long-term average total Requirements nitrogen level (consisting almost exclusively of nitrate) is 4.1 mg/L or less (with nitrite In California, DHS has the authority to levels being below detectable limits). adopt water reuse criteria, which are implemented by the RWQCBs via their per- The ongoing concern over emerging mit system. DHS has been developing contaminants and associated health con- groundwater recharge regulations for a cerns requires effluent monitoring and number of years and, although draft regu- research beyond what has been done in lations have been released, it is unclear the past. Development of virus and para- 12 what the final criteria will contain upon site quantitative analytical techniques, adoption. It is clear that recycled water microbial viability studies, evaluation of soil aquifer treatment, and surrogates for were small and probably not dissimilar health significant organic constituents are from those that could be hypothesized for just some of the research efforts underway commonly used surface waters. The panel at CSDLAC. conditioned its conclusion by stating that the results are “marginal or inconclusive” Health Effects Study with regard to cancer because the expo- sure period was short relative to the A consulting panel was established by expected minimum 15-year latency period the State of California in 1975 to provide for chemically induced cancers. information that would assist DHS in the establishment of criteria for groundwater In an attempt to obtain more definitive recharge of potable water aquifers. The health effects data, follow-up epidemiolog- panel expressed uncertainties regarding ical studies were conducted in 1996 and potential health effects and recommended 1999. They provided no evidence that that comprehensive health studies be con- populations consuming groundwater esti- ducted at existing sites. In response, mated to contain recycled water in the per- CSDLAC initiated a 5-year, $1.4 million centages encountered (zero to 31 percent) health effects study in 1978 to determine in the Montebello Forebay at the time of whether the Montebello Forebay the studies had a higher risk of cancer, Groundwater Recharge Project had an mortality, infectious disease, or adverse adverse effect on the groundwater or the birth outcomes than those using other health of individuals ingesting the ground- water sources. water.

At the time the study was conducted, the Project Benefits amount of recycled water spread averaged The recharge of more than one million approximately 26,500 ac-ft/yr or 16 per- ac-ft of recycled water since 1962 has cent of the total inflow to the groundwater helped to significantly reduce the cumula- basin with no more than 32,700 ac-ft of tive overdraft in the Central Basin. The recycled water spread in any year. The per- recycled water provides a new water supply centage of recycled water in the extracted roughly equivalent to the demands of potable water ranged from zero to 11 per- 250,000 people and reduces wastewater cent on a long-term (1962-1977) basis. discharges to surface waters. Also, the use The data obtained during the study did not of recycled water in lieu of imported water demonstrate any measurable adverse for groundwater recharge saves WRD more effects on the area’s groundwater or the than $12 million per year in water pur- health of the population ingesting the chases. water. For further information, contact: Earle The state commissioned a Scientific Hartling, Water Recycling Coordinator, Advisory Panel on Groundwater Recharge County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles with Reclaimed Water in 1986 to further County, 1955 Workman Mill Road, evaluate benefits and risks associated with Whittier, CA 90602. groundwater recharge. The panel con- curred with the Health Effects Study find- 13 ings and concluded that the risks, if any, Monterey County Water Recycling Projects

Background Agricultural Reuse Demonstration The Salinas Valley is an agricultural Study region in northern Monterey County where The 11-year Monterey Wastewater a wide variety of market crops are grown. Reclamation Study for Agriculture (MWRSA) Heavy agricultural and municipal ground- was initiated in 1976. The goal of MWRSA water demands beginning in the 1940s led was to assess the safety and feasibility of to the development of severe groundwater using recycled water to irrigate vegetable overdrafting of the underlying aquifers, crops that may be eaten raw. It included a resulting in seawater intrusion from adja- 5-year demonstration project comparing cent Monterey Bay. The intrusion front was well water with two different recycled water advancing inland at a rate of approximate- tertiary treatment trains. ly 500 ft/yr. High salt levels in groundwater A Task Force comprised of representa- caused wells near the coast to be aban- tives from federal, state, and local govern- doned, and agricultural water supply wells ments, the academic community, farm and some community drinking water wells advisors, and local growers provided guid- were threatened. This was a major factor ance in the planning and conduct of the in the decision to develop a regional study. The California State Water Resources wastewater management plan to provide Control Board and the U.S. Environmental recycled water for food crop irrigation in Protection Agency provided funding for the the Salinas Valley. By using recycled water study, which cost $7 million. for irrigation, growers could discontinue pumping from their wells, thus alleviating Various crops (e.g., artichokes, lettuce, overdrafting of the groundwater, which celery, broccoli, and cauliflower) were irri- amounts to about 16 billion gallons/yr at gated with three types of water – well the mouth of the valley. It is anticipated water, tertiary treated recycled water that that the use of recycled water for agricul- included chemical coagulation and clarifi- tural irrigation will eventually reduce sea- cation processes, and tertiary treated recy- water intrusion by 40 to 50 percent. cled water using direct filtration. Various side-by-side comparisons of water types, The Monterey Regional Water Pollution fertilizer rates, and crops were conducted. Agency (MRWPCA) began facilities plan- Study results included the following: ning to provide wastewater management services to northern Monterey County, • No pathogenic organisms were detected California, in 1975. At that time, water in the recycled water or produce; reuse was considered to be an important • Poliovirus seeding tests indicated more element in the planning process as a than five logs removal by the treatment means to reduce groundwater pumping. 14 process train; Crops irrigated with reclaimed water

