Stormwater Reuse and Harvesting
Stormwater (Re)Use & Harvesting
Hennepin NR Partnership June 28, 2016
Brett H. Emmons EOR, Inc.
www.eorinc.com [email protected] 651.770.8448 Introduction – Definitions
Sources:
Rain Wastewater
Roof/ Storm- “Grey” “Black” Elevated water water water “Harvest & Use” “Reuse” Uses: Outdoor Indoor Other -Irrigation -Non-potable -Wash *Toilets -Industrial *Wash water -Potable *Indirect *Direct Breaking Linear Thinking Introduction – Use/Harvesting
Stormwater reuse Rainwater harvesting AUST FLOR TEX VIRG NCAR WASH Reuse Program Goals Background Reduce pollution load to surface waters Reduce stormwater flows Old Technique Rediscovered Reduce potable water demand Reduce impacts of urbanization on watershed hydrology Reduce stress on water supply infrastructure Reduce size of other stormwater BMPs Water Sources At Intersection of: Roofwater – Residential Roofwater – Nonresidential Stormwater – Wet Detention Pond *New Stormwater Rules Stormwater – Urban sewers Stormwater – Waterways (Runoff Volume) Stormwater – Wetlands Sewage Greywater Reuse Applications Irrigation – Playing fields, golf courses, public parks *Sustainable Water Supply and gardens, residential, commercial Irrigation – Agricultural Residential – Toilet flushing, vehicle washing Residential – Washing machine use Residential – Dual reticulation *Energy – Water Nexus Municipal – Fire-fighting or fire-suppression Municipal – Water features and ponds Municipal – Street cleaning Industrial – Cooling tower make-up Industrial – Miscellaneous Industrial – Dust control Industrial – Feed lot cleaning Hydrological – Downstream flow augmentation Hydrological – Aquifer storage and recovery Introduction – Use/Harvesting
Common Practice Globally
Largely Forgotten in the U.S.
. Paying to “dispose” of runoff . High Costs ($) . Environmental Costs
. Paying again for potable water . High Costs ($) . Environmental . Energy Intersection of Stormwater & Water Use
New Stormwater Standards • Volume-based • Locally – WDs, Cities, etc. • State – MN (MS4, MIDS) • Nationally – Pending Rule • Green Infrastructure/LID
Unsustainable Water Use/Supply • Very High Usage Rates per capita • Declining Aquifers
Source: Minnesota Public Radio News Status of Reuse
Harvesting & Reuse Program Literature Review Location • Focus on state manuals Storm- Rain- water water • Program goals • Water sources Australia • Reuse applications New South Wales • Regulatory credits Florida • Monitoring & inspections Texas Virginia North Carolina Washington Status of Reuse
Local Climate and Runoff • Precipitation Patterns • Runoff Water Quality
Soils & Groundwater Quality Status of Reuse
Plants and Irrigation: Waterlogging Potential • Evapotranspiration Figure 2. Ten year (2001-2010) daily rainfall summary for Minneapolis, Minnesota. • Irrigation Rates • Water Tolerance of Plants • Salt Tolerance Status of Reuse
Health & Environmental Risks • Australian Guidelines Existing Tools
Florida Stormwater Rate-Efficiency-Volume (REV) Curves
Example Rate-Efficiency-Volume (REV) Curve for Meteorological Region 1 in Florida (Waneliesta et al. 1991) Existing Tools
Virginia Rainwater Harvesting Cistern Design Spreadsheet Existing Tools
North Carolina Rainwater Harvester Computer Model Existing Tools
Stochastic and Reliability Estimation Tool (SARET) Existing Tools
Since then: Met Council Reuse Guide & Water Balance Tool Existing Tools
EPA 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse The Reuse Model
Relatively simple design tool
Incorporates timing of rainfall
Estimates quantity & quality The Reuse Model
Model Setup:
Irrigation Area
Off-site Source The Reuse Model
Water Budget: The Reuse Model
Phosphorus Mass Balance: Model Inputs
INPUTS Airrigation 174,240 ft 2 IRRIGATION Dirrigation 0.5 in/day Begin/End 5 to 9 month Awatershed 8.8 acres %Imp, connected 41% % %Imp, disconnected 0% % WATERSHED CNImp, disconnected CNpervious 57 CW-TP 410 ppb CW-orthoP 250 ppb Vbasin 109,700 ft 3 Vstorage 8,554 ft 3 Lbasin 250 ft Wbasin 131 ft STORAGE Dbasin 10 ft Side slope 6 ratio Evaporation 1 1=on; 0=off Vbasin, initial 54,850 ft 3 Tabular Output Summary
