State of Agricultural Water Reuse: Impediments and Incentives

December 14, 2017

 Today’s webcast will be 90 minutes.  There are 1.5 Professional Development Hours (PDHs) available for this webcast.  A PDF of today’s presentation can be downloaded when you complete the survey at the conclusion of this webcast.  If you have questions for the presenters please send a message by typing it into the chat box located on the panel on the left side of your screen.

2 WE&RF Reuse Research Survey

• WE&RF is collecting information and ideas on what potable and nonpotable reuse issues are of most importance across different regions of the U.S. • Results from the survey will be used to develop the future direction of our water reuse research program area • Survey open until January 15, 2018

https://tinyurl.com/yabgrjsw Save the Date! 2018 Agricultural Water Reuse Workshop • January 31, 2018 in Sacramento, CA • Topics include: • Unique Drivers • Design/Permitting • Treatment Technologies • Economics • Gaining Stakeholder Support • Registration is open! Visit the events page at www.werf.org Upcoming Webcasts National Advocacy Opportunities for Water Reuse: An Insider Guide to the 2nd session of the 115th Congress January 10, 2018 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm eastern

Building Community Confidence in Potable Reuse Through Stronger Risk Analysis January 25, 2018 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm eastern

From Yuck to Yum: Turning Recycled Water into Craft Beer February 14, 2018 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm eastern www.watereuse.org/news-events/webcasts/

3 Today’s Presenters

Bahman Sheikh Kara Nelson Anne Thebo Brent Haddad Water Reuse Consultant University of California, Pacific Institute University of California, Berkeley Santa Cruz

Brent Haddad with UC, Santa Cruz andTed Gardner with ARRIS, NSW, Australia will also be on-line Agenda • Status of Use of Recycled Water in Agriculture, Bahman Sheikh • Case Studies, Kara Nelson • Treatment Technologies, Kara Nelson • Geospatial Analysis of Potential for Increased Use of Recycled Water in Agriculture, Anne Thebo • Conclusions and Recommendations, Bahman Sheikh Insert Speaker Photo

Status of Use of Recycled Water in Agriculture

Bahman Sheikh Water Reuse Consultant WRRF 15-08 •Funded by Water Environment & Reuse Foundation •Additionally Sponsored By: •Pentair •US Bureau of Reclamation •California State Water Resources Control Board

6 Co-Authors Partners • Ted Gardner • Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency • Jim Kelly • OceanMist Farms • Avner Adin • City of Santa Rosa • Shannon Spurlock • Dublin San Ramon Services District • Ryujiro Tsuchihashi • Denver Water • Naoyuki Funamizu • Denver Urban Gardens • Idaho Department of Environmental Quality • Water Environment and Reuse Foundation – Kristan VandenHeuvel, Project Officer Technical Advisors: Prof. Takashi Asano, Prof. Rafael Mujeriego

7 Global Coverage •United States •Australia •California •Israel •Florida •Japan •Idaho •Jordan •Arizona •Saudi Arabia •Texas •Mexico •Iran

8 Project Objectives •Define Recycled Water Use in Agriculture •Identify Impediments and Incentives to Agricultural Reuse •Characterize Opportunities to Increase Agricultural Reuse in U.S. •Recommend Strategies to Increase Agricultural Reuse

9 Work Plan •Literature Review •Interviews with Farmers •Interviews with Utilities •Geospatial Analysis •Workshops with Agricultural Community •Treatment Technologies •Final Report

10 100% Agricultural Use of Water 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

11 Agricultural Use of Recycled Water 100% 8 8 90% 80% 70% 70 60% 71 50% 92 92 92 40% 30% 20% 29 30 Percent of Recycled Water Recycled of Percent 10% 0% 8 Israel Idaho Florida Hawai'i California Agricultural Non-Agricultural

12 Drivers for Use of Recycled Water in Agriculture

• Water Supply Limitations • Superior Microbial Quality • Droughts • Disinfected Irrigation Water • Chronic Shortages • New FDA (FSMA) Irrigation Water • Climate Change Quality Criteria • Population Increase • Nutrient Content • Competition for Water • N, P, K Resources • Micronutrients • Water Quality Degradation • Steady Supply v. Pulse Applications • Seawater Intrusion • Controlled Agronomic Application Rate • Wastewater Discharge Reduction • Mandates and Prohibitions • Reliability of Supply • Recycled Water Supply Increases • Water-Energy-Food Nexus with Population Increase • Preservation of Agriculture v. Urbanization

13 Impediments to Use of Recycled Water in Agriculture

• Water Quality • Groundwater Impacts • Microbial • Purposeful Augmentation (+) • Chemical • Anti-Degradation (-) • Regulations • Concerns about Cross-Connection • Prohibitions (e.g., Colorado) • Fragmentation of Water Cycle • Restrictions • Competition for the Resource • Religious Beliefs • Costs • Water Rights and Laws • Treatment Construction • Downstream “Users” of Effluent • Distribution Construction • Downstream NPDES Concerns • Operation and Maintenance