• Irrigation with recycled water did not occur regarding irrigation with recycled adversely affect soil permeability; water should include clear, government- • Metals were not found to accumulate in endorsed fact sheets and that support be the soils or plant tissues; given to developing an educational infor- mation program on the use of recycled • Produce yields, quality, and shelf life water for crop irrigation. A 1997 follow-up were as good, and in some cases better, study produced similar results. in crops irrigated with recycled water; and Field Worker Health • Tertiary treatment using direct filtration was determined to be acceptable for irri- The health status of each person gation of food crops eaten raw. assigned a field task during the field study was monitored through frequent question- Marketing Study naires and initial and exit medical exami- nations. Neither questionnaire data nor As part of the MWRSA project, a study medical examinations indicated any was commissioned in 1983 to determine adverse health effects associated with the key issues associated with marketability working in fields irrigated with tertiary of crops irrigated with recycled water. treated recycled water. Interviews were conducted with individuals involved with produce distribution, includ- ing wholesale-retail buyers, brokers, and Full-Scale Facility store managers. Responses indicated that Based on the favorable results of the produce grown in recycled water would be MWRSA study, a decision was made to accepted, labeling would not be necessary, design and construct a full-scale facility. and factual information would be useful to Design of the treatment plant facilities, respond to customer inquiries that might called the Salinas Valley Reclamation arise. The major requirement of buyers Project (SVRP) [SVRP conforms to all was for produce to have a healthy appear- requirements specified in the California ance and be aesthetically attractive. Water Recycling Criteria for recycled water Respondents to the market study recom- used to irrigate food crops eaten raw] was 15 mended that response to rumors that might completed in 1994 along with design of the distribution system, which is known as berries. During the growing season, sup- the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project plemental well water is used to meet the (CSIP). total grower demand. Dale Huss, Vice President of SeaMist and OceanMist Farms, The 30-mgd regional wastewater recy- typifies growers’ satisfaction with the proj- cling facility was constructed adjacent to ect. He states that, “We’ve been using proj- the regional secondary treatment plant to ect water since 1997 and have seen no provide tertiary treated recycled water for adverse effects to our product or our soils. agricultural applications. Tertiary treatment In fact, our yields on artichokes, lettuce, includes flocculation using polyaluminum spinach, celery, and fennel are as high or chloride or alum and polymers followed by higher as they’ve ever been.” filtration using dual media filters, and dis- infection using gaseous chlorine. Diurnal CSIP distributes recycled water to 222 tertiary treatment flow equalization storage parcels of farmland in the 12,000-acre is provided. The regional wastewater recy- service area and includes the following: cling facility was completed in 1997 and • 46 miles of recycled water transmission began delivering 20 mgd of recycled water and distribution pipelines ranging in to growers within its service area for food diameter from 8 to 51 inches; crop irrigation in 1998. • 22 supplemental wells to augment recy- Prior to startup an independent labora- cled water flows at times of peak tory was hired to conduct a Recycled Water demand; Food Safety Study. The primary objective • 111 flow-metered turnouts for connec- was to determine if any viable pathogenic tion of irrigation piping by farmers; organisms of concern to food safety were present in recycled water. A secondary objective was to assess the ability of the treatment processes to remove or inactivate pathogens that might be present in the influent wastewater. Sampling began in 1997 and continues to the present. The study has not detected any E. coli 0157:H7, Salmonella, helminth ova, Shigella, Legionella, or culturable natural (in situ) viruses. An extremely low number of Cyclospora (one instance), Giardia with internal structure (one instance), and Cryptosporidium (in seven instances) have Schematic of the Water Reuse Concept been detected in the tertiary treated recy- cled water. • Pressure, conductivity, and flow monitor- ing stations; Schematic of the Water Reuse Concept • A centralized control system; The water recycling facility and distribu- • Three booster pump stations; and tion system are collectively known as the • Cathodic protection for ferrous metal Monterey County Water Recycling Projects piping. 16 (MCWRP). Recycled water is used to irrigate While there have been no major opera- various crops, including lettuce, celery, tional problems related to the distribution broccoli, cauliflower, artichokes, and straw- system, minor problems include flushing of Costs and Revenues construction debris from the system, exces- In order to proceed with the project, a sive sand in the extracted water of some partnership was formed between wells, and a few pipeline breaks. A three- MRWPCA’s and the Monterey County Water person crew is able to keep the system run- Resources Agency (MCWRA). Since many ning on a continuous basis. of MRWPCA customers have no direct ben- The sodium absorption ratio (SAR) of the efit from the project, system operation costs recycled water is about 4.7, while good are reimbursed by MCWRA. The Monterey quality well water averages 1.7. The com- County Water Recycling Projects (MCWRP) bined waters have an SAR slightly above was formed by the two agencies in 1992. 3.0 – the maximum level desired by grow- The total capital cost of MCWRP was ers. While the MWRSA study did not indi- approximately $78 million. Low-interest cate any salt buildup during five years of loans were obtained from the U.S. Bureau operation with recycled water, a multi-year of Reclamation (USBR) and the State of salt monitoring program has found that California. The USBR loans, for construc- soil SAR and exchangeable sodium per- tion of the treatment facilities and distribu- centage are significantly higher in fields tion, have 40-year terms, while the state irrigated with recycled water but are within loan has a 20-year term. the acceptable range for cool season veg- etable production. Efforts currently are The total cost to treat and deliver recy- underway by MCWRA to reduce salt con- cled water to agricultural areas is estimat- centration in the wastewater via source ed to be about $225/ac-ft ($0.90/1,000 control. gallons) excluding secondary treatment costs, but including both debt service from Education and Outreach low interest loans and operation and main- tenance costs for the two components (i.e., A Water Quality and Operations tertiary treatment facilities and distribution Committee was formed in 1996 to gain network) of the MCWRP. input from users. The main issues of the growers were related to food safety, mar- The two sources of revenue for the proj- ketability, public perception, and water ect are land assessments established by quality. Thus, a proactive education plan MCWRA – currently $233.41/ac/yr – and a was developed in 1997 to address percep- water delivery charge of $0.05/1,000 gal- tion issues. Materials were generated to lons. The revenue streams provide about prepare local produce growers and sellers $6 million annually and are evaluated and for any questions regarding the safety of adjusted on an annual basis, as necessary, the recycled water and produce. An exten- to cover the operational budget. About sive outreach effort directed principally at $3.5 million of the operations budget is for the local media and public included tours, direct operating costs with the balance for presentations to service clubs, billing debt service. inserts, and school programs. To address For further information, contact: the issue of field worker safety, handouts Robert Holden, Monterey Regional Water and training videos in both English and Pollution Control Agency, 5 Harris Court, Spanish were distributed to all local project Building D, Monterey, CA 93940. growers for their education.

17 Orange County Water District

Background Water Factory 21 The Orange County Water District OCWD began pilot studies in 1965 to (OCWD) in Fountain Valley, California was determine the feasibility of injecting effluent formed in 1933 to manage northern from an advanced wastewater treatment Orange County’s groundwater supply. (AWT) facility into aquifers in the Talbert More than 250 production wells in Gap at the mouth of the Santa Ana River OCWD’s service area supply about 70 per- to create a freshwater mound that prevents cent of the water demand for a population seawater intrusion. of two million. The remaining demand is The first permit for the project, issued in met by imported water from the Colorado 1971 by the Santa Ana Regional Water River and Northern California. Seawater Quality Control Board, following public intrusion has been a problem since the hearings and recommendations from the 1930s as a consequence of basin over- California Department of Health Services draft. Seawater intrusion was observed as (DHS), required that the reclaimed water far as 3.5 miles inland from the Pacific be blended at least 50 percent with Ocean by the 1960s. Further, a 1963 demineralized or deep well water prior to Supreme Court decision limited the amount injection. The permit requirements are California was guaranteed from the based primarily on drinking water stan- Colorado River, thus raising the specter of dards. Other requirements, such as TDS, losing a large quantity of the then currently chloride, and boron, are based on water imported water. quality objectives to protect existing The Orange County groundwater basin groundwater quality. contains an estimated 326 billion Construction of the AWT facility known gallons/year (bgy) of usable water and has as Water Factory 21 (WF-21) began in an average operating yield of 82 bgy. 1972, and injection of treated municipal OCWD’s inland surface spreading opera- wastewater began in 1976 via 23 multiple- tions recharge an average of 95 percent of cased injection wells. The project included this quantity via approximately 1,000 acres construction of 31 monitoring wells, five of surface water percolation facilities. supplementary deep wells, and seven Historically, imported water from the extraction wells. The extraction wells, locat- Colorado River and Northern California ed between the injection wells and the and water from the Santa Ana River have coast, have not been needed to maintain a 18 been the source waters for groundwater hydraulic gradient to prevent seawater recharge in the Orange County Forebay. Reverse Osmosis Units