OUTPUTS From the To To To To Change in Rainfall Year Units Watershed Overflow Irrigation Evaporation Sedimentation Storage 100% 0% 71% 36% -7% % Total Vol 163,250 0 116,688 58,539 -11,977 Vol (ft3/yr) DRY 100% 0% 51% 52% -4% % Total P 1.90 0.00 0.97 0.99 -0.07 TP (kg/yr) 100% 0% 96% 29% -25% % Total Vol 190,984 0 182,679 55,263 -46,957 Vol (ft3/yr) AVERAGE 100% 0% 60% 52% -12% % Total P 2.22 0.00 1.33 1.16 -0.27 TP (kg/yr) 100% 0% 74% 21% 5% % Total Vol 276,629 0 204,051 58,783 13,795 Vol (ft3/yr) WET 100% 0% 47% 52% 1% % Total P 3.21 0.00 1.50 1.68 0.04 TP (kg/yr) 100% 0% 80% 29% -9% % Total Vol 210,288 0 167,806 57,528 -15,047 Vol (ft3/yr) ALL 100% 0% 53% 52% -5% % Total P 2.44 0.00 1.27 1.27 -0.10 TP (kg/yr) Tabular Output Summary
300,000 3.50 250,000 3.00 200,000 2.50
/yr) Change in
3 Change in 150,000 Storage 2.00 Storage Evaporation Sedimentation 100,000 1.50
Irrigation P (kg/yr) Volume(ft 50,000 1.00 Irrigation 0.50 0 Overflow Overflow DRY AVERAGE WET ALL -50,000 0.00 DRY AVERAGE WET ALL -100,000 -0.50
140% 120% 120% 100% 100% 80% 80% Change in Storage Change in 60% Storage 60% Evaporation Sedimentation 40% 40% Irrigation 20% Irrigation 20%
0% Overflow Overflow P (% P (% WatershedLoad) DRY AVERAGE WET ALL 0% Volume (% Volume(% Watershed Flow) -20% DRY AVERAGE WET ALL -40% -20% Graphical Output Summary
INPUTS SUMMARY: OUTPUTS SUMMARY: Airrigation 338,461 ft 2 Annual BasinFrom Dynamics the To To To To Change in Annual Basin Dynamics Rainfall Year Units IRRIGATION Dirrigation 0.5 in/day Sedimentation DRYWatershed YEAR (2009) Overflow Irrigation Evaporation Storage DRY YEAR (2009) Begin/End 5 to 9 month 100% 32% 57% 4% 8% % Total Vol 120,000 1 80,000 50,000 Awatershed 30.7 acres 532,019 168,301 301,178 18,888 43,652 Vol (ft3/yr) DRY 1 70,000 45,000 %Imp, connected 38% 100,000 % 100% 17% 24% 52% 6% % Total P 1 Dry Year 40,000 % 0% 6.18 1.08 1.46 3.24 0.40 60,000 Imp, disconnected % 1 TP (kg/yr) 35,000 CN 80,000 100% 37% 58% 3% 2% WATERSHED Imp, disconnected 1 % Total Vol 50,000 30,000 CNpervious 61 622,088 230,703 361,052 18,888 11,445 Vol (ft3/yr) 60,000 AVERAGE 1 40,000 25,000 CW-TP 410 ppb 100% 21% 31% 46% 2% % Total P 0 30,000 20,000 C 40,000 W-orthoP 100 ppb 7.22 1.55 0 2.23 3.32 0.12 TP (kg/yr) 15,000 3 20,000 Vbasin 76,168 ft 100% 45% 48%0 2% 5% % Total Vol 10,000 20,000 3 3
Vstorage 20,816 ft 902,470 406,843 433,0870 18,888 43,652 Vol (ft /yr) 10,000 5,000
Overflow Volume (cubic feet)
Overflow Volume (cubic feet) Volume Basin in (cubic feet) WET Volume Basin in (cubic feet) Lbasin 150 0 ft 100% 22% 20%0 56% 2% % Total P 0 0 Wbasin 100 1/1ft 4/11 7/2010.48 10/282.27 2.12 5.87 0.21 TP (kg/yr) 1/1 4/11 7/20 10/28 STORAGE Dbasin 6 Overflowft Volume at Overflow100% Minimum38% Volume 54% Basin 3% 5% % Total Vol Overflow Volume at Overflow Minimum Volume Basin Side slope 4 ratio 685,526 268,616 365,106 18,888 32,916 Vol (ft3/yr) ALLAVERAGE YEAR (2011) AVERAGE YEAR (2011) Evaporation 1 1=on; 0=off 100% 20% 25% 51% 3% % Total P 120,000 1 80,000 50,000 Vbasin, initial 32,516 ft 3 7.96 1.63 1.94 4.15 0.24 TP (kg/yr) 1 70,000 45,000 100,000 1,000,000 12.00 1 Ave. Year 40,000 60,000 900,000 1 35,000 80,000 10.00 800,000 1 50,000 30,000
/yr) 700,000 Change in 3 60,000 8.00 1 Change in 40,000 25,000 Storage Storage 600,000 0 Evaporation 30,000 20,000 40,000 6.00 Sedimentation 500,000 0 15,000 20,000
400,000 Irrigation P (kg/yr) Volume(ft 0 Irrigation 20,000 4.00 10,000 300,000
0 10,000 5,000
Overflow Volume (cubic feet) Overflow Volume (cubic feet)