14 Impediments, continued • Distance from Source to Customer—Infrastructure inadequacies • Financing • Who Pays for What • Psychological Barriers • Farmer Acceptance • Customer Acceptance • Public Perception/Acceptance • Risks to Humans • Risks to Environment • Low Cost of “Fresh” Water • CECs, ARBs in Recycled Water

15 Remedies and Incentives • Valorization of External Benefits • Subsidies • Risk Assessment and Communication • Public Outreach • Outreach to Growers • Coordination among Agencies • Regulatory Reforms • Legislative Relief from Overly Protective Regulation • Contingency Planning; Emergency Response Planning

16 Less-Recognized Benefits • Nutrients in Recycled Water • N, P, K, Micronutrients • Steady Supply with the Water • Readily Available • Lower Energy Requirement • Reduction of Reliance on Withdrawals from Nature • Reduction of Discharge to the Environment • Economic Development • Local Food Production Sustainability • Community Gardens, School Gardens, Farmers’ Markets

17 The Unknowns and the Superbugs • Fate of CECs in Recycled Water  Many Research Results  Published Papers • Relevance of ARBs, ARGs  Newest Topic  Ongoing Research

18 Insert Speaker Photo

Case Studies Treatment Technologies Kara Nelson Professor, University of California, Berkeley Case Studies

Monterey, Modesto, Hayden, CA CA ID

Oxnard, Escondido, Virginia CA CA Pipeline, AU

20 Case study: Monterey, CA

• Drivers: • Overdrafted Groundwater • Seawater Intrusion • Saline Groundwater • Impediments: • Safety Perceptions • Concerns about Soil/Crop Health • Potential Impact on Sales • Incentives: Pilot Project, CWA Grant Funding • Treatment: Tertiary filtration, chlorine disinfection (450 CT) • Crops: Cauliflower, Broccoli, Lettuce, Celery, Artichokes, Strawberries

21 Case study: Modesto, CA • Drivers: • N Discharge To San Joaquin River • Water Scarcity • Impediments: • Farmers’ Senior Water Rights • Incentive: • Financing From Prop 1, SRF • Crops: Nuts, Stone Fruit, Citrus • Treatment: BNR, MBR, UV • Unique Features: • Delta Mendota Canal to Convey RW to CVP (Reduces Purple Pipe) • Del Puerto WD withdraws from CVP

22 Case study: Hayden, ID • Drivers: • Discharge Limits to Spokane River • Nitrate pollution of groundwater • Impediments: • Separate Permits for Reuse • Incentives: • Farmer Pays $55/Acre • Treatment: • Oxid. Ditch, BNR, UF, Chlorination • Crops: • Alfalfa, Poplar Trees • Unique Features: • City-Owned Farmland • Nitrogen mass balance to limit application rate

23 Case study: Oxnard, CA • Drivers: •Reduce Dependence on Imported Water • Impediments: •Resistance from Farmers • Incentives: •Lower Salinity of Recycled Water • Treatment: MF-RO-AOP • Crops: •Lettuce, Broccoli, Strawberries… • Unique Features: •IPR + Ag Irrigation

24 Case study: Escondido, CA • Driver: •$0.5 Billion Outfall Cost •Water Scarcity • Impediments: •Recycled Water Salinity •Avocados are Salt Sensitive • Incentives: •$0.25 Billion Cost Savings • Crops: •Avocados • Treatment: Disinfected Tertiary + Some RO • Unique Features: •Proximity of Farms to Utility

25 Case Study: Virginia Pipeline, S. Australia • Driver: • Algae Blooms in Gulf St Vincent • Groundwater Overdraft • Seawater Intrusion • Impediments: • Private Co. Risk Aversion • Cost to Upgrade & Distribute Recycled Water • Incentive (for Expansion): • $1.0 Billion Government Subsidy • Monterey Case • Crops: • High-Value Raw-Eaten Vegetables • Treatment: DAFF + Chlorination • Unique Features: • Large WWTP Close to Large Agricultural Area • Create Agricultural Employment

26 Role of Technology •Technology issues were not perceived as barriers •Treatment train primarily driven by regulations •Some agencies are providing more treatment than necessary  flexibility •Opportunities to reduce treatment requirements •Free chlorine disinfection (< 450 CT) •Virus credit for MBRs (reduce disinfection requirements) •Tertiary granular media filtration – 50% higher loading rates via waiver (CA)