intrusion. Five additional injection wells The WF-21 project, which included a have been constructed in recent years. demonstration seawater desalting facility, received approximately $10.2 million in WF-21 receives activated sludge second- state and federal funding for the $21 mil- ary effluent from the adjacent Orange lion project. The total capital cost of WF-21 County Sanitation District (OCSD) Plant was $16.2 million and the total annual No. 1. The 15-mgd water reclamation O&M cost is about $2.5 million. In 1980- plant’s processes originally consisted of 1981, when WF-21 was operated at less lime clarification, recarbonation, ammonia than design capacity, the amortized capital stripping towers, mixed media filtration, cost and O&M cost totaled $1,624 per mil- granular activated carbon (GAC), chlorina- lion gallons. This was estimated to be less tion, and blending with deep well water. than the cost of imported water. The ratio of reclaimed water to blend Extensive monitoring has verified that the water was increased to about 67 percent product water contains no pathogenic bac- reclaimed water and 33 percent deep well teria, viruses, or parasites and continually water in 1977 when reverse osmosis (RO) meets all drinking water standards. Within was incorporated into the treatment train the past few years, N-nitrosodimethylamine (the flow was split 50:50 between GAC (NDMA) and 1,4-dioxane, which are classi- and RO). It was found that RO was suffi- fied as probable human carcinogens, were cient to remove nitrogen compounds from found in WF-21 reclaimed water, ground- the water, and the ammonia stripping tow- water, and wells subject to extraction of ers were taken out of service in 1986. RO reclaimed water at levels that exceeded the and GAC effluent were pumped to a State’s action levels of 10 ng/L and 3 μg/L, blending reservoir, mixed with deep well respectively. OCWD determined that the water, and injected into four aquifers prone source of the 1,4-dioxane was an to seawater intrusion using the multi-point industrial discharger, who immediately injection wells. The bulk of the injected changed processes and brought the level water flows inland to augment ground- into compliance. water used as a potable supply source. The nearest potable water supply well that The District subsequently modified the receives the reclaimed water is more than WF-21 treatment train to address these 19 2,000 feet from any injection well. compounds and emerging contaminants. GAC has been eliminated and all waste- During the winter months, the GAP plant water flow now receives RO treatment is taken out of service and reclaimed water using thin-film composite membranes. is supplied by the Irvine Ranch Water Chlorine has been replaced with UV as the District’s Michelson WRP. A potential future main disinfection process and an advanced phase of the GAP project being considered oxidation process (AOP) has been added. is an extension into central Huntington The AOP entails the addition of hydrogen Beach to serve users with an average of peroxide prior to UV. The modified treat- 0.9 mgd. OCWD wholesales GAP water to ment train has been shown to be effective various water agencies. The capital cost of in reducing NDMA to an acceptable level GAP was approximately $48 million and effectively reduces the concentration of (including assistance for end-user retrofits), other compounds such as low molecular and the annual O&M cost is about weight organics, pharmaceuticals, and $0.9 million. endocrine disrupting compounds. Groundwater Replenishment Green Acres Project System The Green Acres Project (GAP) was OCWD has continued its tradition of designed in the late 1980s to provide innovation with a new project to help meet reclaimed water for urban irrigation and the County’s future water supply and other nonpotable uses. It went into opera- groundwater quality needs. In the 1990s, tion in October 1991. The reclaimed water OCWD estimated that an additional 45 to receives tertiary treatment (secondary treat- 70 mgd could be recharged into the ment, filtration, and disinfection) and is groundwater basin using existing spreading distributed for uses in Fountain Valley, basins in the Orange County Forebay Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport area. A recharge project called the Beach, and Santa Ana. The reclaimed Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System water meets the California Water Recycling was conceived to provide a new reliable Criteria for uses requiring disinfected terti- drought proof water supply at 40 percent ary treated reclaimed water. less cost than imported water, prevent sea- water intrusion, improve groundwater qual- The Green Acres Project provides an ity, reduce ocean discharge, and defer the average of more than six mgd of need for a new ocean outfall. Detailed reclaimed water for landscape irrigation design and construction of the GWR (i.e., parks, schools, golf courses, etc.) and System, a joint project between OCWD industrial purposes such as cooling and and OCSD, was approved in 1999. In the process washdown through about 32 miles first phase of the project, 70 mgd of of pipelines ranging in size from six to 42 reclaimed water will be used for recharge. inches. Use by a carpet dyer was discontin- ued due to water quality problems that The source water for the AWT facility will caused occasional spotting of dyed car- be activated sludge secondary effluent pets. OCWD is examining ways to resolve from the adjacent OCSD plant. The GWR the quality issue. system treatment plant will provide further 20 treatment by microfiltration, RO, and AOP. Due to the aggressiveness of RO effluent, The estimated capital cost of the GWR System is $454 million, and the estimated annual O&M cost is $22 million. OCWD received federal and state grants totaling $92.5 million and a State Revolving Fund loan of $145 million. Funding has been provided by several agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, California Department of Water Resources, California Energy Commission, lime will be added to the product water and a California State Water Bond. prior to discharge to the transmission pipeline. Monitoring at WF-21 has verified The GWR System is supported by an that the treatment provided is capable of active outreach program to inform water producing water that meets all require- users on the need for the project and the ments specified by DHS for indirect potable water quality. Currently, approximately reuse via groundwater recharge, including $900,000 is spent each year on public those related to xenobiotics and other trace information that includes: water user tele- organic contaminants. The nearest extrac- phone surveys; multiple mailings to each tion well is more than 900 feet from the home; print and cable television advertis- percolation basin, and the retention time ing; and 150 to 180 face-to-face talks to underground prior to extraction exceeds community groups, businesses, hospitals, eight months. elected officials and other groups.

The majority of the treated water will be Key elements in OCWD’s approach to pumped approximately 14 miles through a ensuring safe and adequate water supplies 78-inch diameter pipeline through the within its service area include a commit- Santa Ana River corridor to Kraemer Basin ment to “cutting edge” research, innova- in Anaheim, one of the deep spreading tion in treatment technology, monitoring of basins used in the Orange County Forebay treatment process performance beyond area. Some of the water, 15 to 40 mgd permit requirements, and a close working depending on the time of year, will be relationship with regulatory agencies. As diverted to an expanded Talbert Gap stated by Bob Hultquist, Chief of the DHS Seawater Intrusion Barrier currently served Drinking Water Technical Operations by WF-21; a small portion, as much as five Section, “OCWD has a long history of mgd for up to 60 days per year, will be technical excellence and expertise that used to supplement OCWD’s GAP during instills a degree of confidence in the the summer months. Some of the treated District’s efforts to protect public health.” water may also be made available for irri- For further information, contact: Orange gation, industrial process water, or other County Water District, 10500 Ellis Avenue, approved uses by connections to the con- Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300. veyance pipeline in areas located near the 21 Santa Ana River alignment. Pinellas County’s Reclaimed Water Program

Background Department to – among other responsibili- ties – plan, manage, and administer Pinellas County, located on the west-cen- expansion of the County’s reclaimed water tral coastline of Florida, is a highly urban- system. ized peninsular community bounded on the west by the Gulf of Mexico and on the In 1998, Tampa Bay Water (formerly south and east by Tampa Bay. It has an known as West Coast Regional Water area of approximately 240 square miles, Supply Authority) entered into a partnership contains 24 separate municipalities, and with Pinellas, Pasco, and Hillsborough has a population approaching one million. Counties and the cities of St. Petersburg, Tampa, and New Port Richey to acquire the The Pinellas County Water System was wellfields of the above mentioned entities established in 1935 and soon thereafter and become the wholesaler of potable began supplying potable water from the water in the tri-county area. Pinellas Walsingham Reservoir, located in the cen- County currently purchases 70 mgd of tral part of the County. Wellfields in the potable water from Tampa Bay Water at northeastern part of the County were cost for sale and distribution to its more added as a water supply source in the than 107,000 customers and five cities. 1950s. By 1970, burgeoning population and associated drinking water demands Due to the geographic location of sever- resulted in the need to obtain water sup- al cities, the County’s wastewater service plies outside of Pinellas County. The areas are divided into two distinct service County experienced a brief building mora- districts, the north and the south. Pinellas torium in the 1970s due to the unavailabil- County Utilities owns and operates two ity of the then existing water sources to sus- regional water reclamation facilities within tain new growth. these districts. The William E. Dunn Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) in the northern The first reclaimed water project was ini- part of the county has a permitted capacity tiated in 1975 with irrigation of the of 9.0 mgd and produces an average of Innisbrook Golf Resort. Between 1979 and 6.5 mgd of treated wastewater, all of which 1987, the County began to provide is reused. The South Cross Bayou WRF in reclaimed water to five other golf courses the southern part of the county has a per- in the northeastern part of the County. mitted capacity of 33 mgd and produces The Pinellas County Utilities Department an average of 26 mgd, of which 7.4 mgd was formed in 1994 to consolidate all of is reused. its public utility services (water, sewer, and solid waste). A 5-year drought in the early 22 1990s heightened awareness of the need to develop alternate water sources. It was at this time that Pinellas County Utilities created an Alternate Water Sources Landscape Irrigation with Reclaimed Water