Volume Basin in (cubic feet) Overflow 200,000 Overflow Volume Basin in (cubic feet) 0 2.00 0 0 0 100,000 1/1 4/11 7/20 10/28 1/1 4/11 7/20 10/28 0 Overflow Volume at Overflow Minimum0.00 Volume Basin Overflow Volume at Overflow Minimum Volume Basin DRY AVERAGE WET ALL DRY AVERAGE WET ALL WET YEAR (2007) WET YEAR (2007) 120% 120,000 120% 1 80,000 80,000 1 70,000 70,000 100,000 Wet Year 100% 100% 1 60,000 60,000 1 80% 80,000 Change in 80% Storage 1 Change in 50,000 50,000 Storage Evaporation 60% 60,000 60% 1 Sedimentation 40,000 40,000 0 30,000 30,000 40,000 Irrigation Irrigation 40% 40% 0 20,000 20,000 Overflow 0 Overflow 20,000 P (% WatershedLoad) 20% 20% 10,000 10,000
Volume (% Volume(% Watershed Flow) 0
Overflow Volume (cubic feet)
Overflow Volume (cubic feet)
Volume Basin in (cubic feet) Volume Basin in (cubic feet) 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 1/1 4/11 7/20 10/28 1/1 4/11 7/20 10/28 DRY AVERAGE WET ALL DRY AVERAGE WET ALL Overflow Volume at Overflow Minimum Volume Basin Overflow Volume at Overflow Minimum Volume Basin 1. The irrigation and watershed areas can be independent 3. The watershed P concentrations and fractions can be set to site specific data 6. An average side slope can be used to account for the design of safety benches User notes: 2. The user must composite the CN for disconnected impervious 4. The user must define appropriate basin geometry or model results are invalid 7. The initial basin volume can be set by the user to account for winter dynamics 3. Turn off evaporation until all basin geometry is entered and valid 5. The storage volume can be set to maintain any desired minimum pond depth 8. Model results assume regular maintenance to remove accumulated sediments! The Reuse Model
Benilde-St. Margaret Example:
INPUTS OUTPUTS SUMMARY: Airrigation 338,461 ft 2 From the To To To To Change in Annual Basin Dynamics Rainfall Year Units IRRIGATION Dirrigation 0.5 in/day Sedimentation Watershed Overflow Irrigation Evaporation Storage DRY YEAR (2009) Begin/End 5 to 9 month 100% 32% 57% 4% 8% % Total Vol 80,000 50,000 Awatershed 30.7 acres 532,019 168,301 301,178 18,888 43,652 Vol (ft3/yr) DRY 45,000 % 38% 100% 17% 24% 52% 6% 70,000 Imp, connected % % Total P 40,000 % 0% 6.18 1.08 1.46 3.24 0.40 60,000 Imp, disconnected % TP (kg/yr) 35,000 CN 100% 37% 58% 3% 2% WATERSHED Imp, disconnected % Total Vol 50,000 30,000 CN 61 622,088 230,703 361,052 18,888 11,445 3 pervious Vol (ft /yr) 40,000 25,000 C AVERAGE W-TP 410 ppb 100% 21% 31% 46% 2% % Total P 20,000 C 30,000 W-orthoP 100 ppb 7.22 1.55 2.23 3.32 0.12 TP (kg/yr) 15,000 3 20,000 Vbasin 76,168 ft 100% 45% 48% 2% 5% % Total Vol 10,000 3 3
Vstorage 20,816 ft 902,470 406,843 433,087 18,888 43,652 Vol (ft /yr) 10,000 5,000 Overflow Volume (cubic feet) WET Volume Basin in (cubic feet) Lbasin 150 ft 100% 22% 20% 56% 2% % Total P 0 0 Wbasin 100 ft 10.48 2.27 2.12 5.87 0.21 TP (kg/yr) 1/1 4/11 7/20 10/28 STORAGE Dbasin 6 ft 100% 38% 54% 3% 5% % Total Vol Overflow Volume at Overflow Minimum Volume Basin Side slope 4 ratio 685,526 268,616 365,106 18,888 32,916 Vol (ft3/yr) ALL AVERAGE YEAR (2011) Evaporation 1 1=on; 0=off 100% 20% 25% 51% 3% % Total P 80,000 50,000 Vbasin, initial 32,516 ft 3 7.96 1.63 1.94 4.15 0.24 TP (kg/yr) 70,000 45,000 1,000,000 12.00 40,000 60,000 900,000 35,000 10.00 800,000 50,000 30,000
/yr) 700,000 Change in 3 Change in 40,000 25,000 Storage 8.00 600,000 Storage Evaporation 30,000 20,000 6.00 Sedimentation 500,000 15,000 20,000
400,000 Irrigation P (kg/yr) Volume(ft Irrigation 4.00 10,000 300,000 10,000 5,000 Overflow Overflow Volume (cubic feet) 200,000 Overflow Volume Basin in (cubic feet) 2.00 0 0 100,000 1/1 4/11 7/20 10/28 0 0.00 Overflow Volume at Overflow Minimum Volume Basin DRY AVERAGE WET ALL DRY AVERAGE WET ALL WET YEAR (2007) 120% 120% 80,000 80,000
70,000 70,000 100% 100% 60,000 60,000 80% Change in 80% Storage Change in 50,000 50,000 Storage Evaporation 60% 60% Sedimentation 40,000 40,000
Irrigation 30,000 30,000 40% 40% Irrigation 20,000 20,000
Overflow Overflow P (% P (% WatershedLoad)
20% 20% 10,000 10,000
Volume (% Volume(% Watershed Flow)