27 Variations in Numerical Standards for Food Crops Irrigation

Require-ments Arizona California Colorado Florida Hawai’i Idaho Nevada Texas Utah Washington Secondary Oxidized, Secondary Secondary Oxidized, Oxidized, Oxidized, Secondary Treatment treatment, coagulated, treatment, treatment, coagulated, Not allowed filtered, filtered, treatment, NS* Train filtration, filtered, filtration, filtration, filtered, disinfected disinfected disinfection disinfection disinfected disinfection disinfection disinfected 20 mg/1 5 – 10** BODS NS NS Not allowed NS 30 mg/1 5 mg/1 10 mg/L 30 mg/1 CBODs mg/1

TSS NS NS Not allowed 5 mg/1 NS NS NS NS NS 30 mg/1 2 - 0.2 NTU 2 NTU (Avg) 2 NTU (Avg) 2 NTU (Avg) (Median)*** Turbidity Not allowed NS 2 NTU (Max) NS 3 NTU 2 NTU 5 - 0.5 NTU 5 NTU (Max) 5 NTU (Max) 5 NTU (Max) (Max) Fecal Total E. coli Fecal Fecal Total Fecal Fecal Fecal Total 20/100 ml None 75% of 2.2/100ml 2.2/100 ml 2.2/100 ml 200/100 ml (Avg) 2.2/100 ml detectable Not allowed samples below None detectable Coliform (Avg) (Avg) (Avg) (Avg) 4 enterococci (Avg) (Avg) detection /100 mL 23/100 ml 23/100 ml 25/100 ml 23/100ml (Max 23/100 ml 400/100 ml 75/100 ml 23/100 ml Not allowed NS (Max) (Maxin30 days) (Max) in 30 days) (Max) (Max) (Fecal max) (Max)

*NS = Not Specified by State Regulations—a case in which producer of reclaimed water must comply with water quality standards using whatever treatment train can achieve that quality. **Groundwater recharge—5, Irrigation—10 ***Granular or cloth media—2, Membrane filter—0.2 SOURCE: EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse, 2004, page 155 with updates and additional states’ data from Dr. James Crook.

28 Impediments, Drivers, Incentives* • Water scarcity was a most frequently cited driver • Costs are impediments; Grants and loans can be incentives • Perception issues of safety were often cited as impediments • Regulations: • Cited as Impediments, “Unclear”, “Inconsistent”, “Outdated”, “Which Water Quality Is Needed For Which Crops”, “Prohibitions” • Government Targets and Mandates to Increase Use of Recycled Water Are Significant Incentives • Salinity of water source can be either driver or impediment • Technical issues were not cited significant as driver or incentive

29 Insert Speaker Photo

Geospatial Analysis of Potential to Increase Use of Recycled Water for Agriculture Anne Thebo Senior Research Associate, Pacific Institute 31 Motivations for a National Assessment of Agricultural Reuse •Drivers and impediments spatially heterogeneous •No nationally consistent inventory of water reuse •Some high quality state inventories (CA, AZ, FL) •Agricultural water use is a major component of the consumptive use of many regions Analysis Methods and Major Data Sources: • National geospatial analysis • 2012 EPA CWNS; 2013 USDA FRIS; 2012 USGS MIrAD Where is current reuse for irrigation occurring?

41/50 states

Reuse for Existing Projected Irrigation (1-yr Avg) Design Number 153 210 Flow (MGD) 234 652 Spray Existing Projected Irrigation (1-yr Avg) Design Number 638 712 Flow (MGD) 587 1212

32 What dictates the potential for increasing agricultural water reuse? Water Agencies/ Utilities

Regulations Supply

Demand Proximity

Growers

33 Metrics for Evaluating Potential for Agricultural Reuse

Utilities Growers • Is there demand for recycled • How much recycled water can be water in local agriculture? supplied? • What is the distance to • What crops can be grown with potential customers? (cost of recycled water? distribution) • Can installed technology meet • What is the cost and reliability of WQ needs/regulations? recycled water? • What financing is available for • What is the quality of recycled infrastructure? water relative to existing sources? Do state regulations allow agricultural water reuse?

34 Utility Potential: Discharge Location

Total Daily Discharge: 33,000 MGD

• Some existing discharge locations have more potential for reuse than others • Water may already be directly or indirectly allocated to other uses

Data: 2012 EPA Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 35 Discharge Scenarios Considered Moderate Any Type No Existing Potentially Already High Reuse Reuse Low Reuse Existing Beneficial Unallocated Allocated Discharge Methods Potential Potential Potential Reuse All Irrigation Reuse Flow Flow Figs 5-7; 5-12; 5- Fig 5-8 Fig 5-5 to 5-7 13 + Section 5.3 Evaporation X X X Ocean Discharge X X X Spray Irrigation X X X Reuse: Irrigation X X X X Overland Flow with X X Discharge Overland Flow without X X Discharge Combined Sewer Overflow X X Deep Well X X Discharge to Groundwater X X Outfall to Surface Waters X X Other X X Reuse: Groundwater X X X Recharge Reuse: Indirect Potable X X X Reuse: Industrial X X X Reuse: Other Non-Potable X X X Reuse: Potable X X X Discharge to Another X X Facility 36 Quantity of Effluent Discharged via High Reuse Potential Methods + Spray Irrigation

Flow Discharge n Discharged Method (MGD) Evaporation 939 166 Ocean 183 3104 Discharge Spray Irrigation 638 586

37 Where are irrigated croplands located relative to POTWs? 44% within 5 mi Agricultural Potential 80% within 10 mi for Increasing Reuse

What is the ratio of unallocated flow per irrigated cropland area?