North Service Area reject pond were constructed at the William E. Dunn WRF. Particulate strainers were Rapid growth of the region in the 1970s added to the outlet line of the storage produced a wastewater treatment demand pond to prevent the release of material greater than the County could initially han- that could clog irrigation sprinkler systems. dle. As a result, several small, independent The program required pumping untreated wastewater facilities using percolation wastewater to the treatment plant and ponds for disposal were constructed by reclaimed water back to the reclaimed developers to serve golf communities. The water use sites. At that time, there were County subsequently acquired these small approximately 450 reclaimed water cus- wastewater treatment facilities through tomers using a total of 3.9 mgd. By 1995, agreements that provided for disposal of all untreated wastewater was sent to the the effluents within the communities. This William E. Dunn WRF; all independent was the beginning of the county’s north wastewater plants were removed from serv- service area reclaimed water system. ice by the end of 1997. In 1991, the William E. Dunn WRF The North County system has been capacity was tripled to nine mgd to replace expanded to the point where system several small independently created facili- demands consume all available supplies; ties and provide treatment at a single facil- thus, additional augmentation water is ity, thereby reducing operating costs. The needed to meet the growing demand for William E. Dunn WRF was designed to reclaimed water and realize additional meet advanced wastewater treatment potable water savings. In response to this (AWT) standards (i.e., five mg/L BOD and need, Pinellas County entered into an inter- TSS, three mg/L total nitrogen, and one local agreement with the City of Oldsmar mg/L total phosphorus) and meets all in 1998 to purchase 0.8 mgd of surplus Florida Department of Environmental reclaimed water, and in 2000 an inter- Protection (DEP) water reuse criteria for irri- local agreement with the City of Clearwater gation of public access areas. for three mgd of surplus water was con- 23 As part of the expansion, a 63-mgd summated. The combined capital cost of holding pond for storage and a 17-mgd these interconnects, scheduled to go online in late 2005, is estimated to be $9 million. The South County system is undergoing The Southwest Florida Water Management major development and expansion efforts. District (SWFWMD) provides 50 percent of The north and south barrier island gulf the total project costs. beach communities, areas of the County in which residents were unlikely to access a Currently, there are about 500 resi- reliable good quality irrigation water from dences, seven golf courses, two parks or wells, are a priority area for delivery of playgrounds, and seven schools provided reclaimed water. A transmission main from with reclaimed water from the William E. the South Cross WRF to the north and Dunn WRF. The residential customers south barrier island beach communities account for less than 10 percent of the has been constructed, as have distribution reclaimed water distributed in the north pipelines within the five southern communi- county service area, and approximately 73 ties. The transmission main also will deliver percent of the reclaimed water produced in reclaimed water to several mainland areas. the north county service area goes to golf The total cost of the transmission/distribu- course irrigation. However, the golf courses tion system was $140 million, some of were on well water prior to receiving which was offset by a $23 million grant reclaimed water; hence, the County does from SWFWMD. One problem encountered not realize potable water savings by pro- resulted from delays in connecting to the viding reclaimed water to the golf courses. system, which led to algae growth in Alternate Water Services is developing pipelines that caused sprinkler clogging. A strategies to redistribute reclaimed water flushing program corrected the problem from the golf courses to residential areas and connection procedures were changed where additional potable water savings for new additions to the system. would be realized. Upon completion, the system will deliver reclaimed water to An “interruptible service” strategy has 6,400 residential customers for landscape been implemented to bring additional cus- irrigation. tomers onto the reclaimed water system. Interruptible service will provide select com- South Service Area mercial customers with reclaimed water at times when there is a surplus supply of the The South Cross Bayou WRF initially had water, such as during wet weather. Two a surface water discharge but switched to large golf courses have already agreed to deep well injection of treated effluent in the augment their current irrigation sources late 1980s. Operational problems led to with reclaimed water on an interruptible addition of filtration facilities at the South basis. A special reduced rate and fee struc- Cross Bayou WRF. Ultimately, elimination of ture has been developed for those cus- the deep well injection was required. All tomers. deep well injection was discontinued by 2002. The South Cross Bayou WRF under- In 1998, when St. Petersburg Beach, went a $150 million expansion and South Pasadena, and Tierra Verde systems upgrade to AWT. The South Cross Bayou were operational, there were more than WRF, which meets all Florida DEP water 10,000 reclaimed water users on the entire reuse criteria for irrigation of public access system using 11.8 mgd of reclaimed water. areas, has an average flow of 26 mgd, of 24 which 7.4 mgd is reused. The remaining effluent is discharged to a tidal creek adja- cent to the WRF. Implementation program supplied with 14.7 mgd of reclaimed water. It is projected that there will be more The initial attempt to implement a water than 28,000 reclaimed water customers by reuse program was through an assessment the end of 2007 using 25.9 mgd of program to fund construction of distribu- reclaimed water and saving 5.7 mgd of tion systems. Under this program, all potable water. wastewater treatment and transmission sys- tem costs would be borne by the system in Several initiatives are being developed its existing rates. Costs for distribution sys- that could have a major impact on the tems were to be assessed to the benefiting operation and maintenance of the property owners at 100 percent of the cost. reclaimed water system. Some of the issues This method was time consuming and diffi- involve conservation strategies such as cult. The assessment program was ulti- metering, day of week use restrictions, mately put on hold and replaced by a dif- tiered rate structures, demand manage- ferent approach using an “availability” ment strategies, and potential indirect charge. Under this program, utilities potable reuse through wellfield and wet- extended the distribution mains and lands recharge. charged all adjacent properties a $7 per month availability charge. Costs and Funding A rate and fee structure was established The costs to upgrade the South Cross in 1995. Reclaimed water use by residen- Bayou WRF to meet Florida DEP require- tial customers is not metered. Payment of ments for reclaimed water use on public the flat rate availability charge of $7 per access areas was $150 million. The total month is mandatory. Irrigation customers capital costs of the north and south county pay an additional $2 per month flat rate reclaimed water transmission and distribu- for unrestricted use of the water. Charges tion systems to date is $140 million. for multi-family and nonresidential metered Annual operating costs for the entire customers are based on a volumetric rate reclaimed water system are about structure. Metered customers also pay the $1.2 million. availability charge plus $0.29/1,000 gal- lons of reclaimed water received. Revenues from the sale of $87 million of revenue bonds issued by Pinellas Pinellas County has an innovative County, combined with capital improve- Contribution-In-Aid of Construction ment program budgeted funds, represent Program to help smaller communities the locally funded portion of the reclaimed needing financial support to construct water system. In addition, the County water reuse facilities. The County will pro- received approximately $28 million in vide a grant of one dollar for every gallon grants from SWFWMD. The water of potable water capacity saved through management district funded 50 percent of construction and operation of a new all costs for reclaimed water transmission reclaimed water system. The benefits of this and storage facilities. program are realized by obtaining addi- tional potable water capacity for less cost For further information, contact: Pinellas than expanding existing water sources or County Utilities, 14 South Fort Harrison developing new ones. Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756. 25 By 2002, the number of reclaimed water users had increased to 10,400, who were San Antonio Water System

Background water consumption averages 147 gallons per capita per day. About $4 to $6 million For over two centuries, San Antonio, is spent annually for conservation pro- Texas, depended on the Edwards Aquifer grams. Along with conservation, making for its water supply. In the 1890s, water more effective use of existing supplies that used to emerge as natural springflow became a key concern, and building a sys- began to be withdrawn from municipal tem to deliver recycled water for non- and private wells. By the 1920s, streams in potable uses became a high priority. One the area had little to no flow in them in stated goal was to maintain adequate some years, and by the mid-1950s, springs flows in the San Antonio River and Salado and streams were dry almost all of the Creek. Flows in the San Antonio River in time. Upper reaches of streams were com- the downtown River Walk area had been pletely dry, and most stream flows were supplied by wells for decades, and Salado due solely to effluent discharged from Creek was an impaired stream with high wastewater treatment plants. fecal coliform concentrations and low dis- solved oxygen levels. Cemetery Irrigated with Recycled Water System Development Withdrawals from the Edwards Aquifer SAWS owns and operates four major were historically based on the right of cap- Water Recycling Centers (WRCs) that com- ture, which allowed any user to withdraw bined currently produce approximately 116 as much water as could be used for benefi- mgd of tertiary-treated wastewater. cial purposes. Demand for water in the Although there is no requirement in Texas 1990s began to surpass the aquifer’s safe that effluent derived from groundwater yield, and legislation was passed to limit must be returned to water courses, SAWS aquifer withdrawals to ensure continual has agreed to discharge a minimum of 49 springflows. For the first time in its history, mgd for downstream surface water rights San Antonio needed to develop new water holders. In addition, SAWS has been pro- resources. viding recycled water to the City’s munici- In 1993, the San Antonio Water System pally-owned electric generating facility for (SAWS) adopted a Water Conservation and power plant cooling for more than 30 Reuse Plan that solidified the City’s com- years from the Dos Rios WRC. The plant mitment to a water recycling program. discharges treated wastewater to the San Water conservation programs for educa- Antonio River, from which water is with- tion, plumbing and landscape retrofits, drawn to cooling water lakes. SAWS con- conservation pricing, and leak detection tracts for 36 mgd, for which the utility pays 26 has resulted in a 31 percent reduction in about $0.0153/100 gallons. potable water use since 1986. Current Cemetery Irrigated with Recycled Water