Overflow Volume (cubic feet) Volume Basin in (cubic feet) 0 0 0% 0% 1/1 4/11 7/20 10/28 DRY AVERAGE WET ALL DRY AVERAGE WET ALL Overflow Volume at Overflow Minimum Volume Basin 1. The irrigation and watershed areas can be independent 3. The watershed P concentrations and fractions can be set to site specific data 6. An average side slope can be used to account for the design of safety benches User notes: 2. The user must composite the CN for disconnected impervious 4. The user must define appropriate basin geometry or model results are invalid 7. The initial basin volume can be set by the user to account for winter dynamics 3. Turn off evaporation until all basin geometry is entered and valid 5. The storage volume can be set to maintain any desired minimum pond depth 8. Model results assume regular maintenance to remove accumulated sediments! The Reuse Calculator
Benilde-St. Margaret Example: The Reuse Calculator
Benilde-St. Margaret Example: The Reuse Calculator
Area = 31 Ac. Benilde-St. Margaret Example: Impervious = 38%
Treatment Reductions:
Phosphorus Volume Conventional 50 % 3 % Reuse 80 % 62 % The Reuse Calculator
Bayview School, Waconia, MN: Burandt Lake Irrigation
Storage
Diverted Drainage The Reuse Calculator
Argenta Hills Development: Conclusions
Available green space as limitation Stormwater Harvesting & Use Panel
AWRA Conference - Panel Denver, CO November, 2015
Brett H. Emmons EOR, Inc. Anita Anderson MN Dept. of Health Neal Shapiro Santa Monica Office of Sust./Env John Scarpulla San Francisco Public Util. Comm. Stormwater Reuse: The Public Health and Regulatory Perspective
Anita Anderson, P.E. Principal Engineer Minnesota Department of Health [email protected] Overview
• Public health concerns associated with reuse • Managing risk • Integration with existing systems • Current regulatory structure • Non-regulatory tools • Future management options Stormwater quality Public exposure Managing risk
• Reduce concentrations of hazards in reused water or control exposure • Concentrations of fecal or chemical hazards are reduced by design elements and/or treatment barriers • Exposure can be controlled on-site: e.g. by selective use (irrigation of landscaping vs. food crops) and via methods of application (drip vs. spray irrigation) • Ongoing monitoring • Operation & maintenance requirements • System stewardship Integration with existing infrastructure • Potable water supply and/or municipal sewer still needed as back-up in most cases – need to involve utilities • Decreased revenue for utility but still using infrastructure • Cross-connection potential • Are we optimizing the chance to reduce infrastructure maintenance cost and energy use? • Source of reuse • Where best to apply (new construction) • Public perception • Maintain integrity of drinking water supply Current regulatory structure
Safe Drinking Water Act
• Protects drinking water: from source to tap
Clean Water Act
• Regulates discharges of pollutants • Regulates water quality standards for surface water
Plumbing Code
• Regulates installation, removal, alteration, or repair of plumbing and drainage systems and some water treatment installations Regulatory barriers and gaps
• Authority/jurisdiction/responsibility for reuse is not clear • Current regulations and codes are incomplete • State and local health departments and regulatory agencies have lacked guidance on appropriate water quality standards for nonpotable use • Current water quality standards are not risk based • Everyone has been looking to others for development of standards • Framework for ongoing monitoring and oversight does not exist right now in most places Non-regulatory tools Regulatory and non-regulatory options
Water Reuse Interagency Workgroup Clean Water Fund project: • a comprehensive study of non-regulatory and regulatory approaches for ensuring safe and sustainable water reuse • recommendations for practices and policy for water reuse in Minnesota Build on successful approaches used in other states and adapt to Minnesota Stormwater Harvest & Use Re-emergence of Sustainable Water Management AWRA 2015 Annual Water Resources Conference Denver November 19, 2015