Average Quantity of Water Applied (AFY/ac)

2-3 <1

>3 1-2

Source: USDA 2013 FRIS

38 POTWs with High Potential for Agricultural Reuse

35 largest sites: • ~ 1,000 MGD • 200,000 acres

39 Regulatory Impediments to Reuse

Number of States and Territories by Allowable Uses: Food + Non-Food: 26; Non-Food: 19; Not Allowed: 7 40 Allowed Uses of Recycled Water in California, by Treatment Level Treatment Level Agricultural Uses of Recycled Disinfected Disinfected Disinfected Undisinfected Tertiary Recycled Secondary 2.2 Secondary 23 Secondary Food Water Water Recycled Water Recycled Water Recycled Water Food crops where recycled water contacts the Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed edible portion of the crop, including all root crops

Food crops, surface-irrigated, above-ground edible Allowed portion, not contacted by recycled water Ornamental nursery stock and sod farms with unrestricted public access Allowed Pasture for milk animals for human consumption Orchards and vineyards with no contact between edible portion and recycled water Allowed Non food-bearing trees, including Christmas trees not irrigated less than 14 days before harvest Increasing Levels of Treatment Fodder and fiber crops and pasture for animals not producing milk for human consumption (and Energy Requirements) Seed crops not eaten by humans Food crops undergoing commercial pathogen-

Types of crops that be irrigated can that crops of Types destroying processing before consumption by Non- humans Ornamental nursery stock, sod farms not irrigated Food less than 14 days before harvest Source: SWRCB Treatment of Recycled Water Used for Different Purposes in California

Agricultural Irrigation 220,000 AFY

Source: 2015 CA RW Survey (DWR - 2017 IWA Reuse Conference)

42 Potential for Increasing Agricultural Reuse in California

SWRCB Recycled Water Mandates 2020: 1.169 MAF 2030: 2.525 MAF

Existing Existing Discharge Flow Flow % RW Mandate Method n (MGD) (MAFY) 2020 2030 Evaporation 117 71 0.08 9.1 6.8 Ocean Discharge 35 1,330 1.50 171.5 127.5 Spray Irrigation 80 110 0.12 14.2 10.5

Surface Water 104 744 0.83 95.9 71.3 Potentially Unallocated 376 2,315 2.60 298.4 221.8 All Existing Effluent 499 3,516 3.94 453.2 336.9

43 Potential for Increasing Agricultural Water Reuse in Florida

44 Summary Statistics • 41/50 states report some reuse for irrigation • 33,000 MG of wastewater produced daily • ~2% of wastewater currently used for irrigation • 80% of irrigated croplands within 10 mi of POTW • 35 high potential POTWs •~1000 MGD •200,000 ac of irrigated croplands within 5 miles • Existing unallocated flows in CA could meet RW targets several times over

45 Insert Speaker Photo

Conclusions, Recommendations

Bahman Sheikh Water Reuse Consultant Conclusions • The potential to increase agricultural reuse is large (> 1000 MGD) • > 1500 POTW practice ocean discharge, evaporation, or spray irrigation • Drivers vary depending on local context (water scarcity, discharge limitations, infrastructure upgrades) • Nutrient content of recycled water is not a big incentive to farmers, but lower salinity can be • There are many benefits, but they are fragmented • Future drivers/incentives: NPDES limits on nutrients or temperature, FSMA (US), and SGMA (CA) • Incentives can overcome impediments—It Takes A Champion

47 Recommendations • Continued research to characterize POTW identified as high potential for agricultural reuse • Explore incentives for converting POTW practicing evaporation and spray irrigation to agricultural reuse • Encourage collaboration among regulators (especially between states) • Develop partnerships between utilities and farmers • Charge farmers for recycled water • Seeing is believing – encourage visits to existing projects

48 Questions?

Bahman Sheikh Kara Nelson Anne Thebo Brent Haddad Water Reuse Consultant University of California, Pacific Institute University of California, [email protected] Berkeley [email protected] Santa Cruz [email protected] [email protected]

Brent Haddad with UC, Santa Cruz andTed Gardner with ARRIS, NSW, Australia will also be on-line