In 1995, SAWS embarked on an effort More than 70 percent (i.e., 22 mgd) of to provide the remaining uncommitted the total available volume from the Salado wastewater, 31 mgd, to other customers Creek and Leon Creek WRCs currently is from the Salado Creek and Leon Creek contractually committed for recycled water WRCs. Construction of almost 75 miles of applications. About 45 percent of the total pipeline began in 1997. The Salado leg available volume, more than 14 mgd, is began discharging recycled water in 2000, online. Uses include industrial cooling and the Leon leg was brought online in water, river maintenance, and landscape 2002. The Salado Creek WRC serves the irrigation at golf courses, schools, commer- east side of the system and the Leon Creek cial sites, etc. WRC serves the west side. Interconnections Potential customers are subject to onsite are currently under construction to connect water use surveys and checks for proper all the facilities. When completed, the backflow prevention devices and code Salado Creek WRC will be taken out of compliance by SAWS staff. One require- service. The City’s master plan includes use ment is a two-way pressure separation test- of recycled water from the Medio Creek ing followed by a dye test of the system WRC on San Antonio’s west side. The inter- prior to connection. connections will enable recycled water to be delivered to any point in the system The Texas Commission on Environmental from any of the remaining WRCs, thus pro- Quality (TCEQ) is the state agency that viding a high degree of reliability and governs recycled water programs, and its redundancy. predecessor, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), was Potential recycled water users were responsible for adopting the State’s water asked to sign a request for service docu- reuse criteria. The Texas standards pre- ment in 1997. The document confirmed scribe water quality limits, but do not the intention by customers to purchase include specific treatment unit process recycled water from SAWS when such requirements. SAWS provides “Type I” (i.e., water became available. Potential demand human contact with the water is likely) exceeded supply as SAWS allocated an reclaimed water to its users. Type I average of 31 mgd of recycled water to be reclaimed water requirements include the available and about 42 mgd of recycled following: water was requested by 77 potential cus- tomers. • BOD: ≤5 mg/L (30-day average); • Turbidity: ≤3 NTU (30-day average); 27 • Fecal coliforms: <20 CFU/100 mL (geo- the system’s storage tanks are periodically metric mean); and drained and cleaned to remove suspended • Fecal coliforms: 75 CFU/100 mL (single solids that settle in the tanks. grab sample maximum). During the first few years of operation When complete, the recycled water sys- there were a series of pipeline failures. tem will reduce dependence on the Most of them were customer related, but Edwards Aquifer supplies – which are now failures also occurred on main transmis- subject to allocations and cutbacks – by 20 sion lines that supplied the Salado Creek percent, thus reserving groundwater sup- Segment (one joint failure) and a portion plies for potable use. The goal is to replace of the Leon Creek Segment (three joint fail- 11 billion gallons/yr of Edwards Aquifer ures). SAWS was able to maintain service water with recycled water. Other benefits to most of the customers during these inci- include the following: dents by having a potable “backup” supply line – with an air gap – at each major • A reliable supply of water to industrial pumping station. and commercial users; • Acquisition of additional Edwards A concern was expressed that high total Aquifer pumping rights by the city dissolved solids (TDS) levels, particularly through trading for an equal amount of chlorides, could adversely affect vegetation reclaimed water; (chlorides in Edwards Aquifer water and SAWS recycled water average 17 mg/L • Improvement and enhancement of envi- and 150 mg/L, respectively). SAWS ronmental conditions in the San Antonio responded by incorporating TDS assurance River and Salado Creek; levels in the Recycled Water Service • An unrestricted water source that can be Agreement, as well as assured levels of used in times of drought or curtailment related constituents, as noted below: of Edwards Aquifer potable water; • Ammonia nitrogen: ≤2.0 mg/L; • Reduced fertilizer costs due to the nutri- ents in reclaimed water; and • pH: 6.0-9.5; ≤ • Elimination of the Water Supply Fee or • Total suspended solids: 15 mg/L; the Edwards Aquifer Authority Fee. • Total dissolved solids: ≤1500 mg/L; • Sodium absorption ratio: ≤5.0; and Problems • Residual sodium carbonate: 1.5 meq/L. One problem encountered early was A cross connection incident in 2002, water quality deterioration in the distribu- where recycled water intended for use at a tion system, primarily due to microbial golf course was introduced into the potable growth in supply lines and tanks resulting system, was caused by failure to disconnect from stagnation during startup with low a potable system valve and pipe that was flows. In response, SAWS developed a directly connected to the reclaimed water database to track chlorine levels through- system. As a result of this incident, SAWS out the system, initiated a program to elim- made substantial changes to its procedures inate stagnation of water in a storage tank to preclude future occurrences. Before by fluctuating water levels in the tank, and allowing a new recycled water service to installed gas chlorine injection systems at begin, customer training classes are now key locations, thus giving SAWS the ability conducted with customer workers involved 28 to maintain a chlorine residual of one in routine system operation. No system is mg/L throughout the system. Additionally, connected until a 5-step process is completed that ensures complete separa- planning a linear park which may include tion between the recycled and potable sys- hiking and biking trails, parks, shallow tems. After initiation of recycled water serv- pools, and waterfalls. In 2000, voters ice to any new customer, the system is approved a proposition to generate $20 rechecked and tested by SAWS staff. million for land purchases along Salado and Leon Creeks for floodways, open Stream Augmentation space, and hike and bike trails. In its initial phase, almost 20 miles of Salado Creek is One of the benefits of the recycled water targeted for improvements. system has been improved water quality in the San Antonio River and Salado Creek. Extensive laboratory studies in 1996 and Costs and Fees 1997 and an extensive San Antonio River The potable water rate is $0.098/100 sampling program begun in 1997 have gallons plus a Water Supply Fee (WSF) and confirmed that water quality has improved Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) fee. In since discharge of recycled water started. 2003, the WSF was $0.094/100 gallons This is evidenced by the return of several and the EAA fee was $0.0086/100 gal- pollution intolerant species of fish to the lons, resulting in a total cost of $0.20/100 San Antonio River system. Suspended gallons, while the recycled water rate was solids levels are generally lower than they $0.098/100 gallons, resulting in a cost were prior to recycled water discharges, savings of 51 percent over the potable while TDS levels have increased. Ammonia water rate. Recycled water rates vary slight- nitrogen and phosphorus levels are slightly ly based on season and amount of water higher since the addition of recycled water used. Customers who trade Edwards began, but Chlorophyll-a levels are lower Aquifer pumping withdrawal rights in due to increased flows. River water at the exchange for recycled water pay a rate of San Antonio River Walk is clearer, contains $0.025/100 gallons; others pay the less algae, and has fewer odors than above stated rates. The total capital cost to before implementation of the recycled date for the recycled water system is water program. $124 million.

The introduction of recycled water to For further information, contact: San Salado Creek has begun to restore a Antonio Water System, 1001 E. Market healthy aquatic ecosystem. With Salado Street, San Antonio, TX 78298-2449. Creek flowing again, San Antonio is

29 San Antonio River Walk St. Petersburg, Florida

Background. secondary treatment, coagulation, filtra- tion, and disinfection) and implement a The City of St. Petersburg, Florida is a water reuse and deep well injection pro- largely residential peninsular community gram that would result in no discharge to located on Florida’s west-central coast. It is surface waters. bounded on the east and south by Tampa Bay and on the west by Boca Ciega Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. St. Petersburg has Reclaimed Water System a population of approximately 255,000. The initial portion of the retrofit system In the early 1900s, municipal wells went into operation in 1977, at which time located in St. Petersburg were being the reclaimed water distribution system was pumped for increasingly longer intervals to limited to serving irrigation water from the satisfy a growing population. The resulting City’s four water reclamation plants to golf seawater intrusion into the groundwater courses, parks, school grounds, and large aquifer eventually required the city to seek commercial areas. In 1981, the City other sources of potable water supply. In applied for grant funding from the U.S. the 1940s, St. Petersburg purchased well Environmental Protection Agency to expand fields in western Hillsborough County and the reclaimed water distribution system into Pasco County. By the 1940s the City was residential areas. From 1977 through treating its groundwater supplies at a water 1987, St. Petersburg spent more than $100 treatment plant located 26 miles north of million upgrading and expanding its four St. Petersburg. In the early to mid-1970s, water reclamation facilities (WRFs) and St. Petersburg needed additional water but constructing more than 200 miles of was uncertain if permission could be reclaimed water pipelines. The WRFs range obtained to develop a new supply. Also, in capacity from 12.8 to 20 mgd. because of rapid population growth, the In 2002, the total average flow from the City’s four wastewater treatment facilities four WRFs was about 42 mgd, half of needed to be enlarged. Concurrently, the which was reclaimed for beneficial uses. Florida Legislature enacted a bill in 1972 The four WRFs supplied 21 mgd of the 54 requiring all communities in the Tampa Bay mgd of water provided by the City’s Utility area to either cease discharging to Tampa Department. The quantity of reclaimed Bay or treat their wastewater with water used has been relatively consistent advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) for the last 10 years. processes for nutrient removal. The City evaluated the alternatives and based on The dual water system currently serves the cost of constructing and operating AWT more than 10,500 customers throughout facilities, and in consideration of its water the City, including 10,000 residential cus- 30 supply problems, opted to upgrade its tomers for landscape irrigation. Residential treatment plants to tertiary treatment (i.e., landscape irrigation with reclaimed water Residential Irrigation with Reclaimed Water