Neal Shapiro City of Santa Monica’s Office of Sustainability & the Environment
Gov. proclaims statewide drought; Schwarzenegger's move puts Californians on notice that water rationing is possible. LA Times June 4, 2008 Water Supply 2012 Rainwater Capture Act
AB1750
3 years coming Southern Californian Watershed-Stormwater Management
Combining water quality and quantity drivers into one solution, strategy Runoff Treatment - A Paradigm Hierarchy Shift
High Rainwater Harvesting
Subsurface Infiltration
Surface Infiltration Reduction
Biofiltration
Filtration
BMP Preference BMP Release
- Hydrodynamic Separation
Treat Detention County level – Los Angeles, the Matrix Reloaded (2011 to 2015) County level – Los Angeles, the Matrix Reloaded (2011 to 2015) Southern California Effort for RWH Southern California Effort for RWH Southern California Effort for RWH – Next step is Indoor Applications City Watershed Management Objectives
Treat all dry weather and most wet weather urban runoff in the City Connect land use/design to the Hydrologic Cycle, reducing the disconnect and disruption of water flow Mimic nature; blend into the land Take proactive, watershed approach to reducing urban runoff problems Converting IMPERMEABLE TO PERMEABLE Store urban runoff (dry/wet weather) for passive and direct uses and pollution treatment – local self-sufficiency ORDINANCES
• Urban Runoff Pollution Mitigation Code. 7.10 SMMC –costs borne by property owner. • Stormwater Utility Parcel Fee, 7.56 SMMC – fund generator, public projects. • Clean Beaches & Ocean Special Tax. 7.64 SMMC - fund generator, public and private projects. ORDINANCES
• Urban Runoff Pollution Mitigation Code. 7.10 SMMC –costs borne by property owner. • Stormwater Utility Parcel Fee, 7.56 SMMC – fund generator, public projects. • Clean Beaches & Ocean Special Tax. 7.64 SMMC - fund generator, public and private projects. Onsite Retention
Multi-Family building Multi-Family building Single-Family buildings In-Line Stormwater Harvesting Onsite Storage/Use - Main Library City - Multi-Family Project Future Projects – Marine Park Ozone Park Project Ozone Park Project Los Amigos Park Project Virginia Avenue Park, Pico Library
310.458.8223 [email protected] Sustainablesm.org/runoff
Thank You San Francisco’s Non-Potable Water Program
John Scarpulla Program and Project Manager San Francisco Public Utilities Commission [email protected] San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)
Water: delivering high Power: generating clean Wastewater: protecting quality water every day energy for vital City public health and the to 2.6 million people services environment
74 San Francisco’s Local Water Program
• Conservation: Reduce customer demands • Groundwater: pump water for potable purposes during normal and drought years • Recycled Water: produce recycled water for irrigation and toilet flushing • Onsite Water Systems: collection and treatment of alternate water sources for non-potable applications Up to 50% of Demands are Non-potable in Multifamily Residential Buildings
Source: adapted from Alliance for Water Efficiency Up to 95% of Demands are Non-potable in Commercial Buildings
Source: USEPA Re-think Building Design & Re-imagine How Water is Used On-site Water Systems Worldwide – It’s Happening Now! Types of Alternate Water Sources for Non-potable Applications
Precipitation collected from roofs and above-grade Wastewater from surfaces toilets, dishwashers, kitchen sinks, and utility sinks
Precipitation collected at or below grade Wastewater from clothes washers, bathtubs, showers, and bathroom sinks
Nuisance groundwater from dewatering operations On-site Non-potable Water Use at Innovative SFPUC Headquarters
Rainwater Harvesting System • 25,000 gallon cistern • Reuse for irrigation
Wetland Treatment System • Collects and treats building’s wastewater • Reuse for toilet flushing • 5,000 gpd capacity