is voluntary in St. Petersburg. Reclaimed four reclamation plants. Reclaimed water is water lines are brought into an area when delivered through more than 100 miles of at least 50 percent of the residents in that trunk and transmission mains ranging from area petition for service and agree to con- 10 to 48 inches in diameter. Local service nect to the reclaimed water system. is provided through more than 190 miles Reclaimed water also is used for irrigation of small diameter distribution pipe ranging at 95 parks, 64 schools, six golf courses, from two to eight inches in diameter. The and 335 commercial sites. The water also transmission mains from all four WRFs are is used for fire protection via more than interconnected so that reclaimed water flow 300 reclaimed water hydrants throughout and pressure can be maintained on the the system and for cooling water at 10 entire distribution network when any one sites. In recent years, the system has been plant is taken out of service. System pres- expanding at a rate of 300 to 500 new sure is monitored at key locations. The customers per year. reclaimed water system incorporates five City owned and operated booster pump Injection Wells stations and four privately owned and operated booster pump stations to provide Deep injection wells are used to dispose reclaimed water for all of the applications of excess reclaimed water and inadequate- throughout the City. ly treated wastewater. The city operates a total of 10 injection wells at the four WRFs. All potable water services located in The wells penetrate to a saltwater aquifer areas where reclaimed water service is approximately 1,000 feet below the land provided are protected with cross-connec- surface. The groundwater contains approx- tion control backflow assembly devices. imately 22,000 mg/L of chlorides, preclud- Top loading double check valve assemblies ing its use as a water supply. It was hoped are used at residences. Cross-connection that the injected water would form a bub- control provisions for commercial uses ble in the aquifer such that it could be are based on the degree of hazard the extracted as needed in the future. However, facility presents. hydrogeologic conditions in the subsurface A typical residence in St. Petersburg uses have thus far thwarted attempts to extract about 30,000 gallons of reclaimed water high quality water for reuse through per month during peak demand periods. aquifer storage and recovery. The average irrigation rate is 1.5 inches/week. The average home dis- Distribution System charges approximately 6,000 gallons of Prior to distribution, reclaimed water is wastewater per month into the sanitary 31 pumped to covered storage tanks at all sewer system. Thus, it requires about five Reclaimed Water Injection Well

sanitary sewer customers to provide an erty owners for installation on an external adequate supply to one reclaimed water spigot so that the discharge would occur customer during peak demand periods. outside the structure rather than inside the homes. Other recommended solutions Water Quality involved installing expansion tanks or flushometers in toilets. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) water reuse Chlorides: In about 1985, St. Petersburg criteria for residential and public access began receiving complaints from some res- irrigation require that wastewater receive idential homeowners claiming damage to secondary treatment, filtration, and disin- ornamental plants and trees caused by irri- fection such that the fecal coliform level is gation with reclaimed water. Chloride lev- below detectable limits in 75 percent of the els in the reclaimed water were, at times, samples analyzed over a 30-day period as high as 700 mg/L due to infiltration of and does not exceed 25 fecal coli- seawater into sewers near the coast. forms/100 mL at any time. A minimum Research conducted by the City found that total chlorine residual of 1.0 mg/L is chloride levels above 400 mg/L in irriga- required after at least 15 minutes contact tion water for an extended time period at peak hour flow. The regulations also damages salt-sensitive species of plants. specify a maximum BOD limit of 20 mg/L, The problem was solved by reducing sea- a TSS limit of five mg/L prior to disinfec- water intrusion through an tion, and continuous monitoring of turbidity infiltration/inflow correction program, by and chlorine residual. St. Petersburg’s mixing high chloride reclaimed water with Water Reclamation Facilities consistently reclaimed water containing low concentra- meet all Florida DEP criteria. tions of chloride, and by diverting some reclaimed water containing very high chlo- System Problems and Solutions ride levels to the deep wells for disposal. Reclaimed water chloride levels are now Pressure: During the first few years of kept below 400 mg/L and complaints operation, it was discovered that the instal- have ceased. lation of backflow assemblies on residen- tial services presented thermal expansion Inadequate Supply: Although approxi- problems in plumbing systems when pres- mately 50 percent of the effluent is injected sure built up by the hot water heater creat- into deep wells for disposal on a yearly ed a discharge at the hot water heater’s basis, there are times when the demand temperature and pressure relief valve. To for reclaimed water exceeds the supply. 32 rectify this condition, the City provided Demand increases substantially during the pressure relief regulating devices to prop- hot, dry spring months when wastewater flows are at a minimum and occasionally does not encourage water conservation, stresses the supply. The City addressed this and most residents use more reclaimed problem by providing additional storage, water than necessary for proper irrigation. which proved to be marginally successful, The reclaimed water rate for commercial and by imposing a moratorium on distribu- customers who are metered is tion expansion until a solution has been $0.33/1,000 gallons; however, not all developed to maintain current service lev- commercial customers have reclaimed els. Other measures being considered water meters. include: metering the reclaimed water to The total capital cost of the program to control overuse; restricting irrigation during date is about $135 million. Of this total, critical periods; developing an aquifer stor- U.S. EPA provided $100 million to upgrade age and recovery system to seasonally the four treatment plants and construct the store reclaimed water and recover it for distribution system, and the City con- use during high demand periods; and tributed $20 million. The remaining $15 developing informational programs to fur- million is recoverable through the ther educate the public about proper use Voluntary Assessment Program, $11 million techniques and lawn management. of which has been recovered to date. The current annual operating cost is $5.2 mil- Educational Outreach lion. System revenue is $1.6 million; the Adult educational programs include remaining $3.6 million is subsidized by the public forums that address water issues, City’s water and wastewater utilities, each water conservation booklets and videos, of which pays half of that cost. weekly taped television broadcasts, online water conservation information via a web- Benefits site, annual public recognition awards, and While the initial impetus for developing community events promoting water reuse the dual system was to avoid costs and conservation. A youth education pro- associated with upgrading treatment to gram has been created to provide water reduce nutrient levels in effluent discharged conservation education through schools to receiving waters, reclaimed water use is and youth agencies. now an important component of St. Petersburg’s overall water resources Funding, Costs, and Subsidy management. Because of the lowered Residents who hook up to the system demand for potable water, the need to pay the cost of extending distribution lines develop additional potable water supply to serve them, which typically ranges from sources has been postponed and may not $500 to $1,200 per customer, through a be needed at all if current water usage Voluntary Assessment Program. The total trends continue. connection charge is $295 – a $180 tap- For further information, contact: Joseph ping fee and $115 for a backflow preven- V. Towry, Assistant Director, Water tion device on the potable water line. Resources Department, 1635 Third Avenue Reclaimed water costs $11.36 for the first North, St. Petersburg, FL 33713. 33 acre and $6.51 for each additional acre or portion thereof. The flat fee rate structure Water Conserv II

Background the Water Conserv II project, a cooperative water reuse project by the City and County In 1979, a citizens group filed a lawsuit and the agricultural community. against Orange County, Florida and the City of Orlando to stop discharge of treat- The project initially encountered strong ed wastewater to Shingle Creek. At that resistance from area citrus growers and time, effluent from the County’s Sand Lake residents. The growers’ concerns centered Road Wastewater Treatment Facility (since on potential adverse effects of irrigating renamed the South Regional Water with reclaimed water, while the residents’ Reclamation Facility) and the City’s McLeod concerns focused on health and environ- Road Wastewater Treatment Facility (since mental issues. The citrus growers agreed to renamed the Water Conserv II Water accept the reclaimed water after they were Reclamation Facility) was discharged to the provided initial research data on citrus pro- creek, which flows into Lake Tohopekaliga. duction and fruit quality indicating that irri- The citizens group contended that the efflu- gation of citrus with the reclaimed water ent discharges were contributing to degra- would be beneficial to growing citrus. The dation of the lake and its fish habitat. The City and County also agreed to provide citizens group won the case, and an funding for research on the long term injunction was issued against the City and effects of irrigation with reclaimed water. County to cease discharge of effluent into As incentives to the growers to participate Shingle Creek by March 1988. This in the project, reclaimed water would be occurred at a time when a growing popu- provided to the growers at no cost for the lation in the region required expansion of first 20 years at a pressure suitable for both wastewater treatment plants. microsprinkler irrigation, and the water would be provided during freezing condi- During a lengthy evaluation process nine tions for frost protection. The residents project alternatives were investigated. accepted the project after assurances were These included continued discharge to sur- provided through an interlocal agreement face waters with advanced treatment and between the City and County and after the phosphorus removal, shallow well injec- County adopted several resolutions to tion, citrus irrigation, rapid infiltration address the residents’ concerns. basins (RIBs) to recharge the Floridan aquifer, deep well disposal, combined cit- Construction of facilities began in 1983, rus irrigation and RIBs, on-lot disposal and a contract operator was hired for (with combined citrus irrigation and RIBs), operation and maintenance of the project. and ocean disposal. The selected alterna- To remain in control of day-to-day activi- tive was combined citrus irrigation and ties, the City and County implemented a 34 RIBs, which was determined to be both cost-plus-fixed-fee budget for the cost-effective and innovative. Thus began contract operator. Rapid Infiltration Basins

Project Goals which meets all of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) require- Project goals include: ments for public access reuse, such as irri- • Elimination of surface water discharges; gation of citrus, open access areas, and residential lawns. About 35 mgd of the • A reliable, cost-effective supply of reclaimed water produced is sent to reclaimed water for agricultural and Conserv II, and the remainder is beneficial- other customers; ly used in the City’s and County’s individ- • Conservation of groundwater supplies; ual reclaimed water systems serving urban • Groundwater recharge via a system of areas. Florida DEP treatment process RIBs; requirements and water quality limits for • Funding for research (through the Mid- Water Conserv II agricultural and land- Florida Citrus Foundation) to develop scape irrigation applications include the management practices for the profitable following: reestablishment of citrus in the Central • Secondary treatment, filtration, and high Florida area and evaluate the economic level disinfection; viability of irrigating non-citrus crops • No detectable fecal coliforms/100 mL in with reclaimed water; 75 percent of the samples analyzed over • Evaluation of agricultural crops for eco- a 30-day period; nomic viability; and • Fecal coliforms: ≤25/100 mL at any • Evaluation of reclaimed water for golf time; course irrigation. • CBOD5: ≤20 mg/L; Project Description • Total suspended solids: ≤5 mg/L; and • Chlorine residual: ≥1.0 mg/L after at The project, located in western Orange least 15 minutes contact at peak hour and southeast Lake Counties, began oper- flow. ation in December 1986, more than 1½ years ahead of the court-mandated dead- Reclaimed water is pumped from the line. The City’s and County’s water recla- water reclamation facilities to the Conserv mation facilities both provide advanced II Distribution Center in western Orange wastewater treatment (i.e., secondary treat- County. The water is then distributed to ment followed by filtration and high level customers or to the RIBs through a network 35 disinfection). They produce a total of of distribution pipes ranging from six to 54 approximately 42 mgd of reclaimed water inches in diameter. The system is capable of handling up to 75 mgd. The entire in south Florida. The availability of process is monitored and carefully con- reclaimed water for freeze protection in the trolled by supervisory control and data late 1980s helped in the survival of many acquisition (SCADA) computers located at groves. However, more than 11 times the the Distribution Center. average daily flow rate for irrigation is needed for freeze protection. Orange County and the City of Orlando Supplementary flow is primarily provided own 5,250 acres for existing and planned by 25 wells connected to the distribution RIB expansions. There currently are seven system that produce a total of about 80 RIB sites that collectively contain 65 RIBs mgd. In addition, there is a total of 38 mil- having from one to five cells (135 total lion gallons of storage capacity at the cells with a total bottom percolation area reclamation facilities and Distribution of about 200 acres). The RIBs, which pro- Center. The demand for water during vide aquifer storage capacity and wet freeze conditions is a major factor in not weather storage for excess flows during pursuing additional agricultural customers rainy periods, were selected based on per- that require water for freeze protection. colation capacity. The current total capacity System operational costs during freeze con- of the RIB system is 22 mgd. Agricultural ditions average $15,000 to $20,000 per and commercial customers use 60 percent day. During a normal winter season, water of the reclaimed water, with the remaining for freeze protection is needed for about 3- 40 percent going to the RIBs. Operation of 4 days. the RIBs is controlled through a computer- ized management system known as the Groundwater Operational Control System, Future Upgrades or Expansions which provides the ability to forecast the Permitted and planned expansion will impact on the groundwater system of load- increase the project reuse capacity from 68 ing an individual or groups of RIBs at pre- to 81 mgd. The expansion includes an scribed rates and duration. increase in irrigation capacity from 46 to 53 mgd and RIB capacity from about 22 to Rapid Infiltration Basins 28 mgd. Diversification of the system will continue with future additions of a large Reclaimed water is served to 87 cus- sand mining operation, an additional golf tomers for agricultural and landscape course, residential irrigation, and a major (e.g., golf courses, residential property, a regional/municipal interconnect for browse farm for Walt Disney World’s landscape irrigation. Animal Kingdom, and other landscape areas) irrigation, soil compaction at land- fills, soil cement production, and wash- Project Funding and Costs down water at an animal shelter. The agri- Conserv II capital costs expended as of cultural customers include more than 2003 total $277.7 million, and the current 4,300 acres of citrus, eight tree farms, four annual operating cost of the distribution fruit and vegetable growers, and nine system is approximately $4.8 million. indoor foliage and landscape nurseries. Operating costs are split between Orange County (60 percent) and the City of The system was originally designed to Orlando (40 percent) based on flow con- serve 12,000 to 15,000 acres of citrus tributed. Project costs do not include capital groves, but devastating freezes in the and operating costs for the Water Conserv 1980s put several citrus growers out of 36 II Water Reclamation Facility and South business and forced others to move their Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The operations to potentially warmer climates U.S. Environmental Protection Agency origi- nally provided grant funding of about $100 million for the project; the remaining costs have been borne by the County and the City.

Project Benefits Realized Environmental benefits associated with the project include: elimination of dis- charge to environmentally sensitive surface waters; reduction of demand on the Floridan aquifer by eliminating the need for well water for irrigation; replenishment of the Floridan aquifer with reclaimed water via RIBs; and establishment of a pre- serve within the RIBs for endangered and threatened species of plants and animals.

Research coordinated through the Mid- Water Conserv II has provided the fol- Freeze Protection Florida Citrus Foundation, a nonprofit lowing benefits to citrus growers: a using Reclaimed organization and the research arm of dependable long term source of irrigation Water Water Conserv II, has yielded significant water that is not subject to water restric- data. Some of the important findings to tions during droughts; elimination of instal- date include the following: lation, operation, and maintenance costs associated with well or surface water • Citrus on well-drained sandy soils can pumping systems; enhanced freeze protec- tolerate up to 100 inches/yr of tion capabilities; increased crop yields; reclaimed water for irrigation; a small and better tree growth. As one of the grow- reduction in juice solids due to the high ers states: “We have three-year-old trees irrigation rate is offset by an increase in that are almost six feet tall. We have been fruit production; able to produce bigger trees with more • Tree condition and size, crop size, and fruit because we have increased our soil and leaf mineral aspects of citrus growing capacity.” trees irrigated with reclaimed water are as good as, if not better than, groves For further information, contact: Al irrigated with well water; Castro, Utilities Section Manager, Reclaimed Water Section, Water • Fruit quality from groves irrigated with Reclamation Division, Orange County reclaimed water is similar to that from Utilities, 8100 Presidents Drive, Suite A, groves irrigated with well water; Orlando, FL 32809 or Thomas L. Lothrop, • Boron and phosphorus are present in Wastewater Division Manager, City of adequate amounts in reclaimed water Orlando, 5100 L.B. McLeod Road, and can be eliminated from the fertilizer Orlando, FL 32811. program; and • Reclaimed water maintains soil pH with- in the recommended range; thus, lime no longer needs to be applied. 37 West Basin Municipal Water District