81 Engineered Wetlands to Treat Water
82 What about everyone else?
83 Regulatory Questions
• Who should set water quality standards? • Who should issue permits and provide operational oversight? • What type of on-going monitoring and reporting should be implemented? Developing SF’s Local Oversight
• 2011: Began talks with City Family Agencies SF Dept. of Public Health SF Dept of Building Inspection
• 2012: Onsite Water Reuse ordinance adopted (September)
• 2013: Extensive stakeholder outreach Developing SF’s Local Oversight
• 2013: Further talks with Developers / Designers
• 2013: Initiate talks with City Family Agencies
• 2013: Ordinance amended for district-scale (Oct) City Ordinance Codifies Program & Streamlines Process
SFPUC SFDPH SFDBI SFDPW
Program Right of Way and Public Health Construction Administration Mapping
Review onsite non- Issue water quality & Conduct Plumbing Plan Issue Encroachment potable water supplies & monitoring requirements check and issue Plumbing Permits as needed for demands Permit infrastructure in the Review and approve Right-of-Way (if needed) Administer citywide non-potable engineering Inspect and approve project tracking & annual report system installations Includes condition on a potable offset achieved subdivision map or a Issue permit to operate parcel map requiring Provide technical support onsite systems compliance with the Non- & outreach to developers potable Ordinance prior Review water quality to approval and issuance Provide financial reporting of said map (if applicable) incentives to developers Water Quality Criteria – Consistent with State Codes
Alternate Water Regulation Source
Blackwater Title 22
Graywater California Plumbing Code - NSF-350
Rainwater California Plumbing Code - Table
Stormwater No state codes - SFDPH established Foundation Drainage
SFDPH permits onsite systems and requires monitoring and reporting San Francisco Non-potable Projects
• 34 Projects since program inception • Saving 24 million gallons of drinking water per year
• SFPUC Collects data on costs, drivers, potable water offsets, and end use applications with funding support from Hosted by Collaborating with Others Multiple Water Sectors Attended
Municipal Water Agencies
Public Health Officials
Research Agencies The Blueprint Public Health Collaborative Technical Guidance for Public Health Standards for Onsite Water Systems
Goal: Establish a set of guidelines that can be used by public officials in developing onsite water reuse programs.
Will Address: • Water Quality Parameters • Monitoring Parameters • End Uses of the Treated Water • Operational requirements and Permitting
• Final report Public Health Collaborative Steps
• Formed Independent Advisory Panel (IAP) • Technical expertise in criteria setting, risk assessment, water treatment, microbiology, water quality, and regulations
• Formed Stakeholder Advisory Committee • Comprised of local, state, and federal public health officials
• First meeting occurred October 1, 2015 in Chicago.
• Second meeting to occur March, 2016.
• Release Final Technical Guidance for Public Health Standards for Onsite Water Systems Report (March/April 2016) 96 San Francisco Program Updates
97 Non-potable Ordinance UPDATE
• July 2015: Ordinance amended to mandate onsite water reuse for toilet flushing and irrigation in all new developments greater than 250,000 square feet.
• Beginning Nov. 1, 2015 for all projects within Recycled Water Zone.
• Beginning Nov. 1 2016 for all projects City-wide. Recycled Water Zone
99 What’s New in SF – Potable Rainwater Pilot
• Potable Rainwater Pilot Project SF Non-potable Program: www.sfwater.org/np
Public Health Initiative: www.sfwater.org/np/iuws http://www.nwri-usa.org/onsite-water- systems.htm
101