Background pursued water recycling as the most eco- nomical choice that would also give the The West Basin Municipal Water District District the opportunity to treat wastewater (WBMWD), formed in 1947, is a public to different levels depending on end use. agency that wholesales imported potable WBMWD embarked on a large scale con- water and recycled water to local cities, servation and recycling program in the water companies, private companies, and early 1990s to improve water supply relia- investor owned utilities. WBMWD’s service bility and reduce the region’s dependence area encompasses 200 square miles in on imported water. Consistent with its mis- southwest Los Angeles County, California. sion to “obtain and provide a safe and WBMWD provides 80 percent of the adequate supplemental supply of high potable water used in its service area to quality water to our member agencies, more than 850,000 people; the remaining including the communities, businesses, and 20 percent is local groundwater pumped residents they serve, in an efficient, effec- by retail water agencies. tive, and economical manner,” plans were In the early 1990s, about 80 percent of underway to establish WBMWD as one of the water used in southern California was the leaders in water recycling. imported. WBMWD purchased State Water The goals of the recycling program are Project and Colorado River water from the to reduce dependence on imported water Metropolitan Water District of Southern by 50 percent, provide an alternative California (MWD) for resale to its cus- drought proof local water source, reduce tomers. It was around this time that the volume of treated wastewater dis- WBMWD began considering alternative charged to Santa Monica Bay by 25 per- sources of water supply to the region due cent, and prevent further saltwater intrusion to the prospect of a dwindling supply of of the groundwater basin. In addition to imported water caused by environmental providing recycled water to customers for concerns and anticipated future allotment diverse applications, the overall program cutbacks. In addition, extended droughts includes education, conservation, and that occur from time-to-time and a lack of resource planning. emergency storage facilities to assure reli- able deliveries during droughts made it Various agreements were necessary to more imperative for WBMWD to diversify proceed with the proposed project. An its water supply portfolio. Recycling treated agreement was needed with the City of Los municipal wastewater and desalinating Angeles to purchase secondary effluent 38 seawater were identified as the most viable from the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment alternatives available to supplement Plant (HTP). Another agreement was WBMWD’s water supplies. WBMWD Satellite MF/RO Treatment Plant

needed with MWD for their local project Criteria for the different recycled water rebate of up to $250/ac-ft (i.e., 70,000 applications. The quantities of recycled ac-ft for 25 years, a financial commitment water (2002 annual data converted to of over $200 million). Both agreements daily averages), types of treatment, and were approved and construction of the first uses of the water are as follows: phase of the project was initiated in 1992 • 2.5 mgd of disinfected tertiary treated and completed in late 1994. Delivery of recycled water for irrigation; recycled water began in 1995. • 7.4 mgd of nitrified and disinfected terti- In 2002, an average of 24 mgd of recy- ary treated recycled water for industrial cled water was used for a variety of appli- cooling makeup water; cations, including landscape irrigation, • 6.5 mgd of recycled water that has industrial cooling and boiler feed water, undergone tertiary treatment, lime treat- commercial applications, and groundwater ment, reverse osmosis (RO), and disin- recharge. The treatment processes have fection for groundwater recharge; been specifically designed to produce water that meets the specific needs of the • 5.8 mgd of recycled water that has end user; thus the term “designer water” undergone microfiltration, RO, and dis- was coined to describe the five different infection for low pressure boiler feed qualities of recycled water produced at the water; and West Basin Water Recycling Plant (WBWRP). • 2.4 mgd of recycled water that has undergone microfiltration, RO, disinfec- Project Description tion, and second pass RO for high pres- sure boiler feed water. Phase I of the project consisted of a pump station at HTP, a 60-inch force main, Tertiary Treatment for Nonpotable Uses: a recycled water treatment plant, and a Tertiary treated recycled water is used for distribution system. Secondary effluent from industrial cooling water and a variety of HTP is pumped five miles from the 90-mgd irrigation uses. The tertiary treatment train pump station to the WBWRP in El Segundo, at the WBWRP consists of coagulant addi- California, for further treatment prior to tion using ferric chloride, flocculation reuse. basins, anthracite mono-media filters, and disinfection using sodium hypochlorite. The The WBWRP produces five different qual- finished water is stored in a five million ities of recycled water, all of which meet the gallon storage reservoir from which it is treatment and water quality requirements pumped to a 75-mile long distribution sys- 39 specified in the California Department of tem for industrial and commercial applica- Health Services (DHS) Water Recycling tions and irrigation of parks, golf courses, schoolyards and other landscape areas. of salts on the RO membranes, RO treat- Phase I had an initial treatment capacity of ment, decarbonation for pH adjustment, 15 mgd, which was expanded to 30 mgd disinfection using sodium hypochlorite, and after completion of the Phase II expansion. lime addition to stabilize the water.

Nitrified Water: A portion of the tertiary During the Phase II expansion, a third treated water receives additional treatment treatment train with a capacity of 2.5 mgd to remove ammonia, which causes corro- was built. In this train, treatment of HTP sion in industrial cooling towers that have secondary effluent includes sodium copper-based alloys. Nitrification to convert hypochlorite addition, straining, microfiltra- the ammonia to nitrate takes place in tion, addition of sulfuric acid and a scale biofilters at satellite package plants. inhibitor, RO, decarbonation, disinfection Sodium hypochlorite is then added to using sodium hypochlorite, and lime addi- assure complete destruction of the ammo- tion. The product waters from all three nia and for disinfection purposes. treatment trains are then combined, blend- ed with MWD potable water, and pumped AWT for Recharge: The West Coast Basin to barrier wells for injection. The recycled Barrier Project, operated by the Los water is subjected to extensive monitoring Angeles County Department of Public and meets all treatment process and water Works, was constructed in the 1950s and quality requirements specified by the 1960s to inject imported MWD water into California DHS in its most recent draft a series of wells along the coast to halt or groundwater recharge criteria. The reject reduce seawater intrusion into the potable water (concentrate) from all RO units is dis- groundwater basins. There are more than charged into the HTP’s 5-mile secondary 150 injection wells that, in total, inject an effluent outfall pipeline for disposal. average of approximately 20,000 ac-ft/yr into the aquifers, although as much as 40,000 ac-ft/yr has been injected in some years.

Three parallel treatment trains with a total capacity of 7.5 mgd produce recycled water for the barrier. In Phase I of the proj- ect, two identical treatment trains were built to treat a maximum of 5 mgd of recycled water for recharge. Treatment of HTP sec- ondary effluent by these trains includes decarbonation to remove CO2 and raise the pH, chemical coagulation and clarifica- tion using lime to precipitate magnesium RO for Industrial Boiler Feed Water: and other chemical constituents from the WBMWD supplies recycled water to a water and provide disinfection, recarbona- Chevron refinery in El Segundo for both tion to lower the pH, filtration using tri- low pressure and high pressure boiler feed media filters (anthracite, garnet, and sand), water and to an Exxon Mobil refinery for addition of sulfuric acid for pH adjustment 40 boiler feed water. Because minerals and and a scale inhibitor to prevent deposition other constituents cause scale and foaming problems in boilers, they must be removed WBMWD sells imported water to its cus- from the water. Therefore, treatment similar tomers for $510/ac-ft, while the price of to that used for barrier injection (i.e., recycled water charged to customers varies microfiltration, RO, decarbonation, and according to the level of treatment the disinfection) is used at the WBWRP to pro- water receives. Tertiary recycled water is duce water for the Chevron refinery and at sold for 25 to 40 percent less than import- a satellite treatment plant to produce water ed water. Nitrified water is sold for 20 per- for the Exxon Mobil refinery. cent less than imported water. AWT recy- cled water is sold for 10 percent less than Because higher quality water is required imported water. Users of single and double for high pressure boiler feed, some of the pass RO water for low pressure and high water (after the first pass RO treatment and pressure boiler feed are charged a rate disinfection) passes through RO a second equal to, or slightly higher than, imported time (second pass) to remove more dis- water. solved solids from the water. About 5.8 mgd that has received single pass RO treatment is produced for low pressure Public Information Programs boiler feed, while an additional 2.4 mgd WBMWD has an extensive ongoing pub- receives second pass RO treatment for high lic outreach program. A proactive chil- pressure boiler feed. Product water is dren’s education program, called the pumped to a storage tank at the nearby Planet Protector Explorations, was devel- Chevron refinery in El Segundo. Reject oped to heighten public awareness in the water from the RO processes is discharged entire community. The outreach efforts to the HTP outfall line. Product water from work in tandem with construction, recycled the satellite MF/RO plant in Torrance is water marketing, conservation, and school pumped to the Exxon Mobil refinery. education to inform the public. WBMWD’s Speakers Bureau targets local cities and Funding civic and environmental groups that that are affected by WBMWD’s recycling proj- Funding for Phase I facilities capital con- ect. These programs have been instrumen- struction costs of about $200 million was tal in capturing the support and enthusi- obtained from WBMWD water revenue asm of the residents, educators, students, bonds, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation grants, and businesses and industries. and State of California low interest loans. By 2003, total capital costs (including land) For further information, contact: West expended for all phases of the project were Basin Municipal Water District, 17140 S. approximately $365 million. The operating Avalon Blvd., Carson, CA 90746-1296. cost of the project was $14.8 million for the fiscal year ending 2002.

41 WateReuse Association 1199 North Fairfax Street, Suite 410 Alexandria, VA 22314 USA (703) 548-0880 Fax: (703) 548-5085 [email protected] www.WateReuse.org